A Fertilizer Strategy For Zimbabwe

A FERTILIZER STRATEGY
FOR ZIMBABWE
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION

OF THE UNITED NATIONS
AFRICAN CENTRE FOR FERTILIZER

DEVELOPMENT
A FERTILIZER STRATEGY
FOR ZIMBABWE
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

ROME 1999
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not
imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory,
city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or
boundaries.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical photocopying or otherwise, with the prior permission of the copyright
owner. Applications for such permission, with a statement of the purpose and
extent of the reproduction, should be addressed to the Director, Information
Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Viale delle
Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy.
FAO 1999
A fertilizer strategy for Zimbabwe iii
Summary
With a view to developing a fertilizer strategy, this study examines the cumulative effect of
relevant factors on future fertilizer use in Zimbabwe. A specific objective is to provide an
estimate of the fertilizer needed to support agricultural crop production for 2020.
In Zimbabwe, 62 percent of households are poor or very poor and several macro-economic
indicators are negative. However, Zimbabwe is undergoing a process of market reform and
structural adjustment. Projections indicate annual income increases of 1.1 percent for the period
1995-2007 (with a 20 percent increase in per caput caloric food intake by the end of 2007) and
3.8 percent for the period 2007-2020.
Agriculture employs one-third of the total workforce, provides 60 percent of all raw materials for
the manufacturing industry, and accounts for more than 40 percent of total exports. However,
annual agricultural output growth at 1.4 percent has been below the population growth rate
(3 percent). The major crops are maize, wheat, cotton, tobacco and sugar cane. Despite
deregulation, oligopolies are the norm for most commodities.
The agriculture sector is dual in structure with both commercial farming and subsistence oriented
smallholder activities. Between 1983 and 1993, crop production value in the smallholder sector
increased twice as fast as that in the commercial sector. However, smallholder yields are
significantly lower.
Projections for the agriculture sector indicate gross output growth of 5 percent per year, thereby
contributing over 21 percent to GDP in the short to medium term. Irrigated crop production
accounts for almost half of the total value of all crops marketed and its area could double.
Out of 19 million ha of arable land, about 2.7 million ha are under cultivation (60 percent of it
under rainfed maize). The demand for maize will increase to about 4.5 million t by 2020, with the
smallholder sector bringing another 2.8 million ha into maize production. Wheat is mainly a
large-scale commercial farming operation, with current production of about 190 000 t meeting
two-thirds of total demand, projected to be 842 000 t by 2020. The smallholder sector produces
the bulk of cotton, an important foreign exchange earner. Projections are for cotton production to
fall 64 percent to 56 000 t in 2020. Tobacco is the country’s major export crop. The crop area in
the smallholder sector should increase by 2.6 percent per year, so doubling the area under the
crop by 2020. Sugar cane production should grow from 3.2 million t in 1995 to 4.2 million t in
2020, but smallholder production is negligible. There is ample margin for improving land use
efficiency in the large-scale farming sector and for achieving greater land productivity among
smallholders. Zimbabwe’s major crops enjoy a strong comparative advantage and export prospects
appear good.
Large-scale commercial farmers purchase about 350 000 t of fertilizer a year; smallholder
farmers about 100 000 t. Total fertilizer demand is projected to grow at 3 percent per year,
mostly because of more intensive fertilizer use by smallholders. Zimbabwe used an amount of
iv
fertilizer equivalent to 186 000 t of N, P, K1 and S nutrients (1995). Analysis of production

projections and expanded land use for the five major crops2 in 2020 show an overall nutrient
requirement of 403 000 t nutrients (N 256 000 t of P 86 000 t and 61 000 t of K) to support
future crop yields.
The coefficients of elasticity for the five main crops show that the own-price elasticity of the demand
for fertilizer applied on these crops are high for both farming sectors. The cross-price elasticity for the
demand for fertilizers with respect to the cotton and maize prices in the smallholder sector is highly
inelastic. There is an important need to monitor the improvement of the efficiency in fertilizer use,
particularly on measures that aim to improve the productivity of the capital invested in fertilizer
by farmers. A continued effort is required to collect data from farmers on fertilizer use per crop.
This information, fertilizer costs and produce prices at the farm gate as well as farm household
income establishes fertilizer profitability and the farmers’ ability to pay for fertilisers. The
process of production commercialization requires smallholders to attain and maintain
substantially higher levels of crop productivity through the adoption of new technologies and
management practices. This process calls for balanced and efficient fertilizer use.
In the smallholder sector, cash income accounts for nearly 53 percent of total income, with crops
contributing nearly 73 percent of total cash income in rural households. A policy that promotes
increased crop production should improve smallholder incomes.
Income is the key to farmers’ ability to adopt more effective and sustainable production
technologies. Smallholders will adopt production intensification when risks and constraints are
reduced. Without policy measures that ensure adequate farm income, it may be difficult to
increase smallholder fertilizer consumption.
Almost 70 percent of smallholders use fertilizers, though many purchase less than one bag per
year. Farmers indicate that their cash position is the most important factor affecting the amount
they apply. Credit facilities for rural traders and farmers are insignificant.
The commercialization of public services and the use of revolving funds should partially
compensate for the lack of public financing, and introduce a different approach in servicing
farmers. Research and support services need the capacity to support the smallholder sector
effectively and efficiently. They should focus more on a farm management approach and on
disseminating IPNS. More participatory programmes involving farmers' unions and producers'
associations would enhance the sustainability of research programmes.
Zimbabwe’s fertilizer industry is undergoing restructuring. Domestic ammonium nitrate
production of 250 000 t meets over 90 percent of the country's total requirements. Domestic
production of nitrogenous fertilizer may become unfeasible when energy cost increase. Zimbabwe
produces about 150 000 t of phosphate rock concentrate and has an annual production capacity
of 200 000 t of single superphosphate and 60 000 t of triple superphosphate. The total annual
production capacity of Zimbabwe’s fertilizer granulation plants is 300 000 t.
Among the key parameters for future economic success are an open economy, smallholder access
to markets and inputs, and measures to increase land use efficiency and productivity. Increased
smallholder production and fertilizer use will depend on high producer prices and affordable
fertilizer. Achieving the latter requires improvements in access, financing, infrastructure,
marketing, training, and research and extension services.
1
Figures throughout the report relate to P and K, not to P2O5 and K2O.
2
Maize, tobacco, cotton, wheat, and sugar cane.
A fertilizer strategy for Zimbabwe v
Contents
page
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 THE MACRO-ECONOMIC SETTING AND AGRICULTURE POLICY 3
The macro-economy 3
Agriculture policy 4
3 NATURAL REGIONS AND AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONES 7
Climate 7
Land suitability 7
Nutrient balance 11
4 THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR 13
Role in the economy 13
Agricultural production 14
Maize 14
Wheat 16
Cotton 16
Tobacco 17
Sugar cane 17
Irrigated agriculture 17
Marketing 18
Trends 19
Comparative advantage and export prospects 19
5 FERTILIZER DEMAND 23
Fertilizer consumption by crop 23
Maize 24
Wheat 24
Cotton 24
Tobacco 27
Sugar cane 27
Profitability 25
Procurement 31
6 FERTILIZER SUPPLY 33
7 THE SMALLHOLDER FARMING SECTOR 35
Smallholder income 35
Smallholder fertilizer consumption 36
Constraints and developments 38
Fertilizer use 38
Access 38
Infrastructure and logistics 39
Developments 39
vi
8 INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS 41
Regulations 41
Research and extension 41
Farmers’ organizations 44
9 CONCLUSIONS 45
BIBLIOGRAPHY 49
Annex 1 Fertilizer Adoption and Use 55
MAP OF THE NATURAL REGIONS OF ZIMBABWE 96
List of tables
1. Agro-ecological zones: climate, physiography and soils 8
2. Cultivated land, 1995, and potential for expansion 9
3. Land suitability for rainfed maize production 10
4. Crop yield (t/ha) and area change (%) per annum by farming sector 15
5. Demand and supply utilization account, 1994/96, 2007 and 2020 20
6. Indicators of comparative advantage for Zimbabwe 21
7. International price projections for agricultural export commodities
(constant real prices) 21
8. Crop fertilizer requirements, t nutrients 24
9 Maize fertilizer requirements by region and sector, t nutrients 24
10. Wheat fertilizer requirements by region and sector, t nutrients 26
11. Cotton fertilizer requirements by region and sector, t nutrients 27
12. Tobacco fertilizer requirements by region and sector, t nutrients 28
13. Sugar cane fertilizer requirements by region and sector, t nutrients 29
14. Proportion of fertilizer value in household cash income 35
A fertilizer strategy for Zimbabwe vii
GLOSSARY
ACFD - African Centre for Fertilizer Development
AEZ - Agro-Ecological Zones
AFC - Agricultural Finance Corporation
AGRITEX - Agricultural Technical and Extension Services
ASIP - Agricultural Sector Investment Programme
CFC - Crop Fertilizer Consumption
DRC - Domestic Resource Cost
DRSS - Department of Research and Specialist Services
FN - Fertilizer Nutrient Application
GMB - Grains Marketing Board
IPNS - Integrated Plant Nutrition Systems
LSC - Large-scale Commercial Sector
MOA - Ministry of Agriculture
NEPC - National Economic Planning Commission
NGO - Non-governmental Organization
NR - Natural Region
SH - Smallholder Sector
SISP - Smallholder Irrigation Support Programme
SSP - Single Superphosphate
TCA - Total Crop Area
TFC - Total Fertilizer Consumption
ZAPF - Zimbabwe Agricultural Policy Framework
ZIMACE - Zimbabwe Agricultural Commodity Exchange

viii
A fertilizer strategy for Zimbabwe 1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Fertilizer use derives from the demand for agricultural commodities. In Zimbabwe, population
growth and rising per caput incomes will require more intensive crop production. The food
demand projections made use population and income growth projections from the National
Economic Planning Commission for the periods 1995-2007 and 2007-2020 and FAO estimates
for the income elasticity of the demand for food. The demand for food augmented by the demand
for industrial raw material, feed, seed, and losses provide the estimated final demand for
agricultural commodities. The estimates indicate that 90 percent of the increase in cereal demand
will be due to population growth and the remainder primarily to income growth.
On the supply side, future commodity imports and exports have been constrained by
imposing limits whereby imports and exports will not exceed historic levels. The final demand
and the commodity trade balance provide commodity production projections for 2020.
Analysis of land suitability for crop production in 18 agro-ecological zones in the five
Natural Regions of Zimbabwe and the irrigated areas provided the basis to assess the feasibility
for cropped area expansion and yield projections. Yield projections were constrained by imposing
a yield growth limit that did not exceed historically observed yield growth. Sensitivity analysis of
this assumption for maize yields shows that there is sufficient scope for arable land expansion.
Adequate land is available in Natural Regions II and III that receives at least 500 mm of rainfall
at 70 percent probability to achieve production projections without exceeding imposed yield
growth limits.
Higher yields will increase the demand for agricultural inputs. Furthermore, future cropping
patterns will reflect changes in diets as income increases. Greater opportunities for agricultural
trade may also lead to changes in crop production. There will probably also be economic and
environmental incentives to improve the efficiency of fertilizer use, especially for internationally
traded commodities. The overall goal of this study is to examine, with a view to developing a
fertilizer strategy, the cumulative effect that these forces may have on fertilizer use in Zimbabwe.
A specific objective of this study is to provide an estimate of the amount of fertilizer
needed to support the projections of agricultural commodity production for 2020. This study
projects the major crop area, yield and fertilizer use to 2020. It also examines the conditions in
which farmers, particularly smallholders, may adopt and expand fertilizer use.
Though cropland and yields largely determine crop supply, crop prices and agricultural
policies can accelerate or retard changes in acreage. For Zimbabwe, cropland expansion is
feasible. Converting rainfed cropland to irrigated land or multiple cropping can increase yields, as
can the improved use and management of agricultural inputs. In the longer run, investment in
research may influence yield growth. Thus, increases in future crop production will result from
both higher yields and expansion in land use.
Chapter 2 provides an overview of recent developments in the Zimbabwe’s economy and
their impact on the agriculture sector. Chapter 3 breaks down the territory into agro-ecological
zones and assesses land suitability and nutrient status. Chapter 4 analyses the present and
projected production of major crops in terms of the large-scale commercial and smallholder
farming sectors. Chapter 5 examines present and projected yields and fertilizer demand, overall
2 Introduction
and by crop, while Chapter 6 considers fertilizer supply. Given the importance of smallholder
farming to the development of Zimbabwe’s agriculture and economy, Chapter 7 examines in
detail the factors affecting this sector’s crop production and fertilizer use. Chapter 8 presents a
review of institutional aspects pertinent to enhancing fertilizer use and agricultural production.
Finally, Chapter 9 presents the overall conclusions and makes recommendations concerning the
development of a fertilizer strategy for Zimbabwe.
Chapter 2
The macro-economic setting and
agriculture policy
THE MACRO-ECONOMY
The National Economic Planning Commission (NEPC) expects Zimbabwe’s population to
increase from 11.5 million in 1995 to 21.4 million by 2020.
In Zimbabwe, 62 percent of households are defined as poor (unable to buy a basket of
basic food and non-food needs) or very poor (unable to buy even the basket of food needs). The
rural areas contain the highest concentrations of poverty.
Though per caput income, in constant 1990 prices, has averaged Z$2 000 for the past
decade, the NEPC projects annual income increases of 1.1 percent for the period 1995-2007 and
3.8 percent for the period 2007-2020.
The main economic activities are public and private services (with 62 percent of GDP),
manufacturing (19 percent), agriculture (15 percent) and mining (4 percent).
The exchange rate declined from US$1 = Z$9.31 in 1995 to US$1 = Z$36 at the end of
1998. Though this devaluation has favoured exports, the trade balance and balance of payments
have worsened.
With inflation at an estimated 31.5 percent in 1998, the Government increased the price of
several basic services and products, such as electricity and fuel. It has also adopted measures to
reduce money supply growth and liquidity. However, these measures could slow growth. Inflation
is detrimental to various aspects of agricultural activities, such as credit costs, input prices, and
inventory costs for manufacturers/dealers, such as in the fertilizer industry.
Public expenditure accounted for 35 percent of GDP in 1997. The budget deficit dropped
from 9.4 percent of GDP in 1995/96 to 6.5 percent in 1996/97, still above the figure of 5 percent
set for fiscal year 1994/95. For 1997/98, the target was 7.6 percent.
Since 1991, the economy has been adjusting to deregulation and market liberalization. The
latest phase of this wide ranging reform process targets average annual GDP and per caput
consumption growth rates of 6 and 3-4 percent respectively.
The reform programme has established a more favourable context for economic growth,
and producer prices for most agricultural crops have increased in real terms during the 1990s.
However, the introduction of these economic reforms in 1991/92 coincided with the onset
of the most severe drought of the century, and GDP per caput fell from 1991 to 1995 in real
terms, before picking up again in 1997.
The Government adopted assistance measures, including distributions of seeds and
fertilizers to smallholders at subsidized prices. Though abandoned gradually, these measures
weighed heavily on budget expenditure and ran counter to the market liberalization process.
4 The macro-economic setting and agriculture policy
AGRICULTURE POLICY
The basic policy aim is to promote and sustain a viable agriculture sector. This entails developing
and managing resources through the provision of appropriate technical, administrative and
advisory services. In this way the agriculture sector can optimize productivity and contribute to
the equitable and sustainable social and economic development of Zimbabwe.
Based on the assumption of good agricultural seasons with a possibility of at least one drought
season every four years, projections indicate the gross output of the sector growing at an annual
average rate of 5 percent. Thus, the sector will contribute over 21 percent to GDP in the short to
medium term as the economy undergoes structural transformation. This level of output will enable
export earnings to increase the current growth rate of 7 percent per year. The sector will remain one of
the largest employers of labour.
In 1996, the government launched the Zimbabwe Agricultural Policy Framework, 1995-2020
(ZAPF), which subjects the agriculture sector to the principles of financial and economic
viability. A stable macro-economic environment and public sector-financed supporting
infrastructure are to facilitate private sector investment and so achieve growth in agricultural
output. The ZAPF recognizes that incomes generated in the smallholder sector and related rural-based
industry are important for eradicating poverty, hunger, malnutrition and underemployment. Its main
aims are:
• commercialization of smallholder agriculture;
• a long-term increase in agricultural output which exceeds population growth;
• a cost effective expansion of infrastructure to cover all rural areas; and
• the reversal of environmental degradation through the adoption of sustainable farming systems.
More specifically, the objectives pertinent to fertilizer use are:
• to support pricing and marketing policies which promote diversification into new varieties of crops
and breeds of livestock;
• to expand and diversify exports of agricultural products by making the sector more price
competitive and export oriented;
• to expand irrigation facilities with emphasis on high value crops;
• to establish secure tenure in the smallholder farming areas particularly in the communal and
resettlement areas;
• to ensure environmental impact assessment of all water development projects;
• to promote mechanization in the smallholder farming sector;
• to encourage private sector participation in the distribution of inputs to the smallholder farmers;
and
• to make inputs readily accessible and affordable to the smallholder farmers in order to increase
utilization of improved inputs.
One precise target is the doubling of grain yields in the smallholder sector; another is to
increase its irrigated area from 10 000 to 50 000 ha. The ZAPF also stresses the importance of
access to credit facilities, highlighting the need:
• to ensure that adequate credit facilities are available for input supply;
• to provide financial support to smallholders; and
• to encourage private sector investment in the rural areas, to complement government efforts.
The smallholder sector lies at the heart of future agricultural developments and input supply
is a basic determinant of future prospects.
Specific objectives on fertilizer supply highlight the fertilizer industry’s need:
• to revamp plants in order to increase production, cut costs and be competitive with imports;
• to expand and service the smallholder sector more effectively;
• to break the monopolistic structure and facilitate other decentralized players; and
• to diversify fertilizer formulation in order to meet the needs of a diverse market.
In order to achieve the planned increase in agricultural production, government, the private sector
and other stakeholders need to invest in agricultural infrastructure. Indeed, the main objective of the
Agricultural Sector Investment Programme (ASIP) is to enable the achievement of the policy goals in
the effective utilization of national resources. The ASIP targets are:
• smallholder irrigation development;
• the upgrading the level of agricultural education and the training facilities to cater for specialized
aspects of agriculture;
• investment in input supply, marketing and distribution facilities; and
• investment in programmes that support and strengthen agricultural research and extension
services.
6 The macro-economic setting and agriculture policy
Chapter 3
Natural regions and agro-ecological zones
CLIMATE
Based on rainfall, Zimbabwe divides into five natural regions (NRs):
Natural region Annual rainfall (mm)
I > 1 000
II 750-1 000
III 650-800
IV 450-650
V < 650
Table 1 further subdivides these natural regions into 18 agro-ecological zones (AEZs) by
including information on soils and detailed information on the probability of rainfall exceeding
500 mm (see map 1of the natural regions of Zimbabwe, page 96).
Temperatures closely relate to altitude with the mean annual temperature ranging from
25°C in the Zambezi Valley to below 15°C in the Eastern Highlands. Mean temperatures are
highest in summer just before the onset of the rains (October-November), except in the Eastern
Highlands where the highest temperatures are in mid-summer.
LAND SUITABILITY
The figures in this section do not take into account fallow land and land used for pasture or any
form of livestock production. Approximately 2.7 million ha are under cultivation. In NRs I, II
and III 16-19 percent of the arable land is under cultivation, in NRs IV and V the figures are 12
and 9 percent, respectively. Thus, expansion of cropped land should be feasible in NRs I, II and
III even at the present level of crop production technology.
This study considers as arable land all designated agricultural land, minus land for
infrastructure and land unsuitable for cultivation (Table 2). This definition gives a figure for
arable land of 19 million ha. NRs IV and V contain 60 percent of all arable land (11.4 million
ha).
All arable land is assumed suitable for rainfed maize production if there is a probability of
70 percent or more that rainfall is at least 500 mm in the period October-April. Table 1 shows
that all areas of NRs I, II and III reach this value, while most areas of NRs IV and V are below
this value. Thus, approximately 8.5 million ha are suitable for rainfed maize production
(Table 3). Most of this suitable land is in the large-scale commercial farming sector of NR II
(2.4 million ha) and in the smallholder sector of NR III (2.5 million ha).
As nearly 60 percent of all cultivated land is currently under rainfed maize, the land
suitability for maize can serve as an overall indication of land suitability for rainfed cropping.
Although areas considered unsuitable for maize (NRs IV and V) could increase growing drought
resistant crops, they will be of limited significance in terms of total national crop production.
8 Natural regions and agro-economic zones
Activities in NRs I, II, and III consist mainly of crop production and livestock enterprises. NRs IV
and V are home to more than two-thirds of the country's population. The major crops in these two
regions are maize, millet, sorghum, rapoko, groundnuts, sunflower, and cotton.
NUTRIENT BALANCE
Virgin soils in Zimbabwe are infertile with low levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur,
though under natural vegetation most have a good topsoil structure and surface cover of growing
vegetation and litter. Conventional tillage practices (mould-board or disk plough) lead to soil
structure deterioration, loss of nutrients and erosion.
Commercial farmers usually try to maintain or improve nutrient levels through the
application of fertilizer and may incorporate some of the crop residues into the soil. Traditional
farmers may apply manure or small amounts of fertilizer, or may harvest so little that crop
produce removal hardly affects nutrient levels. Although conservation tillage and other improved
farming practices can help restore the organic matter content and topsoil structure, soil loss
through erosion is basically an irreversible process.
Over the past 30 years, cultivated land in Africa has lost an average of 660 kg N/ha, 75 kg
P/ha and 450 kg K/ha. This contrasts with average net positive nutrient balances for temperate
zones of about 2 000 kg N/ha, 700 kg P/ha and 1 000 kg K/ha for the same period. Zimbabwe is
no exception to the nutrient depletion trend. The soils are characterized by low cation exchange
capacity and high acidity. Available soil N on cultivated land is usually < 30 ppm (45 kg/ha).
In the smallholder sector, continuous nutrient mining with little or no mineral or organic
fertilizer application and the disappearance of shifting cultivation with its long periods of fallow
has exacerbated soil fertility decline. Most soils cropped in this sector have low organic matter
content with ranges of 0.3-0.5 percent compared to 1.0-1.2 percent in virgin soils. The large-scale
commercial sector practises better soil fertility management and applies relatively large amounts
of fertilizers.
Chapter 4
The agriculture sector
ROLE IN THE ECONOMY

Zimbabwe has a total land area of over 39.5 million ha, of which 33.3 million ha are for agricultural
purposes, with the remainder reserved for national parks, wildlife and urban settlements. The
agriculture sector accounts for 15 percent of GDP and plays a major role in the economy of
Zimbabwe. About 70 percent of the population live in rural areas, and the agriculture industry
employs about a third of the total workforce. An estimated 60 percent of all raw materials for the
manufacturing industry come from agriculture. Agriculture is the single largest earner of foreign
exchange (more than 40 percent of total exports), with tobacco contributing about 30 percent of
total exports.
From 1980 to 1994, agricultural output grew at about 1.4 percent per year, below the annual
population growth rate of about 3 percent for the same period. The economy grew by an average of
3.7 percent per year from 1980 to 1990, compared to 2.2 percent per year for agriculture. With the
record drought of 1991/92, agricultural output fell by 5 and 18 percent in 1991 and 1992, respectively,
before recovering in 1993 and in 1994. The rest of the economy contracted by 5 percent in 1993 and
grew by over 8 percent in 1994, an indication of the dependence of the general economy on
developments in the agriculture sector.
The agricultural economy is dual in structure with both commercial farming and subsistence
oriented smallholder activities. The country is continuing its land redistribution programme, and in
1997 commercial farms occupied about 12 million ha, communal farmers 16 million ha, resettlement
farmers 3.6 million ha, small-scale commercial farmers 1.4 million ha and state farms 0.1 million ha.
By virtue of their low productivity, the communal, resettlement and small-scale commercial farmers all
form the group of smallholder farmers.
There are 4 835 large-scale commercial farmers planting 475 000 ha of crops and
1.2 million smallholders planting some 2.2 million ha.
Between 1983 and 1993, crop production value in the smallholder sector increased twice as
fast as that in the commercial sector, and its contribution to total agricultural output increased
from 18.2 to 31.2 percent.
Three crops contributed about 72 percent to the value of smallholder crop production in the
period 1982-1993, namely maize (45.7 percent), cotton (18.8 percent) and groundnuts
(7.5 percent). This highlights the need for diversification into high value crops by the
smallholders, provided they have suitable land and ready access to other resources. The
commercial sector is highly diversified with tobacco (46.2 percent of crop production value in
1993), cereals (28.8 percent), industrial crops (14.8 percent), vegetable and garden crops
(4.4 percent), seed crops (4 percent) and fruits (1.7 percent). Although the value of horticultural
crops is small in relative terms, it increased about ninefold in value between 1983 and 1993. A
substantial amount of the horticultural crops sold by the commercial sector comes from
smallholder outgrower schemes.
14 The agriculture sector
From 1981 to 1990, gross capital formation for agriculture and forestry averaged 9.8 percent of
annual national capital formation. Since 1991, there has been considerable investment in horticulture,
tobacco curing barns and related facilities. However, most of this investment has been in the
commercial sector and the situation in the smallholder sector remains unsatisfactory.
Although the allocation of government recurrent expenditure has increased marginally in nominal
terms, there has been a marked reduction in real terms. Therefore, public sector investment in
agriculture has been lower than necessary to meet the needs of developing a largely agricultural based
economy.
The deteriorating budgetary allocations have constrained the work of technical departments
servicing the agriculture sector.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
Zimbabwean agriculture is highly diversified, with a balanced distribution between staple and
cash crops for export.
Maize is the main staple for the majority of Zimbabweans. All five NRs cultivate this crop,
with NRs II and III accounting for about 84 percent of total maize production. Though NR IV
has the largest area under maize, its yields are lower than those in NRs II and III. In terms of
crop area for domestic consumption, maize ranks first ahead of groundnuts, beans, sorghum,
wheat, sunflowers and barley. The major cash crop is tobacco, followed by cotton, soybeans,
sugar cane, tea and coffee.
To provide a fair appreciation of production trends, this study considers the large-scale
commercial and the smallholder farming sectors separately. The smallholder sector figures are a
mean value of the small-scale commercial sector (with title deeds to the land) and the communal
and resettlement farming sectors (these two holding no title deeds to the land). Changes in crop
yields and areas cultivated between 1995 and 2020 by farming sector and natural region are
presented in Table 4.
Maize
Between 1995 and 2020, the area under maize in the large-scale commercial farming sector is
expected to contract by an average of 1.0 percent per year as farmers move into more lucrative
crops. On the other hand, the yield per hectare should increase by at least 1.0 percent per year,
mainly because of improved management and fertilizer use efficiency. The net decrease by 2020
in this sector’s total maize production should be negligible.
The contribution of the smallholder sector to maize production increased from about
40 percent in 1980 to 71.4 percent in 1988, but fell to about 32 percent in the 1991/92 drought.
The increase in smallholder maize production is mainly due to substantial increases in cropped
area although yield has also increased. However, yields are less than one-third of those in the
commercial sector, even in good years.
With the expected population increase, the demand for maize will also increase to about
4.5 million t by 2020. Zimbabwe produced about 1.7 million t of maize in 1995. Given the static
production level of the large-scale commercial sector, either smallholder production or imports
will have to increase. An expected expansion in area of up to 4.2 percent per year should bring
another 2.5 million ha into maize production in the smallholder sector by 2020. Approximately
two-thirds of the production growth will originate from area expansion, the remainder from
higher yields.
The rainfall probability for a minimum precipitation of 500 mm per year was calculated; 500 mm
is considered the minimum to raise a short duration maize crop. The probability to receive this
minimum rainfall varies between over 90% in region I to 70% in region III. The probabilities
decrease to below 50% in regions IV and V. Regions IV and V consequently do not qualify for
maize production expansion at current level of production technology. Production projections
were allocated over agro-ecological regions I, II and III where rainfall probability exceeds 500
mm, a prerequisite for economic fertilizer use.
If assisted by strengthened research and support institutions, the smallholder sector might
increase the average national yield by at least 1.0 percent per year from 0.72 t/ha in 1995 to 0.92
t/ha in 2020.
Irrigated maize in the smallholder sector currently constitutes approximately 0.1 percent of
the total area under maize and 0.3 percent of total maize production. The projected expansion of
irrigated maize in the sector requires a corresponding expansion in targeted irrigation
development. The smallholder sector accounts for only about 6 percent of all irrigated land.
With the expected increases in land area under maize (in the smallholder sector) and yields
(in both sectors), the country may export about 400 000 t of maize by 2020.
Assuming present yields and all suitable land under maize cultivation, the large-scale
commercial farmers could potentially produce 18 million t and the smallholders 5 million t. NR II
has the highest production potential, 12 million t in the large-scale commercial sector and
2 million t in the smallholder sector.
In four of the last 16 years Zimbabwe has exported a maize surplus.
Wheat
Wheat is mainly a large-scale commercial farming operation. The average yield in the smallholder
sector is currently 26 percent lower than that of the large-scale commercial sector, mainly
because of economies of scale in the use of inputs and in management. Yield levels vary across
the NRs, with the lowest for both sectors being in NR I.
The current production level of about 190 000 t satisfies two-thirds of total demand. Imports
of wheat amount to Z$700 million annually. Increased yields through improved crop management
practices and some expansion in land area can raise production. With an area expansion of
3.3 percent per year, the area available for wheat production in the large-scale commercial sector
should increase from 35 000 to 78 000 ha. However, due to the high capital costs of irrigation
infrastructure, farmers are switching to more attractive crops. Even with an envisaged annual growth
rate of 5.3 percent, the total area under wheat in the smallholder sector will remain small without
an accelerated development of irrigated facilities.
With a projected annual yield growth of 2.8 percent in both sectors, total wheat production
should increase to about 842 000 t by 2020, leaving a 23 percent shortfall requiring imports of
248 000 t.
Cotton
Zimbabwe cultivates cotton for its lint. After delinting, the oil pressed from the seed is a valuable
by-product. The cotton industry employs more than half a million people. NRs II, III and IV
produce 92 percent of this drought tolerant crop. Cotton is Zimbabwe’s second largest
agricultural foreign exchange earner. The smallholder sector produces the bulk of this crop. Since
1991, cotton production in Zimbabwe has fallen as farmers have reduced the area planted to the
crop. The high labour requirements and the increased labour bill in relation to the returns per
hectare will precipitate a further decline in area, estimated at 7 and 5 percent per year in the
large-scale and smallholder sectors, respectively. On the other hand, improved management and
availability of better varieties on the market should enable annual yield growth of 0.5 percent in
the large-scale commercial sector and 1.9 percent in the smallholder sector. The net outcome
should be a 64 percent fall in production from 159 000 t in 1995 to 56 000 t in 2020.
Tobacco
NR II produces over 95 percent of the tobacco crop. As 99 percent of the tobacco produced goes
for export, the availability of suitable markets is a key motivating factor in production. In 1995,
176 000 ha were under this crop.
Tobacco production is both labour and capital intensive. As the labour bill increases, the
large-scale commercial sector will probably reduce the area planted to this crop. However, the
area in the smallholder sector should increase by 2.6 percent per year, so doubling the current
land under the crop by 2020. The growth in total land area under tobacco in this sector will be
due mainly to an increase in the number of farmers producing the crop.
The tobacco industry is self-sustaining and well supported by its own research and service
institutions. Well-established training institutions ensure continuous capacity building for both
large-scale commercial and smallholder farmers. With continuous improvement in management
techniques and varietal development, tobacco yields in the smallholder sector should grow at
0.1 percent per year.
Sugar cane
NR V accounts for 99.8 percent of total sugar cane production. The majority of producers are
large-scale commercial farmers who depend on irrigation for production. Smallholder production
is negligible. Domestic sugar cane production has grown about 5 percent per year in recent years,
partly due to the price controls applied in the recent past. Production should grow from 3.2 million t
in 1995 to 4.3 million t in 2020.
Irrigated agriculture
The following table presents a breakdown of the area under irrigation in Zimbabwe in 1998.
ha
Sector
Smallholder schemes 10 000
Large-scale commercial 130 000
Agricultural and Rural Development Authority 15 000
Total 155 000
The greatest potential in irrigation development may well lie in the large-scale commercial
areas located in the rich river systems and catchment areas. By contrast, most soils in the
smallholder sector have limited irrigation potential.
Irrigated crop production in Zimbabwe now accounts for almost half of the total value of all
crops marketed. In the 1995/96 season, crops grown under full or supplementary irrigation
contributed over 70 percent to the total production of the large-scale farming sector. The
production of a number of important crops is reliant on irrigation. These crops include sugar
cane, wheat, tobacco, cotton, soybeans, groundnuts and, more recently, horticultural crops.
Smallholder irrigators produce a variety of crops, ranging from field crops such as maize, cotton,
beans and wheat, to higher value crops (green maize, tomatoes, rape, okra, paprika, onions, squashes
and baby corn). Double cropping brings the total annual irrigated area to some 17 000 ha for the
smallholder sector.
A more efficient use of water in existing schemes and the development of present or new
resources could double the area under irrigation.
Assuming a maximum area under irrigation of 300 000 ha and double cropping of maize
with a total annual yield of 15 t/ha, irrigated maize production could rise to 4.5 million t. This is
nearly 20 percent of the maize production theoretically achievable using all suitable land in the
country for rainfed cropping.
Though irrigation development may initially target providing water for food production in
the smallholder sector, the need to generate income to improve living standards will see
smallholders also irrigating high value field crops such as tobacco. Therefore, the area under
irrigated tobacco should expand by up to about 29 percent per year.
The Smallholder Irrigation Support Programme (SISP) envisages the further expansion of
irrigation, with increased income from irrigated crops improving the living standards of farmers in
otherwise dry areas.
MARKETING
The reform programme has led to the deregulation of the agriculture markets. However, because
of the traditional features of the Zimbabwean economy and the limited size of each commodity
market, there are not enough buyers to ensure strong competition. For most commodities, barring
staple crops, oligopolies are the norm.
Maize marketing was deregulated during 1993-95. The Grains Marketing Board (GMB) is
the only public marketing board left with marketing prerogatives, as a residual buyer of maize.
The GMB controls exports and imports of maize. In good years, Zimbabwe is usually self-
sufficient in maize, but it imports some quantities in drought years. Farmers can sell maize
directly to the GMB or to private traders or local millers. Since deregulation, producer prices
have tended to improve in nominal value but have been falling in real terms. In 1997/98, the
GMB established a floor price to producers of Z$2 400/t and bought 1.6 million t (including
quantities for the strategic grains reserve) on the market. Given the retail price set by the
Government, the GMB could not sell above its cost price; GMB losses were Z$183 million for
the 1996/97 marketing season. In view of the price situation, private buyers had to withdraw
from the market. Nonetheless, there are enough buyers to ensure competition.
Though deregulated in 1994, the wheat market has seen demand continue to outstrip local
production. Zimbabwe blends local varieties of wheat with imported ones. Import (and export)
operations require permits. An advisory council provides marketing recommendations, and has
been instrumental in establishing new product specifications.
Cotton production has traditionally been integrated with the processing industry, which
supplies inputs to farmers and crop pre-financing. With the privatization process sine 1994 and
the entry of new buyers, this practice might change. Prices have strengthened recently. With the
smallholder sector accounting for more than 50 percent of cotton production, marketing
developments should generate widespread benefits.
Because of the predominance of cotton/soybean oil, local market prices for sunflower are
low. However, volumes of sunflower are too small for export. Substantial trading in grains and
oilseeds takes place at the Zimbabwe Agricultural Commodity Exchange (ZIMACE). Local
enterprises process the bulk of the oilseeds. Zimbabwe is almost self-sufficient in soybeans and
several buyers are active in the market. The same holds for groundnuts. An oilseeds advisory
council, comprising manufacturers, dealers and producers, makes recommendations to
government. Though producer prices at the ZIMACE generally reflect market values, it is not
readily accessible to smallholder farmers. Input suppliers and traders now recognize the potential
of the smallholder sector and are developing ways to improve matters.
All tobacco is sold at local auctions on the free market; it is then processed internally before
export. The market has experienced price fluctuations recently, reflecting world trade trends. The
Tobacco Industry Marketing Board monitors exports in order to ensure orderly trade patterns. It
also regulates quality aspects, but does not interfere in the market.
The sugar market is almost totally export oriented. Exports have fluctuated in recent years.
For all other crops, the domestic and export markets are totally free and under no special
regulatory mechanisms.
TRENDS
The rate of population growth, the changing distribution of incomes, changes in consumer tastes
and the international competitiveness of local industries that depend on agricultural raw materials
will determine the demand for food and agricultural raw materials. Though Zimbabwe's
population growth should slow to about 2.1 percent over the next 20 years, urban population
growth could remain closer to the current rate of about 4.5 percent. This continued population
shift could change consumption patterns with greater emphasis on convenience foods. The urban
population enjoys higher incomes. Thus, the demand for goods with a higher income elasticity of
demand such as meat, dairy, oilseed and horticultural products should rise much faster than the
demand for food grain products, particularly the staple grains.
While remaining the preferred staple food, the aggregate demand for maize is expected to lag
behind the rate of population growth. The current per caput consumption of maize of about 118 kg per
person should rise to 149 kg by 2020. This is because of the low-income elasticity of demand for maize
and maize-based products (0.1) and the need to raise the current low levels of caloric intake. Food
demand projections envisage an increase in the per caput caloric daily food intake of 20 percent
by the end of 2007.
Increasing numbers of smaller mills are now carrying out hammer and small-scale milling
operations obtaining extraction rates of about 98 percent as against 75 percent in the large-scale
industrial mills. This efficiency gain should lead to an overall slow growth in the consumption of
maize-based products in the next 20 years.
Per caput consumption of wheat should rise from the current 26 to 48 kg by 2020. Given that
Zimbabwe can grow wheat as a winter crop, there is scope for import substitution if producers can
produce at below import parity level. Prospects for exports to neighbouring countries are also
promising. Prospects for increased production of red sorghum and barley are also good because of
breweries’steadily growing demand for them.
Sugar consumption should continue to grow before levelling off at 26 kg per caput by 2020.
Textile firms have made significant investments in recent years and the steady increase in demand for
cotton lint should continue.
Final demand projections for agricultural commodities in 2007 and 2020 are presented in Table 5.
The projections are based on population and income projections of the National Economic Planning
Commission. The supply utilization account provides an indication for the required future agricultural
production.
COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE AND EXPORT PROSPECTS

Domestic resource cost (DRC) is a standard way of measuring national profitability in the
context of import substitution or export gain. This is the ratio of domestic factor costs to value
added, both measured at national opportunity cost. The lower the DRC, then the lower is the
domestic cost of earning or saving a unit of foreign exchange, and the greater is the comparative
advantage that activity or crop enjoys under that farming system.
With the exception of millet, sorghum, and sunflower, all Zimbabwe’s major crops enjoy DRCs
around or below 0.67 (Table 6). This implies that all these crops enjoy a strong comparative advantage
under the different farming systems.
TABLE 6
Indicators of comparative advantage for Zimbabwe
Crop Farming Type DRC
Maize Smallholder Low Intensity 0.52
Smallholder High Intensity 0.53
Large Commercial Farms 0.63
Cotton Smallholder High Intensity 0.72
Wheat Large Commercial Farms 0.65
Groundnuts Smallholder Low Intensity 0.52
Smallholder High Intensity 0.89
Sorghum Smallholder Low Intensity 2.63
Millet Smallholder Low Intensity 1.20
Soybeans Large Commercial Farms 0.48
Sunflower Smallholder Low Intensity 1.06
DRC = Domestic Resource Cost
Source: W.A. Masters. Government and Agriculture in Zimbabwe, 1995.
Zimbabwe exports a wide range of agricultural products, the most important being tobacco,
cotton and sugar. Exports of vegetables, fruits and flowers have increased rapidly over the past
ten years. In addition, coffee, maize (in good years), meat, barley, dairy products, animal feeds
and teas are important foreign exchange earners.
Zimbabwe has made important long-term investments in orchards, packinghouses, and
transport infrastructure in recent years. Exports of citrus fruits have shown strong growth despite
a price fall in 1998/99. Zimbabwe’s new orchards should be well placed to take advantage of the
expanding world orange market. Zimbabwe has made inroads into the EU and other European
markets for cut flowers, vegetables, and fruits. With the devaluation of the Zimbabwean dollar,
exports rose sharply in 1998, and this trend should continue, at least until a review of EU
arrangements.
Table 7 provides World Bank international price projections for commodities that are
important to Zimbabwe. The projections for tobacco are not promising. However, prices should
improve in real terms for beef, cotton, and sugar. In addition, the fact that domestic inflationary
price increases less than offset the depreciation of its currency should favour Zimbabwean
agricultural exports. Zimbabwe's low production costs and reputation for high quality could
further enhance its competitiveness.
TABLE 7
International price projections for agricultural export commodities (constant real prices)
Commodity Unit 1998 2005 2010
Tobacco US$/t 3 034.0 2 614.0 2 347.0
Cotton c/kg 144.1 157.6 147.2
Sugar c/kg 18.39 21.71 21.33
Beef c/kg 166.9 177.9 170.4
Maize US$/t 102.4 105.9 98.5
Oranges US$/t 398.2 455.2 430.9
Soybeans US$/t 229.5 251.7 243.2
Soy meal US$/t 161.2 203.5 194.1
Wheat US$/t 121.4 138.2 126.5
Source: World Bank Commodity Price Outlook, November 1998
Chapter 5
Fertilizer demand
In developing a fertilizer strategy, it is important to relate total fertilizer consumed in the country
to its distribution and use within the agricultural system. By world standards, the average
fertilizer application rates in the large-scale commercial sector are already high, with large-scale
commercial farmers applying about six times more fertilizer per hectare than do smallholders.
Large-scale commercial farmers purchase about 350 000 t of fertilizer a year; smallholder
farmers about 100 000 t. Total fertilizer demand is projected to grow at 3 percent per year,
mainly because of more intensive fertilizer use by smallholder farmers.
Zimbabwe used an amount of fertilizer equivalent to 186 000 t of N, P, K, and S nutrients in
1995. Maize, tobacco, wheat, cotton, sugar cane and soybeans account for 80 percent of total
fertilizer consumption in the large-scale commercial sector.
FERTILIZER CONSUMPTION BY CROP

To estimate average fertilizer application in kilograms per hectare for each crop in each sector,
the following formula was used:
((CFC percent x TFC)/TCA) x 1 000
where CFC percent = crop fertilizer consumption, i.e. percent fertilizer consumed by a crop; TFC
= total fertilizer consumption; TCA = total crop area.
Fertilizer projections were based on the main type of fertilizer used on each crop, the area
and the yield.
After estimating the average current (base year 1995, an average of 1994/95 – 1996/97)
fertilizer application rate for each crop in each NR using current area and average yields, the
proportion of each type of fertilizer applied to a crop was determined. Calculations of total
amounts of N, P or K contained in the fertilizer application took into account the percentage of
nutrient in each type of fertilizer. The total amount of N, P or K required by each crop in each
NR was then estimated using the formula:
((P/Y) x FN)/1 000
where P = projected volume of production in 2020; Y = projected yield in 2020; FN = fertilizer
nutrient application rate (N, P and K) required to support projected yields.
The projections indicate an overall requirement of 255 800 t of N, 86 000 t of P and 61
000 t of K for all crops by 2020. The five major fertilizer-consuming crops are estimated to
account for 256 000 t fertilizer nutrients (Table 8).
24 Fertilizer demand
TABLE 8
Crop fertilizer requirements, t nutrients
1994-96 (480,945 t fertilizer) 2020
N P K Total N P K Total
maize 47 128 6 875 6 432 60 435 154 294 15 124 14 148 183 566
wheat 7 100 1 534 1 435 10 069 31 458 6 796 6 357 44 611
cotton 3 371 674 708 4 753 954 191 200 1 345
tobacco 2 001 3 752 6 254 12 007 2 166 4 061 6 769 12 996
sugar 7 476 636 2 032 10 144 9 963 848 2 707 13 518
total 67 076 13 471 16 860 97 408 198 834 27 020 30 182 256 036
other* 19 231 29 332 17 159 65 722 57 007 58 831 30 718 146 555
Total 86 307 42 803 34 019 163 130 255 841 85 851 60 900 402 591
* Coffee, soybeans, horticulture, miscellaneous
Maize
Compound D and ammonium nitrate are the most commonly used fertilizers on maize. Farmers
occasionally use other fertilizers such as single superphosphate and muriate of potash. Compound
Z contains also Zn and is recommended every fourth season. Maize consumes the bulk of
fertilizer in Zimbabwe accounting for 33 percent of the fertilizer applied in the large-scale
commercial sector and 90 percent of that applied in the smallholder farming sectors. National
fertilizer application rates average 639 and 101 kg/ha in the large-scale commercial and
smallholder sectors, respectively. Policies to stimulate fertilizer use can raise the smallholder
application rate significantly. With the fertilizer use growth rate on maize projected at 1.0 percent
per year in the smallholder sector, the national sector average is expected to be 129 kg
fertilizer/ha by 2020. Farmers in the large-scale commercial sector already apply optimum rates
and should concentrate on improving fertilizer use efficiency.
On maize, the proportion of compound D to ammonium nitrate is approximately 1:1. NR II
has the highest application rates with 381 kg/ha each of compound D and of ammonium nitrate.
Projections for 2020 indicate that maize production will require 154 294, 15 124 and 14 148 t of
N, P and K, respectively, the bulk of it in NR II (Table 9).
Wheat
The most popular fertilizers for wheat are compound D and ammonium nitrate. Wheat is mainly
grown under irrigated conditions. As the crop is largely grown in the large-scale commercial
sector, where there is reliable irrigation infrastructure, fertilizer projections concerned this sector.
The fertilizer application rates on wheat are already high and no major upward change is
expected. Rather, fertilizer use efficiency should be the main focus in soil fertility management.
Where wheat rotates with soybeans, residual N from the latter benefits the subsequent wheat
crop.
Overall, wheat will require 31 458, 6 796 and 6 357 t of N, P and K by 2020 (Table 10).
The bulk is again in NR II.
Cotton
On cotton the most commonly used fertilizers are compound L and ammonium nitrate. Fertilizer
application rates for rainfed cotton are expected to increase by 0.5 and 1.5 percent per year in the
large-scale commercial and smallholder sectors, respectively. Smallholders apply
TABLE 9
Maize fertilizer requirements by region and sector, t nutrients
Fertilizer productivity/ha Area* Yield* Produc- Apparent Nutrient application Nutrient requirement (t)
LSC=5.9 and SH=9.8 (ha) (t/ha) tion* fertilizer rate***
(national average (t) application (kg/ha)
1988-97) rate**
N P K N P K
kg/ha
NRI: 1994-96 LSC 1623 3.9 6381 662 141 21 19 228 33 31
SH 32689 0.7 23243 73 15 2 2 506 74 69
Tot 34312 29624 734 107 100
2020 LSC 1275 5.0 6363 840 178 26 24 228 33 31
SH 91878 0.9 82949 92 20 3 3 1805 263 246
Tot 93154 89312 2032 296 277
NRII: 1994-96 LSC 132968 4.5 602099 762 162 24 22 21530 3141 2938
SH 313689 1.3 394965 129 27 4 4 8592 1253 1173
Tot 446657 997064 30122 4394 4111
2020 LSC 104470 5.7 600656 967 206 30 28 21478 3133 2931
SH 881681 1.6 1409561 164 35 5 5 30665 4473 4185
Tot 986150 2010217 52143 7607 7116
NRIII: 1994-96 LSC 25684 3.2 82794 542 115 17 16 2961 432 404
SH 422869 0.8 358707 87 18 3 3 7804 1138 1065
Tot 448554 441502 10764 1570 1469
2020 LSC 20180 4.1 82596 689 146 21 20 2953 431 403
SH 1188552 1.1 1280163 110 23 3 3 27850 4063 3801
Tot 1208732 1362759 30803 4494 4204
NRIV: 1994-96 LSC 3900 2.6 9998 431 92 13 13 358 52 49
SH 501619 0.4 194137 40 8 1 1 4223 616 576
Tot 505519 204135 4581 668 625
2020 LSC 3064 3.3 9974 548 116 17 16 357 52 49
SH 1409892 0.5 692840 50 11 2 1 15073 2199 2057
Tot 1412957 702815 15429 2251 2106
NRV: 1994-96 LSC 222 2.0 444 337 72 10 10 16 2 2
SH 130406 0.3 36026 28 6 1 1 784 114 107
Tot 130627 36470 800 117 109
2020 LSC 174 2.5 443 428 91 13 12 16 2 2
SH 366529 0.4 128572 36 8 1 1 2797 408 382
Tot 366703 129014 2813 410 384
Total: 1994-96 LSC 164397 4.3 701716 718 153 22 21 25092 3660 3424
SH 1402903 0.7 1012922 74 16 2 2 22036 3215 3007
tot 1567300 1714639 47128 6875 6432
2020 LSC 129163 5.4 700031 912 194 28 26 25032 3652 3416
SH 3943117 0.9 3614939 94 33 3 3 129262 11473 10732
tot 4072280 4314970 154294 15124 14148
* Table 4
** Fertilizer application rates are based on yield elasticity and historic national fertilizer productivity by sector; i.e. fertilizer
use efficiency improvements are excluded
*** Compound D and Ammonium Nitrate in the proportion 1:1 and converted into N:P:K
Source: Central Statistical Office (CSO), 1996, 1997 & 1998. Agriculture and Livestock Survey in Communal Lands;
Agricultural Production on small-scale commercial farms; Crop Production on large-scale commercial farms (for area - ha,
yield - t/ha and production - (t)).
TABLE 10
Wheat fertilizer requirements by region and sector, t nutrients
LSC=4.8 (national (ha) (t/ha) tion* fertilizer rate***
average (t) application (kg/ha)
1988-97) rate**
N P K N P K
kg/ha
NRI: 1994-96 LSC 107 3.8 402 793 142 31 29 15 3 3
SH 8 0.5 4 109
Tot 115 407 15 3 3
2020 LSC 238 7.5 1,783 1575 283 61 57 67 15 14
SH 30 1.0 31 217
Tot 268 1,814 67 15 14
NRII: 1994-96 LSC 26,649 5.7 151,207 1193 214 46 43 5703 1232 1153
SH 84 3.3 278 697
Tot 26,733 151,485 5703 1232 1153
2020 LSC 59,452 11.3 669,935 2369 425 92 86 25269 5459 5107
SH 301 6.6 1,980 1382
Tot 59,753 671,915 25269 5459 5107
NRIII: 1994-96 LSC 1,654 5.4 8,899 1132 203 44 41 336 73 68
SH 6 0.9 6 199
Tot 1,660 8,905 336 73 68
2020 LSC 3,689 10.7 39,429 2247 403 87 81 1487 321 301
SH 23 1.9 43 396
Tot 3,712 39,472 1487 321 301
NRIV: 1994-96 LSC 613 4.8 2,935 1007 181 39 37 111 24 22
SH 24 1.3 30 270
Tot 636 2,966 111 24 22
2020 LSC 1,367 9.5 13,005 2001 359 78 73 491 106 99
SH 86 2.5 218 535
Tot 1,452 13,223 491 106 99
NRV: 1994-96 LSC 5,901 4.2 24,797 884 158 34 32 935 202 189
SH 134 5.8 775 1216
Tot 6,035 25,571 935 202 189
2020 LSC 13,165 8.3 109,864 1755 315 68 64 4144 895 837
SH 484 11.5 5,561 2414
Tot 13,649 115,425 4144 895 837
Total: 1994-96 LSC 34,923 5.4 188,240 1133 203 44 41 7100 1534 1435
SH 256 4.3 1,094 897
Tot 35,179 189,334 7100 1534 1435
2020 LSC 77,911 10.7 834,016 2251 404 87 82 31458 6796 6357
SH 924 8.5 7,833 1782
Tot 78,835 841,849 31458 6796 6357
* Table 4
** Fertilizer application rates are based on yield elasticity and historic national fertilizer productivity by sector; I.e. fertilizer use
efficiency improvements are excluded
*** Compound D and Ammonium Nitrate in the proportion 5:3 and converted into N:P:K
8 percent of their fertilizer on cotton. Changes in smallholder fertilizer rates for irrigated cotton
can be up to 3 percent per year.
The ratio of compound L to ammonium nitrate on cotton is approximately 1:1. The amounts
of fertilizer applied to cotton are not as high as those for maize or tobacco. Because of the
projected decline in area under cotton, the volume of production will also drop, and with it the
amount of fertilizer required. If in 1995 the country required 3 371 t of N, 674 t of P and 708 t of
K, these figures should fall to 954, 191 and 200 t of N, P and K by 2020 (Table 11).
Tobacco
Several types of fertilizers are used, including compounds A, B and C. The P and K content in
the three fertilizers is the same. Compound V with the same NPK content as compound B, but
with a different level of sulphur, is also used. Here, fertilizer (NPK) estimations are based on the
nutrient content of compounds B and V. Current national application rates in the large-scale
commercial sector average 764 kg/ha. Smallholders apply 1 percent of their fertilizer on tobacco.
In the smallholder sector, projected annual increases of 0.5 percent (for dryland) and 1.0 percent
(for irrigated tobacco) would see the national averages rise from 254 to 286 kg/ha (dryland) and
322 kg/ha (irrigated) by 2020. The projected national average yield is envisaged to grow from
1.10 to 1.24 t/ha.
By 2020, tobacco will require 2 166, 4 061 and 6 769 t of N, P and K, respectively, mainly
for use in NR II (Table 12).
Sugar cane
The main fertilizers for sugar cane are ammonium nitrate (which accounts for 65 percent of the
fertilizers used on the crop), single superphosphate (SSP) (20 percent), muriate of potash
(9 percent), compounds D (4 percent) and M (2 percent). Consequently, fertilizer requirement
projections considered these five in a ratio of 65:20:9:4:2.
Fertilizer application rates in NR V are quite high. This is the major region growing irrigated
sugar cane. With the projected increase in production, fertilizer requirements should increase
from 7 466, 636 and 2 032 t N, P and K in 1995 to 9 963, 848 and 2 707 t, respectively by 2020
(Table 13).
PROFITABILITY
The assumption is that if farmers find fertilizer use profitable, then they will continue with it.
Two factors determine profitability: producer price and input cost.
Thus, other things being equal, the cost of fertilizer in the production of maize, cotton or
tobacco will determine their profitability.
Analysis indicates that while it is profitable to use fertilizer on maize in the commercial
sector, the smallholder sector enjoys benefits that are more pronounced. However, the
Government has intervened several times to help smallholders. In 1992-97, the Crop Packs
Programme supplied, free of charge, most of the fertilizer used by smallholders.
Cotton has been a profitable crop, particularly for smallholders, mainly because of the
competitive prices received. For the same reason, tobacco provides a good return on fertilizer.
There is some degree of profitability on wheat production if farmers produce the crop without
using expensive methods such as irrigation.
TABLE 11
Cotton fertilizer requirements by region and sector, t nutrients
1988-97) rate**
N P K N P K
kg/ha
NRI: 1994-96 LSC 125 1.8 219 373 74 15 15 9 2 2
SH 1,336 0.3 419 16 3 1 1 4 1 1
Tot 1,461 638 13 3 3
2020 LSC 21 2.0 41 420 83 17 17 2 0 0
SH 371 0.5 187 26 5 1 1 2 0 0
Tot 392 228 4 1 1
NRII: 1994-96 LSC 21,441 1.9 40,635 402 79 16 17 1701 340 357
SH 28,627 0.7 20,671 37 7 1 2 207 41 43
Tot 50,069 61,306 1908 382 401
2020 LSC 3,568 2.1 7,621 453 89 18 19 319 64 67
SH 7,947 1.2 9,229 59 12 2 2 92 18 19
Tot 11,514 16,851 411 82 86
NRIII: 1994-96 LSC 3,594 1.4 5,103 301 59 12 12 214 43 45
SH 74,545 0.6 41,820 28 6 1 1 419 84 88
Tot 78,139 46,923 632 126 133
2020 LSC 598 1.6 957 339 67 13 14 40 8 8
SH 20,693 0.9 18,672 46 9 2 2 187 37 39
Tot 21,291 19,629 227 45 48
NRIV: 1994-96 LSC 61 3.1 191 666 132 26 28 8 2 2
SH 64,602 0.5 34,329 27 5 1 1 344 69 72
Tot 64,663 34,520 352 70 74
2020 LSC 10 3.5 36 751 148 30 31 1 0 0
SH 17,916 0.9 15,313 43 9 2 2 153 31 32
Tot 17,926 15,349 155 31 33
NRV: 1994-96 LSC 4,778 2.0 9,787 434 86 17 18 410 82 86
SH 10,161 0.5 5,169 26 5 1 1 52 10 11
Tot 14,939 14,957 461 92 97
2020 LSC 795 2.3 1,836 489 97 19 20 77 15 16
SH 2,821 0.8 2,308 41 8 2 2 23 5 5
Tot 3,616 4,144 100 20 21
Total: 1994-96 LSC 29,999 1.9 55,935 395 78 16 16 2341 468 492
SH 179,211 0.6 102,218 29 6 1 1 1024 205 215
Irrig-SH 332 1.8 602 92 18 4 4 6 1 1
Tot 209,541 158,755 3371 674 708
2020 LSC 4,992 2.1 10,491 502 99 20 21 495 99 104
SH 49,747 0.9 45,709 47 9 2 2 458 92 96
Irrig-SH 63 1.8 114 92 18 4 4 1 0 0
Tot 54,801 56,314 954 191 200
* Table 4
*** Compound L and Ammonium Nitrate in the proportion 5:3 and converted into N:P:K
TABLE 12
Tobacco fertilizer requirements by region and sector, t nutrients
1988-97) rate**
N P K N P K
kg/ha
NRI: 1994-96 LSC 654 2.2 1452 633 25 47 79 17 31 52
SH 15 0.5 8 123 5 9 15 0 0 0
Tot 669 1460 17 31 52
2020 LSC 539 2.3 1227 648 26 49 81 14 26 44
SH 28 0.5 16 126 5 9 16 0 0 0
Tot 568 1242 14 26 44
NRII: 1994-96 LSC 64197 2.6 165587 735 29 55 92 1888 3540 5900
SH 2151 1.0 2246 242 10 18 30 21 39 65
Tot 66348 167833 1909 3579 5965
2020 LSC 52942 2.6 139870 753 30 56 94 1595 2990 4983
SH 4077 1.1 4361 248 10 19 31 40 76 126
Tot 57019 144231 1635 3066 5110
NRIII: 1994-96 LSC 2621 2.2 5745 625 25 47 78 66 123 205
SH 553 1.3 698 292 12 22 37 6 12 20
Tot 3174 6443 72 135 225
2020 LSC 2161 2.2 4853 640 26 48 80 55 104 173
SH 1047 1.3 1355 299 12 22 37 13 24 39
Tot 3209 6208 68 127 212
NRIV: 1994-96 LSC 24 1.9 44 534 21 40 67 1 1 2
SH 19 1.7 32 401 16 30 50 0 1 1
Tot 42 77 1 2 3
2020 LSC 20 1.9 37 547 22 41 68 0 1 1
SH 35 1.8 63 411 16 31 51 1 1 2
Tot 55 100 1 2 3
NRV: 1994-96 LSC 87 2.2 193 632 25 47 79 2 4 7
SH 1 0.7 1 154 6 12 19 0 0 0
Tot 88 194 2 4 7
2020 LSC 72 2.3 163 648 26 49 81 2 3 6
SH 2 0.7 1 158 6 12 20 0 0 0
Tot 74 164 2 4 6
Total: 1994-96 LSC 67583 2.6 173022 730 29 55 91 1973 3699 6165
SH 2738 1.1 2985 252 10 19 32 28 52 86
Irrig-SH 54 1.8 94 407 16 31 51 1 2 3
Tot 70375 176101 2001 3752 6254
2020 LSC 55734 2.6 146150 747 30 56 93 1666 3124 5207
SH 5190 1.1 5796 259 10 19 32 54 101 168
Irrig-SH 25510 1.9 48163 437 17 33 55 446 836 1394
Tot 86434 200109 2166 4061 6769
* Table 4
*** Compound B converted into N:P:K
TABLE 13
Sugar cane fertilizer requirements by region and sector, t nutrients
LSC=97.5 (ha) (t/ha) tion* fertilizer rate***
(t) application (kg/ha)
rate**
N P K N P K
kg/ha
NRI: 1994-96 LSC 1 1 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0
SH
Tot
2020 LSC 1 1 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0
SH
Tot
NRII: 1994-96 LSC 476 10 4781 103 24 2 6 11 1 3
SH
Tot
2020 LSC 562 11 6371 116 27 2 7 15 1 4
SH
Tot
NRIII: 1994-96 LSC 18 3 46 26 6 1 2 0 0 0
SH
Tot
2020 LSC 21 3 61 29 7 1 2 0 0 0
SH
Tot
NRIV: 1994-96 LSC
SH
Tot
2020 LSC
SH
Tot
NRV: 1994-96 LSC 32647 98 3186567 1001 229 19 62 7465 635 2029
SH
Tot
2020 LSC 38597 110 4246351 1128 258 22 70 9948 847 2703
SH
Tot
Total: 1994-96 LSC 33141 96 3191394 987 226 19 61 7476 636 2032
SH
Tot 7476 636 2032
2020 LSC 39181 109 4252783 1113 254 22 69 9963 848 2707
SH
Tot 9963 848 2707
* Table 4
** Fertilizer application rates are based on yield elasticity and historic national fertilizer productivity by sector; I.e. fertilizer
use efficiency improvements are excluded
*** Compounds M, D, and MOP, SSP and Ammonium Nitrate in the proportion 2:4:9:20:65 and converted into N:P:K
The coefficients of elasticity for the five main crops show that the own-price elasticity of
fertilizer consumed by these crops is high for both farming sectors. However, the cross-price
elasticity for cotton and maize in the smallholder sector are highly inelastic.
The high profitability smallholders enjoy in the production of maize and cotton explains why
they are increasing their area under these crops. At the same time, commercial farmers are
reducing their area under maize and cotton and expanding into production of more lucrative
crops, for example tobacco and horticultural crops.
PROCUREMENT
Optimal economic financing methods for fertilizer importation depend on suppliers and the
relationship between fertilizer companies with their suppliers. Most exporters require a letter of
credit before they dispatch products. Fertilizer companies buy raw materials through credit
facilities. However, the volatility of the Zimbabwean dollar increases uncertainty, complicates the
pricing, and inventories management of imported fertilizers. Companies hedge forward to reduce
their foreign exchange exposure.
Fertilizer companies finance local raw material purchases and operations through
commercial bank overdrafts. The seasonal nature of fertilizer demand makes it difficult for
companies to generate sufficient cash flow from sales to finance operations, requiring them to
obtain short-term credit from commercial banks. Because of high interest rates, firms are now
importing and manufacturing fertilizers on demand in order to avoid over stocking and under
stocking. However, this presents logistical difficulties in ensuring a timely supply to smallholders.
This is because smallholders only buy fertilizers after the start of the rainy season and there is a
need to hold inventories in stock for at least three months to meet that peak demand.
There is a need for cash discounts to compensate smallholders and agricultural input dealers
accessing short-term finance at high interest rates. More than 90 percent of large-scale
commercial farmers purchase fertilizers on credit, while rural traders and smallholders buy on a
cash basis. Currently, there are small increases in fertilizer prices in January, March, and May
and then a large hike in August. Because most large-scale farmers buy fertilizer before August,
they do not bear the increases in costs, which are passed on to smallholders. Fertilizer price
increases in January-May would share the burden.
Encouraging the bartering of maize grain for fertilizer, especially between rural traders and
smallholders, could promote fertilizer sales and fertilizer use while simultaneously helping with
output marketing.
Chapter 6
Fertilizer supply
Fertilizer prices in Zimbabwe have risen towards import parity since the lifting of production
subsidies and price controls. Because of the recent increase in international ammonia and urea
prices due to an increase in oil prices, it is cheaper to import nitrogen in Zimbabwe than to
manufacture it.
Traditionally dominated by Zimbabwean-based companies, the fertilizer industry is now
undergoing a period of restructuring. Progressive deregulation culminated in the decontrolling of
all fertilizer prices in 1995.
However, to import fertilizers, companies have to obtain permits from the Ministry of
Agriculture (MOA), claim through customs and pay import duties on the border value of
products. The authorities require that all fertilizer products be registered with the Department of
Research and Specialist Services (DRSS) before they will issue import permits. Customs officers
are now requiring registration numbers to clear fertilizers, although contract sales of prescription
blends are allowed and fertilizer regulations do not prohibit the importation and contract sale of
unregistered products unless they are for general sale. Fertilizer exporters require an export
permit from the MOA, and the customs rules and regulations make exports difficult.
Consequently, fertilizer registration, import and export procedures remain barriers to entry and to
the introduction of new products.
Only two new products were introduced in the period 1960-1990. Since then, private
companies have registered more than 262 new fertilizer products based on their research in other
countries. These new products have targeted large-scale commercial farmers and spin-offs to
smallholders have yet to occur. Farmers in Zimbabwe use in general rather low grade fertilizer
compounds. However, there may be problems of sulphur and calcium deficiencies in smallholder
areas if high grade fertilizers replace low grade ones.
Domestic production meets over 90 percent of the country's total ammonium nitrate
requirements. The country’s ammonium nitrate plant has a capacity of 250 000 t, requiring
115 000 t of ammonia, which exceeds the local ammonia plant’s capacity. Imports from South
Africa make good the annual shortfall of 40 000 t of ammonia. The ammonia plant imports
electricity from Kariba. Though initially cheap, its price has escalated and the ammonia plant
accounts for about 9 percent of Zimbabwe's annual electricity consumption, thus making the
process increasingly uneconomic. Because it lacks the manufacturing capacity, Zimbabwe
imports two other nitrogenous fertilizers: ammonium sulphate, for direct application on tea
estates; and sodium nitrate (3 000 t per year) for tobacco. The horticulture industry has started
importing calcium nitrate. In 1997, total nitrogenous fertilizer imports were 176 000 t (exports
were 200 t).
Of the three major phosphate rock deposits in Zimbabwe, the only operational one produced
152 000 t of rock concentrate in 1995. This deposit is low grade (6 percent P2O5). Concentration
by flotation produces 36 percent phosphate rock concentrate. Transport to the superphosphate
processing plant in Harare increases the raw material cost by 26 percent.
34 Fertilizer supply
About half the sulphuric acid required to manufacture single superphosphate comes from
imported elemental sulphur (Canada). The other half comes from locally obtained iron pyrites.
Zimbabwe also manufactures triple superphosphate by using phosphoric acid and rock
phosphate. Zimbabwe has an annual production capacity of 200 000 t of single superphosphate
and 60 000 t of triple superphosphate, just sufficient to meet the country’s current phosphate
requirement. Therefore, if there is a significant increase in fertilizer consumption, phosphate
demand will exceed capacity, so necessitating imports. Zimbabwe currently lacks the capacity to
produce high-grade phosphate fertilizers such as monoammonium and diammonium phosphates.
In 1997, phosphate fertilizer imports totalled 13 000 t (exports were negligible).
Zimbabwe imports the bulk of its potash from Israel. In 1997, potassic fertilizer imports
totalled 98 000 t (exports 4 000 t). Zimbabwe imports micronutrients such as zinc (South Africa)
and boron (Turkey). With the removal of trade barriers, imports of compound (NPK) fertilizers
increased from an annual average of 130 t for 1990-93 to 90 140 t for 1995-97. These are mainly
high-grade fertilizers for large-scale commercial farmers (20 percent of all fertilizers used by this
sector).
The total annual production capacity of Zimbabwe’s fertilizer granulation plants is
300 000 t. The two leading firms have recently installed bulk blenders with capacities of
100 000 and 50 000 t respectively. Fertilizer firms export about 4 percent of their production
(compound fertilizer exports were about 1 000 t in 1997), mostly to Zambia and Malawi.
Following agricultural market reforms, fertilizer firms have invested in plants and
equipment. They have expanded their capacity and flexibility to supply adequate quantities to
meet demand from domestic production and imports. The industry has sufficient capacity to meet
expected growth in demand from domestic production because of four factors. First, the move to
bulk blending enables companies to produce relatively quickly compared to granulation. Second,
the establishment of bulk blending plants has provided additional capacity. Third, increased use
of high-grade fertilizers reduces the quantity that has to be manufactured and applied in crop
production. Finally, the local fertilizer market is opening up to international competition,
particularly from South Africa. South African firms enjoy competitive advantages resulting from
excess capacity, larger plants and economies of scale, economies of location to the Zimbabwean
market, better production know-how, low-cost raw materials, more advanced technology and
export incentives. Zimbabwean fertilizer companies want tariff protection against what they
claim is predatory pricing by South African firms. However, as South Africa applies no duty on
fertilizer imports, Zimbabwean fertilizer companies should be able to sell their fertilizers in South
Africa though they have yet to do so.
Chapter 7
The smallholder farming sector
Farmers in the smallholder sector consist of:

• a high performance group (a small minority), which produces marketable surpluses under
diversified patterns and with rather high input/output ratios;
• a medium performance group (the overwhelming majority), which has adapted crop
production technologies to varying extent, but whose performance is constrained by a lack of
management skills and financial resources; and
• a low performance group, at subsistence level, which comprises the bulk of the rural poor.
The future development of Zimbabwean agriculture will rely on smallholders, and
smallholders will require greater access to free markets. In this context, price parity between
producer prices and input prices will be crucial.
For cash crops, comparatively well-developed markets exist. However, in the staple food
sector, uncertainty prevails, and risks are higher in terms of producer prices. A farmer who is not
confident about good returns will tend to stay at subsistence level, limit risk and be unwilling to
pay out cash for inputs in anticipation of production increases. Diversification may be the best
means of lowering risk in the absence of guarantees.
According to the Zimbabwe Farmers’Union, the two main concerns of smallholders are:
• the limited technological options in dry areas; and
• the stagnation of yields in the small-scale sector.
Low soil fertility and erratic rainfall in the smallholder sector are the major reasons why
yields in this sector are so low. Declining soil fertility in smallholder areas could lead to
unsustainable production levels.
SMALLHOLDER INCOME
In the smallholder sector, cash income accounts for nearly 53 percent of total income and income
in kind for 47 percent. This reflects the subsistence nature of agricultural production. Crops
contribute nearly 73 percent of total cash income in the rural household, while livestock provides
10 percent, remittances 13 percent and non-farm activities 4.5 percent. Non-farm activities
include panning for precious metals, brewing beer for sale, handicrafts, contract or full-time
employment in the formal sector, building, selling vegetables and fruits produced by the large-
scale commercial farmers. What smallholders sell depends on what they produce and how much
they obtain for it. Agricultural income may also include those agricultural products retained for
home consumption.
Where grown, tobacco and soybeans (NR II), cotton (NRs II, III and IV) and sunflowers
(NRs IV and V) are for sale. Maize, rapoko, sorghum and groundnuts are sold whenever there
are surpluses.
36 Institutional aspects
From 1983 to 1996, smallholders sold 30 percent of their gross crop production. In terms of
total value of crop production, the most important crops in the smallholder sector are maize (over
45 percent of total value), cotton (20 percent) and groundnuts (5 percent).
The largest share of income from crops in the smallholder sector comes from NR II
(45 percent), followed by NR III (29 percent), NRs IV and V (11 percent each) and NR I
(3 percent). NRs II and III produce about 84 percent of the maize crop.
Fruit sales contribute significantly to rural income in NRs I, II, III and IV. Livestock income
is significant in NRs IV and V.
Income is of major importance to farmers’ ability to adopt more effective and sustainable
production technologies. This is because the process involves more cash expenditures from a
limited budget for the procurement of essential agricultural inputs. When the cost of fertilizer
inputs falls to 5-6 percent of their total available cash income, farmers will be more able to repay
crop loans and augment savings for productive investments.
Profitability assessments show that the cost/benefit ratios are attractive for most crops, but
that smallholders will adopt production intensification when:
• risk perceptions are lowered; and
• constraints are reduced (mostly cash and labour).
Farmers' perception of risks can be lowered through:
• improved input/farm-gate price parity;
• improved water resources and soil moisture management;
• enhanced crop and livestock diversification; and
• improved farming systems and practices, which have a positive bearing on capitalization
processes.
Improving access to financial services, to markets and inputs, and technical support services can
reduce constraints.
SMALLHOLDER FERTILIZER CONSUMPTION

Improved smallholder access to fertilizer is a stated short to medium-range goal. However, for the
period 1983-1996, fertilizer costs were 16-62 percent of total cash income received by
smallholders, an unaffordable level (Table 14). The ability to pay for fertilizers is thus crucial to
their use by smallholders. The purchase of fertilizers depends largely on incomes and available
financial resources at the beginning of the cropping season. For this reason, to achieve the desired
intensification of production, appropriate financing possibilities are essential for enhanced
fertilizer use.
The fertilizer bill for the smallholder sector rose from Z$19 million in 1982 to nearly
Z$500 million in 1996. This increase was mainly due to:
• a steady increase in fertilizer consumption due to various government initiatives to promote
consumption in this sector;
• rising fertilizer prices, especially since deregulation; and
• the Crop Packs Programme (designed initially to provide packages for 1 million farms, for at
least one hectare of maize and half a hectare of other crops).
TABLE 14
Proportion of fertilizer value in household cash income
Year Livestock Crop Income Off-farm (Z$) Total Income Fert Cost (Z$) Fert Cost as
Income (Z$) (Z$) (Z$) % of Income
1982 18081 66198 20063 104342 18912
1983 22321 46045 24304 92670 31610 30.3
1984 23653 104431 25637 153721 49113 53.0
1985 15676 224822 17661 258159 58709 38.2
1986 29642 221459 31628 282729 58449 22.6
1987 50942 84110 52929 187981 56373 19.9
1988 43203 301210 45191 389604 61445 32.7
1989 61209 294629 63198 419036 62407 16.0
1990 106809 226990 108799 442598 73963 17.7
1991 164741 287074 166732 618547 127846 28.9
1992 176647 27600 178639 382886 227382 36.8
1993 115177 1055205 117170 1287552 237403 62.0
1994 79824 1026040 81818 1187682 255915 19.9
1995 163277 281862 165272 610411 307620 25.9
Notes:
1. From Agricultural Statistical Bulletin
2. Estimates from Farm Management Data for Communal Areas and 1995 Poverty Assessment Survey
Study
Excluding the Crop Packs Programme, the actual cost of fertilizer to the smallholder farmers
was negligible. In 1997/98, a non-price support scheme to develop a network of agricultural input
dealers throughout smallholder areas replaced the Crop Packs Programme. Smallholder fertilizer
purchases are now trending down, back to their natural commercial levels. Without policy
measures to make fertilizer affordable, or research into crop varieties that use fertilizer
efficiently, it may be difficult to increase smallholder fertilizer consumption.
With inflation, the price of fertilizer is high and rising in terms of the Zimbabwean dollar
though static in US dollar terms. Currently, informal price controls imposed by the government
on maize flour and grain are reducing profitability and farmers’ability to purchase fertilizer.
Almost 70 percent of smallholders use fertilizers. Farmers indicate that their cash position is
the most important factor affecting the amount they apply. The purchasing pattern of
smallholders reveals that:
• nearly half purchase one bag or less of fertilizer per year (84.4 percent in NR V); and
• the farmers purchasing large quantities of fertilizers (seven bags or more) are those located in
irrigated areas and those with larger holdings, 22.4 percent of the total (50.5 percent in
NR II).
Although some 63 percent of farmers expect to increase their fertilizer use, four main factors
will condition this choice:
• price stability;
• subsidies;
• grain-fertilizer price parity; and
• credit availability.
Smallholders hardly seem to change their fertilizer purchases from one year to another. In a
period when producer prices for maize rose from Z$250 to 950/t, a 10-15 percent rise in hard
currency terms, there was no corresponding increase in smallholder fertilizer purchases. Possible
explanations are:
• smallholders do not perceive intensification as a means towards capitalization and/or higher
incomes;
• the perception of risk among smallholders is very high and/or production constraints are too
high; and
• capitalization processes are very slow and hampered by factors such as cost of living
increases.
Fertilizer purchases by large-scale commercial farmers vary much more significantly. This is
because they consider a combination of factors:
• expected prices of crops;
• loan repayment situations;
• rotation practices; and
• the presence of residues of plant nutrients in the soil.
CONSTRAINTS AND DEVELOPMENTS

In addition to credit/financing problems, other factors relating to access, infrastructure, logistics
and fertilizer use hamper smallholder performance.
Fertilizer use
Most smallholders apply basal dressing after germination as a risk management strategy. This
results in inefficient fertilizer use as potash and phosphate are applied too late for the crop to use
during the year of application. They apply the limited quantities purchased from previous crop
sales over large areas instead of applying the appropriate quantities on small areas. This results
in inefficient application. Smallholders buy traditional low-grade compounds. This is because
they have higher learning costs as their experience and knowledge of NPK nutrients is limited,
blends are more difficult to apply by hand, and they lack the finance to make investments in high-
grade fertilizer technologies. Commercial farmers are switching to high-grade fertilizers and
special blends for high value crops. Up to 40 percent of the fertilizer sold to commercial farmers
consists of blends and concentrates.
Smallholders buy fertilizer during the cropping season and in small quantities as and when
the rain comes. Large-scale commercial farmers can manage business risk, plan ahead, and buy
fertilizers before the beginning of the rainy season and in bulk directly from factories, depots and
large-scale consignment stockists in urban centres.
Access
Smallholders lack access to both local and international markets for their products and receive
low farm-gate prices as commodity traders need to make a profit for assembling, bulking, storing,
and transporting farm products to urban markets. Many smallholders face problems in accessing
inputs. They lack access to technical services such as soil tests and advice provided by
government and fertilizer companies because these services are centralized in Harare. Many
smallholders have no draught animals, and generally no access to mechanized alternatives, thus
land preparation often delays planting.
Infrastructure and logistics

Investment in physical and social infrastructure in smallholder areas has lagged behind.
Smallholders often receive fertilizer deliveries too late during the planting season because of the
poor condition of roads, shortage of transport vehicles (existing transport facilities result in
bottlenecks during peak periods), and low profitability of servicing their needs. They pay higher
farm-gate prices for fertilizers because of poor marketing infrastructure and lack of competition
among transporters and retail storeowners in communal areas. The effective price smallholders
pay for fertilizers are 25 percent higher than ex-factory prices.
The logistics of supplying fertilizers to smallholders require a wide range of products to be
made available at affordable prices in small packs at outlets within walking distance at all times
during the cropping season. Fertilizer manufacturers have not developed networks of rural depots
and traders as they have considered smallholder demand too small to justify the investment. Thus,
about 60 percent of smallholders currently buy their fertilizers from rural traders and distributors
which, in turn, are supplied by urban-based distributors. The remaining 40 percent buy directly
from factories in Harare.
Storage facilities are currently adequate for the quantity of fertilizers handled. Fertilizer
firms are placing on consignment with agricultural traders lots of about 10 t that can be stored in
a room on the premises. However, if fertilizer use increases at the projected rate, there will be a
need to increase storage facilities, especially in smallholder areas.
The adoption of just-in-time methods can reduce storage time. Three problems need
resolving for suppliers to use just-in-time programmes. First, there is a lack of good
communication, particularly telephones, to permit agricultural dealers in smallholder areas to
order just enough fertilizer for a specific sale or fertilizer firm to order just enough material for a
specific production run. Second, there is lack of timely availability of transport for immediate
deliveries. Third, there is congestion in offtake from fertilizer plants during peak periods,
especially in October-December.
Developments
In recent years, small agro-dealers have thrived under the concept of agribusiness, and there are
specific training programmes to improve their activities.
The diversification of channels and distributors should foster competition, to the benefit of
farmers. This, combined with the presence of more distribution points in the field, should reduce
direct acquisition from urban centres. In 1997/98, the GMB introduced fertilizer sales through its
network of deposits.
Commodity associations can be active in supplying services to farmers, but currently there is
a perceived lack of general market information. Government authorities could promote the
establishment of market information systems to help farmers make decisions about cropping
patterns and input purchases. The involvement of farmers' unions and producers' associations
would enable such systems to be sustainable.
The logistics of managing packaging, materials handling, warehousing, inventory control
and transportation of fertilizers are different for large-scale commercial and smallholder farmers.
With fertilizer output, imports, exports and prices no longer under government control, there
is pressure to change fertilizer logistics. Fertilizer companies have been experimenting to find
more timely and convenient ways of distributing fertilizer to smallholders in remote areas.
During the 1995/96 season, Care International and the African Centre for Fertilizer
Development (ACFD) started to support the development of a network of community-based
agribusiness dealers in five districts. The project is expanding to establish a network of

500 community-based agribusiness agents throughout smallholder areas around the country.
However, the logistics channel is long because it involves shipping fertilizer to appointed
distributors, who in turn move fertilizer to traders to sell to farmers. Because different
intermediaries need to recover their costs, this distribution structure results in high prices for
fertilizers. To cut out intermediaries and reduce farm-gate prices, fertilizer-manufacturing firms
are now exploring the possibility of establishing their own agricultural input dealers.
The capacity of the smallholder to satisfy demand will largely depend on national policies
that stimulate production in this sector. In addition to the biophysical constraints, factors such as
the transport crisis and declining terms of trade have affected agricultural production in
Zimbabwe. Only major structural changes can reduce the impact of such factors, e.g.
improvements in transport infrastructure. Additionally, agricultural research and support service
institutions need to have the capacity to support the sector effectively and efficiently.
The on-going resettlement programme should make more productive land available to the
smallholder sector. A policy that promotes an increase in crop production should improve
smallholder incomes. The creation of employment opportunities through the setting up of rural
agro-processing industries will contribute significantly to incomes. As rural areas develop, more
income should flow from non-farm activities that add value to agricultural produce.
The availability of affordable fertilizer and high producer prices will guarantee the future
sustainable utilization of fertilizer by smallholder farmers.
Chapter 8
Institutional aspects
REGULATIONS
The 1996 Fertilizers, Farm Feeds and Remedies Act provides the legislative framework for the
registration of fertilizers, farm feeds, sterilizing plants and remedies, as well as for the regulation
and restriction of the importation and sale of the same.
The MOA undertakes the registration of fertilizers. Manufacturers and importers pay a fee
to register a new compound/product.
Restrictions on or prohibitions of the sale of a fertilizer apply if:
• it is not registered properly;
• it is not packed in the prescribed manner;
• its container is not branded, labelled, marked and sealed in the prescribed manner; and
• it is not of the composition, efficacy, fineness or purity specified in the application for its
registration.
The MOA appoints inspectors who have the authority to make quality controls in the field.
The Chemistry and Soil Research Institute, a specialized institute of the DRSS, is
responsible for the laboratory for fertilizer and soil analysis. Farmers can also address complaints
about fertilizers to the laboratory.
The Fertilizer Advisory Sub-Committee and the Fertilizer Advisory Committee review
technical and regulatory matters relating to the fertilizer sector. The sub-committee is composed
of technicians, and the committee takes decisions based on their recommendations.
Financial constraints have limited quality control implementation. Greater enforcement of
quality controls would encourage agro-dealers to be more quality conscious.
RESEARCH AND EXTENSION

The public agricultural research body in Zimbabwe is the DRSS of the MOA. The DRSS
consists of several different institutes which carry out applied research in specialized centres,
each one of them being responsible for its area of research.
The Agricultural Research Council, composed of representatives from government
authorities, farmers' unions, universities and private research institutions/associations, is an
advisory body on all research matters, and is responsible for setting priorities and orientations in
this field.
The policy objectives for agricultural research and technology are:
• to develop technologies which will generate sustainable agricultural production systems with
minimum adverse effects on the environment;
• to increase economic returns from cash crops through cultivar selection, soil management and
irrigation methods, crop protection and post-harvest management technologies in such a way
as to maximize wealth creation for farmers and also for the nation;
• to develop animal production systems in terms of species and breeds, feeding strategies and
overall management so as to maximize their productivity; and
• to provide efficient technical and regulatory functions to the entire agricultural industry.
The Agricultural Technical and Extension Services (AGRITEX) Department of the MOA is
in charge of public extension. Its role is:
• to assist farmers directly with specialized advisory services;
• to organize field days on specific issues;
• to carry out demonstration sessions; and
• to organize agricultural shows on a regular basis.
Crop responses to fertilizers are not totally documented, and recommendations to smallholder
farmers on the use of fertilizers are scarce. Moreover, there is little knowledge about integrated
plant nutrient systems (IPNS).
Budgetary constraints and a lack of capital investment have reduced considerably the extent
and magnitude of the operations of the DRSS and AGRITEX.
In 1999, government authorities should set in motion, on a systematic basis, the
commercialization of public services and the use of revolving funds. Under this practice, formerly
free public services will be charged for.
This self-financing practice should partially compensate for the lack of public financing and
introduce a different mentality in servicing farmers. However, the difficulty lies in drawing the
line between services that the commercial sector can afford, and services needed by smallholders,
where there is little possibility that they can or want to pay for them.
Public institutions should refocus their interventions, and incorporate opportunities for cost
recovery in a new strategy, in order to reduce dependency on budget allocation. Most public
institutions have yet to initiate this reorientation process.
External financing supports some programmes. One such programme has undertaken a full
soil and nutrient analysis on 2 000 farms so far. The area of influence covers 19 districts (with
another 9 projected for 1999) and the programme is based on 100-200 sample farms in each
district. The programme makes recommendations on lime applications, the use of manure and
mineral fertilizers, and updates a database for extension purposes. Though this programme can
have a beneficial effect on soil fertility management, it is totally dependent on foreign assistance
and has only a limited geographical scope.
The World Bank has contemplated the financing of an agricultural extension development
fund.
Other private initiatives have links with farmers' unions and producers' associations.
However, there should be closer, participatory links between research and extension institutions,
universities, and producers. Though collaboration between government and private institutions on
identifying problems and orienting activities is adequate, articulations in the field are weak.
In a context of limited public resources, the active participation of the farming sector is the
key to greater sustainability. Currently, results are often not shared widely among farmers, who
could be more involved in on-farm experimentation.
Research and extension activities should focus more on a farm management approach. The
articulation of plant nutrition policies based on long-term agricultural development strategies for
the balanced development of differently endowed ecological zones is also required, as is a more
decisive introduction of IPNS at farm level.
The ACFD undertakes applied research programmes to develop new farming systems, taking
into account crop diversification, soil fertility and water conservation options. Such pilot projects
should receive greater dissemination.
Research and extension activities also need to include cost/benefit analysis of fertilizer
application rates and farming practices for improved soil fertility.
Some networks exist to address the issue of soil fertility through the exchange of information
and experiences, e.g. the Soil Fertility Network and an FAO regional network. These initiatives
should generate interesting data, and enable some nutrient monitoring with a view to introducing
corrective measures. In order to generate practical effects beyond the mere recognition of specific
problems and solutions, it is important that these networks gradually gain importance and that
farmers, through associations and/or their respective unions, participate actively in these
initiatives.
One specific problem is the growing acidity of some soils. Lime is available in the country,
but more promotion is needed to properly address the problem. The use of green manure also
warrants promotion that is more intensive.
CREDIT AND FINANCING

The existence of financial services is key to capitalization processes in cash economies, and credit
is a critical factor in development purposes. The limited resource base of smallholders is a major
constraint on their ability to purchase fertilizers. They face problems accessing credit from
commercial banks and the parastatal Agricultural Finance Corporation (AFC) because they lack
capital assets such as title deeds to use as collateral and they also lack proven track records.
The structure of rural finance in Zimbabwe consists of three channels:
• private institutions, mainly commercial banks, traditionally serving the large-scale
commercial farmers;
• public institutions such as the AFC, which provides credit lines to smallholders from
government sources, and the Small Enterprise Development Corporation; and
• micro-financial institutions, community banks, NGOs, savings and credit co-operative
unions.
The AFC has 53 offices throughout the country and extends loans to farmers at subsidized
rates in the form of individual or group lending. However, the AFC now plans to convert its
operations into commercial banking activities in 1999, which means that public lending to rural
areas would disappear. Alternative financing has been developing in rural areas for about a
decade, with primary financing coming from social development funds and NGOs. The
Zimbabwe Association of Micro-Finance Institutions is an umbrella organization for non-formal
financing and could serve as a reference for future regulatory purposes.
The Zimbabwe Fertilizer Company operates a scheme targeted at providing credit through
the trade to rural traders through consignment stocks, which rural traders should pay for soon
after selling. Tight selection of honest traders based on their history and reputation is the most
effective way of increasing the success of this approach. Experience shows that small traders who
earn most of their income through the input trade are the ones who take this activity seriously.
Large-scale commercial farmers purchase more than 90 percent of their fertilizer on thirty or
sixty-day trade credit terms. By contrast, rural traders and smallholders buy fertilizer in cash.
Credit facilities for rural traders and farmers are insignificant. This increases barriers to entry
and results in high mark-ups by traders. Urban-based distributors enjoy profit margins of about
8-10 percent while rural traders make 14-18 percent.
About 26 percent of households have used credit for their farm operations. The farmers who
do not use credit identify cumbersome loan procedures and other institutional constraints as the
main obstacles they face. Some cite lack of knowledge about credit institutions, and high interest
rates as constraints on their use of credit. Although private banks collect savings from rural
areas, credit activities for smallholders are risky unreliable and expensive, in part due to the lack
of collateral. Short-term loans are needed to strengthen smallholders' operations for production
intensification. Medium to long-term loans for investment in irrigation could also be important.
Given smallholders’ limited cash resource capacity and their limited handling capacity, the
marketing of fertilizers in 25-kg bags should be encouraged.
FARMERS’ORGANIZATIONS
There are three generic farmers' unions in Zimbabwe:
• the Commercial Farmers' Union, representing large-scale commercial farmers;
• the Indigenous Commercial Farmers' Union, representing mainly small-scale commercial
farmers; and
• the Zimbabwe Farmers' Union, representing smallholders of all types of land tenure.
The Zimbabwe Farmers' Union is by far the largest union (165 000 affiliates), which reflects
the relative importance of smallholders in the farming sector. Active in lobbying for their
respective groups' interests and concerns, the farmers' unions are also very much involved in
working with research and extension institutions.
These unions could be instrumental in the dissemination of information about commodity
prices. This would enable smallholders to take well-informed decisions about cropping patterns
and marketing.
There are also a number of crop producer associations, proactive in promoting their products
and in dealing with specific problems regarding each commodity.
Chapter 9
Conclusions
Increases in population, urbanization and per caput income will require greater domestic food
production, more imports or both. The demand for agricultural exports will also play a role in
determining the future size and composition of Zimbabwe’s agricultural production. Zimbabwe
can increase its agricultural production by increasing the area under agriculture and, more
significantly, by increasing the productivity of that land. Thus, fertilizer has an important role to
play in the intensification of productivity and in meeting the broader economic and social goals of
the country. Projections for the five major fertilizer consuming crops for 2020 indicate an overall
requirement of 256 000 t of N, 86 000 t of P and 61 000 t of K.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to analyse the macro-economic situation. However, no
attempt at developing a fertilizer strategy can ignore the impact of a poor balance of payments
situation, a deteriorating exchange rate, high inflation and the measures needed to rectify matters.
For example, a deteriorating exchange rate favours exports but makes imported inputs more
expensive. Together with inflation it creates greater uncertainty, so curbing domestic investments,
particularly by smaller undertakings. The fiscal discipline and public expenditure controls needed
to fight inflation also entail constraints on public support services such as research and extension.
Zimbabwe has pursued a programme of economic reform and trade liberalization since
1991. This set of measures provides a favourable context for farmers' decisions and options, as
well as for the expansion of the agriculture sector. Orientations designed under the ZAPF will be
strengthened when the impact of more open market conditions translates into increases in farmers'
incomes.
The commercialization of services and the introduction of revolving funds in public
institutions will help curb expenditure and promote self-financing practices. These should include
services such as soil analysis or the allocation of water rights. The introduction of fees should
help focus research and extension priorities, and pave the way for greater real farmer
participation.
Because of unreliable rainfall, most of the land in NRs IV and V is unsuitable for the
common medium-season varieties of maize. Research institutes should receive support in their
efforts to develop short-season and drought resistant varieties. It is important to develop and
promote conservation tillage systems for both the large-scale commercial and smallholder sectors.
Soil erosion and soil acidity should continue to be serious concerns for extension activities.
Although the bulk of food production will come from rainfed cropping, there is scope for
developing Zimbabwe’s irrigation potential through improvements to existing dams, and by
promoting soil moisture conservation and water retention techniques among smallholders.
Irrigation is vital to intensification and strongly correlates with increased fertilizer use. However,
fertilizer use in irrigated areas can only bear fruit where the irrigation infrastructure receives
adequate maintenance. This also means controlling soil erosion in adjacent upland areas. The
extension service should educate farmers about IPNS. This should be a priority in the key maize
growing areas. IPNS will enable farmers to accelerate crop production and enhance the future
productive capacity of their land.
46 Conclusions
Though types of land tenure reflect different production intensification and cropping
patterns, there remains ample margin for improving land use efficiency in the large-scale farming
sector and for achieving greater land productivity among smallholders.
It is important to monitor improvements in fertilizer use efficiency, particularly with
measures to improve the productivity of the capital invested in fertilizer. A continued effort is
required to collect data from farmers on fertilizer use per crop. Such information and that on
fertilizer costs, farm-gate produce prices and rural incomes indicate fertilizer profitability and
farmers’ ability to pay for fertilizers. The commercialization of agriculture requires improved
forecasting of fertilizer requirements. This includes assessing the feasibility of meeting future
demand through domestic production or imports. Enhancement of the ACFD’s institutional
capacity to provide such information services warrants consideration.
The articulation of support measures in plant nutrition management calls for the integration
of the capacity to mobilize resources with the development of technical, organizational and
financial innovations. In evaluating improved fertilizer use, it is also essential to assess the impact
of support measures, fiscal arrangements, and socially targeted incentives on crop productivity
and international competitiveness.
The own-price elasticity of demand for fertilizer is rather inelastic. However, the price
elasticity of the demand for fertilizers with respect to maize is highly elastic. The marginal rate of
return in maize production in the smallholder sector is higher than in the large-scale commercial
sector. This would suggest that commercial farmers’ fertilizer application rates are close to the
economic optimum, and that smallholders’application rates could rise significantly.
Currently, domestic production of fertilizers includes a wide range of NPK compounds and
straight fertilizers. The domestic production of nitrogenous fertilizer may become unfeasible as
energy costs increase. Given the size of the domestic market, meeting nitrogen fertilizer demand
will require considerable amounts of foreign exchange. The advantages of developing adequate
domestic manufacturing capacity lie in lower logistics costs and a reduced exposure to
international price fluctuations.
The future of agricultural development depends on smallholders' capacity to intensify
production. The implementation of market liberalization measures has been of particular
relevance for the smallholder sector, where public sector intervention had long been of major
significance. Price support measures to augment rural income are no longer feasible in the context
of market liberalization policies. In the medium term, fiscal constraints will exacerbate the
government’s inability to extend direct support to the farming community.
The MOA has adopted a strategy that aims at achieving the commercialization of
agricultural production systems in the smallholder sector. The process of production
commercialization requires smallholders to attain and maintain substantially higher levels of crop
productivity through the adoption of new technologies and management practices. The aim is to
double crop yields. For new technologies to be economically viable, balanced and efficient
fertilizer use is essential.
It is of paramount importance for farmers to dedicate more cash to the procurement of
essential agricultural inputs. The scope for expanded fertilizer use by smallholders is limited
unless farmers obtain substantially higher yields. There is ample scope for achieving such yields
in NRs II and III, where higher fertilizer nutrient use efficiencies can respond to fluctuating soil
moisture availability within the season.
The development of open markets, further expansion into export crops, and production
intensification will introduce more farmers into a cash economy. To be sustainable, this trend
requires the development of adequate rural financial services, including the collection of savings
and the allocation of loans adapted to farmers' needs. Alternative financial channels and schemes
should be promoted to service smallholders, including linkages between alternative intermediaries
and banks. To this end, the authorities could develop a legal framework.
There is a need to develop farm systems, which are more appropriate to the economic, social
and resource environment of smallholders. Research should examine options for maximizing
economic output and incomes in a sustainable fashion. It is important to develop a farm
management approach among smallholders. Financial documentation should be made extensive to
new farming practices and production patterns experimented in various programmes. This can
help farmers evaluate risks and develop a more entrepreneurial attitude towards production
intensification.
Investments in infrastructure, especially in soil moisture conservation and irrigation water
resources mobilization, port facilities in Beira and rural roads, are necessary. Such investments
will have a beneficial effect on farmers’ ability to adopt adequate plant nutrition management
practices through lower risks, lower input costs and higher output prices. Given smallholders'
needs and handling capacity, fertilizers should be more readily available in 25-kg bags.
The development of a market information system, with the participation of farmers' unions
and producers' associations, should help smallholders make better-informed decisions about crop
allocations, input purchases and commodity marketing.
Many research programmes are dependent on external funding. More participatory
programmes with the direct involvement of farmers' unions and producers' associations would
enhance sustainability.
The effective implementation of fertilizer regulations would encourage dealers to be more
quality conscious.
In summary, the challenge facing Zimbabwe is to extend broad-based growth to all groups
of society, especially in the farming sector. Among the key parameters for economic success are
an open economy, smallholder access to markets and inputs, and measures to increase land use
efficiency and productivity. Given its diversification and land potential, the prospects for
Zimbabwean agriculture are promising. However, increases in productivity will require a
favourable and stable environment if they are to be sustainable.
In particular, if smallholders are to meet the projected increased demand for agricultural
produce, they will need to intensify production. This means increasing fertilizer use. The more
profitable fertilizer use is, the more likely smallholders are to increase the amounts they use.
Their profit margins will depend on producer prices and input (fertilizer) costs. Crops which
enjoy a significant comparative advantage, which are competitive in both domestic and
international markets, and for which demand (and hence probably price) is trending upward
should offer smallholders their best chance of obtaining stable, high producer prices. At the same
time, the public and private sectors should work together to improve: input, technology and
market access; financing; infrastructure (particularly transport and storage); marketing, training,
research and extension services. Such improvements would facilitate smallholder fertilizer use
and enable the sector to play a full role in the developing market economy. Boosting smallholder
incomes would have a considerable, positive effect on the general economy.
48 Bibliography
Bibliography
A. Mushaka, L. Tapfumaneyi and J. Nyakabau (eds.) Soil Fertility Improvement through Agroforestry in
Zimbabwe. Proceedings of the Second National Agroforestry Seminar, held at Kadoma Hotel and
Conference Centre, Kadoma, Zimbabwe, 9-10 October 1997. Joint publication of the National
Agroforestry Steering Committee (NASCO) and Transactions of the Zimbabwe Scientific
Association (In press).
ACFD (African Centre for Fertilizer Development) / University of Zimbabwe; Survey on fertilizer
adoption and use; 1998.
Agricultural Marketing Authority (AMA). 1990. Cotton situation and outlook report 1989/90. Harare,
Zimbabwe.
Agritex. 1989 Series of maps with information on various climatic parameters prepared by the Early
Warning Unit for Food Security.
Anderson, I.P., P.J. Brinn, M. Moyo and B. Nyamwanza. 1993. Physical Resource Inventory of the
Communal Lands of Zimbabwe – An Overview. NRI Bulletin 60. Chatham, UK: Natural Resources
Institute.
Bernardi, M. & S.J. Madzudzo. 1990a. Crop Yield Estimates based on the Water Requirements
Satisfaction Index. Ministry of Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resetttlement, Agritex, National Early
Warning Unit for Food Security.
Bernardi, M. & S.J. Madzudzo. 1990b. Agro-Climatology Applied to Crop Production in Zimbabwe.
Ministry of Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement, Agritex, National Early Warning Unit.
Central Statistical Office (CSO); Statistical Yearbook 1995, 1996 and1997.
Central Statistical Office (CSO. 1997. Crop production on Large Scale Commercial farms. Harare,
Zimbabwe.
Central Statistical Office. 1995. Agricultural Production on Communal Land Irrigation Schemes Farms
1993.
Central Statistical Office. 1995. Crop Production on Large Scale Commercial Farms 1994.
Central Statistical Office. 1996. Agricultural Production on Communal Land Irrigation Schemes 1994.
Central Statistical Office. 1996. Agricultural Production on Resettlement Schemes 1994.
Central Statistical Office. 1996. Agricultural Production on Small Scale Commercial Farms 1994.
Central Statistical Office. 1996. Agriculture and Livestock Survey in Communal lands 1993/94.
Central Statistical Office. 1997. Agricultural Production on Communal Land Irrigation Schemes 1995.
Central Statistical Office. 1997. Agriculture and Livestock Survey in Communal lands 1994/95.
Central Statistical Office. 1998 (in prep.). Agriculture and Livestock Survey in Communal lands
1995/96.
50 Bibliography

Central Statistical Office. 1998. ARDA Estates 1993 – 1997.
Chavunduka, D. M.1978. African attitudes to conservation. Rhodesia Agricultural Journal 75 (3): 61-63.
Chenje, M., L. Sola and D. Paleczny (eds). 1998. The State of Zimbabwe’s Environment 1998. Ministry
of Mines, Environment and Tourism.
Chidzero, B. 1994. Macro-economic adjustment and trade liberalization. In Rukuni, M. and Eicher, C.K
(eds.) Zimbabwe's Agricultural Revolution. University of Zimbabwe Publications. Harare,
Zimbabwe. pp 277-288.
Chitsiko, R.J. 1995. Irrigation Development in Zimbabwe. Constraints and Opportunities. Paper.for
Conference “Water Development for Diversification within the Smallholder Farming Sector.”
CIMMYT / SOIL FERTILITY NETWORK; Soil Fertility Research for Maize-Based Farming Systems in
Malawi and Zimbabwe. June 1998.
Cole Desiree L. and S. Cole. 1994. Tobacco research and development. In Rukuni, M. and Eicher, C.K
(eds.) Zimbabwe's Agricultural Revolution. University of Zimbabwe Publications. Harare,
Zimbabwe. pp 277-288.
DANIDA / WORLD BANK / MINISTRY OF LANDS AND AGRICULTURE; Rural Finance Study -
Phase I : Status of Rural Finance in Zimbabwe. October 1998.
Department of Research and Specialist Services. 1979. Provisional Soil Map of Zimbabwe Rhodesia
1:1 000 000.
Department of the Surveyor-General. 1998a. Zimbabwe 1:1 000 000, Land Classification Map.
Department of the Surveyor-General. 1998b. Zimbabwe 1:1 000 000, Natural Regions and Provisional
Farming Areas Map.
FAO; Country Economic and Agricultural Sector Profile. Zimbabwe. January 1997.
FAO; Plant Nutrition for Sustainable Agricultural Development in Pakistan. Field document. 1998.
FAO; Plant Nutrition for Sustainable Agriculture - The Philippines. Technical report. 1996.
First Merchant Bank of Zimbabwe Ltd; Quarterly Guide of the Economy. October 1998.
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung / Zimbabwe Farmers Union; The Impact of ESAP on Comunal Areas of
Zimbabwe. June 1997.
Government of Zimbabwe - Ministry of Agriculture; Agricultural Policy Framework 1995-2000.
Government of Zimbabwe; A Framework for Economic Reform - 1991/1995.
Government of Zimbabwe; Budget Estimates for the year ending December 31, 1999. October 1998.
Government of Zimbabwe; Budget Statement 1999 presented to the Parliament of Zimbabwe on October
15, 1998 by the Minister of Finance.
Government of Zimbabwe; Zimbabwe Programme for Economic and Social Transformation 1996/2000
[ZIMPREST].
Grant, P.M. 1981. The fertilization of sandy soils in peasant agriculture. Zimbabwe Agricultural Journal,
Vol. 78 (5), pp 169-175.
Grant, P. M. 1970. Restoration of productivity of depleted sands. Rhodesia Agricultural Journal 67: 131-
137.
Hikwa, D. and S.R. Waddington. (1998). Annual legumes for improving soil fertility in the smallholder
maize-based farming systems of Zimbabwe. In Hikwa, D., B. Maasdorp.
Hikwa, D., C. Chibudu, L. Mugwira, L. Mukurumbira, S. Mabasa, D. Dhliwayo and. T. Sithole. 1997.
Soil fertility management options for maize-based cropping systems in the smallholder farming
sector areas of Zimbabwe. In Mphepo, M., S.R. Waddington, and H.S.K. Phombeya, (eds.)
Dissemination of Soil Fertility technologies. Proceedings of a workshop held at Mangochi, Malawi,
15-17 July 1996. A Soil Fert Net/Bunda College, University of Malawi Publication.
Harare,CIMMYT-Zimbabwe.pp 13-24.
Ministry of Lands and Agriculture (MoLA). 1998. The agricultural sector of Zimbabwe. Statistical
Bulletin, March 1998. Policy and Planning Division of MoLA, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Ministry of Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement. 1986. Conceptual Framework for the Communal
Lands Development Plan.
Mudhara, M., P. Anandajayasekeram, B. Kupfuma and E. Mazhangara. 1995. Impact assessment of
cotton research and the enabling environment in Zimbabwe, 1970-1995. SADC/SACCAR
(Southern AfricanDevelopment community/Southern African Centre for Cooperation in
Agricultural Research).
Owen, R. et al (ed). 1995. Dambo Farming in Zimbabwe: Water Management, Cropping and Soil
Potentials for Smallholder Farming in the Wetlands. Conference Proceedings. University of
Zimbabwe Publications, Harare.
Rukuni, M. 1991. An overview of smallholder irrigation in Zimbabwe. In Ruigu G. and M. Rukuni
(eds.) Irrigation Policy in Kenya and Zimbabwe. University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya.
Rukuni, M. and J. Makadho, 1994. Irrigation development. In Rukuni, M. and C.K Eicher (eds)
Zimbabwe's Agricultural Revolution. University of Zimbabwe Publications, Harare Zimbabwe. pp
277-288.
SADC - Southern African Development Community: The Micro-economic Impact of Drought; The
Macro-economic Impact of Drought; Draft Country Paper on Zimbabwe. High-Level Regional
Drought Policy Seminar. Gaborone, Botswana. November 1997.
Sanchez, P.A., K.D. Shepherd, M.J. Soule, F.M. Place, R.J. Buresh, A.N. Izac, A.U. Mokwunye, F.R.
Kwesiga, C.G. Ndiritu and P.L. Woomer. 1997. Soil fertility replenishment in Africa: An
investment in natural resource capital. In Buresh R.L., P.A. Sanchez and F. Calhoun (eds.)
Replenishing Soil Fertility in Africa. Soil Science Society of America Special Publication # 51,
American Society of Agronomy. Madison, Wisconsin, USA. pp. 1-46.
Saunder, D.H. and H.R. Metelerkamp. 1962. Use of anion exchange resin for determination of available
soil phosphorus. International Society of Soil Science, New Zealand. pp. 2-4.
Smaling, E.M.A., S.M. Nandwa and B.H. Jansen. 993. Soil fertility in Africa is at stake. In Buresh
R.L., P.A. Sanchez and F. Calhoun (eds.) Replenishing Soil Fertility in Africa. Soil Science Society
of America Special Publication # 51, American Society of Agronomy. Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
pp. 47-61.
Standard Chartered Bank Zimbabwe Ltd; Business Trends Zimbabwe. November 1998.
Thompson, J.G. and W.D. Purves. 1978. A Guide to the Soils of Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe Agricultural
Journal. Technical Handbook No. 3. CSRI, DRSS.
University of Zimbabwe / Free University Amsterdam. Determinants of Rural Household Incomes and
their Impact on Poverty and Food Security in Zimbabwe; Workshop on Rural Household Dynamics;
Harare; Bill H. Kinsey; June 1998.
Vincent, V. and R.G. Thomas.1961. An agricultural survey of Southern Rhodesia. Part 1 – Agro-
ecological survey. Government Printers, Salisbury.
52 Bibliography
Vowles, M. (ed). 1989. Conservation Tillage. A Handbook for Commercial Farmers in Zimbabwe.
Commercial Grain Producers Association. Laser Print, Harare.
Whingwiri, E.E. et al (ed). 1992a. Small-Scale Agriculture in Zimbabwe. Book 1: Farming Systems,
Policy and Infrastructural Development. Rockwood Publishers, Harare.
Whingwiri, E.E. et al (ed). 1992b. Small-Scale Agriculture in Zimbabwe. Book 2: Field Crop Production.
Rockwood Publishers, Harare.
World Bank / Ministry af Lands, Agriculture and Water Development; Towards Sustainable Smallholder
Agriculture. Vincent A. Ashworth. October 1993.
World Bank; Agriculture Sector Memorandum. Volume II: Main report. Volume III: Annexes. May
1991.
World Bank; Zimbabwe - Achieving Shared Growth; Country Economic Memorandum. April 1995.
World Vision International. Promoting Food Security through Savings and Asset Creation. November
1995.
Zimbabwe Fertilizer Company (ZFC). 1995. Fertilizer Price List (showing N, P2O5 and K2O
composition in various Zimbabwean fertilizers).
Zimbabwe Sugar Association (ZSA). 1999. Types of fertilizers used in sugarcane production and their
yearly fertilizer consumption.
ZTA (Zimbabwe Tobacco Association) / FDT (Farmers' Development Trust). Background documents.
Annex 1
Fertilizer adoption and use survey:
Zimbabwe
SUMMARY
This annex concerns fertilizer use in Zimbabwe and presents the finding of a recently conducted
nation-wide survey into small-scale farming and fertilizer adoption and use.
Survey teams travelled around the country to interview a sample number of small-scale farmers
in order to obtain information concerning their knowledge of fertilizer benefits, the reasons
underlying their fertilizer allocation decisions, the factors they consider when deciding on
fertilizer purchases, and the role of prices in determining fertilizer demand. In addition, the survey
sought to develop a dialogue with farmers on the fertilizer market. The data were then processed,
tabulated and analysed by experts in Zimbabwe.
From the survey it emerges that 69 percent of small-scale farmers use fertilizers, most of whom
(76 percent) first learned about the benefits of doing so from Agritex. The number of farmers
using fertilizers has grown considerably since independence. Overall, though three-quarters of the
farmers interviewed knew about the general benefits of fertilizer use, their knowledge about how
and when to apply fertilizer, which fertilizer provides which specific benefits, and what sort of
incremental value fertilizer use brings was not always correct and was sometimes mistaken.
In 1996-97 80.7 percent of the farmers interviewed had applied fertilizer to maize. This was
easily the top ranked crop in terms of fertilizer application with cotton second (13.6 percent). The
two types of fertilizer applied to maize by the farmers were Compound D (by 49.9 percent) and
ammonium nitrate (by 50.1 percent).
More than half of the farmers (56.5 percent) failed to obtain the desired results from using
fertilizers. In their view, these unsatisfactory results were due either to too much rain or to too
little rain. Nonetheless, the overall trend in fertilizer consumption is upward.
The farmers indicated their cash position as the most important factor affecting the quantity of
fertilizer they apply, with 47.7 percent of them selling grain in order to obtain cash to be able to
do so. Cash shortages and lack of credit were given as the major reasons for failing to apply the
recommended quantities of fertilizer.
Of the various factors included in the survey as possible determinants of fertilizer adoption, those
that the data showed significant were: age, sex and education, size of landholding, and access to
an all-weather road. For fertilizer purchases, the significant factors were: age, sex, education,
product knowledge, previous use, knowledge of incremental value, credit availability, price
information, distance from a sale point, fertilizer availability, and grain sales.
The probit estimation looked at critical levels of fertilizer application. The following variables
were significant for fertilizer adoption: natural region, grain sales, education and age. For
fertilizer demand the significant factors were product knowledge, previous use, credit availability,
grain sales, fertilizer supplies and availability of extension services.
Some 63 percent of the farmers interviewed expected to increase their use of fertilizers. In their
view, the four main factors for encouraging increased fertilizer use which influence their decision
to buy fertilizers are price stability, government subsidies, and grain-fertilizer price parity and
credit availability.
54 Fertilizer adoption and use survey: Zimbabwe
SURVEY OBJECTIVES
Objectives of the fertilizer adoption and market survey

The overall objective of the survey was to collect data and develop information for use by the
Government of Zimbabwe, FAO, the African Centre for Fertilizer Development (ACFD) and
other development agencies on actual and potential demand for fertilizer and current farming
practices among smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe. Information developed by the survey will be
used to develop and refine strategies for further liberalizing the fertilizer marketing and
distribution system in support of improved availability, increased aggregate demand and effective
use of fertilizers.
The specific objectives of the survey were:
• to measure the extent and depth of farmers’knowledge of the usefulness of fertilizers;

• to develop a procedure for identifying the reasoning behind farmers’ allocation of fertilizers to
different crops in different years in different areas of the country;
• to develop a preliminary understanding and ranking of the factors which farmers take into
consideration when deciding to purchase fertilizers;
• to develop an empirically based understanding of the role of pricing in fertilizer demand;
• to open a dialogue with farmers on the structure and functioning of the fertilizer market.
Outline of the area covered

Zimbabwe is an important agricultural country located in southern Africa. The country has a
total area of 38 945 750 ha under cultivation. On the basis of rainfall, soil type and climatic
factors, Zimbabwe has been divided into five natural regions (NRs). The NRs have distinct
features relating to: rainfall (amount and distribution), population of small-scale farmers,
agricultural production, level of agricultural development, and pattern of fertilizer use. In view of
the fact that the regions were created, primarily, to plan and monitor the growth of agriculture
and research and that the development of agriculture is planned on the basis of these NRs, it was
decided to consider each of the five NRs as a survey zone.
Analysis of the determinant factors

The determinants of total fertilizer demand were grouped into the following three categories and
analysed to evaluate their impact:
• determinants of fertilizer adoption;
• determinants of fertilizer purchase;
• determinants of disruption in fertilizer use.
Although the various factors affecting total fertilizer demand may well be interrelated, each
factor can play a significant role in the decision-making process. Therefore, efforts were made to
identify the factors, which have a greater influence on small-scale farmers in the adoption and
interruption of fertilizer use and the level of fertilizer purchases.
Defining the variables

As a farmer’s decision to adopt and use fertilizer is determined by several variables, a number of
factors were included in the interview questionnaire. The responses received from the respondents
were analysed and grouped into the following six categories:
• personal attributes;
• product knowledge and awareness;
• resource endowment;
• logistics and supply factors;
• fertilizer and grain prices;
• credit availability.
Survey results
The survey results are presented in the form of largely self-explanatory tables with brief
comments as necessary to highlight particular aspects.
DETAILS OF THE SURVEY APPROACH

Information required
The specific objectives of the survey necessitated the gathering of specific related information.
The information required for each objective is given below.
Objective: To measure the extent and depth of farmers’knowledge of the usefulness of fertilizers.
Information required: How many farmers know what fertilizers do (or can do) for them in terms
of increased yield? How general or specific is this knowledge? Which farmers know the yield
difference (measured in kilograms per hectare) that can, in general, be attributed to the use of a
certain amount of nitrogenous, phosphate or potash fertilizer (specific type(s) used) on specific
crops (maize, wheat, sorghum and pulses)?
Objective: To develop a procedure for identifying the reasoning behind farmers’ allocation of
fertilizers to different crops in different years in different areas of the country.
Information required: What level of fertilizers did farmers use on the various crops specified
above in the last three years and what yields were obtained? What levels of fertilizers are farmers
planning to use in 1997/98 and why? On what calculations/deliberations is this level based?
Objective: To develop a preliminary understanding and ranking of the factors which farmers take
into consideration when deciding to purchase fertilizers.
Information required: What factors are involved in farmers’ decisions (a) to use different
amounts of fertilizers each year or (b) to use fertilizers at all in each of these years? These factors
could be availability of supply at the right time, in the right quantity and quality; cost of
fertilizers; understanding of cost-benefit ratio; credit availability; level of rainfall or irrigation
water; knowledge of probable local market crop; degree to which crops are marketed; level of
access to markets; and soil types being cultivated.
Objective: To develop an empirically based understanding of the role of pricing in fertilizer

demand.
Information required: How important is the price of fertilizers in the decision to use/not to use,
or use moderate amounts on the crops cultivated compared to other factors (e.g. access,
availability or lack of money, perception of credit risk, etc.)?
Objective: To open a dialogue with farmers on the structure and functioning of the fertilizer
market.
Information required: What are farmers’ views on the fertilizer supply and distribution system?
Do farmers think that having private as well as public fertilizer retailers and wholesalers is a
good idea? Is it important for the government to continue to set prices? What do farmers think
should be done to improve the system?
Survey design
For the purposes of the survey, Zimbabwe was divided into five survey zones corresponding to
the five natural regions (NRs) of the country.
Survey zone 1 (NR I)

NR I has a total area of 680 560 ha (2 percent of the total area of the country) and a population
of 58 755 small-scale farmers with 160 000 ha under cultivation. It has an average rainfall of
900-1 700 mm per year and is known as the specialized and diversified farming area of the
country. Maize, sorghum, finger millet, cotton, groundnuts and sunflower are the main crops
grown by the small-scale farmers in this region. For interview purposes, the villages/farming
settlements were selected randomly and in consultation with Agritex staff from the districts of
Chimanimani, Chipinge, Marange, Mutasa, Nyanga and Mutare. A total of 85 samples were
planned for this survey zone.
Survey zone 2 (NR II)

NR II has a cultivated area of 5 861 043 ha (15 percent of the total area of Zimbabwe) and
213 000 cropping farmers. It has an annual rainfall of 750-1 000 mm and is known as the
intensive farming area of the country. Livestock farming is also conducted on an intensive basis
in this area. The major crops grown by the small-scale farmers are maize, finger millet, cotton,
groundnuts, sunflower, sorghum and pearl millet. The villages/farming settlements from the
districts of Chegutu, Chimanimani, Goromonzi, Hurungwe, Hwedza, Kadoma, Magunje,
Marange, Marondera, Murehwa, Mutasa, Nyanga and Mutare were selected for sampling on a
random basis. A total of 600 samples were planned for this survey zone.
Survey zone 3 (NR III)

NR III has a total area of 7 292 367 ha (19 percent of the total area of the country). It receives an
annual rainfall of 650-750 mm. A total number of 252 269 small-scale cropping farmers are
settled in this region. NR III is known as the semi-intensive farming zone of the country. Maize,
the small-scale farmers grow tobacco, cotton, groundnuts, pearl millet, sunflower and rapoko.
The sampling locations were randomly selected from the districts of Chikomba, Gokwe South,
Guruve, Gweru, Hurungwe, Hwedza, Kadoma, Magunje, Masvingo, Muzarabani, Murehwa,
Mutoko, Nyanga, Zaka, Zvishavane and Gokwe North. A total of 780 samples were planned for
this zone.
Survey zone 4 (NR IV)

NR IV has a total area of 15 515 887 ha (40 percent of the total area of Zimbabwe). The region
receives an annual rainfall of 450-650 mm. It is known as the semi-extensive farming area of the
country. There are 442 505 small-scale cropping farmers with a total cropped area of 844 256
ha. Maize, pearl millet, finger millet, groundnuts and sunflower are cultivated in this zone.
Farming settlements from the districts of Chipinge, Chivi, Esigodini, Gokwe south, Guruve,
Gutu, Gwanda, Gweru, Hurungwe, Kadoma, Kariba, Masvingo, Muzarabani, Mutoko,

Zvishavane and Gokwe North were selected for interview purposes. A total of 860 samples were
planned from this survey zone.
Survey zone 5 (NR V)

NR V has a cultivated area of 9 590 743 ha (24 percent of the total area of the country). It is
known as the extensive farming area of the country. There are 165 869 cropping farmers in this
zone. It receives less than 200 mm of rainfall per year and is primarily a dryland farming area of
Zimbabwe. The main crops grown are maize, sorghum, pearl millet and groundnuts. The
sampling locations were selected from the districts of Buhera, Chipinge, Chimanimani, Chivi,
Guruve, Gutu, Gwanda, Kariba, Mutoko, Nyanga and Mutare. A total of 700 samples were
planned for this zone.
Note: Several districts are included in more than one NR and therefore appear to be repeated in
the survey zones.
Sample size
It was planed to interview a total of 3 025 individual farmers from all five NRs of the country.
Table 1 presents the breakdown by NR of the population of small-scale cropping farmers and the
planned number of samples for each survey zone.
TABLE 1
Breakdown of planned samples
Natural region Total no. of small-scale No. of samples planned % of total population
farmers
I 58 755 85 0.15
II 213 000 600 0.20
III 252 269 780 0.35
IV 442 505 860 0.20
V 165 869 700 0.43
TOTAL 1 132 398 3 025 0.26
In selecting the number of farmers from each survey zone to interview, the following
factors were taken into consideration:
• population of small-scale farmers;

• cropping pattern;
• fertilizer consumption pattern in the region;
• accessibility and mode of transportation, etc.
Each NR was subdivided into survey circles. Due to time constraints, the approaching rainy
season and rural transport problems, the actual number of samples had to be limited. However,
efforts were made to make the survey as representative as possible.
Selection and training of survey staff

To carry out the survey, a team of 15 enumerators and 3 survey supervisors was recruited
through the Institute of Development Studies, University of Zimbabwe. Efforts were made to
engage people with relevant knowledge of the natural regions and sufficient experience in similar
work. The survey team consisted of 15 men and 3 women.
A comprehensive five-day training workshop was organized to update the survey staff’s
knowledge on fertilizer marketing and enhance their data collection skills. Experts in the relevant
fields were invited from the University of Zimbabwe and ACFD to discuss various subjects with
the survey team. The training curriculum included the following subjects:
• product knowledge, use merits and methods of use of fertilizers;

• fertilizer marketing scenario in Zimbabwe;
• introduction to the five natural regions of Zimbabwe;
• sampling techniques;
• communication methods.
Development and pre-testing of the questionnaire

The training workshop devoted considerable time to the development of the questionnaire. A
questionnaire provided by FAO was revised and modified to suit local conditions and
requirements. The purpose of each question was discussed in order to give the survey staff a
thorough understanding of all the questions. Two separate questionnaires were developed:
• a questionnaire for individual farmer interviews;.

• a questionnaire for interviews of group of farmers, agro-dealers, Agritex representatives and
officials of the MOA and fertilizer industry.
At the end of the training session, the questionnaires were pre-tested by the survey team in
two nearby villages. The data collected were evaluated and the questionnaire was modified where
necessary. The problems encountered by the survey team were suitably addressed. The
questionnaires were then printed and copies provided to each member of the survey team.
Logistics planning
To ensure the efficient movement of the survey team, a logistics plan was formulated through a
proper understanding of the topography of the survey area. To minimize travelling time, three
vehicles were provided to the survey staff. The areas to be visited were earmarked and the survey
staff was grouped into three teams, each headed by a survey supervisor. Each team was provided
with a brief outline of the sampling area to be surveyed. This plan also facilitated the survey
management team in its visits to the enumerators to inspect the work and offer on-the-spot advice
for the efficient execution of the survey work.
Although the enumerators could communicate in English in most sampling areas, the help
of some local Agritex staff was needed in NR V in order to communicate effectively with the
farmers.
Method of data collection

Individual interviews
The enumerators visited the individual farmers at their homes/farms for face-to-face interviews.
The survey teams were able to complete 2 969 questionnaires of the 3 025 planned (Table 2).
TABLE 2
Planned and actual samples
NR No. of samples planned Actual samples Variation
I 85 76 -9
II 600 586 -14
III 780 766 -14
IV 860 847 -13
V 700 694 -6
TOTAL 3 025 2 969 -56
Group interviews
The survey supervisors and staff of the management team conducted fifty-five group interviews.
Each group included 15-20 farmers, agro-dealers, and extension workers.
Non-structured interviews
The team leader and technical adviser had discussions with the farmers, Agritex staff, agro-
dealers, and sales staff of the agri-input industry in order to obtain firsthand information and to
check the flow of information being gathered by the field staff. Efforts were made to develop an
up-to-date picture of the fertilizer adoption and marketing situation in the country from
information provided by the senior officers involved in policy making, and of the production,
marketing and promotion of fertilizers in the country.
Data analysis method

Experts of the University of Zimbabwe processed; tabulated and analysed the data collected using
the SPSS statistical methods. Experts of the ACFD shaped the data analysis document prepared
by the University of Zimbabwe into a survey report.
Variables and related hypotheses

The following six categories were included in the survey.
(i) Personal attributes

Personal attributes such as age, sex, education and family size are expected to have an impact on
the level of adoption and intensity of fertilizer use by small-scale farmers. These factors are
defined in terms of:
Age: Age is defined as the age of the head of the farming family. The hypothesis is that younger
farmers are less risk averse than older farmers are. Age, therefore, was expected to have a
negative coefficient, as older farmers should be less willing to adopt fertilizer use or apply higher
doses of fertilizers as compared to young farmers.
Sex: Sex refers to the head of the farming family being a male or a female. As families headed by
women are generally poorer and more frequently have a subsistence level of farming, they are
expected to have less capacity to adopt fertilizer use and to apply less fertilizer than farming
families headed by a male member. This factor, therefore, was expected to have a negative
coefficient.
Education: Education refers to the literacy level of the head of the farming family. Being more
exposed to information and written literature, literate farmers are expected to be more positively
disposed to the adoption of fertilizer and its optimum use as compared to illiterate farmers. This
factor was expected to be a positive coefficient.
(ii) Product knowledge and awareness

Farmers’ knowledge of the fertilizer products, their use benefits, incremental value and farmers’
general awareness about agri-inputs and their contacts with Agritex staff are expected to have a
positive impact on the decision to adopt and apply the optimum doses of fertilizers. The following
factors were taken into consideration:
Personal experience: Personal experience refers to the farmer’s own experience of fertilizer use
and the number of years a farmer has been using fertilizers. This factor is expected to have a
positive correlation in the level of adoption and intensity of fertilizer consumption.
Product knowledge: This refers to the farmers’ knowledge about the use benefits of the specific
fertilizer products. It is assumed that the better the knowledge of fertilizer products, the better is
the farmer’s selection of economical products, and this, therefore, results in a higher level of
adoption and intensity of fertilizer consumption.
Incremental value of fertilizer use: This relates to the farmers’ knowledge of the additional
quantity of crop obtained through investments in fertilizers. Correct knowledge about fertilizer
incremental value is expected to have a positive influence on farmers’ decisions on the quantity of
fertilizer to be applied.
Fertilizer and grain prices: This variable relates to farmers who sell grain and correlate the grain
and fertilizer sale prices when making decisions on fertilizer purchases. This variable is expected
to have a positive impact on a farmer’s decision to buy fertilizer and is, therefore, a positive
coefficient.
Knowledge about fertilizer recommendations: This refers to the farmers’ knowledge about the
correct quantity and timing of fertilizer applications as recommended by Agritex. The optimum
quantity of fertilizers applied at the proper time results in higher yields and is, therefore, a
positive coefficient.
Improved seeds and fertilizer use: This refers to the use of improved seeds and the application of
fertilizers as a package. As improved (hybrid) seeds require higher doses of fertilizer, their
combination in proper quantity results in increased yields and, therefore, has a positive
correlation.
Extension services: This variable relates to the farmers’ contacts with extension staff. The more
contact farmers have with extension staff, the more likely they are to adopt the scientific package
of farm practices, the result being higher crop yields. Therefore, this variable is expected to have
a positive correlation.
(iii) Resource endowments

The agricultural resources of farmers are expected to have a direct bearing on their decisions on
the adoption and use of fertilizers and other inputs. The following factors were included in this
category:
Farm size: This refers to the area of the landholding. The hypothesis states that the larger the
farm, the lower is the average use level of fertilizers. This factor, therefore, is expected to be a
negative coefficient.
Family size: Family size refers to the number of dependent members aged less than 10 years and
above 65 years. It is expected that the larger the family, the more a farmer is compelled to grow
crops for home consumption, i.e. subsistence farming, and therefore the less likely is the adoption
of fertilizers. This factor is expected to be a negative coefficient.
(iv) Logistics and supply factors

The factors relating to farm location, such as the presence of an all-weather road, distance from
the sale point, mode of transport available, and the availability of the right types of fertilizers in
the area are expected to influence greatly farmers’ decisions on the adoption of fertilizers and the
determination of the quantity to be applied. The following factors relating to the logistics of
fertilizer supply were included in this category:
Access to all-weather road: The location of the farm villages on a good road that facilitates the
transportation of fertilizers and crop produce is a variable, which was expected to have a positive
correlation.
Distance from sale point: This refers to the distance a farmer is required to travel to the nearest
sale point to buy fertilizers and to sell the crop produce. Distance is expected to have a negative
influence on the purchase of inputs.
Supply position: This variable refers to the availability of desired fertilizer types at the sale
points at the time of purchase. The availability of the right type of fertilizer (and other inputs) at
the right place were expected to have a positive impact on the adoption and use of fertilizers.
(v) Fertilizer and grain prices

The sale price of fertilizers and other inputs as well as grain prices (crop produce) are factors
which can have a great bearing on farmers’ decisions concerning both the level of adoption and
the intensity of fertilizer use. The information about fertilizer prices and farmers’ own
perceptions of the prices of fertilizer and grains are some of the variables included in this
category.
(vi) Credit availability

The availability of credit for the purchase of fertilizers, farmers’ perceptions about their capacity
to repay the loan from increased crop production, and whether the farmer thinks it proper to buy
fertilizers on credit, are some of the variables included in this category.
Quality control
The following measures were taken to ensure the good quality of the data:
• The questionnaire was properly designed, reviewed, discussed and pre-tested.

• The selection of the survey team was done through the experienced staff of the University of
Zimbabwe.
• A comprehensive training programme was designed and executed with the help of experts of
the ACFD and the University of Zimbabwe.
• A logistics and movement plan was prepared, followed up, supervised and checked by the
senior members of the management team.
• The survey findings were reviewed, cleaned and edited.
• Experts of the University of Zimbabwe and the ACFD processed the data.
Problems encountered
Although no serious problems were encountered in conducting the survey, certain difficulties
were experienced which resulted in the delay of the preparation of the survey report. Some of the
problems faced were:
• The period of data collection (November-December 1997) coincided with the rainy season
and therefore restricted the movements of the survey staff.
• In Matebeleland, language was a constraint on communication with the farmers.
• During the field survey, one enumerator fell ill and another left the team, so affecting the
progress of the data collection.
• The data analysis was unexpectedly delayed because of the closure of the University of
Zimbabwe in June 1998.
STATUS OF ADOPTION OF FERTILIZERS AND OTHER INPUTS
Adoption of fertilizer by small-scale TABLE 3

farmers in Zimbabwe Status of fertilizer adoption by small-scale farmers
Particulars No. % of total
Individual farmers Farmers using fertilizers 2102 69
Farmers who never used 867 31
Table 3 presents the responses of 2 969 fertilizers
individual small-scale farmers concerning the TOTAL 2969 100
use of inorganic fertilizers as an agricultural
input.
Table 4 ranks the sources of learning TABLE 4
about the use benefits of fertilizers. Source of first time learning about fertilizer use
Ranking Source No. %
Table 5 presents the information 1 Agritex 1643 76
provided by the 2 102 small-scale farmers 2 Family members 250 12
using fertilizers about when they started using 3 Neighbours farmers 143 7
4 Commercial farmers 50 2
fertilizers.
5 Agro dealers 25 1
6 Coop societies 20 1
Farmer groups 7 Others (fertilizer sale 16 1
staff etc)
Table 6 presents information provided by the 8 Development projects 20 1
55 farmer groups contacted by the survey 9 Research centres 5 0
teams on the length of fertilizer use in TOTAL 2102 100
communal areas.
Fertilizer industry data confirmed that TABLE 5

Length of fertilizer adoption (individual farmers)
only about 25 000 t of fertilizers, i.e.
Particulars No. of farmers % of total
6.25 percent of the total, were sold to 1970-1980 336 16
communal farmers in the pre-independence 1980-1990 841 40
period. It was further reported that only a 1990-1997 925 44
few farmers in the communal areas used TOTAL 2102 100
fertilizers in the pre-independence period. It
is evident that fertilizer adoption in TABLE 6
Zimbabwe has increased considerably since Estimated length of fertilizer use - (farmer groups)
independence and indeed approximately half Period % of farmers growth rate
of the communal farmers using fertilizers adopting fertilizer (average)
use
adopted their use in the first decade after
1970-1980 18-20% -
independence. A growth rate of 233 percent 1980-1990 42-45% 233%
was witnessed in the number of fertilizer 1990-1997 40-42% 95%
user farmers in this period.
TABLE 7
Adoption of improved seeds and crop Crops using improved/hybrid seeds
Crop Number of farmers % of total
chemicals
Maize 2848 96%
Improved (hybrid) seeds Cotton 599 20%
Sunflower 234 8%
Table 7 presents information provided by 2 969 Groundnuts 198 7%
Vegetables 134 5%
farmers on the adoption of improved/ hybrid Pearl millet 101 3%
seeds in the communal areas. Paprika 50 2%
Agro-chemicals TABLE 8
Knowledge about agro-chemicals
Table 8 tabulates respondents’knowledge of the Farmer type No. %
benefits of agro-chemicals (insecticides/ 1 Farmers knowing the use 1312 44
fungicides/herbicides). advantages of agro-chemicals
2 Farmers not knowing the use 1657 56
advantages of agro-chemicals
Farmers’choice of fertilizer products
Total 2969 100
Table 9 presents the farmers responses
TABLE 9
concerning their preferences for the fertilizer Choice of fertilizer products
products available. Particulars No. % of total
DAP 0 0
Indicators used by farmers to identify Compound D/L/C 1200 37
fertilizer products SSP/TSP 22 1
Ammonium Nitrate (A.N.) 1773 55
Table 10 presents the characteristics small- Urea 17 1
scale farmers stated that they use as indicators All fertilizers 88 3
to identify the fertilizer products. No difference what is used 94 3
Farmers’ knowledge of use benefits of

TABLE 10
fertilizer products
Indicators to identify fertilizer products
Table 11 presents the extent of farmers’ Fertilizer No. of % of total
knowledge on the use benefits of fertilizers, in characteristics farmers
general, and that of different fertilizer Color 838 33
Label 1536 61
products in particular.
Physical appearance 163 6
Others 0 0
TABLE 11
Farmers’knowledge of use benefits of fertilizer products
Particulars No. of % of total
farmers
Farmers knowing the use benefits of fertilizers in general 2 226 75.0
Farmers claiming to know the use benefits of specific fertilizers products:
DAP 2 0.1
Urea 64 3.1
Compounds C/D/L 2 011 97.4
AN 2 038 98.6
SSP/TSP 55 2.6
MOP 5 0.2
Farmers indicating that basal fertilizers (Compound D) benefit the crops by:
• boosting vegetative growth 2 068 93.0
• increasing the number of tillers 17 5.2
• assisting crop maturity 41 1.8
Farmers indicating that top dressing fertilizers (AN) benefit the crops by:
• boosting vegetative growth 120 5.4
• increasing the number of tillers 1 952 87.7
• assisting crop maturity 154 6.9
Though 75 percent of the farmers claimed to know the use benefits of inorganic fertilizers,
25 percent of small-scale farmers could not say how fertilizers benefit the crops and what the specific
advantages of using fertilizers in crop cultivation are.
Regarding product knowledge and the merits of using a specific type of fertilizer, the vast majority
of farmers stated that they knew the use advantages of Compound D and ammonium nitrate fertilizers
(marketed in Zimbabwe). A similar majority had no knowledge of fertilizer products such as DAP,
urea and MOP, even though these products are very popular in the world market and are being used in
the neighbouring countries of Malawi and
Zambia. TABLE 12
Time of fertilizer application
Particulars No. of % of
Method and timing of fertilizer farmers total
application Basal fertilizers (Compound D)
Timing of fertilizer application
Before sowing 320 16
Table 12 tabulates the responses of small- At the time of sowing 1108 58
scale farmers concerning the timing of After germination 440 27
fertilizer applications and the crop growth Before rains/irrigation 4 1
After rains/irrigation 120 6
stage when they applied fertilizers. Anytime 11 6
On the common timing of application
Top dressing fertilizers (A/N)
of top dressing fertilizers (AN), 78 percent
of respondent farmers stated that they Before sowing 0 0
apply AN at the tasselling stage (for maize, Mix with seed 21 1
the tasselling stage occurs 70-80 days after After germination 851 4
germination). Farmers were of the view Before rains/irrigation 21 1
that this is the time when the plant needs After rains/irrigation 286 14
At tasselling stage 1625 78
more energy and therefore more nutrition is Anytime 64 4
needed.
Methods of fertilizer application TABLE 13

Method of fertilizer application
Table 13 presents the information provided
Particulars No. of %
by small-scale farmers on the common farmers
methods of fertilizer application. Basal fertilizer (Compound D)
The mixing of fertilizers and seeds, at
Incorporate in soil before sowing 341 17
the time of planting, was the most common Mix with seed at sowing 927 45
method and timing of basal fertilizer Broadcast before sowing 100 5
application in the small-scale farming Broadcast after sowing 16 1
areas. Most of the maize crop in Side dressing 525 25
Zimbabwe is planted after the onset of the Any other method 193 9
rains. Therefore, the application of Total
fertilizers is per force linked to the rainfall 2 102 100
period. Top dressing fertilizers (AN)
Farmers’ knowledge about incre- Broadcast by hand 71 3

mental value of fertilizer use Side dressing in rows 758 37
Around the plants by hand 1 203 58
The farmers were asked to indicate if they Mechanical broadcaster 6 0
could calculate the incremental value of Any other method 64 4
fertilizer use. Table 14 presents the Total 2 102 100
responses given by 2 969 individual
TABLE 14
farmers and 55 farmer groups about this Perceived incremental value of fertilizer use
question. Particulars No. of % of
farmers total
The majority (68.3 percent) of small-
1. Farmers claiming to know 941 31.7
scale farmers said that they did not about the incremental value of
understand the real incremental value of fertilizer use.
fertilizer use and therefore failed to 2. Farmers saying they do not 2 028 68.3
calculate the absolute benefits of fertilizer know about the incremental
application. The 31.7 percent of small- value of fertilizer use
scale farmers who claimed to know the 3. Estimated incremental value
(as mentioned by farmers):
incremental value, expressed different
500% 396 42
views on the additional yields they obtain 450% 40 4
from fertilizer use, with 42 percent of them 400% 11 2
believing that fertilizer use can increase 350% 67 7
crop yields by 500 percent, i.e. 1 kg of 300% 30 3
fertilizer material can give an extra yield of 250% 98 11
200% 72 8
5 kg.
150% 108 11
100% 119 13
Views of farmer groups on incremental
value
Table 15 presents the responses of the 55 farmer groups when asked to give the yield estimate per
hectare of maize with the use of inorganic fertilizers.
The views expressed by the farmer groups were similar to those of the individual farmers. Fifty-
four percent of farmer groups considered the maize yield to be 250-750 kg/ha without the use of
fertilizers. With the use of fertilizers, 23.7 percent of farmer groups felt that the maize yield could be
increased to 4 000 kg/ha and above. This represents an incremental ratio of approximately 1:5 to 1:6.
An almost equal percentage (23.6 percent) of farmer groups felt that crop yields could be increased by
up to 1.7 t to above 3.0 t, representing an incremental value of 1:6.8 to 1:12.0. Some 14.5 percent of
farmer groups did not know about the incremental TABLE 15

value of fertilizers and failed to calculate the economics Estimated crop yields using fertilizers
of fertilizer use. (farmers groups)
Yield kg/ha No. of %
Approximately half of the individual farmers, as groups
well as the farmer groups, considered the incremental < 1 000 6 10.9
value as being less than 1:3. The data further reveal 1 001-1 250 - -
1 251-1 500 4 7.3
that only 45-50 percent of small-scale farmers thought
1 501-1 750 1 1.8
that they could achieve an incremental ratio of 1:5. 1 751-2 000 9 16.4
2 001- 2500 1 1.8
2 501-2 750 6 10.9
EXISTING LEVEL OF FERTILIZER APPLICATION 2 751-3 000 5 9.1
3 001-3500 2 3.6
3 501-4 000 2 3.6
Crops fertilized by small-scale farmers 4 001& above 11 20.0
The small-scale farmers provided information about the No response 8 14.5
crops to which they generally apply fertilizers. The TOTAL 55 100.0
ranking of the crops has been determined on the basis
of percentage of farmers using fertilizers for each crop. TABLE 16
Crops fertilized by small-scale farmers,
As is evident from Table 16, maize is the crop to 1996-97
which fertilizers are applied by the great majority of Crop Ranking No. of % of
small-scale farmers, followed by cotton and tobacco. farmers farmers
Maize 1 1 850 80.7
Cotton 2 311 13.6
Rate of fertilizer application Tobacco 3 52 2.3
Paprika 4 45 2.0
As maize is the only major crop to which fertilizers are Sorghum 5 24 1.0
applied by the majority of small-scale farmers, further Vegetables 6 6 0.3
information on the quantity of fertilizers applied was Mhunga 7 2 0.1
limited to this crop only. Table 17 presents the fertilizer TOTAL 2 290 100.0
application rates in terms of kilograms per hectare (50
kg = 1 bag). TABLE 17
Fertilizer application rates to maize
It was further noted that small-scale farmers, Quantity (kg/ha) No. of %
when selecting fertilizers for application, consider farmers
Compound D and AN as substitutes for each other. Compound D
(basal fertilizer)
51-100 169 9.1
Fertilizer recommendations as understood by 101-150 48 2.6
farmers 151-200 350 18.9
201-250 23 1.2
Farmers’ knowledge about fertilization
251-300 267 14.4
recommendations above 300 66 3.5
Table 18 summarizes the information provided by the Subtotal 923 49.9
small-scale farmers about their knowledge on fertilizer
Ammonium Nitrate
recommendations. (top dressing fertilizer)
A large percentage of small-scale farmers 51-100 421 22.8
101-150 47 2.5
(69 percent) said that they did not know the fertilizer 151-200 320 17.3
recommendations given by Agritex or the fertilizer 201-250 18 1.0
industry for maize or any other crop. Of the 31 percent 251-300 93 5.0
of respondents, who claimed to know the fertilizer above 300 28 1.5
recommendations, 39 percent of them stated that the SUBTOTAL 927 50.1
recommended quantity of Compound D for maize was TOTAL 1 850 100.0
3-4 bags per hectare. Regarding AN, 44 percent of
respondents said that only 1-2 bags per hectare TABLE 18

were recommended. Knowledge about fertilizer recommendations
No. % of
Particulars
Ratio of basal and top dressing fertilizer total
applications No. of farmers claiming to know
the recommendations 922 31
Table 19 presents the ratio that emerged No. of farmers claiming not to
between basal and top dressing fertilizer know the recommendations 2 047 69
applications in communal areas from the
Fertilizer application rates
fertilizer recommendations as understood by mentioned by farmers as
the farmers. recommendations for maize crop:
Compound D (kg/ha)
The table shows that small-scale farmers 51-100 165 18
considered different quantities of basal 101-150 55 6
151-200 360 39
(Compound D) and top dressing fertilizer
201-250 19 2
(AN) as being recommended for maize. For 251-300 258 28
example, while 18 percent of farmers thought above 300 65 7
that 1-2 bags of Compound D were AN (kg/ha)
recommended for one hectare of maize, 51-100 406 44
44 percent of farmers thought that 1-2 bags 101-150 46 5
151-200 332 36
were recommended for AN. 201-250 18 2
251-300 92 10
Farmers applying the desired quantity of above 300 28 3
fertilizers in the last three years
The respondent small-scale farmers were
asked to confirm if they had been able to use TABLE 19
Ratio between basal and top dressing fertilizer
the desired quantities of fertilizers in the last application (maize crop)
three years (1994-1997). The desired quantity Fertilizer application % of farmers
was based on farmers’ own estimations of the rate (kg/ha)
quantity of fertilizer, which they believed to be Compound D AN
sufficient to grow a good crop. Table 20 51-100 18 44
shows that about one-third of the small-scale 101-150 6 5
151-200 39 36
farmers were able to apply the desired quantity 201-250 2 2
of fertilizers during the period 1994-97. The 251-300 28 10
number of farmers who could afford to apply above 300 7 3
250-350 kg of fertilizer per hectare to the
maize crop ranged from 5.4 to 9.8 percent. In other words, 94.6-91.2 percent of small-scale farmers
failed to apply the desired quantities of fertilizers.
Fertilizer use efficiency

Farmers obtaining desired results from fertilizer use
Table 21 presents the responses received from 2 102 farmers using fertilizers. The table evidences the
fact that a majority of them are not satisfied with results they obtain from fertilizer use.
Reasons for unsatisfactory results from TABLE 20

fertilizer use Farmers able to apply desired quantity of
fertilizers
Table 22 presents the reasons given by the small- Quantity No. of % of fertilizer
scale farmers who do not obtain the desired results farmers user farmers
from fertilizer use as being responsible for low 1996-97
fertilizer use efficiency. 351-400 361 17.2
301-350 122 5.8
A large percentage of respondent farmers 250-300 203 9.6
(45 percent) consider that excessive rains are
responsible for low use benefits with the applied TOTAL 686 32.6
fertilizer being washed away or leached into the 1995-96
soil. On the other hand, 35 percent of farmers 351-400 340 16.1
believe that it is inadequate rainfall which causes 301-350 129 6.1
the low efficiency of the applied fertilizers. 250-300 205 9.8
Trend in fertilizer consumption in small-scale TOTAL 674 32.0

farming 1994-95
Table 23 presents the fertilizer application data 351-400 332 15.8
301-350 114 5.4
provided by the farmers for the period 1994-1995
250-300 191 9.1
to 1996-97 and the growth in fertilizer
consumption in the small-scale farming sector. TOTAL 637 30.3
The data in Table 23 show a steady increase

in the number of farmers using fertilizers, in TABLE 21
various quantities, during the period 1994/95 to Fertilizer use efficiency
Particulars No. of % of
1996/97.
farmers total
Farmers obtaining desired
results from fertilizer use 915 43.5
Factors affecting the rate of fertilizer Farmers not obtaining
application desired results from
fertilizer use 1 187 56.5
Farmers were asked to indicate the most important TOTAL 2 102 100
factors which influence them when determining
the quantity of fertilizer to be applied to maize and
other crops. TABLE 22
Reasons for unsatisfactory results
Table 24 shows that for 48.5 percent of Factors affecting No. of % of Total
fertilizer use farmers
farmers the cash position, i.e. the money
Not enough rain 415 35
available with the farmers at the time of Too much rain 534 45
fertilizer purchase, was the most important Pest damage 71 6
factor in deciding the quantity of fertilizers they Excessive weeds 71 6
would like to apply. Fertilizer price ranked fifth Other factors 96 8
with only 24.3 percent of farmers considering it TOTAL 1 187 100
as an important factor in their decisions on the
quantity of fertilizer to apply. Credit availability ranked last with only 2.6 percent of farmers
mentioning it as an important factor in their decision making.
TABLE 23 TABLE 24
Fertilizer consumption, 1994-95 to 1996-97 Factors affecting quantity of fertilizer applied
Fertilizer No. of farmers/year
% growth Ranking % of
Factor No. of
application (over farmers
farmer
(kg/ha) 1994- 1995- 1996- 1994-95) s
95 96 97
1 Farmers’cash position 1 021 48.5
350 and more 332 340 361 8.7 2 Past experience 932 44.3
3 Type of crops planted 605 28.7
4 Advice of extension 527 25.0
300 and more 114 129 132 7.0 5 workers 512 24.3
6 Fertilizer prices 154 7.3
250 and more 191 205 208 6.2 7 Fertilizer supply position 120 5.7
8 Neighbours 56 2.6
637 764 701 7.6
Credit availability
ANALYSIS OF THE PATTERN OF FERTILIZER ADOPTION AND PURCHASE
Analysis of the cropping pattern

Table 25 presents a breakdown of the crops planted by the small-scale farmers in the five natural
regions of the country and overall percentage breakdown of these crops by area.
TABLE 25
Breakdown of crops by natural region and by area
Crop Natural regions (% of farmers) Total country
I II III IV V < 1.0 ha 1-2 ha
Maize 13.0 79.6 11.7 64.3 56.2 17.4 64.3

Sorghum 75.0 25.0 58.3 41.7 33.4 69.7 30.3
Cotton 33.3 66.7 24.4 62.8 3.6 36.1 42.6
Tobacco 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.7 0.0 94.4 5.6
Millets 88.9 11.1 81.8 18.2 13.8 74.7 25.3
Oilseeds 79.4 20.6 61.8 38.2 18.3 72.1 27.9
Beans 75.0 25.0 71.4 28.6 5.4 88.5 11.5
Table 25 reveals, for example, that 94.4 percent of small-scale farmers grow tobacco on an
area of less than 1 ha and that 64.3 percent of small-scale farmers grow maize on 1-2 ha.
Tobacco, primarily an export crop, is grown by only 5.6 percent of farmers on an area of 1-2 ha.
Except for maize and cotton, more than 70 percent of the small-scale farmers in Zimbabwe plant
all other crops on an area of less than one hectare.
Analysis of food grain (maize) sales and purchasing patterns

The pattern of the sale of food grains (maize) as shown in Table 26 reveals that in 1997 the great
majority of farmers who actually sold maize (91 percent) sold 250 kg or more of it. However, the
number of farmers and the quantity of grains sold varied widely from region to region. A
small percentage of farmers in NR I (2.4 percent) and in NR V (2.2 percent) sold maize. On the
other hand, in NRs II, III and IV almost one-third of farmers sold maize crop produce.
In the same year, 30.2 percent of farmers purchased maize for home consumption
(Table 27). The quantity of grain purchased varied from region to region (Table 28). The
majority (82.4 percent) of farmers purchased more than 100 kg of grain. A wide variation is
again evident in the regional percentages of farmers who purchased food grains. Of the total
number of farmers who purchased food grains (30.2 percent), the majority (52.0 percent) were
located in NR IV.
The price of the grain purchased varied from Z$1.5 to 1.8/kg of maize. The farmers in NR I
appear to have paid a higher price than those in NRs III and V.
TABLE 26
Distribution of farmers by quantity of maize sold in 1997
Natural regions (% of farmers)
Quantity (kg) I II III IV V Total
< 60 0 0 1.2 0.8 0 0.6
60-79 0 1.1 0.4 0.4 0 0.6
80-99 5.0 0.8 0.4 1.1 0 0.9
100-149 5.0 1.1 3.6 1.9 0 2.2
150-199 0 0.4 2.0 4.9 5.6 2.4
200-249 0 3.1 0.8 3.0 5.6 2.3
250 and more 90.0 93.5 91.7 88.0 88.9 91.0
TOTAL 2.4 31.9 30.9 32.5 2.2 100.0
TABLE 27
Distribution of farmers by purchase of maize grain in 1997
Purchased grain Natural regions (% of farmers) Total
I II III IV V
YES 26.4 18.4 20.9 36.4 58.8 30.2
NO 73.6 81.6 79.1 63.6 41.2 69.8
TOTAL 2.0 22.8 24.2 42.7 8.4 100.0
TABLE 28
Distribution of farmers by quantity of maize grain purchased in 1997
Quantity (kg) I II III IV V TOTAL
< 25 7.7 0 0.8 2.0 0.8 1.4
26-50 15.4 3.9 4.6 2.8 1.7 3.3
51-75 0 1.9 0.8 1.8 1.7 1.6
76-100 7.7 4.9 10.8 12.1 10.0 10.5
100 or more 69.2 89.3 81.5 80.3 85.8 82.4
TOTAL 1.7 13.5 17.1 52.0 15.7 100.0
Average price/kg (Z$) 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.6
Analysis of farmers’fertilizer product knowledge

Use benefits of different fertilizer products
The data in Table 29 show that all the respondents failed to explain the benefits of DAP fertilizer.
This highlights the lack of knowledge about this important fertilizer. By contrast, considerable
quantities of DAP are being used in neighbouring countries such as Malawi and Zambia. In the
case of urea, all the respondents in NRs II, III and IV replied that urea assists in crop maturity.
This reflects incorrect knowledge of this highly concentrated nitrogenous fertilizer. In NRs III and
IV, 25 percent of respondents did not know that urea helps boost vegetative growth.
In spite of the fact that Compound D has been used by small-scale farmers for decades, the
belief held by a large majority of farmers that Compound D boosts the vegetative growth of the
plants is not based on correct product knowledge, and 23.8 percent of farmers in NR IV and
15.4 percent of farmers in NR III did not know that Compound D helps increase crop yields.
Similarly, 25 percent of farmers in NR II and 11.1 percent of farmers in NR IV did not know that
Compound D helps in crop maturity. The product knowledge of a significant number of farmers
about the use merits of AN also appears to be inaccurate. Although AN has been manufactured
and used in the country for more than two decades, 22.2 percent of farmers in NR III,
18.7 percent of farmers in NR IV and 15.8 percent of farmers in NR II did not know the specific
use benefits of this nitrogenous fertilizer. Similarly, 20 percent of farmers in NR III, 19.2 percent
of farmers in NR IV and 13.6 percent of farmers in NR II held the mistaken belief that AN helps
mainly in crop maturity. None of the farmers in NRs I, III, IV and V is aware that SSP helps in
crop maturity. The fact that a large majority of farmers consider SSP as responsible for
vegetative growth of the crop further demonstrates a very poor level of knowledge about this
product. The same holds for knowledge of MOP. All the respondents in NRs I and V said that
they did not know the benefits of using MOP. None of the farmers considered MOP as
responsible for boosting the vegetative growth of the crop. No farmer in NRs I, III and V knew
that MOP assists in crop maturity.
TABLE 29
Use benefits of fertilizers (as understood by farmers)
NR 1 NR II NR III NR IV NR V TOTAL
DAP (18:46:0)
• boosts vegetative growth 0 0 0 0 0 0

• enhances yield 0 0 0 0 0 0
• assists in maturity 0 0 0 0 0 0
UREA (46% N)
• boosts vegetative growth 100 94.7 75.0 75.0 100 87.9

• enhances yield 0 100 100 100 0 100
COMPOUND D
• boosts vegetative growth 96.1 91.5 87.5 77.4 87.2 85.7

• enhances yield 100 93.5 84.6 76.2 100 87.0
• assists in maturity 100 75 100 88.9 100 92.3
AN (34% N)

• enhances yield 96.0 9.9 87.6 75.6 75.4 86.4
• assists in maturity 0 86.4 80.0 80.8 100 83.5
SSP (16-20% P2O5)

• enhances yield 100 85.7 100 0 0 82.4
MOP (60% K2O)
• boosts vegetative growth 0 100 100 100 0 100

• enhances yield 0 0 0 0 0 0
Timing and method of fertilizer application

The analysis of the timing and method of fertilizer application (Table 30) shows that a large
number of small-scale farmers mix fertilizers (Compound D) with the seeds at the time of sowing.
This apparently indicates an incorrect method and timing of the application of basal fertilizers, as
does the application of Compound D after crop germination by a considerable number of farmers
(23.9 percent). Similarly, the method of application of side dressing is incorrect. Only about 15-
16 percent of farmers appears to use the basal fertilizers at the right time and with the correct
method of application, i.e. application before sowing by mixing the fertilizers in the soil. All the
other methods used by 84-85 percent of farmers, therefore, indicate improper methods and
incorrect timings for the application of Compound D.
There is a considerable variation among the number of farmers adopting different methods
and timings in each NR. While 81.1 percent of farmers applied Compound D at the time of
seeding the crop in NR V, only 38.5 percent of farmers followed this practice in NR II. Similarly,
while 41.5 percent of farmers in NR II applied Compound D after germination as side dressing,
only 8.1 percent of farmers in NR V appear to have used this method. While the mixing of
fertilizers with seed is a method followed by 81.1 percent of farmers in NR V, only 26.9 percent
of farmers in NR II follow this method of fertilizer application.
TABLE 30
Timing and method of Compound D application
A. Timing of application I II III IV V Total
Before sowing 10.0 19.0 12.3 18.3 10.8 16.4
With seed 74.0 38.5 70.8 65.8 81.1 58.6.
After germination 16.0 41.5 16.5 13.8 8.1 23.9
Before rains/irrigation 0.2 0.2 0.1
After rains/irrigation 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.4
B. Method of application
Mix with soil before sowing 30.0 17.6 14.8 14.8 2.7 15.9
Mix with seed at sowing time 60.0 26.9 58.0 56.6 81.1 47.7
Broadcast before sowing 4.6 3.1 7.5 8.1 5.0
Broadcast after sowing 0.9 0.6 0.6 5.4 1.1
Side dressing 10.0 44.1 21.6 19.0 2.7 27.7
Any other method 4.9 1.9 1.5 2.7
Total 3.0 34.0 29.0 31.8 2.2 100.0
Analysis of the fertilizer purchasing pattern

The data in Table 31 reveal that nearly half of the small-scale farmers in Zimbabwe purchase less
than one bag of fertilizer per year while 22.4 percent of farmers stated that they purchased seven
bags or more in a year.
TABLE 31
Pattern of fertilizer purchase by farmers, 1996-97
Quantity (kg) I II III IV V TOTAL
< 50 11.1 15.1 32.1 65.5 84.4 46.4

51-100 13.0 5.9 11.2 8.3 2.7 8.1
101-151 9.3 4.3 10.0 4.0 0.4 5.3
151-200 13.0 8.9 10.1 4.5 2.2 6.8
200-250 14.8 4.8 4.7 2.0 1.8 3.5
251-300 5.6 7.4 6.4 4.4 1.3 5.3
301-350 5.6 3.3 2.6 1.2 0.9 2.1
351-above 27.8 50.5 22.9 10.1 6.2 22.4
Analysis at level of the natural regions of the purchasing pattern of fertilizers shows that
84.4 percent of farmers in NR V buy less than one bag of fertilizers a year, while 50.5 percent of
farmers in NR II reported purchasing seven bags or more in a year.
The significant information that emerges from the analysis of the purchasing pattern is that,
aside from the 22.4 percent of farmers buying 350 kg or more of fertilizers, 87.6 percent of
small-scale farmers buy very little fertilizer. The farmers purchasing large quantities of fertilizer
(seven bags or more) are those who are located in the irrigation schemes and those with larger
areas of land.
Classification of farmers by quantity of fertilizer purchased

To obtain a clear idea of the
TABLE 32
purchasing pattern, farmers were Classification of farmers by fertilizer purchase
grouped into three categories on Natural No. of bags purchased per year (% of farmers)
the basis of the quantity of region
fertilizers purchased annually: 6 and more 2-5 <1
high (A) - 6 bags or more; NR (A) (B) (C)
medium (B) - 2-5 bags; and low I 39.0 50.0 11.0
(C) - less than 1 bag of fertilizer II 61.0 23.9 15.1
III 31.9 36.0 32.1
per year. IV 15.7 18.8 65.5
V 8.4 7.2 84.4
Table 32 shows that TOTAL 31.1 38.0 46.0
50 percent of farmers in NR I buy
2-5 bags of fertilizer per year and can therefore be placed in category B. In NR II, a
large percentage of farmers (61 percent) can be included in category A. In NR III, farmers belong
to categories A, B and C in almost equal numbers. The situation is considerably different for NRs
IV and V. In NR IV, 65.5 percent of farmers purchase less than one bag. Over 84 percent of
farmers in NR V buy less than one bag of fertilizer per year.
Farmer preferences for fertilizer sale points

Choice of fertilizer sale point
Table 33 reveals that in 1996-97 75.6 percent of farmers purchased fertilizers from private agro-
dealers (including commercial cooperatives). Co-operative societies were patronized as a source
of purchase only by 7.7 percent of farmers. Though only 6.2 percent of farmers obtained
fertilizers from the government, its free pack programme is seen as a major source of fertilizer for
farmers in NRs IV and IV.
TABLE 33
Preferred source of fertilizer purchase, 1996/1997
Source of purchase I II III IV V Total
Agro-dealer 92.0 82.6 76.9 65.2 76.2 75.6
Co-operative 8.0 3.8 10.9 9.1 4.8 7.7
GMB 0 3.2 2.3 1.5 0 2.2
Cotton Co. 0 3.8 4.2 8.0 0 5.0
AFC 0 5.2 2.1 0.6 0 2.5
ZFU 0 1.3 0.6 0.6 0 0.8
Government 0 0.2 2.9 15.0 19.0 6.2
Reasons for sale point preferences

The availability of a wide range of products at a sale point was mentioned as a reason for
preference by 12.9 percent of farmers (Table 34). Only 6.4 percent of farmers stated that they
obtained credit from their supplier and another 5.8 percent of farmers considered farm deliveries
as a reason for preference. The NR values were broadly similar to one another except for NR V
where farmers say that they obtain no credit from agro-dealers. A large percentage of farmers
preferring farm deliveries indicate the supply of fertilizer under the government programme of
free supplies, as no agro-dealer provides this facility in the communal areas in Zimbabwe.
TABLE 34
Sale point preferences
Factors Natural regions (% of farmers) Total
I II III IV V
Lower prices 55.1 50.9 53.3 52.9 65.9 52.7
Sells on credit 2.0 6.8 6.6 6.7 0 6.4
Efficient and timely supplies 57.1 53.0 48.5 43.6 38.6 48.3
Delivers at farm 6.1 7.0 6.0 4.3 9.1 5.8
Trusted supplier 20.4 10.5 11.6 12.9 14.0 12.0
Sells wide range 20.4 9.1 16.2 12.0 27.3 12.9
Farmers’perceptions of fertilizer prices

The analysis of farmers’ perceptions about fertilizer prices shows that the vast majority of
farmers (91.8 percent) in all the five regions of the country felt that the price of fertilizer in
1996/97 was higher than they expected (Table 35). The farmers who found fertilizer prices lower
than expected are located in NRs IV and V where fertilizer use is extremely low and farmers
generally buy less than one bag of fertilizer a year. Although a similar pattern emerges for
1995/96 and 1994/95, a lower percentage of farmers reported prices as being higher than
expected. There is, therefore, an indication that small-scale farmers have become more critical of
the increasing price of fertilizers and that the price increases have been greater than the farmers
have expected.
TABLE 35
Fertilizer price perceptions
Farmers’ Natural regions (% of farmers)
perception of price
I II III IV V Total
1996/97
As expected 2.0 6.6 7.8 9.4 9.5 7.8
More than expected 98.0 93.4 92.0 89.6 88.1 91.8
Less than expected 0 0 0.2 1.0 2.4 0.4
1995/96
As expected 14.0 17.3 19.7 15.4 16.3 17.3
Less than expected 0 0.5 0.2 1.0 2.3 0.6
1994/95
As expected 18.0 24.1 22.8 17.9 11.6 21.3
Less than expected 0 2.0 0.8 2.3 4.7 1.7
Pattern of credit and cash purchases

Fertilizer purchases on credit
Farmers who purchased fertilizers on credit in 1997 indicated different percentages of their total
requirements, which they could purchase with the borrowed money. Table 36 shows that
93.8 percent of farmers (who could obtain credit) could buy less than 20 percent of their fertilizer
requirements on credit, or that the amount of credit they obtained was sufficient to buy only
20 percent of the quantity of fertilizers they wanted to buy. In NRs I and V, 100 percent of
farmers purchased less than 20 percent of fertilizer on credit. The data for 1997 are considered as
fully representative as there were no significant variations in the figures for 1995 and 1996.
TABLE 36
Credit purchases in 1997
Percentage of purchases Natural regions (% of farmers)
on credit
I II III IV V Total
< 20 100.0 91.9 94.8 93.8 100.0 93.8
21-40 - 0.5 0.4 - - 0.3
41-60 - 1.6 1.0 0.5 - 1.0
61-80 - 0.2 0.4 0.4 - 0.3
81-100 - 5.7 3.4 5.3 - 4.6
Total 3.0 32.9 29.3 32.3 2.5 100.0
Cash purchases and sources of cash

The farmers who made cash purchases of fertilizers in 1997 present a considerable variation in
terms of source of credit. Table 37 shows that 47.7 percent of farmers indicated the sale of grains
(reserved for purchasing fertilizers) as the source of their money. Such farmers were distributed
almost equally in all the NRs except in NR IV. An almost equal percentage of farmers
(47.8 percent) gave income from non-farm work as the source of cash for the purchase of
fertilizers. Again, except in NR V, the farmers in the NRs are almost equally distributed.
TABLE 37
Source of cash for fertilizer purchases
Source Natural regions (% of farmers)
I II III IV V Total
Borrowed from neighbour 0 1.2 1.1 0.4 0 0.9
Sale of grain held for this purpose 50.0 50.6 51.9 40.2 50.0 47.7
Sale of grain held for consumption 4.0 5.1 6.7 6.2 4.5 5.9
Sale of livestock 4.0 8.6 11.4 10.1 2.3 9.6
Income from non-farm work 48.0 47.9 51.5 45.4 31.8 47.8
Total 3.3 33.3 29.2 31.4 2.9 100.0
TABLE 38
Credit repayment Source of cash to repay fertilizer loan
An analysis of the position of Source of cash Natural regions (% of farmers)
I II III IV V Total
credit repayment reveals that
Loan not yet repaid 0 30.0 66.7 0 0 31.3
31.3 percent of farmers have
yet not paid for the credit they Sale of livestock 0 70.0 33.3 33.3 0 56.3
obtained in past years Sale of grain held for 0 0 0 66.7 0 12.5
(Table 38). The remaining consumption
Total 0 62.5 18.8 18.8 0 100.0
respondent farmers were of the
opinion that the higher gross
income they received from the application of fertilizers was not sufficient to repay the loan with
56.3 percent of farmers saying that they sold livestock to repay the loan. Another 12.5 percent of
farmers said that they sold grain reserved for home consumption to repay the loan they took for
the purchase of fertilizers.
Reasons for purchasing less fertilizer than recommended

Table 39 shows that a high percentage (92.5 percent) of farmers gave shortage of cash as the
reason for not purchasing the recommended quantities of fertilizers. Such farmers were almost
equally distributed in all five NRs. Transport difficulties were indicated by 97.4 percent of
farmers as the major reason for purchasing less than the recommended quantities. The lack of
credit was given as reason for limited purchases by 94.9 percent of the farmers.
TABLE 39
Reasons for purchasing less than recommended quantity
Reasons Natural regions (% of farmers)
I II III IV V Total
Supply shortages 5.6 7.1 4.9 18.4 10.5 10.6

Cash shortages 97.2 95.4 93.8 89.0 84.2 92.5
Credit availability 97.2 96.8 93.1 94.0 100 94.9
Timely delivery 0 2.1 0 0 0 0.7
Mistrust of Agritex 0 3.2 0.4 0.3 0 1.2
Transport difficulties 100 97.5 95.9 97.9 100 97.4
Inconvenient package 0 1.4 0.4 0.3 0 0.7
Reasons for interrupting fertilizer use

An analysis of the reasons for interrupting fertilizer use (Table 40) shows that 82.8 percent of
farmers who suspended fertilizers use in the last three years gave high fertilizer prices as a
reason. Credit problems was indicated by 82.8 percent of farmers (100 percent of respondents in
NR I). Agro-dealers asking for down payments for fertilizers were indicated by only 1.9 percent
of farmers, most of whom were located in NRs II and III. The non-availability of the desired type
of fertilizers does not appear to be a major problem.
TABLE 40
Reasons for interrupting fertilizer use
Reason I II III IV V Total
High prices 90.9 81.2 89.1 79.6 76.5 82.6
Non-availability of credit 100.0 79.0 76.0 87.6 82.4 82.8
High down payment 0 5.1 1.6 0.9 0 1.9
Late delivery 0 0 0 1.5 0 0.7
Supply problems 0 1.4 0.5 8.3 0 4.5
No desired fertilizer 0 0.7 0 1.8 5.9 1.1
Reasons for non-implementation of the fertilizer use plan

Table 41 shows that of those farmers who planned to use a specific quantity of fertilizers but
could not implement the fertilizer use plan in 1996-97, 93.8 percent of them identified high
fertilizer prices as the major reason for non-implementation of the fertilizer use plan. A further
20.9 percent of respondents considered the marketing costs of fertilizers as very high (meaning
the price variation between Harare and the point of purchase). The farmers in NR I (near Harare)
did not consider the marketing costs high. Similarly, farmers in NR V did not mention the
marketing costs as being high. Perhaps being located farthest away, they consider the marketing
costs as justified and do not think they can be reduced. The farmers in NR I, due to their nearness
to Harare, and those in NR V, because of the very low demand, did not consider supply a
problem. Transport difficulties were indicated by only 2.5 percent of farmers as a bottleneck in
the implementation of the fertilizer use plan.
TABLE 41
Reasons for non-implementation of fertilizer use plan, 1996/97
Reasons Natural regions (% of farmers)
I II III IV V Total
High prices 100.0 95.1 95.7 91.0 95.5 93.8
High marketing costs 0 16.2 21.9 26.4 0 20.9
Supply shortages 0 4.6 2.7 7.8 0 5.1
Transport problems 0 3.0 2.7 2.4 4.5 2.5
Low grain prices 0 6.4 9.0 2.8 0 5.4
Unreliable rainfall 0 7.3 6.0 11.8 9.1 8.5
DETERMINANTS OF FERTILIZER ADOPTION
The determinants on the adoption of fertilizer in small-scale farming areas have been analysed to
find their level of significance. The significance level was divided into three categories: highly
significant (p < 0.01), moderately significant (p < 0.05) and significant (p < 0.10).
Age
The analysis of age of farmers and the trend fertilizer of adoption revealed age as a highly
significant factor. There was a considerable variation among the regions. Though the age factor
was not significant in NRs I, II and V, it was a highly significant factor in NR IV, and significant
in NR III (Table 42).
TABLE 42
Age and adoption of fertilizer use
Factor Natural regions (% of farmers)
I II III IV V Total
Age Use Never Use Never Use Never Use Never Use Never Use Never
used used used used used used
Under 30 100 0 92.6 7.4 75.2 24.8 45.7 54.3 15.3 84.7 59.8 40.2
30 or
more 93 7 96 4 82 18 60.3 39.7 22.6 77.4 71.6 28.4
Total 94.4 5.6 95.5 4.5 80.7 19.3 57.7 42.3 20.6 79.4 69.4 30.6
χ2
NS NS * *** NS ***
*** Highly Significant (p < 0.01) * Significant (p < 0.10)
** Moderately significant (p < 0.05) NS Not significant
Sex
Table 43 indicates that the sex of the farmers is a highly significant factor as a determinant of
fertilizer adoption reveals it. While 72.5 percent male farmers had adopted fertilizer use, only
66.7 percent of female farmers had done so. Women farmers appear to be more risk averse and
less disposed to adopt fertilizer use.
TABLE 43
Sex and adoption of fertilizer use
I II III IV V Total
Sex Use Never Use Never Use Never Use Never Use Never Use Never
Male 89.5 10.5 96.2 3.8 84.2 15.8 59.8 40.2 31.9 68.1 72.5 27.5
Female 97.1 2.9 94.6 5.4 77.4 22.6 55.5 44.5 13.0 87.0 66.7 33.3
Total 94.4 5.6 95.5 4.6 80.7 19.3 57.6 42.4 20.9 79.1 69.4 30.6
2
χ NS NS * ** NS ***
Education
Education was found to be a highly significant factor in fertilizer adoption (Table 44). While
55.3 percent of farmers with no education were found to have adopted fertilizer use, 73.9 percent
of farmers who had primary education and 72.2 percent of farmers with secondary or higher
education had done so. Educated farmers are expected to have a greater understanding and more
information about the merits of fertilizer use and therefore to be more favourably disposed to its
adoption.
TABLE 44
Education and adoption of fertilizer use
I II III IV V Total
Education Use Never Use Never Use Never Use Never Use Never Use Never
None 90 10 92 8 67 33 38.6 61.4 9.8 90.2 55.3 44.7
Primary 92.9 7.1 96.6 3.4 85 15 62.7 37.3 22.9 77.1 73.4 26.6
Secondary
or more 100 0 96.4 3.63 80.3 19.7 61.7 38.3 26.2 73.8 72.2 27.8
Total 94.3 5.7 95.5 4.5 80.6 19.4 57.7 42.5 20.3 79.7 69.3 30.7
χ2
NS NS * *** NS ***
Size of landholdings
Table 45 shows the size of landholdings to be a highly significant factor influencing fertilizer
adoption.
TABLE 45
Size of landholding and adoption of fertilizer use
I II III IV V Total
Land- Use Never Use Never Use Never Use Never Use Never Use Never
holding used used used used used used
(ha)
Less than
2 94.7 5.3 96.3 3.7 74.2 25.8 54.2 45.8 24.3 75.7 64.5 35.5
2 or more 94.3 5.7 95.4 4.6 84.3 15.7 59.1 40.9 17.1 82.9 71.9 28.1
Total 94.4 5.6 95.5 4.6 80.7 19.3 57.6 42.4 20.9 79.1 69.4 30.4
χ2
NS NS * ** NS ***
Financial resources
Table 46 indicates that the availability of cash or financial resources (in this case from the sale of
grains) does not have a statistically significant impact on the adoption of fertilizers. Nonetheless,
the hypothesis that the farmers who can source cash are more positive in adoption of modern
farming inputs like fertilizers was proved correct as 90.9 percent of farmers with cash available
had adopted the use of fertilizers, whereas only 59.2 percent of the farmers who did not sell
grains and had no cash used fertilizers.
TABLE 46
Financial resources and adoption of fertilizer use
I II III IV V Total
Sold Use Never Use Never Use Never Use Never Use Never Use Never
grain in used used used used used used
1996
Yes 100 0 99.2 0.8 92.2 7.8 84.9 15.1 52 48 90.9 9.1
No 90.9 9.1 92.5 7.5 73 27 48.4 51.6 16.8 83.2 59.2 40.8
Total 94.3 5.7 95.5 4.5 80.7 19.3 57.6 42.4 20.8 79.2 69.4 30.6
χ2
NS NS * ** NS NS
Access to all-weather road

The linking of the farmers’ villages to an all-weather road and the level of adoption showed a
highly significant correlation (Table 47). The hypothesis that farmers residing in villages
connected to all-weather roads have better access to sale points and, therefore, are more likely to
adopt fertilizers was proved correct. While 70.9 percent of farmers connected to all-weather
roads adopted fertilizers, only 60.8 percent of farmers without access to such roads did so.
TABLE 47
Access to all-weather road and adoption of fertilizer use
I II III IV V Total
Access to Use Never Use Never Use Never Use Never Use Never Use Never
all- used used used used used used
weather
road
Yes 95.6 4.4 95.4 4.6 81.4 18.6 58.1 41.9 22.1 77.9 70.9 29.1
No 87.5 12.5 95.6 4.4 73 27 56.4 43.6 13.9 86.1 60.8 39.2
Total 94.3 5.7 95.4 4.6 80.4 19.6 57.8 422 20.7 79.3 69.4 30.6
2
χ NS NS * ** NS ***
DETERMINANTS OF FERTILIZER PURCHASES

Age
Table 48 shows support for the hypothesis that a higher percentage of young farmers purchase
fertilizers. Age was, therefore, found to be a moderately significant factor at the overall level,
though it was not a significant factor in NRs I, II, III and V. The major impact of age was
observed in the NR IV, where 82.4 percent of younger farmers purchased fertilizers as compared
to 73.3 percent of farmers aged 30 years and above.
TABLE 48
Age and fertilizer purchases
I II III IV V Total
Age Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
Under 30 100 0 94.3 5.7 85.7 14.3 82.4 17.6 100 0 88.3 11.7
30 or more 95 5 90.6 9.4 87.2 12.8 73.3 26.7 83.8 16.2 83.3 16.7
Total 96.1 3.9 91.2 8.8 87 13 74.6 25.4 87 13 84.1 15.9
2
χ NS NS NS * NS **
Sex
Table 49 shows that the sex of the farmers has a highly significant impact on the purchasing
decisions of small-scale farmers. The hypothesis that male farmers are more likely to purchase
fertilizers than female farmers was supported.
TABLE 49
Sex and fertilizer purchases
I II III IV V Total
Sex Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
Male 94.1 5.9 92.6 7.4 87.7 12.3 75.9 24.1 80 20 84.8 15.2
Female 97.1 2.9 90 10 86 14 73.4 26.6 100 0 83.6 16.4
Total 96.1 3.9 91.2 8.8 86.9 13.1 74.6 25.3 87.2 12.8 84.2 15.8
2
χ NS NS * ***
Education
Table 50 shows that education has a highly significant impact on fertilizer purchases.
TABLE 50
Education and fertilizer purchases
I II III IV V Total
Education Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
None 100 0 83.5 16.5 81.7 18.3 65.6 34.4 100 0 78.5 21.5
Primary 96.2 3.8 92.4 7.6 88.7 11.3 72.3 27.7 81.8 18.2 83.5 16.5
Secondary 93.3 6.7 96.9 3.1 86.2 13.8 84.7 15.3 88.2 11.8 89.2 10.8
or above
Total 96 4 91.7 8.3 87 13 74.8 25.2 86.7 13.3 84.4 15.6
χ2
NS ** NS *** NS ***
Family size
Table 51 shows that family size does not have a significant impact on farmers purchasing
behaviour. There was little difference in the overall pattern of fertilizer purchases between
farmers with fewer than five family members and those with larger families.
TABLE 51
Family size and fertilizer purchases
I II III IV V Total
Family size Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
Fewer than 100 0 91.2 8.8 80 20 78.3 21.7 100 0 85.1 14.9
5
5 or more 94.3 5.7 91.8 8.2 89.2 10.8 73.9 26.1 83.8 16.2 84.1 15.9
Total 96 4 91.6 8.4 87 13 74.7 25.3 87 13 84.3 15.7
2
χ NS NS ** NS NS NS
Product knowledge
Table 52 indicates that farmers’ knowledge about the use benefits and the methods of use of
different types of fertilizers has a highly significant impact on their purchasing decisions.
TABLE 52
Product knowledge and fertilizer purchases
I II III IV V Total
Knows Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
benefits
Yes 96.1 3.9 91.4 8.6 86.8 13.2 75.6 24.4 87 13 84.6 15.4
No 0 0 87.5 12.5 1 0 30 70 0 0 57.9 42.1
Total 96.1 3.9 91.4 8.6 86.9 13.1 74.9 25.1 87 13 84.3 15.7
2
χ NA NS NS *** NA ***
** Moderately significant (p < 0.05) NS Not significant NA Not applicable
Length of fertilizer use

Table 53 confirms the hypothesis that farmers who have been using fertilizers for a long period
are more likely to continue purchasing them. Over 92 percent of farmers with more than 10 years
experience of using fertilizers purchased fertilizers in 1996-97 compared with 70.9 percent of
farmers who had been using fertilizers for 1-4 years. The length of fertilizer use was found to
have had a highly significant impact on fertilizer purchases by farmers in 1996-97.
TABLE 53
Length of fertilizer use and fertilizer purchases
I II III IV V Total
Duration Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
(years)
1-4 100 0 85.2 14.8 72.7 27.3 65.1 34.9 82.4 17.6 70.9 29.1
5-9 90 10 93.2 6.8 89.2 10.8 86.3 13.7 100 0 89.5 10.5
10 or more 96.9 3.1 92.7 7.3 93 7 90.4 9.6 88.5 11.5 92.3 7.7
Total 96 4 91.3 8.7 86.8 13.2 75.2 24.8 87.2 12.8 84.4 15.6
2
χ NS ** *** *** NS ***
Knowledge of incremental value

The impact of knowledge of the incremental value of fertilizers on fertilizer purchases in 1996-97
was found to be highly significant both overall and in NR IV (Table 54). In the other NRs small-
scale farmers fail to relate the purchase of fertilizers to the exact economic advantage obtained by
way of increased yield. It may also be that the quantity of less than one bag of fertilizers applied
by a large majority of small-scale farmers is too small to be correlated with the incremental value.
TABLE 54
Knowledge of incremental value and fertilizer purchases
I II III IV V Total
Knows Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
incremental
yield of
compound D
Yes 100 0 93.8 6.2 87 13 76.6 23.7 82.4 17.6 86.3 13.7
No 97.2 2.8 92 8 89.3 10.7 75.3 24.7 88.5 11.5 85 15
Total 98 2 92.7 7.3 88.4 11.6 75.6 24.4 86 14 85.4 14.6
2
χ NS NS NS *** NS ***
Size of landholdings
The size of the landholding was not found to be significant in its impact on fertilizer purchases
both overall and in four of the NRs (Table 55).
TABLE 55
Landholding and fertilizer purchases
I II III IV V Total
Landholding Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
(ha)
Less than 2 88.9 11.1 92.9 7.1 88.6 11.4 77.6 22.4 89.3 10.7 86.4 13.6
2 or more 100 0 91.4 8.6 86.5 13.5 73.8 26.2 83.3 16.7 83.7 16.3
Total 96.1 3.9 91.8 8.2 87.2 12.8 74.8 25.2 87 13 84.5 15.5
2
χ * NS NS NS NS NS*
Contacts with Agritex

Contacts with Agritex did not have a significant impact on the fertilizer purchases of small-scale
farmers either overall or in four NRs. However, in NR III, where this was a significant factor,
90.5 percent of farmers who seek the advice of Agritex staff purchase fertilizers as compared to
85.1 percent of farmers with no contacts with extension workers (Table 56).
Credit availability
The hypothesis that a larger number of farmers who can obtain credit buy fertilizer as compared
to those to whom credit is not available was proved correct and a moderately significant
correlation was observed (Table 57). The impact of credit was not found to be significant in NRs
II and III. However, credit availability is very restricted in small-scale farming areas.
TABLE 56
Extension workers and fertilizer purchases
I II III IV V Total
Decision Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
based upon
advice of
extension
agents
Yes 100 0 929 7.1 90.5 9.5 79.5 20.5 91.7 8.3 13 No
No 93.9 6.1 91 9 85.1 14.9 74.8 25.2 85.7 14.3 84.1 15.9
Total 96.1 3.9 91.3 8.7 87 13 76.3 23.7 87.2 12.8 84.9 15.1
2
χ NS NS * NS NS NS
TABLE 57
Credit and fertilizer purchases
I II III IV V Total
Credit Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
available
1996
Yes 0 0 94.3 5.7 91.3 8.74 93.5 6.5 0 0 93.1 6.9
No 96 4 91.4 8.6 88.5 11.5 77 23 90. 9.1 85.3 14.7
Total 96 4 91.8 8.2 88.7 11.3 78.2 21.8 90.9 9.1 86 14
2
χ NS NS ** **
Fertilizer price information

The impact of prior information of fertilizer price on farmers’ purchasing behaviour was found
significant (Table 58).
TABLE 58
Prior price information availability and fertilizer purchases
I II III IV V Total
Period Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
0-13 days 95 5 90 10 89.8 10.2 84.4 15.6 85.7 14.3 87.9 12.1
14-29 days 100 0 92.6 7.4 89.2 108 86.6 13.4 71.4 28.6 90.1 9.9
1-2 months 95.5 4.5 95.5 4.5 88.9 11.1 90.2 9.8 100 0 92.1 7.9
Total 96 4 93.1 6.9 89.3 10.7 86.7 13.3 892 10.8 90.1 9.9
2
χ NS NS NS ** Ns *
Perception of fertilizer prices

No significant correlation could be established between the perception of fertilizer prices and
farmers’actual purchasing behaviour (Table 59).
Access to all-weather road

No significant overall correlation could be established between access to an all-weather road and
the purchase of fertilizer. In NRs III and IV, however, a significant impact was observed (Table
60).
TABLE 59
Perception of fertilizer prices and fertilizer purchases
I II III IV V Total
Price Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
perception
As expected 100 0 94.9 5.1 92.9 7.1 85.5 14.5 100 0 92 8
Higher than 95.3 4.7 91.4 8.6 87 13 84.3 15.7 85.7 14.3 87.9 12.1
expected
Lower than 0 0 100 0 100 0 80 20 100 0 90 10
expected
Total 96 4 92 8 88.2 11.8 84.4 15.6 88.4 11.6 88.6 11.4
2
χ NS NS NS NS NS NS
TABLE 60
All-weather roads and fertilizer purchases
I II III IV V Total
Access Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
Yes 95.3 4.7 91.3 8.7 87.7 12.3 73 27 85 15 84.2 15.8
No 100 0 95.3 4.7 79.6 20.4 81.3 18.8 100 0 84.4 15.6
Total 96 4 91.6 8.4 86.8 13.2 74.6 25.4 86.7 13.3 84.2 15.8
2
χ NS NS * * NS NS
Distance from sale point

A highly significant correlation between fertilizer purchases and distance from sale point was
observed (Table 61). In NR III 94.0 percent of farmers who were located within 20 km of a sale
point purchased fertilizers as compared to 83.5 percent of farmers who were located farther
away.
TABLE 61
Distance and fertilizer purchases
I II III IV V Total
Distance (km) Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
> 20 95.2 4.5 92.5 7.5 83.5 12.3 76.5 23.5 90 15 84.9 15.1
20 or less 96.2 3.8 92.5 7.5 94 20.4 84.4 15.6 80 0 90.4 9.6
Total 95.8 4.2 92.5 7.5 89.4 13.2 79.9 20.1 88.9 13.3 87.3 12.7
2
χ NS NS *** ** NS ***
Fertilizer availability
The hypothesis that fertilizer availability in an area has a direct impact on purchasing behaviour
was proved correct and a highly significant correlation of this variable was observed (Table 62).
Only in NR V did availability have a non-significant impact.
TABLE 62
Fertilizer availability and fertilizer purchases
I II III IV V Total
Availability Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
Yes 100 0 94.1 5.9 93.8 6/2 90.2 23.5 94.9 5.1 93 7
No 83.3 16.7 85.4 14.6 80.7 19.3 59.8 15.6 100 0 73.6 26.4
Total 98 2 92.1 7.9 91.4 8.6 81.8 20.1 95.1 4.9 88.7 11.3
2
χ ** ** *** ** NS ***
Grain sales
The hypothesis that a large number of farmers who could sell grain purchased fertilizers was
proved correct and the correlation was highly significant (Table 63). Over 92 percent of farmers
who sold grains purchased fertilizers, as compared to 78.7 percent of farmers who could not sell
grains.
TABLE 63
Grain sales and fertilizer purchases
I II III IV V Total
Sold grain Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
Yes 100 0 93.9 6.1 94 6 88 12 84.6 15.4 92.1 7.9
No 93.3 6.7 89.7 10.3 80.6 19.4 67.2 32.8 87.9 12.1 78.7 28.1
Total 96 4 91.6 8.4 86.8 13.2 75 25 87 13 84.4 21.3
2
χ NS * *** *** NS ***
FERTILIZER DEMAND PROSPECTS
Fertilizer demand estimates for 1998-99 and beyond

About 63 percent of the farmers interviewed for this study expressed the belief that they would
increase fertilizer use in the future, while 25.5 percent of them, however, replied that they would
not and 1.9 percent of them were uncertain as to whether they would be able to purchase higher
quantities of fertilizers in the future.
Estimated demand for AN (1998-99)

A large number of the 13.5 percent of farmers who forecast their using one or less than one bag
(50 kg) of AN for the year 1998-99 are located in NR IV and V (Table 64). The 26.7 percent of
farmers expecting to apply up to two bags of fertilizers were almost equally distributed across all
the NRs except NR II. The percentage of farmers in NR V hoping to increase fertilizer
consumption to four to six bags was rather small (1.9 percent).
Estimated Demand for TABLE 64

Compound D Distribution of farmers by demand estimate of ammonium
nitrate (1998-99) and beyond
The data in Table 65 indicate Quantity (kg) Natural regions (% of farmers)
that 24 percent of small-scale I II III IV V Total
farmers expect to buy six Less than 50 15.6 7. 1 11.4 19.5 27.8 13.5
bags or more of Compound
D in 1998-99. 51 - 100 40.0 19.7 28.6 29.9 31.5 26.7
101 - 150 6.7 13.5 10.4 13.3 11.1 12.3
Factors favouring in- 151 - 200 13.3 12.6 20.3 14.5 7.4 15.2
creased use of fertilizers 201 - 250 2.2 6.4 5.3 4.6 1.9 7.8
251 - 300 6.7 9.4 8.0 7.0 1.9 7.8
A majority of farmers 301 or more 15.6 31.4 16.0 11. 2 18.5 19.3
(56.2 percent) considered Total 3.0 31.6 27.9 33.9 3.6 100.0
price stability an important
factor for encouraging the TABLE 65
use of higher quantities of Distribution by Compound D demand estimate, 1998-99
fertilizers (Table 66). Some Quantity (kg) Natural regions (% of farmers)
47.5 percent of farmers Compound D
stated that the government I II III IV V Total
subsidy would encourage < 50 12.2 6.5 10.8 18.0 18.5 12.0
51 – 100 26.8 15.1 23.6 22.8 38.9 21.2
them to use higher doses of
105 - 150 24.4 11.6 9.5 11.2 9.3 11.2
fertilizers. A larger number 151 - 200 9.8 12.7 19.7 16.2 11.1 15.6
of farmers wanting subsidies 201 – 250 0 5.8 5.1 5.9 0 5.3
are located in NRs IV and V, 251 – 300 7.3 12.5 12.3 9. 3 1.9 10.9
the two resource poor 301 or more 19.5 35.9 19.0 16.6 20.4 24.0
regions. Credit availability Total 3.0 33.5 28.1 31.6 3.9 100.0
was highlighted by a
significant percentage of
farmers from all five NRs. About 35 percent of farmers were of the view that price parity
between grain and fertilizer prices is an important factor for encouraging the use of higher
quantities of fertilizers, while 15.7 percent of small-scale farmers thought that if government
became the supplier, their fertilizer consumption would be higher. Other factors such as improved
seeds, smaller packaging and timely delivery were considered important by a small percentage of
farmers.
TABLE 66
Factors favouring fertilizer use
Factors Natural regions (% of farmers)
I II III IV V Total
Price stability 83.3 54.2 66.8 52.8 40.2 56.2
Credit availability 35.2 25.4 43.5 27.9 16.6 28.2
Govt. as supplier 35.2 17.1 20.7 13.2 3.5 15.7
Availability of agro-dealers 44.4 13.7 28.0 20.0 5.5 19.8
Grain prices commensurate with fertilizer prices 50.0 40.7 48.7 27.6 12.6 35.1
Govt. subsidies 50.0 35.3 46.7 53.8 51.8 47.5
No supply problems 20.4 8.6 15.6 14.8 2.9 12.7
No transportation problems 46.3 15.9 23.1 18.5 2.9 12.7
Timely delivery 22.2 6.1 5.4 7.0 0.5 6.2
Smaller packaging 13.0 6.5 8.3 11.1 4.5 8.8
Availability of improved seeds 5.6 6.5 4.9 8.3 0.5 6.3
Factors influencing farmers’decisions to buy fertilizers

A large percentage of farmers (40.7 percent) mentioned the level of government subsidy as a key
factor in influencing their decision to buy fertilizers (Table 67). A majority of such farmers are
located in NRs IV and V. Fertilizer price stability was indicated as a key factor by 36.3 percent
of farmers.
TABLE 67
Factors affecting fertilizer purchases
I II III IV V Total
Price stability 46.3 49.2 40.5 29.3 22.8 36.6
Credit availability 5.6 21.2 17.1 13.4 4.1 15.3
Govt. supplier 0 14.8 6.0 5.3 1.0 7.3
Availability of agro-dealer 11.1 9.8 7.4 6.2 1.0 7.0
Grain prices commensurate with fertilizer prices 25.9 34.2 23.4 13.8 3.6 20.4
Govt. subsidies 13.0 38.9 35.9 45.5 43.1 40.7
No supply problems 5.6 2.5 1.4 2.9 1.0 2.4
No transportation problems 11.1 15.5 10.0 11.8 1.5 11.4
Timely delivery 3.7 8.8 3.2 3.1 0 4.2
Smaller packaging 0 9.1 4.6 4.8 0.5 5.3
Availability of improved seeds 1.9 13.3 6.3 8.8 0 8.4
FERTILIZER ADOPTION AND CONSUMPTION DEMAND AMONG SMALLHOLDER FARMERS
Whereas the earlier analysis only involved simple bi-variable assessments, this one presents the
results of (1) probit estimation of the antecedents of fertilizer adoption, and (2) weighted least
squares regression (WLS)1 of the factors determining fertilizer consumption demand, for those
farmers who have already used fertilizer2.
Methodology
The data
The Fertilizer Adoption and Marketing Survey in Zimbabwe (FAMSZ), carried out in the five
Natural Regions of Zimbabwe, eventually generated 2 634 usable cases. Following data cleaning,
and imputation for missing values, the STATA dprobit3 and probit procedures were then applied
to estimate an equation containing the variables described in Table 68. In addition, the STATA
regress [a weight = n] procedure was employed to estimate the WLS equation containing the
variables described in Table 68.
1
WLS regression was employed to deal with the problem of heteroskedasticity.
2
The methodologies employed in this study borrow heavily from Croppenstedt, A. and Mulat Demeke,
1996 “Determinants of Adoption and Levels of Demand for Fertilizer for Cereal Growing Farmers
in Ethiopia”, Centre for the Study of African Economies, WPS/96-3.
3
dprobit provides estimates of dF/dx calculated at the means of the independent variables. dF/dx is the
change in the probability function for an infinitesimal change in x, extrapolated out.
TABLE 68
Description of the variables used in the probit estimation
Variable Description
Dependent: (1) Previous fertilizer use 1 if Yes, Else 0
(2) In (fertilizer/ha)
Independents:
In (Age) In (Age of household head)
Sex 1 if Female, Else 0
Literacy 1 if Yes, Else 0
In (Adults) In (number of adults)
In (Dependants) In (number of dependants)
Grain sales last year 1 if Yes, Else 0
In (Farm size) In (Farm size)
Access to all-weather roads 1 if Yes, Else 0
The results
TABLE 69
Factors affecting fertilizer adoption Parameter estimates for probit
model of fertilizer adoption:
The results of the probit estimates for fertilizer adoption FAMSZ 1998
are given in Table 69. The variables sex of household Variable Coefficient
head, number of dependants, farm size and access to all- Sex -0.0423
weather roads are not found to be statistically significant. Literacy 0.6575***
The results are discussed below in order of significance. Grain sales 1.0412***
Access to roads 0.0
In (Age) 0.4301***
Natural Region: As expected, compared to farmers in In (Adults) 0.0857*
Natural Region 4 (NR4) farmers in all the natural regions, In (Dependents) 0.0
except NR5, were more likely to have ever used fertilizer. In (Farm size) -0.0501
Nregion1 1.3839***
Nregion2 1.5117***
Grain sales: Compared to farmers who did not sell grain
Nregion3 0.5928***
the previous year, farmers who did were much more likely Nregion5 -0.9863***
to have ever used fertilizer, a result that is also found to be
highly significant (Table 69). In addition, and as Table 70 Constant -2.2179
shows, the sale of grain the previous year had the strongest N 2 634
effect on the likelihood of fertilizer adoption for every -2 (log likelihood) -
2
natural region. Farmers who had sold grain the previous χ 1138.0393
df 963.35
year were on average 27% more likely to have ever used p 12
fertilizer than farmers who had not sold grain. pseudo R
2
<0.01
0.30
*** p<0.01; ** p<0.05; * p<0.10
TABLE 70
dF/dx estimates for the factors affecting fertilizer consumption demand
Variable Natural Region Total
I II III IV V
In (Age) - -0.00 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.13
Sex - -0.01 -0.02 0.02 -0.13 -0.01
Literacy - 0.03 0.23 0.26 0.14 0.22
In (Adults) - 0.01 -0.04 0.07 0.02 0.03
In (Dependents) - 0.01 0.02 -0.01 -0.02 0.00
Grain sales - 0.07 0.18 0.37 0.52 0.27
In (Farm size) - -0.01 0.00 -0.00 -0.11 -0.01
Access to roads - 0.00 0.04 -0.03 0.05 0.00
Literacy
The level of literacy had the next strongest effect on the likelihood of fertilizer adoption.
Compared to illiterate farmers, literate farmers were more likely (22%) to have ever used
fertilizer (Table 70), though there is a variation according to the natural region.
Age
The effect of age on fertilizer adoption is negative with a one-year increase in age reducing the
likelihood of fertilizer adoption by a factor of 0.43 (Table 69).
TABLE 71
Description of the variables used in WLS regression
Variable Description
Dependent: (1) Ever used fertilizer 1 if Yes, Else 0
(2) In (fertilizer/ha)
Independents:
In (Age) In (age of household head)
Sex 1 if Female, Else 0
In (Adults) In (number of adults)
In (Dependants) In (number of dependants)
Grain sales last year 1 if Yes, Else 0
In (Farm size) In (Farm size)
In (Distance) In (Distance to market)
Contact with Agritex 1 if Yes, Else 0
Knows benefits 1 if Yes, Else 0
Supply a problem 1 if Yes, Else 0
Credit previous year 1 if Yes, Else 0
Obtained expected yield previous year 1 if Yes, Else 0
In (Years used) In (Number of years fertilizer used)
TABLE 72
Fertilizer consumption demand Parameter estimates for WLS
Table 72 gives the parameter estimates for the demand for model of fertilizer consumption
demand: FAMSZ 1998
fertilizers. The results show that sex, obtaining the expected
Variable Coefficient
yield of the previous year, number of dependants and Credit 0.6397***
number of adults are found not statistically significant. Agritex 0.1786**
Knows benefits 0.9606***
Knowledge of the benefits of fertilizer Supply -0.2730*
Sex -0.0964
Reported knowledge of the benefits of fertilizer use had the Expected yield -0.0668
strongest positive effect on fertilizer consumption. Grain sales 0.5752***
Compared to farmers, who did not report knowledge of these In (Years used) 0.7092***
benefits, fertilizer consumption per hectare was about 96% In (Age) -0.6049***
In (Adults) -0.0022
higher among farmers who reported the said knowledge
In (Dependants) -0.0063
(Table 72). In (Farm size) -0.5567***
In (Distance) -0.0417*
Years of fertilizer use
Constant 5.2289
Years of experience with fertilizer use also had a strong N 1 828
positive effect on fertilizer consumption (Table 72). An R
2
0.25
additional year of fertilizer used increased the level of *** p<0.01; ** p<0.05; * p<0.10
fertilizer consumption by about 71%.
Credit
As in the base of knowledge and experience, access to credit also had a strong positive effect on
fertilizer consumption. Compared to farmers who had not obtained credit the previous year,
fertilizer consumption per hectare was about 64% higher among farmers who had obtained credit
(Table 72).
Age
Age was negatively associated with fertilizer consumption (Table 72).
Grain sales
Consistent with the result for access to credit, grain sales the previous year were positively
related to fertilizer consumption. Compared to farmers who sold grain the previous year, fertilizer
consumption per hectare was about 58% higher among farmers who had sold grain (Table 72).
Farm size
The total amount of land cultivated was negatively associated with fertilizer consumption (Table
72).
Supply
Fertilizer consumption by farmers who reported that fertilizer supplies were a problem were
much lower than the level of consumption among those farmers who did not report that supplies
were a problem (Table 72).
Agritex
The results indicate that the availability of agricultural extension services facilitates increased
fertilizer consumption (Table 72). Compared to farmers, who had not had any contact with an
Agritex official, fertilizer consumption per hectare was about 18% higher among those farmers
who had (Table 72).
Distance
As Table 72 shows, distance to marketplace was negatively associated with fertilizer
consumption.
CASE STUDY OF A SURVEY ZONE
To obtain a clearer understanding of the socio-economic, fertilizer adoption and marketing

scenario, a case study of one of the survey zones was undertaken.
The survey team consisted of five enumerators and one survey supervisor. The field survey
commenced on 20 November and ended on 15 December 1997. The group covered the
Muzarabani, Karoi, Sanyati and Mutoko districts. The farmers positively received the
enumerators.
General profile of survey areas

Muzarabani
The Muzarabani area consists of the district of Guruve in Mash West Province including Dande
in the Zambezi Valley along the Zambezi River. The Guruve Rural District Council administers
the district. Of the total population, 64 627 are males and 70 614 are females. The district has a
2
population density of 30.2 inhabitiants/km (CSO, 1992). In the valley the population is sparse
compared to around Guruve, which is heavily populated. Much of the land is a national park
protected area and is reserved for wildlife. Villagers are concentrated in pockets in agricultural
lands close to the national parks. The area comes under NRs IV and V.
Karoi
The Karoi sampling area is an important agricultural area in Hurungwe in Mashonaland West
Province. Of the total population of 248 627, 122 739 are males and 125 888 are females. The
2
population density is 19.4 inhabitiants/km (CSO, 1992). Karoi comes under NR II.
Sanyati
The Sanyati sampling area covers both the Sanyati and Kadoma districts and the northern and
southern areas of Gokwe district. Kadoma district is in Mashonaland West Province and has a
total population of 151 112 persons (75 332 males and 75 780 females). Gokwe district is in
Midlands Province and has a total population of 403 653 persons (194 537 males and
2
209 116 females). The population density is 26.6 inhabitiants/km .
Mutoko
The Mutoko sampling area in Mashonaland East Province consists of the districts of Mutoko and
Murehwa. Mutoko has a population of 124 013 persons (58 489 males and 65 524 females). The
total population of Murehwa is 152 505 persons (72 942 males and 79 563 females). The
2
population density is 32.1 inhabitiants/km , which is one of the highest in the rural areas of
Zimbabwe.
Cropping pattern
In Guruve district and Muzarabani, the main crops grown are maize and cotton. In Hurungwe
district, in addition to the major crops of maize and cotton, farmers also grow sunflowers and
groundnuts on a small scale. Maize is grown on 40 000 ha, cotton on 25 000 ha, sunflowers on
15 000 ha and groundnuts on 7 000 ha. In Sanyati, maize and cotton are the main crops.
In the Mutoko and Murehwa districts, in addition to maize, sunflowers and groundnuts,
horticultural activities are quite significant. Farmers grow tomatoes, cucumbers and potatoes for
sale in Harare, which is the nearest market.
Socio-economic and agricultural scenario

In Dande, farming is not mechanized and a majority of the farmers relies on hand tools that make
farming operations difficult and slow. Though farmers have large tracts of land, they fail to
utilize them all because of the limited draught power available (the majority of farmers do not
have cattle). The tsetse fly problem in the area has exacerbated the situation (however, efforts are
underway to bring the situation under control). The majority of farmers are illiterate and live
below the poverty line.
In Muzarabani, the landholdings are very small and there is a high population density. A
large majority of the farmers do not have proper knowledge of fertilizers and the fertilizer use per
hectare is very low.
In Hurungwe, the district produces about 100 000 t/year of maize. The majority of farmers
understand the benefits of fertilizer use. Of the farmers who use fertilizers, 25-30 percent of them
uses adequate amounts. The district produces enough food to feed Zimbabwe for a month. The
farmers and Agritex staff believe that if fertilizer application is doubled, the yield will double.
The small-scale farmers have generally adopted modern methods of cultivation and are convinced
of the benefits of fertilizer use.
In Sanyati and Gokwe, farmers have mainly small landholdings. Cotton being their major
cash crop, the farmers are in a position to send their children to school and still have some money
to purchase fertilizer with, though not in adequate amounts.
In Mutoko and Murehwa districts, farmers have mainly smallholdings of 1-1.25 ha.
Intercropping is widely practised. Farmers do a lot of other activities to earn money. Most
husbands work in the towns. They also sell onions, cucumbers and mangoes to raise additional
income.
In Muzarabani, farmers grow hardly any maize for sale because there are no GMB depots
or agro-dealers in the area. The Cotton Company has established one collection point in the
valley, but farmers face many transport difficulties. The telephone network is very poor but the
roads are relatively good. Most areas can be accessed throughout the year.
In the Karoi area, there are several agro-dealers and most farmers can access depots easily
and purchase inputs quite near their farms. The roads are good and the means of communication
have improved considerably. In Sanyati and Mutoko, the situation is relatively good.
All-weather roads are found in most areas. Fertilizers are available from agro-dealers,
though price is a major issue.
Natural endowments
Soils of moderate fertility are found in the Dande valley. The area has black soils, red soils and
sandy soils. There is still plenty of unsettled land and squatters are settling in the area. The valley
is generally flat and levelled. Temperatures are always high. Wild animals such as elephants often
destroy crops in the fields.
In Guruve, the soils range from sandy to clay and most of them show signs of soil fertility
depletion. The rainfall pattern is very erratic. Droughts occur every three years, and this has
become a chronic cyclic pattern.
In Hurungwe district, the soils are light and heavy textured. They are low in fertility. It is a
very good rainfall area of moderately high temperature. Droughts are experienced about every
five years.
In Sanyati, most soils are sandy. It is a very hot region with unreliable rainfall patterns
suitable only for drought resistant crops, mainly cotton. In Gokwe, soils range from sandy loams
to clay loams. Many farmers in this region do not use fertilizers because of the belief that the soil
fertility levels of their soils are still good.
In Mutoko and Murehwa, the soils are mostly sandy although there are also a few patches of
red soil. The soils are no longer productive and soil fertility has generally been declining. The
settlement pattern has tended to be clustered around the limited productive soils.
Cultural factors
Most farmers in Dande and Muzarabani believe what their mhondoros (spirit mediums) say. If
they say no to infrastructure development, it becomes difficult to do anything; a good example
being that of boreholes, which the mhondoros were against although people were dying from
contaminated drinking water. Road construction has met with stiff opposition. Of particular note
is the case of the abandoned idea of introducing an irrigation scheme. Most farmers were against
the idea as they thought they were going to be made labourers. The mhondoros are against
fertilizer use.
Fertilizer supply
In most of the survey area, fertilizers had been introduced prior to independence. Agri-input
supply has since improved in most areas. A majority of the farmers now know the benefits of
fertilizer use. Some farmers have received master farmer training. Due to increased knowledge,
fertilizer demand has increased. In recent years, marketing systems have been liberalized and
agrodealers are becoming established in the productive markets.
The declining fertility levels of soils are now forcing farmers to make increased use of
fertilizers. This has encouraged fertilizer companies to appoint agrodealers in the communal
areas. Many crop produce marketing companies are also entering the fertilizer supply market.
Cotton Company is now giving fertilizer on credit to its contracted farmers; GMB has also been
supplying fertilizers. In Hurungwe, the area under maize has increased and this has increased the
demand for Compound D and AN. However, some areas have a poor supply of fertilizers because
of their remoteness. In Muzarabani, because farmers lack knowledge about fertilizers, the market
is very limited.
Problems facing farmers

Fertilizer prices have increased and the effect has been exacerbated by poor grain prices.
Transport costs have also worsened the problem. Farmers receive a very low annual income, with
which they have to send their children to school and buy fertilizers and seeds for the next season.
Some of the major problems mentioned by farmers are outlined below.
Marketing problems
At times, GMB stops buying grain from farmers and they are eventually forced to sell to
unorganized private buyers, some of whom disappear without paying the farmers. This leaves the
farmer unprotected and very vulnerable.
Land size and fertilizer use

Farmers have mainly very small landholdings and the increased use of fertilizers appears to have
limited scope.
Credit
The availability of credit at reasonable interest rates is a major constraint in the small-scale
farming areas. The AFC loan facility has very high interest rates and farmers are also limited on
the quantity they can purchase. Moreover, farmers with no formal land title cannot produce the
collateral to be eligible for loans from commercial lending institutions.
The Cotton Company of Zimbabwe requires farmers to team up in order to qualify for
fertilizer loans, and subsequently to collectively repay the money after harvesting the crop. If one
farmer from the team fails to repay his portion, the whole group will not be considered for loans.
The more motivated farmers do not wish to be ‘policemen’ for other farmers. The scheme also
limits the number of bags farmers can purchase. They believe that competition is also neutralized
by this approach.
Fertilizer supply
There are many informal agro-dealers who are mostly grocery shop owners. They bring inputs
from the city markets in peak selling months and sell to the farmers at very high prices, so making
it difficult for farmers to purchase adequate quantities of inputs.
The delayed delivery of fertilizers in the communal areas leads to late application and this
results in poor use efficiency.
Because of increasing fertilizer prices, fertilizers are becoming less affordable, and the
prospects for increased agricultural production are limited at this time.
Droughts
Persistent droughts in most areas make it difficult for farmers to repay loans and to obtain more
fertilizers. Uncertainties caused by weather patterns also have a strong bearing on the quantity of
fertilizer purchased and/or used by farmers.
Crops grown
Many of the farmers in the communal areas rely only on maize and some marginal crops, which
are uneconomic and not easily transportable.
Soil sampling
Soil sampling for testing was done a long time ago and farmers only rely on blanket
recommendations from Agritex. There is a need for up-to-date soil sampling and testing in order
to apply proper types of fertilizers to maximize yields and achieve improved economic returns.
Produce grading system

Most farmers are critical of the grading system applied to their crop produce. The buyers usually
award the lower grades of C or D, so the produce fetches lower prices. Grade B is the best they
have obtained to date. Some farmers feel their produce is grade A or B. Some prejudice exists as
communal areas are perceived and valued lower in a hierarchy of economic gradation that places
large-scale commercial areas at the top.
AIDS
AIDS has become a major menace affecting most rural farming communities and their environs,
including the peri-urban areas such as growth points and rural service centres associated with the
micro-economy. Farmers often have to attend funerals. This entails their using most of the money
they would have set aside to purchase fertilizers. Commercial farmers, who need a large labour
force, are also affected. This trend is expected to worsen in the near future.
ZIMBABWE
NATURAL REGIONS
I Specialized and Diversified Farming Region
IIA Intensive Farming Region
IIB Intensive Farming Region
III Semi-Intensive Farming Region
IV Semi-Extensive Farming Region
V Extensive Farming Region
70 70% probability of receiving more than

500 mm rainfall during the period
October – April
This map has been derived from “Natural Regions and Provisional Farming Areas of
Zimbabwe”, 1:1,000,000 (Surveyor-General, 1998).
The original Map was compiled from information supplied by the Department of Agricultural,
Technical, and Extension Services (Agritex).
The 70% probability isoline is based on information from the Met. Dept. as compiled by the
Early Warning Unit for Food Security.

A Fertilizer Strategy For Zimbabwe

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

A Fertilizer Strategy For Zimbabwe

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

A FERTILIZER STRATEGY

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION

AFRICAN CENTRE FOR FERTILIZER

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

fertilizer equivalent to 186 000 t of N, P, K1 and S nutrients (1995). Analysis of production

ACFD - African Centre for Fertilizer Development

AEZ - Agro-Ecological Zones

AFC - Agricultural Finance Corporation

AGRITEX - Agricultural Technical and Extension Services

ASIP - Agricultural Sector Investment Programme

CFC - Crop Fertilizer Consumption

DRC - Domestic Resource Cost

DRSS - Department of Research and Specialist Services

FN - Fertilizer Nutrient Application

GMB - Grains Marketing Board

IPNS - Integrated Plant Nutrition Systems

LSC - Large-scale Commercial Sector

MOA - Ministry of Agriculture

NEPC - National Economic Planning Commission

NGO - Non-governmental Organization

SISP - Smallholder Irrigation Support Programme

SSP - Single Superphosphate

TCA - Total Crop Area

TFC - Total Fertilizer Consumption

ZAPF - Zimbabwe Agricultural Policy Framework

ZIMACE - Zimbabwe Agricultural Commodity Exchange

ROLE IN THE ECONOMY

COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE AND EXPORT PROSPECTS

FERTILIZER CONSUMPTION BY CROP

Farmers in the smallholder sector consist of:

SMALLHOLDER FERTILIZER CONSUMPTION

CONSTRAINTS AND DEVELOPMENTS

Infrastructure and logistics

agribusiness dealers in five districts. The project is expanding to establish a network of

RESEARCH AND EXTENSION

CREDIT AND FINANCING

Central Statistical Office. 1998. Agricultural Production on Resettlement Schemes 1996.

Objectives of the fertilizer adoption and market survey

The specific objectives of the survey were:

• to measure the extent and depth of farmers’knowledge of the usefulness of fertilizers;

Outline of the area covered

Analysis of the determinant factors

Defining the variables

DETAILS OF THE SURVEY APPROACH

Objective: To develop an empirically based understanding of the role of pricing in fertilizer

Survey zone 1 (NR I)

Survey zone 2 (NR II)

Survey zone 3 (NR III)

Survey zone 4 (NR IV)

Gutu, Gwanda, Gweru, Hurungwe, Kadoma, Kariba, Masvingo, Muzarabani, Mutoko,

Survey zone 5 (NR V)

• population of small-scale farmers;

Selection and training of survey staff

• product knowledge, use merits and methods of use of fertilizers;

Development and pre-testing of the questionnaire

• a questionnaire for individual farmer interviews;.

Method of data collection

Data analysis method

Variables and related hypotheses

(i) Personal attributes

(ii) Product knowledge and awareness