An assessment of the vitamin A maize seed delivery efforts ... · HarvestPlus and FRA have been...

c/o IFPRI 2033 K Street, NW • Washington, DC 20006-1002 USA • Tel: 202-862-5600 • Fax: 202-467-4439 • www.HarvestPlus.org

An assessment of the vitamin A maize seed delivery efforts to date: Agro-dealer sales and farmer production in Zambia

HarvestPlus leads a global effort to improve nutrition and public health by developing and deploying staple food crops that are rich in vitamins and minerals. We work with diverse partners in more than 40 countries. HarvestPlus is part of the CGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH). CGIAR is a global agriculture research partnership for a food secure future. Its science is carried out by its 15 research centers in collaboration with hundreds of partner organizations. The HarvestPlus program is coordinated by two of these centers, the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

Michael Tedla Diressie, Esther Zulu, Melinda Smale, Eliab Simpungwe and Ekin Birol

August 2016 Washington, DC

I

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) – Zambia for funding this study. We would like to thank

CARE International for facilitating SUN FUNDs to undertake this research. We are grateful to the

Programme Against Malnutrition (PAM), Ministry of Agriculture & Livestock of Zambia, and other

partners for their support and co-operation during the research process. We thank Dorene Asare-Marfo,

Jose Funes, Caitlin Herrington, Adewale Oparinde, Ina Schonberg and Manfred Zeller for their

comments, suggestions and fruitful discussions. We are grateful to the HarvestPlus-Zambia team for

their time and support and to the enumeration team and field supervisors for all their meticulous and

hard work. Last, but not least, we would like to thank the farmers and agro-dealers for taking their time

to participate in the study surveys. All errors are our own and do not reflect the institutional views of

SUN or HarvestPlus.

II

Contents

Acknowledgements ................................................................... I

List of Tables ......................................................................... III

List of Figures ........................................................................ III

List of Appendices ................................................................... IV

Executive Summary ................................................................... V

1. Introduction ......................................................................... 1

2. Data and Methodology ............................................................. 3

2.1 Agro-dealer Survey ......................................................................... 3

2.2 Farm Household Survey ................................................................... 5

3. Data Collection Problems ......................................................... 8

4. Results and Discussion ............................................................. 9

4.1 Agro-dealer Survey ......................................................................... 9

4.1.1 VAM Agro-dealers’ Characteristics ....................................................... 9

4.1.2 Marketing Statistics of VAM Seed ........................................................ 10

4.1.3 Packaging and Promotion of VAM Seed ................................................. 12

4.2 Farm Household Survey ................................................................. 14

4.2.1 Household Characteristics ................................................................ 14

4.2.2 Asset Possession and Wealth of Farmers ............................................... 16

4.2.3 Crop Production and Consumption ...................................................... 19

4.2.4 Maize Production and Consumption ..................................................... 19

4.2.5 VAM Production ............................................................................ 22

4.2.6 Evaluation of VAM Seed ................................................................... 26

4.2.7 Intention to Grow VAM in the Following Season ....................................... 27

4.2.8 Information and Knowledge of VAM ..................................................... 29

4.2.9 Marketing and Promotion of VAM ........................................................ 31

4.2.10 Diffusion of VAM ............................................................................ 33

5. Summary of Key Findings and Programmatic Implications ................. 33

6. Concluding Remarks ............................................................. 37

References ........................................................................... 39

Appendix ............................................................................. 40

III

List of Tables

Table 1. Distribution of the farmer survey respondents, by delivery channel and district .......... 8

Table 2. Household characteristics ........................................................................ 14

Table 3. Household level average income and land size ................................................ 17

Table 4. Land area share of the crops cultivated by district ........................................... 19

Table 5. Production and yield of maize in 2014/15 Rainy Season ..................................... 20

Table 6. Source and frequency of purchase of maize for consumption ............................... 21

Table 7. Percentage of farmers by the crops they replaced VAM with, by district ................. 24

Table 8. Production and yield of VAM in 2014/15 Rainy Season for VAM recipients ................ 25

Table 9. Intended customers and place of sale of VAM crop ........................................... 25

Table 10. Farmers’ seed acquisition and willingness to pay for VAM in the coming season ....... 28

Table 11. Comparison of the willingness to pay of farmers who received the VAM seed for free versus who bought from agro-dealers, in ZMW..................................... 29

Table 12. Satisfaction with VAM seed bags and promotional materials, by delivery channel ..... 32

List of Figures

Figure 1. Location of the agro-dealers interviewed ..................................................... 4

Figure 2. Map of the study area with the number of observations (Eastern Province, Zambia) .. 6

Figure 3. Planned sample size and actual sample size by channels and districts ................... 6

Figure 4. Distribution of the VAM seed recipients who participated in the farm household survey, by delivery channel ..................................................................... 8

Figure 5. Total amount received and sold in metric tons (sales rate in parentheses) ........... 10

Figure 6. Wholesale and retail prices in Zambian Kwacha (ZMW) (profit margin in parentheses) .................................................................................... 11

Figure 7. ZamSeed VAM seed packs ...................................................................... 13

Figure 8. Female decision makers on issues related to land and maize farming .................. 16

Figure 9. Possession of assets............................................................................. 16

Figure 10. Comparison of wealth between recipients and non-recipients of VAM ................ 18

Figure 11. Comparison of wealth by VAM delivery channel .......................................... 18

Figure 12. Average household land share allocated to maize ........................................ 20

Figure 13. Source of maize seed cultivated on the plots ............................................. 20

Figure 14. Percentage of seed bag recipients and average amount received for each bag ..... 22

Figure 15. Average household VAM area to total maize area share ................................. 23

Figure 16. Land source for VAM cultivation............................................................. 23

Figure 17. Time of acquisition and harvest of VAM .................................................... 24

Figure 18. Comparison of VAM traits to those of the white maize variety farmers are familiar with ................................................................................... 26

IV

Figure 19. Source of VAM seed planned to be planted in the 2015/16 Rainy Season ............. 27

Figure 20. Comparison of farmers’ willingness-to-pay with actual retail price, in ZMW ......... 28

Figure 21. Reasons for cultivation of VAM .............................................................. 29

Figure 22. Farmers’ knowledge on the benefits of vitamin A ........................................ 30

Figure 23. Sources of information about VAM, by VAM seed source ................................ 31

Figure 24. Satisfaction with VAM seed bags and promotional materials ........................... 31

Figure 25. Recommendation and diffusion of VAM seed .............................................. 33

List of Appendices

Appendix 1. List of agro-dealers interviewed ......................................................... 40

Appendix 2. Number of seed bags received and sold by province .................................. 41

Appendix 3. Average household total arable land, total maize land and total VAM land, in ha ......................................................................................... 42

Appendix 4. Land area share of the crops cultivated by district and VAM recipients ........... 42

Appendix 5. Average household land possession and allocation of the VAM recipients versus non-recipients ...................................................................... 42

Appendix 6. Differences in average household land size used to cultivate VAM vs. non-VAM varieties, in ha ............................................................................. 43

Appendix 7. Differences in average household yields of VAM vs. non-VAM varieties, in MT/ha .................................................................................... 43

Appendix 8. Cross-tabulation of intended customers and place of sale of VAM crop ........... 43

Appendix 9. Farmers’ knowledge on the benefits of vitamin A .................................... 44

Appendix 10. Agro-dealers’ Survey Instrument ....................................................... 44

Appendix 11. Farm Household Survey Instrument .................................................... 49

V

Executive Summary

Micronutrient malnutrition affects over two billion individuals, or one in three people, globally (Brian

and Amoroso 2011). The international nutrition community recognizes vitamin A, iron, and zinc to be

the micronutrients that are most limited in diets (Black, et al. 2013). According to the World Health

Organization (WHO), vitamin A deficiency (VAD) causes blindness in children and increases the risk of

disease and death from severe infections; in pregnant women, it causes night blindness and may

increase the risk of maternal mortality. In Zambia, more than half of children aged under 5 and 13 percent

of women of child-bearing age are affected by VAD (UNICEF n.d.). The Government of Zambia is

committed to reducing the prevalence of VAD through targeted supplementation and fortification.

Large-dosage supplements of vitamin A are administered to children under 5 during child health weeks,

and industrially processed sugar is fortified with vitamin A.

Since 2012, biofortification has come to complement fortification and supplementation in the effort to

alleviate VAD in the country. The development, release, and delivery of conventionally bred, hybrid,

vitamin A-enriched maize varieties—henceforth vitamin A maize (VAM)—is expected to improve

vitamin A intakes through the most commonly grown and consumed staple crop in the country. The

VAM development and delivery efforts are spearheaded by HarvestPlus, the global leader in

biofortification, in close collaboration with: CIMMYT; the Government of Zambia through the ministries

of Agriculture, Health, Education and Community Development; the private seed sector, and various

non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the country. Since the official release of three hybrid VAM

varieties in 2012, HarvestPlus has been working with partners to scale up seed delivery, with operations

in 8 of the country’s 10 provinces as of May 2016.

To effectively promote VAM and to engender behavior change toward its production and consumption,

HarvestPlus and partners have been working to create a VAM value chain that runs from seed

companies, which produce high quality hybrid VAM seeds, to agro-dealers (retail outlets). In the

2014/2015 growing season, the first VAM variety (GV664A) was commercialized through ZamSeed in

Eastern, Central, Southern, Western and Lusaka provinces, with agro-dealers selling the seed to farmers.

In the same growing season, VAM seed was also distributed free of charge in a promotion targeting

women’s groups, lead farmers, schools and health centers in Eastern, Southern, Central and Lusaka

provinces.

This report presents the results of two surveys conducted during the 2014/2015 growing season. The

first of these surveys was conducted to determine the perceptions and coverage of agro-dealers. Thirty-

one agro-dealers who received VAM seed from ZamSeed took part in this survey. They were located in

VI

Eastern, Southern, Central, Luapula and Northern provinces. The second survey was conducted among

483 maize farmers, 243 of whom grew VAM seed acquired through various delivery channels (agro-

dealers, women’s groups, lead farmers, schools, and health centers). Implemented in the Eastern

Province, where all of the aforementioned delivery channels were used, the aim of this survey was to

understand the factors that affect adoption of VAM and farmers’ intentions to grow the variety in

subsequent seasons. In this report, we present the results of the descriptive statistical analysis

conducted with STATA.

The results of the agro-dealer survey reveal that in order to increase VAM seed sales, (1) both farmers

and the public in general should be better informed about the nutritional benefits of VAM (i.e., need for

raising awareness and behavior change communication), and (2) seed companies should ensure timely

delivery of VAM seed to agro-dealers, and consider making the seed available in smaller pack sizes (i.e.

0.5 kg, 1 kg, 2 kg and 5 kg). The results revealed that less than 50 percent of the VAM seed delivered to

agro-dealers was sold, implying a low sales rate. To improve sales, agro-dealers indicated the need for

sensitization and promotional activities, such as distributing free small trial packs, colorful flyers and

posters, and community radio programs, in addition to providing incentives (e.g. other agricultural

inputs) to farmers. Overall, the agro-dealers were strongly optimistic about VAM’s prospects for large

scale adoption in Zambia, provided that demand for grain is guaranteed higher up in the value chain.

The agro-dealers recommended investment in demand-pull mechanisms, such as the Food Reserve

Agency (FRA) and commercial millers, to ensure that they purchase VAM from farmers. Since 2015,

HarvestPlus and FRA have been working to get VAM included in the latter’s maize acquisition program.

Moreover, the AgResults initiative, of which HarvestPlus is a partner, is working with medium- and large-

scale industrial millers to process and supply VAM products in commercial markets (AgResults 2016).

The farmer survey revealed several interesting results: (1) within households interviewed, both men and

women are involved in decision making concerning maize production. Therefore, it is important to

ensure that information and behavior change communication efforts target both sexes; (2) co-operatives

and women’s groups are major sources of information for both recipients and non-recipients of VAM

seed; thus, these groups could function as important vehicles to spread information about VAM; (3)

among sampled farmers, the most common sources of maize seed were co-operatives and their own,

recycled seed. Since not all farmers can be reached through the private seed system and agro-dealers,

demo packs as well as larger quantities of VAM seed should continue to be distributed through co-

operatives and women’s groups; (4) sampled farmers stated that they considered the nutritional benefit

of VAM when deciding whether to grow the crop. They also expressed an inclination toward the

nutritional over the agronomic benefits such as yield, maturity, and disease resistance. Ninety-eight

VII

percent (98 percent) of the VAM seed recipients indicated that they planted all the received seed, with

more than 80 percent citing the nutritional benefit as their primary reason. Any behavior change

communication on VAM should, therefore, emphasize the nutritional benefit message in order to be

effective; (5) asked to compare VAM’s production and consumption traits against the white maize

familiar to them, respondents preferred VAM over the latter in regard to taste and resistance to drought,

and white maize in regard to market sales. This echoed the findings of the agro-dealer survey, which

highlighted the market imperative for VAM grain if farmers are to adopt the variety; (6) over half (55

percent) of the sampled farmers were not happy with the VAM seed bag sizes offered by agro-dealers.

Farmers stated that they were willing to pay more for smaller packages of VAM, re-emphasizing the need

for different-sized packages (especially small trial sizes) as also expressed by agro-dealers, and finally

(7) those who received VAM seed through channels other than agro-dealers had a significantly higher

wealth status than those who did not receive the seed. This indicates the need to re-evaluate targeting

criteria for the distribution of free promotional packs to ensure that poorer households—which are more

likely to suffer from vitamin A deficiency—are reached. HarvestPlus works with the Ministry of

Agriculture’s Extension Services, which is responsible for determining recipients of free promotional

packs. Generally, free promotional packs are distributed through farmers’ groups of some sort, e.g.

cooperatives, and poorer households rarely actively participate in such groups.

Overall, the results of the two surveys indicate that as a result of its nutritional value, VAM has the

potential to be cultivated at scale in Zambia. Once this is the case, a significant reduction in vitamin A

deficiency is expected. In fact, an ex-ante impact assessment study conducted by HarvestPlus revealed

that with the optimistic assumptions of 60 percent replacement of white maize by VAM containing 15

parts per million (ppm) of vitamin A, target populations’ intake of the micronutrient can increase by

47.1 percent by 2042. That would be enough to reduce the percentage of children under 5 suffering from

vitamin A deficiency from 54.1 percent in 2010 to 13 percent in 2042. Therefore, it is important that VAM

seed development and delivery, promotion and demand creation activities, are implemented throughout

the country (including in the urban areas which can function as demand-pull). This report provides some

insights on how best to maximize VAM adoption and consumption outcomes to alleviate VAD in

Zambia.

1

1. Introduction

Micronutrient malnutrition affects over two billion individuals, or one in three people, globally (Brian

and Amoroso 2011). The international nutrition community recognizes vitamin A, iron, and zinc to be

the micronutrients that are most limiting in diets (Black, et al. 2013). According to the World Health

Organization (WHO), vitamin A deficiency (VAD) prevails in more than half of all countries globally,

especially those in Africa and South-East Asia. VAD affects vulnerable populations, particularly young

children and pregnant women. It causes preventable blindness in children, and increases the risk of

disease and death from severe infections; in pregnant women, VAD causes night blindness and may

increase the risk of maternal mortality (WHO 2016). WHO (2016) further estimates that globally 250

million preschool children are vitamin A deficient. Some 250,000 to 500,000 vitamin A deficient

children become blind every year, half of them dying within 12 months of losing their sight (WHO 2016).

According to the latest available nationally representative data related to Zambia, the prevalence of low

serum retinol concentration (<0.70 μmol/L) is 54 percent among preschool children aged 6 to 59

months and 13 percent among women of child bearing age (MOST, et al. 2003); (WHO 2009). The

prevalence of high VAD among children is significantly above the WHO threshold of 20 percent that

defines VAD as a severe public health problem (WHO 2009) . In order to tackle high VAD rates, targeted

interventions including large-dose vitamin A supplementation and fortification of sugar with vitamin A

(UNICEF n.d.) (World Bank n.d.) have been implemented. According to the World Bank (n.d) report,

Zambia has achieved high rates of vitamin A supplementation as part of the child health weeks, with 96

percent of children aged 6–59 months receiving the recommended two doses approximately six months

apart. The coverage of fortified sugar is also high, at 64 percent (Lividini and Fiedler 2015). Despite its

high coverage, however, supplementation requires annual investment and may not reach children

located in the most remote areas of the country. For its part, vitamin A fortified sugar is consumed

mainly in urban areas and/or by people who have regular access to market-purchased foods, such as

processed sugar.

A promising solution to alleviating VAD, especially among rural poor households not covered by other

interventions, is biofortification—the process of breeding staple food crops with higher micronutrient

content (Bouis, et al. 2013); (Saltzman, et al. 2013). Because food staples are consumed regularly in

large quantities, biofortification is an efficient and cost-effective way of bringing more micronutrients to

the diets of the poor (Birol, et al. 2014). Accounting for 57 percent of Zambians’ daily caloric

consumption and grown by over four out of five smallholders (Sitko, et al. 2011), maize is the main

staple crop in Zambia. The Biofortification Priority Index (BPI)—which ranks countries for

biofortification interventions based on their production and consumption of target crops and the rate

2

of micronutrient deficiency among target populations—places Zambia at number three among country

suitable for the introduction of vitamin A-enriched orange maize (henceforth vitamin a maize or VAM)

(HarvestPlus/BPI 2015).

Nutrition and acceptance research on VAM has yielded promising results. White maize varieties

commonly consumed in Zambia do not contain any beta-carotene, a naturally occurring plant pigment

that the body converts to vitamin A. VAM varieties are bred to have higher levels of beta-carotene, and

hence are orange in color (VAM is often called orange maize). Studies have found that the beta-carotene

in VAM is an efficacious source of vitamin A when consumed as a staple food (Gannon, et al. 2014).

Studies conducted with maize consumers (Meenakshi, et al. 2012) and farmers (Chibwe, et al. 2013)

revealed positive acceptability for the various consumption (e.g., taste, color, aroma, appearance,

texture) and production (e.g., yield, cob size, and cob-filling) traits of VAM varieties, and that, overall,

consumers and farmers liked VAM varieties as much as, if not more than, white maize varieties.

Since 2007 HarvestPlus and its partners Zambia Agricultural Research Institute (ZARI), IITA, and

CIMMYT have been working to develop, test, and officially release conventionally bred (non-GMO),

hybrid varieties of VAM. In 2012, three VAM hybrids were officially released for production by farmers.

Since then, HarvestPlus and its various public, private and non-governmental organization (NGO)

partners have been working to scale up the delivery of VAM. Currently, HarvestPlus operates in eight

out of the ten key maize growing provinces in the country, collaborating closely with the Government of

Zambia (through the ministries of Agriculture, Health, Education, and Community Development), three

private seed companies (ZamSeed, Seed Co, Kamano Seed) and several local and international NGOs

(Development Aid from People to People, Land O’Lakes, World Vision, Programme Against

Malnutrition). To effectively promote VAM, HarvestPlus has been working toward the creation of a VAM

value chain beginning with seed companies, which produce high quality hybrid VAM seed and deliver it

to farmers through agro-dealers, all the way up to the millers that process grain. To demonstrate its

appreciation and acceptance of VAM as a potential intervention against VAD, the Zambian Government

has included the variety’s seed under the Farm Input Subsidy Programme (FISP) that provides inputs

to farmers at subsidized rates. HarvestPlus continues to play a coordinating role to lobby the

Government to include VAM grain under the Food Reserve Agency’s1 procurements. Moreover, through

the pilot AgResults Initiative, HarvestPlus is working with partners to create demand for VAM among

commercial millers.

1 The Food Reserve Agency (FRA) is a government initiative created to ensure national food security through provision of market access to rural based small holder farmers and to stabilize supply and price of food (FRA 2016). It is the largest buyer of maize grain produced by small holder farmers (CUTS 2016).

3

In the 2014/2015 growing season, commercial seed of the first variety of VAM (GV664A) was produced

by ZamSeed and sold to farmers through select agro-dealers in the Eastern, Central, Southern, Western

and Lusaka provinces. In the same season, VAM seed was also distributed through other channels,

including women’s groups, lead farmers, schools, and health centers. As part of the AgResults initiative,

millers have also joined the “Orange Revolution” by agreeing to process the harvested VAM grain into

different products such as mealie meal, samp, and maize grit. In the past four years, HarvestPlus and

partners have been developing and implementing a number of promotional strategies to raise

awareness and disseminate information about the benefits of producing and consuming VAM. Those

strategies have, among others, involved exhibiting VAM seed and products at various forums, including

the Zambia National Agriculture show, the Zambia International Trade Fair, and various other similar

fairs around the country. HarvestPlus has also been disseminating brochures, flyers, posters and t-shirts

containing information on VAM.

Following five years of adaptive breeding, four years of intensive promotion, and the large-scale delivery

undertaken in the 2014/2015 planting season, it is imperative to take stock of the effect and the

effectiveness of these various interventions. This report presents the results of two surveys conducted

for this purpose: (1) an agro-dealer survey which aims to elicit agro-dealers’ point of view with regards

to farmers’ interest in, and demand for, VAM, and how to maximize these with effective promotion

campaigns and incentive schemes, and (2) a farm household survey which aims to shed light on various

issues, including the factors that affect farmer adoption of VAM; farmers’ feedback on the various

production, consumption and marketing traits of VAM compared with white maize; farmers’ use of VAM

output, farmer diffusion of information about VAM, and farmer intention to grow VAM in subsequent

seasons.

The rest of the report is organized as follows: the next section presents the data sources, data collection

methodology, and data limitations, followed by a presentation of the surveys’ results. The concluding

section summarizes the key findings and draws out their implications for crop development (breeding),

delivery, and promotion strategies implemented by HarvestPlus and its partners.

2. Data and Methodology

2.1 Agro-dealer Survey

A survey of agro-dealers who received VAM seed from ZamSeed for the 2014-2015 planting season was

conducted2 from March 25 to May 8, 2015 in Eastern, Southern, Central, Luapula and Northern

2 See Appendix 10 for the survey instrument.

4

provinces. Since VAM is a new (and differentiated, due to its orange color) variety on the market,

ZamSeed selected the most prominent agro-dealers in each province through whom to distribute VAM

seed. Out of the 35 agro-dealers who sold VAM seed in that season, 31 were able to participate in the

study, with 15 from Eastern Province, four from Southern Province, eight from Central Province, three

from Northern Province, and one from Luapula Province. In Eastern Province, the interviewed agro-

dealers were located in Chipata, Katete, Nyimba, Petauke, Lundazi, and Sinda districts. In Southern

Province, the interviewed agro-dealers were from Kalomo, Choma and Monze districts. In Central

Province, the interviewed agro-dealers were in Kabwe, Kapiri, Serenje and Mkushi Districts. In Northern

Province, the interviewed agro-dealers were located in Isoka, Chinsali and Nakonde districts, and in

Luapula Province, the lone interviewed agro-dealer was from Mansa District (Figure 1 and Appendix 1).

Figure 1. Location of the agro-dealers interviewed

In order to be able to follow up with farmers who purchase VAM seed, it was planned that ZamSeed

train the agro-dealers to keep comprehensive bill books listing the names and addresses of their buyers.

According to the results of the agro-dealer survey, however, only the agro-dealers in Eastern Province

were trained to keep a bill book. But, even among the trained agro-dealers, not all kept bill books for the

reason that recording such information required close attention and time, which they found hard to

5

spare during a busy business day. This resulted in a less-than-complete list of VAM seed purchasers

from agro-dealers.

2.2 Farm Household Survey

The farmer survey was carried out to assess recipients’ evaluation of VAM seed, and VAM seed delivery,

marketing and promotion strategies, and to elicit their intention to grow VAM in subsequent seasons.

The survey was also designed to capture non-recipients’ of VAM characteristics. It was conducted in

Eastern Province only, since it is the only province where contact details of farmers who purchased VAM

seed were available from agro-dealers. Initially, the study team expected to draw a sample of farmers

who purchased VAM seed from bill books kept by all 15 agro-dealers in this province. However, the team

found that agro-dealers in only 3 of the 6 districts in Eastern Province (namely, Chipata, Katete and

Sinda) had kept bill books. The study, therefore, concentrated on these three districts, where VAM was

also delivered through other channels, such as lead farmers, women’s groups, schools/health centers.

Lead farmers are those who are usually considered to be model farmers in a community in terms of

adopting novel technologies and producing high performing crops. They are selected by camp extension

officers, and receive new technologies, such as improved seeds, to try when they are being introduced.

Their fields are then used during field days as demonstration plots to show the new technology to other

farmers in the community. These lead farmers received a 1 kg VAM seed bag each. Women’s groups

comprise women (and in some instances, a few men) who form a co-operative. Different women’s

groups have different practices: some farm together (i.e., share labor); others form a co-operative in

order to purchase seed and fertilizer as a group and thereby reduce input costs. Women’s group farmers

received a 5 kg VAM seed bag each. The farmers given seeds through schools and health centers were

either parents or guardians of orphaned or half-orphaned school children and those who had children

under five years of age. They received a VAM demo pack, which is 0.5 kg. All of these channels delivered

the VAM seed for free.

A total of 288 VAM seed recipients were randomly selected to be interviewed from the lists collected in

the three districts. The lists were compiled by the HarvestPlus Zambia Monitoring, Learning and Action

team and contained information on the farmers who received VAM seed through all different delivery

channels. The sample was stratified by delivery channel to ensure similar stratum sizes across each of

the four channels. All 38 of the farmers listed by agro-dealers in the three districts were sampled, as were

100 lead farmers, 100 women’s groups, and 50 farmers who received VAM seed through schools and

health centers. A lower quota was assigned to the farmers who received seed from schools and health

centers due to the lower amount (o.5 kg) in the demo packs. In addition to these 288 VAM seed

6

recipients and purchasers (henceforth referred to as recipients), 250 farmers who did not receive VAM

seed were also sampled. These farmers were selected through a snowball matching process. For each

farmer who was selected per the free delivery channels in each village, a farmer who did not

receive/purchase VAM seed was also selected. Figure 2 shows the distribution of the respondents

sampled, by district, and Figure 3 shows the distribution of sampled and interviewed farmers by district,

VAM recipient status, and delivery channel.

Figure 2. Map of the study area with the number of observations (Eastern Province, Zambia)

Figure 3. Planned sample size and actual sample size by channels and districts

Lundazi

Mambwe

Petauke

Nyimba

Chadiza

7

The enumeration team consisted of six enumerators and a supervisor. Training of enumerators took

place in Lusaka from August 4 to August 10. Data collection lasted about three weeks, from August 12

through September 2, 2015. A farm household-level survey instrument (see Appendix 11) was

administered to the sampled households. It had five different versions (one for each delivery channel

and one for non-recipients) and included questions on household demographics, assets and income,

and several questions on maize production, varietal choice, access to inputs (in particular maize seed)

and sources of information about new technologies. VAM recipients were also asked questions to

understand their evaluation of the VAM variety and their intention to grow it in the future.

Even though the total sample selected comprised 538 farmers, 483 participated in the survey (about 90

percent response rate). Since the non-VAM recipients were matched to the recipients, the decline in the

number of respondents should be attributed to the attrition of VAM recipients. Out of the sample that

was initially drawn, 8 percent of the farmers who received VAM seed through channels other than agro-

dealers, and 66 percent of the farmers who were listed by the agro-dealers, could not be traced. This is

mainly due to the incorrect recording of the names and/or addresses of the recipients/purchasers. Some

of the farmers could not be located because they had moved away, while some who had been recorded

as having received VAM seed stated that they had not received any. In fact, the attrition rate would have

been higher had it not been for the replacement farmers from a backup sample that was drawn from the

master list. The descriptive statistical analyses of the agro-dealer and farmer survey data were carried

out using STATA3.

3 STATA codes are available from authors upon request.

8

Table 1 shows the distribution of respondents by district while Figure 4 shows the ratio of respondents

from each delivery channel. It should be noted that these figures represent the sampled farmers and not

all maize growing farmers in these districts.

Table 1. Distribution of the farmer survey respondents, by delivery channel and district

Respondent category District

Total (n=483) Chipata

(n=121) Katete

(n=238) Sinda

(n=124)

Women groups 7% 27% 23% 21% Demo packs (Schools & Health Centers) 9% 7% 12% 9% A lead farmer 29% 13% 15% 18% Bought from agro-dealers 7% 2% 1% 3% Didn't get it at all 48% 51% 48% 50%

100% 100% 100% 100% n=number of households

Figure 4. Distribution of the VAM seed recipients who participated in the farm household survey, by delivery channel

3. Data Collection Problems

The study encountered a few challenges, including the following major ones:

• Not all agro-dealers collected the contact information of the farmers who bought VAM seed.

The names and/or locations of listed farmers were not always correctly/completely entered.

• Similarly, the lists for the other delivery channels (lead farmers, women’s groups, and

schools/health clinics) were also incomplete, and name and/or location information was not

always complete/correct.

Lead farmer29%

Women groups29%

School25%

Health center12%

From agro-dealers5%

9

• The rate of attrition was high, due to the fact that some selected VAM seed recipients had either

moved away from their recorded location or their listed location was incorrect. Farmers who

could not be located were replaced, however the overall sample is 56 observations fewer than

planned.

These sampling challenges could have introduced a selection bias into our results to the extent that

farmers who were included in the sample were systematically different from those who were excluded.

Without additional information, it is difficult to deduce whether errors are likely to be random or

systematic and, if systematic, which farmer characteristics are most likely to differentiate VAM recipients

included in the study from those who were excluded. The fact that only three districts of Eastern Province

are included in this study clearly limits representation geographically. Moreover, given the sampling

constraints arising from incomplete lists of VAM recipients, even within these districts the results

should be treated as illustrative but not necessarily statistically representative of all VAM seed recipient

or non-recipient households.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1 Agro-dealer Survey

4.1.1 VAM Agro-dealers’ Characteristics

The agro-dealer survey results showed that on average agro-dealers had 9 years of experience in running

an agro-dealer outlet, with a maximum of 30 and a minimum of 2 years of experience. Men owned about

74 percent of the agro-dealer shops, which indicates that the business is male dominated. Regarding

knowledge of VAM, 42 percent of the agro-dealers interviewed knew about VAM seed before they

received it from ZamSeed. In fact, for the majority of the agro-dealers, ZamSeed was their main source

of information regarding VAM, followed by radio programs and the Ministry of Agriculture. Most of the

agro-dealers knew the nutritional benefits of VAM: 55 percent stated that the variety contains vitamin A,

while 29 percent mentioned nutritional benefits in general without specifying vitamin A. Only 10 percent

did not have a clear understanding of the nutritional benefits of VAM.

ZamSeed distributes seeds of different maize varieties at the beginning of each farming season. Usually,

agro-dealers request specific varieties that are popular or demanded by their clientele, and this varies by

region. For the 2014/15 maize planting season (Rainy Season, which runs from October to April), about

71 percent of the agro-dealers interviewed had not requested VAM seed. ZamSeed distributed this variety

to the agro-dealers to be sold as a new variety. Twenty-six (26) percent of the surveyed agro-dealers had

received VAM seed upon request based on farmers’ demand. The remaining 3 percent of the

10

respondents could not remember whether they had requested the seed or whether ZamSeed had

delivered it to them without request.

4.1.2 Marketing Statistics of VAM Seed

Agro-dealers in each province received VAM seed in one or more of the following sized bags: 0.5, 1, 2, 5

or 10 kilograms. Agro-dealers in different provinces had different sales rates for each VAM seed bag size

(see Appendix 2). According to Appendix 2, Luapula Province had the highest sales rates for 2, 5 and 10

kilogram bags of VAM seed, recording a 100 percent sales rate. A contributing factor might have been

the small amount of seed the agro-dealers in the province received. Central Province, the only province

where 0.5 kilogram seed bags were distributed, sold all the bags of this size. The province also had the

second highest sales rate of both 2 kilogram and 10 kilogram seed bags. Southern Province recorded a

sales rate of 62 percent for 5 kilogram bags. Eastern and Northern provinces recorded sales rates of 29

percent and 32 percent, respectively for a 5 kilogram bag of VAM seed. However, it should be noted that

some provinces had higher sales rates for specific bag sizes because of the amount of seed bag they

received. Provinces that received more bags of seed might exhibit a lower sales rate albeit higher sales

in nominal terms. For instance, Eastern Province received the highest number of each of the bag sizes

distributed since more of its agro-dealers were selling VAM seed (see Appendix 2). Figure 5 compares

the overall sales rate, depicting the total amounts of VAM seed received and sold in.

Figure 5 shows that Eastern Province received the largest quantity of seed but had the second lowest

sales rates. Luapula on the other hand received the smallest quantity of seed but had the highest sales

rate. Out of the seed distributed to all of the interviewed agro-dealers in these provinces, less than half

(48 percent) was sold. The remaining seed was returned to ZamSeed as carryover seed. This seed will

undergo quality control tests just before the next maize planting season and, if it passes, will be returned

to the agro-dealers.

Figure 5. Total amount received and sold in metric tons (sales rate in parentheses)

0.7

1.5

2.7

2.1

0.20.2

0.9 1.01.2

0.2

Northern(25%)

Southern(62%)

Eastern(35%)

Central(56%)

Luapula(97%)

Received Sold

7.2

3.4

Received Sold

(48%)

11

Most of the agro-dealers purchased VAM seed at a wholesale price from ZamSeed and sold at a higher

retail price. The retail price varied depending on the bag size and location. The majority of the agro-

dealers paid the same wholesale price to ZamSeed but their retail prices differed even though ZamSeed

recommends a fixed retail rate. Figure 6 shows the different prices, both wholesale and retail, paid for

each VAM seed bag size, by province, with their respective profit margins. According to the graph, a 2

kilogram bag had a wholesale price of 37 ZMW4 in each province, and most of the provinces sold at the

recommended retail price of 43 ZMW; only Central and Luapula provinces sold slightly higher and lower,

respectively, than the recommended price. The wholesale price for the 5 kilogram bag in most of the

provinces in this sample was 88 ZMW, with the price falling slightly in Eastern and Luapula provinces.

For the retail price, most of the agro-dealers followed the recommended rate of 101 ZMW; the exceptions

were Eastern Province (102 ZMW) and Southern Province (100 ZMW).

The 10 kilogram bag of VAM seed was purchased at a wholesale price of 171 ZMW in each province and

sold at the recommended retail price of 200 ZMW. The 0.5 and 1 kilogram bags were only sold in Central

and Luapula provinces, respectively; 0.5 kilogram bags carried a wholesale price of 15 ZMW and were

sold at a retail price of 25 ZMW, whereas 1 kilogram bags were bought wholesale at 19 ZMW and retailed

for 25 ZMW.

As a result of the different mark ups in price, profits tended to differ across provinces and bag sizes. For

the 2 kilogram bag, for instance, Central Province recorded the highest profit at 21 percent, whereas for

5 kilogram bags Eastern Province recorded the highest profit at 19 percent. The highest returns on VAM

seed sales involved 0.5 kilogram bags in Central Province, with profit recorded at 67 percent. Higher

profit margins can attract agro-dealers to VAM seed, but at the same time retail prices have to be

competitive with other seed varieties.

Figure 6. Wholesale and retail prices in Zambian Kwacha (ZMW) (profit margin in parentheses)

4 US$ 1 ≈ 7.12 Zambian Kwacha (ZMW) at the time of the agro-dealer survey.

37 37 37 37

88 88 86 88 87 87

171 171 171

43 45 42 43

101 100 102 98 101 101

200 200 200Wholesale Price

Retail Price

12

Less than half (42 percent) of the agro-dealers surveyed had been giving feedback to ZamSeed

concerning VAM seed demand and sales. The majority of this feedback related to ZamSeed’s timing of

the VAM seed delivery to agro-dealers. In fact, 23 percent of the agro-dealers who gave feedback to

ZamSeed forwarded their opinion that the VAM seed was delivered too late for the 2014/2015 maize

planting season and, as such, didn’t realize its sale potential; even farmers who had initially wanted

VAM seed had to buy another variety that was available at the time of planting. Moreover, several (38

percent) of the agro-dealers emphasized the need for intensive promotion and sensitization/awareness

campaigns for VAM, given its newness on the market and the lack of adequate information among some

farmers on the variety and its nutritional benefits. Some agro-dealers (23 percent), especially those

located in Central and Eastern provinces, stated that the demand for VAM seed was high.

4.1.3 Packaging and Promotion of VAM Seed

To effectively promote VAM, it is important to find out what farmers look for when buying seed.

Packaging and its messaging could be a factor determining variety choice. Therefore, the agro-dealers

were asked how they would rate the packaging of the VAM seeds delivered by ZamSeed. While nearly

one-quarter of the agro-dealers indicated that packaging was not a factor in their decision to purchase a

variety, more than half (58 percent) stated that VAM seed packaging was attractive. The remaining 19

percent rated it as unattractive (Figure 7).

Despite the positive evaluation by the majority of agro-dealers, 55 percent of the respondents wanted

even more colorful packaging of VAM seed, and 20 percent recommended smaller-sized packages that

13

farmers can buy to first try out the varieties. Ten (10) percent of the respondents indicated that it was

important to include nutritional and agronomic information on the packaging.

Figure 7. ZamSeed VAM seed packs

Various promotional materials such as flyers, posters, and t-shirts were used to sensitize farmers and

the general public on the nutritional benefits of VAM. It is important to assess the adequacy and

attractiveness of these materials. When asked about them, nearly half (45 percent) of the respondents

supported the inclusion of information on nutritional benefits in the promotional materials, and 40

percent wanted the materials to be more colorful. There was also a suggestion to produce more of the

promotional materials and to translate them into local languages. Respondents also suggested other

promotional strategies, such as sensitization through community radio, demonstration plots, and field

days. All of these strategies are already employed by HarvestPlus and its partners.

Agro-dealers were asked their opinions on how to ensure wide adoption of VAM seed. Over one-third

(34 percent) of the respondents indicated creation of a sustainable market for VAM grain as high priority.

Since the Food Reserve Agency (FRA) is the main maize grain market for a majority of farmers, including

VAM in FRA purchases is of utmost priority for HarvestPlus and its partners. Some 35 percent of

respondents also identified timely delivery of VAM seed to agro-dealers and seed quality as crucial.

Sixteen (16) percent of the agro-dealers considered it important to partner with other organizations,

governmental and non-governmental, in promoting VAM and sensitizing farmers and the general public

on the variety’s nutritional benefits. To further increase availability and encourage sales, there was also

a suggestion to engage other seed companies to sell other VAM seed varieties, since some farmers are

loyal to specific brands.

Respondents were highly optimistic about the possibility of farmers adopting VAM, but noted that it

would take some time (2-4 years) for sales rates to reach those of other popular varieties. That optimism

10 kg

2 kg

0.5 kg 1 kg

14

was informed by their assessment that a potential market for VAM existed—the maize was found to be

sweet and early maturing, and some of the agro-dealers themselves had planted VAM for their own

consumption and liked it.

Even though the survey did not include any question on orange versus yellow maize, this issue was

brought up by over half of the respondents. These agro-dealers stated that Zambians did not like the

consumption characteristics of the yellow maize grain distributed by aid agencies following the drought

of 1992. They noted that to this day, yellow maize is associated with hunger and poverty. These agro-

dealers were concerned that some consumers might shun VAM (and hence farmers may not want to

grow it) because its orange color may be confused with yellow maize. These concerns are definitely

worth noting. It is also worth noting that previous research on consumers (Meenakshi, et al. 2012) and

farmers (Chibwe, et al. 2013), as well as results of the farmer survey presented below, reveal that once

farmers and consumers try or experience VAM, they do not confuse it with yellow maize. Moreover, the

consumption characteristics of VAM are far superior to yellow maize, and as good as, if not better than,

those of white maize.

4.2 Farm Household Survey

4.2.1 Household Characteristics

Among all households surveyed, the majority (more than 80 percent) were male-headed, with no

statistical difference in household headship between those that received/bought VAM seed and those

that did not. On average, the household head was about 43 years old, with 21 years of experience in

maize farming. The household head had been living in that same area for 15 years on average (Table 2).

Although the differences in the household head’s mean age and years of maize experience appear to be

statistically significant between VAM recipients vs non-recipients, they are not meaningful.

Educational levels differed statistically significantly between household heads who received VAM seed

and those who did not. Almost half (about 49 percent) of the household heads from both VAM growing

and non-growing households had attended only elementary school; however, more of the household

heads who grew VAM had higher levels of education than those that did not grow the variety. Among

the VAM recipients, almost a third (29 percent) of the household heads had completed secondary school

compared with 22 percent of those that did not receive VAM. Similarly, over one-tenth (12 percent) of

the household heads who received VAM had completed tertiary education compared with only 5 percent

of those who did not receive VAM seed.

Table 2. Household characteristics

15

Household category

Recipient (n=243)

Non-recipient (n=240)

Total (n=483)

Female-headed households 18% 20% 19%

Households that have pregnant women** 5% 9% 7%

Households that have lactating women 26% 30% 28%

Households that have children under 5

– One child under 5 33% 35% 34%

– At least two children under 5 18% 20% 19%

Education level of household head*** – No school 13% 20% 17%

– Elementary school 46% 53% 49%

– Secondary school 29% 22% 25%

– Tertiary school 12% 5% 9%

Marital status of household head** – Never married 3% 1% 2%

– Married - polygamous 7% 5% 6%

– Divorced 5% 10% 7%

– Widowed 5% 9% 7%

– Married-monogamy 79% 75% 77%

Mean(SD) Mean(SD) Mean(SD)

Household size*** 6 (3) 5 (2) 5 (3)

Age of household head** 44 (12) 42 (16) 43 (14)

Household head years of experience in maize farming* 22 (12) 20 (14) 21 (13)

Number of years the household lived in the area 15 (12) 14 (13) 15 (12) Significance level across the two categories (recipient Vs non-recipient), *p<0.10, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01

n=number of households; standard deviation in parentheses

About 77 percent of household heads who participated in this survey were monogamously married

(Table 2). Again, while differences between VAM seed recipients and non-recipients appear to be

statistically significant, they are not meaningful in magnitude.

Table 2 also reports household demographics. On average, each household had five members. Among

all the households surveyed, 7 percent had at least one female household member who was pregnant,

almost one-third (28 percent) had at least one lactating woman, and over half (53 percent) had at least

one child aged under 5. Disaggregating this latter figure further, the survey found that 34 percent had

one child under 5 while almost one-fifth (19 percent) had at least two. Although the percentage of non-

recipients with pregnant women was nearly twice that found among recipients (9 percent versus 5

percent, respectively), they are small overall.

Information on the main decision maker in the household with regards to land- and maize-related issues

is important for developing and implementing targeted and effective delivery and marketing strategies.

16

Figure 8 reveals that men were the main decision makers on issues concerning maize production,

purchase, sales and farm land. Women tended to make decisions about consumption of maize in only

half of the households. This finding is consistent with previous research in this region (Smale and

Mason 2012). The picture is consistent across the VAM seed recipients and non-recipients. In addition

to this, on average, women managed 25 percent of the farm land owned by a household. This was

consistent across all districts and across the VAM seed recipients and non-recipients (see Appendix 3).

Figure 8. Female decision makers on issues related to land and maize farming

4.2.2 Asset Possession and Wealth of Farmers

Asset ownership was similar between the VAM seed recipients and non-recipients for land, houses, and

livestock (Figure 9). More than 88 percent of all farmers owned some land and a house. About 55 percent

to 70 percent owned a traditional granary, bicycle, cellphone, and radio, and only about 48 percent

owned livestock structures. Livestock farming does not seem to be an important economic activity in

these three districts because less than 40 percent of the farmers owned livestock.

Figure 9. Possession of assets

27% 27% 27%28% 27% 28%

27% 26% 27%

50% 48% 49%

27%23% 25%

Recipient (n=243) Non-recipient (n=240) Total (n=483)

Maize production Maize purchase Maize sales Maize consumption Farm land

91% 89%

69%65% 62% 61% 59%

48%

34% 31% 30%27% 24%

20% 18%14%

10% 8% 5% 5% 4% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0%

Hou

se

Land

Trad

itio

nal

gran

ary

Bic

ycle

Cel

l pho

ne

Pou

ltry

Rad

io

Live

stoc

k st

ruct

ures

Oxe

n

Plo

ugh

Cow

Tele

visi

on Pig

Ox-

cart

Goa

t

Oth

er c

attle

Bul

l

gs in

info

rmal

gro

ups

Car

s th

at w

ork

Mot

orcy

cle

that

wor

k

ther

bui

ldin

gs o

wne

d

Stor

age

Shee

p

Bee

s/B

ee h

ives

Fish

pon

d

Don

key

17

The total value of these assets equaled an average of 33,000 ZMW5 for each household. The gross

income that each household earned from crop farming, livestock production, farm labor, non-farm

business and salary employment, remittances, and rent amounted to 1,500 ZMW, while the net farm

income was 1,300 ZMW on average (Table 3). Each farmer in the survey owned an average of almost 3

plots of arable land, amounting to a total of 1.87 hectares. If both the agricultural and non-agricultural

land were considered, total land owned would average 3.4 hectares. Comparing the means of these

variables across VAM seed recipients and non-recipients shows that the recipients had statistically

significantly higher incomes and larger land areas than the non-recipients. In fact, the total income of

VAM recipients was twice that of non-recipients (Table 3).

Table 3. Household level average income and land size

Recipients

Non-recipients

Overall

The total asset value that the households own (in '000 ZMW)***

45.44 20.12 32.86 (93.59) (36.58) (72.26)

Household gross income from all sources of the family’s livelihood (in '000 ZMW)***

2.15 0.80 1.48 (6.51) (1.42) (4.77)

Household's net farm income in the last 2014/15 Rainy Season? (Oct-Apr) (in '000 ZMW)***

1.79 0.89 1.35 (5.76) (2.48) (4.46)

Total farm land area (in Ha)*** 2.22 1.51 1.87

(1.64) (1.04) (1.42)

Total land area (agricultural and non-agricultural) currently owned (in Ha)***

4.37 2.43 3.41 (6.72) (2.31) (5.12)

Total number of plots*** 3.55 2.13 2.84

(1.32) (1.00) (1.37)

Significance level across the two categories (recipient Vs non-recipient), *p<0.10, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01 standard deviation in parentheses

5 US$ 1 ≈ 8.53 ZMW at the time of the farm household survey.

18

Using factor analysis, the socio-economic status of the farmers was calculated based on ownership of

certain assets. In particular, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was conducted using the asset

ownership variables, which take on the value of 1 if the household owns the specific variable and 0 if

otherwise. The variables included in the principal component analysis are: membership in an

association; access to protected water stream; ownership of land; living in a house that has an iron roof,

concrete wall, cement floor, electricity and piped water; ownership of house, television, radio, bicycle,

cellphone, livestock, and various farming tools. Factor analysis suggests three groups of economic

status: lower economic status, average economic status and higher economic status (Houweling, Kunst

and Mackenbach 2003) and (McKenzie 2005).

Figure 10. Comparison of wealth between recipients and non-recipients of VAM

The results of this analysis showed that farmers who received VAM seed had higher socio-economic

status compared with those that did not; 44 percent of the VAM recipients were classified as having

higher economic status, compared with 44 percent of non-recipients who were classified as having lower

economic status (Figure 10).

Figure 11. Comparison of wealth by VAM delivery channel

23% 23% 24%18%

44%

36% 37%

25%

45%

34%

41% 40%

51%

36%

22%

Women groups Demo plots Lead farmers Bought from agrodealers Didn't receive at all

Lower economic status Average economic status Higher economic status

23%

44%

33% 34%

44%

22%

Received Didn't receive

Lower economic status

Average economic status

Higher economic status

19

A more disaggregated analysis, this time by channel of VAM seed delivery, is presented in Figure 11. The

farmers that purchased VAM seed from agro-dealers had higher socio-economic status. Compared with

non-recipients, the majority of the farmers who received VAM seed from the other categories also had

higher socio-economic status, with 41 percent of the farmers from the women’s groups, 40 percent of

the farmers who received from schools and health centers, and 51 percent of the lead farmers falling

under the higher economic status category. On the other hand, with 44 percent, the majority of the

farmers who did not receive VAM seed had lower socio-economic status.

4.2.3 Crop Production and Consumption

Maize was the major crop cultivated in the 2014/2015 farming season, covering 71 percent of the total

arable land planted by all survey respondents—896.6 hectares in 2014/15 Rainy Season (Table 4). The

share of land under maize production was highest in Sinda with 78 percent. Groundnuts was the second

most cultivated crop, which is in line with the findings of Sitko, et al. (2011). However, there were

significant variations in the second and third most commonly cultivated crops across the districts

studied (for detailed information by recipients of VAM, see Appendix 4).

Table 4. Land area share of the crops cultivated by district

Chipata Katete Sinda Total

Maize 63% 72% 78% 71%

Groundnuts 16% 7% 6% 9%

Cotton 9% 8% 5% 7%

Sunflower 5% 7% 9% 7%

Soybean 2% 3% 0% 2%

Tobacco 4% 0% 0% 1%

Beans 0% 1% 1% 1%

Total arable land area 199.7 ha 459.4 ha 237.2 ha 896.3 ha

4.2.4 Maize Production and Consumption

Maize is the major crop not only at the district level, but at the household level as well. According to

Figure 12, on average each household dedicated 75 percent of the total arable land area6 to maize (see

Appendix 3). Among the VAM seed recipient households, the average total arable land was 2.22 hectares,

i.e., 0.4 hectares higher than the whole sample. Households in Sinda allocated more of their land to

maize, compared with the other two districts (Figure 12).

6 This is calculated as mean of percentage of maize land area share.

20

Figure 12. Average household land share allocated to maize

Farmers accessed improved maize seeds primarily through the Farm Input Support Programme (FISP)

via their respective co-operatives and women’s groups. Other sources of improved seed included

purchase from agro-dealers, exchange with other farmers, and seed recycling. According to the survey

data, 43 percent of VAM recipients acquired their improved maize seeds annually from co-

operatives/women’s groups, followed by using own recycled seed (15 percent) and purchase from agro-

dealers (14 percent). Compared with VAM recipients, a smaller proportion of non-recipients acquired

improved seed through co-operatives/women’s groups (26 percent), though larger proportions recycled

own seed (36 percent) and purchased from agro-dealers (21 percent) (Figure 13).

Figure 13. Source of maize seed cultivated on the plots

Looking at the total maize production (all kinds of maize, including VAM), on average each farmer

cultivated 2 metric tons of any kind of maize in the 2014/15 Rainy Season (Table 5). This result was

consistent across districts.

Table 5. Production and yield of maize in 2014/15 Rainy Season

Average household maize production, in MT

Average household maize yield, in MT/ha

67% 76% 81% 75%

0%

50%

100%

Chipata Katete Sinda Total

Maize to total area

43%

26%

38%

15%

36%

22%

14%

21%16%

7%

15%10%11%

2%8%9%

6%


Cooperatives/women groups Farmer's own seed AgrodealerOther farmers Agricultural institutions Schools or health centers

21

Chipata

VAM recipients (n=63) 2.47 (2.76) ***

1.90 (1.17) Non-VAM recipients (n=58) 1.42 (1.59) 1.63 (1.09)

Total (121) 1.97 (2.33) 1.77 (1.14)

Katete VAM recipients (n=116) 2.53 (2.85)

*** 1.59 (1.71)

* Non-VAM recipients (n=122) 1.58 (2.14) 1.27 (1.04)

Total (238) 2.04 (2.55) 1.43 (1.41)

Sinda VAM recipients (n=64) 2.76 (4.59) 1.53 (1.48) Non-VAM recipients (n=60) 1.72 (3.88) 2.37 (9.35)

Total (124) 2.26 (4.27) 1.94 (6.58)

Total VAM recipients (n=243) 2.57 (3.36)

*** 1.66 (1.53)

Non-VAM recipients (n=240) 1.58 (2.58) 1.63 (4.79)

Total (483) 2.08 (1.65) 1.65 (3.53) Significance level across the two categories (recipient Vs non-recipient), *p<0.10, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01


Average household production of any kind of maize was statistically significantly higher for the VAM

recipients compared with the non-VAM recipients. However, the average yields of VAM recipients and

non-recipients were not statistically significantly different (Table 5).

Regarding consumption of maize, as shown in Table 6, almost 89 percent of households’ maize

consumption in the last 12 months came from own production, while 9 percent was purchased. Over

half (52 percent) of the purchases were from another farmer at the farm gate, followed by the village

market (either in the same village or another village, 19 percent and 15 percent, respectively). Ten (10)

percent of the purchases were from village shops that are supplied by local farmers. These results reveal

that 88 percent of the purchased maize was from another farmer in the local area. Traders and

wholesales accounted for the remaining 8 percent and 4 percent, respectively.

Table 6. Source and frequency of purchase of maize for consumption

Chipata (n=119)

Katete (n=237)

Sinda (n=124)

Total (n=480)

Source of maize consumption – Own production 85% 88% 95% 89% – Market purchase 13% 10% 3% 9% – Gifts and in kind payments 2% 2% 2% 2%

Source if household purchased maize for consumption in the past 12 months

– Farm gate 50% 55% 38% 52% – Market in the village 19% 16% 38% 19% – Market in another village in the district 12% 17% 15% 15% – Village shop 19% 7% 0% 10% – Others 0% 4% 8% 3%

Seller, if household purchased maize for consumption in the past 12 months

– Another farmer 88% 87% 92% 88%

22

– Trader 10% 9% 0% 8% – Wholesaler 2% 4% 8% 4%

n=number of households

4.2.5 VAM Production

For the 2014/2015 farming season, the VAM seed bag sizes delivered and sold in the Eastern province

included the 0.5, 1, 2, 5 and 10 kilogram packs. Of these sizes, the most common pack size delivered

was the 0.5 kilogram pack, which was received by 42 percent of the interviewed VAM seed recipients.

Thirty-one (31) percent of the interviewed recipients got 1 kilogram packs, while 17 percent received 2

kilogram and 5 kilogram packs. Only 2 percent of VAM farmers interviewed received the 10 kilogram

bags. The 0.5 kilogram pack was delivered to a larger proportion of farmers, since such demonstration

packs are often preferred by farmers when they try/test a new variety for the first time. In terms of the

number of packs delivered to each farmer, on average recipients acquired 3 packs of 2 kilograms, 2 packs

of 1 kilogram, and one each of the other pack sizes (Figure 14).

Figure 14. Percentage of seed bag recipients and average amount received for each bag

42%

31%

17% 17%

2% 1%

0.5 kg bag 1 kg bag 2 kg bag 5 kg bag 10 kg bag Other seed bag

1 bag

2 bags

3 bags

1 bag

1 bag 1 bag

23

On average, each VAM recipient allocated 75 percent of their total land area to maize,7 21 percent of

which went to VAM (Figure 15). In terms of actual land size, out of the 1.59 hectares dedicated to maize,

0.21 hectares was allocated to VAM (see Appendix 3 and Appendix 5). Across districts, VAM seed

recipients in Sinda allocated larger areas (28 percent) while those in Katete allocated smaller areas (14

percent) to VAM (Figure 15). This is due to the quantity of seed acquired by an average farmer in each

district (Table 10).

Figure 15. Average household VAM area to total maize area share

Households that planted VAM were asked about the source of the land dedicated to the variety (Figure

16). The majority (71 percent) stated that they substituted VAM for another crop, including groundnuts

(47 percent of the farmers who substituted another crop), sunflower (24 percent), cotton (10 percent)

and other crops (19 percent). Nineteen (19) percent stated that they had substituted VAM with another

maize variety; 41 percent of these farmers stated that they had replaced a local maize variety, 27 percent

replaced another hybrid, and 8 percent replaced a recycled hybrid. There were some variations across

the three districts: In Chipata, the same proportion of the farmers replaced groundnuts and other maize

varieties (37 percent each) with VAM, while in Katete 44 percent of farmers replaced groundnuts with

VAM. In Sinda, the majority replaced sunflower (38 percent) and groundnuts (23 percent) (Table 7).

Figure 16. Land source for VAM cultivation

7 This is calculated as the mean of percentage of maize land area share.

25%14%

28% 21%

0%

50%

100%

Chipata Katete*** Sinda*** Total

VAM to maize area

24

Table 7. Percentage of farmers by the crops they replaced VAM with, by district

Chipata (n=43) Katete (n=96) Sinda (n=40) Total (n=179)

Groundnuts 37% 44% 23% 37%

Other maize variety 37% 19% 8% 21%

Sunflower 2% 19% 38% 19%

Cotton 5% 9% 8% 8%

Beans 2% 1% 10% 3%

Others 16% 8% 15% 12%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% n=number of households

VAM seed was distributed from October to January and harvested from March to July (Figure 17). It is

important to note that a few farmers did not harvest their VAM during the time of the survey. Among

those households that received VAM seed, only five (2 percent) did not grow it, with three of these

farmers citing late receipt of seed and the remaining two indicating lack of interest to try the variety. Of

the farmers who planted VAM seed (i.e. 98 percent of the VAM seed recipients), almost all (94 percent)

planted all of the VAM seed in the 2014/2015 farming season; the remaining 6 planted only part of the

seed.

Figure 17. Time of acquisition and harvest of VAM

13

89 94

36

418

44

78

64

1523

Oct

ober

ovem

ber

ecem

ber

Janu

ary

Febr

uary

Mar

ch

Apr

il

May

June July

Not

yet

25

The average output of VAM by those who grew it was around 0.24 metric tons, with an average yield of

1.49 metric tons per hectare. District-wise, Katete had the highest yield with 1.54 metric tons per hectare

while Sinda had the lowest with 1.41 metric tons per hectare (Table 8).

Table 8. Production and yield of VAM in 2014/15 Rainy Season for VAM recipients

Chipata (n=61)

Katete (n=113)

Sinda (n=64)

Total (n=238)

Average household VAM production by VAM recipients only, in MT

0.32* (0.53)

0.18** (0.25)

0.26 (0.37)

0.24 (0.38)

Average household VAM yield by VAM recipients only, in MT/ha

1.49 (1.48)

1.54 (3.63)

1.41 (1.61)

1.49 (2.74)

Land area allocated for VAM in 2014/15 Rainy Season, in ha

0.24 (0.26)

0.18* (0.16)

0.25 (0.27)

0.21 (0.22)

Significance level of being in the district, *p<0.10, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01 n=number of households; standard deviation in parentheses

In addition, there was no statistically significant difference in yield between VAM and other maize

varieties grown by VAM recipients, even though those farmers had allocated a higher area of land to

other maize varieties (see Appendix 6 and Appendix 7).

Asked about their primary intended use of VAM grain, 72 percent of the farmers indicated household

consumption while 28 percent stated that it was for the market. The latter intended to sell their VAM

grain to various actors, including consumers (directly at the farm gate), cooperatives, traders,

wholesalers, HarvestPlus, and other institutions at different points of sale, such as nearby markets,

agricultural offices, and even at their homes (Table 9). The cross-tabulation statistics shows that most

of the consumers primarily bought from the farm gate (63 percent) followed by local markets, at 63

percent and 33 percent, respectively (see Appendix 8).

Table 9. Intended customers and place of sale of VAM crop

Intended customer for VAM Intended place of sale

Consumer 17% Market 27%

Cooperatives 17% Cooperatives 21%

26

Trader 12% Farm gate 12%

Wholesaler 8% HarvestPlus 6%

Other institutions 8% Agricultural offices 5%

HarvestPlus 7% Other institutions 3%

Agricultural offices 4% Don't know 26%

Other 10%

Don't know 18%

4.2.6 Evaluation of VAM Seed

Farmers choose a maize variety based on various production (agronomic), consumption, marketing and

other post-harvest traits (De Groote, Gitonga, et al. 2011). VAM growers were asked to compare various

traits of the VAM variety with those of a white variety they were familiar with (Figure 18). According to

the results, the VAM variety performed as well as (if not better than) the white variety in all traits, with

the exception of market demand (which was also cited by agro-dealers as a potential limitation to VAM

adoption). When asked about the price they thought VAM grains would fetch in the market, 31 percent

of the farmers indicated a higher price, 43 a lower price, and 26 percent could not estimate its value.

Figure 18. Comparison of VAM traits to those of the white maize variety farmers are familiar with

Emer

genc

e

Res

ista

nce

to d

roug

ht

Res

ista

nce

to fi

eld

pest

s

Res

ista

nce

to s

tora

ge p

ests

Res

ista

nce

to d

isea

ses

Earl

y m

atur

ity

Yiel

d

Cob

siz

e

Cob

num

ber

Goo

d co

ver

of t

he ti

p

Gra

in c

olor

(w

hite

ness

)

Gra

in w

eigh

t

Wat

er a

bsor

ptio

n

Goo

d po

undi

ng a

bilit

y

Tast

e fo

r ns

him

a

Tast

e as

roa

sted

Mar

ket d

eman

d

Less Equal More

27

The survey found that the most striking difference between the white maize variety and VAM was the

superior taste of VAM when roasted, followed by the superior taste of VAM when eaten as nshima. VAM

also significantly outperformed white maize in terms of cob number and early maturity.

4.2.7 Intention to Grow VAM in the Following Season

Ninety-seven (97) percent of the farmers who received and planted VAM seed in the 2014/15 season

stated that they intended to grow it in the next season. These households planned to expand their current

VAM plots, averaging 0.2 hectares, to 0.6 hectares in the following season. This result was consistent

across districts. When asked about the source of VAM seed for planting in the following season, 45

percent of the farmers planned to use their saved seed from the 2014/15 season, 25 percent planned to

buy from agro-dealers, 14 percent planned to obtain from other institutions, 8 percent from other people,

and the remaining 8 percent did not yet know where they would get their seed (Figure 19). Concerning

the main uses of next season’s harvest, more than 70 percent of the farmers stated that they planned to

grow it mainly for own consumption, while the remaining 30 percent planned to grow it mainly for sale.

Figure 19. Source of VAM seed planned to be planted in the 2015/16 Rainy Season

Farmers who received and planted VAM seed also answered hypothetical questions about future

purchases of VAM seed. When asked about the typical quantity of VAM seed they would purchase if it

Own seed from previous season

45%

Agrodealer 25%

Doesn't know 8%

Other people8%

Other institutions14%

28

were easily available and affordable, farmers stated an average of about 12 kilograms, which was similar

across districts, and was four times the amount they had planted in the study season (3.2 kilograms)

(Table 10).

Table 10. Farmers’ seed acquisition and willingness to pay for VAM in the coming season

Chipata (n=61) Katete (n=113) Sinda (n=64) Total (n=238)

Average amount of VAM seed quantity acquired in 2014/15 Rainy Season by a household, in kg

3.21 (6.76) 2.12 (2.68)** 5.24 (9.57)*** 3.24 (6.40)

Average amount of VAM seed quantity that would be typically purchased by a household if easily available and affordable, in kg

12.03 (15.68) 11.09 (17.25) 12.02 (28.99) 11.58 (20.66)

Average willingness to pay for 1 kg of VAM by a household, in ZMW

10.50 (5.38) 12.12 (12.72) 11.43 (8.58) 11.48 (10.04)

Assuming similar conditions as in 2014/15 Rainy Season, land area to be allocated for VAM, in ha

0.63 (0.49) 0.54 (0.32)* 0.66 (0.48) 0.59 (0.48)

Significance level of being in the district, *p<0.10, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01 n=number of households; standard deviations in parentheses

When asked about their maximum willingness to pay (WTP) for different sized bags of VAM seed if these

were sold at the agro-dealer they frequented, farmers stated 30-52 percent lower WTP than the current

retail prices (Figure 20). These results, however, do not imply that farmers do not value this variety. It

could be a reflection of the fact that 95 percent of the respondents had received VAM for free, and also

that almost half of them (45 percent) were planning to recycle their own VAM seed in the next season.

As seen in Figure 20, the WTP figures differ according to the VAM seed bag size. Farmers stated higher

WTP values for smaller bag sizes, signaling their willingness to try smaller packs (and hence take less

risks) at first. Farmers who bought VAM seed had a higher WTP compared with those who got it for

free. However, they still had a lower WTP than the actual retail price (Table 11).

Figure 20. Comparison of farmers’ willingness-to-pay with actual retail price, in ZMW

29

Table 11. Comparison of the willingness to pay of farmers who received the VAM seed for free versus who bought from agro-dealers, in ZMW

Seed bag size Farmers who received the seed

for free Farmers who bought the seed from

agro-dealers

0.5 kg seed bag 22.67 (13.86) -

1 kg seed bag 19.27 (3.37) -

2 kg seed bag 26.50 (6.50) 31.33 (10.67)

5 kg seed bag 60.89 (5.59) 77.50 (22.50)

10 kg seed bag*** 96.80 (6.53) 133.57 (17.48) Significance level of receiving the VAM seed for free versus buying from agro-dealers, *p<0.10, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01

standard deviations in parentheses

4.2.8 Information and Knowledge of VAM

The households that grew VAM seed gave various reasons for doing so in the 2014/15 Rainy Season. For

most of the growers, regardless of the source of seed, the primary reason was the nutritional benefit of

the VAM. Figure 21 illustrates the reasons for cultivating VAM, disaggregated by the delivery channels,

i.e., agro-dealers (purchased at a cost) versus all other channels (i.e., cooperative, women’s groups,

schools/health centers, where seed was given for free).

Figure 21. Reasons for cultivation of VAM

25 2543

100

200

17 1828

62

99

0.5 Kg bag 1 Kg bag 2 Kg bag 5 Kg bag 10 Kg bag

Retail Price Maximum WTP

▼28%▼32%

▼35%

▼38%

▼51%

30

The majority (84 percent) of farmers who received VAM seed from other channels and over half (54

percent) of those who bought it from agro-dealers stated that their primary reason for growing VAM was

its nutritional benefits. A higher proportion of farmers who acquired the seed through other channels

cited nutritional benefits probably because they were given information to that regard (VAM as a source

of vitamin A) when they were given the seed by cooperatives/women’s groups and schools/health

clinics. Almost one-third (31 percent) of VAM growers who bought the seed from agro-dealers cited

“wanting to try a new variety” as the primary reason for growing the variety. Early maturity was a highly

rated secondary reason cited by both categories of seed acquirers.

Figure 22 provides insights about farmers’ knowledge of the benefits of vitamin A. Overall, only 17

percent of farmers expressed no knowledge at all. Among the VAM seed recipients, the percentage of

farmers who did not know the benefits of vitamin A was as low as 5 percent (see Appendix 9). Figure 23

presents the results by delivery channel. There was also a misconception about the benefits of vitamin

A, with around 20 percent of the farmers stating that vitamin A was good for increasing sexual stamina.

Figure 22. Farmers’ knowledge on the benefits of vitamin A

10%

15%

5%

8%8%

1%

8%

1%

13%

23%

3%

11%

7%

31%

7%

84%

54%

Other channels (n=230)

Agro-dealers (n=13)

Other channels (n=230)

Agro-dealers (n=13)Se

cond

ary

reas

onPr

imar

y re

ason

Nutrition benefit

Wanted to try new variety

Early maturity

High yield of the

Was the cheapest

Others

60%

16%23% 26%

5%

41%

11%16% 18%

29%

51%

13%20% 22%

17%

Good for the eyes Good for childgrowth/development

Good for increasingsexual stamina

Good for health &nutrition

Does not know at all


31

4.2.9 Marketing and Promotion of VAM

For farmers who received VAM seed through co-operatives/women’s groups, lead farmer schemes, and

schools and health centers, the most common source of information was the farmers’ co-operatives

and women’s groups. For farmers who bought the VAM seed from agro-dealers, the main sources of

information were the media and agro-dealers themselves (Figure 23).

Figure 23. Sources of information about VAM, by VAM seed source

It is important to understand the VAM seed recipients’ evaluation of the variety’s seed bags as well other

promotion materials, such as flyers and posters. VAM recipients were asked to rate their satisfaction

levels on some of the attributes of seed bags and promotional materials (Figure 24). Over half (57

percent) were very dissatisfied or dissatisfied with the bag sizes available at the agro-dealers. However,

the majority were satisfied or very satisfied with the design of (86 percent) and the information on (88

percent) the bags. Less than half of the farmers (48 percent) were either satisfied or very satisfied with

the information provided by the agro-dealers, revealing that further training of the latter on the

nutritional benefits of VAM seed is needed.

Figure 24. Satisfaction with VAM seed bags and promotional materials

48%

33%39%

6%

15%11%

19%

6%

15% 13%8%

12%10% 11% 9%6%5% 4%

13%

29%

6%

17%

9%6%

1%

9%2%

6%1% 2%

29%

Women groups (n=151) Demo packs (Sch+HC) (n=46) A lead farmer (n=120) Bought from agrodealers(n=17)

Coop./women group Field demonstration Neighbor & Friend Farmer in common coop.

Media NGO Family member Agrodealer

32

Table 12 disaggregates satisfaction ratings with VAM seed bags and promotional materials, by farmers’

source of VAM seed (received for free from co-operatives, women’s groups, schools/health clinics, and

lead farmer scheme versus bought-at-a-price from the agro-dealers).

Table 12. Satisfaction with VAM seed bags and promotional materials, by delivery channel

Received from other categories Bought from agro-dealers

Ver

y d

issa

tisf

ied

Dis

sati

sfie

d

Neu

tral

Sat

isfi

ed

Ver

y sa

tisf

ied

Ver

y d

issa

tisf

ied

Dis

sati

sfie

d

Neu

tral

Sat

isfi

ed

Ver

y sa

tisf

ied

Bag sizes (n=105) 20% 40% 2% 29% 9% 0% 33% 0% 25% 42%

Bag design/logo (n=176) 2% 4% 8% 51% 35% 0% 0% 17% 58% 25%

Information on the bag (n=159)

1% 2% 8% 46% 44% 8% 17% 8% 33% 33%

Information on the posters (n=127)

1% 4% 9% 35% 51% 0% 11% 0% 22% 67%

Availability and visibility of posters (n=139)

11% 23% 5% 26% 35% 13% 38% 13% 13% 25%

Information by the agro-dealer (n=38)

4% 36% 14% 32% 14% 20% 20% 10% 30% 20%

Dissatisfied Satisfied Mixed

The disaggregated results reveal that regardless of seed source, the majority of the farmers were satisfied

with the bag design and logo, and the information on the bag. Regarding availability and visibility of

posters, most farmers who bought from agro-dealers were not satisfied, while nearly half of them were

dissatisfied with the information from agro-dealers. The majority of the farmers who received the seed

18%

2% 1% 1%

11%8%

39%

3% 3% 5%

24%

32%

2%

9% 8% 9%6%

13%

29%

52%

45%

34%

25%

32%

12%

34%

43%

52%

35%

16%

Bag sizes atagrodealer (n=105)

Bag design/logo(n=176)

Information on thebag (n=159)

Information on theposters (n=127)

Availability andvisibility of posters

(n=139)

Information by theagrodealer (n=38)

Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very satisfied

33

free of charge (60 percent) were dissatisfied with the pack sizes, as were one-third of the farmers who

bought from agro-dealers.

4.2.10 Diffusion of VAM

Over 60 percent of VAM growers stated that they recommended the variety to an average of 10 other

farmers in their social networks, including their relatives, friends, and neighbors (Figure 25). Almost

two-thirds (59 percent) of these were located in the same village, though there was a significant diffusion

to other neighboring villages or the next village within the district.

Figure 25. Recommendation and diffusion of VAM seed

Forty (40) percent of VAM growers stated that they gave VAM seed or grain to an average of four other

farmers in their social networks (relatives (45 percent), neighbors and friends (26 percent)), the majority

of whom (62 percent) were located in the same village.

5. Summary of Key Findings and Programmatic Implications

This report summarized the results of two surveys, namely an agro-dealer survey and a farmer survey,

implemented in 2015 (March-May and August to September, respectively) to gather information on the

sales, demand, and evaluation of vitamin a maize (VAM) seed following the first season (2014/2015) it

was made available for planting at scale.

The key findings and programmatic implications of these surveys are the following:

34

• The agro-dealer survey revealed that over half (58 percent) of the agro-dealers did not know

anything about VAM. This is corroborated by the results of the farmer survey, which showed that

only half of the farmers were satisfied or very satisfied with the information provided by agro-

dealers. Given that the formal, private seed system is the most sustainable mechanism for

delivering VAM seed, agro-dealers should be trained on the nutritional benefits of VAM so

that they are able to pass on the message to farmers.

• According to the farmer survey, among the VAM seed recipients who planted the seed (i.e., 98

percent of the recipients), the majority (83 percent) stated that their primary reason for growing

VAM was its nutritional benefit. These farmers rated nutritional benefit higher than agronomic

properties, such as yield and maturity. The nutritional benefit of VAM should, therefore, be at

the center of any demand creation strategy for VAM. It is also important for HarvestPlus and

its partners to control the quality and content of the nutrition information disseminated; a

significant proportion (about 20 percent) of farmers were of the opinion that vitamin A increases

sexual stamina, which is incorrect.

• According to the results of the agro-dealer survey, less than half of the VAM seed distributed to

agro-dealers was sold. The reasons cited for the low sales rates included the late delivery of seed

to the agro-dealers, and farmers’ lack of awareness about VAM. Timely delivery of seeds and

training of agro-dealers about the nutritional benefits of VAM, as well as general demand

creation and awareness campaigns, are paramount. The farmer survey revealed that a significant

(almost one-third) number of farmers who acquired VAM seed from agro-dealers had heard about

it in the media, revealing that media could be an effective (and low cost) means for improving

farmers’ awareness of VAM.

• According to both agro-dealer and farmer surveys, the smallest (0.5 kilogram) packs were the most

popular among farmers. This shows farmers’ preference to try a new variety on a smaller scale,

before scaling it up in their fields. Therefore, seed companies and organizations that are/will

be delivering VAM seed are encouraged to avail such small packs, at least in the short-to-

medium run.

• The farmer survey revealed that VAM recipients usually acquire seed from co-operatives and

women’s groups, whereas non-VAM recipients mainly use their own seed (recycled from previous

seasons) followed by co-operatives and women’s groups. Only 14 percent of the VAM recipients

and 21 percent of the non-recipients purchased any improved maize seed from agro-dealers. These

35

results reveal that a two-pronged approach, including both sales through the formal and

private seed system and free delivery through the farmers’ groups, is needed to reach farmers

with VAM seed.

• Regarding the price to charge for the VAM seed, farmers were asked hypothetical willingness to pay

(WTP) questions for different VAM seed bag sizes. The average WTP results revealed two important

findings: (1) farmers stated higher WTP for smaller bags—signaling again their willingness to

try new varieties at a smaller scale at first, and (2) farmer WTP for VAM seed was lower than

the current VAM retail prices, implying that when sold at the agro-dealer, lower, subsidized

prices for VAM seed could engender higher demand. Lower WTP for VAM should not be taken

to mean that farmers value the VAM seed less than it is worth; the lower WTP could, in fact,

be an indication of the fact that the majority of the VAM seed recipients (95 percent) had

received the seed free of charge and, therefore, might not be willing to pay high prices for it

in subsequent seasons. Moreover, hypothetical bias associated with such hypothetical WTP

questions should also be noted.

• In order to grow VAM seed, the majority of the farmers (71 percent) substituted the land for another

crop (in most cases a cash crop such as groundnuts [47 percent] and sunflower [24 percent]) and19

percent substituted the land for another maize variety (white maize). This shows that farmers do

not have a prejudice against VAM due to its color; they are, in fact, curious about and interested

in trying out this variety as they are willing to replace other crops and varieties, including other cash

crops and white maize varieties, with VAM. Promoters of the variety should capitalize on this

willingness by intensifying efforts.

• According to the figures stated by the farmers, VAM yields were not statistically significantly

different from the yields of other maize varieties that farmers planted in the same season. This

result indicates that VAM adoption will not result in any yield losses. When asked to compare

VAM with a white variety they were familiar with, growers liked the various production and

consumption qualities of VAM as much as— if not more than—the white variety. Taste, cob

number, and early maturity were the VAM traits rated especially highly by VAM growers. Overall,

the varieties have performed very well on both agronomic and consumption traits and, therefore,

all the efforts and hard work of ZARI, HarvestPlus, and their partners should be commended.

• Almost all (97 percent) VAM growers stated that they would want to plant the variety in the

following season and on an average of thrice the current farm area allocated to it. They also

indicated that they would want four times more VAM seed, on average. Almost half (45 percent)

36

stated that they would be recycling their current VAM grain to use as seed. There is a need to

analyze if yield and vitamin A content remain stable when hybrid VAM seed is re-used rather

than replaced by new seed in subsequent seasons. Furthermore, a significant proportion (25

percent) stated that they would purchase seed from agro-dealers, although they are willing to pay

lower than current prices, as explained above.

• According to the farmer survey, the one trait for which VAM was rated lower than the white maize

varieties was the market demand for VAM grain. Farmers also stated that the price VAM grain

would fetch in the market was about 22 percent lower than the price white maize would attract.

Moreover, a significantly higher proportion of farmers (43 percent) agreed with the statement that

VAM grain would fetch a lower price on the market. The finding that the VAM grain market is thin

and not lucrative was also corroborated by the agro-dealer survey. Therefore, it is imperative that

demand exists for VAM grain farther along the value chain. This can be achieved through the

inclusion of VAM in the FRA, and the acquisition of VAM grain by medium and large scale

producers. It is also necessary to engender demand for VAM products among the consumers (in

particular urban consumers who can act as demand-pull mechanisms).

• According to the results of the farmer survey, both men and women play important roles in decision

making in various maize-related activities (from variety selection to market sales and home

consumption), therefore it is important that all promotional and sensitization activities and

materials target both men and women farmers.

• The farmer survey also revealed that the farmers who received VAM seed had higher levels of

education, socio-economic status, and wealth compared with those that did not receive VAM. This

finding might be explained by the following: (1) Those who bought VAM from agro-dealers (3

percent of the recipients interviewed) have access to the agro-dealers, often buy seed from them

(rather than get subsidized FISP seed through co-operative/women’s groups or recycled own grain)

and can afford to buy seed regularly. Such farmers often have higher levels of education, wealth

and socio-economic status; (2) the lead farmers (18 percent of the recipients interviewed) tend to

be prominent and better off members of the community who usually have more productive land

and other inputs than others, and whose fields are often used as demo plots to show new

technologies and inputs to other farmers; (3) the members of co-operatives/women’s groups (21

percent of the recipients interviewed) are usually required to pay membership fees. This means

that those that cannot afford the fee are automatically disqualified from being in these groups; (4)

farmers who received seed through schools and health centers (9 percent of the recipients

37

interviewed) may be better off due to their access to education and healthcare. All of these delivery

channels were voluntary. According to crop adoption literature, farmers who are wealthier, more

educated, and have higher socio-economic status are more likely to try new varieties, since they

can understand newer technologies better and can afford to take risks. Therefore, there could also

be a self-selection bias in becoming the first generation of VAM recipients. Overall, these non-

private and semi-formal modes of seed distribution were used to reach more farmers (in the case

of lead farmers and women’s groups) as well as families with children (in the case of schools and

health centers). It is expected that in the upcoming seasons, VAM seed will also spread to other

households in the social networks of these first-generation-of-VAM recipients: there seems to be a

significant network effect in the diffusion of VAM, with two thirds of recipients sharing information

about VAM with 10 others in their networks. More targeted seed delivery mechanisms should be

considered in order to reach farming households with lower education, wealth and socio-economic

status levels (and whose members would be more likely to suffer from higher rates of VAD) with

VAM seed sooner.

6. Concluding Remarks

In order to ensure that VAM seed reaches all parts of Zambia, it is important for HarvestPlus to work

with the seed companies on the quantities of bags to be distributed to each province, as well as on the

bag sizes. In areas such as Eastern Province where VAM is now widely known, all bag sizes can be

distributed; in other places like Luapula Province where VAM is only being introduced, it might be better

to distribute smaller-sized bags to encourage farmers to purchase the seed for trial. In addition, it will

be important to: ensure timely delivery of seed; use all promotion mechanisms as much as possible;

and, make farmers aware that the ultimate goal is to develop a VAM value chain, which can only work if

they purchase VAM from agro-dealers.

Agro-dealers are willing to continue selling VAM seed because even in the 2014/2015 farming season

when the variety was on the market for the first time, they recognized that there was high demand for

the seed. Moreover, all agro-dealers interviewed in the survey made a profit from VAM sales. However,

the agro-dealers expressed the need for faster delivery of seed to shops since farmers purchase seed

early in the farming season. They also stated the need for more sensitization, especially through demo

packs that can be distributed free of charge when farmers purchase something from the agro-dealer.

They also suggested improving the seed package to make it more colorful and attractive, and to also

include nutritional information. To increase awareness of VAM, particularly of its nutritional benefits,

the agro-dealers suggested that more promotional materials, such as posters and flyers, be printed and

delivered and in local languages. Other demand creation activities that can be undertaken include

38

community radio programs, continuing with demo plots and field days, and possibly offering some

subsidies to farmers or price incentives to agro-dealers. To track the numbers of farmers planting VAM,

it is important to train agro-dealers to keep buyer records (i.e., to maintain a bill book) and to create the

right incentives/mechanisms for agro-dealers to maintain such records. HarvestPlus and partners

should consider preparing and distributing a bill book that is convenient for agro-dealers to fill out even

during busy sales periods, as well as incentives for complete bill books.

Agro-dealers are convinced that there is a future for VAM in the country; however, one of their concerns

is the availability of a grain market to guarantee that farmers have a buyer for orange maize. One

potential solution is to engage the Food Reserve Agency (FRA) as a major buyer of VAM. Another is

continued and enhanced partnerships with medium- and large-scale millers for VAM. FRA is mandated

to ensure adequate food reserves to guarantee food security in the country. However, food security

should not only be about the availability of food; it should also be about the availability of nutritious

food. Since VAM is more nutritious than white maize, the FRA’s purchasing of VAM would not only

mean that the country has adequate food reserves but that it also has nutritious food for its people.

It is also important to consider farmers’ sources of seed and information. To create demand and raise

awareness, promoters should continue giving demo packs to lead farmers, co-operatives and women’s

groups as important seed sources that can reach many farmers. These mechanisms, however, exclude

or cannot reach several farmers with lower wealth and social status (and, hence, likely with higher VAD

status). Such farmers could be reached through other means, such as direct delivery. Several farmers

(more than 85 percent) in Zambia acquire hybrid seed either through agro-dealers or through the FISP

(De Groote, Gitonga, et al. 2014). It is, therefore, important to ensure that VAM seed is included in the

FISP, and that farmers who purchase from agro-dealers are informed about the availability and

advantages of VAM seed. This calls for demand-creation strategies at the agro-dealer level. Spreading

information about VAM will require continued utilization of farmers’ groups (co-operatives and

women’s groups), media, agro-dealers, field days and demo plots. These findings reveal that farmers’

groups, extension officers (as organizers of demo plots and field days) and agro-dealers should

continuously be trained and informed about VAM and its agronomic and health benefits.

The results of the two surveys indicate that VAM has the potential to be the main maize variety cultivated

in Zambia. If this potential is realized, a major decline is expected in the vitamin A deficiency rates of

vulnerable populations. Therefore, it is important that both the seed supply and demand creation efforts

for VAM are strengthened and intensified throughout the country.

39

References

AgResults. 2016. AgResults . AgResults initiative. http://agresults.org/en/307/ZambiaBiofortifiedMaizePilot.

Birol, Ekin, Dorene Asare-Marfo, Jack Fiedler, Barbara Ha, Keith Lividini, Mourad Moursi, Manfred Zeller, J.V. Meenakshi, and Alexander J. Stein. 2014. "Cost-effectiveness of Biofortification." In Biofortification Progress Briefs, by HarvestPlus, 47-48. HarvestPlus.

Black, RE, CG Victora, SP Walker, ZA Bhuta, P Christian, M de Onis, M Ezzati, et al. 2013. "Maternal and child undernutrition and overweight in low-income and middle-income countries." The Lancet 382 (9890): 427–451. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60937-X.

Bouis, Howarth, Jan Low, Margaret McEwan, and Sherry Tanumihardjo. 2013. "Biofortification: Evidence and lessons learned linking agriculture and nutrition." ( FAO and WHO).

Brian, Thompson, and Leslie Amoroso. 2011. Combating Micronutrient Deficiencies:Food-based Approaches. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and CAB International.

Chibwe, Edward, Hugo De Groote, Zachary Gitonga, and Ekin Birol. 2013. "Participatory Evaluation of Vitamin A Biofortified Maize in Zambia." Paper presented at the 4th African Association of Agricultural Economists Conference. Hammamet, Tunisia.

CUTS. 2016. Zambia Food Reserve Agency Pricing Mechanisms and the Impact on Maize Markets. Jaipur: CUTS International.

De Groote, Hugo, Zachary Gitonga, Melinda Smale, Dorene Asare-Marfo, Earnest Kasuta, Ekin Birol, and Kai Sonder. 2011. Adoption and Diversification of Modern Maize Varieties in Zambia in 2011: A Baseline Report Prepared for Harvest Plus. Nairobi, Kenya, and Washington, DC, USA: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre and HarvestPlus.

De Groote, Hugo, Zachary Gitonga, Melinda Smale, Dorene Asare-Marfo, Earnest Kasuta, Ekin Birol, and Kai Sonder. 2014. "Smallholder Farming and Crop Variety Choice: Maize Variety Choice in Zambia." HarvestPlus Research for Action 3.

FAO. 2009. Nutrition country profile: the Republic of Zambia. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). ftp://ftp.fao.org/ag/agn/nutrition/ncp/zmb.pdf .

FRA. 2016. Food Reserve Agency. Accessed 03 20, 2016. http://fra.org.zm/about-us/.

Gannon, Bryan, Chisela Kaliwile, Sara A Arscott, Samantha Schmaelzle, Justin Chileshe, Ngandwe Kalungwana, Mofu Mosonda, Kevin Pixley, Cassim Masi, and Sherry A Tanumihardjo. 2014. "Biofortified orange maize is as efficacious as a vitamin A supplement in Zambian children even in the presence of high liver reserves of vitamin A: a community-based, randomized placebo-controlled tria." Am J Clin Nutr (American Society for Nutrition) 100: 1541–50.

HarvestPlus/BPI. 2015. Biofortification priority index. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)-HarvestPlus. doi:http://public.tableau.com/profile/ifpri.td7290#!/vizhome/BPI/BPIMAPPINGTOOL.

Houweling, Tanja Aj, Anton E Kunst, and Johan P Mackenbach. 2003. "Measuring health inequality among children in developing countries: does the choice of the indicator of economic status matter?" International Journal for Equity in Health 2 (8).

Lividini, Keith, and John L. Fiedler. 2015. "Assessing the promise of biofortification: A case study of high provitamin A maize in Zambia." Food Policy (Elsevier Ltd) 54: 65-77. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.04.007.

McKenzie, David J. 2005. "Measuring Inequality with Asset Indicators." Journal of Population Economics 18 (2): 229-260.

40

Meenakshi, J.V, V Barenji, K Manyong, K Tomlins, N Mittal, and P Hamukwala. 2012. "Using a Discrete Choice Experiment to Elicit the Demand for a Nutritious Food: Willingness-to-Pay for Orange Maize in Rural Zambia." Journal of Health Economics 31: 62-71.

MOST, UNICEF, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Food and Nutrition Commission of Zambia. 2003. Report of the national survey to evaluate the impact of vitamin A interventions in Zambia, July and November 2003. Zambia, Micronutrient Operational Strategies and Technologies, United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Micronutrient Program.

Saltzman, Amy, Ekin Birol, Howarth E Bouis, Erick Boy, Fabiana F De Moura, Yassir Islam, and Wolfgang H Pfeiffer. 2013. "Biofortification: Progress toward a more nourishing future." Global Food Security 2 (1): 9-17. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2012.12.003.

Sitko, Nicholas J., Antony Chapoto, Steven Kabwe, Solomon Tembo, Munguzwe Hichaambwa, Rebecca Lubinda, Harrison Chiwawa, Mebelo Mataa, Simon Heck, and Dorothy Nthani. 2011. Technical Compendium: Descriptive Agricultural Statistics and Analysis for Zambia in Support of the USAID Mission’s Feed the Future Strategic Review. Working Paper No. 52, Lusaka, Zambia: Food Security Research Project. http://www.aec.msu.edu/agecon/fs2/zambia/index.htm.

Smale, Melinda, and Nicole Mason. 2012. "Demand for Maize Hybrids, Seed Subsidies, and Seed Decisionmakers in Zambia." HarvestPlus Working Paper (HarvestPlus) (8).

UNICEF. n.d. "Zambia: Nutrition." UNICEF. Accessed 2 24, 2016. http://www.unicef.org/zambia/5109_8461.html.

WHO. 2009. "Global prevalence of vitamin A deficiency in populations at risk 1995–2005." WHO Global Database on Vitamin A Deficiency, Geneva. Switzerland. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2009/9789241598019_eng.pdf.

—. 2016. Micronutrient deficiencies: Vitamin A deficiency. WHO. Accessed 02 24, 2016. http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/vad/en/#.

World Bank. n.d. "Nutrition at a Glance: Zambia." World Bank. Accessed 2 24, 2016. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/NUTRITION/Resources/281846-1271963823772/Zambia.pdf.

Appendix

Appendix 1. List of agro-dealers interviewed

Province District Agro-dealer

Central Kabwe Elementa Enterprise

Central Kabwe Nthombi Distributors

Central Kapiri Kapiri Agrovet

Central Kapiri Kapiri Bejack Agro

Central Kapiri Kashimu Agro

Central Kapiri Mukango Agro

Central Mkushi Faides Marketing

41

Central Serenje Little D Enterprises

Eastern Chipata Farmers Solution Agri Services

Eastern Chipata M.S.P Shop

Eastern Chipata Majere Agro Services

Eastern Chipata Sedia

Eastern Chipata Shen Agri Supplies

Eastern Chipata Zulu and Sons

Eastern Katete ISUSYA/ Little Mos

Eastern Katete Tsatilani Mwambo

Eastern Lundazi D.G.M Agro

Eastern Nyimba Be Strong

Eastern Petauke M.J Farmers Den

Eastern Petauke Rochis

Eastern Sinda Small

Eastern Chipata Green Veg Agro/J.N Farmers Shop

Eastern Nyimba Tilo Agro

Luapula Mansa Molestus Agro

Northern Chinsali Sisnade Laban

Northern Isoka Chandees Center

Northern Nakonde Lekango Agro

Southern Choma Arupee

Southern Kalomo Chipampe

Southern Kalomo Southern Commodities

Southern Monze Moomba Agro

Appendix 2. Number of seed bags received and sold by province

Bag size Province Received Sold Sales rate

0.5 kg Central 100 100 100%

1 kg Luapula 9 4 44%

2 kg

Eastern 608 236 39%

Central 170 156 92%

Luapula 3 3 100%

5 kg

Northern 140 40 29%

Southern 300 186 62%

Eastern 305 99 32%

Central 105 25 24%

Luapula 24 24 100%

42

10 kg Central 120 69 58%

Luapula 4 4 100%

Appendix 3. Average household total arable land, total maize land and total VAM land, in ha

All farm households VAM recipients only***

Chipata (n=119)

Katete (n=237)

Sinda (n=124)

Total (n=480)

Chipata (n=63)

Katete (n=116)

Sinda (n=64)

Total (n=243

)

Total farm land area

1.68 (1.17)*

1.94 (1.42)

1.91 (1.61)

1.87 (1.42)

1.92 (1.36)*

2.31 (1.55)

2.34 (1.99)

2.22 (1.64)

Total maize area

1.06 (0.89)***

1.39 (0.98)

1.49 (1.24)*

1.34 (1.04)

1.25 (1.08)***

1.62 (1.00)

1.86 (1.52)*

1.59 (1.20)

Total VAM area -- -- -- -- 0.24

(0.26) 0.18

(0.16)* 0.25

(0.27) 0.21

(0.22)

Land area managed by females

0.37 (0.63)

0.37 (0.77)

0.43 (1.03)

0.39 (0.81)

0.38 (0.57)

0.55 (0.95)

0.52 (1.30)

0.50 (0.98)

Significance level of being in the district, *p<0.10, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01 n=number of households; standard deviation in parentheses

Appendix 4. Land area share of the crops cultivated by district and VAM recipients

Recipient Non-recipient Total

Chipata Katete Sinda Total Chipata Katete Sinda Total Chipata Katete Sinda Tota

l

Maize 65% 70% 80% 72% 61% 74% 74% 71% 63% 72% 78% 71%

Groundnuts 16% 7% 5% 9% 17% 7% 8% 9% 16% 7% 6% 9%

Cotton 6% 6% 4% 5% 15% 10% 8% 11% 9% 8% 5% 7%

Sunflower 6% 9% 9% 8% 3% 5% 10% 6% 5% 7% 9% 7%

Soybean 2% 5% 0% 3% 1% 2% 0% 1% 2% 3% 0% 2%

Tobacco 4% 1% 0% 1% 3% 0% 0% 1% 4% 0% 0% 1%

Beans 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1%

Appendix 5. Average household land possession and allocation of the VAM recipients versus non-recipients

Total land area Total maize area Managed by females

Chipata VAM recipients (n=63) 1.92 (1.36)

** 1.25 (1.10)

** 0.38 (0.57)

Non-VAM recipients (n=58) 1.41 (0.85) 0.85 (0.55) 0.36 (0.69)

Katete VAM recipients (n=116) 2.31 (1.55)

*** 1.62 (1.00)

*** 0.55 (0.95)

*** Non-VAM recipients (n=122) 1.58 (1.19) 1.17 (0.90) 0.19 (0.48)

Sinda VAM recipients (n=64) 2.34 (1.99)

*** 1.86 (1.52)

*** 0.52 (1.30)

Non-VAM recipients (n=60) 1.46 (0.87) 1.09 (0.64) 0.34 (0.64)

Total VAM recipients (n=243) 2.22 (1.64) *** 1.59 (1.20) *** 0.50 (0.98) ***

43

Non-VAM recipients (n=240) 1.51 (1.04) 1.08 (0.78) 0.27 (0.58) Significance level across the two categories (recipient Vs non-recipient), *p<0.10, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01


Appendix 6. Differences in average household land size used to cultivate VAM vs. non-VAM varieties, in ha

Land size allocated to Number of observation

s Mean

Standard error

Standard deviation

95% confidence interval

Non-vitamin A maize varieties 200 1.521952 0.0820559 1.160446 1.360141 1.683762

Vitamin A Maize 200 0.2238246 0.0168293 0.2380022 0.190638 0.2570113

diff 200 1.298127 0.0807025 1.141305 1.138985 1.457269

mean(diff) = mean (land area of non-VAM maize varieties – land area of VAM) t = 16.0853

Ho: diff = 0 degrees of freedom = 199

Ha: diff < 0 Ha: diff != 0 Ha: diff > 0

Pr(T < t) = 1.0000 Pr(T > t) = 0.0000 Pr(T > t) = 0.0000

Appendix 7. Differences in average household yields of VAM vs. non-VAM varieties, in MT/ha

Yield of Number of observation

s Mean

Standard error

Standard deviation

95% confidence interval

Non-vitamin A maize varieties 200 1.721969 0.0822148 1.162693 1.559845 1.884093

Vitamin A Maize 200 1.578299 0.1907819 2.698064 1.202085 1.954513

diff 200 0.1436694 0.1951793 2.760253 -0.2412158 0.5285546

mean(diff) = mean (yield of non-VAM maize varieties – yield of VAM) t = 0.7361

Ho: diff = 0 degrees of freedom = 199

Ha: diff < 0 Ha: diff != 0 Ha: diff > 0

Pr(T < t) = 0.7687 Pr(T > t) = 0.4625 Pr(T > t) = 0.2313

Appendix 8. Cross-tabulation of intended customers and place of sale of VAM crop

Per

son

(ex

pec

ted

)

Place of (expected) sale for majority of the output

Farm

gat

e

Mar

ket

Co

op

erat

ive

s

Agr

icu

ltu

ral

offi

ces

Har

vest

Plu

s

Oth

er

inst

itu

tion

s

Do

n't

kn

ow

Tot

al

Consumer 63% 33% 3% 0% 0% 3% 0% 100%

44

Trader 10% 86% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 100%

Wholesaler 0% 74% 16% 0% 0% 11% 0% 100%

Cooperatives 0% 10% 83% 5% 0% 2% 0% 100%

Other institutions 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%

Agricultural offices 0% 67% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 100%

HarvestPlus 0% 0% 0% 13% 88% 0% 0% 100%

Other 0% 16% 53% 11% 0% 21% 0% 100%

Don't know 0% 0% 2% 2% 0% 0% 95% 100%

Total 12% 27% 21% 5% 6% 3% 26% 100%

Appendix 9. Farmers’ knowledge on the benefits of vitamin A

Wom

en g

rou

ps

Dem

o p

acks

(S

cho

ols

&

Hea

lth

Cen

ters

)

A le

ad f

arm

er

Bo

ugh

t fr

om

ag

ro-d

eale

rs

No

n-r

ecip

ien

t

Ove

rall

Good for the eyes 61% 60% 59% 69% 41% 51%

Good for child growth/development

16% 21% 14% 8% 11% 13%

Good for increasing sexual stamina

24% 26% 21% 23% 16% 20%

Good for health & nutrition

26% 21% 25% 38% 18% 22%

Good for skin 6% 0% 12% 15% 1% 4%

Good for intelligence 5% 2% 8% 8% 3% 4%

Does not know at all 6% 7% 5% 0% 29% 17%

Appendix 10. Agro-dealers’ Survey Instrument

HarvestPlus

Orange Maize Agro-dealers’ Interview: Zambia

45

March 2015

Province: _____________________ Interviewer name: _____________________

District: _____________________ Date: _____________________

Village: _____________________ Time began: _____________________

ID: _____________________ Time ended: _____________________

General Information

1. Name of the Agro-dealer:

2. Address of the Agro-dealer: Tel: _____________________

3. Name of the contact person:

4. Name of the respondent:

5. Gender of the respondent:

6. Years of agro-dealership experience:

Sales questions

7. Do you know what Orange Maize is?

8. How is Orange Maize different than other maize seed?

9. When and where/from whom did you first hear about Orange Maize seed?

10. Have you ever requested Orange Maize seed from ZamSeed? If yes, what was the main reason for requesting the Orange Maize seed?

11. Amount of Orange Maize seeds received from ZamSeed in 2014/2015 farming season

Bag size Number of bags Price charged

46

12. Amount of Orange Maize seeds sold to farmers in 2014/2015 farming season

Bag size Number of bags Price charged

13. Number of farmers you sold Orange Maize seed to (If not exact, ask the approximate number)

Male:

Female:

Total:

14. Have you ever given feedback to ZamSeed regarding Orange Maize? If yes, what was it?

15. How was the sale rate of Orange Maize compared to the white maize?

16. Were you trained to keep a bill book?

By whom?

When?

Where?

47

Purpose of the bill book?

17. Did you keep a bill book?

If ‘Yes’ did you capture all? If not all what proportion?

If ‘No’ why not?

Catchment

18. Which villages does your shop cover?

Villages covered:

From which villages did your Orange Maize purchasers hail from?

19. Do you have any other outlets? If yes, how many are they? Where are they located?

Location

Bill book kept

Bag size Number of

bags Price charged

Outlet 1

Outlet 2

Outlet 3

Outlet 4

48

Outlet 5

Branding

20. What is your thought on the current Orange Maize packaging?

21. Does the current Orange Maize packaging attract more farmers?

22. What do you suggest to make the current Orange Maize packaging better?

23. What is your thought on the posters, banners, flyers and other promotional materials used to attract the farmer?

24. What do you suggest to make these promotional materials effective?

25. What can be/should be done to promote farmer demand?

26. What do you think would the future of Orange Maize seed in Zambia be?

49

Appendix 11. Farm Household Survey Instrument

Effect of Promotion and Delivery Channels on Farmers’ Intention to Adopt and Consume Vitamin A Maize Delivered in the 2014/15 rainy Season in Zambia

Farm Household Survey Instrument, August - September 2015

We are a group of researchers working for HarvestPlus. HarvestPlus is a global project working on agriculture and health. In Zambia HarvestPlus is working with World Fish to develop and deliver improved maize varieties with high levels of vitamin A. We are currently conducting a study to elicit farmers’ intention to adopt the vitamin A maize variety which was delivered at the beginning of the Rainy Season in 2014/15through different channels. The results of this study will inform development and delivery of vitamin A maize in Zambia.

As a part of this study, we are carrying out this survey, in which we would like you to take part. In this survey you will be asked questions about your household characteristics; maize production in general, and vitamin A maize production in particular. By participating in this survey you are contributing immensely to the successful completion of this study. The survey is anonymous; your answers will be treated in the strictest confidence and there is no right or wrong answer. We would be most grateful if you could take about one hour to participate in this survey. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Participant’s Consent: I agree to participate in this survey. I have been fully informed of this study and I am aware that should I not wish to continue participating in this study I can do so at any time and without giving a reason. This authorization is only valid for this study. I hereby consent to participation.

___________________________________ ___________________________________

Signature or thumbprint of participant Name (in print)

___________________________________ ___________________________________

Signature of enumerator Name (in print)

50

MODULES

MODULE A. IDENTIFICATION ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 51

MODULE B. HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHICS ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 51

MODULE C. MAIZE PRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 51

MODULE D. VITAMIN A MAIZE VARIETY (GV 664 A) CULTIVATED IN 2014/15 RAINY SEASON ................................................................................................................ 53

MODULE E. GV 664 A – DIFFUSION, DELIVERY, WILLINGNESS TO PAY (WTP) AND INTENTION TO GROW ........................................................................................ 56

MODULE F. EVALUATION OF TRAITS ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 58

MODULE G. MAIZE SALES, MAIZE INCOME AND MAIZE FOOD SECURITY ................................................................................................................................................ 59

MODULE H. HOUSEHOLD SOURCES OF INFORMATION, DISTANCE TO SEED SOURCES, ASSETS AND INCOME ............................................................................. 60

MODULE I. INFORMATION AND MARKETING ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 64

MODULE J. LONG CODES .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 65

51

MODULE A. IDENTIFICATION

Date of interview (Day/Month/Year): ____________________ Time started: ____________________ Time ended: ____________________ A0 Respondent category, according to the sampling table

(enumerator, please fill the code on the list of selected households)

[1] Women groups [2] Demo packs (Schools & Health Centers) [3] A lead farmer

[4] Bought from agro-dealers [5] Didn't get it at all

A1 Province A2 District [1] Chipata [2] Katete [3] Sinda A3 Village name A4 Interviewer's name A5 Language in which the interview was conducted [1] English [2] Bemba [3] Nyanja [4] Tonga

[5] Kaonde [6] Lunda [7] Lozi [8] Luvale A6 Household ID A7 Camp A8 Camp officer name A9 Number of people living in this household or who have been

sharing the same house for the past six months

A10 How long has your household lived in this village? (in years)

MODULE B. HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHICS

1 2 3 4 5 B1 Household Member (name) (Enumerator: Start with respondent) B2 Relationship to the household head (B2 codes) B3 Sex [1] Male [2] Female B4 Age (complete years) B5 Literacy (B5 codes) B6 Level of formal education completed (B6 codes) B7 Marital status (B7 codes) B8 If B3=2 and B4>12, is this member pregnant? [1] Yes [2] No B9 If B3=2 and B4>12, is this member lactating? [1] Yes [2] No B10 Has this member ever received vitamin A maize seed? [1] Yes [2] No B11 If B10=1, from where? Programmer: Make this MULTIPLE RESPONSE (B11 codes) If B10=1 B12 If B4>=15, what is the number of years of experience in maize farming (complete

years)

B13 If B4>=15, main decision maker in maize production? [1] Yes [2] No B14 If B4>=15, main decision maker in maize seed purchase? [1] Yes [2] No B15 If B4>=15, main decision maker in maize grain sales? [1] Yes [2] No B16 If B4>=15, main decision maker in maize consumption? [1] Yes [2] No

MODULE C. MAIZE PRODUCTION

52

1 2 3 C1 Plot name (Plot is defined as a land that has one same crop)

Number of plots must not be limited

C2 Who is the manager of this plot?

B2 codes C3 What is the relationship of the plot manager to the head

C3 codes

C4 What type of land tenure do you have for this plot?

[1] Owned by the household [2] Borrowed [3] Rented [4] Other, (specify) [5] School plot

C5 What is the area of this plot?

In Hectares C6 What is the main crop cultivated on this plot?

C6 codes If C6=1, go to C7, otherwise go back to C1, if plots are finished go to D01

C7 How was the 2014/15 Rainy Season for maize production compared to those in the past 3 years, in terms of rainfall

[1] Higher [2] Same [3] Lower

C8 How was the 2014/15 Rainy Season for maize production compared to those in

the past 3 years, in terms of insects

[1] Higher [2] Same [3] Lower [4] Never happened

C9 How was the 2014/15 Rainy Season for maize production compared to those in the past 3 years, in terms of diseases

[1] Higher [2] Same [3] Lower [4] Never happened

C10 Did the household use pesticide in 2014/15 Rainy Season maize production?

[1] Yes [2] No C11 Did the household use herbicide in 2014/15 Rainy Season maize production?

[1] Yes [2] No

C12 Did the household use insecticide in 2014/15 Rainy Season maize production?

[1] Yes [2] No C13 Did the household use fungicide in 2014/15 Rainy Season maize production?

[1] Yes [2] No

C14 Did the household use fertilizer in 2014/15 Rainy Season maize production?

[1] Yes [2] No C15 Did the household use manure in 2014/15 Rainy Season maize production?

[1] Yes [2] No

C16 Did the household use hired labor in 2014/15 Rainy Season maize production?

[1] Yes [2] No C17 Amount of pesticide used?

In kg

C18 Amount of herbicide used?

In kg C19 Amount of insecticide used?

In kg

C20 Amount of fungicide used?

In kg C21 Amount of fertilizer used?

In kg

C22 Amount of manure used?

In kg C23 How many people were hired for your labor?

C24 What was the total cost of pesticide used? (in ZMW)

C25 What was the total cost of herbicide used? (in ZMW)

C26 What was the total cost of insecticide used? (in ZMW)

C27 What was the total cost of fungicide used? (in ZMW)

C28 What was the total cost of fertilizer used? (in ZMW)

C29 What was the total cost of manure used? (in ZMW)

C30 What was the total cost of hired labor used? (in ZMW)

1 2 3 C31 What is the type of soil where you did most of your maize cultivation in 2014/15

Rainy Season?

[1] Sandy Soil [2] Loamy Soil

[3] Clay soil [4] Other, specify

53

C32 What is the main source of irrigation for your maize cultivation in 2014/15 Rainy Season?

[1] Rainfed [2] Canal (Trench) [3] Well

[4] Pump [5] Lift irrigation [6] Other, Specify

C33 What is the maize variety you cultivated on this plot in 2014/15 Rainy Season?

C33 Codes C34 What is the source of this seed?

C34 Codes

C35 What is the quantity of maize grain harvested from this plot?

In kg C36 What is the quantity of maize grain output from this plot that was lost to

pests/diseases and postharvest?

In kg

C37 What is the quantity of maize grain output from this plot that was consumed at home?

In kg

C38 What is the quantity of maize grain output from this plot that was saved as seed?

In kg C39 What is the quantity of maize grain output from this plot that was sold?

In kg

C40 What is the quantity of maize grain output from this plot that was used for other purposes, specify?

In kg If plots are finished go to the next module

MODULE D. VITAMIN A MAIZE VARIETY (GV 664 A) CULTIVATED IN 2014/15 RAINY SEASON

D01 Did you grow the Vitamin A Maize variety [1] Yes >>D1 [2] No

D02 Why not? [1] Did not hear about it all [2] I heard but have not received it [3] I could have got it but did not want to try it [4] Others specify [5] The seed was delivered late [6] Did not want to grow [7] Didn't know where to find it and how to get it

D03 What do you know about Vitamin A Maize [1] Nutrition benefit of the variety [2] High yield of the variety [3] Double cobbing [4] Drought tolerant [5] Disease tolerant

[6] Wanted to try a new variety [7] I don’t know anything [8] Other, specify [9] Early maturity

D04 Quantity of Vitamin A Maize you would like to receive to try this variety (Enter 0 if they don't want any)

_______________ kg >>G1

D1 Did you ask the farmer to see their GV 664 A bag? [1] Yes [2] No D2 Did you see the farmer’s GV 664 A bag? [1] Yes [2] No if yes go to D4, if no go to D3 D3 Why didn’t you see farmers’ GV 664 A bag? D4 Does the GV 664 A have a local name? [1] Yes>>D5 [2] No >>D6 D5 What is the local name? D6 What was the primary reason for cultivation of GV 664 A? [1] Nutrition benefit of the variety

[2] High yield of the variety [3] Double cobbing [4] Drought tolerant [5] Disease tolerant

[9] Other, specify [10] To sell [11] Was the cheapest" [12] Good

taste [13] For school feeding program

54

[6] Wanted to try a new variety [7] Early maturity

[14] Was just given to me [15] To have experience

D7 What was the secondary reason for cultivation of GV 664 A? [1] Nutrition benefit of the variety [2] High yield of the variety [3] Double cobbing [4] Drought tolerant [5] Disease tolerant [6] Wanted to try a new variety [7] Early maturity [8] No other reason

[9] Other, specify [10] To sell [11] Was the cheapest [12] Good taste [13] For school feeding program [14] Was just given to me [15] To have experience

D8 From whom/where did you get the information about GV 664 A? D8 codes [Multiple response]

D9 Where did you get the GV 664 A seed? B11 codes [Multiple response]

D10 When did you get the GV 664 A seed? (Month) _______________ D11 When did you get the GV 664 A seed? (Week) _______________ D12

A. Have you ever acquired a GV 664 A seed pack?

B. How many seed bags GV 664 A seed quantity acquired?

C. Price paid for one bag (Enter 0 if the seed was

received for free) 0.5 kg bag

1 kg bag 2 kg bag 5 kg bag 10 kg Other bag(specify)

D15 Did you plant all the seed quantity acquired (which is stated in D12 in Rainy Season 2014/15?

[1] Yes, all of it>>D25 [2] No, some of it>>D16

[3] Don’t know/don’t remember>>D25

D16 How much GV 664 A seed did you plant in Rainy Season 2014/15? Show only the seed packs that were selected in D12

_______________ kg

D17 What did you do with the remaining seed? (Please select all that apply)

[1] Saved for next Rainy season [2] Discarded/threw away [3] Exchanged it for something else

[4] Gave away/gifted [5] Sold [6] Other, specify______________

D18 If you selected [3] in D17, how much GV 664 A seed did you exchange? _______________ Weight units D19 If you selected [3] in D17, what did you exchange GV 664 A seed with?

(Select all that apply) [1] Other maize seed [2] Other crop seed [3] Fertilizer

[4] Labor [5] Other input, specify________ [6] Other, specify__________

D20 If you selected [3] in D17, with whom did you exchange, their numbers and location (Select all that apply)

[1] Relatives: Number_______

Location: [i] In the same village [ii] In the next village within the

district

[iii] Outside the district [iv] Outside the province [v] Other, specify___________

[2] Neighbors:

Location: [i] In the same village

[iii] Outside the district [iv] Outside the province

55

Number_______ [ii] In the next village within the district

[v] Other, specify___________

[3] Friends: Number_______


district


[4] Farmers in common cooperative: Number_______


district


[5] Other farmers, specify ________: Number_______


district


D21 If you selected [4] in D17, how much GV 664 A seed did you give away? _______________ Weight units D22 If you selected [4] in D17, to whom did you

give away, their numbers and location (Select all that apply)



district


[2] Neighbors: Number_______


district




district




district




district


D23 If you selected [5] in D17, how much GV 664 A seed did you sell and what was the unit price? _______________ Weight units

D24 If you selected [5] in D17, to whom did you sell, their numbers and location (Select all that apply)



district


[2] Neighbors: Location: [iii] Outside the district

56

Number_______

[i] In the same village [ii] In the next village within the

district

[iv] Outside the province [v] Other, specify___________



district




district




district


D25 When did you harvest GV 664 A? (Month) _______________ (Put 99 if did not harvest and then Skip to D30) D26 When did you harvest GV 664 A? (Week) _______________ D27 Where (Place) do you (expect to) sale for majority of the output [1] Farm gate

[2] Market [3] Cooperatives [4] Other

[5] Don't think of any at this point [6] Agricultural offices [7] HarvestPlus [8] Other institutions

D28 To whom do you (expect to) sell the majority of the output [1] Consumer [2] Trader [3] Wholesaler [4] Cooperatives [5] Other

[6] Don't think of any at this point [7] Agricultural offices [8] HarvestPlus [9] Other institutions

D29 Price per unit of output (expected to be) sold for majority of the output?

ZMW ___________ per kg

D30 Did/will GV 664 A grain fetch higher price than the grain of other varieties?

[1] Yes >>D31 [2] No >>E [3] I don’t know >>E

D31 What is the price per unit of other maize grain in the market? ZMW ___________ per kg

MODULE E. GV 664 A – DIFFUSION, DELIVERY, WILLINGNESS TO PAY (WTP) AND INTENTION TO GROW

E1 Did you recommend GV 664 A to anyone? [1] Yes>>E2 [2] No>>E4 E2 How many people did you recommend GV 664 A to? ______________ E3 Who are these people?

(Enumerator please select as many as applicable)

(1) Relatives: [1] Yes [2] No

Location: [a] In the same village [b] In the next village within the district [c] Outside the district [d] Outside the province [e] Other, specify________

(2) Neighbors: Location:

57

[1] Yes [2] No [a] In the same village [b] In the next village within the district [c] Outside the district [d] Outside the province [e] Other, specify________

(3) Friends: [1] Yes [2] No


(4) Farmers in common cooperative:

[1] Yes [2] No


(5) Other, specify;_______:

[1] Yes [2] No


E4 Did you give the harvested grain of GV 664 A to anyone? [1] Yes>>E5 [2] No>>E7 E5 How many people did you give the grain of this variety to? ______________ E6 Who are these people?

(Enumerator please select as many as applicable)

(1) Relatives: [1] Yes [2] No


(2) Neighbors: [1] Yes [2] No


(3) Friends: [1] Yes [2] No


(4) Farmers in common cooperative:

[1] Yes [2] No


(5) Other, specify;_______ :

[1] Yes [2] No


E7 How satisfied are you with the following aspects of delivery on a satisfaction scale of 1 to 5 (Enumerator: -99=do not know enter -77=not applicable -77) E7.1: Bag sizes available at the agro-dealer or that is given to you 1.Very dissatisfied 2.Dissatisfied 3.Neutral 4.Satisfied 5.Very satisfied E7.2: Bag design/logo 1.Very dissatisfied 2.Dissatisfied 3.Neutral 4.Satisfied 5.Very satisfied E7.3: Information on the bag 1.Very dissatisfied 2.Dissatisfied 3.Neutral 4.Satisfied 5.Very satisfied E7.4: Information on the posters 1.Very dissatisfied 2.Dissatisfied 3.Neutral 4.Satisfied 5.Very satisfied E7.5: Availability/visibility of posters 1.Very dissatisfied 2.Dissatisfied 3.Neutral 4.Satisfied 5.Very satisfied E7.6: Information given by the agro-dealer 1.Very dissatisfied 2.Dissatisfied 3.Neutral 4.Satisfied 5.Very satisfied E8 If the GV 664 A seed was easily available and affordable, how frequently would you

purchase it? [1] Every Rainy Season [2] Twice a year [3] Once every 2 years [4] Once every 3 years

[5] Less frequently than every 3 years [6] Never again [7] Other, specify ______

E9 Seed quantity that would be typically purchased (Put 0 if they do not buy that one)

[1] No of 0.5 kg bag:________ [2] No of 1 kg bag:________ [3] No of 2 kg bag: __________ [4] No of 5 kg bag: __________

[5] No of 10 kg bag: _____ [6] No of other _________

specify ___________

58

E10 What is your maximum willingness to pay in ZMW for GV 664 A seed if it is sold at

your usual agro-dealer? Show only the bags that have values >0 in E9.

[1] ZMW for a 0.5 kg bag :_________________ [2] ZMW for a 1 kg bag:_________________ [3] ZMW for a 2 kg bag:_________________ [4] ZMW for a 5 kg bag:_________________ [5] ZMW for a 10 kg bag:_________________ [6] ZMW for the other bag mentioned:_________________

E11 Will you cultivate GV 664 A again in 2015 Rainy Season?

[1] Yes>>E12-E15>>F [2] No >>E16 [3] Don’t know>>F

E12 Where will you get the GV 664 A seed for 2015 Rainy Season? Multiple response, Select all that apply

[1] Agro-dealer [2] Farmer’s own seed from

previous season [3] Neighbor [4] Family member [5] Farmer in common cooperative

/organization [6] Friend

[7] Landlord [8] Tenant [9] NGO [10] I don’t

know/remember [11] Other, specify

E13 Quantity of GV 664 A seed bags you will use in 2015 Rainy Season

____________________

E14 Assuming similar climatic and other input conditions as in 2014/15 rainy season, how much land will you use to plant GV 664 A in 2015/16 Rainy Season?

____________________

Land area units

E15 What will be the main use of this variety’s output? >> Go to Module F

[1] Mainly for household consumption [2] Mainly for market sale as grain [3] Mainly for market sales as seed [4] To save as seed for next season

[5] Don’t know [6] Other, specify;____

E16 Why not?

[1] I will not do maize in that season [2] I didn’t like the yield [3] I didn’t like the taste [4] I want to switch to hybrid

[5] Other, specify____ [6] No seed to grow

MODULE F. EVALUATION OF TRAITS

F1 Trait

F2 F3 F4 Trait ID

How important is this trait in your choice of

a maize variety?

a. Maize variety code (C33 Codes)

How well did the major maize variety which the farmers are familiar with

perform against this trait?

In 2014Rainy Season how well did GV 664 A perform

against this trait?

59

F2 Codes: [1] Unimportant [2] Of Little Importance [3] Moderately Important [4] Important

[5] Very important [6] DK [7] NA

F3 Codes: [1] Very Poor [2] Poor [3] Fair [4] Good

[5] Very Good [6] DK [7] NA

MODULE G. MAIZE SALES, MAIZE INCOME AND MAIZE FOOD SECURITY

(F2 Codes) b. Performance in 2013

(F3 Codes)

c. Performance in 2014/15 (F3

Codes)

(F3 Codes)

F1.1 Agronomic F1.1.1 Emergence (germination) F1.1.2 Resistance to drought F1.1.3 Resistance to field pests F1.1.4 Resistance to storage pests F1.1.5 Resistance to diseases F1.1.6 Early maturity F1.1.7 Yield

F1.2 Cob and grain qualities F1.2.1 Cob size F1.2.2 Cob number F1.2.3 Good cover of the tip F1.2.4 Grain color (whiteness) F1.2.5 Grain weight

F1.3 Processing and cooking qualities F1.3.1 Water absorption capacity/ability

to swell

F1.3.2 Good pounding ability F1.3.3 Taste for nshima/porridge F1.3.4 Taste as roasted

F1.4 Other F1.4.1 Market demand

60

G1 In the last 12 months what % of your household’s maize consumption came from each one of these sources? (Enumerator check that sum is 100%)

G1.1 _______% Own production G1.2_______ % Market purchase, if G1.2>0%>>G2; if G1.2=0 >> G4 G1.3_______ % Gifts G1.4_______ % Payment in kind G1.5_______ % Other, specify_____________________

G2 If your household purchased maize for consumption in the past 12 months, where did you buy the largest quantity?

[1] Farmgate [2] Village shop [3] Weekly market in the village [4] Market in the village

[5] Market in another village in the district [6] Other, specify:_____________ [7] From other country

G3 If your household purchased maize for consumption in the past 12 months, from whom did you buy the largest quantity?

[1] Another farmer [2] Trader

[3] Wholesaler [4] Other, specify ___________________

G4 Now think about your household’s maize grain sales in the past 3 years, on average what (%) of your total annual household income came from maize grain sales? ______________________

G5 Now think about the past 3 years’ Rainy Season, on average how many months did your maize grain reserves last after harvest?

[1] Number of months: __________ [2] Don’t know/remember

G6 Now think about the past 3 years’ Rainy Season when maize reserves were over, on average how often did you purchase grain for household consumption?

[1] Never [2] Every day [3] Few times per week [4] Once a week [5] 2-3 times per month

[6] Once a month [7] Don’t know [8] Other, specify:_______________ [9] Once a year

MODULE H. HOUSEHOLD SOURCES OF INFORMATION, DISTANCE TO SEED SOURCES, ASSETS AND INCOME

H1 Does any member of your household belong to a rural or farmers’ cooperative/organization?

[1] Yes [2] No

H2 What is your most important source for health and nutrition information?

[1] Camp officers [2] Cell Phone [3] Farmers’ Association/Cooperative [4] Friend [5] Health Worker [6] Internet [7] Magazine [8] Medicine Store [9] Neighbor [10] Newspaper

[11] NGOs [12] Posters/flyers/brochures [13] Hospital/Clinics/Health centers [14] Radio [15] Relatives [16] School [17] Self-help Group/Women’s

Association [18] TV [19] Village Leader [20] Other

H3 What is your most important source for new agricultural technology information?

[1] Radio [2] TV [3] Newspaper

[10] Agro-dealer [11] Agriculture show/trade fair [12] NGO

61

[4] Magazine [5] Village Leader [6] Farmers’ Association/Cooperative [7] Demonstration Plot [8] Agricultural extension officers [9] Out grower companies

[13] Relatives [14] Neighbor [15] Friend [16] Cell Phone [17] Internet [18] Other, Specify ____________

H4 What is your most important source for new maize variety information?

[1] Radio [2] TV [3] Newspaper [4] Magazine [5] Village Leader [6] Farmers’ Association/Cooperative [7] Demonstration Plot [8] Agricultural extension officers [9] Out grower companies [10] Agro-dealer

[11] Agriculture show/trade fair [12] NGO [13] Relatives [14] Neighbor [15] Friend [16] Cell Phone [17] Internet [18] Other, Specify ___________ [19] Seed companies

H5 In the past five years, how frequently did you interact with village agricultural extension officers?

[1] Daily [2] Weekly [3] Monthly [4] Four times a year [5] Three times a year [6] Twice a year [7] Once a year

[8] Every two years [9] Every five years [10] Never [11] Other, specify_____________ [12] Twice a month [13] Seven times a year [14] Don't know

H6 In the past five years, how frequently did you interact with NGO agricultural extension officers?

[1] Daily [2] Weekly [3] Monthly [4] Four times a year [5] Three times a year [6] Twice a year [7] Once a year

[8] Every two years [9] Every five years [10] Never [11] Other, specify______________ [12] Twice a month [13] Seven times a year [14] Don't know

H7 In the past five years, how frequently did you interact with seed company extension officers?

[1] Daily [2] Weekly [3] Monthly [4] Four times a year [5] Three times a year [6] Twice a year

[7] Once a year [8] Every two years [9] Every five years [10] Never [11] Other, specify________________

H8 What is the main mode of transportation you usually use when you go to the nearest market?

[1] On foot [2] Bicycle [3] Bus [4] Motorbike [5] Train

[6] Private car/Vehicle [7] Never go there [8] Oxcart [9] Other, specify_______________

62

H9 How long does it take you to go to the nearest market with the mode of transportation specified in H8? (in minutes) __________________

H10 What is the main mode of transportation you usually use when you go to the nearest agro-dealer?


[6] Private car/Vehicle [7] Never go there [8] Oxcart [9] Other, Specify__________________

H11 How long does it take you to go to the nearest agro-dealer with the mode of transportation specified in H10? (in minutes) __________________

H12 What is the main mode of transportation you usually use when you go to the temple/church/mosque?


[6] Private car/Vehicle [7] Never go there [8] Oxcart [9] Other, Specify_______________

H13 How long does it take you to go to the nearest temple/church/mosque with the mode of transportation specified in I12? (in minutes) __________________

H14 What is the total land area (agricultural and non-agricultural) currently owned by your household (specify units)? __________________

Land area codes

H15 What are the sources of your family’s livelihood? (Enumerator: Please circle all that apply)

[1] Crop farming [2] Livestock production [3] Farm labor [4] Non-farm business

[5] Non-farm salary employment (teacher, civil servant etc.) [6] Remittances [7] Rent [8] Other, specify____________

H16 What is your household’s gross income in the last 12 months from [H15 choices, Show the enumerator only the sources that were selected in H15]? (ZMW)

[1] Crop farming ____________ [5] Non-farm salary employment _________ [2] Livestock production ____________ [6] Remittances ____________ [3] Farm labor ____________ [7] Rent ____________ [4] Non-farm business ____________ [8] Other, specify____________

H17 What was your household’s net farm income in the last 2014/15 Rainy Season? (Oct-Apr)

H18 What is your household’s net farm income in 2015 dry season? (May-present)

H19 a b c Asset

ID Asset Does any household

member currently own [asset]?

How many [asset] does your entire household

currently own?

What is the current estimated value of total [asset] owned by your entire

household?

63

1 = yes >> b 2 = no>> next item

ZMW

Household assets 1 Land 2 Houses (including the one you live in IF OWNED) 3 Other buildings owned including stores/shops 4 Livestock structures 5 Traditional granary 6 Wooden or concrete storage 7 Cars in working conditions 8 Bicycle 9 Motorcycle in working conditions 10 Cell/mobile phone(s) 11 Radio 12 Television 13 Savings in informal groups

Livestock assets 14 Poultry 15 Sheep 16 Goat 17 Cow 18 Pig 19 Donkey 20 Oxen 21 Bull 22 Other cattle 23 Plough 24 Ox-cart 25 Bees/Bee hives 26 Fish pond 27 Other (please specify)

Household general conditions H20 What is the roofing material of the main house? [1] Thatch

[2] Iron sheet [3] Tiles

[4] Other (please specify) [5] Asbestos [88] Don’t know

H21 What is the wall material of the main house? [1] Mud [2] Mud and cement

[6] Unburnt brick [7] Stones

64

[3] Pole and mud [4] Concrete block [5] Burnt brick

[8] Grass [9] Other (please specify) [88] Don’t know

H22 What is the floor material of the main house? [1] Earth [2] Cement [3] Wood

[4] Tiles [5] Other (please specify) [88] Don’t know

H23 What is main source of drinking water? [1] Pond [2] Dam/sand dam [3] Lake [4] Stream/river [5] Unprotected stream [6] Protected stream [7] Unprotected well [8] Protected well [9] Borehole [10] Piped into compound

[11] Piped outside compound [12] Water tankers [13] Rainwater/roof catchments [14] Bottled water [15] Other (specify) [16] Don’t know

H24 What is the main source of water for domestic use? [1] Pond [2] Dam/sand dam [3] Lake [4] Stream/river [5] Unprotected stream [6] Protected stream [7] Unprotected well [8] Protected well [9] Borehole

[10] Piped into compound [11] Piped outside compound [12] Water tankers [13] Rainwater/roof catchments [14] Bottled water [15] Other (specify) [16] Don’t know

H25 What is the main source of lighting used in the main house? [1] Electricity [2] Pressure lamp [3] Tin lamp [4] Fuel wood [5] Lantern [6] Solar power [7] Candle

[8] Open fire [9] Generator [10] Car battery [11] Torch or battery lamp [12] Other (please specify) [13] Don't know [14] Use nothing at all

H26 Do you and/or any of the other members in your household use mosquito nets? 1 = Yes 2 = No

99 = don't know

MODULE I. INFORMATION AND MARKETING

I1 Did you see the posters for GV 664 A? [1] Yes>>I2 [2] No>>I8 I2 Where did you see it? I2 Codes I3 What was the message on the poster? [1] Vitamin A and orange maize [4] Farming orange maize

65

(Enumerator: Please circle all that apply)

[2] Any benefit of orange maize [3] Picture of maize and other things

[5] Not clear

I4 Did you like the posters? [1] Yes>>I5 >>I7 [2] No>>I6 I5 Why?

(Enumerator: Please circle all that apply) [1] The message [2] Its appearance [3] The maize picture on it

I6 Why not? I7 Did the poster effect your decision to grow GV

664 A? [1] Yes, definitively [2] Yes, somehow [3] No

[4] I don’t know [5] Other, specify____________________

I8 Did you participate in field demonstrations to introduce GV 664 A?

[1] Yes>>I9[2] No>>I16

I9 Where was it held? [1] In the same village [2] In the next village within the district [3] Outside the district

[4] Outside the province [5] Other, specify____________________

I10 When was it held?(Month) ___________ I11 When was it held?(Week) ___________ I12 What was the message from it?

(Enumerator: Please circle all that apply) [1] Vitamin A Maize [2] The overall benefits of Orange Maize

[3] How to grow Orange Maize [4] Other issues & activities like cooking

I13 Did you like the field demo? [1] Yes>>I14>>I16 [2] No>>I15 I14 Why?

(Enumerator: Please circle all that apply) [1] Learned about vitamin A and Orange Maize [2] The overall benefits of Orange Maize [3] How to grow Orange Maize

[4] Other activities like cooking [5] I liked the crop

I15 Why not? I16 Did the field demo effect your decision to grow

GV 664 A? [1] Yes, definitively [2] Yes, somehow [3] No

[4] I don’t know [5] Other, specify____________________

I17 What do you think vitamin A is good for? (Enumerator: Please circle all that apply)

[1] The eyes [2] Child growth/development [3] Reproduction [4] Health & nutrition

[5] Skin [6] Intelligence [7] Does not know

MODULE J. LONG CODES

B2 Codes

[1] Head [2] Spouse [3] Own son/daughter

B5 Codes

[1] Cannot read or write [2] Can sign/write name only [3] Can read only

B6 Codes

[0] No formal education [1] Sub-standard/Grade 1 [2] Standard 1/Grade 2

B7 Codes

[1] Never married [2] Married - monogamy [3] Married - polygamous

66

[4] Step son/daughter [5] Parent [6] Brother/sister [7] Nephew/niece [8] Son/daughter-in-law [9] Grandchild [10] Parent-in-law [11] Cousin [12] Other relative [13] Grand parent [14] Not related

[4] Can read and write [3] Standard 2/Grade 3 [4] Standard 3/Grade 4 [5] Standard 4/Grade 5 [6] Standard 5/Grade 6 [7] Standard 6/Grade 7 [8] Form 1/Grade 8 [9] Form 2/Grade 9 [10] Form 3/Grade 10 [11] Form 4/Grade 11 [12] Form 5/Grade 12/GCE (0) [13] Form 6/GCE (A) [14] College students [15] University undergraduate

students [16] Certificate [17] Diploma [18] Bachelor’s degree [19] Master’s degree and above

[4] Separated [5] Divorced [6] Widowed

B11 Codes

[1] Lead farmer [2] Women groups [3] Schools [4] Health centers [5] Bought from agro-dealers

C3 Codes

[1] Self [2] Husband/wife [3] Son/daughter/adopted child [4] Father/mother [5] Sister/brother

C6 Codes

[1] Maize [2] Avocado [3] Bananas [4] Beans [5] Cassava

C33 Codes

[1] GV 664 A (Orange maize) [2] DKC 8033 [3] DKC 8053 [4] DKC 9089 [5] GV 606

67

[6] Didn't get it at all [6] Grandchild [7] Grandparent [8] Mother/father-in-law [9] Daughter/son-in-law [10] Other relative [11] Not related [12] Neighbor [13] Friend [14] Farmer in a common cooperatives [15] Land lord [16] Tenant [17] Others

[6] Citrus [7] Cotton [8] Cowpeas [9] Eggplant [10] Groundnuts [11] Irish potato [12] Leafy vegetables [13] Mangoes [14] Millet [15] Mustard [16] Okra [17] Onion [18] Peanuts [19] Pepper [20] Pigeon peas [21] Potatoes [22] Pumpkin [23] Rice [24] Sorghum [25] Soybean [26] Sugarcane [27] Sunflower [28] Sweet potatoes [29] Tea [30] Tobacco [31] Tomatoes [32] Vegetables [33] Wheat [34] Yam [35] Zucchini [36] Other (specify) [37] Popcorn

[6] KK 2501 [7] MRI 634 [8] Pan 53 [9] Pioneer 30G19 [10] SeedCo 403 [11] SeedCo 513 [12] SeedCo 627 [13] SeedCo 637 [14] ZMS 606 [15] ZMS 638 [16] ZMS720 [17] Local maize [18] Recycled hybrid [19] Others [20] From seed companies but

unspecified

C34 Codes

[1] Agro-dealer [2] Farmer’s own seed from previous

season [3] Neighbor [4] Family member

D3 Codes

[1] Farmer threw the bag away [2] Farmer couldn’t find/locate the bag [3] Farmer bought the seed without a

bag [4] Farmer was given the seed without a

bag

D8 Codes

[1] Agro-dealer [2] Neighbor [3] Family member [4] Farmer in common

cooperative/organization [5] Friend

I2 Codes

[1] Inside the Agro-dealer shop [2] Outside the Agro-dealer

shop [3] Agricultural offices [4] At a field day [5] At meetings and trainings

68

[5] Farmer in common cooperative /organization

[6] Friend [7] Landlord [8] Tenant [9] NGO [10] Cooperatives/women group [11] I don’t know/remember [12] Other, specify [13] Camp officer [14] Health center [15] School [16] Out grower

[5] Others

[6] Landlord [7] Tenant [8] NGO [9] Field demonstration [10] Radio [11] Newspaper/magazine [12] TV [13] Cooperatives/ women group [14] I don’t know/remember [15] Others

[6] At schools [7] At the clinic [8] At the demo plot [9] In another town or village [10] In cooperatives or women

groups [11] In the village [12] On the road [13] Own home [14] Someone's house

An assessment of the vitamin A maize seed delivery efforts ... · HarvestPlus and FRA have been...

Documents

Transcript of An assessment of the vitamin A maize seed delivery efforts ... · HarvestPlus and FRA have been...