Written by: Mirriam Matita

What are the trends and patterns emerging in Malawi’s agricultural commercialisation process? What is the influence of these trends on poverty and food security, and the drivers of the process? How inclusive is agricultural commercialisation in the country? This blog, the second of a two-part series, explores the answers to these questions as they pertain to Malawi, based on the findings of a recent APRA paper, Patterns and drivers of agricultural commercialisation: evidence from Ghana, Nigeria, and Malawi. Before turning our attention to Malawi, read the first blog in this series, which focuses on Ghana and Nigeria, here.

Patterns and dynamics of agricultural commercialisation in Malawi

The study finds that smallholder farming households increased the proportion of harvests sold – in other words, increased their level of agricultural commercialisation – from approximately 15% in 2010 to 19% in 2013 and 18% in 2016. Across geographical regions in Malawi, the central region marketed by far the most.

Households with small land holding sizes of <=0.4ha were less commercialised in 2010 and 2013 relative to medium-scale farmers with 0.4 to 4.04ha sized farms. No statistically significant differences were observed between small and medium scale farmers in terms of extent of commercialisation in 2016.

Agricultural commercialisation by poverty status

Poverty remains entrenched with about 65% of the households multidimensionally poor in each of the survey years. Income poverty, which we found to be more pronounced in 2010 and 2013 is rooted, irrespective of the level of market participation.

Multidimensionally non-poor households increased their market engagement, selling 14, 16 and 17 per cent of their produce in 2010, 2013 and 2016, respectively. For the moderate poor, market engagement was more of a steady trend (19 per cent across all study periods). The poorest households increased their market participation over the years – from 11 per cent in 2010, to 15 and 18 per cent in 2013 and 2016, respectively.

We found no link between multidimensional poverty – or subjective assessment of poverty – and the extent of commercialisation. But income poverty was significantly associated with commercialisation, possibly because it determines access to factors of production.

Agricultural commercialisation by food security situation

The data showed no evidence of food insecurity among households, but male-headed households (MHH) were better off than female-headed households (FHH) in terms of food consumption scores (FCS) and the variety of foods consumed. There was no consistent pattern of association between food security and commercialisation. Higher commercialisation in 2010 was associated with better FCS but this is not the case in 2013, especially among those selling more agricultural produce.

Types of crops marketed by gender of household head

Maize is the least commercialised crop, possibly because of its food security role. Highly marketed crops are soyabeans followed by groundnuts. MHH dominate sales for the study periods. FHH marketed more pigeon peas, beans and sweet potatoes, although the differences with MHH were not substantial. Females are being left behind in the marketing of lucrative crops such as soyabeans and groundnuts.

Factors driving agricultural commercialisation in Malawi

In general, inorganic fertilisers obtained through commercial purchases and under the government Farm Input Subsidy Programme (FISP) were a driver of commercialisation; commercial purchases had greater influence relative to the subsidies. The proportion of households benefiting from FISP has declined at the same time that commercial fertiliser purchases have declined. This is a worrisome trend given the reliance on inorganic fertilisers to manage soil fertility among most smallholder farmers in Malawi.

The study results indicate that credit access has increased across the study periods by 13, 23 and 25 per cent, respectively, which may be important to counter the fall in commercial and subsidised fertiliser access. However, the proportions of farmers accessing credit are not substantial, and smallholder farmers rarely get credit for agricultural production.

Another significant driver of commercialisation is access to market-related extension services. However, the proportion of farmers accessing market-related extension services has been unstable, ranging from 6 to 33 to 9 per cent across the study years, respectively. 

Assets including land are not key drivers of commercialisation in Malawi. Further, land productivity was found to negatively affect commercialisation, possibly because productivity increases have largely been associated with maize, which is the least marketed crop.

Implications of the findings

The study findings indicate a need for strategies that encourage active participation of smallholder farmers in the commercialisation drive. However, strategies need to be streamlined for different targeted beneficiaries. Specifically, inclusive strategies that promote commercialisation and ensure male and female access to markets, whilst considering crop types, would be more beneficial to FHH in particular.

Location-specific advantages also need to be explored, such as in the case with the central region of Malawi, where agriculture production is considered more efficient and is associated with greater crop sales. Context-specific programmes that address the identified drivers of commercialisation – whilst capitalising on the agroecological advantage of each region – may increase production, along with the volumes of marketable surplus with potential spillover effects for smallholder farmer welfare.

Access to productivity-enhancing technologies needs to be promoted for crops other than maize, such as legumes, which have a greater potential to improve land productivity. Similarly, greater access to agricultural credit could ease affordability constraints around essential inputs to increase productivity. Income constraints in general need to be addressed and diversified sources of income enabled, including strengthening non-agricultural enterprises in the rural economy. This would support the generation of non-agricultural income that could support access to production inputs for agriculture.

Photo credit: C. de Bode/CGIAR

Written by: Loveness Mgalamadzi

Agricultural commercialisation is perceived as a positive step towards development and economic growth in Malawi, as well as a source of household income and livelihoods among local communities. However, the process of commercialisation is hindered by a number of factors, and remains unequal in its benefits as a result of gender inequalities that exits in the country. In this second blog of our two-part series on marital issues’ effects on agricultural commercialisation, we turn our attention to polygamy and its role in limiting women’s empowerment. Read the previous blog in this series, which focuses on marital issues in singular marriages as well as the experiences of male- versus female-headed households, here.

Polygamy is the practice of having multiple spouses, and in Malawi, the dominant form of polygamy is polygyny, in which a man has more than one wife. The practice is usually accepted under customary law, which treats women as lesser members of their family and society, and as inferior in status to men. Polygamous marriages tend to exhibit many gender inequalities, which some attribute to the perception of second and successive wives as burdens to their marriage – given that they are another individual for the husband to provide for and for resources to be shared with – and, in some cases, their lack of legal recognition. However, others have argued that inequalities are not necessarily a result of the polygamy practice itself, but of the patriarchal behaviours of the parties involved. On the one hand, the man feels superior and in control of the women; on the other hand, wives feel inferior to their husbands. Furthermore, polygamy perpetuates women’s low socioeconomic status by forcing them to share valuable resources with the husband’s other wives and children. Polygamy is also known to deepen the impoverishment of women by limiting their access to financial resources during marriage upon divorce or death of their husbands. Our study confirms these impacts, for example:

“My father had two wives, he liked the first wife more than my mother. It was difficult for us to access money from farming because the decisions to use the money from farming were made by him and his first wife. After harvesting, all the produce was kept by the other wife, including the money from the crop sales. Sometimes he could use the money to buy household assets for the other wife and not my mother; my mother had to buy her own from her own small business. Sometimes we would sleep on an empty stomach, and sometimes the other wife could give us a little maize for food.”

We also note some power dynamics with regard to decision-making in polygamous households. Culturally, men have greater control over resources, production activities, and even individuals within the household. Where joint decision-making does exist, women must often negotiate their rights from a subordinate position that limits their bargaining power. In polygamous households, the situation is even worse, as women have to negotiate their position not only to their husbands but also to their co-wives. As a result, women in polygamous households typically engage in individual income-generating activities (mainly small businesses) where they can exercise control over the use of resources and benefits for their own needs and the needs of their children. Regarding decision-making, the hierarchy of co-wives is usually based on the order of their marriage. A first wife is expected to hold a privileged position, but in practice, the situation may be more fluid and dynamic, as these hierarchies can shift in response to the changing environment and patterns of favouritism exercised by the husband. For instance, a second or third wife may be favoured in her early days of marriage. Furthermore, a wife’s influence on decision-making in the household is determined by her relationship with the husband at that time and the resources she possesses or is perceived to possess. The following quotes from our data will illustrate some of the observations made:

 “Polygamy is not an easy thing because as a woman you have to fight and fend for yourself”. My father was concentrating a lot and investing in his first wife. My mother sometimes used to be at peace with her cowives, but sometimes they could fight and had disagreements all over. The father always backed up his first wife.”

“I have land which I have shared with my two wives, but I have given the large part of the land to my first wife because she has children who in the future might need the land, too.”

Conclusions

The blog wanted to highlight some of the marital issues that arise in polygamous marriages which affect agricultural commercialisation or, indeed, that are affected by commercialisation. It is clear that women in polygamous households do not benefit from agricultural commercialisation to the same degree as men, as they do not adequately participate in decision-making and have less control of resources and income.

We see that agricultural commercialisation is often thwarted by the social relations in marriage, and in particular in polygamous marriages. Thus, while commercialisation could support improvements in welfare, differences in expenditure priorities between husbands and wives often fail to promote commercialisation. Based on the findings, there is a need to have targeted programmes for specific groups of women, such as those in polygamous marriages, including trainings to improve their capacity, capacity-building to strengthen their agency and negotiation skills, and dialogue within the household. Furthermore, there is a need to raise awareness of gender issues, including gender-based violence and gender equality for both men and women, as well as mainstream gender issues in agricultural programmes that promote agricultural commercialisation. There is also a need to tackle specific gender issues in polygamous households, including awareness and family education, which is often overlooked.

Photo credit: T. Samson/CIMMYT

Written by: Loveness Msofi Mgalamadzi

Despite agricultural commercialisation being considered a positive step towards Malawi’s development and economic growth, as well as a source of household income and livelihoods among local communities, there are a number of factors that impede this process. Our research established that despite the fact that most households engage in some degree of agricultural commercialisation, its benefits remain limited. In the first of a two-part blog series, we explore how marital issues affect agricultural commercialisation, specifically with regards to women’s involvement, and, in reverse, how commercialisation impacts marital relations. We use data collected by the APRA Malawi team, dwelling much on the qualitative data collected through focus group discussions, key informant interviews and life histories.

Women’s participation in decision-making and agricultural commercialisation

Here, we wanted to understand how marriage and the decision-making processes therein impact commercial farming activities at the household level. Women’s participation in decision-making is key for them to negotiate their interests and ensure access to the resources and benefits of commercial farming. However, despite the importance of women’s involvement, we found that it is mostly men who make decisions. This gives them an opportunity to prioritise farming activities of which they will have greater control and reap greater financial benefits. We also observed that the involvement of women in agricultural activities reduces in regard to marketing (women become less involved in marketing activities of the value chain, especially selling, which reduces their chances of accessing income). However, different responses exist in response to this power imbalance; some lament how men misuse resources, especially income, and how that cripples commercialisation activities, while other women indicate that men making all decisions is actually good for commercial farming, as men have the capability to mobilise resources, access different spaces and provide labour. The following quotes demonstrate these tendencies:

“Sometimes men steal the produce for sale, and sometimes they give it to their girlfriends. This in most cases leads to divorce and sometimes separation. There are times women also steal and sell produce as a way of revenge. It gets worse in the sense that dividends realised from “banki mkhonde” (village banks) are taken over by husbands and misused and this becomes a setback to commercialisation.”

“There is so much responsibility resting on women’s shoulders; they look after almost everything in the house. Some men cannot make proper decisions after harvesting their crops, such as to sell them and make profits to help their household. After selling, some spend money on alcohol. However, for women, they sell the crops with the intention of taking care of the house.”

Regarding gendered social relations, we also observed a number of issues. For instance, women face restrictions, especially on mobility and engagement in economic activities, which limit their potential to boost their commercial farming. Women’s mobility is restricted by a number of factors, including limited resources to pay fares; heavy labour obligations at home, and social norms that make husbands suspicious of their wives travelling frequently and long distances. Such barriers prevent women accessing distant markets and successfully selling their produce. Hence, we observed that it is mainly men who are involved in selling the produce (71% men and only 16% women). As a result, men are more able to access and thus control household finances, often spending much of it before returning home.

In households where decisions are not made jointly, ideas are not consolidated to decide together which crops to grow or other economic activities to engage in. We observed that in such scenarios, agricultural activities aimed at commercialisation are hindered as resources are divided. If efforts and resources could be consolidated, despite priorities being different, working together would have more benefits.

“Sometimes, men can rent out land to rich people without informing the woman. It is negatively affecting development of the household because you cannot work if everyone is doing their own things and you keep on fighting and pulling in opposite direction.”

The impacts of household headship

Women from male- and female-headed households are affected in unique ways, but we do observe some similarities in the challenges they face. Such similarities exist because women in female-headed households remain accountable to other men in their households and wider society, and so are still not permitted to be independent decision-makers where communal resources and mobility are concerned. However, differences may arise in regard to making some household decisions or participating in certain activities, including accessing public services. There were different views regarding whether women in female-headed households are better off in terms of commercialisation. Our quantitative study found that female-headed households are less likely to commercialise than male-headed households. While some believe that women’s outcomes are improved in a female-headed household, as they have autonomy and are unaffected by men’s common misuse of money, the majority think women in male-headed households are better positioned to commercialise, for example:

 “What I see is that a marriage which is led by a man, usually has a lot of things available. Because in cases of development or farming, it is usually the man who takes the lead, as the wife just follows. When you are both together, it truly differs from a woman who is alone.”

“Ending my marriage helped to uplift my well-being. Now I am able to work independently and enjoy the benefits of my labour without worrying that someone is after my crop produce.”

Conclusions

The blog wanted to highlight some of the marital issues that affect agricultural commercialisation or, indeed, that are affected by commercialisation. It is clear that women, whether in male- or female-headed households do not benefit from agricultural commercialisation to the same degree as men, as they do not adequately participate in decision-making and have less control of resources and income. Unique challenges exist across different types of women. For example, those in female-headed households are disadvantaged in terms of access to labour, and those in male-headed households are constrained by their necessity to negotiate with their husbands and manage their husbands’ potential misuse of resources.

In conclusion, we see that agricultural commercialisation is often thwarted by the social relations in marriage. Thus, while commercialisation could support improvements in welfare, differences in expenditure priorities between husbands and wives often fail to promote commercialisation. Based on the findings, there is a need to have targeted programmes for specific groups of women, including trainings to improve their capacity, capacity building to strengthen their agency and negotiation skills, and dialogue within the household. Furthermore, there is a need to raise awareness of gender issues, including gender-based violence and gender equality for both men and women, as well as mainstream gender issues in agricultural programmes that promote agricultural commercialisation.

Photo by: V. Atakos (CIP-SSA) via International Potato Center Sub Saharan Africa

Written by: Masautso Chimombo

Malawi’s agriculture sector has a multiplicity of different types of farmer producer organisations (FPOs), operating at different levels. Farmer clubs, farmer associations, and farmer cooperatives are among the various names that FPOs are known as in Malawi, but what they all have in common is their mission to transform their members’ farms into commercially successful enterprises, characterised by high productivity and high profitability. APRA Working Paper 82 explores the effectiveness of FPOs in enhancing smallholder commercialisation in central Malawi. This blog reflects on the paper’s findings.

To achieve their mission of supporting their members in effectively commercialising, FPO activities include organising farmers to receive agricultural extension services, bulk purchase and distribution of inputs, aggregation and joint sale (or buying) of farmer products, handling and storage, processing, transportation, and creation of access to finance from banks and microfinance institutes. But are FPOs in Malawi effectively performing these activities and delivering the goods to their members? To answer this question, the APRA Malawi team spoke to farmers, FPO leaders, and frontline extension workers in central Malawi’s Mchinji and Ntchisi districts.

Mixed findings

The results are mixed, with success on the production side, but not when it comes to marketing. Our study found that FPOs in central Malawi have been very effective in enhancing and widening their members’ access to agricultural inputs like improved seeds, pesticides, and inorganic fertilisers. Unlike non-member counterparts, FPO members have greater access to farm input loans. Farmers, FPO leaders, and extension workers testified that farm input loan providers have more trust in farmers who are members of FPOs, arguing the security provided by FPOs assures loan providers of near zero chance of the loan turning into a bad debt. This is because the FPOs exert strong social pressure on its members to repay their loans. Moreover, it was pointed out by the respondents that loans taken through the FPO platform are relatively cheap and have conditions that are more favourable to farmers.

Even where there is no organisation offering farm inputs to FPO members, FPO members still have greater access to productivity-enhancing farm inputs due to a growing culture of village savings and loans (VSLs) groups which most FPOs are incorporating into their activity profiles.  VSLs activities enable members to save, and this money can then be used to purchase adequate inputs at the start of a farming season. Even farmers who are not members of FPOs admitted that this is one of the benefits of FPOs:

‘Our friends who are members of a NASFAM farmer club are better off. They harvest more produce than us because they get input loans with cheap interests. Even crops in their farm plots stand out’. (A FPO non-member, Mchinji)

Essential extension services

Having improved access to productivity-enhancing farm inputs would have little impact on farmers’ yield if extension services were not also accessible. To use the farm inputs correctly and optimally, farmers need technical guidance and advice from well trained professional extension workers. We found that compared to farmers who are not FPO members, members had greater and more frequent access to agricultural extension and advisory services, giving them an added advantage in their agricultural production enterprises. It is therefore no wonder that there is a feeling among non-members that FPO members get preferential treatment from extension workers. Interviews with extension workers revealed that growing numbers of smallholder farmers and a shortage of extension workers meant that a group approach to delivering extension had become most common as it enables extension workers to reach more farmers at once. Farmers who are already organised into an FPO therefore are preferred and prioritised by extension workers when delivering their services. Everything being equal, smallholder farmers who have more access to agricultural extension services are more likely to adopt modern and recommended farming practices and, in turn, realise high yields from their farms. FPOs have impressively excelled in this objective of enhancing members’ access to agricultural extension and advisory services.

The success of FPOs in increasing and widening their members’ access to productivity-enhancing farm inputs and agricultural extension services has resulted in most FPO members enjoying higher yields. Once productivity and production challenges have been successfully resolved, however, concerns shift to marketing challenges. An FPO, therefore, is not completely effective until it succeeds in linking its members to lucrative farm produce markets that offer profitable prices.

The marketing question remains

So how are FPOs in central Malawi fairing in this regard? Through our study, we find that FPOs have failed in achieving their marketing objectives, specifically linking their member farmers to structured profitable markets. Farmers, FPOs leaders, and extension workers all painted a gloomy picture of how FPOs are failing to secure markets for their farmers. While FPOs have succeeded in convincing their members to aggregate their produce, and wait for a better market, these are, more often than not, never found. Instead, and out of desperation as produce prices begin to tumble towards the end of produce buying season, the FPOs and their members end up selling their produce to vendors. These are middlemen who the FPOs and their members were initially avoiding dealing with on the grounds that they are exploitative, and manipulative in the prices they offer and the weighing scales they use. Thus, FPO members still sell their produce at markets that are neither structured nor profitable and farmers.

Perhaps we should be asking ourselves the following questions:

1. Do so called structured and profitable markets for farm produce exist?
2. If they exist, where are these markets?
3. And what do these markets demand from farm producer sellers and their produce?

Answering these questions is very important before we can accuse FPOs in Malawi of failure. However, if the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, then stakeholders in the agricultural sector need to sit down and reflect on the nature, model, and capacity of FPOs. When this critical reflection is complete, then the factors that are causing FPOs to fail in their marketing functions can be holistically and structurally identified and addressed. The question here is not whether we need FPOs or not, but is instead a question of how we establish and strengthen FPOs so that they can effectively discharge their marketing functions.

Photo credit: Swathi Sridharan (ICRISAT)

Written by: Mirriam Matita

Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practices, used to promote sustainable agriculture, include technologies for soil fertility improvement, soil and water conservation and agroforestry tree cultivation. Their adoption, whilst patchy across Africa and particularly in Malawi, have the potential to support increases in crop productivity, resilience to crop failures, income, and the overall food security of smallholder farming households. The pathways to households’ adoption of CSA technologies and the resulting impacts of these technologies on other aspects of the households’ livelihoods and practices were explored in APRA Working Paper 81. This blog explores the key findings of this paper, and how the adoption of CSA practices can be encouraged in central Malawi.

In Malawi, agricultural livelihoods are commonly affected by the effects of climate change and weather-related shocks, as well as declining soil fertility. As such, the potential benefits of CSA technologies are especially important here, where improving crop productivity as a result of adopting CSA practices would also result in the production of a marketable surplus that farmers could use to engage in markets and earn additional income.

Using data collected from 470 households in Mchinji and Ntchisi districts in central Malawi, as part of an APRA longitudinal tracker study on smallholder commercialisation and livelihood trajectories, we analysed what drove households to adopt CSA technologies, and looked at the spillover effects from such adoption on market participation.

What did we find?

If there was increased access to extension services, through different dissemination strategies such as farmer clubs, and farmer-to-farmer sharing of information, households were more likely to increase the number of CSA practices they used. The more years of education household members had undertaken also made it easier to assimilate information on CSA practices and try them out. While land holding sizes, household size and availability of hired labour did not present a constraint to the adoption of CSA technologies, the number of crops cultivated did increase adoption.

Our study also revealed that farmers who used various CSA practices over the previous 10 years had also increased market participation in the current year. Other factors affecting market participation included the diversity of crops cultivated, and the maximum years of education in a household. We also found variation by location of residence, with greater market participation in Mchinji – an area with better market and infrastructure development – relative to Ntchisi District.

So what?

Our study findings have several implications:

• Both young and older farmers should be targeted with information about CSA practices to capitalise on their ability to understand and integrate CSA information in their farming, especially in Malawi where a majority of people have not completed their primary education.
• Longer-term exposure is required to allow CSA practices’ market participation effects to materialise. In other words, a longer reference period is required to assess the effects of CSA practices, especially given that some practices cannot be used annually and others require time to yield outcomes. Farmers and practitioners should thus recognise this and allow time for experimentation and trying out the technologies to know what works well in their environment.
• CSA practices have the potential to support increases in production, and with a generated marketable surplus participate in markets to earn income. This process, however, takes time and can be convoluted, especially amidst climate variability, continued degradation of soils and different perceptions about the benefits of CSA. In this regard, complementing efforts to promote the adoption of CSA and market arrangements for realised outputs would support the sustainable production and market orientation of famers.

Photo credit: ©Ollivier Girard/EIF

Written by: Stevier Kaiyatsa and Mphatso Susuwele

During the 2020/21 growing season, the Government of Malawi made a bold move to protect small-scale farmers from unscrupulous traders who buy farm produce without licenses, use uncertified scales and buy at very low prices below the farm-gate set prices. The government tasked the Malawi Police Service with ensuring that all traders in the agricultural sector adhered to the set measures, and traders that did not comply were persecuted. By May 2021, 109 traders had been arrested across the country, and those prosecuted had to pay a fine of MK60,000 (US$75) or be jailed for 9 months. The Malawi Police Service was applauded for enforcing farm-gate set prices, but what were the implications on grain marketing in the local markets?

Agricultural produce marketing regulations

The government’s Agricultural Produce (Marketing) Regulations (1987) stipulate that “no person shall, for profit or gain, engage in the business of buying any agricultural produce from producers unless he is a holder of a valid licence”. The licence is issued upon payment of a fee, and must be renewed annually before the start of the harvest season. The regulations also require that the licensee shall only use approved weights and measures, allow authorised officers to examine them, and not export any produce unless they also hold an export licence. Minimum farm-gate prices for traders to use when buying agricultural produce from farmers are also set by the Ministry of Agriculture.

The impact of enforcing minimum prices

The 2020/21 agricultural season’s maize production of 4,581,524t was about 46 per cent above the five-year average, so a drop in prices compared to previous seasons was expected. The recommended minimum price that traders were required to use when buying maize grain from farmers was MK150/kg (US$0.19). Usually, traders buy maize from farmers, aggregate it, and then sell to the Agricultural Development and Marketing Corporation (ADMARC) later in the season. ADMARC indicated that it would buy maize grain at the recommended farm-gate price, thus it was no longer attractive for traders to buy maize from farmers using the recommended prices and then sell to ADMARC later in the season for the same price.

Given that the Malawi Police Service was monitoring the activities of the traders across the country at the onset of the season, would traders buy maize from local markets? The 2021 Market Assessment Survey that the Malawi Vulnerability Assessment Committee conducts annually, found that fewer traders were buying maize from farmers in local markets and instead most traders were operating in areas which have low maize production even in a good year. In these areas, maize grain was already selling at the price above the recommended farm-gate price due to low supply of the grain in the local markets.

Most small-scale farmers treat maize as a cash crop, so when farmers did not find an outlet for their maize, many became desperate and began selling their crops at night, and for prices below the recommended price. With farmer cooperation, an illegal black market for maize was created. Key informant interviews with some traders revealed that the price of maize ranged from MK50–90/kg (US$0.06–0.11). Therefore, despite government efforts to protect farmers from unscrupulous traders, farmers were once again faced with being underpaid.

Conclusions

Overall, the government’s effort to enforce the use of recommended farm-gate prices and weighing instruments when buying grains from farmers, and licensing of traders, is perceived as a positive step to protect small-scale farmers from exploitation. However, such efforts were undermined during the 2020/21 season due to the absence of an alternative outlet for farmer produce. Given that most farmers treat maize as a cash crop, they are often not inclined to keep the grain until ADMARC starts its operations later in the season. The reason for this delayed start is because most farmer grain has a high moisture content which causes problems during storage, such as mould development, discolouration, and increased insect infestation. To better manage farmer grain, and enable it to begin purchasing earlier in the season, ADMARC needs to invest in advanced grain dryers. This would also allow small-scale farmers to reap the benefits from farming by being able to sell the grain early, and for the recommended price.