contract (quantity and date)
While quality is essential in marketing produce, the timely delivery of the required quantity that has to be supplied periodically (date) is essential for keeping the contract between the producer and buyer in harmony. It is, therefore, essential that producers must always ask themselves the following questions, as listed by Gittinger (1982), before entering into any contract with institutions or organisations: (a) Will the project maximise profit? (b) Will the profit maintain market share, increase market share or consolidate market position? These questions will re-assure the producer about his or her position for entering into any agreement with any institution or organisation. According to Table 7.7 below, the highest percentage of project participants (59%) and extension officer respondents (47%) indicated (in total 54%) that produce did not meet the market requirements in terms of contract. The second largest percentage of both respondent categories (35%) indicated that the produce only slightly met the market contract requirements. Only a very small percentage of both respondent categories (3%) indicated that produce met the market contract requirements, also to a large extent and even totally. The Chi-Square test results ( = 5.465; p = 0.353) indicates that there is no statistically significant difference at 5% significant level for both respondent categories. According to the above findings, this could have a very negative effect on future production and contracts with the market.
152
Table 7.7: The degree to which produce meets market requirements in terms of contract according to both respondent categories
The degree of market contract requirement
Type of respondent
Total Project
participants
Extension officers 1. Did not meet market contract
requirements at all (n) (%)
69 58.5%
32 47.1%
101 54.3%
2. Did not meet market contract
requirements (n) (%)
10 8.5%
4 5.9%
14 7.5%
3. Market contract requirements slightly met (n)
(%) 35 29.7%
30 44.1%
65 34.9%
4. Market contract requirements met
(n) 1 0.8%
0 0.0%
1
(%) 0.5%
5. Market contract requirements met to a large extent
(n) 1 0 1
(%) 0.8% 0.0% 0.5%
6. Market requirements totally met
(n) 2 2 4
(%) 1.7% 2.9% 2.2%
Total (N) 118 68 186
( %) 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
= 5.465; p = 0.353
7.2.5 Market assessment in terms of price
Financial awareness to farmers is always essential to make sure that they make a proper assessment concerning all the resources that they manage. Furthermore, they must be aware of potential financial loss (Lombard et al., 1995:65-77), and they must also be able to budget independently and be willing to interpret financial records so that they can make informed decisions. The market was assessed in terms of price, using a scale between very bad to very good. According to the majority of project participants (40%) and extension officers (36%), the market price was average and only 3% of project participants and 1% of extension officers reported that the market price was very good. A total of only 29% of both respondent categories indicated that the price was good, whereas 20% of project participants
153
and 21% extension officers reported that the market price was very bad. The Pearson Chi- Square test 3.823; p = 0.442) indicated that there is no statistically significant difference at 5% significant level between the two respondent categories concerning the market status.7.2.6 Market assessment in terms of quantity it can absorb
It is always proper to make an assessment of the market in terms of the quantity it can absorb, so that one may know what might happen if one increases the rate of his or her production and how it would affect market share, through assessing competitors in the market (Burke, 2003:2-4, 48-59). The majority of project participants (39%) and extension officers (36%) indicated that the market assessment in terms of quantity it can absorb is average. Only 8% of project participants and 7% of extension officers indicated a very good absorption of produce by the market. A total of only 23% of both respondent categories indicated a bad to very bad perception on the quantity the market can absorb. The Pearson Chi-Square test = 0.827; p = 0.931) indicated that there is no statistically significant difference between the two respondent categories concerning the quantity it can absorb.
7.2.7 Transportation of produce to the market
When establishing a project, the effect of location on the project must be considered (Burke, 2003), and the logistic requirements during the project and subsequent operation should be met through existing roads and ports. How do participants or farmers get their produce to the market, was one of the questions raised during the survey. The highest total percentage according to both respondent categories (Table 7.8) was by hired transport (35%), second highest was buyers collecting at the farm gate (31%), other means of transport (18%), and use of own transport (16%). The Chi-Square test reveals an indication of an association ( 7.737; p = 0.051) whereby project participant respondents (35%) make use of buying at the gate, against 24% of extension officer respondents. This finding implies that project planning must take the location of the project into consideration.
154
Table 7.8: The means of transporting produce to market as perceived by both respondent categories
Respondent categories
Total Transportation of produce to
market categories
Project Participants
Extension officers
1. Use own transport (n) 15 17 32
(%) 11.8% 22.7% 15.8%
2. Hire transport (n) 48 23 71
(%) 37.8% 30.7% 35.1%
3. Buyers collect at the farm gate
(n) 45 18 63
(%) 35.4% 24.0% 31.2%
4. “Other” means of transport (n) 19 17 36
(%) 15.0% 22.7% 17.8%
Total (N) 127 75 202
(%) 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
7.737; p = 0.051
7.2.8 Marketing of produce
Once the project is established, a regular assessment of the market must be made and the supply and demand curve must be monitored so that the present demand for the product and the forecast demand may be known (Burke, 2003). Areas identified by the study where produce can be sold were: (a) farm gate; (b) local community market; (c) auction sales; (d) open market; (e) pre-arranged market; (f) pension point; and (g) in town. The highest total percentage, according to both respondent categories, was at the local community market (33%), the second highest was buyers at auction sales (25%) while other means of marketing produce accounted for 20%. The Chi-Square result = 13.128; p = 0.062) reveals that there is no statistically significant difference at 5% significant level between the project participants and extension officers about where produce are sold.