ANALYSIS OF MARKETING MARGINS AND EFFICIENCY OF TOMATOES

IN THE GABORONE REGION

BY

LINDILE CHIWAYA

ID NO: 201600386

A RESEARCH PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURAL

ECONOMICS, BOTSWANA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES /

UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA

JUNE 2021

Student’s Name & Signature:

Ms Lindile Chiwaya Signature: ______________________ Date: _____________

Supervisor’s Name & Signature:

Dr Davis S. Marumo Signature: _______________________ Date: ______________

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL AND APPLIED ECONOMICS

 ABSTRACT

In an efficient marketing chain, farmers can be able to realize better and higher prices for their products
leading to better incomes. However, in Africa, most agricultural markets are constrained by several
challenges that limit their efficiency. The purpose of this study was to identify the marketing supply
chains of tomatoes and assess their efficiency in the Gaborone region. The study was based upon a
survey of tomato producing farmers randomly selected from the Gaborone District. The study used a
structured questionnaire consisting of both open and closed-ended questions addressing the tomato
marketing channels used, prices of tomatoes, marketing costs involved and challenges faced in tomato
production. Data were collected from a total of 32 households in different locations of the Gaborone
region. The results revealed that the majority of the tomato growers in the region were men (75%)
compared to the women (25%) with income from tomatoes as their major source of income.

Further, finding from the study also Producer-retailer marketing channel was the most preferred channel
by a majority (75%) of the farmers. The order of preference for tomato marketing channels was channel
2>channel 1>channel 4>channel 3>channel 5>channel 6. Additionally, the highest quantity (22.86 tons)
of tomatoes was sold through the producer – hotels channel. The highest marketing cost incurred in
marketing was from tomato handling which accounts for over 19% of the total marketing cost. The
overall Gross Marketing Margin of tomatoes was 74.1% and the marketing efficiency of tomato
production Gaborone region was 25.9%. Significant effort should be invested to improve marketing
efficiency to ensure that farmers benefit from their activities. Finally, further training on frost, pest and
disease management in tomatoes could help improve tomato productivity in the region.

Producers should consider the formation of farmers’ cooperatives for collective marketing of their
products as it will help in the reduction of marketing costs such as transport costs by sharing costs
among the different farmers. To minimize vegetable losses in the marketing process, the government
should focus on improving the transport infrastructure to reduce the cost of transportation to help the
chain actors. The policymakers and government should allow agricultural levy and charge revenue to be
directed to biosecurity preparedness and emergency plant pest responses, residue testing, marketing and
research and development to help farmers cut down costs of chemicals that deal with pests and diseases.

i
 DEDICATION

I dedicate this report to my Lord and Savoir Jesus Christ who has helped me through all the difficult
moments throughout this journey and my dear mother for the prayers and encouragement that have
made everything possible to see that I pursue my degree. Lastly but not least, my sincere gratitude to Dr
Adewole Oladele for being my hope, a father figure and for financing the beginning of this Degree.

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank all the people that have contributed in one way or another by encouraging me,
giving ideas and emotional support to see me complete my study. My appreciation also goes to my
lecturers for their tireless efforts especially my supervisor Dr Davis Marumo for the persistent correction
and tireless efforts that have helped me stand tall amidst adversity during the completion of my study. I
have gained a lot from working with you and thank you for teaching me to be a hard worker. Family and
friends members for the moral and spiritual.

The department of Agricultural and Applied Economics for the Knowledge and diverse skills that helped
complete and produce good work. And lastly special thanks to Gaborone region farmers who welcomed
me to their farms for this study without any hindrances.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................................i
DEDICATION............................................................................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT..........................................................................................................................iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS...........................................................................................................................iv
LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................................................v
LIST OF FIGURES.....................................................................................................................................v
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1
1.1 Background........................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Problem statement.........................................................................................................................4
1.3 Objectives of the study..................................................................................................................4
1.4 Research questions........................................................................................................................4
1.5 Significance...................................................................................................................................5
1.6 Scope of the Study........................................................................................................................5
1.7 Limitations....................................................................................................................................5
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW..............................................................................................6
2.1 Definition of terms........................................................................................................................6
2.2 Vegetable marketing chains..........................................................................................................6
2.3 Marketing Cost and Margin..........................................................................................................8
2.4 Marketing Efficiency..................................................................................................................10
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................12
3.1 Research type and Design...........................................................................................................12
3.2 Population of the study...............................................................................................................12
3.3 Sample size and sampling procedures........................................................................................12
3.5 Data collection procedure...........................................................................................................14
3.6 Ethical considerations.................................................................................................................14
3.7 Data Analysis procedure.............................................................................................................14
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS..............................................................................16
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................24
5.1 Conclusions.................................................................................................................................24
5.2 Recommendations.......................................................................................................................24
References..................................................................................................................................................25
APPENDICES...........................................................................................................................................29

iv
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Demographic characteristics of the respondents.........................................................................16

Table 2: Sources of income of the respondents.........................................................................................18
Table 3: Marketing chains of tomatoes in Gaborone region.....................................................................19
Table 4: Tomato marketing costs..............................................................................................................21
Table 5: Average price and quantity of tomatoes sold..............................................................................21

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Tomato growing constraints faced by farmers in Gaborone......................................................23

v
 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

1.1.1 Origin and importance of tomatoes

Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) is one of the most important vegetables worldwide. Tomato
belongs to the Solanaceae family which also includes other well-known species, such as potato, tobacco,
peppers and eggplant (aubergine) (Dam et al., 2005). Tomato evolved from Lycopersicon esculentum
var. cerasiforme, the cherry form seems to have originated from Peru and Ecuador region in South
America (Dam et al., 2005). However, the early Indian civilisations of Mexico later domesticated and
cultivated it in Central America. In Africa, it was first introduced in Morocco by the early Spanish
explorers from Spain where it had earlier been introduced. Tomatoes are also known as “the Love
apple” in Italy and France. Although tomatoes were earlier believed to be poisonous, in the 18 th Century,
it was adopted as a food crop. Over the last decades, tomatoes have becomes one of the most common
and heavily grown vegetables globally.
The fruit plays an important role in human nutrition, where it can be eaten as a fresh salad vegetable,
processed, stewed, fried, baked and can also be used to produce soup or juice. It may also be put into
various dishes as the main ingredient. Tomato is a good source of phosphorus, iron and vitamin A, B
and C, respectively (Cheema and Dhaliwal, 2005). Other vitamins found in the fruit include vitamin B
complex, thiamin, niacin and riboflavin which are necessary for a healthy diet. Global production of
tomato is estimated to be above 171 million metric tonnes over an area of five million hectares of
cultivated land, with major producers being China, United States, Turkey, Egypt and India (FAOSTAT,
2019). There has been a significant increase in production up from 105 million tons in 2001. This is
majorly due to the increase in cultivated area between 2001 and 2019 from 3.9 million ha to 5 million
ha. The fact that tomatoes are a relatively short duration crop with a high yield has made the crop
economically attractive to local farmers resulting in increased land area under tomato cultivation. (Naika
et al., 2005). Additionally, the increased use of chemical fertilizer, improved varieties, mechanisation of
agriculture, and increased insecticide use globally has contributed to improved tomato production.

1.1.2 Tomato production and productivity

1
Africa contributes 11.8% of total global tomato production (FAOSTAT, 2019). Tomato seems to be the
most commonly grown vegetables in Africa. The majority of farmers grow it due to its versatility with
production for both smallholder and commercial farming communities. Trend analysis is done in 2014
and 2017 shows that Egypt was still the leading tomato producer in Africa, followed by Nigeria second
(FAOSTAT, 2019). Production systems differ throughout the continent depending on the agro climates,
from greenhouses to open field, with varying levels of technological applications. FAO (2009) reports
that the largest tomato producers in Africa are northern Africa, that is; Egypt, Morocco, and Algeria,
whereas the smallest tomato producers are southern and central Africa. The production ranges from 6
t/ha in central Africa to 34 t/ha in southern Africa, with South Africa being the largest producer in the
Sothern region (FAO, 2009). Over the last 50 years, it has been reported that there been an increase in
area and production in individual countries, but at different rates; productivity largely remained low.
For example in Tanzania, the area increased from 1,400 ha in 1961 to 19,000 ha in 2007, but yield
remained stagnant: 7.1 to 7.6 t/ha (FAO, 2009).

Tomatoes are grown throughout the year in most Sub-Saharan Africa countries across tropical and sub-
tropical areas, in greenhouses and open fields. However, depending on the location, there are seasonal
variations that impact tomato production. Generally, tomato production in Africa is rarely done without
some form of irrigation, due to the constant water supply required by the vegetable (Asgedom et al.,
2011). Tomato growing is currently influenced by several constraints that include pests and disease
challenges and gaps across the different regions (Malherbe, 2012). In Southern Africa field tomato
production is also affected by temperature during the cold winter months, which causes a hike in prices
during the post-winter period. Other diseases such as bacterial wilts, fusarium wilts and viral diseases
e.g. tomato Mosaic Virus are among the main problematic diseases retarding tomato production
(Dagnoko et al., 2011; Perez et al., 2017).
1.1.3 Tomato production and marketing in Botswana

Vegetable farming in Botswana marred by low yield with significant annual and seasonal variations due
to variation in environmental stresses like drought, limited water availability, pest and diseases and
extreme temperatures. According to Bray et al. (2000), over 50% reduction in the average yields for
most major crops could be attributed to environmental stress such as sunburn and damage by birds.
Moreover, this has resulted in a decrease in horticultural contribution to the GDP from 1966 till today
(Seleka, 1999; Anon, 2009). Botswana is still not self-sufficient in horticultural produces despite

2
development in the horticulture sector over the last decade with local production rising from 15,019
metric tons (MT) in 1997 to 39 000 MT in 2009 (Madisa, 2011). In the implementation of the National
Development Plan 9 (NDP9), production per demand increased from 20% to 40% satisfying 51% of the
national requirement (Anon, 2009). Despite this increase, Botswana still imports fresh horticultural
produce worth about P200 million monthly mainly from the Republic of South Africa (TAHAAL,
2000). This indicates that Botswana as a nation is far from being self-sufficient in food production and is
significantly dependent on imports to meet the demand for tomatoes. Currently, the local production
stands at only 58 per cent of the demand. Noteworthy, considering the demand and production gap, there
is a huge market potential which offers a large scope for increasing horticultural production in the
country.

In Botswana, tomatoes remain the major grown vegetable with over 294,000 tons being produced
annually accounting for about 27% of the country’s total vegetable production. However, tomato
production and marketing are constrained by low productivity due to irrelevant varieties with
undesirable traits, poor seeds with poor germination rates, pests and diseases coupled with the high cost
of inputs and lack of access to credit by producers and traders (Obopile, 2008). Despite the existing
challenges faced, there is a need to avail relevant and reliable infrastructure for producers to effectively
market their agricultural produce. Infrastructure such as labour, new technologies and coordinated
markets play a significant function in the functioning of supply chains. In case producers can benefit
from the markets through reduction of transaction costs, then their focus will be on cultivation in which
they have a relative advantage. Marketing of agricultural produce in Botswana can be done through
different market channels such as hotels, local markets, restaurants, retailers, wholesalers or even at the
farm gate. Farmers consider several factors to choose channel through which to market their produce
and these include access to the market, ability of the farmer to meet the quality, quantity, and food safety
specifications. There is a very fast-growing demand for vegetables in developing counties enhanced by
urbanization, population growth and changes it offers in generating income for smallholder farmers that
dominate the farming systems. These opportunities can be tapped through the export of high-value crops
such as tomatoes and employing due to its labour-intensive production (FAO, 2017). This necessitates
improving vegetable marketing in developing countries, especially in the sub-Saharan region. It is
therefore critical to understand the marketing chain of vegetables and tomatoes in particular and this
forms the scope of this study.

3
1.2 Problem statement

A great deal of literature has been developed as regards tomato production worldwide. However, limited
research has been conducted to address marketing chains, functions, costs/profit margins and efficiency
in the tomato industry which a growing concern for agricultural societies. The majority of the previous
studies have been focused on pests and diseases that affect tomatoes and improving tomato varieties
through breeding (Dam et al., 2005; Lenné et al., 2005; Islam, 2017; Leander et al., 2019). Due to the
spatial separation between producers and consumers, there is a need to create an intermediation system
of marketing agents using marketing channels.

These channels guarantee fair prices, facilitate the agricultural trade for improved earnings, and improve
the marketing margin as well as effectiveness in pricing. It is therefore critical to evaluate the marketing
performance for both input and output markets and across the entire market or value chain. Additionally,
although Botswana relies heavily on imported fruits and vegetables (including tomatoes) to meet its
national demand, the vegetable marketing chain appears to be inefficient. This research, therefore, aims
at bridging the existing gap in the literature by ascertaining the efficiency of the marketing chains of
tomatoes as well as the marketing margins of each marketing channel in the Gaborone region.

1.3 Objectives of the study

The main objective of the study was to contribute to improvement in the tomato value chain system
through availing information on the performance of the existing marketing chains of tomatoes. The
specific objectives were to identify the marketing supply chains of tomatoes in the Gaborone region, to
estimate the marketing costs and margins of the chain actors in the Gaborone region and to estimate the
marketing efficiency of each marketing chain of tomatoes in the Gaborone region.

1.4 Research questions

i. What are the marketing chains of tomatoes in the Gaborone region?

ii. What are the marketing costs and margins of the chain actors in the Gaborone region?

4
 iii. What is the degree of efficiency in each marketing chain of tomatoes in the Gaborone region?

1.5 Significance

Results from this study provide useful information to farmers, policymakers and researchers on
marketing chains, functions, costs/profit margins and efficiency levels in the tomato sub-sector. The
study of marketing margin and efficiency is important in determining the earning of different channels
of agricultural produce marketing. Furthermore, according to Badimo (2018) analysis of marketing
margin and marketing efficiency facilitates the agricultural development process through ensuring
favourable pricing efficiency that attracts more products to be availed in the market. The information
availed by this study could be of help in improving the marketing efficiency of tomatoes and other
related agricultural products in Botswana.

1.6 Scope of the Study

The study was conducted in the Gaborone region focusing on households that are involved in
commercial tomato farming.

1.7 Limitations

The major limited challenge of this study was limited sample space (depending on availability and
willingness to cooperate with chain actors) and limited resources (funds, time, transport) to cover the
entire region. Additionally, due to the pandemic situation in the country, the majority of the respondents
were not willing to interact with the interviewer during the data collection process. This limited the
ability to validate the information given by the respondents as some of the interviews were conducted
through mobile interaction.

5
 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Definition of terms

Supply chain: Adams (2020) defines a supply chain as a system of organizations, people, activities,
information, and resources involved in moving a product or service from supplier to customer. Supply
chain activities involve the transformation of natural resources, raw materials, and components into a
finished product that is delivered to the end customer. While according to Chow, D. and Heaver, T.
(1999), Supply Chain is the group of manufacturers, suppliers, distributors, retailers and transportation,
information and other logistics management service providers that are engaged in providing goods to
consumers. A Supply Chain comprises both the external and internal associates for the corporate.

Marketing cost: this is defined as the actual expenses incurred in bringing goods and services from the
producers to the consumers by the intermediaries, also because the actual costs incurred by each agency
involved within the marketing channel for performing their functions (Jain, 2017). Tadesse, (2011)
defined marketing cost as the cost involved in moving the product from the point of production to the
point of consumption that is; the cost of performing the varied marketing functions and of operating
various agencies. In the present study, marketing cost is defined as the actual expenses incurred by
farmers and other agencies such as local trader, wholesalers and retailers for performing their functions
in the movement of tomato from the producers to the final consumer.

Marketing margin: Adeoye (2009) defines marketing margin as the difference between the price paid
to the first seller (farm-gate price) and the price paid by the final buyer (retail price) or the difference
between the amount consumers paid for the final products and the amount producer received and all the
marketing costs. This study will define it as the average difference between amounts paid to the farmer
for the product and the average cost of marketing the product.

Marketing efficiency: According to Shepherd (1962) Marketing efficiency is the ratio of total costs to
the total value of the products marketed expressed in percentage. The higher the ratio, the higher would
be the efficiency and vice-versa. Marketing efficiency is the ratio of market output (satisfaction) to the
marketing input (cost of resources). Marketing efficiency usually has two components, operational
efficiency and price efficiency, and in this study, we will focus on the latter.

6
2.2 Vegetable marketing chains

To fulfil the needs of the consumer in the supply chain management of vegetables, several players have
to be involved. These include; farmers, local traders, agents (commission agents), transporter,
auctioneers, wholesalers, processors, traditional retailer of all type of formats family run ‘mom and pop’
stores, roadside shops, pavement shops and cart vendors apart from farmers and customers. Farmers are
the cultivators of produce and source of supply. According to Moghaddasi, (2019), the major actors in
the value chain of tomatoes in Bangladesh are input suppliers, producers, collectors, small traders, big
traders, processors and consumers. The author found that producers’ market share indicates that
producers get the largest share when they directly sell to street vendors which is about 85.32%.
Moghaddasi further states that the major problems to the tomato value chain were low prices, high
perishable nature, lack of access to credit, poor quality of tomatoes, inadequate storage and processing
facilities, shortage of transportation facilities, dispersed nature of supply, high-interest rate and lack of
adequate information.

In a study conducted by Xaba and Masuku (2013) to analyse the vegetable supply chain in Swaziland,
results indicated that farmers growing vegetables majorly counted on wholesalers and retailers to sell
their produce which was later sold to the consumers. Their results indicated that the channel which sells
direct to consumers had the highest producer's share while the highest, consumer price, market margins,
and total gross margins and low producer's share were observed for channels that included restaurants. It
was also observed that farmers preferred direct sales to the consumers due to higher prices involved
compared to sales to wholesale agents. Their study suggests that post-harvest and marketing becomes an
integral part of policy development and research programs while contractual arrangements for vegetable
farmers be facilitated by the public and private sectors (Xaba and Masuku, 2013). The authors
concluded that instead of being production-oriented, commercializing vegetable production encourages
farmers to be market-oriented, thus there is a need to form cooperatives that will enable farmers to
bargain better prices within the vegetable supply chain.

In a survey carried out in Peninsular Malaysia to investigate consumer perceptions and preferences
towards marketing channels for fresh vegetables and fruits in Malaysia, Dardak et al. (2013) found that
the wholesale market was the most preferred marketing channel for fresh agriculture produce, followed
by hypermarket/supermarket, the night market and the agro-market. According to the authors, Malaysian

7
consumers did not prefer any specific outlet, due to their preference for the cleanliness of a store,
parking space, and safety during shopping, and the convenience to visit the outlet, store operation time
and good services offered by the store workers. Consumers from rural areas were more influenced by
spatial separation as compared to urban consumers who were more indifferent (Dardak et al., 2013).
Overall, store atmosphere, product price and information were also essential to consumers when
deciding on the patronage of an outlet.

A similar study conducted by Ketema et al. (2019) to identify determinants of smallholder vegetable
producers’ decision on market outlet choice and verify the existence of difference in productivity and
income of households among different market outlets in Ethiopia showed that farmers who prefer both
farm gate and local market at the same time were found at a better level of productivity and income.
The study further revealed that farmers visited by buyers at farm or village were found more likely to
choose farm gate and roadside market outlets compared to selling their produce at the marketplace. The
more the market outlets available for the farmer, the higher the income a farmer may earn since they
have a chance of choosing the most appropriate combination of outlets (Ketema et al., 2019). Efforts to
improve access to all available market outlets for the farmer need to be invested.

From the above discussion, it is clear that supply chains are a critical part of the agricultural produce
trade. Nevertheless, a Supply Chain in itself appears to be insufficient and only efficient markets may be
able to succeed. Therefore, for a marketing Chain to be efficient, it is necessary to understand the
principal functions of each chain player as well as the contribution of each function to the overall
efficiency of the Supply Chain. Establishing this makes it possible to identify existing obstacles in the
chain and make the necessary improvements.

2.3 Marketing Cost and Margin

In a study conducted by Hassan et al. (2012) on estimating the marketing margins and rural-urban
price differences of fresh fruits and vegetables in Pakistan , it was observed that the retail prices
of fresh fruits and vegetables were higher in rural markets as compared to urban markets and
differences were even higher in vegetables as compared to fruits. The differences in prices
varied from 2 to 50 % and 6 to 90% for fruits and vegetables respectively for all locations.

8
Results from their study also indicated that the producer's share of the price was about 25.0% for
most fruits and vegetables. Overall, their study found that the total marketing margin was
highest for sweet lemon, followed by banana, then pears, persimmon, onion and lastly potatoes.

According to a study conducted In Ghana to find out if marketing margins of local leafy vegetables,
Boateng et al. (2016) found that the major marketing channel identified was farmers-wholesalers-
retailers-consumers. Direct sales of vegetables to consumers and food vendors were recorded.
Wholesalers registered higher net returns in both dry and wet seasons despite higher marketing costs
incurred compared to retailers. According to the authors, the benefit-cost ratio showed that leafy
vegetable was profitable despite inefficient marketing. According to them, to bargain for better prices as
well as obtain loans and purchase storage facilities as groups, the farmers and traders need to form co-
operatives. This would enable them to address profound perishability challenges among traders.

Baba et al. (2010) in a similar study in India found that the increasing number of intermediaries
considerably reduced the producers’ share. This is influenced by the price spread of vegetables in the
various marketing channels. Additionally, selling directly to the consumers or retailers attracted a higher
net price while absolute net returns were highest in tomato, followed by brinjal and lastly cauliflower for
all the channels. The authors highlighted the need to expand the coverage of technology mission to other
niche areas of vegetable cultivation and enactment of new and effective principles to curb marketing
losses at various marketing stages. This could be achieved through the strengthening of responsible
institutions, the establishment of vegetable processing units to add value and the development of
efficient market infrastructure (Baba et al., 2010).

In another survey carried out in Botswana by Baliyan and Baliyan (2013) on comparative profitability of
onions harvested as green and dry (mature), marketing cost was the major item found to be contributing
to the cost of green onions production, followed by irrigation cost and then harvesting cost. This
however was different for dry onions where irrigation contributed the highest portion of production cost
followed by marketing and planting. According to the authors, the marketing cost (transportation cost,
packing and loading and unloading charges) of green onions was almost twice that of dry onions. Their
study also found that the total returns and gross margin from green onions were higher than dry onions.
Their results suggested that green onions were more profitable than dry onions. In conclusion, Baliyan

9
and Baliyan (2013) state that marketing costs make the difference in profit margins they contribute the
largest proportion to the total cost of production.

Agbugba et al. (2013) also studied the Market Structure, Conduct, Channel and Margin of Dry Season
Okra Vegetable in South-Eastern Nigeria. Results from their study found a 23% higher marketing
margin for wholesalers than the retailers. Additionally, the study revealed that it was more profitable to
market produce during the dry season compared to peak seasons since the dry season margin was higher
compared to the peak season margin. Their results also suggest that increase in purchasing price lead to
an increase in selling price for both wholesale and retail marketing channels. Finally, the authors
recommended improvement in the roads infrastructure to reduce the losses incurred during the
marketing process.

2.4 Marketing Efficiency

In the case of an efficient marketing chain, farmers can be able to realize better and higher prices for
their produce. However, most markets are constrained by several challenges that limit their efficiency.
Khem et al. (2018) highlight the non-adherence of traders with the prescribed auction system as a major
constraint to marketing channels of vegetable. According to them, this situation leads to lower price
realization to the farmers in addition to excessive deductions from value realized. It is thus important to
ensure the existence of more efficient marketing channels for agricultural produce.

According to a study conducted on the efficiency of Vegetable Marketing in Peri-Urban Areas in

Nigeria, Isitor et al. (2016) found a positive net margin for the marketing of indigenous vegetable
suggesting profitable and efficient marketing. The marketing efficiency was found to vary from 2% and
10.85%for all vegetables. Isitor et al. (2016) recommended that pieces of training post-harvest
techniques such as preservation of indigenous vegetables be conducted. Additionally, access to funds is
improved to enable the marketers to overcome the challenge of spoilage and lack of funds which formed
the major setbacks in the marketing efficiency of local vegetables in the study area.

The Marketing efficiency index for Cabbage Marketing in producer-consumer Channel through
Shepherd method was 14.08, 4.21 for Producer- Retailers- Consumer Channel and 3.46 for the producer-
Wholesaler – Consumer channel; which indicates that the producer-consumer Channel was the most

10
efficient in the vegetable marketing in Nagaland (Dakpa et al., 2020). Additionally, the producer-
consumer Channel had higher marketing efficiency on the marketing of Cabbage while for Producer-
Retailers- Consumer Channel was more efficient for beans marketing (Dakpa et al., 2020). Overall, the
producer-consumer Channel in all the vegetables involves the least marketing cost and higher Net price
for the Producer and there is no price spread between the Producer and the Consumer. Hence the
producer to consumer Channel was found to be the most efficient marketing channel for Vegetable
marketing in Nagaland.

11
 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Introduction

This study analyses the marketing margins and efficiency of tomatoes in the Gaborone region. This
chapter describes and discusses the design and procedure for the study, the population and the sample
used. A description is also made of instrument for data collection as well as its validity and reliability.
Also discussed in this chapter are the procedures for the administration of the instrument, statistical
analysis of the study.

3.1 Research type and Design

A descriptive cross-sectional survey method targeting tomato chain actors in the Gaborone region was
used for this study. The method involves gathering data about the target population from a selected
sample and generalizing the findings obtained from the analysis of the sample to the entire population.
The method was adopted because it enables the researcher to discover relative incidences and
distribution on the characteristics of the population. Besides, it facilitates the researcher to examine the
organization and performance of the marketing of tomatoes in the Gaborone region.

3.2 Population of the study

A list of tomato farmers was sourced from the Ministry of Agriculture.

3.3 Sample size and sampling procedures

The sampling frame was made up of all tomato farmers and farms in the Gaborone region. The
estimation of the sample size for the interview was computed using the formula below to be 32
respondents.

Z 2 PQ
2
Sample size = d

Where Z is the z-values (1.96 for 95% confidence level), p is 0.5 (for maximum variability is normally
distributed attributes), Q is 1-p and d is the level of precision (0.05 or ±5%).

12
The need for a valid sample was needed to enable comparisons and counter wide variations that exist
from the farmer in the figures of costs, prices and charges. The respondents were purposively selected
from the existing tomato farmers in the region for this study to give every member of the population an
equal chance of being selected. A total sample of 32 respondents was interviewed.

3.4.1 Research Instrumentation

The instrument used for this study was a structured questionnaire consisting of both open and closed-
ended questions. The questionnaire was developed by the researcher. The questionnaire was the
appropriate instrument because the members of the population under study are literate. The instrument
was designed on open-ended response and. The design of the questionnaire was clustered around five
sections. Section A consists of items related to the personal data of the respondents. Section B to E
contained information dealing with the subject matter of the investigation. The questionnaire broadly
comprises of questions on Socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the farmers, their attitude
towards tomato farming as well as whom they to sell and at what price. The questionnaire included all
the costs incurred during production and marketing as well as the channels used for selling the tomatoes
and their sales value, including the constraints encountered in tomato farming Possible areas of
improvement in tomato farming.

3.4.1 Validity

According to (Kerlinger, 1973), validation of research instrument by others is an effective method for
content validation consecutively, the questionnaire was validated by three experts in the Department of
Agribusiness, Education and Extension. They were requested to judge the appropriateness,
comprehensiveness and clarity of items in the questionnaire. Their contributions in form of suggestions
and constructive criticisms were used in the final draft.

3.4.2 Reliability

To obtain reliability for factual questions, it was suggested that internal checks in from logical test in the
questionnaire should be included. In line with this, several questions were built into the questionnaire to
give a clue to the respondents’ questionnaire of responses. A Pilot test and Split-Half Test was also
carried out with 5 respondents to pre-test the efficiency of the questionnaire. The choice of a little
sample for the pilot study was in agreement with the view held by Nworgu (1991) who opines that pilot
13
testing is typically done on a smaller scale than the main study but under similar conditions. A
standardized measure of consistency was obtained which indicated that the questionnaire is reliable. The
reliability coefficient of 0.7+.

3.5 Data collection procedure

Data was collected through different procedures. Some of the questionnaires were hand-delivered to the
farmers while others were sent as a softcopy through WhatsApp for data collection. Some were done
through a phone call interview.

3.6 Ethical considerations

The researcher got permission and a recommendation from the university authorities to conduct the
study. Information from the respondents was treated with strict confidentiality, and the results were
published as a collective analysis without mention of a single individual or organisation The student also
proofread raw data to eliminate misinterpretation and duplication.

3.7 Data Analysis procedure

The data were analysed using Statistics Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software to help with the
organizing, analysis and interpretation of the data. The results from SPSS were summarized as
frequency counts and simple percentages, graph and charts. Tables and charts were used to summarize
the frequencies. Descriptive statistics; which include measures of the frequency, percentages and means
were used to analyse the data gathered on the socioeconomic characteristics of tomato marketers in the
study area. The data were analysed using the following analytical tools;

3.7.1 Marketing margin analysis

Marketing margin was computed as a ratio of profit and Production revenue. Marketing margin can be
estimated as:

 Gross marketing margin = (Production Revenue – Marketing Cost)/ Production Revenue

14
3.7.2 Marketing efficiency

The Marketing efficiency was measured based on the shepherd formula as;

Marketing Efficiency = Total Marketing Cost ÷ Total Value of Product Marketed × 100

15
 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.0 Introduction

In this chapter, research findings and the discussions are presented in form of tables, graphs, pie charts,
frequencies and percentages. The first section presents the demographic characteristics of the survey
population. This is then followed by the Sources of Income of farmers and marketing chains, cost
margins and efficiency of tomatoes in the Gaborone district. The chapter also discusses the results that
are obtained from the study.

4.1 Demographic characteristics

This includes characteristics of the respondents such as gender, age, marital status, education level,
number of household members, land ownership and belonging to farmers' groups.

Table 1: Demographic characteristics of the respondents

    Frequency Per cent
Male 24 75
Gender
Female 8 25
18-25 7 21.9
26-35 14 43.8
Age
36-45 8 25
46-55 3 9.4
Single 17 53.1
Marital Status Married 5 15.6
Cohabiting 10 31.3
1 2 6.3
Number of people in a 2 8 25
Household 3 9 28.1
4 13 40.6
JC 12 37.5
Respondent's Education
BGCSE 16 50
Level
Tertiary 4 12.5
Total 32 100

The gender of the respondents in the study area is shown in table 1. The majority of the respondents
were men (75%) compared to women (25%). The higher number of men as respondents in this study
could be because men are responsible for making household decisions in many of the households in the

16
study area. In many households, the land is owned by men and women only gain access to land and
other production factors through men. However, these results suggest that women are also included in
the production of tomatoes in the study area. This could be attributed to the fact that women in many
areas are responsible for household food security, while men on the other hand responsible for
producing cash crops and marketing the harvest (Doss 2001; Meinzein-Dick 2014). Therefore, since
men control land and household decisions, the situation also prevails in tomato farmers as the majority
of males are the ones who own tomato fields and show- up during interview sessions in the study area.

The age distribution of the respondents is shown in table 1. The majority (43.75%) of the respondents
were between 26-35 years of age and the minority ( 9.4%) were between the age of 46-55. This means
that majority of the farmers that engage in tomato production are the youth. The observed age
distribution among respondents implies that tomato production has absorbed a large number of the
economically active population who form the potential labour in agriculture production. Tomato
production requires extensive labour to carry out all the necessary activities to ensure continued
production of the plantation.

Results from the study showed that 51.3% of the respondents were single, 31.2% were cohabiting and
only 15.6% were married. These results are in agreement with those of Statistics Botswana (2018) that
found that singles in Botswana accounted for over 54% of the population. This could be so because the
land is always available to those that are married especially land that is inherited from the parents. This
makes it possible for more married people to participate in agricultural production compared to
unmarried or single people. Hence the reason tomato production is done by a single individual is that
more than half of the nation's population is single people and have a lot of time to concentrate on
farming as compared to those that are married.

According to the results, the highest number (40%) of people in a household was 4, followed by 3 with
28.1%, then 2 with 25% and the least was 6.25%. The average household size is 3, which is slightly
above the 2.7% reported by Statistics Botswana (2018).

Education is critical for boosting the productivity of the human factor and making people more aware of
opportunities for earning a living (Okurut et al, 2002). The majority (50%) of farmers attained BGCSE
and only 12.5 % of the farmers have tertiary education (Table 1). This could be because most people

17
who attained tertiary education prefer office jobs to manual labour. However, this suggests that the
majority of the farmers had the necessary education to process availed information on improved
technologies, this is instrumental for increasing tomato productivity in the Gaborone region.

Table 2: Sources of income of the respondents

 Question  Response Frequency Per cent
Yes 6 18.75
Do you have any formal No 26 81.25
employment? Total 32 100
Are you a member of any Yes 0 0
Association? No 32 100
Salary 3 9.373
vegetable sales 21 65.6
What are your sources of Fruit Sales 2 6.3
Income? Tomato Sales 32 100

The majority (81%) of the farmers do not have formal employment (Table 2). This could be because
most of the farmers attained ordinary level education (BGCSE) and do not qualify for most of the formal
jobs (Table 1). Additionally, most of the respondents spend the majority of their time attending to their
farms leaving little time to attend to any other duties in form of formal employment. Tomato growing
and production is a labour intensive and time-consuming activity (Naika et al., 2005).

None of the respondents in the study area belonged to any tomato farmers' group or association (Table
2). For smallholder agriculture to achieve economic development and poverty reduction in developing
countries, there is a need for institutional innovations to overcome market failures (World Bank, 2008).
This is mostly in form of marketing cooperatives and social groups that can help farmers access the
market. Actually, over the years, there has been a renewed interest from donors, governments and
researchers in cooperative producer organizations as an institutional vehicle to improve smallholder
agricultural performance, particularly through improved market participation (Bernard and Spielman,
2009; Fisher and Qaim, 2012).

The results from the study showed that tomato sales were the main source of household income for all
respondents (Table 3). This was followed by vegetable production (65.6%), salary (9%) and lastly from
fruit sales (6%). This could be because of the high demand and high rate of vegetables in the area that

18
farmers are doing their best to exploit. The majority of the vegetables consumed in the Gaborone region
are supplied by local farmers.

4.2 Marketing chains of tomatoes

Table 3 below shows the number of respondents, quantities, and prices of different marketing channels
used by tomato farmers in the Gaborone Region.

Table 3: Marketing chains of tomatoes in the Gaborone region

Produce
Producer- Producer- producer- r- Producer
Marketing chain   consumer retailer Producer-hotels wholesaler Trader - Agent
Channel Channel
Channel   Channel 1 Channel 2 Channel 3 Channel 4 5 6
Frequency   23 24 7 12 5 2
Per cent 71.9 75 21.9 37.5 15.6 6.3
Average tons sold 5.65 18.73 22.86 17.67 14.6 10
Average Price per
Kg 8.3 9.8 10.4 9.2 10.6 10.5
Method of selling Farm-gate On Contract and On On On
used   sale Delivery delivery contract contract contract

Results indicated that channel 2 is the most common marketing channel used by 75% of the respondents
in marketing their tomato produce. Farmers sell their produce directly to the retailers such as
supermarkets (Choppies, Spar, and Shoprite) which are mostly done through deliveries of well cleaned
and sorted tomatoes produce in crates to the supermarkets. The second most used channel is Channel
one (Producer-consumer) which involves direct selling of tomatoes at the farm gate to the consumers.
Overall, the order of preference for tomato marketing channels was channel 2>channel 1>channel
4>channel3>channel 5>channel 6. These results do not coincide with those of Xaba and Masuku (2013)
and Dardak et al. (2013) who reported that producer-consumer and producer-wholesaler were the most
preferred channels for vegetable marketing respectively.

However, results from the survey indicate that the highest quantity (22.86 tons) of tomatoes was sold
through channel 3 which is from the producer to the hotels, restaurants and lounges within the region.
The higher quantity sold through channel 3 compared to channel 2 could be attributed to the fact that
daily deliveries are required and made to the restaurants compared to channel 2 where deliveries are
made on a fortnight basis. Channel 1 sells the least (5.65 tins) quantity of tomatoes compared to all other

19
tomatoes and this is attributed to the fact that consumers usually buy small quantities of tomatoes at the
farm gate compared to all other channels.

Additionally, channel five offers the highest price (BWP10.60) for tomatoes, followed by channel 6
which offers BWP 10.50, then channel 3,2,4,1 offering BWP10.40, BWP9.80, BWP9.20 and BWP8.30
respectively. The higher price offered in channel 2 (BWP 10.50) accounts for the higher quantity
supplied to hotels as compared to the quantity supplied to consumers. The lowest price (BWP 8.3) for
tomatoes is offered to consumers. On average each farmer sold 14.9 tonnes at the average price of
BWP9.80 per Kg yearly. These results suggest that the price being offered is the determinant factor for
quantity sold through a given channel.

Results indicate that the higher the price offered, the more the farmers sell through that specific channel.
The lower price offered to consumers could also be attributed to the fact that consumer sales are mostly
made at the farm gate (Table 2) with little or no costs involved in transporting their agricultural produce
from the farm to the consumer. Transporting produce increases the cost of production which in turn
translates into a higher price of tomato production. Moreover, channels that offer contracts and
deliveries on the side of the consumer seem to offer higher prices for the farmers compared to farm gate
sales.

4.3 Marketing costs and margins of tomatoes

Tables 4 below indicates the different marketing costs and total marketing costs involved in the
marketing of tomatoes in the Gaborone region.

Table 4: Tomato marketing costs

Type of Marketing Cost Average Cost Percentages
Costs of handling tomatoes 7343.8 19.4
Costs of packaging tomatoes 6208.3 16.4
Costs of transporting tomatoes 5320.0 14
Costs of storage of tomatoes 2631.6 6.9
Costs of advertising tomatoes 3890.6 10.3

20
 Taxes incurred 5071.4 13.4
The monetary value of physical losses 3565.2 9.4
Cost of cleaning tomatoes incurred 3840.0 10.1
Total marketing costs incurred 37870.9 100

The costs involved in the marketing of tomatoes included handling, packaging, transporting, storage and
advertising costs. The highest cost (BWP7343.8) incurred in marketing was for handling which is over
19% of the total marketing cost. This involves picking tomatoes from the field, sorting, cleaning and
packing tomatoes in the crates to ensure that they are safe and in good condition for sale. The higher
costs (19.4%) incurred for handling could be due to the higher number of labourers required to do the
work compared to other marketing activities such as advertising and storage which only fewer people to
be carried out. Moreover, the lowest (6.9%) marketing cost was contributed by storage. This could be
attributed to the fact that storage requires less input in terms of labour.

Table 5: Average price and quantity of tomatoes sold

Measures Value
Average tomato price (BWP) 9.8
The average quantity of tomatoes sold (kg) 14900
Total Yield of tomatoes sold per year (tons) 89.51
Gross marketing margin (%) 74.1
Marketing Efficiency (%) 25.9

The Gross Marketing Margin of tomatoes was BWP 108 149.10 which accounts for 74.1% of the total
amount from tomato sales (Table 5). This is significantly lower than the marketing margin obtained by
Agbugba et al. (2013) from Okra (93%) in Nigeria. However, this is significantly higher than field corps
such as Bambara nuts which was found to be 41.66% in Ghana (Quaye and Kanda, 2004). The lower
marketing margin obtained for tomatoes compared to okra could be attributed to the higher marketing
costs involved in the marketing of tomatoes in the Gaborone region. Costs such as advertising and
handling may not be required for okra. Tomato handling which is part of the marketing costs is costly
reducing the marketing margin of tomatoes relative to other vegetables. The higher marketing margin of

21
tomatoes compared to Bambara been on the other hand could be attributed to the fact that tomatoes offer
a higher price compared to the Bambara nuts resulting in a higher marketing margin for tomatoes.

4.4 Marketing efficiency

Results from the study indicated that the marketing efficiency of tomatoes in the Gaborone region is
25.9% (Table 5). These results do not coincide with those of Isitor et al. (2016) and Dakpa et al. (2020)
who found marketing efficiency of 2.46% to 10.85% and 14.08% to 3.46% for indigenous vegetables
and Cabbage Marketing in Nigeria and Nagaland respectively. The significantly higher marketing
efficiency found for the Gaborone region compared to Nigeria and Nagaland could be attributed to the
improved lower marketing cost incurred in getting the produce to the farmer. The accessibility of the
farms due to good roads in the Gaborone region leads to lower losses incurred and reduced transport
cost which translates into reduced marketing costs.

However, it appears like the marketing efficiency of tomatoes in Gaborone is still low. In an efficient
market, producers stand to gain when improved marketing efficiency increases demand and prices for
their products while consumers can gain if more efficient wholesale and retail trade services reduce
consumer prices (USDA, 2006). Most intermediate agricultural inputs in Gaborone have been reported
to be costly in Botswana. This is indicative of inefficient marketing since in an efficient market, declines
in producer prices as marketing efficiency increases, are expected to reduce the prices of intermediate
agricultural inputs and therefore lower the costs of production.

4.5 Challenges faced by tomato growers in Gaborone

9%

25%
High input costs
19% Frost, pests and diseases
Limited knowledge
Limited market
Marketing
6% Post harvest losses
Unstable market price
3%
3%
34%
22

Figure 1: Tomato growing constraints faced by farmers in Gaborone

Figure 1 above indicated the different constraints faced by farmers in Gaborone. Responses from the
farmers indicated that Frost, pest and diseases are the major challenges faced by 35% of the farmers.
According to them, Frost, pest and diseases cause significant losses in tomatoes. These results are in line
with those of Gatahi (2020) and who also noted that pests and diseases were the major challenges
affecting tomato growing. Pests and diseases account for the majority of the losses incurred by tomato
farmers in Gaborone. According to the farmers, frost, pests and diseases can lead even up to 100%
losses if the response is not given on time.

The second most important challenge faced by at least 25% of the farmers was high input costs.
According to the farmers, inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, herbicides and mechanization
account for the largest amount of the production costs. This is followed by post-harvest losses that
always arise from poor post-harvest handling techniques of the workers. The order in terms of reducing
the severity of constraints faced by farmers is Frost, pests and diseases> High input costs> post-harvest
losses>Unstable markets> High Marketing costs> Limited markets> limited knowledge.

23
 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to identify the marketing supply chains of tomatoes and assess their
efficiency in the Gaborone region. Using a survey of 32 farmers from different locations within the
Gaborone region, results showed that the chain actors are producers, retailers, wholesalers, agents and
consumers. The most preferred marketing channel used by most farmers was the producer to retailer
channel. However, the order of preference for tomato marketing channels was channel 2>channel
1>channel 4>channel3>channel 5>channel 6. Marketing cost incurred were tomato handing cost,
packaging cost, transportation costs, storage costs, advertising costs, physical losses during storage and
transportation, cleaning costs as well as taxation. The overall Gross Marketing Margin of tomatoes was
74.1% of the total amount from tomato sales. Finally, the overall marketing efficiency of tomato
production Gaborone region was 25.9%.

5.2 Recommendations

The study suggests the need for the formation of farmers’ cooperatives for collective marketing of their
produce. This will help in the reduction of marketing costs such as advertising costs by sharing costs
among the different farmers. Extension workers and local councils should thus help in organizing
farmers into groups based on their strategic locations to the market.

To minimize vegetable losses in the marketing process, the government should focus on constructing
and repairing damaged old roads, as well as establishing new transport routes should be done to reduce
the cost of transportation to help the chain actors. The policymakers and government should allow
agricultural levy and charge revenue to be directed to biosecurity preparedness and emergency plant pest
responses, residue testing, marketing and research and development to help farmers cut down costs of
chemicals that deal with pests and diseases.

24
 References
Adams, F. W. (2020). Profitability and choice of marketing outlets: evidence from Ghana's tomato
production.   Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies, 22-25.

Adeoye, I. B. (2009). Economic analysis of tomato losses in Ibadan metropolis, Oyo State, Nigeria.
African Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 1(5-6), 87-92.

Agbugba, I. K., Nweze, N. J., Achike, A. I., and Obi, A. (2013). Market Structure, Conduct, Channel
and Margin of Dry Season Okra Vegetable in South-Eastern Nigeria. International Conference
on Food and Agricultural Sciences. International Proceedings of Chemical, Biological and
Environmental Engineering, 55, 74-80.

Anon, J. (2009). Annual Report – 2008/2009.Division of Horticulture and Beekeeping. Gaborone:

Ministry of Agriculture.

Asgedom, S., Struik, P.C., Heauvelink, E.P. and Woldeamlak, A. (2011). Opportunities and Constraints
of Tomato Production in Eritrea: African Journal of Agricultural Research, 6, 956-967.

Baba, S.H., Wani, M.H., Wani, S.A. and Yousuf, S. (2010). Marketed Surplus and Price Spread of
Vegetables in Kashmir Valley. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 23, 115-127.

Badimo, D. A. (2018). Adoption of high tunnels for tomato production in North East District, Botswana.
Morogoro: Sokoine University of Agriculture.

Baliyan, S. and Baliyan, P. (2013). Comparative Profitability of Onions Harvested as Green and Dry
(Mature) in Botswana. International Journal of Agricultural Research, Innovation and
Technology, 3(1), 73-77.

Bernard, T. and Spielman, D. (2009). Reaching the Rural poor through Rural Producer Organizations. A
study of Agricultural Marketing Cooperatives in Ethiopia. Food Policy, 34(1), 60-69.

Boateng, V., Amfo, B., Abubakari, A., and Osei, Bo. (2016). Do marketing margins determine local
leafy vegetable marketing in the Tamale Metropolis? African Journal of Business
Management, 10, 98-108.

Statistics Botswana (2018). Botswana Demographic Survey. Census and Demographic Analysis Unit,
Census and Demographic Division, Statistics Botswana, Gaborone.
25
Cheema, D.S. and Dhaliwal, S.M. 2005. Hybrid tomato breeding. Journal of New Seeds, 6, 1-14.

Chow, D., Heaver, T., & Henriksson, L. (1994). Logistics performance: Definition and measurement.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 24(1), 17–28.
Dagnoko, S., Hanson, P., Fufa, F. and Kollo, I.A. (2011). Preliminary performance of tomato breeding
lines for yield, fruit quality and resistance to tomato yellow leaf curl disease. Acta
Horticulture 911, 455–468.

Dam, B.V., Goffau, M.D., de Jeude, L. and Naika, S. (2005). Cultivation of tomato: Production,
processing and marketing.
Dardak, R., Zakaria, M.H. and Noorlidawati, A.H. (2013). Marketing channels for fresh vegetables and
fruits in Malaysia. Acta Horticulturae, 1012, 1371-1377.

Doss, C. R. (2001). Designing agricultural technology for African women farmers: Lessons from 25
years

FAO. (2017). Marketing improvement in the developing world. Marketing and Credit Service. Rome, Italy

FAO. 2009. FAOSTAT/FAO Statistics Division. http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/ (accessed

1 May 2009).

FAOSTATA (2019). FAO Statistics, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome,
Italy.

Gatahi, D. (2020). Challenges and Opportunities in Tomato Production Chain and Sustainable Standards
Introduction. International Journal of Horticultural Science and Technology, 7, (3) 235-262.

Hassan, S., Hussain, A., Khan, M., and Mahmood, I. (2012). Rural-Urban Retail Prices and Marketing
Margins of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural
Research, 25, 206-217.

Isitor, S., Otunaiya, A.O., & Iyanda, J. (2016). The efficiency of Vegetable Marketing in Peri-Urban
Areas of Ogun State, Nigeria. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 8, 142.

Islam, M. D. (2017). Management of insect pests in tomato (Solanum Lycopersicum L.) under different
planting dates and mechanical support. Journal of Science, Technology and Environment
Informatics, 5, 336-346.

26
Jain, S. (2007). Principles and Practices of Agricultural Marketing and Prices. Bombay: Vora and Co.
Publishers Private Ltd.

Ketema, M., Goshu, D. and Debebe, S. (2019). Rate market outlet choice decision and its effect on
income and productivity of smallholder vegetable producers in Lake Tana basin, Ethiopia.
European Review of Agricultural Economics, 22, 83-90.

Khem, C., Shalander, K., Suresh, A., and Dastagiri, M. B. (2018). Marketing efficiency of vegetables in
developing economies: Evidence for critical intervention from Rajasthan, India. ICAR-Indian
Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Leander, D.M., Agyemang, D., Samuel, K.O., Kwadwo, O., Eric, D. and Michael, O. (2019). Review
on tomato (Solanum Lycopersicum L.) improvement programmes in Ghana.

Lenné, J.M., Pink, D.A.C., Njuki, J., Wanyonyi, C., and Spence, N.J. (2005). Opportunities and
Constraints for Future Economic Development of Sustainable Vegetable Seed Businesses in
Eastern and Southern Africa, scoping study commissioned by the Rockefeller Foundation, the
Department for International Development and the Gatsby Charitable Foundation, available
from DFID Crop Protection Programme, Natural Resources International, Aylesford.

Madisa, M. (2011). Impact of government financial incentives on peri-urban. Journal of Horticulture

and Forestry, 3(8), 264-269.

Malherbe, S. (2012). Influence of climate on tomato yield and quality in South Africa, Soilborne Plant
Diseases Symposium, ARC Plant Protection Research Institute, Stellenbosch, South Africa

Moghaddasi, R. A. (2019). Value Chain Analysis of Tomato: A Case Study in Jessore District of
Bangladesh. Califonia: University of califonia.

Naika, S., de Jeude,J.L., de Goffau,M., Hilmi,M., Dam,B. (2005) Cultivation of tomato production,
processing and marketing. Agrodok, 17 (1), 6.
Obopile, M. M. (2008). Farmers’ knowledge, perceptions and management of vegetable pests and
diseases in Botswana. Journal of Crop Protection, 27, 1220-1224.

Quaye, W. and Kanda, I. J. (2004) Bambara Marketing Magin Analysis. Food Research Institute, Accra

27
Seleka, T. B. (2011). The performance of Botswana's traditional arable agriculture: growth rates.
Agricultural Economics, 20, 121-133.

Shepherd, G. (1962). Marketing of Farm Products. (Ames: Lowa University Press, p.23.

Tadesse, A. (2011). Marketing chain analysis of fruits for Gomma Wereda, Jimma Zone, Oromia
National Regional State. Ethiopia.

USDA (2006). Growth and Equity Effects of Agricultural Marketing Efficiency Gains in India.
Economic Research Service, ERR-89.

Xaba, B. G., & Masuku, M. B. (2013). An analysis of the vegetable supply chain in Swaziland.
Sustainable Agriculture Research, 2(526-2016-37958).

28
 APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Survey Questionnaire

1. Questionnaire Number: _______________________ Date Administered _________________

SECTION A: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
2. Location (Village and District): __________________________________________________________
3. Consent (agrees to be interviewed) 1. YES [ ] 2. NO [ ]

Information on Respondent only

4. Age range of respondent (years)
1. Less than 18 2. 18-25 3. 26-35 4. 36-45 5. 36-55 6. above 55
5. Gender 1. Male [ ] 2. Female [ ]
6. Marital Status 1. Single [ ] 2. Married [ ] 3. Divorced [ ]
4. Separated [ ] 5. Cohabiting [ ] 6. Widow [ ]
7. Do you have formal employment? 1. YES [ ] 2. NO [ ]
8. Are you a religious person? 1. YES [ ] 2. NO [ ]
9. Are you a member of an association dealing with tomatoes? 1. YES [ ] 2. NO [ ]
10. Household size (state total number of people in the household) [___________]
11. Number of females in the household [___________]
12. Number of children (those aged under 18 years) [___________]
13. Highest educational level attained by respondent:
1. None [ ] 2. PSLE [ ] 3. JC [ ] 4. BGCSE [ ] 5. Tertiary [ ] 6. Other (specify _______________

SECTION B
HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND SUPPLY CHAIN OF TOMATOES
14. What were your household’s main sources of income in the last 12 months? Please state how much you received
from each source.

Formal salary or Amount Small business Amount social grant and Amount

wages (Pula) (self-employed) (Pula) assistance (Pula)

Salary Field crop sales Old-age pension

Wages (per week) Vegetable sales Disability grant

Retirement pension Fruit sales Child support grant

29
 Other (please
tomato sales War veteran grant
specify)

Rental income Remittances

Other (please specify) Other grants

(please specify

TOTAL INCOME TOTAL INCOME TOTAL INCOME

SECTION C: SUPPLY CHAIN ITEMS FOR TOMATOES

15. How long have you been involved in the business of supplying / selling tomatoes? _________ (years)
16. In which supply chain actor group would you classify your main tomato business activity?
1. Producer [ ] 2. Trader [ ] 3. Processor [ ] 4. Wholesaler [ ] 5. Retailer [ ] 6. Consumer [ ]
17. What was the source of your start-up capital for the tomato business?
1. Personal Savings [ ] 2. Bank Loan [ ] 3. Others (Specify)_________________________
18. Did you receive training in tomato production? 1. YES [ ] 2. NO [ ]
19. Did you receive training in the marketing of tomatoes? 1. YES [ ] 2. NO [ ]
20. Do you own land? 1. YES [ ] 2. NO [ ]
21. If YES, how many hectares of land do you own?
1. Less than 1 ha [ ] 2. 1 - 2ha [ ] 3. 3 - 4ha [ ] 4. 5ha and above [ ]
22. How much of your land is under tomato production per season? ________ hectares.
23. On average, how much do you spend on each of the stated inputs to grow tomatoes per growing season?

INPUT COSTS (BWP)

Seed / seedlings

Land

Water

30
 Electricity

Labour

Agrochemicals

Transport

Other (Specify)___________________

24. How many tomatoes do you harvest, on average, from one (1) hectare? ______ Kgs or Tonnes.

25. How many tomatoes have you supplied or sold in the past 12 months? ________ tonnes or _______ KGs.

26. WHERE did you buy or source your tomatoes from? (Source of tomatoes)

Distance from Quantity of Unit Purchasing

Place where tomatoes were business place tomatoes Price

Was the purchase
bought in the last 12 months to the source of purchased (Pula Per Tonne price negotiable?
tomatoes (KM) (Tonnes or KGs) or KG)

Farm YES[ ] NO[ ]

Homestead YES[ ] NO[ ]

Local village market YES[ ] NO[ ]

31
 Urban (town/city) market YES[ ] NO[ ]

Urban bus terminals YES[ ] NO[ ]

Main roadside vendor YES[ ] NO[ ]

Wholesalers YES[ ] NO[ ]

Supermarkets YES[ ] NO[ ]

Tuckshops YES[ ] NO[ ]

Other: please specify YES[ ] NO[ ]

__________________________

27. On average, what quantities of tomatoes do you sell to these customers in a month? State your selling price.
CUSTOMERS Quantity of tomatoes PRICE Per unit

(Kgs or tonne) (Pula per Kg or tonne)

Final Consumers
Retailers
Restaurants / hotels
Wholesalers
Middlemen (Traders)
Middlemen (Agents)

28. How do you sell your produce?

1. On-farm [ ] 2. Delivery [ ] 3. On contract [ ] 4. Others (Specify)_______________________

SECTION D: MARKETING COSTS PER UNIT OF TOMATOES

32
29. On average, what costs do you incur in marketing your business for tomatoes per month?
Component of Marketing Cost Amount (Pula)
Handling cost
Packaging cost
Transport cost
Storage cost
Advertising cost
Taxes
Fees
Physical losses equivalent in monetary value terms
Cleaning
The profit margin for intermediaries involved
TOTAL MARKETING COST

SECTION E: MARKETING CONSTRAINTS

30. What are the major constraints you are facing in your business for tomatoes?
(Please state them in their order of importance, starting with the most important constraint)
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________

31. What suggestions would you give to address the constraints you have raised? (Please
indicate who should do what?
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND YOUR VALUABLE TIME!!!

33