Smallholder potato producers’ market orientation: the case of Tiyo district, Arsi zone, Oromia, Ethiopia

Figures & data

Table 1. Sample size of producers from selected areas.

No	Name of kebeles	Total producers	Proportions	Sample
1	Dosha	113	0.258	54
2	Oda_Dawata	78	0.178	37
3	Denkaka_Konicha	90	0.205	43
4	Burka_Chilalo	88	0.201	42
5	Hora_Bilalo	69	0.158	33
Total		438	1.00	209

Source: Survey result, 2022.

Table 2. Demographic factors, and human capital characteristics of the respondents.

Variables	Categories	Frequency	Percentage
Sex of household head	Male	154	73.68
	Female	55	26.32
Education level of the household head	Cannot read and write	34	16.27
	Primary school (Grade 1–8)	93	44.50
	Secondary school (Grade 9–10)	60	28.71
	Preparatory school (Grade 11–12)	15	7.18
	Certificate	7	3.35
Variables	Measurement units	Mean	Std.Dev.
Age of the respondents	Years	43.41	12.38
Family size	Number	5.84	2.43086
Farming experience	Years	13.94	9.89

Source: Survey result of 2022 of the TOMATO project.

Table 3. Area and volume of production and supply of potato crop.

Variables	Measurement units	Potato (Tiyo district) (N = 209)
		Total	Mean	Std. dev
Total land operated	Hectare	371.2	1.78	1.17
Land allocated	Hectare	130.805	0.63	0.49
Quantity produced	Quintal	13452	64.36	41.67
Quantity sold	Quintal	9508	45.49	35.46
Quantity wasted	Quintal	1088	5.21	4.45
Quantity consumed	Quintal	709.75	3.39	3.20
Average selling price	Birr/Quintal		1015.5	335.7

Source: Survey result of 2022 of the TOMATO project.

Table 4. Potato marketability index and producers’ market orientation index.

Variable	Obs	Mean	Std. dev	Min	Max
Potato marketability index	209	0.6924	0.1873	0.1	1
Market orientation index	209	0.2963	0.2149	0.0179	0.8571

Table

Level of marketability index	Indexes	Frequency	Percentage
	High (Above 0.5)	171	81.82
	Medium (0.20 to 0.5)	34	16.27
	Low (below 0.2)	4	1.91
	Total	209	100.00
Level of market orientation index	Indexes	Frequency	Percentage
	High (above 0.5)	35	16.75
	Medium (0.25 to 0.5)	90	43.06
	Low (below 0.25)	84	40.19
	Total	209	100.00

Source: Baseline survey result of 2022 of the TOMATO project.

Table 5. Descriptive statistics of variables used in the model (N = 209).

Continuous Variable	Units	Mean		Total sample (N)
Age of the respondents	Years	43.41		209
Family size of the respondent	Number	5.84		209
Farm size of potato	Hectare	0.63		209
Distance to the nearest market	Km	25.79		209
Livestock excluding oxen and equines	Number	8.49		209
Dummy variables	Response	Freq.	%	Total sample (N)
Sex of the household head	Female	55	26.32	209
	Male	154	73.68
Cooperative membership	No	147	70.33	209
	Yes	62	29.67
Access to extension service	No	84	40.19	209
	Yes	125	59.81

Source: Authors computation from survey result of 2022 Tomato project.

Table 6. OLS estimation results for determinants of market orientation.

Explanatory variable	Coef	Robust std. err	t	p>|t|
Sex of the respondents	−0.0073	.0269	−0.27	0.788
Age of the respondents	(−0.0029)***	.0010	−2.98	0.003
Family size per household	(−0.0091)*	.0053	−1.72	0.087
Distance to the nearest market	−0.0014	.0017	−0.79	0.431
Access to extension service	0.0248	.0255	0.97	0.332
Cooperative membership	(0.0668)**	.0308	2.17	0.031
Potato farm size	(0.2522)***	.0271	9.30	0.000
Livestock excluding oxen and equines	(−0.0039)**	.0016	−2.49	0.014
Constant term	0.3571	0.0622	5.73	0.000

Source: Authors calculation from Survey result of 2022 of Tomato project. Obs. = 209, F(8,200) = 11.97, Prob. > F = 0.0000, R-squared = 0.3274, Root MSE = 0.17973. Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%,5% and 10% significance levels, respectively.

Table 7. Potato marketing channel of the study area.

Variables	Marketing actors	Response	Frequency	Percent	Amount sold (quintal)
Market channels (For whom do you sell your potato in 2022 production year?)	To Consumer	No	193	92.3	318
		Yes	16	7.7
	To Collector	No	204	97.6	266
		Yes	5	2.4
	To Wholesaler	No	105	50.2	5028
		Yes	104	49.8
	To Processor	No	107	99.00	105
		Yes	2	1.00
	To Consumer and wholesaler	No	154	73.7	2599
		Yes	55	26.3
	To Consumer and collector	No	200	95.7	133
		Yes	9	4.3
	To Collector and wholesaler	No	204	97.6	386
		Yes	5	2.4
	To Consumer, collector and wholesaler	No	196	93.8	673
		Yes	13	6.2
	Total		Yes = 209	100.00	9508

Source: Survey result of 2022 of Tomato project.

Table 8. Cost and marketing margin distribution of actors in Potato marketing.

Items (Birr per quintal)	Producers	Collectors	Wholesalers	Retailors
Production cost	626.55	0	0	0
Marketing cost
1.1.Loading /unloading cost	0	100	100	100
1.2.transportation cost	0	120	180	100
1.3.loss	0	0	10.55	5.25
1.4.processing cost	0	0	0	0
1.5.commission fee	0	0	15	0
1.6.tax	0	0	25	0
Total marketing cost	0	220	330.55	205.25
Marketing cost percentage (%)	0%	29.1%	43.7%	27.2%
Purchase price	0	944.5	1350.00	1950.00
Total cost	626.55	1144.5	1685.55	2155.25
Percentage of Total cost (%)	11.5%	20.9%	30.9%	36.7%
Average selling price	944.5	1350.00	1950.00	2250.00
GMM (%)	41.98%	18.02%	26.67%	13.33%
TGMM (%) = 58.02%	TGMM =	18.02 + 26.67% +13.33% = 58.02%
GMMp (%) = 41.98%	GMMp =	100%-TGMM = 100–58.02% = 41.98%
NMM (%)	14.13%	8.24%	12.00%	4.21%

Source: Own computation, Survey result of 2022 of Tomato project.

Table 9. Potato marketing problems/challenges of the study area.

Marketing problems	Tiyo (N = 209) potato
	Frequency	%	Rank
Poor linkage with value chain actors	20	9.57	5th
Brokers hinder fair sales price	45	21.53	1st
Lack of market	29	13.88	4th
Lack of transport	7	3.35	7th
Low price of the product	32	15.31	3rd
Perishability of the product	29	13.88	4th
Lack of market information	35	16.75	2nd
Lack of storage	12	5.74	6th
Total	209	100.00

Source: Survey result of 2022 of Tomato project.