Case for Agricultural Mechanization and a Homegrown Agricultural Machinery Industry in Kenya

Moses Frank Oduori* David Masinde Munyasi, and Thomas Ochuku Mbuya Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Nairobi, P. O. Box 30197, GPO 00100, Nairobi, KENYA.
*

Corresponding Author: foduori@uonbi.ac.ke and mfwedida@yahoo.com

Abstract The process of agricultural mechanization is defined from various points of view, its history, its progress and its effects in various parts of the world and in various economic environments are reviewed. A case is argued for the appropriate mechanization of Kenyan agriculture and the establishment of a homegrown agricultural machinery industry in the country. Introduction The easing of human labour through the use of technology began in prehistory. The historic process of mechanization has progressed from the most elementary forcetransmitting devices such as levers to todays sophisticated information-processing machines. Throughout this progress, however, the constant purpose has been to supplement or complement human effort in work. During the last two centuries, the application of machines in agricultural production has been one of the outstanding developments in the agriculture of many countries of the World. Wherever this (agricultural mechanization) has been successfully implemented, the burden and drudgery of agricultural work has been greatly reduced while the output per worker (labour productivity) has been greatly increased. In the industrialized world, the mechanization of agriculture released millions of workers from agriculture, enabling them to work in other industries and thus contribute to industrial expansion. Agricultural mechanization may be looked at from different points of view. From the mechanical point of view, agricultural mechanization may be described as the replacement of human labour with mechanical power. Inasmuch as agriculture is an economic activity, the mechanization of agriculture can also be seen in economic terms to be the replacement of labour with capital. From the farmers point of view, though, agricultural mechanization may be described as the proper choice and use of agricultural

equipment from among the available alternatives or, in a manner of speaking, kuchagua jembe 1 . Do We Need to Mechanize Kenyan Agriculture? In many instances, in different parts of the World, the saving of expensive and scarce labour has been the principal motivation behind the mechanization of agriculture. In contemporary Kenya, labour may not, as yet, be said to be scarce or expensive, especially as compared to the situation in the developed world. However, there is a clear tendency for the able-bodied better-educated youth to shun agricultural work, a situation that is underscored by the continuing migration of such youth from rural to urban areas in search of what they perceive to be better career prospects. Some may consider this situation to be unfortunate, yet it is a reality that has to be dealt with and it is not unique to Kenya. Perhaps the youth would find agricultural work more attractive if it were to be rendered physically less demanding, more challenging to the mind and adequately remunerative. Mechanization eliminates drudgery from agricultural work, thus rendering it physically less demanding. Indeed, some agricultural tasks, such as the transportation of sugarcane from the field to the mill for instance, would be very difficult, if not utterly impossible, to accomplish without the aid of machines (Fig.1).

Fig. 1 American Sugarcane Transportation Equipment

Mechanization can also improve the timeliness of critical operations, and, in many cases, the quality of work, leading to increased crop yields (land productivity 2 ).

1 2

This Kiswahili phrase literally means to select a hoe. Quantity of production per unit of land area.

2 of 8

This, together with increased labour productivity 3 , should culminate in greater economic rewards for those who work in agriculture. Mechanized agriculture requires substantial capital investment that calls for proper management but also avails the farmer with more time to attend to management issues. Therein lies the mental challenge. Finally, from the point of view of those who work in agriculture, there are affective reasons that could compel them to opt for mechanization, such as the satisfaction and prestige that comes with the ownership and use of modern equipment.

One would expect then that agricultural mechanization should render agricultural work more attractive to the young and able-bodied, amongst the rural population and thus help to stem the increasing migration of such people from rural to urban areas. On a different note, consider Kenyas declared intention to become a newly industrialized country (NIC) by around 2030 AD. If this goal should be attained, the better paying jobs that will be availed in the manufacturing and service sectors of the economy will attract much, if not most, of todays agricultural labour, thus necessitating agricultural mechanization. Apparently, industrialization must come along with agricultural mechanization. Meanwhile, Kenyas rapidly increasing population will continue to demand an everincreasing supply of food and fibre from the agricultural sector. Moreover, the potential of the agricultural sector as a source of renewable biomass energy is becoming increasingly important 4 . The widespread mechanization of agriculture should contribute to increased agricultural production and help to meet the countrys need for food, fibre and energy. It should be evident that we need to mechanize Kenyan agriculture, but to do so only to the extent that is appropriate and with the use of the most appropriate equipment. Trends of Development in Agricultural Mechanization On the global scene, agricultural machinery technology has advanced most rapidly since the Second World War and continues to do so, keeping pace with developments in other mechanical and related technologies. Today, many automatic systems are used on agricultural machines. For instance, by the 1990s, a driverless combine harvester had been made and tested by ISEKI, an agricultural machinery manufacturer in Japan. On the other hand, many simple, inexpensive but efficient machines, such as the power tiller

3 4

Quantity of production per unit of labour.

In Brazil today, some sugar companies use up to sixty percent of the cane they grow to manufacture power alcohol.

3 of 8

(single axle tractor, Fig. 2), have been used to good effect in mechanizing agriculture, particularly in East Asian countries such as Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Thailand.

Fig. 2 - A Japanese Power Tiller (1977)

Often, advances in the biological sciences that pertain to agriculture have been used to facilitate agricultural mechanization. In some cases, plant breeders have deliberately developed crop varieties that are better suited to mechanized farming. A case in point is the development in California, USA, of tomato varieties that are more suitable for machine harvesting. In other cases, crop husbandry practices, such as the spacing of crop rows in the field, have been altered in order to conform to mechanized farming. The most rapid developments in agricultural mechanization have occurred in countries with the competitive free-enterprise economic systems, and where agricultural labour shortages have been severe. However, some centralized economies appear to have encouraged agricultural mechanization as well. In the former Soviet Union, Belarus Machinery Works was once reputedly the Worlds largest tractor manufacturer in terms of volume of production of tractors. It is noteworthy too that the mechanization of agriculture has been realized not only in the large scale, predominantly commercial farming systems exemplified by North America and Western Europe, but also in the small scale, predominantly family farming systems as in Japan and South Korea. In the Western developed countries, the trend to date has been to use larger, more powerful machines which improve labour productivity but are capital intensive, which are not suited to small scale family farming systems, and which do pose environmental problems such as soil compaction (Fig. 3). On the other hand, in Japan a mechanized 4 of 8

farming system has been developed that is better suited to small scale family farming systems. However, this Japanese system has led to high costs of agricultural production, resulting in high prices of agricultural produce, as well as occasional farmer indebtedness due to the systems highly capital intensive nature. Yet Japan can afford to sustain such a system due to her highly developed industrial economy. Many Japanese farmers subsidize their farm economy with earnings from part-time work in industry. Moreover, the affluent Japanese populace can afford to pay for highly priced agricultural produce; Kenyans cannot. Nevertheless, in order to be competitive in a liberalized World market, Japanese farmers have been forced to cut their agricultural productions costs. One of the ways in which they are attempting to do this is through co-operative joint ownership and operation of expensive agricultural machines.

Fig. 3 A Large American John Deere Tractor

Since at present most agricultural holdings in Kenya are small scale, there appears to be three economically viable options of mechanized agricultural systems for the country to consider, namely: Joint ownership and operation of machines by several farm holdings. While this system should cut agricultural production costs, it would pose considerable organizational problems. The machines to be used in such a system would have to be of adequate capacity for the particular farming situations. Custom and contract operations by specialized enterprises. This is a system in which machines are availed through hire or lease from the relevant specialized organizations. In Kenya, government sponsored Tractor Hire Services failed due to mismanagement. However, privately owned Tractor Hire Services have been operating successfully, thus proving that the system is viable. Indeed, in some of the high agricultural potential areas of Kenya, most primary tillage (ploughing) has been mechanized through some sorts of custom and contract systems. 5 of 8

Reorganization of the Kenyan farming system in general through consolidation of the small farm holdings into larger ones. The end result would be to root out smallscale farming and make place for a system of larger, mechanized and economically viable farm holdings. Though this option may be economically sound, in the short term it is likely to be politically unacceptable and pretty close to being socially immoral. For most rural Kenyans small-scale farming is not only the only means of livelihood, it is also a traditional way of life that they would be wont to abandon. Moreover, even for those who would be willing to give up small-scale farming, there would still be the problem of finding a new occupation. However, for the long term, this option should still be worth considering.

How Should We Mechanize Kenyan Agriculture? Both Japan and the Western countries generally produce the machines with which they have mechanized their agriculture. Indeed it would seem to be that a country would be ill-advised to opt for a mechanized agricultural system that would be totally dependent on imported machines. Consider the following: Machines imported from more developed countries would generally have been manufactured at higher labour costs and possibly sold at higher profit margins than those prevailing in a less developed country that imports the machines. This is probably a major reason for the recent trend of the more developed countries exporting factories rather than products to some less developed countries, in order to cut product cost. The prices of agricultural produce on the World market are not anywhere nearly as high as those of machines. Therefore, the country that imports machines and exports agricultural produce is probably headed for a trade deficit. Imported machines often have to be transported over long distances from the exporting country to the importing country, and at great cost.

All the above factors would probably reflect negatively on the agricultural economy, and hence the overall economy of the country that imports agricultural machines and exports agricultural produce. Moreover: The importation of machines will probably necessitate the importation of the spare parts that will be required in order to maintain the machines in operation. Not to mention the cost of the spare parts, probable delays in the acquisition of the spare parts from their distant origins would lead to long machine downtimes, perhaps at times when the use of the machines is most crucial. The farmer without a machine is better off than the farmer with a machine that is broken down, cannot be repaired, and therefore cannot be used.

6 of 8

The imported machines would probably have been developed to suit, and extensively tested in, the environments of their countries of origin and, one may assume, without much consideration being given to the machines suitability for use in the environment of the importing country.

Given such circumstances, one may safely assume that the imported machines are more likely to malfunction in the environment of the importing country than in that of their country of origin. The theme of the 1989 Agricultural Society of Kenya (ASK) Nairobi International Show 5 called on Kenyans to diversify production. This was most appropriate for the needs of mankind today go far beyond food and fibre, and a modern economy cannot be sustained on agricultural production alone. Besides, the disparity between the prices of raw materials and manufactured goods on the World market puts the purely agricultural country at a disadvantage. In an agricultural country such as Kenya, given that agricultural mechanization is desired, as it seems to be implied by the volume of imported agricultural machines in the country, one may conclude that a sizeable market for agricultural machines does exist. If this is so then a local agricultural machinery manufacturing industry should be viable. Moreover, agricultural machines are capital goods and the nature of the agricultural machinery industry is such that, even in the developed countries, the annual production of such machines is much smaller than that of such consumer products as automobiles, for example. It is not therefore necessary to manufacture agricultural machines on a very large scale in order to be competitive. Moreover, in the long run, the experience gained in, and the infrastructure resulting from, the manufacture of agricultural machines could lead to the establishment of a broad-based mechanical engineering industry in Kenya. This would be in line with the countrys goal to industrialize early this century and should therefore be a good starting point in the endeavour to industrialize. And of course there will be the saving of the foreign exchange that is currently spent on importing agricultural machines, and the jobs that the agricultural machinery industry would create. Apparently then, the future of agricultural mechanization in Kenya rests on the development of the countrys capability for producing appropriate and affordable agricultural machines. In our era, it is mchagua jembe ndio mkulima 6 .

The ASK Nairobi International Show of 1989 is an annual event that is today known as the ASK Nairobi International Trade Fair. This is Kiswahili for the real farmer is the one who carefully selects their hoe (tools).

7 of 8

Bibliography 1. 2. SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN (Various Authors). Mechanization of Work. W. H. Freeman and Company. 1983. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING. Greatest Engineering 2000. Achievements of the 20th Century; Agricultural Mechanization. http://www.nationalacademies.org/greatachievements/ga_7_1.html KEPNER, R. A., ROY BAINER and E. L. BARGER. Principles of Farm Machinery, Third Edition. AVI Publishing Company Incorporated. 1978. KABURAKI, HIDEO, AKIRA HOSOKAWA and KOICHI MAEDA (editors). Farm Mechanization in Japan. Association of Agricultural Relations in Asia. 1982. ESMAY, MERLE, L. and CARL W. HALL. Agricultural Mechanization in Developing Countries. Shin-Norinsha Company Limited. 1973. J. DEJONG-HUGHES, J. F. MONCRIEF, W. B. VOORHEES, AND J. B. SWAN. Soil Compaction; Causes, Effects and Control. University of Minnesota. 2001. http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsystems/DC3115.html IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY. Understanding and Managing Soil Compaction. http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/PM1901B.pdf

3. 4.

5. 6.

7.

8 of 8