Next Article in Journal
Impacts of Green Perception Benefits and Environmental Regulation Intensity on Farmers’ Agricultural Green Production Willingness: A New Perspective of Technology Acquisition
Previous Article in Journal
Regulatory Effects of Soil Microbes and Soil Properties on Ecosystem Multifunctionality Differ Among Grassland Types in the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Mechanization and Maize Productivity in Tanzania’s Ruvuma Region: A Python-Based Analysis on Adoption and Yield Impact

by
James Jackson Majebele
1,
Minli Yang
1,2,*,
Muhammad Mateen
1 and
Abreham Arebe Tola
1
1
College of Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China
2
China Research Center for Agricultural Mechanization Development, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2025, 15(13), 1412; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15131412
Submission received: 29 May 2025 / Revised: 20 June 2025 / Accepted: 23 June 2025 / Published: 30 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Agricultural Economics, Policies and Rural Management)

Abstract

This study investigates the influence of agricultural mechanization on maize productivity in Tanzania’s Ruvuma region, a major maize-producing area vital to national food security. It addresses gaps in understanding the cumulative effects of mechanization across the maize production cycle and identifies region-specific barriers to adoption among smallholder farmers. Focusing on five key stages—land preparation, planting, plant protection, harvesting, and drying—this research evaluated mechanization uptake at each stage and its relationship with yield disparities. Statistical analyses using Python libraries included regression modeling, ANOVA, and hypothesis testing to quantify mechanization–yield relationships, controlling for farm size and socioeconomic factors, revealing a strong positive correlation between mechanization and maize yields (r = 0.86; p < 0.01). Mechanized land preparation, planting, and plant protection significantly boosted productivity (β = 0.75–0.35; p < 0.001). However, harvesting and drying mechanization showed negligible impacts (p > 0.05), likely due to limited adoption by smallholders combined with statistical constraints arising from the small sample size of large-scale farms (n = 20). Large-scale farms achieved 45% higher yields than smallholders (2.9 vs. 2.0 tons/acre; p < 0.001), reflecting systemic inequities in access. These inequities are underscored by the barriers faced by smallholders, who constitute 70% of farmers yet encounter challenges, including high equipment costs, limited credit access, and insufficient technical knowledge. This study advances innovation diffusion theory by demonstrating how inequitable resource access perpetuates low mechanization uptake in smallholder systems. It underscores the need for context-specific, equity-focused interventions. These include cooperative mechanization models for high-impact stages (land preparation and planting); farmer training programs; and policy measures such as targeted subsidies for harvesting equipment and expanded rural credit systems. Public–private partnerships could democratize mechanization access, bridging yield gaps and enhancing food security. These findings advocate for strategies prioritizing smallholder inclusion to sustainably improve Tanzania’s maize productivity.

1. Introduction

Maize (Zea mays L.) is an important crop in the economy of Tanzania and is a major provider of food security, income and industrial raw materials. Being a staple food, it provides over 50% of Tanzania’s caloric intake, but most is consumed by the rural households, which almost entirely depend on it as a subsistence activity [1,2]. The versatility of the crop in different agro-ecological zones—from the moist highlands to semi-arid plains—makes it a staple food and a buffer against local food deficits [3]. Maize is an important crop in Tanzania. Not only is it an important source of food, feed, and nutrition, but its trade is responsible for an estimated third of Tanzania’s GDP; markets exist in the neighboring countries of Kenya and Uganda; and it serves as a feedstock for an array of industries, from animal feed production to bioenergy [4,5]. However, the industry is confronted with numerous limitations that threaten to limit the capability of the industry to feed the increasing population in the country.
The maize production system in Tanzania remains largely inefficient, with average yields still at 1.5–2.0 t/ha plateaued due to under-utilization of genetic potential (achievable < 4–6 t/ha) under optimal conditions [2]. This gap is a result of several systemic limitations, such as dependence on physical labor, degraded soil, and vulnerability to climate. More than 80% of smallholder farmers, who grow 90% of Tanzania’s maize, rely on hand-held equipment, including trekking hoes and machetes for land preparation and planting and harvesting tasks, causing inefficiency during land preparation, planting, and harvesting [3]. Adding to this are decreasing fertility levels, driven by the fact that land is increasingly depleted, having been farmed with the same crop grown year in and year out, without sufficient input of nutrients. Research has shown that 60% of maize production systems are deficient in nitrogen and phosphorus, with consequent yield reduction [6]. The effects of climate change have accentuated these pressures, including varied patterns of precipitation, long-lasting droughts, and invasive pests such as the fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda), leading to 20–40% yield losses in recent years [3,7]. Post-harvest losses (reported to be between 25 and 30% as a result of insufficient storage and handling) also compound the scarcity of food and trade [8]. The gaps are compounded by barriers to access, such as weak rural road network, limited credit, and the fragmentation of extension services, which hinder the uptake of innovations and access to the markets by farmers [4,9].
The need to resolve these issues is even greater when taking into consideration that Tanzania’s population numbers are rising sharply, with an increase of 50% by the year 2030 forecasted, and that people are becoming more urbanized, resulting in an increase in demand for maize-based products [3]. Maize is Tanzania’s key staple food, and smallholder farmers, who supply the majority of the market’s needs, are confronted by a contradiction: even though they regard maize as their primary source of income, it continues to return low yield and costs relative to poverty. For example, 60–70% of the total production cost is labor, and this provides no more than a thin profit margin even in a good year [10]. Climate shocks exacerbate livelihood instability; for example, a drought in Central Tanzania in 2021 lowered maize yields by 40%, and thousands of people become food insecure [11]. In the absence of scalable solutions, these issues have the potential to derail Tanzania on their pathway towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), specifically targeting SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 8 (Decent Work).
Mechanization has developed as a game changer for improved productivity, labor saving, and climate-proof farming. The global evidence supports its potential: in Ghana, the adoption of tractors resulted in a 30% reduction of labor but 25% yield improvement, as planting and plowing was performed in time and at a deeper depth [12]. In the same vein, mechanized irrigation increased maize yields by 40% during drought in Kenya, whereas post-harvest technologies, such as hermetic storage had losses, were cut by 15–20% in Malawi [8,13]. In Tanzania pilot trials in the Morogoro, the use of combine harvester halved the cost of harvesting and grain loss from 10% to 2% [10]. And yet, the adoption rates are still abysmally low, as less than 10% of Tanzanian farmers have access to mechanized tools due to high capital costs, lack of credit options, and the lack of operational machinery in the rental market [3]. Cultural resistance and gender imbalances also limit uptake: women, who make up 70% of smallholder farmers are 30% less likely than men to demand tractor services, as they have limited land ownership and decision-making power [14,15].
Yet, in spite of increasing realization for the inherent potential of mechanization, there remain gaping knowledge voids. The current literature often only considers small sets of technologies but does not assess the aggregate impacts of technology application over the entire technology spectrum used in the maize production (from land preparation to post-harvest handling) cycle [12]. Even less clear are the influences of contextual factors such as interaction of gender relations and land tenure systems on the rate of adoption across the more heterogeneous agro-ecological zones of Tanzania [15]. The environmental trade-offs, including soil compaction by heavy machinery and heightened greenhouse gas emissions, also lack research focus in Sub-Saharan Africa [9]. Moreover, the regional bias on the concentration of research topics has resulted in the marginalization of regions like Ruvuma—a leading maize-producing area with its dynamic weather and institutional uniqueness—in policy debates [11].
The Ruvuma region in Southwestern Tanzania represents some of the intricacies of the mechanization uptake. With 85% of its 1.8 million inhabitants being engaged in agriculture, maize is grown on an estimated 300,000 ha of land per year [16]. The agro-ecological context of the area ranges from moist highlands in Mbinga to dry lowlands in Tunduru, forming micro-climates which complicate uniform mechanization approaches. Yet, despite its importance for agriculture, Ruvuma’s maize yields are just 1.2 tons/ha (below the national average) because people use hand tools and do not apply much fertilizer, in addition to the frequent occurrence of drought [11]. For remote districts like Nyasa, post-harvest losses are over 35% due to poor infrastructure and lack of roads to push the farmer closer to his/her market [16]. However, the region’s location in relation to the Dar es Salaam–Mbeya trade corridor and its increasing youth population offer potential for mechanization-led value chains.
This study fills these gaps by investigating the adoption and effects of mechanization in Ruvuma’s maize sub-sector. The objectives of this study were (1) to examine levels of adoption of mechanization by type of maize production stage (land preparation, planting, plant protection, harvest, and drying) for different categories of small and large maize farmers in the Ruvuma region of Tanzania; (2) to assess the impact of mechanization on maize production and identify important stages that are driving the productivity of mechanization; (3) to analyze yield differences between the farm categories using advanced statistical methods (ANOVA and successful mechanization); and (4) to identify different system constraints that exist that may affect successful adoption of mechanization by smallholders. Combining socioeconomic, agronomic, and statistical expertise, this study aimed to provide insight into policy targeting for upscaling ecologically effective mechanization and reducing yield gaps in the pursuit of improving food security and sustainable agricultural intensification in smallholder-dominated systems.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

This study was conducted in Ruvuma Region, Southern Tanzania (10–11° S, 34–38° E; 63,669 km2), a predominantly rural area with a population of approximately 1.8 million people and a density of 28 people per km2. It is bordered by Lake Nyasa (west), the Tanzania–Mozambique boundary Ruvuma River (south), Morogoro (north), Lindi and Mtwara (east), and Njombe (northwest). It features a tropical climate characterized by distinct wet (November–April) and dry (May–October) seasons, receiving 800–1800 mm annual rainfall (peaking in highlands), with mean temperatures of 20–26 °C (Tanzania Meteorological Authority, 2020 [17]). Topography ranges from low-lying plains (300 m above sea level) to highland plateaus and mountains (Matengo/Lukumburu ranges; ≤2000 m above sea level), overlain by predominantly fertile loamy and clay-loam soils (with localized sandy types), well-suited for maize but erosion-prone in highlands (Mlingano Agricultural Research Institute, 2018 [18]). Agriculture dominates socioeconomic activity, primarily through smallholder farmers cultivating maize (staple crop), sorghum, millet, cassava, coffee, cashew, and tobacco. These geographic and socioeconomic characteristics critically influence mechanization: while fertile soils and maize prominence support yield-enhancing technologies (e.g., land preparation/planting), mountainous terrain restricts machinery access, seasonal rainfall necessitates precise operational timing to avoid soil compaction, and smallholder prevalence with financial and technical constraints underscores the need for adaptive solutions.

2.2. Sampling Methodology

The sampling scheme of this study was performed in such a way that representative and statistically adequate conclusions on the level of mechanization among maize farmers in Ruvuma region could be made out of the findings. A multi-phase design was used that included stratified random sampling with proportional allocation to adjust for variation in farm sizes and levels of mechanization. This approach is consistent with what is recommended for agricultural surveys in Sub-Saharan Africa, dominated by smallholder systems, which have to be carefully stratified to cover variation [3].
The sampling frame was established from a trisection of administrative data sources: village records, agriculture extension networks, and regional government records. These agencies were sources of visual data on the age of farmers, land holding, and the involvement in the historic mechanization programs. To mitigate selection bias, the frame did not include non-maize farmers but targeted only those households that have been involved in maize production for a minimum of two consecutive growing seasons. Working together with local agricultural officers guaranteed the correctness of farm size categorizations and status on mechanization uptake, hence minimizing the biases in self-reported data [8].
Farmers were classified into three groups according to farm size, which is an important criterion influencing the potential for mechanization in Tanzania [10]. This is shown in Table 1 below.
Classification Standards:
Our study’s classification standards align with Tanzania’s National Bureau of Statistics [16], for comparability with national agricultural datasets.
Our mechanization characteristics (partial vs. full) were adapted from [15], reflecting adoption intensity in Sub-Saharan African contexts.
Definitions:
Partial mechanization: Occasional use of machinery (e.g., renting tractors for land preparation).
Full mechanization: Ownership of or consistent access to machinery across the production cycle.
These thresholds reflect Tanzania’s agricultural typology, where 85% of farmers cultivate <5 hectares, while the remaining 15% account for over 40% of maize output [16].
A minimum sample of 373 farmers was calculated using Cochran’s formula for finite populations (Z = 1.96, p = 0.5, e = 0.05, and N = 12,450). Accounting for non-response (~20%) and accessibility constraints, the target sample was reduced to 300. This was allocated proportionally to strata based on farmer population shares (small-scale, 70%, n = 210; medium-scale, 23%, n = 70; and large-scale, 7%, n = 20). Power analysis confirmed 85% power to detect yield differences of ≥0.5 tons/acre (SD = 1.2 tons; α = 0.05), an economically significant threshold [1,19].
This approach draws from LSMS experiences in Tanzania, where successful stratification based on agro-ecological zones and market access improved welfare estimates [20]. However, in contrast to the LSMS, this study included mechanization-specific variables (e.g., activity-level adoption scores) to fill gaps identified by Sims [10]. This also corresponds with the FAO’s guidance for mechanization surveys, stressing the capturing of both extensive (adoption breadth) and intensive (adoption depth) dimensions.

2.3. Data Collection

Methods: Data for this study were collected through a mixed-method approach comprising structured questionnaires, field observation, and secondary data to draw a composite of the multiple dimensions in which mechanization adoption has influenced the productivity of maize in Ruvuma region of Tanzania. This triangulation methodology increased data validity by fact-checking both at source level, as is generally recommended in agricultural research to limit self-reported errors [21,22].
A pre-tested questionnaire was developed for collecting quantitative data on mechanization, farm features, and socioeconomic characteristics. The toolkit was modified from the FAO’s Agricultural Mechanization Survey Guidelines (2020) and previously validated tools in a Tanzania’s specific studies [10,23]. It comprised three modules, as summarized in Table 2 below.
Secondary data contextualized primary findings and provided longitudinal insights:
Government reports: The Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture’s 2021 [24] Mechanization Census offered regional adoption rates, enabling comparison with study samples.
Historical yield data: District-level yield trends from the Ruvuma Agricultural Office identified climate- or policy-driven anomalies.
Peer-reviewed studies: Meta-analyses of Sub-Saharan mechanization impacts [12,25], informed regression variable selection.
Data were harmonized using the FAO’s AGRIS metadata standards, ensuring compatibility with national databases [3,26].

2.4. Data Analysis

A multifaceted statistical methodology was used for analysis in this study to ascertain the association between mechanization uptake, farm size, and maize yield in Tanzania’s Ruvuma region. This work used a combination of descriptive statistics, regression modeling, and inferential tests, relying on Python’s scientific libraries for solid and reproducible analysis. This approach is also consistent with best practices for agri-food analytics by focusing on transparency and methodological rigor [27].
The descriptive statistics presented an earlier-stage description of the data, allowing for a summary of the most important variables and for preliminary data patterns. The percentages and proportions for categorical variables, including farm size category (small, medium, and large) and binary mechanization adoption (yes/no), were estimated. The continuous variables, maize yield (tons/acre) and scores for mechanization for land preparation, planting, plant protection, harvesting, and drying, were summarized using measures of central tendency (mean and median) and dispersion (standard deviation and range). For example, mechanization levels were averaged over activities to calculate an overall Mechanization Index (0–1 scale), providing an overall picture of adoption intensity [15]. Visualizations—in histograms, bar charts, and heat maps—revealed distributions and correlations, like the clustering of mechanized farms in high-rainfall areas. These procedures were based on the guidelines of Sheahan [8], to minimize smallholding agricultural-data misunderstanding.
The effect of mechanization on maize productivity, excluding confounders, was estimated using multiple linear regression (MLR) [28,29]. The model was specified as follows:
Yield per Acrei = β0 + β1 (Land Preparationi) + β2 (Plantingi) + β3 (Plant
Protectioni) + β4 (Harvestingi) + β5 (Dryingi) + ϵi.
where Yield per Acrei is the maize yield (tons/acre) for farmer I, β0 is the constant term, β1–β5 are the estimated coefficients of key mechanization levels of operations, and ϵi is the error term. The mechanization predictors were mean-centered to minimize multicollinearity.
The analysis was performed using Python’s statsmodels library, which produced coefficients, p-values, and R2 values. For instance, a coefficient of β1 = 0.75 (p < 0.01) for land preparation would indicate that a full mechanization (i.e., score = 1) would contribute an additional 0.75 tons/acre to yield over the manual methods.
T-tests: Independent two-sample t-tests compared maize yields between small-scale farmers and the combined group of medium- and large-scale farmers. The null hypothesis (H0) posited no yield difference (μsmall = μmedium/large), while the alternative (H1) suggested a significant difference (μsmall ≠ μmedium/largeμsmall). This test was chosen due to the skewed distribution of farm sizes and the exploratory nature of comparing subsistence versus commercial practices [30,31].
Analysis of variance (ANOVA): A one-way ANOVA was performed to test for statistically significant differences in maize yield among the three farm size categories (small, medium, and large). This test helped assess whether mechanization adoption, which may vary across farm size categories, has a statistically significant impact on maize yield [32].

2.5. Software and Workflow

The data analysis for this study was conducted using Python (version 3.13.1), a programming language widely recognized for its versatility, reproducibility, and extensive library ecosystem in scientific research [33,34,35]. Python’s open-source nature and compatibility with agricultural data analytics frameworks made it an ideal choice for investigating mechanization impacts on maize yields in Tanzania’s Ruvuma region. The pandas library was leveraged for comprehensive data manipulation and cleaning; numpy for foundational numerical computations and array operations [36]; and scipy for implementing key statistical tests, including t-tests and ANOVA. Visualization tasks were executed with matplotlib for generating core plots [37], and seaborn for enhancing statistical graphics with advanced styling [38], while regression modeling relied on statsmodels to rigorously fit and evaluate multiple linear regression specifications. The scripts used for python analysis are provided in the Supplementary Materials File. The workflow for the analysis is summarized in Table 3 below.

3. Results

3.1. Socioeconomic Profile and Mechanization Context

This study surveyed 300 maize farmers in Tanzania’s Ruvuma region, predominantly smallholders cultivating an average of 5.8 acres with a mean yield of 2.0 tons/acre. Medium-scale farmers managed 28.9 acres on average, with a yield of 2.6 tons/acre. Large-scale farmers operated an average of 64.75 acres and achieved the highest yield of 2.9 tons/acre. These yield disparities highlight the differences in productivity tied to farm scale.

3.2. Mechanization Adoption Patterns

Mechanization adoption across maize production stages revealed stark disparities tied to farm scale, underscoring systemic inequities in resource access and technological uptake. As illustrated in Table 4, adoption rates escalate sharply with farm size, reflecting the structural advantages of larger operations.
Smallholder farmers (operating <12 acres) reported mechanization primarily for land preparation (70% adoption). Adoption rates for other stages were significantly lower: planting (44%), plant protection (23%), harvesting (0%), and drying (0%). Communal tractor-sharing programs were the primary mechanism for land preparation. Manual labor was the dominant method for harvesting and drying. Medium-scale farmers reported high adoption of mechanized plant protection (100%). Adoption rates for other stages were land preparation (98%), planting (92%), harvesting (41%), and drying (43%). Large-scale farmers reported high or full mechanization adoption across all stages: land preparation (100%), planting (100%), plant protection (100%), harvesting (95%), and drying (80%). This adoption gradient is further explored in Figure S1, which is provided in the Supplementary Materials File, where a heat-map visualizes mechanization rates according to production stage and farm scale.

3.3. Impact of Mechanization on Maize Yields

A strong positive correlation (r = 0.86, p < 0.01) was observed between the overall level of mechanization and maize yield per acre, indicating that greater mechanization across production stages significantly enhances productivity, a finding consistent across all farm scales. Furthermore, a comparative t-test confirmed that mechanized farmers achieve significantly higher yields than non-mechanized farmers (t-statistic = 27.00; p = 0.000). To assess the impact of mechanization at specific stages while controlling for farm size and scale, multiple linear regression analysis was conducted. The results (Table 5) revealed that mechanization during land preparation (β = 0.75; p < 0.001), planting (β = 0.52; p < 0.001), and plant protection (β = 0.35; p < 0.001) significantly increased maize yield, with land preparation exerting the strongest effect. In contrast, mechanization of harvesting (β = 0.0128; p = 0.832) and drying (β = −0.0014; p = 0.981) showed no statistically significant impact on yield within this sample, suggesting limited benefits from mechanization at these particular stages. The analysis also indicated that larger farm size and scale, as controlled variables, positively influenced yield, with larger-scale farmers deriving greater benefits, likely due to economies of scale.

3.4. Differences in Yields in Relation to Farm Scale

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to compare maize yields across farm sizes, yielding an F-statistic of 40.37 (p = 0.000). This result indicates significant differences in yield by farm scale, with large-scale farmers consistently outperforming medium- and small-scale counterparts, reinforcing the influence of farm size on productivity outcomes.

4. Discussion

This study establishes a statistically significant positive correlation between mechanization intensity and maize yields in Tanzania (r = 0.86; p < 0.01), reinforcing global evidence that mechanization enhances agricultural productivity [12,15,39]. Beyond this confirmation, this research uncovers how mechanization gaps vary across farm scales through a stage-specific lens, offering critical insights with far-reaching policy implications. For small-scale farmers, mechanization is predominantly limited to land preparation, with 70% adoption driven by communal tractor-sharing programs, a model that has shown effectiveness in other parts of Tanzania [39]. However, adoption drops to 0% in harvesting and drying stages due to prohibitive machinery costs and restricted access to post-harvest technologies, compelling reliance on manual labor [40]. Mid-production stages such as planting (44%) and plant protection (23%) also exhibit low uptake, as smallholders prioritize affordability over efficiency. This fragmented adoption sustains labor-intensive practices, resulting in suppressed yields of 2.0 tons/acre and increased vulnerability to climate shocks. These patterns align with Sims [10], who highlight cost, credit constraints, and technical barriers as key impediments to smallholder mechanization, and are further supported by Kotu [40], who found similar challenges in mechanized maize shelling adoption in Tanzania, underscoring the need for targeted interventions to disrupt this productivity trap.
In contrast, medium-scale farms present an adoption paradox: near-complete mechanization in plant protection (100%) and robust mid-production uptake (land preparation, 98%; planting, 92%) reflecting strategic investments in operational efficiency. Yet, post-harvest stages remain underdeveloped, with harvesting at 41% and drying at 43%. This mid-stage bottleneck arises from capital allocation decisions favoring mid-production risk mitigation over post-harvest infrastructure, a phenomenon also observed by Van Loon [41] in their study on scaling mechanization services in smallholder systems, leading to intermediate yields of 2.6 tons/acre. This partial modernization imposes a productivity penalty, suggesting that enhanced post-harvest financing could yield substantial improvements. Large-scale operations, however, achieve near-universal mechanization across all stages (land preparation, planting, and plant protection, 100%; harvesting, 95%; drying, 80%), leveraging economies of scale to invest in integrated technologies like combine harvesters and mechanical dryers. Their yields of 2.9 tons/acre, nearing global benchmarks, illustrate mechanization’s transformative potential when comprehensively applied, supporting its role as a driver of commercial agriculture [39].
This research builds on the established link between farm size and mechanization adoption [10,12] by dissecting stage-specific behaviors, advancing beyond prior studies fixated on singular technologies like tractors [42]. Three key patterns emerge: land preparation serves as the universal entry point, facilitated by communal initiatives; post-harvest stages represent the most persistent gap for small and medium farms; and plant protection emerges as a priority for medium-scale farmers mitigating production risks. This detailed breakdown reveals why aggregate mechanization metrics mask critical bottlenecks, providing a refined framework for tailored interventions, as advocated by Takeshima [42] in their analysis of mechanization effects in Nigeria.
These findings carry clear implications for stakeholders. For smallholders, overcoming cost barriers demands stage-specific solutions, such as extending communal tractor-sharing models to planting and weeding, alongside micro-leasing programs for portable post-harvest tools like small dryers [43]. Medium-scale farmers could address the mid-stage bottleneck through subsidized post-harvest loans, infrastructure collaborations (e.g., communal drying hubs), and contract services for expensive harvesting equipment [41]. Policymakers should pivot from broad subsidies to incentives targeting post-harvest gaps for small and medium farms, an approach supported by Kotu [40] on the effectiveness of targeted financial interventions, while bolstering rural finance through yield-based loans and warehouse receipt systems to support equipment acquisition [39]. The private sector and NGOs have a role in co-developing affordable, modular technologies—such as multi-crop harvesters—and testing pay-per-service models to bridge post-harvest mechanization gaps in fragmented rural settings [43].
Despite its insights, this study has limitations. Its focus on Ruvuma may not fully generalize to other regions, thus warranting comparative analyses across agro-ecological zones, as performed by Van Loon [41] in their multi-regional study. The cross-sectional approach limits our understanding of long-term adoption trends, suggesting a need for longitudinal studies on mechanization’s economic sustainability [40]. Unmeasured factors like soil health or microclimate could also influence yields, and post-harvest technology access merits deeper qualitative exploration of supply-chain constraints [41]. Future research should prioritize stage-specific return-on-investment analyses; gender-disaggregated adoption trends—especially for labor-saving post-harvest tools; and the climate resilience implications of mechanization fragmentation [43]. Together, these efforts can refine strategies to maximize mechanization’s benefits across Tanzania’s diverse farming landscape.

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrates that mechanization significantly enhances maize productivity in Tanzania’s Ruvuma region, while revealing critical disparities in adoption patterns and impacts tied to farm scale and production stage. A strong positive correlation confirms the overall link between mechanization levels and yield. Adoption patterns exhibit stark stratification by farm size. Large-scale operations achieve near-universal mechanization (≥80% across all stages) and the highest yields. Smallholders demonstrate minimal adoption beyond land preparation, with rates plummeting to 0% for harvesting and drying. This results in significantly lower average yields for this critical demographic. Medium-scale farms exhibit intermediate patterns. The principal barrier to equitable adoption is the capital intensity of machinery, compounded by smallholders’ limited access to credit and technical knowledge, hindering their ability to invest in productivity enhancing technologies, particularly at the most impactful stages.
The primary takeaway is that interventions must prioritize affordable access to mechanization for land preparation, planting, and plant protection technologies, where the evidence shows the strongest yield returns for smallholders. Overcoming the adoption gap necessitates targeted financial mechanisms such as cooperative machinery-sharing models, subsidized leasing for essential early-stage equipment, and tailored credit products coupled with comprehensive technical training. Furthermore, the negligible yield impact of mechanized harvesting and drying necessitates a paradigm shift; promoting these technologies to smallholders requires justification based on labor savings, quality preservation, or loss reduction, rather than anticipated productivity gains alone. Bridging this mechanization gap is fundamental for achieving equitable agricultural intensification, enhancing food security, and improving rural livelihoods in Tanzania. Sustainable progress hinges on inclusive policies that empower smallholders to adopt high-impact technologies.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agriculture15131412/s1, The scripts used for python analysis are provided in the Supplementary Materials File; Figure S1: Average Mechanization Levels by Farm Size.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.J.M.; funding acquisition, M.Y.; methodology, J.J.M.; software, J.J.M.; supervision, M.Y.; writing—original draft, J.J.M.; writing—review and editing, M.M. and A.A.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The investigations were conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki (1975, revised in 2013). This study adhered strictly to ethical guidelines for research involving human subjects.

Informed Consent Statement

This study adhered strictly to ethical guidelines for research involving human subjects. Informed consent was obtained from all participating farmers, and they were assured of the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses. Participation in this study was entirely voluntary, and farmers retained the right to withdraw from this study at any point. The collected data were solely used for the purposes of this research study and were stored securely.

Data Availability Statement

The programming code (python scripts) used for data analysis and visualization is included in the article. The survey data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Rowhani, P.; Lobell, D.B.; Linderman, M.; Ramankutty, N. Climate variability and crop production in Tanzania. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2011, 151, 449–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Suleiman, R.A.; Rosentrater, K.A.; Bern, C.J. Current maize production, postharvest losses, and the risk of mycotoxins contamination in Tanzania. Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2015, 58, 615–625. [Google Scholar]
  3. FAO. Tanzania Country Programming Framework 2022–2026; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  4. Barrett, C.B.; Christiaensen, L.; Sheahan, M.; Shimeles, A. On the structural transformation of rural Africa. J. Afr. Econ. 2017, 26 (Suppl. 1), i11–i35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Macauley, H.; Ramadjita, T. Cereals in sub-Saharan Africa: The political economy of food staples. In IFPRI Discussion Paper; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  6. Tittonell, P.; Muriuki, A.; Shepherd, K.D.; Mugendi, D.; Kaizzi, K.C.; Okeyo, J.; Verchot, L.; Coe, R.; Vanlauwe, B. The diversity of rural livelihoods and their influence on soil fertility in agricultural systems of East Africa. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  7. Cairns, J.E.; Hellin, J.; Sonder, K.; Araus, J.L.; MacRobert, J.F.; Thierfelder, C.; Prasanna, B.M. Adapting maize production to climate change in Sub-Saharan Africa. Food Secur. 2013, 5, 345–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sheahan, M.; Barrett, C.B.; Goldvale, H. Human health and pesticide use in Sub-Saharan Africa. Agric. Econ. 2016, 47, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Giller, K.E.; Delaune, T.; Silva, J.V.; Descheemaeker, K.; Van De Ven, G.; Schut, A.G.; van Wijk, M.; Hammond, J.; Hochman, Z.; Taulya, G.; et al. The future of farming: Who will produce our food? Food Secur. 2021, 13, 1073–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sims, B.; Kienzle, J.; Mkomwa, S. Mechanization of conservation agriculture for smallholders: Issues and options for sustainable intensification. Environments 2016, 3, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Luhunga, P.M.; Kijazi, A.L.; Chang’a, L.; Kondowe, A.; Ng’ongolo, H.; Mtongori, H. Climate change projections for Tanzania based on high-resolution regional climate models. Int. J. Climatol. 2017, 38, 743–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Baudron, F.; Sims, B.; Justice, S.; Kahan, D.G.; Rose, R.; Mkomwa, S.; Kaumbutho, P.; Sariah, J.; Nazare, R.; Moges, G.; et al. Re-examining appropriate mechanization in Eastern and Southern Africa: Two-wheel tractors, conservation agriculture, and private sector involvement. Food Secur. 2015, 7, 889–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Namara, R.E.; Hope, L.; Sarpong, E.O.; de Fraiture, C.; Owusu, D. Adoption patterns and constraints to small-scale irrigation in northern Ghana. Agric. Water Manag. 2014, 131, 194–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Doss, C.; Seymour, G.; Summerfield, G.; Twyman, J. Women’s empowerment in agriculture: Disentangling information and role-model effects in rural Malawi. World Dev. 2018, 108, 307–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kienzle, J.; Ashburner, J.E.; Sims, B.G. Mechanization for rural development: A review of patterns and progress. In Integrated Crop Management; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2013; Volume 20. [Google Scholar]
  16. URT. National Sample Census of Agriculture 2019/2020: Regional Report—Ruvuma. United Republic of Tanzania National Bureau of Statistics. 2022. Available online: https://www.nbs.go.tz/nbs/takwimu/Agriculture/2019-20_Agri_Census_Main_Report.pdf (accessed on 3 June 2025).
  17. Tanzania Meteorological Authority. Statement on the Status of Tanzania Climate in 2020. Available online: https://www.meteo.go.tz/uploads/publications/sw1628770614-TMA%20BOOK%202020%20-2021%20UPDATE.pdf (accessed on 12 June 2025).
  18. Mlingano Agricultural Research Institute. 2018. Available online: https://www.tari.go.tz/centres/tari-mlingano (accessed on 12 June 2025).
  19. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 1988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. World Bank. Tanzania National Panel Survey 2014–2015. In Living Standards Measurement Study; National Bureau of Statistics: Dodoma, Tanzania, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Boettiger, C. An introduction to Docker for reproducible research. ACM SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev. 2015, 49, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Carletto, G.; Jolliffe, D.; Banerjee, R. From tragedy to renaissance: Improving agricultural data for better policies. J. Dev. Stud. 2015, 51, 133–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Fischer, H.; Opiyo, R.; Lee, J. KoBoToolbox in the wild: Challenges and opportunities in mobile data collection. Dev. Eng. 2020, 5, 100052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. National Bureau of Statistics. National Sample Census of Agriculture 2019/20: Key Findings Report. United Republic of Tanzania. 2021. Available online: https://www.nbs.go.tz/nbs/takwimu/Agriculture/2019-20_Agri_Census_Key_Findings.pdf (accessed on 12 June 2025).
  25. Gujarati, D.N.; Porter, D.C. Basic Econometrics; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  26. Wilkinson, M.D.; Dumontier, M.; Aalbersberg, I.J.; Appleton, G.; Axton, M.; Baak, A.; Blomberg, N.; Boiten, J.W.; da Silva Santos, L.B.; Bourne, P.E.; et al. The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management. Sci. Data 2016, 3, 160018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gelman, A.; Hill, J. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kutner, M.H.; Nachtsheim, C.J.; Neter, J. Applied Linear Regression Models; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  29. Little, R.J.A. A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1988, 83, 1198–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics; Sage: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  31. James, G.; Witten, D.; Hastie, T.; Tibshirani, R. An Introduction to Statistical Learning; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Tabachnick, B.G.; Fidell, L.S. Using Multivariate Statistics; Pearson: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  33. McKinney, W. Data structures for statistical computing in Python. In Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, Austin, TX, USA, 28 June–3 July 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Seabold, S.; Perktold, J. Statsmodels: Econometric and statistical modeling with Python. In Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, Austin, TX, USA, 28 June–3 July 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Van Rossum, G.; Drake, F.L. Python 3 Reference Manual; CreateSpace: Scotts Valley, CA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  36. Harris, C.R.; Millman, K.J.; van der Walt, S.J.; Gommers, R.; Virtanen, P.; Cournapeau, D.; Wieser, E.; Taylor, J.; Berg, S.; Smith, N.J.; et al. Array programming with NumPy. Nature 2020, 585, 357–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hunter, J.D. Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment. Comput. Sci. Eng. 2007, 9, 90–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Waskom, M.L. seaborn: Statistical data visualization. J. Open Source Softw. 2021, 6, 3021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mrema, G.C.; Kahan, D.G.; Agyei-Holmes, A. Agricultural mechanization in Tanzania: An overview and analysis of trends. In An Evolving Paradigm of Agricultural Mechanization Development: How Much Can Africa Learn from Asia? Diao, X., Takeshima, H., Zhang, X., Eds.; CGIAR Research Program on Maize; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2020; pp. 457–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kotu, B.H.; Abate, T.; Alene, A.D.; Manyong, V. Farmers’ willingness to invest in mechanized maize shelling and potential impacts in Tanzania. Agribusiness 2023, 39, 854–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Van Loon, J.; Woltering, L.; Krupnik, T.J.; Baudron, F.; Boa, M.; Govaerts, B. Scaling agricultural mechanization services in smallholder farming systems: Case studies from sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin America. Agric. Syst. 2018, 180, 102792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Takeshima, H.; Hatzenbuehler, P.L.; Edeh, H.O. Effects of agricultural mechanization on economies of scope in crop production in Nigeria. Agric. Syst. 2020, 177, 102691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Baudron, F.; Nazare, R.; Matangi, D. The role of mechanization in transformation of smallholder agriculture in Southern Africa: Empirical evidence from Zimbabwe. In Sustainable Agricultural Mechanization in Africa; Routledge: London, UK, 2019; pp. 297–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Farm size classification and characteristics.
Table 1. Farm size classification and characteristics.
Farm ScaleAcreageHectaresCharacteristics
Small-scale<12 acres≤4.86 hectaresSubsistence-focused; reliance on manual labor
Medium-scale12–50 acres4.86–20.23 hectaresPartial mechanization for key activities
Large-scale>50 acres>20.23 hectaresCommercial operations with full mechanization
Table 2. Data collection framework.
Table 2. Data collection framework.
CategoryVariables/ActivitiesDescription
DemographicsFarm sizeCategorized as
- Small-scale: <12 acres
- Medium-scale: 12–50 acres
- Large-scale: >50 acres
Mechanization practicesLand preparationScored as
- 0 (Manual): Hand tools
- 0.5 (Partial): Occasional tractor rental
- 1 (Full): Ownership/consistent access
PlantingScored as
- 0: Manual sowing
- 0.5: Semi-mechanized (e.g., seed drills)
- 1: Fully mechanized planters
Plant protectionScored as
- 0: Manual pesticide application
- 0.5: Partial use of sprayers
- 1: Mechanized sprayers/drones
HarvestingScored as
- 0: Manual harvesting
- 0.5: Partial use of harvesters
- 1: Combine harvesters
DryingScored as
- 0: Sun-drying on ground
- 0.5: Raised racks
- 1: Mechanical dryers
Maize yieldYield per acre (2021–2022)Self-reported yield (tons/acre), cross-validated with cooperative records.
- Methods: Post-harvest timing, visual aids (grain sacks)
Table 3. Data analysis workflow.
Table 3. Data analysis workflow.
StepDescriptionTools/Methods
1. Data cleaning and pre-processing• Missing data handled via imputation (mean and median) or removal.
• Categorical variables (e.g., farm size) encoded into numerical values (small = 0, medium = 1, and large = 2).
pandas (dropna, fillna), scikit-learn (SimpleImputer)
2. Exploratory data analysis (EDA)• Descriptive statistics (mean, SD, and frequencies) calculated.
• Visualizations (histograms and scatter plots) generated to explore mechanization–yield relationships and outliers.
matplotlib, seaborn, numpy
3. Hypothesis testingT-tests: Compared small-scale vs. medium/large-scale yields.
• ANOVA: Tested yield differences across all farm sizes.
scipy.stats (ttest_ind, f_oneway), post-hoc Tukey HSD
4. Regression modeling• Multiple linear regression (MLR) to assess mechanization’s impact on yield, controlling for farm size and scale.statsmodels (OLS), variance inflation factor (VIF) checks
Table 4. Mechanization adoption by production stage (%).
Table 4. Mechanization adoption by production stage (%).
StageSmall-ScaleMedium-ScaleLarge-Scale
Land preparation7094100
Planting4489100
Plant protection2310093
Harvesting04195
Drying04380
Table 5. Regression coefficients for mechanization stage.
Table 5. Regression coefficients for mechanization stage.
VariableCoefficientStandard Errort-Statisticp-Value
Intercept1.180.02645.1780.000
Land preparation0.750.04018.450.000
Planting0.520.04212.280.000
Plant protection0.350.0379.300.000
Harvesting0.01280.0600.2120.832
Drying−0.00140.061−0.0230.981
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Majebele, J.J.; Yang, M.; Mateen, M.; Tola, A.A. Mechanization and Maize Productivity in Tanzania’s Ruvuma Region: A Python-Based Analysis on Adoption and Yield Impact. Agriculture 2025, 15, 1412. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15131412

AMA Style

Majebele JJ, Yang M, Mateen M, Tola AA. Mechanization and Maize Productivity in Tanzania’s Ruvuma Region: A Python-Based Analysis on Adoption and Yield Impact. Agriculture. 2025; 15(13):1412. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15131412

Chicago/Turabian Style

Majebele, James Jackson, Minli Yang, Muhammad Mateen, and Abreham Arebe Tola. 2025. "Mechanization and Maize Productivity in Tanzania’s Ruvuma Region: A Python-Based Analysis on Adoption and Yield Impact" Agriculture 15, no. 13: 1412. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15131412

APA Style

Majebele, J. J., Yang, M., Mateen, M., & Tola, A. A. (2025). Mechanization and Maize Productivity in Tanzania’s Ruvuma Region: A Python-Based Analysis on Adoption and Yield Impact. Agriculture, 15(13), 1412. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15131412

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop