Economics of Production and Marketing of Wheat Seed in Egypt

This research aimed to study the economics of wheat seeds, relying on both published secondary data and primary data collected from a field sample totaling 80 observations. The sample included 30 farmers, 17 seed production companies (3 public), 3 distributors, 20 seed retailers, and 10 government outlets. The survey covered the 2024 season. The study employed the farm budget analysis model to measure profitability and costs for both production and marketing stages, to analyze consumer pound distribution, and to estimate the marketing efficiency coefficient. The results indicated that, although certified seeds covered only about 42.9% of the cultivated wheat area during the study period on average, around 20% of these seeds were recycled. Consequently, the actual average distributed quantity covered only 33.18% of the cultivated area (2011–2024 average), pointing to a significant shortage of certified seeds. The average cost of producing one ton of seeds was estimated at 8,949 EGP, with rental value (imputed land rent) accounting for about 47% of total costs, as most land is owner-cultivated. The selling price per ton at the farm gate was estimated at 15330EGP, yielding a positive net profit of about 37.7% of the farm-gate selling price, which provides an incentive for expanding the activity. The analysis identified three main marketing channels: (1) contract farmer → Private production company → retailer, covering about 74.4% of seed production in the sample; (2) contract farmer → government company → government outlets, covering 14.8%; and (3) contract farmer → private company → distributor → retailer, covering 10.8%. Regarding consumer pound distribution, farmers received about 53.19%, which increased to 57.45% when contracting with government companies due to bypassing the retail stage. Companies’ shares ranged between 33.8% and 39.4%. The most efficient channel was contracting with government companies, where seed prices were about 7.41% lower, and the marketing efficiency coefficient was 51%. In comparison, channels (1) and (2) recorded lower efficiency levels46%1indicating relatively weak efficiency overall.