This article examines the structural dynamics and key challenges within Thailand’s maize value chain, a critical input for the feed and livestock industries. It identifies persistent structural constraints, including low productivity relative to global competitors, volatile input-driven production costs, and high climate vulnerability due to reliance on rainfed agriculture. Maize cultivation, particularly in upland areas, also contributes to environmental degradation, notably deforestation and crop residue burning linked to PM2.5 pollution. From a trade perspective, Thailand has become a net importer as domestic supply falls short of rising demand, creating tensions between domestic protection measures and downstream competitiveness. In response, the article proposes a strategic policy realignment across three dimensions: production-side measures to enhance productivity and sustainability; price and cost policies to improve risk management and reduce market distortions; and trade policies to strengthen supply security and align with sustainability standards. These directions aim to support long-term economic resilience while ensuring environmental sustainability in Thailand’s agricultural and livestock sectors.

Keywords:feed maize, value chain, raw material security, trade sustainability, PM2.5, agricultural policy

1. BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE

Although Thailand’s agricultural sector has long played a vital role in the country’s economy and food security, its production structure continues to reflect significant structural challenges. A key issue lies in the persistent imbalance between labor and value creation: a relatively large share of the workforce remains employed in agriculture, while the sector contributes a comparatively small share to national output. Recent data indicate that agriculture accounts for only around 8–9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), despite employing approximately 30–40 percent of the labor force. This disparity highlights underlying problems of low productivity, slow income growth among farmers, and the economic vulnerability of agricultural households. These challenges are not only economic in nature but are also closely linked to broader issues of social stability and environmental sustainability.

Within this context, feed maize (hereafter referred to as “maize”) emerges as a strategically important crop in Thailand’s food system. It serves as a key input for the animal feed industry, which underpins the country’s livestock production and meat export sectors. Demand for maize has continued to rise in line with the expansion of the poultry and swine industries. However, domestic production capacity remains insufficient to meet this growing demand, resulting in a significant reliance on imports from neighboring countries, particularly within the framework of ASEAN free trade. To address this gap, the government has implemented a range of policy measures aimed at stabilizing prices and safeguarding farmers’ incomes.

Nevertheless, Thailand’s maize value chain faces multifaceted challenges. These include higher production costs relative to neighboring countries, issues related to product quality and post-harvest management, and risks from pests and diseases. Environmental concerns have also become increasingly prominent, particularly those related to deforestation, land use in watershed areas, and the burning of crop residues, which is a major contributor to air pollution—especially particulate matter (PM2.5)—in Thailand. Such challenges not only threaten natural resource sustainability and public health but may also evolve into trade constraints as importing countries place greater emphasis on environmental standards and sustainable production practices.

Against the backdrop of structural economic imbalances, global market volatility, and rising environmental pressures, this article is derived and synthesized from prior research on policy proposals for enhancing the stability and trade competitiveness of field crops (cassava and maize) in Thailand[1]. It aims to examine and propose value chain management strategies for maize, with a particular focus on strengthening raw material security and promoting long-term trade sustainability. It adopts a comprehensive value chain perspective—encompassing upstream, midstream, and downstream segments—to analyze both production and trade dimensions. The analysis seeks to identify key mechanisms and policy interventions that can enhance the stability of raw material quantity and quality, reduce vulnerabilities faced by farmers and the animal feed industry, and promote environmentally sustainable production practices. Ultimately, the study aims to strengthen the long-term competitiveness of Thailand’s agricultural and livestock sectors, grounded in economic resilience, social inclusiveness, and environmental sustainability.

2.MAIZE VALUE CHAIN IN THAILAND

The maize value chain in Thailand can be broadly divided into three main stages: upstream, midstream, and downstream. Each stage involves different actors with distinct roles and functions, as outlined below (Figure 1).

Upstream
The upstream segment consists of seed producers—both public and private—and maize farmers.

• Public seed producers: The Department of Agriculture plays a central role in developing improved maize varieties aimed at increasing yield and enhancing resilience to climatic conditions. Key research institutions include the National Corn and Sorghum Research Center and the Nakhon Sawan Field Crops Research Center.
• Private seed producers: The private sector comprises both domestic companies and multinational corporations. These firms focus on developing and distributing high-quality hybrid seeds with superior yield performance. Although such seeds are relatively expensive, they are widely adopted by farmers due to their higher productivity.
• Maize farmers: Farmers can be broadly categorized into two groups: (1) those engaged in contract farming arrangements with seed companies, which typically provide inputs, technical support, and guaranteed market access, thereby reducing production and price risks, though often limiting farmers’ bargaining power and flexibility; and (2) independent farmers producing maize for the open market, allowing greater autonomy in decision-making but exposing them to higher price volatility, input cost fluctuations, and constraints in accessing quality inputs and support services.

Midstream
The midstream segment includes traders, collection centers, and agricultural cooperatives.

• Traders and collection centers: These actors serve as intermediaries purchasing maize directly from farmers. Some traders operate informal contract-like systems (locally known as “kiao”[2]), providing credit to farmers in exchange for forward purchase agreements. In some cases, traders also own drying facilities (silos) or sell maize onward to larger collection centers or feed mills.
  Agricultural cooperatives and Collectors: Cooperatives typically purchase maize from their members at slightly higher prices than private traders. However, many collectors face constraints related to management capacity and financial liquidity. As a result, their role is often limited to aggregation before reselling to traders or collection centers.

Downstream
The downstream segment consists primarily of feed mills and exporters.

• Feed mills: Feed mills are the largest buyers of maize and play a dominant role in determining procurement standards, such as a maximum moisture content of 14.5 percent and, in some cases, requirements for traceability certification. These mills typically prefer sourcing large volumes from traders or collection centers rather than directly from smallholder farmers.
• Exporters: Exporters currently play a relatively minor role compared to feed mills. They generally purchase lower-quality maize that does not meet feed mill standards, often at prices below factory-gate levels. In the past, there were instances where traders imported lower-quality maize from neighboring countries such as Laos and Myanmar and blended it with domestic maize for export. However, the role of maize exports has significantly declined and is now nearly negligible.

Figure 1 Thailand’s Maize Value Chain

Note. Adapted from Nipon Poapongsakorn et al. (2018).

In summary, the Thai maize market is characterized by a relatively small number of large buyers, with the government also playing a role in influencing prices and related policy measures. Feed mills effectively determine procurement prices at the trader level, while traders set purchasing prices for farmers, who largely act as price takers. Farmers often receive prices below benchmark levels when their maize exceeds the standard moisture threshold of 14.5 percent and/or fails to meet quality requirements.

In addition to conventional maize production, there has been increasing support for the cultivation of silage maize as an alternative, particularly in areas with a high concentration of nearby livestock farms. This system allows for multiple production cycles per year and offers greater income stability for farmers, especially when they are organized into groups and receive technical support from the public sector.

3. OVERVIEW OF MAIZE PRODUCTION, TRADE, PRICES, AND COSTS

3.1 Production
Data from the Office of Agricultural Economics indicate that Thailand’s cultivated area for maize expanded to a peak of approximately 12 million rai during 1985–1986, before declining steadily to around 6.3 million rai by 2007. Land-use changes toward other cash crops largely drove this contraction. Although there was a slight recovery during 2010–2012, the cultivated area has since fluctuated within the range of 6–7 million rai up to the present (Figure 2).

In terms of production, output declined during 1984–1993 in line with the reduction in cultivated area. However, since 1993, production has shown an upward trend, albeit with some year-to-year volatility. Output reached nearly 5 million tons in 2011–2012, before moderating slightly and stabilizing at around 4–5 million tons in recent years. This suggests that total production has not decreased proportionally with the reduction in cultivated area.

Major production areas for maize in Thailand are concentrated in the Northern, Central, and Northeastern regions. The provinces with the largest cultivated areas include Phetchabun, Nakhon Ratchasima, and Tak (Figure 3).

A key factor underlying this trend is the sustained increase in yield per rai over the long term. Average yield rose from 389 kilograms per rai in 1984 to 748 kilograms per rai in 2024, representing an average annual increase of approximately 1.6% (Figure 4). This improvement reflects gains in productivity driven by the adoption of high-yield hybrid varieties, as well as increased use of fertilizers and agrochemicals. Nevertheless, yields remain highly volatile. More than 97% of cultivated areas are located outside irrigated zones and rely primarily on rainfall, making production highly vulnerable to droughts, climate variability, as well as pests and diseases. In addition, farmers’ income constraints in certain periods have led to reduced production inputs when prices are high, further affecting yield levels from year to year.

Maize is predominantly cultivated in the first crop cycle (rainy season), which accounts for nearly 90% of the total cultivated area, while the second crop (dry season) represents only about 10% (Figure 5). In terms of water management, the majority of maize (approximately 96.3%) is grown in non-irrigated areas, resulting in a high degree of exposure to weather-related risks. Notably, average yields in irrigated areas are only slightly higher than those in non-irrigated areas.

Figure 2: Planted Area, Harvested Area, and Production of Maize, 1984–2024

Note. Author’s compilation based on data from the Office of Agricultural Economics.

Figure 3:Maize Production by Province, 2022

Note. Author’s compilation based on data from the Office of Agricultural Economics.

Figure 4: Average Yield per Rai of Maize in Thailand, 1984–2024

Note. Author’s compilation based on data from the Office of Agricultural Economics.

Figure 5: Share of Maize Cultivated Area: First vs. Second Crop, 1995–2024

Note.  Author’s compilation based on data from the Office of Agricultural Economics.

Figure 6: Maize Productivity: First vs. Second Crop, 1995–2024

Note.  Author’s compilation based on data from the Office of Agricultural Economics.

3.2.Trad
In the past, maize was one of Thailand’s key export crops. However, the continued expansion of the livestock sector and the feed industry has led Thailand to transition into a net importer since 2019, with net imports exceeding 1 million tons annually since 2020.

According to the Thai Feed Mill Association, demand for maize as a primary feed ingredient is estimated at 8–9 million tons per year, accounting for approximately 50% of total feed inputs. In contrast, domestic production capacity remains limited at around 4–5 million tons annually (Table 1). This supply gap has necessitated increased reliance on imports from neighboring countries under the ASEAN Free Trade Area framework, particularly Myanmar, Cambodia, and Laos, where imports benefit from tariff exemptions.

BOX 1 Maize silage refers to the whole maize plant harvested at the dough stage—typically 80–85 days after planting—when the kernels contain a milky endosperm. The harvested crop, including the maize ear, is then chopped, compacted, and ensiled to preserve its nutritional value through fermentation. As a high-energy forage, maize silage is widely used as a primary feed for dairy and beef cattle, as well as other ruminants. In Thailand, several community enterprises have developed integrated production systems for maize silage, encompassing cultivation, processing, and marketing. These systems often utilize advanced compaction and baling technologies, supported by forward contracting arrangements with feed mills or livestock farms. A key advantage of silage maize cultivation is its shorter growing cycle compared to grain maize. This allows farmers to achieve up to two cropping cycles per year while avoiding common post-harvest challenges, such as high moisture content and fungal contamination (e.g., aflatoxins) typically associated with dried grain. Consequently, maize silage production represents a promising alternative for farmers located near large-scale livestock hubs or dairy cooperatives, particularly when supported by collective organization and public sector technical assistance.

Nevertheless, importation is subject to significant constraints, including restrictive import windows and high tariff-rate quotas under Thailand’s WTO commitments. As a result, feed manufacturers have increasingly turned to substitute feed ingredients. In addition, it is estimated that informal cross-border imports from neighboring countries may range between 0.8 and 1 million tons per year, enabling feed mills to optimize feed formulations and minimize production costs in response to prevailing raw material prices.

Figure 7: Estimated Share of Feed Ingredient Demand in Thailand, 2023

Note.  Thai Feed Mill Association, as cited in Wannawisa and Itsarawadee, 2024.

Table 1 : Maize Demand in Thailand

Year	Estimated Domestic Demand (Million tons) 1/	Exports 2/		Imports 2/
		Quantity (Million tons)	Value (Million tons)	Quantity (Million tons)	Value (Million tons)
2019	8.51	0.002	17.85	0.68	4,772.17
2020	8.34	0.001	6.41	1.59	8,687.96
2021	8.57	0.027	256.79	1.83	12,722.79
2022	8.11	0.001	11.17	1.48	15,022.42
2023	8.44	0.0001	2.41	1.33	15,187.93
2024	8.99	–	–	2.01	19,426.90
Growth (%) 3/	1.36	-63.95	-45.50	1.53	19.56
2025*	9.20	0.0000005	0.22	1.46	14,185.36

Note. Major Agricultural Commodity Situation and Outlook 2026, Office of Agricultural Economics.

* Estimated

^1/ Data retrieved from Thai Feed Mill Association

^2/ Data retrieved from the Customs Department

^3/ Compound Annual Growth Rate from 2019-2024

Figure 8: Trends in Maize Imports and Exports, 2010–2023

Note. Author’s compilation based on data from Foreign Trade Statistics of Thailand, Ministry of Commerce.

Table 2: Thailand’s Maize Import by Country, 2024

Rank	Country	Import quantity (tons)	Share (%)	Import value (Million USD)	Share (%)
	World	2,011,433	100.0%	534.0	100.0%
1	Myanmar	1,750,024	87.0%	469.4	87.9%
2	Laos	253,659	12.6%	62.4	11.7%
3	Cambodia	7,750	0.4%	2.2	0.4%

Note. Author’s compilation based on data from Foreign Trade Statistics of Thailand, Ministry of Commerce.

Table 3: Thailand’s Maize Seed Exports by Country, 2024

Rank	Country	Export quantity (tons)	Share (%)	Export value (Million USD)	Share (%)
	World	27,530	100.0%	85.9	100.0%
1	Pakistan	9,919	36.0%	27.4	31.9%
2	Vietnam	3,937	14.3%	14.0	16.3%
3	Myanmar	4,251	15.4%	11.1	12.9%

Note. Author’s compilation based on data from Foreign Trade Statistics of Thailand, Ministry of Commerce.

3.3 Prices and Production Costs
Maize prices exhibit year-to-year volatility. On average, over the past decade (2015–2024), prices have shown an inverse relationship with the volume of output entering the market. In particular, market supply typically peaks toward the end of the year (October–December), when the largest quantities of maize are released, contributing to downward pressure on prices (Figure 9).

Figure 9: Seasonal Cycle and Inverse Relationship between Maize Production and Prices in Thailand (2018–2022 Average)

Note.  Author’s compilation based on data from the Office of Agricultural Economics.

Total cost per rai has shown a steady upward trend. Over the past decade, it increased from 4,526.63 baht per rai in 2015 to 5,342.02 baht per rai in 2024, representing an average annual growth rate of 1.86% (Table 4).

In terms of cost structure, the majority of total costs is attributable to variable costs, which have increased at an average rate of 2.65% per year. In contrast, fixed costs have declined at an average rate of -2.21% per year. This indicates that the primary cost burden for farmers has increasingly shifted toward variable inputs, such as seeds, fertilizers, and labor.

Table 4: Cost Structure of Maize Production, 2015 and 2024

Item	2015	2024	Growth (%)
1. Variable costs (Baht/rai)	3,659.47	4,632.70	2.65%
2. Fixed costs (Baht/rai)	867.16	709.32	-2.21%
3. Total cost per rai	4,526.63	5,342.02	1.86%
4. Total cost per kilogram (Baht)	7.40	7.28	-0.18%
5. Net return per rai (Baht)	204.13	786.88	16.17%
6. Net return per kilogram (Baht)	0.33	1.07	13.96%

Note.  Author’s compilation based on data from the Office of Agricultural Economics.

4. KEY GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND MEASURES

The formulation of policy directions and key measures is overseen by the Maize Policy and Management Committee (MPMC), which serves as an integrated mechanism bringing together public agencies, the private sector, and political representatives. The committee comprises representatives from relevant ministries, including the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, the Ministry of Industry, and the Ministry of Commerce, as well as representatives from parliamentary mechanisms, farmer organizations, and related trade associations. The Minister of Commerce serves as the chair, while the Director-General of the Department of Internal Trade acts as the committee’s secretary. The MPMC plays a central role in formulating and overseeing structural-level policies across the entire maize value chain, encompassing production, price setting, and market stabilization, as well as trade measures and import–export management.

The following section presents the key policy measures in each area, including policies on production promotion and regulation, income guarantee and price-setting mechanisms, and international trade policy and the management of feed ingredient imports.

4.1 Production Policies

• Promotion of maize cultivation in suitable areas: The Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives has implemented the 2024/25 dry-season maize cultivation program, targeting an additional 1 million rai of cultivated area. The initiative aims to reduce import dependence while improving product quality to meet market standards.
• Support for credit access and production technologies: The government has introduced an interest rate subsidy scheme for stockpiling, increasing the subsidy from 3% to 4%, alongside credit support for farmer institutions to aggregate output and enhance value addition. These measures are complemented by the promotion of productivity-enhancing technologies aimed at increasing yields per rai, reducing production costs, and lowering the use of chemical inputs.
• Environmental measures and PM2.5 mitigation: The Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) PM2.5 Free program has been implemented to curb crop residue burning by promoting alternative residue management practices, such as mechanical removal and soil incorporation, alongside monitoring and certification mechanisms. In parallel, private sector actors, including large corporations such as Charoen Pokphand Group, have introduced procurement policies that exclude maize sourced from areas linked to burning or deforestation. These measures create market-based incentives for farmers to adopt more sustainable practices, while also increasing pressure to improve traceability and compliance across the supply chain.

4.2 Price and Cost Management Policies

• Income guarantee scheme (2019–2022/23): The program set a target price of 8.50 baht/kg (at 14.5% moisture content), with eligibility limited to a maximum of 30 rai per household. Compensation was provided for the price gap when market prices fell below the target level, while no payments were made when market prices exceeded the benchmark. The scheme was discontinued after 2023.
• Price-setting measures for market stabilization: The Maize Policy and Management Committee (MPMC) has established indicative procurement price guidelines, such as 7.05 baht/kg (at 30% moisture content) for collectors and 9.80 baht/kg (at 14.5% moisture content) for feed mills. These measures are complemented by interest rate subsidies for stockholding and efforts to expand marketing channels in order to alleviate supply-side pressures.

4.3 Trade and Commercial Policies

• Domestic maize procurement requirement for wheat imports (3:1 Ratio): Since 2016, Thailand has implemented a policy requiring wheat importers to procure domestically produced maize at a ratio of 3:1 (domestic maize to imported wheat) in order to ensure the absorption of domestic output. Temporary relaxations have been granted in certain periods, such as in 2022, in response to the impacts of the Russia–Ukraine War.
• Market access under trade frameworks and import quotas: Thailand has liberalized market access under the frameworks of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA). Under its WTO commitments, import quotas are allocated to the Public Warehouse Organization, allowing imports of up to 54,700 tons per year at a tariff rate of 20%. A temporary tariff exemption (0%) was also granted in 2022.
• Measures to prevent smuggling and regulate the market: Authorities have strengthened monitoring of imports outside designated time windows and enhanced oversight of trading activities to promote market transparency, reduce price distortions, and maintain domestic market stability.

5. CRITICAL ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

At present, Thailand’s maize production chain is facing complex structural challenges, including low productivity, cost volatility driven by external factors, and increasing pressures from emerging global rules on environmental sustainability and technological standards. This section summarizes the key issues that reflect systemic constraints as well as opportunities for development, in order to provide an overview of the challenges and emerging risks that Thailand faces across multiple dimensions.

5.1 Production and Operational Costs
Thailand’s maize production faces multiple structural challenges. Farmers are increasingly confronted with rising production costs, particularly for chemical fertilizers, seeds, and agrochemicals, whose prices have been highly volatile in response to global energy crises and supply chain disruptions. Although fertilizer prices have begun to ease since 2022, they remain elevated compared to historical levels. In addition, the sector is experiencing a significant decline in the agricultural labor force over the past decade, alongside a transition toward an aging farming population, with an average age of approximately 62 years. This has led to rising wage costs and growing concerns over the long-term sustainability and generational continuity of agricultural livelihoods.

Thailand also faces persistently low yields per rai. This is largely due to the fact that most cultivation areas are located outside irrigated zones and lack efficient water management systems. These constraints are compounded by limitations in seed technology. While Thailand is a regional hub for hybrid seed production, regulatory restrictions and societal concerns have limited the adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), unlike in other major producing countries. As a result, farmers are at a competitive disadvantage and are unable to fully realize potential yields. Notably, under controlled experimental conditions or in suitable areas, Thai seed varieties can achieve yields more than twice the current national average. Furthermore, maize is often harvested at moisture levels exceeding standard thresholds, which directly affects product quality and the prices received by farmers. This is compounded by the limited effectiveness of large-scale farmer grouping initiatives, which in many cases have not been well aligned with local agro-ecological conditions

Figure 10: Comparison of Maize Yields across Major Producing Countries, 2023/24

Note. Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.

Moreover, maize production in Thailand is largely concentrated in upland and remote areas—such as Chiang Rai, Nan, Tak, Mae Hong Son, and Phetchabun—where the number of buyers is limited and large purchasers tend to possess strong bargaining power. At the same time, logistical constraints, including poor road conditions during the rainy season and high transportation costs, further increase production costs and reduce farmers’ net income.

Additional concerns relate to a lack of trust in the accuracy and transparency of moisture measurement at collection points, as well as potentially unfair sampling practices, which further exacerbate market inefficiencies and undermine farmer confidence.

5.3 Seed Technology and Innovation
Thailand has made notable progress in hybrid seed development and has recently approved the use of genome editing (GEd), which is not classified as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) under current regulations. Nevertheless, the policy landscape remains fragmented, particularly with respect to GMOs. While Thailand permits the import of GMO-based raw materials—such as soybeans and maize—for processing in the food and feed industries, commercial cultivation remains prohibited.

This regulatory inconsistency places Thai farmers at a structural disadvantage in terms of production costs, yield potential, and technological competitiveness compared to major exporting countries such as the United States and Brazil. Empirical evidence suggests that the adoption of appropriate biotechnology could significantly enhance productivity, with potential yield increases of more than twofold per rai. However, persistent regulatory uncertainty—particularly in relation to biosafety governance, risk assessment procedures, and legal frameworks—continues to constrain investment and innovation in the sector.

5.4 Geopolitics and International Trade
Global maize markets are increasingly shaped by geopolitical developments, particularly rising trade tensions between the United States and China, as well as the Russia–Ukraine War. China’s strategic efforts to diversify import sources away from the United States toward South America have reshaped global trade flows, with implications for price volatility and supply chain realignment.

In this context, Thailand faces a growing need to strengthen supply chain resilience by diversifying import sources from major exporting countries, including the United States, Brazil, Argentina, and Australia. At the same time, such diversification must be supported by improvements in logistics infrastructure, port capacity, and regulatory frameworks governing input standards and sanitary controls. These measures are essential to ensure that imports from new sources are efficient, safe, and aligned with long-term food and feed security objectives.

5.5 Import Restrictions and Regulatory Measures
The government has implemented tariff and quota measures to protect domestic farmers, including WTO tariff-rate quotas with out-of-quota tariffs as high as 73%, seasonal import restrictions under the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), and the maize procurement requirement linked to wheat imports (3:1 ratio).

However, these measures continue to exhibit significant loopholes, particularly in the form of informal cross-border trade through natural border areas during periods of high domestic prices or import restrictions. Such practices not only undermine price stability but also give rise to issues such as origin misdeclaration and the circulation of maize contaminated with unsafe levels of fungal toxins that do not meet established safety standards.

5.6 Environmental Sustainability
Maize production is increasingly subject to scrutiny as a major contributor to PM2.5 air pollution, particularly from open-field crop residue burning, and as a sector vulnerable to the impacts of climate change on yields. Looking ahead, this commodity may face growing exposure to non-tariff trade measures, such as the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and the EU Deforestation Regulation, which could generate cascading effects on Thailand’s processed chicken export industry.

This underscores the urgent need to develop robust carbon footprint measurement systems and traceability mechanisms across the supply chain to ensure compliance with emerging international standards and to maintain export competitiveness.

5.7 Database Management and Information Systems
The reliability of data on cultivated area and production volumes has become a point of concern among private sector stakeholders. The crop trade association has questioned whether official statistics may underestimate actual production, potentially leading to misaligned import policy decisions for feed inputs. Field observations suggest that actual yields in some areas may reach as high as 1 ton per rai. However, there remains a lack of a systematic and widely accepted framework for data collection and validation across stakeholders.

Strengthening data standards and improving the reliability of agricultural statistics are therefore critical for managing the balance between industrial feed demand and the protection of farmers’ incomes.

6. SWOT ANALYSIS

A SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) of Thailand’s maize sector yields the following key findings:

Table 5: SWOT Analysis of Thailand’s Maize Sector

Strengths Strong domestic demand with a well-established market High-quality non-GMO seed production Short cultivation cycle and ease of cultivation Well-developed logistics and trade/export infrastructure	Weaknesses Price volatility and high production costs for farmers Low yields per rai in many areas Issues related to high moisture content and grain quality Upland cultivation often involves burning crop residue, contributing to haze and PM2.5 pollutionMany farmers lack formal land tenure, potentially affecting market access
Opportunities Growing demand from the animal feed industry Zero-tariff imports under the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) Imports from non-AFTA sources can help reduce downstream costs and PM2.5 pressures Potential for trade negotiations/FTAs to enhance trade flexibilityOpportunities to adopt agricultural technologies to improve yields and reduce costs	Threats Limited cultivation areas and heavy reliance on rainfed agriculture Exposure to natural disasters, pests, and aflatoxin contamination Environmental issues from deforestation and crop residue burning Stricter global environmental standards that may affect livestock and food exports

7. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Policy recommendations for managing the maize value chain to enhance Thailand’s feedstock security and trade sustainability are presented as follows:

7.1 Production-Side Policy Recommendations

• While Thailand’s private sector has achieved considerable success in research and development of maize seeds for export, there remain limitations in developing varieties suited to the country’s diverse agro-ecological conditions. Moreover, domestically produced seeds are constrained by technological limitations relative to genetically modified (GMO) maize, resulting in a widening yield gap. Thailand should therefore consider revisiting its policy stance on genetic technologies, including GMOs, based on scientific evidence and empirical data on human health, environmental safety, and economic impacts. This would enable the country to harness appropriate technologies to enhance productivity and mitigate risks associated with climate change, thereby avoiding lagging behind global agricultural development trends.
  • At the same time, it is essential to strengthen the legal and regulatory framework in line with international standards to ensure that the adoption of such technologies is safe, transparent, and accountable, without undermining consumer confidence or export market access.
• Farmer grouping policies should be recalibrated to better reflect practical realities and operate at an appropriate scale that enhances bargaining power and reduces costs.
  • In this regard, the “Large-Scale Farming” program should be reconsidered and possibly rebranded, as actual land consolidation is often limited. In many cases, government support has focused on providing machinery to farmer groups, but utilization rates are low, and benefits are not always equitably distributed among members, leading to inefficient investment outcomes.
  • One relatively successful model is farmer groups engaged in maize silage production (chopped and fermented maize harvested before full maturity for ruminant feed). This model is particularly suitable for areas near dairy or beef cattle farms, enabling farmers to cultivate maize twice per year. Farmers typically form groups and enter into forward contracts with farms or cooperatives, thereby reducing market and price risks. Government support in providing machinery for chopping, baling, and storage has further enhanced the ability to preserve feed quality during storage prior to sale. In addition, such collective arrangements can facilitate investments in shared irrigation systems, such as drip irrigation and groundwater management, particularly in areas with access to underground water resources.
• In upland areas, alternative crops or economic forestry should be promoted in place of maize cultivation to prevent deforestation and reduce wildfire risks. At the same time, reforestation initiatives linked to carbon credit schemes should be encouraged. Efforts should focus on developing carbon markets with lower verification and transaction costs, enabling participating farmers to generate more stable and reliable income streams.
• The adoption of precision agriculture technologies should be promoted where economically viable. For example, the use of spraying drones can help reduce labor costs, minimize chemical usage, and improve production efficiency, particularly in areas facing labor shortages.

7.2 Price and Cost Policy Recommendations

• Over the past decade, the government has increasingly intervened in Thailand’s maize market, effectively becoming an indirect price setter through import control measures on substitute commodities, particularly wheat. While these interventions have largely succeeded in maintaining domestic maize prices above the target levels set under the income guarantee scheme—resulting in minimal compensation payments to participating farmers in recent years—the 3:1 maize procurement requirement may constrain the growth and competitiveness of downstream industries, which are likely to generate significantly higher value but face limitations in accessing sufficient imported inputs.
  • If the policy is to be maintained or extended to maize imports from the United States, consideration should be given to reducing the ratio (e.g., to no more than 2:1) in order to ease constraints on downstream users while still supporting domestic producers.
• In the longer term, price intervention measures, including the income guarantee scheme, should be gradually scaled back. In its previous form, the scheme may also carry the risk of being perceived as a form of export subsidy, potentially leading to future trade disputes.

7.3 Trade Policy Recommendations

• Thailand should consider allowing imports of maize from non-AFTA sources, which may offer advantages in terms of cost and environmental outcomes. Appropriate safeguards and conditions should be designed to mitigate potential impacts on domestic farmers. In addition, the establishment of a transitional income support fund could be considered to assist farmers who choose to shift to alternative crops or occupations during the adjustment period.
• Following the diversification of import sources beyond AFTA, stricter environmental standards should be applied to maize imports from neighboring countries. This would help address transboundary haze and PM2.5 pollution, which impose significant social costs on Thailand, while also aligning domestic policies with emerging global trade trends that increasingly emphasize environmental sustainability.
• The government should strengthen standards and governance for maize moisture measurement to enhance farmer confidence. This includes implementing certified measurement systems, random inspections of equipment, and transparent grievance mechanisms to ensure accountability. Such measures would improve transparency and reduce disputes at procurement points.

---

[1] Na Ranong, W., Bhuthong, P., Tunyanut, W., & Pornpoonsawasdi, A. (2025). Project on policy recommendations for strengthening stability and trade resilience of field crops (cassava and feed maize). Trade Policy and Strategy Office, Ministry of Commerce.

[2]  Kiao system (credit-tied arrangement): A traditional informal credit system in which middlemen provide farmers with inputs (e.g., seeds, fertilizers, pesticides) or cash in advance, with the condition that farmers must sell their harvest back to the lender—often at a pre-agreed or discounted price—to repay the debt

REFERENCES

Achavanuntakul, S., Yamla-or, P., Tanangsanakul, K., Senpan, P., & Klong-akkhara, S. (2013). Maize supply chain management analysis to support sustainable watershed management in Nan province [การวิเคราะห์การจัดการห่วงโซ่อุปทานของข้าวโพดอาหารสัตว์เพื่อส่งเสริมการจัดการลุ่มน้ำอย่างยั่งยืนในจังหวัดน่าน]. United Nations Development Programme; United Nations Environment Programme.

Chaovanapoonphol, Y., & Somyana, W. (2018). Maize production under contract farming system between Lao PDR and Thailand: Returns and benefits for farmers [การผลิตข้าวโพดเลี้ยงสัตว์ในระบบพันธสัญญาระหว่าง สปป.ลาว กับประเทศไทย: ผลตอบแทนและประโยชน์ที่เกษตรกรได้รับ]. Khon Kaen Agriculture Journal, 46(6), 1083–1094.

Erenstein, O., Jaleta, M., Sonder, K., Mottaleb, K., & Prasanna, B. M. (2022). Global maize production, consumption and trade: Trends and R&D implications. Food Security, 14(5), 1295–1319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-022-01288-7

Department of Agricultural Extension. Industrial Field Crop Production Promotion Group. (2024). Feed maize [ข้าวโพดเลี้ยงสัตว์].

Kruaduangkham, A. (2014). Ability of maize production in Thailand for import substitution [ความสามารถในการผลิตข้าวโพดเลี้ยงสัตว์ของประเทศไทยเพื่อทดแทนการนำเข้า]. [Master’s thesis, Chiang Mai University]. Chiang Mai University Digital Collections. https://cmudc.library.cmu.ac.th/ frontend/Info/item/dc:121977

Matichon Online. (2024). Approval of 5 measures to support maize prices: “Pichai” prepares to propose 320 million Baht budget to the Cabinet [เคาะ 5 มาตรการ พยุงราคาข้าวโพดเลี้ยงสัตว์ ‘พิชัย’ จ่อนำเข้า ครม. งบ 320 ล้าน].

Myanmar Agrifood Program for Strategy and Analysis. (2024). Maize residue management in Myanmar (Myanmar SSP Research Note No. 113). International Food Policy Research Institute. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/155051

Na Ranong, W., Bhuthong, P., Tunyanut, W., & Pornpoonsawasdi, A. (2025). Project on policy recommendations for strengthening stability and trade resilience of field crops (cassava and maize) [โครงการจัดทำข้อเสนอเชิงนโยบายการสร้างเสถียรภาพและความเข้มแข็งทางการค้าสินค้าพืชไร่ (มันสำปะหลังและข้าวโพดเลี้ยงสัตว์)]. Trade Policy and Strategy Office, Ministry of Commerce.

National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards. (2023). Forecasts warn of further decline in Ukrainian maize production [คาดการณ์หวั่นผลผลิตข้าวโพดยูเครนลดลงอีก]. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives.

Office of Agricultural Economics. (2024a). Situation of important agricultural commodities and trends for 2025 [สถานการณ์สินค้าเกษตรสำคัญและแนวโน้มปี 2568]. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives.

Office of Agricultural Economics. (2024b). Thai agricultural economic indicators 2023 [ตัวชี้วัดเศรษฐกิจการเกษตรของไทย ปี 2566]. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives.

Poapongsakorn, N., Na Ranong, V., Inthavitak, C., Bisonyabut, N., Harakunarak, A., Wichitaksorn, N., Srianant, N., Pantakua, K., Choksamritphon, P., Mongkhonnit, S., Tunyut, W., Jantrasiri, U., Rattanasimarnon, P., Yuttasaknukul, P., Tharesang, K., Apiwatanakul, P., & Buakham, K. (2018). Study on the adaptation of the agricultural sector to support the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) to enhance Thailand’s competitiveness [โครงการศึกษาแนวทางการปรับตัวของภาคเกษตรเพื่อรองรับการเปิดประชาคมเศรษฐกิจอาเซียนเพื่อยกระดับความสามารถในการแข่งขันของไทย].National Economic and Social Development Council.

Poapongsakorn, N., Ratanawaraha, A., Mahathanaseth, I., Jintrawet, A., Kiratikarnkul, S., Boonsiri, K., Srianant, N., Pantakua, K., Viwatwicha, N., & Buranakit, C. (2022). Research project on the future of small-scale rice and orchard farmers [โครงการวิจัยอนาคตชาวนา-ชาวสวนรายเล็ก]. National Science and Technology Development Agency.

Promtee, S., Seerasarn, N., & Kiawwan, B. (2022). Guidelines for promoting feed maize production of farmers in Kabin Buri District, Prachin Buri Province [แนวทางการส่งเสริมการผลิตข้าวโพดเลี้ยงสัตว์ของเกษตรกร ในอำเภอกบินทร์บุรี จังหวัดปราจีนบุรี]. Journal of Roi Kaensarn Academi, 7(10), 332–347. https://so02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/ JRKSA/article/view/255990

Pupphavesa, W., Bhuthong, P., Pakinamhang, K., & Ketthong, S. (2016). Promoting regional economic integration in South-East Asia by addressing NTBs: A case study of maize in Thailand. Asia Foundation.

Pupphavesa, W., Bhuthong, P., & Pakinamhang, K. (2024). Study on guidelines for promoting the potential of trade businesses related to agricultural products: Fruit collectors (lhong) [โครงการศึกษาแนวทางส่งเสริมศักยภาพธุรกิจการค้าที่เกี่ยวข้องกับสินค้าเกษตร: ล้งผลไม้]. Trade Policy and Strategy Office.

Pupphavesa, W., Srisawatsuk, S., Rattanadilok Na Phuket, S., Jaided, P., Chaiwongkiat, D., Tokrisna, R., Sudsawad, S., Srisawatsuk, W., Pholphirul, P., Bhuthong, P., Kerdphol, T., Piyaniran, T., & Pakinumhung, K. (2007). Study and synthesis of information to determine guidelines for mitigating impacts, preventing problems, and increasing agricultural potential under Free Trade Agreements (FTA) [โครงการศึกษาและสังเคราะห์ข้อมูลเพื่อกำหนดแนวทางการลดผลกระทบการแก้ไขป้องกันปัญหาและเพื่อเพิ่มศักยภาพด้านการเกษตร ภายใต้ข้อตกลงเขตการค้าเสรี (FTA)]. National Economic and Social Advisory Council.

Pupphavesa, W., Srisawatsuk, S., Rattanadilok Na Phuket, S., Jaided, P., Chaiwongkiat, D., Tokrisna, R., Sudsawad, S., Chaisrisawatsuk, W., Pholphirul, P., Bhuthong, P., Kerdphol, T., Piyaniran, T., Pakinumnung, K., & Nakcharoen, N. (2009). Research project on developing Thailand’s agricultural competitiveness towards excellence [โครงการศึกษาวิจัยการพัฒนาศักยภาพในการแข่งขันด้านการเกษตรของประเทศไทยสู่ความเป็นเลิศ]. National Economic and Social Advisory Council.

Sirimongkonlertkun, N., Kongvee, S., & Yanawongsa, E. (2017). Study on investment cost and demand-supply chain in maize trading in hilly area of Wawee sub-district, Chiang Rai province [การศึกษาต้นทุนและห่วงโซ่อุปสงค์-อุปทาน การค้าข้าวโพดเลี้ยงสัตว์บนพื้นที่สูง ตำบลวาวี จังหวัดเชียงราย]. Faculty of Engineering, Rajamangala University of Technology Lanna Chiang Rai.

Sriratana, W., & Hema, I. (2024). 2024 forecast: Thailand’s maize imports projected to increase 5.2% in 2024 and almost all maize imports will come from CLM [คาดไทยนำเข้าข้าวโพดเลี้ยงสัตว์เพิ่มขึ้น 5.2% และนำเข้าจากประเทศ CLM เกือบทั้งหมด]. Kasikorn Research Center. https://www. kasikornresearch.com/th/analysis/k-econ/ economy/Pages/Maize-Import-28-03-2024.aspx

Supasri, T., Intra, P., & Sampattagul, S. (2016). Life cycle GHGs and PM10 evaluation of maize cultivation in Mae Chaem District, Chiang Mai [การวิเคราะห์การปล่อยก๊าซเรือนกระจกและฝุ่นละอองขนาดเล็ก จากกิจกรรมการเพาะปลูกข้าวโพดเลี้ยงสัตว์ ในพื้นที่อำเภอแม่แจ่ม จังหวัดเชียงใหม่]. Engineering Journal, 23(3), 94–105.

Teerakul, N., & Kaewmanee, P. (2018). Guidelines for restructuring production, marketing, and government policies towards sustainability of the maize industry in Thailand [โครงการแนวทางการปรับโครงสร้างการผลิต การตลาด และนโยบายรัฐบาลสู่ความยั่งยืนของอุตสาหกรรมข้าวโพดเลี้ยงสัตว์ในประเทศไทย]. Chiang Mai University.

United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. (2024). Surge in India corn consumption shifts regional market dynamics. https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/surge-india-corn-consumption-shifts-regional-market-dynamics

World Wide Fund for Nature. (2018). Executive summary: The Study Report Project on Sustainable Consumption and Production of Maize Supply Chain in Thailand [บทสรุปผู้บริหาร โครงการศึกษาสถานการณ์การบริโภค และการผลิตที่ยั่งยืนของห่วงโซ่อุปทานข้าวโพดเลี้ยงสัตว์ของประเทศไทย]. https://wwfasia.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/executive_summary_1.pdf