research publications - university of nigeria nsukka

University of Nigeria Research Publications

MORDI, Okwuokei Innocent

PG/M.Sc/90/9607

Production and Marketing of Garri by Small Holder

Farmers in Aniocha North L.G.A. of Delta State

Agriculture

Agricultural Economics

e September, 1995

A P R O J E C T SUdi'4ITTED T O T H E DEPARTMENT CF AGR2CULTURAL ECCNCMICS I N PARTIAL

FULFUQ3NT CF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE A W W OF THE NASTER CF S C I E N C E DEGREE

(M . %) I N AGRICULTURnL ECONOMICS U N I V E R S I T Y O F N I G E R I A ,

NSUKKA, N I G E R I A

i48R13I OKdUQKZI INNGCENT ( ~ ~ / i ~ c / 9 0 / 9 6 0 7 )

CERTIFICATION

M S I R D I , OKWUOKEI INNOCENT, a postgraduate student

in the Department of Agricultural Economics and with - 7

the Registration Number PG/MSc/90/9607 has satisfactorily . --

completed the requirements for course and research Work

for the degree 'of Master of Science in Agricultural

Economics.

The work embodied in this project report is original

and has not been submitted in part or full for any other

diploma or degree'of this or any other university.

. in Gcd ;;lni;;h';.y v!;o I<rn-:.rs hclr I vqs qti lp

t(: ~ 9 - k f 0 .:.:--is i;ci;>-t .y~:.dpmic?:1'r,

T h i s s t u d y e x s ~ r ~ i r w b t n ~ Em.? l lhcl l l? .~r p r o d u c t i o n 3?id

. - :na r k e t in): .nf l;.?ri i r i i c ~ i ~ ~ k 1 3 - ~ . ! o r t ! - - Lac Z g ~ ~ ~ r n r ~ p ; : t : ~ re .5

0.y j lp l+s :I:t:f;p,

Both primary and swondary ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ r c c s of dst-7 l..rere us<>? --.

me 3.-cund.ary d a t a were o b t a i n e d by a ITVIEW OF. P Z ~ C i.ng

-. .. i t I ! c 2 I i ) ~ : t ! ; p t o p i c >:!-,"rehs

pr imary d a t 2 mre c 2 l l e c t e d t h r o ~ g l i the use of q u ~ s t i m m i r e s

a n d by di rec t pcrs31 '121 o b s e r v ~ t i c m s . The datq. were qnalvsed

u s i n g d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s , enterprise budgeting technique

m d sys t ens t i c deccmposition tec?-mivx,

The r e s u l t s showed t h . ? t sii1allhr31der jpri p r o d ? ~ c t i o n arid

ma.rket ing was dorrninated by women, w i t h p r i production

being mainly m~nuaZ and l a b o u r in t ens ive . Ebrthermore, t k e

s t u d y s h n w d tlmt f r y i n g was the most s t r enous and expensive

of t h e ~ t a g e s invu1vf .d i r i gsri p r o d u c t i o n .

T h e t o t s 1 c o s t ("i'e) of p r o b u c i n ~ one tnlnne of q a r i w:.s

H7167,43 lb;hile t% t o t s 1 reve.m.ie (TF.) ::!as $21+22.5'6 grid hei-ice

z n e t ~ r o f i % on 7.~7 25L~.?6 regresen t i t~g ? 7.55;;: of t h e t c : t a l

c@%t .?:id 74.3;/) gi t ~ t a 1 revenue s u j < ~ e s t i n c t h 3 t p rnd ,ucs r s

w e r e n o t mqkin;; excess prof i t s , r e l s t i v e t o their

prorl.i.lction cost ,

The study .2lso revealed t3qt t-kjp mode of t r snspor ' t a t ion

of C = I R S ~ . V Y tul;bers and gqr i were n- i ~ l y h w d snd /o r w h ~ e l b a r r o x 5 ,

rnntor-cycles arid pick-xp vens w h i l e the three main

Eased on t h e findings, t h e f o l l o w i n g rxornmendations

were mda:

ii) thsre l a need fos research work todurds t h e

development of s imple, modern but c h q ~ p techniques

of a torage of caasava, t u b e r s ;

i i i ) t h e e u t s b l i s h m e n t of p r o c e s s i n g c e n t e r s by b o t h

p r i v a t e ind i v i d u a l s an3 governmen-t ;

i v ) t h e r e is need t o a d d r e s s the i s s u e of 1 ow exchan,?e

r a t e of t h e naira in o r d z r t o reduce t h e h igh

infla t i m a q p r i c e s ; and

v) need f o r road c o n s t r u c t i o n and min tenanca . and

a d e q w t e p r ~ ~ r i s i o n o f o t h r i n f r a s t r u c t u r e u .

.. Ykckgmund of ti:^: ST.i~dlf .................. I

1.2 ProSlcn D e f i n i t i o n ....................... 6 ...................... I .3 Oh j e c t i v ~ . s o f :<tl.ldjr .3

7 . IFu9t iY; imt lon of tile Stlrdy ............... 7 G

2-3 Csssqvs Processing ....................... 7 ' 7 2.4 D e t . e & q m s - i n P l ~ t h o d s ' ~ f F r ~ c e ? % i W

i n t o C n r i Casse.ve . . ..................... 'r 9 - 2.5 Cons t rq i r lTs in C?sssv? r r o c e s s i n , ~ i n t o Gqri 23

2.6 CT.SS?V? qnd G ~ r i iil?rketing ............... 2Ll

2.7 T k r k e t i r i ~ ?hr,:i?~s .....................I.- 29

.................... 4.2,l G a r i p r .duc t i2 -n 49

...... 4.3 Costs and F i ~ t u r ' n s sf Cari f'roductiora 59

. . . j4.3.2 V a r i q L l e c o s t s ................. - ... c

........ 4.5.5 Cost of ~ r n g t y c igare t te cup

............. 4.5.6 N i s c e l k n ~ ~ u s expenses

4.5.7 &tmmiwtion of buying and s e l l i n g p r i c e s of g z r i in J,niocba-~!*crth .............. Tuncal Government h e a

I . , D e t ~ r n i n z tion of marketing r s r q i n s per tonne of g a r i in Aniocha-krarth .............. Loc3l Gnvernment Area

Annual zvera,Te r e t a i l p i c e i n d i c ~ s of se l ec t ed coasumer i t ems ? ~ 2 51 -?.l?u? . - ssp 'fesr 1975 = 'ir!G) ................

sex distr .5s;t ioil of the resporxler~ts , . ;

hvepap t o t s 1 re1reniie smminy to gari producers ? ~ r t o m e cf g,qri in kniocha- ihr t :~ Locsl C ~ ~ e ~ n r n e n t Area ............ k v e r a p n e t p r o f i t accruinq to emi p r o d u c ~ r s p e r t o n n e of gari in hniocha- ..... i'Jorth L g c 3 1 Sovernment fixtxi .#, -.

Averrge n i s c e l l s n m u ~ expenses per ....... t o n n e imur red kdy ~ : I P middlemen

F e r c e n t a g ~ o f each n ? r k e t i n g cost component i n c u r r e d 9y t h e n i d d l ~ m e n to t h e t o t a l marketing c m t per tonne of g s r i .................................. Averqqc t~tsl rnarketinc c o s t of g a r i in z - / t o n n ~ i c c u r r e d 5 y ti-:? qiddlcmeri i n .&t~ioc:q? -ibrt h LOCB 1 Governmmt Area . . ,

8vera;;e g r o r s m a r g i n q n ? net p r o f i t tc! retsilers in h iochs -? io r th Locz l Governmpnt Areq p e r tonne of ,gqri marketed

1.1 Eackgr~und ~f the Study

The Nigerian f ~ u d pr~blern cen t res amund t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y

and affordability Gf f w d . Many f a c t o r s con t r ibu te tL) the

prevai l ing s i t u a t l ~ m of f w d slxrtaae in Nigeria. These can

be grouped into prcuuction, processing and marketin& g r ~ b l e m s ,

The major p r ~ b l e m has been the i n i t i a l neglect of t m f ,DL

product ion sector while producticn and marketing ~ r " cash c r ~ p s

were given m r e a t t e n t i m , especially before independence

4 , Y O . This problem has been recugni.secl as early

a s 9 961, when Obafmi ~ w o l ~ : w c , said; "It is imperative

t h e r e f x e t h a t while we u~ Qur best to concentrate sdr

a t t e n t i o n Gn push ing t h e p r u u u c t i ~ n a m sale of uur export

products, we must a t the same time do every th ing we can tc

improve t h e product iv i ty o f t h o s e farmers who are engagsu in

the p r o h c t i o n ~f ym, gari , guinea corn and o t n e r Zoud c r o p s

produceti in N i g e r i a q + ,

Gari is a dehydrated f w d product mde fram cassava: it

accounts for same 7m of the entire cassava cvnsmed i n

Nigeria. It c m t r i b u t e s abcut 6m of t h e t o t a l c a l s r i e

i n t a k e among the cummmities in southern Nigeria where it i s

wide ly knmm ami eaten. It is estimated that between f our1

and f i v ~ railli\;n tcnnes.c;f cassatra r o u t s are used each

y e a r f rjr g a s i (Ngu!r;y, 3 974) .

Cassava is primarily a carbohydrate r o u t c r ~ p ,

containing little p r o t e i n arid mine ra l s . It bas,tilerefure,

often been c w s i d e r e d an i n f e r i o r food . However, i n parts

of the wor ld where severe f w d shortage ex i s t s , popula t iz~cls

s u f f e r no t only from p r o t e i n d e f i c i e n c y bu t a l s o frm

carbohydrate def ic iency. Cassava and its p r o u u c t s being

rich sources 3f ca lnr ies , h e l p a l l e v i a t e the p r d b l w s of

m a l n u t r i t i b n and hunger. It has been sahd that w e r e

cassava i s grvwn extensivelqr , s e v e r e famines s e l d m occur

(Lsncaster, e t al, 1 %2).

cassau3 i s grcwn widely i n p!igeria, am1 it i s a majur

staple food c rop i n abaut twenty- three of i t s thirty s t a t e s

and AbuJa. FA0 gives average annual prouuction f i g ~ r e s ~ i n

million tonnes,frum 1975 to 199.2 ( T a b l e 1 ) ,

Nigeria is the largest country prociucer of cassava in

t h e wWN. The product ion i n t n e country accour~ t s f o r

about 39% of t h e t o t a l p roduct ion i n Afr ica and 20Yi of t h e

world s t o t a l prouuct ion f FAO , 1 993).

Cassava is produced mainly i n t h e southern States of

Nigeria and more than 90% of it is produced by smallholder

farmers.

Cassava has advantage over yam to some e x t e ~ t in m e S ~ U - '

due to t he ease ~ 1 ' c u l t i v a t i o n , consiZerable resistance t -

drought , a b i l i t y t o grow i n exhausted s o i l s and i t s abilitv

to adapt ta wide range of ecologies (Onwueme, 1978;

?mCRI, I 986).

It is estimated tha t over 120 million people throughout

kfrica r e l y heavily upon cassava f o r t h e i r energy source

( ~ p r i l e t a l , 1974; Hahn and Keyser, 1985; Darosh, q387;

%ma and Kuncbai, 7991). Cassava possesses many merits as

inswance c rop , s o x c e of carbohydrate and energy f m d . The

p r o c ~ s s e d farms can b e sources of raw mater ia ls f o r smie

i n d u s t r h s as well as animal f e e d (~dusogie and Olayide,

1982; Kwatia, 15185; E.ahn, 7988). ~ c c o r L i n g t o 0ki:S~ (1~75);.

I d u s o g i e and 9 l a y i u e (1982), cassava has been a major fond

c rop In Nigeria f o r many decades. I t s importance i n prov id ing

the die ta ry needs of Nigerians grow w i t h time and #iEh

incr~ases in population. Cassava is most i m p o r t m t In the

diets of the people i n the Southern States where it i s

consumed mainly as g a r i an6 'fufu?, In some pa r t s of the - Northern Nigeria, the boi led sweet cassava i s c onsurned.

s h d k have shown that cassava contains S U ~ R ~ ~ C ~ S known

as cyanogenic glucosides, w u a h Neak down to hydrocyanic

acid (HCN) a f t e r the p l a n t 1 6 h a y y ~ s t e b . Based on the

quantity of HCN c o ~ l t e n t , Cassava c u l t i v a r s are described

a s sweet cassava (Manihot d&&%) with 7Omm 4CN p e r

per kilogramme and bitter cassava (planihot esculenta)

This a c i d C G K C ~ T ; r8kE5 CSW Cassava especially the b i t t e r varietie

~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ E I ~ L T R $01 a n i m ~ l and human canaumption,

P ' ~ o c ~ . s c i ~ i , ; of cassava is an at tempt t u remove r;nis

pc i scn , rel.1-ice -chf i r t o x i c i t y , increase t n e i r pala i,~hilir;;.

and s torage life. Booth (1974) and Etegere and Kaaakrisima

(1385) observed chat there is need to process cassava r o o t s

within 24 to 49 hours a f te r harvesting because of its t o x i c i t y

and p e r i s h a b i l i t y . Only the sweet cassava with low HCN

content can be consumm without processing,

, Frcm the preceding information, it ia obvious that any effort

~ w d i n g t h e Output of cassava and subsequently, gari, must

address not only tlie production aspect but processing and

marketing as w e l l ( ~ w a t i a , 1986)i

Rural-based processing offers opportunities in terms

of employment, adus value t o products, reduces waste due

t~ spoilzge, impmves acceptability, extends storage l i f e

and encourages developnent of technical an6 marke t ins skills

in villages. Increased processing of agricultural p r u d u c t s

could result in substantial '~enef its f o r the NimrPan eecnclpv.

continuing varietal improvements, developing new pest

rnnnngamant; zeo'nniquma ma ~ m e r i m w n t ~ g w i t h nixed cropp inu

I .2 Prnbleii~ Def in i t ion - -

T i x pr70blem cf fooa shortages in Nigeria 02carne

i n ~ r e a ~ i n g l 7 i s s r i l ~ u s a f t e r the end or" the C i v i l War in 1'970.

A elf -sufiicien~ f c ? d producer in the l a t e 1960s ,3nc! 1;1701= !-. y

I l i - p r i a b ~ c a m e a 2aZor food importer wi th in a decade l a t e r .

As a r e s u l t , p r i c e s f a r s tap le foods h a v ~ risen s t e a d i l y

in rsc;l tnt )+ears er~cl. ma lnu t r i t i on has increased dramatically

[T.: ~ l ~ ~ - l l i ~ ! p ~ , 1 y: ? ) . i d P ~ ~ ~ k ; ~ r i l ~ ( 7 380) o h e r v e d that t h e r e has been a general

i n c r w s ~ In feed anG o;tiler prices in Nigeria in recent times

(Tab le 2 ) . Fhe further s ta ted t h a t 1 not possible to

quan t i fy €he trend in the Income o f farmers who groduce food

crops because of inadequate data , bu t t h a t the a v a i l a b l e

evidence indicates that m o s t of the pr ice inc reases are not

passed back tc t h e farmer and hence most of them - - - . c m

s t l l l he c l a s s i f i ed a s the working poor,

The i ncen t ives which w i l l eventual ly inauce p r o u c e r s

(cassava an(-l/or sari producers in this c a s e ) to increase t h e i r

prociwtive c l p a c i t y lie i n the s i z e afid stability ct' t h e i r

income. Th~ir f a m income i s deoendent on the s i z e o f the

f arrners share o i the consumers spending, The consu~ners

spending on t h e farmersT produce, on t h e o ther hsnd, i s

determined by t h c s ize of t h e marketing c o s t s (apart from

t h e cnndi t ions of demand and supply) incurred by t n e middlemen

in the process of making these goods ava i l ab le to t h e

consumers and t h e purchase p r i ce .

Narkethg in te rmedia r i es have been, however, accused

of being the cause of price i nc reases i n Nigeria and these

price i n c r e a s e s are not reflected i n any form, i n t n e farmersf

share and t he q u a l i t y of services rendered by them

(Adeyokunnu, 1980; Adeyeye, 1986; Brandow, 1973; Udell, 19L4).

On account of t h i s , i n s p i t e of a l l agrarian measures desidneu,

in t h e past, t a increase food produc t ion in iqigeria, it atill

appears t h a t f m d o u t p u t has not been ab l e t o keep pace with

the d ~ m a n d f o r it. C m s q u e n t l y , f uod p r ices , e s p e c i 2 l l y

g a r i , have continumi t o soar; even beyond the reach o f m v d

l o w income f arnilies .

TF-F: ,r? ~y,c-rc:h ~T: )~ ,LR:> , 1 5 t ~ ~ t ~ L I T Q ~ X I F (cassava -.

pr ry : -~?crs) 11-1 &io.;..na-dwi:i,i; Lo??: i;over.nnen.t &_rP+ do riot .

+,-. 6

T ~ F - . ~ s f , ~ ) b ~ , z--F,-:P i.::igE, t r j - i ; l k r , t I'i_rrxc;;c 12.1 return f r o m t h e

.r. , ,.- 1 e, ., c.f ?la+: i - j& $!I e z.sk;-.avs. fAuhtr.r.r; i n re ~ p o r ~ s e t o the r i s e

. ; . TXIz Is ;I:.,?:,gerc,;;s as it s ? r v e s 2s a

i;. .j.si;-~cl.ent;.i :,.-I' &i:.:;; :; . ~ 1 . 3 Icx83 t 2 d r - , ~ t , i c d ~ c l i . n e in f r c s h

, i ! , . f garn i ~ v c ~ l t u a l l y .

, - Such a s.~~~r,;!:l:i. 1..;1..;.1 i n i i s e ~ i s p e l l r!ls,~s-t;l>r & i - c . ~ n the

- - f i t ; C' , : I . :I if i There is,

tb . ~ ~ T ~ : f ' . , r c . , ti:? :-~c-e d t,.; i:ives t igate w l i e r ~ t h e s e increases

. .r . '. 7- ., in ti-!? c ~ i : ~ ,T -,<,, 1 ~ f l c ;ass@;! t:,. Ir; it passe2 t;;; t h e

cassava t1~2lle~:~i ;:~.,2i;ct;i,:n e i ld , ?gnri p r ~ d u c t ~ s n aspec f ; ::;I.

L' #,, ;l!:' 6; 3 J: : - :' , . F ~ ; ? ? - E t i 2 . k::ld.'?

T a b l e 2 : Annual average retail pr ice ind ices of selected consumer i t e m s : jqg,$- i 56 i (Ease Yea1 1'375 = 1.1- S J ~ -

i $ e ~ : ~ r a , < e ~ Year Food end Tobacco h e i and

L i g h t C l o t h i n g !ill I t e m s r:;:rninks

Sources: Cent ra l Bark of Nigeria; 1980 - y993.

The broad ob jec t ive of t h i s work is to determine t h e

economics of prorluct ion and marketing of gari by smallhalder

f arrners la Aniocha-North Local Government Area of Delta S t a t e ,

The s p e c i f i c objectLves are to:

I) describe the g a r i producing and marketing indus t ry i n

t h e area o f study;

q u a n t i f y z h ~ cos ts and f i n a n c i a l b e n e f i t s of

smal lholder gari p r o u u c t i o n and marketing;

d i s t r i b u t e f i n a n c i a l bmef it t o p a r t i c i p m t s iL1 sari

p r o d u c t i o n anti marketing;

i d e n t i f y anC a i s c u s s t h e maJor problems conf ront i r lg

small-scale sari producers anri marketers i n tile s t d d y

area; m d

make recommencations based on the research f i r d i n g s .

I .4 Justification nf t h e Studv

Xo s e r i o u s m r k has been done on t h e economics of t h e

sm~llhclder g a r i pronuction and marketing i n t h e stut iy a rea

( ~ n i o c h a - i ~ ' o r t h L o c a l Government ~ r e a ) even though tile area

produces a s i g n i f i c a n t proport ion of gari consumed i n Delta

on cassava focused mainly on i t s c u l t i v a t i o n f o r f r e s h tuber

product ion ra ther than i t s processing i n t o g a r i u n t i l recent ly .

T h i s missing l i n k w i l l be f i l l e d by t h i s p ro jec t .

Furthermore, the ban on the importation of food products

r e s u l t e d i n an increase i n demand f o r food and raw m a t e r i z l s

used by lucal food i n d u s t r i e s . Attent ion the re fo re was

s h i f t e d to l o c a l erld t r a d i t i o n a l processing of a g r i c u l t u r a l

r.3-,q mrnaterials an? t ! : e subsequent d i v e r s i f i c a t i ~ n of t h e locfzl

f o ~ d i n d u s t r i e s . T h i s development has a t t rac ted the

product ion inclusive ,

I n ! t iest ~ f r i c a , from C o t e d1Ivoire to kligeria, cassava

is as import-nt as yam. In addition, Nigeria i s t h e l a rges t

coun t ry prod x e r GI cassava (FAO, 7 933). Unf o r t m s t e l y , t h e

L r x i i t i o n - l l .~rocl;ls,-in,; technique; 2::;plnyeG :.are it, s.n,lll

scales w i t h 10% c n ~ i - t a l investrllents and hence msy no t l ead

to expanded ? r u ~ u c t i o n (Nweke, et a l ; 7991). The l ~ r L e ~ o i f i g

analysis thr4.s i m p l ; a s t h a t the output under t h e

t r a d i t i o n a l m e t h ~ b of ssri p roduc t i on is low. Rut there i s

a geometric increase in the consumer desnand f o r g a r i ldhich

is a s t a p l e food. Consequently, there e x i s t s a large gap

between g a r i p r o d u c t i o n arid corkswpt50n. This g a p v i m

f o r m e r l y fill~d by i m p o r t a t i o n of o ther energy food

s u b s t i t u t e s , But since importation i s discouraged to

conserve scarce foreign exchange, the re i s t h e need t o look

inwards md embark on such a study t h a t can lead t o an

increased productivity. Even though the t r a d i t i o n a l g a r i

p roduc t ion technique has its shartcomings v i t h r e spec t t o

the economics of s c a l e , it is the major source of gari

in Pligeria today a ~ d it has the benefit of a :nore even

d i s t r i b u ' t ; j m a.t' incame.

Cassava has beCc,me a very important s t a p l e food cro)) t o

op in ion w i t h the above a g e n c i ~ s and/or i n s t i t u t e s and hence

t h e I n t w n a t i o n a l kxnd f o r Agr icul tura l Development (ISAD)

Cassava Programme. It ( h t e r n a t i o n a l h c i f o r Agricultural ~ C L S beg:k

Bevelopment (IFAD)), f inancbpi the I n t e r n a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e of - Tropical A g r i c u l t u r e (IITA) Hoot and Tuber Programmes s ince

7979. ~ b o v e 311, t h e Collaborat ive Study of Cassava i n Africa

(COSCA) funded by Rockefe l l a Foundation which cornme~~ced i n

1388 with only s i x coun t r i e s i n Africa ; imTigeri3 i n c l u s i v e ,

aims, to c o l l e c t au tho r i t a t i ve information over a wide area

Qn cassava p r o d 7 ~ c t i o n systems, processing methods, market

p r ~ s p e c t s 2nd consumption patterns.

A l l the a h v e i n t e r n a t i o n a l agencies and/or i n s t i t u t e s

a re of .f;he vievr that processing is a key aspect of hous~ho lc i

food s e c u r i t y m u since gsri p roauc t i on is one of t h e b a s i c

aspects of pr~cessing cassava, a study of the sma l lho lde r

farmer gari prcduc';ion and d i s t r i b u t i q r i becomes not a l l y

c~ntributive t o t h e pool of knowledge but t o achievir~,' t h e

goa l s of t h e i--busehold Food Secur i ty and N u t r i t i o n

Programme i n i t i a t e d by the UNICEF.

2.7 Jntroduc t ion

Producticn i s the p m c e s s whereby i n p u t s o r f ~ c t o r s oi

for t h e productim of one unit of ou tpu t . idhen compsring t x c

o r more methods of production, one i s said t o be more

technbcal ly efficient i f it uses less of a t l eas t one f a c t o r

and no more o f the o t h e r factors as compared to o t h e r s

(~outsoyiannis , 1980) . '. : . . l4

The g r d u c t i o n metnod t o be chosen depends on bo th p r i c e s and

t e c h n i c a l e f f i c i ency . A technically efficient method i s no t

necessa r i ly ecnnomically e f f i c i e n t (~outsoyiannis, 1 980) . The economic u n i t i n p roduc t ion is t h e f i rm, The firm attempts

t o maximize profit, given tiie c o s t ou t i ay . Other o b ~ e c t i v e s

of t he firm are product naximizatior;, c o s t minimizazion 3rd

rnaximizaticn of s a t i s f a c t i o n .

2.2 Cassava P r o ? ~ c t i o n

Csssarrs is produced i n many p a r t s of the t r o p i c s e s p e c i a l l y

in t h e more h m i u regions. In Africa, cassava is ganera l ly

g r o w n in combina~ion w i t h o t h e r crops . Flethods o f land

preparat ion, c rop combinat ion, patterns of p l an t ing , p l a ~ l t

15 frqr m;ns sy5Tarn LC

p o p u l a t i o n and spacing may vary w i t h s o i l type,,and o t h e r

e c o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s such a s r a i n f a l l regime. Cassav.3 i s

adapted t o d i v e r s e envf ranmental conditions and sys-terns of

c u l t i v a t i c n . It i s no t l i m i t e d to well def ined h a r v e s t i r ~ g

p e r i o d s .and dues noz r equ i r e special s k i l l i n p roduc t ion .

and freely tj-raifiix; sandy loam s o i l s d o r s n i n a t ~ d by oxisols,

u l t i s o l s am1 alf i s ~ l s ( ~ z e i l o , e t al, '1 978).

I I T A (-75) showed that cassava c u t t i n g s taken l;'rorn

o l d e r more nature parts of t h e s take give a b e t t e r y i e l d

t h a n those f rom t h e younger po r t ions . Cassava is g e n e r a l l y

i n t e r c r ~ p p e d wi th tLe p r i n c i p a l staples such a s yam, c o c o y m ,

maize and s u b s i d i a r y c rops l i k e melon, okro, vegetables,

7988). The number of' s t a k e s p l an t ed per mound va r i e s c i t h

l o c a t i o n , t r a d i t i o n , number of crops p e r mound, s i z e of

mound and c rop combination. The plan t ing t i m e in 9el ta

S t a t e is mos t l y between A p r i l and May within which p e r i d the

r a i n y seasun must have Camwrer?ceii- (rain-fed agriculture).

In traditional a ,g r i cu l tu r e , c a s s a ~ s p r m ~ r c t i ~ n is u s a l l y

c a r r i d ou t - w i t h c u t f e r t i l i z e r ( ~ n ~ u e m e , 1978). H o w v s r ,

i n o r g a n i c fertilizers a re used (PRCRI, 1986). .,\feed i s

controlled witnin tk,e cassava farm land e s p e c i a l l y wi t l l in

the first thres manths a f t e r planting.

Harvesting is continuous throughout t h e year but

peaks b e t w ~ e n dovemher and March. According t o Odurukwe

( I 9Rd) d i f f e r e n t cLssava varieties have d i f f e r e n t m z t u r i t y

p w i o d s whiclL vary l:rm eight t o 2,!! months dependin.; o n the

hydrogen zy. mide (hCN) content and increased woodiness, and

these affecl; t h e q u a l i t y of the processed end products

(Booths e t 31, 1976; I I T A , 498i;; Karunwi and Ezurnah, 1988).

Karmwf and Ezumah ( I 988), repor ted an average cassava

c rop yield of 18.7 tons/ha determined at 'I4 months Prom an

on-farm adaptive research cassava farmland.

B a c h m m ~ ((1481 ) reported 9.5 tons/kra in :;pland fields f o r

cassava in Ntezi, E n u s State . Nweke (7987) showed tha t

t h e improved v a r i e t i e s harvested a t 1 2 nlonths yielded 75

percen t higher root weight' than l o c a l v a r i e t i e s . O k o l i

( 7 987) a l s ~ r e p o r t e u a high yield from improved cassava

vzriet ies in Imo S t a t e .

In a s t u d y c o n d ~ c t e d in 0 ji R i v e r I.,ocal Governm~nt Ares

for l o c a l arx Improved Cassava a t 15 months *&ere

7 ..$~t/ha arid I 2 . J j t / h a , r e s p x t i v e l y . ~150, at I 8 months, the

mean y i e l d of l o c a l atld improved varieties were 8.8t/ha

f .3t/ha. HO~AWJE~, y i e l d s are obviously h i & g iven ogtir:iua

s o i l and c l i m t i c ccncii t ions (=ma and IQaoha i , 1437).

Sta te of Nigeria on t r e n d s cassava prociuction i i m ~ c a t w i

tha t the mass adopt ion of improved cassava v a r i e t i e s , use o f

ago-chemicals and the provis ion of processing f a c i l i t i e s !3;

would s i g n i f i c a n t l y increase t h e ou tpu t , q u a l i t y , s t o r a t i l i t y

and value of cassava product ion.

'4nY management p r a c t i c e which directly o r i n d i r e c t l y r e s u l t s

i n d e c l i n i n g s o i l f e r t i l i t y would a l s o reduce cassava y i e l d s ;

f o r instance, poor weeding, Generally, cassava r e q u i r e s good

soil prepara t ion f o r optimum yield ( ~ k o l i , 1987).

2.3 Cassava Processing

Processin, i s concerned w i t h tne addition of value which

resul ts from chan;;in~ a- t h e forn of raw product (Kohl and Uhl,

'19'72). Accordin, t o Booth ( 3 971c) and Abaaba ( t 975) processing

in particular i s essential t o pu t some c rops i n a s t x t e where

they can be e a s i l y stored, thereby making then 5 v d i l a b l e f o r

a lcrnger per iod o f time and over a wide a r e a , Furthermore,

t h e y 13a~qu& - t h a t processing reduces t r a n s p o r t a t i o a cosLs

and Increases t h e farmer's earning power a s it a f f e c t s t h e

m a r k e t a b i l i t y of prouuce t o consumers. processed p roduc t s

enable more renote farr~lers t o con t r ibu te t o n a t i o n a l Pood

s u p p l i e s , s ince t n e y c a 1 be t ranspor ted from the rum1 AreaR t o

urhan centres ~ f t e r t h e harvest per iod of peak demand.

Processi.ng o f cassava r o o t s prFor. t o consumption i s

e s s e n t i a l because of i t s cyanide content and genera l ly , they

I ' do no t s t o r e f o r lohg a f t e r harves t . Hahn and Keysrr

(1985) and Dorosh (1987) e s t i m a t e d l t h a t 80 percent out of

55 t o 60 m i l l i o n tonnes of f resh cassava roo t proddced every I

y e a r i n Africa i s u t i l i z e d a s human food of which 57 percent

13 processed before consumption, In Nigeria , over 93 percent

0f cassava produced i s consumed by hmans and as such requires

m e kind of processing o r the o t h e r (Oben and Menz, 1 9 8 ~ ;

Chrisman and Fiagan, 1987 ; Rosling, I 987; Almazan, 1 988) ,

There ar2 severa l opera t ions involved i n processin2

cassava, These include pee l ing , soaking, g ra t ing ,

fermenting (which e l imina tes t o x i c substances throdgh t h e

use of hydrolysing enzymes), f r y i n g , s l i c i n g , s i ev ing ,

dewater ing, drying, bo i l ing (whichleliminates HCN), e t c ;

( ~ k p e r e e t a l , 1986; Chinsman and Fiagan, 1987; Almazan,

1988; Okorj i and Okereke, 19gfJ). The end products desired determino

$he type and number of processing operat ions.

Cassava has g r e a t e r number of v a r i e t y of food forrns

t h a n any o t h e r r o o t s and t u b e r crops such as yam and

cocoyam. Over five forms of processed cassava have been

repor ted . They inc lude gari, cassava f l o u r , s t a r c h , chips,

stable p r u d w t s . T k s e operations comprise cornbina t i~ns

of peel ing, g r 3 ~ i 1 l 5 , st;aking, dryixg, b b i l i n g and

feAment3tiun :!f ti^^ C ~ S S ~ V ~ ~ I J O ~ S .

Cassaw :-.,>. ts pr~cesslng has been dsne m::cc.tly by- t ~ : e

t r a d i t i ~ ~ n a l : ~ _ l > t . r i . . d . T r s c ? i % i ~ r _ a l l y , it r e q u i r e s t h : ~ i . t ; ~ c -

r+;t be pce1rr.r :,<it!. kni.fr., t;;dsh~11, f,-tll,.,m~:.~eb by t;:lr:

CL@UatLn uf :if i r : r k : j t :;:c~sx iC,gs +It, z r l > i v e at t n e d a s i r e d

e n d p i d u c t . i;'.,:. i ~ l s t a n c e , i-n the p r v d u c t i v n of g,.iri

( t h e mbs t p ~ p u l a r ui all the p r r ~ d u c t s of cassava p r x e s s i n g )

t h e peeled c3ssava t u b e r s a re g r a t e d a f t e r washing. Grat.ing

is narml ly dvrie cn a metal g r a t e r . The product which i s

marshy i s p ~ ) u r e u into a sack (bag) p r i o r t z dewaterinz by

p u t t i n g large s t o n e s or ~ ~ 3 d sn t o p and allowing it t o

s tand for a f e w days; a f t e r which t h e semi-dried mash in the

sack i s sieved t o separate t h e f i b r e s from the granulated

pulp. The l a t t e r i s fried i n an open i r o n c a s t frying pan

to produce g a r i ,

The traditi~nal methuds have been c r i t i c i z e d s s being

g r c s s i y inad~quct~, i ne f f i c i en t , l a b o r i c u s , time cdnsuning

and adaptsSle t~ only small scale opera t ions (0d5;b, 1'379;

Okariiqbe, 1979; dqere et al, 1986; Xkpi et al, t98b).

In urder tc ca t e r for a growing populatic;n, reduce the

human c a t of ~rcczssing and rninlmLze t h e druggcry

associated with cassava precessing int~ gari , c e r t d i n

o p w a t i o n s have heen p r a p ~ s e d f o r mechanization.

M ~ c h m i z a t i > n 2f s .AIP cf t n e pera at ions would mske p r u c e s s i n g

ess ie r , ensure h igher quality p r d u c t f:-,r the msrxdt, g i v e

l onge r shelf li:e, m~rs n a t i ~ n - w i d e d i s t r i b u t i o n 3rd ~ 1 s ~

help in h i g h e r zxtracti,n rate ( 9 d i g b c , 1979; Nwc1kaii, 1983;

?Q' - - Ikpi, e t al, ,plj>; Chinman and Eiagan, '1 987) . Some prucessin;: o p e r a t i u r i s such as peeling, grating

( o r grinding), dewalering and frying have been mechanized.

Mechanized peelLng techniques have been s tudied snd tested

in N i g w i a . ii ba tch p r u c e s s abraison peel ing mztcnins hzs

been d e ~ e l o ~ ~ d by D d i g b ~ (1979) and a t the Nati;nal .?-dzt

Crqp R e s ~ a r c h I n s t i t u t e ( ~ C R I ) Unudike. Nwukedi ( I 3831,

r e p o r t e d mechrmical csssava rout peel ing e f f i c i e n c y of 53

percefit . He zbserveri t h a t t h e r ~ p e r a t i v n of such machines

m q ~ i r e s rnarual l zbou r for c u t t i n g and trimming cassava r o o t s .

l?.es~llfS f row 1 1 ' T . A (I 31%) I;~~ZVE?L t h a t a p m e r g ra t e r can

reduce the time needed to g r a t e l49kg of t u b e r s from six

h a u s to 20 minutes.

Okanigbe (1979) repor ted t h a t it c o s t s about seven

l i m e s more t o p r x e s s a t m n e of cassava by manual i n ~ t h o d

into gari than by mechanical method, According to I k p i

et a1 (1986) nne p r ~ ~ c e s s i n g h o w on a machine saves :wwn las r r v

21 hours q- ;,: each week and given t h e average m o u n t of

cassava pruce:;sed by a household in a year in the C;KI S t . l t f

a rea surveyed, with :>pprcipriate cassava pru.cessins equignent ,

each family c z u i ~ ~ save an Lverage of &I hours of work.

incomes ;ad s t n d s r d of living c;f c :xsava farmers (prGcessorc,)

and. the 'wbm p ~ c r , as 1 : ; ~ l l i as ei--ih,~nr~ th? ski-tlf 1iI~ 3f

~ r ~ d u c t s , ~ILI: ,1#::,;cp r .' ,,:,i.:.n e,~~~;-, <rT:myc-q~ m , 2 . ~ j < , 2 ~ i : : ~ ~ .-a

~ p p ~ t u r ~ i t i e , ? .nc; uc.-,~-~:q;,.~.. n l~ t r~ : ; j , ! : -~~

3 I-' c- 7 . )

with many corLstrair l ts i n the performance of t h e i r praccssing

a c t i v i t i e s . They may nct have access t o l a rge prucdssing

equipment or o b t a i n -Loan to commercialize t h e i r procsssing

a c t i v i t i e s artd hmce have remained low income earners. There

has always hem t he side e f f e c t s of inhaling cyanid? fumes

at the f i n a l stages of f r y i n g in g a r i production

( ~ a h n and On2bolu, 1988).

Eknere e t a1 (1966) and X~wunwi and Ezumah ( I 98d )

identified ~n 3 j a r bsrricrvs t:! increasing cassava proczss ing

(espec ia l ly T G g s r i ) in t h e humid f o r e s t 9art of ldigeria t;

include lack $21 c s p l t ~ l , high c o s t of f r y i n g p a x ,

t r a n s p o r t a t i ; ~ cf cassava r o o t s rind rnsriiet uncertainty, as

well as t h e t e d i c u s ope ra t ion of f r y i n g . Okanigbe (1979)

repor ted t h s t i r r e g u l a r i t y of shapes of cassava m o t s p c s a s

a challenge to all, iriterested in cassava processing as it

reduces b o t h t b ~ speed and efficiency of peelins.

cultural f w d h a b i t preference of p m p l e , age a s w e l l as

var ie ty of cassavu, and the farmprst processing dec i s ions

and o b j e c t i v e s are some of the factors t h a t d e t e r n i n e t h e

process ing- cf csssava (Hahn, 1988; O k o r j i e t alp I 333) . I t

i s t h ~ prbcessorst o b j e c t i v e s t h a t determine the a l l : x a t i ~ n

of eccnomic resources t o a l t e rna t i ve uses,

2.5 Cassava and Csri Marketing

The ultimate o b j e c t i v e of f o o d prc,duction i s t o feed

t h e people. This can be enhanced by marketing, which in

ar ; r icu l ture i l ~ m l v r s t he f l o w of n g r i c u l t u r 2 1 products aid

services frail t r l c point of initial produc t ivn t:, t k z hatids

sf the u l t i a a t a ci;nsumers ( ~ c h l s ancl Uhl, 1972). ~p?lrket ins;

is t h e yehicj-e t n z t l i n k s product demand w i t h sgpplym

Eowersox (I 968) def in& p h y s i c a l d i s t r i b u t i o n 2s a

term employed &I.. . to Cescribe t h e Sroad range of a c t i v i t i e s

concerned w.it.h t he d iz'l'erent mwernent of finished ~ m d s frm

t h ~ end u f the pr:djduction l i n e to t h e consumer.. . . ' 1 ~1~~

physical ~ l e n e n t s c,f t h e Q i s t r i b u t h process are t r s n s p ~ r t a t k o n

handling and stclrage (?,!wukoye, 1981 ) . These physics1 elements,

acccrding to L d c n d e and Llawson (1959) have existsd s ince

es@nomiC a c t i v i t i e s ruse above the level of s u b s i s t a c e and

comrnuaial living. Thus , physical distribution function

of pruductim , ~ , b ~ v e tlie subsistence l e v e l .

The bss ic i rnp r t ence of p h y s i c a l distribution is t m

creat ion of time XIG place utilities. Stewart (1965)

contended tha t t h e emergence of marketing intermediaries can

b e traced to t k c nfed by m m f o r e f f i c i en t d i s t r i b u t i o n oi

goods through t h e e l iminat ion of ce r ta in unnecessary

transactions. Other j u s t i f i c a t i o n s f o r phys ica l d i s t r i b u t i o n

and t h u s t h e emergence of marketing i n t e r n e d i a r i e s accordirg

t o Dtrirdham ( I 972) include geographical f a c t o r s , P r d u c e r s

and consmers, for ins tance , are s p z t i a l l y dispersed and

there are time lags i n either production o r cunsuipt ion.

. - Drucker (I 952) : ' ' asse r t ed t h a t phys ica l ly ,

b i s f r i b u t i o n c m t r i b u t e s l i t t l e t o the vslue o f -che ~ ~ o u u c - ~ , if ;x

but economically, asnthe process $ which the physical

p r u p e r t i e s of n a t t 2 r are c o m e r t e d i n t o e c ~ n ~ r n i c va lues by

Baran (1977) hclds the view t h a t the problems i n

p h y s i c a l distribution are on account of the fact t h a t

process i n d i f f e r e n t ways. producers a t t a c k the 3 xcessive

c o s t s o r t h e dispr~portionatc p r i c e s of distributive agencies

s imi la r views. The p rov ide r s of intervening services on

of t h e s e r v i c e s which they provide,

no the n l t i l ~ . ~ of phys ica l distribution costs, ?lol len

and Turner (397;) i n t h e i r study of "f marketing c s s t s "

noted that, i n g n i t s i Kin,gdom. food distributing agencies are

responsible f o r o v e r half of ~ ~ n s U m e r spending ofi

They noted that measurements of marketing c o s t s can be

e i t h e r of the tnree following rneth~ds:

i) aggregating the value added by all manufacturers

and distributors;

estim2tifir; r ep resen ta t ive pr ice spread betwe2n

p r d u c $ ~ o n p o i n t a r~ r i r e t a i l shops for the main

cvrnpon~nt s cf the f v ~ d bill 3nd apply ing thes? zo

t h e c l u m t i t i e s handlwi and f i n a l l y c o n s m d ;

t d k i n g t a r d i r f e r e n c e between I i n a l expendi tu r?

the feud m d ti& v a l u e of the f cud as it leavzs tile

farm gate a r proauction po in t .

I n t h i s sturly, tlle t h i r d methud will be applied.

Wollen m d T u r n w ( ? 970) also identified five functional

c o s t areas in physical distribution and noted that unmg

these , the aust i r i p ~ r t a n t are t ranspor ta t ion and s t o r 3 , q e .

kccording t~ 2uellmen (19691, transportation is l i t e r a l l y

pa r t of the v a l u e of every commodity and most servicas

avai lable in an economy. Transportation cost, accordin& to

Urn is a d i r e c t l 'unct ion of d i s t ance t r ave l l ea , q u a n t i t y

and t h e natl-rre of tile cornrnodity t r a n s p o r t e d , On the o t h e r

hand, transfer cost consists of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and h m d l i n g

charges. Handling charges a r e f ixed i r respec t ive of t h e

distance t r s v e l l e d and comprise loading and off- loading

charges; while transportation cost increases with distance

t ravel led. These cos t s are f u l l y borne by the middlemen in

performing t he i r d i s t r i b u t i v e func t ion . The other i r qx r t an t

c o s t area in p h y s i c a l distributior, is stclrage, This is

concerned with keep ing g u o u u n t i i a t ime they are msded.

In tk.;Ls rcsqrd, s t c r a , ; ~ cos t is affec ted by the q u a n t i t y

t h e categuries of b u y ~ r s , s e l l e r s and markets used e tc .

Cassava is mainly marketed as' f r e sh raw tubers o r in such

processed f o m s as gari, f u f u (akpu), t ap ioca , s t a rcn ; ou t

of which gari is the most popular. Fresh cassava t u b e r s are

sold in heaps; the p r ices d e p ~ n d on the variety, season, e t c .

Despi te the v z r i o u s uses to which cassava can be put,

chssava gro:m e n t d r tiie m s r k ~ t in ' t h ~ processed

(fiben m d ?'!itnz, 1 ,;; i?~t) . lFurthenwre, Oben and 14enz ( I 983)

and I k p i et al (f.2%f:.) =~nd Karuntd. 2nd Ezurnah (1958) observeb

t h a t the main fcnn in which processed casszva roots ar?

Consum~d is i n t h e f i r m of gari which accounts f a r 3bou t

70% of bassavs consurried in Nigeria. Processing of casssva

i n t o gari has Seen r epo r t ed to be profitable ( ~ p ~ r z e t zl,

985 ; Kazunwi and Zzurnah, 7968) . Gar i is sold in sm3.l

quant i l y with a "spec ia l cup" measurement, in basins, bags

of 2Skg, %kg o r IUDkg depending on the l o c a l i t y and

qusnt i t y demanded by t h e consumer,

' > 3 L J

Altho~lgh, c. l isava may be processer! a l l t h r o ~ g h tne

ypar; it is as w e l l as a seasonal crop and this influmces

the v a r i u u s prices of p r ~ c e s s e d cassava products , especially

Eari. P r i c e s can a l so be affected by qu,ur t i ty and q u a l i t y of

produc t s , l o c a l i t y , r e l a t i v e p r i c e s of o t h e r foods .

Cassava is sold to i.:heiesaless, retailers and consimers.

Cassava can Le inarl;eted a t f a m gate, v i l l a g e or l a c d

market, urt.arz markets e t c . The choice of market d e p z m s on

the farm~r's need, t h e d is tance f rom t h e farm t o m a r k e t , the

m a r ~ e t i n g days oi the market, q u m t i t y a rd form of p r ~ d u c - t

t o be marketed, e t c .

2.7 Harketing Plargins

Narketing margins have been descr ibed vari~usly by

m a n y authors in terms of retail and farm-gate p r i ce s and

provis ion of marketing serv ices ,

Adegeye and D l t t g h (I 982) described market h g mar bm -r ' as

the difference in p r i c e p a i d t o the f i r s t s e l l e r and that

paid by t he f i n a l buyer. Uowey and Trocke (1981) s imply

regarded marketing margin as t h e share of the consumer

dollar t h a t i s requirecl t o cover the c o s t s incured i n the

rna rke tLq process; w h i l e ~ s u j i (1960) ana Kanu (1 3130 rlelinsr:

it as "Lhe rlixference between the producer p r i ce and -:?hat the

ultirnaTe consuurex- 2ay s f cr t h e s 4 t n ~ c ~lj!l[lr~dity, Tomel; 3nd

RdLrxon ( 3 972) de f ined marketing margin as the price f o r

a C O ? ~ X . + ~ G ~ ~ of s e n t i c e s which is a funct ion of t h e deruand

f o r and supp ly of these se rv ices , and/or t h e d i f f e r e m e

between t h e farm-gate p r i c e and the r e t a i l p r i ce .

Adeyokurmu (1 973) noted t ha t the narketing margins

a r e re tu rns to a l l t h e factors o f production used i n toe

process of making goods from producers a v a i l a b l e t o t h e f i n &

the rlilference between the p r i c e et t h e r e t a i l l e v e l an-d t h e

f arm-gate or p r o d u c e r p r ice . Clathemztical ly, it can b e

p u t thus:

PF = Farm gate p r i c e

T h i s aethod and formular w i l l be used i n t h i s s t udy

in calculating marketing margins f o r g a r i . Swpherd and N t r e l l ('1970) i n t h e i r a n a l y s i s o f

- marketing margins noted t h a t only about 30% of tne

c~nsurner ls d o l l a r spent on food g e t s back t o t h e fanner. They

were worried why it should c o s t more t o g e t t h e food f rom

producer to ccnsurner t h a n it does t o produce it. They noted

t h a t t h e mason mzy be because the marketing system i s grossljr

i n e f f i c i e n t sr that t h e middlemen are making a x o r b i t m - c

p r o f i t s o r : n a r ~ i n s . They maintained t h a t n e i t h e r w i u e nor

narrow marketifig nzrglxl is of consequence as people have the

preconception tha t vide margins Eean high pr ices t o consumers

and low prices to farmers, They, however, s t ~ s s e a t h a t z p r ~

margins which normal ly resu l t . w h ~ n proaucers d e a l d i r e c t l y

with consumers aiu not d e p i c t an e f f i c i e n t marketing system,

increased denaiid f o r market ing ssrrrrices Fy zonsurners as a n i.>'iiilm.~

p,*t cf I%-G-

A deiVrelopmer~t rno&ernization process . hiith respect to t h e

r e l a t i v e s t a 5 i l i t y o f marketing margins, t hey noted

marketing margins a r e more s t a b l e t h a n p r i c e s because must .

de r ives c h i e f l y f r o m f l e x i b i l i t y tka t occur in l a b o u r c o s t

per unit of o u t p u t , and that p r o f i t margins t ha t go Lo

middlemen take o n l y a small percentage of the consumer food

sgending - r a b o u t f i v e percent,

Kdhls and Lhl ( 7 %D) in analysing food marketing marztns

noted that consmers face two pr ices f o r food: the farm

p r i c e and the Ifmarketing p i c e n or margin. These p r i c e s ,

they c~ntended, reflect the cos t of g r ~ d u c i n g farm p ~ d u c t ,

c o s t ~f marketin& services, as w e l l as the consumer% desire

for the two t l i x o ~ ~ u c t s " . They maintained that marketing acids

both v a l ~ x ariG c35 t3 t o farm products and t h e r e f o r e increased

marketing nar$in a l s o increases the r e t a i l v a b e and hence

obtained f rom fzrm-gate markets while r e t a i l and w n o l e s d e

p r i c e s were ~ b t a l n e d from cent ra l ( u a o )

ts through tne use of

q i ~ a s t . i o ~ ~ i r e . QsuJiLdivided his ~ L U U ~ area into f i v e zones

Olaysai (1977) on tne a t h e r h2~r12, d i ~ r i d e d Xlmra S t a t e

into zarips (xG,~, Ska;ari, L;[f 'iagi, i ' a t eg i , Ilorin and

&ina>! s . 4 s 1 r r ; i l u r sl:r:aiat;i on &':d c o i ~ p u t s t i o f i of Tile W S were

~ : a z ~ i ~ d out $0 ;:et l;i:e ZLE~I : . p y i c c s f ~ r the s tat?.

ITable 3 s u ; ~ r r < , ~ i z e s ";l.le r e s u l t s of t k ~ e p ~ n p i r i c a l studies

or: n z l - ~ p t i l l , ; _ . L, ::iarS/in:; cT1 in hir,eri.2 as 11eviewed in t h e preceeding

para~,rs . :~hs . ?>-or. T~z.ble 3 , wit.?^ t,he ~ x c e p t i o n of' t h e work by

Ariciyokl;rm~i.;, the rest of t . he s t u d i 5 s shaw~d that middlemen

had ~ x : , ~ i b i + ; ~ ? i &- ~xgl~itatlv~ t ~ n ~ e i ~ c i e s in t h e i r p r o f it

t i v . This i s h z e d 0:-i t h e f a c t that in a l l these s t u d i e s ,

p z ~ f ' i t ~ w z g i h ~ h : , C t h e lzrgest share of the total marketing

nrlrlgins f ~ i . t:ia > r o d u c t s . Thus, it w o u l d apg:ear that

the iaiddlel.,e;; in the s t u d y area were charging Inore than

it cost ''uhea t o Xi& the li;oods f r o 3 1;lle p r a d i - x e r s available

t o the corsuners . H~l,.j~.rier, f ;h~ k i n r k 3 ~ n e by QS_a,ysmj.

(1373) r e v e a l ~ d l a r g e s t vzlue of farmer I s share of the

- C O n Z U m E T m ' S i i ~ i ~ a , a l t hough , O s u j i, .ka~yokunnu, and Olayemi

w o r k e d a11 t h ~ ~ 3 3 - pycm32ct - r e . Therefore, it nay be

z s s e r t e b t h ~ ~ t t h e d l f f e r ~ n c e s in p e r i o d s of accounted

for t h ~ i : l i f f e r ~ n c i a l s in the s i z e of m ~ ~ r k ~ t l n g materials

f a r t k ~ f ~ f i ~ . i i ~ t l i f f . n l ~ - i ~ l - i ~ h ... 'h~ a b c v ~ s t u ! j ies r e v i e w e d p r o d u c t s t h a t are

d i s t i i - x t fron tl.i.at, of t;b? p r e s e n t or-le, an a d a p t a t i o n

the +J;lrks a ~ i d t l i~ i r methodologies ;.;ill be of immense v a l u e L 1,i2 $lie ~ > ~ e s c f i t , sf q d ~ : .

Government Areas borbering ~niocha-North are Esan South-East

t o the Nnrth, Ika Plorth-East t o the West, Gshirnili to t h e

East and Aniocha-South to t h e south.

The Local Goverment Area (LGA) is general ly low-lying

x i thou t remarkable h i l l s bu t with ever-green f o r e s t s as

i t s major wge ta t i on .

The :j)1 ,jol;ulation censils gives ,Wioclna-iqorth Local

Government Area popula t ion as 55,345 persons made up of

27,289 males and 28,115 females o u t of the Delta Sta te r 5

t o t a l p o p l s t i o n of 2,570,?81. qeJa

The ,(l;niosna-i-iortk Local Government ::rea) has -.,

t r n y i c a l c l imate marked by two d i s t i n c t i v e seasons: the u r y

and rainy seasons. TkLe dry seasan o c c u r s b e t w e n l\Jov-.;.tber

and A ; l r i l ixkiile t i l e rainy season begins i n ~ p r i l and 1 3 s t ~

1 . There ex is t s a b r i e f d r y s2eli . In August

commonly r e f ~ r r ~ d t o as t1uugust Break". From ~ecernber t.0

:yLa1<e I!: -- S e l e c t i u n ~f middlemen (wholesalers and retzti l~rs)

engaged i n kari marketing,

Whclesalers a re thl.jse middlemen who buy ~irectly from

t h e primary or ldcal markets and/or producers in bulk. They

,art? 1-:3th IlhuJ-k buyers11 2nd "bulk breakers" for t h e y break

b ~ 1 k aud sell tu r e t a i l ~ r s and at times cansurners.

The nain markets in the chosen v i l l ages and. towns + : a: ::r lr:p+, of.

were chosen f :,IY :.u-~u].esalers and. retailers. Since these '

( : t ~ i : l ~ i . - c ~ l ~ r's .;I;;! re.-.t.zilgrs rE spec t ~ r r e l , ~ ) in +lie ~ r a r i o u s

rxarics t:? n?i,~;:=en i o r ?Cis st~l ; : . In this c a s e . z t t e m p t s biere

The t ~ i r a set ;f h e ques t i cnna i ru wag d i r c c z e c i t~

t n e p r d u c e r in t 1 i i 1 cllcsen tcwns/villages, namely;

Issele-Srku, bnicha-U; Pi), b t u l u , Idurnuogo &nu Ani~m3. Alsc,,

p e r s o n a l o b s ~ r v a t i c r l s af gari g r u d u c t i ~ n a c t i v i t i e s were

made. The quest ions here were focused arnclng o the r s , l;zl

information on SracessGrs fur b ~ t h home cunsumptim and ~ C I '

c o s t of f~elwucb usea per given m o u n t of gari produced, r ~ n r i

cost of, t imc taken t o f r y a given q u a n t i t y of gari, c o s t cf

t r a n s p o r t a t i o n of cassava t u b e r s f rum farms to markets and/cr

hollses, the q u a n t i t y of ga r i got from a given q u a n t i t y o l

cassava t u m r s ar:u yevenue fram t h e s a l e of gark.

3.4 Data Analysis

Thc d a t a c s l l e c t ~ d wpre subjected to cent ra l tzrlcier-icy

statistical a n ~ l y s i s using simple averages, percenxages

and frequency d i s t r i b u t i u n .

The prof i t a b i l i t y of g a r i p r cduc t i on and marketing

( that is the quantification of costs a:ld f inai ic ia l b e n e f i t s

o f smallholder g3ri p r u d u c t i v n and marketing) was estimated

by tne use of e n t e r p r i s e budget . m en te rpr i se budget is

an es t ima te of all incomes and expenses associa ted :.;ith a

s p e c i f i c enter~rise ana an estirnat,e ,,f i t s p r o f ' i t a b i i i t y .

4 C h a r a . c t ~ : ~ i s t ics o f t h e Respondents

( ; .kolesalers an2 r e t a i l e r s ) of i n t e r e s t i rL t h i s a n a l y s i s

r s l z t e f o t h e i r sex, age, an<( e d u c a t i ~ n a b l e v s l . .

par 'f , iciparLts iri t h ~ g a r i p r c 2 u c t i o n i n d u s t r y i n t h e s t u d y

area. The distribution of t h ~ seses are displayed on Table 4,

T&.e t a b l ~ ; (4) shcw~. t h s * more females were engaged in

severr ( 7 ) r e s p o r i d e n . 2 ~ or 14s were malea. This result i r cp l i ed

that g a r i p r o d u y t i a n 1r1 the area was mainly t h e b u s i n e s s

3f women.

S i n i l a r l y , 25 females (83.37;) were engaged in g a ~ i

retziling as a ~ a i n s t the five mzles (16.75) i d e n t i f i e d .

I n t h ? case of t h e wholesale a s p e c t , o u t of the 30

One can t h e r e f a r e i ~ f l r that b o t h g a r i p r o d u c t i o n a n d

.nar%ef i~i:.; businesse3 in the a r e a were nlainljr women s a f fa i r .

This r e f l ~ c t s t h c q u l t u r e cf t h e people in t h e area

T I - , - . v I . i ~ l i s t i p u l a t e s t h a t men s h o u l d be ew;z;aged in crop

Table 4: ' jzx ~ : i ~ t r i i x Z i ~ n ~f the res;;li;rm?nts

G a r i Producers Ul tulu

Anioma

bnicha-Ugbo 7 3

Total ? &3

WhoLesalers Issele-Uku 4 i i t u l u 3 bn icha -3gb~ 2

~f~icha-IJgb;, 1 j

T n t a l 5 25 --I

Source: Field survey; Narch - Yay, 1393.

e d i s t r i b u t i o n of respondents

Table 5 shows that none of the gari producers a d

marketers (wholesalers mu r e t a i l e r s ) interviewed i s belox

the age of fourteen (*l4). The highest percentage of gar i

p r o d u c ~ r s were found between the age range of 24-33 (42%)

In t h e C S R of the whalesalers, t h e hi:$wt percentage

( 4 0 ~ 6 ) aze range was between 24-33 zs ,against t h e age range

of between 5L a ~ i d above which accounted f o r o n l y 6.776 of

the respol-dei-its.

r-7 l be case of t he r e t a i l e r s was d i f f e r e n t from t h a t o f

t h e whol~seiers as t h ~ sge ran&;e o f between 14 azd 2 3

f u r n i s h e d t h e h i g h e s t percentage; while the leas t

pe rcen t age was r ~ z l i s e ? f rom t h s age r a g e of 54 and above.

Table 5: Age d i s t r i b u t i o n of the respondents

i icl . o f

y e g a r i 20. o f No; o f .{yrs) 'DI'OUUC ers ?:,%olesalers R~tailers

h z d an inc~m;ilf ' t ;e p r i m i r y and pos t -pr imary cducztion

r e s p e c t i v e l y . Sixty percent (30 out of the 50 r e s p o r h n t s )

of the ~ a r i prucluc~r- .s at tempted primary school with I 0 of

them o r 36~6 having completed while 12 o r 24% oof t h e m had an

Table 6 (~0nt.d)

ii) \$holesalers

Secondary s c m o l u.ncmmplet ed

Secmdary schocl completed

Source: F i e l d survey; March - May, 1993.

Level of Education Sssele-

Uku Gtulu unicna-Ugh0

Primary school uncompleted 3 3 Primary s choo l c o ~ n p l e t ~ d 3 4 3

S ~ c o n d a r y school 1 compl ft ed 3 ,J

-- Tots1 13 Ti, 1 J - Source: F i e l d su rvey ; 19~arch - May, 1993.

1 ,2 Gari "rroQuction anb I larket lng LC in ir~iac.lm-Nsrth L Q C A ~ ~fuverrment Area

4.2. -1 Gari product ion -

Gari p roduc t i on involves combinat ions of sequent ia l

processes and/or stages. The sta6es are peeling, w a s h i n ~ ,

grating, sacking, d w a t e r i n g , fermentation, siftind a m

Probuc t i on 01 g a r i begins w i t h peeling the cassava tuber

manually, u s ing a kni fe .

The problems a t t h i s s tage a r e t h e p robab le injury

to t he f i n g e r s of t h e p r o c e s s o r by knife and tile fact; t k m i

the o p e r a t i o n is quite slow,

4.2.1.2 Washing

The next s t ep t o g e e l i a g i s washing of the peeled

tubers. It i s ol 'ten by-passea: by some of t h e p r o c e s s o r s

who have no access t o water, e s p e c i a l l y during t h e d r y

periods. This causes g a r i to contain some q u a n t i t y of

sand par t i c l e s and o t h e r i m p u r i t i e s which are de t r imen ta l

to hmm hea l th .

4.2.1.3 Grating

The stage, a L t e r washing, i s g ra thg . At this s ta~ t ) ,

t h e pee l ea wa.r;;rm.i c-issava t u b e r s are take;^ t o the g r a t i n h

mac,GLin~ (power grater) f u r g r a t i n g i n t o s l u r r y

The y r u b l e n ~ here is t h ~ t the processur st:3nds t h e

r i s ~ ~f g e t t i n g hisiher f i nge r s wounded t r even cdt off by

t h e power grater v h i l e tryin& to c o l l e c t trie s l u r r y .

I . - Szcking m a dewater ing

iit this stage, t h e s l lurry i s p u t i n t o p l a s t i c s l c ~ c s

( s l c k i n s ) ._:nd a ~ v i ~ t ~ r e a w i a i a meck~~lnic.11 pressing !le..:ic? . I n t n e c s s e ~f 01 l eu &wi, t r ~ e s l u r r y is mixa rr;itli p d n

oil bef or^ de:tdteriri,.', . Apart f r ~ m the Pzct tha t o i led & x i se l l s faster ilz

a s e l and a l s o 1ook;s .nore attracTive, it is nure n u t r i t i a u s

as the r e d palm oil i f l t roduces vi tamin A as w ~ l l as f a t s

m a o i l s i n t o t n e p r ~ c i u c t .

4.2.1.5 Fermentation

Ln the average, 2ci;;i of t h e processors carried o d t the

g r o c e s s 01' f e r m n t a t i o n before dewatering t h e pulp. ~ I o s t

of t h ~ g a r i p rodacers overlooked the issue of f e r m e n t a t i m

because it wastea t h e i r time s ince they of ten comgl~teci. all

t h e g a r i production a c t i v i t i e s in a clay, without ferme~ltst ion.

This is mostly d m e i n the case of t h e gari meant for

corrlmercial purpdses: s i m p l y because they want to proclcxcQ as

much g a r i as p o s s i b l e before the market bay w h i c h occurs

every f o u r d d y s . I t i c pmcesso r s modified fermentatiun

sys tem is s i m p l y al lowing the dewatered duugn to stay over-

nigh t before silctin, ad frying take place t h e next day.

The rea l f e r m ~ ~ i t a t f o n , however, i s done by p u t t i n g

the grate6 mass ( p u l p ) into p las t i c sacks and these are l e f t

i n the upen air Lo ferment between one and two days. The

number of days it is allowed to fement a f fec ts the colour,

t a s t e a r ~ d texzurle o f the r e s u l t i n g gari. Qrzerally, t h e

l m g e r the gra ted rmss is fermented, the finer, whiter (if

not o i l e d ) , more s o u r t h e t a s t e and less starchy the prouuct

(gari). Fermentation reduces the cyanide content of gari.

4.2'.1.6 sifting

The dewatereci dough is s ieved to r'eii~ove f i b r e s ,

ungrated ends a m stumps. The dough is taken in bits f r o m

the sack a id p l a c ~ d on a flat sieve/sifter, which is woven

with 9aI-m f iSres or si~nllar materials.

Using the fingers, t h e dough is squeezed and s t i r r e d on

t h e s ieve with a little pressure thereby a l l o w i n g the

sievate to pass into the big basin on which the flat s ieve

is placed,

4.2. I. 7 ~ r y i n g / r ~ a s t i q

The last a c t i v i t y involves frying/roastin$ t o gelatinize

and d r y tne sievate into t oas ted granule c a l l e d g x i . Ihe

sievate is placed i n small mounts at a time in the f r y i n g

p a over woou lire di la s t i r r e d with stirrer a t L -'--'' ' ' '

i n t e r v a l s , ~t tihis s tage , more o i l could be,added if tile

alresdy added one is seen t o be inadequate, When the

proay;ct is adequately d r y , it is then spread o u t on a f l a t

s i ~ e e 5 t o r e l e a s e i-is hea t content and m o i s t u r e , A t t h i ~

p a i n t , t h e procixct i s ready for sa le o r c o m u m p t i a n , a3 thl

casP ma,y be

It h ~ c o m e s obvious from the preceding d i ~ c u s s i a n s

- - I . > . + j;rncps;in~; of cassava t u b e r s i n t a g a r i is highly

/:. I r i : Tt p u t s a lot of p r e s s u r e and strain on

- , . - prnur_.c- ;:,rors e s ~ t ~ c i a l l y d u r i n g the plant.ing s e a s o n when

m s - . crops must be p lan t ed , Accordingly, g a r i production

a u r h g such s e m m s is usua l ly reducedo

According t o IITA (19881, gar i production is expensive

hec?use o f the l a b o u r intensive nature of m o s t o f i t s

~ r a l - e s s l n g s t e p s .

4.;&2 b;arket ing o f gar i

The f a c t t h a t the t h r e e towns/vlllages chosen ( I s s s l e .

- , l ' ' v , 1 7 2 an-- Onichz-Ugbo) f o r garf marketing s t u d i e s are

4. . ,+-r, : ~zn r~ . - t n e snurces of t h ~ ! p r ~ ~ d ~ c t (4.2.2. L .l)

: ? - 7s ' ., a ~ l - r ~ - t h : i t t h e y are not only known f a r g a r i

rnar-xeting b u t f o r its production also, G ~ r i p r o d u c e r s in

t.11- 5nree c e m u n i t i e s h a d access t o at l eas t one market

x :hLn t h e i r i n d l v m u a l communities, In some o t h e r cases ,

dr oy (gari praiucers) travelled t o n e ~ r b y village~/towns

t n s e l l t h c i r Gzri. The e x t e n t t o which t h i s WRS a ~ h i ~ ~ ~ a

J>;.,:P:; : ~ n sever-i f a c t o r s such as p r o x i m i t y t o 'the

I ; . -' . ::n!::-: TLS xri~-..r~. t F a n r i / ~ r urban c e n t r e s , access t o

I : ! , . T ~ x . : - ~ c J - . ~ rinu the relative ~ r i c e s o f the pro5uct <.

- - ~ h s n l ' f e r ~ n t ~ 1 3 r k e t 6 .

i;vn t h o u $ ;np k;ari producers had access to, a t l e a s t ,

- ;n:.rj:: t in their i n d i v i d u a l l o c d i - k i ~ s , transportation

scrvices were n o t adequate. A s a consequence, producers

( n o s t l y women) were c a m o n l y seen w i t h h a a d l o a d s of

~f i .~ ! - ~ ~ l ; : i b l c g a r i wLlking t o o r f r o m markets, Some, however,

c n i i v ~ y ~ d t h ~ i r p r n d u c t to the n a r k e t in t r u c k s /

whc .e l t~ : i r z 'o .~s w n i l e zthers u t i l i z e d t h e sezvices of

I- w ~ d ; . - c ~ - c l i n t u p o p u i a r l y b r a n d ~ d 'Okada* . Intra-town

rani' 3 1 - v p h i c 1 e [ ~ E L X L ) tran~port services dxd n o t exist

~ i r . . ior,?l! i.i7vernme>tm

r .-: L . 5 . c r ~ t:.t. c:::r.ri 2 r g a u c e d a n d solci w i t h i n I s s e l e -

#.-. . , ' - l t l i ~ ; a m Oxipm-Ugbo r e s p e c t i v e l y , a l a rge q u a n t i t y

ut ' ,.ar: p r u ~ : ~ u c t ( g ~ r i j w a s often supplied t o t h e aforementio~~

tawr,s f r o m neighbouring towns and more remote v i l l w e s ,

t o ~nake up t h e bulk r e q u i r e d t o satisfy the very high

n t l . -.F fclr tne 1 2 Q I P l . . O ; l i t y in the three tawna sna/or

xxr J , . * ? ~ Z ,

The major sources of gari to the lot-a1 .goverment as

identified by the respondents are surnmarised uelow:: - - .

a ] Issele-Uku- Issele-Uku, Idumuo,ro, ~ t ~ l u , Gnichz-Ugbo,

Onicha-Clona, Lnicha-Uku, 1dm1.1 je-Unor,

Iaum~lLje-Ugboka, Iss~le-Kkpitim~., Zzi ,

Ugbodu and Ukwnzu (all in ~ n i o c n a N o r t h

1,ocal t i ~ v e r m e n t Area) and Illah, ~turna,

hi-T-Jwalo, and ~kwukwu (all in ushirni l i

Local Government Area).

j) Otulu - Illah, ~tuma, mi-Nwalo, ~L~wukwu, (all in

bshirnili Local Government ~ r e a ) and utulu,

Aniorna, Ezi, fssele-Azagba, a d Ubulu-Ukiti .

c) Unicha-Uguo - Cnicha-Ugba , . Idumuje-lhor, Idumuj e-U&oko,

Gnizha-Uku and imlofu.

4.2.2.1.2 Warket$'ig channels

The marketing channels of gar i in miocha-North Local

Governnent Area are tne seri2s of intermediaries through which

gari passes from proctdcers to consumers in t h e Local

Government Area (LGH) .

~ c c o r , l i n , to L L : ~ respondents (prouucers and : + h " ~ ~ e ~ d l e r s

i n t ~ r ~ i e i l ~ ~ ~ s ) , the:.= w a - P :;-!axy ffiicldlernen involved i n the

r7 . rndrkzting n l ,ari. ,rlis, coupleu with the e f f o r t t o acquire

sut ' f ic ier l t quanti-cies frwn many small producers as well as

transportation cos t g r ~ a t l y increasedthe marketin, cost.

Ln the o t h e r h a d , t h e impl ica t ion of the presence o i s o

n a y p r t i c i p a n x s in t he marketing process* t he p o s s i b l e

e f f ec t i ve r educ t ion of zhe indi~idual'~~ share of the

marketing margin.

G a r i producing households i r i t he area used mmy

alternative distribution systems. What essentially determined

who to s e l l gari t o 7.%rere the p r i c e s of fered by buyers a i u

t h e volurne of & m i e q e c t e d to be sold. Hence some middlemen

3y-passed one o r more of the distribution poht(s) t o sell

their g a r i ( ~ L g r e 4.q ) .

Wholesalers

& I R e t a i l e r s

Fig. 4.1 : Schenatic representation of t h e marketing chamwls for gari in miocha-North local gowrment area .

This g r u u p a f p a r t i c i p a n t : d in t h e processing

- , - ' cassxva t u b n r s into g a r i in tne s z u d y a rea , Twenty

.-c,:ns ,of ~ L F : gr03;tcers interviewed at Issele-Uku

~ l ~ b t ~ i t t l = d thrl t t h e y p roduced g a r i p u r e l y f o r cornnerc ia l

p ~ i p o s e s ana n o r v a l l y t r a n s p o r t e d it t o t h e n o r t h e r n

~ - I Y Z of t h e c o u n t r y for sa l e t o t h e wholesaler^ directly.

_ r . - - , y ~ : r . ~ . t 0; ' them however, i n d i c a t e d t h a t they s o l d

. . . 1 - : - They s t r e s s e d t h a t t hey were

; - . ~ : L ~ . ~ ~ - ~ ~ ; : z w ~ t t who t o s e l l t o . That is, that t h e y

C - L;: :, i r e c t l y to wholesa le rs , r e t a i l e r s and/or consumers.

T b;g s o i i s p e c i f i c a l l y t o t he wholesalers o n l y when they

n?.a ve ry l a r g e q u = t i t i e s of gar I d i s p o s e o f f .

' : ::el-~-Cku ant O t u l u had assembly markets, A s such ,

r - - , c l . l ~ ~ e r s sLsa s ~ ~ d t o wha le sa l e r s f r o m outisde t h e l o c a l

, n i ~ c r . n a c n t and /o r State* Gari p roduce r s f r o m neighbouring

t n w r ~ s and /o r v i l l a g e s and p r o d u c e r s from outside the

. :.:ai I;nvernmont s n i p p e d t h e i r l o a d o f gari for sale on

- ., - t.: e r ! - - ~ r r : e t ; day. Wholesalers from Lagos, A r ~ a ,

+ J , 1t: i.;:, .c-saua, Kaduna, Swkoto, H a i b u g u r f , Kano

- 5 ~ L C D : ~ ~ lsentrea cane i n t o t h e area I n l a r r l e a ,

trill t::~ eve o f t he market dayx and made t

;:ari, e a r l y er iaugh, on the market days

urchases back

csm f r o m f a r

then t r ansso r t ed t h e i r p tV V I A - .uA-VUY wY..a.Y

a n d / o r c i t i e s where they ---- -- - - - -*

distribution p a t t e r n was cantinuous f o r Potn m e g a r 1

. - ~ t ~ u ~ u c e r s ami t he wholesalers f r o m o u t s i d e the L o c a l

4,:overnment and/or S t a t e . It becames e v i d e n t t h e r e f o r e

Lbat g a r i proctuced in the L o c a l Government was not o n l y

d i s - k ~ i b u t e d and consumed wi th in the area but throughout

I l . . = t parts 02 this country.

'::-F ~ I ~ O ~ ; ~ J C P T ' F ; in Otulu ~pecifically s a l d t h e i r g a r i

. J . i An i n s i g n i f icmt proportion of the

: I . 0,;b z e r s , however , s o l d t o t h e r e t a i l e r s uho

In tura s o l d t o c n n s u m r s ,

Unicna-Ugbo g a r i producers mainly s o l d t o r e t a i l e r s

wi~a ir, turn s o l d t o consumers, However, some u t i l i z e d

T r L r a ~ v a ~ t s g e of the f a c t that t h e i r marke t is l o c a t e a by

trie Lagos-Asaba Expressway to sell directly to the consune:

livinz in c i t i e s like Lagos, Benin, Ibadan, P o r t H a r c o u r t

n ,.:: T. ~ t ; ~ : p r s , who f r e q u e n t l y p l y the a£ forementioned r o a d ,

. . -(-nr.:-. Lr.- L O w e ? r o 2 - ~ c e r s i n t s r ~ i e w e d ~ t h e s e ca tegory of

I n , : r : WL'P p r ~ . r ~ ' f e r r e d not o n l y because they bought in

a r l r i q l % ~ t l t i e s b u t a l s o j Y

f;-17,-. I-it:rier p r + i c e r ; thun car~hmo 111s

-J : r ; ; i n s .

A c l o s e r l o o k at Figure 4 .1 shows t h r e e major

t .!Ls5ribution channels of gari i n the area and tnese arc

,, . ,-, 3 A , d € Channel ' A \ where p r o d u c e r s sold

c - i r e c t l y to t h e consumers represent a zero-level channel

m i l e thzt of 'B' refers t o a one-level channel as i.i

t 7 t . n i l s t h e p r o d u c e r s s e l l i n g t o the retailers who ir,

turn s o l d to the consumers* The d i s t r i . b u l i o n chacnel ' C '

i s b r x d e d a t w o - l e v e l channel beceuse t he wholesalers

b a u g h t from t h e producers in l o c a l markets 2nd s o l d t o

rr t a i i e r s (m-u some times consumers) i n the assembly m r k ~ t '

w k ~ o eventually s o l d to the ultimate consumers.

A a 3 C o s t s m d Returns of Gari Production

In t h i s study, production costs were c l a s s i f i e d

i.l:;,c~ t ' i . x ~ d and v a r i a b l e c o a t s .

, . - <: <. 2.1 F..ixgd c a s t (PC)

F i x e d cost (FC) i s the c o s t o f i t e m s thet do not I

v a r y with the amount of gari p r 3 i n a given p e r i o d of

time: a t l e a s t , i d t h e ahortrun ramples i n t h i s con tex t

i n c l u d e basin (Ibani' in ~ ~ b o ) , f r y l q pan, k n i f e , stirrer,

ar.1.; sifters, The v a l u e of these items depreciate with

t ime, B u t , i n this s t u d y , the f i x e d c o s t was found to be

Fcr instarice , frying pan and basin, repor ted as the moet

expFnsive by t h e 'respondents, have averzge useful l i v e s

09 between 40-50 y e a r s a d 25-30. years respectively; while

t h l : i r c ~ s t prices, as at the time of t h i s s t u d y w e r e 3300

s2:; ;.il68, r e s p e c t i v e l y , llgzinst the foregoings t he re f nre ,

only t h e variable c a s t s of production were aetermineC,

By i m y l i c a t i o ~ , the t o t a l v a r i a b l e c o s t (TVC) of

+ ; q p l i production was equal t o t h ~ t o t a l c o s t (TC) f o r t n e

:ca.:t- n f t h i s a n a l y s i s .

These a r e d e f i g e d as expenses which vary in s i z e with

l e v r l o f o u t p u t * Var iab le c o s t s , i n t h i s study, were

a c t u d l y payments f o r such var iab le inputs and/or s e r v i c e s

es ~eeling and washing, g r a t l n g and dewatering, s i f t h e ,

f r y i n c , palm o i l , fuelwooa, plastic sacks, cassava tubers

used f o r the p r o d u c t i o n of gar i , c o s t of transportation of

czssava tubers f r o m farms and/or markets t o +he g a r i

~ T ~ ~ I R U C F Z ' s ~ h o u s e s a n d c o s t of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n o f g a r i from

+ , r ~ i pJnr , l~ i l r ze rs ' houses to the markets able 7).

A c l o s e l o o k at Table 7 will ascertain, judging from

t h e c o s t , t h a t f r y ing , which took 10.5$ of the total

v a r i 2 a l e cost (TVC) of producing one tonne o f gari, was the

nos4; s t renous and t ime consuming s tage of gari p roduc t ion .

It was m o s t expensive a t Isssbe-Uku and O t u l u where it c o s t s

an average of 3i868,31 per t o m e of gar i while it w a s

c h ~ a p e s t at Idumuogo and Anioma at W651,23 per tonne on

h a This w a s followed by peeling and washing

( ~ . 9 6 $ of the TIT,), which varied f r o m an average af

#578,87/tonne a t b o t h Idumuogo a ioma to B723.59 a t

Issele-Uku, The coat of accompllsnlng the peeling a n d

washing taska waa considered cheap when compared with the

labour intensive n a t u r e of t h e tasks, The probable r eason

f o r this is that both taska do not r equ i r e any s p e c i a l i z e d

s k i l l , Consequently, ch i ld r en , who were desperately looking

"o!. t h e i r o m pocket money b u t with weak b a r g a h i n g power,

c ts : : l 2e t~c l for t h e s e tasks end hence pulled down their prices.

Thc sane thing a p p l i e d t o sifting which claimed 5.59% af

the T ? T and ranged between hJ376.27/tame o f gar1 at bath

Aniome a n d Idumuogo to W434.15 per t o m e at Iasele-Uku*

Grating and dewatering ( 4 . 7 s of were dgwe at the sacpe

p l s c e , one a f t e r th'e o ther , and h e n ~ e t he i r costing were

d o n e together,

S i n c e the two tasks were done by power grater and

mechanised dewatew,respective2y, their prices pu t together

were nearky uniform and quite r e l a t e d in all t he towns

v:~:r~in the Local Government. The siight d i f f e r ences in

- .nz;1 due to the influenee of the f o r c e s a f aamand

mn upp ply as was the case at Issele-Uh (~463,l/tonne) while

t h e y c o s t an average, of W405,21/tonne at Anioma.

EIP case of fuelwood which accounted f o r 5,77$ of

the t0t.21 va lue c o a t (TVC) was s i m i l a r t o that of g r a t i n g

mii uewatering, in that its price was also influenced by

t h e r o r c e s of demand a n d supply . It waa, however,

relatively cheap i n the Local Government becauae it (the

LGA) f a l l s within t h e forest zone geograph ica l ly , where 6

fuelwood i s cheaply and r e a d i l y available, It c o s t s between

~?76.27/tonne at Anioma and #492,04/tonne at Issele-Ukuo

According t o the respondents, an average of two c i g a r e t t e

c u p s of palm oil (three-quarksrs of a Li t re ) was r e q u i r e d

? ~ r t h e production of 69,lkg of g a r i and each of the

iwa t ioned cup o f o i l s o l d a t an average price of N5+00.

Tnis explains why we saw a near LUIiform c a s t of palm o i l

-12 all tne t o m s s t u d i e d with a Local Government average

of ~15~,4/tonne (2.14s of the IvC) , The average c o s t of

sacks which accounted f a r 1,28$ of t he TVC varied f rom

ASO/ tonne at I~seLe-Uku and W u t o 8100/tonne at Rniom,

Qnicha-Ugbo and Idtunuogo, The reasons f o r t he un i fo rmi ty

~f the c o s t of sack was t h a t each costs El0 throughout the

l o c a l government. The s l i g h t pr ice dif Perences observed

were due t a t h e number of sacka used p e r tonne of gari

wnich d i f f e r e d f r o m t o w n to town, S t i l l looking at T a b l a

average of L54014.47, It represents the l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n

o f t h e TYC i t ems - (56,01$), which implies that whatever

f l u c t u a t i o n that o c c u r 8 in its cost will obviously affect

f lc c o s t of g a r i ,

Cn the whole, transportation cost (by motor-cycle

m c i J o r wheelbarrow) accounted for 3.68% of the TVC (that

is jm07$ of the TVC f o r the transportation of cassava

t u b e r s ' and 0.6196 for the transportation of one t ome of gar

acmbme$9he average c o s t of t raneportation of cassava

t u b e r s used for the production of one tonne of g a r i f r o &

t n e Sarma a n d / o r market, to the producerst houses (all

within the same t o w n ) , varied from W187,84 at ldumuogo to

M252.39 a t Onicha-Ugbo while the average cost of

t r a n s p o r t i n g m e t o m e of g a r i f r o m the producers1 houses

t o zne markets ( t h a t is intra-town transportation) , range=

f r u n E4JO42 at both Idumuago and A m m a to B45.01 at

Isselp-Uku. The c o ~ t of transportation in this caae, was

derived from the c o s t of covering the various distances

c c l ~ ~ s i d e r e d by the use of motor-cycle. The reason for

t h i s is that inator-cycle was the most popular means of

t rmspor ta t ioa witain every t o m and vi l lage a n d also had

b n t h well kmwn an3 defined fares to and from the fmms

?q? merkela in every t o w n a n d v i l l age in the a r e a , ,Partly

becaus r the f ~ r m r o a d s in the ezen were b n d , t h e c o s t

L ur . r m s p o r t n t i a n , of cassava tuber^ was h i c h ~ r than t h a t

nf gasi . Moreover, the distance8 between the nnrke t s

~ r z d k r o u s e ~ of g n r i producers interviewed w r e s n o r t e r

L ,Fan t h a t betweed the farms and houssa of t h e p x d v c e r s

?rLd t h i s further expla ins why the c o s t o f t r a m p o r t a t i o n

o f cassava t u b e r s was higher than t h a t of gari, Above

~11, cassava tubers are more bulky and :;lsa h r a ~ i e r than

c-,ari ~ r l f . t h e r e f o r e more expensive t o t r a n s p o r t frwn

; l ' ?c r t o 11 lnce .

11,;1li~: _ t h e t o t a l varl.able c o s t ("X) of groducirlg

one t o m ? n f g a r i ranged f r o m 16707.25 at Aniona t o

7 ~ 5 9 . 7 5 at Iesele-Uku with e Local Government mean of

h71b7.69 a able 75. The t o t a l v a r i a b l e c o s t of E7167.69

was a l so the total c o s t (TC) aince the fixed c o s t was

m ~ l i g i h l e .

W ' W - 8

F a t a l revenue (TR) is defined here as the t o t a l

- e c e i p : s t o t h e s m a l l h o l d e r g a r i producer from the sale o

o w metric tonne of gari . At aa level of output therefore ~ O S S T B V ~ ~ I U C is a product of output (Y 3

k n d the uni t p r i c e ( P ) ~ Hence it (IR) varies directly - 1

with t h e quantity of output s o l d by the gari producer ,

In t h i s work, t o t a l revenue was derived as followss

t h e average producer price o f a basin ('barn' in

Igba ) o f gari (34.55kg) was determined for the

f i v e towns s t u d i e d since the basin is the main a n i t

measure of selling gari by producers in the a r e a .

F r o 3 the p r o d u c e r s e l l i n g p r i ce of one bas ln

(34.55kg) o f gari, that of one m e t r i c tonne was

c s l c u l a t e d f o r the Local Government ( T a b l e 8).

Table 8 reveala that the total returns p e r tome of

&;mi Lieviatad f r o m B8,003,41 at Anioma t o B9304.92 at

Issele-Uku, with a grand mean of H8422.56, ?he highest

average t o t a l revenw was r e d i s e d at hsele-IThu, One of

the reasons for t h i s is that lssele-Uku is the only urban

centre amongst t h e f i v e towns studied and i t i s also the

headquarters of the Local Government, As a consequence,

F - x e higner p o p u l a t i o n of workera with hignftr ,xarcb-as~r.r:

power and thus higher demand for gari which invariably

i nc reased the p r f CE of the produc t (gari) eventual ly ,

t h e v a r i o u s services involved fn gari produc t ion d i f f e r e d

fran town to town. And since the c o s t o f the services

i ~ v o i ~ z c i in gari production was one of the basic

( i . r , e r l~ l -nmts o f t he producer p r ice , it became obvioua t h a t

it p a t l y contributed to t h e var ia t ion in t h e returns f r o m

m e % m n e o f g a r i within t he five t o m s s t u d i e d ,

Table 8: Average total revenue accruing t o gar i producers per tonne o f gari in Aniocha-Xorth Loca l Government Area

Averase total ?lace OF No, of Averago yr ddueer producer p r i ce stusy (TOW-DJ g a l p r i ce p e r basin per tonne of illa age ) producers o f gari (34.55kg) ~ a r i

(is 1 iH3

'P 1 u l u 10 290.38 84040 69

A 1; i 13iIXi -. 10 276.52 8009.41

O r ~ j - c ha-Ug b~ 10 285.48 8254.18

Average (x) 8422.56

Source : F i e l d aurvsy, Much - May. 1993,

4.3.4 > t o gzri prouucers p e r tonne of g a r l in miocb-

between t h e t ~ t a l revenue and t h e t o t a l c o s t (Tc) which is

the same as t h e r ;o ta l var iable c o s t (TVC), in t h i s case, p e r

tonne o f gari produced and so ld .

in t a b l e 9, t h e average ne t p r o f i t (NP) p e r tome of

Issele-Uku ~ i t n d l o c a l gove rmen t average of P!I 255.8G.

Table 9: Average net p r o f i t (W) accruing t o g a r i producers Ter t o m e of g a r i in miccha-North Inca1 ewernment Area

Place of Study (Town/ Vi l l age )

No* of gari producers

Average 'Tot a1 Hevenue Per Tonne (B)

Average T o t a l Variable Cost (ATvC) and/or T o t a l Cost (TC) per Tonne

average Net P r o f i t per Tonne (K)

Prom Table 10, out of the average total revenue of

WHd?2,56 per t o n m o f g a r i , t o t a l v a r i a b l e c o s t (which is

. :-;l.r.i ;L:: :he t o t a l c o s t in t h i s c a s e ) a c c o u n t e d f o r an

. - : 0 5 1 The balance of 14.9% thus represented

the average net profit ( M P ) , This implies t h a t for every

E ~ l r 3 0 , C O t h a t comka to t h e gari producer as revenue per

g i v e n quantity of g a r i produced and sold, 385.1 covers the

,zucrage t o t a l c a s t whi le the remaining B14.9 r e p r e s e n t s

t h e average n s t p r ~ f i t for the gari producer.

F u r t h e r investigation o f the net p r o f l t as a percentage

of the average t o t a l c o s t established it t o be 17.55$, The

i m p l i c a t i o n of this i a that whenever the gari producer

!.r.~ests klGO.00 at producing a given quantity o f gar i , he

.$. ' - ' ,. -,.- .. . I.. . ~ i 17 .55 as n e t p r o f i t which c o v e r s the cost of his

: : a:znagement and reward for h i s r i s k s ,

Given that t he average to ta l cos t , as a p r o p o r t i o n o f

t h e amrage total revenue (85,151, was w e l l above 50%

o f t n e t o t a l r e c e i p t s coupled with the fact t h a t the

17.554 n e t p r o f i t ~ . s a percentage of the t o t a l investment

i n t h e p r a a u c t i o n o f one tonne 05 gari was far less t han

5U;;j df the ou th ;*k4&d+ha t t h e gar1 prvuucers in the

a r e a w e n u t u i r i n b excess p r u f i t . It c m further oe - impl ied t ha t che g d r i p r ~ t i u c e r s . c c s t of p r a t i u c t i m and/~r

p r u u ~ l c t i o n services rendered determined the producer p r i c e

crf the prcduct. T h e prbaucers (gari) did ndt , t n e s e f ~ r e ,

fix a r b i t r a r i l y t h ~ pryd\-icer p r i c e :i ;aria u z i n s t t h i s

backgruulm si:erei.~r.e, it could be ~nyerred t h a t any d ~ t e i a i ~ t

made t o minimize t h e p r ~ a u c t i ~ n cost u f gar i may be

ef f w t l v e at r e ~ u c i n ~ tne p r ~ v a i 1 i . n ~ high pruciucer p r i c e i;f

gari eventual ly .

T a b l e 10; 1 3 e c ~ m g ~ s i t i u n clf the average t u t a l revenue per t a m e or gari prmuceu i n miucna-Nwth L c a l Government Area

Place o f f l V C NP as IJP as a ~ t u l l y (Town/ ATK/ , / PIP/ or ATC a 3 ,CI or" ATC Vi l lage Torme Tonne T o m e as a 3 o f or ATVC

(4 (L) (24) cjf 2 l i ATK

U C : F i e l d survey; il?arch - W y , 1993.

4 . 4 Constraints o f G a r i Production

The majar problems, as identified by the r e s p o n d e n t s ,

w r r e t h e strenous stages of production e s p e c i a l l y p e e l i n g

ctnd f r y i n g , shortage o f transport facilities and/or high

cost of transportation, poor stnragibility of cassava

t : t b e r s and sho r t age o f water a able 11). d i n e ty-f our percent and 86s of t h e respondents,

Ja:- : i~ t -c ~ively, ieenti%ied frying and p e e l i n g as being very

: ; t r ~ n g u s and m r s s t labour intensive among the stages of ga r j

p rc rduc t i on , B a t h , stages consumed t h e largest share o f the

t o t a l p rocess ing t ime a v a i l a b l e . F r y h g , qu i te un l ike peel

anti s i f t i n g , r e q u i r e s spec fa l i zed skill t o be effectively

~ccnmpiished. Eoreover, the nea t t h a t escape f rom t h e W Q O ~

f i r e during frying is absorbed by the body and this has

adverse effects on the body healthwise. besides, the smokc

emitted by t h e burning fuelwood adversely affect t h e eyes

x n i l e some p r o c e s s o r s receive knife cuts during the pee l ine

- x r : ~ ~ r se wbicn l o w e r s the e f f i c i e n c y of t h e o p e r a t i a n .

Anather prob lem was the shortage of transport f a c i l i t i

- m ~ t n e consequent high cost of transportation (82% of the

respondents). The various aspects or elements of the

L r u s p o r t a t i o n problem which confronted g a r i p r o d w c r s in

. t n ~ a rea could be summariaed as non-availability,

' r r ~ : ; u l a r i t y , t o o h igh charges of pl-ck-up vens, lorriea

m d other t r a n s p o r t a t i o n f ac i l i t i e s , Hur~l-urban market

m a d e were not w e l l developed. In most c a s ~ s , t h e farrnqr

s o l d h i s f r e s h cassava t u b e r s at ~ive-away cxoir:c:s liue t o

the in~ccessLbility to t h e markots t h r o u l ~ F ~ t h e 'ern r a z d s ,

P o o r s t o r a g i b i l i t y o f cassava t u b a r s (M;; 11. :,ne

respondents). Cassava being 2 h i g h l y p e r i s ? l n b ~ s c r o p ,

is not s u i t a b l e for longer storage,! thus c r e a t l n z

d i f f i c u l t i e s for processors as t h e y were u n a b l ~ t o keep

t he raw mater ia l longer than a couple o f d a y s .

F i n a l l y , 74% of the r e sponden t s men t ione6 ::rtter

shortage aa a th rea t to gari p r ~ d u c t i o r r . ~ m s t o f t h e towns

and'v i l lages chosen for t h e s t u d y had no o t h e r source of

water outaide the ra in water which is never r ~ - l - : l s c and

r e l i a b l e . Y e t , a l o t of water is r e q u i t - e z To:- '.:l? w ~ ~ h i n g

of the cassava t u b e r s b e f a r e g r a t i n g , as wel: :j; cieaning

o f a l l the materials used for the product~ur. ~ r ' ;- :. The

water problem becomes w o r a t within t h e dl.;- g r ~ ~ a j . . ~ ~ , :i o f

the yea r consequent upon which processors b y - 2 ~ : ~ t h o

washing stage o f gari p r o d u c t i o n . The r ~ s u l t w , : ~ a r i is

o f t e n swdy and hence dangerous t o human h e a l t h .

These constraints mentioned above , if c ~ n e : ~ ; s r ~ b l y

checked, c a n make smallholder g a r i p r o d u c t i o n more ~ f f i c i e n t

and p r o f i t a b l e ,

Thi s ~ i d . 1 1 ~ fgr same improvement on t i t d i t i ona l method o f

g a r i p r o d u c t i o n to make it more efficient, For instance,

some of its very strenous and/or l a b o u r intensive stages

c o u l d b mechaniaed while t h e r e s t ( l e s s l a b o u r i n t e n s i v e /

s t r e n u i ~ z o m s c o u l d still be accomplished manually,

1) S t r e n o u a and/or . ' '

l a b o u r intensive s t l -~ges o f prociuctidn, ~ Q - I - L ' 1;: :

4.5 Costs anu I?e-curns uf &ri kkrketiny - - .

k r i m a r ~ e t i q cos ts p l C ) in this context , refdr cu

the value of the maTerials and marketing services proviaed

by the dddlemen in t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of gari in wliocna-

P-losth L o c a l Governmmt m a . Wut the t u t a l investment o r

the c u s t o f prl;lviuing t h e marketing services and,' . :.

materials (marketing, cost) &b t h e money used to p u r c h s e

one t a m e or' gar i -that is so ld , in t h i s case* Un the

o ther hanu, returns refer to the f inancial receipts that

r e c e i p t s ere i n c l u s i ~ i e of c o s t s and net p r o f i t s .

Plarketing services of middlemen include grading,

s torage , t r anspur ta t ion , standardization, packaging,

linking-. up b u y w s with s e l l e r s , r i s k bearing and financing,

In t h e process o i distributing g a r i in Anheha-North

k c a l Government urea, some of these afoPementionc=a

s e r v i c e s e e rendered by the rn~ddlemen. The costs incurred

by them (niddlemen) at pmvidiw these Servicrjswere ds

f o l l o w s ,

Table 12 shows t h a t t h e average c o s t of packaging

t m ? a r i a l s ranged f r o m #99.7l/tonne a t O~ichz-Ugbo t o

~ 1 ? 7 . 7 6 / t o n r , e a t ~ t u l u , with an average of #148.99/tanne

f o ~ t h e w h o l e s e l e r , In the case of t h e r e t a i l e r , the

zwcsns::r p a r k a ~ i n g c o a t varied f rom Wl7.4 5/tonne a t

Cin;c~.e-Ugbo t o ~ 2 5 . 5 / t a m e a t Issele-Wku, with a g r a d

nl= L -. fi :' bi20 . W/t cane

rr c r1 gvesape -, c o s t o f pzckaging materials i n c u r r e d by

- , , . , -::!,tii~-sziers WZE higher than tha t o f the retailers

I I I' -- I:,; n ~ c ~ u s e m a j o r i t y of t he r e t a i l e r s b o u g h t gari f r o m

- *:: ~ - l t ~ o ; 4 i e r s in t h e i r (wholeselers' ) own bags, More over ,

t h c w i i o l ~ s e l e r s , i n addition to bear ing t h e c o s t of b ~ g s ,

i n ~ - l : ~ r r ~ t t h e c o s t of r o p e s f o r tieing up the bags of g a r i .

Tb.i:- t y p e o f c o s t was rot common t o t h e r e t a i l e r s b The

,. o . l ~ , . ~ L ,- r arnour,ts incursed by them (retailers) were m o s t l y by

t h c ! ~ ~ who bough t d i r e c t l y from the p r o d u c e r s , Those who

bm$t f r o m t h e wholesalers incurred no packaging c o s t

~ i ~ l r ? i t was a f t e r . boroe by the wholesalers.

rii 1 , 2 : Average c o s t of packaging m a , t e r i c l s p e r t m r e of casi I n c u r r e d by the mi6cLsaen

4 + 5,2 C o s t of transportation

The zversge transportation c o s t per tonne ranged

- r 1 7 ~ Fl13.21 at O t u l u t o B126.83 at I s s ~ l c - U - k u with a

.F,--.- .r..l . . T -I w a n or" S120.0?/tonne f o r t h e whtalesalers, B u t

1 , . r e t a i l e r s , it dev ia t ed f r o m 849,42/tonne at Otulu

f . 1 1 11;,<3/tome at Issele-Uku with a grand mean of W51.65/

- # a , . ~ ~ e { ~ a r l e 1 3 ) . The results revealed t imt the

w*-:I; e s : ~ i e r s incurre t i more c o s t of t ransprsstat ion than the

r e t a i l e r s . The p l a u s i b l e explanation f o r t h i s was t h a t

t h p wholesalers t r a v e l l e d t o relatively more distant

p l y c e s t o buy gari. w h i l e t he majority o f the r e t a i l e r s

bo: ight f r o m t h e wholesalers and/or producars right i n s i d e

tl-7- m ? r k e t s where they ( re ta i le r s ) e v e ~ t u . e l ? - y resold Chs i*

pu- .c%;l .s~s and hence they incurred l w e r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n

F n 7. .rih:.cn thmy p n ~ ~ moa+ly fc whmelbrrrow %n.C? dfUQ.*: ?UEP~P"I

The differences in the Lrah~portation c c z ? ? of the

wholesalers from d i f f e r e n t t a m s were due to t h ~ variations

in the distances involved as well as t he n 2 t u r r ~ uf t h e

r o a d s l i n k i n g up the var ious t o m s t o th+> ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ % ~ :,(>. F o r

. - i E s t a n c e , t h e distance between I s s c l e - d k u 2r: l . ' I ~ ! J ~ ? . - ' I T ~ ~ , , ~

m d tha t between Isdele-Uku an6 O t u l u were : i ~ o u f rhe same.

B u t the road that links up Otulu to Issele-uk~ was

relatively bad, the fare in this r o u t e , using t h p same

mode of t r a n s p o r t , was higher .

Table 1 3 : Average transportation costs i n c u r r e l ? by t h e middlemen per tonne o f gari

Place o f SXud ( ~ o . w n / ~ i l l a g e 3

Transportetion c o s t ( ~ / ~ o n n e )

Issele-Uku

O t u l u

Onicha-Ugbo

S m r c e : Field survey j March - May, 1993.

Averaae handling cost

This refers, in the work, t h e c o s t o f l uad ing

and off-loading bag(s) of gar i in and out of v e h i c l e s .

The average c o s t of handling v a r i e d f r o m H13.3 ; e l 8 tonne

at Onicha-Ugbo to W38.59/tonne at D t u l u , w i t 1 1 7 d c r . 1

Government mean of ~28,94/tonne for the whnlrsalz~s

(?Fable Id)

The r e t a i l e r s interviewed explzined t h a t ti-iey d i d

not i n c u r handling c o a t s because they bought and s o l d in

smaller quantities r d z t l v e to tha t of the whnlesa lexs ,

r i g h t t h e r e in the same market* Furthermore, t i-ey

( r e t a i l e r s ) submitted t ha t they n e i t h e r u~ef .1 ::L-.~-, 2ick-up

vans mr Xer r i e s f n r t r a n s p r t a t i s n ta w i ~ . r : - ~ ~ t , *- 4: -

and off-l~ading but tha t t hey rather ercpioyel, tl h e a d a ,

and at t i n e s , wheelbarrows at moving away t h e i r un-sold

g a r i f r o m the markets to their hauees, whenever such a

situation arose. The wholesalers incurred as much h a r d l i n g

c o s t QS r e p o r t e d in Table 14 because they bough: ir, Sulk

and made use of pick-up vana and big lorries which required

loading and off-loading, I

Table 14: Average handling c a s t incurred by thr middlemen (%/Tonne)

Whole saler

Unirsha-Ug b o 19 . 30 - - Average 28, 94 - Source: F i e l d survey; March - May, 1993.

d , .2 Rent

:I .. r ~ t here refers t o the money p a i d t a t he o m e r a .af

1 I -. , , , .:ed by t h p middlemen, in the market for f l e l l i n g

t .* , .In t h e s t u d y area, no r en t w a s charged for open

;; - , r , ,-7 p ,

Tne average re f i t p a i d ranged f rom ~l7,5/tonne/month

2.; 3zfcRa-Ugbo t o #27.5/rnunth/tanne at IsseLe-Uku with an

axrPrage o f ~ 2 1 , 6 7 / t a m e / r n a n t h f o r the wholesalers.

T k ; ~ + , o f the retailers var i ed from #~5 /mon th / tome a t Otulu

tn TJ,/month/tonne at I~sele-Uku r e s u l t i n g in a grand mean

of .;51.33Jmonth/tonne able 15).

'7pThol~salers incurred l e a s average monthly r e n t p a i d

r:,l I. t o n w than t h e r e t a i l e r a , The reaaon f o r this mag

- . . y J 2 : :Jecausrl the r e t a i l e r s made less volume o f a a l e s

. , . . . L . I : o that of the wholesalers, Morcaver, the

w i ~ ? , ~ s d e r s iii n o t normally pay month13 r e n t s . They p z i d

-, .- - ! ;:. o n l y f a r the days they used the s ta l l s , This i m p l i e s

tnal; at any market .day that t h e i r s t a c k of gar1 w a s bought

immerjiately on a r r i v a l , they did nat have to pay any rent.

p ~ i . m n t h l y r en t which w a s , more o r L e s s , s f i x e d c o s t .

TmbIa 1 5 t A m r a g e ren.f/mmtll/tor,ne p a i d Y-J +l- - ~ i d C l e ~ e r ,

P lace o f Stud {~own/~illa~e

~ e n t p a i d (Y/month/tonne)

Issele-Uku

O t u l u

Onicha-Ugbo

4 . 5 ~ ~ 5 C o s t of empty cigarette cup

This refers t o the c o s t idcurred by the m i d d l e m e n

in t h e purchase of the empty cigarette cups which t hey

used as the s t a n d u d measurement f o r t h e s e l l i n c of the i r

g a r i .

T a b l e 16 shows that tne average crsi;: n.f' c , . ; - - # ~ . ' r t t e

at Issele-Uku and Otulu respectively; with an average

of #18.67/tonne f o r the r e t a i l e r s , Accordizg t o the

respondents, o n l y the r e t a i l e r s incurred such c!ast.

Reaam being t h a t they (retailers) sold g a r i ir. 3mal le r

quantitiee t o the ultimate consumers and hence u t i l i z e d

the .r , i ,g.rette CUPS t o est imatel ' the v a r i o u s q u ~ ~ t i t i ~ s

of gar1 deaanded by customers,, But for t h e w h ~ l s s s l e r s

who s o l d the i r s in bags, there was no need t o spend m o m ;

an c i g ~ r a t t a Eupa, One crnytp c i g a r e t t e cu; 8 , - I 5 f ~ r

Hl0.00 at hsele-Ulna and O t u l u but was s o l d at ?48,00

at Onicha-Ugbo, This expla ins the reason f o r the v a r b a t .

in the c o s t observed, The r e s p o n d e n t s s u b n i t c c d tha t an

average of two empty c i g a r e t t e c u p s were require11 t o s e l :

one t o m e o f gari as t h e cup c o u l d e a s i l y be l a s t througl

misplacement and/or pilfering.

T a h l ~ 16: Average c o s t of empty cigarettr cup:- pe r t a m e incurred by t'hlc m i d d l c m r - r :

Plmce of Stud (Towa/~illage 3

Average c o s t o f empty c i g a r e t t e cups E / t ~ m e

Wholesaler R e t a i l e r

Onf cha-Ugbo - Za -

Average - 18.67

S o u r c e : Field survey; March - May, 1993.

40506 M i s c e l h . n ~ o u s Expgnses

These included amongst o t h e r s , t he 1 u c a L iaxrket

rates, ' po l ice charges ' , chargea for s e c a r i t y , sanitati~:

and market t r a d i t i o n a l peace-making by t h e 'Orntif s u c i e t y

On the average, t h e s e expenses var ied f r o m %3:.67,t'tonne

at O t u l u t o R49,84/tonne at Isdele-Uku with a L ~ c s l

with an o v e r d l average o f #i2,44Jtwnne i n t o c case of

the re ta i lers able 17).

The wholesalers incurred the lion's eha re of t h e s e

c ~ s t s because auch major components o f t h e ~ : j ~ t s s

p o l i c e charge0 and security w e r e p a i c by 4 : h ~ - I . ' P n l i c ~ t

charg~s* here refer to the money i n t e r m i t t - P P - a ,ivr c o l l e c t e d

from t h e wholesalers by the policemen on d u t y at

checkpoints, The retailers t r a d e d on small quantities

of garf and as such, a l w a y s t ook any unsold g a r i t o t h e i r

i n d i v i d u a l l i v i n g homes where' they e v e n t u a l l y f i n i s h e d

up t h e selling business* Con~equently, t h e y (retailers)

d i d not incur cost f a r night-guards ( s e c u r i t y ) ?hat

guard t h e warehouses where wholenalers k e p t t b ~ J . r gari for

safe ty , Above a l l , the ' local rates ' conponent was o f t e n

was mainly incurred by them (wholesalers).

Place o f Study Averke m i s c e l l m e a u s expenses (~own/~illage) I ~/tanne)

Wholesaler R e t a i l e r -

Onic ha-Ugbo 3a.73 12.48

Average 41 .41 12.44

S o u r c e : F i e l d Survey, March t o May, 1993,

A c r i t i c a l l ook at the various c o s t c ~ m p n n e n t s as

d i s p l a y e d in Table 18, w i l l r e v e a l the c o s t u f ~ z c k a g i n q

materials as the Large~t , e s p e c i a l l y f o r the who ie sa l e r s ,

whom it claimed 41.26% o f t h e i r t o t a l marketing c o s t .

. According t o the respondents , t h e r e l a t i v e l y !-L;;. l . b ~ i : t of

t h e i t e m was due t o the p r e v a i l i n g hi& r r t t ~ . , : " . .. . :?tian

in t h e c o u n t r y which l e d t o a LOO;; i n c r s u h c - r i:i : i l r i c c

o f t h e packaging material (sacks) in January , 1957: t h a t

w a s from 35lsack then, t o the present #10/sack. ThLs

notwi ths tanding , the respondents maintained t h a t trle second

h ighes t c o s t component, t r a n s p o r t a t i o n (33-. GI' tvtal

marketing C O B $ ) u ~ e d t o be t h e h i g h e a t and t h z t it, of

course, still remains t h e i r g r e a t e s t problem $.ill d a t e :

the dimension o f which i n c l u d e bad r o a d s , non-av;:,ilxbility,

irre~ul~rity, t o o high chargee of l o r r i ~ o , F I ~ . : .I. *k-u.p

-ran9 and, al;her t ranaprsr t f a c i l i t i e s s , & c a u s e 2 ; Tne bad

r o a d s , i r r e g u l a r i t y of t he means of t r a n s p a r t a t i a n , and

the consequent h igh farea, they ( respondent midalemen)

had cut off from a lot of markets in most p a r t s of t h e

L o c a l G o n r n m ~ n t Area and rather ccncentrated t ~ r - L z buy in,;

a n d selling a c t i v i t i e e around the towns all.;: -:il I -L :~ . ;

nearest t o the l a r g e markets where t h e y s o l d t h r ;- .,-,~ri. .=

This development perhaps , e x p l a i n s wh; t j L 6 2 t r , ~ w . : I i nn

c o s t co rnpomnt in t h i s s t u d y , p s p r z i r h l i ~ L ' l l ~ . 1 . 1 ~ ~

wholesalers, turned o u t to be lower than u s u a l . il.clrs so,

the L o c a l Government is a majar ~ a r i p r o i i u c i n g orle and as

such, wholesalers do not have the nee6 to t rave: too long

a d i s t a n c e from the t o m s t o buy , g a r i and t h i s sup;dements

the reason why the wholesalers incurred a l o w e r

transportation cost than usual. It wouTd be p t > r t , i n e r ~ t t o

ment ion, at t h i s p o i n t , tha t even t h o u g h the o u t .: y for

t r a n s p o r t i n g one metr ic tonne o f e a r l , in t h l s ~ f - L t ~ i > i , l o o k s

relzi t ively law, the c o s t p e r kilometer, i f cr.;t.i *s;l:;

sxamimd must be h i g h since thp var iou: ; 1 1 i:- t - ~ i l l : ~ - . - , v u l i e n

by t h e wholesa le rs - to buy and s e l l t h e ~ r : t ; ~ - i wr: 1 -.11ort o m s .

Other marketing c o s t s like h m c i i n g , r e n : , YI:

miscel_laneous c la imed 8.019, s i x p e r c e n t and l l . 2 7 ; 0 ,

respectively, of the t o t a l marketing c o s t o f t h ~ wholesalers

while t h e same c o a t i tems but handl ing t o o k "j., > n d

in the case of the re ta i lers . The largest c a s t components

o f the mta i l e r s ' t o t a l marketing c o a t were t r - = . n u ? o r t a t i o n

and r e n t which claimed approximately ~ a c b .

materials claimed 13.53% while empty c i ea r . f - l t t~~ - c u p

gulped 1.2.0496 able 18).

Table 18: Percentage o f each marketing r n s t c ,~rnpnzent incurred by t h e m i d i i e m c n t n ',+ t u ' : x v k e t i f i . 5 c o s t per tonne of K R T ~

Wholesaler ,, , , ) : ! *

Packaging 148.99 41.26 20.58 13.53

Transpor t a t ion 120.07 33.25 51 . G 5 3 3 ?I

B a n d l i n g c o s t 28.94 8.01 U i l Nil

Rent 21.67 6 51.33 33.1

E m t~ cigarette cups

MiscelLaneaus Expenses

.tA summary of the average t ~ t a l marketin!; st p e r

tonne o f g a r i incurred by tns m i d d l e m e n , d ~ r i v ~ a f r o m t h ~

summation of a l l the marketing # c o s t co;ngonent:- f o r b o t h

t h ~ wholesalers and r e t a i l e r s , are p r e s e n t e d C J : , :.'able 19.

Table 19: Average total marketing c o s t s of g a r j in %/tonne incurred by t h e l n i d d l e s n ~ n Fr Aniucha- X a r t h Loca l Governmerit Area

the middlemen were obtained frc;rn t h e r e ? ! 1sr::-fa:- r7-?lr: t h e

t o furnish market p r i c e s o f g3r.i p ~ r . ( ~ + l . : : , ~ - . : - . : ' r c ~ ~

ie;2rch t o i k y , 1 9 9 3 , on every l o c a l n ; + c k c t f ~ . ~ : r I . The

~arkets in the area o p e r a t e d every f o u r tiayz G r l ~ - l hence

an werage of seven in a month. Frorn the detn (?ullected,

an a m r a s e monthly purchasing a n d s e l l i n & p r i . ~ ; ~ nf gari

in t h e area were computed, the:.^: monthl:: , v r - ! r . -- P ; ~ u r c h ~ ~ i n g

and selling prices were f u r t h e r computed i n t o .-ranci mean

prices for the p e r i o d of s tudy ' ( th ree m o n t h s ) . m h ~ ~ s , for

every town or village, an average produee.7. ; * r i ~ ~ ~ : , v:i inlesale,

price ) of cassava t u b e r s were compu l.et1 . The zverage producer p r i c e ..cs ct-I:-.' : , : , t 2

average values/prices given by the g a r i y r : u l i u c ~ i ::. ,

wholesalersf ~ U ~ C ~ R S E prices a d t h e retailers who b o u g h t

d i r e c t l y frrsrn t h e producers. The whol~salr ;I'?I:~/

whol_.esalers' s e l l i n g p r i c e on the o t h e r hnn6 wa:; t h e

- , : I , , - - - 1 T the ::lholesalers' selling prices and t h e

I ' ~ - T c ~ , ~ s E ! p r i c e s ( thz t is t h o s e r e t a i l e r s wha

_ - l ~ - . , l - ~ : i i - l -ec t ly from the wholesalers). The average

p r . - ~ - u c l . i r p r i r e w2s the same as the wholesalers' average

pArtnnaEe price while the average whole~alera' price equalled

-:,h~ 7-P t ~ i l e r s ' average purch~se pr ice .

The avera1;e producer pr ice / tome v a r i e d from

L - L , c4.1d/tonne at Gnicha-Ugbo t o #9304.02/torule at IsseLe-

UXIA w i t h a Local Government average of W8654.6/tonne

( ~ 2 b l e 20). The l o w e r p roduce r prices obtained at

: a - - r-I t ~ n d O t l i i u c ou1.d be expla ined b:; t h e f a c t Lh-j t .

- a - n J . ,,:I. I : ,~JS+. ~ e s i l y accessible because of its

:.: 1 * 1 . . S E - - ~ ? . . P ~ l i nkzge r o a d s and as a consequence, it,

(it-!:(- ! e-Uku) attracted higher demand p r e s s u r e f o r gari

zr: : l;.~ i n s t anicha-Ugbo and Otulu where the demand pressure

f o r t n c j l r o d u c t ( g a r i ) was r e l a t i v e l y l e s s .

N n ~ e o v e s , Issele-Uku, being the headquarters o f t h ~

T y7/" G ~ w r n a e n t , also had the largest p o p u l a t i o n snd it i z

the CIiAsiest t o w n commercially in the area. Consequently,

the L i ~ m z n d for gari, which is a s t ap le f o o d , w&s r e l a t i v e l y

h i l ; i . m r the-r*e 2 s compared t o Onichs-Ugbo Otulu

1 - 1 ; 1; : , . I ? l X i w ~ ~ d is cheaper at both Onlcha-Ugbo

>I.::.: 5 m j ; ; . r e d with Isselu-Uku a n l ~ i n c r - . I:

I . 1 f . w j n a 1 c la imed a p p r o x i m a t e l y s ix percen t sf the t o t ~ l

c a s t af _amduct ion of one t o m e of ~ a r i ( ~ ~ ' r s l . 1 ' / ) , i t

sxn2-p IFF n a r t l g why lower producer y r i c ~ ~ w ~ ~ - ~ -02115eZ

a t b a t h Onicha-Ugbo and Isaele-Uku, ~ @ z ~ - t ;'TCI r-L c

faregoing reasons, t h e producell price 3.t ::..::r;'l. -T:2u w a s

relativ~ly AighPzthan those of Onicha-U~bo z7.d '-'ltulu due

also t o t h e influence of the consumer-buyers f r o m L a g o s ,

Imo, A b i a and the northern s t a t e s who o f t e n offered higher

p r i c e s wi l l ing ly because t h e y c o n s i d e r e d such p r i c e s as

being r e l a t i v e l y cheaper than t h e cut - throa t p r i c e s o f

gari prevalent fn their various localities. This eaually

affected the r e t a i l prices o f which the l o w s t [ K L ~ ,135.16/

t a m e ) was recorded at Onicha-Ugbo while t h e h:.+ies t of

averages were ca lcu la ted a r e presented in aLJ$FJil.!iCes 1 and

2 f o r t h e wholesalers and r e t a i l e r s , respective2y.

Table 20: Average purchase a n d aelling p r i c e s of wholesalers of gar1 in Uiacha-lu'orth L o c a l Government Area

Place of Stud Average Producer/Wholssalerz~ A m rage (Town,hillageY Purchase Price (8/tonne ) 'Wholesale

Source: F i e l d amvey; March to May, 1993.

Table 21: Averwe purchase and s e l l i n g p r i c e s if r e t a i l e r s of gar i in Aniocha-North Local Gavel-merit Area

Place of Stud 3 Average h o l e s a l e Average Retail (~own/~illage P r i c e ( ~ / t o ~ d P r i c c ~(WJtonne)

Source: F i e l d survey ; March t o k g , 1943

Table 22 shows the ~hares nf t h e farmer a n d the

intermediaries out of the consumxs' spending p e r tonne of

i The a v e r G e share of t h e 4wholesaler rangrd from

R1087.58 per t ame at O-tulu to 1#1295.02 p e r t o m r : a t

Issele-Uku with a mean of #ll85,3l, which r e p r e : - ~ n ' t e d 11.25

of t h e consunerst ou t l ay . The retailer's averzy12 sham

v a r i e d from R655.31 per tonne at O t u l u t o N862."-i nt

Issele-Uku with a L o e d Governrnsnt mean 13" .E ' /41.7 ,',/tonne

( o r 76 of the consumers1 spendin?;). This d i f f e r e d from the

gari p r o d u c e r ' s r ece ip t which ranged f r o m 54220.17 per

tonne at Onicha-Ugbo t o R4963.38/tonne at Issele-Uku with

a grand mean of H4536.17 p e r t m n e which w a x e g x a l t o

! . - . - 7 ; ?hs c o n s u n e r s ' o u t l a y , Furthermore, t he farm+:r ':;

I I it..ie:i f r o m E3973.74 par tonne at O t u L u t o RQ341.54,~'

tonne a t Issele-Uku, with an o v e r a l l average of B4118,43

per tonne representing ~ 8 ~ 9 2 % of the consumers' spending,

The g a r i p r o d u c e r s ' share of the consumersD o u t l a y

p e r tonne of gari (42.87%) vaa the l a rges t . The reason f o r

t h e lnrgest share obtained by the g a r i producer was t h a t

theye were several l a b o u r intensive and expenaivs s t s p s

such as p e e l i n g of cassava tubers , f r y i n g , s i f t i n g and

dzwate r ing , to mention but f o u r , fnvalved in gari production.

I + h r r . o v e r , t h e c o s t of some of t h e m a t e r i a l s used i n ~ a r i

; I : c ~ . I - ~ I ~ ha& increased geomet r i ca l ly due t o the c u r r e z ~ t

I - ra te o f inflation in t he country, For instance, the

p i z s t i c sacks used f o r dewatering the g r a t e d cassava t u j e r

( s l u r r y ) now c o s t 810.00 each As akainst its price o f H5.00

a ;:,-.;;ple of m m t h s back (a 100$ iacrease in p r i c e ) , and

r t l l these c a s t s borne by the g a r i producer.

Narappanavar q d Bharadwa ji (198 3 ) s t ressed t h s t a

1ar:;e chain of agencies intervene between t h e average

f x r ~ m r and the f i n a l consumer, and that it is l i k e l y th::t

a r ~ g irnplsrf'ec tions =d disturbmess fn t h e marketing age n c i ill?

o f t c . n fall h a r d e s t on the farmers and consumers as m a y

r~-+-.~,:?-tin~ c o s t s are r e l a t i v e l y inf l ex ib l s , However, t h e

i ,.,ra, . k h r 's 3hare of 38.92s in this atudy compares f avourab ly

w i t h t h . t of 40.79 found by O k w u m ~ (lasE1) : . : 1- -,;

(1980) f i n d i n g of 42,51$ In r i c e r e s p e c t i v e l y . Tlsc j8.92$

farmer's share implied tha t for every #lOQ.OO, thp consumer

spent for every unit q u a n t i t y of g a r i , t he farm1.r rece ived

o n l y 338.92, Be (farmer) could increase hi:: sh:.rc beyond

the present level by embarking-on processin& of 2 1 s

cassava tubers he produces into g a r i r a t h e r thzn stopping

at cassava root product ion on ly ,

The middlemen's share (combined) of 18.25 ( t h 3 t is

11,2$ f o r the w h o l e s d s r and seven p e r c e n t . 1 ' ~ : : - i : + , a ~ l ~ ~ ) - -

i m p l i e d tha t they (middlemen) g o t o n l y ~1,::~. , r . ?;try

W100.00 paid by the consumer for gari, Sj.ncSr. t . . ; I - ~ L d d l c m s n '

shsre was f a i r l y proportional t o t h e i r t o t a l c o s t of

msrketln~ ( m a t e r ~ d s md services c o s t s ) , t h e y

a fair share of t h e consumers' spending.

F l n d l y , column 10 o f Table 22 d i s p l a y s t l i l p r i c e

spread p e r tonne in the Loca l Gbvernment as r c p r ~ s e n t i n g

63.08$ of the consumerst spending, It sums up t h e

shares of the gari producer and t h e middlemen

(interned iaries) or rather shows thq d i f f ~rer rcc l r ~ ~ $ w e e n

t h e farm-gats price of cassava t u b e r s u e c c t o ; b i > : ~ n q .-. c

cme t o m e o f gari and the r e t a i l p r i c e of ,-I!:; :. . . . r l r - - o f

g m i .

Ths shares (receipts) are i n c l u s i v e o f v n z ' e and

n e t p r o f i t s ,

l '.zLlr 22 : Shares ( recpipts) of intermediaries and the farmer of t h e consumers spending p e r tonne of g s r i i n An ioch -r51w rth Lee? 1 Government Ares

-- -- - Wioiess ld ' fietr,Lllersl s a r i

R ~ t ~ 1 1 1 Wh3lesal~ ;.ih>lessle F'arnl i T r l u e %?re p e r pr,duce& $&r*les."- lePs j.'hrr;,e i--1 . : c - , ~ = _ f

V a 112 e Value per ~ u r c a h ~ e , ' of 3.88 T-. nne f s h a r ~ per share per S ~ I A X . E _I->

,, ,tuZ 7;:

per Tonne of Frcducer T':nnes c.f Gsri t . ,me .:f Tcnn~t :: f >ex-. '_r -.nne cf ( i :!$2/ fi G a r i Price C Z S S Z V ~ k r i Gari t e n n ~ ~LTE T i

~ , ' i p c c ) T u h ~ r s (W > ( t;. $ (4 ,; ?A l7 ; ( W (W Tcnne :if -. - cll Gari (K) (: >

(~~~1.2-3) (~~1.4-3 ( C O ~ 3-4 ) ( ~ > l .

(? j ( 2 ) (3) (9 (6 1 (7) ( 8 ) (9)

?ol m Column4

Intermediaries refer t o g a r i p r o d u t x r s j

wholesalers, and r e t a i l e r s i

W h o l e s d ~ o r farm value of 3-00 t o m e s 0:' cassava

t u b e r s r e f e r a t o the wholesaler's purchase p r i c e

or farm-gate p r i ce of t h e equ iva len t q u a n t i t ~ f o f

cassava tubers that can y i e l d one tonne o f g21.i;

Wholesale/farm value of 3.88 t o m e s ~f c as ealra

tubers equals t h e same as t h e cassava tubl :rs

producer's ( fa rmer ' 6 ) s h m e (receipt) ;

Wbalee6Le value p e r t anne or' ~ a r i r e f e r s t -J -.::f

wholesalerls s e l l i n g p r i c e p F r t a m e o f g a r i ; and

? k o l e s d e purchase price p e r tanne o f g a r i equa l s

the ga r i producer's price or ssllin~ p r i c e p s r

tonne of gari .

4.5 9 petermination o f marketing margins p e r t a r ~ n e of' g a r i in Aniocha-North J ~ o c RI G ~ v e ~ ~ r i n e r i ,:,res

For the purpose of t h i s work, marketing m ? . r ~ i n w a s

d e f i n e d as the dif ference between t h e p r j c c thr rllil-~r.iucer.c

of g a r i rece ived and t he p r i c e p::ic? by tll( - n 4 , r ~ u : .-. Pf,

w m t h e r e f o r e d e r i v e d for eari 3s tk,c 13 ; :' :, . p . :, h8c! tl n

t h e r e t a i l va lue a n d the wholesale p u r c h s s e I . r ~ , ~ ; u z e r

p r i c e y r tonne of gari . Tab le 23 shows thp 7-vl ra,;~.

.-,:,:~%e t i n s margins p e r t o m e of gari which v a r i e d f ror.

F1742.85 at Otulu t o E2157+36 at Issele-Uku with a

-,-.::..i Crqvernaent amrage of Wf 927.08; representing

7, ' t h e consumers ' spending* This compares

" - ~ - - - . ; . ? b l ? wi th the 20.64% found by Leachi in h i s 1990

.='.u<;* o f g a r i marketing marglna in Irno S t a t e * These

717.rXcting margins (18+lg$ of consumers ' spending) are

t h e r e t u r n s to all the factors 09 production used in the

il-*jceSs o f mzkins goods from producers available to the

f t n d cnrisumers (~ee~okunnu, 1973).

T z b l e 2 5 : Karketing margins per tonne of gari in Aniocha-Eorth L o c a l Government Area

',$'I; i s h t e d .ii'1!17a;sF 10 ,.?el 6 7 8654.6

So:,'-rrc-: F i e l d survey; March to May, 199.2.

4.5.10 Determination o f net p r o f i t of rn icu1en:cz S e r t o n n e of gari in .!&.ocha-ilr,rt!~ t :!i

mzmagenent and r i s k s . On the other hand, grqa:-5; mergin

(GM) h e r e , referred t o the excpss of sales o v f b r purchases.

It inc3-uded both the net profit and thn io::r.ke . ;.I.: c o s t s ,

P r o f i t is one of the most impat:tnnt ~ l i ~ t \ ~ . r q ~ . l ~ ~ ~ ;'-~-ti3rs j n

i) as a percentage of sales; anC

ii) as a percentage of t o t a l linvestrner;l,t. I

In this w o r k , p r o f i t s were reported usin:; b o t h

a p p r o ~ c h ~ s - (i) and (ii).

The g r o s s and ne t p r o f ' i f s t o t h e :rc+,ai; F . - :.:.d

Local Government Area are presen ted i n Tr:Sl.er :.i

2nd 25 r e s p e c t i v e l y ,

.__( - I_ - IJ 5 :hX-g Ill &riving f rom Table 24, tr,~-: ; ~ V P T X , - C ~ . ,-

nf the r e t a i l e r s w a s W741,7'7/tonn~ out of' 14h:-.-11 ~ r i a v e r a g e

n e t p r o f i t of #586,69 per t o m e was r e a l i s e b . T h i s

represented an average of 5.85$ of the average total

, . ., :. A !:ei t o n u ~ r~z-16 5.53s of the average r e ta i l p r i c e p r m r

TI,^, i r r ~ p i i i . ; : t i o : l of t h e above results i s t h a t t h e

2 - m c ~ ~ t m e n t p e r tonne o f gazi is quit^ smaller than t h e

3 inv~~tment: in s h o r t , it is quite f a r away f r o m

6 . .L: .~. ..' :,rf the total c o s t , According t o Shepherd and FuLre?;

p !>:.: \ ,, the s r u f i t s t h a t g~ t o midd lemer i t a k e o n l y a sm;..1.1.

3T<r.aFa.:e n e t p r o f i t of 4824.22 p e r tonne was realised.

T't:.is ne t ; p r o f i t r e p r e s e n t e d an averagp o f 9.15:; :;of thl-

:,;; r :~;:i. t o kul inrestment p e r torn-e m d 7.78~; of the

, . -.- t.et,?._il p r i c e p e r tonne of gari able 2 5 ) . T ~ J

a I . 1 3 t l ~ F c t t h : ~ t f o r every K100.00 invested, p e r g iven

c~a~. :~~. :z ,y of eas-i, t h e wholesalers rea l i sed k9.15 as n e t . -

T . . J - . a : - 3 ~ a i m t -- 57.78 t h e y (wholesalers) r ece ived a~

, . - . . - x'; 1, pern SlL'O.C)O consumer expenditure on gar i ,

The r a l u e s reb~rted on middlemen's p r o f i t s i n

T h h l n g 2q ar,8 25 showed tha t the wholesalers nzde nore

n~ ;;:--.in p e r t onne of g a r i in the a r e a thm- the r e t a i i ~ r s . . *

9;:s c a u l d be explained by the fact t h z t the wholesa l~ r : :

. r L , - ; : t ~ v ~ l y r e ~ - , e d DDIE from t h e advantages 02 b u l k

?I : 'r lf lpse,t' thnr, tm? re ta i lers* They ( q , h w l e s a l e r s ) 2151

r - ? - 2'. i :f.l;,- ~ ~ i i n i m i s e d t h e i r incurred marketif id cast b y

- - # 1 , t o xiniruurn t h e i r paid r e n t t o 6;'; of t h e i r to!,aL

:1:-!~.r17t in,; C S E t (Ti%) while that of retailers was :*s

I ,L:: j? .LJ o f t h i f i r TRC able 18). l=bove all, tr!c

7 - m 1 -!:\::;l,erms o f earl in t h e area were making normal 7rc:'it

sl::se 13.155 net profit, of t h e i r t o t a l investment per

';rrLnc, n: ~ a r i is comparatively quite smaller than t h e i r

- : n v n ~ t m ~ n t 2 I t LR wits far e w s y "-3- 59%' 3f *I-

' ( 9 ; ;ll cos-1;.

.r,lso, l i k e the case o f the r e t a i l e r s , t h e 7.706 net

prof:-: out; of the consumer food spending t ha t went t o

t h e lval:cleszler c o n p a r e s favourably with Shepherd and

Fut~rlZ's (1970) assertion c i t e d e a r l i e r a n d t h e r e b y

c o x ! uding thzt the in this study w e r e mskinf;

f a S . r - ;::-of if. T t c u l f u r t h e r be inferred t h n t the

z: .I ' - .rJ-\- . .. J l = ~ ! ~ % h . + ~ L n l e s a l e r s and re ta i le rs ) in t h e ~ r e a ,

8 . '- . , . , 1 1 - . . * ' .yrar i ' 2 fix the selling prices o f g e r i since

ti?.. :i.:.i u13 o i tiit t o t a l investment i n t o the ,product's

mri.::' T i : r z t h e r determined the selling prices.

T a k l e 26 shows t h a t the shortage of t r a n s p o r t

fL (cil i t i e c an5/or high cast of transportation, p r i c e

fl i r ? tua t i on , and the p e r i s h a b i l i t y of t h ~ p r o d u c t ( g a r i ]

:-x---*e some o f t h e problems i den t i f i ed as t h r e a t e n i n g t i l e

c f l e c t i v e marketing of gari in the area.

-3-s h i g h as 87s of the regpondents c o n s i d e r e 6 t h ~

. r n 7 - 3 , , I. rff t r z n s p o r t f a c i l i t i e s m d / o r high c o s t of

P.; P~f2t;fl,:, i n t h e :i,'t,udy area. Poor t r a n s p o r t a t i o n sgste!n

" , . 3 - - k l Z u r a l rcacs t h a t linked t h e m a r k e t s were nrs-L

x ~ l l 2eveloped snfi t r a n s p o r t e r s complained b i t t e r l y a b o u t

ti:? expensiveness and shortage o f vehicle s p a r e - p a r t s

XY, w e 1 1 as the high r a t e of break down of vehicles due t o

. . E;ii; r o a d s . A11 these caused t h e c o s t of t r e n s p ~ r t a f i r : , ~

i r t i ~ e R r e z t o be t o o high. A s a r e s u l . t , most g z r i

;.:-:;dii:eri< in t h e erea s o l d t h e i r gari at give-away p r j C I ? Y

. 5 . ~ 1 . 1 s - a 1 a r e 2s. For instance, at Ani o m . (a v i l la , ;e j ,

. . ! a , - . . - .rn, i . - , ::>L ty p r i c e o f gsri per tonne was tJ8003.41 as

- . . . i l ;:t t i ~ r : 59 ,304 .92 p roducer 2rice at Iasele-Uku

, I '1 .:..-;::: L h l ) The situation was even aggravated by

- i ~ : r ; :c . .d. i t ional f u e l s c a r c i t y in the area. In o r d e r to

w.ve c o s t , most of the wholesalers resorted to the

1-1; .-~-::t,ec i n d e p e n d e n t l y consequent upon which they (ga r i

; w d u c e r s ) and/or8 ' the marketers had weak bargaining power.

. . rl.oJrenvsr, s h o r t a g e of t r anspor t f a c i l i t i e s , coup led w i t h

t: ::zartage of mzrket information j o i n t l y caused g a r i

p r i c [>s to f l u c t u a t e cons ide rab ly as i d e n t i f i e d by 77::

o f t h r ~ s p ~ n d e n t s .

Ierishability o f t he produc t was h i g h l i g h t e d by

:.f 'ne s e ~ n o n d e n t s , According t o t hem ( r e s p o n d e n t s ) ,

- , - - 1 2au1.ri ~ o t ; b a d within only one k-aek perhaps r . L i C 8 '

: .;u7,:i t;r u f frying. Coneequently, ~ u c h c a t e g o r y o f

c:ari cou ln not easily be transported fn l a r g e quantities

t o f a r away urban markets for sale. Fhe p r i s h a b l e neturt

o f t h e c m m o u i t y frustrated both the p r o d u c e r s and

m:._r1keters (middlemen) a l i k e , who were, a t timep; compelled

t c l sell t h e i r gar2 at whatever price t h a t was offered t o

thcm -to ninirnize Losses due t o . spo i lage . In extreme

cases, t h e y (sellers of gari) had t o throw away t h e g a r i

t l ~ n t h ~ d t ~ t a l l y gone bad.

T 3 b l e 2 6 : Constraints of g a r i marketing in Aniocha- ~ b o r t h Local Government Area

Expected Actua l C o n : ~ t r s i n t N o , a f No. o f $ o f t h e

Responses Hespanses Responses

Shortage o f transpo'rt f a c i l i t i e s and/or high c o ~ t of t r m s p o r t a t i o n

CHARTER BIVE

SU?WULR'~, ~ C O ~ B D A T I O N S AND CORCLUSIOX

5*1 - S u m m a r y of F ind ing8

D e l t a S t a t e be ing one of t h e largest s t a t e p r o d u c e r s

o f c;t;sz.va in K i g e r i a has provided enploymerit f o r m a r q

: ? I . . .

.- 2 ,:.:I~: i x u s t r y . Bu t f o r the dewatering and gratiri:;,

a1 1. r ~ c p e c t ~ s a f t h e p roduc t ion were mainly manual. This

aade 5malLholder gar f p roduc t ion i n t h e area highly l a b o u r

i n t + > ~ ~ . ~ i s.e a d slow, It ( g a r i p r o ~ u c t i o n ) p u t s p r e s s u r e

~ n 6 : ; t r a i n s on the producers during the p l m t i n g and

cul-LLvation seasona with the result t ha t i t s p r o d u c t i o n

is r e d u c e d w i t h i n t h e p e r i o d .

The business o f g u i production which s t a r t s wi th t h e

pee l imy n f cassava t u b e r s and ends with t h e f r y i n g

excercize, involves a combination o f sequen t ia l processed

cnlr,'-~r z + q ~ . = : . Oth~rs are washing, grating, szcking,

.- I I-- .r; k n s n t l a n and dewatering as w e l l as sifting. In terms

of ~ - n b > ~ c t i a n c o s t s , frying which claimed 10.57; o f t h e

T o t ~ l c o s t af producing one metric tonne of gari, was the

mout s t r e n o u s and expensive of all the stages. An

~ v c r a , p of 5.88 t o m e s of casaava roots, cost ing some

34,014.47 (56.01$ o f t o t a l production c o s t ) was require6

t n o r n l j u c e 1 t o m e of g a r i , The averwe t o t a l c o a t (TC)

nE praduaing one t a m e o r ~ a r i wan H7167.15P w!-ii.? thq

smrage t a t d rerenue (ATR) th3: scc ru r .2 t ! l p r r ' raLmf w 3 s

H8422.56 and hence t h e n e t p r o f i t p f J r t : lnr l12 kin- ; ' 1.'54,%6,

reprps~nting 17 r55P of the t o t = l l cn::t :LW l.:.', . the

average t a t & revenue r e s p e c t i v e l y .

Thv t h r e e major distribution channels f o r g a r i in

t h e a r e 1 were the ze ro - l eve l , one- level and two-level .

The m d s s o f transportation uf g a r i wi th in to1. ~ ~ , / v i l ' L a g e z

in the a rea (intra-torn / v i l l a z e t rmzportat i n = ) were

motor c y c l e s w k a d a ' ) , wheelbarrows and bead l s r t a g e whil

mainly pick-up vans were used, between towns an9,t'or

villages ( inter- town transportation).

The share received f r o m t h p C C I ~ R - I W ~ . ~ \- 7 4 !,T .-

p a r t onne of g a r i by the o l i d d l l r m z ' r l :.: ,. -I- 5

t h e camhination o f t ne wholesaltrs ' LI. %P 12a : .I-otailers *

seven pe rcen t ) . The fa rmers rfceived 3 8 . 9 2 y ~ while the

gsri p r ~ d u c e r s ' share was 42.87%. which was cc~pzrat i v e l y

bhe I a rzes t , This is perhaps exp la ined 5y :F.I-. 'act t h a t

t h e r e were a series of l a b o u r intensive m o e r - y e n s i w

stages in~olved in gar i production. The l o w e s t s h a r e

r e ~ e i l ~ e d by the middlemen d e p i c t e d t h a t they r ende red

the l eas t number of services among the p.ir.tj.c i - : ,~znts

in the g a r i business.

The average marketing margin per tonne of gar1 in the

a r e - I uas found t o b s H1921.08 representing 18,19$ of the

v, -, - 4 - r, - I i p r i c e p e r tonne. This low margin r e f l e c ted the

f s c ? t h a t the aiddlemen in gtpri marketing rendered only s

f e u sarketin~ s e r v i c e s and/or functions. S t r i c t l y spealcirq:,

thc n a j a r m,lrket lng services rendered in this case,

, .l I \ 2 ' - r:, ,?::r,7-.vx tubsra i n to g a r i , w a s zccompl ished h :

. . . , .-,, . L, a IT I, :- - i d t h e r e b y left l e s s f~nctiuns f o r

: I , ? f i i I : d i e n e n . Furthermom, the average gross msrgin p e r

'.>n5c: : 'or t he wholesalers was W1185.31 while the

c l ~ r - e s p o n d i n ~ average n e t p r o f i t was B824.22. Thia

represents an aver& of 9.1596 of t h e average total

in~~sfaent f ~ r t h ~ L o c a l Government A r e a m d 7.78s of

t h s :le Lail p r i c e p e r tonne. On the o t h e r hand, the

r e t ~ i l e r s received an average g r o a a maygin o f B741.77 p e r

t n n w o u t o f which an averzge net profit o f H586,69 p e r

T . l : ~ r , n ~ w , ~ s r e a l i z e d , This r e p r e s e n t s 5 + 855 o f t h e avcr>.<:c

- A l a - I its: I ! [ + n u t f;b:.r t o n n e f o r the area a n < 5.537; of

la.: m a j:rir0-. pr7.r tonne.

T h y f o r e g ~ i n ~ resul t s (the outcome o f the return-on-

i v v ~ . e t n c n t a n a l y s i s - ~~0.1) revealed t h a t for every

! ~ . L T I . .CZ i-nvested by the g a r i producer i n t o t h e production

uf : ~ i v e n qusntity' o f gar i , a ne t p r o f i t a f H17.55 was

- : - E L 3 u t far %he w ' n a l 8 s ~ l m z m , avery snvestm* 7% 0:

FlGC:.G3 in t h e marketing of a given q u a n t i t y o f p r i

rnli ,. : - , j ,-A ;-, . 1 mt, return of H9+15 whi le the ~ ~ e t a i l c maAe

I . - ! - : F5 ,1?5 -'rorn t h e same affiount o f Investment in t h c 9 R h e

. _ , . id.;. geri m a r k e t e d in the area, I n a d d i t i o n , f o ; ~

t21:er,q; cl0U,O0 t h a t comes t o t h e g a r i producsr ~s revenue

p e r : i v e n ~ u ~ q t i t y of g a r i produced and sold, M85,l covered

t,nt2 -rtmrage total c o s t while the remainder, bi14.9

rep:.csen;ed. the average net p r o f i t which covered h i s c o a t

of l a b o u r , mm~gement and reward f o r h i s r i s k s , In t h e

cast 35 thp wh~lesa1ers, only 247.78 was receive6 as n e t

pro! i.t fr9o.i every fi100.00 the consumer s p e n t on a gi-ren

q u m l i t g u f gari while t h e re ta i le rs g o t 55.53 n e t p r o f i t

FIGS tkAc s ane cunsuner o u t l a y on a g iven quantity o l gar i ,

-- :;. ni:li.l-.. t i o n therefore , these i n t e r m e d i a i e s (gar i

r , .., : r : ~ r . ? , , 7 . : ' n o l ~ s a l e r ~ , and retailers) in t h e area, were

n1.1~- . 1 ~ n o i . a s l brof i t s s i n c e t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e t o t a l

III-~, . t .~.?r.ts, in p r o l ; o r t i o n a l terms, took t h e lion' s sham

- ;I:;LI- ~ . n r l i v i d ? l d total revenues while t h e i r n ~ t profits

c 1 2 i 2 ~ 5 on ly very small f r a c t i o n - q u i t e far away f r o a

50:: irL a l l t h e cases. The intermediaries d i d no t f i x

gar: p ~ i c e s a r b i t r a r i l y ,

Cl.e p r o b l e m of t h e continuous rise in p r i c e of g a r i

i n t f l e r e c e n t times Day have, t h e r e f o r e , originated f r o r a

fn? - c r s -:nnt RT* a u t ~ i d e me:+ mrbAzzaby 3z;ce : L X Y U ~ & ~

h y I i ~ t ~ r i l r i i ia r ies such as the l a b o u r i n t e n s i v e -5 e x p e n s i r ;

~;.r-j ; ; r u i u z t i o n stages and ruaterials , namely; frying (10,5;; of total c 'os t of producing one tonne o f .gari),

p13eling (8 ,9$ ) and fuelwood (5.77$), as w e l l as t h e

~ * . ~ ~ x i e n t h i g h r a te of inflation i n t h e c ~ u n t r y . F o r

.i r ! ~ ::ante, t h e respondents r epa r t ed c t n o ~ c s t o t h e r s , a

1 1 i n c r e a s e in t h p r i c e o f p l a s t i c e ~ . ~ k ~ ' ( f r o m s5

.-. : . : - -CL t o ~ 1 0 ) an i n p u t used by both the g a r i markt ~ P J ' X

, .. . I ? ; i-al;n.dzers f o r packaging and d e w a t e r l r ~ ~ o p e r a t i o n s

. - . , ; - L C t h e r problems i d e n t i f i e d to be nilit~t inc

- . . , . i r ~ -,I. E l'rj c i e n t gari prod-ac -k ion and ma-kgting were

I. , 1n7 ',ay~ o f t cansport f a c i l i t i e s End 1ii;;h c o o t o f

I , -:jn:;- .. tation ion (33$ o f marketing c o s t o.f middleinen) ,

p a o r s t n r a g i b i l i t y of cassava t u b e r s , shortage of water,

* ~ d s c : t t5e f o l l o w i n g suggestivne have been

To r ~ m s d y , the problems associated w i t h the hand

I:.. e l ii:~, af cessaua t u b e r s and frying of z a r i , r e s e a r c h e s

f i h 8 ~ u l ~ : be intensikied by the various res~arch institutes

0 ~ - 3) ;~nc ie f i in t h e c o u n t r y like Project Q e v e l ~ p m e n t X.;'ency

: I-":r'.7h) , Znugu , R u r a l u r n - h d u s t r i a l Developaent Scheme

(:Ii~~~) , and F e d e r a l Institute of I n d u s t r i a l Research

~ 7 : kai: i (711I;O) t ~ w a r d designinc low-cost machines f o r

I i -. ; cws ,q3 ra t u b e r s as w e l l as fry in^ 3.f qari. Ho .wlrln;-- - I

I I ( . ii'rr:l:lt i n s i z e :wi possess straight b ~ d j r . Consequently,

+.; ,-, . r . i , i t l . , ~ n e ~ 5 f o r an intensive research t o be ernbzrlred

l i - 3 r i bj; ~ i - o p breeeers in our universities and ayrfcultural

P ' P :q 13 .A -- , . , . r c h institutes l i k e t h e In ternat ions l l I n s t i t u t e o f

Tzb:;pical A g r i c u l t - u r e , Ibadan (IITA) and Mational R o o t @m_n -. X P : : F ? Z Z ' C ~ Institute, Umudike ( ~ ~ C R I ) , t o i r n ~ r o 7 e cassava t o

en:l.:re its prmiuct.i-on of more uni form s i z ~ d t u b e r s w i t h

rt3 ': :it i -L;P~-J st s..zii:ht b o d i e s . T h i s r s c o m r r : ~ r i c i ~ t icsn sirupl.:r.

* - -.,,. ! ; , r . ., , . +.:sf rr:.ch%r!i.zati~rn of t h e two v e q : lq>nur i n t ~ r - - ; j ; : l .

, . ,:. .: i +:. - - .# . ?, i v p s t a ~ c s of gari p r o d u c t i o n , namely p e e l i n 5

. ! . - I! a . . . ' r i ; ~ ) u g i ~ : j t t enp t s have been ~ 6 e in this

.... . i7 . I r r . ~ i in t r ~ e :last (mechanization of p .e l i hng 2nd f ~ , ; ~ i f i ; ) ,

:= ',''~c-'.P:I~c:? oi' t h e machines was com_nar;-8ti.velg lo:^ W i i l e

th+:y a l : ?o r e q u i r e a large o u t l a y t o procure; t h u s making

t h e i r a d o a t i o n by processors difficult. A good exanple

I s t .he batch. p r o c e s s abraison p e e l i n g machine developed f

2-j Odigbo (1979) and NRCRI, Umudike (1982). I

Fur the rmore , s ince t he problem of high r a t e o f

p e r i s h a b i l i t y o f i gari was undf ~d by t h e resprszldents I

'.z hzve g r i g i n a t e d from p o o r quality f ry ing (inefficient

-r:-yinc), the development of the f r y i n g machine woula

p r o v i d e a lasting solution as only t h e s c i e n t i f i c a l l y

rcc~mmended standard temperature an6 t i n e w u l d be a p p l i e d

~ . t fr;:i?; t o p r o d u c e a high qua l i t y ga r i ,

. * . - A' - , ~ , r : d c :o r research towards the dev~lopment o f :.',:;.pli. + modern but cheap techniques of storing casssvz tubers ,

A < r i c u l t u r a l development research i n s t i t u t i o n s like

International I n s t i t u t e of T r o p i c a l Agr icu l tu re , I ~ a d a n

m e Nstienal R o o t Crop Research I n s t i t u t e , Umudike,shuuld I

c~>. , r- , i?er as t o p p r i o r i t y , research e f f o r t s t o w a r d s

d e l , r e l ~ ? l E n t o f simple, modern b u t cheap techniques of

s t o r i f i g casssva t u b e r a for, a t l e a a t , one t o two weeks,

without spoiling, Thi s would h e l p t o inc rease the

e f f i c i c n r y OF saallholder gari p r o d u c t i o n as prociucers can

, . . . F a . . . .. 1: ,... r2n.3 t h e n s e t t l e down to process them (cassava

t u b e r s ) in 2iece-meal.

l i ee r i f ~ r thp establishment of processing centres .. ,'

T3ere is the nced f a r the establishment o f cassava

t u k ~ r p r 1 ~ ~ : : e s s F n ~ c ~ n t r e s in s e l e c t e d towns and v i l l a e e s

r:j?k:-?.in s water boru-hole each, cassava t u b e r pealing, 8 .

chine: g r s t i n ~ , dewzte r ing and f r y i n g ma1 3 for 9roceasors'

I A 1 1 t h e s e f a c i l i t i e s s h o u l d be managed in such a

~y t n h e w i t h i n the reach of t he smallholder gar i

p r c i . u c r r s , f i n s u c i a l l y and otherwise. Suck centres, if

s s t : - b l i s h e d a n d w e l l mameed, would arrest t h e p r o b l ~ z 2f

- m t o r ~ 3 o r t a g ~ snd perhaps reduce the p r e v a l e n t high c o s t

of p + e l l n ; :,md f r y i n s stages o f g a r i production.

ASove all, since the adoption of t he cassava t u b e r p e e l i n g

m d c ~ r i f ry ing machines suggested (1) above, may be

wit% s o c ~ d i f l ' i ' c u l t i e e due t o -me l e r g e c a p i t a l o u t l a y

~~[:r;.~:l.r~.< 0,'. t h e p u t of the processors, t h ~ e s t zb l i shne r : t

cf t h e i !racPssing centres would serve as an a ? . t ~ r n ; t t i v e

z a l ~ t i o n for t h o s e n o t w e l l endawed t o have t h e i r own

smd . l - s ca1~ m e c h m i z ~ d m i l l s .

4) Heed to ~ U G L C S S the i s sue o,f low cxckanse r-?te o f t h e Naira.

The i s s u e of l o w exchenge ra te of t h e nai . rE ~ h o u l d be

viewed with high degree of seriousr!c35s to cl;ec:.; t n c high

I n f l a t i o n a r y p r i c e s of materiels sr,d se r.vlvc:- : L c 2 1 ved i n

- ,. g ~ s l ~ r r d u c t i o n a n 6 marketing. F a r i r~star ,ce , -1.1 t h c i ~ s u ~

cf tbt= low value o f exchange of the c a i r * ~ i s ac82ressed,

t h e c o s t of such i t e m like plastic sack f o r c i e w ~ t ~ r i n g the

gr~tei cessava (slurry) a n d packaging ga r i w o u l d fall and

S O would the since the c o s t of b u i l u i n g 911;: b u i l d i n s ren t .a - mater ia ls would e q u a l l y fall i d l t h i n g s b e i n s c :gu~ , l .

Roreaver, t h i s would p a r t l y h e l p in s o l v i n g the c r o b l e m of I

shortage 2nd high c o s t o f transportation zcv i t m u l d

stimulate a near proportionate 'drop in tap p r i c e s o f motor

v e h i c l e e , motor-cycles and their s p a r e p ~ - r t s . Cmsequent lg ,

. I - which i n c r e m e s t h e existing t r a n s ~ o r t I':dci I - ti::., . k l s a ,

the fall in the p r i c e o f v e h i c l e s p a r e p a r t s i c expec ted

t o reduce the ! s pa id by commuters s i n c e the vehicle

maintenance C D Y ~ LS expected t o fall e v e n t u a l l y .

5) Need far road construction 2nd rnaintenancc, and adequate provision of o t h e r ' , infrastructure:.

To f u r t h e r ensure the ar res t of the p r o b l e r o f s c a r c i t y

and h i g h c a s t of transportation," the c u t o f f rural rnerkets

and/or v i l l a g e s due t o l a c k of good l i n k a g e rrJzd's, s h o u l d

ough government efforts a t c o n s t r u

c e a to iink up such c u t y f f r u r a A

markets wit i s sacge urban mark6ts while the a l r e a d y e x i s t i n g

roads s h a u l maintained on a regular basis'. This m u l d I

enhance the ction of cost of veh ic le maintenance as I

good roads o l x e n help t o p ro long the l i f e of vehicles

thro~zgh red n i n t h e f requency o f V Q ~ ~ C ~ P break-

dawns and r e r a ~ ~ s . Consequently, t h e c c l ~ t of

transportation would, all t h i n d s bein;; ~ q u a l , 511 in

the longrun. Also, most of the t r a n s p o r t e r s , i f n o t all,

who h a d abandoned such r o u t e s due t o t h e Dad r o a d s

and/or lack onnecting r o a d s would come back and

. thereby solv-,,, t h e problem of s c a r c i t y e n i h j s h c c e t

of transportation. There is also the need fdr the

c o n s t r u c t i o n of new rural r o a d s in t h e farming zones

the area t o f a c i l i t a t e the easy transportztio& o f cassava

t u b e r s from the farms t o the p r o c e s s i n e points and markets.

The proposed ruraX roads o r t r ~ c k s need n o t n c c c s s a r i l y

be t a r r e d , so as t o r e d u c e the i n i t i a l f i n? r~c l : . ! . h u r d e n

on t he government, but should be r e g u l a r l y main ts ined ,

Though the D

Infrnstructu

ora te of Food, Roads m d Rura l -

FRHI) had t aken a good initiative in t h i s

d i r e c t i o n , t s l a ~ r - impac t is s t i l l v e r y n e g l i g i b l e in t h e

Finally, government should, as a mat te r of u r g P n r y ,

n c v i c ~ m o r e e f f i c i e n t techniques of e n s u r i n g a nore

I ? v n d i s t r i b u t i o n o f p e t r o l e u m products t h r o u g h o u t the

7 0 u n t . r ~ t o e r r e z t t h e now incessant f u ~ l s c a r c i t y in

t.'m c o u n t r y ; the area of study inclusive, This is very

i T I ? O ~ ~ M : . L ~ because t h e inherent geometric rise in fares

i u e t o f u e l s c a r c i t y is i m a d i a t e l y anu i r r s v e r s i h l y

transmitted t o the c o s t of produc t ion and t h e eventual

? r o ? u c e r p r i c e o f a l l products and services i n c l u d i n g I

Once t h e s e transportation constraints ere removed,

A . , ,~ ie re is the likelihood that the gari b u s i n e s s wnul i :

x i t n e s s a b o o s t in efficiency because ?,he glut a£ k / m ~

p r o d u c t reported in some r u r a l markets m d t h e s c ~ r r y i t y

~ ~ : : n ~ $ u r t f s c i l i t i e s would cease to ~ ~ 1 s t . Consequently,

" . h ~ prublem of prLce instability of gari would be

I n conc lus ion , t h e traditional smz l lha lde r system

~f pruduction and marketing inefficiencies of gari,

n-ol.2p1ed -.-:ith the lack of, o r shortage o f sorne r e l e v m t

infrastructures in Aniocha-North Local Government A r e a

have prevented the realisztion of op t i tmm p r o d u c t i o x

: . r . ~ ; p , - . n ~ f i t a b i l i t y of the gar i b u s i n e s s in t h e area.

T I i s h o p e d t h a t t he t i m e l y and e f f e c t i v e implementation

oi thc ~ u g ~ e s t i ~ n s advanced in the s t u d y would go a

lo;',; m y t o salvage . the present non-optin~uin condition

a f t h e bus iness of smallholder gari production and

University n f I b a d m .

, -. . C!'liiismr.n, 2, .=IT-. 'i. .J. ; q l ~ ; : s n (I j87), ' ' F ' n s t h q r v ~ s t T e c h 3 o l j r ; i ~ , s 9 .-

1 R o t r . i : r : b;r;elur3tion qnrl Recon!neclfi.~d I[fi~rol,.?eq~:;t.r 11-1 Trop ic? 1 9nc8:.i, Grogs ' I , iri: I b t

-7 - Cr,gns ?;?.I ~h.; . a r i c q n Food ( 7 r l . y i s . ~ . k ; , T e r r y ; _-... _ _ _ 7 .- - -------

' i d . ~ . %:.:ToF.~. a3r l r,,~:. ..::,me -1. , pp. I - 33.

rn Do~;mey, !.1.0, .nd J ,K . ~ r o c k e (1 781 )., 3 , p i b u s i n e s s ?kna?grnent. - --- S L q m - o r e 3 ~p'~c';raw-Hilk L n t e r - m s t i ~ n - 7 1 Book c.nmpqn::.

Ir.te.rn,s t i.ur-31 Irxt i t , l - I~ . of l ' r ~ p i c - a l iy,r icultr . rr~ (? 9s) , Roof. r-TI 7 1 ~ c ~ r Aqronornlr: C # h s s v s !'innur3..tl l i enor t - 13'74; LZ'ZA, !ncd~: !~.

Kenu, C.R. (1987), "An Aml$sis of Mwketing Margins in t h e D i ~ t r i b u t i r n of ~ e p g i Cola in Angmbra State ~f rdigeri=!", -in Ur,publis}- ,~d M. Sc Thesis, Depsrtrnmt of Pktrketiflg, University of Nigeria, Z n u ~ u Campus.

Kerunwi, A. and I:,C. Fzumzh ( 1 9 A ) , "Economics of Indigermus Casszvq ~ r o c e s s i n ~ T e c h n i ~ u e s in 3 ~ u m i d Fc\rer;t Acclogy o f ~igeria.", &sav~-Rased - C r o ~ i n ~ 3 y s t e n s ~ e s e a r c h I<. IITA, Ibadan. - ,33. . -. ---

r in: i h r k ~ t i ; - ~ - . ---L- of A 5 r i c u l t ~ r r ~ l - .-- P r o d u c t s , Plew ilorir,

Yam i II~,T? 1.:~:; a y . 7 - 2 2,

L ~ t l s n d e , J .T. 2nd L.i.4. ikwson (1 959), r iEprly Development of t h y s i c a l i ~ i s t r i b u t i a c Thought1', 5e3dihas - i l l -- p L y s i c a l ~ i s ~ r i b u t i o n ~ W n a g e m c n ~ P,,~..:pr.~~,:, kJ* C&d'r;-i;oncion, Tha PTq c p L l l n n Comp~ny - n . .

~TDCESFI~? ~ e c h ~ i r l u e s " , Economic I3otmy, PJo. 36, ',01, 1, pp. 12 -It!-;.

- 1; H,ca i,.T~..rel<~, ? , A.-ir:ll?~i-; m d 3. S.C Spencer (" 9.92) , ' [Crop~i:- ,2 S y s t ~ w g.gd r:grr>economic i - e r f c r rnqnc~ of I m p r ~ v l n ; ~ Cs sssvs in P durnir! F a r e s t . k c sygtern" , (F i~ i '4 , - )

. I" ;nagr~ph L19. 2, I I T A , 1hdar-i. pp. 21 - 32, .

~ k a n i ~ b e , J.0, (1 979), ",2n Zc n. m i c k m l y s i s t:f Posthsrvest L ~ S Q P S in Cassava Pr~ , r luc t i ,m 7nrl I 4 e t h A ~ :,f s l i n i n h t i r T h m f l , U n p ~ b l i s h e d i4,:rc. Thes is ; Depsrtrnent of 4 ,qr icul tur3l Lcanonicr;, U n i v ~ r . ; i t ] r of Xigeri.1, .2slkkl: ,

AVERAGE: PRLJ'JCZd P~UCE/$M~LLSAL;Z FURCHASE PAICE &ij3 j'.mvJ '

HMVdST t ' K I C r OF CASS.\VA TUABRS (3.88 T;NiqW) P 3 TC:iVNs CF GAR1 IN AI\IIcCHk-NORTH LQC-AL

- 7 JL JdGNPiSiLT ,4334 (M42C3 - MAY, 1 993 )

Were:: Y = Farm Harvest Price r : f Csssava Tubers (3.88 t-mnes) used f o r produotian of 1 tonne oT gsr i ; -

Yi = Producer . Prion/Whol~sa le Purchase Price per

AVERAM dHCLCSALL AND RETAIL P R I C E S PER TCNNE OF G A R 1 IN I ~ I O C X A - ~ J C R T H LC'CAL COVERi\TJIENT ,clRE.4

( ~ A A C H - MAY, 1 993 )

Where: Yr = d e t a i l y r i ce / tmne ; 3nd

Yw = ?dhcles.zle pr ice/ t snne,

* = Sepsra tor of the prices/v31ues among d i f f e r e n t towns/vi l lsges .

research publications - university of nigeria nsukka

Documents

fishery publications

conference proceedings – university of nigeria, nsukka

ezenwa, ngozi ifeatu.pdf - university of nigeria nsukka

okafor e.pdf - university of nigeria nsukka

publications - coroflot

chapter one - university of nigeria nsukka

dandy done.pdf - university of nigeria nsukka

belgium - publications

a case for community radio in the - university of nigeria...

jalt publications

faculty of education - university of nigeria nsukka

poverty alleviation programme - university of nigeria nsukka

ifeanyi jonas ezema - university of nigeria nsukka

virtual library - university of nigeria nsukka

ari-volume-4-number-2.pdf - university of nigeria nsukka

chapter one: introduction - university of nigeria nsukka

ifediba christiana.pdf - university of nigeria nsukka

national museum ab uja - university of nigeria nsukka

ojionuka arinze - university of nigeria, nsukka open

university of nigeria, nsukka