Published by

Food losses in cassava and maize value chains in Nigeria Analysis and recommendations for reduction strategies

2

Table of Contents

0 ExEcutuvE summary 5 1 IntroductIon 10 1.1 Aim of the study 10 1.2 Concept of food losses 10 1.3 Concept of food value chain 11

2 mEthodology 14

3 cassava 17 3.1 Cassava in Nigeria 17 3.2 Cassava value chains 19 3.2.1 Cassava production 22 3.2.2 Cassava processing 22 3.2.3 Cassava marketing 28 3.3 Quantitative and qualitative analysis of losses in the cassava value chain 28 3.3.1 Incidence of losses in the cassava value chain 28 3.3.2 Quantification of losses in the cassava value chain 31 3.3.3 Monetary quantification of losses in the cassava value chain 33 4 maIzE 37 4.1 Maize in Nigeria 37 4.2 Value chains of maize grain and green maize 39 4.2.1 Maize production 41 4.2.2 Processing of maize into feed 42 4.2.3 Maize marketing 43 4.3 Quantitative and qualitative analysis of losses in the maize value chain 43 4.3.1 Incidence of losses in maize value chain 43 4.3.2 Quantification of losses in maize value chain 45 4.3.3 Monetary quantification of losses in the maize value chain 47 4.3.4 Maize storage facilities in the study areas 51 5 By-Products along thE maIzE and cassava valuE chaIns 52 6 oPtIons For rEducIng Food lossEs 53 6.1 Technology 53 6.2 Organisation of farmers along the value chain 53 6.3 Infrastructure 54 6.4 Human capacity development 55 6.5 Credit policy 55 6.6 Handling and processing policy 55 6.7 Costs and benefits of intervention options 55 6.8 Actors and Partners with potential roles in the control of post-harvest losses 56 annexe 58

Table of CoNTeNTS

3Table of CoNTeNTS

list of tablesTable 1: Generic food supply chain and examples of food wastage (Parfitt et al. 2010) 12Table 2: Traditional measures and their metric conversions 14Table 3: Number of respondents in each sample 15Table 4: Description of key variables in cassava production per average cassava farm 22Table 5: Estimates of losses in the cassava value chain – farmers’ assessment 32Table 6: Estimates of losses in the cassava value chain – gari processors’ assessment 32Table 7: Estimates of losses in the Cassava value chain – starch processors’ assessment 33Table 8: Estimates of losses in the cassava value chain – gari marketers’ assessment 33Table 9: Monetary assessment of losses of fresh cassava tubers at the farm gate 34Table 10: Monetary assessment of losses of fresh cassava tubers during gari processing phase 34Table 11: Monetary assessment of losses during gari processing 35Table 12: Monetary assessment of losses of gari during marketing 35Table 13: Monetary assessment of losses of cassava starch during processing and storage 36Table 14: Summary of cassava PHL monetary assessment 36Table 15: Description of key variables in maize production 41Table 16: Estimates of losses in the maize value chain – farmers’ assessment 45Table 17: Estimates of losses in the maize value chain – marketers’ assessment 46Table 18: Estimates of losses in the maize value chain – feed millers’ assessment 46Table 19: Duration of storage of maize grain and products (feed) 47Table 20: Quantification of losses of maize cobs (green and dry) at the farm gate 47Table 21: Quantification of losses of maize grain at the farm gate 48Table 22: Quantification of losses of maize grain during marketing (storage and transportation) 48Table 23: Quantification of losses of maize grain during feed milling 49Table 24: Quantification of losses of feed during marketing 49Table 25: Summary of quantification of maize losses 50Table 26: Actors and partners’ potential roles in post-harvest losses 56Table 27: Cost of gari processing equipment and tools 58Table 28: Description of key variables in gari processing 58Table 29: Farmers experiencing cassava losses 58Table 30: Starch processors experiencing losses 59Table 31: Gari processors experiencing losses 59Table 32: Gari marketers experiencing losses 59Table 33: Maize farmers experiencing losses 60Table 34: Maize marketers experiencing losses 60Table 35: Feed millers experiencing losses 60

4 Table of CoNTeNTS

list of Figures

Figure 1: Synopsis of losses in the cassava value chain 6Figure 2: Synopsis of losses in the maize value chain 8Figure 3: Wastage of food products along the supply chain 11Figure 4: Generic elements of a basic linear value chain 13Figure 5: Cassava growing regions in Nigeria 17Figure 6: Output of cassava in Nigeria (1990 – 2010) 18Figure 7: Gari destination markets in Nigeria 19Figure 8: Cassava value chain map 21Figure 9: Stages of gari processing 23Figure 10: Cassava peeler 23Figure 11: Cassava peeler 23Figure 12: Cassava hand peeler 24Figure 13: Gari frying 24Figure 14: Cassava grater and lister engine 24Figure 15: Cassava grater 25Figure 16: Stages of starch processing 26Figure 17: Mass flow from fresh cassava tubers to gari and starch 27Figure 18: Losses experienced by cassava farmers 29Figure 19: Losses experienced by cassava starch processors 30Figure 20: Losses experienced by Gari processors 30Figure 21: Losses experienced by gari marketers 31Figure 22: Distribution of cassava loss values in Mio EUR 36Figure 23: Maize production in Nigeria in 2005 37Figure 24: Output of maize in Nigeria (1990 – 2010) 38Figure 25: Maize value chain map 40Figure 26: Stages of maize feed processing 42Figure 27: Losses experienced by maize farmers 43Figure 28: Losses experienced by maize marketers 44Figure 29: Losses experienced by feed millers 45Figure 30: Distribution of maize loss values in Mio EUR 50Figure 31: Pick-up van being used for cassava transportation 61Figure 32: Land Rover being used for cassava transportation 61Figure 33: Peeled fresh cassava tubers 62Figure 34: Screw cassava press 62Figure 35: Hydraulic cassava press 62

5 exeCuTive Summary aNd CoNCluSioN

0 Executive Summary and Conclusion

each year, a significant proportion of food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted. annual losses have been estimated at about 1.3 billion tonnes by the fao (2011)1. in light of rising food prices, growing pressure on natural resources and severe famine in parts of eastern and western africa in recent years, avoidable loss and waste of food cannot be tolerated. The world’s natural resources, such as soil, water, fossil energy and nutrients, are limited, and must be used in a more efficient and responsible manner.

The term food wastage, as used by the fao, encompasses both food loss and food waste. Wastage occurs along the entire food/value chain and varies in extent depending on the product and region. The concept of food wastage is defined differently in different parts of the world. in developed countries, food waste arises at the consumer stage and concerns food which is processed and ready to eat. in developing countries, food losses occur at the post-harvest stages; during marketing and processing (Godfray et al., 20102).

This study focuses on food losses at the harvesting, pro-cessing and marketing stages. its main aim is to improve data availability concerning food losses in important food value chains in the showcase country of Nigeria, contribute to methodological discourse on the assess-ment of food losses, and identify options for German development Cooperation to engage in food loss reduc-tion programmes.

Cassava and maize, which are important staple foods for many africans both in rural areas and in the rapidly growing cities, were selected as the focus of the study.3 both crops are cultivated across different agro-ecological zones in Nigeria, mostly by smallholder farmers. both are processed into different foodstuffs at household and industrial level. They also serve as feed for animals. There are also industrial utilisations for cassava and maize which are not related to the production of food or feed.

The scope of the study was to describe at least one typical value chain for cassava and maize (from harvest to retailer) along with its system boundaries, provide

quantitative and qualitative analysis of food losses, iden-tify hot spots for losses, determine causes of food losses and positive or negative incentives, identify important actors and partners in the private and public sectors and the research and donor communities, and examine the role of these actors in reducing food losses along value chains. finally, it aimed to provide recommendations for reducing food losses at the operational and policy level and for future engagement of the German federal minis-try for economic Cooperation and development (bmZ).

The survey comprised 400 cassava and maize farmers, 54 marketers and 63 processors. results show that losses in cassava and maize value chains are significant, but also that their distribution within the value chains is irregu-lar. data have been obtained by assessment, not by meas-urement, and are therefore dependent on the perception of the interviewees. in order to ensure the data collected was representative, 400 respondents took part in the study and specially trained field interviewers were used.

field data have been supplemented with official national statistics, mostly data of the fao (food and agriculture organisation of the uN), to provide a better overview of national losses in the two value chains studied. The quality of the nationwide data is therefore dictated by the quality of the underlying official statistics. due to the complexity of interactions in the value chains, the chains have been slightly simplified in order to demonstrate the main re-source flows. Short cuts in the value chains have not been considered, which may have led to a tendency to overes-timate loss data. Percentage loss data in the value chains are presented for every cluster in the chain (farmers, processors, marketers) and cannot be added up, because they base on different quantities. They show nevertheless significant hot spots and challenges in post- harvest losses.

The results of this study show crude loss data without considering the economics of losses. in reality, it is not feasible to achieve zero losses, as protection measures to secure 100 percent of the harvest will inevitably be disproportionately costly. losses have to be accepted to a certain extent, depending on market prices and existing infrastructure. actual losses for farmers, processors and

1 food and agriculture organization of the united Nations, rome, italy, 2011: Global food losses and food waste extent: causes and prevention 2 Godfray, H. C. et al. 2010: food Security: The Challenge of feeding 9 billion People; Science; 12 february 2010; 327 3 Nigeria annual production figure; faoSTaT, 2012 http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/desktopdefault.aspx?Pageid=567#ancor

marketers are therefore smaller than estimated in this study.

The study on losses is followed by a second study which estimates, on the basis of these data, the impact of food losses on natural resources such as soil, water, biodiver-sity and climate (ecological footprint).4

Cassava is a tuber crop that is grown and consumed across all the agro-ecological zones in Nigeria. With an annual production of over 40 million metric tons (mt), Nigeria is widely acknowledged as the largest producer of cassava in the world. The major growers are the southern and middle belt states of the federation.

Cassava is processed into gari for human consumption and into starch for the food and beverage industries. furthermore, it is used in the pulp and paper as well as the furniture and plywood industries. it is also an im-portant raw material in the textile and pharmaceutical industries in Nigeria. inability to meet local demand for starch from local sources has led to Nigeria importing significant quantities of corn starch each year.

losses in the cassava value chain relate to measurable quantitative and qualitative losses in the course of trans-forming cassava into various products. it is difficult to assess the loss of quality in gari due to the absence of measurable criteria that are easy for consumers to use. in the case of starch used for industrial purposes, quality criteria include moisture content and other impurities.

Cassava farmers indicate that the most significant losses occur during harvest (4.95%), due to inappropriate har-vesting technologies (machetes) and poor soil conditions (dry and stony). according to the respondents, the main challenges for gari processors are tubers that are too small (5.8%) and too woody (4.1%), as these cannot be peeled correctly and have to be thrown away. This prob-lem appears to be less significant when gari is processed for home consumption at the farm level. This could be attributed to the fact that farmers are more reluctant to discard their harvest or that they use better adapted peel-ing technology than gari processors. improved cassava peeling technology would be a key element in reducing these losses.

6 exeCuTive Summary aNd CoNCluSioN

4 Pe international/ GiZ 2013: life Cycle assessment of maize and Cassava: Post-Harvest losses in Nigeria

Figure 1: synopsis of losses in the cassava value chain

Losses along the cassava value chain

Farm 8.51%

Harvest 4.95%

Spoilage during storage 1.63%

Too small 1.93%

Starch Factory 11.8 %

Processing 5.5%

Storage 6.3%

Gari Processor

Loss of fresh tuber 12.1%

Transport 2.2%

Too woody 4.1% Too small

5.8%

Loss of Gari 2.71%

Processing 1.6 %

Storage/ Spoilage

1.1%

Gari Market 9.5 %

Transport 2.5%

Storage 7.0 %

Moisture 4.5%

Rodents 2.5%

The main reasons for losses of gari at the marketing level are moisture (4.5%) and rodents (2.5%) during storage, whereas transportation accounts for around 2.5% of losses.

losses during starch production are significant, amount-ing to nearly 12%. The most significant losses occur during processing of tubers (5.5%) and during storage of starch (6.3%).

extrapolation of the losses from the assessment to the whole of Nigeria indicates that they are significant in both, gari and starch value chains. loss of fresh cas-sava tubers at the farm gate and during gari processing amounts to more than 6.3 million mt, corresponding to annual mean losses of 37 kg per capita5. This does not include losses of gari during and after processing, which amount to around 800,000 mt a year and losses in cassava starch production of around 106,000 mt per year. The total sum of monetary losses of cassava at the farm gate and during processing, storage, transport and marketing amounts to 144 billion Naira, which corresponds to eur 686 million.

Maize is cultivated in the forest, derived savannah and southern Guinea savannah zones of Nigeria as a sole or mixed crop. it is harvested either as green maize or maize grain. The major end-users of maize are feed and flour mills. The feed mills supply the poultry and aquaculture industry while the products of the flour mills are meant for direct human consumption. The value chain exam-ined in detail in this study is feed production. although

the fao currently only defines food products which were originally meant for human consumption and are then used for other purposes (e.g. feed, biofuel) as “food waste”, this study also considers losses along the value chain of maize for feed production. maize is a very important feed in Nigeria and its affect food security indirectly because it competes with the production and use of maize for hu-man consumption.

in the case of maize destined for human consumption, farmers harvest the crop when it is fully ripe. Green maize is harvested before the grain has ripened. maize to be sold as grain is allowed to dry on the plant and is then further sun-dried to reduce the moisture content and shelled by hand. Shelled grain is bagged and stored until the time of sale. Trade in maize grain is dominated by grain merchants. retailers buy the product from the wholesale markets and sell it to consumers in small quantities.

The farmers identified four main causes of losses. The most significant losses occur before harvesting and are attributed to pests and disease. as these are not strictly post-harvest losses, they have not been further con-sidered in the study, but the issue should be addressed in any integrated approach to increasing agricultural productivity. losses during harvesting were estimated at 4.03% of the total harvest, while shelling, storage of dry maize cobs and dry maize grain and transport of fresh maize to the market entailed losses of between 1.53% and 2.27%. altogether, losses at farm level were around 13.7%.

7exeCuTive Summary aNd CoNCluSioN

5 Population of Nigeria approximately 167 million in october 2011, German federal foreign office

8 exeCuTive Summary aNd CoNCluSioN

a mean per capita loss of 11.6 kg. feed milling and feed marketing account for around 233,600 mt of feed losses. The total sum of monetary losses in maize value chains amounts to around 120 billion Naira, which corresponds to approximately eur 576 million.

options for food loss reductionTechnology: inappropriate technology appears to be the dominant cause of food losses. in the case of cassava, areas requiring attention are harvesting, peeling and storage of fresh cassava tubers and efficiency in grating and milling. in the case of maize, areas requiring atten-tion are bagging, transportation and storage (especially hygiene). appropriate technologies could be developed through collaborative research projects conducted by public and private actors, focussing, for example, on the development of a cassava peeling machine. appropriate packaging and transportation arrangements would have to be made for the transportation of semi-finished prod-ucts to the starch factory.

The most significant losses in the maize value chain occur at the marketing stage (26.6%), mostly due to storage problems (spillage, rodents, weevils (Sitophilus zeamais) and moisture) and to a lesser extent during transportation (3.7%).

feed millers cited storage of grain (5.8%) and storage of feed (4%) as the most important areas in which losses occur. Transportation accounts for 3% of losses. Total losses at the feed miller level amount to 12.8%.

The mean period of storage of maize grain before mill-ing is 8.8 weeks and the period before spoilage begins to manifest is around 4.0 weeks. The length of time that products can be stored before spoilage starts to set in is 3.0 months.

losses of green and dry maize cobs at the farm gate amount to 194,276 mt per year, while 257,885 mt of maize grain are also lost annually. The biggest losses occur during the marketing stage, which accounts for 1,943,271 mt of maize grain per year. This corresponds to

Figure 2: synopsis of losses in the maize value chain

Losses along the maize value chain

Farm 9.83%

Harvest 4.03%

Shelling 1.53%

Storage dry maize grain 2.0%

Storage dry maize cob

2.27%

Transport of fresh maize to market 1.95 %

Transport to market 3.7 %

Storage market 22.9 %

Spillage 5.0%

Rodents 6.0%

Weevils 8.5%

Moisture 2.5% Transport to feed miller

2.0 %

Feed miller (storage) 5.8 %

Spoilage 2.0% Rodents 2.8% Weevils 1.0%

Transport of feed 3.0 %

Storage of feed 4.0%

Spillage 2.0% Weevils 2.0%

9exeCuTive Summary aNd CoNCluSioN

industrial or food-grade starch. The transportation of fresh tubers to pre-processing centres that are only a short distance away would reduce the potential for loss and minimise the cost of transporting water and fibre (wastes) along with the cassava.

Market: Poor market infrastructure and marketing sys-tems contribute to significant losses, especially in maize value chains. in recent times there have been attempts in some states to improve market infrastructure. Within markets, sections are often created for specific agricul-tural products. it should therefore be easy to address the market operators for each type of agricultural product in a targeted manner.

Standards for handling and processing of agricultural raw materials (maize grain and cassava tubers) should be established and appropriate informational materials developed to teach actors along the value chain about appropriate handling, packaging, transportation and pro-cessing techniques that will minimise losses in the value chains while ensuring cost effectiveness.

Human capacity development: appropriate advocacy and training can be provided to operators in the wholesale and retail sections of the gari market to improve the handling (especially bagging) and storage of the product with a view to maintaining quality and reducing physical losses.

a thorough cost-benefit analysis is the basis of economi-cally sustainable investment. low prices for commodities frequently restrict investment in improving post-harvest management. in many cases, accepting losses is cheaper than investing in protection. Technology transfer and training can only be successful if there is genuine eco-nomic benefit for the farmers. Whether this benefit is generated through higher market prices or, for an in-termediate period, through state support and subsidies depends on the situation. innovations often need initial support in order to become accepted and widespread, but they should be always based on sound economic analysis.

The steady increase in food prices over recent years would seem to offer the right impetus for investment in post-harvest management.

Organisation of farmers and the value chain: due to the decline of farmers’ organisations and cooperatives, farm-ers no longer have the capacity to influence the produc-tion, processing, transportation and marketing of agri-cultural commodities. farmers can pool their resources and create economic incentives to improve transporta-tion and storage facilities, thus helping to reduce food losses and enhance their own incomes. as groups and cooperatives, they will be able to receive credit from agricultural financial institutions or advance payments from buyers of their produce. it would be advisable for the department of Cooperatives at the state and federal levels to collaborate with the State offices of the Nigerian ministry of agriculture and rural development to promote farmers’ organisations.

Processors, public sector actors and donors should collaborate in promoting and strengthening farmers’ organisations and cooperative societies and linking them with processors to create efficient commodity supply chains that could reduce losses in the production, processing, transportation and marketing of maize grain and cassava tubers.

Processors of cassava tubers should work with agri-cultural development Programmes in specific states to develop out-grower schemes, which could be used to provide farmers with inputs and technical guidance for efficient cassava production, while the processors undertake the harvesting, collection and transportation of fresh tubers at maturity.

Infrastructure: Poor transportation and storage facili-ties and lack of other infrastructure contribute to losses in value chains. areas to focus on are infrastructure for transportation, storage and marketing that is appropri-ate to the tropical environment and the road network. it appears there are currently no economic incentives for private sector operators to deploy appropriate vehicles for the transportation of farm-fresh products in Nigeria. The establishment of small-scale pre-processing centres located among clusters of cassava farmers and/or farming communities, and thus close to the farm gate, would allow cassava to be transformed into semi-finished, dewatered starch products which could then be transported to starch factories for processing into

10 iNTroduCTioN

1 Introduction

1.1 aim of the study

The aim of this study is to improve the availability of data on food losses in important food value chains in the showcase country of Nigeria, more precisely the north-ern state of Kaduna and the southern state of ondo. The study aims to contribute to methodological discourse on the assessment of food losses and to identify options for German development Cooperation to engage in food loss reduction programmes.

1.2 concept of food losses

each year, a significant proportion of food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted. annual losses have been estimated at about 1.3 billion tonnes. in light of rising food prices, growing pressure on natural re-sources and severe famine in parts of eastern and west-ern africa in recent years, avoidable loss and wastage of food cannot be tolerated. The world’s natural resources, such as soil, water, energy and nutrients, are limited, and must be used in a more efficient and responsible manner.

The term food wastage, as used by the fao, encompasses both food loss and food waste. Wastage occurs along the entire food/value chain and varies in extent depending on the product and region (fao 2011)6. in developed countries, food waste arises at the consumer stage and concerns food which is processed and ready to eat. in developing countries, food losses occur at the post- harvest stages (Godfray et al., 20107).

This study focuses on food losses at the pre-harvest, harvest, post-harvest and processing stages, which are most relevant in developing countries. Pre-harvest losses are not further considered in this study, because preventing them would require specific crop protection measures. Post-harvest losses take place at the time of harvest and during various post-harvest operations from the farm gate to the first level of the market. They can be of physical nature (weight and quality) and/or economic nature (loss of value due to bad storage facilities or infor-mation systems). losses in food value chains are highly variable, ranging from 5% to 30%.

as figure 3 shows, the distribution of losses across the value chain in developed economies differs from that in developing economies. in the latter, more losses occur towards the production stage, while in the developed economies more occur towards the consumption stage.

a review of existing literature on the subject showed that accurately monitoring food losses continues to represent a considerable challenge. There are a number of reasons for this, the most important being major differences in crops, the multiplicity of routes a typical crop can fol-low from farm to end-user and the time it takes a crop to reach the end-user. The situation for cereals differs significantly from that for roots and tubers. There are also variations among the cereals, with the handling and processing routes for maize, for instance, deviating sig-nificantly from those that other cereals pass along. Simi-larly, the handling of maize harvested when green is very different from that of maize harvested as grain.

The term ‘food loss’ can refer to a loss of quantity and/or quality. loss of quantity is measured in terms of weight and volume while loss of quality requires subjective evaluation, in most cases in the absence of appropriate standards and tools. loss of weight due to a reduction in moisture content cannot be described as loss since the nutritional quality of the food remains intact. The term ‘damage’ refers to loss which affects quality more than quantity, though this loss may still result in economic loss. a frequent form of damage is broken grain. in addi-tion to these, losses can occur as a result of spillage from bags, consumption by pests, deterioration and road ac-cidents during long distance transportation.

The main reason why previous projects aiming to avoid food losses have not succeeded is that they have given insufficient consideration to the complexity of causes. Solutions have therefore been too narrow in focus. The underlying causes of food losses (drivers) have to be fully investigated in order to understand why farmers and other economic operators act the way they do. The public and private sectors should share the investment costs and risks involved in carrying out targeted interventions. it should also be borne in mind that the economic impli-

6 food and agriculture organization of the united Nations, rome, 2011: Global food losses and food waste extent: causes and prevention 7 Godfray, H. C. et al. 2010: food Security: The Challenge of feeding 9 billion People; Science, 12 february 2010, 327

11iNTroduCTioN

value chain analysis is a useful strategy in understand-ing overall trends of industrial reorganisation. it can be used to identify key players, change agents and leverage points for policy and technical interventions. value chain analysis involves breaking a process into its constituent parts in order to better understand its nature, structure and functioning. actors at each stage of the chain are identified, along with their functions and relationships. This knowledge facilitates and strengthens efforts to in-fluence the chain.

The flow of goods, information and finance through the various stages of the chain is evaluated in order to detect problems or identify opportunities to improve the contribution of specific actors and the overall perfor-mance of the chain. The analysis usually goes beyond the production stage. it examines interactions and linkages among key players as well as between the business and policy environment.

cations of post-harvest losses (PHl) can motivate opera-tors along the value chains to reduce these losses for the sake of their own profitability.

1.3 concept of food value chain

a value chain is a sequence of related business activities (functions), beginning with the provision of specific in-puts for a particular product, moving through the phases of primary production, transformation and marketing, and ending with the final sale of the product to consum-ers.

The enterprises (operators) performing these functions comprise producers, processors, traders and distributors of a particular product. These enterprises are linked by a series of business transactions as the product is passed on in stages from primary producers to end consumers. These stages represent the links in the value chain.

Developingcountries

DevelopedcountriesPlanted crop

Ready to harvest crop

Raw material

Processed food

Food at consumer

Eaten food

Pre-harvest losses

Harvesting and processing losses

Secondary processing losses

Retail losses

Consumption losses0-10%

10-50%

26-40%

3-40%

2-26%

1-10%

12-21%

Figure 3: Wastage of food products along the supply chain (WEF)8

8 World economic forum, driving Sustainable Consumption: value Chain Waste - overview briefing; https://members.weforum.org/pdf/sustainableconsumption/dSC%20overview%20briefing%20-%20value%20Chain%20Waste.pdf

12 iNTroduCTioN

stage Examples of food waste/loss characteristics

Harvesting – handling at harvest

Edible crops left in field, ploughed into soil, eaten by birds, rodents, timing of harvest not optimal: loss in quality

Crop damaged during harvesting/poor harvesting technique

Outgrades at farm to improve quality of produce

Threshing Loss through poor technique

Drying – transportation and distribution10 Poor transport infrastructure, loss owing to spillage/bruising

Storage Pests, disease, spillage, contamination, natural drying out of food

Primary processing – cleaning, classification, dehulling, pounding, grinding, packaging, soaking, winnowing, drying, sieving, milling

Process losses

Contamination in process causing loss of quality

Secondary processing – mixing, cooking, frying, moulding, cutting, extrusion

Process losses

Contamination in process causing loss of quality

Product evaluation – quality control: standard recipes Product discarded/outgrades in supply chain

Packaging – weighing, labelling, sealing

Inappropriate packaging damages produce

Grain spillage from sack

Losses caused by rodents

Marketing – publicity, sale, distribution

Damage during transport: spoilage

Poor handling in wet market

Losses caused by lack of cooling/cold storage

Post-consumer recipes elaboration: traditional dishes, new dishes product evaluation, consumer education, discards

Plate scrapings

Poor storage/stock management in homes: discarded before serving

Poor food preparation technique: edible food discarded with inedible

Food discarded in packaging: confusion over 'best before' and 'use by' dates

End of life – disposal of food waste/loss at different stages of supply chain

Food waste discarded may be separately treated, fed to livestock/poultry, mixed with other wastes or land-filled

table 1: generic food supply chain and examples of food wastage9

9 Parfitt, J.,barthel, m., and macnaughton, S. (2010). food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Phil. Trans. r. Soc. b 2010 365, 3065-3081. references doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0126 10 drying usually takes place on the farm and/or farmstead. The grain must also be transported to a storage facility and loss can occur in this process.

13iNTroduCTioN

Figure 4: generic elements of a basic linear value chain11

Basic functions (chain links)

Provision of specific inputs Production Transformation Trade Final sale

Provide- equipment-inputs

-Grow-Harvest-Dry

-Classify-Process-Pack

-Transport-Distribute-Sell

Specific consumer market

Categories of chain operators and their relations

Specific input provider

Primary producers

Logistics centres, Industry Traders Final sale point

/ Retailer

11 GTZ (2007), value links manual: The methodology of value Chain Promotion, first edition

14

This study has been based essentially on information from primary and secondary sources. most of the in-formation on cross-sector value chain institutions and policy issues was obtained from secondary sources while the information on enterprise-specific value chain issues and the percentage of food losses at different levels came from primary sources. a specially designed questionnaire was developed to collect field data from actors along cassava and maize value chains (questionnaires can be found in annexe iv). These actors comprise cassava farm-ers, starch processors, marketers of cassava tubers, gari processors, maize farmers, marketers of maize grain and feed millers. The data collected were reviewed and the information required to address the specific aspects of the study was extracted and utilised.

for each actor surveyed, variables on costs, returns, post- harvest losses (PHl), storage, transportation, production, etc. were solicited from respondents. To adequately esti-mate the net benefits of the ventures focused on in the study, certain assumptions were made regarding aspects such as soil quality and agronomic practices. Smallholder cassava yield ranges between 8 and 12 metric tons (mt) per hectare (ha). However, on experimental stations, the yield could exceed 20 mt per ha.

Wherever information was available, previously docu-mented input-output data were used. This was neces-sitated by the fact that different measures were being used for business transactions across the sampled states, meaning prices and quantities were difficult to standard-ise. various measures are currently in use, such as heaps, portions and baskets of cassava tubers; kongos (mudus) and basins of gari; baskets, wheelbarrows and pick-up vans of cassava, etc. This made it difficult to compute an appropriate and representative cost and returns frame-work based strictly on the field data. efforts were there-fore made to obtain standard measures and prices from other sources. for example, rather than working with 200 heaps of cassava at a farm gate price of ₦ 5,000, we used the prevailing cassava tuber purchase price of ₦ 9,000 per mt set by maTNa foods Company, a starch factory in ondo State. To convert prices for gari from Naira per kongo to Naira per kg, we ascertained the weights of dif-ferent kongos of gari and found out that a kongo of gari weighs 1.1 kg on average. We also found that a kongo of dry maize grain weighs 1.25 kg on average. This informa-tion, coupled with the price data collected from the field, was used to calculate and confirm the price of gari and maize per mt. a further finding was that a pick-up van of cassava tubers was equivalent to 400 heaps, which trans-lates to 4.08 mt.

meTHodoloGy

2 Methodology

Product local measure unit respective value in Kilograms (rounded)

Cassava tubers 1 Pick-up van (≈ 400 heaps) 4080

Maize grain 1 Kongo 1.25

Gari 1 Kongo 1.1

table 2: traditional measures and their metric conversions

a comprehensive review of existing literature was carried out. Subject areas covered included production, processing, handling, storage and marketing of cassava and maize, value chain analysis, post-harvest losses and food waste.

The value chain maps for cassava and maize were devel-oped based on the literature review. The system bounda-ries are delineated, in line with Gustavsson et al. (2011)12, as field (agricultural production), farm storage facilities (post-harvest handling and storage), farm industry (pro-cessing and packaging), wholesale and retail markets (dis-tribution) and household food services (consumption).

12 Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, u., otterdijk, r. and meybeck, a. (2011): Global food losses and Wastes, Swedish institute for food and biotechnology (SiK), Gothenburg, Sweden and fao, rome, italy

15

therefore could not complete the questionnaire without assistance. a multistage sampling technique was adopted to select the farmers that would constitute the sample. in the first stage two states which are major producers of cassava and maize were selected. These were ondo in the south and Kaduna in the north. in each of the two states, two local government areas which are high producers of cassava and maize were selected. The study was thus carried out in four local government areas. lists of cas-sava and maize farmers were obtained from the respec-tive agricultural development Programme (adP) and 50 cassava farmers and 50 maize farmers were randomly selected for each local government area, making a total of 200 cassava and 200 maize farmers. as shown in Table 3 below, other specific actors along the value chain were also interviewed.

Specific potential respondents within the value chain were targeted for data collection in accordance with these boundaries.

data were collected from published sources, through key informants and focus group interviews and where neces-sary through the use of questionnaires and/or surveys. data collection covered major participants along the value chain, the major sources and causes of losses and waste, and information on loss quantities. other infor-mation collected included costs and returns for various players in the value chain. To collect data from the farm-ers, specific questionnaires were developed (annexe iv). The questionnaire was used as an interview guide by trained enumerators to elicit information from the farm-ers, since many of the farmers were not able to read and

meTHodoloGy

state ondo Kaduna total

local government area Ifedore Akure North Lere Gema

maize farmers 50 50 50 50 200

cassava farmers 50 50 50 50 200

gari processors 10 10 5 5 30

maize grain marketers 2 2 10 10 24

Fresh cassava tuber marketers 10 10 5 5 30

Feed millers 6 2 8

cassava starch processors 15 10 25

total 517

table 3: number of respondents in each sample

The data that were collected from cassava and maize farmers to determine the environmental footprint of food losses include:

1. Type and quantity of fertiliser used per unit area

2. Cropping system: mono-cropping/mixed cropping (crop combinations, percentage of mixture with other crop)

3. Type and quantity of pesticides and fertilisers (if any) used per unit area

4. extent of mechanisation - type of farm machinery used and for which operations

5. Crop rotation – crop succession on the same plot

6. Type of transport and distances usually covered to reach the store/warehouse, market, retailer, etc.

There appears to be no generally accepted methodology for determining post-production losses in root/tuber crops. a publication by the National academy of Sciences (uSa) from the year 1978 on post-harvest losses13 makes the following differentiation between assessment, measurement and estimation of losses:

Assessment is a rough quantitative approximation of food loss or the characterisation of the relative points of loss in a particular food supply system. This approach implies a measure of subjectivity resulting from a lack of suffi-cient information.

16 meTHodoloGy

Measurement on the other hand is a more precise quan-titative observation with less subjectivity. With meas-urements there is a high expectation of reproducibility without observer bias.

in light of the above, and considering the expected deliv-erable of this study in respect of quantitative and quali-tative analysis of food losses, the work was undertaken as an ‘assessment of food losses’, using structured ques-tionnaires to elicit information from farmers, marketers and processors (especially in the case of cassava). for industrial users and other actors along the value chain, consultation with experts and key informant interviews were conducted.

13 National academy of Sciences: Post-harvest food losses in developing Countries. Washington d.C. 1978, 202p.

17CaSSava

3 Cassava

3.1 cassava in nigeria

Cassava is a tuber crop that is grown and consumed across all the agro-ecological zones in Nigeria. With an annual production of over 40 million mt, Nigeria is widely acknowledged as the largest producer in the world, also accounting for over 70% of the total

production in West africa. from 1990 to 2005, Cassava production increased from around 20 million mt to around 45 million mt, before falling to around 37 mil-lion mt in 2010 (see figure 6). Cassava is produced across virtually all Nigeria’s agro-ecological zones (NbS, 2007)14. However, the major growers are the middle belt states of the federation (figure 5).

Figure 5: cassava growing regions in nigeria15

Cassava growing regions

14 NbS (2007) filling the data Gaps, National bureau of Statistics 15 ezedinma (2006) Structure and Profitability of Cassava enterprises in Nigeria, paper presented at the root and Tuber expansion Programme (rTeP) Training Workshop on rural enterprise management and Community-driven development at armTi, ilorin

18 CaSSava

There are different varieties of cassava with different attributes and yield levels. Where maize seed can eas-ily be procured from input suppliers, it is often difficult to obtain stem cuttings for cassava. farmers tend to use stem cuttings from past harvests from their own fields or from friends and family members. Sometimes they are forced to buy them from other farmers. most farmers find it difficult to distinguish between the different varieties of cassava just by looking at the stem cuttings.

Cassava is cultivated either as a sole crop or mixed with other crops. in mixed cassava-maize plots, maize is usually planted first. When the maize is fully grown, the cassava cuttings are planted on the same ridges as the maize. after the maize is harvested, the cassava takes over the field completely. The cost of land preparation and initial weeding is thus shared between maize and cassava. under standard agronomic practices, 10,000 ridges (stands) are planted per ha. Whether it is grown as a mixed or sole crop, cassava cultivation is very labour intensive. it comprises four main activities: land prepa-ration (clearing, packing); planting (laying-out, tilling, planting); weeding/farm maintenance and harvesting/transportation for off-farm activities. With the excep-tion of value-chain-operators involved in land prepara-

tion and herbicide spraying, all other farm activities are conducted manually and largely by groups of externally sourced day labourers working with machetes and hoes.

fertiliser is not commonly applied. However, where cassava and maize are intercropped, the maize may re-ceive some fertiliser from which cassava also benefits. Generally, the belief is that cassava can perform well without fertiliser.

The harvest is brought in within 12-18 months of the planting period. due to the highly perishable nature of cassava tubers, harvesting of the tubers is staggered in a manner that is consistent with household needs and market demand.

The two broad markets for cassava in Nigeria are tradi-tional food and industrial products. most of the cassava grown in Nigeria is processed and sold as traditional food. Just as production of cassava is spread across all Nigeria’s agro-ecological zones, so too are the markets for the common cassava food products, especially gari. However, the market is particularly dense in the south-ern states of the federation (see figure 7).

Figure 6: output of cassava in nigeria (1990 – 2010)16

16 faoSTaT 2012

19CaSSava

Figure 7: gari destination markets in nigeria17

Rural market for Gari

The industrial product market for cassava includes the starch, food-grade ethanol and cassava flour markets. of the three markets, the starch market is the most pro-nounced. it comprises the native starch and the modified starch markets (Knipscheer, 2003)18. most of the indus-trial players in this market are also concentrated in the southern states of Nigeria.

3.2 cassava value chains

The cassava value chains examined in this study were selected based on a review of existing literature, consul-tation with experts, and previous field work done in the context of this study.

The critical input suppliers for cassava cultivation are farmers, international research institutions (such as iiTa or CiaT), agricultural development Programs (adPs),

and the roots and Tubers expansion Programme (rTeP). They all provide stem cuttings: the most significant input after labour. Cassava cultivation is dominated by smallholder farmers and household members who are engaged in both upstream (production) and downstream (homestead processing and marketing) activities. differ-ent levels of processing can be observed. These include homestead processing by farmers’ wives, commercial processing by women who buy tubers for processing and selling in product form, and toll processing in which spe-cialised professionals provide peeling, milling (grating), pressing and frying services. There are also some indus-trial processors who buy cassava on a large scale for pro-cessing into starch and other derivatives for use in other industries as well as gari,fufu and lafun for the domestic market. between these actors there are middlemen and women who perform various marketing functions.

19

17 ezedinma, C., ojiako, i. a., okechukwu, r. u., lemchi, J., r., umar, a. m., Sanni, l., akoroda, m., ogbe, f., okoro, e., Tarawai, e., and dixon, a. (2007). The cassava food commodity market and trade network in Nigeria. iiTa, ibadan, iSbN 978-131-200-5. 296 pp. 18 Knipscheer (2003) opportunities in the industrial Cassava market in Nigeria, Winrock/iiTa

20 CaSSava

for the purpose of providing a detailed description of the traditional and industrial sectors, the following value chains will be considered:

i. fresh cassava tubers passing through the marketing and processing stages and reaching households as gari;

ii. fresh cassava tubers passing through the marketing and processing stages and reaching industry as starch.

These end products (gari and starch) are the most traded of all the cassava products in Nigeria.

The value chain map for cassava is presented in figure 8, and is supplemented by a functional analysis of key vari-ables (Table 4). The map indicates the operators and the products at each stage of the value chain. it also shows links between the operators across the stages. as shown in the map, the end products of cassava transformation in Nigeria are gari, lafun, fufu19, composite flour, textiles, starch, glucose syrup, medicines, livestock feed and alco-hol. These products emanate from both traditional and industrial sectors in the cassava value chain.

19 Gari is a creamy white, partially gelatinised, roasted, free flowing granular flour with a slightly fermented and sour flavour. fufu is a fermented wet paste widely consumed in eastern and south-western Nigeria. lafun is a whitish cassava powder which is mixed with hot water to form a paste and is widely consumed in south-western Nigeria.

21CaSSava

Figu

re 8

: cas

sava

val

ue c

hain

map

Stag

eIn

puts

Su

pply

On-

Farm

Pr

oduc

�on

Post

Har

vest

Ha

ndlin

g /

mar

ke�n

g

Prim

ary

Proc

essin

gM

arke

�ng/

Tr

adin

g

End-

User

s/

Cons

umer

s

Ope

rato

rs

Prod

uct (

s)In

puts

Mid

dlem

en/w

omen

Cass

ava

Tube

rsCa

ssav

a Tu

bers

Indu

stria

l pr

oces

sors

Farm

ers

Agro

-pr

oces

sing

co

mpa

nies

Cred

it Pr

ovid

ers

Rese

arch

In

s�tu

tes

Stem

Cu

�ng

Su

pplie

rs

Agro

Ch

emic

al

Deal

ers

Equi

pmen

t De

aler

s

Labo

ur

Supp

liers

Farm

ers

Indu

stria

l pr

oces

sors

Co�a

ge

entr

e-pr

eneu

rs

Mid

dlem

en/w

omen

Indu

stria

l pr

oces

sors

Garr

i, Ch

ips,

Lafu

n,

Fufu

, Sta

rch,

Fl

our

Hou

seho

lds

Tex�

le

indu

strie

s

Phar

ma-

ceu�

cal

com

pani

es

Pulp

, pap

er

&

pack

agin

g co

mpa

nies

Oth

er

indu

strie

s

Garr

i, Ch

ips,

Lafu

n,

Fufu

, Sta

rch,

Fl

our

Garr

i, La

fun,

Fu

fu, C

ompo

site

flour

, Tex

�les

, Gl

ucos

e sy

rup,

Dr

ugs,

Live

stoc

k fe

ed, A

lcoh

ol

22 CaSSava

3.2.1 cassava productionThe field survey carried out in the course of this study yielded information on the key variables of cassava production (Table 4).

The table shows that the mean size of cassava farms was 1.22 hectares. The yield of cassava tubers was 7.64 tonnes in years with very good weather and 5.06 tonnes in years with normal weather. The table reveals that cassava farmers applied fertilisers and other agro-chemicals. fer-tilisers and agro-chemicals are even more used in maize production. When the maize is later inter-cropped with cassava, the cassava crop also becomes a beneficiary of the fertilisers and other agro-chemicals.

variable mean

Farm size (all crops) ha 3.75

Farm size (cassava) ha 1.22

Quantity of cassava cuttings (pick-up van)20 3.91

Amount spent on cassava cuttings (₦) 8,046.79

Distance from household residence to farm (km) 4.18

Quantity of fertiliser applied (kg) 109.68

Amount spent on fertiliser (₦) 9,948.39

Quantity of insecticide (l) 1.80

Amount spent on Insecticides (₦) 1,513.82

Quantity of fungicide (l) 3.60

Amount spent on fungicides (₦) 684.00

Quantity of herbicide (l) 2.66

Amount spent on herbicides (₦) 4,395.33

Amount of damaged tubers during harvest (%) 4.95

Yield of cassava tubers in a year with very good weather (mt/ha) 7.64

Yield of cassava tubers in a year with normal weather (mt/ha) 5.06

table 4: description of key variables in cassava production per average cassava farm

3.2.2 cassava processing 3.2.2.1 GariGari is the most popular product made from cassava tu-bers. in recent years, it has become the most important staple food consumed in the southern states of Nigeria. it is also consumed in some of the states in the north of the country. it comes in two forms – creamy white or yellow. The creamy white form is more common. it is partially gelatinised, roasted, free-flowing granular flour. The white form of gari has a slightly fermented and sour flavour.

20 one pick up van carries 40 bundles (200 stems, 1000 stem cuttings, 30 bundles are needed for one hectar

23CaSSava

Peeling continues to represent a challenge as it has not yet been successfully mechanised. The equipment and

tools that are used in gari processing are shown in the following pictures (figures 10 – 15).

21 + 22 ezedinma (2006), Structure and Profitability of Cassava enterprises in Nigeria, Paper Presented at the root and Tuber expansion Programme (rTeP) Training Workshop on rural enterprise management and Community-driven development at armTi, ilorin

Figure 9: stages of gari processing

1. Peeling the tubers

2. Washing the peeled tubers

3. Grating into mash

4. Fermentation and dewatering

(pressing) 5. Sieving

6. Frying the sieved particles

and cooling

7. Packaging for sale

Figure 10: cassava peeler (Futa aKurE)21 Figure 11: cassava peeler (IIta & arcEdEm)22

24 CaSSava

Two main types of equipment are available at the centres for use under a hire arrangement. There is a motorised mechanical grater (mill) and a screw press for dewatering the cassava mash. These are two critical stages that can slow down the processing of cassava into gari. a diesel lister engine serves as the source of power for the motor-ised mechanical grater. The lister engine for grating is the costliest item of equipment used.

The price per kg of gari at the processing centre was ₦ 78 while the corresponding market price was ₦ 118.30 (2012).

Gari processing is undertaken using traditional (house-hold processors) and mechanical or commercial meth-ods. The traditional equipment includes manual hand graters, stones/logs for dewatering, manual sieves and local gari fryers.

There are specialised processing groups comprising mainly women (normally 5-6) that carry out all the processing activities. usually three of the women are dedicated to frying. The groups are paid according to the number of cassava loads processed, the quantity pro-duced, the wage for a day’s labour or payments in-kind (gari) and are often found at the commercial processing centres.

Figure 12: cassava hand peeler23

23 ezedinma (2006), Structure and Profitability of Cassava enterprises in Nigeria, Paper Presented at the root and Tuber expansion Programme (rTeP) Training Workshop on rural enterprise management and Community-driven development at armTi, ilorin 24 Kindly provided by dr. adegboyega eyitayo oguntade

Figure 13: gari frying24

Figure 14: cassava grater and lister engine24

25CaSSava

3.2.2.2 StarchStarch is the major constituent of cassava tubers. litera-ture indicates that cassava roots have a starch content of between 25-35% depending on their age. The starch has thickening and binding qualities which are used in the food and beverage industries and in the manufacture of convenience and baby foods. Starch is also an important raw material for textile and pharmaceutical products. furthermore, the modified starch dextrin, which has ad-hesive properties, is commonly used in the pulp and pa-per industries in the production of corrugated cardboard and cartons for packaging as well as in the furniture and plywood industries.

Starch is produced using traditional and industrial methods. Some elements of the traditional process are similar to those used in gari manufacturing. The activities involved in the production of starch are:

25 ezedinma (2006), Structure and Profitability of Cassava enterprises in Nigeria, Paper Presented at the root and Tuber expansion Programme (rTeP) Training Workshop on rural enterprise management and Community-driven development at armTi, ilorin

Figure 15: cassava grater25

26 CaSSava

maTNa has an integrated plant with a capacity of 4,500 mt of food grade starch per year. in 2012, maTNa bought cassava tubers at ₦ 9,000 per metric ton at the factory gate. its customers include multi-national food process-ing companies, such as Nestlé and unilever, who use the starch as binders in the manufacture of food seasoning products. Non-food manufacturing companies use starch in the production of dry cell batteries, mosquito repel-lent coils, and packaging glue.

figure 17 shows the flow of mass from fresh cassava tubers to gari and starch.

as is the case for gari processing, grating can be carried out manually using hand graters. alternatively, there are mechanical graters powered by lister engines (mills).

industrial manufacturers of starch in Nigeria include maTNa in ogbese, ondo State, Sunshine Cassava Processing factory in ondo, ondo State, Nigerian Starch mill in ihialla, anambra State and Peak Starch factory in abeokuta, ogun State.

Figure 16: stages of starch processing

1. Peeling the tubers

2. Washing the peeled tubers

3. Grating into mash

4. Mixing with water and

sieving

5. Sedimentation

of starch 6. Drying

7. Packaging for sale

27CaSSava

Figure 17: mass flow from fresh cassava tubers to gari and starch

28 CaSSava

Starch trade at commercial level is more significant than that at subsistence and retail level. This is due to the large demand for starch in industry which cannot be met locally. large-scale industries tend to buy directly from processors such as maTNa while at the same time utilis-ing the services of contract suppliers. The packing indus-tries that do not require food-grade starch rely more on contract suppliers. inability to meet demand for starch from local sources has led to Nigeria importing signifi-cant quantities of corn starch each year.

3.3 Quantitative and qualitative analysis of losses in the cassava value chain

When we talk about losses in the cassava value chain, we are referring to measurable quantitative and qualitative losses in the course of transforming cassava into vari-ous products. The two products under consideration in this study are gari and starch. Quantitative loss implies a reduction in the physical substance of the product, re-flected in weight loss. loss of product quality (qualitative loss) is also important, but is more difficult to measure and/or quantify. This is because, in the case of gari, there is a lack of quality criteria that are easily measurable and used by consumers. in the case of starch used for indus-trial purposes, quality criteria are applied which include moisture content and other impurities. Their measure-ment requires the use of specialised equipment and is beyond the scope of this study. The focus of the study is therefore on quantitative losses along the value chain.

3.3.1 Incidence of losses in the cassava value chainan investigation into the incidence of post-harvest losses among cassava farmers yielded the information presented in figure 18.

3.2.3 cassava marketingThere is some trade in fresh tubers but it is not as wide-spread as trade in gari and starch. farmers usually sell their cassava as stands on the farm. Harvesting is the responsibility of the buyer and to that extent it is also the buyer who bears the risk of the yield. frequently, these customers are female entrepreneurs who then engage labourers to harvest and pack the cassava. They then hire vehicles to transport the goods to processing centres. There are some farmers who sell their cassava to indus-trial processors like maTNa. in this instance, they bear the cost of harvesting, packing and transportation to the factory gate.

in the case of the most traded cassava product, gari, different operators are involved in production. These include:

• household farmers/gari processors who retail at subsistence level;

• wives of cassava farmers who sell gari as wholesalers on specific market days;

• gari merchants who buy cassava on the farm and sell gari on a wholesale basis;

• commercial millers who also sell to traders and institutional buyers on a wholesale basis;

• market traders (often women) selling gari.

These operators market varying volumes of products at the processing centres and the markets. Competition is keen and it is rarely possible for any category of operator to control the market.

29CaSSava

analysis of the data collected on the incidence of losses among cassava starch processors yielded the information presented in figure 19.

When we compare the number of farmers who consid-ered the various issues a problem, it becomes clear that the most significant post-harvest losses among cassava farmers are tubers being damaged during harvesting (91%), tubers being too woody to peel with knife (72.9%) and tubers being too small to peel with a knife (61.1%).

Figure 18: losses experienced by cassava farmers

91,0%

54,2% 61,1%

24,3%

72,9%

31,9%

21,4%

12,5%

50,0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

30 CaSSava

claimed that they experience loss of revenue as a result of the damage to the tubers.

figure 20 presents information on the incidence of losses in the value chain, as indicated by the responses received from gari processors.

When we look at the percentage of gari processors that responded ‘yes’ to the incidence of the specific problems, we can see that the most important sources of post-harvest losses among starch processors are tubers being damaged during transportation (70.6%), tubers being lost during processing (66.7%) and tubers being damaged during peeling (41.2%). about 73.3% of the respondents

Figure 19: losses experienced by cassava starch processors

70.6%

41.2%

66.7% 73.3%

5.9% 13.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Tubersdamageduring

transport

Tubersdamageduringpeeling

Loss oftubers during

processing

Loss ofrevenue

because ofdamage

Loss of tubersdue to other

problems

Loss due tospoilage

Figure 20: losses experienced by gari processors

94,1%

95,0%

92,9%

90,9% 91,7%

88%

89%

90%

91%

92%

93%

94%

95%

96%

Discard smalltubers

Discard woodytubers

Loss of tubersduring

transportation

Loss of finishedproduct duringtransportation

Loss of finishedproduct during

storage

31CaSSava

The gari marketers’ response on the incidence of losses is presented in figure 21. The numbers indicate that they consider loss of gari during transportation (40.0%) to be the major source of losses. This is probably due to poor handling and transportation facilities in Nigeria.

ing, estimated at 4.95% of the total harvest, followed by losses occurring during storage of the finished product (1.94%) and losses occurring due to small size of the cas-sava tubers (1.93%).

The numbers indicate that the problem of woody (95.0%) and small (94.1%) tubers were the most significant sourc-es of losses being experienced by gari processors. These are followed by tubers being lost during transportation (92.9%) and losses occurring during storage of the fin-ished product (91.7%).

3.3.2 Quantification of losses in the cassava value chain Table 5 presents the cassava farmers’ assessment of loss percentages from harvesting onwards. The table shows that the most significant losses occurred during harvest-

Figure 21: losses experienced by gari marketers

40,0% 40,0%

66,7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Loss of Gari duringtransportation

Loss of Revenue Loss of Gari during storage

32 CaSSava

losses also occur due to the small size of tubers. When cassava tubers are too small, they are difficult to peel. The very small ones are left on the farms after harvesting or discarded during peeling. When cassava is left on the field for too long, it can become woody. The woody parts of the tubers are discarded during peeling or process-ing. farmers tend to keep cassava standing in the field as a form of storage, especially when prices are too low. Sometimes farmers will wait until the next rainy season to avoid the difficulty of harvesting when the soil is dry.

it is common that farmers process some of their cassava into gari for household consumption. Some of them ex-perience losses during the transportation of tubers to the processing centres and during the transportation of gari back to their houses. Some losses are also recorded by farmers during storage of gari at home.

The gari processors’ assessment of losses during their operations is presented in Table 6.

losses during harvest are usually the result of the soil structure, the season or the harvester’s skill level and equipment. Cassava is usually harvested by digging the roots from the soil or simply pulling the plant out of the ground by the stem, thereby uprooting the tubers. This process frequently results in roots being broken. These damaged roots either remain under the soil or are left on the farm by the harvester. digging out tubers with ma-chetes can also damage the tubers if not done skilfully. furthermore, tubers are more difficult to harvest if the soil contains stones. digging of tubers is also more dif-ficult during the dry season since the soil will invariably be dry and hard. under these conditions, cassava tubers break easily and some of them are lost in the soil. it is for these reasons that losses during harvesting recorded the highest percentage in the survey.

Food losses (gari processors) mean (%)

Loss during transportation of cassava tubers 2.2

Loss of finished product 1.6

Discard of small tubers 5.8

Discard of woody tubers 4.1

Loss during storage due to spoilage 1.11

table 6: Estimates of losses in the cassava value chain – gari processors’ assessment

Food loss (farmers) mean (%)

Loss during harvest 4.95

Loss due to small size tubers 1.93

Loss due to woody tubers 1.72

Loss during transportation to processing centres 1.25

Loss of finished product during transportation from processing centres 1.17

Loss of fresh tuber during storage 1.63

Loss of finished product during storage 1.94

table 5: Estimates of losses in the cassava value chain – farmers’ assessment

33CaSSava

or woody tubers are smaller at the farmers’ level than at the processors’ level. The reason for this is unclear. it could be that farmers are more reluctant to discard their harvest or that they apply different techniques or quality standards.

The starch processors’ assessment of losses in their operations showed that 5.5 % loss occurred during processing of cassava and 6.3 % loss occurred during storage of starch as is shown in Table 7.

as the table shows, losses resulting from the discard of small cassava tubers were estimated at 5.8% of the cassa-va being processed. This was followed by losses resulting from the discard of woody tubers, which were estimated at 4.1%. losses during transportation of cassava tubers were said to amount to 2.2% of the cassava processed. losses during the processing of the finished product were 1.6%, while losses during storage of the finished product were 1.11%. it was estimated that spoilage begins to occur at 4.4 weeks. losses due to the discard of small

losses during transportation of cassava tubers, losses due to woody content (which can be only determined at the processing stage) and losses of the finished product do not play a role in the calculation of post-harvest losses at the farm gate. Thus, Table 9 does not contain informa-tion on these losses. The table presents information on loss due to damage of tubers during harvesting, loss due to tubers being too small and loss of fresh tubers during storage (tubers that are not processed or sold shortly af-ter harvesting).

The gari marketers’ assessment of losses in their operations is presented in Table 8.

moisture was indicated as the most significant cause of gari loss during storage, accounting for losses of about 4.5%. losses during transportation and losses during storage due to rodent pests were each estimated at 2.5%.

3.3.3 monetary quantification of losses in the cassava value chainbeyond the harvesting of cassava tubers, some farmers also carry out processing activities, generating outputs of gari for their household’s consumption. However,

Food losses(gari marketers) mean (%)

Loss of gari during transportation 2.5

Loss of gari during storage due to moisture 4.5

Loss of gari during storage due to rodent pests 2.5

Food losses (starch processors) mean (%)

Loss during processing of cassava 5.5

Loss of starch during storage 6.3

table 8: Estimates of losses in the cassava value chain – gari marketers’ assessment

table 7: Estimates of losses in the cassava value chain – starch processors’ assessment

34 CaSSava

Table 10 indicates that gari processors are experiencing losses of fresh cassava tubers and the finished product (gari).

Total losses accounted for 8.51% of the total harvest of about 37.5 million mt of cassava tubers. The quantity of fresh cassava tubers lost at the farm gate was 3,191,599 mt, which has a total value of be ₦ 31.9 billion (₦ 10,000 per mt).

Food loss (farmers’ questionnaire)

mean (%)

annual prod. (mt)

Qty lost (mt)

Price per mt (₦)

value of food loss (₦)

Loss during harvest (damaged tubers)

4.95

37,504,100

1,856,453 10,000 18,564,529,500

Loss due to small tuber size 1.93 723,829 7,238,291,300

Loss due to woody tubers N/A*

Loss during transportation to processing centre

N/A*

Loss of finished product during transportation from processing centre

N/A*

Loss of fresh tubers during storage 1.63 611,317 6,113,168,300

Loss of finished product during storage

N/A*

total 8.51 3,191,599 31,915,989,100

table 9: monetary assessment of losses of fresh cassava tubers at the farm gate

* These rows are not applicable (N/A) either because the loss does not occur at the farm gate or because the product that is lost is not fresh tubers but gari.

Food loss (gari processors)

mean (%)

annual prod. (mt)

Qty lost (mt)

Price per mt (₦)

value of food loss (₦)

Loss during transportation of cassava tubers

2.2

26,252,870

577,563

10,000

5,775,631,400

Loss of finished product N/A*

Discard of small tubers 5.8 1,522,666 15,226,664,600

Discard of woody tubers 4.1 1,076,368 10,763,676,700

Loss during storage due to spoilage N/A*

total 12,1 3.176.597 31.765.972.700

table 10: monetary assessment of losses of fresh cassava tubers during gari processing phase

* These rows are not applicable (N/a) either because the loss does not occur at the farm gate or because the product that is lost is not fresh tubers but gari.

The total loss of fresh cassava tubers during processing amounted to around 12.1%. The total quantity of cassava processed into gari was estimated at 26.25 million mt per year, which corresponds to 70% of annual cassava

production. The total quantity of fresh cassava tubers lost annually during transportation was 3,176,597 mt. at ₦ 10, 000 per mt, this translates into ₦ 31.7 billion.

35CaSSava

into gari. Product losses at the processing phase were therefore estimated at 177, 863 mt, which corresponds to a total value of N 13.8 billion (N 78,000 per mt).

Table 12 shows the estimated losses of the finished product (gari) during marketing.

The information contained in Table 11 indicates that losses of the finished product (gari) during processing are usually due to spillage during processing and spoil-age during storage. as shown in the table, the losses due to these reasons amounted to around 2.7% of the gari produced. Total annual production of gari was estimated at 6.5 million mt, which is 25% of the cassava processed

Food loss (gari marketers)

mean (%)

annual prod. (mt)

Qty lost (mt)

Price per mt (₦)

value of food loss (₦)

Loss of gari during transportation 2.5

6,563,218

164,080

78,000

12,798,275,100

Loss of gari during storage due to moisture

4.5 295,345 23,036,895,180

Loss of gari during storage due to rodent pests

2.5 164,080 12,798,275,100

total 9.5 623,506 48,633,445,380

table 12: monetary assessment of losses of gari during marketing

* These rows are not applicable (N/a) either because the loss does not occur at the farm gate or because the product that is lost is not fresh tubers but gari.

Food loss (gari processors)

mean (%)

annual prod. (mt)

Qty lost (mt)

Price per mt (₦)

value of food loss (₦)

Loss during transportation of cassava tubers

N/A*

6,563,218

10,000

Loss of finished product (gari) during processing

1.60 105,011 8,190,895,440

Discard of small tubers N/A*

Discard of woody tubers N/A*

Loss of gari during storage due to spoilage

1.11 72,852 5,682,433,712

total 2.71 177,863 13,873,329,152

table 11: monetary assessment of losses during gari processing

* These rows are not applicable (N/A) either because the loss does not occur at the farm gate or because the product that is lost is not fresh tubers but gari.

as the table shows, total losses of gari during the marketing phase were estimated at around 9.5% of the amount produced/marketed annually. This corresponds to a quantity of 623,506 mt, valued at ₦ 48.633 billion (₦ 78,000 per mt).

There are two sources of loss during the processing of starch: spillage during processing and spoilage during storage. Taken together, these two losses amounted to 11.8% of annual starch production, which itself was esti-mated at 900,098 mt26. The quantity of starch that is lost due to spillage and spoilage was estimated at 106,212 mt, with a value of ₦ 13.8 billion (₦ 130,000 per mt).

26 12% of annual cassava production goes into starch processing, while the starch content of a cassava tuber is estimated to be 20%.

36 CaSSava

of gari and starch is indicated Table 14. it amounts to around ₦ 140 billion annually.

The total monetary value of losses along the cassava value chain from harvesting of cassava to marketing

mean (%)

annual prod. (mt)

Qty lost (mt)

Price per mt (₦)

value of food loss (₦)

Loss of starch during Processing 5.5900,098

49,505 130,000

6,435,703,560

Loss of starch during storage 6.3 56,706 7,371,805,896

total 11.8 106,212 13,807,509,456

table 13: monetary assessment of losses of cassava starch during processing and storage

Figure 22: distribution of cassava loss values in mio Eur (exchange rate of 4 February 2013)

146.900 146.200

63.800 63.500

223.800

0

50.000

100.000

150.000

200.000

250.000

Loss of freshcassava at farm

gate

Loss of freshcassava inprocessing

Loss of gari inprocessing

Loss of starch inprocessing and

storage

Loss of gari inmarketing

Quantification of losses in the cassava value chain value of losses (₦)

value of losses (mio Eur)

Loss of fresh cassava tubers at the farm gate 31,915,989,100 146,900

Loss of fresh cassava tubers at the processing phase 31,765,972,700 146,200

Loss of gari at the processing phase 13,873,329,152 63,800

Loss of cassava starch during processing and storage 13,807,509,456 63,500

Loss of gari at the marketing phase 48,633,445,380 223,800

total 139,996,245,788 644,200

table 14: summary of cassava Phl monetary assessment

37maiZe

4 Maize

4.1 maize in nigeria

maize is cultivated in the forest, derived savannah and southern Guinea savannah zones of Nigeria. maize grows best on fertile, well-drained sandy loam or loamy soil. it can be planted on flat soil or on ridges or heaps. it is cultivated either as a sole or mixed crop. most farmers practice mixed cropping, e.g. cassava/maize or cassava/

maize/melon. maize can also be cultivated with yam, guinea corn, rice, cowpeas, groundnuts and soybeans, depending on the production zone. maize cultivation in Nigeria is spread across all states and hence all the agro-ecological zones in the country (NbS, 2007)27. figure 23 indicates that the major producers are found in the middle belt and parts of the Southwest.

27 NbS (2007) filling the data Gaps, National bureau of Statistics 28 uSaid marKeTS, 2010

maize produced in Nigeria is harvested either as green maize or maize grain. The green maize is consumed in season by Nigerians as a snack and as a substitute for reg-

ular food. figure 24 presents information on the output of maize in Nigeria. it is clear that a relatively small pro-portion of the maize output is harvested as green maize.

Figure 23: maize production in nigeria in 200528

38 maiZe

The major end-users of maize are feed and flour mills. The feed mills supply the poultry and aquaculture indus-try while the products of the flour mills are meant for direct human consumption. as the majority of poultry farms are to be found in the southern part of Nigeria (adene & oguntade, 200530; Hartwich et al., 201031), so too are most of the feed mills.

as is the case for cassava, there are many improved maize varieties and hybrids on the market in Nigeria. in most parts of Nigeria, maize planting is carried out as soon as there is steady rainfall. due to changes in the rainfall pattern arising from climate change, it is now difficult for farmers in certain zones of the country to adhere to specific recommended planting periods.

When planting maize as a sole crop, farmers are advised to plant one plant per stand at a spacing of 75 cm x 25 cm, which corresponds to 53,333 plants per hectare. recommended fertiliser application is 300-400 kg/ha of 15:15:15 NPK (fertilizer consisting of Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium) seven days after planting and a second application of urea at the rate of two bags/ha when plants are at knee height. most farmers found it difficult to keep to the recommended rate because of financial restrictions.

if the crop is destined to be sold as green maize, farm-ers harvest when the corn is fully ripe but still green. in contrast, they allow it dry up and lose its green colour if it is to be sold as grain. maize to be sold as grain is fur-ther sun-dried to reduce the moisture content and then shelled by hand. Shelled grain is bagged and stored until the time of sale.

29 faoSTaT 2012 30 adene, f. o. and oguntade, a.e. (2005), Structure and Conduct of Nigerian Poultry Sector, fao, rome 31 Hartwich, f., Kormawa, P., bisallah, i.d., odufote, b.o. and Polycarp, i.m. (2010), unleashing agricultural development in Nigeria through value Chain financing, uNido

Figure 24: output of maize in nigeria (1990 – 2010)29

39maiZe

i. fresh maize passing through the marketing and processing stages and reaching households as grain;

ii. fresh maize passing through the marketing and processing stages and reaching feed millers as grain.

Trade in maize grain is more significant than trade in fresh maize, with most of the grain being used in the livestock feed industry.

4.2 value chains of maize grain and green maize

The value chain map for maize is presented in figure 25. The map indicates the stages of the value chain and the operators and products at each level. it also illustrates links between the operators across the stages. as shown in the map, the end products of maize transformation in Nigeria are green maize, breakfast cereals32 and feed. These products emanate from both traditional and in-dustrial sectors in the maize value chain. for the purpose of providing a detailed description of the traditional and industrial sectors, the following value chains will be con-sidered:

32 breakfast cereals comprise cornflakes for mostly urban population and pap – a slurry liquid substance

40 maiZe

Figu

re 2

5: m

aize

val

ue c

hain

map

41

variable mean

Total size of all farms owned (ha) 2.43

Total size of all farms planted with maize in the last production season (ha) 1.59

Distance of the furthest field from the household residence (km) 3.75

Percentage of the maize planted that is normally consumed by the family (%) 31.62

Present cost per day for hired labour in the community (₦) 1,148.89

Amount paid for tractor services (₦) 28,040.00

Number of months after planting until harvesting starts 4.24

Duration of harvesting after harvesting starts (weeks) 1.78

Cobs of green (fresh) maize normally harvested per hectare 39,282.46

Cobs of dry maize normally harvested per hectare 30,241.88

After shelling, quantity of grain obtained per hectare in normal weather (kg/ha) 3,065.67

Percentage of maize produced sold as fresh maize 48.13

Distance from the farm to the market (km) 14.28

Price of fresh maize cobs sold at the farm gate (₦) 10.00

Price of fresh maize cobs sold at the market (₦) 14.00

Price of dry grain sold at the farm gate (₦/kg) 44.41

Price of dry grain sold at the market (₦/kg) 48.17

Quantity of seed per farm (kg) 17.16

Seed value per farmer (₦) 2,833.77

Fertiliser used per farmer (kg/season) 185.95

Price of fertiliser (₦/50 kg) 5,397.71

Amount of insecticides (l) used per season per farm 2.13

Price of insecticides (₦/l) 1,457.82

Amount of herbicides (l) used per season per farm 5.23

Price of herbicides (₦/l) 1,131.91

table 15: description of key variables in maize production per average maize farm

maiZe

4.2.1 maize production The field survey carried out in the course of this study yielded the following information on the key variables of maize production:

42 maiZe

The table shows that the mean size of maize farms was 1.59 hectares while the maize yield per hectare was 39,282 cobs for green (fresh) maize and 30,241 cobs for dry maize. after shelling, the quantity of grain obtained per hectare was estimated at 3,065.67 kg per ha. 48.13% of the maize produced is sold as green maize.

4.2.2 Processing of maize into feedmaize is processed into feed as part of commercial livestock feed milling operations in Nigeria. The major actors in this sector are feed millers, grain merchants/buyer agents, importers of concentrates, additives and supplements, poultry shops and poultry and aquaculture farms. Three types of feed millers can be identified: cus-tom, toll and integrated farms. The custom millers mill and market their feeds under registered trade names. The dominant trade names in the market include amo bym, Guinea feed, Top feed, and vital feed, among others.

The toll millers are found in locations with significant concentrations of small to medium scale poultry and aq-uaculture farms. The mill operators produce feed to the specification of customers (poultry and catfish farmers) and charge a fee (toll) per quantity milled. They also sell feed ingredients (including maize grain) to customers. The third category of feed millers is integrated poultry and aquaculture farms, which own feed mills and pro-duce feed for their own use. Some of these farms sell part of their feed output to other farms.

The feed millers acquire their grain from grain mer-chants/buying agents who in turn buy their grain mostly from farmers. These merchants have established net-works for aggregating grain from smallholder farmers.

feed millers also require other ingredients for their ra-tions, including fish meal, lysine methionine and soy meal. They acquire these ingredients from importers and their intermediaries. The marketing of feeds and other poultry and aquaculture inputs is generally undertaken by the feed retailers.

Figure 26: stages of maize feed processing

1. Formulating the ration (determining the ingredient mix)

2. Measuring the quantities of the

various ingredients required

3. Milling the bulk ingredients to the

required sizes

4. Mixing the ingredients to ensure even distribution of

components

5. Pelletising (optional)/extruding to

floating feed for catfish

6. Bagging

43maiZe

country, they supply the wholesale markets in the urban centres as well as feed millers around the country. retail-ers buy grain from the wholesale markets and sell it in small units (kongos/mudus)33 to consumers.

4.3 Quantitative and qualitative analysis of losses in the maize value chain

The study looked at two products in the maize value chain: green maize and feed. loss measurement focused on quantitative losses along the value chain, as criteria for qualitative measurement are difficult to establish and communicate to operators.

4.3.1 Incidence of losses in maize value chain The incidence of post-harvest losses among maize farmers was determined using a set of specific questions. The information obtained, which is presented in figure 27, shows that only four causes of loss were identified by the farmers. The most significant of these is pests and disease attacking maize in the field.

4.2.3 maize marketing maize is traded both as green maize and grain. Trade in green maize is carried out mostly as rural/urban and peri-urban/urban trade. Green maize is seldom moved over very long distances because it is expected to reach consumers fresh. Green maize that is kept for longer than 24 hours before consumption loses its sweetness as some of its sugar content is converted into starch.

Green maize is harvested and sold as cobs. Women trad-ers usually buy green maize at the farm gate or at rural markets, in varying quantities. Those who purchase small amounts usually sell the green maize directly to consum-ers in boiled or roasted form. Those who buy large quan-tities transport the maize to urban centres and sell it in smaller portions to retailers. These urban retailers also sell the green maize in boiled or roasted form to consumers.

Trade in maize grain is dominated by grain merchants. These merchants have established networks for aggregat-ing grain from smallholder farmers and have mastered the logistics of maize transportation across the country. buying their grain mostly from the northern part of the

33 Kongos and mudus are standard volume measures of grain, flour, etc. that are recognised by the Government. one kongo of maize grain weighs about 1.4 kg.

Figure 27: losses experienced by maize farmers

32,9%

26,7% 30,0%

20,7%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Pest and diseaseattacks on maize

field

Maize cobs usuallydamage during

harvesting

Loss of revenue dueto damagedgrain/cobs

Discard afterharvesting becauseof other problems

44 maiZe

The most important sources of loss among maize mar-keters are losses of maize grain due to challenges in marketing and transportation of maize grain (72.22 %), losses in storage during the processes of aggregation and marketing due to spillage (68.18 %) and losses of maize grain during storage due to spoilage (46.67 %) as is shown in figure 28.

analysis of the data collected on the incidence of losses among maize marketers yielded the information presented in figure 28.

Figure 28: losses experienced by maize marketers

18,75%

37,50%

72,22%

68,18%

46,67%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Loss of revenue due totransportation losses

Discard after buying fromfarmers due to poor quality

Loss due to challenges inmarketing and transportation

Loss in storage/process ofaggregation/marketing due to

spillage

Loss during storage due tospoilage

figure 29 presents the information provided by the feed millers on the incidence of losses in their operations. it indicates that the most significant problems occurred during transportation of maize from the market to the feed mill (83.3%), during storage of maize grain before milling (83.3%), during storage of the finished product (spillage: 83.3%) and during storage of maize grain (spoil-age: 80.0%).

45maiZe

Figure 29: losses experienced by feed millers

83,3% 80,0%

83,3%

66,7%

60,0%

83,3% 80,0%

83,3%

25,0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Loss of grainduring

transportationmarket - feed

mill

Loss of revenuedue to loss of

grain

Loss due toother

challenges intransportationof grain market

- feed mill

Loss duringmilling

Loss of revenuedue to loss ofgrain during

milling

Loss of maizegrain in storagebefore milling

Loss of maizegrain during

storage due tospoilage

Loss of finishedproduct in

storage due tospillage

Loss of finishedproduct duringstorage due to

spoilage

was followed by loss of dry maize cobs during stor-age (2.27%) and loss of dry maize grain during storage (2.00%). loss also occurred during transportation.

4.3.2 Quantification of losses in maize value chainloss during harvesting was considered by the farmers to be the most significant source of loss and was estimated at 4.03% of the total harvest as shown in Table 16. This

Food losses (maize farmers) mean (%)

Loss during harvesting 4.03

Loss during shelling 1.53

Loss of fresh maize during transportation to market 1.95

Loss of dry maize grain during transportation to market 2.00

Loss of dry maize cobs during storage 2.27

Loss of dry maize grain during storage 2.00

table 16: Estimates of losses in the maize value chain – farmers’ assessment

46 maiZe

Problems mean (%)

Amount of maize grain lost during transportation 2.0

Amount of product (feed) lost during transportation 3.0

Amount of the maize grain spoiled in storage 2.0

Spoilage of maize grain in storage due to rodents 2.8

Spoilage of maize grain in storage due to Weevils 1.0

Amount of product (feed) lost during storage due to spillage 2.0

Amount of product (feed) lost during storage due to weevils 2.0

table 18: Estimates of losses in the maize value chain – feed millers’ assessment

Table 17 presents the maize marketers’ assessment of losses in their operations. loss of maize grain during storage due to weevils was estimated at 8.5% while loss of maize grain during storage due to rodents was 6.0%. loss of maize grain during storage due to spillage was 5.9%

while loss during transportation amounted to 3.7%. loss due to moisture was estimated at 2.5%. fungus infesta-tion does not appear to be considered a source of loss. This is probably because it tends to affect quality rather than quantity.

Problems mean (%)

Loss during transportation 3.7

Loss of maize grain during storage due to spillage 5.9

Loss of maize grain during storage due to rodents 6.0

Loss of maize grain during storage due to weevils 8.5

Loss of maize grain during storage due to fungus -

Loss of maize grain during storage due to excess moisture 2.5

table 17: Estimates of losses in the maize value chain – marketers’ assessment

Table 18 presents the feed millers’ assessment of losses in their operations. The two most significant sources of losses are loss of the product (feed) during transporta-tion (3.0%) and spoilage of maize grain in storage due to rodent attacks (2.8%). Commercial feed millers have to distribute their products over a wide geographical area. This requires transportation over long distances. The bags of feed may sometimes break during transporta-tion, leading to spillage of feed. Customers are unwilling to purchase feed in broken bags because they do not want to run the risk of further spillage of feed within their own store before sale or use. rodents are major pests wherever they have easy access to food and are

consequently often found in stores in which grain and livestock feed are kept. Their presence is encouraged by the spillage of grain and feed and they can cause spillage themselves as they often cut open the bags to gain access to their contents. The ready availability of a rich diet of feed supports their rapid proliferation in these environments.

feed millers also experienced loss of maize grain dur-ing transportation (2.0%), spoilage of maize grain in storage (2.0%) and loss of the product (feed) during storage due to spillage (2%).

47maiZe

storage duration of products before spoilage started to set in was three months (Table 19).

The mean periods of storage of maize grain before milling and before spoilage began to manifest were estimated at 8.8 weeks and 4.0 weeks respectively. The

duration of storage mean

Period of maize grain storage before milling (weeks) 8.8

Period of storage of maize grain before spoilage (weeks) 4.0

Period of storage of product (feed) before spoilage (months) 3.0

table 19: duration of storage of maize grain and products (feed)

4.3.3 monetary quantification of losses in the maize value chainmaize losses at the farm gate comprise losses of green maize and dry cobs (Table 20) and losses of grain (Table 21). as shown in Table 20, the quantity of green maize

that is lost annually was estimated at 28, 440 mt, corre-sponding to a value of ₦ 938.5 million (₦ 33,000 per mt). The quantity of dry maize cobs lost annually was 165,836 mt, corresponding to a value of ₦ 7.29 billion (₦ 44,000 per mt).

The total percentage of maize grain lost during shelling and during storage was 3.53 % (see table 21). The quantity of losses occurring during these two processes was

estimated at 257,885 mt, corresponding to a value of ₦ 11.3 billion (₦ 44, 000 per mt).

Food loss (maize farmers)

mean (%)

annual prod. (mt)*

Qty lost (mt)*

Price per mt (₦)

value of food loss (₦)

Loss during harvesting 4.03 705,700 28,440 33,000 938,510,430

Loss during shelling N/A* -

Loss of fresh maize during trans-portation to market

N/A*

Loss of dry maize grain during transportation to market

N/A*

Loss of dry maize cobs during storage

2.27 7,305,530 165,836 44,000 7,296,763,364

Loss of dry maize grain during storage

N/A* -

total 8.51 194,276 8,235,273,794

table 20: Quantification of losses of maize cobs (green and dry) at the farm gate

* These rows are not applicable (N/A) either because the loss did not occur at the farm gate or because only maize cobs are under consideration. * annual production figures were sourced from faoSTaT, 2012.

* Current prices were obtained from field data.

48 maiZe

was estimated at 1.2 million mt, while the total quantity of maize lost at this stage was 93,600 mt, corresponding to a value of ₦ 4.1 billion.

losses of grain and feed at the feed milling stage of the maize value chain are presented in Table 23. it shows the quantity and value of maize grain lost annually. The total quantity of maize going into feed production each year

Food loss (maize farmers)

mean (%)

annual prod. (mt)*

Qty lost (mt)

Price per mt (₦)

value of food loss (₦)

Loss during transportation 3.7

7,305,530

270,305

44,000

11,893,402,840

Loss of maize grain during storage due to spillage

5.9 431,026 18,965,155,880

Loss of maize grain during storage due to rodents

6 438,332 19,286,599,200

Loss of maize grain during storage due to weevils

8.5 620,970 27,322,682,200

Loss of maize grain during storage due to fungus

-

Loss of maize grain during storage due to excess moisture

2.5 182,638 8,036,083,000

total 26.6 1,943,271 85,503,923,120

table 22: Quantification of losses of maize grain during marketing (storage and transportation)

The total quantity of maize grain lost was 1,943,271 mt. The value of this loss was 85.5 billion.

losses of maize grain during transportation and storage at the marketing phase are presented in Table 22.

Food loss (maize farmers)

mean (%)

annual prod. (mt)*

Qty lost (mt)

Price per mt (₦)*

value of food loss (₦)

Loss during harvesting N/A

7,305,530

44,000

Loss during shelling 1.53 111,775 4,918,082,796

Loss of fresh maize during transportation to market

N/A*

Loss of dry maize grain during transportation to market

N/A*

Loss of dry maize cobs during storage

N/A*

Loss of dry maize grain during storage

2.00 146,111 6,428,866,400

total 3.53 257,885 11,346,949,196

table 21: Quantification of losses of maize grain at the farm gate

* These rows are not applicable because only maize grain is under consideration.

* annual production figures were sourced from faoSTaT, 2012.

* Current prices were obtained from field data.

49maiZe

Table 24 shows the quantity and value of feed lost during the marketing of feed. about 140,000 mt of feed was lost due to spillage during transportation, pest attacks and

spoilage during storage. This was valued at ₦ 11.2 billion (₦ 80,000 per mt).

loss of maize grain during processing

mean (%)

maize milled (2010) (mt)34

maize lost (mt)

Price per mt (₦)

value of food loss (₦)

Amount of maize grain lost during transportation

2

1,200,000

24,000

44,000

1,056,000,000

Amount of product (feed) lost during transportation

N/A*

Amount of maize grain spoiled in storage

2 24,000 1,056,000,000

Spoilage of maize grain in storage due to rodents

2.8 33,600 1,478,400,000

Spoilage of maize grain in storage due to weevils

1 12,000 528,000,000

Amount of product (feed) lost during storage due to spillage

N/A* -

Amount of product (feed) lost during storage due to weevils

N/A* -

total 5.8 93,600 4,118,400,000

table 23: Quantification of losses of maize grain during feed milling

* These rows are not applicable because only maize grain is under consideration.

34 uSda foreign agricultural Service, Global agricultural information Network, ‘Nigeria Grain and feed annual’, GaiN report Number Ni11015, 4/15/2011 35 estimated based on the quantity of maize that was used for feed production. See footnote 36.

Food loss (livestock feed) mean (%)

annual prod. (mt)35

Qty lost (mt)

Price per mt (₦)

value of food loss (₦)

Amount of maize grain lost during transportation

N/A*

2,000,000

80,000

Amount of product (feed) lost du-ring transportation

3 60,000 4,800,000,000

Amount of the maize grain spoiled in storage

N/A*

Spoilage of maize grain in storage due to rodents

N/A*

Spoilage of maize grain in storage due to weevils

N/A*

Amount of product (feed) lost during storage due to spillage

2 40,000 3,200,000,000

Amount of product (feed) lost during storage due to weevils

2 40,000 3,200,000,000

total 7 140,000 11,200,000,000

table 24: Quantification of losses of feed during marketing

* These rows are not applicable because only livestock feed is under consideration.

50 maiZe

Figure 30: distribution of maize loss values in mio Eur

37.900 52.200

393.500

18.900 51.500

0

50.000

100.000

150.000

200.000

250.000

300.000

350.000

400.000

450.000

Loss of maize cobs(green and dry) at

farm gate

Loss of maize grainat farm gate

Loss of maize grainin marketing

Loss of maize grainin feed milling

Loss of feed inmilling andmarketing

maize (green and grain) and feed lost between harvest and marketing was ₦ 120.4 billion.

The total value of post-harvest losses along the maize value chain is shown in Table 25. The total value of

Quantification of maize losses value of losses (₦)

value of losses (mio)

Loss of maize cobs (green and dry) at the farm gate 8,235,273,794 37,900

Loss of maize grain at the farm gate 11,346,949,196 52,200

Loss of maize grain during marketing 85,503,923,120 393,500

Loss of maize grain during feed milling 4,118,400,000 18,900

Loss of feed during milling and marketing 11,200,000,000 51,500

total losses 120,404,546,110 554,000

* exchange rate of 4 february 2013

table 25: summary of quantification of maize losses

51maiZe

When synthetic fertiliser bags are used, the maize grain is packed in bags after shelling and the bags are tied to prevent insect attacks and spillage. most large-scale farmers use this method because the bags can hold large quantities of grain and can be conveniently stacked in the store.

rhumbu are traditional silos made of mud mixed with grass. The rhumbu is elevated from the ground with the aid of stones to guard against attacks by rodents, and covered with a thatched roof to protect it against rain. rhumbu are usually built very close to residential areas to guard against theft.

raised platforms on the farm are used to store dry maize cobs in large quantities. Platforms are constructed by tying bamboo sticks together. Stored on raised plat-forms the cobs are exposed to insect attacks, rainfall and humidity, which can cause deterioration and hence food loss.

Some small-scale farmers store and preserve their dry maize cobs by hanging them over the fireplace. This method uses smoke to keep the cobs dry and repel insects. However, the cobs can reabsorb moisture if the fireplace is devoid of fire for a considerable time. maize kept in this way is prone to rodent attack. The use of ceiling storage facilities is common among smallholder farmers and is used for small quantities of cobs.

4.3.4 maize storage facilities in the study areasinsect pests are one of the major causes of decline in quantity, quality and germination potential of maize seeds in storage. adequate and effective storage of maize grain is therefore necessary to protect against loss during storage and limit economic damage. according to uSda GaiN (united States department of agriculture – Global agricultural information Network), about 30 percent of Nigeria’s grain output is lost due to spoilage, contamina-tion, attack by insects and rodents, and physiological deterioration in storage (Post-Harvest losses)36.

in most areas of Nigeria, small quantities of maize are preserved by sun-drying. maize cobs are spread out in the sun and, when necessary, protected from the rain. after this process, the farmer or the maize marketer decides whether to store the maize as grain or as cobs. When cobs are dry enough, they can easily be shelled manually or using a shelling device.

in Nigeria, there are various means of storing maize. These include synthetic fertiliser bags, raised platforms on the farm, cribs, clay pots, rhumbu, oba, bare floor, bottles, baskets, drums, hanging cobs over the fireplace or from the ceiling, etc. in the north the most widespread means are synthetic fertiliser bags, rhumbu and storage on the bare floor, while synthetic fertiliser bags, raised platforms on the farm, baskets, and hanging over the fireplace and from the ceiling are more common in the south.

36 uSda foreign agricultural Service, Global agricultural information Network, ‘Nigeria Grain and feed annual’, GaiN report Number Ni11015, 4/15/2011

Quantification of maize losses value of losses (₦)

value of losses (mio)

Loss of maize cobs (green and dry) at the farm gate 8,235,273,794 37,900

Loss of maize grain at the farm gate 11,346,949,196 52,200

Loss of maize grain during marketing 85,503,923,120 393,500

Loss of maize grain during feed milling 4,118,400,000 18,900

Loss of feed during milling and marketing 11,200,000,000 51,500

total losses 120,404,546,110 554,000

* exchange rate of 4 february 2013

52 by-ProduCTS aloNG THe maiZe aNd CaSSava value CHaiNS

in the case of maize, two potential by-products can be identified. These are the husks and the empty cobs (cobs with the grain removed). To date these two by-products are not known to have any valuable use and must therefore be treated as waste products.

a by-product is a useful or commercially valuable product produced incidentally in the production of other outputs. Waste products are unwanted products occur-ring in a value chain that are considered useless and of no commercial value. Theoretically, a waste product can become a useful by-product if a use can be found for it, or if, through the development of new technologies, it can be used as an input in other production processes.

The gari production process illustrated in figure 17 (flow of mass from fresh cassava tubers to gari and/or starch) generates a number of by-products. These are the fresh peel, which accounts for around 25% of the fresh cassava tuber, the fibre obtained after sieving the dewatered cassava mash, which amounts to around 2.3% of the fresh tuber, and the coarse granules which are obtained after sieving the fried gari, which amount to around 0.1% of the fresh tuber.

by-products of the starch production process include fresh cassava peel as with gari, along with the fibre aris-ing from the sieving of cassava starch slurry from cassava mash. The by-products that currently have commercial value, albeit little, are the fresh cassava peel, the fibre and the coarse granules from the gari production pro-cess. The fibre from the starch production process has little or no value, because extraction of the starch dur-ing the sieving process removes virtually all the energy content of the fibre. from the point of view of quantity, the coarse granules that can be obtained from sieving fried cassava mash (gari) are negligible. The by-product produced in the greatest quantities is the fresh cassava peel, which can account for up to 25% of the fresh tuber. This by-product is usually sun-dried and fed to livestock. Some of the processing centres claimed that it was some-times bought by pig farmers. The fibre that results from the sieving of dewatered cassava mash is usually milled into flour and consumed by human beings. it is prepared like ground rice and eaten with soup.

5 By-products along the maize and cassava value chain

53

6 Options for reducing food losses recommendations for the private sector, national authorities and donors

oPTioNS for reduCiNG food loSSeS

6.1 technology

The use of inappropriate technology for harvesting cassava is a major reason for losses of fresh tubers, especially during dry periods. Similarly, lack of suitable cassava peeling technology not only makes the work more difficult but also leads to part of the tuber itself being lost along with the outer peel. Insufficient knowl-edge regarding the right time to harvest the different varieties of cassava tuber results in woody tubers that are discarded at the time of processing, which is a further cause of losses. The efficiency of grating/milling can also affect the amount of loss occurring in the process of transforming cassava into gari or starch.

many losses in the maize and cassava starch value chains occur as a result of inappropriate bagging and packag-ing, poor transportation systems and inappropriate storage technology. Weevils and rodents constitute a major source of loss of maize grain in storage.

Appropriate technologies could be developed through collaborative research projects conducted by public and private actors. The process of peeling by hand could be eliminated in the production of starch, with the tubers simply being washed and milled. This would require an affordable technology that could be deployed on a small scale to remove the particles of brown cassava peel from the slurry after milling and mixing with water. Similarly the development of an efficient and affordable cassava peeling machine could help to eliminate unnecessary work as well as addressing the problem of waste resulting from over-peeling.

6.2 organisation of farmers and the value chain

Poverty and subsistence production limit the technologi-cal and marketing options available to the farmers. better organisation of farmers and the whole value chain could help to overcome these obstacles to progress.

due to the decline of farmers’ organisations and coop-eratives, farmers no longer have the capacity to influence the production, processing, transportation and market-ing of agricultural commodities. farmers can pool their resources and create economic incentives to improve transportation and storage facilities, thus helping to reduce food losses and enhance their own incomes. as groups and cooperatives, they will be able to receive credit from agricultural financial institutions or advance payments from buyers of their produce.

farmers currently tend to keep cassava on the farm for longer than optimal periods in order to retain its value and ensure the food security of their household. They harvest/sell just enough cassava stands to meet the food and/or cash needs of the household. This can result in the fibre content of the tubers increasing significantly before they are harvested.

it would be advisable for the department of Coopera-tives at the state and federal levels to collaborate with the State offices of the Nigerian ministry of agriculture and rural development to promote farmers’ organisations. When organised into functioning cooperatives, the farm-ers are able to pool their resources and are more likely to invest in efficient packaging/bagging, storage, trans-portation and marketing with a view to minimising food losses and increasing their incomes.

Given the farm sizes, small groups of cassava farmers may find it difficult to sustain a small-scale cassava (gari) processing centre given the quantities of cassava that are required. This is why toll processing centres (usually owned by entrepreneurs) which provide services to several farmers and processors have proved successful in the case of gari production.

in the case of starch production, small-scale pre- processing centres could be established among clusters of cassava farmers and/or farming communities. ap-propriate small-scale processing technology should be made available close to the farm gate for pre-processing fresh cassava into semi-finished starch which could then be transported to starch factories for processing into in-

54 oPTioNS for reduCiNG food loSSeS

(rolle, 200638; Stuart, 200939). This is a particular problem in Nigeria where appropriate vehicles may not be avail-able in time to transport farm-fresh products (see an-nexe). The poor road network also contributes to delays in getting farm-fresh products to the end-users.

in Nigeria, the provision of vehicles for transportation is firmly in the hands of the private sector, while the con-struction and maintenance of the road network is gener-ally accepted to be the responsibility of the government. The government is not involved to any significant extent in the provision of storage facilities. it appears that there are currently no economic incentives for private-sector operators to deploy appropriate vehicles for the trans-portation farm-fresh products in Nigeria. for this reason, green maize is no longer farm fresh when it arrives at the table of the final consumers in the urban centres. The poor condition of (rural) roads and the use of inappropri-ate vehicles lead to damage, spillage and deterioration of quality, and hence to food losses.

The establishment of small-scale pre-processing centres among clusters of cassava farmers and/or farming communities close to the farm gate would allow the transformation of cassava into semi-finished starch products which could then be transported to starch factories for processing into industrial or food-grade starch. This would reduce the delay in processing fresh tubers and correspondingly reduce deterioration and damage/losses in the course of transporting fresh tubers over long distances. it would also eliminate the cost of transporting water and fibre (wastes) to the starch factories.

in recent times there have been attempts in some states to improve market infrastructure. Within markets, sections are often created for specific agricultural prod-ucts. it should therefore be easy to address the market operators for each type of agricultural product in a targeted manner. This should be particularly easy in the case of gari.

dustrial or food-grade starch. The semi-finished product could be milled and dewatered cassava or wet starch. The transportation of fresh tubers to pre-processing centres that are only a short distance away would reduce the potential for loss and minimise the cost of transporting water and fibre (wastes) along with the cassava37. Appropriate packaging and transportation arrange-ments would have to be made for the transportation of semi-finished products to the starch factories.

Processors, public sector actors and donors should collaborate in promoting and strengthening farmers’ organisations and cooperative societies and linking them with processors to create efficient commodity supply chains that could reduce losses in the production, processing, transportation and marketing of maize grain and cassava tubers. These supply chains would create economic incentives for appropriate transportation and storage facilities that could reduce food losses and enhance farmers’ incomes.

Processors of cassava tubers should work with agri-cultural development Programmes in specific states to develop out-grower schemes, which could be used to provide farmers with inputs and technical guidance for efficient cassava production, while the processors undertake the harvesting, collection and transportation of fresh tubers at maturity. The out-growers should be paid at maturity and should receive the market value of the standing crops less the cost of inputs supplied to them. This would accord with the current practice of many farmers who prefer to sell their cassava tubers as standing crops and to leave the harvesting, collection and transportation to buyers.

6.3 Infrastructure

Poor transportation and storage facilities and lack of other infrastructure contribute to post-harvest losses. fresh cassava tubers and fresh maize cobs straight from the farm can spoil in hot climates due to the lack of in-frastructure for transportation, storage and marketing

37 The starch content of cassava is 20%. 38 rolle. 2006. improving postharvest management and marketing in the asia-Pacific region: issues and challenges. from: Postharvest management of fruit and vegetables in the asia-Pacific region, aPo, iSbN:92-833-7051-1 39 Stuart, T. 2009. Waste – uncovering the global food scandal. Penguin books: london, iSbN: 978-0-141-03634-2

55oPTioNS for reduCiNG food loSSeS

6.5 credit policy

it would be advisable for government and donor agen-cies to create an on-lending programme to promote ag-gregation and appropriate bagging and storage of maize grain by farmer cooperatives. This could help to ensure that relevant bagging and storage standards are followed with a view to reducing losses caused by breakages of bags, spillage and weevil and rodent attacks. inventory credit can also enable farmers to delay the sale of some of their outputs from the time of harvest, when prices are low, to the off-season, when they can achieve higher prices.

6.6 handling and processing policy

Standards should be established and appropriate in-formational materials developed to teach actors along the value chain about appropriate handling, packag-ing, transportation and processing techniques that will minimise losses in the value chains while ensuring cost effectiveness.

6.7 costs and benefits of intervention options

To evaluate the feasibility of technological and institu-tional innovations, a proper cost-benefit analysis should be carried out. low prices for commodities frequently restrict investment in improving post-harvest manage-ment. in many cases, accepting losses is cheaper than investing in protection. Technology transfer and train-ing can only be successful if there is genuine economic benefit for the farmers. Whether this benefit is generated through higher market prices or, for an intermediate pe-riod, through state support and subsidies depends on the situation. innovations often need initial support in order to become accepted and widespread, but they should be always based on sound economic analysis.

for industrial users of cassava tubers such as the starch factories, purchasing cassava as standing crop is not an attractive option. The preference is for suppliers to deliv-er cassava tubers at the factory gate where the supply can be weighed and the amount due confirmed. However, the cost of transportation is often significant and frequently makes the business transaction unprofitable for the farmers/suppliers. Greater distances from the source of supply to the starch factory mean higher transportation costs and a less profitable transaction for the farmer/sup-plier. it should be noted that these considerations were responsible for the lack of success and eventual demise of large-scale industrial processors of gari in Nigeria. The same considerations are affecting the industrial starch processors and making it difficult for them to get suffi-cient supplies of fresh cassava to feed their plants. on the other hand, small-scale gari processors and toll-operated gari processing centres have been largely successful because they are located close to the centre of cassava supply and transportation of tubers over long distances is minimised. The quantity of cassava tubers required to meet the installed capacity of the toll-operated gari pro-cessors can easily be supplied by farms in the vicinity.

6.4 human capacity development

a comprehensive education and training policy is neces-sary to improve the capacity of stakeholders in produc-tion, post-harvest handling and storage, processing and marketing. as in many countries women play an impor-tant role, especially in the first part of the value chain, gender aspects are therefore crucial for the success of training and extension. options are field days, demon-stration plots, on-farm trials, storage buildings, process-ing plants, eventually planting, harvesting, storing and processing in groups with mutual exchange, household and kitchen visits with cooking and baking cassava and maize dishes. appropriate advocacy measures and train-ing can be provided to operators in the wholesale and retail sections of the market to improve the handling (especially bagging) and storage of the product with a view to maintaining quality and reducing physical losses.

The various institutions in research and training (i.e. iiTa) have a lot of technical information that should be made available to those who need it.

56 oPTioNS for reduCiNG food loSSeS

tions relating to either cassava, maize or both crops, but not necessarily with respect to the reduction of PHl (post-harvest losses). The table presents the names of the actors, categorised into producers, processors, research institutes, and public sector and donor agencies. it also presents information on the potential role each of these actors could play that could impact on post-harvest losses either directly or indirectly.

6.8 actors and Partners with potential roles in the control of post-harvest losses

Table 26 provides examples of actors and partners (na-tional and international) with potential to play a role in minimising post-harvest losses in cassava and maize. Some of these partners have been involved in interven-

actors names Potential roles in Phl

maize seed producers

Premier Seed Nigeria Ltd., Zaria

As a producer of certified seeds, the company is expected to liaise with research institutes with a view to bringing high yielding and disease and pest-resistant varieties of maize onto the market. Some of the pests causing losses during storage of maize grain are in actual fact transferred from the field as eggs and larvae. Certified seed producers can help to minimise this negative transfer process by seeking from research institutions and putting onto the market varieties of maize that will be largely pest and disease-resistant, both on the field and in storage.

Alheri Seed Nigeria Ltd., Zaria

Nagari Seed Nigeria Ltd., Zaria

Farmers or-ganisations

Cassava Growers Association of Nigeria

The association could be involved in encouraging farmers to take place in organised training events and in the implementation of other intervention activities towards the reduction of PHL. For example, the association could be useful in organising farmers into clusters for the purpose of processing cassava at a mill situated right in the centre of the cluster.

large-scale farms

Alhaji Mustapha, Richifa Village, Soba LGA, Kaduna State (maize farmer)

These large-scale farmers could be persuaded to adopt appropriate technologies for shelling, bagging, and storage of maize grain. They could also serve as model farms for the surrounding small-scale farmers. They could thus help to extend these technologies to groups of small-scale farmers in their Local Government Areas.

Alhaji Mohammed Sigan, Sigan Village, Lere LGA, Kaduna State (maize farmer)

Processors MATNA Nigeria Ltd., Ogbese, Ondo State

Cassava processors could assist in reducing PHL by collaborating with international agencies and smallholder farmers to set up an efficient value added supply chain for cassava. Their collaboration with donor agencies would expose them to technologies that would enhance their operations and assist them in reducing PHL in their processing factories. Collaborating with smallholder farmers would provide a ‘ready-made’ market for farmers’ products. This would reduce food losses, especially during a market glut.

Peak Products, Abeokuta, Ogun State

Durante, Ibadan (manufacturer of fish feed)

The feed millers could also be involved in setting up an efficient maize supply chain in collaboration with donor agencies and maize farmers. This would be done with a view to increasing the efficiency of aggregation, transportation and storage and maximising net returns for maize farmers.FUTA Feed Mill,

Akure (manufacturer of livestock feed)

table 26: actors and partners’ potential roles in post-harvest losses

57oPTioNS for reduCiNG food loSSeS

actors names Potential roles in Phl

research Institutes

International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA)

The national and international research institutes in Nigeria are responsible for carrying out field experiments and developing disease and pest-resistant, high-yielding and early-maturing varieties of planting materials. These improved maize and cassava varieties have the potential to reduce food losses on the farm and in storage.National Cereals

Research Institute (NCRI)

National Root Crops Research Institute (NRCRI)

donors World Bank Donor agencies can promote interventions that aim to improve the efficiency of operations along the cassava and maize value chains, among other things with a view to reducing post-harvest losses. For example, USAID MARKETS collaborated with MATNA in developing an efficient cassava supply chain comprising the company and about 400 cassava farmers. IITA collaborated with Peak in developing and testing flash dryers for cassava processing.

USAID MARKETS

International Ferti-liser Development Centre (IFDC)

Public sector Federal Ministry of Agriculture

In partnership with donor agencies, the public sector agencies could implement inter-ventions to reduce post-harvest losses, such as providing training to farmers, marketers and processors on how to conduct their businesses in such a way that PHL can be minimised. They could also provide loans and grants to pay for small-scale processing equipment that would increase efficiency and reduce losses during the processing of maize and cassava.

58 aNNexe

Annexe

I. socIo EconomIc data

II. data From thE FIEld survEy

a. cassava

Equipment and tools mean cost per unit

Knife 265

Bowl 600

Lister 67,500

Screw press 31,250

Sieve 1,500

Pot 2,500

Bag 60

Grater 35,000

table 27: cost of gari processing equipment and tools

Problem Frequencies Percentage

Yes No Total Yes No

Tubers usually damaged during harvesting 132 13 145 91 9

Loss of revenue due to damage 71 60 131 54.2 45.8

Discard of tubers because they are too small to peel with knife

80 51 131 61.1 38.9

Loss of tubers during storage due to spoilage 9 28 37 24.3 75.7

Discard of tubers because they are too woody to peel with knife

94 35 129 72.9 27.1

Discard of tubers after harvesting due to other problems

45 96 141 31.9 68.1

Loss of tubers while transporting them to the processing centre

27 99 126 21.4 78.6

Loss of finished product while transporting from the processing centre

16 112 128 12.5 87.5

Loss of finished product during storage due to spoilage

56 56 112 50 50

table 29: Farmers experiencing cassava losses

Amount charged/paid for processing one tonne of tubers into gari (₦)

3,645

Quantity of gari per unit of tubers (kg/mt) 250

Distance from processing centre to the market (km) 8.1

Cost of transporting gari per unit (₦/pick-up) 1384

Quantity of gari produced per annum (bags) 250.84

Price of gari at the processing centre (₦/kg) 78.06

Price of gari in the market (₦/kg) 118.30

table 28: description of key variables in gari processing

59aNNexe

Problem Frequencies Percentage

Yes No Total Yes No

Discard of small tubers 16 1 17 94.1 5.9

Discard of woody tubers 19 1 20 95.0 5.0

Loss of tubers during transportation 13 1 14 92.9 7.1

Loss of finished product during transportation 10 1 11 90.9 9.1

Loss of finished product during storage 11 1 12 91.7 8.3

table 31: gari processors experiencing losses

Problem Frequencies Percentage

Yes No Total Yes No

Tubers usually damaged during transport 12 5 17 70.6 29.4

Tubers damaged during peeling 7 10 17 41.2 58.8

Loss of tubers during processing 10 5 15 66.7 33.3

Loss of revenue due to damage 11 4 15 73.3 26.7

Loss of tubers due to other problems 1 16 17 5.9 94.1

Loss due to spoilage 2 13 15 13.3 86.7

table 30: starch processors experiencing losses

table 28: description of key variables in gari processing

Problem Frequencies Percentage

Yes No Total Yes No

Loss of gari during transportation 6 9 15 40 60

Loss of revenue 6 9 15 40 60

Loss of gari during storage 10 5 15 66.7 33.3

table 32: gari marketers experiencing losses

60 aNNexe

b. maize

Problem Frequencies Percentage

Yes No Total Yes No

Pest and disease attacks on maize field 52 106 158 32.9 67.1

Maize cobs usually damaged during harvesting 43 118 161 26.7 73.3

Loss of revenue due to damaged grain/cobs 30 70 100 30 70

Discards after harvesting due to other problems 30 115 145 20.7 79.3

table 33: maize farmers experiencing losses

Problem Frequencies Percentage

Yes No Total Yes No

Loss of revenue due to loss of grain during transportation

3 13 16 18.75 81.25

Discard of maize grain after buying from farmers due to poor quality

3 5 8 37.50 62.50

Loss due to challenges in marketing and transportation of maize grain

13 5 18 72.22 27.78

Loss of maize grain in storage during the process of aggregation and marketing due to spillage

15 7 22 68.18 31.82

Loss of maize grain during storage due to spoilage 7 8 15 46.67 53.33

table 34: maize marketers experiencing losses

Problem Frequencies Percentage

Yes No Total Yes No

Loss of maize grain during transportation from the market to the feed mill

5 1 6 83.3 16.7

Loss of revenue due to loss of grain 4 1 5 80.0 20.0

Loss due to other challenges in transportation of maize grain from the market to the feed mill

5 1 6 83.3 16.7

Loss during milling 4 2 6 66.7 33.3

Loss of revenue due to loss of grain during milling 3 2 5 60.0 40.0

Loss of maize grain in storage before milling 5 1 6 83.3 16.7

Loss of maize grain during storage due to spoilage 4 1 5 80.0 20.0

Loss of finished product in storage due to spillage 5 1 6 83.3 16.7

Loss of finished product during storage due to spoilage 1 3 4 25.0 75.0

table 35: Feed millers experiencing losses

61aNNexe

III. Photo documEntatIon

a. means of transport

Figure 31: Pick-up van being used for cassava transportation37

Figure 32: land rover being used for cassava transportation37

37 Kindly provided by dr. adegboyega eyitayo oguntade

62 aNNexe

Figure 33: Peeled fresh cassava tubers38

b. tubers during processing

Figure 34: screw cassava press39 Figure 35: hydraulic cassava press39

c. Processing machines

38 Kindly provided by dr. adegboyega eyitayo oguntade 39 ezedinma (2006) Structure and Profitability of Cassava enterprises in Nigeria, Paper Presented at the root & Tuber expansion Programme (rTeP) Training Workshop on rural enterprise management and Community-driven at armTi, ilorin

63QueSTioNNaireS

Questionnaires St

and:

Er

stel

lt vo

n:

Seite

1

IV Q

UES

TIO

NN

AIRE

S

1)Su

rvey

of l

osse

s in

Cass

ava

valu

e ch

ain

Farm

er’s

Que

stio

nnai

re

This

surv

ey is

bei

ng c

ondu

cted

with

a v

iew

to

elic

iting

info

rmat

ion

on lo

sses

tha

t m

ay b

e oc

curr

ing

betw

een

cass

ava

farm

ers’

field

and

the

ulti

mat

e co

nsum

er o

f ca

ssav

a pr

oduc

ts.

This

part

icul

ar

ques

tionn

aire

is d

esig

ned

to c

olle

ct in

form

atio

n on

loss

es in

the

quan

tity

and

qual

ity o

f fre

sh c

assa

va

tube

rs a

nd b

y-pr

oduc

ts o

n fa

rmer

s’ fie

lds a

nd h

omes

tead

, etc

Al

l inf

orm

atio

n w

ill r

emai

n an

onym

ous

and

conf

iden

tial a

nd w

ill o

nly

be u

sed

for

the

purp

oses

of

iden

tifyi

ng th

e so

urce

s an

d am

ount

s of

loss

es in

cas

sava

pro

duct

ion,

pro

cess

ing,

tran

spor

tatio

n an

d m

arke

ting.

A.

IDEN

TIFI

CATI

ON

Nam

e of

Enu

mer

ator

Date

of I

nter

view

Stat

e

Loca

l Gov

ernm

ent A

rea

Vi

llage

Nam

e of

resp

onde

nt

B.

DE

MO

GRAP

HIC

DATA

1.

Trib

e:__

____

____

____

2.

Ho

me

Tow

n (P

lace

of O

rigin

) :

To

wn_

____

____

____

_LGA

____

____

____

__St

ate_

____

____

____

_ 3.

Pl

ace

of B

irth:

Tow

n___

____

____

___L

GA__

____

____

____

Stat

e___

____

____

___

5.

Sex:

(i) M

ale

(ii) F

emal

e 6.

Re

ligio

n:

(i) C

hrist

iani

ty

(ii

) Isla

m

(iii)

Trad

ition

al

(iv)

Oth

ers

7.

Age:

___

____

____

___

8.

Mar

ital S

tatu

s:

(i) S

ingl

e (ii

) Mar

ried

(iii)

Wid

ow/e

r 9.

Ho

use

hold

size

: ___

____

____

___

10.

Num

ber o

f Wiv

es:--

------

------

------

--- (E

xact

, num

ber,

plea

se)

11.

Num

ber o

f Chi

ldre

n:

Sex

Tota

l N

umbe

r of

Child

ren

Child

ren

Still

Li

ving

with

Yo

u (A

ll)

Child

ren

Still

Liv

ing

with

You

Num

ber

Activ

e in

ag

ricul

ture

0

– 5

Yrs.

6

– 15

Yrs

. 16

+ Yr

s

Mal

e

Fe

mal

e

To

tal

12.

Depe

ndan

t Rel

ativ

es:

Sex

Rela

tive

Livi

ng w

ith Y

ou

N

umbe

r Act

ive

in

agric

ultu

re

Stan

d:

Erst

ellt

von:

Se

ite 2

0 –

5 Yr

s.

6 –

15 Y

rs.

16+

Yrs

Mal

e

Fe

mal

e

To

tal

14.

Educ

atio

n (H

ighe

st le

vel o

nly)

Farm

er:

(i)

Prim

ary

(ii)

Seco

ndar

y

(iii)

Te

chni

cal C

olle

ge

(iv

) Te

rtia

ry (v

) Vo

catio

nal

(vi)

Ad

ult E

duca

tion

(v

ii) N

one

Spou

se:

(i)

Prim

ary

(ii)

Seco

ndar

y

(iii)

Te

chni

cal C

olle

ge

(iv

) Te

rtia

ry (v

) Vo

catio

nal

(vi)

Ad

ult E

duca

tion

(v

ii) N

one

C.

PRE-

PRO

DUCT

ION

1.

To

tal s

ize o

f all

farm

s ow

ned:

……

……

Heap

s/…

……

.Ha

2.

To

tal s

ize o

f all

farm

s pla

nted

with

cas

sava

last

pro

duct

ion

seas

on :…

……

…He

aps/

……

….H

a

3

Dist

ance

of t

he fa

rthe

st fi

eld

from

the

Hous

e ho

ld re

siden

ce---

------

------

-- 4

Plea

se, l

ist th

e cr

ops y

ou p

lant

ed la

st p

rodu

ctio

n se

ason

in th

e or

der o

f im

port

ance

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…

…

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

….

5 W

hat p

erce

ntag

e of

the

cass

ava

plan

ted

is no

rmal

ly c

onsu

med

by

your

fam

ily?

……

……

…..%

6.

Ar

e yo

u pa

rtic

ipat

ing

in a

ny F

G/St

ate/

NGO

pro

ject

that

is p

rom

otin

g ca

ssav

a pr

oduc

tion?

Ye

s……

/No…

…

7.

If ye

s, pl

ease

stat

e th

e na

me

of th

e pr

ojec

t……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…..

8.

Are

gove

rnm

ent e

xten

sion

agen

ts c

omin

g to

pro

vide

info

rmat

ion

to y

ou o

n ho

w to

gro

w a

nd

proc

ess c

assa

va?

Yes

……

/No…

…

9.

If ye

s, pl

ease

stat

e ho

w o

ften

:

Twic

e in

a m

onth

……

Onc

e in

a m

onth

……

O

nce

in tw

o m

onth

s……

O

nce

in th

ree

mon

ths…

…

10.

Are

you

a m

embe

r of a

coop

erat

ive

soci

ety?

Yes

……

/No…

……

11

. If

yes,

plea

se st

ate

the

type

. (i)

Prod

ucer

……

……

(ii)T

hrift

&Cr

edit…

……

(ii

i) M

arke

ting…

……

(iv

) Oth

ers,

plea

se st

ate

……

……

……

……

. D.

PR

ODU

CTIO

N

Land

tenu

re

1.

Plea

se c

ompl

ete

the

follo

win

g ta

ble

Type

of F

ield

Nu

mbe

r Si

ze

Inhe

rited

Pu

rcha

sed

Rent

ed

Pled

ged

Oth

ers

2.

Did

you

use

irrig

atio

n fo

r cas

sava

pro

duct

last

pro

duct

ion

seas

ons?

Yes

……

….N

o……

3.

If

yes,

wha

t is t

he to

tal s

ize o

f all

cass

ava

farm

s irr

igat

ed la

st p

rodu

ctio

n

seas

on: …

……

…He

aps/

……

….H

a 4.

Pl

ease

, pro

vide

an

estim

ate

of th

e irr

igat

ion

cost

. N…

……

……

……

……

…

64 QueSTioNNaireS

Stan

d:

Erst

ellt

von:

Se

ite 3

Cr

oppi

ng S

yste

m

5.

Did

you

plan

t cas

sava

sole

or m

ixed

with

oth

er c

rops

? S

ole…

……

. Mix

ed…

……

…

6.

If m

ixed

, sta

te th

e cr

ops y

ou m

ixed

with

cass

ava…

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

..

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

7.

In

whi

ch w

eek

and

mon

th o

f the

yea

r do

you

norm

ally

pre

pare

the

land

for p

lant

ing

cass

ava?

Wee

k 1

2

3 4

Mon

th …

……

……

……

……

……

8.

Pl

ease

, pro

vide

the

follo

win

g in

form

atio

n on

cas

sava

stem

cut

ting

used

for p

lant

ing

your

fie

ld(s

) las

t pro

duct

ion

seas

on.

So

urce

s Va

riety

Q

uant

ity

Valu

e (N

) AD

P

MAN

R

Mar

ket

Pa

st h

arve

st

O

ther

s

9.

Plea

se, p

rovi

de th

e fo

llow

ing

info

rmat

ion

on th

e fe

rtili

zer u

sual

ly a

pplie

d to

the

cass

ava

field

s pl

ante

d (d

urin

g th

e la

st p

rodu

ctio

n se

ason

).

Sour

ces

Fer

tilize

r typ

e (N

PK/ U

rea/

sp

ecify

oth

ers )

Q

uant

ity

(50k

g ba

gs)

Price

/50k

g ba

g

ADP

M

ANR

Mar

ket

De

aler

/Age

nt

O

ther

s

10.

Whe

re d

o yo

u st

ore

fert

ilize

r?...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.. 11

Pl

ease

, pro

vide

the

follo

win

g in

form

atio

n on

inse

ctic

ide/

fung

icide

/her

bici

de a

pplie

d to

the

cass

ava

field

s pla

nted

last

yea

r. I)

Sour

ces

Inse

ctic

ide

Qua

ntity

(ple

as,

spec

ify u

nit)

Pr

ice/

unit

last

yea

r

ADP

M

ANR

M

arke

t

Deal

er/A

gent

Oth

ers

II)

Sour

ces

Fung

icid

e

Qua

ntity

(ple

as,

spec

ify u

nit)

Pr

ice/

unit

last

yea

r

ADP

M

ANR

M

arke

t

Deal

er/A

gent

Oth

ers

Stan

d:

Erst

ellt

von:

Se

ite 4

III

) So

urce

s He

rbici

de

Qua

ntity

(ple

as,

spec

ify u

nit)

Pr

ice/

unit

last

yea

r

ADP

M

ANR

M

arke

t

Deal

er/A

gent

Oth

ers

12

. W

here

do

you

stor

e ch

emic

als?

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.. 13

. Di

d yo

u us

e cr

edit

for t

he c

assa

va y

ou p

lant

ed d

urin

g th

e la

st p

rodu

ctio

n se

ason

? Ye

s……

….N

o……

13

. If

your

ans

wer

is y

es, p

leas

e in

dica

te th

e so

urce

s

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…

14.

If yo

ur a

nsw

er is

no,

Why

? N

ot n

eede

d …

…..

Not

ava

ilabl

e …

…

Too

expe

nsiv

e……

…

15.

Did

you

use

hire

d la

bour

for t

he ca

ssav

a fie

lds p

lant

ed d

urin

g th

e la

st p

rodu

ctio

n se

ason

? Ye

s……

….N

o……

16

. If

your

ans

wer

is n

o, W

hy?

Not

nee

ded

……

.. N

ot a

vaila

ble

……

To

o ex

pens

ive…

……

17

. If

your

ans

wer

is y

es, h

ow m

uch

did

you

pay

per d

ay fo

r hire

d la

bour

? N…

……

……

…

18.

Wha

t is t

he p

rese

nt c

ost p

er d

ay fo

r hire

d la

bour

in y

our c

omm

unity

? N…

……

……

…

19.

Plea

se in

dica

te w

hich

of t

he fo

llow

ing

type

s of f

amily

labo

ur a

re b

eing

use

d.

Type

s Ye

s/N

o He

ad o

f hou

seho

ld o

nly

W

ife/w

ives

Child

ren

De

pend

ant r

elat

ives

All T

ypes

20.

Plea

se, p

rovi

de in

form

atio

n on

labo

ur u

tilize

d fo

r the

culti

vatio

n of

the

cass

ava

field

s pla

nted

la

st p

rodu

ctio

n se

ason

Fa

rm O

pera

tion

M

onth

Don

e La

bour

type

N

o. o

f man

days

Co

st/m

anda

y (N

) Bu

sh c

lear

ing

Plou

ghin

g

He

ap m

akin

g

Pl

antin

g

W

eedi

ng

Harv

estin

g

O

ther

s, pl

ease

sp

ecify

(i)

Adul

t mal

e (ii

) Ad

ult f

emal

e (ii

i) M

ale

child

ren

(iv)

Fem

ale

child

ren

21.

Did

you

use

mec

hani

zed

equi

pmen

t (tr

acto

r) to

pre

pare

the

land

use

d fo

r cul

tivat

ing

the

cass

ava

plan

ted

durin

g th

e la

st p

rodu

ctio

n se

ason

? Ye

s……

….N

o……

22

. If

yes,

how

muc

h di

d yo

u pa

y fo

r the

serv

ices

? N

……

……

……

……

…..

23.

Did

any

pest

s (in

sect

s, bi

rds,

rode

nts,

etc)

and

dise

ases

att

ack

the

cass

ava

field

s you

pla

nted

la

st p

rodu

ctio

n se

ason

? Ye

s……

….N

o……

65QueSTioNNaireS

Stan

d:

Erst

ellt

von:

Se

ite 5

24

. If

yes,

wha

t are

the

effe

cts e

spec

ially

on

yiel

ds; p

leas

e de

scrib

e an

d qu

antif

y.

…

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

.

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

.. 25

. Wha

t tre

atm

ent d

id y

ou a

pply

and

wha

t is t

he c

ost?

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

N……

……

……

……

….

E.

HARV

EST

AND

POST

-HAR

VEST

Ha

rves

ting

1 Ho

w m

any

mon

ths a

fter

pla

ntin

g do

you

nor

mal

ly c

omm

ence

har

vest

ing

of y

our c

assa

va?

……

….m

onth

s 2.

O

nce

you

com

men

ce h

arve

stin

g, h

ow m

any

mon

ths w

ill it

take

for y

ou to

com

plet

e th

e ha

rves

ting?

……

……

……

….m

onth

s 3.

W

ho d

oes t

he h

arve

stin

g? B

uyer

……

… F

amily

labo

ur…

……

……

Hire

d la

bour

……

……

. 4.

W

hat a

re th

e to

ols u

sed

in h

arve

stin

g ca

ssav

a tu

bers

? …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…

…

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

5

Wha

t mon

th o

f the

yea

r do

you

norm

ally

har

vest

you

r cas

sava

? …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…

6.

How

do

you

dete

rmin

e th

at y

our c

assa

va is

mat

ure

enou

gh fo

r har

vest

ing?

…

……

……

……

……

……

. …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

7.

Ar

e tu

bers

usu

ally

dam

aged

dur

ing

harv

estin

g? Y

es…

……

……

…..

No …

……

……

……

……

.. 8.

W

hat p

erce

ntag

e of

eac

h ha

rves

t is n

orm

ally

dam

aged

? …

……

……

……

.%

9.

Do y

ou lo

se re

venu

e be

caus

e of

the

dam

age?

Yes

……

……

……

.. N

o …

……

……

……

……

.. 10

. If

you

lose

reve

nue,

ple

ase

expl

ain

how

? …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

….

11.

Wha

t do

you

do w

ith th

e da

mag

ed tu

bers

? a

. Thr

ow a

way

….

b. u

se a

s ani

mal

feed

….

c.

Oth

ers (

plea

se sp

ecify

)

12.

Are

ther

e tu

bers

that

you

usu

ally

disc

ard

(thr

ow a

way

) aft

er h

arve

stin

g be

caus

e of

oth

er

prob

lem

s? Y

es…

……

……

…..

No

……

……

……

……

…..

13.

If ye

s, w

hat a

re th

e us

ual p

robl

ems w

ith th

e tu

bers

? …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

….

14.

Are

ther

e ot

her c

halle

nges

in h

arve

stin

g ca

ssav

a tu

bers

? Ye

s……

……

……

.. N

o …

……

……

……

……

.. 15

. If

yes,

plea

se d

escr

ibe

them

. …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

..

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…

16.

Wha

t is t

he y

ield

of t

uber

s on

your

cas

sava

farm

per

uni

t are

a in

a y

ear w

ith v

ery

good

w

eath

er?

……

……

……

.(whe

elba

rrow

s/pi

ckup

van

s/ m

t/ o

ther

, spe

cify

) per

(h

ecta

re/a

cre/

heap

s/sp

ecify

) 17

. W

hat i

s the

yie

ld o

f tub

ers o

n yo

ur c

assa

va fa

rm p

er u

nit a

rea

in a

yea

r with

nor

mal

wea

ther

? …

……

……

….(w

heel

barr

ows/

pick

up v

ans/

mt/

oth

er, s

peci

fy) p

er (

hect

are/

acre

/hea

ps/s

peci

fy)

Proc

essi

ng

18.

Do y

ou se

ll yo

ur c

assa

va a

s fre

sh tu

bers

or d

o yo

u pr

oces

s the

m?

Se

ll as

fres

h tu

bers

……

……

..

Proc

ess …

……

……

. Bo

th …

……

……

Stan

d:

Erst

ellt

von:

Se

ite 6

19

If

both

, wha

t per

cent

age

do y

ou se

ll as

fres

h tu

bers

? …

……

……

%

20.

If yo

u se

ll as

fres

h tu

bers

, whe

re d

o yo

u se

ll? F

arm

gat

e …

……

……

. On

farm

as s

tand

ing

crop

…

…. M

arke

t ……

……

.. 21

. If

you

sell

in th

e m

arke

t, ho

w d

o yo

u tr

ansp

ort t

he tu

bers

to th

e m

arke

t? P

leas

e de

scrib

e.

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

22

. W

hat c

onta

iner

s do

you

use

to tr

ansp

ort t

he tu

bers

from

the

farm

to th

e m

arke

t, ho

use

or

proc

essin

g ce

ntre

? B

aske

ts…

……

… U

sed

rice

bags

……

……

… O

ther

s, pl

ease

sp

ecify

……

……

……

……

…

23.

Are

you

able

to se

ll al

l of t

he tu

bers

that

you

take

to th

e m

arke

t eac

h tim

e?

Yes …

..… N

o …

……

. 24

. If

no, w

hat d

o yo

u do

with

the

unso

ld tu

bers

at t

he e

nd o

f the

mar

ket d

ay?

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…

25.

Wha

t is t

he d

istan

ce fr

om y

our f

arm

to th

e m

arke

t? …

……

……

……

… k

m

26.

Wha

t is t

he c

ost o

f tra

nspo

rtat

ion

per u

nit o

f tub

ers t

o th

e m

arke

t? …

N……

……

…/…

……

……

…

(Ple

ase

spec

ify u

nit,

e.g.

whe

elba

rrow

, pic

kup

van,

etc

) 27

. W

hat p

rice

do y

ou se

ll yo

ur fr

esh

tube

rs a

t the

farm

gat

e? …

N …

……

……

/……

……

……

(P

leas

e sp

ecify

uni

t, e.

g. w

heel

barr

ow, p

icku

p va

n, e

tc)

28.

Wha

t pric

e do

you

sell

your

fres

h tu

bers

at t

he m

arke

t? …

N …

……

……

/……

……

……

(P

leas

e sp

ecify

uni

t, e.

g. w

heel

barr

ow, p

ickup

van

, etc

) 29

. W

hat p

rice

do y

ou se

ll yo

ur fr

esh

tube

rs o

n fa

rm a

s sta

ndin

g cr

op?

… N

……

……

…/…

……

……

…

(Ple

ase

spec

ify u

nit,

e.g.

stan

ds, a

cre,

hec

tare

, hea

ps e

tc)

30.

If yo

u pr

oces

s you

r tub

ers,

wha

t pro

duct

do

you

proc

ess t

hem

into

? …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

….

31.

How

muc

h do

you

sell

this

prod

uct p

er u

nit?

N…

……

……

……

…./…

……

… (P

leas

e sp

ecify

the

unit)

32

. If

you

proc

ess o

n-fa

rm o

r at h

ome,

ple

ase,

pro

vide

info

rmat

ion

on th

e pr

oces

sing

of c

assa

va

in th

e fo

llow

ing

tabl

e St

age

Activ

ity (e

.g.

peel

ing)

To

ols u

sed

(e

.g. k

nife

) Co

st o

f the

to

ol (N

/uni

t)

Man

days

re

quire

d pe

r un

it of

tube

rs

(pls

spec

ify

unit)

Qua

ntity

of o

utpu

t pe

r uni

t of t

uber

s)

(pls

spec

ify u

nits

)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

33.

If yo

u pr

oces

s the

tube

rs a

t a c

omm

ercia

l pro

cess

ing

cent

re, p

leas

e co

mpl

ete

the

follo

win

g ta

ble.

St

age

Activ

ity (e

.g.

peel

ing)

To

ols o

r eq

uipm

ent

used

(e

.g. k

nife

)

Amou

nt ch

arge

d (N

/uni

t of t

uber

s) (p

ls sp

ecify

uni

t)

Qua

ntity

of o

utpu

t per

un

it of

tube

rs) (

pls

spec

ify u

nits

) 1

2

3

4

5

6

66 QueSTioNNaireS

Stan

d:

Erst

ellt

von:

Se

ite 7

7

34.

Do y

ou h

ave

to d

iscar

d so

me

tube

rs b

ecau

se th

ey a

re to

o sm

all t

o pe

el w

ith k

nife

? Y

es…

… N

o …

…

35.

If ye

s, w

hat p

erce

ntag

e of

the

harv

este

d tu

ber b

elon

gs to

this

cate

gory

? …

…..%

36

. Do

you

hav

e to

disc

ard

som

e tu

bers

bec

ause

they

are

too

woo

dy to

pee

l with

kni

fe?

Yes

……

No…

. 37

. If

yes,

wha

t per

cent

age

of th

e ha

rves

ted

tube

r bel

ongs

to th

is ca

tego

ry?

……

..%

38.

Wha

t do

you

do w

ith th

e ca

ssav

a pe

els a

nd th

e di

scar

ded

cass

ava?

…

..……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…

39.

Do y

ou u

sual

ly lo

se fr

esh

tube

rs w

hile

tran

spor

ting

them

to th

e pr

oces

sing

cent

re?

Ye

s……

……

No

……

……

40.

If ye

s, pl

ease

indi

cate

the

quan

tity

that

is u

sual

ly lo

st a

s a p

erce

ntag

e of

the

quan

tity

tran

spor

ted.

……

……

……

..%

41.

Do y

ou u

sual

ly lo

se so

me

finish

ed p

rodu

cts w

hile

tran

spor

ting

it fr

om th

e pr

oces

sing

cent

re?

Yes…

... N

o …

….

42.

If ye

s, pl

ease

indi

cate

the

quan

tity

as th

at is

usu

ally

lost

as a

per

cent

age

of th

e qu

antit

y tr

ansp

orte

d. …

……

……

…..%

St

orag

e 43

. Do

you

stor

e fr

esh

cass

ava

afte

r har

vest

ing?

Yes

……

…N

o …

…

44.

If ye

s, ho

w?

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…..

45.

If ye

s, do

you

lose

tube

rs d

urin

g st

orag

e du

e to

spoi

lage

? Ye

s……

…N

o …

……

46

. If

yes,

afte

r how

man

y da

ys o

f sto

rage

do

norm

ally

not

ice sp

oila

ge?

……

……

……

……

……

….

47.

If ye

s, w

hat p

erce

ntag

e of

the

tube

rs?

……

……

…%

48

. Do

you

stor

e th

e fin

ished

pro

duct

aft

er p

roce

ssin

g? Y

es…

……

No …

……

49

. If

yes,

how

? …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

.. 50

. If

yes,

do y

ou lo

se fi

nish

ed p

rodu

ct d

urin

g st

orag

e du

e to

spoi

lage

? Ye

s……

No

……

51

. If

yes,

afte

r how

man

y da

ys/w

eeks

/mon

ths o

f sto

rage

do

norm

ally

not

ice sp

oila

ge?

……

……

……

……

……

…. d

ays/

wee

ks/m

onth

s 52

. If

yes,

wha

t per

cent

age

of th

e pr

oduc

t? …

……

……

%

53.

Wha

t per

cent

age

of th

e fin

ished

pro

duct

is re

serv

ed fo

r hom

e co

nsum

ptio

n? …

……

……

%

F.

IMPA

CT O

N T

HE E

NVI

RON

MEN

T 54

. Th

e fo

llow

ing

tabl

e is

desig

ned

to c

olle

ct in

form

atio

n on

the

impa

ct o

f cas

sava

mar

ketin

g on

th

e en

viro

nmen

t. Pl

ease

com

plet

e th

e ta

ble

as m

uch

as it

rela

tes t

o yo

ur o

pera

tions

.

Desc

riptio

n of

Dat

a

Crop

Ent

erpr

ise

Com

bina

tion

Cass

ava

Mon

ocro

p Ca

ssav

a M

ixed

Cass

ava

Crop

2

Crop

3

Crop

4

Fiel

d Si

ze

Area

U

nit

Date

of s

owin

g / p

lant

ing

(Mon

th/Y

ear)

Plan

t spa

cing

Crop

s Pla

nted

Bef

ore

Fi

eld

Clea

red

by b

urni

ng (Y

es/N

o)

Crop

s Mix

ed W

ith

N

ot A

pplic

able

Pe

rcen

tage

of e

ach

Crop

in th

e M

ixed

Stan

d:

Erst

ellt

von:

Se

ite 8

Desc

riptio

n of

Dat

a

Crop

Ent

erpr

ise

Com

bina

tion

Cass

ava

Mon

ocro

p Ca

ssav

a M

ixed

Cass

ava

Crop

2

Crop

3

Crop

4

Date

of h

arve

st (m

onth

/yea

r)

Am

ount

of m

ain

prod

uct h

arve

sted

and

take

n of

f the

fiel

d (fr

esh

wei

ght)

.whe

elba

rrow

s/pi

ckup

van

s/ m

t/

othe

r, sp

ecify

) per

(he

ctar

e/ac

re/s

peci

fy)

Am

ount

of b

y- p

rodu

ct (e

.g. s

tem

cut

ting)

ha

rves

ted

and

take

n of

f the

fiel

d (fr

esh

wei

ght)

.whe

elba

rrow

s/pi

ckup

van

s/ m

t/

othe

r, sp

ecify

) per

(he

ctar

e/ac

re/s

peci

fy)

Min

eral

Fer

tilize

r Ap

plie

d (Q

uant

ity

in k

g)

NPK

Ure

a

Oth

er, s

peci

fy

Org

anic

Man

ure

Appl

ied

Qua

ntity

(Bag

s)

Co

st (N

aira

)

Type

(Pou

ltry/

Catt

le)

Pest

icid

e Ap

plie

d

Nam

e

Q

uant

ity

Uni

t

N

ame

Qua

ntity

U

nit

Nam

e

Q

uant

ity

Uni

t

Mac

hine

ry U

sed

Nam

e

Ca

paci

ty

Type

(Pet

rol/D

iese

l)

Ho

urs o

f Wor

k on

Far

m

Type

of w

ork

Nam

e

Ca

paci

ty

Type

(Pet

rol/D

iese

l)

Ho

urs o

f Wor

k on

Far

m

Type

of w

ork

Nam

e

Ca

paci

ty

Type

(Pet

rol/D

iese

l)

Ho

urs o

f Wor

k on

Far

m

Type

of w

ork

Tran

spor

tatio

n (F

arm

to

Hom

este

ad

Dist

ance

(km

)

Ty

pe o

f Veh

icle

(e.g

. Pi

ck-u

p va

n)

67QueSTioNNaireS

Stan

d:

Erst

ellt

von:

Se

ite 9

Desc

riptio

n of

Dat

a

Crop

Ent

erpr

ise

Com

bina

tion

Cass

ava

Mon

ocro

p Ca

ssav

a M

ixed

Cass

ava

Crop

2

Crop

3

Crop

4

Num

ber o

f trip

s car

ryin

g in

puts

to fa

rm p

er y

ear

Num

ber o

f trip

s car

ryin

g ou

tput

s fro

m fa

rm p

er

year

Tran

spor

tatio

n (H

omes

tead

to

Rura

l Mar

ket)

Dist

ance

(km

)

Ty

pe o

f Veh

icle

(e.g

. Pi

ck-u

p va

n)

Num

ber o

f trip

s car

ryin

g in

puts

to fa

rm p

er y

ear

Num

ber o

f trip

s car

ryin

g ou

tput

s fro

m fa

rm p

er

year

Star

ch P

roce

ssor

s’ Q

uest

ionn

aire

Th

is su

rvey

is b

eing

con

duct

ed w

ith a

vie

w t

o el

iciti

ng in

form

atio

n on

loss

es t

hat

may

be

occu

rrin

g be

twee

n ca

ssav

a fa

rmer

s’ fie

ld a

nd t

he u

ltim

ate

cons

umer

of

cass

ava

prod

ucts

. Th

is pa

rtic

ular

qu

estio

nnai

re is

des

igne

d to

col

lect

info

rmat

ion

on lo

sses

in th

e qu

antit

y an

d qu

ality

of f

resh

cas

sava

tu

bers

and

by-

prod

ucts

dur

ing

the

proc

ess o

f tra

nsfo

rmat

ion

into

star

ch

All i

nfor

mat

ion

will

rem

ain

anon

ymou

s an

d co

nfid

entia

l and

will

onl

y be

use

d fo

r th

e pu

rpos

es o

f id

entif

ying

the

sour

ces

and

amou

nts

of lo

sses

in c

assa

va p

rodu

ctio

n, p

roce

ssin

g, tr

ansp

orta

tion

and

mar

ketin

g.

A.

IDEN

TIFI

CATI

ON

Na

me

of E

num

erat

or

Da

te o

f Int

ervi

ew

St

ate

Lo

cal G

over

nmen

t Are

a

Villa

ge

Na

me

of p

roce

ssor

B.

PRO

CESS

ING

Cass

ava

star

ch p

roce

ssin

g

1.Ho

w d

o yo

u ge

t you

r fre

sh c

assa

va tu

bers

?

i. Fr

om o

wn

farm

ii. T

hrou

gh S

uppl

iers

iii F

rom

farm

gat

es

2.W

hat q

uant

ity o

f cas

sava

tube

rs d

o yo

u bu

y an

nual

ly?

……

……

……

.(whe

elba

rrow

s/pi

ckup

va

ns/ m

t/ o

ther

, spe

cify)

3.

Wha

t is t

he a

vera

ge p

rice

of c

assa

va tu

bers

from

farm

gat

e? N

....

......

......

......

...pe

r (w

heel

barr

ows/

pick

up v

ans/

mt/

oth

er, s

pecif

y)

Stan

d:

Erst

ellt

von:

Se

ite 1

0 4.

Wha

t is t

he a

vera

ge p

rice

of ca

ssav

a tu

bers

from

supp

liers

? N

....

......

......

......

...pe

r (w

heel

barr

ows/

pick

up v

ans/

mt/

oth

er, s

peci

fy)

5.Pl

ease

com

plet

e th

e ta

ble

belo

w:

Data

Des

crip

tion

Da

ta

Fres

h ca

ssav

a tu

bers

(Qua

ntity

per

tonn

e of

star

ch) (

tone

s)

Q

uant

ity o

f wat

er p

er to

nne

of st

arch

(litr

es)

O

ther

ingr

edie

nts (

cost

per

ton

of st

arch

) N

To

tal o

utpu

t of s

tarc

h pe

r ann

um (t

onne

)

Selli

ng p

rice

per t

onne

(N)

M

onth

ly w

ages

(N)

Re

nt o

n bu

ildin

gs (N

)

6.

Are

tube

rs u

sual

ly d

amag

ed d

urin

g tr

ansp

orta

tion

and

proc

essin

g? Y

es..…

No

…..

7.

Are

tube

rs u

sual

ly d

amag

ed d

urin

g pe

elin

g? Y

es..…

No

…..

8.

Do y

ou u

sual

ly h

ave

any

loss

dur

ing

proc

essin

g? Y

es..…

No

…..

9.

Wha

t per

cent

age

of to

tal c

assa

va is

nor

mal

ly d

amag

ed?

……

……

……

….%

10

.Do

you

lose

reve

nue

beca

use

of th

e da

mag

e? Y

es…

…

No

……

11

.If

you

lose

reve

nue,

ple

ase

expl

ain

how

? .…

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

12

.W

hat d

o yo

u do

with

the

dam

aged

tube

rs?

a. T

hrow

aw

ay…

. b.

use

as a

nim

al fe

ed…

.

c. S

ell

d.

Oth

ers (

plea

se sp

ecify

) 13

.Ho

w m

uch

do y

ou re

alize

from

the

dam

aged

tube

rs/lo

st p

rodu

cts?

N…

……

……

……

……

……

14

.Ar

e th

ere

tube

rs th

at y

ou u

sual

ly d

iscar

d (t

hrow

aw

ay) a

fter

buy

ing/

harv

estin

g be

caus

e of

ot

her p

robl

ems?

Yes

……

No

……

…

15.

If ye

s, w

hat a

re th

e us

ual p

robl

ems w

ith th

e tu

bers

? …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

.. 16

.Do

you

stor

e th

e fin

ished

pro

duct

aft

er p

roce

ssin

g? Y

es…

……

……

…..

No

……

……

……

……

…..

17.

If ye

s, ho

w?

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…..

18.

If ye

s, do

you

lose

fini

shed

pro

duct

dur

ing

stor

age

due

to sp

oila

ge Y

es…

... N

o …

……

19

.If

yes,

afte

r how

man

y da

ys/w

eeks

/mon

ths o

f sto

rage

do

norm

ally

not

ice sp

oila

ge?

……

……

……

……

……

…. d

ays/

wee

ks/m

onth

s 20

.If

yes,

wha

t per

cent

age

of th

e pr

oduc

t? …

……

……

%

21.

Wha

t is y

our a

nnua

l sta

rch

prod

uctio

n? …

……

……

……

……

……

……

….(p

leas

e sp

ecify

the

unit)

22

.Do

you

hav

e ot

her b

ye p

rodu

cts?

Yes

……

. No…

….

23.

If ye

s, ho

w m

uch

do y

ou re

alize

from

thes

e by

e pr

oduc

ts a

nnua

lly?

N …

……

……

……

……

. 24

.W

hat i

s the

pric

e pe

r uni

t of t

he fi

nish

ed p

rodu

ct?

N …

……

……

……

……

. per

……

……

……

……

…..

(ple

ase

spec

ify th

e un

it)

C.

IMPA

CT O

N T

HE E

NVI

RON

MEN

T Th

e fo

llow

ing

tabl

e is

desig

ned

to c

olle

ct in

form

atio

n on

the

impa

ct o

f st

arch

pro

cess

ing

on t

he

envi

ronm

ent.

Plea

se co

mpl

ete

the

tabl

e as

muc

h as

it re

late

s to

your

ope

ratio

ns.

Desc

riptio

n of

Dat

a Da

ta

Mac

hine

ry U

sed

for

Proc

essin

g

1 N

ame

Ca

paci

ty

Co

st(N

) U

se li

fe (y

ears

) Ty

pe (P

etro

l/Die

sel/E

lect

ricity

)

Hour

s of W

ork

per d

ay

68 QueSTioNNaireS

Stan

d:

Erst

ellt

von:

Se

ite 1

1 De

scrip

tion

of D

ata

Data

N

umbe

r of D

ays o

f Wor

k pe

r Yea

r Ty

pe o

f wor

k

2 N

ame

Ca

paci

ty

Co

st(N

) U

se li

fe (y

ears

) Ty

pe (P

etro

l/Die

sel/E

lect

ricity

)

Hour

s of W

ork

per D

ay

N

umbe

r of D

ays o

f Wor

k pe

r Yea

r Ty

pe o

f wor

k

3 N

ame

Ca

paci

ty

Co

st(N

) U

se li

fe (y

ears

)

Type

(Pet

rol/D

iese

l/Ele

ctric

ity)

Ho

urs o

f Wor

k pe

r Day

Num

ber o

f Day

s of W

ork

per Y

ear

Type

of w

ork

Tran

spor

tatio

n (C

assa

va

farm

s to

Pr

oces

sing

Cent

re)

Di

stan

ce (k

m)

Type

of V

ehic

le (e

.g. P

ick-

up v

an)

Num

ber o

f trip

s ca

rryi

ng fr

esh

cass

ava

tube

rs

from

farm

to

proc

essin

g ce

nter

per

yea

r

Tran

spor

tatio

n (P

roce

ssin

g Ce

ntre

to

Di

strib

utio

n ou

tlets

/Mar

ket)

Di

stan

ce (k

m)

Type

of V

ehic

le (e

.g. P

ick-

up v

an)

Num

ber

of t

rips

carr

ying

sta

rch

from

fac

tory

to

dist

ribut

ion

outle

ts/m

arke

t per

yea

r

Feed

Pro

cess

ors’

Que

stio

nnai

re

This

surv

ey is

bei

ng c

ondu

cted

with

a v

iew

to

elic

iting

info

rmat

ion

on lo

sses

tha

t m

ay b

e oc

curr

ing

betw

een

mai

ze f

arm

ers’

field

and

the

ulti

mat

e co

nsum

er o

f m

aize

pro

duct

s. Th

is pa

rtic

ular

qu

estio

nnai

re is

des

igne

d to

col

lect

info

rmat

ion

on lo

sses

in th

e qu

antit

y an

d qu

ality

of m

aize

gra

ins

and

by-p

rodu

cts d

urin

g th

e pr

oces

s of t

rans

form

atio

n in

to li

vest

ock

feed

s Al

l inf

orm

atio

n w

ill r

emai

n an

onym

ous

and

conf

iden

tial a

nd w

ill o

nly

be u

sed

for

the

purp

oses

of

iden

tifyi

ng t

he s

ourc

es a

nd a

mou

nts

of lo

sses

in m

aize

pro

duct

ion,

pro

cess

ing,

tra

nspo

rtat

ion

and

mar

ketin

g.

A.

IDEN

TIFI

CATI

ON

Na

me

of E

num

erat

or

Da

te o

f Int

ervi

ew

St

ate

Lo

cal G

over

nmen

t Are

a

Villa

ge

Na

me

of re

spon

dent

Stan

d:

Erst

ellt

von:

Se

ite 1

2 Fe

ed p

roce

ssin

g

1.W

hat q

uant

ity o

f mai

ze g

rain

do

you

buy

annu

ally

? …

……

……

….(m

t/ 5

0 kg

-bag

s /ot

her,

spec

ify)

2.Ho

w m

uch

do y

ou p

ay p

er u

nit o

f mai

ze g

rain

pur

chas

ed fr

om th

e m

arke

t? N

...

......

......

......

....p

er (m

t/ 5

0 kg

-bag

s /ot

her,

spec

ify)

3.Ho

w m

uch

do y

ou p

ay p

er u

nit o

f mai

ze g

rain

supp

lied

to y

ou a

t the

feed

mill

? N

...

......

......

......

....p

er (m

t/ 5

0 kg

-bag

s /ot

her,

spec

ify)

4.Do

you

lose

mai

ze g

rain

s dur

ing

tran

spor

tatio

n fr

om th

e m

arke

t to

your

feed

mill

? Ye

s….

No

……

. 5.

If ye

s, w

hat p

erce

ntag

e of

tota

l mai

ze g

rain

bou

ght i

s nor

mal

ly sp

oilt

/ los

t dur

ing

tran

spor

tatio

n? …

……

……

……

.%

6.Pl

ease

stat

e th

e ca

uses

of l

osse

s of g

rain

s dur

ing

tran

spor

tatio

n …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

.……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…

7.Do

you

lose

reve

nue

beca

use

of th

e lo

ss?

Yes…

…

No

……

8.

If yo

u lo

se re

venu

e, p

leas

e ex

plai

n ho

w?

.……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…

9.W

hat d

o yo

u do

with

the

spoi

lt m

aize

gra

ins?

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

10

.Ar

e th

ere

othe

r cha

lleng

es in

tran

spor

tatio

n of

mai

ze g

rain

s fro

m th

e m

arke

t to

your

feed

m

ill?

Yes…

… N

o …

….

11.

If ye

s, pl

ease

des

crib

e th

em. …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

. …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

12

.Pl

ease

com

plet

e th

e fo

llow

ing

tabl

e fo

r the

diff

eren

t typ

es o

f fee

d pr

oduc

ed.

In

puts

Fe

ed ty

pes

Broi

ler S

tart

er

Chic

k M

arsh

Gr

ower

La

yer

Fini

sher

M

aize

gra

ins

(Qua

ntity

pe

r ton

ne o

f fee

d)

Oth

er in

gred

ient

s (c

ost

per t

on o

f fee

d) N

Tota

l ou

tput

pe

r an

num

(ton

ne)

Selli

ng p

rice

per

tonn

e (N

)

Mon

thly

wag

es (N

)

Rent

on

build

ings

(N)

13.

Do y

ou u

sual

ly h

ave

any

loss

dur

ing

mill

ing?

Yes

..…

No …

..

14.

Wha

t per

cent

age

of to

tal p

rodu

ct is

nor

mal

ly lo

st?

……

……

……

….%

15

.Do

you

lose

reve

nue

beca

use

of th

e lo

ss?

Yes…

…

No

……

16

.If

you

lose

reve

nue,

ple

ase

expl

ain

how

? .…

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

17

.Do

you

stor

e m

aize

gra

ins b

efor

e m

illin

g? Y

es…

……

……

…..

No …

……

……

……

……

. 18

.If

yes,

how

? …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

.. 19

.If

yes,

do y

ou lo

se m

aize

gra

ins d

urin

g st

orag

e du

e to

spoi

lage

? Ye

s……

……

……

.. No

…

……

……

……

……

.. 20

.If

yes,

how

long

on

the

aver

age

do y

ou st

ore

a ba

tch

of m

aize

gra

ins?

……

……

……

……

…

wee

ks/m

onth

s 21

.If

yes,

afte

r how

man

y w

eeks

/mon

ths o

f sto

rage

do

you

norm

ally

not

ice sp

oila

ge?

……

……

……

……

……

….

69QueSTioNNaireS

Stan

d:

Erst

ellt

von:

Se

ite 1

3 22

.If

yes,

wha

t per

cent

age

of th

e m

aize

gra

ins i

s usu

ally

spoi

lt? …

……

……

%

23.

Whi

ch o

f the

follo

win

gs a

re th

e ca

uses

of s

poila

ge/lo

sses

of m

aize

gra

ins i

n yo

ur st

ore?

Ro

dent

s……

.

Wee

vils…

…..

Fung

us…

…..

M

oist

ure…

….

Oth

ers,

spec

ify …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

….

24.

Wha

t per

cent

age

of y

our s

poila

ge/lo

sses

of m

aize

gra

ins w

ill y

ou a

ttrib

ute

to:

Rode

nts…

….%

Wee

vils…

…..%

Fu

ngus

……

..%

Moi

stur

e……

.%

O

ther

s, sp

ecify

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

.%

25.

Wha

t do

you

norm

ally

do

with

mai

ze g

rain

s tha

t are

spoi

lt du

e to

any

of t

he c

ause

s in

(24)

? …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

26

.Do

you

stor

e th

e fin

ished

pro

duct

aft

er p

roce

ssin

g? Y

es…

……

……

…..

No

……

……

……

……

…..

27.

If ye

s, ho

w?

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…..

28.

If ye

s, do

you

lose

fini

shed

pro

duct

dur

ing

stor

age

due

to sp

oila

ge Y

es…

... N

o …

……

29

.If

yes,

afte

r how

man

y da

ys/w

eeks

/mon

ths o

f sto

rage

do

norm

ally

not

ice

spoi

lage

? …

……

……

……

……

……

. day

s/w

eeks

/mon

ths

30.

If ye

s, w

hat p

erce

ntag

e of

the

prod

uct?

……

……

…%

31

.W

hich

of t

he fo

llow

ings

are

the

caus

es o

f spo

ilage

/loss

es o

f fin

ished

pro

duct

s in

your

stor

e?

Rode

nts…

….

W

eevi

ls……

..

Fu

ngus

……

..

M

oist

ure…

….

Oth

ers,

spec

ify …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

….

32.

Wha

t per

cent

age

of y

our s

poila

ge/lo

sses

of f

inish

ed p

rodu

cts w

ill y

ou a

ttrib

ute

to:

Rode

nts…

….%

Wee

vils…

…..%

Fu

ngus

……

..%

Moi

stur

e……

.%

O

ther

s, sp

ecify

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

.%

33.

Wha

t do

you

norm

ally

do

with

fini

shed

pro

duct

s tha

t are

spoi

lt du

e to

any

of t

he c

ause

s in

(32)

? …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

B.IM

PACT

ON

THE

EN

VIRO

NM

ENT

Th

e fo

llow

ing

tabl

e is

desig

ned

to c

olle

ct in

form

atio

n on

the

impa

ct o

f st

arch

pro

cess

ing

on t

he

envi

ronm

ent.

Plea

se co

mpl

ete

the

tabl

e as

muc

h as

it re

late

s to

your

ope

ratio

ns.

Desc

riptio

n of

Dat

a Da

ta

Mac

hine

ry U

sed

for

Proc

essin

g

1 N

ame

Ca

paci

ty

Co

st(N

)

Use

life

(yea

rs)

Ty

pe (P

etro

l/Die

sel/E

lect

ricity

)

Hour

s of W

ork

per d

ay

N

umbe

r of D

ays o

f Wor

k pe

r Yea

r

Type

of w

ork

2

Nam

e

Capa

city

Cost

(N)

U

se li

fe (y

ears

) Ty

pe (P

etro

l/Die

sel/E

lect

ricity

)

Hour

s of W

ork

per D

ay

Stan

d:

Erst

ellt

von:

Se

ite 1

4 De

scrip

tion

of D

ata

Data

N

umbe

r of D

ays o

f Wor

k pe

r Yea

r Ty

pe o

f wor

k

3 N

ame

Ca

paci

ty

Co

st(N

) U

se li

fe (y

ears

) Ty

pe (P

etro

l/Die

sel/E

lect

ricity

)

Hour

s of W

ork

per D

ay

N

umbe

r of D

ays o

f Wor

k pe

r Yea

r Ty

pe o

f wor

k

Tran

spor

tatio

n (M

arke

t to

Fe

ed

mill

)

Di

stan

ce (k

m)

Type

of V

ehic

le (e

.g. P

ick-

up v

an)

Num

ber

of t

rips

carr

ying

inp

uts

from

mar

ket

to f

eed

mill

per

yea

r

Tran

spor

tatio

n (fe

ed

mill

s to

di

strib

utio

n ou

tlets

)

Di

stan

ce (k

m)

Type

of V

ehic

le (e

.g. P

ick-

up v

an)

Num

ber

of t

rips

carr

ying

out

puts

fro

m f

eed

mill

to

outle

ts p

er y

ear

Fr

esh

Tube

rs M

arke

ters

’ Que

stio

nnai

re

This

surv

ey is

bei

ng c

ondu

cted

with

a v

iew

to

elic

iting

info

rmat

ion

on lo

sses

tha

t m

ay b

e oc

curr

ing

betw

een

cass

ava

farm

ers’

field

and

the

ulti

mat

e co

nsum

er o

f ca

ssav

a pr

oduc

ts.

This

part

icul

ar

ques

tionn

aire

is d

esig

ned

to c

olle

ct in

form

atio

n on

loss

es in

the

quan

tity

and

qual

ity o

f fre

sh c

assa

va

tube

rs a

nd b

y-pr

oduc

ts d

urin

g th

e pr

oces

s of m

arke

ting

of tu

bers

Al

l inf

orm

atio

n w

ill r

emai

n an

onym

ous

and

conf

iden

tial a

nd w

ill o

nly

be u

sed

for

the

purp

oses

of

iden

tifyi

ng th

e so

urce

s an

d am

ount

s of

loss

es in

cas

sava

pro

duct

ion,

pro

cess

ing,

tran

spor

tatio

n an

d m

arke

ting.

A.

ID

ENTI

FICA

TIO

N

Nam

e of

Enu

mer

ator

Date

of I

nter

view

Stat

e

Loca

l Gov

ernm

ent A

rea

Vi

llage

Nam

e of

resp

onde

nt

C.

CAS

SAVA

MAR

KETI

NG

1.W

hich

mon

ths o

f the

yea

r do

you

norm

ally

buy

cas

sava

tube

rs?

……

……

……

……

.. to

…

……

……

……

…

2.W

here

do

you

norm

ally

buy

cas

sava

from

? i.

Farm

gat

e ii.

On

farm

as s

tand

ing

crop

i

ii.

Mar

ket

3.If

from

farm

gat

e/m

arke

t, ar

e tu

bers

usu

ally

dam

aged

dur

ing

tran

spor

tatio

n? Y

es ..

… N

o …

..

70 QueSTioNNaireS

Stan

d:

Erst

ellt

von:

Se

ite 1

5 4.

If fr

om o

n fa

rm a

s sta

ndin

g cr

op, a

re tu

bers

usu

ally

dam

aged

dur

ing

harv

estin

g? Y

es ..

… N

o …

.. 5.

Wha

t per

cent

age

of to

tal c

assa

va b

ough

t/ha

rves

ted

is n

orm

ally

dam

aged

? …

……

……

……

.%

6.Do

you

lose

reve

nue

beca

use

of th

e da

mag

e? Y

es…

…

No

……

7.

If yo

u lo

se re

venu

e, p

leas

e ex

plai

n ho

w?

.……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

….

8.W

hat d

o yo

u do

with

the

dam

aged

tube

rs?

a. T

hrow

aw

ay…

. b.

use

as a

nim

al fe

ed…

.

c. O

ther

s (pl

ease

spec

ify)

.……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…

9.Ar

e th

ere

tube

rs th

at y

ou u

sual

ly d

iscar

d (th

row

aw

ay) a

fter

buy

ing/

harv

estin

g be

caus

e of

ot

her p

robl

ems?

Yes

……

N

o …

……

10

.If

yes,

wha

t are

the

usua

l pro

blem

s with

the

tube

rs?

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

11

.Ar

e th

ere

othe

r cha

lleng

es in

har

vest

ing,

mar

ketin

g an

d tr

ansp

orta

tion

cass

ava

tube

rs?

Yes…

… N

o …

….

12.

If ye

s, pl

ease

des

crib

e th

em. …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

. …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…

13.

Wha

t qua

ntity

of c

assa

va tu

bers

do

you

buy

annu

ally

? …

……

……

….(w

heel

barr

ows/

pick

up

vans

/ mt/

oth

er, s

pecif

y)

14.

Wha

t is t

he a

vera

ge p

rice

of c

assa

va tu

bers

from

farm

gat

e? N

....

......

......

......

...pe

r (w

heel

barr

ows/

pick

up v

ans/

mt/

oth

er, s

pecif

y)

15.

Wha

t is t

he a

vera

ge p

rice

of c

assa

va tu

bers

from

loca

l mar

kets

? N

....

......

......

......

...pe

r (w

heel

barr

ows/

pick

up v

ans/

mt/

oth

er, s

pecif

y)

16.

Wha

t is t

he a

vera

ge p

rice

of c

assa

va tu

bers

from

on

farm

stan

ding

crop

? N

...

......

......

......

....p

er (h

eaps

/whe

elba

rrow

s/pi

ckup

van

s/ m

t/ o

ther

, spe

cify)

17

.W

hat i

s the

dist

ance

bet

wee

n th

e fa

rm g

ate/

loca

l mar

ket a

nd th

e ga

rri p

roce

ssin

g pl

ant/

star

ch p

roce

ssin

g fa

ctor

y w

here

you

supp

ly c

assa

va?

……

.. km

18

.W

hat i

s the

cos

t of t

rans

port

atio

n pe

r uni

t of t

uber

s to

the

garr

i pro

cess

ing

plan

t/st

arch

pr

oces

sing

fact

ory?

…N

……

……

…/…

……

……

… (P

leas

e sp

ecify

uni

t, e.

g. w

heel

barr

ow, p

icku

p va

n, e

tc)

19.

Wha

t pric

e do

you

sell

your

fres

h tu

bers

at t

he g

arri

proc

essin

g pl

ant/

star

ch p

roce

ssin

g fa

ctor

y? …

N …

……

……

/……

……

……

(Ple

ase

spec

ify u

nit,

e.g.

whe

elba

rrow

, pic

kup

van,

etc

)

D.IM

PACT

ON

THE

EN

VIRO

NM

ENT

The

follo

win

g ta

ble

is de

signe

d to

col

lect

info

rmat

ion

on t

he im

pact

of

cass

ava

mar

ketin

g on

the

en

viro

nmen

t. Pl

ease

com

plet

e th

e ta

ble

as m

uch

as it

rela

tes t

o yo

ur o

pera

tions

. De

scrip

tion

of D

ata

Data

Fiel

d Si

ze

Area

Uni

t

Date

of h

arve

st (m

onth

/yea

r)

Am

ount

of m

ain

prod

uct h

arve

sted

and

take

n of

f th

e fie

ld

(fres

h w

eigh

t).w

heel

barr

ows/

pick

up

vans

/ m

t/

othe

r, sp

ecify

) per

(he

ctar

e/ac

re/s

peci

fy)

Am

ount

of

by-

prod

uct

(e.g

. st

em c

uttin

g)

harv

este

d an

d ta

ken

off

the

field

(fr

esh

wei

ght)

.whe

elba

rrow

s/pi

ckup

va

ns/

mt/

ot

her,

spec

ify) p

er (

hect

are/

acre

/spe

cify

) Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Dist

ance

(km

)

Stan

d:

Erst

ellt

von:

Se

ite 1

6 De

scrip

tion

of D

ata

Data

(F

arm

to

Ho

mes

tead

Ty

pe

of

Vehi

cle

(e.g

. Pi

ck-u

p va

n)

N

umbe

r of t

rips

carr

ying

in

puts

to fa

rm p

er y

ear

N

umbe

r of t

rips

carr

ying

ou

tput

s fr

om f

arm

pe

r ye

ar

Tran

spor

tatio

n (H

omes

tead

to

Ru

ral

Mar

ket/

Fact

ory

Gate

/Pro

cess

ing

Cent

re)

Dist

ance

(km

)

Type

of

Ve

hicle

(e

.g.

Pick

-up

van)

Num

ber o

f trip

s ca

rryi

ng

inpu

ts to

farm

per

yea

r

Num

ber o

f trip

s ca

rryi

ng

outp

uts

from

far

m

per

year

71QueSTioNNaireS

Stan

d:

Erst

ellt

von:

Se

ite 1

7

2)Su

rvey

of l

osse

s in

Mai

ze v

alue

cha

in

Farm

er’s

Que

stio

nnai

re

This

surv

ey is

bei

ng c

ondu

cted

with

a v

iew

to

elic

iting

info

rmat

ion

on lo

sses

tha

t m

ay b

e oc

curr

ing

betw

een

mai

ze f

arm

ers’

field

and

the

ulti

mat

e co

nsum

er o

f m

aize

pro

duct

s. Th

is pa

rtic

ular

qu

estio

nnai

re is

des

igne

d to

col

lect

info

rmat

ion

on lo

sses

in th

e qu

antit

y an

d qu

ality

of f

resh

mai

ze,

mai

ze (d

ry) g

rain

and

by-

prod

ucts

on

farm

ers’

field

s and

hom

este

ad, e

tc

All i

nfor

mat

ion

will

rem

ain

anon

ymou

s an

d co

nfid

entia

l and

will

onl

y be

use

d fo

r th

e pu

rpos

es o

f id

entif

ying

the

sou

rces

and

am

ount

s of

loss

es in

mai

ze p

rodu

ctio

n, p

roce

ssin

g, t

rans

port

atio

n an

d m

arke

ting.

A.

ID

ENTI

FICA

TIO

N

Nam

e of

Enu

mer

ator

Date

of I

nter

view

Stat

e

Loca

l Gov

ernm

ent A

rea

Vi

llage

Nam

e of

resp

onde

nt

B.

DE

MO

GRAP

HIC

DATA

1.

Tr

ibe:

____

____

____

__ (o

ptio

nal)

2.

Hom

e To

wn

(Pla

ce o

f Orig

in):

Tow

n___

____

____

___L

GA__

____

____

____

Stat

e___

____

____

3.

Pl

ace

of B

irth:

Tow

n___

____

____

___L

GA__

____

____

____

Stat

e___

____

____

___

5.

Sex:

(i) M

ale

(ii) F

emal

e 6.

Re

ligio

n: (o

ptio

nal)

(i) C

hrist

iani

ty

(ii) I

slam

(ii

i) Tr

aditi

onal

(i

v) O

ther

s 7.

Ag

e: _

____

____

____

_ 8.

M

arita

l Sta

tus:

(i)

Sin

gle

(ii) M

arrie

d (ii

i) W

idow

/er

9.

Hous

e ho

ld si

ze: _

____

____

____

_ 10

. N

umbe

r of W

ives

: ___

____

____

__(E

xact

, num

ber,

plea

se)

11.

Num

ber o

f Chi

ldre

n:

Sex

Tota

l N

umbe

r of

Child

ren

Child

ren

Still

Liv

ing

with

You

(A

ll)

Child

ren

Still

Liv

ing

with

You

Num

ber

Activ

e in

ag

ricul

ture

0

– 5

Yrs.

6

– 15

Yr

s.

16+

Yrs

Mal

e

Fe

mal

e

To

tal

12.

Depe

ndan

t Rel

ativ

es:

Sex

Rela

tive

Livi

ng w

ith Y

ou

N

umbe

r Act

ive

in a

gric

ultu

re

0 –

5 Yr

s.

6 –

15 Y

rs.

16+

Yrs

Stan

d:

Erst

ellt

von:

Se

ite 1

8 M

ale

Fem

ale

Tota

l

14

. Ed

ucat

ion

(Hig

hest

leve

l onl

y)

Fa

rmer

:

(i)

Prim

ary

(ii)

Seco

ndar

y

(iii)

Te

chni

cal C

olle

ge

(iv

) Te

rtia

ry (v

) Vo

catio

nal

(vi)

Ad

ult E

duca

tion

(v

ii) N

one

Spou

se:

(i)

Prim

ary

(ii)

Seco

ndar

y

(iii)

Te

chni

cal C

olle

ge

(iv

) Te

rtia

ry (v

) Vo

catio

nal

(vi)

Ad

ult E

duca

tion

(v

ii) N

one

C.

PR

E-PR

ODU

CTIO

N

1.

Tota

l size

of a

ll fa

rms o

wne

d: …

……

…He

aps/

……

….H

a

2.

Tota

l size

of a

ll fa

rms p

lant

ed w

ith m

aize

last

pro

duct

ion

seas

on :…

……

…He

aps/

……

….H

a

3

Dist

ance

of t

he fa

rthe

st fi

eld

from

the

Hous

e ho

ld re

siden

ce _

____

____

____

4

Plea

se, l

ist th

e cr

ops y

ou p

lant

ed la

st p

rodu

ctio

n se

ason

in th

e or

der o

f

impo

rtan

ce…

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…

5 W

hat p

erce

ntag

e of

the

mai

ze p

lant

ed is

nor

mal

ly c

onsu

med

by

your

fam

ily?

……

……

…..%

6.

Ar

e yo

u pa

rtic

ipat

ing

in a

ny F

G/St

ate/

NGO

pro

ject

that

is p

rom

otin

g m

aize

pro

duct

ion?

Ye

s……

/No…

…

7.

If ye

s, pl

ease

stat

e th

e na

me

of th

e pr

ojec

t……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…..

8.

Are

gove

rnm

ent e

xten

sion

agen

ts co

min

g to

pro

vide

info

rmat

ion

to y

ou o

n ho

w to

gro

w a

nd

proc

ess m

aize

? Y

es…

…/N

o……

9.

If

yes,

plea

se st

ate

how

oft

en?

Tw

ice

in a

mon

th…

…

O

nce

in a

mon

th…

…

O

nce

in tw

o m

onth

s……

Onc

e in

thre

e m

onth

s……

10

. Ar

e yo

u a

mem

ber o

f a co

oper

ativ

e so

ciet

y? Y

es…

…/N

o……

…

11.

If ye

s, pl

ease

stat

e th

e ty

pe. (

i) Pr

oduc

er…

……

… (i

i)Thr

ift &

Cred

it……

…

(iii)

Mar

ketin

g……

…

(iv) O

ther

s, pl

ease

stat

e …

……

……

……

….

D.

PRO

DUCT

ION

La

nd te

nure

1.

Pl

ease

com

plet

e th

e fo

llow

ing

tabl

e Ty

pe o

f Fie

ld

Num

ber

Size

In

herit

ed

Purc

hase

d

Re

nted

Pl

edge

d

O

ther

s

2.

Di

d yo

u us

e irr

igat

ion

for m

aize

pro

duct

last

pro

duct

ion

seas

ons?

Yes

……

….N

o……

3.

If

yes,

wha

t is t

he to

tal s

ize o

f all

mai

ze fa

rms i

rrig

ated

last

pro

duct

ion

seas

on:

……

……

Heap

s/…

……

.Ha

4.

Plea

se, p

rovi

de a

n es

timat

e of

the

irrig

atio

n co

st.

N……

……

……

……

……

72 QueSTioNNaireS

Stan

d:

Erst

ellt

von:

Se

ite 1

9 Cr

oppi

ng S

yste

m

5.

Did

you

plan

t mai

ze so

le o

r mix

ed w

ith o

ther

cro

ps?

Sol

e……

…. M

ixed

……

……

6.

If

mix

ed, s

tate

the

crop

s you

mix

ed w

ith

mai

ze…

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…

7.

In w

hich

wee

k an

d m

onth

of t

he y

ear d

o yo

u no

rmal

ly p

repa

re th

e la

nd fo

r pla

ntin

g m

aize

?

Wee

k 1

2

3 4

Mon

th …

……

……

……

……

……

8.

Pl

ease

, pro

vide

the

follo

win

g in

form

atio

n on

mai

ze se

eds u

sed

for p

lant

ing

your

fiel

d(s)

last

pr

oduc

tion

seas

on.

So

urce

s Va

riety

Ty

pe (w

hite

/Yel

low

) Q

uant

ity (k

g)

Valu

e (N

) AD

P

M

ANR

Mar

ket

Past

har

vest

O

ther

s

9.

Pl

ease

, pro

vide

the

follo

win

g in

form

atio

n on

the

fert

ilize

r app

lied

to th

e m

aize

fiel

ds p

lant

ed

durin

g th

e la

st p

rodu

ctio

n se

ason

. So

urce

s F

ertil

izer t

ype

(NPK

/ U

rea/

spec

ify o

ther

s )

Qua

ntity

(5

0kg

bags

) Pr

ice/5

0kg

bag

ADP

M

ANR

Mar

ket

De

aler

/Age

nt

O

ther

s

10.

Whe

re d

o yo

u st

ore

fert

ilize

r? ..

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

...

11

Plea

se, p

rovi

de th

e fo

llow

ing

info

rmat

ion

on in

sect

icid

e/fu

ngic

ide/

herb

icid

e ap

plie

d to

the

mai

ze fi

elds

pla

nted

last

yea

r. I)

Sour

ces

Inse

ctic

ide

Qua

ntity

(ple

as,

spec

ify u

nit)

Pr

ice/

unit

last

yea

r

ADP

M

ANR

M

arke

t

Deal

er/A

gent

Oth

ers

II)

So

urce

s Fu

ngic

ide

Q

uant

ity (p

leas

, sp

ecify

uni

t)

Pric

e/un

it la

st y

ear

ADP

M

ANR

M

arke

t

Deal

er/A

gent

Oth

ers

Stan

d:

Erst

ellt

von:

Se

ite 2

0 III

) So

urce

s He

rbic

ide

Q

uant

ity (p

leas

, sp

ecify

uni

t)

Pric

e/un

it la

st y

ear

ADP

M

ANR

M

arke

t

Deal

er/A

gent

Oth

ers

12

. W

here

do

you

stor

e ch

emic

als?

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.. 13

. Di

d yo

u us

e cr

edit

for t

he m

aize

you

pla

nted

dur

ing

the

last

pro

duct

ion

seas

on?

Yes…

……

.No…

…

13.

If yo

ur a

nsw

er is

yes

, ple

ase

indi

cate

the

sour

ces.

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

14

. If

your

ans

wer

is n

o, W

hy?

Not

nee

ded

……

.. No

t ava

ilabl

e……

To

o ex

pens

ive…

…

15.

Did

you

use

hire

d la

bour

for t

he m

aize

fiel

ds p

lant

ed d

urin

g th

e la

st p

rodu

ctio

n se

ason

? Ye

s……

….N

o……

16

. If

your

ans

wer

is n

o, W

hy?

Not

nee

ded

……

.. No

t ava

ilabl

e……

To

o ex

pens

ive…

…

17.

If yo

ur a

nsw

er is

yes

, how

muc

h di

d yo

u pa

y pe

r day

for h

ired

labo

ur?

N……

……

……

……

…

18.

Wha

t is t

he p

rese

nt c

ost p

er d

ay fo

r hire

d la

bour

in y

our c

omm

unity

? N…

……

……

……

……

19

. Pl

ease

indi

cate

whi

ch o

f the

follo

win

g ty

pes o

f fam

ily la

bour

are

bei

ng u

sed.

Ty

pes

Yes/

No

Head

of h

ouse

hold

onl

y

Wife

/wiv

es

Ch

ildre

n

Depe

ndan

t rel

ativ

es

Al

l Typ

es

20

Pl

ease

, pro

vide

info

rmat

ion

on la

bour

util

ized

for t

he cu

ltiva

tion

of th

e m

aize

fiel

ds p

lant

ed

last

pro

duct

ion

seas

on

Farm

Ope

ratio

n

Mon

th D

one

Labo

ur ty

pe

No.

of m

anda

ys

Cost

/man

day

(N)

Bush

cle

arin

g

Pl

ough

ing

Heap

mak

ing

Plan

ting

Wee

ding

Ha

rves

ting

Oth

ers,

plea

se

spec

ify

(i)

Ad

ult m

ale

(ii)

Adul

t fem

ale

(iii)

Mal

e ch

ildre

n

(iv)

Fe

mal

e ch

ildre

n 21

Di

d yo

u us

e m

echa

nize

d eq

uipm

ent (

trac

tor)

to p

repa

re th

e la

nd u

sed

for c

ultiv

atin

g th

e m

aize

pla

nted

dur

ing

the

last

pro

duct

ion

seas

on?

Yes…

……

.No…

…

22.

If ye

s, ho

w m

uch

did

you

pay

for t

he se

rvic

es?

N …

……

……

……

……

.. 23

. Di

d an

y pe

sts (

inse

cts,

bird

s, ro

dent

s, et

c) a

nd d

iseas

es a

ttac

k th

e m

aize

fiel

ds y

ou p

lant

ed

last

pro

duct

ion

seas

on?

Yes…

……

.No…

…

24.

If ye

s, w

hat a

re th

e ef

fect

s esp

ecia

lly o

n yi

elds

; ple

ase

desc

ribe

and

quan

tify.

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

73QueSTioNNaireS

Stan

d:

Erst

ellt

von:

Se

ite 2

1 26

W

hat t

reat

men

t did

you

app

ly a

nd w

hat i

s the

cos

t? …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…

…

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

.……

……

…N

E.

HARV

EST

AND

POST

-HAR

VEST

Ha

rves

ting

1 Ho

w m

any

mon

ths a

fter p

lant

ing

do y

ou n

orm

ally

com

men

ce h

arve

stin

g of

you

r mai

ze?

……

….m

onth

s 2.

O

nce

you

com

men

ce h

arve

stin

g, h

ow lo

ng w

ill it

take

for y

ou to

com

plet

e th

e ha

rves

ting?

…

……

……

……

. wee

ks

3.

Who

doe

s the

har

vest

ing?

Buy

er…

……

Fam

ily la

bour

……

……

… H

ired

labo

ur…

……

….

4.

Wha

t are

the

tool

s use

d in

har

vest

ing

mai

ze?

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

5

Wha

t mon

th o

f the

yea

r do

you

norm

ally

har

vest

you

r mai

ze?

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

6.

Ho

w d

o yo

u de

term

ine

that

you

r mai

ze is

mat

ure

enou

gh fo

r har

vest

ing?

……

……

……

……

……

….

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

7.

Ar

e m

aize

cob

s usu

ally

dam

aged

dur

ing

harv

estin

g? Y

es…

… N

o …

……

…

8.

Wha

t per

cent

age

of e

ach

harv

est i

s nor

mal

ly d

amag

ed?

……

……

……

….%

9.

Do

you

lose

reve

nue

beca

use

of th

e da

mag

e? Y

es…

……

No

……

……

10

. If

you

lose

reve

nue,

ple

ase

expl

ain

how

? …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…

11.

Wha

t do

you

do w

ith th

e da

mag

ed m

aize

cob

s? a

. Thr

ow a

way

….

b. u

se a

s liv

esto

ck

feed

….

c.

Oth

ers (

plea

se sp

ecify

)

12.

Are

ther

e m

aize

cob

s tha

t you

usu

ally

disc

ard

(thr

ow a

way

) afte

r har

vest

ing

beca

use

of o

ther

pr

oble

ms?

Yes

……

No

……

…

13.

If ye

s, w

hat a

re th

e us

ual p

robl

ems w

ith th

e m

aize

cob

s?

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

14

. Ar

e th

ere

othe

r cha

lleng

es in

har

vest

ing

mai

ze c

obs?

Yes

……

No

……

15

. If

yes,

plea

se d

escr

ibe

them

. …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

….

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

16

. Ho

w m

any

cobs

of g

reen

(fre

sh) m

aize

do

you

norm

ally

har

vest

from

you

r far

m p

er h

ecta

re?

……

……

……

17

. If

you

are

harv

estin

g dr

y m

aize

, how

man

y dr

ied

cobs

do

you

norm

ally

har

vest

from

you

r fa

rm p

er h

ecta

re?

……

……

.. 18

. Af

ter s

helli

ng, w

hat q

uant

ity o

f gra

ins d

o yo

u no

rmal

ly o

btai

n pe

r hec

tare

in a

yea

r with

ver

y go

od w

eath

er?

……

……

……

……

……

(mt/

50

kg-b

ag/ o

ther

, spe

cify

) 19

. Af

ter s

helli

ng, w

hat q

uant

ity o

f gra

ins d

o yo

u no

rmal

ly o

btai

n pe

r hec

tare

in a

yea

r with

no

rmal

wea

ther

? …

……

……

……

……

… (m

t/ 5

0 kg

-bag

/ oth

er, s

peci

fy)

F.

PRO

CESS

ING

20.

Do y

ou se

ll yo

ur m

aize

as f

resh

mai

ze o

r do

you

sell

them

as p

roce

ssed

dry

gra

in?

Se

ll as

fres

h m

aize

……

……

..

Proc

esse

d …

……

……

. Bo

th …

……

……

21

. If

both

, wha

t per

cent

age

do y

ou se

ll as

fres

h m

aize

? …

……

……

%

22

If yo

u se

ll as

fres

h m

aize

, whe

re d

o yo

u se

ll? F

arm

gat

e …

……

……

. On

farm

as s

tand

ing

crop

…

…. M

arke

t ……

……

.. 23

. If

you

sell

in th

e m

arke

t, ho

w d

o yo

u tr

ansp

ort t

he m

aize

to th

e m

arke

t? P

leas

e de

scrib

e.

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

Stan

d:

Erst

ellt

von:

Se

ite 2

2 24

. W

hat c

onta

iner

s do

you

use

to tr

ansp

ort t

he m

aize

from

the

farm

to th

e m

arke

t, ho

use

or

proc

essin

g ce

ntre

? B

aske

ts…

……

… U

sed

rice

bags

……

……

… O

ther

s, pl

ease

sp

ecify

……

……

……

……

…

25.

Are

you

able

to se

ll al

l of t

he fr

esh

mai

ze th

at y

ou ta

ke to

the

mar

ket e

ach

time?

Ye

s …..

No

…..

26.

If no

, wha

t do

you

do w

ith th

e un

sold

mai

ze a

t the

end

of t

he m

arke

t day

? …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…

27.

Wha

t is t

he d

istan

ce fr

om y

our f

arm

to th

e m

arke

t? …

……

……

……

… k

m

28.

Wha

t is t

he co

st o

f tra

nspo

rtat

ion

per u

nit o

f mai

ze to

the

mar

ket?

…N…

……

……

/……

……

……

(P

leas

e sp

ecify

uni

t, e.

g. w

heel

barr

ow, p

icku

p va

n, 5

0 kg

bag

, etc

) 29

. W

hat p

rice

do y

ou se

ll yo

ur fr

esh

mai

ze c

obs a

t the

farm

gat

e? …

N …

……

……

/……

……

……

(P

leas

e sp

ecify

uni

t, e.

g. w

heel

barr

ow, p

icku

p va

n, 5

0 kg

bag

, cob

s, et

c)

30.

Wha

t pric

e do

you

sell

your

fres

h m

aize

at t

he m

arke

t? …

N …

……

……

/……

……

……

(Ple

ase

spec

ify u

nit,

e.g.

whe

elba

rrow

, pic

kup

van,

50

kg b

ag, c

obs,

etc)

31

. W

hat p

rice

do y

ou se

ll yo

ur fr

esh

mai

ze o

n fa

rm a

s sta

ndin

g cr

op?

… N

……

……

…/…

……

……

…

(Ple

ase

spec

ify u

nit,

e.g.

stan

ds, a

cre,

hec

tare

, hea

ps e

tc)

32.

How

muc

h do

you

sell

dry

grai

n pe

r uni

t at f

arm

gat

e? N

……

……

……

……

./……

……

……

…..(

Plea

se

spec

ify u

nit,

e.g.

whe

elba

rrow

, pic

kup

van,

50

kg b

ag, e

tc)

33.

Wha

t pric

e do

you

sell

your

dry

gra

in a

t the

mar

ket?

N …

……

……

/……

……

……

(Ple

ase

spec

ify

unit,

e.g

. whe

elba

rrow

, pic

kup

van,

50

kg b

ag, e

tc)

33.

If yo

u pr

oces

s on-

farm

or a

t hom

e, p

leas

e, p

rovi

de in

form

atio

n on

the

proc

essin

g of

mai

ze in

th

e fo

llow

ing

tabl

e St

age

Activ

ity (e

.g.

shel

ling,

w

inno

win

g,

bagg

ing

)

Tool

s use

d

(e.g

. kni

fe)

Cost

of t

he

tool

(N/u

nit)

M

anda

ys

requ

ired

per

unit

of g

rain

(p

ls sp

ecify

un

it)

Qua

ntity

of s

helle

d gr

ains

per

uni

t of

dry

cobs

) (pl

s sp

ecify

uni

ts)

1

2

3

4

34.

If yo

u pr

oces

s the

mai

ze co

bs a

t a c

omm

ercia

l pro

cess

ing

cent

re, p

leas

e co

mpl

ete

the

follo

win

g ta

ble.

St

age

Activ

ity (e

.g.

Shel

ling,

w

inno

win

g,

bagg

ing

)

Tool

s or

equi

pmen

t us

ed

(e.g

. She

lling

m

achi

ne)

Amou

nt c

harg

ed

(N/u

nit o

f gra

in) (

pls

spec

ify u

nit)

Qua

ntity

of s

helle

d gr

ains

per

uni

t of d

ry

cobs

) (pl

s spe

cify

uni

ts)

1

2

3

4

35.

Do y

ou h

ave

to d

iscar

d so

me

grai

ns b

ecau

se th

ey a

re sp

oilt

(bro

ken

grai

n, m

oldy

, etc

) whi

le

shel

ling?

Yes

……

No

…

36.

If ye

s, w

hat p

erce

ntag

e of

the

harv

este

d gr

ain

belo

ngs t

o th

is ca

tego

ry?

……

..%

37.

Wha

t do

you

do w

ith th

e sp

oilt

and

disc

arde

d gr

ains

?

…..…

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

74 QueSTioNNaireS

Stan

d:

Erst

ellt

von:

Se

ite 2

3 G.

TR

ANSP

ORT

ATIO

N

38.

Do y

ou u

sual

ly lo

se fr

esh

mai

ze w

hile

tran

spor

ting

them

to th

e m

arke

t? Y

es…

… N

o …

…

39.

If ye

s, pl

ease

indi

cate

the

quan

tity

that

is u

sual

ly lo

st a

s a p

erce

ntag

e of

the

quan

tity

tran

spor

ted.

……

……

……

..%

40.

Do y

ou u

sual

ly lo

se m

aize

(dry

) gra

ins w

hile

tran

spor

ting

them

to th

e m

arke

t?

Yes…

……

……

…..

No …

……

……

……

…

41

. If

yes,

plea

se in

dica

te th

e qu

antit

y th

at is

usu

ally

lost

as a

per

cent

age

of th

e qu

antit

y tr

ansp

orte

d. …

……

……

…..%

H.

ST

ORA

GE

42.

Do y

ou st

ore

mai

ze (d

ry) c

obs a

fter

har

vest

ing?

Yes

……

……

……

.. N

o …

……

……

……

……

.. 43

. If

yes,

how

? …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

.. 44

. If

yes,

do y

ou lo

se m

aize

(dry

) cob

s dur

ing

stor

age

due

to sp

oila

ge?

Yes…

……

. No

……

…

45.

If ye

s, af

ter h

ow m

any

days

of s

tora

ge d

o yo

u no

rmal

ly n

otice

spoi

lage

? …

……

……

……

……

……

. 46

. If

yes,

wha

t per

cent

age

of th

e m

aize

cob

s? …

……

……

%

47.

Do y

ou st

ore

the

shel

led

gra

ins?

Yes

……

……

……

.. N

o …

……

……

……

……

.. 48

. If

yes,

how

? …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

.. 49

. If

yes,

do y

ou lo

se m

aize

gra

ins d

urin

g st

orag

e du

e to

spoi

lage

? Y

es…

… N

o …

….

50.

If ye

s, af

ter h

ow m

any

days

/wee

ks/m

onth

s of s

tora

ge d

o no

rmal

ly n

otic

e sp

oila

ge?

……

……

……

……

……

…. d

ays/

wee

ks/m

onth

s 51

. If

yes,

wha

t per

cent

age

of m

aize

gra

ins i

s usu

ally

spoi

lt? …

……

……

%

52.

Whi

ch o

f the

follo

win

gs a

re th

e ca

uses

of s

poila

ge/lo

sses

of m

aize

gra

ins i

n yo

ur st

ore?

Ro

dent

s……

.

Wee

vils…

…..

Fung

us…

…..

Moi

stur

e……

. O

ther

s, sp

ecify

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

. 53

. W

hat p

erce

ntag

e of

you

r spo

ilage

/loss

es o

f mai

ze g

rain

s will

you

att

ribut

e to

: Ro

dent

s……

.%

W

eevi

ls……

..%

Fung

us…

…..%

M

oist

ure…

….%

Oth

ers,

spec

ify …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

….%

54

. W

hat d

o yo

u no

rmal

ly d

o w

ith m

aize

gra

ins t

hat a

re sp

oilt

due

to a

ny o

f the

cau

ses i

n (53)

? …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

55

. W

hat p

erce

ntag

e of

the

finish

ed p

rodu

ct is

rese

rved

for h

ome

cons

umpt

ion?

……

……

…%

I

IMPA

CT O

N T

HE E

NVI

RON

MEN

T 56

. Th

e fo

llow

ing

tabl

e is

desig

ned

to c

olle

ct in

form

atio

n on

the

impa

ct o

f mai

ze p

rodu

ctio

n on

th

e en

viro

nmen

t. Pl

ease

com

plet

e th

e ta

ble

as m

uch

as it

rela

tes t

o yo

ur o

pera

tions

.

Desc

riptio

n of

Dat

a

Crop

Ent

erpr

ise C

ombi

natio

n M

aize

M

onoc

rop

Mai

ze M

ixed

Mai

ze

Crop

2

Crop

3

Crop

4

Fiel

d Si

ze

Area

U

nit

Date

of s

owin

g / p

lant

ing

(Mon

th/Y

ear)

Plan

t spa

cing

Crop

s Pla

nted

Bef

ore

Fi

eld

Clea

red

by b

urni

ng (Y

es/N

o)

Crop

s Mix

ed W

ith

Not

App

licab

le

Perc

enta

ge o

f eac

h Cr

op in

the

Mix

ed

Da

te o

f har

vest

(mon

th/y

ear)

Amou

nt o

f gre

en (f

resh

) mai

ze h

arve

sted

and

Stan

d:

Erst

ellt

von:

Se

ite 2

4

Desc

riptio

n of

Dat

a

Crop

Ent

erpr

ise C

ombi

natio

n M

aize

M

onoc

rop

Mai

ze M

ixed

Mai

ze

Crop

2

Crop

3

Crop

4

take

n of

f the

fiel

d (fr

esh

wei

ght)

.whe

elba

rrow

s/pi

ckup

van

s/ m

t/ c

obs,

othe

r, sp

ecify

) per

(he

ctar

e/ac

re/s

peci

fy)

Amou

nt o

f dry

mai

ze h

arve

sted

and

take

n of

f th

e fie

ld (f

resh

wei

ght).

whe

elba

rrow

s/pi

ckup

va

ns/ m

t/ c

obs,

othe

r, sp

ecify

) per

(h

ecta

re/a

cre/

spec

ify)

M

iner

al F

ertil

izer

Appl

ied

(Qua

ntity

in

kg)

NPK

Ure

a

Oth

er, s

peci

fy

Org

anic

Man

ure

Appl

ied

Qua

ntity

(Bag

s)

Co

st (N

aira

)

Type

(Pou

ltry/

Catt

le)

Pest

icid

e Ap

plie

d

Nam

e

Q

uant

ity

Uni

t

N

ame

Qua

ntity

U

nit

Nam

e

Q

uant

ity

Uni

t

Pl

ease

stat

e th

e m

etho

d of

pre

serv

atio

n in

st

orag

e of

mai

ze g

rain

s

Not

App

licab

le

Agro

chem

ical

use

d fo

r pre

serv

atio

n of

M

aize

gra

in

Nam

e N

ot A

pplic

able

Q

uant

ity p

er a

nnum

N

ot A

pplic

able

Co

st p

er u

nit

N

ot A

pplic

able

Mac

hine

ry U

sed

Nam

e

Ca

paci

ty

Type

(Pet

rol/D

iese

l)

Ho

urs o

f Wor

k on

Far

m

Type

of w

ork

Nam

e

Ca

paci

ty

Type

(Pet

rol/D

iese

l)

Ho

urs o

f Wor

k on

Far

m

Type

of w

ork

Nam

e

Ca

paci

ty

Type

(Pet

rol/D

iese

l)

Ho

urs o

f Wor

k on

Far

m

Type

of w

ork

Tran

spor

tatio

n Di

stan

ce (k

m)

75QueSTioNNaireS

Stan

d:

Erst

ellt

von:

Se

ite 2

5

Desc

riptio

n of

Dat

a

Crop

Ent

erpr

ise C

ombi

natio

n M

aize

M

onoc

rop

Mai

ze M

ixed

Mai

ze

Crop

2

Crop

3

Crop

4

(Far

m to

Ho

mes

tead

Ty

pe o

f Veh

icle

(e.g

. Pi

ck-u

p va

n)

Num

ber o

f trip

s car

ryin

g in

puts

to fa

rm p

er y

ear

Num

ber o

f trip

s car

ryin

g ou

tput

s fro

m fa

rm p

er

year

Tran

spor

tatio

n (H

omes

tead

to

Rura

l Mar

ket)

Dist

ance

(km

)

Ty

pe o

f Veh

icle

(e.g

. Pi

ck-u

p va

n)

Num

ber o

f trip

s car

ryin

g in

puts

to fa

rm p

er y

ear

Num

ber o

f trip

s car

ryin

g ou

tput

s fro

m fa

rm p

er

year

M

aize

Mar

kete

rs’ Q

uest

ionn

aire

Th

is su

rvey

is b

eing

con

duct

ed w

ith a

vie

w t

o el

iciti

ng in

form

atio

n on

loss

es t

hat

may

be

occu

rrin

g be

twee

n m

aize

far

mer

s’ fie

ld a

nd t

he u

ltim

ate

cons

umer

of

mai

ze p

rodu

cts.

This

part

icul

ar

ques

tionn

aire

is d

esig

ned

to c

olle

ct in

form

atio

n on

loss

es in

the

quan

tity

and

qual

ity o

f mai

ze g

rain

s an

d by

-pro

duct

s dur

ing

the

proc

ess o

f mar

ketin

g of

mai

ze g

rain

s Al

l inf

orm

atio

n w

ill r

emai

n an

onym

ous

and

conf

iden

tial a

nd w

ill o

nly

be u

sed

for

the

purp

oses

of

iden

tifyi

ng t

he s

ourc

es a

nd a

mou

nts

of lo

sses

in m

aize

pro

duct

ion,

pro

cess

ing,

tra

nspo

rtat

ion

and

mar

ketin

g.

A

IDEN

TIFI

CATI

ON

Na

me

of E

num

erat

or

Da

te o

f Int

ervi

ew

St

ate

Lo

cal G

over

nmen

t Are

a

Villa

ge

Na

me

of re

spon

dent

B.M

ARKE

TIN

G

20.

Whi

ch m

onth

s of t

he y

ear d

o yo

u no

rmal

ly b

uy m

aize

gra

ins?

……

……

……

……

.. to

……

……

……

……

21

.W

here

do

you

norm

ally

buy

mai

ze g

rain

from

? i.

Farm

gat

e ii.

Mar

ket

22.

If fr

om fa

rm g

ate/

mar

ket,

are

grai

ns u

sual

ly d

estr

oyed

/ lo

st d

urin

g tr

ansp

orta

tion?

Yes .

.… N

o …

..

23.

Wha

t per

cent

age

of to

tal m

aize

gra

in b

ough

t is n

orm

ally

spoi

lt / l

ost d

urin

g tr

ansp

orta

tion?

……

……

……

….%

24

.Pl

ease

stat

e th

e ca

uses

of l

osse

s of g

rain

s dur

ing

tran

spor

tatio

n …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

.……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…

Stan

d:

Erst

ellt

von:

Se

ite 2

6 25

.Do

you

lose

reve

nue

beca

use

of th

e lo

ss?

Yes…

…

No

……

26

.If

you

lose

reve

nue,

ple

ase

expl

ain

how

? .…

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

. 27

.W

hat d

o yo

u do

with

the

spoi

lt m

aize

gra

ins?

a. T

hrow

aw

ay…

. b. u

se a

s ani

mal

feed

….

c.

Oth

ers (

plea

se sp

ecify

)

28.

Are

ther

e m

aize

gra

ins t

hat y

ou u

sual

ly d

iscar

d (th

row

aw

ay) a

fter

buy

ing

beca

use

of o

ther

pr

oble

ms?

Yes

……

N

o …

……

29

.If

yes,

wha

t are

the

usua

l pro

blem

s with

the

mai

ze g

rain

s?

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…

30.

Are

ther

e ot

her c

halle

nges

in m

arke

ting

and

tran

spor

tatio

n of

mai

ze g

rain

s? Y

es…

… N

o …

….

31.

If ye

s, pl

ease

des

crib

e th

em. …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

. …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

32

.W

hat q

uant

ity o

f mai

ze g

rain

s do

you

buy

annu

ally

? …

……

……

….(p

icku

p va

ns/ m

t/ 5

0 kg

-bag

s /o

ther

, spe

cify

) 33

.Ho

w m

uch

do y

ou b

uy m

aize

gra

in m

aize

gra

ins f

rom

farm

gat

e/ru

ral m

arke

t? N

...

......

......

......

.... p

er (p

icku

p va

ns/ m

t/ o

ther

, spe

cify

) 34

.W

hat i

s the

dist

ance

bet

wee

n th

e fa

rm g

ate/

rura

l mar

ket a

nd th

e fin

al m

arke

t/de

stin

atio

n w

here

you

supp

ly m

aize

gra

ins?

……

…..

km

35.

Wha

t is t

he c

ost o

f tra

nspo

rtat

ion

per u

nit o

f mai

ze g

rain

s fro

m fa

rm g

ate/

rura

l mar

ket a

nd

the

final

mar

ket/

dest

inat

ion

whe

re y

ou su

pply

mai

ze g

rain

s? N

……

……

……

……

… /…

……

……

…

(Ple

ase

spec

ify u

nit,

e.g.

whe

elba

rrow

, pick

up v

an, e

tc)

36.

Wha

t pric

e do

you

sell

your

mai

ze g

rain

s at t

he fi

nal m

arke

t/de

stin

atio

n w

here

you

supp

ly

mai

ze g

rain

N …

……

……

……

……

…/…

……

……

… (P

leas

e sp

ecify

uni

t, e.

g. w

heel

barr

ow, p

icku

p va

n,

etc)

37

.Do

you

stor

e m

aize

gra

ins d

urin

g th

e pr

oces

s of a

ggre

gatio

n an

d m

arke

ting?

Yes

……

……

……

.. N

o …

……

……

……

……

. 38

.

If ye

s, ho

w?

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…..

39.

If ye

s, do

you

lose

mai

ze g

rain

s dur

ing

stor

age

due

to sp

oila

ge?

Yes…

……

……

…..

No

……

……

……

……

…..

40.

If ye

s, ho

w lo

ng o

n th

e av

erag

e do

you

stor

e a

batc

h of

mai

ze g

rain

s? …

……

……

……

……

w

eeks

/mon

ths

41.

If ye

s, af

ter h

ow m

any

wee

ks/m

onth

s of s

tora

ge d

o yo

u no

rmal

ly n

otice

spoi

lage

? …

……

……

……

……

……

. 42

.If

yes,

wha

t per

cent

age

of th

e m

aize

gra

ins i

s usu

ally

spoi

lt? …

……

……

%

43.

Whi

ch o

f the

follo

win

gs a

re th

e ca

uses

of s

poila

ge/lo

sses

of m

aize

gra

ins i

n yo

ur st

ore?

Rode

nts…

….

W

eevi

ls……

..

Fu

ngus

……

..

M

oist

ure…

….

Oth

ers,

spec

ify …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

….

44.

Wha

t per

cent

age

of y

our s

poila

ge/lo

sses

of m

aize

gra

ins w

ill y

ou a

ttrib

ute

to:

Rode

nts…

….%

Wee

vils…

…..%

Fu

ngus

……

..%

Moi

stur

e……

.%

O

ther

s, sp

ecify

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

.%

45.

Wha

t do

you

norm

ally

do

with

mai

ze g

rain

s tha

t are

spoi

lt du

e to

any

of t

he c

ause

s in

(25)

? …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

C.

IM

PACT

ON

THE

EN

VIRO

NM

ENT

The

follo

win

g ta

ble

is de

signe

d to

col

lect

info

rmat

ion

on th

e im

pact

of m

aize

gra

in m

arke

ting

on th

e en

viro

nmen

t. Pl

ease

com

plet

e th

e ta

ble

as m

uch

as it

rela

tes t

o yo

ur o

pera

tions

. De

scrip

tion

of D

ata

Data

Am

ount

of m

aize

gra

in b

ough

t per

ann

um

(pic

kup

vans

/whe

elba

rrow

s/ m

t/ 5

0 kg

-bag

s ot

her,

spec

ify)

76 QueSTioNNaireS

Stan

d:

Erst

ellt

von:

Se

ite 2

7 De

scrip

tion

of D

ata

Data

Pl

ease

stat

e th

e m

etho

d of

pre

serv

atio

n in

st

orag

e of

mai

ze g

rain

s

Agro

chem

ical

use

d fo

r pre

serv

atio

n

Nam

e Q

uant

ity p

er a

nnum

Cost

per

uni

t

Tran

spor

tatio

n (F

arm

gat

e/ ru

ral

mar

ket t

o Ho

mes

tead

/sto

re)

Dist

ance

(km

)

Type

of V

ehic

le (e

.g.

Pick

-up

van)

Num

ber o

f rou

nd t

rips

per y

ear

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

(Hom

este

ad /s

tore

to

Urb

an

Mar

ket/

Fact

ory

Gate

/fee

d m

ill)

Dist

ance

(km

)

Type

of V

ehic

le (e

.g.

Pick

-up

van)

Num

ber o

f rou

nd t

rips

per y

ear

Stan

d:

Erst

ellt

von:

Se

ite 2

8 Sa

mpl

e si

ze a

nd b

udge

t est

imat

e fo

r que

stio

nnai

re a

dmin

istr

atio

n To

col

lect

thi

s da

ta a

nd o

ther

s fr

om t

he fa

rmer

s, ap

prop

riate

que

stio

nnai

re w

ill b

e de

velo

ped.

The

qu

estio

nnai

re w

ill b

e us

ed a

s in

terv

iew

gui

de b

y tr

aine

d en

umer

ator

s to

elic

it in

form

atio

n fr

om th

e fa

rmer

s sin

ce m

ost o

f the

farm

ers

may

not

be

able

to re

ad a

nd c

ompl

ete

the

ques

tionn

aire

on

thei

r ow

n. A

mul

tista

ge s

ampl

ing

tech

niqu

e w

ill b

e ad

opte

d to

sel

ect t

he fa

rmer

s th

at w

ill c

onst

itute

the

sam

ple.

In t

he f

irst

stag

e tw

o st

ates

, one

in t

he n

orth

and

the

oth

er in

the

sou

th, w

hich

are

hig

h pr

oduc

ers

of c

assa

va a

nd m

aize

will

pur

posiv

ely

sele

cted

. The

sta

tes

bein

g co

ntem

plat

ed a

re O

ndo

Stat

e in

the

sou

th a

nd K

adun

a St

ate

in th

e no

rth.

In e

ach

of th

e tw

o st

ates

, tw

o lo

cal g

over

nmen

ts

whi

ch a

re h

igh

prod

ucer

s of

cas

sava

and

mai

ze w

ill b

e se

lect

ed. T

hus

four

loca

l gov

ernm

ents

will

be

sele

cted

for t

he st

udy.

For

the

loca

l gov

ernm

ents

sele

cted

, the

list

s of c

assa

va a

nd m

aize

farm

ers w

ill

be o

btai

ned

from

the

Agr

icultu

ral D

evel

opm

ent

Prog

r am

me

(ADP

) fr

om w

hich

ran

dom

sam

ples

of

resp

onde

nts w

ill ta

ken.

A

tota

l of 1

00 c

assa

va fa

rmer

s w

ill b

e ra

ndom

ly s

elec

ted

in e

ach

loca

l gov

ernm

ent,

mak

ing

a to

tal o

f 40

0 ca

ssav

a fa

rmer

s. Si

mila

rly, 1

00 m

aize

farm

ers

will

be

rand

omly

sel

ecte

d al

so m

akin

g a

tota

l of

400

mai

ze fa

rmer

s. Ca

ssav

a an

d M

aize

Far

mer

s

Stat

es

LGAs

N

o of

M

aize

fa

rmer

s N

o of

Ca

ssav

a Fa

rmer

s To

tal

No

of

Farm

ers

Ond

o

100

100

200

10

0 10

0 20

0 Ka

duna

100

100

200

10

0 10

0 20

0 To

tal

40

0 40

0 80

0 Ga

rri P

roce

ssor

s St

ates

LG

As

No

of

Garr

i Pr

oces

sors

O

ndo

10

10

Kadu

na

5

5

Tota

l

30

Grai

n M

arke

ters

St

ates

LG

As

No

Grai

n M

arke

ters

O

ndo

2

2

Kadu

na

10

10

Tota

l

22

77QueSTioNNaireS

Stan

d:

Erst

ellt

von:

Se

ite 2

9 Fr

esh

Cass

ava

Tube

r Mar

kete

rs

Stat

es

LGAs

N

o of

Ca

ssav

a M

arke

ters

O

ndo

10

10

Kadu

na

Sam

inak

a 5

5

Tota

l

30

Feed

Mill

ers

Stat

es

No o

f Fee

d M

iller

s O

ndo

and

othe

rs

6

Cass

ava

Star

ch P

roce

ssor

St

ates

No

of S

tarc

h Pr

oces

sors

O

ndo

and

othe

rs

15

SUM

MAR

Y St

ate

Ond

o Ka

duna

To

tal

Loca

l Gov

ernm

ent A

rea

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

M

aize

farm

ers

100

100

100

100

400

Cass

ava

Farm

ers

100

100

100

100

400

Gaar

i Pro

cess

ors

10

10

5 5

30

Mai

ze G

rain

Mar

kete

rs

2 2

10

10

22

Fres

h Ca

ssav

a Tu

ber M

arke

ters

10

10

5

5 30

Fe

ed M

iller

s 6

6 Ca

ssav

a St

arch

Pro

cess

ors

15

15

TOTA

L 90

3 TB

D - T

o be

det

erm

ined

in c

onsu

ltatio

n w

ith S

tate

Agr

ic D

evel

opm

ent P

rogr

amm

e Es

timat

e of

the

num

ber o

f pag

es o

f que

stio

nnai

res t

o be

repr

oduc

ed

Stat

e To

tal

Num

ber

of

page

s pe

r Q

uest

ionn

aire

Nu

mbe

r of

pag

es t

o be

pho

toco

pied

Lo

cal G

over

nmen

t Are

a

Mai

ze fa

rmer

s 40

0 14

56

00

Cass

ava

Farm

ers

400

14

5600

Ga

ari P

roce

ssor

s 30

4

120

Mai

ze G

rain

Mar

kete

rs

22

4 88

Fr

esh

Cass

ava

Tube

r Mar

kete

rs

30

4 12

0 Fe

ed M

iller

s 6

4 24

Ca

ssav

a St

arch

Pro

cess

ors

15

4 60

TO

TAL

903

11,6

12

Stan

d:

Erst

ellt

von:

Se

ite 3

0 Bu

dget

Est

imat

e fo

r Que

stio

nnai

re A

dmin

istra

tion

Item

of E

xpen

ses

Stat

e To

tal

Ond

o Ka

duna

St

ipen

d fo

r Enu

mer

ator

s @ N

3,00

0 pe

r enu

mer

ator

for 2

5 en

umer

ator

s pe

r sta

te

75,0

00

75,0

00

150,

000

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

for

enum

erat

ors

@ N

3,00

0 pe

r en

umer

ator

for

25

enum

erat

ors p

er st

ate

75,0

00

75,0

00

150,

000

St

ipen

d fo

r Su

perv

isors

@ N

5,00

0 pe

r su

perv

isor

for

2 su

perv

isors

per

st

ate

10,0

00

10,0

00

20

,000

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

for

supe

rviso

rs

@

N3,0

00

per

supe

rvis

ors

for

2 su

perv

isors

per

stat

e

6,

000

6,

000

12,0

00

Trai

ning

of e

num

erat

ors o

n th

e qu

estio

nnai

res b

efor

e fie

ld w

ork

-

Rent

of v

enue

5,

000

5,

000

10,0

00

Tea

Brea

k @

N50

0 pe

r par

ticip

ants

for 3

0 pa

rtic

ipan

ts p

er st

ate

15,0

00

15,0

00

30

,000

Lunc

h Br

eak

@ N

1000

per

par

ticip

ants

for 3

0 pa

rtic

ipan

ts p

er st

ate

30,0

00

30,0

00

60

,000

Re

prod

uctio

n of

que

stio

nnai

res

- 11

,612

pag

es

for

all q

uest

ionn

aire

s an

d al

l res

pond

ents

in th

e tw

o st

ates

@ N

10.0

0 pe

r pag

e

11

6,12

0

Data

Ent

ry -

Lum

p Su

m

100,

000

TOTA

L

64

8,12

0

78 NoTeS

Notes

79

Published byDeutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH

Registered officesBonn and Eschborn,Germany Sector project Sustainable Agriculture Dag-Hammarskjöld-Weg 1-5 65760 EschbornGermany Tel. +49 (0) 6196 79 - 0Fax +49 (0) 6196 79 - 1115 naren@giz.dewww.giz.de/nachhaltige-landwirtschaft

AuthorDr. Adegboyega Eyitayo Oguntade, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria. Design and layoutJeanette Geppert, Frankfurt

Printed byTop Kopie GmbH, Frankfurt Printed on FSC-certified paper

Photo creditsFront page © Alida Vanni, istockphoto Other photos © Dr. Adegboyega Eyitayo Oguntade

As atJune 2013

GIZ is responsible for the content of this publication.

On behalf ofGerman Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ);Division Rural Development, Agriculture and Food Security

Addresses of the BMZ officesBMZ Bonn BMZ BerlinDahlmannstraße 4 Stresemannstraße 94 53113 Bonn 10963 BerlinGermany GermanyTel. +49 (0) 228 99 535 - 0 Tel. +49 (0) 30 18 535 - 0 Fax +49 (0) 228 99 535 - 3500 Fax +49 (0) 30 18 535 - 2501

poststelle@bmz.bund.dewww.bmz.de