CONTRIBUTIONS OF CASSAVA ENTERPRISE TO SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS OF ENTREPRENEURS IN SOUTH-EASTERN NIGERIA BY OSCAR TITUS IKWUAKAM B.Sc.Ed. (UNN), M.Sc. (Agric. Ext and Rural Dev. U.I) Matric No: 91105 A THESIS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT SUMMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY APRIL 2014 DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to MOST HIGH GOD, the source of all knowledge and wisdom 2 ABSTRACT Cassava, being an important staple, is widely grown in Nigeria. Potential contribution of Cassava Enterprise (CE) to Socioeconomic Status (SES) of entrepreneurs is threatened by fluctuation and unpredictability of cassava production, processing and marketing activities. Information on contributions of CE to entrepreneurs‟ SES is scanty. Therefore, contributions of CE to entrepreneurs‟ SES in south-eastern Nigeria were investigated. Multistage sampling procedure was used to select respondents for the study. Imo and Anambra states were selected from five south-eastern states of Nigeria due to high involvement in CE. Systematic sampling procedure was used to randomly select 20% of registered cassava producers (81, 54), processors (51, 36) and marketers (50, 36) groups from Imo and Anambra states respectively resulting in 308 entrepreneurs. Interview schedule was used to collect data on respondents‟ personal characteristics, enterprise characteristics, extent of involvement in CE, benefits derived and constraints to involvement in CE. Indices of benefits (0-57.5 is low, 57.6-74.9 is moderate and 75-77 is high), involvement (2-4.8 is low, 4.9-10 is high) and SES (110- 154.07 is low, 154.08-168.16 is moderate and 168.17-169 is high) were generated for analysis. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, ANOVA and regression analysis at p = 0.05. Annual income, age and years of experience in CE were N24965.1±75.59, 55.69±6.792 and 36.78±9.942 respectively. Most respondents were females (77.9%), married (95.8%) and had formal education (67.2%). Most entrepreneurs (83.4%) were highly (4.9±1.6) involved in CE. Most producers of fresh tubers (87.4%) and stem cuttings (76.1%) operated on small scale of 309.1±358.4 bags/season and 3 259.6±289.6 bundles respectively. Garri (97.7%) and fufu (98.8%) were processed at small scale of 81.9±20.6 and 46.4±26.1 bags/season respectively. Stem cuttings (85.1%) fresh tubers (96.6%), fufu (97.6%) and garri (97.7%) were marketed at small scale of 192.3±91.6 bundles, 745.2±96.9, 88.1±10.3 and 89.7±24.9 bags/season respectively. Major constraints of entrepreneurs were lack of credit (93.8%) and technical knowledge (96.1%). Food security (92.6%), improved diet (73.7%) and recognition in the society (85.7%) were major benefits derived by entrepreneurs. Producers (67.3±8.7) and marketers (67.2±7.4) had higher benefits from CE than processors (63.7±9.5) but it was not significant. The SES for marketers (162.8±3.1), producers (161.0±7.2) and processors (159.7±8.8) were essentially moderate. Experience (β = 2.638), benefits derived (β = 3.247) and income (β = 3.103) significantly increased producers‟ SES. Marketers‟ SES was significantly increased by constraints (β = - 3.248) and benefits derived (β = 3.279). Processors‟ SES was significantly enhanced by income (β =3.120), years of experience (β = 2.095), and benefits (β = 5.867). Income and benefits derived from cassava enterprise were the two major factors that enhanced the socio-economic status of the entrepreneurs. Keywords: Cassava enterprises, Entrepreneurs‟ socio-economic status, Garri production Word count: 430 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT For surely there is an end; and thine expectation shall not be cut off (Prov. 23:18). I will ever remain grateful to Almighty God and my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ for sparing my life and bestowing on me his grace of favour, safety and knowledge to have started and the resilience to complete this work. To God be the glory for the great things He has done, He is doing and great thing He is to do in the lives of people like me. While this thesis bears my strong imprints, I must acknowledge the contributions of all those who have contributed to its emergence in its present form and who must share the joy. These people equipped me with the academic and technical knowledge as well as the right frame of mind to accomplish this task. Special mention must be made of my supervisor, Dr. L.A. Akinbile (a God sent) who religiously in his humble nature sacrificed his time and energy to read through the work to completion. His intellectual prowess in research methodology was „a research made easy‟ for me. Sir, you exposed me to different dimensions in research activities and this has made me more equipped intellectually and confident. I owe you inestimable bunches of gratitude for your unwavering contributions. May Almighty God bless you. I also appreciate my supervisory committee members, Dr. T. O. Yekinni and Dr. B.R. Olajide for their consistence and willingness to give this project the quality it deserved. God bless you. I appreciate our own mama in the Department, Professor J. E. Olawoye for remaining ever more than a teacher to me. A role model, pride of womanhood and motherhood who recognizes the worth of every soul that comes across her. Mama, your passion that every one progresses and the role you have meticulously played in my life since 1998 shall never go unrewarded. The head of Department, Professor 5 A.A Ladele is a professional role model, leader par excellence. It is important to state that if not for his marvelous leadership quality this work could not have been facilitated to completion by now. Thank you for providing an enabling environment for postgraduate programme in the Department. History shall not forget you for being nice. The crucial roles of Dr. J.O. Oladeji and Dr. O.B. Oyesola right from the purchase of admission form for the programme to this completion are worthy of note. I am particularly thankful to Dr. K.A.Thomas, Prof. N.T. Meludu, Prof. S.O. Odebode, Prof. A.E. Adekoya, Dr. S.A. Tijani, Dr. Fadairo, Prof.G. Olujide and Dr. O.P. Fawole for taking great interest in making crucial and constructive criticisms on the work through pre-data phase to its completion. Mr. Samuel (data analyst), Mrs. O.M. Joseph and other administrative staff of the Department are also appreciated. The useful information provided by farmers, processors, traders, and other key informants at all the study locations in the south-eastern region of Nigeria; their friendly and accommodative nature during the field work of this study are very much appreciated. To share with these people are my field work assistants in the persons of G. Nwaonyimma, Ngozi and N. R Okoro. My employer, Federal College of Education, Katsina must be appreciated for the enabling environment. I must also place on record the wonderful contributions of members of my academic family: G. Dauda, Y. Abdullazeez, O.O. Adekamnbi, M. Lawal, Y. Abubakar, S. Manir, R.K. Abdullahi, R. Abdullahi, Y. Agwam, H.R.Yahaya and L.B. Mahammad. Their criticisms were good enough support and motivation. I will like to acknowledge with profound respect the positive contributions of my good friends, Professor A. Iyela (Provost Federal College of Education, Okene), P.O. Eniola, N. S Sangotoegbe, M. Oluyomi, M. Adegboye, Dr. F.N. Nnadi, U. 6 Akwiwu, C. Atakulu and H. Okeke. These people rose to stabilize me as with their kind support and prayers I weathered the storm. I also appreciate the friendship, prayers and concerns shown by Rev. O. Odikalu, Rev. S. Sa‟awan, Pastor N. Onyekachukwu and Pastor J. Nweze. These divine servants of the Most High God were absolutely wonderful in their prayers for all the years of shuttling between Katsina state and University of Ibadan. Back home, I appreciate the love and inspiration of Chief N. A. Ikwuakam whom I affectionately refer to as a trailblazer to my education. My thanks also go to my late mother M.N Ikwuakam and late Engr. Ikwuakam C.N for their inspiration. My appreciation is also due to my mother-in-law L. Ajagwu (Ohio, USA), Engr. I.I Obodo (Chicago USA) and Mrs. N. R. Obodo (California USA) who ensured that my pocket never got dried up. I cannot forget I.H. Agwaerome and U. J. Ikwuakam, E.E Ikwuakam, C.H. Ikwuakam, P.C. Ikwuakam, Mr and Mrs I. Ubadi for being trustworthy and supportive all the while. To my dear wife F. C. Ikwuakam, I say God bless the day I met you, for you have been a very loving and caring soul mate since 2000. She has stood by me throughout thick and thin. I thank God that our love at first sight that started in 1996 along Afrik Pharmaceutical Company road, Isieke, Awo-omamma has survived till date. And to my lovely daughters Chinaza and Chizoro, God will definitely make you greater than me. Thank you for being daddy‟s prayer warriors. God actually saw your pure hearts and answered your prayers. Oscar Titus Ikwuakam 7 CERTIFICATION I certify that this research work was carried out under my supervision by Mr. Oscar Titus Ikwuakam in the Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, University of Ibadan, Nigeria. __________________________ _________________________ Date Supervisor Dr. L.A Akinbile B.Sc, M.Sc, PhD (Ibadan), Nigeria Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development University of Ibadan 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTENT Pages Title page ……………………………………………………………... 1 Dedication ………………………………………………………………. 2 Abstract …………………………………………………………… 3 Acknowledgement ……………………………………………………… 5 Certification ……………………………………………………………… 8 Table of content ……………………………………………………… 9 List of tables ……………………………………………………… 15 List of figures ……………………………………………………… 18 List of acronyms ……………………………………………………… 19 Chapter One: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background to the study …………………………… 21 1.2 Statement of the problem ……………………………... 24 1.3 Objective of the study …………………………….. 27 1.4 Research hypotheses …………………………… 27 1.5 Significance of the study …………………………… 29 1.6 Conceptual definition of terms ……………………. 31 Chapter two: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Historical perspective of cassava in Nigeria ……. 32 2. 2 Agronomy …………………………………………….. 33 2.3 Benefits of cassava enterprise …………………….. 34 2.4 Intervention programmes in cassava enterprise ………… 36 2.5 Enterpreneurship development in cassava enterprise …. 40 9 2.6 Types of involvement in cassava enterprises ………… 42 2.6.1 Cassava production enterprise ………………………… 43 2.6.2 Cassava processing enterprise …………………………. 45 2.6.3 Cassava marketing enterprise …………………………. 52 2.7 Constraints to cassava enterprise …………………………. 57 2.8 Socio-economics of cassava production …………………. 61 Chapter Three: THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY 3.1 Theoretical framework …………………………………. 66 3.1.1 The Farming Styles (FS) Approach …………………………. 66 3.1.2 The Actor-Network Theory (ANT) …………………………. 67 3.1.3 Action Theory …………………………………………. 68 3.1.4 Value Chain Analysis Theory …………………………. 69 3.2 Conceptual framework and how it works … 69 Chapter Four: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 4.1 Study Area ………………………………………… 74 4.2 Study population ………………………………………... 80 4.3 Sampling procedure and sample size ………………. 80 4.4 Method of data collection ………………………………. 84 4.5 Reliability and validity of instrument ……………… 84 4.5.1 Measurement of variables ……………………………… 85 4.5.2 Independent variables ……………………………… 85 4.5.3 Socio-economic characteristic of respondents …………….. 85 4.5.4 Enterprise characteristics ……………………… 85 4.5.5 Involvement in cassava enterprise ……………………… 86 10 4.5.6 Scale of operation ………………………............ 86 4.5.7 Access to intervention programme ……………… 87 4.5.8 Benefits derived from cassava enterprise ……………… 87 4.5.9 Constraints to cassava enterprise ……………… 88 4.5.10 Dependent variable …………………………………. 88 4.5.11 Socio-economic status of the entrepreneurs………………… 88 4.6 Data analysis ………………………………… 89 Chapter Five: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 5.1 Introduction……………………………………………………. 91 5.2 Discussion of entrepreneurs‟ personal characteristics ….. 91 5.2.1 Age …………………………………………………………… 91 5.2.2 Sex …………………………………………………………… 92 5.2.3 Marital status ……………………………………………. 93 5.2.4 Household size ……………………………………………. 93 5.2.5 Educational attainment …………………………………….. 94 5.2.6 Household type …………………………………………….. 94 5.2.7 Years of experience …………………………………………….. 95 5.2.8 Entrepreneurs‟ enterprise characteristics …………………….. 97 5.2.9 Income per annum ……………………………………………. 97 5.3.1 Marketing outlets ……………………………………………. 97 5.3.2 Farm Size ………………………………………………….. 98 5.3.3 Sources of land/shop acquisition …………………………. 98 5.3.4 Other crops cultivated/marketed/processed ………… 99 5.3.5 Sources of labour …………………………………………. 100 5.3.6 Sources of finance …………………………………………. 100 11 5.3.7 Cassava varieties planted ………………………………… 101 5.3.9 Means of transportation ………………………………… 101 5.4 Entrepreneurs‟ level of involvement in cassava enterprise … 104 5.4.1 Entrepreneurs‟ level of involvement in cassava enterprise …. 104 5. 5 Entrepreneurs‟ scale of operation ……………………… 108 5.5.1 Producers‟ scale of operation ………………………..... 108 5.5.2 Processors‟ scale of operation in cassava enterprise …… 110 5.5.3 Marketers‟ scale of operation in cassava enterprise ……… 112 5.5.4 Quantity of fresh tuber produced in bags/ stem cuttings in bundles 114 5.5.5 Quantity of flour processed in bags …………………………… 116 5.5.6 Quantity of cassava products marketed …………………… 118 5.6 Intervention programmes in cassava enterprise …………… 120 5.6.1 Agricultural Development Programmes (ADP) ……………. 120 5.6.2 FADAMA ……………………………………………………. 120 5.6.3 United States Aid for International Development (USAID) ……… 121 5.6.4 Niger-Delta Development Commission (NDDC) …………….. 122 5.6.5 Religious organizations ……………………………… 122 5.6.6 National Root Crops Research Institute (NRCRI) …….. 123 5.6.7 Oil companies ……………………………………… 123 5.7 Access to intervention inputs in cassava enterprise ………… 125 5.8 Level of access to intervention inputs …………………. 128 5. 9 Benefits derived from cassava enterprise …………………. 130 5.9.1 Food security ………………………………………….. 130 5.9.2 Collateral for credit ………………………………………….. 131 5.9.3 Improved socio-economic status ………………………….. 132 5.9.4 Employment ………………………………………………….. 132 12 5.9.5 Improved nutrition ………………………………………….. 133 5.9.6 Raw materials ………………………………………….. 133 5.10 Level of benefits derived from cassava enterprise …………. 136 5.11 Entrepreneurs‟ constraints …………………………………. 138 5.11.1 Constraints to producers …………………………………… 138 5.11.2 Constraints to marketers ………………………………… 141 5.11.3 Constraints to Processors ………………………………… 143 5.11.4 Constraints on cassava enterprise entrepreneurs (overall) … 145 5.12 Level of severity of constraints on cassava enterprise …. 147 5.13 Socioeconomic status of entrepreneurs …………………. 149 5.13 Test of research hypotheses ………………………………… 151 5.13.1 Relationship between selected socio-economic characteristics of the entrepreneurs in cassava enterprises and their socio-economic status ………………………………………………………………..151 5.13.2 Relationship between entrepreneurs‟ level of involvement in cassava enterprise and their socio-economic status…….. ……. 158 5.13.3 Difference in the socio-economic status of categories of entrepreneurs‟ in cassava enterprise ……………………………. 160 5.13.4 Relationship between the relative benefits entrepreneurs derived from cassava enterprise and their socio-economic status ……………………………………………………………….164 5.13.5 Difference in the relative benefits entrepreneurs derived from cassava enterprise……………………………………….......166 5.13.6 Relationship between entrepreneurs‟ access to intervention programmes in cassava enterprise and their 13 socio-economic status ………………………………… 170 5.13.7 Regression showing the contributions of the independent variables to categories of entrepreneurs‟ socio-economic status in South-eastern Nigeria……………………………………………………………. 172 Chapter six: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Summary ………………………………………………………179 6.2 Major findings ……………………………………………... 181 6.3 Conclusion ……………………………………………... 184 6.4 Recommendations ……………………………………………... 185 6.5 Areas of further research ………………………………………186 References ………………………………………………………………………188 Appendix 1 ……………………………………………………………………. 212 Appendix 2 …………………………………………………………………........222 14 LIST OF TABLES 1 Sampling procedure …………………………………………… 83 2 Testing of hypotheses …………………………………………… 90 3 Distribution of entrepreneurs based on personal characteristics ….. 96 4 Distribution of entrepreneurs based on enterprise characteristics 103 5 Distribution of entrepreneurs based on level of involvement in cassava enterprise …………………………………………………… 105 6 Entrepreneurs‟ level of involvement in cassava enterprise …… 107 7 Distribution of cassava producers based on scale of operation in cassava enterprise …………………………………………………….. 109 8 Distribution of cassava processors based on scale of operation in cassava enterprise …………………………………………………… 111 9 Distribution of cassava marketers based on scale of operation in cassava enterprise …………………………………………………….. 113 10 Distribution of cassava producers based on quantity of fresh tuber produced in bags/ stem cuttings in bundles …………………………….. 115 11 Distribution of cassava processors based on quantity of flour processed in bags ……………………………………………………... 117 12 Distribution marketing entrepreneurs based on quantity of cassava products marketed …………………………………………… 119 13 Distribution of entrepreneurs based on cassava enterprise intervention programmes …………………………………………… 124 14 Distribution of entrepreneurs based on access to intervention …... 127 15 Level of access to cassava enterprise intervention …………………… 127 16 Distribution of entrepreneurs based on benefits 15 derived from cassava enterprise …………………………………… 135 17 Level of benefits derived from cassava enterprise …………………… 137 18 Distribution of cassava producers based on constraints to cassava production …………………………………… 140 19 Distribution of marketing entrepreneurs on constraints to cassava marketing ………………………………….. 142 20 Distribution of cassava processing entrepreneurs on constraints to cassava processing …………………………………. 144 21 Distribution of entrepreneurs based on constraints on cassava enterprise (overall) …………………………………………. 146 22 Level of severity of constraints on cassava enterprise ………….. 148 23 Distribution of entrepreneurs on SES in cassava enterprise ………… 150 24 Chi-square analysis between selected socio-economic characteristics and socio-economic status of entrepreneurs in cassava enterprise … 155 25 Chi-square analysis between selected socio-economic characteristics and the socio-economic status of entrepreneurs in cassava enterprise (overall) ………………………………… 157 26 Pearson Product Moment Correlation analysis between entrepreneurs‟ level of involvement in cassava enterprise and their socio-economic status …………………………………………… 159 27 Analysis of variance on the difference in the socio-economic status of entrepreneurs in cassava enterprise …………………….. 161 28 Post Hoc test of multiple comparison of entrepreneurs‟ socio-economic status ……………………………………………...163 29 Pearson Product Moment Correlation analysis between entrepreneurs‟ relative 16 benefits from cassava enterprise and their socio-economic status …… 165 30 Analysis of variance of the relative benefits derived by entrepreneurs‟ in cassava enterprise …………………………………………………. 167 31 Post Hoc test of multiple comparisons of entrepreneurs‟ relative benefits from cassava enterprise ……………………………………. 169 32 Pearson Product Moment Correlation analysis between entrepreneurs‟ access to intervention programmes in cassava enterprise and their socio-economic status…………………………………………………………………….......171 33 Coefficient of regression showing the contributions of the dependent variables to entrepreneurs‟ socio-economic status in South-eastern Nigeria ………………………………………………176 34 Regression coefficients for socio-economic status of entrepreneurs‟ in cassava enterprise ………………………………………………………178 17 LIST OF FIGURES 1 Framework for contributions of cassava enterprise to socio-economic status of entrepreneurs ………………………………73 2 Map of Nigeria showing states in Nigeria …………………………… 76 3 Map of Nigeria showing South-eastern Nigeria ………………......... 77 4 Map of Imo state showing selected Local Government Areas for the study …………………………………………………………….. 78 5 Map of Anambra state showing selected Local Government areas for the study …………………………………………………………… 79 18 LIST OF ACRONYMS ADP - Agricultural Development Programmes ANT - Actor-Network Theory APMEU - Agricultural Projects Monitoring and Evaluation Unit BNARDA - Benue State Agricultural and Rural Development Authority CBB - Cassava Bacterial Blight CBN - Central Bank of Nigeria CE - Cassava Enterprise CEDP - Cassava Enterprise Development Project CMD - Cassava Mosaic Disease COSCA - Collaborative Study of Cassava in Africa CSMS - Cassava Supply Management System DATCO - Dutch Agricultural and Trading Company DGIS - Directorate General for International Cooperation EU - European Union FACU - Federal Agricultural Coordinating Unit FADAMA - Hausa word for the low-lying flood-prone lands found n the plains of - rivers FAO - Food and Agricultural Organization FIIRO - Federal Institute of Industrial Research FMANR - Federal Ministry of Agriculture and natural Resources FMARD - Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development FMST - Federal Ministry of Science and Technology FOS - Federal of Statistics 19 FOS - Federal Office of Statistics) FS - Farming Styles GDP - Gross Domestic Product HQCF - High Quality Cassava Flour IAASTD - International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development IFAD - International Fund for Agricultural Development IFDC - International Fertilizer Development Center IITA - International Institute for Tropical Agriculture MARKETS - Maximizing Agricultural Revenue and Key Enterprises in Targeted Sites MHNR - Ministry of Health and Nutrition of Nigeria NCAM - National Centre for Agricultural Mechanization NDDC - Niger-Delta Development Commission NISER - National Institute for Social and Economic Research NPFS - National Programme for Food Security NRCRI - National Root Crop Research Institute NRI - National Resource Institute PCU - Project Coordinating Unit RMDRC - Raw Materials Research and Development Council RTEP - Root and Tuber Expansion Project SES - Socioeconomic status SPDC - Shell Petroleum Development Company UNS - United Nations System USAID - United States Aid for International Development 20 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background to the study Cassava, once a neglected crop in some places, is fast becoming an elite food crop in sub-Saharan Africa (Phillips et al., 2004). It is a cheap and reliable source of food for more than 700 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa (FAO, 2005) as well as Africa‟s second most important food staple, after maize in terms of calories consumed (Nweke, 2004). Cassava‟s combined abilities to produce high yields under poor conditions and store its harvestable portion underground until needed make it a classic “food security crop” (Nweke 2003, Ezedinma et al., 2006). The stem is used for plant propagation, while the roots are typically processed into garri, chips/flour, fermented paste (fufu) and starch for human consumption and industrial use (Akoroda, 2010). The leaves can be consumed as vegetable, or dried and fed to livestock as a protein feed supplement. The processed secondary products of industrial market value include chips, pellets; flour, adhesives, alcohol and starch are vital raw materials for livestock feed, alcohol/ethanol, textile, confectionery, wood, food and soft drinks industries. These products are tradable in both domestic and international market. Akoroda and Terri (2004) see these characteristics as reasons for the attraction of cassava enterprise to most entrepreneurs in Nigeria. Cassava‟s unique socio-economic potentials could also be the upward push for worldwide production that doubled in the last 30 years, reaching 213 million tonnes in 2005 with Africa accounting for more than 50%, (118 million tonnes) of the production (FAOSTAT, 2009). This is nearly 70% increase, compared with the 70 21 million tonnes produced in 1990. In West Africa, production is reported to have doubled from 25.8 million tonnes in 1990 to 52.3 million tonnes in 2004 and nearly two thirds of this total (38.3 million tonnes) is from Nigeria. Nigeria is also revealed to be a leading producer of cassava globally; harvesting from 3.81 million ha; a 45.72 million tonnes in 2006, 18% higher than its production in 2004 (FAOSTAT, 2009). This figure is triple more than production in Brazil and almost double the production of Indonesia, Thailand, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Madagascar, Mozambique, Tanzania and Uganda. Interestingly, South-east is among the zones that produce the bulk of cassava in Nigeria (PCU, 2003). IITA (2004) corroborated this stating that north central zone produced over 7 million tonnes of cassava annually; South-south produced over 6 million tonnes while South-west and South-east produced just less than 6 million tonnes a year. The increase came due to the interventions of Nigeria government and some developmental agencies (Ogundari and Brummer, 2010). In 1940, the Gold Coast hybrid was introduced to combat African Mossaic Virus and boast production while Federal Institute for Industrial Research in Cassava Plant was launched in Lagos in 1968. The IITA in 1971 began root and tuber improvement programme in Ibadan and Special Government Programme on Maize and Cassava Production was launched with import restriction in 1982. Between 1983 and 1986, IITA introduced high yielding, early bulking varieties resistant to cassava mosaic disease (CMD) and cassava bacterial blight (CBB). The years 1987, 1996 and 1997 recorded IFAD Cassava Multiplication Project and Nigeria Crop Marketing Board started and ended with this period. Other 22 intervention of IFAD in 2001 was on Roots and Tuber Crops Expansion which resulted in sporadic increase in cassava output. The Nigeria government facilitated the development of new disease-resistant cassava varieties by the joint efforts of IITA, National Root Crops Research Institute (NRCRI), Root and Tuber Expansion Programmes (RTEP), and the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, in conjunction with State Agricultural Development Programs and cassava farmers. Another wave of cassava transformation began with the Presidential Initiative on Cassava in 2003. The initiative sought to position cassava as a commodity crop and foreign exchange earner, beyond its traditional role as a food crop through a number of projects such as building flour and sweetener processing factories in the country, dissemination of over 100 million bundles of certified stock of improved cassava, establishing multiplication centers across the country to facilitate farmers access to improved cassava varieties, training of local fabricators by the National Centre for Agricultural Mechanization (NCAM) and other relevant agencies to build and sell thousands of grating, dewatering, and drying machines. As a result of this, Ogundari and Brummer (2010) cited in Ogunleye and Oladeji (2012) reported that cassava production increased between 2000/2001 to 2005/2006 farming seasons and later stagnated. Consequently, the current government through her Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA) has picked up cassava as important agri-business by adopting the policy of 10% inclusion of cassava flour into wheat flour for baking (Sanogo and Adetunji, 2008). This is in addition to USAID and Netherlands‟ Directorate General for International Cooperation‟s (DGIS) intervention to build cassava value-added chains for starch, sweeteners, and high quality cassava flour (HQCF) and the Cassava + Initiative launched by the International Fertilizer 23 Development Center (IFDC) and Dutch Agricultural and Trading Company (DATCO) with funding by the DGIS. The cassava + or beta carotene varieties of cassava was a move to correcting individual and household vitamin A deficiency and a mission to shift cassava from a subsistence crop to a cash crop in addition to developing agro-dealers and other farm service providers. As an important agro enterprise, cassava enterprise is understood to have a vertical chain in the commodity flow and shows links between producers and consumers through the processes of buying, processing and marketing the commodity. NISER (2001) sees the profitability of cassava enterprise as cutting across the flow of producers, processors and marketers; generating cash income in comparison with other staples, alleviating poverty and improving the socio-economic status of entrepreneurs. Socio-economic status, sometimes shortened to (SES), is an economic and sociological indices combined to measure a person's or family‟s work experience, economic and social position relative to others, based on income, material possession, education level, and social status in the society (Marmot, 2004). However, since socio-economic factors are important to productivity of any population either positively or negatively (Apata, 2007), it is imperative that the contributions of cassava enterprise to socio-economic status of entrepreneurs (producers, marketers and processors) in South-eastern Nigeria be determined. 1.2 Statement of the research problem Cassava has played and continues to play a remarkable role on the agric- business stage of Nigeria. Since its introduction into Nigeria in the 1600s, cassava has moved from a minor crop status to a major crop that accounts for between 40 and 50% of all calories consumed in Southern and Central Nigeria (Maziya-Dixon, 2001). 24 It constitutes a major item in the crop combination of most farmers and contributes significantly to total farm income in Nigeria. The profitability of the crop has been the focus for various intervention programmes in Nigeria (Ogunleye and Oladeji, 2012). These interventions in cassava production were aimed at driving development in cassava sector through value-addition and building support around farmers, marketers and processors by tackling existing technical and policy challenges yet it has been reported that the sub-sector has remained predominantly (99%) at subsistence level (FAOSTAT, 2010). Similarly, Nigeria is the world‟s largest producer of cassava with estimated 36.8 million metric tons on a total harvested area of 3.13 million ha in 2009 (FAOSTAT, 2010). Studies also revealed that most of Nigeria‟s population is chronically hungry and economically back-ward (Iheke, 2008). It is expected therefore that Nigeria‟s level of production will be a boost to Socio-Economic Status (SES) of those involved in the nation‟s cassava enterprise. On the contrary, research has further shown that the SES of those involved is not significantly improving as most Nigerians are poor and hungry (Philip et al, 2004, Simonyan et al., 2010). There should supposedly be a correlation between production levels attained and change in the SES of those involved in the cassava enterprise. High cost of cassava production has remained a major reason why cassava produced in the country is less competitive in the international market and only good for local consumption (Yomi, 2006). This is unlike what obtains in Indonesia where production is not up to half of Nigeria‟s, but the country maintains largest exporter of cassava products in the world (FIIRO, 2006). The issues that revolve around scale of operation, level of involvement and SES of entrepreneurs in cassava enterprise need to be critically assessed to bring out the explanatory factors for attained production level and SES of those involved in south eastern Nigeria. 25 The issue of who among the entrepreneurs have higher SES in cassava enterprise needs to be ascertained. Such information gap is a reason why appropriate packaging, channeling and distribution of incentives are difficult in the study area. On the other hand, whereas; government and non-governmental interventions in cassava enterprise are typically cited in literature as means of encouraging involvement in cassava enterprise, entrepreneurs‟ access to those interventions are rarely mentioned. It is obvious that access to intervention is important to necessitating substantial benefits from cassava enterprises and improved SES of entrepreneurs. Evidence also suggests that agro-enterprises generally are bedeviled by numerous constraints (Nwosu and Onumadu, 2008). Therefore, effort at determining specifically those of cassava enterprise is germane and a step in proffering solutions to improving entrepreneurs‟ productivity, benefits and socio-economic status. All these lead to the following research questions: 1. What is the entrepreneurs‟ level of involvement in cassava enterprise in the study area? 2. What is the level of access of entrepreneurs to intervention programmes inputs for cassava enterprises in the study area? 3. What are the constraints to cassava enterprise in the study area? 4. What are the benefits derived by entrepreneurs in cassava enterprise in the study area? 5. What is the socio-economic status of entrepreneurs in cassava enterprise in the study area? 26 1.3 Objectives of the study The general objective of the study is to determine the contributions of cassava enterprise to the entrepreneurs‟ socio-economic status in the study area. The specific objectives are to: 1. examine entrepreneurs‟ level of involvement in cassava enterprise in the study area 2. determine entrepreneurs‟ access to intervention programme input for cassava enterprise in the study area 3. identify constraints to cassava enterprise in the study area. 4. determine the relative benefits entrepreneurs derive from their involvement in the cassava enterprise 5. ascertain the different socio-economic status of entrepreneurs in cassava enterprise in the study area 1.4 Hypotheses Socio-economic characteristics of the entrepreneurs are expected to have significant relationship with their socio-economic status. This conjecture became necessary giving the findings of Nwaru (2004), Ironkwe, Ekwe, Okoye and Chukwu (2009), Nweke et al. (2009) who established significant relationship between some selected socio-economic characteristics (age, household size, benefits and years of experience) and socio-economic status of farmers. It is noteworthy to state that these studies were carried out among farmers other than cassava entrepreneurs (producers, processors and marketers). This makes it imperative for this work to assess with a view to establishing the interconnectivities between cassava entrepreneurs‟ selected socio-economic characteristics and their socio-economic status. 27 Another important interrelationship that this study attempts to establish is between benefits in cassava enterprise and entrepreneurs socio-economic status. Niser (2001), FAO (2002), Nweke (2002), Aye (2006) and Ogbonna and Asumugha (2009) established significant relationship between income, food security, employment opportunity and improved nutrition as having significant relationship with the socio- economic status of rural farm households. It is therefore logical to assume that all things being equal, these variables will influence a change in the socio-economic status of entrepreneurs in cassava enterprise. Access to intervention progammes in cassava enterprise is also conjectured to have significant relationship with the socio-economic status of entrepreneurs. Improved scale of production, increased benefits, a reliable and convenient source of food, as well as change in socio-economic status are reported to be the result of cassava farmers having access to appropriate technology in Africa (Nweke, 1994, Nweke et al., 2001). It is therefore against this background that it is expected that intervention programmes in cassava enterprise may have a significant correlation with socio-economic status of entrepreneurs. Finally, level of production, income (returns), benefits, constraints, and experience and farm size are assumed to be possible predictors of entrepreneurs‟ socio-economic status. This is sequel to the findings of FAO, (2005), Eze, (2006), Nwosu and Asumugha, (2007), Ogbonna and Asumugha, (2009), Agwu, (2009) that these variables are among the determinants of categories of rural farmers‟ living standard. It is therefore on this premise the following hypotheses stated in the null form were tested in this study: 28 1. There is no significant relationship between selected socio-economic characteristics of entrepreneurs in cassava enterprise and their socio- economic status. 2. There is no significant relationship between entrepreneurs‟ level of involvement in cassava enterprise and their socio-economic status. 3. There is no significant difference in the socio-economic status of different categories of entrepreneurs in cassava enterprise. 4. There is no significant relationship between the relative benefits entrepreneurs derive from cassava enterprise and their socio-economic status. 5. There is no significant difference in the benefits derived by different categories of entrepreneurs in cassava enterprises 6. There is no significant relationship between entrepreneurs‟ access to intervention programmes in the cassava enterprise and their socio-economic status. 7. There is no significant contribution of selected independent variables to the socio-economic status of categories of entrepreneurs. 1.5 Significance of the study Over the years, cassava has been transformed into a number of products for both domestic and industrial uses across the country. There are indications that the domestic demand for cassava, particularly as a staple food, tends to outweigh the demands by the industrial sector. It is believed however, that the outcome of the study will improve government policy in this direction as well as direct marketing and pricing on cassava and cassava products. 29 Perhaps various studies conducted in Nigeria and other parts of the world may have revealed the socio-economic gains of cassava enterprise. However, since this phenomenon is location specific and intertwined with a society‟s culture, or preferences and economy, it is important to uncover that of south eastern Nigeria. This will help fill the gap in such an agrarian zone of the South eastern Nigeria. Research institutions on their own part will further be challenged to develop improved planting materials, cultural practices, pests and disease control mechanisms and appropriate post-harvest technology prototypes that are cost-effective, easy to fabricate, operate and maintain at the farm level without electrical or petroleum sources of energy. The aim would be to save labour and cost, improve the efficiency of production, quality of products and marketability of cassava products. In the same vein, both government (federal, state, local government) and non- governmental organizations will be challenged into identifying broad based intervention programmes that would contribute significantly towards alleviating the production, utilization, processing and marketing/distribution constraints to cassava enterprise thereby enhancing and sustaining their socio-economic gains. The findings of the work will be an evidence base for proactive measures and a formidable source of policy direction, formulation and implementation to government, non-governmental and other agencies/outfits. The findings will further aid those involved in rural and agric-business development programmes under the Agricultural Transformation Agenda of Federal Government of Nigeria. It is obvious that Agricultural Transformation Agenda of the government was initiated and pursued along value addition of agricultural production as it relates to cassava enterprise. Thus; the findings of the study will facilitate support building as well as assist relevant stakeholders in addressing constraints along the value chain of 30 entrepreneurs in cassava production, processing and marketing. This is with a view to achieving the transformation agenda of the present government. It will also aim at ensuring that rural and agric-business development policies are carried out in a manner to assist people see and utilize opportunities at their disposal and as may be provided by the cassava enterprise. Finally, the outcome of the study would provide an easy reference material at continental, regional, national, and state levels. This will create a basis for improved provision of technical advice and support to entrepreneurs in cassava enterprise as well as provide a benchmark for future policy intervention in the sub sector. 1.6 Conceptual definition of terms Socio-economic Status (SES): Socio-Economic Status (SES) is the position that an individual or family occupies with reference to the prevailing average standards of cultural possessions, income, material possessions and participation in group activities of the community. Cassava enterprise: A cassava enterprise is an agribusiness with many coordinates that produces, processes, markets and or distributes services or products for the purpose of making profits from the operations. Entrepreneurs: Entrepreneurs are individuals and or groups of people with direct interest, involvement or investment to mobilize resources necessary to manage cassava enterprise for the purpose of wealth creation. Intervention programme: Intervention programmes are systematic developmental activities and approaches initiated and aimed at addressing issues and solving societal problems as well as improving people‟s living standard. 31 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Historical perspective of cassava in Nigeria Cassava, (Manihot esculenta crantz), is a perennial, vegetative propagated shrub, grown throughout the lowland Tropics. Originating in Tropical and Sub- Tropical areas of Central and South America, cassava arrived in Africa at the end of the sixteenth century. Cassava is thought to have made its entry into Nigeria in the th late 17 century through the island of Sao Tome and Farnando Po (Agbola, 1976) and has since become widely distributed throughout the country. Nigerian cassava production is by far the largest in the world; a third more than production in Brazil and almost double the production of Indonesia and Thailand. Its production in other African countries, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ghana, Madagascar, Mozambique, Tanzania and Uganda appears small in comparison to Nigeria‟s substantial output. The Food and Agriculture Organization (2004a) has in 2002 estimated cassava production in Nigeria to be approximately 34 million tonnes. Comparing also the output of various crops in Nigeria, cassava production ranks first, followed by yam production at 27 million tonnes in 2002, sorghum at 7 million tonnes, millet at 6 million tonnes and rice at 5 million tonnes (FAO, 2004a). By zone, the North Central zone produced over 7 million tonnes of cassava a year (1999 to 2002). South-South produces over 6 million tonnes a year while the South West and South East produce just less than 6 million tonnes a year. The North West and North East are small by comparison at 2 and 0.14 million tonnes 32 respectively (PCU, 2003). On a per capita basis, North Central is the highest producing state at 0 .72 tonnes/per person in 2002, followed by South East (0.56), South South (0.47), South West (0.34), North West (0.10) and North East (0.01) (IITA, 2004). Extrapolating from the estimates of cassava production in Africa (Scott et al. 2000) and (FAO, 2004b), Nigeria‟s production was targeted at 40 million tonnes in 2005 and 60 million tonnes by 2020 (IITA, 2002). This target relates well to the mapping of a simple linear time trend on historical production levels. An alternative „middle of the road‟ production target generated by mapping an exponential time trend to historical production levels suggested an intermediate production target for 2007 of 60 million tonnes (a doubling from early 1990 production levels) to be followed by 150 million tonnes in the year 2020 (Hillocks, 2002). 2. 2 Agronomy of cassava Cassava adapts to a wide range of climatic and edaphic conditions. As a crop of the lowland tropics, it is grown between Latitude 30°N and 30°S of the Equator (Nweke et al., 2002). Root formation is photo-periodically controlled. Consequently, root formation is enhanced by short days and delayed by long days exceeding 10 to 12 hours (Alves, 2002). The crop has been observed to tolerate air temperature of between 18°C and 35°C, an average rainfall of 500mm to 5000mm and a soil pH of 4 to 9, requiring a warm moist climate where the mean temperatures range from 25°C to 29°C and well distributed annual rainfall of between 1100 and 2000mm (Onwueme, 2000; FIIRO, 2006). Poor annual rainfall distribution however, may be offset by favourable soil characteristics such as texture, topography and drainage (Silvestre, 1989; Nweke, 1994a). 33 Similarly, a survey in the 1990s showed that cassava can be grown more intensively in the humid zone where it occupies about 60% of the staple crop field than in the sub-humid zone (less than 20%) and in the non-humid zone (5%) (Nweke,1999). The favourable climatic conditions that prevail in and around the agro- ecological zones are one big factor for production of the crop in Nigeria. 2.3 Benefits of cassava enterprise Cassava has been growing in economic importance over the years and in recent times. Its recognition in producing and consuming countries for industrial development is also increasing. According to FAO (2002) cassava plays a vital role in the food security of the rural economy due to its capacity to yield under marginal soil conditions and its tolerance to drought. Analysis of profitability and value chain indicators of cassava has attracted attention in Nigeria not only because the commodity is assuming increasing economic importance in terms of domestic and industrial demand but also due to the current policy attention being focused on export of cassava products. With regard to profitability, studies have shown that cassava enterprises are quite profitable. According to NISER (2001), cassava production is profitable under the traditional and improved system of production. The contribution of cassava enterprise by geopolitical zones in Nigeria shows that the southern states account for 64% of the cassava produced in Nigeria (Nweke et al., 2002), providing and sustaining the livelihood for over 30 million producers and countless processors, marketers and consumers (FAO, 2002). Cassava has remained important, not only as a food crop but also as a major source of income for most rural households. Nigeria is currently the largest producer of cassava in the world with an annual production of over 34 million tonnes of 34 tuberous roots (PCU, 2003). It is largely consumed in many processed forms in Nigeria. Its use in the industry and as livestock feed, is well known and gradually increasing, especially now that import substitution is becoming prominent in the industrial sector of the economy. As a cash crop, cassava generates cash income for the largest number of households in comparison with other staples. Presently, the domestic demand for cassava starch is about 130,000 tonnes per annum and 200,000 tonnes per annum for high quality cassava flour (FIIRO, 2006). The domestic demand for ethanol is 180 million liters – all ethanol is imported in Nigeria (Oshinade, 2007). Cassava is produced with relevant purchased inputs as frequently as and in some cases more frequently than other staples. A large proportion of total production, probably larger than that of most staples, is planted annually for sale. As a food crop, cassava has some inherent characteristics which make it attractive to most entrepreneurs in Nigeria. First, it is rich in carbohydrates especially starch and consequently has a multiplicity of end users and second, it is available all year round, making it preferable to other food security and seasonal crops such as grains, peas and beans (Tewe, 1995). It has been estimated that the dietary calorie equivalent of per capita consumption of cassava in the country amounts to about 238 kcal (Cock, 1985). Compared to grains, cassava is more tolerant to low soil fertility and more resistant to drought, pests and diseases. Its roots are storable in the ground for months after maturity. These attributes combined with other socio-economic considerations are what IFAD has recognized in the crop as lending itself to a commodity-based approach to poverty alleviation (FAO/IC, 1995). APMEU (1997) also described the importance of cassava enterprise to Nigeria's socio-economic life as; provision of employment to producers, processors, marketers, food vendors and as 35 a food of great preference to the rich and poor in both urban and rural areas. In quantitative economic terms, APMEU (1997) revealed that the value of all cassava produced in Nigeria annually can be estimated as follows: US$2.8 billion worth of gari and US$795 million worth of fresh roots. 2.4 Intervention programmes in cassava enterprise Cassava has played and continues to play a remarkable role on the agricultural stage of Nigeria. Since its debut in the late 1600s on Portuguese trade ships from Brazil into Nigeria, it has gone from minor crop to a major crop that accounts for between 40-50% of all calories consumed in Southern and Central Nigeria (FAOSTAT, 2010). Nigeria‟s production was estimated in 2009 to be 36.8 million metric tons (FAOSTAT, 2010) with total area harvest of 3.13 million ha. It is produced predominantly (99%) by small farmers with 1-5 ha of land intercropped with yams, maize, or legumes in the rainforest and savannah agro-ecologies of Southern, Central, and lately Northern Nigeria (FAOSTAT, 2010). Systematic interventions in the cassava sector began in the early 1980s with the introduction of high yielding, early bulking varieties resistant to the cassava mosaic disease (CMD) and cassava bacterial blight (CBB), produced at the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA) in the 70s‟, and the establishment of small-scale processing facilities. These two key interventions increased profit margin for producers and processors alike and drove down prices of cassava food products for the rural and urban consumers. “The cassava transformation”, as the rapid increase in production and marketing has been termed, spun an entire food industry and transformed the crop from a rural subsistence crop to a cash crop and urban food staple (Nweke, et al., 2001). 36 The second wave of cassava transformation began with the Presidential Initiative on Cassava, started in 2003. The initiative sought to position cassava as a commodity crop and foreign exchange earner, beyond its traditional role as a food crop. A number of projects were embarked upon to build flour and sweetener processing factories in the country. Increased productivity of cassava by small scale farmers in Nigeria was addressed via the production and dissemination of over 100 million bundles of certified stock of improved cassava varieties over a period of three years, and a fast-track farmer participatory selection of new varieties (UNIDO/FGN, 2006). Multiplication centers were established across the country to facilitate farmers‟ access to improved cassava varieties. Local fabricators were trained by the National Centre for Agricultural Mechanization (NCAM) and other relevant agencies to build and sell thousands of grating, dewatering, and drying machines. Six farm-gate primary processing Centers for training extension and farmers in production of cassava flour, chips and pellets were established. State extension personnel were also trained in improved production technologies. The Presidential cassava initiative also raised the profile of cassava in Nigeria and demonstrated the immense potential of the country to increase production within a short time; from 35million tons when the program started in 2003 to as high as 45million metric ton in 2006 (http://www.Unaab.ed.ng/-/). This will stimulate an improvement in cassava enterprise as well as boost economic activities and opportunities through sustainable and competitive cassava production, processing and marketing development in Nigeria. The initiative will further strengthen human and institutional capacity of producers, processors, marketers and their scale of operation, benefit and socio- economic status. 37 The report also revealed that two projects financed by the USAID and Netherlands‟ Directorate General for International Cooperation (DGIS) have sought to build cassava value-added chains for starch, sweeteners, and high quality cassava flour (HQCF). The USAID funded project, Maximizing Agricultural Revenue and Key Enterprises in Targeted Sites (MARKETS) was started in 2005 to partner credible cassava processors with smallholder farmers to develop efficient value added chains for starch and sweeteners in Nigeria. The project also introduced best farming practices to lower production costs. (http//www.Unaab.ed.ng/-/). The report further showed that in Ondo state, MARKETS is partnering with MATNA Nigeria Limited, one of the two large starch mills in the country, and in Ogun State, MARKETS is working with EKHA Agro, the only cassava-based sweetener processing plant in Nigeria to build robust supply chains. Also a computer-based system called the Cassava Supply Management System (CSMS) was designed to coordinate production, harvesting, and collection of cassava from a network of approximately 400 farms per processing plant, enabling these plants to reach 60-80 percent of processing capacity in five years. The second project, Cassava +, was launched by the International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC) and Dutch Agricultural and Trading Company (DATCO) with funding by the Netherlands‟ Directorate General for International Cooperation (DGIS) (http//www.Unaab.ed.ng/-/). The three year project has as mission to shift cassava from a subsistence crop to a cash crop and is working with farmers to supply raw materials for high quality cassava flour (HQCF) in Taraba, Kwara, Kogi, Osun, and Rivers States. The projects hopes to increase productivity of 160,000 farm families by developing sustainable and productive cassava and rotation cropping systems and linking them to reliable demand via DATCO. In addition the 38 project seeks to develop agro-dealers and other farm service providers and link them with participating farmers (http://www.Unaab.ed.ng/-/). Cassava transformation under the Agricultural Transformation Program of President Goodluck Jonathan as being implemented by the Honorable Minister of Agriculture, Prof. Akinwumi Adesina, seeks to build upon the gains in all aforementioned efforts. The new cassava transformation will drive development in the cassava sector through value-addition to realize opportunities that exist in the industrial and export sectors for cassava. The plan will build market and production support around farmers and processors by tackling existing technical and policy challenges (http://www.Unaab.ed.ng/-/). This demonstrates government understanding that cassava is important in improving income and food security status of most Nigeria families as well as playing a remarkable role in traditional and industrial raw materials provisions. It further implies government realization that with appropriate initiative cassava will not only be positioned as a commodity crop but also as a foreign exchange earner. With these interventions in place cassava, in its processed form, is reported to be a reliable and convenient source of food for tens of millions of rural and urban dwellers in Nigeria (Nweke et al., 2001). Also, a significant industrial demand exists for cassava but primarily as substitution for imported raw materials and semi-finished products. Nweke et al. (2001) further revealed that there is a potential demand of 250,000 ton/year in the High Quality Cassava Flour (HQCF), primarily from 10% replacement in bread flour and for use in bouillon, noodles, and the adhesive industry (dextrins), a demand for native and modified starches exceeds 230,000 tons/year in the food, paint, and pharmaceutical industries. In the sweetener industry, an estimated annual demand of 150,000 tons for high fructose syrup, as part replacement for 39 imported sugar, was also revealed by (Nweke et al., 2001). The dried cassava chips value-chain has a potential demand of 900,000 tons per annum with about 300,000 tons going to the regional food market, an estimated 80,000 tons/year to the local animal feed market, and 520,000 tons destined for the China export market. According to Nweke et al. (2001) Nigeria has adopted the policy of blending gasoline with 10% ethanol, the E-10 policy. These represent a potential one billion liter per year market for fuel ethanol and, a potential demand of 2.3 million tons of fresh cassava roots. 2.5 Entrepreneurship in cassava enterprise An enterprise is a concern set up by an individual (entrepreneur) for the purpose of making profit. The words entrepreneur and entrepreneurship have acquired special significance in the context of economic growth in a rapidly changing socio- economic and socio-cultural climates, particularly in industry, both in developed and developing countries. According to Adisa and Sodique (2008), an entrepreneur could be defined as person (s) who initiate, organize, and control the affairs of business units that combine the factors of production to supply goods and services, whether the business pertains to agriculture, industry, trade or professions. An entrepreneur is someone who is able to balance the economically desirable with the technologically/operationally feasible, someone who takes a calculated risk to seize an opportunity or meet a sustainable business (Robbins and Coulte,r 2005). Petrin (1991) viewed an entrepreneur as a person who either creates new methods of production, new products, new markets, new sources of supply and new forms of enterprise. Entrepreneurs are highly creative people who always try to develop new products, processes or markets. They are innovative, flexible and are willing to adopt 40 changes. They are not satisfied with conventional and routine way of doing things hence they involve themselves in finding new ways of doing the things for the better On the other hand, the process of undertaking by which an entrepreneur is involved in the task of creating and managing an enterprise for the purpose of making profit is entrepreneurship (Adisa and Sodique, 2008). Entrepreneurship is the capacity to develop ideas and achieve success with them. Innovation, the acceptance of change and risk, the mobilization of resources and the tapping of opportunities are prerequisites involved in creating a competitive or sustainable enterprise. Commission of European Communities, (2003) also noted the entrepreneurial spirit is the asset responsible for creating employment, competitiveness and the potential to exploit any sector or business. This task entails raising finance, planning, organizing, controlling, commanding, and coordinating activities resources necessary to manage the enterprise. Bernier and Hafsi (2003) described entrepreneurship as a process in which an agent manages to conceptualize and implement an idea, notion, service, product or activity. Stevenson et al. (1999) see it as the pursuit of an opportunity and turning a vision into reality regardless the possibilities of success. This could suggest that anyone can be an entrepreneur, or at least has the capacity to develop that vision in order to create his own enterprise. Although, it has been observed that no ideal profile for an entrepreneur exists but certain psychological traits or characteristics are usually associated in theory with a business-minded person (Robbins and Coulter, 2005). These entrepreneurial traits are high levels of motivation and energy, skills, and the ability to set goals and take moderate risk 41 Other traits according to Robbins and Coulter (2005) are goals, to be autonomous and convey a message, to act quickly, to distance oneself and be objective, to create simple and practical solutions, to take risks, to have clear values, to obtain results and to act positively, exhibiting enthusiasm and optimism. Other authors such as Timmons (1989) and Filion (2000) suggest that entrepreneurs are tenacious, can live with uncertainty, make good use of resources and are imaginative, moderate risk takers and results-oriented. In the cassava enterprise, an entrepreneur is someone that either produces processes or markets not just for subsistence but is also involved in the enterprise for profit. 2.6 Types of involvement in cassava enterprises Cassava enterprise in Nigeria has been that of the small scale type (RTEP, 2002). In 2001, it was estimated that 84% of the cassava produced in Nigeria was used as food; out of this 70% was processed into gari and the remaining 14% into other human food products, such as lafun (fermented cassava flour), fufu/akpu, abacha and tapioca (FIIRO, 2006). Arising from the policy statement of the Federal Government of Nigeria in 1999, pledging to give among others, special attention to cassava because of its diverse values, great hope was generated among diverse stakeholders (FGN, 2002). These stakeholders include the producers, processors and marketers (FIIRO, 2006). Thus, the various types of involvement in cassava enterprise are in the areas of production, processing, marketing of cassava and cassava products (IITA, 2004). 42 2.6.1 Cassava production enterprise Cassava can be grown in almost all the states in Nigeria either as a sole crop or an intercrop with principal staples, such as maize, yam, cocoyam, sweet potato, rice, sorghum, millet; and subsidiary crops, such as beans, okro and leafy vegetables. Cassava can also be grown with oil palm, rubber, cashew and cocoa within the first few years of the permanent crop before the canopy covers. In most of the southern areas of Nigeria, producers grow cassava in mixtures with maize, cocoyam, yam and vegetables but some grow it sole. In northern areas, sole cropping is more common (Clement-Ogbuanu, 2007). A recent survey in the country indicates that on the average, for all the crops, about 25 percent of the fields are sole cropped and 75 percent are intercropped (RMDRC, 2004). Three sets of estimates exist for Nigerian cassava production from 1996 to 2002. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in Rome (FAO, 2004a) estimated 2002 cassava production in Nigeria to be approximately 34 million tonnes. The trend for cassava production reported by the Central Bank of Nigeria mirrored the FAO data until 1996 and thereafter rises to the highest estimate of production at 37 million tonnes in 2000 (FMANR, 1997; Central Bank of Nigeria ). The third series provided by the PCU (PCU, 2003) had the most conservative estimate of production at 28 million tonnes in 2002. Comparing the output of various crops in Nigeria, cassava production ranks first, followed by yam production at 27 million tonnes in 2002, sorghum at 7 million tonnes, millet at 6 million tonnes and rice at 5 million tonnes (FAO, 2004a). Expansion of cassava production has been relatively steady since 1980 with an additional push between the years 1988 to 1992 owing to the release of improved IITA varieties. By zone, the North Central zone produced over 7 million tonnes of cassava a year (1999 to 2002). South-South produces over 6 43 million tonnes a year while the South West and South East produce just less than 6 million tonnes a year. The North West and North East are small by comparison at 2 and 0.14 million tonnes respectively (FAO, 2004a). On a per capita basis, North Central is the highest producing state at .72 tonnes/per person in 2002, followed by South East (.56), South-South (.47), South West (.34), North West (.10) and North East (.01). National per capita production of cassava is .32 tonne/per person. Benue and Kogi state in the North Central Zone are the largest producers of cassava (IITA, 2004). Cross River, Akwa Ibom, Rivers and Delta states dominate state cassava production in the South South. Ogun, Ondo and Oyo states dominate in the South West and Enugu and Imo dominate production in the South East. Kaduna alone in the North West is comparable in output to many of the states in the southern regions at almost 2 million tonnes a year with very little currently produced, in the North East. Cassava production in Nigeria, however, is reported to be increasing at 3% every year and with increasing import of starch, flour and sweeteners that can be made from cassava (Nweke, 2001). This paradox is due to how cassava is produced, marketed, and consumed in Nigeria, in a largely subsistence to semi commercial manner. According to Clement-Ogbuanu (2007) cassava production in Nigeria is largely in the hands of smallholders who operate about 87 percent of the total cultivated land area while the medium holding farms constitute about 10 percent, and the large-scale farms make up the remaining 3 percent. This finding corroborates the earlier report of Azogu, et al. (2004) that although Nigeria is the world leader in cassava production, the country is not an active participant in cassava trade in the international markets because most of her cassava is targeted at the domestic food market and production methods primarily subsistence in nature to support industrial 44 level demands. Thus, any surplus cassava is either processed on the farm, or sold to local processors. It also implies low profit margin as well as entrepreneurs‟ inability to move from subsistence level of production to commercial status thus engendering poverty. In cassava enterprise, the producer is concerned with primary cassava production and ends with the sale of a raw fresh tubers and or stem cuttings at the farm gate or local market. These transactions may occur literally at the farm gate or at some other point where the producers hand over sale ownership of the produce to the next value chain participant. However, depending on situation, some type of primary processing (such as the pilling or bagging of fresh tubers) may take place at the farm level. Also depending on variety, soil conditions and climatic factors the producer harvests cassava when the roots have accumulated enough starch at 7 months after planting early maturing varieties, late maturing varieties at 12 months after planting. However, studies have shown that several cassava varieties attain optimum fresh weight from 12 – 15 months after planting (IITA, 1990). 2.6.2 Cassava processing enterprise Cassava is a very versatile commodity with numerous uses and by products. Each component of the plant can be valuable to its cultivator. The leaves may be consumed as a vegetable, or cooked as a soup ingredient or dried and fed to livestock as a protein feed supplement. The stem is used for plant propagation and grafting. The roots are typically processed for human and industrial consumption. In Nigeria, the consumption pattern varies according to ecological zones. According to (Lancaster et al., 1982) the leaves can used as animal feeds while the roots are good source of 45 carbohydrate and are commonly processed to remove naturally occurring toxins and provide storable products that can be consumed or used in the production of secondary products. The processing stage of cassava involves the transformation of raw cassava tubers into one or more finished domestic and internationally traded goods by the processor. Cassava processing is aimed at reducing the limitation of cassava roots, increase shelf-life and reduce naturally occurring cyanogens (Sanni et al 1998). COSCA (1988) also stated that efficient processing of cassava into storable forms offers an opportunity to overcome the perishability of the fresh cassava roots. The essential features of efficient processing include sufficient tissue disruption to allow endogenous linamarase to react with linamarin and then favourable conditions for the breakdown of acetone cyanohydrins (O‟Brien et al.,1991). It is also revealed that cassava tubers consist of 60 to 70 percent water and have a shelf life of 2 to 3 days (IFAD and FAO, 2000). Thus, once harvested, the tubers have to be processed or consumed immediately to avoid tuber quality deterioration. Imo ADP (2003) concurs to this stating that the need for cassava processing however arises to stabilize the crop for storage purposes and price stability. Cassava products are classified into roasted granules, stemmed granules, flour/dry pieces and fermented wet pastes (Natural Resources Institute, 1992). Garri, a roasted granule is the dominant product and is widely accepted in both rural and urban areas as convenience food prepared by the simple addition of hot water or milk. It can be consumed without any additives or it can be consumed with a variety of additives such as sugar, groundnut, fish, meat and stew (Blanshard et al., 1994). An alternative product fufu is a fermented paste that is also widely consumed in eastern and south western Nigeria and other parts of West Africa such as Siera 46 Leone (Blanshard et al., 1994). Nweke (1994) agreed to this stating that in Nigeria, the production and consumption of fufu is concentrated near the coast and declines in importance further north. Nweke (1994) further revealed that the coastal areas provide the abundant water supply needed for fufu processing as well market infrastructure. Nweke and Bokanga (1994) also noted that in Nigeria, fufu has great commercial potential. Lafun is another processed cassava product that is similar to fufu. Although the main differences according to Sanni et al. (1998) are that lafun is a dried product that has a good shelf-life and fufu is a wet product that has much lower fibre content. Alternatively, chips are made directly from fresh roots whereby the fresh cassava roots are cut into chunks and dried by sun drying. Other products of cassava include starch, abacha, and tapioca. Presently, the vast majority of cassava roots are processed at the village level by a variety of small-scale methods into many different products that cater for local customs and preferences. In sub-Saharan Africa, cassava roots are processed into various products that are used in diverse ways according to local preferences by a variety of methods (Oyewole, 1990, Oyewole and Sanni, 1995). The process involves combinations of unit of activities such as peeling, slicing, grating, soaking, boiling, stemming, drying, pounding and milling (Sanni et al., 1998). According to Longe (1980), Hahn (1989), Oguntunde and Orishagbemi (1991) the final products characteristics are dependent on the combination of activities used. Abiagom (1971) corroborated also that several products are processed from cassava in Nigeria according to dynamic consumer preferences. According to him cassava through the 1960s was processed and consumed in the following forms: 15% as fresh roots, 5% as garri, 60% as fufu, 10% as starch and 10% as flour. By the early 1980s, the 47 consumption of fufu had declined to 14% of all cassava eaten, while consumption of garri rose to 65% (FOS, 1981). It is considered that the processing and consumer preference for fufu has reduced due to its inherent undesirable characteristics of poor odour, short shelf life and tedious preparation (Okpokiri et al., 1985). The rural and urban demand for instance garri is higher than that for fufu. It is also reported that garri is the preferred product for higher income consumers because of the ease with which it is prepared for consumption Sanni et al. (1998). These observations suggest that roasted granule (garri) processing is more commercialized than the processing of other cassava products. This is due the problems of raw material supply and in producing a product that is competitive with that produced at the household level (Sanni et al., 1998). The situation is different in Latin American where traditional farina de manalioca (cassava flour prepared by toasting grated cassava) have been scaled up and in many cases mechanized (Sanni et al., 1998). Oyewole and Sanni (1995) buttressed this stating that most processors still prefer to process a large proportion of their cassava roots into garri rather than other products. The preference for garri could be because its processing is becoming more mechanized. This is different from fufu which at present is mainly produced by rural processors at both household and small scale, mainly in eastern and south western Nigeria (Oyewole and Sanni, 1995). This is to say that processing of cassava into fufu is largely home based, manually done and labour intensive. There are also these other major new market opportunities that cassava processors are open to. They are high quality cassava flour as a replacement for wheat flour, cassava starch as raw material for food and non-food industries and cassava chips for either the domestic livestock feed sector or export (Bokanga, 1995). It has been observed that at the moment, processors‟ involvement in these areas is at low 48 scale despite their economic potentials. It is against this situation that Plucknett et al. (2000) advocated for “A Global Cassava Development Strategy”. The strategy according to Plucknett et al. (2000) presents a vision of using cassava to spure rural industrial development and raises incomes for producers, processors and traders and contributes to the food security status of its producing households. The strategy is also aimed at using a demand-driven approach to promote and develop cassava-based industries with the assistance of a coalition of groups and individuals interested in developing the cassava industry. In other word, it consists of identifying, in a systematic manner, the opportunities and constraints of cassava at each level of the supply chain Estimates of industrial cassava use suggest that approximately 16 percent of cassava root production was utilized as an industrial raw material in Nigeria (FAO, 2004a). Thus, small scale cassava processors have been revealed to be predominant and processes over 80% of cassava in Nigeria (Oyebanji and Akwashiki, 2003). Oyebanji and Akwashiki (2003) maintained that, large-scale processing plants that are capable of processing roots quickly are not as prevalent as small scale processors. Thus medium and large processing plants operate but seasonally and at low level. This has been substantiated by Agbo (2002) who observed cassava is the main staple of southern Nigeria; both production, processing and marketing are mainly in the hand of small scale stakeholders that use traditional methods and very little modern techniques; that output will continue to be small and short of its demand. Ekwe et al. (2009) also corroborated this pointing out that processing of cassava products is mainly in the hands of small scale processors that process less than 500kg of cassava roots. According to Fresco (1993), the trend has continued despite high market demand for cassava products and significant economic gains. 49 In Nigeria, the consumption pattern varies according to ecological zones and processing is carried out along this line. According to Oyebanji and Akwashiki (2003) the vast majority of cassava roots are processed at the village level by a variety of small-scale methods into many different products that cater for local customs and preferences. Gari, Fufu or Akpu (a fermented wet paste from cassava) are widely consumed throughout the country especially in the south eastern zone (Ministry of Health and Nutrition of Nigeria, 2004). Corroborating the above assertion, Kormawa and Akoroda (2003) estimates Nigeria‟s industrial cassava raw material utilization to be approximately 16 percent; out of this, 10 percent was used as chips in animal feed, 5 percent was processed into a syrup concentrate for soft drinks and less than one percent was processed into high quality cassava flour used in biscuits and confectionary, dextrin pre-gelled starch for adhesives, starch and hydrolysates for pharmaceuticals, and seasonings. Cassava processing operations in Nigeria can be described at 5 levels of capacity (Ferris et al., 2002). The common terms used to describe these capacity levels are household (or cottage), micro, small, medium and large. Household level processing typically does not employ any outside labour. The household consumes virtually all of the processed products and sells a small amount to raise income for additional household needs. At present, most Nigerian processors fall within this category. At the micro processing capacity, the employment of one or two units of labour may take place while processing a variety of cassava products. This enterprise typically uses batch processing. Batch processing may take four hours per day and this would be sufficient for the owner/operator. Nigeria has a few cassava processors in this category of operation. The small and medium processing operations typically 50 employ three to ten workers and are very sparse at present. Large scale cassava processing is virtually non-existent in Nigeria. Large-scale operations are defined as enterprises employing 10-30 or more labourers. Large-scale operations would also have the capacity for large tonnage processing with wider marketing opportunities. Processing cassava for industrial purposes implies the transformation of fresh roots in substantial amounts of fairly uniform processed products. In case of flour, chips and ethanol, drying the roots immediately after the harvest is the first step in processing. Cutting the roots in smaller pieces accelerates the drying process. However, cutting in small pieces and laying these out on a clean surface for sun drying takes labor, a vast drying floor, and abundance of sunshine. The three major processing strategies are: (a) processing fresh roots into flour, (b) processing fresh roots into (small and large) chips, and (c) processing fresh roots directly into starch (Ferris et al., 2002). However, FAO (2002) has observed that the transportation of cassava from the field to the factory/market in Nigeria is a major problem due to poor roads and high costs, with the consequent effect on the variable costs of the operation. According to Ferris Ferris et al., (2002), the costs of transportation in rural Nigeria are extremely high and a key constraint to the development of commercial cassava marketing. Many rural areas of Nigeria still resemble a footpath economy with head portage being the principle means of primary transportation of cassava and products. This is being used in material areas of factory, especially for porting cassava roots from the field to trucks before transporting to markets and processing centers and that is one of the causes of high variable cost of cassava and cassava products 51 2.6.3 Cassava marketing enterprise The commercial potential of cassava products in Nigeria has not been fully realized due to a series of technical and socio-economic constraints. Although cassava products are widely consumed in rural and urban areas, fufu and gari are the two most popular cassava products in south eastern Nigeria. However, one of the main reasons behind differences in degrees of commercialization between these two products lies in the fact that garri has a considerably longer and more stable shelf life than the fufu (Henry et al., 1999; Nwajiuba, 1995). Apparently, the contributions made by cassava processing to rural and urban livelihoods in Nigeria and elsewhere would be significantly enhanced if the shelf-life and other key constraints to processing and marketing could be addressed. Cassava marketing is undertaken in both rural and urban contexts. Primary processing, which entails transforming fresh roots into a wet paste, dried granules and chips, essentially takes place in villages or small towns located within important cassava production areas. Secondary processing on a commercial scale, for instance in the case of fufu which consists of cooking the ready-to-eat fufu balls from the wet paste for sale in the market has recently gained importance as distances to medium and large consumption centres become shorter. The development according to Nwajiuba (1995) has made cassava marketing an important source of livelihood for many people in rural towns and peri-urban and urban areas, including small canteen owners and food vendors. Two sorts of factors, both related to the economics of transport, seem to dictate to a large extent the location patterns observed in marketing activities. According to Nwajiuba (1995), the first relates to the fact that fresh cassava roots are extremely perishable once harvested and very bulky to transport, and as a result they 52 are usually processed close to production areas, often by cassava farmers themselves, who thus have access to expanded income opportunities. In other words, it would not be economical to carry out the bulky tubers to urban centres that are relatively distant from the main sources of production. Similarly, because the wet paste is not as difficult and costly to handle and transport as the ready-to-eat cassava product, it is usually processed further away from major consumption centres. Indeed, whereas market-oriented wet paste processing has been found to take place some 50 or 60 km from the main destination market, ready-to-eat fufu processors tend to sell their production in the vicinity or to supply close by sub-urban and urban areas, usually not more than 15 or 20 km distance while garri is taken more distances away from the point of production. There are two predominant market channels for cassava products; a direct one, linking the point of processing to wholesalers and an indirect one, whereby the wet paste is first assembled in a primary market before being channelled to centers of need (Nwajiuba, 1995). Nwajiuba (1995) reiterated that wholesalers may either come to the processing location or wait for the products to come to them. The cycle continues as the products are sold to wide range of retailers, who are often involved in secondary processing and selling also to consumers. Retailers in this context include street vendors, canteens, restaurants and hotels. It is reported that because of the more localized nature of cassava products, marketing chains and the comparatively smaller quantities of the product leaving processing areas, practically no primary assemblage takes place. The products normally moves from the processors to the retailer, and then from the latter to the consumer. The marketing chains cassava products, whether in its roasted granules (garri) or wet paste or ready-to-eat form, present some interesting features that include: 53 1. First, the products change few hands along the chain. The opposite would be surprising given their short shelf life and the relatively short distances from the point of processing to destination markets. 2. Second, products are mainly sold to wholesalers and are rarely in direct contact with the consumer in the final destination markets. 3. No exports to neighbouring countries or overseas markets are taking place. According to (Henry et al., 1999; Nweke, 1994), marketing of cassava products is in small scale and for local consumption. This quiet unlike what obtains in most cassava exporting countries like Thailand, that involves direct interaction of small scale producers with export brokers who are responsible for shipping directly to the importing country, through an import broker based in the importing country (FIIRO, 2006). In the EU countries, the Netherlands is a major importer and also acts as a re-exported to other EU countries. The products get to the final end users from the importer broker through a network of wholesaler/distributor/re-exporter or through a retailer who sells especially to those requiring smaller quantities. The major players therefore are the importer and export brokers and probably the wholesalers/distributors/re-exporter that normally control the volume of the trade and even prices. In Nigeria, Lemchi (1999) further gives a very comprehensive description of the traditional cassava market in Nigeria. According to Lemchi cassava is usually traded in some processed forms like fufu, gari, lafun, abacha/tapioca and it is aimed at forestalling early deterioration and reduction of its bulky nature. It is estimated that 70% of the cassava produced in Nigeria is processed into gari (Onabalu, 2001). As a result, gari is the most commonly traded cassava product. The market channel for gari consists mainly of three alternative flow channels. First, there is the flow from village 54 gari processors through the rural wholesale/assemblers and rural retailers to the rural consumers. The second movement is from gari processors to the rural assemblers to the long distant traders who deliver to urban retailers or directly to urban consumers. A third flow is the traffic from gari processors directly to distant traders, thereby bypassing the local assemblers (Onabalu, 2001). Fresh cassava roots marketing is adjudged to be limited and often carried out by private marketers who operate in both rural and urban markets (FAO, 2007). This may be due to bulkiness of cassava roots and paucity of affordable and in some cases absence of infrastructural support facilities, especially roads and a development policy that pays lip service to up-scaling the agricultural production process through the development of farm-gate processing enterprises. The marketing channel consists mainly of five alternative flow channels (FMST, 2004). First there is the movement from the producer through the rural wholesale/assembler and rural market retailer to the rural consumers. The second channel is the movement from the producer through the processor to either the rural assembler or retailer. The third flow channel is the movement from the processor to the urban market wholesalers, retailers and even to the consumers, while the fourth possible channel is that arising directly from the producer to the rural or urban consumers. The fifth channel is from the producer directly to the rural retailers. Currently, the Federal Government has removed the ban on the exportation of cassava products. This barrier has enhanced cross-border trade in cassava products. FIIRO (2006) also has revealed similar market access strategy; pointing out that cassava producers are mainly small-scale farmers and most of the processors are also household and micro-level processors, whose individual output is relatively small. FIIRO however, maintained that cassava food products are distributed mainly 55 through informal marketing channels, whereas products for industrial use are distributed through formal marketing channels involving the producers, the wholesalers, retailers and end- users or two-level marketing channels. In some, a one- level (i.e., producer -> retailer-> end-user) or a zero-level distribution (i.e. Producer - > end-user) channel is used. The later is a common channel for distributing high quality cassava flour and industrial starch. In parts of the north, raw roots of 'sweet types' of cassava are eaten as snacks (rogo). Otherwise, most harvested roots are processed. The marketing of fresh cassava roots is directly related to a number of factors. Due to their bulkiness, weight and high perishability, fresh cassava roots cannot be transported over a long distance. Usually, tubers are sold, either left in the ground, or harvested and sold in heaps at the farm gate or in rural markets (FMST, 2004). The export of cassava products from Nigeria is presently insignificant due to the fact that export-market channels for the products are yet to be developed (FIIRO, 2006). FIIRO further opine that due to the relatively low level of individual output and processors, access to export market is difficult. Nwajiuba (1995) also observed that the highly perishable nature of both cassava roots products is recurrent and cross cutting issue in cassava marketing. He further stressed that perishability is such a determining factor behind existing cassava marketing systems and dynamics that its importance cannot be overemphasized. It has also considered that extremely limited possibilities for storage of cassava products reduce the convenience of traders and consumers, thereby restricting market size and reducing the potential for demand growth (FIIRO, 2006). On the supply side, Nwajiuba (1995) reiterated the fact that because marketers are dealing with a highly perishable product, they are always cautious not to expand the size of their operations 56 beyond a point in which unsold inventories and product spoilage can become a recurring phenomenon, resulting in heavy financial losses. 2.7 Constraints to cassava enterprise Nigeria as a country is largely endowed with human and natural resources that are necessary for the development of cassava enterprise. The country has a total land area of about 98.3 million hectares out of which 71.2 million hectares are cultivable (Daramola, 2004). It is observed that despite these enormous potentials, cassava enterprise is still dominated by small scale holders as producers, processors and marketers (Awoyemi, 1981). Okuneye (2004), Oluwasola and Adewusi (2008) agreed to these finding and further observed that smallholder agricultural enterprises in Nigeria, like most developing nations, are characterized by both technical, financial, institutional and infrastructural support, which adversely affect the economic wellbeing of farm families and marginalization of the rural space. Manyong et al. (1996) earlier found out that cassava enterprise is mainly small scaled in most rural communities and is primarily produced for food especially in form of garri, fufu with little or no use in agribusiness sector as industrial raw material, notwithstanding the crop can be processed into several other producs like chips, flour, pellets, adhesives, alcohol, starch etc which are raw materials in livestock, feed, alcohol/ethanol, textiles, confectionery, wood, food and soft drink industries. In addition to this, cassava processing for example gari, a “dry pre-gelled particulate product obtained by artisanal or industrial processing of cassava roots” has very little quality measures taken to ensure high quality products. The processing, which, consists of peeling, washing, grating, fermentation, de-watering, fragmentation, sifting, and roasting to drying is reportedly not free from any foreign matter (Ezedinma et al. 2005a). The 57 reason according to Scott et al. (2000) is that processors were lacking with product development, improvement and innovation in terms of fortification, branding, grading and packaging. IITA (2004) has also revealed that major constraints to smallholder agriculture generally are the paucity of affordable and environmentally appropriate technology; absence of infrastructural support facilities, especially roads, and a development policy that pays lip service to up-scaling the agricultural production process through the development of farm-gate processing enterprises. The cost of hiring labour and the tedium encountered in manual cultivation particularly during land preparation with local implements were also found to discourage investment in cassava enterprise in Africa (IITA, 2004). According to IITA (2004) processing, equipment are generally not easily available, and when available, they are usually inefficient, their parts wear down easily, while the public power supply is very unreliable forcing the processors to depend on the expensive alternative of using power generators in the face of ever escalating cost of fuel for generators. As regards marketing, unattractive prices of products remain a serious problem. According to Yee and Plaludetto (2005), a situation where the cost of transportation due to poor state of access roads and cost of fuel are added to the cost of production make the prices offered for cassava tubers and processed products like garri and flour unattractive. Yee and Plaludetto (2005) also revealed that poor business environment in Nigeria relative to other developing countries is a major bottleneck to investment in cassava industry. The variables according to them include cost of credit, level of electricity service, cost of delivery public utilities, cost of labour, rigidity and skill of the labour market, extent to which the logistics system is cumbersome, and burden of regulatory compliance. Yee and Plaudetto (2005) noted that Nigeria, when compared to strategic competitors such as Bangladesh, Kenya and 58 Indonesia, fares poorly with regards to finance costs. Knipscheer (2003) earlier buttressed that transport costs in rural Nigeria are extremely high accounting for 70% of the difference between farm gate and retail prices for most agricultural commodities. PLucknett et al. (2000) pointed out that most African countries have comparative advantage in the production of several crops at the farm gate, but lose this at the wholesale level through high cost and inefficiency of its transport and marketing systems. There is no doubt about this as most African rural areas still resemble a „footpath‟ economy with head porterage being one of the principal means of primary transportation of agricultural commodities. Another example of extraordinary costs to marketing is the time it takes to hire a vehicle and roadblocks. It has been reported that traders spends hours to days waiting and negotiating with transporters on the cost per bag depending on road conditions and frequency of security checks (road blocks) that demand money from drivers (Iheke, 2008). Ezedinma et al. (2005a) concurs to this noting that marketing produce in Nigeria is complicated by many hidden factors related to supplying produce to markets; for example, the only available transport in most cases is by truck and highway, rail service are virtually non-existent in Nigeria. Thus, good quality roads are few and maintenance irregular, breakdowns, accidents, congestion and road closures all represent a substantial cost for entrepreneurs and the economy. FMANR (2000) observed that unfavourable international price constitutes a major obstacle to the survival of African agricultural entrepreneurs in Africa. FMANR (2000) observed that the low prices are disadvantageous to majority of entrepreneurs especially the small scale sector. IFAD (2004) reported that apart from the low level of prices a more serious constraint is the volatility of the prices. This according to IFAD has to hinder increased investment in the general agricultural enterprise. FMANR (2000) and 59 NISER (2001) concurred to this assertion and stated that the causes of such unfavourable and volatile price trend include imbalances between supply and demand, slow consumption growth, over-protection by developed countries and political instability. Similarly, UNS (2000) buttressed that cassava is a tuberous root that contains 60 to 70 percent moisture and has a shelf life of 2 to 3 days and once harvested and requires it to be either consumed immediately or processed into more stable products forms. UNS stated that cassava farmers are often unable to process harvested roots and have to sell their crops at a low price to middlemen who are willing and able to reach them. UNS further noted that supply of cassava influences the market price; as a result, when cassava is scarce and prices are high farmers increase their production, the subsequent oversupply lowers the market price and farmers plant less cassava which results in fluctuating the price cycles of approximately two to three years. Lack of capital was indicated as a key constraint to cassava enterprise (Daramola, 2004). Both the producers, processors and marketers cannot expand the level of their output due to inadequate working capital (Okuneye, 2004). These constraints have negatively impacted on the employment generation and income earning potentials of cassava enterprise as well as its capacity to serve as the pivot in reducing poverty in the land. Nweke et al. (1994) and Ezedinma et al. (2005a) listed major constraints to cassava enterprise in Nigeria to include: land tenure, lack of capital fragmentation of cassava farms, pests and diseases, non-mechanized cassava production, processing and preservation, low yield and starch content of common cassava varieties, poor infrastructure, fluctuation in market prices, high raw material cost, high input costs and high energy cost. 60 2.8 Socio-economics of cassava production Cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) enterprise is one of the most important business initiatives in Nigeria today and across the tropics. As an enterprise set up by an individual or group of individuals, its purpose is to make profits from its operation and provides one essential service or the other. It contributes to Nigeria agricultural sector‟s ability in providing food for the teeming population and contributes about 33% to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the nation (Bureau of African Affairs, 2010) as well as the sector‟s provision of employment to about one third of the total labor force and livelihood for the bulk of the rural populace (FMARD, 2006). The prominence of the enterprise in the lives of people in Nigeria and beyond is shown in the rate at which the crop itself is cultivated and consumed. For instance, FAO (2005) estimated Nigeria‟s cassava production to be approximately 34 million tones. It is an important staple food and cash crop in several tropical African countries especially Nigeria where it plays a principal role in the food economy. Agwu and Anyaeche (2007), Ezulike et al. (2006) corroborated this finding, indicating that it is a staple food crop in South eastern Nigeria and contributes about 15% of the daily dietary energy intake of most Nigerians while supplying about 70% of the total calorie intake of about 60 million people in Nigeria. Nandi, et al. (2011) observed that the large population of Nigeria depended on cassava daily as their main dish such as gari and fufu, the leaves consumed as vegetable and serves as raw material to industries as well as a means of alleviating poverty. The above assertions have buttressed by Awoyinka (2009) who found out that about 90% of cassava produced in Nigeria is however, consumed as food. Although, the enterprise is reported to be mostly in the hands of small holder famers, it is considered vital for food security and income generation (Nweke, 2004). 61 The concentration of the enterprise in the hands of numerous small scale holders is mostly noticed in south east and central Nigeria (Nwosu and Asumugha, 2007). Large scale cassava enterprise according to Nwosu and Asumugha is rarely practiced relative to small scale operation. Despite the enterprise level of operation in Nigeria, its expansion has been relatively steady (Adeola, et al., 2008). The activities of the International Institute of tropical Agriculture (IITA) and National Root Crop Research Institute (NRCRI) which included the release of improved varieties contributed to the expansion, diffusion and commercialization of cassava in Nigeria (Nweke, 2004). So far over 27 cassava varieties have been released to farmers by NRCRI in collaboration with IITA located at Umudike and Ibadan respectively (Nweke, 2004). It has been reported that the traditional market channels for cassava products are more pronounced than the industrial market and which needs to be developed (Nigeria First, 2006). The products currently are mainly fresh cassava tubers, gari, fufu, stem cuttings, chips, flour and starch (Ogbonna and Asumugha, 2009). Numerous other research findings have also revealed positive socio-economic benefits of cassava enterprise. Ogbonna and Asumugha (2009) revealed that the enterprise is a major contributor to employment creation and poverty reduction having gained ground as a cash crop for export. According to Ogbonna and Asumugha (2009) the diversification and expansion of cassava enterprise into new growth markets presents real opportunities in cassava production, processing and marketing system. It has also been observed that the vital role of the sub-sector in Nigeria economy cannot be over emphasized. Nigeria currently is the largest producer of cassava and over 91 percent of total production is devoted to 75 million people Ugwu (1996 and 1999) in Nigeria for consumption. Nweke et al. (1996) also showed that 62 cassava enterprise form the bulk of the root crop business that provides at least 40 percent of producing households‟ cash income in major cassava and yam producing areas of Nigeria. Aye, Oboh and Blam (2006) further revealed that cassava enterprise has great values and can play crucial role in contributing to food and nutritional security, income generation, poverty alleviation and socio-economic growth of Nigeria. Apart from contributing to the food base of Nigeria, products such as flour, starch, chips, paper, adhesive, ethanol and pharmaceutical are also provided (Alabi and Oviasogie, 2005). Thus; cassava enterprise offers flexibility to resource poor farmers; serving either as subsistence or as cash crop (Odoemenem and Otanwa, 2011). Nweke and Ezuma (1992) and FAO (2003) also revealed that about 42% of harvested cassava roots in West and East Africa are processed into dried chips and flour. As a cash crop, cassava generates cash income for the largest number of households in companion with other staples (Nweke, 1997). Thus, many Nigerians derive much of their food and employment from cassava production, processing, marketing and cassava based agro-industrial schemes. It is observed that although yam is traditionally the most important food among the indigenous ethnic groups in Nigeria, cassava has gained widespread acceptance as a “Saviour” crop being cropped and consumed by almost all households in Nigeria (BNARDA, 1997). The research findings of Nigeria first (2005) showed that the sub-sector provides good source of agro-industrial raw materials, such as starch. Although the proportion used by industries was small, it is recently observed to be increasing (Ogbonna and Asumugha, 2009). Currently, bakery industries in Nigeria are mandated to add at least 10 percent cassava flour for a proportion of wheat flour, although most of the bakeries do not openly admit (Nigeria first, 2005). This is 63 addition to using cassava products as carbohydrate base in livestock feed formulation and in ethanol production (Nigeria first, 2005). Results of studies have however, shown that some socio-economic factors are important and capable of affecting the productivity and benefits of population either positively or negatively (Apata, 2007). The findings of Dagwa (2006), Adebayo et al. (2007), Irokwe et al. (2009) for maize farmers in Adamawa state, for millet farmers in Bauchi state, and for cassava producing women in Ebonyi state Nigeria respectively showed that household size, age, experience and farm size have positive and significant relationship with the socio-economic benefits of stakeholders. In addition, educational status was further revealed to have positive relationship with the level of benefits and socio-economic status of women stakeholders in cassava production in Ebonyi state, Nigeria (Irokwe et al., 2009). The finding was consistent with Onyenweaku and Nwaru (2005) for food crop production stakeholders in Imo state of Nigeria. Certainly education and training are crucial factors in unlocking the natural talents and inherent enterprising qualities of people, and enhances their abilities to understand and evaluate new production techniques leading to increased productivity and income (Nwaru, 2007). These findings from a priori experience is not far from being genuine as any increase in any of the variables would incidentally increase the productivity and socio-economic benefits and status of the entrepreneurs in the enterprise. According to Nwaru (2004), Irokwe, Ekwe, Okoye and Chukwu (2009) whereas age of an entrepreneur is important in determining productivity and benefits in an enterprise, large household size was found to determine availability of cheap labour for increased productivity and gain. Okoye et al. (2009) agreed to this finding stating that large household size might create a positive effect on productivity if 64 household labour is devoted mostly to farm enterprise. Years experience in cassava enterprise according to Irokwe et al. (2009) is an indication of practical skill and knowledge and a positive socio-economic determinants for cassava production among women farmers in Ebonyi state, Nigeria. Okoye et al. (2009) corroborated this finding stressing that the more experienced a farmer is the more efficient his decision making process and the more he is willing to take risks associated with farm enterprise. This is consistent with Onyenweaku and Okoye (2007) who observed that increased extension contacts would lead to more knowledge on improved cocoyam technologies which have a strong influence in increased productivity. In conclusion, it is obvious from the above review that Nigeria is the largest producer of cassava in the world. It is revealed also in the literature that the crop has contributed in no small measure to the development of agrarian economy and agri- business stage of Nigeria. The crop is consequently identified as a very powerful poverty fighter, by reducing cost of feeding through lower prices thereby making food available to millions of consumers. The profitability therefore has opened a widow of opportunities and high level involvement to entrepreneurs (producers, marketers and processors) in the enterprise at different scale of operation. It is further established in the review that the sub-sector has high level of benefits notwithstanding its myriads of constraints. Although, it is sad that irrespective of the sub-sector‟s level of benefits, scanty and/or absence of relevant and robust data on the contributions of cassava enterprise to socio-economic status of those involved in it has continued to characterize the sector. Focus on analysis of cassava production usually does not bring out the synergy in the activities of producers, processors and marketers. This study intends to bring out the synergy to achieve improvement along the value chain. This will help the process of transformation in cassava enterprise. 65 CHAPTER THREE 3.0 THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY 3.1 Theoretical framework A theory is a set of interrelated definitions and relationships that organize our concepts of and understanding of the empirical world in a systematic way (Ogunbameru, 2008). It is simply defined, as a set of ideas that provides an explanation for something (Harallambus and Holborn, 2000). Theory is used to explain phenomenon, identify causal mechanisms and processes which, although cannot be observed directly, can be seen in their effects. Kerlinger (2000) defined theory to mean a set of systematic view of phenomenon by specifying relations among variables, with the purpose of explaining and predicting the phenomenon. Thus, the following theories are considered relevant to this study: 1. The farming styles (FS) approach 2. The Actor-Network Theory (ANT) 3. Action theory 4. Value chain analysis theory 3.1.1 The Farming Styles (FS) Approach The farming style approach was developed by Ploeg J.D.V.D and A. Long at the Agricultural University, Wageningen. The theory is aimed at helping us understand farm enterprise as a matter of social interaction. Farming styles theory explains the heterogeneity among the people that are involved in the enterprise. Ploeg and Long 66 (1994) defined farm enterprise as a social and goal-oriented co-ordination of whole range of tasks, which together constitute the totality of the farm labour process. In this view a farm enterprise may be understood as a system of activities by various people linked to the goals of the actor(s) involved. The theory sees the practice of farm enterprise by individuals as being developed within the framework of local social constructed farming styles, which Ploeg (1993) defined as a cultural repertoire, a composite of normative and strategic ideas about how farm enterprise is run. In the context of farming styles (FS) approach, farm enterprise is understood as a specific set of inter-linkages between a unit of farming activity on the one hand and the surrounding markets, marked agencies, government policy, and technological development on the other. These interrelations are structured in such a way that the specific practices can be reproduced over time." According to Ploeg and Long (1994), the theory explains the differences in dynamics and processes between those involved in farm enterprise and their values which play central role in understanding the goal orientation of farm enterprises. 3.1.2 The Actor-Network Theory (ANT) Actor-Network theory was developed by (Alroe and Kristensen, 2002). It gives a simplistic illustration of a farm as a network of internal and external relations. It is a theoretical concept that understands farm enterprise as a self-organizing system characterized by a heterogeneous mixture of many elements and stakeholders that are translated and enrolled into the objective of enterprise. The theory sees the heterogeneous network of enrolled entities as not being limited only to the physical site of the farm enterprise but are as well enrolled and mobilized as actors into the farming processes. The kind of entities and actors that are enrolled into the network and how they are enrolled are characteristics of the 67 enterprise. However, the perspective and understanding of farm enterprises from an ANT approach and the ensuing relational entities is that the entities get their forms and performances through the relations in which they are located ((Law, 1999). Similarly, the entities enrolled in the network of the farm enterprise can be actor- networks themselves, e.g. the producers, processors, consultants and wholesalers may organize their own heterogeneous complexity with each striving to translate farm enterprises into their own network strategy by selling their products. 3.1.3 Action Theory Action theory was developed by German scientists in the field of applied psychology (Freese and Zapf 1994; Frese and Sabini, 1985). The theory lays emphasis on a task-oriented nature of human behaviours. The main purpose is to describe how a person completes a task. There are three underlining principles in the application of action theory that includes: motive-activity, goal-action and instrumental conditions- operations. In this approach, accomplishment of a top-level activity depends on accomplishment of lower level actions followed by operations. Motives are inspirations causing a set of goals, and actions for these goals consist of various operations and actors. Action theory believes that an individual‟s attitude or even perception on an issue affects to a large extent his/her involvement in it. It means therefore that one‟s point of view is favourably a factor capable of inclining the person to an activity. The theory also submits that a prevailing opportunity is a sin qua non for a person(s) to get involved in the action (Meizies, 1982). This also implies that involvement of different entrepreneurs in cassava enterprise is predicated on their perception and conviction of possible benefits or rewards. 68 3.1.4 Value Chain Analysis Theory The value chain approach was developed by Micheal Poter in the 1980s and has long been identified as a powerful tool for analysing strategic planning of any enterprise (Panthania-Jain, 2001). The theory is used to develop an organization‟s sustainable competitive advantage in the business arena. The theory sees an enterprise as consisting of activities linked together to develop the value of business and together these activities form the organization‟s value chain. This network of activities includes production of goods, distribution and marketing of organization‟s products and activities (Lynch, 2003). According to Micheal (1990) the theory is a strong tool in the hands of entrepreneurs to identify key activities within an enterprise as well as potential for sustainable competitive advantage. The implication of the theory is that entrepreneurs in cassava enterprise are human beings and have basic socio-economic needs. Thus, their involvement in cassava enterprise is often predicated upon the contributions cassava enterprise on their socio-economic needs. It is therefore certain that; from the review of the aforementioned theories, none of them can singly and fully buttress the contributions of cassava enterprise to the socio-economic status of entrepreneurs in the study area. Thus, all the theories lead to the framework on the contributions of cassava enterprise to the socio- economic status of entrepreneurs in South- eastern Nigeria. 3.2 Conceptual framework and how it works A conceptual framework shows the articulate nature of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables (Ogolo, 1996) and indicates how intervening variables may affect the relationship. It is a supporting structure around which a research ideas and efforts can be built. According to Aworh, et al. (2006) a 69 conceptual framework is an abstract and stylized ordering of research ideas, which is meant to guide research design. Consequently, the conceptual framework of this study is based on the premise that cassava enterprise is affected directly or indirectly by the socio-economic characteristics of the entrepreneurs, enterprise characteristics, access to intervention, type of enterprise, scale of operation and level of involvement, benefits derived, and constraints, as well as government policies. These factors are classified into dependent, intervening and independent variables as indicated in Fig.1. The framework indicates that the dependent variable is influenced by independent variables as well as some intervening variables. The independent variables of the study include entrepreneurs‟ socio-economic characteristics and enterprise characteristics, access to intervention, level of involvement, scale of operation, type of enterprise and benefits derived, as well as constraints to cassava enterprise. The individuals relate with respective enterprises at different levels of involvement and in the process encounter some constraints. The individuals also derive benefits in the face of the constraints. The benefits are expected to directly affect the socio-economic status (SES) that the individual achieves. These variables thus have direct effects on the socio-economic status of the entrepreneurs in the cassava enterprise. The intervening variables were the variables that come between the independent and the dependent variables. According to Kerlinger (2000) it accounts for the internal and directly unobservable psychological processes that in turn account for behaviour effect. Although, they were variables not focused upon, their influences sometimes could not easily be delineated or measured, affecting the way the independent variables influenced the dependent variables. 70 In this light, government policy, diseases and pests outbreaks, weather condition combined to or separately influenced benefits derived and socio-economic status of those involved in cassava enterprise. Similarly, government policies and cost of input likely affected levels and scale of operation in cassava enterprise. The effect may have reduced or improved entrepreneurs‟ involvement in cassava enterprise and consequently their socio-economic status. On the other hand, the dependent variable of the study (socio-economic status of the entrepreneurs) was categorized into low, moderate and high. The combinations of level of involvement and type of enterprise, entrepreneurs‟ socio-economic characteristics, and enterprise characteristics, scale of operation, benefits derived, access to input and constraints were possible determinants of entrepreneurs‟ socio- economic status. Others included diseases and pests outbreaks, government policies and cost of input. The individual entrepreneurs in the cassava enterprise have specific characteristics with which they relate with their respective enterprises. The individuals are entrepreneurs who have different focus on cassava such as production, processing and marketing. This affects their scale of production which may be small, medium and large. Characteristics of the enterprises such as farm size, finance, labour type etc. also have bearing on their scale of production. These interact with the enterprise type to lead to level of involvement which may be high or low. The enterprises encounter constraints which limit their level of involvement. The extents to which they can overcome the constraints determine the benefits they derive from the enterprises. Access to inputs among the entrepreneurs also affects the benefits they derive. Variables such as natural disasters, weather, etc. intervene in the flow of the interaction to enhance or impede the change that takes place in the socio- 71 economic status of the entrepreneurs. All of these determine the eventual socio- economic status of the respondents whether it is high, moderate or low. 72 Fig. 1: Framework for Contributions of Cassava Enterprise to Socio-Economic Status of Entrepreneurs 73 CHAPTER FOUR RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 4.1 Study area The study area is South eastern zone of Nigeria. South eastern Nigeria consists of present Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi, Enugu and Imo States. The zone is surrounded on all sides by other tribes (the Bini, Ijaw, Ogoni, Igala, Tiv, Yakurr and Ibibio). Currently, the major ethnic group is the Igbo who are mainly Christians. There are other ethnic groups that are settlers and they are either Moslems or Christians. However, the area is divided by the Niger River into two unequal sections – the eastern area (which is the largest) and the western area (the smallest). The zone lies within the highest vegetation belt and is characterized by two climate seasons; the rainy and dry seasons. The rainy season begins in April and lasts till October with the annual rainfall varying from 1,500mm to 2,200mm (60 to 80 inches). An average annual temperature above 20 °C (68.0 °F) creates an annual relative humidity of 75% and reaches 90% in the rainy season. During the dry season, the zone experiences two months of harmattan from late December to late February. The hottest months are between January and March. This explains reasons why the zone is primarily agricultural, producing mainly cassava, yam, cocoyam, leafy vegetables, maize, melon, okro, palm fruits, banana etc. Most of these agricultural activities are concentrated in the 74 rural areas, necessitating the transportation of the surplus produce to the urban centers and beyond. The zone is well severed by a network of rough but accessible rural roads that permit spatial rural- urban interaction. Comparably, South East is among the leading cassava producing zones in Nigeria (IITA, 2004). 75 Fig. 2: Map of Nigeria showing States in Nigeria 76 Fig. 3: Map of Nigeria showing South eastern Nigeria 77 Fig. 4: Map of Imo State showing selected Local Government Areas (shaded) for the study 78 Fig. 5: Map of Anambra State showing selected Local Government Areas (shaded) for the study 79 4.2 Study population The population of the study is entrepreneurs in cassava enterprise in South eastern Nigeria. The entrepreneurs include farmers (producers), processors and marketers who have the mindset and process to create and develop economic activity by blending risk-taking, creativity and/or innovation with sound management within a new or an existing cassava enterprise. 4.3 Sampling procedure and sample size Multi-stage sampling procedure was used in selecting respondents from the study area. South eastern Nigeria has five States which include; Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi, Enugu and Imo. Two states namely; Imo and Anambra were purposively selected because of their prominence in cassava enterprise (PCU 2003, IITA, 2004). Imo State is made up of twenty-seven Local Government Areas. At the first stage, 33% of the 27 Local Government Areas was selected using simple random sampling technique to give nine Local Government Areas: Oguta, Ohaji/Egbema, Oru-East, Orlu, Ikeduru, Njaba, Mbano, Aboh-Mbaise and Okigwe. The second stage involved using simple random sampling technique to select three communities from each of the nine Local Government Areas to give 27 communities. At the third stage, a list containing an average of 15 members of Cassava Growers‟ Association was obtained in each of the 27 th selected communities. Using systematic sampling technique, every 5 member, that is, 3 members (20%) from the list were selected to get a total of 81 producers. Also, systematic sampling technique was used to select 2 (20%) 80 processors from the list of Cassava Processors‟ Association containing an average of 9 members from each of the 27 selected communities to give 54 processors. Although, a total of 50 interview schedules were usable. Snowball technique was used to identify a marketer from a major market involved in cassava enterprise who in turn helped in identifying other marketers. This process continued until a list of 265 marketers was obtained, averaging 10 marketers from each of the 27 communities. Twenty percent (i.e. 2 marketers each from the 27 communities) of the list was selected using simple random sampling technique to give 54 marketers. However, 51 of the interview schedules were usable and this gave 182 respondents representing 81 producers, 50 processors, and 51 marketers. A similar sampling procedure as in Imo state was repeated in Anambra state that has 21 Local Government Areas. Multi-stage random sampling technique was used in selecting the respondents. At the first stage, 30% of the 21 LGAs was selected using simple random sampling technique to give six local government areas: Idemili south, Ihiala, Ekwusigo, Awka South, Nnewi South and Njikoka. The second stage involved using simple random sampling technique to select three communities from each of the 6 L.G.As to give 18 communities. The third stage involved obtaining a list of Cassava Growers‟ Association containing an average of 15 members from each of the 18 selected communities. Using systematic sampling technique, 3(20%) was selected to give a total of 54 producers. Also, 2(20%) processors were selected from the list of Cassava Processors‟ Association containing an average of 10 members 81 in each of 18 communities using systematic sampling technique to give a total of 36 cassava processors. Snowball technique was used to identify a marketer from a major market involved in cassava enterprise who in turn helped in identifying other marketers. This process continued until a list of 182 marketers was obtained averaging 10 marketers in each of the 18 communities. Twenty percent (i.e. 2 marketers each from the 18 communities) of the list was selected using simple random sampling technique to give 36. This gave 126 respondents representing 54 producers, 36 processors, and 36 marketers as shown in Table 4.1. This gave a total sample size of 308 that was used in the study. . 82 Table 1: Sampling procedure State No of Sampled Sampled entrepreneurs Total no of L.G.A L.G.A Producers Marketer Processors entrepreneurs (20%) s (20%) (20%) Imo 27 9 81 54 (51) 54 (50) 182 Anambra 21 6 54 36 36 126 Total 48 15 135 87 86 308 83 4.4 Method of data collection The data for the study was collected from primary source through the use of interview schedules. 4.5 Reliability and validity of instrument Reliability In order to ensure that the data obtained with the instrument are reliable with their ability to give consistent result, an analysis of internal consistency of the instrument was carried out. A total number of 43 copies of the questionnaire were administered to cassava entrepreneurs in Abia state that was not included in the study. The split-half method of reliability was used. A reliability co-efficient (r-value) of 0.7 was obtained which was considered good enough for the instrument as it indicates a 70 percent reliability. Validity In order to ensure the validity (appropriateness) of the instrument for data collection (i.e. ensuring that the instrument measured what it was intended to measure), it was subjected to face and content validity with the assistance of experts (lecturers) in the field of agricultural extension and rural development. The process resulted into identifying defective and irrelevant items that were corrected for inclusion in the instrument while some were dropped for their inappropriateness. 84 4.5.1 Measurement of variables Independent variables Socio-economic characteristics of respondents 1. Age: Respondents were asked to state their actual age(s) in years 2. Sex: Respondents were asked to indicate their sex (a) Male (b) Female 3. Marital status: Respondents were required to state their marital status (a) Single (b) married (c) Widow 4. Education: Respondents were asked to indicate their levels of education (a) Formal education (b) Non-formal education 5. Household size: Respondents were asked to state the number of people living with them 7. Household type: Respondents were asked to state their household type (a) Male headed household (b) Female headed household 8. Years of experience: Respondents were asked to state the number of years they have been involved in cassava enterprise 9. Income per annum: Respondents were asked to indicate the total income realized per annum from cassava enterprise. 10. Marketing outlets: Respondents were asked to indicate their marketing outlets (a) Farm gate (b) Middlemen Enterprise characteristics 11. Farm size (producers): Respondents were asked to indicate their farm size 12. Sources of land/shop: Respondents were asked to state their sources of land/shop (a) Rented/leased (b) Family land (c) Communal ownership (d) Outright purchase (e) Government 85 13. Other crops planted: Respondents were asked to state other crops they cultivate together with cassava. The crops will be grouped into annual and perennial crops. (a) Maize (b) Yam (c) Vegetables (d) Others 14. Sources of labour: Respondents were asked to indicate their sources labour which will grouped into hired and family sources (a) family members (b) Paid labour (c) friends (d) self 15. Sources of fund: Respondents were asked to indicate their sources of capital Informal sources: (a) personal savings (d) gifts/donations Formal sources: (c) Credit from bank (d) Inheritance 16. Cassava variety planted: Respondents were asked to indicate type of cassava variety planted (a) Local variety (b) Both variety 17. Means of transportation: Respondents were asked to indicate their means of transportation. Motorized: (a) Trailer (c) Motorcycle (e) Pick up van (f) Boat Non- motorized: (d) Head porteage (b) Truck (g) Bicycle 18. level of Involvement in cassava enterprise: the respondents were asked to indicate their level of involvement in cassava enterprise on a three-point scale using scores of Not at all = 0, Occasionally = 1 Always = 2 (interval). The mean score and standard deviation (67.28 ± 8.69; 63.74 ± 7.42; 63.74 ± 9.47; and 66.26 ± 8.70) were generated for producers, marketers, processors and overall respectively and used to categorize the respondents into low (< mean ± 1SD), moderate (within mean ± 1SD) and high (> mean ± 1SD) levels of involvement for all enterprise categories. 19. Scale of operation: The producers were asked to indicate the actual number of bags (308.96 ± 358.40) and quantity of stem cuttings (259.96 ± 289.58) of cassava produced. Processors were also asked to indicate the quantity of fresh tubers processed into garri (81.88 ± 120.57) and fufu (46.37 ± 56.13). Quantity of fresh 86 tubers marketed (745.21 ± 96.87), cassava cuttings in bundles (192.26 ± 191.61), gari marketed in bags (89.71 ± 124.95), tapioca marketed in bags (11.78 ± 7.60) and fufu marketed in bag (88.07 ± 110.26).The mean and standard deviation of the sum of scores for each entrepreneur‟s categories were obtained. The respondents whose scores were below mean bags - 1SD were categorised as small scale producers, processors and marketers respectively for each enterprise category. Also, respondents whose scores were within the mean score ± 1SD were categorised as medium scale entrepreneurs, while those respondents, whose scores were mean + 1SD and above were categorised as large scale entrepreneurs for such enterprises under consideration. 20. Access to intervention programme: Respondents were asked to indicate which of these intervention programmes are available using yes =1 and No = 0 Scoring: Highest score = 13 and Lowest score = 0 High score means greater access while low score means little access 21. Frequency of access to intervention inputs: Respondents were asked to indicate the frequency of access to intervention inputs as always (2), occasionally (1) and not at all (0). Respondents‟ scores for level of access to intervention inputs were obtained, from which the mean scores were generated for cassava producers (mean = 8.15), marketers (8.94 ± 2.16) and processors (mean = 9.92) and overall (mean = 8.31) respectively. The maximum and minimum score obtained for producers, marketers and processors were 0-13, 0-12 and 5-11 respectively. Based on below and above mean criterion, respondents were categorised into having low (< mean access scores) and high (≥ mean access scores). 22. Benefits derived from cassava enterprise: Respondents were asked to respond to 26 items on benefits derived from cassava enterprise using three point scale Low = 1, Moderate = 2, High = 3 (interval). The mean and standard deviation of the 87 respondents scores for level of benefits were obtained as 67.28 ± 8.69, 67.15 ± 7.42, 63.74 ± 9.47 and 66.26 ± 8.70 for producers, marketers, processors and overall respectively. The range of scores for producers, marketers and processors were 0-78, 21-78 and 0-78 respectively. Respondents were consequently categorised into having low (< mean ± 1SD), moderate (within mean ± 1SD) and high (> mean ± 1SD) level of benefits. 23. Constraints to cassava enterprise: This was measured by a list of 28, 28 and 27 statements for producers, marketers and processors respectively using a three point scale of Not a constraint = 1, Mild = 2 and Serious constraints = 3 (interval) The highest score obtained was 84 while the lowest score was 64 for the entrepreneurs. The mean scores and standard deviation (79.99 ± 3.07; 78.90 ± 7.28; 78.02. ± 4.89; and 77.81 ± 6.68) were obtained for producers, marketers, processors and overall respectively and used to categorize the respondents into low (< mean ± 1SD), moderate (within mean ± 1SD) and high (> mean ± 1SD) levels of severity of constraints for all enterprise categories. Dependent variable 24. Socio-economic status of the entrepreneurs: The dependent variable is Socio- Economic Status (SES) of entrepreneurs in cassava enterprise. In measuring the SES of entrepreneurs, standard scales of Ovwigho, (2000) was revalidated. In doing this, the SES was measured as number of items possessed 0, 1, 2-4, and above 4 (for continuous items) while the „yes‟ and „no‟ responses were for categorical items. The respondents were asked to indicate whether they possessed the items by placing a check mark (/) on the number of items possessed and tick yes or no for items that are categorical. To isolate the valid items, each selected item (non-standardised items) was correlated with the standardized scale of Ovwigho, (2000) using PPMC. Items 88 whose standard deviation values were higher than the mean values were removed. This gave a total number of 43 items that discriminated among the respondents and were used for the study. The mean and standard deviation of the respondents‟ scores for SES were obtained as 160.99 ± 7.18, 162.75 ± 3.95, 159 ± 8.80 and 161.12 ± 7.04 for producers, marketers, processors and overall respectively. Respondents were consequently categorised into having low (< mean ± 1SD), moderate (within mean ± 1SD) and high (> mean ± 1SD) SES for all enterprise categories. 4.6 Data analysis Data collected were analysed using both descriptive and inferential statistics. The data were analysed at 0.05 level of significant. 89 Table 1.2: Testing of hypotheses Hypotheses Statistical tool 1 Chi-square 2 ANOVA 3 PPMC 4 ANOVA 5 PPMC 6 PPMC 7 Multiple regression 90 CHAPTER FIVE RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 5.1 Introduction This chapter presents and discusses the results of the study. It is divided into nine sections which include: descriptive report on the socio-economic characteristics of respondents, enterprise characteristics, involvement in cassava enterprise, and scale of operation, access to intervention programmes, benefits derived and constraints to entrepreneurs‟ involvement and socio-economic status as well as results of tested hypotheses. 5.2 Section 1: Discussion of entrepreneurs’ socio-economic characteristics 5.2.1 Age The result of analysis as presented in Table 3 reveals that the modal age range was between 56 to 65 years (54.2%) with a mean age of 56.0 years. Across entrepreneurs‟ categories, results reveal that most producers (54.8 %) and marketers (71.3 %) were within the same age range of 56-65 years, most processors (71.3 %) were in the age range of 45-55 years. This implies that in the study area, cassava enterprise is not carried out by active and energetic people. It further indicates that cassava enterprise may not be sustainable if allowed to remain in the hands of aged entrepreneurs that are no more in their active productive economic age. The need to encourage youth to be involved may therefore not be over-stressed. It therefore calls for government‟s quick intervention to making the enterprise attractive and more profitable (making loans and modern productive and processing machines available) 91 for youths‟ involvement and participation. This is expected given the rate at which young and energetic working population is migrating out of the study area to the cities in search of white collar jobs. The result is in line with Eze (1993) who reported that the mean age of rural farm households across the various states of south eastern Nigeria was 53 years; indicating also that young ones were no more showing much interest in agriculture (Ladele and Edgal, 2005). 5.2.2 Sex The distribution of the entrepreneurs by sex shows that majority (77.9%) were females. The result also reveals that across entrepreneurs‟ categories, most producers (78.8%), marketers (71.3%) and processors (89.5%) were mainly females. This indicates that though cassava enterprise is not gender exclusive but it is mostly carried out by the female entrepreneurs as producers, marketers and processors. The result is in line with a priori expectations as women in the study area owned more cassava enterprises to the point that cassava is termed a woman‟s crop. This implies that cassava enterprise may not easily grow beyond its subsistent level in the study area. This is because women (who are mostly involved in the enterprise do not have absolute control over land, not to talk of expanding her scale of operation or using same for collateral. Such a scenario limits entrepreneurs‟ productive potential, benefits and change in the socio-economic status. The result concurs with the finding of Asumugha and Nwosu (2006); Ajieh and Uzokwe (2007) that women play a leading role in cassava enterprises, contributing about 67% of the total labour in the south-east, 58% in south-west and 88% in North-central zones, with involvement in virtually all activities namely hoeing, planting, weeding, harvesting, transporting, storing, processing, marketing and domestic chores. 92 5.2.3 Marital status Findings on the marital status as shown in Table 3 reveals that majority of the entrepreneurs (95.8%) were married. Across the entrepreneurs‟ categories, most producers (91.9%), marketers (100%) and processors (97.7%) were married. The result is expected and supports the idea that married people have more responsibilities hence their increased need for coping strategies to financial and food security obligations in their households. The result confirms the finding of Imo (2002) and Ekwe et al. (2009) that most food crop farmers, cassava processing and marketing households in the south-east were married. 5.2.4 Household size The household size distribution of the respondents as shown in Table 3 indicates that most entrepreneurs (97.7%) had household size of above 8. The result also reveals that across entrepreneurs‟ categories, most producers (97.8%), marketers ((98.9%) and processors (96.5%) had same household size of above 8. The result was expected in view of the extended family system that operates in the study area whereby parents, children and other relations dwelt or live together as a household. The result also implies that most entrepreneurs are likely to source some cheap labour within the households to assist in enterprise activities. The large household size also implies likelihood of household food security reduction, decrease in benefits, income and socio-economic status. However, sourcing cheap labour from the household establishes financial incapability of the entrepreneurs to carry out some of the enterprise activities themselves due to old age as well as employment of paid labour that is often expensive. The result is in line with that of Ironkwe, et al. (2009) who reported that most farm families in Nigeria have large household size of between 6 to 10 persons. 93 5.2.5 Educational attainment Results available in Table 3 reveal that a large proportion (67.2%) of the entrepreneurs had formal education up to secondary school level. Result across entrepreneurs‟ categories also shows that high percentages of producers (71.9%), marketers (65.5%) and processors (61.6%) completed secondary school education. The result is contrary to a priori expectation due to the rate people in the area once abandoned education for fast income generating ventures. The result therefore implies that most cassava entrepreneurs in the study area have formal knowledge of cassava enterprise and can use it to understand and evaluate information on new techniques to raise productivity. The result is line with the finding of Uchechi and Ebelenna (2009) that most people in cassava enterprise in Abia state, Nigeria could read and write. 5.2.7 Household type/or Household head Table 3 contains household type/or household head of the various entrepreneur categories. It reveals that majority (91.6%) of entrepreneurs‟ households were male headed. Results across entrepreneur categories also show that households of most producers (89.6%), marketers (98.9%) and processors (95.4%) were male headed. This was expected and typical of south eastern traditional society where men are mainly heads of their households. This implies that the entrepreneurs (who are mainly women) will find it difficult in taking decisions that can improve their productivity or operational scale, benefits and socio-economic status as women in the study area do not own or have absolute control over landed property. The result is consistent with Deji et al. (2005) who revealed that the age long tradition that positions men as heads of their households in Nigeria still prevails despite social and economic trend that suggest a rise in the proportion of households headed or principally maintained by women (Folbre, 1991). 94 5.2.8 Years of experience The finding as shown in Table 3 indicates that year of experience of most entrepreneurs (54.0%) were between 25-50 years. The result also reveals that across entrepreneurs‟ categories, most producers (80.7%), marketers (75.9 %) and processors (84.9%) were within the same 25-50 years of experience in cassava enterprise. The result was expected in view of the fact that involvement and acquisition of skills and knowledge in cassava enterprise in the study area normally begins at early childhood stage. This implies that cassava farming is not just an occupation but a way of life of the people in the study area. The finding is in line with that of Ironkwe et al. (2009) that most people in south eastern Nigeria are highly experienced in farm enterprise. 95 Table 3: Distribution of entrepreneurs based on socio-economic characteristics Variable Description Producers Marketers Processors Total F % F % F % F % Age (Years) 30 – 45 8 5.9 10 11.5 8 9.3 26 8.4 46 – 55 48 35.6 12 13.8 46 53.5 106 34.5 56 – 65 74 54.8 62 71.3 31 36.0 167 54.2 > 65 5 3.7 3 3.4 1 1.2 9 2.9 Mean = 56.24 Mean = 57.15 Mean = 53.33 Mean = 55.69 SD = ± 6.685 SD = ± 6.588 SD = ±6.627 SD = ± 6.792 Sex Female 101 74.8 62 71.3 77 89.5 240 77.9 Male 34 25.2 25 28.7 9 10.5 68 22.1 Marital Status Married 124 91.9 87 100.0 84 97.7 295 95.8 Single 0 0 0 0.0 1 1.2 1 0.3 Widow 11 8.1 0 0.0 1 1.2 12 3.9 Household Size < 5 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.2 1 0.3 5 – 8 3 2.2 1 1.1 2 2.3 6 1.9 >8 132 97.8 86 98.9 83 96.5 305 97.7 Mean = 7.07 Mean = 7.28 Mean = 6.99 Mean = 7.11 SD = 1.368 SD = ±1.318 SD = 1.427 SD = ± 1.371 Education Primary 5 3.7 9 10.3 11 12.8 25 8.1 Secondary and above 100 96.3 78 86.6 75 89.6 207 67.2 Household Type Female headed 14 10.4 4 4.6 8 9.3 26 8.4 Male headed 121 89.6 83 95.4 78 90.7 282 91.6 Experience < 25 years 10 7.4 2 2.3 8 9.3 12 3.9 25 – 50 109 80.7 66 75.9 73 84.9 166 54.0 51 – 75 16 11.9 19 21.8 5 5.8 130 42.1 Mean = 39.87 Mean = 42.53 Mean = 36.87 Mean = 39.78 SD = ±9.766 SD = ± 9.281 SD = ± 10.160 SD = ± 9.942 Source: Field Survey, 2011 96 5.3.0 Section 2: Entrepreneurs’ enterprise characteristics The enterprise characteristics of entrepreneurs considered are income per annum, type of enterprise, marketing outlets, farm size, source of land acquisition, other crops cultivated/marketed/processed, source of labour, and source of fund, cassava variety planted and means of transportation. The responses of entrepreneurs (producers, marketers and processors) are presented in table 4. 5.3.1 Income per annum The income distribution of the respondents as presented in Table 4 shows that mean annual income for cassava entrepreneurs was N249, 65.1 ±75.59. Across entrepreneurs‟ categories, mean income for producers, marketers and processors were N239, 351 ±39.56, N225395 ± 32.59 and N275771.7± 03.17 respectively. The result also reveals that most producers (36.8%), processors (46.5%) and marketers (57.5%) earned between N200, 001to N 300,000 per annum. This means that cassava entrepreneurs in the study area are generally low-income earners. The result was expected in view of the fact that most entrepreneurs operate at low scale. This implies that the entrepreneurs will not have enough capital to procure modern productive technologies that can ease their activities, enhance their output, benefits and socio- economic status. This calls for a careful review of the potentials of cassava as a foreign exchange earner in Nigeria. The result supports the finding of Odoemenem and Otanwa (2011) that respondents in cassava enterprise earn less than #300 per month in Benue state, Nigeria. 5.3.2 Marketing outlets In the same Table 4 most entrepreneurs (96.8%) market their produce through middle men. Across entrepreneurs‟ categories, most producers (97.7%), marketers (97.7%) and processors (94.7%) also used middle men as marketing channel. This 97 means that the involvement of middlemen in cassava distribution system is elaborate and preferably used by the entrepreneurs in the area. This is in line with the findings of Nweke, Spencer and Lynam (2002) and FIIRO (2006) that cassava products distribution in Nigeria is mainly through the middlemen. 5.3.3 Farm Size It is also evident in Table 4 that the mean farm size of most producers (74.8%) was between 1.5 to 2 hectares. The result is line with a priori expectation because land tenure system that fragments land among family members is in vogue in the study area. The result implies that cassava production will remain at subsistence level and in the hands of small scale producers who may be involved in other activities other than cassava enterprise. The result is consistent with the finding of Asiedu and Okon (2007), Doss and Moris (2010), IAASTD (2009) and Nandi et al. 2011) that most farmers in Nigeria operate on farm holdings of less than 2 ha. 5.3.4 Source of land/shop acquisition Table 4 further presents the result of source of land/shop acquisition. It reveals that majority (82.8%) of the entrepreneurs acquired land/shops from their families. Across entrepreneurs‟ categories, most producers (88.1%), marketers (87.4%) and processors (69.8%) also acquired land/shop for their respective activities from their families. This has implication for sustainability of the enterprise. The fragmentation of family land among members will someday pose a constraint of no land to share. It also limits opportunity for expansion as a small fragment is ever available for a particular member of the household to use. It thus restricts them to small holding subsistence farming enterprises. Their logic is that family land/shop acquisition subdivides land into smaller plots, and thus prohibits land accumulation to active entrepreneurs and hinders investment. The result is expected as the age long 98 traditional means of land/shop acquisition from families for most agro-enterprise is still in practice. The result is consistent with Agbo (2006) and Nandi et al. (2011) who listed family as a major source of land/shop acquisition for agribusiness in Nigeria. 5.3.5 Other crops cultivated/marketed/processed Table 4 reveals that most entrepreneurs combined cassava enterprise with other agro income generating activities that included: maize (97.7%), yam (62.3%), and melon (65.3%). Across entrepreneurs‟ categories, most producers cultivated cassava with maize (96.2%), yam (85.9%) and melon (egusi) (74.1%) and fluted pumpkin (45.9%), vegetable (97.8%), marketed garri (74.8%) and fufu (97.8%), while marketers combined cassava marketing with sale of maize (97.7%), yam (87.4%), vegetable (95.4%), melon (50.6 %) and pumpkin (52.9%). Also, processors integrated processing of maize (100.0%), and melon (66.3%), with the marketing of cassava tubers (66.3%), stem cuttings (94.2%), garri (69.8%) and fufu (94.2%). The result is typical of the study area given the common trend of entrepreneurs having combinations of livelihood activities to spread risks, cope with income insufficiency, compensate for failures in market credits, and improve food security. This implies that the system is the best agro-business approach to maximize the use of resources and the output per land area for entrepreneurs. The result is consistent with the observation of Fabusoro (2005) that recent development in micro and macro- economic environment has brought about increasing pressure on agro-enterprise income and has stimulated a search for alternative sources of generating additional revenue among rural farm enterprise households in developing nations. 99 5.3.6 Source of labour The entrepreneurs‟ source of labour is presented in Table 4 below. The result indicates that most entrepreneurs made use of paid/hired labour (94.5%), self labour (93.5 %) and family labour (86.0%). Across entrepreneurs‟ categories, producers used paid/hired labour (97.0%), self labour (93.5%) and family labour (86.0%). Similarly, most marketers used paid/hired labour (98.9%), self labour (97.7%) and family labour (89.7%), while processors‟ major sources of labour included: self labour (97.7%), family labour (96.5%) and paid/hired labour (86.0%). The result is line with a priori expectation in view of the predominance of aged entrepreneurs who cannot cope with the drudgery associated with cassava enterprise. The result also implies that some of the family members may be involved in other activities other than cassava enterprise. The finding is in line with Obibuaku (1999) who reported preference for paid/hired labour, self labour and family labour sources in south eastern, Nigeria. 5.3.7 Source of finance The results in Table 4 reveals that majority (92.2%) of entrepreneurs sourced their finance from personal savings. Across entrepreneurs‟ categories, most producers (92.2%) marketers (87.4%) and processors (100.0%) also got their finance through personal savings. The result is line with a priori expectation given the uncertainty that characterise other sources of finance and entrepreneurs‟ involvement in several other activities (wage employment, weaving, petty trading, farm produce processing, community labour and arable farming) from which, they could make some savings for cassava enterprise. This implies that entrepreneurs cannot venture into large scale cassava enterprise as a result of little savings; though they are likely to be more committed having invested their hard earned savings. The finding is consistent with Gwary, Pur and Bawa (2008) and Nandi et al. (2011) who reported that personal 100 savings was a major source of finance for most agro entrepreneurs in Askira/Uba Local Government of Borno state and Obubra Local Government Area of Cross River state, Nigeria respectively. 5.3.8 Cassava varieties planted Table 4 further shows that most (97.4%) of producers planted both local and improved cassava varieties. The result was expected due to high cost of improved stem cuttings as well as prevalence and easy access to local stem cuttings in the area. The result implies that the location of National Root Crop Research Institute (NRCRI) Umudike has not appreciably influenced availability and outright adoption of improved cassava varieties in the study area. The result is in tandem with the finding of Ezebuiro (2004) that despite availability of improved cassava varieties in south eastern Nigeria, cultivation of improved varieties alongside with the local variety are still in practice. 5.3.9 Means of transportation Various means of transportation were identified to be in use by the respondents in the study area. According to the result as presented in the Table 4, motorcycle (96.8%), bicycle (91.6%), pick-up van (88.6%) and hand drawn trucks/wheel barrows (84.4%) were means of transportation by most entrepreneurs. Results across categories of entrepreneurs also show that among producers, means of transportation used included: motorcycle, (96.3%) bicycle (94.8%) pick up van (80.0%) and hand drawn trucks/wheel barrow (80.0%). Motorcycle (96.6%) bicycle (95.4%), pick-up van (93.1%), and truck/wheel barrow (90.8%) were also major means of transportation among marketers. Results also reveal that motorcycle (100.0%), pick-up van (97.7%), hand drawn truck/wheel barrow (84.9%), bicycle (80.2%) and boat (51.2%) were used by most processors as means of transportation. 101 The high percentages for motorcycle and bicycle were expected given the current level of rural poverty and consequent influx of motorcycles and their use as means of livelihood by riders in rural communities. The result depicts availability, accessibility, affordability and usability of these means of transportation as well as their sustainability among entrepreneurs. The use of boat is also an indication of palpable inadequate or poor, rugged and narrow feeder roads for better vehicular movement especially in the riverine areas of Oguta, Ohaji and Ekpoma. The result is consistent with the report of Dipeolu et al. (2001) that due to long distances between scattered farms and points of processing and final destination markets, means of transport has considerably changed; motorcycle, bicycle, panel and pick-up vans, and trucks are the most commonly used means of transportation in Nigeria. 1 02 Table 4: Distribution of entrepreneurs based on enterprise characteristics Variable Description Producers (n=135) Marketers (n=87) Processors (n=86) Total (n=308) F % F % F % F % Income <100,000 23 17.0 8 20.9 7 8.0 48 15.6 100,001-200,000 30 36.3 17 19.8 6 6.9 53 17.2 200,001-300,000 50 36.8 40 46.5 15 57.5 140 45.5 300,001-400,000 19 14.1 16 7.0 20 29.9 45 14.6 <400,000 13 9.6 5 5.8 41 4.6 22 7.1 239351.01± 39.56 225395.01 ± 32.59 275771.7± 03.17 249651.1±75.59 Marketing outlets Farm gate 3 2.2 2 2.3 5 5.3 10 3.2 Middlemen 132 97.8 85 97.7 85 94.2 298 96.8 Farm Size ≤ 0.5ha 6 4.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 4.0 0.6 to 1ha 9 6.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 6.6 1 to 1.5ha 19 14.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 19 14.1 1.5ha to 2ha 101 74.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 101 74.8 1.68± 0.95 Source of land/shop Rented/lease 81 60.0 51 58.6 39 45.3 171 55.5 Family 119 88.1 76 87.4 60 69.8 255 82.8 Communal 23 17.0 2 2.3 26 30.2 51 16.6 Outright Purchase 73 54.1 68 78.2 48 55.8 189 61.4 Government 3 2.2 1 1.1 22 25.6 26 8.4 Other crops cultivated/sold/processed Maize 130 96.3 65 97.7 86 100.0 301 97.7 Yam 116 85.9 76 87.4 0 0.0 192 62.3 vegetable 132 97.8 83 95.4 0\ 0.0 215 69.8 Melon 100 74.1 44 50.6 57 66.3 201 65.3 Pumpkin 62 45.9 46 52.9 21 24.4 129 41.9 Garri 101 74.8 0 0.0 60 69.8 161 52.3 Stem cutting 0 0.0 0 0.0 85 94.2 85 27.6 Cassava tubers 0 0.0 76 87.4 57 66.3 133 43.2 Fufu 132 77.8 0 0.0 85 94.2 217 70.5 Source of labour Family 104 77.0 78 89.7 83 96.5 265 86.0 Paid labour 131 97.0 86 98.9 74 86.0 291 94.5 Friends 17 12.6 7 8.0 28 32.6 52 16.9 Self 119 88.1 85 97.7 84 97.7 288 93.5 Source of fund Personal savings 122 90.4 76 87.4 86 100.0 284 92.2 Credits from banks 38 28.1 32 36.8 13 15.1 83 23.9 Inheritance 11 8.1 1 1.1 20 23.3 32 10.4 Gifts/donations 7 5.2 4 4.6 3 3.5 14 4.5 Transportation Trailer 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0 1 0.3 Truck 108 80.0 79 90.8 73 84.9 260 84.4 Motorcycle 128 94.8 84 96.6 86 100.0 298 96.8 Head porterage 25 18.5 15 17.2 10 11.6 50 16.2 Pick up van 109 80.0 81 93.1 84 97.7 273 88.6 Bicycle 130 96.3 83 95.4 69 80.2 282 91.6 Boat 40 29.6 20 23.0 44 51.2 104 33.8 Cassava varietiesplanted Both variety 132 97.8 0 0 0 0 132 97.8 Local variety 2 2.2 0 0 0 0 2 2.2 Source: Field Survey, 2011 1 03 5.4 Section 3: Entrepreneurs’ level of involvement in cassava enterprise The section discusses the entrepreneurs‟ level of involvement in cassava enterprises in the study area. The distribution of the entrepreneurs is presented in Table 5. From the findings as shown in Table 5 majority of cassava producers were always involved in production of cassava stem cuttings (91.2%) and fresh root tubers (98.5%). Results also reveal that garri (96.6%), stem cuttings (74.7%), fufu (67.8%) and fresh tubers (65.5%) were marketed always, as well as processing of fufu (84.9%) and garri (59.3%). The results further show that based on the weighted scores, fresh root tubers, fufu and garri ranked first among products always produced, processed and marketed by the respective entrepreneurs. Stem cuttings, garri and marketing of stem cuttings ranked second as products that were always carried out by the producers, processors and marketers respectively. The result was in line with a priori expectation and is a true indication of wider preference, acceptability, consumption and demand for gari, fufu and tapioca in the study area and beyond. The result is in line with the finding of Nweke (1995) and Onabulu (2001) that 70% of cassava produced in Nigeria is processed into gari and fufu, which are the most traded cassava products in Nigeria. 1 04 Table 5: Distribution of entrepreneurs based on level of involvement in cassava enterprise Variable Description Always Occasionally Not At all Weighted Rank F % F % F % Score Producer: nd Producing Stem Cuttings 123 91.2 11 8.1 1 0.7 190.5 2 st Producing fresh root tubers 133 98.5 1 0.7 1 0.7 197.7 1 Processor th Processing fresh tubers 0 0.0 10 11.6 76 88.4 11.6 4 into flour th Processing fresh tubers 0 0.0 10 11.6 76 88.4 11.6 4 into chips th Processing fresh roots 1 1.2 1 1.2 84 97.7 3.6 5 into starch nd Processing fresh roots 51 59.3 19 22.1 16 18.6 140.7 2 into garri rd Processing fresh roots 11 12.8 63 73.3 12 14.0 98.9 3 into tapioca th Processing fresh roots 73 84.9 11 12.8 2 2.3 182.6 6 into fufu Marketer nd Marketing fresh tubers 57 65.5 18 20.7 12 13.8 151.7 2 th Marketing cassava chips 20 23.0 2 2.3 65 74.7 48.3 6 th Marketing cassava flour 19 21.8 5 5.7 63 72.4 49.3 5 rd Marketing cassava starch 10 11.5 0 0.0 7 8.5 23.0 23 nd Marketing stem cuttings 65 74.7 6 6.9 16 18.4 156.3 2 st Marketing garri 84 96.6 0 0.0 3 3.4 193.2 1 th Marketing tapioca 18 20.7 21 24.1 48 55.2 65.5 4 rd Marketing fufu 59 67.8 7 8.0 21 21.1 143.6 3 Source: Field Survey, 2011 105 5.4.1: Entrepreneurs’ level of involvement in cassava enterprise Table 6 presents entrepreneurs level of involvement in cassava enterprise in the study area. It is shown in Table 6 that most entrepreneurs (83.4%) were highly involved in cassava enterprise. The result across entrepreneurs‟ categories also reveals that involvement in cassava enterprise by most producers (91.1%), marketers (58.6%) and processors (96.5%) was high. This shows that the entrepreneurs were highly involved in the enterprise. This result establishes the level of importance of the enterprise in the study area. The result was expected because cassava itself is a staple commodity in the study area. The result is in tandem with the report of Nzekwe and Afolabi (2001) that enhanced involvement of people in cassava enterprise is as a result of increased demand for cassava products in and outside rural communities. 1 06 Table 6: Entrepreneurs’ level of involvement in cassava enterprise Level Producer Marketers Processors Overall Score F % Score F % Score F % Score F % Low 2-3.8 12 8.9 2-6.8 36 41.4 3-4.3 3 3.5 2-4.8 51 16.6 High 3.9-4 123 91.1 6.9-10 51 58.6 4.4-6.0 83 96.5 4.9-10 257 83.4 Mean 3.90±0.35 6.92±1.62 4.42±0.73 4.90±1.61 Source: Field survey, 2011 1 07 5. 5 Section 4: Entrepreneurs’ scale of operation in cassava enterprise 5.5.1 Producers The entrepreneurs‟ perception of their scale of operation is discussed in this section. The distribution of entrepreneurs is presented in Table 7. The result in Table 7 reveals that fresh tubers (97.0%) and stem cuttings (97.0%) were produced at small scale. This is expected because of the small farm size of most entrepreneurs in the area. The result suggests that interventions of the government and other agencies have not succeeded in boosting the production level of most entrepreneurs in the study area. The result confirms the findings of Lucas (2007), Oyewole et al. (2001), Omonona (2009), Oyegbami et al. (2010) and Nweke et al. (2002) that there were few medium and large scale producers of cassava in Nigeria. 1 08 Table 7: Distribution of cassava producers based on scale of operation in cassava enterprise Variable Small Scale Medium Large Scale Description Producer F % F % F % Producing fresh tuber 131 97.0 3 2.2 0 0.0 Producing stem cuttings 131 97.0 2 1.5 1 0.7 Source: Field Survey, 2011 1 09 5.5.2: Cassava processors’ scale of operation in cassava enterprise Processors scale of operation was analyzed in Table 8. The results in Table 8 show that garri (98.8%), fufu (98.8), tapioca (95.3%) and chips (90.7%) were processed at small scale. The result is in line with a priori expectation because of inadequacy of modern processing technology and prevalence of traditional processing technologies in the area which do not promote large scale processing of the products. The result is an indication of continuity in post-harvest losses and decline in the nation‟s food output which calls for urgent rural infrastructural transformation. The result implies that Nigeria will continue to lag behind in exportation of these products. The result is in line with the findings of Sanni et al. (2009) and Ekwe et al. (2009) that production and processing of most traditional foods or intermediate products, such as fufu, gari, flour, tapioca, chips and starch are mainly carried out by micro and small-scale processors. 110 Table 8: Distribution of cassava processors based on scale of operation in cassava enterprise Variable Description Small Medium Large scale Scale Processor F % F % F % Processed cassava tuber into 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 flour Processed fresh tuber into chips 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Processed of fresh roots into 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 starch Processed fresh tuber into gari 85 98.8 1 1.2 0 0.0 Processed fresh tuber into 82 95.3 1 1.2 0 0.0 tapioca Processed fresh tuber into fufu 85 98.8 1 1.2 0 0.0 Source: Field Survey, 2011 111 5.5.3: Cassava marketers’ scale of operation in cassava enterprise The scale of operation of cassava marketers is presented in Table 9. The result indicates that a large percentage of the respondents marketed gari (100.0%), stem cuttings (100.0%), fufu (100.0%), flour (73.6%), fresh tubers (71.3%), starch (64.4%) and chips (56.3%) were carried out on small scale. The result is expected in view of the low level of marketing infrastructural development in the area. The result is also expected in view of the cyclic tendency of production. It is obvious that following unreliable and unpredictable increases and decreases in supply and demand for cassava products in addition to processing efficiency and price, the scale of marketing operation is likely to be affected. The result implies that small scale marketing will continue to prevail in the area unless there is remarkable policy framework and implementation in cassava production and processing as well as marketing and consumption of cassava products in the area. Provision of interest free loan with no land collateral but that guarantors are used is a sine qua non to enhancing entrepreneurs‟ scale of operation, benefits and socio-economic status. The result is line with the finding of FIIRO (2006) that cassava trade in Nigeria is very erratic; and in the hands of small scale entrepreneurs who consumed large proportion of their output, and sold whatever remains in the local market. 1 12 Table 9: Distribution of cassava marketers based on scale of operation in cassava enterprise Variable Small Scale Medium Scale Large Scale Description F % F % F % Marketing fresh tubers 62 71.3 25 28.7 0 0.0 Marketing cassava chips 49 56.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 Marketing Cassava Flour 64 73.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 Marketing Cassava Starch 56 64.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 Marketing Stem Cuttings 87 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Marketing Garri 87 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Marketing of tapioca 32 36.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 Marketing of Fufu 87 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Source: Field Survey, 2011 113 5.5.4 Quantity of fresh tubers produced in bags/ stem cuttings in bundles Table 10 reveals that majority (87.4%) produced between 1 – 800 bags of fresh tubers with the mean of 308.96 bags. Results also show that 76.1% produced between 1-400 bundles of stem cuttings with mean of 259.59 bundles cassava stem cuttings. The result is expected because of entrepreneurs‟ apathy to wholesome adoption of fast-growing and disease resistant cuttings that can boost productivity. This implies a challenge to change agents in creating awareness and knowledge among entrepreneurs on the need for improved cultivation of improved varieties. This confirms the report of Lawrence et al. (2006) and Ezulike et al. (2006) that small scale production is a characteristic feature of cassava production in Nigeria. 1 14 Table 10: Distribution of cassava producers based on quantity of fresh tuber produced in bags/ stem cuttings in bundles Variable Description Score range (bags) F % Mean SD Quantity of Fresh Tuber Produced in bags: Low 1 – 800 118 87.4 308.96 358.40 Medium 801 -1600 16 11.9 Large 1601 -2400 1 0.7 Quantity of Stem Cuttings Produced in bundles Low 1 -400 102 76.1 259.59 289.58 Medium 401 – 800 21 15.7 Large Above 800 11 7.0 Source: Field Survey, 2011 115 5.5.5 Quantity of flour processed in bags Analysis on the quantity of flour processed in bags as presented in Table 11 reveals that most processors (97.7%) processed between 1-350 bags of garri, while 98.8% processed between 1-200 bags of fufu with the mean bags of 81.88 and 46.37 bags respectively. The result is contrary to a priori expectation. It is expected that there will be cassava starch and flour marketing boom in the area in view of Federal Government legislation on the mandatory inclusion of 10 percent cassava flour in wheat flour for baking bread. The result is an indication that South eastern Nigeria has not progressed beyond subsistence level in cassava flour processing and could be due to absence of appropriate and affordable modern processing technologies. The result is an indication that previous efforts to develop appropriate technology for cassava processing and dissemination especially during the Olusegun Obasanjo administration did not achieve the desired result. The result is a message to relevant policy makers that the development and growth of small-scale flour processing enterprise which is supposed to be based on the existence of some level of entrepreneurial climate or enterprise culture, supported by a well-defined institutional structure amongst the people, is far from being achieved in the study area. The is consistent with the observation of Collaborative Study of Cassava in Africa (COSCA) (1999), that manual grating of cassava is practiced in most areas despite presumed popularity of mechanized cassava grater in Nigeria and the consequences are low productivity and reduced quality of processed cassava products. 116 Table 11: Distribution of cassava processors based on quantity of flour processed in bags Variable Description Score range F % Mean SD (bags) Quantity of Fresh Tuber Processed into garri Low 1 – 350 84 97.7 81.9 120.6 Medium 351 – 700 1 1.2 Large Above 700 1 1.2 Quantity of fresh roots processed into fufu Low 1 to 200 85 98.8 46.4 56.1 Medium 201 to 400 0 0.0 Large Above 400 1 1.2 Source: Field Survey, 2011 117 5.5.6 Quantity of cassava products marketed Table 12 shows the quantity of cassava products marketed by the respondents. The result reveals that marketing of fresh tubers (96.6%,), bundles of stem cutting (85.1), garri (97.7%,) and fufu (97.6%,) were at small scale of 1 – 750 bags, 1 – 350 bundles, 1 – 350 bags and 1 – 300 bags respectively. The mean values were 7.21 fresh tubers, 192.26 bundles of stem cuttings, and 88.07 bags of fufu. The result is contrary to a priori expectation given the importance of these items and the fact that garri and fufu constitute daily meal for people in the area. The result indicates that the marketers are lacking in working capital and cannot expand their scale of operation. This further implies that the sub-sectors‟ capacity to serve as the pivot for the drive to reduce poverty and meet the socio-economic needs of the people is in question. The finding is consistent with FIIRO (2006) that cassava marketing in Nigeria has been rather erratic and in the hands of numerous farmers who consumed the bulk of their output and sold whatever that remained in the local market. The report maintained that this is one of the major reasons Nigeria plays a negligible role in cassava marketing across her boarders. 118 Table 12: Distribution marketing entrepreneurs based on quantity of cassava products marketed Variable Description Score range F % Mean SD (bags) Quantity of Fresh Tuber marketed Small 1 – 750 84 96.6 745.2 96.9 Medium 751 – 1500 2 2.3 Large Above 1500 1 1.1 Quantity of cassava cuttings marketed in bundles Small 1 – 350 74 85.1 192.3 91.6 Medium 351 – 700 11 12.6 Large Above 700 2 2.3 Quantity of cassava garri marketed in bags Small 1 – 350 85 97.7 89.7 24.9 Medium 351 – 700 1 1.1 Large Above 700 1 1.1 Quantity of tapioca marketed in bags Small 1 – 20 20 23.0 11.8 7.6 Medium 21 – 40 8 9.2 Large above 40 4 4.6 Quantity of fufu marketed in bag Small 1 – 300 82 97.6 88.1 10.3 Medium 301 – 600 1 1.2 Large Above 600 1 1.2 Source: Field Survey, 2011 1 19 5.6 Section 5: Entrepreneurs intervention programmes in cassava enterprise The focus of this section is to ascertain the intervention programmes for cassava enterprise in the study area. The distribution of respondents is as shown in table 13 below. 5.6.1 Agricultural Development Programmes (ADP) As shown in Table 13 most producers got processing equipment (75.6%), agro-chemical (78.5%), improved cassava stem cuttings (74.1%) and extension services (67.4%) intervention from ADP. The result also reveals that ADP‟s intervention in cassava marketing includes; processing equipment (82.8%), extension services (79.3%), agro-chemical (74.7%) and marketing outlets (65.5%) while intervention in cassava processing were mostly extension services (75.6%) and processing equipment (61.6%). This was expected in view of ADP‟s radio and television programmes in the area which was aimed at enlightening and sensitizing entrepreneurs towards enlisting into relevant co-operative societies for easy access to intervention packages by government and other donor agencies. The result is an indication that ADP is relatively living up to its philosophy that anchors on rural infrastructure and inputs delivery to rural farming communities. The result is in line with the finding of Nweze (2002) that in many states, ADP remarkably improved access to improved farming technologies, especially improved seeds, fertilizers, agro- chemicals and improved processing techniques. 5.6.2 Fadama From the analysis in Table 13 few producers (14.1%) attested to Fadama intervention in production/distribution of improved cassava cutting, construction of access road (13.3%), agro-chemical (12.6%) and development of equipment for processing cassava products (10.4%). The result also reveals that FADAMA 120 intervention in cassava marketing was in provision of marketing outlets (19.5%). On the other hand, intervention in processing was found to be in provision of machinery (83.3%).The low intervention was in line with a priori expectation because FADAMA (Hausa word for the low-lying flood-prone lands found in the plains of rivers) is not popular and viable yet in the study area notwithstanding the prominence of River Niger, Imo River, Ulasi and numerous tributaries and streams that are capable of providing enormous low land and basins for fadama development in the area. The result indicates the need for the development of those viable tributaries and streams by relevant stakeholders for fadama activities in the study area. This will empower and improve the socio-economic status of the entrepreneurs. The result is in line with the observation of World Bank (2003a) that though fadama is not new in Nigeria, it is a major pre-occupation of the peasant farmers in northern Nigeria who grew mainly vegetables, sugar-cane and fruits during dry seasons through irrigation; thus, the low utilization of fadama resources in other places. 5.6.3 United States Aid for International Development (USAID) As shown in Table 13 majority of the producers (99.3%) did not receive any intervention from USAID. The result was not expected in view of government‟s pronouncement that USAID/Nigeria and Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) in association with IITA under the activity to be known as “Cassava Enterprise Development Project (CEDP) will support Nigeria‟s Presidential Cassava Initiative by strengthening human and institutional capacity of producers, processors, commodity traders and fabricators to produce, process and market cassava efficiently (IITA, 2005). The result implies that USAID as agency is not popular in the area. The result contradicts the position of Udeajah , (2004) that United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in collaboration with Shell Petroleum 121 Development Company of Nigeria Limited (SPDC) advanced $20 million for the development of cassava, under the Cassava Enterprise Development Project (CEDP). 5.6.4 Niger-Delta Development Commission (NDDC) Results in Table 13 indicate that producers got agro-chemical (68.9%) while marketers (54.0 %) and processors (41.9%) got capital intervention from NDDC. The relative low intervention by NDDC is expected because not all the areas within study area were grouped under NDDC states. Thus, only entrepreneurs within NDDC coverage were possible beneficiaries to available NDDC intervention programmes in the study area. The result implies however, that NDDC‟s intervention falls below expectations and should have transcended beyond agro-chemicals and capital incentives to providing other systematic support that can unchain the potentials of cassava enterprise in the area. The finding is line with Akpan (2006) who found out that NDDC had in collaboration with Federal, State and Local Governments and IITA given agro-chemicals and capital incentive to people. 5.6.5 Religious organisations The result shows that production/distribution of improved cassava cutting (67.4%), agro-chemical (60.7%), land (52.6%s) and labour (48.1%) were areas of intervention by religious organisations (e.g. Catholic Laity Council and Catholic Women Organisation) for cassava production. The result was not expected in view of the fact that religious organisations were known mainly for their spiritual, moral and faith building obligations. The result is an indication of the changing roles and responsibilities of religious organizations from their original spiritual and moral dimensions to active food production participation. The result is consistent with the submission of Onaiyekan (1984), Adedoyin and Ngoyi (1996) that the church has gradually moved into agricultural development projects to ensure that basic means of 122 food production and processing are made available for the poorest and most neglected segment of society that form majority of rural farming population. 5.6.6 National Root Crops Research Institute (NRCRI) Table 13 further shows that majority (62.3 %) of producers got improved cassava cuttings. The result implies that NRCRI to a large extent restricted itself to its mandate of producing and distributing improved cassava stem cuttings in the study area. Although, it was expected that NRCRI could have gone beyond production and distribution of improved cassava stem cuttings to extension service delivery, organization of workshop and training and designing and fabrication of simple agricultural farm tools and equipment. Perhaps, the presence of ADP may have been the reason for these limited areas of intervention. The result is in line with the finding of Nweke (2002) that combined efforts of NRCRI and IITA had led to production and release of improved cassava varieties in Nigeria. 5.6.7 Oil companies The result in Table 13 indicates that incentives provided mostly by oil companies include cassava production extension services (100.0%), agro-chemicals (58.5%) and capital (58.5%). Also majority (56.3%) of marketers got capital incentive while processors got capital (48.8%) and extension service (41.9%) intervention of oil companies. The result was contrary to a priori expectation considering the number of multi-national oil companies in and around the study area. The result implies that the entrepreneurs will continue to have conflicts with oil companies over activities that are not environmentally friendly in the area. The result is in tandem with the submission of SPDC (2011) that most cassava producers and processors have been linked to service providers such as chemical companies, tractor hiring services, and micro-credit schemes by SPDC. 123 Table 13: Distribution of entrepreneurs based on cassava enterprise intervention programmes Interventions Agencies ADP Fadama USAID NDDC Rel. organ NRCRI Oil. comp % % % % % % % Producer Improved cuttings 74.1 14.1 0.7 23.0 67.4 62.3 21.5 Marketing outlets 62.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Agro-chemicals 78.5 12.6 0.7 68.9 60.7 0.0 58.5 Land/shop 36.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.6 0.0 14.8 Capital 5.9 1.5 0.0 38.5 5.9 0.0 58.5 Labour 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.1 0.0 0.0 Machinery 28.1 0.7 0.0 26.4 17.8 0.0 0.7 Extension service 67.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Provision of market 18.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 workship/training 18.5 3.7 0.0 22.2 0.0 0.0 3.7 Processing equipt 75.6 10.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Est. proc. Centers 11.1 6.7 0.0 10.4 28.1 0.0 10.4 Const of road 31.9 13.3 0.0 40.7 0.0 0.0 24.4 Marketer Marketing outlets 65.5 19.5 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Agro-chemicals 74.7 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Land/shop 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Capital 3.4 0.5 0.0 54.0 0.0 0.0 56.3 Labour 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Machinery 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Extension service 79.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.3 Provision of market 18.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Worship/training 4.6 0.0 0.0 9.2 0.0 0.0 3.4 Processing 82.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 equipment Proc. Centers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Processor 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Improved cuttings 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Agro-chemicals 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Land/shop 40.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Capital 17.4 3.5 0.0 41.9 18.6 0.0 48.8 Labour 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Machinery 22.1 83.3 0.0 3.5 14.0 0.0 1.2 Extension service 75.6 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.9 Provision of market 18.6 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Worship/training 4.6 11.6 0.0 3.5 7.0 0.0 10.5 Processing equipt 61.6 5.0 0.0 5.8 15.1 0.0 0.0 Est. of proc. Centers 34.9 0.0 0.0 12.8 0.0 0.0 11.6 Const. of road 39.5 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source: Field Survey, 2011 124 5.7 Entrepreneurs’ access to intervention inputs in cassava enterprise Table 14 presents the analysis of entrepreneurs‟ access to intervention inputs in cassava enterprise. The result indicates that most entrepreneurs occasionally had access to agro-chemicals (95.5%), cassava stem cuttings (88.6%), extension service (86.0%), workshop and training (85.7%), labour (67.2%), pilot processing centers (66.0%), marketing outlets (52.3%) and capital (31.5%). Across entrepreneurs‟ categories, most producers occasionally had access to marketing outlets (59.3%), agro-chemicals (96.1%), planting materials (91.9%), stem cuttings (85.2%), extension services (84.4%), labour (62.2%), capital (59.3%), workshop/training (84.4%), market, (79.3%), access road (69.1%) and machinery (65.9 %) intervention of various agencies. Similarly, marketers accessed marketing outlets (93.1%), extension services (87.4%), capital (65.5%) and land/shop (50.5%) occasionally as well as processors to workshop/training (88.4%), extension services (87.2%), capital (9.3%) and pilot processing centers (53.5%). Results on the weighted scores show that agro-chemical (95.5%) ranked first as the most accessed incentive by entrepreneurs while across entrepreneurs‟ categories (producers, marketers and processors) agro-chemicals (96.3%), marketing outlets (93.1%) and training/workshop (88.4%) respectively ranked first as the most accessed incentive in their respective enterprises. The result was expected in view of the reduced incidence of cassava mosaic disease and people‟s awareness on improved cassava production in the study area. However, the result on access to market was not expected in view of cases of cassava glut that followed the introduction of cassava Transformation Initiative. The result is an indication that both entrepreneurs enjoyed specific support services that are capable of improving their productivity and benefits. The results corroborate the finding of Asiabaka et al. (2001) 125 that there are productive variations in Nigeria‟s cassava enterprise arising principally from improved access to intervention inputs. 1 26 Table 14: Distribution of entrepreneurs based on access to intervention Variable Description Always Occasionally Not at all Weighted F % F % F % Score Rank Producer Marketing outlets th0 0.0 80 59.3 55 40.7 59.3 7 rd Improved cassava 5 3.7 111 82.2 19 14.1 89.6 3 cuttings st Agro-chemical 2 1.5 130 96.3 3 2.2 99.3 1 th Land 22 16.3 46 34.1 67 49.6 66.7 5 th Capital 0 0.0 80 59.3 55 40.7 59.3 7 th Labour 0 0.0 84 62.2 51 31.8 62.2 6 th Machinery 0 0.0 46 34.1 89 65.9 34.1 8 th Extension Services 0 0.0 114 84.4 21 15.6 84.4 4 th Provision of market 0 0.0 32 23.3 103 76.3 23.3 10 th Training/workshop 0 0.0 21 15.6 114 84.4 15.6 11 nd Planting materials 1 0.7 124 91.9 10 7.4 93.3 2 Const. of access road th0 0.0 43 31.9 92 68.1 31.9 9 Marketers st Marketing outlet 0 0.0 81 93.1 6 6.9 93.1 1 th Land/shop 0 0.0 44 50.5 42 49.4 50.5 4 rd Capital 0 0.0 57 65.5 30 34.5 65.5 3 nd Extension Services 0 0.0 79 87.4 11 12.6 87.4 2 th Provision of market 0 0.0 18 20.7 69 79.3 20.7 6 th Training/workshop 0 0.0 18 20.7 69 79.3 20.7 6 th Access road 1 1.1 38 43.7 48 55.2 43.7 5 Processors Land/shop 4 4.7 34 th39.5 48 55.8 48.9 5 rd Capital 0 0.0 51 59.3 35 40.7 59.3 3 nd Extension Services 0 0.0 75 87.2 11 12.8 87.2 2 th Provision of market 1 1.2 15 17.4 70 81.4 19.8 7 th Processing equipment 0 0.0 16 18.6 70 81.4 18.6 8 st Training workshop 0 0.0 76 88.4 10 11.6 88.4 1 thPilot processing centres 1 1.2 46 53.5 39 45.3 55.9 4 Land/shop 4 4.7 10 11.6 72 83.7 21.0 6th Overall Marketing outlet 0 th0.0 161 52.3 147 47.7 52.3 8 nd Improved cassava 9 2.9 273 88.6 26 8.4 94.4 2 cuttings Agro-chemical 2 0.6 294 95.5 12 3.9 95.5 1st th Land 53 17.2 97 31.5 158 51.3 65.9 6 Capital 0 0.0 th88 61.0 120 39.0 61.0 7 th Labour 0 0.0 207 67.2 101 32.0 67.2 6 rd Extension Services 0 0.0 265 86.0 43 14.0 86.0 3 th Provision of market 1 0.3 65 21.1 242 78.6 21.1 11 th Training/workshop 0 0.0 264 85.7 44 14.3 85.7 4 Processing equipment 0 0.0 55 17.9 253 82.1 17.9 12th th Processing centers 3 1.0 205 66.6 100 32.5 68.6 5 th Const. of road 5 1.6 91 29.5 212 68.8 32.7 10 Source: Field survey, 2011 127 5.8: Entrepreneurs’ level of access to intervention inputs in cassava enterprise Result on level of access to intervention as shown in Table 15 shows that a large proportion (69.8%) of the entrepreneurs highly accessed intervention inputs from various agencies. The results also reveal that across entrepreneurs‟ category, majority of producers (60.0%), marketers (87.4%) and processors (67.4%) also enjoyed high level of access to various intervention inputs. The result was not expected in view of entrepreneurs‟ scale of cassava enterprises in the study area. A higher level of access to intervention inputs by entrepreneurs will mean possible improvement in the productive performance of the enterprise. This may not be unconnected with the constraints of adoption in most communities; where in some instances, they may have access to interventions but due to their cultural background and inhibitions due to illiteracy and lack of appropriate manipulative skills, were unable to utilize the incentives. The result contradicts the finding of International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) (2001) that limited access to intervention inputs is a common phenomenon in Nigeria and a factor that impedes production, processing and marketing of agricultural commodities among peasant farm holdings. 1 28 Table 15: Level of access to cassava enterprise intervention Level Producer Marketers Processors Overall Scores F % Scores F % scores F % Score F % Low 0-7 54 40.0 0-8 11 12.6 5-7 28 32.6 0-7 102 30.2 High 8-13 81 60.0 9-12 76 87.4 8-11 58 67.4 8-13 206 69.8 Mean 8.15 ± 2.37 8.94 ± 2.16 7.92 ± 1.42 8.31 ± 2.12 Source: Field survey, 2011 1 29 5. 9 Section 6: Entrepreneurs’ benefits derived from cassava enterprise This section discusses benefits derived by entrepreneurs from cassava enterprise in the study area. The distribution of the entrepreneurs is presented in table 16 5.9.1 Food security The result in Table 16 shows that benefit of food security derived by most entrepreneurs was high during dry season (92.6%) and rainy season (91.2%) while it was moderate during famine (83.8%), crop failure (79.5%) and in all seasons (75.0%). The result also reveals that across entrepreneurs‟ categories, benefit of food security derived by most producers was high during dry (97.1%) and rainy seasons (95.5%), while it was moderate during famine (83.0 %), crop failure (82.2%) and in all seasons (64.4%). Benefit of Food security derived by most marketers was also high during dry (98.8%) and rainy seasons (97.7%) while it was moderate during all seasons (95.4%), famine (85.1%) and crop failure (81.6%). Table 5.9 also shows that during rainy (79.0%) and dry seasons (77.9%) most processors had high food security while it was moderate during famine (83.7%), crop failure (73.3%) and in all seasons (70.9%). The result is expected considering that cassava is a traditional staple food crop in the area. The result is also a confirmation of the common saying that “there is no hunger with cassava in the land”. This implies that cassava enterprise is an all time important venture that can be relied upon for food sufficiency. The result agrees with the position of Kalu (2003) that “there is no famine where cassava enterprise is practiced” thus; cassava is simply a “food security” crop. 130 5.9.2 Collateral for credit The result as shown in Table 16 reveals that use of cassava enterprise as collateral for credit from government (86.0%), banks (83.1%) and Cassava Farmers‟ Association (82.7%) by most entrepreneurs was low. The result shows that across entrepreneurs‟ categories, the use of cassava enterprise as collateral for credit from government (92.6%), Cassava Farmers‟ Association (87.4%) and banks (87.2%) by most producers was low. The use of the enterprise by marketers as collateral for credits from government (83.9%), Cassava Farmers‟ Association (81.6%) and banks 80.5%) was low while it was moderate from family members (45.5%). The result also reveals that using the enterprise as collateral by processors to obtain loans from banks (79.0%), government (78.0%) and Cassava Farmers‟ Association (75.6%) by processors was low while moderate from family members (75.6%). This was expected as it is culturally forbidden to use ones cassava enterprise as collateral for loan in some communities of the study area. The situation is made worse as women who are more in the enterprise have no absolute rights to ownership of landed properties, not to talk of using them as collateral for loan. This means that cassava enterprise has no wide acceptability to be used as collateral for credit in the study area. It also implies that cassava entrepreneurs may continue to have difficulty in obtaining loan no matter the scale of operation. This result is in line with the findings of Day et al. (1996), Okpukpara (2010) and Adeyemo (2008) that banks handling credit funds are found in the cities away from rural communities and demand collateral in form of land (preferably in the cities) or house to some immovable assets as prerequisites for giving loans and accessing such credit is difficult for all types of enterprise. 131 5.9.3 Improved socio-economic status Table 16 also shows that most entrepreneurs derived benefits of high recognition (85.7%), income (65.9%) and material possessions (65.3%) while that of chieftaincy title (55.2%) was moderate. The study also reveals that across entrepreneurs‟ categories, most producers derived benefits of high income (89.6%), material possessions (68.1%) and recognition (60.7%). Most marketers also recorded high benefits in recognition (95.4%), income (74.7%) and material possession (67.8%) while that of chieftaincy titles (67.8%) was moderate. Similarly, most processors derived high benefits of income (69.8%), recognition (65.1%) and material possessions (58.2%) while that of chieftaincy title (54.7%) was moderate. The result was expected as most people in the area are known for their resounding achievements in cassava enterprise. This means that cassava enterprise provides various benefits to all categories of entrepreneurs. The result is consistent with the finding of Achinewhu and Owuamanam (2001) and Beeching et al. (2000) that cassava enterprise offers flexibility to resource poor in rural communities serving either as subsistence and generating cash income for most producers, processors, marketers and other agro- industrial stakeholders. 5.9.4 Employment Further analysis in Table 16 shows that employment benefit was high on part-time (76.6 %) and full-time (50.6%) bases to most entrepreneurs. The result reveals that across entrepreneurs‟ categories, benefits of providing full-time (74.8%) and part-time (57.0%) employment opportunities were high for producers. Most marketers also derived high full-time (74.7%) and part-time (65.0%) employment benefits while processors similarly derived full-time (50 %) and part-time (44.2%) employment benefits. The result is line with a priori expectation as there is hardly any household 132 in the study area that is not involved in one type of cassava enterprise or the other. The result implies that cassava enterprise is a two edged sword that brings fortune to its bearers from both sides. It further implies that government should embark upon a broad based initiative that should focus on a wide array of activities across the cassava value chain. This should involve provision of business and technical support services and deploying village-level processing units and technologies that ensures consistent product quality. This will aid employment generation especially among youth. The result is in conformity with Odoemenem and Otanwa (2011) who reported that cassava enterprise provides most Nigerians with employment on either full-time or part-time basis. 5.9.5 Improved nutrition The findings in Table 16 also indicate that most entrepreneurs (73.7%) derived high benefit of improved nutrition. The result also shows that across entrepreneurs‟ categories, most producers (79.3%), marketers (77.0%) and processors (61.6%) derived benefit of improved nutrition level. The result is expected considering its wide consumption in different product forms with good soup recipe and leguminous crop in the study area. This result means that cassava enterprise is not only a major source of income generation but a rural staple that transforms nutritional status of most entrepreneurs‟ households. The result corroborates the earlier finding of Uchechi and Ebelenna (2009) that some of the inherent characteristics that make cassava enterprise attractive in Nigeria is that the crop itself is rich in carbohydrate, (starch) and consequently has multiplicity of end products. 5.9.6 Raw materials Table 16 shows that most entrepreneurs highly benefited from its being raw material for garri (100.0%), fufu (100.0%), tapioca (54.4%) and livestock feed 133 production (44.2%). The results also reveal that across entrepreneurs‟ categories, it provided high benefit of raw material to most producers for garri (100.0%) and fufu (91.1%) and low for chips (77.1%), starch (75.5%), ethanol (72.6%), flour (61.5%) and tapioca (51.9%). The result also reveals that most marketers derived high raw material benefit for garri (94.3%), fufu (77.0%) and moderate benefit for livestock feed production (41.2%) while it was low for chips (90.8%), ethanol (87.3%), starch (83.3%), flour 72.4% and tapioca (67.0 %). The result also shows that while the raw material benefit was high for processing garri (96.5%) and fufu (87.3%), it is moderate for livestock feed (45.3%) and low for processing starch (84.9%), chips (74.4%), flour (66.5%) and ethanol (58.1%) in the study area. The results from the weighted scores show that producers and marketers mostly benefited food security while it was improved nutrition and raw material for garri and fufu processors. The result is expected because of local preferences and demand for these products in the area. On the other hand, the low rate of raw material benefit for starch, flour and chips was unexpected because the recent Federal Government policy on mandatory 10% cassava flour inclusion in wheat flour for bread baking was suppose to boost scale of cassava flour production and benefit. The result implies industrial absence and utilisation in the study area. The result corresponds with Ndossi quoted in Gwera (2009), Haggblade and Nyembe (2008) and Westby (2008) that cassava is a potential source of raw materials for pies, bread, pastries, cakes, biscuits, and doughnuts and several categories of traditional products like fufu, flours, garri, Starches, vegetables and medicines. 134 Table 16: Distribution of entrepreneurs based on benefits derived from cassava enterprise Producers Marketers N=87 Processors N=86 Total entrepreneurs’ = 308 Variable High Moderate Low Weighted High Moderate Low Weighted High Moderate Low Weighted High Moderate Low Weighted scores scores scores scores Food Security % % % % % % % % % % % % During Dry Season 97.1 1.5 0.0 294.3 98.8 1.1 0.0 298.6* 79.0 19.8 1.2 277.8 92.6 6.5 0.3 291.1 Rainy Season 95.5 3.0 0.0 292.5 97.7 1.1 1.1 296.4 77.9 18.6 2.4 272.6 91.2 6.8 0.9 288.1 All Season 22.9 64.4 7.4 204.9 2.1 95.4 0.0 197.1 16.3 70.9 8.1 198.8 15.2 75.0 5.5 201.1 Famine 3.7 43.4 10.3 108.2 1.1 85.1 10.3 182.7 3.5 83.7 8.2 186.1 2.9 83.8 9.7 186.0 Crop failure 3.7 82.2 10.3 185.8 2.2 81.6 16.1 183.7 1.2 73.3 12.8 163.0 2.6 79.5 12.7 179.5 Collateral for Credit from Government 0.7 1.5 92.6 97.7 0.0 0.0 83.9 83.9 1.2 7.0 78.0 95.6 0.6 2.6 86.0 93.0 Association 0.0 0.0 87.4 87.4 0.0 0.0 81.6 81.6 2.4 5.8 76.7 95.5 0.6 1.6 82.7 87.7 Banks 0.0 1.5 87.4 90.4 0.0 2.3 80.5 85.1 0.0 5.8 79.0 90.6 - 2.9 83.1 88.9 Family 5.2 45.2 42.2 148.2 0.0 41.4 42.5 125.3 1.2 75.6 14.0 168.8 - - - Friends 3.7 82.2 10.3 185.8 2.2 81.6 16.1 183.7 12 73.3 12.8 163.0 2.6 79.5 12.7 178.5 Improved SES Income 60.7 34.8 1.5 252.8 74.7 19.5 0.0 263.1 65.1 10.5 1.2 213.5 65.9 23.7 0.9 246.0 Chieftaincy 37.8 47.4 8.2 216.4 21.8 67.8 4.5 205.5 3.5 54.7 36.1 158.0 23.7 55.2 14.9 196.4 Material 68.1 23.7 4.4 256.1 67.8 26.4 1.1 257.3 58.2 19.8 3.5 217.7 65.3 23.4 3.0 245.7 Possession Recognition 89.6 3.7 0.7 278.3 95.4 3.4 0.0 293.0 69.8 8.1 1.2 226.8 85.7 4.9 0.6 267.5 Employment: 202.3 Part-time 57.0 25.9 0.7 223.5 74.7 18.4 0.0 260.9 50.0 24.4 3.5 169.6 76.6 23.4 0.00 276.6 Full-time 74.8 7.4 0.7 276.9 65.0 19.5 0 44.2 15.6 5.8 232.6 100.0 - 0.00 300.0 Improved Nutrition Balanced Diet 79.3 8.9 1.5 256.2 77.0 18.4 0.0 234.0 61.6 23.3 1.2 291.8 73.7 15.6 0.00 252.3 Source of raw material for: Garri 91.1 0.0 6.7 280.0 94.3 1.1 0.0 285.1 96.5 0.0 2.3 291.8 100.0 - 0.00 300.0 Fufu prod 59.2 4.4 33.3 219.7 77.0 1.1 20.7 253.9 87.3 0.0 9..1 271.0 100.0 - 0.00 300.0 Starch Prod 0.00 11.8 75.5 119.1 0.00 5.7 83.3 100.4 0.00 8.2 84.9 108.3 0.00 32.8 57.8 123.4 Flour Prod 9.6 15.6 61.5 121.5 6.8 13.8 72.4 120.4 7.0 5.8 66.5 99.1 8.4 - 0.00 25.2 Livestock fed 20.0 30.4 39.2 160.0 20.7 41.2 10.3 154.8 33.7 45.3 18.6 210.3 24.0 44.2 1.9 162.3 Ethanol prod 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Chips 0.0 0.0 88.9 88.9 0.0 0.0 91.9 91.9 0.0 0.0 96.5 96.5 0.0 0.00 210.0 210.0 Tapioca 5.9 31.9 51.9 133.4 4.5 20.7 67.6 122.5 10.4 61.6 22.1 176.5 54.4 0.00 0.00 163.2 Source: Field survey, 2011 1 35 5.10: Level of benefits derived from cassava enterprise Table 17 shows the distribution of entrepreneurs according to level of benefits derived from cassava enterprise. The result in table 17 indicates that a large proportion (69.2%) of entrepreneurs derived high benefits from cassava enterprise. The result further reveals that across entrepreneurs‟ categories, 80.7%, 65.5% and 54.7% of producers, marketers and processors respectively also derived high benefits. The high level of benefit is expected considering the high level of people‟s involvement in cassava enterprise. This implies that cassava enterprise will continue to thrive in the study area despite enormity of constraints the entrepreneurs are facing. The result is consistent with the finding of Ezebuiro et al. (2008) that cassava enterprise has enormous benefits; ensuring cash income, employment and food security all year round in most households. 1 36 Table 17: Level of benefits derived from cassava enterprise Level Producer N=135 Marketers N=87 Processors N=86 Overall N= 308 Score F % score F % score F % Score F % Low 0-58.6 21 15.6 21-59.6 18 20.7 42-54.2 32 37.2 0-57.5 71 23.0 Moderate 56.6-75.6 5 3.7 59.7-74.5 12 13.8 54.3- 7 8.1 57.6-74.9 24 7.8 73.1 High 76.0-78 109 80.7 74.6-78 57 65.5 73.2-78 47 54.7 75-78 213 69.2 Mean 67.28± 8.688 67.15 ± 7.423 63.74 ± 9.468 66.26 ±8.698 Source: Field Survey, 2011 137 5.11 Section 7: Entrepreneurs’ constraints to cassava production The section discusses constraints to entrepreneurs‟ involvement in cassava enterprise. The distribution of respondents across entrepreneurs‟ categories is presented in Table 18-22 5.11.1 Producers’ constraints The result in Table 18 reveals that all cassava producers had serious constraints of finance (100.0%), cost of fertilizer (100.0%) and contact with extension agents (100.0%). Also non-availability of equipment (98.5%), credit facility (97.8%), lack of technical knowledge in using improved technology (97.8%), non-availability of agro-chemicals (97.8%), instability of government policy (97.8%) and non- availability of fertilizer were other serious constraints faced by producers. Also found to be serious constraints to producers include: lack of collateral (96.5%), cost of chemicals (96.3%), cost of labour (94.8%), interest on loan (94.1 %), pest and diseases (80.0%), lack of labour (79.3%), and weed (78.3%), difficulty in harvesting (77.0%), lack of hospitals (75.6%), market (68.1%), and cost of improved cassava variety (60.7%), lack of access road (59.3 %) and erosion (49.6%). From the weighted scores, finance (200.0%), cost of inorganic fertilizer (200.0%) and poor extension agents‟ contact (200.0%) were ranked first among the constraints facing cassava producers. This means that both finance, cost of inorganic fertilizer and poor extension agents‟ contact are the most serious constraints facing this category of cassava enterprise. The result was expected as the most prevailing source of raising fund for enterprise expansion in the study area is through personal savings. It implies that the entrepreneurs may not easily venture into large scale production as well as lack the productive skill capacity to support and improve their enterprise. Non- availability of productive equipment ((198.5%) was ranked second which means that 138 the entrepreneurs will continue to produce using crude implement (cutlasses and hoes) that are not efficient in carrying out the activities of the enterprise and in raising its scale operation. A further ranking of the constraints to cassava producers using the weighted scores reveals that non-availability of agro chemicals (197.8%) and credit fertility (197.8%) ranked third. This means that the producers will be limited in scale of operation and output. This implies possible reduction in level of benefits derived and socio-economic status of the producers. The result is in line with Lucas (2007), FMAWR (2008), Yakasai (2010) and Ezebuiro et al. (2010) who listed constraints to cassava enterprise to include among others lack of capital, lack of machine, marketing problems, storage, processing, poor road network to harvest and post harvest problems. 1 39 Table 18: Distribution of cassava producers based on constraints to cassava production Producers n = 135 Constraint Serious Mild Not a constraint Weighted Score Rank F % F % F % st Finance 135 100.0 0 0.00 0 0.0 200.0 1 rd Credit facilities 132 97.8 3 2.2 0 0.0 197.8 3 th Scarcity of planting materials 66 48.9 69 51.1 0 0.0 148.9 17 th Technical knowledge for improved tech 132 97.8 2 1.5 1 0.7 197.1 4 nd Land 49 36.3 26 19.3 60 44.4 91.9 22 th Cost of improved variety 82 60.7 53 39.3 00 0.0 160.7 15 th Interest rate of loan 127 94.1 3 2.2 5 3.7 190.4 9 th Pricing of cassava products 61 45.2 28 20.7 46 34.1 111.1 20 th Collateral to secure loan 133 96.5 2 1.5 0 0.0 194.5 7 rd Limited processing option 0 0.0 0 0.00 135 100.0 0.00 23 th Weed 103 76.3 32 33.7 0 0.0 186.3 10 th pests and diseases infestation 108 80.0 27 20.0 0 0.0 180.0 11 st Cost of inorganic fertilizer 135 100.0 0 0.00 0.0 0.0 200.0 1 th Non-availability of organic fertilizer 131 97.0 4 3.0 0 0.0 197.0 5 rd Non-availability agro-chemicals 132 97.8 3 2.2 0 0.0 197.8 3 nd Non-availability of Equipment 133 98.5 2 1.5 0 0.0 198.5 2 th Cost of agro-chemicals 130 96.3 5 3.7 0 0.0 196.3 6 th Difficulties in harvesting 104 77.0 31 23.0 0. 0.0 177.0 13 th Labour 107 79.3 28 20.7 0 0.0 179.3 12 st Poor extension agents‟ contact 135 100.0 0 0.00 0 0.0 200.0 1 th Instability in government policy 132 97.8 3 2.2 0 0.0 197.0 5 th Marketing 92 68.1 39 28.9 4 3.0 165.1 14 th Soil erosion 67 49.6 41 30.4 27 20.0 129.6 19 th Hospitals 102 75.6 2 1.5 31 23.0 152.7 16 th Access road 80 59.3 29 21.5 26 19.3 140.1 18 th Cost of hired labour 128 94.8 2 1.5 5 3.7 191.1 8 rd Cost of processing 0 0.0 0 0.00 135 100.0 0.00 23 st Soil fertility 60 44.4 26 19.3 49 36.3 108 21 Source: Field survey, 2011 140 5.11.2 Constraints to marketers’ involvement in cassava enterprise Further analysis on constraints facing marketing entrepreneurs in cassava enterprise as shown in Table 19 reveals that most marketers were faced with numerous constraints. The result in table 19 indicates that the constraints include: lack of finance (100.0%), collateral (100.0%), and limited processing option (100.0%) lack of credit facility (98.9%), instability of government policy (97.8%) and inadequate contact with extension agents (97.7%). The results from the weighted scores also show finance (200.0%), collateral to secure loan (200.0%) and limited processing options (200.0%) were ranked first followed by instability in government policy (198.9%) and Technical knowledge for improved technology (198.9%) as second. This result is in line with a priori expectation because of the prevailing absence of effective linkages with appropriate industry, right policy framework and incentives for smooth private investment in cassava marketing sub-sector in the study area. This raises doubt in the sustainability of the enterprise. It also indicates that measures advocated to reform cassava marketing sub-sector under the Presidential Cassava Initiative have not been met. The result is synonymous with FMARD (2004) who identified lack of access to market, delayed transportation, bad conditions of rural roads to market centers, pests, cost of hired labor, low price of fresh and processed cassava, lack of collateral for credit, and inadequate fund as acute constraints bedeviling marketers of agricultural produce. 141 Table 19: Distribution of marketing entrepreneurs on constraints to cassava marketing Marketers n = 87 Variable Description Serious Mild Not a Weighted Rank constraint score F % F % F % Finance 87 100.0 0 0.00 0 0.00 200.0 1st Credit facilities 86 98.9 1 1.1 0 0.00 197.8 3rd Scarcity of planting materials 0 0.00 0 0.00 87 100.0 0.00 15th Technical knowledge for improved tech 0 0.00 0 0.00 87 100.0 198.9 2nd Land/shop 56 64.4 6 6.9 25 28.7 135.7 12th Cost of improved variety 0 0.00 0 0.00 87 100.0 0.00 15th Interest rate on loan 76 87.4 11 12.6 0 0.00 187.4 5th Poor pricing of cassava products 50 57.5 15 17.2 22 25.3 132.2 13th Collateral to secure loan 87 100.0 0 0.00 0 0.00 200.0 1st Limited processing option 87 100.0 0 0.00 0 0.00 200.0 1st Weed 0 0.00 0 0.00 87 100.0 0.00 15th Pest/disease infestation 71 81.6 16 18.4 0 0.00 181.6 7th Cost of inorganic fertilizer 0 0.00 0 0.00 87 100.0 0.00 15th Non-availability of organic fertilizer 0 0.00 0 0.00 87 100.0 0.00 15th Non-availability agro-chemicals 0 0.00 0 0.00 87 100.0 0.00 15th Non-availability of modern equipment 0 0.00 0 0.00 87 100.0 198.9 2nd Cost of agro-chemicals 0 0.00 0 0.00 87 100.0 0.00 15th Difficulties in harvesting 0 0.00 0 0.00 87 100.0 0.00 15th Non-availability of labour 71 81.6 16 18.4 0 0.00 181.6 7th Poor extension agents‟ contact 85 97.7 2 2.3 0 0.00 197.7 4th Instability in government policy 86 98.9 1 1.1 0 0.00 198.9 2nd Market 71 81.6 14 16.1 0 0.00 179.3 8th Soil erosion 19 21.8 56 64.4 12 `13.8 108.0 14th Hospitals and water 70 80.5 0 0.00 17 19.5 161.0 10th Access road 66 75.9 5 5.7 16 18.4 157.5 11th Cost of hired labour 81 93.1 1 1.1 5 5.7 187.3 6th Cost of processing 68 78.2 19 21.8 0 0.00 178.2 9th Soil fertility 0 0.00 0 0.00 87 100.0 0.00 15th Source: Field survey, 2011 142 5.11.3 Constraints to processors’ involvement in cassava enterprise The result on Table 20 shows that cassava processing is faced with serious constraints like: lack of finance (100.0%), non-availability of equipment (98.8%), collateral (97.7%), lack of labour (95.5%) and cost of labour (94.2%), cost of processing (93.0%), problem of pest (93.0%), instability of government policy (93.0%), credit facility (92.6%) and lack of contact with extension agents (91.9%). From the weighted scores, finance (200.0%) ranked first followed by Non-availability of modern equipment (198.8%) as the second in the ranking. This is expected considering the non diversification and proliferation of traditional cassava processing method in the study area. The result implies that most processors are not spared from the numerous constraints bedeviling other entrepreneurs in cassava enterprise. It is also an indication that processing enterprise will remain predominantly subsistent if appropriate intervention is not channeled to it. The result is in line with Saito and Spurling (1992), Nwachukwu (2000) and Oyegbami and Oboh (2010) that lack of water, unstable price, lack of technical know- how, finance, and access roads are serious constraints facing processors of agricultural products. 143 Table 20: Distribution of cassava processing entrepreneurs on constraints to cassava processing (Processors n =86) Variable Description Serious Mild Not a constraint Weighted Rank score F % F % F % Finance 86 100.0 0 0.00 0 0.00 200.0 1st Credit facilities 71 82.6 15 17.4 0 0.00 180.2 12th Scarcity of planting materials 0 0.00 0 0.00 86 100.0 0.00 19th Technical knowledge for improved tech 78 90.7 5 5.8 3 3.5 187.2 10th Land/shop 37 43.0 19 22.1 30 34.9 108.1 18th Cost of improved variety 0 0.00 0 0.00 86 100.0 0.00 19th Interest rate on loan 76 88.4 7 8.1 3 3.5 184.9 11th Poor pricing of cassava products 37 43.0 21 24.4 28 32.6 110.4 17th Collateral to secure loan 84 97.7 2 2.3 0 0.00 197.4 3rd th Limited processing option 70 81.4 10 11.6 6 7.0 174.4 13 th Weed problem 0 0.00 0 0.00 86 100.0 0.00 19 th Pest/disease infestation 0 0.00 0 0.00 86 100.0 193.0 9 th Cost of inorganic fertilizer 0.0 0.00 0 0.00 86 100.0 0.00 19 th Non-availability of organic fertilizer 0 0.00 0 0.00 86 100.0 0.00 19 th Non-availability agro-chemicals 0 0.00 0 0.00 86 100.0 0.00 19 nd Non-availability of Equipment 85 98.8 1 1.2 0 0.00 198.8 2 th Cost of agro-chemicals 0 0.00 0 0.00 86 100.0 0.00 19 th Difficulties in harvesting 0 0.00 0 0.00 86 100.0 0.00 19 th Non-availability of labour 82 95.5 3 3.5 1 4.2 194.5 4 th Poor extension agents‟ contact 79 91.9 7 8.1 0 0.00 191.9 7 th Instability in government policy 80 93.0 5 5.8 1 1.2 191.8 8 th Soil erosion 24 27.9 47 54.7 15 17.4 110.5 16 Hospitals and water 68 th79.1 2 2.3 16 18.6 160.5 14 th Access road 57 66.3 18 20.9 11 12.8 153.5 15 th Cost of hired labour 81 94.2 5 5.8 0 0.00 194.2 5 th Cost of processing 80 93.0 6 7.00 0 0.00 193.0 6 Soil fertility 0 0.00 th00 0.00 86 0.00 0.00 19 Source: Field survey, 2011 144 5.11.4 Entrepreneurs’ constraints in cassava enterprise (overall) Findings from the study as shown in Table 21 shows that finance (100.0%) is a serious constraint to all the entrepreneurs in cassava enterprise. Also, shown to be serious constraints are: difficulty in obtaining credit facility (93.8%), scarcity of planting materials (59.1%), lack of technical knowledge in the use of improved technology (96.1%), scarcity of land (46.1%) and high cost of improved varieties (68.5%), high interest rate on loan (90.6%), poor price of cassava products (79.9%), lack of collateral to secure loan (98.7 %), limited processing option (91.9 %), problem of weed (82.1%), pest and disease infestation (84.1%), high cost of inorganic fertilizer (97.7%), non-availability of organic fertilizer (95.8 %) and non-availability of agro- chemicals (95.8%). However, the ranking of the constraints using weighted scores shows that finance (200.0%) ranks the most serious constraints (200.0%) followed by collateral to secure loan (198.7%) and lack of modern processing equipment nd rd (198.4%) as 2 and 3 in the ranking respectively. The result means no variation among entrepreneurs in terms of what they considered as serious constraints to their enterprises. It is also implies that the development and growth of cassava enterprise is far from being achieved in the study area. The result is in line with that of Adeyemo (2002) who reiterated that finance; collateral, prohibitive interest rate regime and uncoordinated business ideas are serious constraints to small and medium enterprise operation in Nigeria 145 Table 21: Distribution of entrepreneurs based on constraints to cassava enterprise (overall) Constraints N= 308 Serious Mild Not a Weighted Rank constraints constraints Constraint score F % F % F % st Lack of finance 308 100. 0 0.00 0 0.00 200.0 1 th Credit facility 289 93.8 19 6.2 0 0.00 193.8 9 th Scarcity of planting materials 182 59.1 124 40.3 2 0.6 158.5 20 th Technical knowledge for improved tech 296 96.1 8 2.6 4 1.3 194.8 8 th Land/shop 142 46.1 51 16.6 115 37.3 108.8 25 th Cost of improved variety 211 68.5 97 31.5 0 0.00 168.5 19 th High interest rate on loan 279 90.6 21 6.8 8 2.6 188.0 12 th Poor price of cassava products 246 79.9 62 20.1 0 0.00 179.9 16 nd Collateral to secure loan 304 98.7 4 1.3 0 0.00 198.7 2 th Limited processing option 283 91.9 19 6.2 6 1.9 190.0 11 th Weed problem 253 82.1 55 17.9 0 0.00 182.1 14 th Pest and disease infestation 259 84.1 49 15.9 0 0.00 184.1 13 th High cost of inorganic fertilizer 301 97.7 7 2.3 0 0.00 197.7 4 th Non-availability of organic fertilizer 295 95.8 13 4.2 0 0.00 195.8 6 th Non-availability agro-chemicals 298 96.8 10 3.2 0 0.00 194.9 7 nd Non-availability of Equipment 304 98.7 4 1.3 0 0.00 198.7 2 th High cost of agro-chemicals 295 95.8 13 4.2 0 0.00 195.8 6 th Difficulties of harvesting during dry season 255 82.8 53 17.2 0 0.00 182.8 13 th Non-availability of labour 260 84.4 47 15.3 1 0.3 184.1 13 th Poor extension agents‟ contact 299 97.1 9 2.9 0 0.00 177.1 18 th Instability in government policy 298 96.8 9 2.9 1 0.3 196.5 5 th Marketing problems 232 75.3 65 21.1 11 3.6 171.7 17 rd Soil erosion problem 170 55.2 84 27.3 54 17.5 137.7 23 st Lack hospitals 240 77.9 4 1.3 64 20.8 157.1 21 nd Poor access to good road 203 65.9 52 16.9 53 17.2 148.7 2 th High cost of hired labour 290 94.2 8 2.6 10 3.2 191.0 10 rd Lack of modern Processing equipment 303 98.4 5 1.6 0 0.00 198.4 3 th High cost of processing 250 81.2 58 18.8 0 0.00 181.2 15 th Soil fertility problem 150 48.7 56 18.2 102 33.1 115.6 24 Source: Field survey 2011 1 46 5.12 Level of severity of constraints to cassava enterprise Table 22 presents the severity of constraints to cassava enterprise. The result shows that majority (81.5%) of the entrepreneurs assessed constraints as being of high severity to the cassava enterprise. Results across entrepreneurs‟ categories also show that level of severity of constraints to producers (59.3%) and marketers (74.7%) was high, while processors (59.3%) had low severity level of constraints. The implication is that despite the magnitude of constraints faced by cassava entrepreneurs‟, they have persevered to remain in their various entrepreneurs‟ categories for their relative benefits. The result corroborates the study by Ironkwe et al. (2009) which listed lack of capital/credit, scarcity/high cost of fertilizer, lack of access road, processing equipment and market as major constraints to cassava enterprise. 1 47 Table 22: Level of severity of constraints on cassava enterprise Severity Producer n = 135 Marketers n = 87 Processors n = 86 Overall n = 308 Score F % Score F % score F % score F % Low 64-76.98 55 40.7 64 -78.8 22 25.3 64-78.7 51 59. 64-77.7 57 18.5 3 High 76.99-84.0 80 59.3 78.90-84 69 74.7 78.7-84 35 40. 77.8-84 251 81.5 7 Mean 76.99± 3.07 78.90 ± 7.28 78.02 ± 4.89 77.81 ± 6.68 Source: Field Survey, 2011 148 5.13 Section 8: Socioeconomic status of entrepreneurs in cassava enterprise From the findings as shown in Table 23 majority (90.3%) of all entrepreneurs in cassava enterprise had moderate SES. The result also shows that across entrepreneurs‟ categories; producers (92.6%), marketers (92.0%) and processors (91.9%) had moderate SES due to their involvement in cassava enterprises. The result is contrary to a priori expectation. The SES of marketers was expected to be higher than other entrepreneurs giving the common belief that producers and processors are often exploited in the cassava value chain. The result may be due to other livelihood activities the entrepreneurs were involved in. It also implies that entrepreneurs enjoyed equal support services that were capable of reducing the effects of the constraints and improve their production, benefits and SES on equal scale. The result is consistent with FAO (2003) that reported that the living standard of over 80% of agricultural population in Africa is on the average. 149 Table 23: Distribution of entrepreneurs on SES in cassava enterprise Socio- Scores Range F % Mean s.d economic class Producers Low 110.0-153.80 10 7.4 160.99 7.18 Moderate 153.81-168.17 125 92.6 High 168.18-176.0 0 0.00 Marketers Low SES 110.0 -158.87 7 8.0 162.75 3.95 Moderate 158.88-166.7 80 92.0 High 166.8-167.0 0 0.00 Processors Low 110.0-150.88 7 8 . 1 159.69 8.80 Moderate 150.89-168.49 79 91.9 High 168.50-170 0 0.00 Overall Low 110.0-154.07 30 9.7 161.12 7.04 Moderate 154.08-168.16 278 90.3 High 168.17-169.0 0 0.00 Source: Field Survey, 2011 s.d – standard deviation 1 50 5.13 Section 9: Test of research hypotheses 5.13.1: Hypothesis 1 There is no significant relationship between selected socio-economic characteristics of the entrepreneurs in cassava enterprises and their socio-economic status. 5.13.1.1: Producers 2 The result of chi-square analysis as shown in Table 24 reveals that age (χ = 2 2 15.123, p = 0.019), marital status (χ = 24.590, p = 0.029), household size (χ = 2 10.492, p = 0.005), and experience (χ = 10.644, p = 0.0031) had significant and positive relationship with socio-economic status of cassava producers. The result that age had significant relationship with socio-economic status of producers was in consonance with a priori expectation because age is a factor that could combine with experience to boost producers‟ productivity, benefits and socio-economic status. The result is consistent with those of Okoye et al. (2008), Chikwendu et al. (1994), Kebede (2001) and Nwaru (2004) that age has significant effect on socio-economic status of cocoyam farmers in Anambra state and for arable crop farmers in Imo state. Marital status was also found to have significant relationship with socio- economic status of cassava producers. The result agrees with a priori expectation because marital status may bring about change in the number of hands which producers could engage in the enterprise operations. The result implies that marital status is a measure of producers‟ socio-economic standing in the study area. The result corresponds with the finding of Okoye et al. (2008) that marital status creates more positive effect if household labour is devoted to agricultural enterprise and activities. 151 Result of Chi-square analysis further shows that household size had influence on the socio-economic status of producers. The result is in line with a priori expectation because large household size would mean reduce labour cost, increased productivity, benefits and change in the SES of producers. The result implies that household size is capable of creating positive effect on output that enhances the SES of producers. The result corroborates the finding of Okoye et al. (2008) that positive relationship exists between household size, productivity and socio-economic status as in small-holder cocoyam farms in Anambra state. The finding that year of experience is significant in its relationship with socio- economic status of cassava producers was also expected. This can be explained by the fact that those who have reasonable years of experience as cassava producers are more technically efficient and likely to change or explore strategies that could translate into trying new ideas they have either be seen or heard from other entrepreneurs, visitors, friends and extension agents. The result also implies that the more experienced a producer is the more efficient his decision making processes and the less averse he is in risk taking to improve his productivity and socio-economic status. The result is consistent with the findings of Dagwa (2006) and Adebayo et al. (2007) for maize producers in Adamawa. 5.13.1.2: Marketers The study further establishes a significant relationship between marketing 2 experience (χ = 21.366, p = 0.000) and socio-economic status of cassava marketers. The result is expected since as the number of years in business increases, so also the profitability and SES. The result establishes the importance of experience and further implies that it is a factor that leads to perfection in cassava marketing enterprise. The 152 result is in line with the previous study by Agwu (2009) on plantain marketers in Abia state, Nigeria. 5.13.1.3: Processors 2 2 Table 5.22 reveals that age (χ = 17.657, p = 0.007), marital status (χ = 2 2 15.562, p = 0.004), education (χ = 43.137, p = 0.000), and experience (χ = 17.058, p = 0.013) significantly and positively influence the SES of cassava processors. The result of chi-square analysis which shows a significant relationship between the age of processors and their socio-economic was expected as it is one of the major challenges to cassava processing in the study area. The result implies that low scale processing of cassava products will continue to thrive with increased rural-urban migration of youths in the study area. The result corroborates the finding of Okoruwa and Ogundele (2006) that processors age has significant relationship with their productivity and socio-economic status. Marital status is also significant in determining the SES of processors. This is expected because marriage is a measure of a person‟s socio-economic position in the cultural value system of the study area. This implies additional hands which married processing entrepreneurs are likely to use in reducing labour cost and increasing benefit from their processing enterprise. Education also had significant influence in cassava processors‟ SES. This was also expected and it is an indication that educated entrepreneurs are more likely to have easy access to innovations and improved tools that could enhance their productivity and SES. The result is in agreement with Nwaru (2007) who found out that education and training help to unlock the natural talents and inherent enterprising 153 qualities of people, enhances their abilities to understand and evaluate productive techniques leading to increased productivity and income. The result further indicates that experience had significant relationship with processors‟ SES. This was expected as experienced entrepreneurs would easily adopt innovations that will boost their enterprise and SES. The finding implies that the more experienced a processor is, the more efficient he could be in developing and modifying skills that are capable of bringing turn-around in his enterprise. The result is in conformity with Okoye, Okoye, Dimelu, Asumugha, Agwu and Agbaeze (2008) who reported that the more experienced an entrepreneur is, the more efficient his decision making processes and willingness to take risks that can transcend into improved productivity and benefits. From the above findings, it is obvious that among the variables tested; only experience is significant in influencing the SES of all entrepreneurs (producers, marketers and processors). The result revealed that sex had no significant relationship with the socio-economic status of any of entrepreneurs. This was expected because both sexes can play corresponding active roles in cassava enterprise. The result implies that SES of entrepreneurs could be high, moderate or low irrespective of their sex. The result however agrees with Okoye et al. (2008) and Oluwemimo (2010) who reported that members of farm household can work both as producers, marketers and processors of farm products with no difference in socio-economic gains along gender lines. 154 Table 24: Chi-square analysis between selected socio-economic characteristics and socio-economic status of entrepreneurs in cassava enterprise Producers Marketers Processors 2 2 2 Variables Df χ - P Df χ P Df χ p value Age 6 15.123 0.019* 2 1.087 0.581 6 17.657 0.007** Sex 2 7.011 0.118 2 1.945 0.378 2 1.434 0.488 Marital status 2 24.590 0.029* -- -- -- 4 15.562 0.004** Household size 2 10.492 0.005* 2 0.102 0.950 4 8.632 0.071 Education 4 6.937 0.139 4 5.384 0.250 4 43.137 0.000** Experience 4 10.644 0.031* 4 21.366 0.000* 4 17.058 0.013* *Sig at 0.05 ** at 0.01 155 5.13.1.4: relationship between selected socio-economic characteristics and the socio-economic status of entrepreneurs in cassava enterprise (overall) 2 2 Results in Table 25 reveal that age (χ =10.734, p = .005), marital status (χ 2 =10.668, p = 0.03), household type (χ =13.620, p = .009) and years of experience 2 (χ = 10.683, p = .005) were significant and positively influence SES of entrepreneurs in cassava enterprise. This implies that as more of these variables were employed, the more changes occurred in SES of entrepreneurs. The result is in line with the finding of Uchechi and Ebelenna (2009) that age, marital status, education, household size and year of experience are determinants of income and social status of cassava farmers in Abia state. The reason could be the low financial and operational level of both entrepreneurs in the study area. 1 56 Table 25: Chi-square analysis between selected socio-economic characteristics and the socio-economic status of entrepreneurs in cassava enterprise (overall) Socio-economic Df Chi- p-value Decision characteristics Square value Age 2 10.734 .005 Significant Sex 2 4.361 .139 Not significant Marital status 4 10.668 0.03 Significant Household size 4 13.620 .009 Significant Education 4 26.869 0.000 Significant Years of Experience 2 10.683 .005 Significant 157 5.13.2: Hypothesis 2 There is no significant relationship between entrepreneurs‟ level of involvement in cassava enterprise and their socio-economic status. The result of PPMC analysis as presented in Table 26 shows that there was no significant relationship between entrepreneurs‟ level of involvement in cassava enterprise and their SES (r-0.019 P=0.019). The result also shows that across entrepreneurs‟ categories, there were no significant relationships between producers‟ (r-0.038; p=0.660) and processors‟ (r-0.026; p= 0.812) level of involvement in cassava enterprise and their SES. It was expected that consistency in entrepreneurs‟ involvement in cassava production and processing throughout the season could have significant relationship on entrepreneurs‟ SES. The result therefore implies that SES of producers and processors are not predicated on their level of involvement in cassava production and processing. The result is consistent with Hobbs (2000) who observed that agro-based enterprises are normal features of rural areas and potential sources of employment, but they could be critical as well in providing employment and in influencing people‟s wellbeing. The result of PPMC analysis in Table 26 also reveals significant relationship between marketers‟ level of involvement in cassava enterprise and their SES (r=- 0.243 p=0.023). The result was expected because a unit increase in level of involvement in cassava marketing reduces the probability of being poor as a cassava marketer. The result implies that marketers‟ SES is predicated upon how often they were involved in cassava marketing. The result corresponds with the study of Obisesan (2012) that significant relationship exists between level of involvement in cassava marketing and rural poverty among smallholder farmers in South-west, Nigeria. 158 Table 26: Pearson Product Moment Correlation analysis between entrepreneurs’ level of involvement in cassava enterprise and their socio-economic status Entrepreneurs Variable r-value p-value Decision Producers Involvement in production 0.038 0.660 NS Marketers involvement in marketing -0.243 0.023 S Processors Involvement in processing 0.026 0.812 NS Overall Involvement in cassava 0.019 0.746 NS enterprise 1 59 5.13.3: Hypothesis 3 There is no significant difference in the socio-economic status of different categories of entrepreneurs‟ in cassava enterprise. The result of one way ANOVA analysis on Table 27 shows that there was no significance difference in the SES of various entrepreneurs in cassava enterprise. The result is in line with a priori expectation due to similarity in the level of benefit and severity of constraints faced by producers, marketers and processors in the study area. This infers that the socio-economic status of entrepreneurs in cassava enterprises does not differ from one another (p=0.546). It also implies that cassava enterprises provide benefits that could make entrepreneurs‟ SES not significantly different from one another. The result supports the finding of Yee and Paludetto (2005) that although there is considerable variations in both operating cost and rate of return in respect of cassava production, processing and marketing, no significant difference exist in the socio-economic position of participating rural farm households in Nigeria. 160 Table 27: Analysis of variance on the difference in the socio-economic status of entrepreneurs in cassava enterprise Variable SS Df Mean F p-value square SES Between Groups 60.380 2 30.19 0.607 0.546 161 However, a Scheffe post hoc test of multiple comparisons between the entrepreneurs on Table 28 shows that SES of producers (160.99) is less than that of marketers (162.75). The result further reveals that the socio-economic status of marketer and producers were not significantly different at 0.05 level of significance. This implies that the difference accounted for in their mean socio-economic status is not sufficiently being determined by the difference they shared in cassava enterprise. Similarly, the study shows that producers ( x = 160.99) had higher SES than processors ( x = 159.69), though the difference is not significant at 0.05 level of significance. This also implies that the difference in their SES could not be attributed to their positions as producers or processors. Meanwhile, result shows a significant difference (at p = 0.05) between the SES of marketers ( x = 162.75) and processors ( x = 159.69). This implies that marketers had significantly higher SES than processors. The result is in line with a priori expectation because the cost of processing equipment, unreliable public power supply and alternative use of generators in the face of ever escalating fuel cost is capable of having corresponding negative effect on profitability of cassava processing as well as processor‟s SES. 162 Table 28: Post Hoc test of multiple comparison of entrepreneurs’ socio-economic status Enterpreneur Mean Mean difference p Sig. Producer 160.99 -1.76 0.186 NS Marketer 162.75 1.76 Producer 160.99 1.30 0.403 NS Processor 159.69 -0.13 Marketer 162.75 3.06 0.016 S Processor 159.69 -3.06 1 63 5.13.4: Hypothesis 4 There is no significant relationship between the relative benefits entrepreneurs derive from cassava enterprise and their socio-economic status. Pearson Product Moment Correlation analysis (PPMC) result on Table 29 reveals that a significant relationship existed between benefits derived from cassava enterprise and entrepreneurs‟ SES (r-0.280, p=0.000). The result also reveals a significant relationship between benefits derived from cassava enterprise and entrepreneurs‟ (producers r = 0.407 p = 0.000, marketers r = 0.321 p=0.002, processors r = 0.431 p=0.032) SES. The result was in line with a priori expectation as people‟s SES is often used to measure the quantum of benefits accruing from their occupations. The result implies that the more the benefits derived, the better-off the SES of entrepreneurs. The finding is in tandem with Aye et al. (2006) who on comparing output of various crops in Nigeria, found out that cassava enterprise ranks first in having significant influence on food and nutritional security, income generation, poverty alleviation and socio-economic status of rural farm households. 164 Table 29: Pearson Product Moment Correlation analysis between entrepreneurs’ relative benefits from cassava enterprise and their socio-economic status Entrepreneurs Variable r-value p-value Decision ’ Producers Benefits from production 0.407 0.000 S Marketers Benefits from marketing 0.321 0.002 S Processors Benefits from processing 0.431 0.032 S Overall Benefits in cassava enterprise 0.280 0.000 S 165 5.13.5: Hypothesis 5 There is no significant difference in the relative benefits entrepreneurs derived from cassava enterprise. The result of analysis of variance (ANOVA) as shown on Table 30 reveals that there is no significant difference in the benefits derived by different entrepreneurs in cassava enterprise. (F=1.478, p=0.23). This is not in conformity with a priori expectations giving the common belief that producers and processors are often exploited by marketers and therefore do not make better profit in cassava enterprise. The result indicates that entrepreneurs in cassava enterprise have corresponding benefits. The result does not compare favourably with the findings of Mpagalile et al. (2008) that significant difference exists between the profit margins of cassava producers, processors and marketers. 1 66 Table 30: Analysis of variance of the relative benefits derived by entrepreneurs’ in cassava enterprise Variable SS Df Mean F p-value square SES Between Groups 223.007 2 111.504 1.478 0.23 1 67 The result of a Scheffe post hoc test of multiple comparisons between the entrepreneurs as shown on Table 31 reveals that benefits derived from cassava enterprise by producers ( x = 67.28) is greater than that of marketers ( x = 65.15). The result further shows that marketers‟ and producers‟ benefits were not significantly different at 0.05 level of significance. This implies that the difference in their enterprise categories is not sufficient enough to account for a significant difference in the level of benefits which each derived. The result further indicates that the producers and marketers may have encountered similar level of access to intervention input and severity of constraints. However, the study shows that producers ( x = 67.28), had significantly higher level of benefits than processors ( x = 63.74). This implies therefore that the difference in their level of benefits is a function of the differences in their enterprise categories, as producers and processors. Similarly, marketers ( x = 67.15) and processors ( x = 63.73) show significant difference between each others‟ derived benefits at 0.05 level of significance. This implies that marketers obtained higher level of benefits from cassava enterprise than processors. This is possible as marketers could buy at lower rate, hoard and market at higher price later. This makes the marketers derive more benefit than producers. Processors are also expected to derive more benefit than producers. Producers thus need to be empowered to be able to go through the value chain. 168 Table 31: Post Hoc test of multiple comparisons of entrepreneurs’ relative benefits from cassava enterprise Entrepreneurs Mean Mean difference p Sig. Producer 67.28 0.13 0.994 Not significant Marketer 67.15 -0.13 Producer 67.28 3.54 0.012 Significant Processor 63.74 -3.54 Marketer 67.15 3.41 0.035 Significant Processor 63.74 -3.41 1 69 5.13.6: Hypothesis 6 There is significant relationship between entrepreneurs‟ access to intervention programmes in cassava enterprise and their socio-economic status The result of PPMC analysis on Table 32 shows that there was a significant correlation between entrepreneurs‟ access to intervention programmes in cassava enterprise and their socio-economic status (r-0.198, p = 0.000). Across entrepreneurs‟ categories, Table 32 also reveals that there was no significant correlation between producers‟ (r = 0.075 p = 0.386), processors‟ (r = 0.188 p = 0.084) and marketers‟ (r = 0.238 p = 0.451) access to intervention programmes and their SES. This was not expected as access to intervention packages should have improved their productivity and benefits which could as well necessitate improved SES of the entrepreneurs. The result implies that producers, processors and marketers may have relied on other unofficial options to sustain and thrive successfully in cassava enterprise. The result is in line with Adebayo and Salawu (2007) who found out that cassava producer, processors and marketers were aware of the presidential initiative on cassava but indifferent about its effects on their activities. The result is as well contrary to the finding Nweke (1994, 1996) who reported that with the introduction and adoption of mechanized cassava grater technology, benefits from cassava enterprise in Africa has increased significantly. 1 70 Table 32: Relationship between entrepreneurs’ access to intervention programmes in cassava enterprise and their socio-economic status Entrepreneurs’ access r-value p-value Decision to intervention Producers 0.075 0.386 Not significant Marketers 0.238 0.451 Not Significant Processors 0.188 0.084 Not significant Overall 0.198 0.000 Significant 171 5.13.7: Hypothesis 7 There is no significant contribution of selected independent variables to the socio-economic status of categories of entrepreneurs in south eastern Nigeria. From the regression analysis result in Table 33, household size (β = 15.081, p = 0.000), benefit derived (β = 3.241, p = 0.000), income (β = 3.103; p = 0.045), farm size (β = 3.251, p = 0.021), experience (β = 2.638, p = 0.046), constraints to cassava production and (β = -1.918, p = 0.048) had significant contributions to cassava producers‟ SES. The result means that any change in any of these factors could result in a change in SES of cassava producers. The study further identified household size (β =15.081, p = 0.000), and benefits derived (β = 3.247, 0.000) as the most important determinants of cassava producers‟ socio-economic status in the study area with p- values of 0.000. The significant contribution of household size to producers‟ SES was expected because the high rate of rural-urban migration in search of paid employment or okada riding, results in cases of farm labours shortages in the study area; such that large households become boost for improved production, easing labour bottlenecks and improving benefits. The result implies that a unit increase in household size will bring about change in producers‟ SES. This supports the finding of Nnadi and Akwiwu (2006) that large farm families are predisposed to adoption of innovations that enhanced their productivity and living standard. The significant contribution of benefits derived is in conformity with a priori expectation as benefit realized is usually ploughed back into the family to guarantee family sustainability and welfare through provision of food, paying children‟s school fees, changing children‟s cloth, building of houses, acquiring titles and leisure. The result implies that any change in benefit derived from cassava production could have 172 appreciable change in SES of producers. The result is in conformity with the finding of Aiyedun, et al. (2008) that enhanced benefit from farm enterprises goes a long way in empowering an entrepreneur to play both economic and social roles which may have a far-reaching multiplier effect in the areas of decision-making, raising funds and self-respect. The relationship between annual income and producers‟ socio-economic status was expected considering the prominent socio-economic role of money in the society. The result implies that cassava producers could still remain in the enterprise despite challenges. The result is consistent with that of Mathew-Njoku (2003) that income is one of the most important factors that influence farmers‟ acceptance of new ideas and socio-economic status. Farm size was found to have significant contribution to the SES of cassava producers in the study area. This conforms to a priori expectations as entrepreneurs with large farm size are more likely to have improved SES when compared with those that are constrained by land availability. Elasticity of production suggests that if fame size is increased, output will increase as well as living standard ceteris paribus. Oluyole and Sanusi (2009) had similar findings on a study carried out in Cross River State, reporting that with the desired agronomic/management practices, increased farm size will improve farm output and living standard of farm households. The significant contribution of years of experience in cassava production was also expected because experience furnishes more knowledge that could increase farmers‟ rationality in the use of innovations to increase output and SES. The implication is that experienced cassava producers can interpret information properly, understand demonstrations clearly and would be ready to implement new agricultural knowledge. The work of Nnadi and Amaechi (2007) explained increased years of 173 farming experience as a valuable asset in adoption decision-making that can improve farmers‟ productivity and benefits and socio-economic status. The regression analysis result further revealed that constraints have significant relationship with the SES of the producers. This was expected given the enormity of constraints facing cassava producers in the study area. The result connotes that constraints might create a positive effect on producers‟ output, benefits and SES or retains the status quo. The result confirms the finding of Knights, et al. (2003) that constraint is a determinant factor to level of productivity and returns from micro- business and agro-based enterprises. Table 33 also reveals that benefits derived (β = 1.602, p = 0.002), constraints (β = -1.836, p = 0.002) and income (β = 2.143, p = 0.047) were the most important determinants of marketers‟ SES. This result infers that the higher the benefits derived, the higher the SES of marketers. This was expected as the quantum of benefit derived often determines the volume and quantity of cassava products traded and thus expansion of enterprise which also is a measure of improved SES. This result is consistent with those of Agwu (2009) and Eze (2006) on determinants of profitability among plantain marketers in Abia State and socio-economic determinants of output and profit levels of small holders rice production systems in Abia State, Nigeria respectively. However, an indirect relationship existed between marketers‟ extent of constraints and their SES. The result was in line with a priori expectation considering the enormity of constraints facing cassava marketers and their living standard in the study area. This implies that marketers, who faced myriads of constraints, had their SES significantly limited. The result is in consonant with Gwary and Bawa (2008) 174 who found out that both scale of operation, benefits and constraints determine living standard of rural youth engaged in agricultural enterprise. Table 33 also reveals that source of benefits derived (β = 7.075, p = 0.038), income (β = 3.120, p = 0.037) and experience (β = 1.760, p = 0.040) are the top predictors of processors‟ SES. This implies that SES of processors to a large extent is determined by benefits derived, income and experience. The result on benefits derived was expected also in view of the fact that most commercially inclined farmers who make reasonable gains are less likely to be poor than farmers whose sole purpose of farming is subsistence. This implies that as benefits from cassava processing increases so also is the SES likely to improve. The result is consistent with the finding of FAO (2005) that the low level benefits from farm enterprise is a reason for the poor living standard of rural farm household in Nigeria. The result on experience was also in line with a priori expectation as experience has been known to lead to perfection in activities. This implies that the more experienced a processor is, the more the likelihood of improved SES. The result is in line with a previous result obtained by Agwu (2009) which stated that years of experience led to an increase in the quantity of maize processed as well as improved processors‟ techniques and living standard. 1 75 Table 33: Coefficient of regression showing the contributions of the dependent variables to entrepreneurs’ socio-economic status in South eastern Nigeria Variables Producers Marketers Processors β T β T β t Constant 137.210 14.788 157.077 12.298 158.829 7.190 Age 0.146 0193 0.753 0.712 0.617 0.300 Household size 15.081* 6.633 -1.137- 0.344 0.286 0.077 Household type -4.011 -2.352 1.328 0.677 1.760 0.526 Experience 2.638* 4.134 -1.178 -1.113 5.365* 2.095 Involvement level -0.034 -0.077 0.220 0.373 -1.352 -1.010 Income 3.103* 3.342 2.143 4.563 3.120* 4.345 Access to -0.375 -0.708 0.192 0.429 2.287 1.523 intervention Benefits derived 3.247* 6.288 1.608* 3.279 7.075* 5.867 Constraints -1.024* -1.918 -1.836* -3.248 -1.431 -1.208 Farm size 3.251* 5.471 - - - - Other crops -0.033 -0.087 0.311 0.527 -0.985 -0.816 planted Source of labour 0.956 1.117 0.371 0.292 -4.198 -1.223 Source of capital -0.881 -1.333 -0.412 -0.463 1.797 0.798 Variety planted 1.031 0.370 -2.561 -1.183 4.350 0.681 Transportation -0.508 -1.442 -.710 -1.441 -1.571 -1.663 Education -0.047 -0.608 -0.724 -1.021 -0.409 -0.225 **Significant at 0.01 * Significant at 0.05 1 76 From the regression coefficient result on Table 34 shows that the R-square value of 0.811, 0.501 and 0.38 implies therefore that all the considered variables contributed 81.1%, 50.1% and 38.0% variance to socio-economic status (SES) of producers (F = 23.140, p =0.000), marketers (F = 3.763, p = 009) and processors (F = 2.201, p = 0.010) respectively. 177 Table: 34 Regression coefficients for socio-economic status of entrepreneurs’ in cassava enterprise Entrepreneur Model Sum of Df Regression Mean F Sig s’ Squares Error square Producers Regression 5599.807 21 3.395 266.657 23.140 0.000 Marketers Regression 672.110 18 3.140 37.339 3.768 0.009 Processors Regression 2552.604 19 7.812 134.348 2.201 0.010 2 2 Producer: R = 0.901, R = 0.811; Marketer: R = 0.708, R = 0.501; Processor: R=0.62, 2 R = 0.38 178 CHAPTER SIX 6.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION This chapter presents a highlight of the summary of major findings of the research. It draws conclusions from the findings and makes recommendations. Areas of further research are suggested on issues arising from the study. 6.1 Summary Cassava has played and continues to play a remarkable role on the agric- business stage of Nigeria. Since its introduction into Nigeria, cassava has moved from a minor crop status to a major crop that accounts for reasonable amount of calories consumed in most parts of Nigeria. It constitutes a major item in the crop combination of most farmers and contributes significantly to total farm income in Nigeria. The profitability of the crop therefore has been a major focus for various intervention programmes in Nigeria. It is reported that despite the intervention programmes, the sub-sector has remained predominantly at subsistence level. Similarly, Nigeria is reportedly to be the world‟s largest producer of cassava with estimated 36.8 million metric tons on a total harvested area of 3.13 million ha, yet studies have revealed that most of Nigeria‟s population is chronically hungry and economically back-ward. It is expected therefore that Nigeria‟s level of production will be a boost to socio-economic status of those involved in the nation‟s cassava enterprise. On the contrary, research has further shown that the SES of those involved is not significantly improving in Nigeria. There 1 79 should supposedly be a correlation between production levels attained and change in the SES of those involved in the cassava enterprise. The issues that revolve around scale of operation, level of involvement and SES of entrepreneurs in cassava enterprise was critically assessed to bring out the explanatory factors for attained production level and SES of those involved in south eastern Nigeria. The issue of who among the entrepreneurs have higher SES in cassava enterprise was ascertained. Such information gap is a reason why appropriate packaging, channeling and distribution of incentives are difficult in the study area. On the other hand, whereas; government and non-governmental interventions in cassava enterprise are typically cited in literature as means of encouraging involvement in cassava enterprise, entrepreneurs‟ access to those interventions are rarely mentioned. It is obvious that access to intervention is important to necessitating substantial benefits from cassava enterprises and improved SES of entrepreneurs. Evidence also suggests that agro-enterprises generally are bedeviled by numerous constraints. Therefore, effort at determining specifically those of cassava enterprise is germane and a step in proffering solutions to improving entrepreneurs‟ productivity, benefits and socio-economic status. It is therefore against this background that this study attempted to determine the contributions of cassava enterprise to entrepreneurs‟ socio- economic status in south eastern Nigeria. Specifically, the study: 1. examined entrepreneurs‟ level of involvement in cassava enterprise in the study area. 2. determined entrepreneurs‟ access to intervention programme input for cassava enterprise in the study area. 180 3. identified constraints to cassava enterprise in the study area. 4. determined the relative benefits entrepreneurs derive from their involvement in the cassava enterprise. 5. ascertained the different socio-economic status of entrepreneurs in cassava enterprise in the study area. Multistage sampling procedure was used to select respondents for the study. Imo and Anambra states were selected purposively from five south eastern states of Nigeria due to high involvement in CE. Systematic sampling procedure was used to randomly select 20% of registered cassava producers (81, 54), processors (51, 36) and marketers (50, 36) groups from Imo and Anambra states respectively resulting in 308 entrepreneurs. Interview schedule was used to collect data on respondents‟ socio- economic characteristics, enterprise characteristics, level of involvement in cassava enterprise, access to intervention programme, benefits derived and constraints to involvement in cassava enterprise. Data collected were analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistics such as frequencies, percentages, Chi-square, PPMC, ANOVA and regression. The hypotheses were tested at 0.05 probability level. 6.2 Major findings The entrepreneurs (54.2%) had a mean age of 56 years. Across entrepreneurs‟ categories, results revealed that most producers (54.8 %), marketers (71.3 %) were within the same age range of 56-65 years and most processors (71.3 %) were in the age range of 45-55 years. Results from the study reveal that high percentages of producers (71.9%), marketers (65.5%) and processors (61.6%) completed secondary school education. 181 Similarly, most of the producers (78.8%), marketers (71.3%) and processors (89.5%) were female. It was also discovered that while 91.9%, 100.0% and 97.7% of producers, marketers and processors respectively were married; majority of the producers (97.85), marketers (98.9%) and processors (96.5%) had household size of above 8. Most producers (80.7%), marketers (75.9%) and processors (84.9%) had between 25-50 years of experience while annual mean income for most producers (36.8%), processors (46.5%) and marketers (57.5%) was between N200, 001to N 300,000. Source of finance was found to be mainly from personal savings for most producers (92.2%), marketers (87.4%) and processors (100.0%). 2 Chi-square analysis across entrepreneurs‟ categories revealed that age (χ 2 2 =10.734, p = .005), marital status (χ =10.668, p = 0.03), household type (χ =13.620, 2 p = .009) and years of experience (χ = 10.683, p = .005) were significant and positively influenced SES of producers, marketers and processors in cassava enterprise. A large proportion of producers (91.1%), marketers (58.6%) and processors (96.5%) were highly involved in their respective cassava enterprise. The result of PPMC analysis shows that there was no significant relationship between producers‟ (r-0.038; p=0.660) and processors‟ (r-0.026; p= 0.812) level of involvement in cassava enterprise and their SES. However, significant relationship existed between marketers‟ SES and their level of involvement in cassava marketing (r =-0.243, p = 0.023). Majority of the producers (92.6%), marketers (92.0%) and processors (91.9%) had moderate SES. There was no significant difference in the SES of various entrepreneurs (p=0.546) in cassava enterprise. 182 Most producers (80.7%), marketers (65.5%) and marketers (54.7%) derived high benefits from their respective cassava enterprise. A significant relationship existed between benefits derived by producers (r = 0.407, p = 0.000), marketers (r = 0.321, p=0.002) and processors (r = 0.431, p=0.032) and their SES. In addition, there was no significant difference in the benefits derived by different entrepreneurs in cassava enterprise (F=1.478, p=0.23). Scheffe post hoc test of multiple comparisons between the entrepreneurs further revealed that though benefits derived from cassava enterprise by producers ( x = 67.28) was greater than that of marketers ( x = 65.15) they were not significantly different at 0.05 level of significance. Also the result shows that producers ( x = 67.28), had significantly higher level of benefits than processors ( x = 63.74). This implies therefore that the difference in their level of benefits is a function of the differences in their enterprise categories, as producers and processors. Similarly, it was found that marketers ( x = 67.15) and processors ( x = 63.73) show significant difference between each others‟ derived benefits at 0.05 level of significance. There were available intervention programmes with a large proportion of producers (60.0%), marketers (87.4%) and processors (67.4%) having high access to them. There was no significant relationship between producers‟ (r = 0.075, p = 0.386), processors‟ (r = 0.188, P = 0.084) access to intervention programmes and their SES while a significant relationship was recorded between marketers‟ access to intervention programmes and their SES (r = 0.238 p = 0.451). Regression analysis on the contributions of the independent variables to socio- economic status of cassava entrepreneurs showed that benefits derived (β = 3.241, p = 0.000), income (β = 3.103; p = 0.045), farm size (β = 3.251, p = 0.021), experience (β = 2.638, p = 0.046) and constraints to cassava production (β = -1.918, p = 0.048) had 183 significant contributions to cassava producers‟ SES. Benefits derived (β = 1.602, p = 0.002), constraints (β = 3.881, p = 0.044) and income (β = 2.143, p = 0.047) were the most important determinants of marketers‟ SES. On the other hand, benefits derived (β = 7.075, p = 0.038), benefits derived (β = 7.075, p = 0.038) income (β = 3.120, p = 0.037) and experience (β = 1.760, p = 0.040) were top predictors of processors‟ SES. 6.3 Conclusion The study investigated the contributions of cassava enterprise to socio- economic status of entrepreneurs in south eastern Nigeria. The following conclusions are therefore reached on the basis of the findings of the study: Cassava enterprise has high level of benefits despite its numerous constraints. Access to intervention programmes among categories of entrepreneur in the study is high with their socio-economic status being moderate. The entrepreneurs are not energetic and active enough to perform tasks in cassava enterprise based on the mean age of above 50 years. This certainly could be the reason for their low scale of operation in addition to myriads of constraints associated with cassava enterprise. The critical determinants of producers‟ socio-economic status were household size, benefit derived from the enterprise, income, experience and constraints. Similarly, whereas benefits and constraints were the most important determinants of marketers‟ SES, benefits derived, income and experience were top predictors of processors‟ SES. These need to be explored in an effort to improving the socio- economic status of the entrepreneurs. This will assist farmers maximize their operational scale and benefits from cassava enterprises. 184 6.4 Recommendations Based on the conclusion, the following recommendations are made towards improving the contributions of cassava enterprise to socio-economic status of entrepreneurs in South eastern, Nigeria. 1. It is crucial to evolve a structure that would involve all the actors in the determination of priorities and intervention programmes for cassava enterprise. This should be done within a formidable framework that will ensure availability, suitability, accessibility and sustainability of the interventions as well as encourage entrepreneurs to improve upon their scale of operation for enhanced benefits and socio-economic status. 2. Effort should be made by Government and Non-governmental organizations to motivate young entrepreneurs who are more agile to be involved in cassava enterprise. This could be through waiver on collateral for credit, reduction in price and easy access to fertilizer, provision of rural infrastructure/amenities, processing equipment and good and functional market system for disposal of products and income generation. Radio and television jingles, cassava enterprise seminars and workshops at ward, local government areas, state and national levels are promotional strategies that should be used aggressively by government and NGOs to also motivate young entrepreneurs into getting involved in cassava enterprise. 3. Research institutions and change agents should as well double their efforts in reaching entrepreneurs with relevant productive information and innovations that could boost awareness, scale of operation, benefits and socio-economic status of those involved in cassava enterprise. 185 4. Formation of formidable cooperative societies should be encouraged among entrepreneurs to help them pull their resources together for bulk purchase of inputs and better services from change agent to boost their income from the enterprise. 5. Rural infrastructure should be improved to enable entrepreneurs venture into more advanced approach in production, processing and marketing. These include stable electricity, adequate water, and means of transport, rural micro- finance banking, erosion control and market. This is with a view to mitigating the constraints that currently hamper cassava enterprise as identified by the study. 6.5 Areas of further research The study focused on contributions of cassava enterprise to socio-economic status of entrepreneurs in south eastern, Nigeria. It is obvious that the determination of socio-economic status of entrepreneurs in cassava enterprise will encourage more people to get involved.  While the study focused on contributions of cassava enterprise to socio- economic status of entrepreneurs in south eastern Nigeria, the research could be a subject for further exploration in other cassava producing zones of Nigeria.  Studies on increasing income generating abilities of entrepreneurs in cassava enterprise need to be conducted. Such findings will help in reducing the associated constraints and improve the socio-economic status of entrepreneurs.  The study revealed that the entrepreneurs are aged. It is therefore germane that the perception of the youth on the contributions of cassava enterprise be determined. 186  It is also crucial to find out the role of private sector in providing intervention inputs in the cassava enterprise. 187 References Abiagom J.D (1971) Report on production/Utilization/Processing accounts of Food Crops in Nigeria for the Purpose of preparing Food balance Sheet for Nigeria. Federal Office of Statistics (FOS), Lagos. Pp 12-13 Achinewho, S.C and Onwuamanam, C. (2001): Garrification of Fine Improved Cassava Cultivars in Nigeria and Physico Chemical and Sensory Properties of Garri Yield, Africa Journal of Root and Tuber Crops Vol. 4(2): pp. 124-132 Adebayo, E.F., A.N Mohammed and Mshelia, S.I. (2008): Economic Annalysis of Millet Production in Gamawa LGA of Bauchi State, Nigeria, Nigerian Journal of Rural Sociology Vol. 1 August, pp. 27-32. Adebayo, K and Salawu, O.D. (2007): Processors‟ Perception of the Effects of the Presidential Initiative on Cassava in the Industry in Ogun state, Nigeria in Nigerian, Journal of Rural Sociology. Vol. 7 No 1 & 2, pp. 142-150 Adedoyin, S.F and Ngoyi J.P. (1996): Diocesan Agricultural Development programme (DADP): An Extension Communication Strategy of the Ijebu-Ode Catholic Diocess for Promoting Sustainable Rural Development in Nigeria S. Adodoyin and J.O.Y. Aihonsu (eds) Sustainable Development in Rural Nigeria: Proceeding of the eight Annual Conference of the Nigerian Rural Sociological Association. Nigeria: NRSA, pp. 169-180 Adeyemo, R. (2008): Entrepreneurs Development and Credit Programmes in (eds) Oluyemisi A.A and Torimiro D.O Agricultural Extension: Comprehensive Treatise. Lagos: ABC Agricultural Systems LTD, pp. 321-332 Adisa B.O and Sodique F.R (2008) Entrepreneurship and Rural Economy in 9eds) Olyemisi A.A and Torimiro D.O Agricultural Extension: A Comprehensive 188 Treatise with Modern Questions and Answers Lagos: ABC Agricultural Systems LTD Agbo, F.U. (2006): Increasing the Output of Cassava through Women Co-operative Societies: A Study of Selected Women co-operative Farms in Enugu and Ebonyi States of Nigeria. Nigeria Journal of Co-operative Studies Vol. 2(1), pp. 31-43. Agbola S.A (1976). An Agricultural Atlas of Nigeria. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 68-78 Agricultural Projects Monitoring and Evaluation Unit (APMEU) (1997). IFAD Cassava Multiplication Programme (Loan No. 177 NR): Borrowers Final Evaluation Report. Agricultural Projects Monitoring and Evaluation Unit. Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Kaduna. Nigeria pp.74- 79 Agwu, N. M. (2009): “Determinants of profitability among plantain marketers in Abia State, Nigeria”, The Nigerian Journal of Development Studies, vol.7, No.1, July, pp. 49– 58 Henry, G., Westby, A. and Collinson,C. (1999): Global Cassava End- Uses and Markets: Current Situation and Recommendations for Further Study. FAO, Rome. Aihonsu, J.O.Y and Otunaiya, A.O., (2005). Strategic Funds Mobilization Towards Agricultural Production and Rural Development: Lessons from a Farming Community in Ogun State, Nigeria (eds) A.A. Ladele, A.M. Omotayo, A.B. Ogunwale and O.D. Kolawole; Promoting Rural and National Economic Transformation Revolution: Proceeding of the Fourteenth Annual Congress of th Nigeria Rural Sociological Association 7 -10 November, pp. 55-62 189 Aiyedun, E.A., D.A. Okpanachi and I.M. Maduekwe, (2008): Net income determination of farmers in some selected states of Nigeria. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Studies, 1: pp. 146-156. Ajeih, P.C and Uzokwe, A. (2007): Adoption of Cassava production Technologies among women Farmers in Aniocha South Local Government Area, Delta State, Nigeria. Journal of Global Approaches to Extension Practice (GAEP), 3(2): pp.15-20. Akoroda, M.A (2010) The Best Seeds of the Best Crop Varieties: A Basis for Nigeria‟s Food Security. An Inaugural Lecture. University of Ibadan: Ibadan University Press, pp.23-24 Akoroda, M.O and Terri, J.M (2004) Food Security and Diversification in SADC Countries Approach. A case study of Western Nigeria Cassava Farmers. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 27 (2) pp. 55-66. Akpan, W. (2006): “Between Responsibility and Rhetoric: Some consequences of CSR Practices in Nigeria‟s Oil Province.” Southern Africa Development Journal, , Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 223–240. Akpata, O.M. (2007): Socio-economic Determinants of Upland Rice Production Among Farmers in Ekiti State, Nigeria. Journal of Global Approaches to Extension Practice (GAEP), Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 37-43 Alabi, R.A and Oviasogie, A. (2005). Cassava Industry Production and Processing in Nigeria: Opportunities and Challenges. Agricultural Rebirth for Improved th Production in Nigeria. Proceeding of the 39 Annual Conference of Agricultural Society of Nigeria held the University of Benin, Nigeria October th 9 -13: p22-25. 190 Alves, A.A.C (2002). Cassava Botany and Physiology. in R.J Hillocks, JM Thresh, and A Belloti (ed) Cassava: Biology, Production and Utilization. UK: CABI Publishing, pp. 98-102 Amusa, T. A., A. A. Enete and U. E. Okon, (2011): Socioeconomic determinants of cocoyam production among small holder farmers in Ekiti state, Nigeria International Journal of Agricultural Economics & Rural Development Vol. 4 (2): pp. 98 Anuebunwa, F.O.C, C. Ezedinma, B.O. Ugwu, G.N. Asumugha and E.C Anodu, (1998): “A Research Report on the Extent of Adoption of NRCRI-Developed Technology: Cassava Varieties (NR8082, NR8083 and TMS 4 (2) 1425 in Abia, Anambra and Delta State of Nigeria Submitted to NARP Management, Abuja. NRCRI, Umudike, pp. 56-62 Anyawu, C (1999): Textbook of Agricultural for School Certificate. Enugu: Nigeria African Education Publishers, pp. 76 Asiabaka, C.C, S. Morse and L. Kenyon, (2001): The Development, Dissemination and Adoption of Technologies Directed at Improving the Availability of Clean Yam Planting Material in Nigeria and Ghana. Report of a study mission commissioned By UK Government Department for International Development (DFID) Crop Protection Program (CPP) 11 –22 June, pp.16-22 Asunmagha, G.N and Nwosu (2006): The Cassava Sector and Background Integration in Sustaining the Raw Material Requirement of Existing and th Emerging Agro- Allied Industries in Nigeria. Proceedings of the 40 Annual Conference of the Agricultural Society of Nigeria (ASN) held at NRCRI, th th Umuahia ABia State, Nigeria. Oct 16 -20 . Pp. 137-140. 1 91 Aworh .O.C, J.B.Babalola, A.S.Gbadegesin, I.M.Isiugo-Abanihe, E.O.Oladiran and F.Y Okunmadewa (2006): Design and Development of Conceptual Framework in Research in (ed) A.I.Olayinka, V.O. Taiwo, A. Raji-Oyelade and I.P Farai Methodology of Basic and Applied Research. The Postgraduate School: University of Ibadan. Awoyemi, C. (1981): “Character of Nigerian Agriculture” in News from the Central Bank of Nigeria. Central Bank Bullion, 3 (4): pp 2. Awoyinka, Y.A., (2009): Effect of presidential initiatives on Cassava production efficiency in Oyo State -Nigeria. Ozean Journal of Applied. Science, Vol. 2(2), pp. 185-193. Aye, G.C, V.U Oboh and C.K Blam, (2006): Resource Use Efficiency in Cassava Production among Women Farmers in Markurdi LGA of Benue State. Repositioning Agriculture for Sustainable Mellenium Development Goal in th Nigeria. Proceeding of 40 annual Conference of Agricultural Society of Nigeria, th held at NRCRI, Umudike Abia State, Nigeria Oct 16 -20: pp. 137-140. Azogu, I., O. Tewe, C. Ezedinma, and V. Olomo. (2004): Cassava Utilisation in Domestic Feed Market, Root and Tuber Expansion Programme. Nigeria. Pp.148. Beeching, J.R Han, Y.H., Gomez-Vasquez, R., Day, R.C and Cooper, R.M. (1998): Wound and Defense Responses in Cassava as Related to Postharvest physiological Deterioration. Bermier I and Hafsi T (22003) The Changing Nature of Public Entrepreneurship. USA: MidWest Political Science Association Conference 1 92 Blanshard, A.F.J, Dahaniya, M.T, Poulter, N.H and Taylor, A.J (1994): Quality of Cassava Foods in Siera Leone. Journal of the Science Food and Agriculture Vol. 64. Pp 425-432 BNARDA, (2007): Benue State Agricultural and Rural Development Authority. Annual Report, pp: 67. Bokanga, M (1995): Cassava Opportunities for the Food, Feed and other Industries in Africa In: Agbor, E, Brauman, A, Griffon, D and Treche, S (eds) Transformation Alimentaire du Manioc ORSTOM Editions, Paris, pp. 557-569 Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) (1992): Annual Report and statement of Accounts. Nigeria: Central Bank of Nigeria. Chikwendu, D.O., Chinaka, C.C and Omatayo, A.M., (1994): Adoption of Minnisett Technique of Seed Yam Production by Farmers in the Eastern Forest Zone of Nigeria. Discovery of Innovation Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 367-375 Clement-Ogbuanu, U. (2007): “Federal Government Set to Boost Cassava Production” The Daily Times of Nigeria, February 2, pp 6 Cock, J.H. (1985): Cassava: New potential for a neglected crop. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, USA. Economics webinstitute. org/main htm on 2nd February 2007, pp 108-112. Collaborative Study of Cassava in Africa (COSCA) (1999): Working Paper No. 20.pp. 46 Commission of the European Communities (2003) Green Paper: Entrepreneurship in Europe. Brussels, BE, DG Empresa Dagwa, W. (2006): Economics of Maize Production in Hung LGA of Adamawa State. An Unpublished B.Sc. project submitted to the Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, University of Technology Yola, pp. 36-48 193 Daramola, A.G (2004): “Competitiveness of Nigeria Agriculture in a Global Economy: Any Dividends of Democracy?”, Inaugural Lecture Series 36 delivered at the Federal University of Technology, Akure, 2nd March, 2004, pp: 1-2. Day, G., A.J. Graffham, J. Ababio and Amoako, M. (1996): Market Potential for Cassava Flours and Starches in Ghana. Project R6504 Report R2333(S). Joint report of the Natural Resources Institute and Department of Nutrition and Food Science. University of Ghana. Pp. 57. Deji, O.F., F.O. Adereti and Ilori, O.A. (2005): Factors Associated with Accessibility of Female Headed households to Selected Agricultural Production Resources in Osun State, Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Rural Sociology Vol. 5 Nos 1&2, pp 123-126 Dipeolu, A.O., Adebayo K., Ayinde L.A. (2001): Fufu Marketing System in South- west, Nigeria in NRI Report No. R2626 Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich Chattan Maritime. Pp. 69-79 Doss A.S and Moris E (2007): How does Gender Affect the Adoption of Agricultural Innovations: The Case of Improved Maize Technology in Ghana, Journal of International Association of Agricultural Economics 1(25): pp. 27-39. Ekwe K C, Nwachukwu, I and Ironkwe A.G (2009): Appraisal of the Use of Mechanized Cassava Grater Among Farm Households in the South eastern, Nigeria in Nigerian Journal of Rural Sociology Vol. 9 No. 1.pp. 17-24 Eze, N.O.A (1993): Labour Use and productivity in yam based Household Farms of South-Estern Nigeria. University of PortHarcourt, Nigeria, pp. 84-88 Ezebuiro, N.C, Ironkwe, A.G, Ugboaja, CC, Chinaka, E.C and Chukwu, G.O, (2008): Impact of Adopting Improved Cassava Variaties Among Farmers in Umuahia 194 Agricultural Zone of Abia State. Policy Advocacy Role in Agricultural and Rural Transformation in Nigeria, Proceeding of Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Nigeria Rural Sociology Association. August 19-22, pp. 32-33. Ezebuiro, N.C. (2004): Adoption of Improved Cassava Varieties by Farmers in Umuahia Agricultural Zone of Abia State. M.Sc Thesis, Abia State University, Uturu, Nigeria, pp:67-69 Ezeburio, N.C, Ironkwe, A.G, Uboaja, C.I and Okoro, B.O (2010): Adoption of Improved Cassava varieties by Women in Umuahia Agricultural Zone of ABia State, Nigeria, Nigerian Journal of Rural Sociology Vol. 10 No 1. Pp. 17-23 Ezedinma CI, Okafor C, Asumugha GN, Nweke F (2006): Trends in farm labour Productivity and implications for cassava industrialization in Nigeria. Proceeding of the 40th Annual conference of the Agricultural society of Nigeria held at NRCRI Umudike, Abia State. Oct. 16th – 20th, p. 109-115. Ezedinma, C., I.A. Ojiako, R.U. Okechukwu, J.R.Lemchi, A.M. Umar, L.O. Sanni, M.O. Akoroda, F. Ogbe, E.Okoro, G. Tarawali, and A. Dixon. (2007): The cassava food commodity market and trade network in Nigeria. IITA: Ibadan, pp.296 Ezedinma, C., L. Sanni and R. Okechukwu. (2005a): Marketing of Garri in Benin City and Enugu, Nigeria. A Component of the Investigations on Building a Food Marketing Policy Evidence Base In Nigeria. G Porter and F Lyon (eds) Department for International Development (DFID). pp 121-141, http://www.dur.ac.uk/nigerian.marketing/ Ezeh, C. I (2006): Socio-economic determinants of output and profit levels of small holders rice production systems in Abia State, Nigeria” Journal of Research in Agriculture, vol.3, No.3, pp.44 – 50 195 Ezulike T.O, Nwosu K.S, I Udealor A, Eke-Okoro O.N. (2006): Guide to Cassava Production in Nigeria. Extension Guide No. 16, NRCRI, Umudike, Nigeria.www.nrcri.org. Cassava: Production, Processing and Utilization in Nigeria, pp. 28-34 Fabusoro, E. (2005): Socio-Economic and Spatial Factors in Livelihood Diversification Among Rural Households in Ogun State, Nigeria. An Unpublished PhD Thesis, submitted to the Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, University of Abeokuta, pp.48 Famoriyo, S (1984): Need to Increase Food Crop Production in Nigeria: Role of Agro-Industries in (eds) Osuntogun, A and Ugorji R.U Private Sector and Nigeria’s Agricultural Development ARMTI: Ilorin, pp. 45-57 Federal Agricultural Coordinating Unit (FACU), (1993): Status of cassava production, marketing and utilization. Abuja, Nigeria: Federal Agricultural Coordinating Unit. Federal Institute of Industrial Research (FIRRO), (2006): Cassava Production, Processing and Utilization in Nigeria. Lagos: FIRRO, pp.1-223 Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Natural resources (FMANR) (1997): Nigerian Agricultural Statistics. FMANR: Nigeria. Pp13 Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources Nigeria (FMANR) (2000): Cassava Development in Nigeria: A Country Case Study Towards a Global Strategy for Cassava Development. Rome, Italy: FAO. Pp56-57 Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD) (2004): Annual Report, Abuja: FMARD, pp. 10-12 1 96 Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD), (2006): National Programme for Food Security (NPFS) Expansion Phase Project 2006-2010 (Main Report). Nigeria, pp. 54-56 Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (FMAWR) (2008): “National Food Security Programme” FMAWR: Abuja pp. 48 – 53. Federal office of Statistics (FOS) (1981) National Consumer Survey. FAO: Lagos, pp. 8 Filion L (2000) Entreeendedorismo e greenciamiento: Processos distintos, porem complementares RAE Vol. 7 No. 2-7 Folbre, N. (1991): Living Arrangement of Women and their Children in Developing Countries: A Demographic Profile. New York: United Nations, pp. 38. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) (2003): Food and Agricultural Organization: Agriculture, Food and Nutrition for Africa: A resource Book for Teachers of Agriculture. FAO information Division, Rome: Italy, pp. 202-207. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) (2004): Fact Sheet No 5 on International Year of Rice. : Rome, pp. 41-52 Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) (2004a): Online Statistical Database. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Web Site www.fao.org. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) (2005): Framework for Farm Household Decision making. Retrieved March 10, 2010 from ttp://www.fao.or.docrep/ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), (2004b): The Global Cassava Development Strategy and Implementation Plan, FAO Document. Rome: FAO, pp. 86-89 1 97 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), (2007): FAO database: Crop production. Retrieved on 19 July 2007 from http://www.faostat.fao.org Fresco, L.O. (1993): The dynamics of cassava in Africa, COSCA Working Paper No 9. Collaborative Study of Cassava in Africa, IITA, Nigeria. Futa, M.T. (1992): Structural adjustment programs and their implications for agricultural development in Africa. Invited paper presented at the at the International Symposium on “Sustainable Food Production in Sub-Saharan African” held at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Ibadan to mark the 25th Anniversary of the Institute, 7 – 9 December 1992, pp.4-8 Greenaway, T Rolf E. J, Nathan E. K (2002): Rain Forests of the World. Marshall Cavendish: U.K, pp. 292 Gul UNAL, F (2008): Small Is Beautiful: Evidence of Inverse Relationship between Farm Size and Yield in Turkey. Working paper No. 551, New York: The Levy Economics Institute, pp. 87 Gwary, M.M, Pur, J.T and Bawa D.B (2008): Socio-Economic Determinants of Youths‟ Involvement in Agricultural Activities in Askira/Uba Local Government Area of Borno State, Nigeria in Proceeding of the Seventeenth Annual Congress of NRSA pp. 18-19. Gwera, M. (2009): Food Centre to Improve Cassava Production, Daily News March 31. pp: 36. Haggblade, S., & Nyembe, M. (2008): Commercial Dyanmics in Zambia's Cassava Value Chain.. Lusaka: Food Security Research Project, pp. 84 Hahn, S.K (1989): An Overview of African Traditional Cassava Processing and Utilization. Outlook on Agriculture No. 18, pp. 110-118 198 th Harallambus, M and M. Holborn (2000): Sociology: Themes and Perspectives (6 Ed) London: Harper Collins, pp. 139-201 Henry, G., Westby, A. and Collinson,C. (1999): Global Cassava End-Uses and Markets: Current Situation and Recommendations for Further Study. FAO, Rome. Hillocks, R.J (2002): Cassava in Africa, in Cassava Biology, Production and Utilization (eds) Hillocks R.J, Thresh, J.M and AC Belloti, CABI Publishers, Oxon: New York, pp 56-59 Hobbs, E.A. (2000): Small Firms. ESRC Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge, U.K. IFAD (2011): Agriculture in the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Abuja: IFAD, pp. 92 Iheke, O. R. l. (2008): Technical efficiency of cassava farmers in South Eastern Nigeria. Agricultural Journal 3 (2): pp.152-156 IITA (2004): Nigeria cassava industry: statistical Handbook, lbadan, Nigeria. Pp 62 Imo, A.N (2002): Towards Effective Participation of Women in Cocoyam Production st in the 21 century: The Mbaise, Imo State Experience. Nigeria Journal of Rural Sociology. 4(1), Pp: 100-104. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) (2009): Agriculture at a Crossroads. Global Report, Washington, D.C.: Island Press, pp. 57-62 International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) (2005): Cassava Enterprise Development Project (CEDP) Ibadan: IITA, pp 1-2 International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), (2004): Nigerian's Cassava Industry: Statistical Handbook, Ibadan: IITA, pp. 69-74 1 99 Ironkwe, A.G, Ekwe, K.C, Okoye, B.C and Chukwu, I.I. (2009): Socio-Economic Determinants of Cassava producers Among Women in Ebonyi State, Nigeria. Journal of Rural Sociology Vol.9 No1 August pp. 65. Kalu, B.A., (2003): Improving Benue State Economy on cassava production. A paper presented at the sensitization workshop on Cassava Production, Processing and Utilization, Makurdi, November, 24, pp. 7-8 Kebede , T A (2001): Farm household Technical Efficiency; A Stochastic Frontier Analysis of a Study of Rice producers in mardi-Watershed in the Western Development Region of Nepal. An unpublished M.Sc. Degree thesis in Department of Economics and Social Studies. Agriculture University of Norway, p 56. th Kerlinger, F.N and Lee H.B (2000): Foundations of Behavioural Research (4 Ed). New York: Harcourt College Publishers, pp. 67 Knights, E.D., M.H. Sani and P. Bogoro, (2003): Micro-business enterprises and industrial development in the rural areas: A strategic approach. Journal of Agriculture and Business Technology, Vol. 1: pp 109-115. Knipscheer, H (2003): Opportunities in the Industrial Cassava Market in Nigeria, IITA, Ibadan, Pp.56 Knipscheer, H.C. (1980): Labour utilization data for selected tropical food crops. Agricultural economics bulletin No. 6. IITA: Ibadan, Nigeria. Ladele, A..A and M.E. Edgal (2005): Potentials of Agricultural Knowledge and Information System (AKIS) Entrepreneurs‟ in Participatory Extension System in Oyo State, Nigeria. Journal of Rural Sociology Vol. 5 No. 1&2, pp. 102. Lawrence, K., Anandajasekeran, P. and Ochieng, C. (2006): A Synthesis/Lesson- Learning Study of the Research Carried out on Root and Tuber Crops 200 Commissioned through the DFID RNPLS Research Programs between 1995 and 2005. U.K: Department for International Development (DFID; R1182), pp. 64 Lemchi, J.I. (1999): The Marketing System for Cassava in Nigeria. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Federal University of Technology, Owerri, Nigeria, pp 76 Longe, O.O. (1980): Effects of Processing on the Chemical Composition and Energy value of Cassava in Africa. Nutrition Report International No 21, pp 820-828 Lucas, E.O.O (2007): Too Much Food for Thought, But Very little for the Table: An Inaugural Ibadan: University of Ibadan Press, pp. 1-6 Manyong, V.M., J. Smith, K. Weber, S.S. Jagtab and B. Oyewole, (1996): Macro Characterization of Agricultural System in West Africa; An overview in Resource and Crop management Research. Monograph No. 21, pp: 9-12 IITA. Marmot, M. (2004): The Status Syndrome: How Social Standing Affects Our Health and Longevity. New York: Owl Books. Pp 224-302 Matthew-Njoku, E.C (2003): Farmers‟ Personal and Farm Enterprise Characteristics and their Adoption of Improved Cassava Production Technology in Imo State, Nigeria. JASR Vol.3, No.1, pp. 90-104 Mpagalile, J. J., Ishengoma, R. and Gillah, P. (2008): Agribusiness Innovation in Six African Countries: the Tanzanian experience. Report prepared for the World Bank Institute, pp 82. Nandi, J.A, Patience, G and E N. Yurkushi (2011): Economic Analysis of Cassava Production in Obubra Local Government Area of Cross River State, Nigeria. Asian Journal of Agricultural Sciences Vol.3 (3), pp. 205-209 201 Natural Resources Institute (1992): A Report from Phase 1 of the Collaborative Study of Cassava in Africa (COASCA). COSCA Working paper No. 7. Natural Resources Institute, Chattam, United Kingdom, pp 45 Nhassico, E.A., (2008): Review: Rising African Cassava Production, Diseases Due to High Cyanide Intake and Control Measures. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, Vol.88, pp. 2043-2049. Nigeria First (2005): Cassava initiatives in Nigeria. June 24, 2005. http://www.nigeriafirst.org/article_4301.shtml>. Accessed April 4, 2009. NISER, (2001): Price and Trade Incentive in Nigeria Crop, Livestock, Fisheries and Forestry Production, Final Research Report Submitted by the Agriculture and Rural Development of NISER to the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and the World Bank, Abuja. Ibadan: NISER. Nnadi FN, Akwiwu C.D (2006): Adoption of proven soil management practices by rural women in Imo State. International Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences; Vol. 2(3): pp. 262-267. Nnadi FN, Amaechi (2007): ECCI. Rural Sociology for Development Studies. Owerri, Custodab Investments pp. 56 Nwachukwu, I. (2000): Women not men, “(Soaking Rice in Hot Water)” Coraf Action Newsletter for research and Agricultural Development in West and Central Africa. No. 17 pp. 9. Nwajiuba, C. U. (1995): Socio-economic impact of cassava post-harvest technologies in Southwest Nigeria. Farming Systems and Resource Economics in the Tropics, Vol. 20, pp. 45 2 02 Nwaru, J.C (2004): Gender and relative technical Efficiency in Smallholder Arable Crop Production in Abia State, Nigeria. International Journal of Agricultural and Rural Development, Vol. 10, pp. 25-34. Nwaru, J.C. (2007): Gender and Relative technical Efficiency in Small Holder Arable Crop Production in Abia State, Nigeria. International Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, Vol.10. No 2. Pp. 25-34 Nweke F.I, Spenser DSC, Lynam J.K (2002): The Cassava Transformation: Africa’s Best Kept Secret. USA: Michigan University Press, pp. 142-148 Nweke, F, I. (1994): Processing Potential for Cassava Production Growth in Sub- Saharan Africa. COSCA Working Paper No. 11. Collaborative Study of Cassava in Africa. Ibadan, Nigeria: IITA, pp. 56 Nweke, F.I and Bokanga, M (1994): Importance of Cassava processing for production in sub-Saharan Africa. Acta Horticulture No.375, pp. 401-412 Nweke, F.I. (1995): Food Crops Production Response to Improved access to Market: The case of Cassava in Africa, Paper presented at CTA/TEA GASC Seminar on Agriculture held in Dublin, Ireland, 23-27 Oct., pp. 6-8 Nweke, F.I. (1996b): Cassava: A cash crop in Africa. COSCA Working Paper No. 14 Collaborative Study of Cassava in Africa, IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria, pp.67 Nweke, F.I. (1997): Cassava as a cash crop in Africa. A view point IITA Research No. 12, pp. 7-14. Nweke, F.I. (2002): The Cassava Transformation: Africa‟s Best Kept Secret. Lausing Mich USA. Michigan State University Press, pp. 86-90 Nweke, F.I. (2003): New challenges in the cassava transformation in Nigeria and Ghana. Conference Paper No.8. Paper presented at the INVENT, IFPRI, 203 NEPAD, CTA Conference. Successes in African Agriculture, Pretoria, 1 and 3 December, pp. 4-6 Nweke, F.I. and I.I.C. Ezuma, (1992): Cassava in Africa farming and food system: Implication for use in livestock feeds. Proceedings of the IITA/L.C/ UNIBADAN workshop on the potential utilization of cassava as livestock as livestock feed in Africa, pp. 7-15. Nweze, N.J. (2002): Rural Development in Nigeria; Past Approaches, Emerging Issues and Strategies for Future. Nigerian Journal of Co-operative Studies Vol. 2 No. 14-30 Nwosu, I.E and Onumadu, F.N. (2008): Rural Infrastructural Development and Agricultural Productivity in Nigeria: Problems, Challenges and Prospects. Proceeding of the Seveenteeth Annual CCongress of Nigerian Rural th nd Sociological Association held at NRCRI, Abia State, Nigeria, 19 - 22 August, pp.135-140 Nzekwe, L.S.O. and Afolabi C. (2001): Technology Adoption of Improved Practices by Small Scale Cassava Farmers in Agriculture Development Programme th (ADP) Zones of Ogun State “Proceeding of the 35 Annual Conference of the Society of Nigeria held at the University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Nigeria, pp.331 Obibuaku, L.O (1983): Agricultural Extension as a Strategy for Rural transformation of Nigeria. University of Nigeria Nsukka Press, pp. 56 Obisesan, A.A (2012): Cassava Marketing and Rural Poverty among Smallholder Farmers in Southwest, Nigeria Bulletin of Environment, Pharmacology and Life Sciences Volume 1 [8] July, pp. 29 - 34 2 04 Odoemenem, I.U and L.B. Otanwa (2011): Economic Analysis of Cassava Production in Benue State, Nigeria Current Research Journal of Social Sciences 3(5): pp. 406-411. Ogbonna, M.C. (2009): Investment Opportunities in Agriculture: The Case of Root and Root Crop Enterprises in Nigeria. Journal of Rural Sociology Vol.9 No.1, pp.43-55 Ogunbameru, O.A. (2008): Sociological Theory. Ibadan: Penthouse Publications, pp. 56-62 Ogundari, K. and Brümmer, B. (2010): Estimating Technical Efficiency, Input substitution and complementary effects using Output Distance Function: A study of Cassava production in Nigeria. Contributed Paper presented at the Joint 3rd African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE) and 48th Agricultural Economists Association of South Africa (AEASA) Conference, Cape Town, South Africa, September, pp. 19-23, pp. 9 Ogunleye, K.Y. and Oladeji, J.O. (2012): Cassava Farmers‟ Perception of Cassava Initiative for Cassava Transformattion in Nigeria, Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, Vol. 2. No. 7, pp. Oguntude, A.O and Orishagbemi, C.O (1991): Techniques and Technology of Cassava Tuber processing In: Proceeding of the Natural Workshop on Expanding Cassava Processing Options organized by RAIDS/DFRRI/FAD/NSS, Ijebu-Ode, Nigeria, 14-17 October. Okereke O. (1983): Inter-regional trade in food in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS): prospects and problems. The African Review, 9, 2, pp. 1-15. 2 05 Okoruwa, V.O and Ogundele, O. O. (2006): Technical Efficiency Differentials in Rice Production Technologies in Nigeria. AERC Research Paper 154, Nairobi, Kenya. Retrieved October 10, pp. 23-25 Okoye, B.C Onyenweaku, CE Ukoha, O.O Asumugha, GN and Aniede O.C. (2008): Determinants of Labour productivity on Small-holder Cocoyam Farms in Anambra State, Nigeria. Academic Journals Scientific Research and Essay. Vol. 3 (11): pp. 559-561. Okoye, B.C; Onyenweaku, C.E; Ukoha, O.O;Asumugha, G.N and Aniedu, O.C (2008): Determinants of Labour Productivity on Small – Holder Cocoyam Farms in Anambra State, Nigeria. Journal of Scientific Research and Essay. Vol 3, pp. 559 – 561. Okpokiri, A.O, Ijioma, B.C, Alozie, S.O and Ejieofor, M.A.N (1985): Production of Improved Fufu. Nigeria Food Journal Vol.3, pp. 145-148 Okpukpara, B (2010): Credit constraints and adoption of modern cassava production technologies in rural farming communities of Anambra State, Nigeria African Journal of Agricultural Research Vol. 5(24), pp. 3379-3386 Okuneye P.A (2004): “Rising Cost of Food Prices and Food Insecurity in Nigeria and its Implication for Poverty Reduction” CBN Econ. Finan. Rev. 39(4) pp 5-6 Okuneye, P.A., Fabusoro, E., Adebayo, K and Ayinde, I.A. (2004): The Nigerian Agriculture and Poverty Incidence: The Need for Private Sector Empowerment. FAMAN Journal Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 54-65 Oladeebo, J. O and A.S. Oluwaranti (2012): Profit Efficiency among Cassava Producers: Empirical Evidence from South Western Nigeria Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Vol. 1(2), pp. 46-52 206 Oluwasola O, E.O Idowu, Osuntogun D. A (2008): “Increasing Agricultural Household Incomes through Rural-Urban Linkages in Nigeria” Africa. Journal of Agriculture and Resources. (AJAR) 3 (8): 566 – 573. Oluwemimo, O. (2010): Stimulating rural employment and income for cassava (Manihot sp.) processing farming households in Oyo State, Nigeria through policy initiatives Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics Vol. 2(2), pp. 018-025 Oluyole, K.A. and Sanusi, R.A. (2009): Socio-Economic Variables and Cocoa Production in Cross River State, Nigeria. Journal of Human Ecology, 25(1): pp. 5-8. Omonona BT (2009): Efficiency of resource - use in cassava production in Kogi State, Nigeria: implications for food security and environmental degradation. Retrieved on 27th April, 2009 from http://www.cababstractsplus.org/abstracts/SearchResults. Onabulu, A. (2001): Cassava Processing, Consumption and Dietary Cynanide Exposure, PhD Thesis, Division of International Health, Department of Public Health Services, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 88-95 Onaikan, J (1984): The Role of the Catholic Cgurch in Nigeria Agriculture, in Adeniyi .O and Ugorji, R U (eds) The Private Sector and Nigeria’s Agricultural Development. Agriculture and Rural Management training Institute, Ilorin: ARMTI, pp.267-2. Oniah, M.O., O.O. Kuye and I.C. Idiong, (2008): Efficiency of resource use in small scale swamp rice production in obubra local government area of Cross River State, Nigeria. Middle-East Journal of Science Research, Vol. 3(3): pp. 145- 148. 207 Onwueme I.C (2002): Casava in Asia, and Pacific. In: R.J Hillocks, J.M Thresh, A Belloti, Cassava: Biology, Production and Utilization. UK : CABI Publishers, pp. 45-67 Onwueme, M.S and Ugbor, O (1994): Education and Society: The Sociology of Education. NigeriaResearch Association, University of Benin, Benein-Cit. pp. 5- 7. Onyenweaku, C.E and Ohajianya, O.O. (2005): Technical Efficiency of Swamp and Upland Rice Farm in South eastern Nigeria, Journal of Sustainable Tropical Agricultural Research Vol. 14: pp. 64-70. Onyenweaku, CE and Nwaru, JC (2005): Application of Stochastic Frontier production Function to the Measurement of Technical Efficiency in Food production in Imo State, Nigeria: Nigeria Agricultural Journal. Vol. 36 pp. 1-12. Ovwigho, B.O. (2000): Construction and Standardization of a Socio-Economic Status for Farm Families in Delta State, Nigeria: A PhD Thesis in the Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, University of Ibadan pp. 23-89 Oyegbami .T. G, O. O. Oboh, (2010): Cassava processors awareness of occupation and Environmental Hazards. Paper No. NSSP 005. Abuja: IFPRI, pp40. Oyewole O.B (1990): Optimisation of Cassava Fermentation for Fufu production;Effects of single starter cultures. Journal of Applied Bacteriology Vol. 68, pp 49-54 Oyewole, O.B., Sanni, I.O and Dipeolu, A.O. (2001): Factors Influecing the Quality th of Nigeria Fufu Presented at the 8 Triennial Symposium of the International th th Society of Tropical Root Crops-Africa Branch, 12 -16 November, pp.6-10 Petrin T (1991): Is Entrepreneurship Possible in Public Enterprise? in J prokopenko and I. Pavin (ed) Entrepreneurship Development in Public Enterprise. ILO, 208 Geneva and International Center for Public Enterprise in Developing Countries. Ljubjana. Pp 7240-270 Phillips, T., D.S. Taylor, L. Sanni, and M. Akoroda (2004): A Cassava Industrial Revolution in Nigeria: the Potential for a New Industrial Crop. Rome, Italy: IFAD/FAO pp. 43 Plucknett, D.L, Philips, T.P and kagbo, R.B (2000): A Global Development Strategy for Cassava Trasforming a Traditional Tropical Root Crop. FAO, Rome, pp 10- 12 Project Coordinating Unit (PCU) (2003): Crop Area Yeild Survey. Abuja: Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, pp. 12-14 Raw Materials Research and Development Council (RMRDC), (2004): Cassava, Report on Survey of Agro Raw Materials in Nigeria. Abuja: Federal Ministry of Science and Technology, pp. 54-55 Reuters, (2000): Nigeria failed 2006 rice production target–growers. Thursday July 12. Robbins S and Coulter M (2005): Administracion. MX: Pearson Education Root and Tuber Expansion Project, (2001): Draft project Implementation Manual of the RTEP. Federal Ministry of Agriculture pp: 45. Saito, K.A and D Spurling, (1994): Developing Agricultural Extension for Women Farmers. World bank Discussion Paper No. 156. Washington, D.C. USA, pp. 23-26 Sanni, L.O O.O. Onadipe, P. Ilona, M.D. Mussagy, A. Abass, and A.G.O. Dixon, (2009): Successes and challenges of cassava enterprises in West Africa: a case study of Nigeria, Bénin, and Sierra Leone. Ibadan: IITA, pp. 46-47 2 09 Sanni, L.O, Akingbala, J.O, Oguntunde, A.O, Bainbridge, Z.A, Graffhaam, A.J and Westby, A (1998): Processing of Fufu from Cassava in Nigeria: Problems and Prospects for Development. Science Technology and Development Vol. 16, pp 58-71 Sanogo, D. and O. Adetunji, (2008): Presidential Initiatives on Cassava in Africa: Case Studies of Ghana and Nigeria. NEPAD Pan-African Cassava Initiative, Malawi: IITA/NEPAD, pp.73 st Scott, G.T., Rosegrant, M.W and Ringler, M.W. (2000): Roots and Tubers for the 21 Century: Trends, Protections and Policy Options. Food, Agriculture and the Environment: Discussion Paper 31, International Food Policy Research Institute, pp. 87-90 Simonyan, J.B., J.O. Olukosi and R.A. Omolehin, (2010): Socio-economic determinants of farmers‟ participation in Fadama II project in Kaduna State, Nigeria. Journal of Food Fibre Production, 3(1): pp. 592-593. SPDC, (2011): Shell in Nigeria Improving lives Shell Companies in the Niger Delta. Nigeria. www.shellnigeria.com. Steveson H.G, Robbert M and Bhide A (1999): The Enterpreneurial Venture Ed. W. Schlman. US: Havard Business School Timmons J (1989): The Enterpreneurial Mind. Masschusetts: Brick House Publishing Company Tonukari, N.J. (2004): Cassava and Future of Starch. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology. Vol. 7 No. 1. Issue of April 15. Uchechi, A and Ebelenna, O. (2009): The Role of Cassava in Improving Rural Food Security and Income among Farmers in Abia State, Nigeria Journal of Agricultural Extension Vol. 13 (1) June, pp. 57-63 2 10 Udeajah G (2004): Shell, USAID vote N2.7b for cassava project Guardian News Thursday, October 14, pp.16 Ugwu, B.O. (1996): Increasing cassava production in Nigeria and prospects for sustaining the trend, Outlook on Agriculture vol. 25 No. 3 pp. 179–185. UNIDO/FGN (2006) Cassava Master Plan. Abuja: Ministry of Trade and Industry United Nations System in Nigeria (UNS) (2001): Nigeria: Common Country Assessment, March UNDP, Lagos. Pp 74 Uwaka, CJ (1982): Cross-Cultural Diffusion of Adult Education; the Role of Agricultual Extension Staff in East Central State of Nigeria. A PhD Thesis University of Britain ColobiaCanada pp. 69 Westby, A. (2008): Cassava Utilization, Storage and Small-scale Processing (eds) R. Hillock, J. hresh, & A. C. Bellotti, eds., Cassava Biology, Production and Utilization. U.K: CABI Publishing, pp. 88-95 World Bank. (2003a): Sustainable development in a dynamic world transforming institutions, growth, and quality of life. World Development Report 2003. Washington, D.C: World Bank, pp. 98-99 Yakasai, M., (2010): Economic Contribution of Cassava Production (a Case Study of Kuje Area Council Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Nigeria) Bayero University Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences, Vol. 3(1): pp. 215 – 219. Yee, P.H. and M. Paludetto (2005): “Nigeria: Value and Supply Chain Study”, Final Report Prepared for The World Bank, Consilium International Inc. Seatle, Washington, USA, March pp. 45. Yomi, A. S.D. (2006): Adoption of Improved Varieties of Cassava Production by Farmers in Osun State, Nigeria. The Ogun Journal of Agricultural Sciences Vol. 4 pp. 40-48. 211 APPENDIX 1 University of Ibadan Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry Dear respondents, I am a postgraduate student from the University of Ibadan conducting a research on the contributions of cassava enterprise to the socio-economic status of entrepreneurs in South- eastern Nigeria. Your assistant in providing answers to the following questions will be appreciated. It is important however, to note that whatever information provided will be used purely for academic purpose as well as treated with utmost confidence. Thank you. Please kindly tick [/] or state the appropriate response in the spaces provided. State……………LGA…………………..Community…………………Reg. no……… Section A: Selected personal characteristics 1. Age in years……………………………………………………………… 2. Sex : Male [ ] Female [ ] 3. Marital Status: (a) single [ ] (b) married [ ] (c) divorced [ ] (d)widowed [ ](e)widower[ ] 4. How many male children do you have?…………………………… 5. How many female children do you have?…………………………… 6. Educational attainment: (a) No formal education [ ] (b) Primary education [ ] (d) Secondary education [ ] (e) Post Secondary education[ ] 7. Household type: (a) Female headed [ ] (b) male headed [ ]. 8. How long have you been involved in cassava enterprise?………. 2 12 Section B: Enterprise characteristics 9. What is your per annum total income from cassava enterprise 10. In which of the following type of cassava enterprise are you involved? (a) Production (b) processing (c) marketing 11. Which of these marketing outlets do you use (a) Farm gate (b) Middle men (c) Government agency 12. How many moulds do you have in your farm?............................. 13. How did you acquire the land for cassava enterprise (a) Personal [ ] (b) rented/leased [ ] (c) family land [ ] (d) communal ownership [ ] (e) outright purchase [ ] (f) government land [ ]. 14. Which other crops do you usually cultivated/marketed/processed with cassava (a) maize [ ] (b) yam [ ] (c) vegetables [ ] (d) others (specify)……………… 15. Which of these options is your source of labour (a) family members [ ] (b) paid labour [ ] (c) friends [ ] (d) Association members [ ] (e) self [ ]. 16. Which of these options is your source(s) of fund (a) Own savings[ ] (b) Credit [ ] (c) Inheritance [ ] (d) Gifts/donations from family/friends [ ] 17. Which of these cassava varieties do you plant: (a) Improved variety [ ] (b) Local variety [ ] (c) Both varieties [ ]. 18. What is your means of transporting cassava (a) Trailer [ ] (b) Truck [ ] (c) Motorcycle [ ] (e) Head porterage [ ] (e) Pick up van [ ] (f) boat [ ] (g) bicycle [ ] 19. What is your total income per annum from cassava enterprise? 2 13 Section C: Entrepreneurs’ level of involvement in cassava enterprise 20. What is your level of involvement in the cassava enterprise? Entrepreneurs’ level of involvement in cassava Always Occasionally Not at all (0) enterprise (2) (1) Producer: a) Produces stem cuttings b) Fresh stem tubers Processor: a) Processing fresh roots into flour b) Processing fresh tuber into chips c) Processing fresh roots into starch e) Processing fresh roots into garri f) Processing fresh roots into tapioca g) Processing fresh roots into fufu Marketer: a) Marketing fresh tubers b) Marketing cassava chips c) Marketing cassava flour d) Marketing cassava starch e) Marketing stem cuttings f) Marketing garri g) Marketing tapioca 2 14 Section D: Entrepreneurs’ scale of operation in cassava enterprises 21. Which of the following is your scale of operation in cassava enterprise? Type of cassava Enterprise Tick if Scale of Operation involved Small Medium Large Quantity (/) scale scale scale produced/processed/marketed Producer: a).Producing fresh tubers b) Producing stem cuttings Processor: a) Processing flour b) Processing fresh tuber into chips c) Processing fresh roots into starch e) Processing fresh roots into garri f) Processing fresh roots into tapioca g) Processing fresh roots into fufu Marketer: a) Marketing fresh tubers b) Marketing cassava chips c) Marketing cassava flour d) Marketing cassava starch e) Marketing stem cuttings f) Marketing garri g) Marketing tapioca 2 15 Section E: Intervention programmes in Cassava enterprise 22. Which of these intervention programmes are available for cassava entrepreneurs Interventions Agencies ADP F adama USAID NDDC Rel. organ NRCRI Oil. comp Improved cuttings Marketing outlets Agro-chemicals Land/shop Capital Labour Machinery Extension service Provision of market workshop/training Processing equipment Est. proc. centers Const of road 216 23. Please tick the rate at which you have access to the following intervention inputs S/No Input Always (2) Occasionally (1) Not at all (0) 1 Improved cuttings 2 Marketing outlets 3 Agro-chemicals 4 Land/shop 5 Capital 6 Labour 7 Machinery 8 Extension service 9 Provision of market 10 Workshop/training 11 Processing equipment 12 Establishment of processing. Centers 13 Construction of road 217 Section F: Benefits derived from cassava enterprise 24. Benefits you derive from cassava enterprise and the level at which each benefit was derived. (Tick as appropriate) Very High Moderate low Very low S/No Benefits high 1 2 3 4 5 1 Food security: a) Dry season during: b) Rainy season c) All season d) Famine e) Crop failure 2 Collateral for a) Government credit from: b) Friends c) Association d) Banks e) Family f) Friends Improved socio- a) income 3 economic status c) Chieftaincy titles in the form of: d) Material possessions e) Recognition in the community 4 Employment: a) Part-time employment b) Full-time employment 5 Improved Balanced diet nutrition: 6 Source of raw a) garri production material for: b) Fufu production c) Starch production d) Flour production e) Livestock feeds f) Ethanol production g) Chips production 218 Section G: Constraints to cassava enterprise 25. Please tick appropriately the rate at which the following are constraints to your involvement in cassava enterprise Variable Description Serious Mild Not a constraint Lack of finance Credit facility Scarcity of planting materials Technical knowledge for improved tech Land/shop Cost of improved variety Interest rate on loan Poor pricing of cassava products Collateral to secure loan Limited processing option Weeds Pest/disease infestation Cost of inorganic fertilizer Non-availability of organic fertilizer Non-availability agro-chemicals Non-availability of Equipment Cost of agro-chemicals Difficulties in harvesting during dry season Labour Poor extension agents‟ contact Instability in government policy Marketing problems Soil erosion Lack of hospitals Access to good road Cost of hired labour Processing equipment High cost of processing 219 Section H: Socio-economic status of the entrepreneurs in the cassava enterprise 26. Please check the items in the table and tick (/) the ones you possess as a result of your involvement in cassava enterprise S/No Description of items Tick (/) 1 number of wives None [ ]; 1 [ ]; 2-4 [ ]; above 4 [ ] 2 Number of children None [ ]; 1 [ ]; 2-4 [ ]; above 4 [ ] 3 Number of children in Tertiary institution None [ ]; 1 [ ]; 2-4 [ ]; above 4 [ ] 4 Children in the primary school None [ ]; 1 [ ]; 2-4 [ ]; above 4 [ ] 5 Number of children in the secondary school None [ ]; 1 [ ]; 2-4 [ ]; above 4 [ ] 6 Number of relatives trained in secondary None [ ]; 1 [ ]; 2-4 [ ]; above 4 [ ] school 7 Number of cutlasses None [ ]; 1 [ ]; 2-4 [ ]; above 4 [ ] 8 Number of cutlasses None [ ]; 1 [ ]; 2-4 [ ]; above 4 [ ] 9 Pit/water toilet No [ ]; Yes [ ] 10 Necklace No [ ]; Yes [ ] 11 Plot of land in the village No [ ]; Yes [ ] 12 Motorcycle No [ ]; Yes [ ] 13 Hired labour No [ ]; Yes [ ] 14 Video CD No [ ]; Yes [ ] 15 Television set No [ ]; Yes [ ] 16 Ceiling/table fans No [ ]; Yes [ ] 117 Executive chairs No [ ]; Yes [ ] 18 Stove No [ ]; Yes [ ] 19 Radio/cassette players No [ ]; Yes [ ] 20 Floor carpet No [ ]; Yes [ ] 21 Wall clock No [ ]; Yes [ ] 22 Wardrobe No [ ]; Yes [ ] 23 Umbrella No [ ]; Yes [ ] 24 Torch light No [ ]; Yes [ ] 25 Personal generator No [ ]; Yes [ ] 26 Wheel barrow No [ ]; Yes [ ] 2 20 27 Standing mirror No [ ]; Yes [ ] 28 Dining table No [ ]; Yes [ ] 29 Curtained parlour No [ ]; Yes [ ] 30 Metal buckets No [ ]; Yes [ ] 31 Plastic buckets No [ ]; Yes [ ] 32 Tumblers No [ ]; Yes [ ] 33 Frying pan No [ ]; Yes [ ] 34 Kettle No [ ]; Yes [ ] 35 Bicycle No [ ]; Yes [ ] 36 Electric/coal iron No [ ]; Yes [ ] 37 Metal spoons No [ ]; Yes [ ] 38 Flasks No [ ]; Yes [ ] 39 Quality suitcase/traveling bags No [ ]; Yes [ ] 40 Hurricane lantern No [ ]; Yes [ ] 41 Membership of social clubs No [ ]; Yes [ ] 86 Rain coat No [ ]; Yes [ ] 42 Financial participation in developmental No [ ]; Yes [ ] project 43 Mobile phone No [ ]; Yes [ ] 2 21 Appendix 2 State No. of No.of communities per Sampled communities (20%) No. of producers in each Sampled Producers from No. of marketers 20% of marketers Total no of Registered Total no LGA LGA selected communities each communities (20%) obtained sampled registered Processors sampled Entrepreneurs processors (20%) Imo State 27 Oguta LGA: Akabor 15 3 9 2 9 2 7 15 Awa, 14 3 9 2 9 2 7 Obudi 16 3 11 2 11 2 7 Ohaji/Egbema LGA: Ohaji/Egbema 17 Obitti, 13 3 11 2 11 2 7 Umuagwo, 15 3 10 2 11 2 7 Obiakpu 17 3 9 2 10 2 7 Oru-East LGA: Ezi-Awo 1, 15 3 9 2 10 2 7 16 Ofekata 1, 15 3 12 2 10 2 7 Akata 15 3 10 2 10 2 7 Orlu LGA: Umuzike, 13 3 11 2 9 2 7 15 Umutanze, 16 3 11 2 10 2 7 Umudioka 16 3 10 2 11 2 7 Ikeduru LGA: Akabo, 15 3 10 2 11 2 7 15 Inyishi, 14 3 11 2 11 2 7 Atta 16 3 9 2 10 2 7 Ihebinowerre, 14 3 9 2 9 2 7 Njaba LGA: Okwudor, 15 3 10 2 9 2 7 14 Umuaka 16 3 10 2 10 2 7 Ehime Mbano LGA: Umuneke, 16 3 10 2 9 2 7 15 Osuama, Anara 15 3 9 2 9 2 7 14 3 10 2 10 2 7 Aboh Mbaise LGA: Ibeku, 13 3 9 2 11 2 7 15 Nguru, 15 3 10 2 10 2 7 Ngor Okala 17 3 9 2 11 2 7 Okigwe LGA: Umulolo, 15 3 9 2 9 2 7 16 Ubahu, 15 3 9 2 11 2 7 Umunachi 15 3 9 2 11 2 7 Total used 405 81 265 54(51) 272 54 (50) 189 (182) Anambra 21 Idemili South LGA: Eziowelle, 14 3 9 2 9 2 7 14 Abatete, 14 3 9 2 9 2 7 Ogidi 15 3 11 2 10 2 7 Ekwusiogo LGA: Oraifite, 15 3 10 2 10 2 7 Ihembosi, 16 3 10 2 10 2 7 Ozubulu 16 3 10 2 10 2 7 3 Awka South LGA: Amawbia, 16 3 11 2 10 2 7 Ezinato, 15 3 10 2 10 2 7 Umuawulu 14 3 11 2 10 2 7 4 Nnewi South LGA: Ezinifite, 14 3 10 2 9 2 7 15 Ekwulumili, 14 3 10 2 9 2 7 Osumenyi 17 3 10 2 12 2 7 5 Njikoka LGA: Nimo, 15 3 10 2 10 2 7 14 Abagana, 15 3 10 2 11 2 7 Abagana 15 3 10 2 11 2 7 6 Ihiala LGA: Orsumoghu, Ubuluisuzor, 17 3 11 2 11 2 7 15 Uli 16 3 10 2 9 2 7 17 3 10 2 9 2 7 Total sampled/used 275 54 182 36 179 36 126 Grand total 308 222 2 23