COMPARATIVE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF SEMI-AUTOMATED AND AUTOMATED METHODS OF GARRI PROCESSING IN OYO STATE, NIGERIA

CERTIFICATION.. i

DEDICATION.. ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.. iii

ABSTRACT.. v

LIST OF TABLES. viii

LIST OF FIGURES. x

CHAPTER ONE.. 1

1.0        INTRODUCTION.. 1

1.1        Background to the Study. 1

1.2        Problem Statement3

1.3        Research Questions. 4

1.4         Research Objectives. 5

1.4.1         General Objective. 5

1.4.2         Specific Objectives. 5

1.5        Research Hypothesis. 5

1.6        Justification of the Study. 6

1.6.1         Theoretical Justification. 6

1.6.2         Practical Justification. 6

CHAPTER TWO.. 8

2.0        LITERATURE REVIEW... 8

2.1        Conceptual Framework. 8

2.1.1         General Concepts and Definitions. 9

2.1.2         Cassava as a Food Security Crop and  its Economic Importance. 11

2.2        Theoretical Framework. 12

2.3        Related Empirical Studies. 13

2.4        Summary of Reviewed Literatures. 14

CHAPTER THREE.. 16

3.0        METHODOLOGY.. 16

3.1         Design of the Study. 16

3.2        Study Area. 16

3.3        Population of the Study. 16

3.4         Sampling Procedures and Sample Size. 17

3.5         Method of Data Collection. 17

3.6         Method of Data Analysis. 17

CHAPTER FOUR.. 19

4.0         RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS. 19

4.1        Socio-Economic Characteristics of Respondents. 19

4.1.1         Distribution of the Respondents by Age. 19

4.1.2          Distribution of the Respondents by their Sex. 21

4.1.3          Distribution of Respondents by their Communities. 22

4.1.4          Distribution of Respondents by their Local Government Area (LGA). 22

4.1.5          Distribution of Respondents by Marital Status. 23

4.1.6         Distribution of Respondents by Highest Level of Education. 23

4.1.7          Distribution of Respondents according to their Form of Business. 24

4.1.8          Distribution of Respondents by the Processing Technique. 24

4.1.9         Distribution of Respondents by Family Size. 25

4.2        Estimation of the Gross Margin of the Two Methods of Garri Processing. 25

4.2.1          Distribution of Gross Margin of the Two Categories of Respondents. 25

4.2.2          Comparative Mean Gross Margin of Semi-Automated and Automated Garri Processors. 28

4.3         Factors that influence the Profitability of Garri Processors in the Study Area. 29

4.4        Comparison of the Profit of the Semi-Automated and Automated Methods of Garri Processing  32

4.5         Identification of the Constraints to Automated Garri Processing. 33

4.6        Coping Strategies Adopted by Respondents to Reduce the Constraints. 39

4.7         Suggestions of Respondents to Address Constraints. 42

CHAPTER FIVE.. 43

5.0         SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 43

5.1         Summary. 43

5.2         Conclusion. 45

5.3         Recommendations. 45

REFERENCES. 47

APPENDICES. 51

QUESTIONNAIRE.. 51

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Distribution of Respondents by Age……………………………………………………20

Table 2: Distribution of Respondents by their Sex………………………………………………21

Table 3: Distribution of Respondents by their Communities……………………………………22

Table 4: Distribution of Respondents by their Local Government Area (LGA)………………...23

Table 5: Distribution of Respondents by Marital Status…………………………………………23

Table 6: Distribution of Respondents by Highest Level of Education…………………………..24

Table 7: Distribution of Respondents by their Form of Business……………………………….24

Table 8: Distribution of Respondents by Processing Technique………………………………...25

Table 9: Distribution of Respondents by Family Size…………………………………………...25

Table 10: Gross Margin (Profit) share of each Category of the Respondents…………………...26

Table 11: Comparative Mean Gross Margin of the Categories of Respondents………………...29

Table 12: Regression Results of Factors that influenced the Gross Margin of Garri Processors......................................................................................................................................31

Table 13: Independent T-Test of the Means of the Automated and Semi-Automated Processors………………………………………………………………………………………..32

Table 14a: CONSTRAINTS Inadequate Credit SCALE………………………………………...35

Table 14b: CONSTRAINTS Inadequate Credit RANK…………………………………………35

Table 15a: CONSTRAINTS High Cost of Machine SCALE…………………………………....35

Table 15b: CONSTRAINTS High Cost of Machine RANK…………………………………….35

Table 16a: CONSTRAINTS Inadequate Cassava Production SCALE………………………….36

Table 16b: CONSTRAINTS Inadequate Cassava Production RANK…………………………..36

Table17a: CONSTRAINTS High Transportation Cost SCALE………………………………...36

Table 18a: CONSTRAINTS Poor Extension SCALE…………………………………………...37

Table 18b: CONSTRAINTS Poor Extension RANK……………………………………………37

Table 19a: CONSTRAINTS Poor Road Network SCALE……………………………………...37

Table 19b: CONSTRAINTS Poor Road Network RANK………………………………………38

Table 20a: CONSTRAINTS Poor Technical Know-how SCALE………………………………38

Table 20b: CONSTRAINTS Poor Technical Know-how RANK……………………………….38

Table 21a: CONSTRAINTS Government Policy SCALE………………………………………39

Table 21b: CONSTRAINTS Government Policy RANK……………………………………….39

Table 22: Various Coping Strategies 1 Employed by Respondents to Reduce the Problems faced in Processing……………………………………………………………………………………..40

Table 23: Various coping strategies 2 employed by respondents to reduce the problems faced in processing………………………………………………………………………………………..41

Table 24: Various Coping Strategies 3 Employed by Respondents to Reduce the Problems faced in Processing……………………………………………………………………………………..42

Table 25: Various Coping Strategies 4 Employed by Respondents to Reduce the Problems faced in Processing……………………………………………………………………………………..42

Table 26: Suggestion of Respondents to Address Constraints…………………………………..42

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Conceptual Model of the Comparative Economic Analysis of Conventional and Automated Processing of Cassava into Garri……………………………………………………..8

Figure 2: Pie Chart Representation of the Age Distribution of Respondents…………………...20

Figure 3: Bar Chart Showing the Distribution of Respondent by their Sex…………………….21