Livestock Research for Rural Development 15 (10) 2003

Citation of this paper

Production strategies for coping with the demand and supply of pork in some peri-urban areas of Southwestern Nigeria 

A O K Adesehinwa*, S O Aribido, G O Oyediji** and A A Obiniyi 

National Agricultural Extension and Research Liaison Services, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria
†*Present address: Dr A.O.K. Adesehinwa, Institute of Agricultural Research and Training,
Moor Plantation, P.O. Box 20067, U.I., Ibadan, Nigeria
aoadesehinwa@softhome.net
**Livestock Feeds Plc.1, Henry Carr Street, P.M.B. 21097, Ikeja, Lagos, Nigeria


Abstract

The primary objective of this study was to identify production strategies employed by pig farmers in some peri-urban areas of southwestern Nigeria (Lagos and its environs) to cope with production constraints and soaring demand for pork.Sixty pig farmers were randomly selected and interviewed with the aid of structured questionnaires.In addition, participatory Rural Appraisal Techniques were employed to provoke responses in order to ascertain strategies used to address peri-urban production and marketing constraints in Lagos and its environ.

 

The result indicated that 70% of the pig farmers owned less than 100 heads of pigs.Controlled breeding methods were adopted by farmers which enabled them to determine the precise time to wean piglets or re-bred sows.Individually mixed feed seemed to be preferred to commercial pig feed, since 87% of the farmers did not have desirability for proprietary pig feed.Perhaps this is an indication of a gloomy future for commercial pig-feed market in the study area.However, regularity of securing feed ingredients from agro-industries or the local market may be a constraint to contend with.††

 

The practice of disposing off pigs at 50 - 70 kg live weight and use of self-made feed are strategies among others for keeping feeding costs at a competitive level. These efforts seem to have assisted the farmers to cope with the peri-urban pig production and marketing constraints in Lagos 

Key words: Nigeria, peri-urban, pig production, production strategies  


Introduction 

The all-time low average level of 7.7g animal protein intake per day of an average Nigerian (Aromolaran and Bamgbose 1999) simply exemplifies a recurring shortcoming in the African food consumption culture.It has been demonstrated that the most striking feature of food consumption in many African Societies is the overwhelming importance of starchy staples which contribute over 70% of total calorie intake (Anthonio and Adeyokunnu 1973).Today, the increasing human population in the face of inelastic production strategies appears to have widened the demand-supply gap and accentuates scarcity of food, particularly meat products.Comparative statistics (Ademosun 1989) puts Nigeria's total meat production at 810,000 tonnes for a population of about 110 million resulting in a meat production index of 22g per caput per day.Similar estimates from USA. and UK put the daily production index at 297g and 155g per caput respectively

 

Beside the failure of meat production capacity to match with the human population growth, the distribution of meat animals in Nigeria is apparently lopsided.Composite transportation cost incurred coupled with remote distance between major meat producing areas and consuming urban centres (such as Lagos) together make the value of wholesome beef, mutton and chevron often unaffordable.Consequently there is an over bearing demand pressure on pork production - an enterprise for which Lagos seems to have a comparative advantage.This perhaps explains the widespread adoption of the various production strategies among the peri-urban pig producers in Lagos environ.† It has been shown that peri-urban farming is a highly cost-sensitive venture (Aribido and Umaru 1994) and prior production objective among producers is to maximize profit and productivity while minimizing cost and wastage in all forms.High cost of living, as well as the stringent production and competitive marketing conditions under which pig production and distribution activities are carried out in Lagos, enforce strict adherence to this objective.It is important to note that there is a high demand for pork in Lagos State for either direct consumption or industrial use in confectioneries.This situation seems to task the ingenuity of pig producers in managing all production factors to suit their peculiar circumstances.Sonaiya (1982) had rightly envisaged that as consumers became more articulate and organized, presumably like it is now in Lagos, consumer demand for wholesome animal products will exert a powerful influence upon quality, production method and strategies.Recent increases in expendable income of urban dwellers have tendencies to stimulate greater demand not only for quality but also quantity of meat products.For example, in Abeokuta recently, monthly expenditure on animal products was estimated at 21% of average monthly income (Aromolaran and Bamgbose 1999).

 

The objective of this study was to identify production strategies employed by pig producers in Lagos in an attempt to cope with production cost and soaring demand while sustaining the supply of pork for the teeming urban population.The knowledge derived from the study will also assist all stakeholders in pig farming in the state to plan and manage the seemingly over stretched production resources in a better way.In addition, the findings may be a useful input for conceptualizing models for coping with acute demand for livestock products as it is currently being experienced in most Nigerian urban centres.


Materials and method

 

Sixty pig farmers were randomly selected and interviewed with the aid of structured questionnaires.The survey instrument was developed to address nutrition, breeding cost and profitability aspects of pig production in the study area.Enquiries in these facets of pig production enterprise were intended to provoke responses to ascertain strategies being used in the highly populated Southwestern Nigeria to address pig production and marketing constraints.The study area included Oko-oba, Ojoo, Akute, Agbado and Iju in Lagos State and Oke-Aro in Ogun State to make the sampling exercise representative.Farmersí responses are presented in frequency tables.

Results and discussion 

Breeds and herd management

Herd size of the majority (70%) of farmers was below 100 heads of pigs.Less than half (40%) have up to 50 pigs on their farms (Table 1).  

Table 1.Total herd size

Herd-size

Frequency

% Respondent

50 or less

24

40.0

51 - 100

18

30.0

101 - 200

12

20.0

201 - 301

4

6.7

No response

2

3.3

Total

60

100.0

Large White is the most common breed of pig found in Lagos since 53% of the respondents showed preference for Large White over Duroc and Land Race (Table 2). 

Table 2. Breeds of pig

Breeds

Frequency

% Respondent

Large White

32

53.3

Duroc

10

16.7

Land Race

10

16.7

Berkshire

2

3.3

Others

6

10.0

Total

60

100.0

Criss - crossing was the most widespread (43%) breeding method adopted by the farmer (Table 3).However, terminal and uncontrolled breeding also featured in some farms. 

Table 3.Breeding Method Adopted

Breeding Method

Frequency

% Respondent

Criss-crossing

26

43.3

Terminal Crossing

16

26.7

Uncontrolled breeding

12

20.0

No response

6

10.0

Total

60

100.0

Controlled method of breeding is useful for determining age and live weight criteria for weaning piglets.Weaning age is minimally defined at6 weeks of age, as most of the farmers wean their piglets above 6 weeks (Table 4).  

Table 4. Weaning age (in weeks)

Weaning age (wks)

Frequency

% Respondent

Above†† 6

26

43.3

†††††††††††††  6

20

33.3

†††††††††††††  4

10

16.7

†              5

4

6.7

Total

60

100.0

 Weaning weight ranged from 6  10 kg for most farms as alluded to by more than 70% of the respondents(Table 5). 

Table 5. Weaning weight

Weaning live weight (kg)

Frequency

% Respondent

10 and above

4

6.7

6 - 10

42

70.0

5

12

20.0

No response

2

3.3

Total

60

100.0

Weaning weight and average daily gain have been reported to be significantly influenced by litter size, maternal parity, sex and period of birth (Osinowo 2000). 

Feeds and feeding management.

Individually mixed feed competes more advantageously with proprietary feed as the commonest type of feed fed to pigs in Lagos (Table 6). 

Table 6. Type of feed preferably used

Feed type

Frequency

% Respondents

Individually mixed feed

28

46.7

Proprietary feed

22

36.7

No response

10

16.7

Total

60

100.0

Indications further showed that there was a low desirability for commercial pig feed among the pig farmers.† A large proportion (87%) of the farmers had no desirability for commercial feed (Table 7).The result paints a gloomy future for the commercial pig feed market in the study area, unless a more attractive product is developed.  

Table 7. Desirability for use of commercial feed

Desirability

Frequency

% Respondent

Not desirable

52

86.7

Desirable

6

10.0

No response

2

3.3

Total

60

100.0

A clearer observation was recently reported by Ikani et al (2001)of the low percentage of farmers using various brands of commercial pig feed such as Pfizer livestock feeds (11.9%), Sanders (4.2%), Guinea (3.9%) and Top Feed (2.3%).However, the reported 5.7% of pig farmers who produced their own feed contrast sharply against 87% of respondents with desirability for self-made pig feed in this study.

Table 8 Regularity of securing feed ingredients

Regularity

Frequency

% Respondent

Regularly

28

46.7

Not regular

28

46.7

No response

4

6.7

Total

60

100.0

There was an equivocal responses on regularity and irregularity of obtaining ingredients (Table 8).Two major sources of feed ingredient identified by the farmers were the agro-industries (57%) and local market (30%) (Table 9).

Table 9. Sources for obtaining feed ingredients

Source

Frequency

% Respondent

Agro-industries

34

56.7

Local Market

18

30.0

No. response

8

13.3

Total

60

100.0

A report by Dafwang et al (2001) had shown that availability was a major determinant of the type of feed ingredient to buy.Other determinants, in a decreasing order of importance among pig farmers were reliability of supply, good quality and low cost.† The feeding frequency adopted by virtually all pig farmers in the study area was the twice daily feeding system. (Table 10).

Table 10 Number of Ttmes of feeding per day

Number of times

Frequency

% Respondent

Twice

54

90.0

Once

2

3.3

Unscheduled

4

6.7

Total

60

100.0

Operational cost and profitability indexes of pig production 

The majority of the pig farmers maintained average daily feeding cost per pig within a range of one to twenty naira for all categories of pigs (Table 11). 

Table 11. Daily average feeding cost per pig

Cost ( Range

Piglet

Weaner

Finisher

Fattener

Breeder

Freq.

%Resp.

Freq.

%Resp.

Freq.

% Resp.

Freq.

%Resp

Freq.

%Resp.

1 - 20

18

69.2

26

81.3

20

83.3

16

61.5

16

72.7

21-40

2

7.7

2

6.3

2

8.3

6

23.1

-

0.0

41-60

-

0.0

-

0.0

-

0.0

-

0.0

2

9.1

61-80

2

7.7

-

0.0

2

8.3

2

7.7

2

9.1

81-100

4

15.4

4

12.5

-

0.0

2

7.7

2

9.1

N= Naira (Nigerian Currency)††† 1 Dollar = N120.00

The result implies that farmers need to depend on locally sourcednon-conventional feed resources such as farm, household and agro-industrial wastes in order to maintain average daily feeding cost within the range of one to twenty naira per pig.Maize and rice offal have been found to have the highest adoption level (54.3 and 46.3%, respectively) among pig farmers (Dafwang et al 2001).The exact reason for which most farmers dispose off their stock at 50 to 70kg live-weight lies between profitability and market considerations (Table 12). 

Table 12. Average live weight for sale or slaughter

Live weight (kg)

Frequency

% Respondent

Less than 50

2

3.3

50-70

22

36.7

71-100

10

16.7

101 and above

8

30.0

Total

60

100.0

Widespread consumer aversion for excess fat in pork probably provides an explanation.† The tendency for high fat deposition is known to accelerate at about 70kg live weight when nutrient conversion to fat may be considered as an economic waste (Olomu 1995). 

 

Conclusion

 

References 

Ademosun A A 1989Structural Adjustment and the Nigerian Livestock Industry: Stupor in Infancy.Keynote Address delivered at the Nigerian Society for Animal Production Annual Conference held at University of Agriculture, Makurdi, April 1989.

 

Anthonio O and Adeyokunnu T O 1973 The Changing Pattern of African diets in Relation to Income. Nigerian Agricultural Journal 10(1); 27-42

 

Aribido S O and Umaru M 199  Extension Priorities in Peri-Urban Dairy Development in Nigeria.In: Issues and Priorities for Nigeria Agricultural Extension in the 21st Century. Afolayan S O and Akinbode I.A (Editors) Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference of the Agricultural Extension Society of Nigeria. February 28-March 4, 1994 held in ARMT. Ilorin. pp. 97-105.

 

Aromolaran A B and Bamgbose A M 1999 Comparative Cost Analysis of Meat Products and Energy Production in Abeokuta, Nigeria. Tropical Journal ofAnimal Science 2(1): 185-193.

 

Dafwang I I, E I Ikani, D O Chikwendu, I E J Iwuanyanwu, A O K Adesehinwa and A I Annatte 2001:Adoption of non-conventional feedstuffs by Poultry and Pig farmers.In: Aduli A.E.O and Adeyinka I.A (Editors) Proceedings of the Nigerian Society of Animal Production pp. 254 - 257.

 

Ikani E I, Dafwang I I, Chikwendu D O, Adesehinwa A O K, Annatte A I and Iwuanyanwu I E J2001 Socio-economic Characteristics and Sources of feed for Poultry and Pig farmers in Nigeria In: Aduli A.E.O and Adeyinka I.A (Editors) Proceedings of the Nigerian Society of Animal Production pp. 250 - 253.

 

Olomu J M 1995 Monogastric Animal Nutrition: Principles and Practice. Jachem Publication, Nigeria.

 

Osinowo O A 2000 BeFruitful and Multiply: The blessings, the livestock and the quality of life.An inaugural lecture delivered at the University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Nigeria. 22nd November 2000.

 

Sonaiya E B 1982 Beef Quality and the Nigerian Consumer.In: Beef Production in Nigeria. Osinowo et al (Editors) Proceedings of the Nigerian National Conference on Beef Production. pp.555 - 564.

 


Received 5 May 2003; Accepted 24 June 2003

Go to top