The Potential of Soybeans in Nigeria

The Potential of Soybeans in Nigeria and the Results of An IITA Survey in two Principal Production Areas (Benue .State and Zonkwa-Abuja)

H.C. Knipscheer and Peter Ay

Discussion Paper No. 1/82

Agricultural Economics INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TROPICAL AGRICULTURE PMB 5320 Oyo Road Ibadan, Nigeria

THE PO!ENTIAL OF sOYBEmS IN NIGERIA AND THE RESULTS OF AN IITA SURVEY IN TWO PRINCIPAL PRODUCTION AREAS (BENUE STATE Morn ZONKWA-ABUJ A)

H.C. Knipscheer and Peter Ay

Agricultural Economics Farming Systems Program

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TROPICAL AGRICULTURE

IBADAN, NIGERIA 1982

Abstract At present, soybeans are a minor crop in Nigeria, grown r.!ainly .in two limited production areas by smallholders. primarily

Because they are marketed

traough local channe13, information is scarce ana existing

data unreliable and erratic.

T.~

potential for greater soybean production in Nigeria exists,

especially if

ti~

increasing amount of soybean meal imported tor

poultry feed is considered.

Furthermore, local use of soybeans as

substitutes for other legumes (such as locust bean in the producti on

of local food flavour in

~raditional

"daddawa" or local "maggi") and as a suppl ement

dishes for human consumption indicates an increased

production potential.

Results of an IITA survey conducted during july and August 1980, in the SbO~1

t~路o

main Nigerian

gr~'ing

areas -- Benue State and Zonkwa-JllJuja

the general picture of a sorghu;n-based cropping system in which

soybeans (intercropped

[t;i

th sorghum or somet:ines l.tal ze) appear for hlo

to three years at the end of a four to five-year culti\rati on period before the land is left fallow. '. Only a minority of farmers seJ.1 part of their production to marketing boards.

Prices on

are more than double the official minimum price.

~1e

local

~arket

Increasing demand

Eor animal feeds and food processing indicates an increasing potential Eor soybean production in Nigeria whi ch should influence research and policy decisions in agricultural

production.

2

Introduction At present, soybeans account for more than half o f

production of oil seeds. one third.

the totel l .. c rld

Two decades ago their share was only abou t

Horeover, recent developments show that the importance of

soybeans is still increasing. in the world market:

T,.;o soy products have maj or importance

soyoil for human consuJilpticn and soymeal for

animal feeds.

Nigeria 1s importing both products, usually meals for the ex p anding poultry industry.

Domestic production of soybeans in Nigeria depends They sell nearly all of their total production

mainly on smallholders.

on local markets for human consump tion.

Two maj or prod uct ion areas exist

in Benue State and in the Zonkwa-Abuja area (Figure 1) , holders' production refer to these areas (Soybean~

survey;

Data on srnall-

which we.re selected for the IITA

are grown also in other Nigerian regions,

the smallholdings and local

~arketing,

production figures a:.:,:;!

A similar situationexists for other West Afrjcan

t!stimates.

i3ec.ause 0 f ;JIl~..: '

l o芦gl1

cOl" ~路~"i ~s

whele smallholders are the main producer!::.

Proposed large s c ale pn.ju ctio n schemes in Ghana and th e Ivory Coast

plus the support given by

the Nigerian government to large s caJe: i.:oopera-

tive farming. show official interest in the development of West Africa.

HO\vever~

Nigerian government

i~;

fixed

at

in

the minimum price for this product fixed by the far

below t h e price sffiiilih olders can receive on ..

local markets.

s oyb ea~ s

-

The minimum price in Jur:e 1981 (D a ily Times, June ::9) was

HlS5 per

m~tric

ton (about 2t;O US dollars).

This level is

comparable to the expor t prices of the largest producer in the wo r ld -the United States -- where the average 1979/1980 pr i .> per met i:ic t ori .

~'i as

260 do} lars

But in early 1981, this price had rie-en to more than

300 dollars (Foreign Agriculture Circu.!ar, February 1981 and March, 1981).

3

Sokoto

•

Gusau

•

Xano

•

Me.1duguri

•

Ikenne •

Ijebu

Umuabia

•

M4jor production

area.

•

Potentia1 area. of production Sites o£ past and ongoing eX!1arimente

?ig.l. Map of Nigeria. showing major areae o~ eoybe~ ~i tee of past and present experiments

:rr oouction, potenti.a.l. !I.reas and

4

IITA survey data show tha": during 1980 rHgerian t>"t!.allholders in

the main production al.-eas received bet\oleen N200 and 14300 (320 to 48;J dollars) per metric ton of soybeans.

Several l·;igeria!'l c .i lmills

advertised that they would p urchase soybeans "-bove the official but below prices on the local narkets.

~hese

p~ice

f .l '.J ..i.r.as indicate tha",;:

more !.::nowlt: dge on the potential for soybean produ ct. ion in Nigeri a is nec\':!:s$i'! ry to plan research priorities and niake policy decisions fa:!: i~ler:lentat.i.on.

To assess potential soybean production and marketing in Nigeria, dat:a on anir.tal fee&-; .'ire used \v:"lere soybean , products are mainly

j:!tr= o rted.

P.t present,

h~/ever,

nearl y all the: soy:bean prod.uction by

farmers in Nigeris is seld. ,f or human consumption. stuC'.l deals

aft e~

.:l!'lQ

\'ii th

the :f.'::;>" 'se n t

srna ll~ ';;:: l ders

I

Anothe r part of the

system in

til€CWQ

extracting the scyoiI is directly processed into

supplernerats {inc.l.\;, ding

been produced.

speciu~

principal

prot~in

substitutes

::.I.];"!Y f ood for chUx':t's: n with aUergies

But t11e ,' ( ; r':n~dt.l. cts have h,1d little 71;z':::-keting S1..\ l: c o, ,

because it is r:\ore

~(>;; nomical

and easier to produce the real chickens,

cattle and turkeys by feeding ther. with so}·bea.'"l me .til.

At present the market for soybean!3 i 3 U~€

pri ~ ~, ;': :.,

:i."::

:~epen dent

on the

of soybean me,,,; for livestock feeding. -"':1'11is has also influen ce on

the lagerian situation where increasing quantities of feed stuffs are

impoL-te d . r,:~elJ ld

policy •

The potential and the developl;k '.J.t. of ti'lis ma rket in

;-:i.q3~:i. a

be o.." \nsidered ilnportant factor in ·m y a gricul t ural developT"!l.ent

5

2.

2.1

15>0rtance of soybean products in the !hgerian context, Soybean r.teal and its substitutes Protein concentrates form a substantial part of feed stuffs which

are being imported by Nigeria at increasing rates. as oilseeds I fishmeal, and meat offal meal.

They ax'e grouped

Fi~hmeal

originates

principally from Peru and Chile, and rapid expansion of production of this product is unlikely.

Sinilar to the meal made out of

~eat

offal,

fishmeal is mainly a by-product of the fish/food processing industry .

Production of these by-products depends on the demand for the main product3 to which these by-products are linked.

They form only

a minor part of the market for protein concentrates.

Therefore,

variations in consumption and production of oilseed products determine this market. oilseeds.

Table 1 shows the world production of the most important

soybeans have a relatively lower oil content and a higher

meal content than other oilseeds (Table 2).

In addition to the higher meal content, soy!::>eans nav", Gi. h. ::, q h crude protein content in their meal compared with other oil r.1cals/cakes (Table 3) and provide amuch larger quantity of crude protein per metric ton than any other oilseed (Table 4).

2.1.1

soybean meal and its price Demand for soybean meal is determined by its price in relation to

other protein sources.

As can be expected, the prices of all the

protein concentrates move up and down together, signifying the large degree of substitution bet"leen t!'lese produc"ts (Figure 2).

6

The price explosion in the world market in 1973 was caused by a combination of rapid increase in soybean meal use and a limited supply of protein concentrates in general .

When the U.s. government

subsequently ordered an embargo on the exports of soybean meal, market prices in the rest of the world went \,.i1d.

This showed the

inelastic nature of world demand for protein concentrates.

Table 1:

~rld

production of oilseeds (1000 metric tons)

1960

1973

1979/80*

Cotton seed

19,579

25,272

25,014

Groundnuts

13,.824

17,021

17,670

Copra

3,299

3,968

4,707

Linseed

3,.123

2,502

2,667

Palm kernel

1,029

1,259

1,382

Rape seed

3,783

7,045

10,180

Sesame seed

1~528

1,970

1,764

28,710

57,310

93,362

6,107

10,932

15,267

Oilseed

Soybeans Sunflower seed Source:

*

Beyer, p. 37 Preliminary data, Foreign Agriculture Circular, FOP 1-81, USDA, Wlshington, D.C.

7

Table 2:

Average meal content of oilseeds

Oilseed

Meal content

Cotton seed

46.5

Groundnut (unpealed)

39.0

Gl"c,mdnut (pealed)

54.0

Copra

36.0

Linseed

65.0

Palm kernel

53.0

Rape

seed

60.0

Sesame seed

49.5

Soybeans

79.5

Sunflower seeds

50.5

(!is)

8

Protein content of protein concentrates according to different sources

Table 3:

Literature source

Beyer 1977

Protein source meal/cake

Houck e " a.• 1972

%

Hoffmeyer 1971

crude protein by weight

Soybean

45

42-50

45

Cott.er;

39

36-43

4 ,)

49

45-56

SO

Sunflower seed

40

37-38

42

Linsee.d

34

32-- 39

3S

Copra

21

22

21

23

20

Palm kernel Rapeseed

33

Sesame seed

40 65

Animal

meal

Skim-mi lk powde r

33

60-73

65 50-65 33

- - -"..__._-"_._._-----------------------------

Cl ollE'.r

p~r

met~ie

ton

9

I"

.. ,.

---._. _,.. . . ...... C." " ••,,, ____ __

.,

~"

_ _ _ _ ' I f UAllIII.AI.

.

_1~4

._"_~.ll.lIU.u

,,,

_. _. _. _. _ ""II'ltli 1 IllUA L

...'

Zit ...

.. . .,

~.

•

,..-' "jt.."/ "

",,-

Ji'"

~

...

,"

,,.,

I 1,7 I

••

1 f I " '-".

I

I

72 1~ 7/ 46 Pig.2. World me.rkgt prices of p:::oote .i n conce n.tratee ~rom ~960 to 1975. (Zourc4: Eeyer,1977)

,i L

I

.,SA.

10

Table 4:

Quantity crude

prot:~in

per metric tons of oilseed

Crop

Quantity crude protein (kg per ~etric ton) •

Cot ton see ci

181

Groundnut (unpealed)

195

Groundnut (pealed)

210

Copra

76

Linseed

228

ilaltl kernel

106

Rape

seed

198

Sesame seed

19B

Soybeans

358

202

Because the prices in Figur$ 2 are calcl:. J. F. ted on a frotein equivalent

bases~

metric ton

~rotein

several :lJ:ll>::'rtant

coILcl1.1s;.i. ons

ca.!' be drawn.

Prices per

equivalent of all oilseed meals are nore or less

equal but, in general prices of fishmeal are a bit higher due to the large quantity of methionine -- a product.

very

SC8:t.ce

anin.l:::l

Prices of sCtyDaan meal also generally carry a small premium

over other seed meals/cakes because of its favorable profile.

acid in t.ile

amino acid

Soybean meal has a high content of lysine and a fairly high

content of methiodine. contains 6.4\ lysine

and

For

ex~le,

the crude protein of soybean meal

1.4% methiodine; the protein of groundnut

11 oilcake contains only 3.4% lysine and 1.1% nethiod.1.11e; for fishmeal these

(i~'Ures

are 8.1\ and 3% respectively (Vachel , 1974Âť.

A

comparison

of the relative prices of groundnut meal, soybean meal, and fishmeal between 1960 and 1975 shows that

~

protein equivalents there were,

on the average, a 30-50\ premium for fishmeal over groundnut meal and a 10-20'

Pit(~l!J.um

of soybean meal

OVer

groundnut meal.

Relative prices

are listed in Table 5.

Table 5:

Relative prices for graundnut cake, fismneal, and soybean meal (1960-1975

Proetin ,Dr.-ice index

Prote in

%

Meal/cake price i r,dex

Groundnut cake

100

50

100

FishJneal

140

65

182

Soybean meal

115

45

104

E'J:ot.~. t he '.:;,,~

oLse!l:vat i o:1.s, the price far s oybean meal in Nigeria,

should be equal or sliqhtly higher than the price for groundnu t cake.

Comparing protein value, it should be

expec~ed

that a feed mill CQuid

pay nearly twice the price for iishmeal compared w1 til 'F,:)undnut cake.

Personal

interv ~.('Ows

in June 1981 showed that groundnut cake so \. d at

Ibadan for N320 and fishrneal for N640 which confims the hypothesized price relations.

12

2.2.1

Derived demand for soybean meal The demand for protein concentrates (oilmealsicakes, fishmeal, and

other meals of animal origin) is derived from the demand for livestock products.

In Nigeria, the most commercialized livestock production

is the poultry sector for which the major part of the Nigerian-produced livestock feed is used.

The size of the commercial poultry sector

is therefore the main determinant of the demand for protein concentrates (soybean meal) in Nigeria.

Table 6 shows the amount of protein

concentrates that was needed for the commercial production of Nigerian poultry meat and eggs in 1978.

In calculating these figures, several

important assumptions based on different sources are made.

Table 6:

Estimated poultry protein feed units (~tric tons of crude protein) for commercial poultry production in Nigeria (1978).

Poultry meat production total Commercial poultry

meat production

Poultry protein feed units Egg production total

165,000 33,000 13,900 (a) 150,000

Commercial egg production

60,000

Egg protein feed units

26,400 (b)

Total poultry feed units (crude protein)

40,300

(a+b)

13

Table

7~

Utilization of Nigerian oilcakes in 1978*

Meal

Crude protein**

Groundnut cake

31,638

15,819

PalJD kernel cake

20,981

4,196

Cotton seed cake

3,600

1,440

Coconut cake

3,500

735

59,719

22,190

Total

Source: FAC, unpublished figures (1981).

See Table 3.

'*

*'*

First it was assumed that the commercialized share of the poultry meat sector in 1978 was 20l and in the egg producing sector 40%.

Furthermore,

it was assumed that the protein nutrient requirements for poultry products in Nigeria were equal to those in Europe路 and the U.S.

This

implies the required input of 0.44 metric tons of crude protein for each metric ton of commercially produced e99s and 0.42 metric ton crude protein for each metric ton of commericlly produced chicken meat (Knipscheer, 1979).

In 1978, Nigeria produced about 385,000 metric tons of livestock feed

70\ of which was for poultry (Adegeye, 1981).

Hith the protein

content of standard poultry feed of about 16\, the utilization of crude protein amounted to 385,000 x .70 x .16

=

43,120 metric tons.

This

figure is consistent with the total poultry feed units derived in Table 6

~O,300

metric tons) which

confi~s

the reliability of the

14 livestock feed production figures of about 385 , 000 metric tons .

the same protein content figure for total livestock for poultry feed

Q,.6'} , the use of 385,000 x 0.16

f~ed

=

Asswning

as used above

616,000 metric

tons of crude protein is derived .

As Table 7 shows, only 36% of this amount was covered b::l

from Nigerian origin.

,~;, Jcakes

The deficit has to be offset by .t.mpor':",s of protein

concentrates - - mainly fishrneal and soybean meal.

Import figures for these

items are not available, but prc';o::<:,ional figures for imported animal feed by the FederaJ Office of Statistics (l974路,.1977 } indicate a huge increase

of imported animal feeds (presumably high p rotein feed) during these three years.

This trend appears to be

cont1.~~LLlt :;;

in Nigeria, as well

iSI :":

in other Afr j.c an countries. Nigeria at least in the short-run will depend on

j.~'l creasi!"i'7

of prott;;.',l,;o concentl:ates of which soybean meal i s the

,;.j;~.,p;)~,;:t3

most important on the world r2a.cket ~ .1.3

wng-te~ ___trend

in

r.rab l~

I} .

t::'i~ demar.~~:L.!or SOY~!'搂'~~..

:S;:&

To assess long-te rn; trends of food consunr:)tion a simple fO l.'mula is

uSed~

l:.r: .+ sl11

110f

=

Df

=

p.

=

Population

J

=

Income

e:

=-

income elasticity of tr.'." demand for food

This formula in

~~rds

Demand for food

means the change in food demand is dependent

on the change in population plus the product of Lhe change in tim:",':'7 ~ . ts demand elasticity.

incomf~

15 For food products, the income elasticity (e) is generally between zero and one.

Staple foods have a relatively lew or in some cases even a negati'J€

i r.com€ elasticity, while more special foodst uffs

(such as vegetables and above

all, meat) have relative high incane elasticities. was

t~h own

meat .

the

In t .he p:LE!vious section it

how the demand for soybean :lleal is derived from thE' d.emand for poultry

Given the difference in income elasticitl.es of food staples and meat,

derr~d

for meat product is expected to increase more rapidly than the demar.j

for foed staples.

Therefore, the direct l i nk of soybeans to meat p l.oduction

lIakes the potEntial for their cuI ti vat ion Lr ighter than yam. for example, wIli ch are a staplefood.

Comparably, cassava and maize could face a rf31atively

higher increase in demand since both crops can have outletw to the foon market.

The demand for soybean meal is further stimulated by the trend to largescale poultry fanns. cial

liVE~ stock

Assumi ng that poultri is the major determinant of commer-

feed demand for urban areas, the general d emand maa·el is

ui(:x1i ned a.s follows:

l\Dcp

Apu +

£p

~l

Demand c otrmercial population

Dcp pu

Urb cl:)t population

1

lncane

Income elasticity of the demand

fOl:: f; <;. ~ltry

produ9ts Elasticities of the rate of :'.ncrease of urban population vary from 4.6% (OSDA. 19 80 } to 6.3%

iY~:· r1d

Bank, 1979).

Estimates for the incCDle growth rate ~rld

Vcl..l:Y

Here a rate of 5.4% is assumed.

O 'fe r

a bronde r range from 2%

Bank, 1979) and 4% (AGERP, 1978) to 6.3% (IFPRI, 1977).

overest.imat.ing a deficit in protein concentrates of 2' is maint.ained. can be obtained

f~:com

I

To avoid

the conserv..-l ':.i..,e figure

Data on incane elasti;:;ities for food items in Ni.;:re d a several sources, incl.uding the (Federal Office of

16 statistics (1966), FAD (1967), Olayide (1973) Simmons and. WJrld lank (1979).

f r nm 0 . 65 to 1. 03 and

U976),

IFPRI (1977),

E'or poultry products, the income elasticities range ~l~l·"' :rage

0 .9 .

I I TA' s estimate of the yearly

j .. crease

in

the demand for canmercial poultry is as follows:

5.4' + (0.9 x 2)%

=

7.2%

This estimate is hig.h er than the World Bmk':3 esti mat_E! for the

increase in demand for _a ll poultry products (conmercial and household p:coduct.:i..on) of 5. U per year. for

cot'ill~erCi3l

paul t%1' and 5.1 % for all poultry) indicates the processing

c~ercialization

and sp¢ci alization of

demand for Frotein ~o a~sess aSS'l..i;:;.'! ~··~ :: j (Ions

(2)

The difference between the two figures (7.2%

concent~ates

th~

poultry sector to which the

is related .

the potential demand for soybean meal, the following

are made:

Q)

no

incr~ase

in gro-u ndnut oil and cake production

an increase of palmoi l/c:ak<: pr-o d ,1;:::titm 'o f :3 .4\ which would be ne cessary

to keep up with the

and (3)

incre a~K

of the demand for palIuoil Obrld

an increase of fishmeal supply of 5\ and

8,

Ban k~

1979)

p resent share of only

20\ soybean meal in the supply :;;;. [ f,::d _,;,-L, <.::,:..-.centrates (in protein equiva-

lents), as oppos eu 'Cc. for palm kernel

calH~,

~iJ%

for

f:~ <:,; :" !.!" " "' ~.

r

50'1, far groundnut cake, a nd

These assumptions lead to an estimates

supply of protein shown in Table 8.

Hr~

i :: ,c;~ ease

of

Tn€.: :soybean meeil supply in Nigeria

would have to increase nearly 30\ per ye ar t o keep up with a 7.2% increase

of demand 1\;;·:;;- p :::-otein concentrates.

Even if these assumptions

a~ ;;

r e laxed

in one way or another, a continuou s growth of---'the pooJ t.ry sector in Nigeria cannot take place without a huge increase in the soybean meal supply.

17

soyb~n..~!~

2.2

and its .s~:s.~.~,!:~ ~1\eal

During the past five years, soybean of soybeans and soybean oil only 37%.

provided 63% of the value

The degree of sUbstitution between

the different vegetable oiis (g:cou:ndnut. oil, pallnoil, coconut oil, soybean oil, etc.) is not as large as in the case of c路L lseed ,:;akes or meals.

During the past decennium, Nigeria has changed from a vegetable oil exporting country to an importing country. illustrate this develop;'!:l!:m t \il'ld also indicate

Tables 8 and 10 : :~'; ,:,

potenti""l ci

s(J~ir.x,:"m

oil as a supplement for Nigerian's vegetable oil deficit.

The import figures for soybean oil iT,

of

market for 6 0 i 000 HI~;

.'TIE~t :::.~.c:

indic<~ te

tons of sOyb.F :W Ct ::. I

<.

that there is already .:1\ crushing effi ciency

oil frorn soybeans would !toean a production possibility of 333,000

i.,

tnetric tons of soybeans for oil processing f ::;:'.::.rn I'iigi:ri ... area econanically IlIOst suited is north C5: there are ob"rioU<.> J.y

2r~'<>

capacities of

as thr:" grc'Ilmdnut p roduction

2.2.1

~0l-~

i;~.; ~~ 1: ""g:.ant

~:h e

scurces.

r ,,~_ n forest.

oil extracting in

or

The

In addi tiun, gr(.)"und:l1.~ '::.d lls

de c l~<C! <~ ~.;inq.

oil and its price

Observing the price trends 3.nd y :;i CE.

oilseeds commonly

gro~l

r~laticnships

amon~

the

b~u

in Nigeria -- groundnut and palm oil -- the

potent i al price for soybean oil can be assessed. decades, groundnut product ion has Ct?en

de c~.i. ning

During the

p "f 路~.

two

from an annual average

of 960,000 metric ten s during the 1960 to 330,000 in the 1970s (FAD, unpublished figures, 19B1).

also to prier. developments.

This was partly due to disease problems and

18 Table 8:

Estimated required annual increments in supply of protein concentrates in Nigeria

Share

%

Required annual supply increase %

Groundnut cake

50

0

(50)

Fishmeal

20

5

(21)

Palm kernel cake

10

3.6

(10.36)

Soybean meal

20

29.2

(25.84)

100

7.2

Total

Table 9:

(107.2)

Production, fmport and export of the major vegetable oils in Nigeria (metric tons).

1961/65

1973

1980

590.000

675.000

Palm 011 production

666,000

Palm 011 exports

140,000

Palm oil imports

140,859

Groundnut oil production

103,07:3

148,390

70,703

110,796

Groundnut 011 exports Groundnut oil imports Source:

FAO, unpublished figures. *Preliminary estimate.

23 20,000* 82 , 844

4,000>1:

19

Table 10:

Imp orts of soybe an oil in Nigeria (metric tons)

1977

70,777

1978

61,900

1979

50,000

--------1980

60,000*

----------.------

FAO, unpublished figures, 1981.

Source;

*Prcliminary estimate.

'tl:.ble 11:

...........

Ee timated requi i: ,·: d annua l :t ncremer.:::::::: in supp ly of vegetable oils in Nigeria •

"._--_._ -------------

--..

. .. . ... .........

Reql.d ::·t:d

;.mmi. ~ll

supply

% . ~------

-~---

Palm oil

75

3.6

Groundnut oil

10

o

7

16

Soybean oil Other vegetable oils .....

~.-

Total

... --

ir.crease

.......... "

a .. -------_.

100

4.2

(77 .7)

(10) (8 .1)

20

In the early 19608, the official price for groundnuts per weight unit was 1.99

t~es

Northern Nigeria. to as low as 0.94.

the price of sorghum -- the main food staple in During the 19706 this price relationship had fallen But on the local markets, groundnuts maintained

their relative value.

During this same period, the price of groundnut in

Northern Nigerian markets was 2.13 the price of sorghum (annual price average, Zaria, Kaduna State).

Consequently, the export of groundnut

products has decreased radically from 510,885 metric tons of groundnuts and

159.5 metric tons of groundnut cake in 1970 to zero 1n 1978. now imports groundnut cake.

Nigeria

Groundnut processing facilities in Northern

NIgeria at present are uoder utilized and some even deserted.

The export of another oilseed -- palm kernel -- also decreased from

181.9 metric tons in 1970 to 41 in 1978.

A recent USAlD/USDA report

(1980) estimates that this trend will continue and predicts huge imports of food products io 1990 to meet domestic demand.

During the period 1974/75-1978/79. the price for vegetable oil (palm 011) 1n Lagos increased from 38 to 99 kobo per beer bottle increase of 261%.

an

During 1974/75, the price of palm oil (the major

vegetable oil in Southern Nigeria) was still 0.52 -- the price of groundnut oil.

During 1978-1979, however, the prices were virtually equal (98 kobo).

This illustrates the reversal of a surplus paJm oil

eC '~:lomy

palm oil economy where locally-produced palm oil reached

to a deficit

the same level

as that of the north "imported" substitutes.

Although it appears that the high demand for vegetable oils during the past few years has nullified any premium for groundnut oil over palm oil in local markets, Nigerian import figures (FAO unpublished data. 1981)

21 indicated that imported groundnut oil still can:ied a 20% premium over soybean oil gr.oundm~,::

~hich

oiL

would mean that soybean oil is about 70% t h8 r rL::e oth~ r

On the

h and,

us

f~)r

export fig :'ll:-es

0-::

1979/S0 US DA,

1981) show that pd.ces for exported soybean eil and pe anut oil were

virtually equal ($ 620 and $600 per metric ton).

2.2.2

The

lo~&::tenn

trend in the demand f or

sc.Y.2~a!!_

oil

The J ong-tenn demand for soybean oil has been estimated by thesame method described in section 2.1.3.

Howeve r

~

the

d t:m;~~; d

f or soybean

oil is not restricted to urban areas and is not derived from any other producl.

Almual population growth in Nigeria is e s t imated to be :1:1., and income at 2%.

Estimates of the income 81,1sticities for vegetab le oil i n Nigeria

vary fran .49 to O. n

(f""deral Off:lr ',!: of Statistics, 1966; FAO, 1967 t

Olay:i.de , 19 73; Simmons, 1976; IFPRI, 1977; World Bank, 19 7 9 >_ of 0.6 i t, assumed.

Thus, the yearly increase in the

dem a~-id

He t -e a -' ) iJl: lle

f(~ :·-:-

yp./?: etable

oil is estimated to be: D veg.

en -

'3%

(0 •. (

;It

2)' :. %

=.

4.2i~

Again, assuming a stagnant grollr.d:m.1.t o:U production increase of palm eil production of

vegeta't:l .... d J .

i~:::

'[abIes 9 and 10.

d>::);:Jonstrat ed.

3 , ~7,.

;,\,',<:;

do ),:;"~ :d.y

an increasing need for supplEmeDtary

Table 11 is based on the: lO u pply figures of

Vegetable nils from sou !'ce G < .bel: t h an paLTJI.

oil~

groundnut

oil, and soybean oil are assumed to 03Il,.-:;· unt to 8% of the present supply with a growth rate of 5%.

This gives an :i.n.c:.ce ase of 16% ,:;'IlU':.l::: l1.y f o r soybean oil.

22 2.3

Soybean asfoed

2.3.1

.

Nutritional value of soybeans

The major importance of soybealls for food can be related to their high protein content -- about 40% of the total dry matter (Steyn, 1977).

Based on chemical analysts, soybean protein compares to hen's egg protein in most of the components (Faryna, 1978, See Table 12).

Compared with

other legumes, soybeans have the highest protein content and also a very high digestive nutrient percentage.

20% is suitable for special diets.

An unsaturated fat content of about

Also soybeans

have a high lysine

content compared with other sources of plant protein but rates relatively poor in sulphur amino acids.

However, when used in combination with

cereals which have a higher concentration of sulphur/amino acids. the nutrition value compares favorably

with all components of animal protein.

The traditional practices in Nigerian diets to combine vegetables and cereals or vegetables and root crops already has this combination.

Compared with other protein sources, soybeans are very cheap_ Faryna (1978) presented these cost

equival~nts

for other proteins:

Eggs

â&#x20AC;˘

30 tillles more expensive than soybeans

Beef

=

15 times more expensi\;-~ than soybeans 9 times more expensive than soybeans 3 times more expensive than soybeans

Milk

..

Cowpeas

=

Soybeans do not play a major part in human nutrition in spite of these obvious advantages for two reasons: value, it is necessary

to get the full nutritional

to process soybeans, and they have problems

related to their flavor and flavor stability (Wolf/Cowan. 1977).

23

Table 12:

Amino acid patterns for soybeans and hen's egg protein (Mg/G Total E.A.A.).

Amino acids

Soybean flour*

Egg protein

161

125

Total sulphur amono acids

74

107

Methionine-sulphur amono acid

37

61

Cystine-sulphate amono acid

37

46

Tryptophan

30

31

Threoqine

101

99

Isoleucine

119

129

Leucine

181

172

Phenylalanine

117

114

Valine

126

141

Tyrosine

91

81

Protein score

68

100

Lysine

Sources:

Rackis, J.J. and co-workers, 1961 Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, 1965 Based on total sulphur contaioing ~ino acids

24 ? urthermore, for huma.11. consumption they need to be boiled and

In Ulany Asian countries

fennented.

which have had a long experie.nce

with soybean processing, a large number of different dishes and products are used.

To assess t he potential of soybeans for human.

the Nigerian

situation~

co n ~.;mnptioo

in

it is essential to look at existing traditional

food sources for which soybeans can supplement or be substituted.

2.3.2

Soybean as a substitute

In Northern Nigeria, women produce food flavor out of locust beans by fermenting.

This 'tu:卤.ddawa" or local 11111aggill is a high value protein

source which is increasingly produced with cheaper soybeans,

The

processing of aoybeans consists of several steps, including the removal of the seedcoats, two hours of boiling, and a fermentation period of two days.

After fermenting, the product is pounded and sun-dried for

marketing.

Melon seed ("egus i") is of major importance for Ni~c:;c路 i an vegetable soups.

The price has risen continously in recent years which increases

the chances for soybeans to spread as a substitute.

described this use for the Koros two decades ago. and ground to a coarse paste which L ; well

(; ( ; (',ked

YUWA (1964) Soybeans are de husked

to resemble "e>gusi" in

texture and taste.

Of greatex importance for the Nigerian situation could be the increased use of soybean milk, especially

fl.::; ;;i "'Te~ning

food.

Protein

reqUirements are highe s t during the rapid growth period of children.

At present, the protein demand for a large number 路..:f children is not met even in the villages where vegetable protein 1.13 available.

Soybeans

could fill paxt of the gap if the processing is understood and the milk boiled before use.

After soaking the beans, the seedcoat is removed and

25 soybeans are ground to a fine paste which is strained through preferably

il

clo th

7l.ylon which is already used for other food processing and

available in local markets (Faryna, 1978).

The taste of soybean milk can be improved if sugar and other flavoring ingridents are added.

It differs from the taste of cow milk

which is not a major component of local food in kno~~

the problem of substituting a not be too difficult.

Ni2.~ria.

Therefore,

and introduced food source should

Young children are the main target group who do

not as yet have relatively strong and unchangeable food preferences.

2.3.3 20ybeans as a supplement Soybeans are used as supplement in two basic forms -- paste and flour.

In many Nigerian dishes, one of them can be added to increase

the nutritional valu'f:;.

Be cause of the ':l' mount of labor involved in

prepara tion, f ai r ly large quantities should be prepared at one time.

Soaking the beans for about 12 hours ",ttll dehuskir~

easier.

a mill to

f!

Dchusked

fine paste.

b~~ns

::1

change of water makes t 'hc

are ground on a grinding stone or in

For flour preparation, soybâ&#x201A;Ź M~, ;; are boiled for

about 30 minutes before soaking them for 12 ,to 14 hours.

'f h e

.

see~:~8

dehusked ana dried before gr.inding or milling.

According to Faryna, some Nigerians have recently developed a method of soaking the beans for about term soaking in co1.G

'w ~t t;: :: .

t~n

minutes in boiling water before 10ng-

Th ::l.s is meant to improve the flavor.

Soybean mi lk, pastf : c. and f lour can be added to porridges.

locally-us~d p3lJS

and

In "Alele" or "Moi moit1. soybeans can, s upplement or

substitute for cowpeas ,

In same dishes, a mixture with cowpeas is

necespary because of t he binding qual! ties 0f cov,'p eas ~ paate () : flour

26 can be added to soups used.either with cereals or tuber crops.

The

preparation of soybean patties, together with egg or meat and several compete favorable

~:lth

the traditional food.

As sweet snack

foods, soybean paste and flour can supplement or substitute more expensive ingredients.

Soybean

flour pancakes and high-protein soy

biscuits are already locally prepared.

It is possible to improve the nutritional value of bread by adding soyflour.

Locally-produced soyflour could reduce the dependence on

imported wheat flour which at the moment is the main basis for increased bread production in Nigeria.

The already estblished local market indicates expansion possibilities for Nigerian farmers' production.

The expansion possibilities may be

highest in areas where soybeans can be used as a substitute for established food varieties.

3.

Soybean crop and farming system

3.1 General Faryna quotes Ezedinma (1965) who gives '. 1908 as the year of the first planting of soybean in NIgeria.

Moor Plantation in Ibadan.

Experi,ments were conducted at

Twenty years later, a successful trial was

reported from the Samaru Agricultural Research Station.

Soybeans

originated in Asia, and several quotations (Probst/Judd, 1973) describe a 5,OOO-year period of soybean cultivation.

However, Hymowitz, who did

intensive origin research of soybean variteies, dates the domestication of this crop back to about the 11th century B.C.

He locates it in

North China from where the product spread over other Asian countries.

27

3.2

Data on smallholder production in Nigeria Official information on the soybean production in Nigeria is errati c

and unreliable.

Records are available on the purchases of the Nigerian

Marketing Board for export.

They give 3 t OOO metric tons for each of the

years from 1976 to 1979 (compaz-e Table 13).

1981 Nigerian production of about

unpublished data.

75~OOO

FAO estimates for the total

metric tons are based on

Nigerian sources (Ashaye et al., INTSOY, 1975;

Faryna. 1978) named two main production areas Abuja-Zonkwa area.

Thirty far,,'lers in the Zonkwa area and 36 in the

Benue are a were selected for interviews.

45 minutes) .

production.

Benue State and the

(Each interview lasted about

The aim was to collect general information on soybean Therefore, less emphasis was given to representative sampling.

To have easy and rapid access to villages the existing contacts of local office rs (MANR*) were sought, and the selection of farmers was done with their cooperation.

Yield figu.:eswere not recorded because such high i nputs. surveyed area: 667

tl :l i.:. a

collection reqUires

Different sources indicate these soybean yi elds in t h e 400 to 700 kg/ha (Feder,'11 Office of Statistics, 1977),

kg/ha (750 kg/oa (Federal Office of Statistics, 1977), 667 kg/ha

(Federal Offic e of Strl tistics, 1979), 368 kg/ha (FAO, 1919); 600 kg/ha (Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA}; 330-1090 (.'lv. 70 9) kg/ha

(Phillips, 1916) and 600 kg/ha (INTSOY, 1975).

For the survey, more or less standard methods wE"!ra followe d a ccording to Williams (1976); Delgado (1979); Norman et aI, 1979) and Atayi et al, 1980) .

They arrange their data under similar headings.

Obserlations

are grouped around di fi erelYt production factors stlch as land . labor. *Ministry of Agriculture and

Nat~!ral

Resources

28

Table 13:

Yearly quantities purchased by the Nigeria Marketing Board for export (100 metric tons).

1972

4(1)

1973

1 (1)

1974

1(1) (2)

1975

1(1) (2)

1976

3(2)

1977

3(2)

1978

3(2)

1979

3(2)

(1)

Source:

Foreign Agricultural Circular, Oilseeds and Products FOP4-路;i Sl April 1978, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

(2)

Source:

Soya Bluebook 1900, American Soybean Association.

29 (labor calendar availability, utilization). capital (paid and non-~aid inputs) cultivation practices (intercropping, rotation), and utilization method ;;, (hOt's choid processing and marketing).

3.2 . 1 Land Soybean farmers grow soybeans mainly on upland fields which are available in larger areas.

The number of plots t-lith soybeans in the

Zonkwa area averages 1.5 per: 拢ai:"lrie'i:

G.:.:..ci

in Benue State 2.4.

The higher

input data per farmer in Benue Stat 2 suggest larger soybean farms in

rhis production area, The periods be.tw路eerl in Zonkwa about 5 years.

t'-i"~

fallow averaged 4 years in

Benu~

State,

The average farmer gro\.,':; 2 to 3 crops of

soybeans in successive years (See Table 14).

Soybean is rarely

cultivated during the first year after fallow.

The rotation after

fnllow near.ly always starts with yam in Benue State and with sorghum

(guinea corn) in the Zonkwa area.

The second

ye~n

with guinea corn nnd

soybeaIls appear ~3ornetimes

) :<:'1.

the rotation

with maize.

of~en

intercropped

The picture is a sorghun-

based cI'opping system in which sorghum/soybeans appear for 2-3 yp.ars at the end of

.3

4-5 year cultivation period.

The majority of farmers use on l y i'. <c:d Farmers who

us~d

h c(~X. y,;g

for land preparation.

tractors (about one out of five in the sample) hired

them mostly fran the government at MB.20 per hectare.

Plant influe~\,::ing

ti~j.cix~g tl~p

of the plants.

101.' soybeans varied greatly.

The maj or factor

3[::o.d.ng was weed control which is related to accessibj.lity

30

3.2.2.

Labor

Measurement of actual -labor utilization data is time-consuming and tedious work.

Therefore, farmers were asked to compare labor use i

0:1.'

soybeans with labor use for other more popular crops for which labor utilization data were fairly well known.

Table 14:

Distribution of farmers according to the number of years soybeans were successvely planted on the same land

Zonkwa

Benue

Total

%

1

year

4

4

8

12

2

years

17

9

26

39

3

"

9

11

20

30

4

"

4

4

6

5

"

2

2

3

6

"

1

1

2

4

4

6

1

1

2

30"

36

66

100

2,;16

2.80

2.6

Continuous cropping

N/A Total

Average number of years:

31

In this area sorghum and groundnuts can serve as benchmark crops as data on labor are colle路cted in

other

studies ,~

Norman (1972; Th orton

(1973); Parker (1978); Norman et aI, (1976), Heys et

a~.,

Williams (1980); and by World Bank and other sources.

(1977);

Labor utilization

data for the savanna zone could be derived from them (See Table 15).

The farmer was asked to rank sorghum, groundnut, and soybeans according to their labor requirement per activity.

A short description of this

method is given in Appendix 1.

Soybean required less labor than did groundnuts for planting and weeding. as well as harvesting.

Soybean are generally weedeo once .

]>1("

land preparatiun activity was erroneously ommitted :i.n the questionnaire.

Based on data from the benchmark crops, it is estimated to be abour 25% (42 man days).

With other operations such as fertilizer and insecticide

application and bird scaring, the total amount of labor used can be estimal;c;(t in absolut.e and relative figures (Table 15).

The fertilizing

figur:: for the Zonkwa region (9.0 man-days/ha) ccr,1,p;;.res well with the incidental data from Nor!uan, et a1 (l9l 6) ccrap::' l c;:! f or groundnut fertilization (10.4 man-days/ha).

The relative labor utilization per activity derived by the i~omparative

method corresponds well with the-celative figures that are

directly derived from famers' response t o actual labor input. by this method.

th.~'

question regarding their

The latter figures support the result

obtain ~d

***

,'n~

17.51

5.94

4.45

cry

0.333

0.424

0.364

O. lOt)

0.045

0.091

Actually the relative tabor utilization for planting, _'1eeding and harvesting amounted to only 65.3% of the total labor input into soybeans: additionally 25% (42 manrlays) were used for land clearing. G (about 7 mandays) fertilizing, 0.5% for Insecticides application and 2.9% for bird scaring (aol7rpa1'e Tab l.e 16).

Mandays/ha

utilization data

Probabi1ity distribution of soybean I~bor requirements P(a<y>u) P{b<y>l1) .

Erroneously the land preparation activity was ommitted in the questionnaire

Direct from questionnaires.

(2)

*

Derived by the comparative method.

100.0*** 100.0***

47.0

30.9

22. I

%

(2)

utilization

(1)

78***

85

46

Total

44.9

35

40

16

Harves t i n9

35.9

28

29

20

Weeding

19.2

rrmulays/ha (f) % 11

Soybean labor

Results of comparative method soybean labor

15

16

10

Benchmark crops sopghum groundnut (a)** (b)**

Planting*

Operation

Table 15

0.97

1.43

1. 10

0.27

O. II

0.23

Standardized normal random vari ab Ie Za Zb

N

w

33

Table 16:

Combined labor utilization data for soybean cultivation in Zonkwa and Benue areas

Relative labor utilization Operation

%

Man days

Planting, weeding, harvesting

65.3

78

Land preparation

25.3

30

Fertilizer application

6.0

7

Insecticide application

0.5

1

Bird scaring

2.9

3

100.0

119

Total labor

It is also possible to calculate the stand and deviation (0) that is associated with estimates of II as an indication of the accuracy of the results.

For example, Table. 15 shows that the estimate of labor

utilization for planting is more accurate than

th~t

for harvesting.

Because the labor requirements for harvesting are dependent on yield, a larger variation in the labor utilization of this operation was expected.

Table 17 shows the relative importance of different labor sources (family, hired. and community) per operation for the two regions.

The

larger farmers in Benue State use about half their labor from sources outsi<le the family.

Land preparation is the operation for which most

Harvesting

Bi rd scaring

Weedin9

Fert. app 1.

Planting

Land clearing

January

February

Figure 3

March

,.

April

•

•

.,

i

....--------4

•

May June July August September

Labor calendar for soybean production in Nigeria

34

October

..

November

..

December

35 l abor is hired .. of labor. in

For t hi:':' Zonkwa farmers, the family is the main source

I he. main difference in labor use between the regions lies

~ hc ;:¡,<::!: .~I.'e

labor utilization for harvesting (Zonkwa region 24.9%

compared with 37.3% in Benue State).

Differences may be explained

by different seed maturation .

T~ !~~;.elbo r

2.

c alendar for soybean production is presented in Figure

In Benue State, where the rainy season starts about one week earlier

than in the Zonkwa region, the timing of the different operations is therefore more variable.

Sometimes planting is delayed to mi.n.imize

rain at flowering.

3.2.3

Other inputs

~~

It was indicated in preliminary interviews that seed can still

germ.m ate after 1-2 years in storage. germinati on p r';;;blems do exist:.

The main survey showed that

FarmerG i n Benue State reported an averag,,:

loss of abo!!! 12r ::;.ec au.';;:, of poor gernd n.,,:tion.

Bin~ :'1..~.nd

than 50/; was lost.

de(!ay of seeds

poor getmJnation results in both regions.

Benue area).

However, in Zonkwa more

W(,1",.:, i1i'v';n

(Al .~f)

.,13 reasons for

lack of rain in the

Nearly one-third of the farmers replant part or a :U of

their lo st soy beans , All farmers in the sample expect one were. far..iliar with only one variety.

Farmers in Benue State used their own home grown s "",I. but in

the Zonkwa region

ab ;~:\; 1:

one third of the interviewed farmers bought their

seed at the local market .

This is probably ... elated to a rapid expans ion

of soybean production which was mâ&#x201A;Ź:n', :; c ne. d in interviews in that a r ea.

The average amoun l: of .seed p l anted around Zonkwa in 1979 was 14.6 mudus (l

mudu ~"

about 1 kg ) .

farmer in 1980.

This increased to an average of 23.2 mudus p,:;'

For farmers in Benue State the relative increase was

36

smaller: from 99.6 mudus to 106.2 mudus.

More than half of the total

sample (58%) reported an increased production over the past five years while one third (32%) reported a decrease. fermented

The production of the

"Daddawa" or "maggi" was given as an important reason for

the increase in the Zonkwa area.

Expansion of cash income in Benue

was mentioned as a prime reason which confirms the impression that soybean production in Benue State is more market-oriented.

Fertilizer: soybeans.

Most of the sample farmers (92%) applied fertilizer on the More than half of the users applied single super phosphate;

20% compound fertilizer (15-15-15) and the remaining 28% super sulphate and urea.

Both government suppliers and the local market are important

fertilizer sources.

Table 17:

Different labor sources by operation and by region (B â&#x20AC;˘ Benue State; z¡ Zonkwa Region) in their relative importance (percent of total labor input).

Family Region

Hired

Z

Z B

B

Total

.Community

B

Z

3.4

24.4

26.2

25.3

1.0

0.5 0.4

11.2

15.3

13.2

0.1

0.3

0.3 0.3

7.6

6.0

3.1

6.0

1.3 1.8

4.4 19.8 0.4

22.1

21.0

0.5

0.5

_.kS ..

Z

Land preparation

7.7

22.6

13.3

3.4

Planting

7.8

13.9

3.9

Fert. preparation Weeding

4.0

7.0

15.4

14.3

Insect appl.

0.4

0.5

Bird scaring Harvesting

2.4

3.4

0.1

16.7

15.3

19.4

2.8

Total

53.4

77.2

39.9

13.5

Mean

Operation:

2.5 37.3

3.4

2.9

24.9

31.1

6.7 9.3 100.0

100.0

100.0

1. 2 6.8

37 Government stations, however, supply large amounts at low prices t o onl y a few farmers (Table 18). farmers.

From observations, they are the more prosperous

The smaller farmers have to buy their fertilizer mostly at the

local market at higher prices.

In Benue State, fertilizer i s generally

applied by top dressing and broadcasting is a common practice.

Zonkwa it is said to be mostly incorporated in the soil.

I~

Hanure is not

used in either region.

Insecticides:

A minority of the surveyed farmers (11%) applied

insecticides on their soybean fields. to seed dressing before planting.

The use of insecticides is limited

Aldrex T is generally the br and bought

from local dealers (Benue State) as well as from the Government (Zonkt.a).

The average application in the Zonkwa region is 7 packets per farmer and in Benue State 36 packets.

3.2.4

The average cost per packet amounts to H4.

Problems

Farmers in the survey mentioned pest control and economic inputs as their most

~portant

problems.

Birds

(~l%),

rat (39%), ants (17%),

insects (15%) and chickens (15%) were the pest problems most often mentioned.

Approximately two-thirds of the farmers complained about

poor soybean marketing facilities.

3.2.5

Harvesting and utilization The average sample farmer in Zonkwa area produced about 8.5 bags

(about 850 kg) of soybeans per

(no~a l )

year, in Benue State 34 bags.

38

Table 18:

Average fertilizer prices (N/bag) and quantities purchased (No~ bags) by source and type.

Source

Government

Type

Quantity price

Super phosphate Compound (15-15-15) Super sulphate

Local market

% Farmers

Quantity price

% Farmers

9.6

1. 70

24

9.7

3.87

2S

90.7

2.67

5

3.5

6.33

18

9.5

2.38

6

3.4

5.56

17

0

2.1

7.00

17

Urea

Nearly all respondents reported shattering losses during harve sting.

Figure 4 shows which quarter of the year soybeans are sold.

(86%)

stor~

Nost farmers

before selling and the average farmer sells the last part

of his soybeans up to 6.5 months after harvesting.

Storage is nearly

ah,,'ays done in sacks in dry places. Losses by rats are reported to be the main problem during storage.

Of the farmers surveyed, nearly all in the Zonkwa region (93%) and one-third in Benue State (31%) eat soybean "!'!laggi" daily.

Respec tively

27% and 3% of the farmers reported that they eat fried and cooked soybeans.

Kafanchan is the nost: important processing and marketing centre for fermented soybean "dadda\"a" in Nigeria. prices.

This is reflected by producers f

During the period of the survey (October-November 1980), Zonkwa

farmers reported prices of )f30 per bag (100 kg), while Benue farmers received only M20.

The distance Kafanchan - Zonkwa is about 40 km but

Kafanchan-Gboko (Benue State) is about 400 km.

Traders from as far as

Sokato, Haiduguri, Niger, and Tc.had come to Kafanchan to buy soybean "daddar,va".

Substitution of soybeans for locust beans is reported in

Upper Volta (Swanson, 1979).

39

Fig. 4:

Percent of farmers marketing soybeans i!l three month sequences of th e year

5~

n

!

I

Perc ent of

f.armers

I

40-\

.

1

~ ...,n

~. .._ .- -1

~u-~

I

1---. ' ~1 !

1--.--l I

1

I

L

'.

_

Jan-Mar

I.

..........:. ... _

,

I

-- .. .

. .1.. .........." .. . .... '

Apr-Jun

I

.

I

\.

1 , ,1 ' _ .-\4-_.---..~

Jul-Sept

Oct -Dec

40 Only 9% of the farmers (all from Benue State) sold their soybeans production to the government or cooperatives.

During the survey, the

Groundnut Narketing Board bought soybeans for only Nl3S per ton but the farmers may have had other advantages such as a cheap fertilizer supply.

The use of soybean for animal feeds is virtually unknown

among the soybean producers. an increasing number of

~il

Nevertheless, there are indications that mills in Northern Nigeria are seeking to

buy soybeans for processing.

CONCLUSION The potential of soybean production in Nigeria is much greater than presently recognized by officials and research programs.

Soybean

meal for animal feeds, mainly for the poultry industry, are being imported in increasing quantities.

At the same time, potenti.8.l ex ists

for substituting soybeans for a variety of traditional human food products and dishes and/or using them as supplements.

Soybeans need special processing to use value both for human food and animal feeds.

t~eir

full nutritional

Therefore, research programs

should also focus on processing possibilities under Nigerian conditions.

Because most of the production comes from smallholders, their production systems have to be understood in ordel.' to provide optimal improvement inputs.

Several efforts already have been undertaken to

increase soybean research in Nigeria. recognition and coordination.

These efforts need more official

Even though the nation lacks sufficient

data on soybean development and production, the basis for greater production exists ,-,lith increasing demand on one hand and on the other hand production experience of local farmers in the two main production areas.

41

The comparative method for the c ol1ecti.on of labor utilization for soybeans During the survey. farmer were asked to c.ompare the labor utilization for the secondary crop with that for the two principal crops (data known from the literature), assuming a plot of equal size for each of the crops. ~ '2!condary

Each farmer ranked the one two principal crops (sorghum and requ iJ:e.rn o:::c ts.

crop (soybeans) and the

groundn ~ t)

according to their labor

The dervied advantaget: were assumed to reflect the

probability that the labor1:;;;qui.l:ell;..: nts of crop A were high or thar. those of crop B.

l o v~ r

A se(; m:d ';:..:y ie distribuition wi th an unknown

mean (ll) and an unkno~rn. variance

2 (0 ).

r'igure 5

dl 0WS

the h'lpothetical

distrubution of farmers according to t hc Lr ranki n.;; :: of labor requirement:;;.

The shaded parts in Figure 5 a l:. â&#x201A;Ź: t1-: e percentages of fanners that consider the labor require:l ÂŁnts of the secondary crop ( y ) lOVJer than that of crop A (expec.ted value = a), and hig'rlLr ;;:;tal:. '::i-!:! t of crop B

(expected value

= b).

The

ass~ptioi1

of u r..;r;r.a l d istri!xlt"jon a llows

the use of the Z-statistic.s where Z is the stnndardizcd nannal random vnriable: v ,-11 .!.

probability

p (Yl<Yll)

which is as s ociated with the

42

Figure

5~

Frequency distribution of surveyed farmers according to labor requirements (y ~ N [~, 6 2 J).

inpu~

Labor use by activity (fill out table) FAMILY

no. of

Activity

people

no . of days

LABCU R S 00 RCE HIRED no. of no. of

people

days

Land prep_

Planting Ferti lizing Weeding Applying

inse cticide Bird scaring Harvesting (Explain "other"

Figure 2:

Example of labor record

(one-visi ~

su ~vey)

OTHEl<

no. of people

no. of day s

43

=

In Figure 2, ZA

-

~

a, where ZA is associated

~ith

the

a probability of farmers j udging the labor requirements of the secondary crop lower than that of crop A.

From the percentage of f armers ranking

the labor input of crop y lower than that of crop A, this p robabilit y can be estimated.

value for ZA'

This probability in turn provides the a s so ciated

Analogously, the value of

~ can be derived.

=

ZB

a

The whole point of the analys is shO\vs tha t:

z

=

+ Z (a) B

(b)

A

In this equation the unknmYn a has cancelled out.

The estimation of

~

per activity provides absolute figures for the

labor requirements of the secondary crop.

From this absolute fi gures

(mandays per hectare), the relative importance of the labor re quirements per activity can be derived.

These re.lative valu es , in turn. s houl d

be compared \dch 'vith relat.ive values that 路 are found else,,,here in the

field survey I,b en farmers were asked to estimate t he nUP.lber of days they worked on the secondary crop.

question.

Figure 5

shO\~s

the composition of th::'s

As the plot size is unknown, onl y relative labor

per activity can be derived from the answers.

IJ t i.1L~<.llion

The comparison of the

absolute figures and the relative figures provide a validity norm this comparat.ive approac h .

l~f

44 REFERENCES

Adegeye, A.J. "Nigerian Poultry Industry Scrambles to Close P rf)tpi I~ Gap" . Intenlational Agricul tur:,1 Development, l'larch, 1981 AGREP

('vorld Bank).

TO\~ ards Greater Food Securit y for Niged c: AGREP Division Working Paper No. 13, 1978.

American Soybean Associati oa .

"Soya

Blue b oo~:

80", Loui.s , 1 98(J

Atayi, E.A. and H.C. Knipscheer. "Survey of Foodcrop Fanning System in t he 'ZAPI-ESI Came roon". lEA/ONAREST, 1 98 0 .

Beyer, V.

"Der '-;'eltmarkt fur Eiweissf uttermittel." Agrarmarkt, Studien Heft 25, Verlag Paul Par cy, Eamburg, 1977 .

Delgado, C.L. "The Southern Fulani Farming System in Upper Volta: A ~lode1 for Integration of Crop and Livestock Product:iol1 i i i the west African Savanna." African Rural Economy Pa ;)(; r, No. 21 Michi gan State, 1979.

Emechbe, A.H.

The Promi.se and Problems of Soybe2.ns in the Sav an n3 Z Oll.e Proceedings of the Fir s t ~ational Meeting of Nig~rian Soybean Scientists, Institute of Agricultural Research and Training. Ibadan, 1980.

of Nigeria.

FAO

FAO

"Agricultura]. Commodities for 1975 vol. 11

andJtH~5.

If

Romei.'j6 7,

1979 Productior. _._~< 路~, ("book, Rome

Faryn a , l; . .]. :'Soybeans in the Nigerian Diet" (Udofia, ad.).

Agricultu ra l Extension Research :Li.a.i..s o!! St::Lvicl~ S, Ahrna<1l1 3ellml University, Nay 1978.

Federal Office of Statistics. "Expenditures Elasticities of the Demand of Household Consumer Good s. " Lagos, 1966.

Federal Office of Statistics. "Rural Econol!lic Survey, 1977/78.

Agricultural Survey Unie, Lagos, 1979.

Hays, H.H. and A.K. Raheja. "Economics of Scle Crop Co-v;pea Production in Nigeria at the Fanner' s Leve : Using Improved Prac U , :路路 ~'. " Samaru Research Bulletin 286, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, 1977.

45

Phillips, T.A.

An Agricultural Notebook.

Longman,

Ibadan, 197 6 .

Probst, A.H. and Ludd, R.W. Origin, U.S. History and Development, and World Distribution. Caldwell, B.E. (ed.): Soybeans Agronomy No. 16. Wisconsin, 1973.

Scott, W.O. and Aldrich, S.R. 1970.

Stey, W.R.

!1~fodern

Soybean Producti on l1 •

I llin o i s

"Agricultural Research Impact on Soybeans. Special Report 1977. Agricul t ural and Home Economics Expe riment Station. Iowa State University.

Simmons, E.B. "Rural Household Exp enditures .in Three Village s of Zaria Province, l'lay 197 0-July 1971. "Samaru Nisce llaneous Paper, 56. Ahmadu Bello University.

Swanson, R.A. "Gourmantche Agriculture t t B.A.E.P., Fada N. Gornms, 1979.

•

Part 11.

Thorton, D.S. Agriculture in South East Ghana."

No. 12, University of Reading, 1973.

USDA, Foreign Agriculture Circulars.

Washington, D.C .• 1980-81.

Do cumen t No .8.

Development Study

FOP 1-81 and FOP 26-80,

USDA/uSAID. "Food Problems and Prospects in Sub-Saharan Af rica: The Decade of the 1980 I S . II \yashingt 011 , D. C. 1980.

USDA/AID

"Food Problems and Prospects in Sub-S ah a ran Afri ca."

USADA, International Economic s Di vis i on. \,'ash i ngt on, 1980.

Vachel, J.P. "Use of Sub s titute Pr odu c ts in Lives tock Feeding."

Internal Infonnation on Agriculture. No. 130. Commis si on of the European Communities , }lay. 1974.

Wolf t W.J. and Cowan, J.C.

Soybeans as a Food Source.

London , 1971.

Williams, L. B. "Benchmark Survey for Sorghum. II Lenchma rk Surveys o f Three Crops in Nigeria Wheat! ~lillet and Sorghum (e di ted)

by H.C. Knipscheer, K.H. Benz and F. H. Khadr, IlTA/:-.IAFPP, Ibadan, 1980.

World Bank

"Nigerian Agricul tural Se ctor Review." Re port No . 2181-UN1, West African Projects Dep a rtmen t, Agricultural Divi s ion.

J une, 1979.

46

Hepmowitz, T. On the Domestication of the Soybean.

408-421.

Econ. Bot. 24:

Hoffmeyer, M. "Die Voraussicht1iche Entwick1ung der Internationalen Folegen fur die Geneinschait. n Hittei1unge.n uber di e Landwirtchaft Nr. 26, Commission of the European Communit i es July, 1979.

Houck, J.P. and J.S, Mann. "Analysis of Domestic and Foreign Demand for U. S. Soybe an and Soybe an P roduc ts. " Te chnical Bu lIe tin 256, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota, 1968.

IFPRI

"Food Needs of Developing Countries: Projections of Pr oduction and Consumption in 1990. II Research Report No.3, 1977.

ILCA

liThe Nigerian Econol!lY, Agriculture and Livestock Sector. 1I ILCA Bulletin No.6, Dec. 1979.

INTSOY

IISoybean Production, Protection and Utilization. t1 INTS0Y Series No.6, University of Illinois~ Harch, 1975.

INTSOY

"A Program for

Soybean Development in Ghana.路 1

t-larch, 19 77.

Knipscheer, H.C. "Rural Retai l Prices (1979-1980) of Naj or Foodcrops in South West Nigeria". Agricultural Economics Information Bulletin, No. 2/81, IITA, May , 1981.

Knipscheer, H.C. "Soybean Fanning Systems in West Africa: The Case of Smallholder! s Production in ~igeria." Mimeo, rITA, 1981.

Knipscheer, H. C. and L.D. Hi 11. "The Demand for Soybean Meal by the EEe: an Econometric Model". Agricultural Economics Research Report, University of Illinois (in press).

Norman, A.G. Soybean Physio1o~y, Agronony and Dt ilizatiol1.

San Francisco, London, 1978.

Norman,

Ne, .. York,

D.I~.

"A Economic Study of Thr ee Village:.. in Zaria Province~ 2. Input-output Study (Test)." Sarnaru Miscellaneous Paper.

No. 32, Ahmadu Bello Univer s it y , Zaria, 1972.

Noman, D.W., J.C. Fine., A.D. Goddard., F.J. Kroeker and D.N. Proyor. riA Socio-economic Survey of Three Villages in the Sokato Close Settled Zone. 1I Samaru Hiscellaneous Paper No. 64, Ahmadu Bello Universit y , Zaria, 1976.

Parker, R.N. ItThe Feasibility of Some Small-Scale Development Pr ojects in the Light of a COIlL1lunity's Socia-Economic Structure. II Unpublished y.:. Sc. Thesis, Universit y of Reading. 1973.