Agricultural Economics and Extension Project Topics

Economic Analysis of Food Safety Among Pork Marketers

Economic Analysis of Food Safety Among Pork Marketers

Economic Analysis of Food Safety Among Pork Marketers

CHAPTER ONE

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The general objectives of the study is to examine the safety issues associated with pork meat marketing in the study area.  The specific objectives are:

  1. To identify the socio-economic characteristics of the pork marketers.
  2. To identify safety practices adopted by pork seller in  the study area to guarantee consumers safety.

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The literature is organized under the following sub-headings:

Conceptual Framework:

  • Farm Physical Productivity and Profitability
  • Pig production, Breeds and Selection of Breeding Stock
  • Pig Keeping Practices and Management Systems
  • Pig Production Technologies
  • Marketing of Pigs, Pig Products and Profit Margins
  • Prospects of Swine Production
  • Constraints in Pig Production
  • Schematic Representation of Relationships of Key Variables and Expected Outcome

Theoretical Framework

  • Innovation-Decision Process Theory of Adoption
  • Context, Input, Process, Product Evaluation Model
  • Programme/Project Evaluation Model

Related Empirical Studies Summary of Review of Literature

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework focused on the broad concept of productivity of pig farms. The stakeholders in pig industry participate in different activities in the pig production process right from farrowing to finishing stages in addition to processing, marketing and consumption stages. The pig farmers with the help of other stakeholders establish pig farms by selecting appropriate breeds, rearing the piglets with suitable housing, nutrition, good health care services and suitable marketing facilities.

Some economic management limitations and major constraints interact, resulting to reduced output, sales and revenue. Pig production technologies and other management practices adopted by farmers result to improved productivity in terms of output, sales and revenue. Production constraints, inputs and pig management practices affect each other and all are determinants of productivity/output. The cost of input applied in pig farm gives the total cost of production (including fixed costs and variable costs). The output is sold and total revenue obtained. All costs and revenue are identified and compared to get profit margin or loss. It is worthy of mention that if there is profit, then there may be a reinvestment or plough- back into the business to make for sustainability but if there is loss, the business may fold and it liquidates.

Farm Physical Productivity

Production in this study is the process of rearing pigs from farrowing to finishing stages as well as transporting and marketing of live pigs, pork and other pig products and by-products. Farm productivity is expressed in terms of yield per unit of input (factors of production) (Robert and Ben, 2009). Productivity shows the amount of output realized per unit of input achieved by a firm, industry or a country (Arene, 2008). Productivity is the rate of output in relation to the work, time and money needed to produce them. Productivity per worker can be increased by longer hours, more effort, improved technology or better management (John, 2003). Arene (2008) in his own view maintained that productivity in economic term is used to describe how well or how efficient an economy’s resources are used in the process of production.

 

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, we described the research procedure for this study. A research methodology is a research process adopted or employed to systematically and scientifically present the results of a study to the research audience viz. a vis, the study beneficiaries.

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Socioeconomic Characteristics of Pig Farmers

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

Introduction

This chapter summarizes the findings on economic analysis of food safety among pork marketers, Enugu State as case study. The chapter consists of summary of the study, conclusions, and recommendations.

Summary of the Study

In this study, our focus was  on economic analysis of food safety among pork marketers, Enugu State as case study. The study is was specifically focused on examining the the socio-economic characteristics of the pork marketers; identifying safety practices adopted by pork seller in  the study area to guarantee consumers safety; estimating the determinant of pork meat consumer safety in the study area.

The study adopted the survey research design and randomly enrolled participants in the study. A total of 65 responses were validated from the enrolled participants where all respondent are pork marketers, Enugu State.

Conclusions

With respect to the analysis and the findings of this study, the following conclusions emerged;

Piggery enterprise in Udi LGA of Enugu State is dominated by the educated, married males who are experienced in the enterprise. Only few youths and young graduates were involved in the piggery business. The enterprise is profitable and viable as suggested by the results of gross margin, net farm income and return on investment. The level of education cost of feed and cost of labour had significant effect on the revenue generated from pig production. Huge capital investment requirement, high cost of veterinary services, insufficient credit facilities and subsidies, poor extension services low application of modern and innovative production systems among others were the major problems faced by the pig farmers in the study area. The study recommends that the government and other relevant agencies should provide subsidies on vaccines, make credit facilities available and accessible to pig farmers, as well as the provision of veterinary and extension services especially in the areas of good farm management, innovations and modern technologies in pig farming.

Recommendation

Based on the findings the researcher recommends that;

  1. Pig farmers should always endeavour to keep improved, exotic pig breeds such as Large White in their various farms due to their high production performance and avoid keeping traditional indigenous, unimproved, less productive breeds of pigs such as West African Dwarf Pigs in their farms as they have low production performance.
  2. The pig breeds with high productive characteristics should be selected as stock by pig farmers as these breeds are prolific and produce more piglets born alive, litter size at birth and mean number of litters/sow/year.
  3. Government should provide specialist training programmes for pig farmers and agricultural extension agents on pig production technologies such as castration, artificial insemination, nose ringing and teeth clipping or trimming to enable them become proficient in these techniques and be able to train the pig farmers and prospective investors

REFERENCES

  • Abonyi F.O., Omeh C.V.O. and Machebe N.S. (2012). Neonatal mortality of pigs in Nsukka, Southeast Nigeria. African J. Biotechnol, 11 (68), 13228-13234
  • Adekunle O.A. and Ajani O.I. (1999). Economic of beef marketing in Bodija market in Ibadan North Local Government Area of Oyo State. Tropical Journal of Animal Science, 1(1), 93-100
  • Adetunji M.O. and Adeyemo K.E. ( 2012). Economic efficiency of pig production in Oyo State, Nigeria: A stochastic production frontier approach. American Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 2 (3), 382-394
  • Agada E.S. (2011). Economic Analysis of Swine Production: A Study of Two Local Government Area of Kaduna State, Nigeria. MSc Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics & Farm Management, University of Ilorin, Nigeria
  • Agbo F.U. and Usoroh B.A. (2015). Marketing of estruine shrimps in Awka Ibom State, Nigeria. Journal of Marketing and Consumer Research, 15 (7), 63-70
  • Ajala M., Adesehiwa A.O.K. and Bawa G. (2006). Socioeconomic factors influencing swine management practices among women in Jamaia, Local Government Area in Kaduna State, Nigeria. Tropical & Sub- tropical Agroecosystems, 6 (2), 43-48