INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITIES
FOR AGRO-PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES IN AFRICA:
TRENDS FROM NIGERIA’S
LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY
BY
OLUMIDE O. TEWE Ph.D
Professor of Agricultural
Biochemistry
Department of Animal
science,
University of Ibadan,
Nigeria
And
MPOKO BOKANGA PH.D
Biochemist
Crop Improvement Division,
International institute of
Tropical agriculture (IITA)
Ibadan, Nigeria
With Contributions from:
EDWARD G. KARURI, Ph.D
Prof. Of Food Process
Engineering
University of Nairobi, Kenya
And
AGNES M. MWANGWELA Msc
Lecturer in Food Science
Bunda College Of Agriculture
University of Malawi, Malawi
A Presentation at the GFAR –
GIPhT
Workshop, 17 – 21 September
2001
Entebbe Uganda
INSTITUTIONAL
CONSIDERATIONS
·
Need
to encourage collaboration among scientists in the universities, Research
Institutes and the private sector. The
Post-harvest Initiative can stimulate this through promoting and monitoring
projects that ensure partnerships between researchers and the private sector.
·
Universities
and Research Institutes need to advertise their expertise as corporate bodies
rather than expending energy on narrow disciplines of individual
researchers. Coordinated research
programmes must be encouraged.
·
Changes
in curricula in Agriculture must be effected to make them relevant to
Agricultural industries. There is the
need to reach out to clients in industries and acquaint them with benefits from
research collaboration and exposure of staff and students to private sector
needs. The thrust in training should be
to build job creators rather than Job seekers.
·
Trainings
for small-scale farmers must recognize their capability as practical farmers
usually with little education. On the
other hand jobless youths in many African countries though educated lack practical
capability in farming. Both groups can
be Stimulated through emphasizing Agriculture as a sustainable and profitable
business from field to markets
·
Agricultural
extension capabilities are presently limited by funds. Extension services should be privatized
through professionalism in various disciplines. Viz: NGO’s, privatized research and training contracts, corporate
institutional training, research and development projects.
·
There
should be access to information among scientists to avoid re-invention of the
will and encourage packaging of market oriented, coordinated, multi
disciplinary research and development projects
1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Nigeria’s livestock resources include 13, 885, 813 cattle;
34,453,724 goats; 22,092,602 sheep; 3,406,381 pigs and 104,247,960 poultry,
(Rim 1992). Traditionally managed stock
is over 85% for all species, while commercially managed ones is only
significant for poultry at 13.8% and to a lesser extent for pigs at 3.24%, as
shown in Table 1. Poor productivity and high mortality of stock, which
characterize this industry is largely explained by the inadequacy of feeding
the right quantity and quality of feeds to the various livestock species. Feed insufficiency is due to stiff
competition with need for human food, particularly for the fast growing and
prolific monogastric species poultry and pigs, and for concentrate mixes for
ruminants. The food insufficiency is
further compounded by the huge foreign debt and currency devaluation, which
militate against feed importation.
These have drastically reduced feed availability hence decline in
utilization of installed feed milling capacity, (Table 2). The result is production and marketing
of livestock and products at astronomically high and unaffordable prices as
depicted in Table 3.
Compound animal feed is usually made up of energy, filter materials, proteins, minerals and micro ingredients as shown in table 4. Energy sources are largely made up of intact plant resources e.g. maize, cassava, that are directly utilizable by man, while other components can be made up from by products of food crops, marine, terrestrial and arian protein sources, minerals and other synthetic materials. Compound feeds can be made up from the un conventional sources, mainly cassava and other ingredients from agro-industrial by products which abound (Table 5), if these are properly processed to meet the criteria for their efficient utilization by the different livestock species.
A study conducted for the Presidential task force on alternative feed formulation in Nigeria, (Omole and Tewe 1991) revealed that processing technologies available for feedstuffs in Nigeria include: - drying, smoking, roasting, boiling, chopping/chipping/slicing, shredding, grinding, grating, fermenting, extrusion, ensiling, chemical treatment and compacting. Technologies commonly used at the peasant farmer level consist of: -
1 Sun drying on open fields, concrete slabs, abandoned motor highways, rock surfaces or in cribs.
2
Fermenting in earthenware,
pots or other containers, streams and edges of rivers.
3
Smoking by firewood,
sawdust, palm kernels, oil palm fruit fibre and dried straw materials.
At the medium scale, there is a
wide variety of equipment that are available for processing feedstuff. These consist of: -
1 Dryers of various capacities. These are fuelled by firewood, gas, coal, sawdust or even solar energy. The materials that can be dried vary from grains to tubers and legume seeds, industrial by-products and crop residues.
2 Oil expellers
also exist largely for the mechanical or chemical extraction of oils from oil
seed cakes and separation of the cakes.
3 Others include
kernel/nut separators, shellers for maize, fruit extraction equipment that
separates the juice and discards the fibrous parts. Manual slicing and chipping
equipment for cutting tubers, graters fermentators and frying equipment
particularly for processing cassava and discarding the peels, pelleting
machines which are adapted, meat mincers and oil processing equipment, milling
machines for processing grains, smoking equipment for production of fish meal
and other animal by products, mineral block (salt lick) making machines, fish
and rabbit pelletizers, urea/ molasses / crop
residue block making machines (for
briquetting), alkali treatment equipment and leaf protein extraction machine.
It is notable that most of these equipments that are potentially available for medium scale operation are located in research institutions and some universities. They have, therefore, not been popularized. Indeed, the processes that are usually adopted in livestock feeding in most institutions in the country are still the traditional or sometimes sophisticated and imported ones, thus indicating a yawning gap in local fabrication and dissemination of such equipment in the country.
Processing technologies in large scale operations are mainly restricted to: -
1 Drying and storage of grains.
2 Oil extraction equipment for mechanical or chemical extractions.
3 Extrusion equipment, largely for oil seed cakes notably soybean.
4 De-hulling facilities.
5 Pelletizers, in a few commercial settings.
6 Meat rendering equipment located on a few large farms and institutions in the country.
Other equipment in large-scale operations are sited in industries involved with food processing. The by products from these are useful for livestock feeding.
In another study conducted for the UNDP in Nigeria (Tewe 1999), traditional methods exist for sun drying and storage of meat and fish. Batch processing of fishmeal has also been developed by an institute. Storage technologies developed in the country include inert atmosphere silos for grains, trench storage for cassava, hermetic storage for grains, the maize crib, solar trays and multi purpose dryer powered by kerosene stove.
It is notable that there is a dearth of equipment for added value or exportable meat and meat products.
In-take of animal protein at
present is 4.82g/caput/day (Tewe 1999) as
against a minimum required of 35g recommended by the FAO. A World Bank assisted National Agricultural
Research Strategy Plan (1996 –2010) has projected animal protein supply of
5.322g/caput/day, for the estimated 159 million populations in 2010. To attain this, various percentage expansion
in herd population and productivity have been
proffered as shown in table 6. Feed supply id a major determinant in
attaining these targets. In the
recommendations of the Presidential task force on alternative formulation of
livestock feeds (1989 – 1992) accelerated development of cassava and sweet
potatoes for industrial and livestock feed usage was advocated. With an assessment of feed ingredient
requirement for livestock as shown in table 7, Nigeria requires a total
of 4.3 million tones of cassava flour.
Converting this to fresh basis will be about 15 million tonnes, which is
about half of the 33 million tonnes produced annually. Expanding usage of this in the livestock
industry will check the cycle of glut and expand the production
of cassava. Estimates of crop residue
availability fro within the country as in Table 8 shows that this far exceeds requirements for livestock
feeds, for example 61 million metric tonnes of
crop residues can be obtained annually from major cereals and legumes
alone. All of Nigerian cattle will
consume just 41% of this all year round, while sheep and goats will consume 21%
of the available crop residues to meet all of their feed requirements, if only
these are processed into acceptable and digestible forms.
In a review by Fetuga and Tewe
(1980), it was noted that several of the available by products and wastes are
mostly fibrous materials whish have limited value for non-ruminant
animals. Enzymatic supplementations and
palletized feeds allow increased usage of fibrous residues in the non-ruminant
feeding. Even for feeding ruminants,
they need to be processed to maximize the utilization of associated nutrients as
most of these residues have high lingo-cellulolytic contents apart from other
anti nutrients. There is also
considerable variation in the composition of the
feed ingredients due to varietal differences and inadequate
post harvest processing techniques and poor quality control. Processes that readily come to mind include:
- grinding, briquette, pelletizing, alkali treatment, ensiling, and heat
treatment with standard regulations to meet minimum criteria of standards for
optimal productivity of stock.
The marketing of livestock, which has been hampered by non-existing processing technologies for on-farm and small-scale value-added animal products also need to be seriously addressed.
4. CAPABILITIES
OF AFGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS
The role of the Nigerian
Government in the livestock sector has been largely in the area of policy
formulations to assist producers in accelerating production at costs that
consumers can afford. The perennially
changing policies and low expenditure of less than 5% of the National Budget on
agriculture, strongly militates against this laudable objective. Poor infrastructure and lack of micro-credit supply are also serious
hindrances.
Perhaps the most serious
constraints remain the training, research and development capabilities in
Nigeria and most of the African continent.
The World Bank Assisted National Agricultural research Project (NARP)
operating in Nigeria between 1996 and 2000 also gives a picture of the
problems. The programme aimed at
formulating coordinated research projects involving all areas of agriculture,
forestry, fisheries and wildlife with active participation of all
stakeholders. Scientists from the
National Research institutes and universities participated in problem solving,
on-farm research projects that have been identified and documented in the
National Agricultural Research Strategy Plan.
There were serious problems of disbursement of funds and lack of
cooperation between the research institutes and the universities’
scientists. Collaboration between
research institutes and universities need to be encouraged as the latter have
considerable high man power quality in their staff and students to address the
agricultural research, training and development problems in various agro
ecologies in the country. Faculties of
agriculture in universities should be active partners in the National
Agricultural Research Systems (NARS).
A serious deficiency in research
planning and coordination has been lack of market consideration and orientation
among researchers. Research programmes
are therefore largely carried out by scientists who are insensitive to the
market needs of the respective commodities.
Market oriented research will first ensure identification of marketable
commodities, market standards specifications, which should drive the identification
of scientists to develop a package that will solve the research and development
problems associated with such commodities.
Choices of scientists can the cut across Research Institutes,
universities, relevant industries, and practicing farmers.
Training of students in research
institutions and universities is also hampered by the incapability of
scientists and researchers that are insensitive to practical realities of
agriculture and commodity market requirements.
The World Bank Assisted
Agricultural Development Programmes (ADPs) have played the major role in
Agricultural Extension for the past two and a half decades. With World Bank funds winding up and
inadequate funding from within, this expensive system is fast crumbling. The adoption of livestock technologies
nationwide has been very low. The
general impact of research findings is more apparent with commercial farmers,
than with the traditional livestock producers.
It is time to recognize the role of the medium scale, innovative farmers
as a valuable tool in technology development and dissemination in Africa. Hitherto, they have been largely neglected
in preparation, execution and funding of agricultural programmes in Africa.
A serious attempt to identify and
document these groups of farmers with programmes to collaborate with them in
pilot projects and dissemination of technologies, will make up for the gap
presently created by lack of funding support for ADPs.
It should also be mentioned that
training of resource poor farmers by practically oriented NGOs, researchers and
extensionists are very valuable and rewarding.
a. Market Oriented Multi Disciplinary Research Packages
It is crucial in identifying
post-harvest issues related to different industries and commodities to strive
as much as possible to initiate this from a commodity market perspective. Identification of markets is critical to
sustainability of potentially adoptable technologies. Studies packaged along these lines with appropriate technologies
to be developed will enable identification of relevant actors to participate in
such projects, which will usually be multi disciplinary in dimension.
b. Farm-Gate Processing
There is need to develop farm gate
processing technologies, whereby most of the crop residues can be processed
into forms that can be used for livestock feeding on such farms or marketed in
drier, storable forms to larger urban markets.
c. Equipment Fabrication and Efficiency
Due to a lot of variability in
processed crop residues, there is need to study the variations in production output of various equipment to
meet the raw material needs of different livestock milling concerns. Identification of imported compounds of such
equipment and studies to encourage their fabrication locally. Fabrication of meat processing equipment for
value added products at the small and medium scale should be developed. Also the overall economic efficiency of the
production system should be assessed.
d. Product Standardization.
There is the need to ascertain
that the products obtained from different processing techniques meet minimum
criteria of standards for use in different
feed milling concerns. To this
end investigations should include physical and chemical characterization of
feed ingredients, and effects of such feeding stuffs on acceptability and
productivity of different livestock, poultry and fish species at different
phases of production. Storability of such primary and by-products also needs ascertaining.
e. Training and Publicity
There is lack of awareness of the availability of different processing techniques and
fabricated equipment. Livestock feed
millers, crop and livestock farmers, agricultural scientists and all
governmental and private interests concerned with agricultural production and
processing, should be adequately informed and if necessary, trained in the use
of these technologies. Proven
practically oriented and innovative medium scale
farmers need to participate in such training and dissemination exercises.
f.
Credit Supply
The suitability of the
aforementioned processing technologies rest on their relevance in product
development for specific markets.
Research targeted at marketable commodities can more easily attract
funds, and other credit supplies to farmers, as they will have a payback
advantage. Cooperative users scheme,
whereby groups of farmers can be organized to own centrally located equipment
should be encouraged. Farm produce and
waste can then be processed there, and through their agents dispatched to the
various markets.
Studies should bear in mind, the
need for infrastructure such as electricity, transportation, and storage
facilities in recommending such equipment for different localities.
|
Species |
Total |
Traditionally managed (%) |
Commercially managed (%) |
|
Cattle |
13,885,813 |
99.50 |
0.50 |
|
Goats |
34,453,724 |
99.97 |
0.03 |
|
Sheep |
22,092,602 |
99.84 |
0.16 |
|
Pigs |
3,406,381 |
96.76 |
3.24 |
|
Chicken |
72,400,856 |
86.17 |
13.83 |
Source:
RIM (1992)
|
|
1980 |
1981 |
1982 |
1983 |
1984 |
1985 |
1986 |
1987 |
|
Total
No of Feed mills |
104 |
189 |
265 |
303 |
414 |
443 |
458 |
463 |
|
Total
Installed capacity (mt/Hr) |
364 |
605 |
795 |
1039 |
1438 |
1556 |
1635 |
1685 |
|
Expected
Prodn. Per
Year (Million Tons) |
0.7 |
1.2 |
1.5 |
2.0 |
2.9 |
2.0 |
2.1 |
2.2 |
|
Actual
Prodn. Per year (Million Tons) |
0.64 |
0.46 |
0.55 |
1.80 |
0.89 |
1.14 |
1.10 |
0.856 |
|
Efficiency
of Industry (%) |
92 |
38 |
37 |
90 |
31 |
57 |
52 |
39 |
Source: Update of Poultry feed
industry profile in Nigeria – A memorandum submitted to the Federal Military
Government of Nigeria on the Stat e of poultry Industry in Nigeria.
Table 3: Unit Prices of some Poultry Input and output (N)
(1982-1997)
|
|
1982 |
1985 |
1988 |
1997 |
|
Maize per Ton |
270 |
650 |
1800 |
22,000 |
|
Concentrate (perTon) |
520 |
760 |
2320 |
30,000 |
|
Feed (per 25Kg bag) |
8.0 |
16.50 |
38.00 |
500 |
|
Eggs (per Tray of 30) |
3.0 |
6.50 |
11.50 |
180 |
|
Poultry meat (per Kg) |
3.30 |
7.50 |
13.00 |
250 |
|
Culled layers (Per One) |
6.00 |
13.00 |
18.00 |
300 |
Source: Tewe (1997)
|
NUTRIENTS |
CONVENTIONAL INGREDIENT |
ALTERNATIVE INGREDIENT |
|
Energy |
Maize |
Sorghum, millet, molasses, cassava Chips, Full-fat Soya, Plam Kernel Meal, brewer’s dried grain, oil palm sludge, sweet potato, cassava tubers, Baggase, Discarded Cashew nuts and Cocoa beans. |
|
Filler Materials |
Wheat oftfal |
Maize offals, wheat offal, Rice bran, Rice husk, Rice polishing, Sorghum offal, Corn cob, Pineapple wastes, orange and lemon wastes, Cashew nut hulls, Cocoa wastes (shells, husks, pods), Cassava, plantain, yam, Cocoa yam peels. |
|
Protein |
Fish meal, Goundnut Cake |
Pigeon pea, Jack bean, Soya bean, Lima bean, Sword bean, Full-fat Soya, Beniseed Meal/cake, Rubber seed meal, Blood meal, meat meal, meat bone meal, Feather meal, Fish meal, fish slage and Dried Silage products, Shrimp meal, Sheanut oil meal, leaf protein concentrate (LPC) |
|
Minerals |
Bone meal, Oyster shell, salt |
Periwinkle shells, Limestone, Super phosphate, Calcinised bone meal, meat and bone meal, dicalcium phosphate |
|
Micro Ingredients |
Vitamins, Trace minerals, antibiotics, Feed additives, methionine, Iysine |
Must be essentially imported |
Source: Babatunde (1988)
Table 5: Conventional and Alternative Ingredients in A
typical Non-Ruminant Formulation
Nutrient Conventional percent Alternative Maximun
Ingredients Ration Ingredients Inclusion rate (%)
Energy maize 5 Sorghum 5
Cassava 45
Sweet Potato 15
Fibre BDG 15 Maize offal 10
Rice bran 15 Wheat offal 2.5
Sorghum offal 10
Rice husk/bran 5
Cassava peel 10
Protein GNC 15 Palm kernel 15
SBM 15 Meal 10
Cotton seed 10
Cake 10
Jackbean 5
Poultry offal
Fish meal 3 meal
Blood meal
Minerals Oyster shell 7.5 Periwinkle 7.5
Bone meal 2.5 Shell 5
Limestone 2
Malt dust
Additives
Vitamin premix 1
Salt 0.25
Others 0.75
Source: Tewe (1997)
Table 6: Projected yield of livestock products and
protein supply by 2010
Indices Poultry Goat Mutton Beef Pork Eggs
Meat Meat
1993 herd population
(‘000) 117,832 34,495 22,104 13,947 4,410 5,891,600
Expansion in number
(‘000) 100,157 12,073 7,736 4,881 3528 -
2010 projected
number (‘000) 217,989 46,568 29,840 18,828 7,938 16,349,175*
Take-off number
(‘000) 185,291 23,284 14,920 4,207 5,954 -
Improved Productivity
(Kg) 1.25 7.5 10 144 56 0.05
Projected out in Year
2010 (‘000) 231,613 174,630 149,200 605,808 333,424 817,459
Animal protein
Yield/annum by year
2010 (‘000) 27,794 17,755 24,623 99,638 31,696 89,920
Production improvement
Indices by year 2010
% Expansion herd
Population 85 35 35 35 80
% Improved take-off
rates 85 50 50 25 75
% Improvement in
productivity 25 25 25 15 40