Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare www.iiste.orgISSN 2224-32...
Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare www.iiste.orgISSN 2224-320...
Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare www.iiste.orgISSN 2224-32...
Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare www.iiste.orgISSN 2224-3...
Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare www.iiste.orgISSN 2224-3208...
Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare www.iiste.orgISSN 2224-...
Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare www.iiste.orgISSN 2224-3208 (Pa...
Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare www.iiste.orgISSN 2224-3...
Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare www.iiste.orgISSN 2224-3208 (Pape...
Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare www.iiste.orgISSN 22...
Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare www.iiste.orgISSN 2224-3208 (Paper) ISSN...
of 11

Price spread analysis of cattle in hadiya pastoral areas

International Journals Call for paper, http://www.iiste.org
Published on: Mar 4, 2016
Published in: Business      Technology      
Source: www.slideshare.net


Transcripts - Price spread analysis of cattle in hadiya pastoral areas

  • 1. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare www.iiste.orgISSN 2224-3208 (Paper) ISSN 2225-093X (Online)Vol 1, No.1, 2011 Price Spread Analysis of Cattle in Hadiya Pastoral Areas Misginaw Tamirat Arficho (Corresponding author) Department of Agricultural Economics, Jimma University POBOX 307, JIMMA, ETHIOPIA Email misginaw.tamirat@gmail.comThe research is financed by Institute of Pastoral and Agro-pastoral StudiesAbstractThis study was undertaken in the pastoral areas of Hadiya zone of SNNPR, Ethiopia with the objectiveof assessing the efficiency of cattle marketing. The required data were generated from both primaryand secondary sources. The marketing margin analysis manifested that, butchers incurred the highestcost of 94 Birr per head followed by itinerant and amateur traders while rural collectors made thelargest profit (542 Birr per head) followed by butchers (506 Birr per head). The producers share wasfound largest in the direct sale to consumer followed by sales directly to butchers and to butchersthrough rural collectors. So as to improve the gain for pastoralists it is better to integrate vertically andsince adding activities adds costs and risks, identifying an appropriate technologies, training onmarketing systems to be undertaken, and providing information and working capital would alleviate theproblem and improve gain from marketing.Key words: Price spread, Pastoral cattle marketing1. Background and JustificationThe pastoral sector contributes significantly to Ethiopian economy, employment and agriculturalproduction and demand creation for agricultural and industrial products, even though evaluation of itstotal benefits is difficult (Hatflied and Davies, 2006). The pastoral production system oftengeographically located in the lowland areas and their livelihood depends on the movement of livestockto and from seasonal grazing areas, which in turn may require movement across national boundaries(Getachew, 2001). It is estimated that the pastoral sector supports over 40% of the country’s livestock,61% of the total area of the country of which 46% is arable land, and 12% of the population(Mohammed, 2003).Livestock markets have a very important effect on pastoralists’ welfare because converting herdmortality losses into sales could avert widespread, human suffering. This also accelerates both herdrecapitalization (once range conditions improve) and economic growth more broadly by conservinglocal wealth (McPeak, 2001). However, the net gain to the producer is influenced primarily by shifts inretail demand, farm supply, and marketing input prices. But other factors also can be important,including time lags in supply and demand, market power, risk, technical change, quality, and spatialconsiderations.An efficient marketing system is one capable of moving goods from producer to customer at the lowestcost consistent with the provision of the services that customers demand (FAO, 1977). Channelcomparisons and price spread analysis are commonly used measures of market efficiency(performance). The price spread (margin) entails the difference between the price paid by the consumerand the price received by the producer for an equivalent quantity of farm produce. This spread consistsof marketing costs and margins of the intermediaries, which ultimately determine the overalleffectiveness of a marketing system. The price spread will be helpful in studying the efficiency of themarketing system if used to show how consumers’ expenditure is divided among market participants atdifferent levels of marketing system (Jema, 2008).59 | P a g ewww.iiste.org
  • 2. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare www.iiste.orgISSN 2224-3208 (Paper) ISSN 2225-093X (Online)Vol 1, No.1, 20112. Research Methodology2.1. Description of the Study AreaThe pastoral and agro-pastoral areas of Ethiopia are mainly found in border areas of the country inNorth East, East, South, South West and West. These areas cover about 2/3rd of the country’s total areaand are found in altitude of less than 1500 (Alemayehu, 2007). This study was conducted in twopastoral and agro pastoral districts of Hadiya zone, south Ethiopia. These are Soro and Gomboradistrict.2.2. Data and Sampling TechniqueThe data for the study were collected from both primary and secondary sources. The secondary sourcesare Central Statistical Authority (CSA), International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Pastoralists’Forum Ethiopia, District and Zone Finance and Economic development offices, Districts’ offices ofAgriculture and Rural Development, and the primary data sources include individual pastoralhouseholds, group of pastoralists and traders, and key informants.For this particular study a two stage purposive sampling (to select the districts and the PAs) followedby random sampling techniques (to select the households) was used. Factors like percentage of pastoralpopulation of the districts, number of pastoral PAs and cultural issues (local titles based on cattlenumber) were important while selecting the districts. Six major pastoral PAs (Peasant Association)from Soro district and three PAs from Gombora district (one third of the pastoral PAs from eachdistrict) were then identified based on season the pastoralists are available in the PAs, tribe/clandistribution, neighbouring ethnic groups and area of production. Market survey was undertakenthrough visual observation, and by discussion with buyers and sellers at the time of cattle transaction.2.3. Data Analysis TechniqueThe study used price spread and commodity chain analysis (CCA), which involves mapping the chains,involved in particular production sectors, the different types of activity, geographical location andactors in different roles at different levels. In addition, it identifies the interrelationships betweenmarketing agents, opportunities and constraints at the different levels and the different interests andpower relations which influence how value is distributed at these different levels (Adina and Farmer,2006).Livestock marketing margins is the difference between the sales price of the animal (meat) and thecosts incurred by the seller including the acquisition price of the animal (Solomon, 2004). The study ofcost of livestock marketing as animals change hands from the producer to consumer involves assessingthe costs and the actual expenses incurred in the marketing process. The costs include not only thecosts of performing the various marketing functions, but different levies as well were considered(Dhillon et al., 2005). As considered by Solomon (2004 cited from FAO, 2004), the costs considered inlivestock market study are: (i) transporting (trekking, trucking and/or railing); (ii) feeding (including grazing); (iii) marketing levies and taxes imposed by local and national authorities; (iv) mortality or loss (some animals die during transit because of diseases or other physical stress; some might stray and not be recovered); (v) conditioning or/ and processing costs; (vi) capital as represented by the interest on the money tied up by the livestock from the point of purchase to the point of sale; and (vii) the opportunity cost or salary of the operator (trader, etc.)60 | P a g ewww.iiste.org
  • 3. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare www.iiste.orgISSN 2224-3208 (Paper) ISSN 2225-093X (Online)Vol 1, No.1, 2011In the marketing margin analysis, Total Gross Marketing Margin (TGMM), the producers share inconsumer price or Producers’ Gross Marketing Margin (GMMp), the net marketing margin (NMM)were considered as indicators. While computing TGMM the final price paid by the end buyer used, andit is expressed as percentage of the final price (Mendoza, 1995). TGMM = X 100(1) Where TGMM = Total gross marketing margin.In order to get producer’s portion or producer’s gross margin (GMMp) which is the portion of the pricepaid by the consumer that goes to the producer. The producer’s margin is calculated as: GMMp = X 100 (2) Where GMMp = the producers share in consumer price.The net marketing margin (NMM) is the percentage of the final price earned by the intermediaries astheir net income after their marketing costs are deducted. NMM = X 100 (3) Where, NMM = Net marketing margin.3. Results and Discussion3.1. Cattle Marketing SystemMarketing system is a collection of channels, intermediaries, and activities, which facilitate thephysical distribution and economic exchange of goods (Kohls and Uhul 1985). The cattle marketingsystem in the study area was discussed with respect to the pastoralists marketing behaviour, whichgoverns season, amount, and the choice of their marketing channels and outlets.3.1.1. Purpose of marketingMarkets link producers to consumers. Markets affect producers/pastoralists either when they tradecattle or purchase food and other necessities. The pastoral households purchased cattle for breeding,fattening, for gifts (marriage, circumcision, fines) or to be slaughtered and consumed. Moreover, thesample pastoralists ranked their reasons for selling cattle, 32% to escape the disease and drought, and27% sold in fear of predators and raids/since both need the fattened animals, 16% to fly to SouthAfrica, replacement and income need accounted for 14% and 11% (Table 1). But all the respondentswho were engaged in buying, bought cattle for breading purpose and all of them bought steers andheifers for the purpose. There was a statistically significant (P<0.05) difference among the three off-take positions with respect to reason of off-take. A shown in the Table 1, about half of the householdsin the selling position are risk averse i.e. they sell cattle in expectation of bad weather and or disease.This is mainly due to the fact that since they have fulfilled their cultural obligations they do not want tolose their capital for nothing provided that a sales option is there.61 | P a g ewww.iiste.org
  • 4. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare www.iiste.orgISSN 2224-3208 (Paper) ISSN 2225-093X (Online)Vol 1, No.1, 2011Table 1. Reason of cattle commercial off-take by commercial off-take positionReason of sales Autarky Selling Buying Total χ2-value n%(n=47) n%(n=50) n%(n=63) sampleEscape disaster 41 47 23 32 6.34**Insecurity 20 19 23 27 cFly abroad/SA 16 26 8 16Replacement 10 3 23 14Income need 14 3 23 11Source: survey result, 2009**Significant at 5% significance level, n= sample sizeC migrate to South Africa3.2. Commodity Chain AnalysisCommodity Chain Analysis is used to refer to the overall group of economic agents (or the relevantactivities of those agents) that contribute directly to the determination of a final product (final use).Thus the chain encompasses the complete sequence of operations which starting from the raw material,finishes downstream, after several stages of transformation or increases in value, at one or several finalproducts at the level of the consumer (FAO, 2005).3.2.1. ActorsAccording to KIT and IIRR (2008), chain actors includes direct chain actors, which are commerciallyinvolved in the chain (producers, traders, retailers, consumers) and indirect actors, which providefinancial or non financial support services. The agents identified in the area along the commodity chainare pastoralists and their input suppliers, rural collectors, amateur traders, itinerant traders, brokers, andbutchers.PastoralistsAs depicted in Appendix 1, pastoralists are the first link along the cattle commodity chain, who decideon how much to produce, and how much, where and when to sell. The pastoralists travelled longdistances along the commodity chain i.e. they undertake some type of inter-firm upgrading likemedicating, fattening, transporting. Pastoralists sold 12% of their total sale at their farm gate, 17 and71% at the primary and secondary markets respectively. In the primary market the pastoralists sold 7%of their total sales to amateur traders, 3% to butchers, 6% to itinerant traders, and 1% to consumers. Inthe secondary markets the pastoralists sold 25% of their total sales to amateur traders, 27% to itineranttraders, 12 and 17% to consumers and butchers respectively. Pastoralists as a seller and pastoralisttrader as village collectors dominate the transactions in the primary markets. They trek cattle to thenearest village (primary) or secondary markets where they can sale either directly or indirectly throughbrokers.Village collectors62 | P a g ewww.iiste.org
  • 5. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare www.iiste.orgISSN 2224-3208 (Paper) ISSN 2225-093X (Online)Vol 1, No.1, 2011According to the group discussion, these actors are buyers and sometimes speculate cattle since in oneway or another they are engaged in cattle production. This category of actors mainly consists ofpastoralist traders and farmer traders. They collect heifers and steers from other markets to sell to thepastoralists. Village collectors are the major suppliers in the primary and secondary markets, next to thepastoralists. They bring together the relatively small number of cattle, which individual householdswanted to sell. According to Hailemariam et al. (2009), these actors attract larger traders because theyprovide access to larger quantities of cattle and eliminate the need for traders to locate and contactproducers at their scattered yard. They purchased all the sales made at the farm gate by the pastoralists,and sold 42% of their total sales to amateur traders, 33.5% to itinerant traders, and 17% to butchers, 8%to consumers (Appendix 1). Village collectors function commonly in the remotest and least accessibleareas where institutional services frequently do not reach, thus providing marketing services for ruralsurpluses, and often also fulfilling the consumption needs of the rural communities by selling consumergoods (Bolokang 2006).Amateur tradersThe amateur traders are those actors who trade cattle sometimes in a year (Williams et al,. 2006).Appendix 1 shows that these traders purchased 32% from pastoralists directly (7% in the primarymarket and 25% in the secondary markets), 42% of the total sale by the village collectors, and sold 5%to consumers, 7% to itinerant traders and 4% to butchers in the primary markets and sold 57% toitinerant traders (19% in primary and 38% in secondary), 38% of their total sales to butchers.According to Solomon (2004) they participate in cattle trading business at the time of high margin,which is at the time of festivals. In the study area the amateur traders identified includes those who areengaged in grain trade, cattle medicine and salt trade, small ruminant traders. These traders purchasecattle in bulk as compared to the rural collectors.Itinerant tradersItinerant traders are fulltime traders permanently engaged in cattle trading activity throughout the yearthat either have or do not have any cattle-trading license (Solomon, 2004; Umar and Baluch, 2007).According to the focus group and key informant discussions they have relatively better capital as evenas compared butchers. Four of the livestock traders inherited their business from their family. None ofthem have had access to financial institutions. Rather they depend on family and friends/co-traders.Based on Appendix 1, itinerant traders were buyers in the primary markets and were both buyers andsellers in the secondary markets. They bought 6% of a total sale of pastoralists, 19% of total sale of theamateur traders, and 34% of the total sale from village collectors in the primary markets. And in thesecondary markets they bought 27% from pastoralists 38% of total sale of amateur traders and sold43% their total sale to butchers and 58% to consumers. All of these traders do not have cattle tradinglicense, more surprisingly three of them (eight itinerant traders) are from one family and two fromanother, who informally collude ( for they are tied in blood or marital relations) to dominate the marketto decide on prices and quantity. They used this relationship to dominate the market in setting pricesand cooperate during transportation.ButchersButchers are the final links before the consumers along the commodity chain. They have purchased20% of total sales by pastoralists, 17% of total sales by rural collectors, 38% of total sales by amateurtraders, and 42% of the total sales by itinerant traders. Three butcheries from Hosanna, Gimbichu andJajura towns were considered in this study to make the chain mapping complete. All of the butcheriesused abattoirs built by the municipality of their respective towns. Butcheries are regular purchasers ofcattle (Denbegnas), especially during non festival seasons. In Appendix 1, consumers are the final63 | P a g ewww.iiste.org
  • 6. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare www.iiste.orgISSN 2224-3208 (Paper) ISSN 2225-093X (Online)Vol 1, No.1, 2011actors of the chain, and represent both local consumers in the study area, and markets outside the studyarea so that to help finalise the chain mapping.3.3. Price Spread AnalysisAs Appendix 2 displays different marketing cost components incurred in the course of cattle marketingby different actors along the cattle marketing chain. Along the chain, butchers incurred the highest costof marketing (94 Birr/head) while the pastoralists incurred 25.5 Birr/head. The high cost of theButchers is attributed for payment to abattoirs (sanitary and phytosanitory), transport, and labour whichamounts 53.2% of the marketing cost i.e. 50 Birr/head. Whereas other traders incurred more or lessrelated costs for cattle feed, holding stations, market levy, broker fees and estimated labour costs. Theamateur traders and itinerant traders incurred equivalent cost of 39 Birr/head; this is mainly relatedwith similarity of value addition.As also depicted in Table 2, eleven major channels were identified in the process of cattle marketingfrom pastoralists to consumers. The share of the market actors was different along each channel. Thetotal gross margin is the highest in the third (13.2%) and the ninth (13.2% of the consumer’s price)channels implying relatively shorter channels brings in low total marketing margin. The producersshare was highest (100%) in the first channel, in which the pastoralists had disposed of their productsdirectly to the consumer and it was lowest (71.5%) in channel seven (Table 2). The producers’ share inother channels was lower than channel one because the producers sold their produce through the traders(traders of all scales including butchers) who reaped away large amount from the consumers Birr. Nextto first channel (i.e. direct sale), the fifth (sales to butchers through rural assemblers), sixth, eighth, andthe eleventh channels (direct sale to butchers) was comparatively profitable channels for sale of cattlein the study area. In the cattle chain analysis rural collectors get the highest gross margin 750 (23% ofthe final consumers’ prices) in channel five, amateur traders get 350 (11%), itinerant traders andbutchers get 550 (17%) and 400 (12.3%) respectively. Table 2 demonstrates the costs and profits thateach agent along the chain make. In their course of action amateur traders made the largest profit of311 Birr per head followed by butchers (306 Birr per head), village assembler (272.5 Birr per head) and161 Birr per head by itinerant traders.64 | P a g ewww.iiste.org
  • 7. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare www.iiste.orgISSN 2224-3208 (Paper) ISSN 2225-093X (Online)Vol 1, No.1, 2011Table 2 Marketing margin calculations along the cattle marketing channels Market actors Marketing measures Cattle market channels CH-1 CH-2 CH-3 CH-4 CH-5 CH-6 CH-7 CH-8 CH-9 CH- CH-11 10Cattle (head) 18 6 33 24 12 24 86 79 12 202 116Producers’ Price/head 2100 2100 2100 2100 2100 2100 2300 2300 2300 2650 2850Rural collectors Price/head 2300 2300 2650 2850 2650 Gross margin/head 200 200 550 750 550 Marketing cost/head 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 Net marketing margin/head 173.5 173 422.5 442.5 422.5Amateur traders Price/head 2650 2650 2650 2650 Gross margin/head 350 350 350 350 Marketing cost/head 39 39 39 39 Net marketing margin/head 311 311 311 311Itinerant Traders Price/head 2850 2850 2850 2850 Gross margin/head 200 200 200 200 Marketing cost/head 39 39 39 39 Net marketing margin/head 161 161 161 161Butchers Price/head 3250 3250 3250 3250 3250 Gross margin/head 400 400 600 400 200 Marketing cost/head 94 94 94 94 94 Net marketing margin/head 306 306 506 306 106Total gross marketing margin % 0 8.6 13.2 7 12.3 12.3 18.5 12.3 13.2 7 6.1Producers portion (%) 100 91.4 86.8 93 87.7 87.7 71.5 87.7 86.8 93 93.9Rank of channels by producers’ share 1 4 6 3 5 5 7 5 5 3 2Source: survey result, 2009, CH = channel65 | P a g ewww.iiste.org
  • 8. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare www.iiste.orgISSN 2224-3208 (Paper) ISSN 2225-093X (Online)Vol 1, No.1, 20114. Conclusion and RecommendationsAlong the pastoral cattle marketing chain five marketing agents were identified. These are theproducers (pastoralists characterized by weak upgrading initiative), rural assemblers, amateur traders,traders (itinerant), butchers and brokers are the major actors along the chain. As already notedconflicts, robbery/raiding, absence of markets, drought and disease were critical problems whileabsence of marketing and production facilitates were ranked as serious problems in the study area.The analysis of the marketing costs and margin revealed that pastoralists incurred the lowest marketingcost and butchers the highest marketing cost of 94 Birr where only butchery costs are 54% and that ofpastoralists was 23.5 Birr. Marketing margin of the participants was different along different channels;producers get their highest profits in first, fifth, seventh and ninth channels in descending order. Noneof the actors incurred losses; this may be attributed to the higher demand for the cattle and orunderestimation of costs because of computational difficulties in non tradable goods and the existenceof public /common property goods.The chain analysis indicates that there was poor inter group and intra group linkages. And thisrelationship minimised the gain pastoralists are supposed to obtain. To improve the return of thepastoralists in the chain: it is better to increase the number of chain activities the pastoralist undertakesfrom rearing, fattening, transportation and trading i.e. vertical integration. Vertical integration shortensthe chain by cutting out traders or other intermediaries by performing their functions. Since addingactivities adds costs and risks, identifying appropriate technologies, training on marketing systems tobe undertaken, and providing information and working capital would alleviate the problem. In addition,the major problem reported by both the traders and producers was lack of basic facilities andinfrastructure that constrained the progress and/or functioning of the cattle market. Hence provision ofsuch service like veterinary facility, watering stations, roads, telecommunication, holding stations, andmarket yards would improve the performance of the marketing system in the area.ReferencesAdina S. and Elizabeth F., (2006). Livestock Value Chain Analysis Report for Afar and North SomaliRegions of Ethiopia. Pastoral Livelihoods Initiatives. ADCI/VOCA. p.43Alemayehu M., (2007). Opportunities and Challenges of Livelihood Strategy. Proceeding of the 15thConference of Ethiopian Society of Animal Production. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. October 4-6, 2007.pp.1-15Belachew H., (2003). Livestock Marketing and Pastoralism. Proceeding Of Third National Conferenceon Pastoral Development in Ethiopia December 23-24, 2003, Addis Ababa. Pastoral Forum Ethiopia.pp.77-94.CSA (Central Statistical Authority), (2007). Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia CentralStatistical Agency Agricultural Sample Survey 2006/07 [2000 E.C.] Volume II. Report on Livestockand Livestock Characteristics. 417 Statistical Bulletins. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Dhillon, A., K. Khatkar, Arun K., (2005). Marketing costs and price spread for manifold flower inHaryana. Indian quarterly journal of agricultural marketing. Vol.158. No1.:9-13. (FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), 1997). Agricultural and Food Marketing Management.Marketing and Agribusiness Texts 2. Rome, ItalyFAO (Food and Agricultural Organization), (2004). Livestock Environment and Development (LEAD)Digital Library.CD ROM livestock, environment and development(LEAD) Initiative, animalproduction and health division, Food and Agricultural Organization of United Nations (FAO) Rome,Italy.66 | P a g ewww.iiste.org
  • 9. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare www.iiste.orgISSN 2224-3208 (Paper) ISSN 2225-093X (Online)Vol 1, No.1, 2011FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization), (2005). Commodity Chain Analysis. Constructing theCommodity Chain Functional Analysis and Flow Charts. Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations, FAO, Rome, Italy pp.8-27.Jema H., (2008). Economic Efficiency and Marketing Performance of Vegetation Production in theEastern and Central Parts of Ethiopia. Doctoral thesis. Swidish University of Agricultural science.Upsala, Sweden.Kohls, L., and Uhul, (1985). Marketing Agricultural Products. Macmillan Publishing Company, NewYork. pp. 65-69.Mendoza, G.,( 1995), A Primer on marketing channels and margins. Lyme Rimer PublishersInc., USA.p.425Solomon T., (2004). Performance of Cattle Marketing System in Southern Ethiopia with SpecialEmphasis on Borena Zone. M.Sc thesis. Haramaya University, Haramaya, Ethiopia. p.116Umar, A. and Baluch B., (2007). Risk Taking for Living; Trade and Marketing in the Somali region,Ethiopia, Addis Ababa Ethiopia; UN-OCHA/pastoral commission initiative project. P. 123Williams, B., Spycher and Okike I., (2006). Improving Livestock Marketing and Intra-Regional Tradein West Africa. pp. 36-62. Determining Appropriate Economic Incentives and Policy FrameworkILRI, Nairobi, Kenya.Marketing, Distribution and Consumers, Handbook of Agricultural Economics, Volume 1, Part B,2001, Pp.933-97067 | P a g ewww.iiste.org
  • 10. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare www.iiste.orgISSN 2224-3208 (Paper) ISSN 2225-093X (Online)Vol 1, No.1, 2011Appendix 1: A Sketch of Marketing Channels in the Study Area Pastoralist/ Producer * 12% 100% (612 cattle) Farm gate 12% ** ** Village collectors 7% 42% 12% (73 cattle) ** **3% 1%12% ** 17% *** ** ** *** * Primary 25% 6% 33.5% 19% 8% market 17%Amateur traders37% (226 cattle) Butchers ** *** 11% 27% 48% (294 cattle) ** *** 2% 42%13% ** 19% *** *** 27% 100% Secondary *** 38% Itinerant traders *** 3% Consumers market 71% 28.5% (175 cattle) 100% (612 cattle) *** 58%Source: survey result, 200968 | P a g ewww.iiste.org
  • 11. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare www.iiste.orgISSN 2224-3208 (Paper) ISSN 2225-093X (Online)Vol 1, No.1, 2011Appendix 2: An Estimated Calculation of Marketing CostCost components Pastoralist Rural Amateur itinerant Butcher assembler trader TraderCattle sale price /head 2100 2300 2650 2850 3250Supplementary feed /head 2.5 5Feed & water/day/head 4 5 5 4Labour/marketing/day/head 2 2.5 4 4 34Holding station/day/head 2 2 3 3 3Tax/head 7 7 7 7 7Broker fee/head 12 12 20 20 25Butchery costs /head 20Total marketing cost/head 25.5 27.5 39 39 94Total costs/head 2127.5 2689 2889 3344Profits/head 272.5 311 161 306Source: survey result, 200969 | P a g ewww.iiste.org

Related Documents