Invited paper presented at the 6th African

Conference of Agricultural Economists, September 23-26, 2019, Abuja,

Copyright 2019 by [authors]. All rights reserved. Readers may make verbatim copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright notice appears on all such copies.

Food security status of rice marketers’ households in , Nigeria: a gender-based analysis

*ENIOLA OLUWATOYIN OLORUNSANYA1.YAKUBU MOHAMMED AUNA2, AYOTUNDE.OLUWATUNBO OLORUNSANYA3, ARE KOLAWOLE4 AND ALIMI FUNSO LAWAL1

1Department of Agricultural Economics, Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida University, Lapai, Niger State, Nigeria

2Dept. of Crop Production Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida University, Lapai, Niger, State

3Dept. of Animal Production, Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida University, Lapai, Niger State, Nigeria

4Dept. of Political Science, Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida University, Lapai, Niger State, Nigeria

*Author of Corespondence : [email protected]

Abstract: Food insecurity is presently a global threat to human existicence. Therefore, a gender based economic analysis of rice marketing for food security was carried out in Niger State using 430 representative rice marketers’ households. The survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics, food security indeces and logistic regression model. Results show that the rice marketers are mostly females (74%) with mean age of 39 years and a mean household size of 7 members against 41 years for male marketers and 8 household members. The mean years of schooling are also 4 and 8 years for female and male marketers respectively. Furthermore, the average per capita daily calories available in the study area are 1980.36Kcal and 2,383Kcal for male and female marketers’ households respectively. Using the recommended calorie requirement of 2470Kcal, 138 rice marketer’s households were food secure and 282 were food insecure. The identified determinants of food security status for all households include gender of the marketers, years of schooling, adjusted household size, and net profit.. Improved rice marketing system, manageable household size as well as improved literacy level are required for attainment of food security in the state. Keywords: Rice marketing, gender analysis, marketing margin, marketing efficiency, marketing performance.

1.Introduction Over the years problems of food insecurity have been a global phenomenon and its major causes are climate change, uncontrollable increase in world’s population, changing human tastes, water scarcity and farming households’peculiar problems (Breene, 2017). Nord et al., (2009) defines food insecurity as the limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods or limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways without resorting to emergency food supplies, scavenging, stealing, or other coping strategies. It does mean not being food secure and it could be a chronic or transitory problem. In chronic food insecurity, there is a continuous inadequate diet and nutrition caused by households inability to acquire food either by purchase or own production (Food and Agricultural Organisation) (FAO), (2008). On the other hand, transitory food insecurity results from a temporary decline in household income or a combination of factors such as seasonal fluctuations in food availability, food prices and income, which themselves may result in seasonal fluctuations in individual nutritional status (FAO, 2008). A household with problem coping with seasonality in food availability, food prices and income are considered as fragile, while households that can weather such periodic crisis are considered as resilient (Agboola, Koroma, and Ikpi, 2004).The focus of the world leaders for decades now has been ensuring food security for all. For instance, the world leaders pledged to eradicate extreme hunger and poverty by 2030 (United Nations Development Project (UNDP), 2017). “Food security on the other hand exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe, nutritious and culturally adequate food to meet their dietary needs for active and healthy life” (FAO, 2002). It includes ready availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods and this connotes assured ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways. This rests on the premise that food security depends on availability, accessibility, adequacy and acceptability of food. Availability of food could only be achieved when supply of food grows at par with food demand through either domestic production or importation or combination of the two. The population growth rate in Nigeria in 2017 was 2.28% against the total GDP growth rate of -0.52% per annum (National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), (2017). This has resulted into annual food deficit running into several million metric tonnes and skyrocketing import bills with a continued drain on the country’s foreign exchange reserve (Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD) 2016). The effect of the shortfall in the supply and demand for food is felt mostly by low income, resource poor rural dwellers which results in hunger and malnutrition. Despite great efforts to transform Nigeria’s agriculture and huge investment by private and government organisations over the years, rural poverty and food insecurity have persisted. This suggests a need to reconsider current agricultural production, processing and marketing systems to identify new ways of improving them. Tremendous improvement in rice production, processing and marketing will bridge the gap between supply and demand of rice in Nigeria and preserve foreign exchange earnings through reduction in importation and increase in export (FMARD, 2016). The gender connotation to the attainment of food security is also of importance globally and in Nigeria particularly. Gender roles and expectations are often identified as factors hindering the equal right and status of women with adverse consequences that affect life, family, socioeconomic status, health and access to production resources (Mason et al., 2015; Olorunsanya et al., 2012 and Kassie et al., 2012). In each of these areas women worldwide are mostly affected. Thus gender issues cannot be over-emphasised in challenges facing food security in Niger State. Women are important in attainment of food security especially in most developing countries where rural women are involved in small-scale agriculture, supply of farm labour, and provision of food for their households (FAO, 2011). Some of the current aims of national agricultural policy for Nigeria are: (i) attainment of food security, (ii) increase in agricultural production and productivity, and (iii) expansion of exports for foreign exchange earnings and reduction of food imports to protect local production and preserve foreign reserve (FMARD, 2016). The federal government is also developing the value chain of some important agricultural commodities such as rice, cassava, sorghum, cacao and cotton through agricultural transformation agenda and agricultural promotion policy (FMARD, 2016). Although rice is cultivated in almost all the ecological zones in Nigeria, nevertheless import still accounts for a large percentage of rice consumption due to preference for the foreign rice and low supply from the domestic market. In 2016, the estimated demand for rice in Nigeria was put at 6.3 million metric tonnes while domestic supply was only 2.3 million metric tonnes, the short fall was met through importation (FMARD, 2016). This supply-demand gap in rice production in developing countries is as a result of high population growth rate, rapid urbanization and shift in consumer preference in favour of rice (FMARD, (2016); Macauley, (2015) & Sect et al., 2013). Nigeria has huge expanse of potential land area for rice production but only a fraction is under cultivation. Presently an agricultural household in Nigeria holds an average of 2.6 plots at an average of 0.5 hectares in size (NBS, 2016a). If rice must be used as food security crop in Niger state, a multi-faceted approach must be adopted. This study therefore carries out an economic analysis of rice marketing in Niger state for the attainment of food security in the state. The study also measures the level of food security status of the rice marketers’households based on gender as well as identifies the determinants of food security among rice marketers’households in the state.

2.0 Methodology 2.1 Research Location Niger State is an agrarian state located in the north central zone of Nigeria between latitude 8020'N and 11030'N and longitude 3030'and 7020'E. The landscape consists mostly of wooded savannas and includes the flood plains of the Kaduna River. The state is populated mainly by the Nupe people in the south, the Gwari in the east, the Busa in the west, and Kamberi (Kambari), Hausa, Fulani, Kumuku, and Dakarki (Dakarawa) in the north. Agricultural production and marketing are the major occupation of the people of Niger State and the major crops grown include rice, groundnuts, millet, cowpea, cotton, yams, shea nuts, maize, tobacco, oil palm, cola nuts and sugarcane. Fishing and animal husbandry are also important in the state (Britannica Online Encyclopedia, 2011). The state is stratified into 25 local government areas namely: , , , , Bosso, , , , Gurara, Katcha, , Lapai, , Magama, Mariga, , , Munya, , Rafi, , , , and . These LGAs are further compacted into three zones based on socio-political reasons. Rice production and marketing are carried out in all the local government areas of the state.

2.2 Data Source and Sampling Technique Primary data obtained through interview schedule with the aid of structured questionnaire were used for the study. The questionnaire were administered in all the three agricultural zones of the state using three-stage sampling technique. The first stage entails a random selection of seven local government areas from the three agricultural zones in the state based on proportionality. The second stage involves a random selection of two villages in each of the chosen LGAs to give a total of fourteen villages in all.The final stage consists of a random selection of rice marketers’ households in the seleted villages based on proportionality. A total of four hundred and twenty (420) rice marketers’ households were eventually used for the study. 2.3 Analytical Techniques The data generated from the survey were analysed using descriptive statistics, marketing margin and efficiency measures as well as food security measures and Logistic regression model. The analytical tools are further deliberated upon as follows: 2.3.1 Marketing margin and marketing efficiency measures Marketing margin is the difference between the average price paid by consumers for agricultural commodity and the farm gate price (Wohlgenant, 1989). It is as a result of demand and supply factors, marketing costs, and the degree of marketing channel competition. It does reflects aggregate processing and retailing firm behaviour which influences the level and variability of farm prices and may influence the farmer’s share of the consumer food (Wohlgenant,1989). The total marketing margin for an agricultural crop equals the sum of retail and wholesale marketing margin and is specified as follows: Wholesaler Marketing Margin: Wholesaler’s Marketing Margin (Mw) = Wholesaler Price (Pw) - Farm Gate Price (Pf) Wholesaler’s Net Marketing Margin = Mw -MCw Where:MCw = Wholesaler marketing cost Retailers Marketing Margin: Retailer’s Marketing Margin (Mr) =Retailer’s Price (Pr) -Wholesaler Price (Pw) Retailer’s Net Marketing Margin = Mr -MCr Where: MCr = Retailer’s Marketing Cost Total Marketing Margin: Total Marketing Margin (MMT) = Mw +Mr Total Net Marketing Margin: = Pr-Pf The share of farmer, wholesaler and retailer from retail price are calculated as follows: Farmer’s Share (Sf) = Pf/Pr * 100 where: Pf =Farmer’s Price and Pr = Retailer Price. Wholesaler’s Share (Sw) = Pw -Pf / Pr * 100. Where: Pw, Pf and Pr are wholesaler price, farmer price and retailer price respectively. Retailer’s Share (Sr) = Pr -Pw /Pr * 100. Where: Pr,Pw are retailer and wholesaler prices respectively. And Sf, Sw, and Sr are farmer, wholesale and retailer’s share respectively. ii) Marketing cost coefficient Marketing Cost Coefficient (MCC) which shows marketing margin as a fraction of retail price is given as: MCC = SL +SP + Sw +Sr = MM/ Pr *100 Where: SL, SP, Sw, Sr are local assembler, processor, wholesaler and retailer’s share respectively. Marketing Cost Coefficient shows the share of final consumers from the total marketing margin of product. iii) Marketing efficiency measurement using shepherd’s formula Shepherd’s Index Formula is given as: ME = (V/ I) – 1 Where: ME = Marketing Efficiency Index in Naira per 100Kg bag V = Value of goods sold or consumer’s price in Naira per 100Kg bag I = Total marketing cost in Naira per 100Kg bag. Higher ratio shows higher marketing efficiency and vice versa. 2.3.2 Food security measure: A household is defined in the study as a group of people living together and eating from the same pot (Olorunsanya, 2009). The data on household size obtained from the survey were adjusted for adult equivalence using the male adult equivalent weight scale provided in Table 1. In measuring the food security status of the households, a minimum acceptable benchmark for healthy living called the food security line for the population was estimated below which a household was considered food insecure.The food security benchmark was obtained using the recommended daily calorie intake of 2470Kcal per capita. Table 1: Equivalent Male Adult Scale Weights for Determining Adjusted Household Size Age Category Male Female Under 1year 0.00 0.00 1-4.9 years 0.25 0.20 5-9.9years 0.60 0.50 10-14.9years 0.75 0.75 15-59.9years 1.00 0.90 60 and above 0.80 0.65 Source: Falusi, (1985) The household calorie availability was estimated using the food nutrient composition in Table 2 and based on energy content of both produced and purchased food items which represent the total food supply for the households. The per capita calorie daily consumption was obtained by dividing the estimated daily calorie supply by the adjusted household size. The food security indices for the study were obtained using the following formula: = ...... (1) Where:𝐾𝐾 Z𝑍𝑍 = Food𝑅𝑅 Security Index K = Per capita household daily calorie availability R = Recommended household’s daily per capita calorie intake Table 2: FoodNutrient Composition Food Item Energy Kcal/kg Proteins Maize 3600 90 Rice 3500 60 Millet and Sorghum 3500 100 Cowpea 3300 210 Groundnut 5500 230 Soybean 4000 330 Cassava (Fresh) 1500 10 Cassava flour 3400 20 Yam (fresh) 1100 20 Yam flour 3200 40 Beef 2250 147.29 Fish 1320 87.98 Egg 938 110 Source: Deville de Goye et al., (1978) A household is considered to be food secure if its calorie food intake is more than or equal to Z, the estimated benchmark and food insecure if otherwise. Based on the estimated Z, several food security measures were estimated as follows: The Head Count Ratio (H) which is defined as: = ...... (2) Where:𝑀𝑀 M=𝐻𝐻 Number𝑁𝑁 of food secure households N= Sampled population The short fall or surplus index, P, which is given as: = ...... (3) 1 Where m𝑗𝑗 ==1 number𝑗𝑗 of households that are food secure (food surplus index) or food insecure (food short fall 𝑃𝑃index).𝑚𝑚 ∑ It measures𝐺𝐺 at the aggregate level, the extent at which the households are below or above the food security line. = ...... (4) 𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋−𝑅𝑅 GJ = is the deficiency or surplus faced by j household 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝑅𝑅 XJ = average calorie available to the jth household 2.3.3 The determinants of food security status of rice marketers’ households The determinants of food security status of the rice marketers’ households were identified using Logit model which is specified as follows: Prob(event) =1/1+e-z where = + …………………………………….…………………………………………………………(5) which is the linear combination. The event is equal to one (1) for food secure households and zero (0) 𝑧𝑧otherwise.𝛽𝛽0 𝛽𝛽 𝑖𝑖𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖 Xi=vector of explanatory variables and βi are the estimated parameters. The hypothesised explanatory variables are: X1 = a dummy variable specifying the gender of the household head. It is = 1 if the head is a male and 0 otherwise. X2=Cooperative membership. Also a dummy variable and =1 if the household head is a member of a cooperative society and 0 if otherwise X3= Adjusted household size measured in adult equivalents X4=Access to credit X5=Years of schooling of the marketers X6=Age of the household heads measured in years X7=Net Profit from rice marketing 3. Results and Discussion 3.1 Characteristics of the rice marketers This section presents the demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the respondents as well as rice marketing information (Table 3). 3.1.1 Gender of the rice marketers Gender in this study is restricted to sex of the rice marketers that is whether they are males or females. Rice marketing is predominantly carried out by females in the study area,74% of the marketers are females (Table 3). This follows the trends in gender roles in the study area where the males are more involved in rigorous farm activities and their female counterparts in processing and marketing (Olorunsanya and Ugbong, 2014). At the local government level, this pattern prevails except in Wushishi and Kotangora where there are more male rice marketers than female ones. This also follows the culture and belief of the people of these local government areas that put women in confinement. Significant differences exist between local government areas and gender of the marketers (P<0.000). Table 3: Distribution of the respondents based on gender Male-Marketers Female-Marketers Total Gender 109 (26) 311 (74) 420 (100) All local governments 109 (26) 311(74) 420 (100) Different Local Governments Lapai 4(1.0) 56 (13.3) 60(14.3) Bida 11(2.6) 51(12) 60(14.3) Paikoro 1(1.0) 59(14) 60(14.3) Gbako 3(0.7) 57(13.5) 60(14.3) Wushishi 46(10.9) 14(3.3) 60(14.3) Kotangora 38(9.0) 22(5.2) 60(14.3) Chachanga 6(1.4) 54(12.8) 60(14.3) Total 109(26) 311(74) 420 (100) Source: Authors’ computation. Figures in parentheses are percentages of total.

3.1.2 Marital status of the rice marketers Table 4 shows the marital status and the sub-groups of households in the study area. In each of the gender sub-groups, 87% and 88% of the male and female marketers sub-groups are married. No significant differences exist between gender of the marketers and their marital status. This result is in agreement with the findings of Akarue and Ofoegbu (2012) in Udu Local government area of Delta State, Nigeria. Table 4: Distribution of Respondents Based on Marital Status Male-Marketers Female-Marketers Total Marital Status Married 95(22.6) 276 (65.7) 371 Single 13(3.1) 14(3.3) 27 Divorced - 4(1.0) 4 Widowed 1(0.2) 12(2.9) 13 Separated - 5(1.2) 5 Total 109(26) 311(74) 420 Authors’computation. Figures in parentheses are percentages of total households.

3.1.3 Age of the respondents The mean age for all the respondents is 39.52 (±9.5) (Table 5). This shows a relatively young population that are in their middle age. The mean age for male 41.22 (±10.30) and the female marketers 38.93 (±9.15) are statistically different (P<0.000). It is expected that young marketers will be able to adopt modern processing methods if properly educated. The result corroborates the finding of Akarue and Ofoegbu (2012) in Udu Local Government area of Delta State, Nigeria.

Table 5: Descriptive statistics of age of the rice marketers Mean age Standard deviation Frequencies Male Marketers 41.22 10.30 109 (26) Female Marketers 38.93 9.15 311(74) All Marketers 39.52 9.5 420(100) Source: Authors’ computation. Figures in parentheses are percentages of total. 3.1.5 Household size The modal household size class in the study area is 6-10 members per household, about 34% are in this category for all marketers (Table 7). The mean household size is 7.38 (±5.61). The gender sub- group also follow the same pattern with mean household size of 7.46 and 7.36 for male and female marketers respectively. No significant differences exist between gender of the marketers and household size. Large household size is predominant in the study area with over 66.7% of the households having more than five members. Religious and cultural beliefs of the people in this area allow for large family size. It should be noted that majority of the female marketers though married (88%) are not necessarily the heads of their households. This accounts for the large household size like their male counterparts. The result obtained in the study is slightly higher than the national figures of 5.9 and 4.9 for rural and urban households in Nigeria (NBS, 2016c). 3.1.4 Household size of respondents Table 6: Distribution of the respondents based on household size Male marketers Female marketers All marketers Household Size 1-5 24 (5.7) 116 (27.6) 140 (33.3) 6-10 38 (9.1) 103(24.5) 141 (33.6) >10 47 (11.2) 92 (21.9) 139 (33.1) Total 109 (26) 311(74) 420(100) Mean Household size 7.46 7.36 7.38 Source: Authors’ computation. Figures in parentheses are relative percentages.

3.1.6 Education Education is important in adoption of new technology for rice processing and for obtaining a meaningful livelihood for the marketers. Over 61% of the marketers do not have western education (Table 7). Out of about 39% with western education only about 5% had tertiary education and 4% of this belongs to the male marketers’ category. The mean years of schooling for the rice marketers follow the same pattern; 8.04 for male marketers against 3.91 years for female marketers and 4.98 years for the pooled data. Significant differences exist between gender of the marketers and years of schooling (P<0.000). The result follows the gender trend in Nigeria and indeed Africa where the males are more represented among the educated than their female counterparts (FAO, 2011). Bureau of Statistics (NBS) (2014) report shows that only 40.8% of young women in Niger State are literate in western Education. Table 7: Distribution of respondents based on highest level of educational attainment Male Female All Marketers Marketers Marketers Education No formal Education 18 (4.3) 115(27.4) 133 (31.7) Quranic Education 26(6.2) 100(23.8) 126 (30.0) Adult Literacy Training 2(0.5) 7 (1.7) 9 (2.1) Primary 10 (2.4) 49 (11.6) 59 (14.0) Secondary Education 36 (8.6) 37 (8.8) 73 (17.4) Tertiary Education 17 (4.0) 3(0.7) 20 (4.8) Total 109(26) 311 (74) 420 (100) Mean years of schooling 8.04 3.91 4.98 Source: Authors’ computation. Figures in parentheses are relative percentages of total.

3.2 Other forms of occupation and income from non-rice marketing sources 3.2.1Other forms of occupation About 69% of the respondents have rice marketing as the only occupation while the remaining combine rice marketing with other occupations such as civil service, artisan jobs, farming among others (Table 8). Significant differences exist between gender of the marketers and secondary occupation (P<0.000). Secondary occupation provides additional income for households which canaid attainment of food security. It should be noted however that many of the female marketers are married (88%), this suggests that they are the second income earners in their family. This goes a long way to contribute to the food security status of the female marketers’ households. Table 8: Distribution of respondents based on other forms of occupation and income Male marketers Female marketers All marketers Other Forms of Occupation Nil 38 (9) 250 (59.5) 288 (68.6) Civil Service 5(1.2) 7 (2.7) 12(2.9) Artisanary 4 (1.0) 5(1.2) 9 (2.0) Farming 53 (12.6) 16 (3.8) 69(16.4) Others 9 (2.1) 33(7.9) 42(10.0) Total 109 (26) 311 (74) 420 (100) Average Monthly Income from Non-Rice Marketing Sources Nil 38(9) 250(59.5). 288 (68.6) <10,000 2(0.5) 6(1.4) 8 (1.9) 10,000-25,000 30(7.1) 35(8.3) 65 (15.5) 25,001-50,000 12(2.9) 5(1.2) 17 (4) 50,000-75,000 1(0.2) 2(0.5) 3(0.7) 75,001-100,000 8(1.9) 2(0.5) 10 (2.4) >100,000 18(4.8) 11(2.6) 29 (6.9) Total 109(26) 311(26) 420(26) Mean Income 49,036.7 10,836.01 18,607.14 Standard Deviation 72,700.19 27,838.41 47,550.24 Source: Authors’ computation. Figures in parentheses are percentages of total. 3.2.2 Income from non-rice marketing sources The mean income from other sources of business engaged in by the marketers is N18,607.14±47,550.24 for average marketer. The male marketers however record a higher mean value of N49,036.7±72,700.19 against N10,836.01±27,838.41 for the female marketers. Significant differences exist between the gender of the marketers and secondary income earned (P<0.000). Many of the male marketers engage in farming to augment income and level of consumption. 3.3 Types of rice sold and income made in rice production Different types of rice are marketed in the study area. These include paddy, milled, parboiled and imported rice. Milled local rice is the predominant rice sold in the study area. Niger state is one of the leading producers of local rice in Nigeria (Merem et al., 2017). About 97% of the marketers sell local rice either in paddy (21.7%), milled (61.9%) or parboiled (13.1%) forms (Table 9). The female marketers sell more of the milled (55%) and parboiled rice (11.67%) while the male marketers engage more in the sale of paddy rice (16.2%) against 5.5% for the female marketers. Significant differences exist between gender of the marketers and types of rice sold (P<0.000). Table 9: Descriptive statistics of types of rice marketed Characteristics Male marketers Female marketers All marketers Types of Rice Sold Paddy Rice 68(16.2) 23 (5.5) 91(21.7) Milled Local Rice 29 (6.9) 231 (55) 260 (61.9) Parboiled Local Rice 6 (1.4) 49 (11.67) 55 (13.1) Imported Rice 6(1.4) 8 (1.9) 14 (3.3) Total 109(26) 311(26) 420(26) Source: Authors’ computation. Figures in parentheses are percentages of total.

3.4 Rice marketers’ means of transportation Ninety-one per cent of the rice marketers have no personal means of transportation and out of this, 71% are female marketers (Table 12). About 5% of the respondents with means of transportation have pick-up vans, out of this only one per cent belongs to the female marketers’ category. Huge capital investment is required for the purchase and maintenance of vehicles.The female marketers in the study area have low access to credit facilities than their male counterparts (Table 13). FAO, (2011) opines that increasing women’s access to financial services and other resources can boost their productivity and generate gains in agricultural output and food security. Table 12: Distribution of marketers based on means of transportation Variable Male-headed Female-Headed All Households Personal Means of transportation Yes 25(6.0) 13 (3.0) 38 (9.0) No 84(20.0) 298 (71.0) 382 (91.0) Total 109 (26) 311 (74) 420(100) Types of Means of Transportation Nil 84(20.0) 298(71.0) 382 (91.0) Pick-Up 15 (3.6) 5 (1.2) 20 (4.8) Truck 10 (2.4) 2 (0.5) 12(2.8) Motor Bike - - - Bus - 6 (1.4) 6 (1.4) Total 109(26) 311(74) 420(100) Source: Authors’ computation. Figures in parentheses are relative percentages. 3.5Credit access and amount of credit utilised by marketers Ninety-three per cent of the marketers have no access to credit facility and 91% of these belong to the female marketers’ category. Credit facilities assist in increasing scale of operation and purchase of necessary inputs for marketing that might increase net profit of the marketers. The mean amount of credit for the female marketers was N8,662.38 (±41,529.6) against N59,633.03 (±191,633) for their male counterparts. Significant differences exist between the gender of the marketers and amount of credit utilised (P<0.000). Formal credit facilities are usually obtained with collateral which female marketers might not possess.

Table 13: Distribution of marketers based on access to and utilisation of credit facilities Male marketers Female marketers All marketers Access to credit Yes 16(3.8) 28(6.7) 44(10.5) No 93(22.1) 283(67.4) 376 (89.5) Total 109(26) 311(74) 420(100) Amount of credit utilised Mean 59,633.03 8,662.38 21,890.48 Standard Deviation 191,663.90 41,529.6 106,043.34 Source: Authors’ computation. Figures in parentheses are percentages of total.

3.6 Milling methods used in the study area Local and semi-modern methods of rice processing are still in use in the study area. Forty-three per cent of the marketers obtained their rice from local mill while twenty-nine per cent sourced theirs from semi-modern mill; the remaining twenty-eight per cent of the marketers however got their rice from modern mill (Table 14). More of the male marketers however use modern and semi-modern methods of rice processing. The local milling method is the traditional and crude method of milling while the semi-modern method involves the use of Lister engine and the likes in conjunction with the traditional method of drying and sifting. These two methods allow for introduction of foreign objects like stones and dirts into the rice which makes it unattractive. The drying method is also not of international standard and this makes the rice mouldy with resultant short shelf life. The modern method involves the use of automated machine that dries and mills the rice mechanically without introduction of foreign objects although with higher moisture content than the imported ones.

Table 14: Distribution of respondents based on milling methods (rice processing technology) Male marketers Female marketers Total Milling method Local Rice Mill 28 (6.7) 155 (36.9) 183 (43.5) Modern Rice Mill 41(9.8) 77 (18.3) 118 (28.0) Semi-Modern Mill 40 (9.5) 80 (19.0) 120 (28.5) Total 109 (26) 311(74) 420(100) Source: Authors’ computation. Figures in parentheses are percentages of total. 3.7 Food Security Measurement: This section presents the food security status of the rice marketers’ households based on gender. Both qualitative and quantitative measurements of the food security status of the marketers’ households are presented in this section including the most important sources of food available to the marketers. 3.8 Most Important Sources of Food to Rice Marketers: About 17% of the marketers attest to the fact that the most important source of food to their households is from own farm production (Table 15). The female marketers represent only 3.8% of this population. Also, over 51% of the respondents purchased their food, 44.3% are from female marketers’households. Table 15: The most important sources of food to the respondents Male-marketers Female marketers All marketers The Most Important Sources of Food to the Households Own Farm Production 53 (12.6) 16 (3.8) 69(16.5) Purchased Food 30(7.1) 186(44.3) 211(51.4) Supplies from relations 1 (0.2) 2 (0.5) 3(0.7) From Business 25 (6.0) 107(25.5) 137 (31.5) Total 109 (26) 311(74) 420 (100) Number of meals per day Once 1(0.2) - 1(0.2) Twice 23 (5.5) 94 (22.4) 117 (27.9) Thrice 83 (19.8) 200 (47.6) 283 (67.4) More than three times 2 (0.5) 17(4) 19(4.5) Total 109(26) 311(74) 420 (100) Numbers of times meat was eaten within a week Nil - 8(1.9) 8(1.9) 1 1(0.2) 6(1.4) 7(1.7) 2 3(0.7) 40(9.5) 43(10.2) 3 98(23.3) 195(46.4) 293(69.8) >3 7(1.6) 62(14.76) 69(16.4) Total 109 (26) 311(74) 420(100) Staple food Yes 109 (26) 311(74) 420(100) No - - - Total 109(26) 311(74) 420(100) Source: Author’s computation. Figures in parentheses are percentages. 3.9 Changes in food consumption The distribution of the respondents based on changes in food consumption within a year preceding the survey is presented in Table 17. Changes in food consumption are coping strategies adopted by the households to mitigate internal and external shocks. Sixty-seven per cent of the marketers attested to the fact that there are changes in the food consumption in their households within twelve months before the survey. Relatively, over 50% of the respondents in this category are female rice marketers. Within each of the gender category however a large percentage have changed their consumption pattern in the last 12 months; 65.13% of the male marketers’ households and and 67.84% of the female marketers’ households respectively have changed their food consumption pattern within twelve months before the survey. Table 17:Distribution of respondents based on changes in food consumption Male marketers Female marketers All marketers Changes in Food Consumption in the last 12 Months Yes 71(16.9) 211(50.2) 282(67.1) No 38(9.0) 100(23.8) 138(32.9) Total 109(26.0) 311(74) 420(100) Type of Changes in Food Consumption: None 38(9.0) 100(23.8) 138 (32.9) Reduction in Number of Meals 23(5.5) 40(9.5) 63(15.0) Reduction in Consumption of Staple Foods 18 (4.3) 65 (15.5) 83 (19.8) Reduction in Consumption of Animal and Milk Product 25(6.0) 86 (20.4) 111 (26.4) Reduction in consumption of Legume and vegetables 5(1.2) 20(4.8) 25(6.0) Total 109(26) 311(74) 420(100) Source: Authors’ computation. Figures in parentheses are relative percentages of total.

Also reduction in consumption of animal and milk products was the predominant change in food consumption in the study area (Table 17); 26.4% of the respondents attested to this, 20.4 % of these are from the female marketers’ category. Within each of the gender category also, reduction in consumption of animal and milk products was the predominant change in the study area. The marketers’ households also reduced the consumption of staple food products (19.8%).

3.10 Problems encountered in satisfying food need Shocks to meeting food needs by the respondents in the study area are manifold. These include among others decline in rice sales, lack of fund to purchase food, decline in food supplies, unemployment, sickness of a household member, increase in food prices and decline in remittances received from friends and relations. Interestingly, over 60% of the respondents claimed they do not encounter problems in meeting their food need (Table 18). The major shocks to meeting food need in the study area is increase in food prices (13.8) followed by decline in rice sales (10.7%). This trend is followed based on gender category, that is, the female rice marketers taking the lead with 8.3% and 5.5% increase in food prices respectively as the major problems mitigating meeting their food needs. Other problems include: decline in rice sales (10.7%), lack of fund to purchase (6.9%); unemployment of household members (2.6%); increase in household expenditure due to sickness among others (Table 18). In all of these, the female rice marketers’ category takes the lead. NBS, (2016b) reported similar findings for Nigeria.

Table 18: Distribution of respondents based on problems encountered in satisfying food need Male Female All marketers marketers marketers How often did your households have problems in satisfying the food needs last year: Never 61(14.5) 192(45.7) 253(60.2) Sometimes 34(8.1) 90(21.4) 124 (29.5) Always 6(1.4) 20(4.8) 26(6.2) Seldom 7(1.7) 7(1.7) 14(3.3) Others 1(0.2) 2(0.5) 3(0.7) Total 109 311 420 Reasons for Shortage of food : Nil 61(14.5) 192(45.7) 253(60.2) Decline in rice sales 13(3.1) 32(7.6) 45(10.7) Lack of fund to purchase 3(0.7) 26(6.2) 29(6.9) Decline in food supplies 2(0.5) 4(1.0) 6(1.4) Decline in Remittance received from Friends and 2(0.5) 6(1.4) 8(1.9) relations Increase in Food Prices 23(5.5) 35(8.3) 58(13.8) Unemployment of Household Members 2(0.5) 9(2.1) 11(2.6) Increase in Household Expenditure Due to 3(0.7) 7(1.7) 10(2.5) Illness/Death of Household Member Total 109(26) 311(74) 420(100) Source: Authors’ computation. Figures in parentheses are percentages of total. 3.11Food Security Measure Determining the food security status of the households in the study area requires assessing the contribution of major energy sources to food supply. The calorie supply from own and purchased food were estimated based on the energy content of each food. Using the identification and aggregation procedures highlighted in the methodology, the estimated food security indices for the marketers’ households are presented in Table 19 based on gender of the marketers. The average per capita daily calories available to the respondents are 1,980.36Kcal, 2,383.90Kcal and 2279.17Kcal for male, female and all rice marketers’ households respectively. Using the recommended food security line of 2470 Kcal per capita per day, 138 rice marketers’ households were food secure and 282 were food insecure. Furthermore, the daily per capita available calories for the food secure and food insecure rice marketers’ households were estimated to be 4495.5Kcal and 1350.71Kcal respectively. Disaggregating based on gender of the marketers the daily per capita calories available are 3,703.94kcal and 4,444.74kcal respectively for the food secure male and female rice marketers’ households respectively.The estimated headcount indices reveal that 7.4%, 25.5% and 32.9% of the male, female and all marketers’ households respectively are food secure and 18.6%, 48.5% and 67.1% respectively are not food secure.

Table 21:Food Security Status of Rice Marketers’Households based on Gender Variable Male Marketers Households Female Marketers Households All Marketers Households Food Food All Male Food Food All Female Food Food All Secure Insecure Marketers Secure Insecure Marketers Secure Insecure Marketers Households Households Households Number of 31 78 109 107 204 311 138 282 420 Marketers (28.4)* (71.5)* (100)* (34.4)* (65.6)* (100)* (32.9)* (67.1)* (100)* Households Household 7.4% 18.6% 26% 25.5% 48.5% 74% 32.9 67.1% 100 Percentage Household 21,112. 10,569.9 14,773.49 23,334. 11,039.1 17,545.5 22,666. 10,914.2 16,920.27 daily 46 7 89 8 7 2 consumptio n (Kcal) Household 3703.94 1,295.34 1,980.36 4,444.7 1,301.79 2,383.90 4,263.7 1,300.86 2,279.17 daily per 4 7 capita calorie consumptio n (Kcal) Adjusted 5.70 8.16 7.46 5.25 8.48 7.36 5.35 8.39 7.38 Household Size Food 1.639 0.570 0.876 2.159 0.602 1.055 2.057 0.576 1.008 Security Index (Z) Headcount 0.074 0.186 - 0.255 0.485 - 0.329 0.671 - Ratio (H) Surplus 0.639 - - 0.967 - - 0.893 - - Index (Ps) Shortfall - 0.427 - - 0.423 - - 0.424 - Index (Pi)

Recommen ded daily 2470Kcal per capita per day calorie level Field Survey,2015* Figures in parentheses are percentages of each sub-group population. The analysis further show that the calories available for the marketers’ households is barely above the minimum required benchmark suggesting that they are merely subsisting. Furthermore the food secure rice marketers’ households in the male and female sub-groups exceeded the minimum caloric requirement by 63.9% and 96.7% respectively and the food insecure gender categories fell short of the minimum caloric requirement by 42.7% and 42.3% for the male and female rice marketers’ household respectively. 3.12 Determinants of marketers’ food security status Seven variables were fitted for the regression to isolate the determinants of food security status for the rice marketers’ households. These are age and gender of the rice marketers, their years of schooling, membership of cooperative societies, adjusted household size, access to credit and net profit from rice marketing. Out of the fitted variables only age of the marketers was not significant in explaining the variation in food security status of their households. Other included variables were significant at 1%, 5% and 10% level of significance. Table 22: Determinants of food security among rice marketing households in Niger State Variables Coefficients Z - values Age of the marketers -0.0061 -0.50 Years of schooling of the marketers 0.0463 2.15* Gender of the marketers 0.0187 2.01* Adjusted household size 0.1049 3.54* Access to credit 0.7544 1.87*** Net profit from rice marketing 0.0002 2.74* Membership of cooperative societies 0.3928 1.63*** Constant -1.4415 -1.96** Source: Field Survey, 2016. *, **, *** Denote 1%, 5% and 10% respectively. The coefficient of age is negative suggesting an inverse relationship with the food security status of the marketers. That is as the age of the marketers increases all things being equal; the food security status of their households might decrease. This is expected since productivity reduces with age and possibility of engaging in more than one income earning activities also reduces with age due to less agility and reduced job mobility. Other fitted variables however have positive relationship with the food security status of the rice marketers, suggesting that increase in any of the variables’ coefficients has the possibility of increasing the food security status of the marketers. For instance increase in the years of schooling of the marketers is expected to increase their food security status since education provides opportunities for other forms of employment and also enhances managerial ability that can lead to higher profit and increased level of consumption. Oyebanjo et al., (2013) foundn that increase in years of schooling increased food security status of rice marketers in Ijebu division of Ogun State. Interestingly however, household size has positive relationship with the food security status of the marketers pobably due to presence of other working members in the households. The marketers are mostly women and their husbands probably have income earning activities. This is buttressed by the positive significant level of the gender of the marketers. Gender has positive and significant relationship with the food security status indicating that the rice marketers that are males are likely to be food secure. This is not surprising since the male marketers also have other means of livelihood aside from rice marketing which provides secondary income for them (see Table 8). Mason et al., (2015) found gender of household head to positively affect household food security in Tanzania. Beyere and Muche (2010) also reported that off-farm and non-farm income affect rural household’s food security status in Ada Berga district of central Ethiopia. 3.13 Marketing margin analysis for rice in Niger State The marketing channel for rice in the study area is from producers (paddy rice) to local assemblers (paddy rice) to processors (milled rice) to wholesalers (milled rice) to retailers (milled rice) to consumers. About two kilogramme of paddy rice give rise to one kilogramme of milled rice in the study area. This includes allowance for wastage. Average bag of paddy rice in the study area is sold for N5000.15 per 100kg bag. The price spread estimation for paddy and milled rice is presented in the following section.

3.14 Price Spread Estimation for Paddy Rice Averagely 200Kg of paddy rice gives 100Kg of milled rice including allowance for wastage. Farm gate price =N5,000.15 per 100kg bag For two bags =N5,000.15 x 2= N10,000.30 for two bags Farmer’s share =N10,000.30/ N22,800 x 100 =43.86% Local Assembler Average buying price /100kg bag= N5,000.15x 2bags=N10,000.3 Local Assembler Average selling price/100kg bag (PL) =N6202.15x 2bagsN12,404 Marketing Cost for Local Assembler =ML = 400.08 Local Assembler Net Marketing MarginNMML=N12,404.3- N10,000.3-N400.08=N2003.92 Local Assembler’s Market share = P - Pf/Pr x 100 = N12,004.3- N10,000.3/N22,800 x100 =8.8% Where PL =PpL - ML= 12,404.3- 400.08 =12,004.22 – 10,00.03 Where: PL = Local Assembler Price, PPL = Local Assembler purchase price ML = local assembler marketing cost. 3.15 Price spread estimation for rice processing About 2 bags (200kg) of paddy =1bag(100kg) of milled rice (including allowance for wastage). Buying price of paddy rice for two bags (200kg) = N12,404.3 Processing and marketing cost =N4350.50 Selling Price of milled rice (100kg) =N19,500 Marketing Margin = N19,500 -N12,404.3 =N7,095.7 Net Marketing Margin =N19,500-N12,404.3-N4350.50 =N2745.2 Processor’s share of consumer’s price =31.1% 3.16 Price Spread Estimation for Milled Rice Average Buying Price for Wholesaler (milled rice) = N19,500 Average Selling Price for Wholesaler (milled rice) = N20,900 Wholesaler Marketing Cost = N550 Wholesaler Marketing Margin =N20,900- N19500 =N1,400 Wholesaler Net Marketing Margin = N20,900- N19500 - N550 = N850 Wholesaler Market Share = Pw – Pp/PR x100 =N20,900-N19500/N22,800=6.1% Average Retailer’s Selling Price = N22,800 Average Retailer Buying Price/100kg bag = N20,900 Retailer’s Marketing Cost =N405.50 Retailer’s Marketing Margin =N22,800 - N20,900 = N1,900 Retailer’s Net Marketing Margin = N22,800- N20,900-N405.5=N1,494.5 Retailers Market Share =6.6% Table 23: Price Spread for 100kg bag of milled rice in Niger State Participants Amount (N) Percentage Share in Amount (N) Percentage Share in Consumer Price Consumer Price Paddy Rice Channel 1 Channel 2 Price Received by the N5000.15 x 2 43.90% N5000.15 x 2 = 43.90% Producer for 200Kg of = N10,000.30 N10,000.30 paddy rice (Farm Gate Price) Cost incurred by Local 400.08 1.8% 400.08 1.8% Assembler Local Assembler’s 2,003.92 8.7% 2,003.92 8.7% Margin Processor Cost incurred for 4350.50 19.1% 4350.50 19.1% processing and marketing Processor’s margin 2,745.2 12.0% 2,745.2 12.04% Milled Rice Cost incurred by 550 2.4% - - wholesaler Marketing margin for 850 3.7% - wholesaler - Cost borne by retailer 405.50 1.8% 600.05 2.63%

Retailer marketing 1494.5 6.6% 2699.95 11.84% margin Consumer’s Price 22,800 100% 22,800 100% Total Marketing Cost 5706.08 5350.63 Source: Esimated from field data, 2016. 3.17 Marketing Cost Coefficient (MCC) The marketing cost coefficient shows the share of the final consumer from the total marketing margin. This is estimated to be 31.11% for channel I and 27.30% for channel II. In terms of the share of the total marketing margin borne by the consumer channel II performs better than channel I due to exclusion of the margin borne by the middlemen. The shorter the marketing channel, the smaller the cost borne by consumer and vice versa. 3.18 Measurement of marketing efficiency The marketing efficiency result is presented in Table 24. The local assembler is the most efficient with an index of 5.0 followed by the retailer with value of 3.65 and the least efficient is the processor with a value of 0.63. This is understandable since processing cost is high. The local assembler spends little on marketing cost therefore is more efficient than all the participants in the channel. The processor though has the maximum marketing margin of N2,745.2 records the highest cost of processing and marketing hence is the least efficient among the participants in the channel.

Table 24: Marketing Efficiencyof Traders in Naira per 100Kg bag of rice Variable Local Assembler Processor Wholesaler Retailer Marketing Margin 2,003.92 2,745.2 850 1,494.5 Marketing Cost 400.08 4,350.5 550 405.5 Marketing Efficiency 5.009 0.63 1.545 3.65 Source: Estimated from field data, 2016. The retailer sells directly to the consumers and so enjoys the benefit of providing the goods to the consumers not only in the form they want but at the desired place and time. Thus the retailer provides some extra marketing functions to the consumers than all the participants in the marketing channel. 3.19 Marketing Efficiency Estimation Using Shepherd’s Formula Using the Shepherds’ formula for the two types of channels in the study area, channel 2 was found to be more efficient than channel 1. Table 25: Estimation of marketing efficiency using Shepherd’s formula Item Channel 1 Channel 2 Value of goods sold ( Consumer Price) (V) 22.800 22,800 Total Marketing Cost (I) 5706.08 5350.63 Shepherd’s Marketing Efficiency (V/I)-1 2.996 3.2612 Source: Estimated from field data 2016. 3.20 Conclusion and policy recommendation Niger state is one of the major rice producing states in Nigeria. Processing and marketing of rice produced in the state is presently carried out by smallholder operators who use crude methods for processing. Marketing is also done at small scale level with major actors scattered all over the state. Production, processing and marketing however must be done in a way that meets international standard to make locally produced rice compete favourably with the imported ones. Presently huge foreign exchange is lost on importation of rice to meet the demand deficit. Niger state being a major producer of rice can bridge th gap between supply and demand of rice in the country if production and marketing of rice are done to meet international standard. Rice marketing was found to be a profitable venture in Niger state with women dominating marketing of milled rice and men taking the lead in the marketing of paddy rice. Processors of rice were the least efficient due to high cost of processing. The retailers were found to be the most efficient in rice marketing among the participants in the marketing chain. Channel 2 is the most efficient being shorter than channel 1 which includes wholesalers among the participants. In terms of food security the study concludes that the rice marketers are only food secure based on their assertions. Based on estimation using food security indices the marketers in the study area are not food secure. Disaggregating based on gender of the markers, female markers’ households are more food secure than their male counterparts. The study recommends the following for policy formulation: - Improved processing methods should be encouraged by stakeholders in the rice value chain. - Formation of formidable rice marketing associations can allow for economies of scale in processing and marketing of rice. - The use of government adult literacy programmes can increase literacy level among the marketers for improved welfare. - Modernisation of processing and marketing of rice can improve the livelihood of women in the state since they are in the majority. - The net profits from rice marketing is significant in determining the food security status of these households, therefore enhacing net profits for food security should be embraced. - Since household size is a major determinant of food security for the marketers; manageable household size should be embraced for food security. - Access to low cost credit could lead to utilisation and modernisation of rice processing and marketing and also increase in scale of operation. - Thehe major rice producing areas in the stateshould be developed into rice marketing hubs for increased production and for export for foreign exchange earnings.

Acknowledgement: We appreciate the contribution of Lawyer A.O. Olorunsanya for data coding and spreadsheet preparation together with Mr. David Rogo. We also acknowledge TETFUND for sponsonring the research.

REFERENCES Agboola P. O, Koroma P. & Ikpi A, 2000. Factors influencing food insecurity among rural farming households in Africa: results of the analysis from Nigeria. A published paper of the Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria.

Akarue O.B & Ofoegbu S, 2012. Marketing analysis of rice in Udu Local Government Area of Delta State, Nigeria. Continental Journal of Agricultural Economics 6 (2): 21-31.

Beyene F & Muche M, 2010. Determinants of food security among rural households of Central Ethiopia: An empirical analysis.Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 49 (4): 299-318.

Breene K, 2017. Food security and why it matters. World Economic Forum 2017.

Britannica Online Encyclopedia, 2011. Available online at https//www.britannica.com.(Accessed June 2017).

De ville de Gouyet C, Seaman J, Geifer V, 1978. The management of nutritional emergencies in large population. WHO Geneva.pp 88-89.

Falusi A.O, 1985. Socio-economic factors influencing food nutrient consumption of urban and rural households: A case study of Ondo State of Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Nutritional Sciences, 6(2):52.

Food and Agricultural Organisation of United Nations (FAO), (2011).The state of food and agriculture.Women in Agriculture, closing the gender gap for development. FAO.

FAO, 2008.The state of food and agriculture. High food prices and food security - threats and opportunities. Food and Agriculture of the United Nations, Rome 2008.

FAO, 2002. The state of food insecurity in the world. FAO Rome, Italy. Flyer-4pp. http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y7352e/y7352e00.htm

Federal Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD), 2016. Agricultural policy for Nigeria, Reprint.

FMARD, 2016b. The agriculture promotion policy (2016-2020). Building on the successes of the ATA, Closing key gaps. Policy and strategy document. Federal Government of Nigeria.

Kassie M, Ndiritu S. W, & Shiferaw B. A, 2012. Determinants of food security in Kenya, a gender perspective. Contributed paper at the 86th Annual conference of Agricultural Economists Society, April 16-18, 2012, University of Warwick, United Kingdom.

Macauley H, 2015. Feeding Africa:An action plan for African agricultural transformation. Cereal- Rice, maize, millet, sorghum and wheat. Pp31. www.afdb.org Accessed June 2016.

Mason R., Ndolovu P., Perkins J. R. & Luckert M. K, 2015. Determinants of food security in Tanzania: gendered dimensions of household headship and control of resources. Agricultural and Human Values 32 (3): 539-549.

Merem E.C., Twumasi Y., Wesley J., Isokpehi, P., Shenge M., Fageir S., Crisler M., Romorno C., Hires A., Hirse G., Ochai C., Leggett S. & Nwagboso E. 2017. Analyzing rice production issues in Niger State area of Nigeria’s Middle Belt. Food Public Health, 7 (1): 7-22. Doi:10.5923/j.fph.20170701.02.

National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), 2017. National Bureau of Statistics online information.www.nigerianstat.gov.ng. Accessed June 2017.

NBS, 2016a. National Bureau of Statistics online information.www.nigerianstat.gov.ng. Accessed December, 2016.

NBS, 2016b. Nigeria-General Household Survey-Panel Wave 3 (Post Harvest) 2015-2016, Third round. Federal Government of Nigeria. http//www.nigerianstat.gov.ng/index.php/catalog/52/overview.

NBS, 2016c.National Bureau of statistics online information.www.nigerianstat.gov.ng. Accessed October, 2016.

National Food Reserve Agency (NFRA), 2008. Report of the 2007 agricultural production survey. Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources, pp 1-88.

Nord Mark, Margaret Andrews, Steven Carlson, 2009. Household food security in the United States, 2008. ERR-83,US. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Resource Service.

Olorunsanya E.O, 2009. Gender of Households Heads and Relative Poverty among Rural Farming Households in Kwara State, Nigeria. A Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Department of Agricultural Economics and Farm Management, University of Ilorin, Ilorin.

Olorunsanya E.O., Sule A. B., Babatunde R.O, & Awe A. 2012. A gender analysis of food security status of rural farming households in Kogi State, North Central, Nigeria. Paper read at the 46th Annual Conference of the Agricultural Society of Nigeria (ASN), 5-9 November, Bayero University, Kano, Nigeria.

Olorunsanya E. O., & Ugbong, J.U. (2014). Rice marketing as a means of poverty alleviation in Niger State, Nigeria. Agricultural Tropica et Subtropica 47(4):137-141.

Oyebanjo O., Ambali O., & Akerele E. O, (2013). Determinants of food security status and incidence of food insecurity among rural farming households in Ijebu Division of Ogun State, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Science and Environment, 13: 92-103.

Seck P.A., Toure A.A., Coulibaly J.Y., Diagne A. & Woperers M.C.S, (2013). Impact of rice research on income, poverty and food security in Africa: an ex-ante analysis. In Woperers, M.C.S., Johnson, D.E., Ahadi, N.,Tollens, E. and Jalloh, A. (Eds) Realising Africa’s Rice Promise. CAB International,Wallingford, U.K. pp 24-33.

United Nations Development Programme, 2017. Sustainable Development Goals.

Wohlgenant M. K, 1989. Demand for farm output in a complete system of demand functions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71,241-252.