SNAIL PRODUCTION IN BAYELSA STATE, NIGERIA: TECHNOLOGIES, PRODUCTIVITY AND ENHANCEMENT MEASURES

BY

SUWARI, GOD’STIME SAMUEL

PG/Ph.D/04/35563

DEPARTMENT OF VOCATIONAL TEACHER EDUCATION (AGRICULTURAL UNIT) UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA

SUPERVISOR: DR. R.O. MAMA

OCTOBER, 2010. 2

TITLE PAGE

SNAIL PRODUCTION IN BAYELSA STATE, NIGERIA: TECHNOLOGIES, PRODUCTIVITY AND ENHANCEMENT MEASURES

BY

SUWARI, GOD’STIME SAMUEL

PG/Ph.D/04/35563

A THESIS REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF VOCATIONAL TEACHER EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA; IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF Ph.D DEGREE IN AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION

SUPERVISOR: DR. R.O. MAMA

OCTOBER, 2010.

2 3

APPROVAL PAGE

This thesis has been approved for the Department of Vocational Teacher Education, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

By

………………………….. ………………………… Dr. R.O. Mama (Supervisor) Internal Examiner

………………………… ………………………. Prof. E.E. Agomuo External Examiner (Head of Department)

…………………………… Prof. S.A. Ezeudu (Dean, Faculty of Education)

3 4

CERTIFICATION

SUWARI, GOD’STIME SAMUEL, a postgraduate student in the Department of Vocational Teacher Education (Agriculture) with Registration Number PG/Ph.D/04/35563, has satisfactorily completed the requirements for the research work for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Agricultural Education.

The work embodied in this thesis is original and has not been submitted in part or full for any Diploma or Degree of this University or any other University.

………………………………….. ……………………… SUWARI, GOD’STIME SAMUEL DR. R.O. MAMA Student Supervisor

4 5

DEDICATION

To:

Almighty God from whom mercy, knowledge, wisdom and understanding come and who has made me what I am today.

5 6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The researcher wishes to express his profound gratitude to the project supervisor, Dr. R.O. Mama for his patience and devotion in going through this work and more so, for his objective suggestions, fatherly counseling and encouragement in the production of this thesis. The following lecturers deserved commendation for their various professional inputs made in the project. Worthy of note are, Prof. S.O. Olaitan, Dr. E.C. Osinem, Dr. F.M. Onu, all in the Department of Vocational Teacher Education (Agriculture), University of Nigeria, Nsukka and Dr. S.O.C. Ugwu of the Department of Animal Science, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. Special appreciation also goes to the members of staff of Bio- Technology Research Centre, Odi, Bayelsa State, particularly messers Joledo, O., Cletus Ezidi and Millatus, D. Others include messrs Emmanuel, Andrew E. and Mrs. Azua Helen, for their invaluable assistance, and provision of useful materials, equipments and experimental farms for t he study. The researcher is highly indebted to members of his family for their support, encouragement, understanding and patience throughout the period of the study. Above all, the researcher is ever grateful to God Almighty for sparing his life and seeing him through the study.

SUWARI, GOD’STIME SAMUEL Department of Vocational Teacher Education (Agricultural unit) University of Nigeria, Nsukka. October, 2010.

6 7

7 8

8 9

LIST OF TABLES

Table Pages 1. Senatorial (Agric) Zones and Corresponding L.G.A.s ………….. ………127 2. Distribution of Snail Farmers in the agric. zones…………………………128 3. Decision Rule Table……………………………………………………….133 4. Farmers Mean Scores on the Level of Application of Site Preparation Technologies…………………………………………………138 5. Farmers Mean Scores on the Level of Application of Stocking Technologies ……………………………………………………………...140

6. Farmers Mean Scores on the Level of Application of Feed Management Technologies………………………………………………..142 7. Farmers Mean Response on the Level of Application of Pests and Diseases Control Technologies……………………………………….145 8. Farmers Mean Scores on the Level of Application of Harvesting and Marketing Technologies…………………………………………………..147 9. Mean Rates of Input Application by Farmers…………………………….149 10. Mean Value of Cost of the Inputs Applied……………………………….152 11. Mean Yield in Snail Production by Farmers……………………………..156 12. Farmers’ Mean Value of Sales and Revenue from Adult Snails…………158 13. Gross Margin Analysis of Snail Production……………………………...160 14. Depreciation Analysis of Fixed Assets, Original Cost, Useful life and Age…………………………………………………………………...161

15. Profit Analysis in Snail Production………………………………………164 16. Farmers/Extension Agents Mean Response on the Constraints of Farmers’ in Snail Production…………………………………………..166 17. Mean Scores of Farmers/Extension Agents on Measures for Enhancing Farmers’ Productivity………………………………………...169 18. t-test Analysis values of Non-literate and Literate Snail Farmers on the Level of Application of Site Preparation Technologies……………………………………………………………..171

9 10

19. t-test Analysis values of Female and Male Snail Farmers on the Level of Application of Stocking Technologies…………………..174

20. t-test Computation on the Level of Application of feed Management Technologies between Inexperienced and Experienced Snail Farmers………………………………………………..176

21. t-test Analysis values of Rural and Urban Snail Farmers on the extent of Application of Pests, and Diseases Control Technologies………………………………………………………………179

22. t-test Analysis values of Non-literate and Literate Snail Farmers on the level of Application of Marketing Technologies………………………………………………………………181

23. Calculated t-values of Subsistence and Commercial Snail Farmers on the Constraints of Farmers in Snail Production………………183

24. Calculated t-values of Farmers and Extension Agents on the Measures for Enhancing Farmers’ Productivity………………………….186

10 11

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Achatina achatina (Linneous)………………………………………………...3 2. Achatina fulica (Bowdich)……………………………………………………3 3. Archachatina marginata (Swainson)…………………………………………4 4. Polyplacophora (Chiton)……………………………………………………35 5. Scaphopoda (Dentalium)……………………………………………………35 6. Monopolacophora (Neopilina)……………………………………………...35 7. Cephalopoda (Naotilus)…………………………………………………….35 8. Cephalopoda (Octopus)…………………………………………………….35 9. Lamellibtrachia (Donax)……………………………………………………35 10. Gastropod (Trympanotonus)………………………………………………35 11. Gastropod (A. marginata)………………………………………………....35 12. Classification of Edible Land Snails ……………………………………..37 13. Raised Metallic Snailery…………………………………………………..57 14. Concrete Trench Snailery………………………………………………….58 15. Paddock Pen Snailery……………………………………………………...60

11 12

Abstract

Snail production (heliciculture) is increasingly becoming popular in Bayelsa State, occasioned by the high demand for snail meat due to shortage of other sources of animal protein and the expected income from the increasing price of snail. However, there is dearth of documented empirical research record on the level of application of heliciculture technologies as well as the productivity of farmers’ which could form basis for improving this area of food production. The study was thus designed to determine the level of application of snail production technologies by the farmers, farmers’ productivity, constraints and measures for enhancing their productivity. The study was guided by ten research questions and seven null hypotheses. Descriptive survey research design was adopted for the study. There was no sampling as the entire population of 153 registered snail farmers was used for the study. The instrument used for data collection was a 214 items questionnaire that was face validated by five experts. An internal consistency coefficient of 0.66 was obtained for the instrument through the Cronbach alpha procedure. Data collected were analyzed using the mean to answer research questions 1-5 and 9-10, while gross margin and profit analysis were employed to answer research questions 6-8. The null hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of significance using t-test. It was found that the following technologies were highly applied by the farmers in snail production: farm fencing, raised wooden snailery, Archachatina marginata species, feeding with plant parts, de-shelling, gutting, de-sliming and treading live snails with ropes for sale; whereas substrate liming, moating and trapping with nets were moderately applied. Technologies such as substrate inoculation, commercial feeding, egg candling, foot dipping and stocking Achatina achatina species, were seldomly adopted whereas purging snails, quarantine services, substrate sterilization, employing veterinary services, keeping farm records and stocking Achatina fulica species, were not applied by the snail farmers. Literacy, experience, location, gender and scale of production have no influence on the level of application of snail production technologies by the farmers. An average production cost of N6,449/m2/yr was incurred while a yield of 317 adult snails/m2/yr was produced. On the average, farmers realized a net profit of N13,162/m2/yr, as well as a proceed of N2.00/yr per naira outlay with a pay back period of 121/2 months. However, shortage of improved species, lack of heliciculture extension services, seasonal flooding of snail farms among others were identified as the major constraints of farmers. Thus, it was recommended among others that modern heliciculture technologies that can improve snail production should be packaged and made available at affordable price to agric. extension agents and farmers, regular workshops should be organized for farmers by ADP, state government should establish snail breeding centers and that good drainages be constructed in the farms to improve this area of food production in the study area.

12 13

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Human population trends and related environmental factors exert fundamental influences on resources of the earth. High rates of population growth characterize almost every country in sub-Saharan Africa. This creates an urgent need for increased food production especially protein because of the vital role it (protein) plays in human diet. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) recommended 6.5 grammes and 2,600 calories of animal protein to be taken daily (FAO, 2002). However, the present agricultural output is still unable to keep pace with population growth, despite attempts to apply improved agricultural practices and mechanization for boosting food production. Indeed, inadequacy in protein supply is felt more in the tropical regions of the world, including Nigeria (Okafor, 2001).

To satisfy this protein need, therefore, two main sources, viz: plants and animals, readily comes to mind. Plant protein, however, is deficient in certain essential amino acids notably methionine, tryptophan and lysine, which are necessary for healthy growth (Welson, 2001). In contrast, animal protein, which is obtained from fish, livestock and wild animals (bush meat) is rich in these amino acids, and thus, is described as first class quality protein (Moses, 1992).

In Nigeria, particularly Bayelsa State, however, protein obtained from livestock (cattle, poultry, sheep, goat, pig) and bush meat are generally

1 13 14 expensive, probably due to low level of technology, poor management, pests infestation, high cost of inputs and the onerous and herculean task of hunting for wild animals. In congruence with this view, Welson (2001) affirmed that live adult goat, sheep and pig are sold at N9,000.00, N7,000.00 and N28,000.00 respectively; whereas broiler, rabbit and cow costs N1,500.00, N2,000.00 and

N75,000.00 respectively. Abowei and sikoki (2005), lamented that domestic fish production in the state has tremendously fallen and consequently neither the capture fishery sub-sector nor the aquaculture sub-sector can satisfy the growing need for protein in Bayelsa State. Perhaps this is why the inhabitants of the state are beset with acute protein shortage.

It was the need for good quality but cheap source of animal protein, as a measure to bridge the gap between protein demand and supply in the state that led to increased consumption of snail meat. According to Wosu (2003), snail production is a highly untapped protein source in the Niger Delta particularly

Bayelsa state. The population of snails in the wild is high and should not be wasted. The nutritional and therapeutic values of the meat are also high and should be harnessed for human benefits in the face of the acute shortages of protein food from other animal sources (Okafor, 2001).

Snails are soft-bodied animals consisting of shell and body which exists in many forests, but in Nigeria they exist more in the Southern forest belts and more so during the rainy season because of the favourable natural environment therein. The Southern forest belts are characterized by prolonged wet season,

14 15 high relative humidity, damp environment and thick vegetation, all providing suitable habitat for snail production (Joshua, Torunana & Chude, 1999).

Species of snail abound in Africa. However, the African giant land snails

Achatina achatina, Achatina fulica and Archachatina marginata (see Appendix.

A) predominate in the Southern forest zones because they are more hardy with high adaptability/survivability qualities. Besides, these three species are more fleshier and highly prolific (Akinyemi, Ojo & Akintomide, 2007).

Figue 1: Achatina achatina (Linneaus) Figure 2: Achatina fulica (Bowdich)

Nevertheless, Achatina and fulica species (see fig. 1,2) are less preferred because of their changing flesh colour and textures during processing which affects taste. Besides, majority of the people of Bayelsa State do not consume

Achatina fulica. However Archachatina marginata is not beset with these short- falls and more so, the species is the most numerous of the edible land snails in the southern Nigeria; hence, Welson (2001) advised farmers to produce it.

Consequently, majority of snail farmers are rearing the Archachatina marginata

(see fig 3) in the study area.

15 16

Figure 3: Archachatina marginata (Swainson).

The edible giant land snails are highly cherished by West Africans and hinterland communities. The meat has a good market value and table preference. It fetches the highest market price per kilogram (Paul, 2004). In agreement with this view, Omole, Ayodeji and Raji (2004) maintained that these giant land snails are very important food in parts of West Africa and particularly Western and Southern Nigeria and that snails form an important source of animal protein served as delicacies. Snails are also considered as a natural and dietary therapy as evidenced by using Achatina achatina to treat hypertension, conjuctivities, habitual abortion, diabetes and iron deficiency anaemia. The orthocalcium phosphate and sliming mucus secretion from snails are used as therapy for kidney diseases, tuberculosis, anaemia, asthma, eczema, skin rashes, swells, burns, insect bites, heart palpitation and whooping cough.

The shells are used in compounding livestock feeds, as well as in making earrings, badges, toys, whistles, necklaces, bracelets and home decorations.

16 17

Besides, sales of snail shells, and greenish liquid contained in snail earns income to farmers (Cobbinah, 1993; Adetunji, 1999; Joshua et al, 1999; Paul,

2000; Okafor, 2001; Chinwuko, 2003; Wosu, 2003 & Omole et al, 2004).

So far, snails eaten in Nigeria particularly Bayelsa state, are usually combed and picked from the wild forest. According to Abowei and Sikoki

(2005), snails are however fast becoming an endangered species in the state, occasioned by the increasing encroachment of development projects such as roads, housing estates, towns, farms, bush burning, etc. and the indiscriminate combing and use of attractants and chemicals in trapping. Besides, the habitats of snails are also prone to crude oil pollution, such that soils contaminated with crude oil contains reduced exchangeable calcium, thereby becoming acidic.

Thus, snails consumed in this area could lead to calcium deficiency symptoms especially in rural children and pregnant women (Joshua & Keremah, 1996).

Consequently, the giant land snails are now becoming less available and therefore, more costly in the state. Currently, an adult snail head costs about

N60.00 in the state (Welson, 2001). No wonder, Otobo (2004) lamented that snail meat was once popular and cheap animal protein source, but recently, the price has soared to unaffordable limit for low-income earners. Wosu (2003), thus, warned that if no special concern and interest are shown now on how to farm snails, they may be no longer available to the point of extinction very probably before the end of next one or two decades.

17 18

Perhaps motivated by the anticipated income from the rising prices of snail in the state and the increased rate of consumption of snail meat, Bayelsans are now rearing the giant land snails (heliciculture), to supplement the protein requirement and bridge the aggregate protein supply-demand deficit in the state food balance sheet. Thus, heliciculture, which is the rearing of snails in captivity for man’s use, has become a highly promising option (Murphy, 2001). The act of rearing snails in a confined but suitable enclosure is known as heliciculture

(Akinyemi, Ojo & Akintomide, 2007). Tobias (2002) describes it as the science and art of breeding snails in an enclosure for man’s use while according to

Chinwuko (2003), heliciculture involves the rearing and management of snails in confinement. Heliciculture in this context thus, refers to the rearing of edible land snails in a suitable confinement with good management of its (snail) requirements, for the promotion of human welfare.

Snail rearing is a feasible venture in Bayelsa state, due to the availability of abundant seeds and broodstock, their prolificacy, cheap and readily sourced local building materials for snailery construction (Welson, 2001). Farming snail doesn’t interrupt the normal schedule of service of working with government and can easily be combined with other farming activities as well as being operated without fear of injury from the snails (Adeleke, 2006).

The snail farmers, like in other farming operations, systematically, apply several techniques; methods, systems and operations to combine varied level of inputs and transform such inputs into desired level of output. These inputs and

18 19 the different techniques, systems, methods, applied by farmers in snail production process is referred to as technology. Technology therefore is the systematic application of scientific knowledge, skills, devices, tools and implements in the process of production of materials needed by the society

(Chinwe, 2000). Ayichi (1995), described technology as those machines, equipments and implements, processes, steps and techniques applied in agricultural production, storage, processing, marketing and management.

However, in this context, technology means the systematic application of heliciculture management practices and processes and procedures in the conversion of inputs into snail products and the marketing of such products. It includes all the engineering/mechanical inputs (fence, snailery, feeders, wheelbarrow etc), chemical inputs (lime, fertilizer, disinfectant etc) and biological inputs (feeds, parent stocks, soil substrate etc) and processes and methods applied in snail production and marketing of the products.

However, there are literacy, experience, gender, location and husbandry disparities among the snail farmers in the study area. As a result of these disparities, there is need to determine whether or not literacy, experience, gender, location and husbandry systems have influence on the level of application of the snail production technologies in the study area. This is because reports abound in literature that the levels of adoption of modern agricultural technologies by literate, urban, male and commercial farmers are higher than non-literate, rural, female and subsistence counterparts. Lipper

19 20

(2001) corroboated the view that non-literate and subsistence producers with small margins of profit, seldomly undertake the risk of adopting new technologies unless it’s potential economic benefits are demonstrated beyond any doubt.

Eboh and Ogbazi (1990) lamented that the Nigerian farming population which is predominated with rural female farmers, are the hardest hit over the problems of non-availability of productivity enhancement inputs and services.

However, efforts have been made in recent times to make modern agricultural inputs and services available to farmers in large quantities but the rate of diffusion has been slow and adoption level by non-literate female peasant farmers is sub-optimal. This is due largely to poor credit facilities, low level of literacy of farmers and poor agricultural extension services (Alu & Osinem,

2006). Hence, Okonjo (1991) unequivocally concluded that in most developing countries (Nigeria inclusive), non-literate, subsistence, rural female farmers seldom benefit from the use of extension services and innovations in agriculture. From the foregoing, therefore, it becomes imperative to determine whether or not literacy, location, gender, experience and sclae of proudtion have any influence on the level of appliation of heliciculture technologies by the farmers in the study area.

Snail production, like in other fields of agriculture, entails the transformation of inputs (that are fed into the production process) into output.

Essentially, production involves the transformation of resources (inputs) into

20 21 other goods and services called output. In production, the level of output is a function of the quantities of inputs or technologies and management applied

(Nweze, 2002). Kalu (2002) thus defined productivity as a measure of the number of unit inputs that are fed into a production process and the corresponding units of output that emerges. Similarly, Arene (2002) opined that productivity is a measure of a project’s physical, technical and economic efficiency of the technologies applied and the overall viability of such project.

Productivity here means a measure of the number of unit output obtained vis-a- vis the number of unit heliciculture input used in the production process.

Therefore, a total output which outweighs the total inputs utilized in the process of snail production, was considered productive and vice versa. This implies that a harvest data was considered profitable if the total gross margin over the total overhead and depreciation costs were greater than one.

It is pertinent, however, to note that snail production has been on in

Bayelsa state for quite some time now, with the snail farmers applying varied types of technologies. There is therefore, the need to critically examine the various types/number of technologies so far applied and the corresponding unit output obtained for possible introduction of enhancement measures, hence, this study.

21 22

Statement of the Problem

The inhabitants of Bayelsa state are beset with acute food shortages, particularly protein. Suffice to say that the demand for protein has outstripped supply and consequently, the prices of sources of animal protein have soared beyond the reach of the low income earners (Steve & Nkasiobi, 2002). It was the need for good quality but cheap source of animal protein that led to increased consumption of snail meat in the state.

Snails consumed in the state, so far, are mostly combed from the wild.

Snails are however, fast becoming an endangered species in the state, occasioned by the increasing encroachment of development projects such as roads, housing, urban development, farms and the indiscriminate combing and trapping system using attractants, baits and chemicals (Steve & Nkasiobi, 2002).

Thus, snails are becoming less available and consequently more costly in the state. Welson (2005) corroborated that a large head of snail costs N100.00.

Therefore, if no special concern and interest are shown now on how to farm snail, they may be no longer available for consumption due to possible extinction in the near future.

Perhaps motivated by the increased consumption rate of snail meat and the expected income from the increasing price of snail in the state, Bayelsa farmers are now rearing snails. Interestingly, snail farming is increasingly becoming popular in the state with the farmers applying varied types/ quantities of inputs in their snail farms. Currently, there is no documented empirical

22 23 research record for use in helping the farmers to improve on their management practices in snail production. Such empirical research evidence will help to influence the fasrmers in applying different technologies in the management and probdution of snails in the state thus leading to availability of snail products in the study area. With the growing interest of farmers in snail production in the state, there is the need to obtain data on technologies applied, costs and income of the enterprise as well as constraints. Such data will inform the content of farmer education and consequently improve this area of food production through agricultural extension education activities. It becomes imperative, therefore, that this investigation be conducted.

Purpose of the Study

The overall purpose of the study is to ascertain the level of application of heliciculture technologies by farmers, thir productivity, constraints and strategies for improvement.

Specifically, the study sought to:

1. determine the level of application of technologies by snail farmers in site

preparation;

2. access the level of application of technologies in stocking snail;

3. examine the extent of application of technologies by the farmers in feed

management;

23 24

4. determine the extent of application of technologies in controlling pests and

diseases;

5. ascertain the level of application of technologies by the farmers in marketing of snail products;

6. determine the respective rates of input application for snail farming;

7. detemrine the corresponding cost of the inputs;

8. evaluate the productivity of farmers in snail production; 9. identify the constraints of farmers in snail production and 10. identify the measures for enhancing farmers’ productivity, as perceived by the farmers and extension agents.

Significance of the Study

It is hoped that the findings of this study will be beneficial to snail farmers, agricultural extension agents, state government, non-governmental agencies,

Curriculum planners/Agric. teachers, policy makers in the Ministry of

Agriculture as well as researchers. Specifically, the findings of the study will provide useful information on the available snail production technologies as well as the level of application of such technologies by the farmers. The findings will also provide information on the rate of input application and the cost of the inputs. These results obtained from the study will be made available to agricultural extension agents/farmer education personnel through publications, seminars, conferences and workshops. This data will thus serve as a guide to snail farmers including prospective ones in making sound investment

24 25 decisions on the choice of technologies to apply, rate of input application and least cost inputs to procure.

Similarly, the findings of the study will provide information on the level of the productivity of farmers in terms of yield and net profit. While this information if made available to snail farmers will be useful to them for future investment decisions, prospective farmers will need such data to decide on whether or not to engage in heliciculture.

Information on the level of productivity of the farmers will also be useful to the state government and non-governmental agencies in making decisions to provide funds for research, agric extension and subsidies to snail farmers for the development of snail production in the State.

The findings of the study will provide information on farmers’ constraints and improvement measures. This information will be a veritable tool to the state extension service to educate farmers using the identified measures in other to improve heliciculture programmes and projects. It will also assist State

Government and NGOs to develop extension education programmes on snail production. Such intensification of the extension service, will apparently lead to successful establishment of more snail farms, enhance farmers’ productivity; and ultimately improve farmers socio-economic status, there-from.

Consequently, it will supplement the protein requirement and bridge the aggregate protein supply-demand deficit in the state food balance sheet.

25 26

The findings of the study will also be useful to curriculum planners to improve the content of the curriculum at various levels of educational system.

Agric. teachers will then use the improved curriculum as a guide in establishing snail farms as school demonstration farms to arouse students’ interest as well as enable them acquire heliciculture competencies for entrepreneurship, on graduation.

The findings of the study will be useful to policy makers in Ministry of

Agriculture to formulate good heliciculture policies in the state. The findings will also be a source of advisory tool to policy makers to guide government on heliciculture investment decisions.

The findings of the study will also be of immense benefit to researchers and subject matter specialists. The identified constraints of snail farmers that may seem intractable to be treated by the extension agents, will be conveyed via the agents to challenge the ingenuity of researchers/subject matter specialists.

Possible solutions proffered there from, will inform measures for enhancing farmers’ productivity. The findings of the study will also form a good base for further studies for prospective researchers.

Research Questions

The study sought to answer the following questions:

(1). What is the level of application of technologies in site preparation by snail

farmers in Bayelsa State?

26 27

(2). What is the level of aplication of technologies in stocking by the farmers?

(3). What is the extent of adoption of technologies in snail feed management by

the farmers?

(4). What is the extent of application of technologies in the control of pests and

diseases of snail?

(5). To what extent are technologies applied in harvesting and marketing of

snail products by snail farmers?

(6). What are the respective rates of input application for snail farming?

(7). What are the corresponding cost of the inputs?

(8). What is the productivity of farmers in snail production?

(9). What are the constraints of farmers in snail production?

(10).What are the measures, as perceived by farmers and agricultural extension

agents, for enhancing farmers’ productivity in snail production?

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of significance.

Ho1: There is no significant difference between the mean ratings of non-literate and literate snail farmers on the level of application of site preparation technologies.

Ho2: There is no significant difference between the mean ratings of female and male snail farmers on the level of application of stocking technologies.

27 28

Ho3: There is no significant difference between the mean ratings of inexperienced and experienced snail farmers on the level of application of feed management technologies.

Ho4: There is no significant difference between the mean scores of rural and urban snail farmers on the level of application of pests, and diseases control technologies.

Ho5: There is no significant difference between the mean scores of non-literate and literate snail farmers on the level of application of marketing technologies.

Ho6: There is no significant difference between the mean scores of subsistence and commercial snail farmers on the constraints of farmers in snail production.

Ho7: There is no significant difference between the mean scores of farmers and extension agents on the measures for enhancing farmers’ productivity.

Scope of the Study

The study was delimited to determining the level of application of snail production technologies by the farmers, rate of input application/corresponding cost of the inputs, farmers’ productivity and the factors that affects productivity in Bayelsa State.

28 29

Limitations of the Study

The study primarily focussed on stragegies for enhancing the productivity of snail farmers at the expense of teacher education since the study was housed in education (Agricultural Education unit). Indeed, emphases were laid on farmer education, in a bid to improve this area of food production with little concern on agricultural education. It was on this premise, the researcher suggested that

‘snail production competency needs of teachers of agricultural science in schools” be conducted, as further research.

The study was also faced with a choice between the various methods of depreciation for its different types of fixed assests. Although, the study finally adopted the straight-line method because the asset provided equal benefits to each accounting period under investigation nevertheless, a combination of methods (reducing balance, straight-line and machine hour method) would have been more fair in allocating the changes between different accounting periods.

It is interesting to note, however, that the limitations does not affect the fidelity and generalisability of the findings of the study.

29 30

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter was concerned with the review of related literature and it was organized under the following sub-headings:

Conceptual Framework of the Study:

• Meaning, Development and Values of Helicicuture.

• Taxonomy and Biology of African giant land snail (Archachatina

marginata).

• Snailery Types and Heliciculture husbandry Systems.

• Technology Types and Snail Production

• Constraints and Prospects of Snail Production.

• Measures for Enhancing Farmers’ Productivity.

Theoretical Framework of the Study:

• Theory of production.

• Theory of Cost and Revenue.

Related Empirical Studies.

Summary of Review of Related Literature.

30 18 31

Concept of Heliciculture

Prehistoric sites have uncovered piles of gastropod molluscs spiral shell, indicating that snails were popular in the circum-Mediterranean region. From intensive archaeological studies, it was discovered that edible helicid species that were largest in size, predominates the archaeological sites, hence, the nomenclature heliciculture. Heliciculture, is derived from two main words:

“helicid and culture”. Helicid refers to the large edible genus with suture or spiral rings most often found in archaeological excavations, to which major species of European origin belong while “culture” is a Latin word meaning cultivation. Literally, therefore, heliciculture means cultivation of helicid species. However, the concept has a wider spectrum, today (Lubell, 2004).

Heliciculture is the rearing of edible land snails in an enclosure with the provision of optimum snail requirements for enhancing snail’s productivity

(Chinwuke, 2003).

According to Thompson (1996), heliciculture involves the organized production of edible land snails in a proper enclosed area, under complete controlled environmental conditions, for the promotion of human welfare. The husbandry practices range from the propagation of the seed (snails) under complete human control to the manipulation of the terrestrial factors of the environment, for the purpose of enhancing maximum productivity. Similarly,

Paul (2000) stated that heliciculture entails the husbandry of stocks of edible

31 32 terrestrial snails in a well-fenced area with careful and skilful management of the environmental conditions in which the snails are farmed.

Commenting on the expediency for farming snails, Adeleke (2006) lamented the reduction of snails in the wild as a result of the increasing encroachment of development projects such as roads, housing estates, farms, towns and the indiscriminate combing and use of chemical attractants in trapping. Hence, Wosu (2003) advised that special concern and interest should be shown now to farm snails in order to supplement the protein requirement.

Nonetheless, Omole et al. (2004) argued that the evolutionary transition of snail combing to snail farming, though is a sustainable development index, is not without difficulty, particularly in the early stages and more often than not, substantial investments of time, labour and money are required for the management.

In consonance with this view, Welson (2001), remarked that snail husbandry requires technological skills and methods of producing the stocks for stocking and raising them while management of the snail environment requires skills and methods of manipulating the factors of the snail farm, with a view to enhancing optimum environmental conditions favourable to the survival and productivity of the farmed stock. Welson (2001) also stressed that the management practices call for a sound knowledge of the terrestrial habitat and requirements of the cultivated snails and consequently, a sound knowledge of a broad spectrum of many disciplines. It implies from the foregoing that the

32 33 productivity of snail farming hinges on good establishment and management practices as against snail hunting.

With patience, good management and careful integration into existing farming activities, snail farming will bring substantial reward in the long run.

Development of Heliciculture

Snails are soft-bodied animals consisting of shell and body. They are widely distributed all over the world. There is no gain saying the fact that some species of snails are naturally restricted to the temperate region of the world

(e.g. Helix aspersa, Cepaea nemoralis) while others are seen predominantly in the tropical region of the world (e.g. Achatina fulica, Limicolaria martensiana,

Eobama species). Some live in water (e.g. Lymnae natalensis, planorbis species,

Bulinus species, physopsis species) whereas others on land. Such species include; Achatina species, Eobama species, Otala species, Erema species and

Limicolaria species. Others classifications are based on size, hence, the giant land snail (Achatina and Archarchatina species) that is prevalent in East and

West Africa. Moderate sized snails, Helix species are prevalent in Europe and

Middle East. The dwarf sized snails, Eobama species and Otala species are prevalent in Morocco and Algeria while Erema species and Limicolaria species are prevalent in Egypt and Nigeria, respectively (Chinwuko, 2003).

From time immemorial, edible snails have had a place upon the menu in various European countries. The land snails were often abundant in late

33 34

Pleistocene and early to mid-Holocene archaeological deposits throughout the circum-Mediterranean region (Lubell, 2004). The most spectacular examples were the capsian escargotieres of Eastern Algeria and Southern Tunisia, but archaeological sites containing abundant land snail shells that represent food debris are known elsewhere in the Maghreb, Cantabria, Pyrenees, southern

France, Italy, south-eastern Europe, Cyprus, Levant and the Zagros region,

Ukraine and Cyrenaica (Murphy, 2001). This view is in line with the report of

Thompson (1996), who affirmed that roasted snail shells have been found in archaeological excavations, an indication that snails have been eaten since prehistoric times.

Lubell (2004) reported that in Iberomaurusian sites, the land snails occur in dense deposits within caves and rock shelters while capsian sites were more commonly open-air mounds, although numerous rock shelters were also recorded. The common components of almost all capsian sites were the enormous numbers of whole and crushed land snails which led francophone archaeologists to call them “escargotieres”, whose quantities of unbroken shells were estimated to be on the order of 25000 shells/m2. This is because their abundance in the site was attributable to the humid and favourable climatic conditions therein.

Snail culture, however, is believed to have originated in Tarquinium, a

Tuscan city not far fetched from Rome at about 50 BC where “A Virginia farmer” Fulvius Hirpinus first instituted snail preserves (Murphy, 2001). There

34 35 the snails were kept in enclosure and fed on grain meal and boiled wine until fat enough to eat. A combination of careful breeding, selection and feeding, satisfactory results were obtained.

In support of this view, Thompson (1996) maintained that in ancient Rome, snails were fattened up in “cochlear” gardens before they were eaten.

Okafor (2001) reported that during the expansion of the Roman Empire, snail culture was introduced into the countries that came under its control. In

Switzerland and in the provinces bordering on the Danube, snail farming was practised during the middle ages. From Ulm, in the Swabian Alps 10,000,000 snails were sent annually down the Danube to Vienna and the Austrian convents, where they were eaten under the name of fish during lent. They often ate snails during lent, and in a few places, they consumed large quantities of snails at Mardi Gras or carnival, as a forestay in lent (Thompson, 1996).

Simpson (1990) lamented that with the ultimate demise of the cheap water transport, snail market gradually lost it’s fame, but the industry still persisted through many small snail farmers until a sure market was found in France during the later part of the eighteenth century.

Murphy (2001) disclosed that the introduction of snail as a source of animal protein in France was rather in a haphazard manner. Murphy narrated how French wine merchants went to Burgundy each year on buying trips and had to stay at the local inns where they were frequently served snails that had been gathered from the surrounding vineyards. This, to them was an unusual but

35 36 savoury dish and was commended by the merchants when they returned to their homes in Paris. Enough interest was gradually aroused to the point where one of the coaches that travelled between Auxerre and Paris hired to bring the first baskets of snail to the markets of the French capital (Simpson, 1990). About

1850, the trades in Burgundy of snails were greatly increased with the advent of the railroad, for they could now be transported greater distance while still fresh.

The snails also arrived via the confines of freight that originated from the many

European countries. In this way new markets were developed in France, Italy and Spain. Snail farms now exist in almost every country in the world (Lubell,

2004).

In Africa, the feasibility of farming the giant land snail was demonstrated by a number of researchers in the early 1970s (Ojoye, Ajala & Meludu, 2004).

Snails have been raised in small pens in many areas within the sub-region and currently, in Ghana and Co’te d’Ivoire, where a major campaign to promote snail farming both as a backyard activity to supplement household income and protein supply as well as large scale commercial activity are carried out

(Okafor, 2001). In Nigeria, snail production especially through hunting has been going on for generations at subsistence level. Modern snail culture practices started fairly recently in Nigeria around 1980, when Federal snail organization at Lagos constructed a pilot farm at Onikan, where a few local species were tried (Chinwuko, 2003). In response to a request by the Federal Government,

36 37 the development of snail culture was initiated in the Niger Delta Area in 1986 by Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO, 2002).

Welson (2001) reported that there were about 50 snail farms with effective soil surface areas of about 40 hectares scattered all over the country.

There has since been a steady growth in the number of snail farms throughout the federation. The current number of snail farms in Nigeria are difficult to quantify due to paucity of information.

From the foregoing, therefore, land snails represent evidence for prehistoric human diet. Given their geographical distribution and time frame, these sites where the snails were abundant, have something to do with changes that took place as human groups underwent the transition from foraging to food production-sometime known as the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition or broad spectrum Revolution (Lubell, 2004).

Values of Heliciculture

Snail meat has been eaten by man across the globe since prehistoric time.

Land snails are often very abundant in late Pleistocene and early-mid Holocene sites throughout the Mediterranean region and elsewhere. In the vast majority of cases, they represent evidence for prehistoric human diet (Lubell, 2004). In

Nigeria, for instance, snail meat is good for plantains pepper soup, the Japanese consumed it with Soya sauce while snail were avidly consumed in Belgium

Congo, where they were served to Europeans as a delicacy (Wosu, 2003).

37 38

Cobbinah (1993) accounted that in France, the annual requirement is about 5 million kg, over 60% of which is imported. The estimated annual consumption in Italy is 306 million snails, while in Co’te d’Ivore an estimated

7.9 million kg are eaten annually. A variety of land snail species have found their way into the menu list of food canteens and restaurants of Spain, Portugal,

Netherlands and many Asian countries.

In Europe and Spain, over 600 million land snails are consumed annually. In

Nigeria, it is axiomatic that demand for snail meat outstrips supply despite the unavailability of consumption figures (Okafor, 2001).

The nutritional value of snail is mainly attached to its high protein content. Paul (2000) reported that snails have a fairly high moisture content of about 80-84% with an energy value of about 80 kca/g. Paul further buttressed that snail meat is high in protein (12-16%) and iron (45-50 mg/kg), low in fat

(0.05-0.8%), sodium and cholesterol but contains almost all the amino acids needed by human.

The methionine content of the snail is low but the arginine, leucine, tryptophan and lysine contents are higher than that of fowl egg, thus, snails may be of special value in diet low in these amino acids since the content in snail is about one-third more than that of whole egg (Okafor, 2001). Yet, the ash is very rich in minerals, iron, potassium and other trace elements like magnesium, manganese, zinc and copper (Wosu, 2003).

38 39

In a similar development, sales of either mature or juvenile snails earn income to many families, and more so, snail shells are rich source of calcium for poultry and when gathered in larger quantities, command good prices.

Chinwuko (2003) found that the greenish liquid contained in snails is a highly potent medicine. So, it is extracted and sold in bottles at high prices to users.

Snail farmers with their wealth of practical farming experiences, get additional income through training and consultancy services offered to prospective farmers.

Besides local demand, there is a growing international trade in snails with

France playing a central role (Cobbinah, 1993). Some of the snails imported into France are processed and exported to other European countries or to North

America. The USA alone imports about US $200 million worth of snails annually. Other important markets are Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Canada,

Switzerland, Japan, Sweden, Australia, Denmark, and South Africa. Among the major suppliers to these markets are Greece, Turkey, Rumania, Algeria, Tunisia,

Thailand and China (Paul, 2000).

Helix species are supplied by most countries while Thailand and China supply

Achatina achatina. The snails are supplied fresh, frozen or canned. The African species fetch about one-third of the price of the European species mainly because of food habit and feeding culture. However, recent studies conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the United Kingdom have shown that juvenile Achatina, instead of adult snails, are meatier and more

39 40 tender than the more favoured European species and it is hoped that this finding will increase demand for the African species (Wosu, 2003)

In a related development, Thompson (1996) opined that heliciculture helps in the production of snail/snailery products to support export trade or import substitution which are considered necessary for the overall balancing of the country’s economy.

In support of this view, Murphy (2001), disclosed that U.S exported 123,109 kg of live, fresh snails valued at $595,000 in 1993. In 1994, she (U.S) exported

62,999 kg of chilled and frozen snails valued at $275,000 while in 1995 her export was 13,917 kg valued at $55,000. In same year (1995), Japan,

Netherlands and United Kingdom exported 324 kg valued at $27,000, 9036 kg for $22,000 and 1361 kg valued at $4,000 respectively.

Apart from routine consumption of snails as food, they are also consumed as a natural and dietary therapy. In agreement with this view, Okafor (2001) argued that snails are not only considered as a delicacy but also a natural and dietary therapy as it is evidenced by using Achatina to treat hypertension, conjectivities, habitual abortion, diabetes, and iron deficiency anaemia.

Joshua et al (1999), reported that orthocalcium phosphate extract from snails could cure kidney disease, tuberculosis, anaemia, diabetes, asthma and certain circulatory disorders.

According to Awah (2000), snails are rich sources of iron and have been recommended for use in the treatment of iron deficiency anaemia. The slimy

40 41 mucus secretions of snail when mixed with other substances are used as therapy for asthma, eczema, skin rashes, swells, burns, insect bites, and heart palpitation

(Adetunji, 1999). Musicians/singers need it for good voice maintenance

(Tobias, 2002). The slime is used also as part of the concoction that is believed to confer invisibility on people, usually warriors, wrestlers and hunters (Okafor,

2001). The fluid substance in snail is used for reducing pains associated with baby circumcision and tribal mark (Adeleke, 2006).

Chinwuko (2003) also found that the bluish liquid obtained from the shell when the meat has been removed is believed to be good for infants’ development. The meat and water used in boiling Limicolaria are used to cure infantile whooping cough. Eating snail meat helps to reduce hemorrhoids migraine, stroke and heart failure (Adeleke, 2006).

At the imperial court in Rome, snail meat was thought to contain aphrodisiac properties and was often served to visiting dignitaries in the late evening

(Cobbinah, 1993). Paul (2000), observed that the glandular substances from edible snails cause agglutination of certain bacteria: this could be of value against a variety of ailments, including whooping cough.

In 1999, Adetunji suggested the use of snails for preparing culture media for bacteriological studies.

Heliciculture plays an important role in integrated rural sustainable development by creating employment opportunities for rural dwellers. Hence, prevents rural-urban drift, as well as increasing the income level and ultimately

41 42 the living standards of the ruralites; all of which provide the foundation for other sustainable rural development undertakings. In line with this view,

Murphy (2001), revealed that about .666 workers per hectare were employed in

Greece, Turkey and Romania.

In a similar finding, Murphy (2001) reported that Helix species is a source of income and employment to heliciculture entrepreneurs in Europe, Italy, France,

Yugoslavia and Romania under rather socio-economic conditions, whereas

Achatina achatina play the same role to Thailand and China.

In 2000, Awah pointed out that heliciculture has produced snail seedlings for replenishing and improving natural stocks of snail in the wild, through artificial recruitment and transplantation.

It is also responsible for the production of industrial snailery products and raw materials such as the shell for compounding livestock feeds and making ornament artistic decoration of houses. The Achatina shells are crushed and used as bone meal in poultry and livestock feed industry and also as fertilizer

(Okafor, 2001). The shells are also used for making rings, button, cup, earrings

(e.g. Turbo snail species), cameos production (e.g. red sea snail species), badges for chiefs in Fiji (e.g. golden cowries), toys-whistles, necklaces, and bracelets for asthetics/tourists especially from Europe (Wosu, 2003). The shell is used as a mark-of-forbidden when tied to economic tree, land and across a lane as well as mark of disgrace and discipline when tied around the neck of a thief. It serve the purpose of scare-crow against bird pests in rice farms while the small shells

42 43 are used as lawn against muddy and dusty grounds around surroundings. Many species of snails especially the small size species are used as fish baits (Hamzat et al; 2004).

Snail is used as a pet animal, as both children and others are fascinated by some of the behaviours of snails. The harmless nature of the snails encourages children to watch and delight in the manner in which it moves and retracts into its shell when touched (Joshua & Keremah, 1999).

It has been contended that snails offers the possibility of utilizing otherwise unproductive resources and recycling of organic waste thereby, improving soil fertility (Welson, 2001). This view is in agreement with the findings of Okafor

(2001), who affirmed that the ecology of these snails show that in addition to preferring soils rich in calcium and bicarbonates, they are mostly litter inhabitants. Thus, their role as bioconverters of litter energy also ensures that they as well serve as bioaccumulators of essential mineral substances for use in higher trophic levels. For example, dustbine, swampy areas that had been considered unproductive and wasted lands, have been prepared and used judiciously and advantageous in the raising of edible giant land snail.

It is interesting to note that advantages of heliciculture over other livestock production abounds. For instance:

• Snail farming has minimal risk, stress and time relative to other livestock;

• It gives a better return on investment with small inputs;

• It can be reared in very small space of land;

43 44

• Feeding is cheap and feeding materials are locally available;

• It does not interrupt the normal schedule of service of working with

government; hence, can be reared as part/full time business;

• It is easy to combine with other farming activities;

• It is docile, thus easy to operate without fear of injury;

• It is noiseless, odourless and without irritation and therefore

environmentally friendly;

• It is easily done in an urban setting with little or no side effect to the

environment;

• The climate in the southern Nigeria is ideal for snail farming, hence, it

has comparative advantages and

• It is highly prolific, thus, has the ability to lay several times over a period

after a single mating (Hodasi, 1998; Adeleke, 2006 & Joledo, 2007).

Although, the contributions made by heliciculture, especially in the developing courtiers like Nigeria, are quite negligible, but with continuous organisation of workshops, seminars, researches and subsequent improvement on heliciculture programmes, it is hoped that heliciculture will contribute significantly to the socio-economic development of the nation.

44 45

Taxonomy of Edible Land Snails

Most edible land snails are pulmonate molluscs. The phylum Mollusca is one of the three largest phyla of the animal kingdom. It comprises the second largest invertebrate phylum. In number, the molluscs are second only to the

Arthropods (Akinnusi, 1998).

Most pulmonates are thought to have evolved from mesogatropod ancestors, which lived in shallow water habitats subjected to frequent periodic reductions in the volume of water. The pulmonata is a group of gastropods and is united with another group – the opisthobranchia to form a higher group known as Eughthyneura (Paul, 2000). According to Okafor (2001), Eulhyneury means symmentry of the nervous system. Okafor further explained that in the pulmonates, a shell is present and the visceral hump is coiled but the visceral loop is shortened and untwisted. They have lost the structure called ctenidium (a form of gill) but they retain a single auricle.

Mollusca is the biological name given to an assortment of organisms which includes slugs, clams, squids, oysters and snails. The phylum mollusca

(Okafor, 2001) consists of eight classes namely: (a) Aplacophora ( b)

Polyplacophora (c) Scaphopoda (d) Monoplacophora (e) Amphineura (f)

Cephalopoda (g) Lammellibranchia (h) Gastropoda.

During the evolutionary development of mollusc, through many million years, these groups developed distinctively. Each has a very distinctive set of characteristics that sets it off from the other major classes. Four of these classes

45 46 are referred to as ‘minor classes’ and they live exclusively in the sea. These include the rare class Aplacophora, which are worm-like and are covered by microscopic scales. It also includes the polyplacophora (see fig. 4), which contains about 500 species of chitons-snail like creatures with eight shell plates held together by a leathery border or girdle. There is the scaphopoda (tusk-shell)

(see fig 5), which contains about 300 species of the tusk shells which are open at each end and rarely exceed a length of 5cm. Rarest among these classes is the monoplacophora (Neopilinas), a group of strange limpet like molluscs that have some parts of their bodies duplicated in segments similar to those of worms as shown in fig 6.

The class Amphineura are simple, sluggish, nearly sessile bilaterally symmetrical marine mollusks. The body is somewhat elongated and much flattened from above to below and the shell consists of eight articulated plates arranged one behind the other (Akinnuisi, 1998). The class cephalopoda (head- foot) consists of the chambered Nautilus, squids and octopus (see figs. 7 & 8).

46 47

CHITON DENTALIUM NEOPILINA (POLYPLACOPHORA) (SCAPHOPODA) (MONOPLACOPHORA) Fig. 4. Fig. 5 . Fig. 6 .

NAUTILUS DONAX (CEPHALOPODA) OCTOPUS (LAMELLIBRANCHIA) Fig. 7 . (CEPHALOPODA) Fig. 9 . Fig. 8 .

TYMPANOTONUS (GASTROPOD) A. marginata Fig. 10 . (GASTROPOD) Fig. 11 .

47 48

They are the most advanced and active molluscs bearing eight or more arms with many circular suckers. There are about 1000 species and all live in the sea.

Akinyemi, Ojo and Akintomide (2007) disclosed that class lamellibrachia (or

Bivalves) are characterized by the presence of two interlocking shelly valves and the hatchet shaped foot as shown in fig. 9. This class contains about 10,000 species of clams, mussles, cockles and various species of oysters. The commonest examples on African water include Aspatharia, Anadara. These fresh water mussels are common and have a ‘mother of pearl’ interior surface.

The class gastropoda, (see figs. 10 & 11) have univalves and include species of snails, whelks, limpets and slugs. They are characterized by having a distinct head bearing tentacles, eyes and creeping foot. Most species produce a single coiled shell. Snails are found in the sea, brackish or freshwater habitats.

A comprehensive classification of the edible land snails is shown in figure 12.

48 49

Figure 12: Classification of Edible Land Snail.

Kingdom: Animalia

Phylum: Mollusca

Class: Gastropoda

Pulmonata Sub-class:

Stylommatophora Order:

Helicidae Achatinidae Family:

Helix Cepaea Otala Theba Achatina Archachatina

Genus: A.achatina A.calachatina H.pomatia C.hortensis O.vermiculata T.pisana A.fulica A.dengneri H.aspersa C.nemoralis O.lactea A.balteata A.ventricosa H.aperta Species: A.monochromatica

The pulmonata consists of about 20,000 species which live on land, but some have secondarily gone back to freshwater, pulmonates are subdivided into

49 50 two orders: (a) Bassommatophora (b) Stylommatophora. All stylommatophora live on land. They have two pairs of invaginable tentacles. One pair of eyes are placed at the tip of one of the tentacles. Most edible land snails belong to this group and they comprise many genera, each made up of different species. The most commonly eaten snails in Nigeria belong to the genera: Limicolaria,

Archachatina, and Achatina but Archachatina marginata (Swainson) and

Achatina achatina are frequently sold in the market (Okafor, 2001).

Four species of Achatina are of interest as they are very common, namely

– A. achatina, A. fulica, A. balteata (Recue) and A. monochromatica (Risburg) while Archachatina has two species in Nigeria namely: Archachatina

(Calachatina) marginata (Swainson) and Archachatina marginata ovum. Other species include Archachatina degneri (Bequaert and clench) and Archachatina ventricosa (Gould). However, Achatina achatina, Achatina fulica and

Archachatina marginata, (see figs.1,2,3) have the advantages of high adaptability and survivability, are fleshier, highly prolific and hardy, in addition to their being abundant in Nigeria and along the African coast (Akinyemi, Ojo

& Akintomide, 2007).

Wosu (2003) described that Achatina achtina has broadly ovate and sub lobular shell with regular conical spin apex. The shell has characteristics wary, dark streaks on a light brownish or yellowish vertical background while the fleshy part is dark-brown in colour that is softer than A. marginata. Old mature

50 51 ones could weigh 600g. It lays between 1-2 times yearly and lays between 150-

450 eggs per clutch with tiny eggs weighing between 0.3-0.7gm each.

The Achatina fulica (see fig. 2) has narrow shell at the posterior and it is small in size. The shell is light brown in colour while the fleshy part is whitish to dark-brown that is softer than A. marginata and A. achatina. Mature adults weigh between 20-35g. Achatina fulcia lays between 1-2 times per year and lays between 10-15 eggs per clutch with small eggs weighing between 0.6-1.4g. It has low economic value compared to A. marginata and A. achatina (Adeleke,

2006).

According to Okafor (2001), the shell of Archachatina marginata (see fig.

3) is wide with bulbous or dome-shaped apex. The shell has numerous chestnuts to pale brown streaks, zigzag lines or blotches. Mature adults weigh between

600-800gm. A. marginata lays between 3-4 times yearly and between 4-16 eggs per clutch which weighs between 2-5g. It is the most numerous of the edible land snails in the southern Nigeria and majority of snail farmers in the study area, are rearing it, thus A. marginata is the main focus of the study.

Chinwuko (2003), revealed that the first pulmonate land snails appeared on earth in the carboniferous era having evolved from operculate prosobranchs. Besides the aforementioned African examples, other common genera of land snails includes: partula, Retinella, Polygyra, Helix, Bulimus, Homorus, Limicolariopsis, Lamellaxis, Macrochlemys, Gonaxis, Cepaea, Aphysia, Derocerus, Zonitoides. However, the well researched and farmed species in Europe is Helix aspera which in addition to other helicids make up 80% of the

51 52 edible snails found in Europe; while the other snail species Arianta arbustorum is commonly farmed for their meat (Akinnusi, 1998).

Biology of African Giant Land Snail (Archachatina marginata)

A snail consists of two parts when in motion, the flesh soft body and the rigid hard shell. The body is divided into three parts; the conspicuous anterior head, long ventral muscular foot and the visceral mass. The head of a snail bears two pairs of non-identical retractile tentacles. The posterior pair of tentacle is longer with eyes at the tip, which consist of cornea, lens and retina whose function, is for light perception. The anterior pair of the tentacle is smaller in size than the longer posterior pair of tentacles, and it is believed to be chemosensory and olfactory in function.

Okafor (2001) noted that the long, muscular foot occupied almost the entire ventral surfaces. There is a shallow longitudinal groove along the centre of the foot. The muscular foot is for locomotion and snail moves by creeping or gliding slowly by moves of muscular action on the ventral side of the foot, over a “slimy tract” of mucus secreted by large pedal gland below the mouth. On the right side of the snail, the genital pore opens besides the head, while the snail anus and large respiratory pore open in the soft mantle margin at the edge of the shell.

Commenting on the texture and colour of snail skin, Chinwuko (2003) disclosed that snail skin is moist, slippery on touching and elastic to permit

52 53 locomotion. Chinwuko noted, however, that there are skin colour variations which ranges from black creamy colour through dark brown glistening colour to light brown colour. Albinism depicts a golden glistening yellow colour in lieu of normal colour. The soil type contributes in a lesser degree to this colour variation.

The shell is a calcareous concave cone, coiled clockwise in three or four whorls. It accounts for about 34% of the total weight, which is impregnated with

98% calcium carbonate (Ekwueme, 1993). The size and thickness of the shell, hinges on the species, age, as well as availability of mineral such as calcium in the feed. Variations in shell colour and markings are species and age dependent.

Chinwuko (2003) revealed the colour of 35 adult Archatina as thus:

(a) Wavy black colour with yellow marking.

(b) Wavy dark brown colour with yellow stripes.

(c) Wavy light brown colour with yellow and white stripes.

Among the juvenile snail less than six months of age, Wosu (2003) observed that the shell colour is light brown without yellow stripes.

Functionally, the shell offers protection to the visceral mass and muscular part as well as provision of sites for the attachment of columella muscle. The contraction of this muscle draws the entire body into the shell when snail is disturbed.

It is a general believed that the age of some species of snail corresponds with or is reflected on the number of suture rings it has on its shell, meaning that

53 54 each ring corresponds to one year. But after three rings, which correspond to three years, aging becomes distorted and difficult. However, in Archatina species, the number of suture rings crossing the dorsum of the shell are between two and four in the young snail, aged six to eight months. In adults, that is one year and above, it is between four and six (Paul, 2000; Okafor, 2001; Welson,

2001 & Chinwuko, 2003).

Ademolu et al. (2004) observed that most of the soft delicate structures of snail are contained in the visceral mass (visceral hump), which is housed in the shell above the foot. The visceral mass is hump-shaped and the skin over it secretes a large calcareous shell. The visceral mass contains major organs of digestive, reproductive, respiratory, circulatory, nervous and excretory systems.

The digestive system or alimentary canal of snail is a system through which ingested food gets digested and absorbed as it moves along the canal.

Murphy (2001) explained that the mouth is a transverse slip located anteriorly with a dorsal and ventral lip that is used for feed apprehension as well as burrowing into the soil for egg laying and relaxation. The mouth leads into the buccal cavity in whose roof lies a transverse cartilaginous horney jaw bar while in the floor lies the buccal mass. The buccal mass is term given to the radula, odontophore and the muscles, which control its movement. Murphy explained further that attached to the upper surface of the odontophores is the radula, which is a microscopic rasping organ and bears transverse rows of very numerous recurved teeth formed of chitin and hardened protein. The radula can

54 55 be moved backward and forward against an upper jaw bar and used as a file to tear-off pieces of food materials, which it can also carry into the gut. As it is used, the radula is continually worn away and gradually replaced by growth from a radula sac in which it originates. The salivary glands are located besides the crop and their ducts open into the anterior end of the oesophagus. The saliva of a snail is watery mucus, which also contains diastatic enzymes (Ebenso &

Okafor, 2002).

According to Ekwueme (1993), the buccal cavity opens into a narrow oesophagus, which widens out to form the crop. The crop contains brown fluid derived from the digestive gland. This fluid contains a whole series of enzymes including a cytase or cellulose splitting enzymes, which digests plant cell walls and liberates their content. The stomach that is closely surrounded by a large digestive gland follows the crop. The gland is brown in colour and forms packing around most of the organs of the visceral lump. The digestive gland opens into the stomach and consists of a mass of branching tubules ending blindly in clusters of cells. Chinwuko (2003) identified three of such cells notably:

(i) Cells, which secrete the enzymes responsible for extra-cellular digestion.

(ii) Cells, which take in food particles by the action of cilia on the walls of the

tubules and digest them intra-cellularly after previous digestion has taken

place in the crop, as well as absorbing soluble products of digestion.

55 56

(iii) Cells which secrete calcium carbonate and calcium hydroxide which

neutralize organic acid in the food materials as well as help to digest the

feed materials to absorbable level.

An intestine, from the stomach runs a coiled course to join the rectum whose opening is the anus. Absorption of digested food takes place in the intestine.

The undigested food then moves to the rectum and gets eliminated through the anus (Wosu, 2003).

Thompson (1996) pointed out that the anus, which is the excretory system of snail, consist of a single kidney whose main part is a yellow coloured sac with folded glandular walls that secretes uric acid. The kidney drains from the pericardial cavity around the heart and discharges into a narrow ureter, which runs a course paralleled to and just above the rectum ending in a pore just above the anus.

Snail possesses a characteristic type of blood, which contains the respiratory pigment known as haemocyanin that is distinctly blue in colour.

Okafor (2001) found that snail heart consists of a single auricle and a ventricle lying in the pericardial cavity near the left side of the mantle cavity. The auricle receives oxygenated blood from the mantle cavity through the pulmonary vein and from the general surface of the body and pumps it into the ventricle and immediately gives up branches which are:

(i) Anterior aorta supplying the anterior part of the body and then passes

ventrally as the pedal artery.

56 57

(ii) Posterior aorta, which runs to the visceral hump.

These main arteries, branch repeatedly but do not form capillaries, instead they empty into haemococele. Hamzat, Omole, Oredein & Longe (2004) reported that the haemococele is a space into which artery branches empty blood, which is also drained by two circular veins, one above and the other below the lung. It is from these veins that the vessels in the roof of the lung receive their blood supply and then return it to the auricle. According to Ebenso

(2003), blood circulation is an open type in that during part of its journey round the body, the blood is contained in haemococele and bath various organs during which exchange of oxygen, nutrients and metabolites takes place. The driving forces of blood circulation in snail are provided by two sources via: (i) the beating action of the heart (ii) the body muscular contraction and relaxation, which alter the shapes of the head and foot and hence, affects the distribution of the blood (Okafor, 2001).

Snail respires air just like vertebrates. Although land snails renew the air in their lungs at fairly frequent intervals, breathing is not as regular or as frequent as vertebrates (Wilbur & Younge, 1996). The respiratory system consists of mantle (pulmonary) cavity and blood. Mantle cavity is a highly vascularized air-breathing lung where large quantities of blood come in contact with air. Ventilation mechanisms play a vital role in bringing air into the mantle cavity. However, in the absence of ventilation, air comes in to the surface of mantle cavity by simple diffusion. Owing to the large surface area of the cavity,

57 58 the diffusion that occurs with only slight difference in oxygen pressure is inadequate for respiration. Calculation of pressure difference across the respiratory epithelium in the air breathing pulmonate snails indicates that values as low as 2 mmhg are enough for gaseous exchange to take place (Wilbur &

Younge, 1996). Okafor (2001) revealed that although the oxygen uptake in land snails usually takes place through the lung, there is reason to believe that a considerable proportion of oxygen is absorbed through the skin. Cutaneous uptake depends upon permeability of the skin to oxygen and upon a lower gas tension in the blood and tissue than that of the external medium.

Explaining the breathing mechanism, Wosu (2003) disclosed that snails display a peculiar type of respiratory mechanism different from other animals.

The mechanism is such that when the arched muscle floor of the mantle contracts, the floor of the mantle cavity flattens, air is drawn into the mantle

(pulmonary) cavity. At the limit of contraction, a valve slides across the pneumostone, conversely when the muscles relax, the cavity decreases in size and the increase of pressure facilitates gaseous exchange with the blood in the veins the roof. Then the pneumostone opens and air is expelled (Murphy, 2001).

Wilbur and Younge (1996) explained that the nervous system consist of central nervous system and peripheral nervous. The central nervous system consist of a ring or collar of nervous tissue in which five or more pairs of ganglia can be distinguished surrounding the anterior end of the oesophagus.

There are three major ganglia as being identified by Murphy (2001).

58 59

These include: {a} cerebral ganglion which lies dorsal to the pharynx and from which nerves run to the tentacles and buccal mass {b} pedal ganglion which lies ventral to the gut and supplies the foot and {c} pallial ganglion (parietal ganglion) supplies the mantle. Other ganglia such as pleural ganglion, visceral ganglion, abdominal ganglion and buccal ganglion however, are also important.

In a related development, Paul (2000), outlined three major sense organs of snail, which includes first pair of tentacles, second pair of tentacle and stratocysts. According to Paul, for the first pair of tentacles, the anterior retractile tentacles are believed to be chemosensory and functions for olfaction.

Snail detects its feed through this organ of smell. For the second pair of tentacles, the posterior retractile tentacle bears an eye at the tip of each of them.

The eyes are sensitive to light and may suffice for a limited degree of the form vision. An eye is made up of cornea, lens and retina. The tentacles are fully extended when snail is active and withdraw by retractor muscles, which turn them outside in when snail confronts an obstacle. The third sense organ

(stratocysts) is for equilibrium. Pair of stratocysts lies embedded in the pedal ganglion but are innervated from the cerebral ganglion. Each of the stratocysts contains calcareous bodies, celia and sensory cells. Thompson (1996), however, noted that other sensory structures are also distributed in the epidermis (skin) of the head and foot of the snail, as evidenced by the fact that the general surface of the body is sensitive to touch and probably to other stimuli.

59 60

Snails are hermaphrodite, however, individuals will mate with each other before eggs are laid. In Nigeria, Archatina species exhibit both self-fertilization and cross-fertilization, and copulation and fertilization is reciprocal (Welson,

2001). The reproductive system consist of complex interconnected organs and ducts which ensure the formation, fertilization and laying of healthy eggs. A small, whitish gland embedded in the digestive gland at the apex of the visceral hump is called ovotestis. The ovotestis produces both eggs and sperms at one and the same time. There are reports that the production of eggs is highly seasonal while that of sperm go on during the greater part of the year. However, oogenesis (formation of egg) occurs at all time (Chinwuko, 2003). Also production of eggs occurs throughout the year provided that snail are kept in a conducive atmosphere.

Mead (1996) reported that the hermaphrodite duct connects the ovotestis to the albumen gland, and both sperm and egg (ovum) leave the ovotestis by this single duct to the larger fertilization chamber. Mead noted that another small pouch (sac) called spermatheca also opens into the fertilization chamber and it is partially embedded in the albumen gland. Its function is to store sperm from another snail to fertilize the oocytes as they descend from the hermaphrodite duct.

Ebenso and Okafor (2002), however, observed that whether an egg is fertilized or not, albumen is secreted around it. Some researchers are of the opinion that the albumen is not protein, but galactogen, which is a polymer of

60 61 the monosaccharide sugar galactose (Wilbur & Younge, 1996). The oviduct leads from the albumen gland to the vagina. The oviduct secretes a leathery calcareous shell, which enveloped an egg. Then, the sperm oviduct connect fertilisation chamber to the rest of the reproductive systems, whereas the bursa copulatrix, functions to digest the spermatophore excess sperm from the ovotestis and other products which are conveyed to it by a strong peristalsis in the bursal stalk (Mead, 1996).

According to Wosu (2003), sperm duct leads off towards the end of oviduct as a continuation of the line of prostatic tissue and runs toward the body wall to end in a muscular prostrusible penis to which is attached a tapering hallow filament (flagellum). The flagellum together with epiphallus, form the spermatophore, which functions as sperm packet that is exchanged during copulation. The female duct is a continuation of the oviduct and ends in a muscular vagina into which also open a dart sac, a mucus gland, and the duct of the spermatheca. Genital atrium receives the openings of both the vagina and penis and opens to the exterior by a common genital opening on the right-hand side of the foot just behind the head (Okafor, 2001).

Aestivation/Hibernation

Snails undergo a state of torpid during which all the physiological activities (except minimal gaseous exchange) ceases. This dormancy phenomenum is referred to as aestivation (summer caused) or hibernation

61 62

(winter caused). Aestivation in snails is a protective, adaptive condition in which snails secretes a hard calcified mucus cover across the shell aperture and resign themselves to a period of dormancy to escape and survive adverse weather condition (Okafor, 2001). Aestivation is a situation where the snail enters into its shell completely during the dry and hot seasons, food deprivation or any inclement condition and covers the mouth of its shell with epiphragm and remains inactive to conserve energy as long as the bad period lasts (Wosu,

2003).

Murphy (2001) noted that several factors are known to induce aestivation/hibernation in snails, such as relative humidity, temperature, starvation and trauma. When temperatures fall, for instance, to between 6 – 7 degrees Celsius and a lessening of natural light occurs, the snails will cease all activities and prepare itself for the long sleep over the winter. The combination of a shortening day length and decreasing temperatures induces snails to prepare themselves for the cold months ahead.

Aestivation is proceeded by burrowing into the snail to a depth of 3 –

6cm or hide in crevices or under the litters. This is then followed by an inactive phase during which the snails completely retracts back into their shells. They stay in this state for a few days at which time the collar secrets mucus over the entire part of the body exposed at the aperture. This film is gradually calcified with time. A fully formed epiphragm, which is a whitish crystalline, brittle, thin walled membrane is impervious to water and gases except at the pneumostome

62 63

(Okafor, 2001). During this period the snails’ metabolism is very slow and draws its food reserves for maintenance, hence, looses weight increasingly as the period of aestivation continues. Some snails because of their age and condition die whilst aestivating. The length of period of survivability in this state often depend on the previous state of the body condition (nutrition and health status), the age/size, the shell thickness, the species/sub-species involved, adaptability to stressful condition through previous experiences and geographical location (Akinyemi, Ojo & Akintomide, 2007).

Murphy (2001), however, observed that hibernation play a significant role in the snails’ ability to breed, grow and reproduce. Murphy argued that a period of hibernation is mandatory to the success of breeding good quality large snails. Hence, Okafor, (2001) opined that during aestivation the reproductive organs prepare for egg laying.

In Nigeria, under natural condition snails break out of aestivation after the first few rains and feeds voraciously and consequently increases in weight rapidly. Observations with Archachatina marginata show that aestivation starts at the end of November to mid March. To induce shedding of the epiphragm necessitates flood or damage and so snails can be forced out of the dormancy

(Okafor, 2001).

63 64

Snail Adaptation and Survival

The success of the snail in the face of high predation rate may be attributed to a variety of factors which include: (a) the ability to bury the eggs in the soil (b) highly prolific (c) the nocturnal habit and (d) the inherent capability to conceal itself in the daytime to escape detection by its enemies. The most striking adaptation of the snail are those associated with success in a terrestrial environment. One of the most important dangers of terrestrial life is due to loss of moisture from the body. To forestall this situation, according to Akinnusi

(1998), land snails employ: (a) the use of the protective shell (b) the habit of aestivation (c) preference for damp shady protective places (d) feeding when weather is humid and temperature is low and (e) excretion of solid uric acid.

Chinwuko (2003) outlined the following other measures of adaptation and survival:

a) Ability to feed on various types of vegetable matter and hence a relatively

small locality can support a larger number of snails;

b) Efficient shredding of food by the radula and continuous formation of new

sharp teeth which ensure that digestion, assisted by bacteria, is efficient;

c) Ability to utilize oxygen and excrete carbon (iv) oxide through the

transformation of the mantle into a lung;

d) Regular growth of the shell based on body growth such that the shell is

always large enough to contain the flesh completely;

e) Production of yolky, well-protected eggs;

64 65

f) Ability to cross-fertilize;

g) Ability to lay eggs several times over a period of few months after a single

mating;

h) Laying of eggs in damp soil cavity and

i) Ability to hibernate/aestivate during unfavourable weather and resume

activities when weather conditions improve.

Joledo (2007) observed that snails exhibits considerable modification of the shell structure under different environments to ensure survival. Snails kept all through in moist conditions, for instance, produce large thin shells where as those in dry conditions produce small thick shells. Similarly, those under high temperatures have thick shells, those under low temperatures have small thin shells, those under bright light have brighter coloration while those under dim light have darker coloration.

Snails also have ways of protecting themselves from enemies such as exudation of slime, which deters some enemies from being attack. Snails nocturnal habits protect them against enemies that are inactive at night. Also, their dull muddy brown coloration, relatively small size and slow movement makes them rather inconspicuous while the ability to retract into the shell protects the eyes and flesh from being attacked easily (Chinwuko, 2003).

65 66

Snailery Types

Housing, whether it is for man or animal, provides a home or shelter and security and enhances comfort and optimum productivity of the living beings or creature therein. In the same vien, rearing snails within suitable enclosure or confinements with the provision of optimum snail requirements would enhance their productivity. Thus, the suitable confinements (cages, pen, trench) used in raising snails for optimum production, are referred to as snailery.

Snailery may be made with a combination of different materials such as blocks (concrete, landcrete, brick and mud) metals (iron, steel, aluminum and copper), wood, plastics, fibre materials, glass and ceramics. Selected building materials may be combined with other materials such as net (rubber or aluminum) wire gauze, shelves, and palm-fronds in constructing standard cages.

The choice of material and design of snailery is a function of: a) The scale of the snail farming enterprise (b) availability of site and fund (c) farm purpose and

(d) the prevailing climatic and ecological conditions (Akinyemi, Ojo &

Akintomide, 2007).

Paul (2000), outlined the following qualities of an ideal snailery. (1) it should not be too expensive (2) it should be pest, predator-proof (3) it should have sufficient floor surface area (4) the proportion of floor area to that of wall height should be great, about 80cm for pen and 30 – 50cm for each layer is tiered cage. This is to prevent excessive energy wastage that may result from height climbing. It also makes cage management more effective (5) snailery

66 67 construction should facilitate routine practices (6) There should be easy access to snails without necessarily stepping in (7) Enough entrances should be created for easy management (8) provide adequate shade avoid heat conductors as roofing materials (9) it should be adequately ventilated (10) provide sufficient feeding/drinking troughs at specific locations and (11) always damp the substrate.

Akinnusi (1998) classified snailery into three main categories based on the scale of the enterprise: 1) Small-scale e.g. tyres, earthen pots, baskets (2) medium-scale snailery e.g. cages, trench and (3) large-scale e.g. pen.

Tyre snailery: Arranged two or four old tyres on one another on a solid base under shade tress. Fill the lowest one with rich loamy soil to a depth of at least

15cm and cover the topmost tyre with a lid of plastic or wire netting. Between the 3rd and 4th tyre there should be wire netting. The tyre snailery can hold 5 to

10 mature snails depending on the size of the tyres. It is less expensive and readily available in urban areas but the ventilation is always poor. However, using hot pointed metal rod can perforate the tyres to provide ventilation

(Adeleke, 2006).

Earthen Pot Snailery: Fill earthen pots with rich loamy soil to a depth of at least 15cm, cover with a wire netting lid and place the pot under shade. This unit can hold 5 – 10 mature snails. Its durability will be affected because of the frequent damping of the earthen pot (Chinwuko, 2003).

67 68

Basket Snailery: Fill a medium sized basket with rich loamy soil to a depth of

15cm and cover it with wire netting or its lid. Then place the basket on a solid concrete floor to prevent snails from burrowing through the base to escape. This unit can also hold 5 – 10 mature snails. It is good for raising hatchlings but is not durable (Akinnusi, 1998).

Tank/Drum Snailery: Perforate both the bottom and the side of the tank/drum and lay sack on the bottom and fill with humus substrate to a depth of 10 –

15cm. Then stock 5 – 10 mature snails on each layer, cover it with a lid of wire netting and place the tank on a stand (Wosu, 2003).

Raised Wooden/Metallic Snailery: This cage is square or rectangular, single or multi-chamber (tiered) woodern/metallic box with a wire or nylon mesh lid (see fig. 13). The bottom of the cage is perforated and covered with rich sterilized loamy substrate to a depth of 15cm. The body of the cage is raised on four legs, each wrapped with black cellophane and placed inside a moat against pests and predatory attack (see fig. 5). A cage measuring 1.8 x 0.6m x 0.5m can hold 20 –

40 mature snails. The cage should be placed under shady tree. Hutch boxes are ideal as hatchery and nursery pens because the eggs/hatchlings can easily be located and observed. Wooden/metallic snailery can be used for medium or large-scale production and it offers best protection against pests and products at relatively cheaper price with simple technique. Also, it is easily transferable

(Paul, 2000).

68 69

Figure 13: Raised Metallic Snailery

Concrete Trench Snailery: Akinnuisi (1998) explained that constructing a concrete trench involves digging a square or rectangular hole in the ground, about 50cm deep and concreting the floor while the sides are built with cement blocks. The trench is then divided into pens (as shown in fig. 14), with each pen floor filled with rich loamy soil to a depth of 15cm. The pens are covered with nylon mesh nailed to wooden frames and a moat constructed round the entire trench, which is located under shade. A 5m2 trench can accommodate 100 – 200 mature snails. Trench snailery is a little more difficult to use than surface or raised snailery because one has to stoop or kneel down to tend the snails (Paul,

2000).

69 70

Figure 14: Concrete Trench Snailery

Pen (paddock) Snailery: The pen (boundaries) could be built with three coaches of 6 inches cement blocks above the ground level. Two-metre wooden posts are fixed at the four edges and at short distances along the length and width of the pen. The walls and roof are then built with chicken wire mesh and reinforced with mosquito net. Alternatively, the walls could be built with mud block or woven plant fencing or split bamboo stands to be arranged in a continuous manner with appropriate nails. Adeleke (2006) explained that in using a combination of the above; attach the chicken wire first round the whole fence followed by the woven plant materials. To prevent snails from crawling

70 71 over the fence of the woven plant materials, flaps should be built on the inside at the top of the fence by curving (if flexible) the tip of the fence inward into an inverted “V” or “U” shaped edge (see fig. 15). A second set of flaps should be built a little below the first top set of flaps because with two flaps, snails will not easily crawl out of the pen. Where the used material is not flexible, the alternative is to attach thin plastic or slippery metallic flaps to the edge of the wall, ensuring that they (flaps) slopes inward as described above; leaving no gap in-between the wall and the flaps or touching the plants. Snails that may crawl to the flap tip often fall back into the confinement because they find it difficult to crawl over sharp edges to make a 1800 turn, in addition to the pulling shell

(plus viscera) weight (Akinyemi, Ojo & Akintomide, 2007).

Create an entrance as well as a space for feed/water troughs and cultivate desired intra-snailery plants. Also construct moat round the snailery. Pen snailery is designed to hold a large number of snails for commercial snail ventures. A 8m x 8m pen can house up to 1,500 mature snails. Paddock pens are ideal as fattening pens (Paul, 2000).

71 72

Figure 15: Paddock Pen Snailery

Heliciculture Husbandry Systems

Snail production entails several systems of husbandry. Essentially, there are three husbandry systems in snail farming namely: intensive, semi-intensive and extensive.

According to Wosu (2003), the intensive (indoor) system of snail husbandry involves raising snails under controlled conditions of temperature at 200 c, relative humidity at 80%, light duration of 18 hours and adequate food supply as

H well as provision of a loose damp earthworm inoculated soil within P of 7.5.

The snails are restricted to pens or house (breeding pen, nursery pen, growing pen and fattening pen) where they are properly managed. Wosu distinguished that the breeding pen is for stocking mature snails, which would be allowed to

72 73 copulate, oviposit, lay eggs, incubate and hatch to release the hatchlings. The hatchlings are thence transferred and raised in the nursery and are later gathered and fed to grow up to maturity in the growing pen. From this (growing) pen, they are transferred to the breeding pen (for those meant for breeding) or to the fattening pen (for those to be sold for table).

Lubell (2004) reported that harvested snails are purged on wheat bran or corn meals, for a period of three days, followed by two days of starvation to hasten the process of ridding the digestive system, of any soil or foodstuffs.

Water via the automated watering system, however, is regularly provided during the starvation stage to allow the snails to continue being active and so complete the purging process.

The semi-intensive (indoor/outdoor) system of snail husbandry entails incorporating some of the management practices of both intensive and extensive systems. Intensive management practices are maintained both in the breeding pen and nursery pens, while the fenced growing area is completely covered with growing food and shelter plants such as plantain, banana, Pueraria phaseolid and

Calapogonium mucunoid (Omole et al., 2004).

Chinwuko (2003) contended that the soil in the growing area is however, inoculated with earthworm to recycle the droppings of snails and more so, to improve the fertility of the soil in order to enhance the growth of green leafy grasses as feed for the snails. Plantain peelings, ripped pawpaw fruits, bush beans and ripped palm fruits, are occasionally provided as supplement while

73 74 trunks of banana are strategically laid in the growing (rearing) area to offer moist spots. Parasites and predators seen around the farm are physically controlled. This system enables farmers to grow and produce snails all year round and thus, has product available to the market at all times (Okafor, 2001).

In the extensive (outdoor) system, snails are reared in an enclosed snail- proof fence. The area is cleared and the space (about 2.5 hectares) within, is planted with a suitable mixture of food and shelter plants. The farm is then seeded, but the snails are left to feed, breed, reproduce and grow throughout the season, virtually unattended until harvested (Hamzat, Omole, Oredein, &

Longe, 2004). According to Paul (2000), the amount of labour, capital and other inputs are kept to a minimum, thus, has economic advantages vis-à-vis the intensive and semi-intensive systems. However, the snails are only harvested during the few months of the growing season, thus, supply to the market cannot be all year round.

Types of Technology

Science is a systematic body of knowledge obtained by observation and verification of facts, whereas technology in its broad sense is the application of knowledge to practical task of life. Technology includes all hardwares and softwares applied in production of goods and services. In other words, technology extends to all “skills, knowledge, processes, procedures or methods” used to carry out mans activities (Massaquoi, 1993). In the view of Stewart

74 75

(2005), technology extends to processes and methods of provision of services by other sectors like commerce, administration, banking, law and health.

Technology according to Chinwe (2000) is the systematic application of scientific knowledge, skills, devices, tools and implements in the process of production of materials needed by the society.

However, agricultural technology is the main thrust of this discuss.

Agricultural technology is defined as those machines, equipment and implements, processes, steps and techniques applied in agricultural production, storage, processing, marketing and management (Ayichi, 1995). It includes engineering or mechanical inputs (like hoes, machineries, infrastructures etc), chemical inputs (like fertilizer, pesticides etc), and biological inputs (such as improved, resistant planting materials, livestock breeds, and genetic materials).

Agricultural technology therefore encompasses all farm management practices in place which includes all processes and methods employed in the conversion of inputs in to output and the distribution of the latter to reach the consumers

(Ngoddy, 1991).

Mellor (2001) noted that differences in the performance of farmers may be directly and entirely related to differences in the productivity of inputs caused by contrast in technology. What is appropriate technology will differ from place to place. But suffice it to say that appropriate technology is one whose resource/use requirement is locally available (Meier, 2004) and which meets the needs of the people on a sustainable basis. This implies that

75 76 appropriate technology for rural farmers is one that upgrades and improves the traditional technologies of farmers (Massaquoi 1993 and Meier, 2004).

Traditional technologies are technologies developed in our traditional set-ups/villages, and have in most cases been transmitted unmodified or slightly modified through a particular lineage in the traditional setting (FGN, 1992).

These community technologies provided household goods and agricultural tools to the community, served as repairmen, and sold some of the goods to the urban areas. Garg (2000) reported that with this, the rural areas were practically self – sufficient until the introduction of large-scale mechanized technologies which made a major impact in three directions on product selection, technology, and organizational patterns.

In a related development, Umeh (1992) stated that modern indigenous technologies are those technologies conceived, planned, and designed within the frame work of modern scientific discipline. They include technologies which were imported, adopted, and indigenized so that local scientists can reconstruct them, and improve on the process and quality of the products there from. Meier

(2004) however, lamented that such technologies, when directed at solving indigenous problems are limited in their scope. Majority of these technologies usually focus on problems with direct international implications because the reward mechanisms (prizes, promotions etc) often favour this emphasis.

Consequently, most imported farm equipments are unsuited to the agro- economic conditions which prevail in developing countries. No wonder the

76 77 mechanization of tropical agriculture has been low, limited mostly to the large farm holdings which constitute, in Nigeria, and insignificant 3 percent of the total agricultural land (Ayichi, 1995).

Indeed, constraints to effective mobilization of indigenous technology for agricultural development abounds. In line with this view, Garg (2000), Mellor

(2001), Meier (2004) and Stewart (2005) outlined the following constraints.

• Farmers, small farms, or village artisans are unorganized, geographically

dispersed, and politically marginal; they therefore, cannot effectively

influence government’s economic and technological policies to favour

agricultural development.

• The Nigerian government supports Research and Development in the

scientific sector while the technology of the village industries remain

static, making it impossible for them to improve/increase their role in the

economy (FNG, 1992).

• The rolling plans adopted large-scale technology in all industrial

activities; this required an infrastructure which was available only in the

urban areas. Production activities were, therefore, concentrated in the

cities, and changes in fiscal policy contributed to driving the available

capital to the urban area.

• Nigeria has been guilty of indifference to, and poor management of her

experts in the matter of deployment and exposure, motivation and

challenge.

77 78

• The technology institutions (Universities, Polytechnics etc) are limited by

the fact that their function is neither to act as an industrial entrepreneur or

management consultant, nor to play the part which belongs to

government agencies, industrial firms, or non-profit organizations.

• Encouraging Universities to develop intermediate technology appropriate

to agricultural development requires a modification of their reward and

promotion system. This still has its limitation - the University belongs to

the modern urbanized segment of society-students, and teachers, even if

they come originally from a rural community, have for the most part lost

contact with farmers and craftsmen in the village.

• Lack of funds by the traditional technologists, established and other

manufacturers, and Research and Development institutions hampers

operations by preventing the purchase of machines, spare parts, and

development of prototypes.

• Hike in the cost of raw materials including specialized components for

fabrication; in addition, the steel industries in Nigeria are not directed to

the production of the more relevant flat sheets for the fabrication of

needed machinery.

• Lack of infrastructure and essential services - industrial sites and parks,

electricity, water, transport, poor telecommunication and postal services.

78 79

• Inadequate skilled men at all levels of operation especially the specialized

skills such as electroplating and foundry operation.

• User/customer bias: The Nigerian consumer has a taste that has been

attuned to foreign / imported goods making it almost impossible for

indigenous enterprises to break into the market. This made it difficult for

indigenous technologies to expand their capital base until the advent of

the structural adjustment programme (SAP) when we were forced to look

inwards for almost all goods and services.

In furtherance of the above, the following strategies for the development and promotion of indigenous technologies for agricultural development in

Nigeria, has been highlighted.

• The conception, planning and implementation of indigenous technology

programme through forums of scientists, industrialists, and agriculturists

whose technologies could be commercialized and made self-sustaining to

provide gainful employment for the rural population.

• Development of low cost, demand-orientated equipments and local farm

and environmental inputs that could be manufactured economically with

simple production processes while research into improving efficiency of

such inputs are conducted.

• Funding indigenous technology development by financing the generation

and sustenance of the necessary manpower, and resources (Umeh, 1992).

79 80

• Establishment of research institutes in various agro-climatic zones where

they would conduct research and generate appropriate technologies based

on indigenous technologies for accelerating the pace of agricultural

development and on the real power constraints in the farming chain

limiting production.

• Harnessing the capabilities of local farmers by training them in modern

scientific thoughts, methods, and instrumentation relevant to their

occupation and made aware of the technology gaps to be filled through

workshops. Secondly, these traditional technologies should be

commercialized by increased and diversified small- scale loan schemes to

improve their financial base, access to scientific ideas for expansion and

refinement of their products (FGN, 1992).

• Provision of infrastructural facilities to enhance input-output functions,

save labour for agricultural work, and generally improve the living

standards of the rural community.

• Mobilization of the rural communities to adopt tested and proven

indigenous technologies through agricultural extension education activities.

This would create an efficient feedback mechanism linking the user, the

developer, and the marketing channels for the development of better

products (Bruinsma et.al, 1995; Onu & Anyanwu, 1991).

80 81

• Harnessing the capabilities of Established Manufacturers (EM), Roadside

Manufacturers (RM) and Cottage Level Manufacturers (CM) (RMRDC,

1999).

From the foregoing, justifications have been made on the emphasis on the application of indigenous technologies on agricultural development.

Concomitantly, farmers in the study area are also applying various types of indigenous technologies in snail production. Technology, in the context of this study, refers to the systematic application of all heliciculture management practices and processes and methods in the conversion of inputs into snail product and the marketing of such products. In other words, it includes all the engineering, chemical and biological inputs and processes, procedures and techniques applied in snail production and marketing of the products. Although, heliciculture has been in existence for quite some time in the study area.

However, there is dearth of documented records on the available technologies that are applied by the farmers as well as the productivity of farmers which would have informed measures for enhancing farmers’ productivity, through agricultural extension education activities. Thus, it was on this premise that the study was conducted.

81 82

Snail Production

Attempts at wild animal domestication have not been restricted to vertebrate species, invertebrate species including snails and caterpillars have also been subject of domestication. Several researchers have demonstrated the feasibility of farming the giant land snail in Nigeria in the early 1970s (Ojoye et al., 2004). Snails live by seasons, so management within a controlled environment must manipulate to mimic snail natural environment to enhance productivity.

In line with this view, Wosu (2003) thus, outlined the following conditions for site selection. They are by no means exhaustive, but includes:

(1) A dark shaded quiet cool leeward corners in the field or of a family

compound that is properly fenced;

(2) A loose damp earthworm inoculated and organic matter/humus rich soil

that is dressed with calcium carbonate and a regulated PH of 7.5;

(3) An area devoid of kitchen salt and other toxic chemicals and

(4) A fairly high but gently sloped land that is not water logging.

The site is thus selected using the above criteria and preparations made, during which large matured brood stocks are collected from a known source

(farm) or from the wild during moist conditions especially during or just after rains in the spring time and at dusk between 7.30 pm and 9.30 pm; when snails are active in their search for food or a mate. In a well-ventilated area, the collected snails are quarantined for 30 days period, ensuring that they are

82 83 contaminants/toxins free (Murphy, 2001). Welson (2001), however, advised to stock from a reliable farm, and it is better for a starter to stock newly hatched snails, to enable the young snails acclimatise to the new environment and confinement as they grow. Welson noted that wild adult snails caught and immediately confined especially within a small space may record high mortality rate because of sudden environmental change. However, Akinnusi (1998) highlighted the following criteria for selection of foundation stock: a) Medium – sized lively/active sore-free snails b) Snails with smooth properly formed shells c) Snails weighing 150-250g

1 d) Snails with 3 /4 suture rings on their shells e) Snails of the same size and species f) Slimy shell – filled foot snails with fragile shell edge and g) Common edible snails within the locality.

The broodstocks are stocked in the reproductive area (50 snails/m2) where they stay for approximately three weeks to copulate (although they are hermaphrodites) in pairs for cross fertilization. Most of the snails mate at night and this process last for about 3-15 hours (Joshua, Torunana & Chude, 1999).

To facilitate ovipositing, Okafor (2001) stated that farmers should provide plastic pots or containers that are filled to a depth of 7 cm with a top quality potting mix or very clean fine river sand, laid in a moist medium. Gravid snails according to Okafor, oviposit a clutch of 8-10 oval yellow eggs 12-15

83 84 mm long into the containers and are candled in a bowel of clean water, which later incubates (with suitable temperature of 200 c) within 25 days; and the hatchlings emerges out from 35-39th day on the surface. Welson (2001), found that thunderstorm with lightening is believed to help or quicken the hatching of snail eggs in an affected environment. The containers are then transferred into the nursery and the lids removed to allow the snails to escape into the new environment at their own pace.

In 2002, Ebenso and Okafor noticed that the juvenile snails grow rapidly for the first six months with good management and can survive the first 5-10 days without food. But, Ojoye et al (2004) reported that the presence of adult snails, slime secretion, non-availability of food and calcium as well as higher stocking density, affects the growth and survival of young snails. It has been noted that the lower the stocking density, the higher the survival rate and larger the snail size, for larger snails command higher prices (Paul, 2000). It posits therefore, that higher stocking density exert it’s effect on the: frequency of mating and laying, egg laying capacity, number of eggs laid per clutch, hatchability, growth and survival of young snails (Okafor, 2001). Thus, Okafor recommended a stocking density between 15 – 20 giant snails/m2, 25 – 30 adults/m2, 45 – 50 juveniles/m2, and 90 – 100 hatchlings/m2 and that snails should be stocked in separate pens based on age, sizes and condition.

Yet, Welson (2001) suggested a space of 9m×7.5m to start with 300 snails while a box of 1.2m× 1m × 9m can house 30-50 adult snails. There has

84 85 never been apt and satisfactory stocking density for all snail farmers. Each farmer does it by trial and error until he discovers the least stocking rate for maximum yield. Nevertheless, Chinwuko (2003) advised that farmers should start the trial with low stocking density.

It is essential that snails should be weight and their number noted before seeding, which is better done at night than during the day. Availability of water affects growth and distribution of land snails. Snail’s loose water through the small reno-pericardial aperture and the epithelium of the skin. Extreme ranges of temperature or very low temperatures, low humidity as well as increased wind speed do not only accelerate moisture loss but encourages aestivation.

Snails are very sensitive to water content of the air and liquid water; therefore, adequate humidity range of 80-100% and temperature range of 250c-280c should be maintained. This could be achieved by pouring water on the strategically located moist spots, substrate and also filling the humidifiers, regularly (Wosu,

2003).

Availability of quantitative and qualitative feeds is a prerequisite for farming snails. Ojoye et al (2004) reported that snail eats voraciously up to 40% of its biomass in 24 hours especially when it is being active, in order to compensate for the weight lost during hibernation. If well fed with a balance diet, Achatina achatina can reach a weight of about 200g in the most favourable conditions in about 2 years. They can therefore, reach the minimum saleable size (120g) in a little over a year (Okafor, 2001).

85 86

Snails are omnivorous, thus consume livestock droppings, broiler carcasses of snail species, shells of others snails, broiler finisher etc. However, of these numerous foods consumed by giant land snails, the most popular of plant origin for all different ages and or sizes of the snails in descending order of preference were: (1) Ripe banana fruits (2) pawpaw (leave/ripe fruits) (3) bush beans (4) fluted pumpkin leaves (5) African spinach (6) ripe mango fruit (7) ripe avocado pear (8) plantains peelings (9) ripe oil palm fruits (10) yam and cassava (tubers and peelings) (11) sweet potato tuber (12) cocoa (13) cocoyam. Research indicates that photoperiodism seems to exert some physiological effect on snails as perpetual light promotes their rapid growth. Continual illumination at night may have possible activating effect on snails, thus increasing their activities and rate of food consumption (Hodasi, 1992; Okafor, 2001; Welson, 2001; Ebenso,

2003; Wosu, 2003; Ojoye et al. 2004; and Omole et al. 2004).

Wosu (2003), stated that snails naturally are nocturnal animals and as such they prefer to come out from their hide-outs at night, actively searching for food, with every determination to escape from enclosures. Therefore, construction of escape-predator-parasite-nuisance proof farm is advisable for profitable snail farming venture. Similarly the general exposure of snails to sunlight or light should not exceed eight (8) hours per day. Thus, snail should be provided with enough shade so as to circumvent snails from going to aestivation.

86 87

Snails, by nature, are susceptible to many diseases, parasites, predatory and chemical attacks. Several bacteria are known to cause disease in snails; notably among them are Aeromonas species, Pseudomonas species,

Corynbacterium sp; Micrococcus sp; Flavobacterium sp., Escherichia coli,

Staphylococcus sp., Klehiella sp; Enterobacterium sp; Mycobacterium sp;

Vibrio sp; and Acinetobacterium sp. (Paul, 2000; Okafor, 2001; Chinwuko,

2003; & Wosu, 2003).

Aeromonas hydrophila, for instance, is known to cause lethal septicaemia and stomatitis in snails. Bacillus pinotti causes castration whereas Pseudomonas species causes intestinal infections resulting to anaemia in snails. Yet

Mycobacterium species is known to affect the ovotestis of pulmonate gastropods (Okafor, 2001; & Chinwuko, 2003). Paul, in 2000, reported that snails also suffer from fungal attack as evidenced by Fusarum which parasitizes the eggs of Helix aspersa, with reddish brown and abrupt development stoppage symptoms. Commenting on the disease control measure, Chinwuko (1999), reported that several antibiotics such as tetracycline, penicillin, streptomycin, bacitracin and tylosin, have been added in small quantities (about 50g per ton) to the foods of snails. And this has yielded positive results as evidenced in the reduction of the amount of feed required to produce a unit gain in body weight and prevention of several bacterial and fungal diseases. A constant flow of fresh air and hygiene within the snails environment should also be maintained to the highest standards.

87 88

Thompson (1996), argued that protozoa, sporozoa, cestodes, trematodes and nemotodes, are endoparasitic to snails. The soil ciliate protozoan (Colpopa aspera), for example, is located in the digestive track of about 30 species of slugs and land snail, busy causing digestive disorder. Also protozoa like

Tetrahymena limacis, Tetrahymena ragatrata and Tetrahymena pyriformis, exert endoparasitic lethal effects on land snails.

A microsporidia (sporozoa) Isospora rara and Pfeifferinella imoodica were also found from the midgut of Limax marginatus (snail), impeding the swallowing process (Ngama, 1992). The cysticercoid of Liga soricis tapeworm of shews, may inhibit various land snails such as Hoplotrema sorrella, Triodopis germans and Allogona townsendiana (Chinwuko, 2003)

Chinwuko (1999), noted that the infestation of the snail host by miracidium occurs by chance and that the effect produced by the parasites starts a few weeks after penetration or ingestion of the miracidium following the migration and maturation of the daughter sporocyst or radia. In Nigeria, two nematode parasites Alarta alata and Clinostomatid cecaria were recovered from land snail with high prevalence of each parasite recorded in Achatina sp. Also

Mesocelium monadi parasitizes snails, while a liver fluke of ruminants

Dicrocoelium dendriticum passes its larva stages in a small terrestrial snail

Cionella lumbrica, in USA (Ngama, 1992). In West Africa, Limicolaria sp. has been identified as the snail intermediate host of Discrocoelaria hospes. In 2003,

Chinwuko discovered that seventy one (71) out of eighty five (85) limicolaria

88 89 flammea examined, were infected with unidentified radia, cercaria, insect larva and coccidia oocysts that reduced fecundity.

In Nigeria, the two most prevalent nematodes that infest Achatina achatina are

Cosmocercoides dukas and Rhaditis species. Others include Rabdias helices and

Neoplectana gigantica. Nematodes also decline snail population. Nemihelix bakeri for instance, was reported to cause reduced fecundity in snails such as

Achatina and helix (Ukoli, 1990).

Similarly, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals (mice, rats, domestic fowls, pigeons, ducks, lizards, snakes, hawks, birds, frogs, and toads) are important vertebrate predators of slugs and snails. Rattus jalorensis and Rattus argentiventer prey on mollusca, including the slug Microparmorion malagamus.

The invertebrate predators of snails are coleoptera (Carabidae, hampyridae and

Drilidae) and Diptera (Calliphoridae, Sciomyzidae and phoridae). But that terricolous triclad flatworm Geoplana septemlineata is a predator of terrestrial snails and endemic to Hawai (Welson, 2001).

Another large terricolous tridad from New Guinea, which fed on

Achatina and other snails, was also a predator of slugs (Paul, 2000). According to Thompson (1996), the families’ lampyridae, Drilidae and sciomyzidae feed exclusively on slugs and snails. Thompson further reported that cockroaches feed on eggs of the slug Vernonicella sp. while the larvae of the housefly

(Musca domestica) have been observed feeding on live snails.

89 90

In Ghana, Cobbinah (1993), reported that the fly, Alluaudihella flavicornis, which resembles the adult housefly, feeds on snails. The adult

Alluaudihella flavicornis lays 20-40 eggs in the snail shell or on the snail. The eggs hatch in about one week and small worms start feeding on or in the snail body tissue until the snail is reduced to a putrefying mass, and then pupate within the shell. After a 10 days incubation period, the adults emerge and the cycle repeats. This particular fly Alluaudihella flavicornis also cause the death of so many snails in Nigeria (Paul, 2000). On many occasions of the predacious ants (Phidelgeton affinis), millipede, centipedes and beetles infestation in the farm, many snails died and some part of their flesh eaten up. The larva of glow- worms and fireflies (lampyridae) feed mainly on slug and snail. The glow- worms Lampyrids notiluca and Phausis spendidula also attack Achatina ater,

Achatina subfuscus, Achatina hostensis, and Achatina fasciatus (Okafor, 2002).

Larva of Tiger beetle is highly devastating to young juvenile Achatina achatina and garden snails. The larva usually tracks the snail by its slimy secretion as it moves. When it locates the snail, it climbs over the shell, locates the flesh, demobilizes it with its secretion and feed on the flesh. One larva feeds on many young snails before it pupates. Larva of Tiger-beetle are abundant in

Nigeria during the raining season and diminishes in number during dry season

(Ngama, 1992). Human beings, either attendants or people from outside also accounts for losses of snails in the farm and moreso, consumption of certain poisonous leaves by snails have been reported to have lethal effect on such

90 91 snails. Termites as well exert devastating effect on wooden structures of the snailery (Welson, 2001).

Commenting on the preventive measures, Wosu (2003) found that a proper and regular sanitation of the snail environment both internally and externally will drastically reduce the incidence of parasites and predators. Wosu stressed that the pen floor should be kept tidy, and leftover feeds, water and messy droppings should be regularly removed and replaced with fresh ones. A gutter (moat) around the pen filled with disinfected water shall keep off some insects, snakes, ants and other predators. Ensure that no sticks get across the gutter through which parasites/predators can invade the snailery. Baits or traps should also be set outside the snail farm area. Fumigate with phosphoric ester pyrinex or Durban at the rate of 1kg/100m2, ten (10) days before stocking.

Periodic heat-treatment of the soil should be carried out twice a year or when some ants/pests have infested therein. Soldier-ant infested substrate should be removed and replaced with another. While soldier ants infested snails be washed in a clean water. Use smokes from lighting rag/wood to scare solider- ants (Tobias, 2002; Akindele, 2004; Akintomide, 2004 & Adeleke, 2006). Paul

(2000) advised that in areas with high bird predation, it is necessary to use cover nets over the pen. The pens should be covered with mosquito netting or chicken wire meshes to protect against flies while strong fence, be installed to protect the farm against poachers. It is also advisable to sterilize the soil. Parasites and predators seen around should be physically controlled.

91 92

Cobbinah (1993) asserted that many chemicals are toxic to snail either by ingestion or by contact. Household chemicals, such as common salt (sodium chloride), kerosene, petrol and tap water with chlorine. Some pharmaceutical products such as niclosamide, brotianide, clioxanide, closanted, oxyclozanide and rafexanide also destroy snails. In same vein, laboratory chemicals like concentrated acids, hydrochloric acids, sodium hydroxide, calcium hydroxide, copper sulphate, copper pentachlorophenate, N-Tritylmorphine (frescan) and calcium cyanamide. Agro-chemicals such as Nitrogenous fertilisers, nuvan 1000

Ec cypermethrin, Basudin 600 Ec, sniper and ultracide 40 Ec, as well as some contents of poultry premixes are toxic to snails (Chinwuko, 2003).

Similarly, it has been observed that many molluscan muscles are stimulated to contract by small concentrations of Acetylcholine, Eserine,

Tetramethyl, ammonium chloride, Acetyl. B-methylcholin and nicotine. The muscle can however, be relaxed by actions of 5-Hydroxy tryptamine (5-HT),

Botulinum toxin preparation, atropine, decamethonium, antichlolinesterases, propantheline, methantheline, Adrenaline, noradrenaline and lysergic acid diethlamide (Ekwueme, 1993). Sunrays, radiation of fire, bush burning, high temperature, low humidity, high speed wind, smoke of fire and automobile exhaust smoke, all are detrimental to the health of snails. Snails should therefore be provided with adequate shade and the temperature (21-240c) and relative humidity (80%) be maintained always (Okafor, 2001).

92 93

In another development Murphy (2001), reported that matured snails

(between 30 mm and 40 mm) are selected and harvested into very clean containers, having several holes drilled into the bottom edge to allow drainage of the waste materials. The density used within the containers depend on the size of the container. Lubell (2004), however, advised that it should not be overcrowded, for it will be detrimental to the snails ability to feed and create unhygienic conditions in the containers. The lids are cut out in the centre to leave a large hole that is securely covered with a plastic mesh diameter of 1cm.

The containers are mounted on a framework of a material suitable to hold the size of the containers. The harvested snails are then purged on wheat bran or corn meal, for a period of three days, followed by two days of starvation to hasten the process of ridding the digestive system of any soil or foodstuff.

Water through the automated watering system is, however, regularly provided during the starvation stage to allow snails to continue being active and so complete the purging process.

The temperature and relative humidity are controlled within the ranges of

260c-280c and 80%-85%, respectively; while the waste materials that are drained from the containers are collected by a system of guttering that is slopped to facilitate the drainage for easy disposal. When the containers become slimy and dirty because of the snails purging themselves, they are removed and clean thoroughly before returning them back to the framework (Thompson,

1996). An automated misting system should be installed and timed to activate

93 94 just before dark to encourage the snails to commence feeding. This watering system will also aid in keeping the humidity at the desired level.

The watering system also acts to deliver water for the snails to drink. The food for the snails is given after the watering system is activated at night.

Different people have several different techniques of preparing snails for consumption. Japanese, for example, roast their snails in their shells while in

Belgian Congo the snail shells are broken to remove the flesh, then the flesh is washed in water, drained on split bamboo sticks, smoked and partially fried for six hours over a slow fire. However, in Nigeria, four important stages in processing snail for consumption, have been identified: evisceration, separation of edible and non-edible parts, De-slimation and washing of the snail meat

(Thompson, 1996; Murphy, 2001; Welson, 2001; Chinwuko, 2003; and Wosu,

2003).

Evisceration according to Chinwuko (2003), which is the removal of snail flesh from the shell, entails two methods: shell-shape destruction and shell-shape preservation. The technology involved in shell-shape destruction requires smashing snail shell into pieces with strong objects such as metal rod, stone and pestle. Subsequently, the snail flesh is separated from the shell pieces with extreme carefulness. Commenting on the pitfalls of this technology,

Welson (2001), lamented that some sharp pieces of shell may remain attached to the flesh and prove very stubborn to remove, and moreso, such sharp pieces

94 95 may injure the hands in further processing. Similarly, shell pieces, which scatter on the floor of kitchen, may cause injury to wives and children, if not properly packed.

The shell-shape preservation method involves boiling live snails in a cooking pot for at least 10-15 minutes to kill the snail and eviscerating the flesh from the shell with fork after pouring off the hot water and refilling the pot with cold water to dilute the heat content. The shortcoming of this method lies in the over boiling which usually make the flesh to become too soft (Wosu, 2003).

Paul (2000) noted that the second stage is to separate the edible parts from non- edible parts. Many women believed that immediately after the foot of the snail, other visceral parts becomes non-edible. But some people also include such visceral parts as the liver, kidney, reproductive parts as well as anterior digestive system, as edible.

De-slimation, which is the third stage, refers to the removal of stringy slimy secretion from the snail (Chinwuko, 2003). Notable among the used materials include garri, ash, alum, raw fermented cassava and orange lime.

These materials are aimed at either flocculating the slime as in the case of garri and fermented cassava or breaking down the slime chemically as in case of orange lime, ash and alum. The technology involves mixing the garri or raw fermented cassava, orange or lime or alum with the flesh of snail and at the same time rubbing them until the slime disappears. Alternately, it can be soaked

95 96 in salt or vinegar solution (1/2-cup salt or ¼-cup vinegar) for 3-4 hours and then washing it in 3 or 4 changes of water before it is ready for cooking or canning

(for local or export market).

Both unprocessed and processed and canned snails are transported to village markets, displayed in baskets, wooden crates and bags for sale. They are sold in wholesale and retail quantities. Snails are also transported to roadsides markets, displayed in baskets, bags, wooden crates or treaded with ropes where travellers and wholesalers dealers buy from them (Wosu, 2003). Export markets for snails are virtually an untapped market for Nigerian and West

African snail farmers. However, remarking on the prospect of African giant snails, Paul (2000) reported that the African giant snails are becoming quite popular especially in countries like France, Europe, US and Italy. There is a growing international market for snails especially in Europe, USA, France,

Germany, UK, Belgium, Denmark, South Africa, Japan and Holland. US market, which imports over $15 million worth of snails annually, is an untapped market by Nigerian snail farmers. The chief exporters to these countries presently are Greece, Turkey, Algeria, Tunisia, and China. The market is good for any serious snail farmer in Nigeria. Local and export markets are available

(Wosu, 2003).

96 97

Snail Production Constraints

The prospects for future development of heliciculture in the world, is limited by several factors. Religious, cultural and traditional forces, for instance, limit both the horizons of investors and or consumers. Okafor (2001), lamented that eating of snail meat may be a strange idea to many people and for majority of people, it is an outrageous act because of the religious or cultural beliefs associated with the animals. In some communities, it is a taboo to kill snails, let alone to eat or touch it.

To some tribes, the snail is a cursed animal, as it does not have red blood or bones while some communities abhor the eating of snail meat because their ancestors forbade such (Welson, 2001).

It appears that few people are allergic to snails (as in the case with many other food items) as they develop some rashes on their skin after eating snail meat, while it affects other aesthetic sensibility (chinwuko 2003). For many, even though there are no serious inhibitions to eating snail meat, it may seem degrading to be seen, or associated with, eating snail meat (wosu, 2003).

Ebenso and Okafor (2002) asserted that heliciculture practicses are more intensive and complex; thus, require greater management, processing and marketing skills than other forms of agriculture.

97 98

Steve and Nkesiobi (2002) supported this view where they observed that rearing snail entails intensive care in managing from brood stocks to larva survival, ensuring the maintenance of optimal requirement for all developmental stages.

Many people find it unpleasant or difficult to process snails, occasioned by absence of processing facilities; for manual technology is tedious, time consuming and painstaking, indeed.

Another limitation is the acute shortage of trained and experienced heliciculturists. For successful prosecution of key projects in snail farming, trained and experienced personnel are imperative for effective technology application, resource management, administration, equipment operation and maintenance. Unfortunately, however, these personnel are grossly inadequate

(Chinwuko, 2003).

Besides, there is paucity of heliciculture literature (books, magazines, journals etc.), which affects prospective farmers and interested individuals to gain knowledge. Consequently, many people develop apathy towards snail farming, since they are ignorant of the nutritional and therapeutic values of snail meat

(Simpson, 1990).

Omole et al (2004), lamented over the yawning unresearched gaps in snail farming such as breeding, management, disease control, to mention but a few. Thus, Ukoli (1990) affirmed that the present disease control measures are purely preventive and palliative in nature, and that quantification of dosage of various antibiotics in snail, still constitutes a very serious problem. Also,

98 99 metabolism of pharmaceutical products in snails as well as snails breeding to improve size and reduce the length of time required for maturity, are yet unresearched areas.

Consequent upon lack of knowledge of the physiology, management and effective control of diseases of snail, Okafor (2001), lamented that several pioneer farms were beset with serious losses due to mortality caused by predators, parasites, diseases and unfavourable environmental factors.

It is an indisputable fact that researchable areas in snail production, abound, but regrettably, the already available findings and results from research studies as well as the developed modern technologies, are under-utilized. Awah

(2000) noted that there are commercialisable research findings with great potentials for developing snail farming to increase production and its availability to consumers. Private sector inertia to take up and use some of these findings, is a major set back.

In 2003, Wosu blamed the Nigerian government for her inability to enunciate viable programmes that will sensitise prospective farmers and attract entrepreneurs. Non-existence of such programmes through acute shortage of trained and experienced extension workers in snail farming, has been indicted for the ignorance of the nutritional and therapeutic values of snail meat by so many people, hence, apathy towards snail production.

Abowei and Sikoki, (2005) found that the transfer of snail farming technologies (intra and inter nations) is not nearly so simple, as is the transfer of

99 100 cropping or other animal husbandry technologies. Optimum stocking densities, feeding programmes, for example, often vary quite widely with moderate changes in environmental constraints, local food constraints, local food preferences, and the relative cost of the necessary inputs and snailery construction, primarily. Hence, Welson (2001) despondently remarked that the number of choice sets facing heliciculturist who must adjust to his own particular physical, economic and cultural environment is thus, extremely large and a good deal of research, which of course would incur appreciable costs, would be of a non-patentable nature, even if successful.

Similarly, Chinwe (2000), indicated that the difficulty of trying to hand down what is essentially a new food producing technology to the people, is one of the draw backs in the tropical countries. Chinwe stressed that the problem is further compounded by the poor economic status as well as the technological capabilities of these countries. The implication here is that heliciculture is neither a fully industrialized venture (as are the helix farms of Europe, Italy,

France Yugoslavia and Romania or Achatina farms of Thailand and China) nor a completely primitive practices.

The evolutionary process of snail hunting to snails farming, though is an index of a rise in the sustainable developmental thermometer, however, is not without difficulty, especially in the early stages. This is because in many cases, substantial investments of time, labour and money are required for the management, but since most of the snail farmers are either single family units or

100 101 small-scale producers with small margins of profit, they cannot undertake the risk of adopting new technologies unless its potential economic benefits are demonstrated beyond any doubt (Lipper, 2001).

There are every indications that the edible giant land snails of African origin does not gain high command in international market. The African species, for instance, fetch about one-third of the price of the European species.

Paul (2000) revealed that the price disparity is mainly because, compared to the

European species, the meat of the African species is considered to be rather rubbery and the shell less suitable for presentation of the final products.

European consumers generally prefer snails served in the shell.

Besides, Achatina achatina constitutes serious agricultural pest that causes considerable crop damage in many countries such as India, Japan, California and Florida (Thompson, 1996). No wonder that the Animal Plant Health and

Inspection Service (APHIS) categorized giant African snails as a “quarantine significant plant pest”. Also its large size, copious slime secretion and faecal material create a nuisance as does the odour that occurs when something like poison bait causes large numbers to die (Okafor, 2001). The implication is that the United State does not allow live giant African snails into the country under any circumstances.

APHIS vigorously enforces this regulation and destroys or returns these snails to their country of origin. It is illegal to import snail (or slugs) into the U.S

101 102 without permission from the Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) Division,

Animal Plant Health and Inspection Services, U.S Department of Agriculture.

In another development, Cobbinah (1993) found that incessant trapping around snail farms using chemicals and or poaching, and violation of snailery regulations through acute shortage of compounded snail feeds and stocks, limit heliciculture development. It was on this premise that Ebenso and Okafor

(2002) contended that the absence of a constitutional provision for heliciculture as a discrete national activity and of a legal framework for governing its developments and administration in most countries of the world, is known to hinder entrepreneurs from making investments in snail farming.

The escalating cost of snail farming inputs particularly the capital inputs and their spare parts, have been indicted for the drawback in snail production

(Murphy, 2001).

In corroboration with this view, Welson (2001) lamented that inflation has escalated prices of inputs far beyond the reach of entrepreneurs.

Maintenance of inputs presents serious constraints, as spare parts must be imported at hike cost to importers, since inputs are not available locally. There is also long delay before such inputs are brought to the country and the delay results in heavy loss of snail farming days thus, resulting to low supply.

The small-scale farmers who account for over 90% of the total domestic snail production, are the hardest hit (Okafor, 2001).

102 103

Prospects of Snail farming in Nigeria

Inspite of the apparent value of the snail in human diet, no significant effort has so far been made at its large scale rearing. However, with the renewed awareness and its sudden leap to prominence, snail, along with other relatively small animals now comes to be known as “Microlivestock” or Minilivestock.

Snail will gradually emerge as domestic microlivestock of importance in

Nigeria. Snail farming is being approached as a hobby by some interested individuals while commercial large scale ventures are expected to spring up when many people eventually come to appreciate the advantages of snail farming. This is because of the potential for high returns on investments with low levels of inputs (Akinnuisi, 1998). In line with this view Adeleke (2006) reported that the feed of snail is cheap and they exhibit preference for diet based on vegetable rather than animal protein. Adeleke, however, lamented that the prevailing economic recession in the country, coupled with the continual population increase has made consumption of various sources of animal protein to be on the increase. But there has been a sharp decrease in livestock production as livestock formers fold up in thousand , due to the high cost of feeding ingredients , logistics and other inputs , culminating to the production of poor quality livestock feeds which in turn had reduced the availability of animal protein to the populace.

As of now, the few people who have embraced snail farming depend much on fresh vegetable matter and fruit. However, with the growth of the snail

103 104 industry into the backyards of urban dwellers where there may not be enough space for growing food and shelter plants for snails, formulated snail feed will emerge on the market. As the number of snail farmers grows, more information will emerge on snail health and necessary drugs (Ebenso & Okafor, 2002).

In another development, Okafor (2001) aver that fried and garnished snail meat is very tasty, highly nutritious and readily acceptable by many consumers.

In fact, it is regarded as a delicacy in hotels, restaurants and during ceremonies.

It compares favourably with poultry meat in taste and consumer acceptance.

The high cost of the conventional animal protein sources (eggs, meat and fish) of recent has forced majority of people into utilizing less qualitative protein from cereals and pulses. The possibility of utilizing snail meat as a valuable animal protein source for improved nutrition and health of humans is gradually gathering momentum. Many individuals and families can rear their own snails for meat and for sale. This is possible because snails are noiseless, odourless, harmless, easy to transport and house and a large number of them can subsist on a small area of land.

Wosu (2003) identified one unique inherent phenomenon in snails, which is the ability of snails to continue laying several times over a period after a single mating. The snail can thus produce at least five times its own body weight of meat in a year. Interestingly still, snails have the advantage of low mortality rate. This is feasible because of their ability to aestivate during unfavourable conditions and feed slowly on the body reserve until conditions

104 105 become favourable again. Consequently, farmers do not usually suffer from loss of a large number at a time as the case with other livestock, which may wipe out several stocks in case of a sudden disease outbreak.

As more people become aware of the therapeutic value of snail meat in the treatment of high blood pressure, asthma, anaemia, and other ailments as well as the low fat and cholesterol levels, there would be a trend towards more consumption of the meat. Also, as snail farming expands, more research into snail production and usefulness will be conducted. This may help to disabuse the traditional beliefs/superstitions of people who regard eating snail as a taboo

(Akinnusi, 1998).

Snail has a high demand with low supply. The market potential is high, locally and internationally. There is a growing international trade in snails with

France playing a central role. In Nigeria, matured fully grown snail price soared from N4 to N5 in 1991, to N50 in 2000, N70 in 2004, N100 in 2007. Nigerian snails are now being exported to United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany and

U.S.A. (Adeleke, 2006; Cobbinah, 1993 & Joledo, 2007).

Rearing snails in captivity will reduce the fear of snails becoming pests or polluters of the environment. Snail farming is a fascinating and profitable venture for housewives, retired civil servants, farmers and farm workers with little or no land, young school leavers without substantial capital, large families, the unemployed, as well as those looking for something with which to augment

105 106 their salaries. To scientists, snails and snail farming offer a fertile ground for research.

Measures for Enhancing Farmers’ Productivity

Snails live by seasons, so management within a controlled environment must manipulate to mimic snail natural environment to enhance productivity. A quiet cool shady well-drained leeward site is, thus, ideal for snail farming. In line with the above, Wosu (2003) recommended a sterilized sandy-loam substrate that is loose, damp rich in organic matter and inoculated with earthworm. If the substrate is wood shaven, then it should be procured from a known tree source that is chemical-free (e.g. cotton tree) and the substrate always kept damp because wood shavens emits heat and hinders snail movement when dry.

Akinnusi (1998) advised farmers to use the following criteria to select foundation stock:

a) Medium – sized/lively active sore/lesion-free snails;

b) Snails weighing 150 – 250g;

1 c) Snail shell with 3 /4 suture rings;

d) Snails with smooth, properly formed shells;

e) Snails of the same size and species;

f) Slimy shell-filled foot snails with fragile shell edge and

g) Common edible snails within the locality.

106 107

Adeleke (2006) lamented over the absence of snail breeding /research centers and snail feed factories in especial the southern states of Nigeria whose environmental conditions have comparative advantage in snail production.

Adeleke appealed to the state government and non-governmental agencies in the southern states of Nigeria, to establish snails breeding and research centers as well as snails feed factories to increase the availability of breeding stocks and compounded feeds, respectively.

To enhance complementary out-put out-put relationship and accrue the full benefits of mixed farming, heliciculture should be integrated into an existing rubber/oil palm or shady plantation. This is because: (a) Land will be used economically (b) canopies of the plants provides shade for the snails (c) plants parts will serve as source of feed to snail (d) while the snail droppings fertilizes the soil to enhance plants growth and (e) the snail shell used in liming the plantation (Akinyemi, Ojo & Akintomide, 2007).

Snail stocking density, snail slime, mixture of different ages/sizes and availability of food and minerals (especially calcium) affects the growth and survival of snails. Okafor (2001) thus recommended that: (a) Snails should be stocked between 15 – 20 giant snails/m2, 25 – 30 adults/m2, 45 – 50 juveniles/m2 and 90 – 100 hatchlings/m2 (b)snails should be stocked in separate pens based on age/size and condition (c) snails be regularly fed with balanced diet.

107 108

Studies on food of snails among others suggest that land snails have food preferences. While hatchlings and juveniles prefer rough, non- hairy succulent leaves, adults prefer the mesocarp (juicy part) of plant parts. To encourage feed consumption rate, therefore, hatchlings/juveniles should be fed with succulent leaves and mash while the juicy parts of fruits and moistened compounded feed be given to adult snail. Also, feed consumption rate can be increased by providing continuous light at night. Research indicates that photoperiodism seems to exert some physiological effect on snails as perpetual light promotes their rapid growth. Provision of illumination continually at night may have possible activatory effect on snails, thus increasing their activities and rate of food consumption (Hodasi, 1982).

However, Jim (1994) found that snails will grow at acceptable rates on dry feed diets with high ash and relatively low protein content, provided they have access to water and soil, which greatly improves growth performance and feed conversion. The inclusion of soil as substrate increased average snail weight by 66%. While supporting this view, Wosu (2003) emphasized regular watering of the snailery and provision of untreated clean drinking water to the snails because water does not only facilitates snails movement but also improves feed consumpotin/conversion ratio and consequently improves growth/reproductive performance.

Snails aestivates when poorly managed but can be reverted by breaking the epiphragm and sinking such snails in a bowel of water for observation.

108 109

Soonest, the snail crawls out of its shell, it is removed from the water and placed on good management by providing adequate food. It was observed in many instances that mere picking up an aestivating snail and gently dropping it led to breaking and releasing of the snail from the epiphragm. This indicates that touch is a major stimulus in breaking out of aestivation (Okafor, 2001).

Most of the snail farmers are either single family units or small-scale producers with small margins of profit, thus, would not like to undertake the risk of adopting new snail technologies unless its potential economic benefits are demonstrated beyond any doubt (Lipper, 2001). Therefore, establishment of snail demonstration farms at all local government areas of each state by government and non-governmental agencies through the extension agents would facilitate farmers’ early adoption of snail production technologies.

Religious, cultural and traditional believes has limited both the horizons of investors and or consumers, occasioned by paucity of snail literature and ignorance of the nutritional and therapeutic values of snail meat. The Nigerian government has also been blamed for her inability to enunciate viable snail programmes that will arouse the interest of prospective farmers as well as entrepreneurs. Thus, intensifying the services of extension agents through radio/television programmes and organizing regular workshops on heliciculture would debunk the erroneous beliefs/taboos and apparently, improve the horizons of snail investors/consumers (Wosu, 2003).

109 110

For successful prosecution of key project in snail farming, trained and experienced personnel are imperative for effective technology adoption, resource management, administration, equipment operation and maintenance.

Recruitment of subject matter specialist to the state extension workers, provision of vehicles for extension agents fieldwork and regular supervision of extension agents would improve their (extension agent) commitment and productivity. Consequently, the farmer-extension worker contact will be increased with ultimate higher productivity of the farmer (Chinwuko, 2003).

Welson (2001) stated that funding heliciculture programme, improving the availability of credit facilities and soft loans and provision of subsidized inputs to farmers via A.D.P. by government/non-governmental agencies, would serve as a panacea to the problems of poverty and hike in the cost of farm inputs. Weslon further stressed that state government support to provide snail storage and processing facilities/centers would ameliorate the plights of storage and processing suffered by the farmers.

In another development, Cobbinah (1993) reported that incessant trapping around snail farm using attractive chemicals, poaching snails from the farm and absence of snailery regulations limit heliciculture development. It was on this premise that Ebenso and Okafor (2002) advocated for constitutional provision for snail farming as a discrete national activity and a legal framework for governing its administration and development.

110 111

Several pioneer snail farms were beset with serious losses due to mortality caused by pests, predators, diseases and poor management, occasioned by lack of knowledge of the physiology, management and effective control of diseases of snail (Okafor, 2001). However, maintenance of regular hygiene in the farm will prevent the occurrence of diseases. Also, improving the availability of veterinary services to snail farmers would serve as a panacea to the problems of diseases.

Snail husbandry requires technological skills in the art and method of producing the stocks, stocking and managing the hatchlings. While management of the terrestrial environment involves skills in the method of manipulating the factors of the snail farm, with a view to enhancing optimum environmental conditions favourable to the high survival and productivity of the farmed snail.

The management practices, thus calls for a sound knowledge of the terrestrial habitat and requirements of the reared snail and consequently a sound knowledge of a broad spectrum of many disciplines. From the foregoing, it posits therefore, that the productivity of snail farming, to a large extent, hinges on its good management. With patience, good management and careful integration into existing farming activities, snail farming will bring substantial reward in longer terms (Welson, 2001).

111 112

Theoretical Framework of the Study

A theory is a systematic condition statement of the principles of something, abstract knowledge or the formulation of it, often used as implying more or less unsupported hypothesis disguised or opposed to practical

(Berkeley, 1990). Theory, according to Donald (1992), is an explanation of how the aims of a firm are rated to its’ decision making. The study is built on an economic theory-Theory of producation. An economic theory attempt to systematically arrange, interpret and formalize upon facts. As an end result of economic analysis, an economic theory brings order and meaning to facts by tying them together, putting them in correct relationship to one another and generatizing them (Campbell, 1993).

Production is the process by which the scarce resources (inputs) in a society are employed to create goods and services that consumers want.

Production consists of organising a range of inputs, which may be combined in various proportions to create one or more products, which can be obtained, in different proportions. Thus, it entails making good decisions in selecting, organising and combining inputs to reach a desired product. A basic decision making unit in any production process is called a firm. An understanding of the approach a firm will use in addressing the problem of choosing the optimum levels of input and output is known as theory of production (Eyiyere, 2003).

The theory of production holds that certain relationship exist between inputs and outputs in production. Essentially, in production, the level of output

112 113 is a function of the quantities and quality of inputs/technologies and management used. The concept productivity, thus, is an expression of the level of output in relation to the quantities and quality of inputs/technologies and management used in the transformation process (Kalu, 2002). Productivity is a measure of the unit input used and the corresponding unit output obtained. It is a measure of a projects physical, technical and economic efficiency of the resources used and the overall viability of such project (Arene, 2008).

The technical and physical relationship, which connects factor inputs with outputs, is referred to as production function. It describes the way in which the quantity of a particular product depends upon the quantities of particular inputs used. Thus, Nweze (2002), defined production function as an expression of the technical or physical relationship which connects the number of unit input that are fed into a production process and the corresponding units of output that emerge. Production function therefore, is an analytical tool in determining the productivity of a farm business, for it provides valuable information concerning the quantity of output that may be expected when a particular quantities of inputs are combined in a specific manner (Kalu, 2002).

Nweze (2002), however, pointed out that the particular input level at which the producer will maximize his net returns in the rational region or stage of production, will hinge on the input and output prices. Thus, the amount of revenue, which the producer receives from a particular production process, can be determined by multiplying the quantity of product produced by the product

113 114 price. By so doing, the production function is transformed to a revenue function.

Kalu (2002) maintained that by similar multiplication of the marginal physical product by the price of the product, one can determine the amount by which total revenue changes as inputs are added. This amount is the value of the marginal product. In the same vein, the value of the average produce is obtained by multiplying the average physical product by the price. The most profitable input level can be determined through the known cost of the input and the value of the marginal product. When the additional cost of an input is equal to the additional revenue, which the input yields, it is the profit maximizing level of input (Nwagbo, 1998). It is often argued that one of the major problems associated with the use of production function is the issue of appropriate unit of measurement. This is because the inputs and outputs are often heterogeneous, without a common unit of measurement but production function essentially measures production relationship in physical terms. Though, some measures like use of money value, calorie equivalent, and gain equivalent has been suggested for computation convenience (Olagoke, 1990).

Another productivity index of farm business, is cost effectiveness analysis. According to Arene (2002), it is the cost of investible resources and their usage. Cost effectiveness is commonly used as an aid to investment choice that is related to discounting method of appraisal. It is appropriate for situations where costs (or inputs) can be expressed in quantitative units and valued but the benefits (or output) cannot be valued but can be measured in quantitative units

114 115 only. It is also appropriate when the output is given but there are alternative means of producing that output.

Another analytical tool that readily comes to mind, which is used as well, in determining farm business productivity, is farm record. Farm record is the documentation of activities or undertakings about the farm (Umebali, 2002). It is easy to determine the level of production from accurately documented records. Types of records abound: inventory, input, sales, production, consumption and supplementary records. All these records have financial or/and production implications. Farm records provide farmers with information about the productive level of the farm, whether the farm is making profit or losses

(Ebong, 2001). It’s information is also vital for present and future farm planning and budgeting.

Farm budget, which is one of the analytical tools in determining farm productive level, is a detailed quantitative statement of a farm plan that entails all the required inputs with their estimated cost and anticipated income of the farm (Arene, 2002). It is a plan of operation to show how much money will be required at what time for a given period usually one-business year.

Nevertheless, Kalu (2002) stressed that changes in operating conditions must be considered since they affect costs and revenues. Actual operations are compared with the plan and any changes critically examined, thus, mirror the productive level of planned farm business (Umebali, 2002).

115 116

The true financial position of the firm is shown through financial statements. Financial statements are the monetary documents that contain summarized information of the firm’s financial affairs, organized systematically

(Ebong, 2001). Financial statement therefore, shows the firm’s level of financial healthiness or safety that is synonymous with measures of productivity. The prominent documents (Arene, 2002) of financial statement include: balance sheet, income statement and cash flow statement.

Balance sheet contains the detailed information about the firm’s assets, liabilities and net worth. It is a measure of the firm’s liquidity and solvency, thus, shows the financial position of the firm at a particular point in time

(Gittinger, 1998). The total asset less total liabilities brings about the farms net- worth, which is an index of the farm’s productive level. Hence, the justification for the inclusion of balance sheet as an analytical tool in productivity determination (Ebong, 2001).

Nweze (2002) asserted that the income statement is the financial summary of the firm’s operating results during a specified accounting period usually one year. It is the summary of the revenue generated from sales, the operating and financial cost including taxes, the profit available to owners and the amount of earning retained in the business. It reveals whether the firm is making profit or losses, and also show the cause of change in the balance sheet

(Umebali, 2002). The net income, after payment of dividends of shareholders, is

116 117 transferred to the balance sheet as retained earnings and thereby increases owners’ equity.

Arene (2008) stated that a cash flow is a statement of the actual naira payments (costs) and receipts (benefits) by the farm firm on a year-to-year basis over the lifespan of the project. A typical cash flow statement shows the total cash inflows; total cash outflows and the net cash flow hence, show the firm’s level of viability and profitability. It should however, be noted (Ebong, 2001) that in corporate agribusiness enterprises, only expected cash income and expenses are included on the cash flow statement. But in agricultural farm firm especially smallholder farms, it is usually not easy to separate farm income from family income or farm expenses from family expenses, hence, both are included in the cash flow statement.

In a related development, Nwagbo (1998) identified the following undiscounted cash flow measures of project viability: ranking by inspection, payback period, proceeds per naira outlay, average proceeds per naira outlay and accounting rate of return. The ranking by inspection according to Nwagbo, is by simple observation of the investment costs and the structure of the cash flow stream and confirms that one project is better than another. The payback period refers to the number of years required to recover the original cash outlay invested in a project. It could be calculated by dividing cash outlay by the annual cash flow. It’s usuability is where the project is expected to generate constant annual cash inflows. But in the case of unequal cash flows, the payback

117 118 period can be calculated by adding up the cash inflows until the total is equal to the initial cash outlay. Generally, the shorter the payback period, the more viable is the project concerned (Arene, 2002).

Umebali (2002), explained that, proceed per naira outlay can easily be determined by dividing the total proceeds by the total amount of investment.

This method according to Nwagbo (1998) ignores consideration of timing of cash flow. The average annual proceeds per naira outlay have close relationship with the proceeds per naira outlay, however, the total proceeds are first divided by the number of years and this average of the proceeds per year is divided by the original outlay. Nevertheless, the method fails to consider the length and timing of benefit stream. (Obinna, 1998). Onah (1998), observed that the accounting rate of return utilizes the financial income and balance sheet statements to assess the profitability or otherwise of the firm. It can be determined by dividing the average investment income after tax by the original cost of project.

Consequent upon the pitfalls of the above discussed undiscounted cash flow measures of project viability, Onah, (1998), identified three distinct but inter-related discounted cash flow measures of project viability and profitability, viz: Net Present Value or Worth (NPV or NPW), Benefit-cost Ratio (BCR) and

Internal Rate of Return (IRR). The Net present value (NPV) refers to the value of the surplus that a project make over and above what it could make by investing at its marginal investment rate (Umebali, 2002). It thus, seeks to

118 119 determine the potential of a project by discounting its’ future cash flows, using the cost of capital as the discount factor. The rational for discounting the future cash flow is to expunge distortions and illusion that are associated with the future expectations. It is obtained by following the difference between the discounted cost and benefit. It is the determination of the present value of expected net cash income discounted at the cost of the capital of the firm. This measure can be used to assess absolute profitability of a project, thus, consider a project desirable or not. A project is assumed productive or desirable once the

NPV is positive or greater than zero (Arene, 2002).

Onah (1998), argued that Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) relates the present value of net cash flows to the initial capital required for a project. It is the ratio of discounted costs (DC) to discounted benefits. Acceptance is when BCR is greater than or equal to one.

The Internal Rate of Return (IRR), is the rate of return that is being earned by capital tied up, after allowing for the recoupment of the initial capital invested (Ijere & Okorie, 1998). It is the rate where original cost of investment equates with the discounted stream of its cash flows. The exact rate of interest is usually obtained by trial and error, or by interpolation.

IRR is a convenient way of measuring the financial attractiveness of an investment. Acceptance is when the rate of return to the investment is greater than the rate of borrowing (Obinna, 1998).

119 120

It is pertinent to note that the bottom line for procurement of inputs utilized in production is that, payments are made either directly or indirectly.

Such payments or expenses are known as costs. The systematic analysis of the production cost of a firm is referred as theory of costs (Umebali, 2002).

Essentially, farm inputs are classified into fixed (capital), variable and overhead.

Fixed or capital inputs have economic use beyond one production cycle and they do not vary with the volume of production as against variable resources that change with the level of production whose economic use is within one production cycle. Thus, expenses on fixed inputs create fixed costs; while variable inputs lead to variable costs. In essence, in the short run, fixed costs are production costs that do not vary with the outputs level, and they are incurred even when no production is made. However, in the long run, all costs eventually become variable. The sum of all fixed costs incurred in a production enterprise is called the total fixed costs. In contrast, variable costs are production costs that changes with the level of production, and they are not incurred when no production is being made. The sum of all the variable costs incurred in the production process is known as total variable costs; while the sum of total fixed costs, total variable costs and total overhead cost is known as total costs. The average cost is the total cost of production divided by the volume of output. But when an additional cost is incurred to total cost from producing one more increment of output, it is known as marginal cost (Eyiyere, 2003).

120 121

While overhead costs are expenses which, within limits, do not change when the level of activity changes, except for increase due to rising cost. An increase of 20%, for instance, in the area of a crop, or in the number of animals, is not likely to lead to rise in overhead cost. But an increase as great as 100%, would definitely increase overhead costs (Abbott & Makeham, 1980). Strictly speaking, overhead costs are unavoidable costs that must be met each year, which are not directly associated with just one particular activity but affects the general running of the business. Examples of overhead cost include:

v Farmers essential living expenses;

v Wages and food for permanent workers;

v Loan interest and repayments;

v Replacement of capital items such as machinery, buildings etc;

v Taxes;

v Operators allowance;

v Repairs to water supply, roads, buildings and structures;

v Insurances on employees fixed structures, plants and buildings;

v Transportation;

v Telephone charges and other business expenses (Arene, 2008).

Revenue, on the other hand, is the income generated from sales of the products.

Revenue component shows the output or returns both in physical terms and corresponding monetary values or crop revenue. Amount realised from all sales is referred to as total revenue. When the total revenue is divided by the total

121 122 sales, it results to average revenue whereas marginal revenue represents the additional income generated by selling one more unit of product (Arene, 1998).

Cost and revenue analytical technique provides information on the financial and physical transactions or plan for the farm enterprise for a given

(production) period. Also it is easy and simple to compute once appropriate data have been generated. However, the use of costs and returns analytical techniques is often criticized on the ground that it does not provide satisfactory information on the relative importance of the various inputs in contributing to output. Besides, the use of data obtained can only be applied in the area from which the data were generated since it uses only money as the unit of measurement (Oluhkosi & Erhabor, 1998).

Abott and Makeham (1980) stated that gross margin is the difference between total revenue (gross income) earned and the variable costs incurred.

Gross margin is the income from sales over cost of variable inputs (Arene,

1998). It represents the differences between total income from sales and total variable expenses incurred in business venture or it is the money that is available to cover the operating expenses and still leave a profit. While the difference between the gross margin and overhead/depreciation costs of fixed assets is called net profit (Downey & Trocke, 1981).

Depreciation means the reduction in the value of an asset through wear and tear. It has been described as a measure of the wearing out, consumption or rather loss of a fixed asset whether arising from technology in use, the passage

122 123 of time or obsolescence through technological and market changes (Ijiomah,

2002). This implies that depreciation should be allocated to accounting period during the expected useful life of the asset.

According to the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), depreciation accounting is a system which aims to institute the cost or other basic value of tangible capital assets salvage value if any, over the estimated useful life of the assets in a systematic and rational manner. Ebirim (2002) also defined depreciation as the means of spreading the cost of a fixed asset over it’s useful life so matching the cost against the full period during which it earns profit for the business.

Ijiomah (2000) asserted that depreciable assets employed in farm business abound, however, note that not all fixed assets are depreciated and a distinction is sometimes drawn between depreciation and physical deterioration or obsolescence. Nevertheless, the following depreciable assets are by no means exhaustive but include land, farm machinery, farm buildings and structures, farm animals and plants. According to Ijiomah, plants and animals initially appreciates as they mature and yield agricultural products (eggs, young ones etc). Eventually, however, all farm materials, whether dead-stock, livestock or plant, depreciates.

There are several methods of calculating depreciation. Omuya (1983);

Millichamp (1987) and Ebirim (2002) outlined the following seven methods of depreciation: (a) The Straight-line method (b) The Reducing Balance method

123 124

(c) Sum of the Digits method (d) The Machine Hour method (e) Revaluation method (f) The Sinking funds and (g) The Annuity methods.

The straight-line method is calculated where the estimated salvaged value of an asset is deducted from its original cost and the balance divided by the number of years of estimated life to arrive an annual depreciation expense to set against revenue. The total depreciation amount is charged in equal instalments to each accounting period over the expected useful life of the assets. In this way, the net book value of the fixed asset declines at a steady rate or in a straight-line over time. However, if there is no estimated residual value of the asset, it can stll be calculated by dividing the original cost of the asset by the number of useful life (years), using same straight-line method.

The straight-line method is a fair allocaton of the total depreciation accounting periods provided it is reasonable to assume that the business enjoys equal benefits from the use of the asset in every period throughout its life

(Millichamp, 1987).

The Reducing Balance method calculates the annual depreciation charge as a fixed percentage or constant proportion of the book value of the asset at the end of accounting period. This method is adopted when the annual charge for depreciation is higher in the earlier years and a lower proportion to later years in the assumption that the benefits obtained by the business from using the asset decline over time.

124 125

Moody(2001) explained that the Sum of the Digits method of depreciation is similar to the reducing balance method in the sence that it is considered fair to charge higher amounts of depreciation in the earlier year of an asset’s life and less amounts in the later years. But it differs from reducing balance because it is simpler to workout appropriate depreciation charge.

The Machine Hour method according to Ijiomah (2002) is considered suitable for plant and machinery where it is assumed that the fixed asset wears out through use rather than over time. In this method, depreciation is calculated according to the number of hours of use made of the machinery by the business during the course of the period. The life of the asset is estimated in hours or kilometers (or other conventional units) and each unit is given a money value for depreciation purposes. The rate of depreciation is calculated as cost of the asset estimated residual value divided by the estimated useful life of the asset in hours of used time.

Revaluation method revalued the asset at the end of each year and the depreciation or appropriation (appreciation) as the case may be transferred to

P/L account. The method is suitable for assets, which do not depreciate according to a definite pattern, or in which there may be an irregular pattern of losses or in which considerable fluctuation may occur. Loose tools and livestock are examples of assets often depreciated by these methods (Omuya, 1983).

The Sinking Fund method means investing an amount equivalent to the depreciation charge in securities, which can be sold to realize cash for

125 126 replacement of the asset. The object is to provide funds for the replacement of the asset when it becomes useless. This method uses discounting and compounding arithmetic to calculate the annual depreciation charge (Butt,

2000).

According to Moody (2001) the annuity method of depreciation is an annual payment of a constant amount. It is also based on discounting and compounding arithmetic. Moody, however, differentiated that with the sinking fund method (i) the annual depreciation charge is the same every year(ii) the total depreciation over the life of the asset is less than the depreciation amount with the difference made up by interest earned by the depreciation fund whereas with the annuity method (i) the annual depreciation charge increases in each successive year of the asset’s life (ii) the total depreciation over the life of the asset is equal to the depreciation amount.

A business is sometimes faced with a choice between the various methods of depreciation for it’s different types of fixed assets. The method chosen however must be fair in allocating the charges between different accounting periods. It was on this premise, Omuya (1983); Millichamp (1987) and Ebirim (2002) suggested that the following guidelines should be used in selecting the most suitable method.

(a). A fair charge to each accounting period will be one which allocates cost

in proportion to the amount of benefits and profits or revenue earned

during each accounting period by the asset. These ‘profits’ cannot

126 127

certainly be calculated exactly but the business should be able to decide

whether:

(i). The asset provided greater benefits in the earlier years of its’ life (in

which case the reducing balance method or sum of digits method would

be suitable) or

(ii). The asset provided equal benefits to each period throughout it’s life (in

which case the straight- line method would be suitable) or

(iii). The asset wears out with use, not with time (in which case the machine

hour method would be appropriate).

(b). The cost of using an asset includes both depreciation and also repairs and

maintenance. If an asset provides equal benefits to each according period

throughout it’s life but has significiatly increasing repairs and maintenance

cost as it gets older, it might be appropriate to use the reducing balance

method or sum of the digits method of depreciation in order to even out the

combined costs per annum of depreciation repairs and maintenance.

(c). The method of depreciation used by a business for any asset should be the

same as the method used for similar assets.

(d). The method of depreciation used should be that which is easy to apply in

practice. There is no point in creating unnecessary complexities.

Thus, Ebirim (200) unequivocally stated that the straight-line method is easy to Use and is by far the most commonly used method in practice, hence, It was adopted for the study.

127 128

Upton (1996) asserted that gross margin and profit analysis have been found to be a veritable and effective tool in determining the performance as well as profitability of agribusiness. It (gross margin) enables a farmer to determine what each enterprise contributes to the total profit of the farm. An enterprise with the highest gross margin is of course the one that contributes the most profitability. The higher the gross margin, the smaller is the proportion needed to pay for fixed costs, leaving more for market profit. If gross margin is high without affecting fixed cost, the market profit will equally be high by exactly the same amount as the gross margin (Abott & Makeham, 1980).

Gross margin is represented by the formula:

GM = TR – TVC NP = GM – FC Where GM = Gross Margin TR = Total Revenue TVC = Total Variable Cost FC = Fixed Cost NP = Net Profit

Eyiyere (2003) contended that the main thrust of any agribusiness venture, is to minimise cost and maximise profit. A basic principle of economics is thus, that profits will be maximised by increasing production until marginal cost is equals to marginal revenue. The idea is that inputs should be added to the production process only until the point at which their costs are just off-set by the additional revenue generated by resulting outputs (Umebali,

2003). It could be deduced from the fore-going array of analytical tools/indices

128 129 that, gross margin and profit analysis share the same features with the study being conducted, thus, they were adopted for the study.

Related Empirical Studies

Snail culture is believed to have originated in Tarquinium, a Tuscan City not farfetched from Rome at about 50 BC. In Switzerland, snail farming was practiced during the middle ages. The introduction of heliciculture in France,

Italy and Spain (about 1850) was rather in a haphazard manner (Lubell, 2004).

In Africa, it started in Ghana and Co’te d’Ivoire in the early 1970s, and in

Nigeria, heliciculture practices began in Lagos around 1980. The development of snail culture was initiated in the Niger Delta Area in 1986 by Food and

Agricultural Organisation (FAO, 2002). Since then there has been a steady growth in the number of snail farms throughout the federation.

Snail production, like in other fields of agriculture, involves the transformation of inputs into output. Since substantial amount of inputs are ploughed into Snail production process, several authorities have also analyzed the productivity of farming Snail by determining the number of unit inputs used and the corresponding number of unit output.

In Australia, for instance, Murphy (2001) assessed the productivity of an intensive snail farm which stocked 5300 snails with a laying capacity of 150 eggs each per year, hatchability of 80% and 75% survival rate. The snailery utilized the following fixed inputs – green house, shade house, processing

129 130 equipments, cool room/refrigeration equipments, freezer, rotary hoe and purging shed, with a total fixed cost of N22,590. The sum of N9,710 was expended for variable inputs such as feeds, electricity, water, parent stock, rock calcium, fertilizer, maintenance, transportation, labour, marketing and advertising, processing, insurance, marketing development and contingency. The study used means and gross margin to analyse the data collected and found that the farm had a total cost of N32, 3000 but made an impressive yield of 300,000 snails annually, valued at N55,000. It could be observed from the analysis that an appreciable profit margin of N22,700 was realised, which is, and index of the level of productivity of snail farming in Australia (Murphy, 2001).

Similar impressive reports about the profitability of heliciculture were also recorded by Lubell (2004) from the financial analysis of snail farm in

Europe. According to Lubell, snail production is a highly lucrative business for the Europeans because of the enticing output of 123,109kg valued at N595,000 from a well managed species (5500) of Helix that were stocked, with 150 capacity of egg laying, hatchability of 80% and 10% mortality rate.

The farm made use of the following fixed inputs – snailery, climatic equipments, weighing scale, kit, processing equipments, sprinkler, magnifying lens, cool room, rotary hoe and purging shed. The total cost for the fixed inputs was N28,630 whereas the variable inputs had a total cost of N5,570. Variable inputs utilized by the farm include: Feeds, Water, Parent Stocks, Labour, Rock

Calcium, Fertilizer, Maintenance, Electricity, Transportation,

130 131

Marketing/Advertising and Insurance. The level of productivity in terms of yield and profit margin of snail farming in Europe is significantly high, as evidenced by the return of N88909 from the analysis. No wonder Europe had an appreciable export of 123,109 kg valued at N595,000 annually (Lubell, 2004).

Simpson (1996) disclosed that in Europe and South-East Asia, a production level of 10-13 kg/ha. /An. and 9-11 kg/ha. /An respectively, have been achieved from an intensively managed commercial farms; while America,

Greece, Thailand and China have attained production levels of 10 kg/ha./An., 8 kg/ha./Annually; 8 kg/ha./An. and 5-6 kg/ha./An. respectively.

However, Paul (2000) found that snail farming in West Africa especially

Ghana, Co’te d’Ivoire and Nigeria are at subsistence level, nonetheless, there are positive signals that it is a viable and profitable business venture, owing to the availability of abundant seeds and broodstock, their proficity, cheap and readily sourced local building materials for snailery construction.

The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) (2002) carried out an evaluation of heliciculture programme in Ghana with respect to its contribution to rural development. The study used proportionate simple random technique to select 150 respondents and data collected were analysed using descriptive statistics, multiple regression, student t-test and chi-square.

The major findings revealed that heliciculture technologies were made available to snail farmers through the extension services, but there was no significant contribution from the programme to improve the living standard of the rural

131 132 populace. Besides, the implementation process was constrained by non- application of modern heliciculture technologies, inadequate fund and acute shortage of literature and extension staff.

In Enugu State of Nigeria, Wosu (2003) analysed the productivity of a snail farm measuring about 9m × 7.5m that stocked 100 Achatina achatina with laying capacity of 100 eggs/snail per year, 40% mortality and 75% survival rate. Data collected were analysed using costs and revenue analysis.

Interestingly, with selling price of #28.00 per snail, the farm made a yield of

2,700 snails and return of 22,937 per season. Snailery, feeding trays, plastic buckets and sac bags incurred the cost of 25,000.00, 2,000.00, 1,000.00 and

1,000.00 respectively, while matchet, hoe, rake and spade were bought at a unit cost of 800.00, 800.00, 1,000.00, and 700.00 respectively. The sum of 22,937 return was made per year. From the analysis, it is clear that snail farming is a profitable venture.

At Ibadan (Oyo state), Adeleke (2006) studied the profitability of a snail farm measuring 15 x 7.5m that stocked 100 snails (Archachatina maginata) with laying capacity of 8 eggs/clutch and hatchability and mortability rates of 85% and 10% respectively. Adeleke reported that the farm incurred a total cost of

413,000 but with a selling price of 100 per matured snail, realized a total revenue of 1,712,800 and net profit of 1,299,800. The snailery farm utilized the following inputs: shovel, hand trowel, rake, feeders, drinkers, feeds, labour and

132 133 miscellaneous. From the above analysis, a huge profit (1,299,800) was realized, which implies that snail farming is a lucrative business enterprise.

In the same vein, Adeleke (2006) assessed the profitability of a large- scale snail farm that stocked 1000 snails (Archachatina marginata) with laying capacity of 8 eggs/clutch and a hatchability of 85% and survivability of 90%.

Inputs used in the farm include land, fence, 1,000 parent stocks, equipments, feeds, manager, labour, security and miscellaneous.The study used gross margin in analyzing the collected data and found that the farm had a total cost of

#1,586,000, nevertheless, recorded a total income of 7,956,000 and net profit of

6,586,000; as a proof of the profitability of farming snail.

Similar reports about the profitability of heliciculture was also recorded by Akinyemi, Ojo and Akintomide (2007) from the survey of a snail farm in

University of Ibadan which stocked 1000 snails (Archachatina marginata) with laying capacity of 7 eggs per clutch and a hatchability and mortality of 70% and

1 90% respectively. The total expenditure for the 2 /2 years farm was 3,890,000 while the total income was 37,660,000. Interestingly, with selling prices of 15,

50 and 100 for juveniles, adults and large snails respectively, an enticing profit margin of 33,770,000 emerged. Besides the enticing profit of 33,770,000, over

615, 000 hatchlings and one million potential snails (eggs) are still assets to the farm (Akinyemi, Ojo & Akintomide, 2007).

133 134

Joledo (2007) used gross margin to analyzed the profitability of president

Obasanjo’s Ota snail enterprise measuring 15m x 7.5m that stocked 650

Archachatina marginata with laying capacity of 40 snails per year and an hatchability and survivability of 85% and 90% respectively. Inputs utilized by the farm include half plot of land, snailery, 650 parent stocks, feeds, feeders, drinkers, spade, rake, buckets and basins. Others include plastic spoons, knives, cutlass, packers, brooms, touchlight and labour. Joledo reported that the farm incurred total cost of #685040 and earned a total income of #388,900 with a significant profit of #3,203,960. A significant profit of N3,203,960 was realized from the farm in addition to 650 adult s snails still left in the farm as assets.

Joledo, (2007) also appraised the benefit-cost potentials of water rack snail farm (in Ogun state) measuring 24 x 20ft that stocked 600 Archachatina marginata with a laying capacity of 6 eggs/clutch and an hatchability of 80% and mortality of 10%. The farm according to Joledo made net profit of 532,740 from a total expenses of 2,310,000 and total revenue of 2,842,740. The break- even analysis revealed that the farm recouped the invested funds at the 21st month and thereafter, made over 400% profits. Also the Net Present Worth

(NPW) and Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) analysis were greater than one with

50.9% internal rate of return. This implies that for every invested one naira, the farmer received 1.51 after reimbursing 15kobo on the naira to the lender; he

(farmer) was better off by 36 kobo. The positivity of the discounted measures are evidenced by the farms profit margin of 532,740 with 2000 hatchlings, 750

134 135 juveniles and 1850 adults left in the farm, hence, it is not mis-leading to conclude that snail farming is viable and profitable venture in Nigeria as well.

Studies have confirmed the technical and economic feasibility of establishing snail farms in Nigeria, although it must be emphasized that they should be seen as only one component in a diversified farming venture. Snails are slow-growing animals and as such do not represent a way of making money quickly. But with patience, good management and careful integration into existing farming activities, snail farming will usher in substantial rewards in the near future (Paul, 2000).

Summary of Review of Related Literature

The related literatrue was reviewed under conceptual framework of the study, theoretical framework of the study, related empirical studies and summary of reivew of related literature. In concpetual framework of the study, the concept of heliciculture technologies, were discussed in which site preparation, stocking, feed management, pests/diseases control and marketing technologies applied by farmers in the production of Archachatina martginata, were hhighlighted. In theoretical framework, various indicators of productivity such as yield, gross margin and profit analysis, which were built on the theory of production were reviewed. While various levels of productivity, in terms of yield and net profit, were reviewed from different farms, under related empirical

135 136 studies. The reviewed literature showed that snail farmers adopted traditional technologies which led to low productivity.

It was also observed from the reviewed literature that there is dearth of empriical research evidence on the level of application of heliciculture technologies by the farmers as well as pseudo net profit of snail production; occasioned by wrong net profit analysis. It was clear from the reviewed literature that depreciation and overhead costs were not determined and deducted from gross margin to arrive at real net profit.

The literatrue reviewed thus, provided the researcher sufficient information and guide that could be utilized to determine: the level of application of heliciculture technologies by the farmers, farmers’ prodcutivity, constraints and enhancement measures; with a view to improving this area of food production in the study area through agricultural education extension activities.

136 137

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the procedure used in conducting the study. It is presented under the following sub-headings: design of the study, area of the study, population of the study, instrument for data collection, validation of the instrument, reliability of the instrument, method of data collection and method of data analysis.

Design of the Study

The study adopted a descriptive survey research design. A survey research design is one in which a group of people is studied by collecting and analyzing data using instrument or techniques such as questionnaire, interview, observation, from a few people considered to be representative of the entire group (Nworgu, 1991; Ezeh, 2005 & Osuala, 2005). Nworgu (2006) asserted that the choice of research design to be adopted in any investigation depends on the consideration of the relevance of the proposed design to the nature and purpose as well as the economy of the research being conducted. The design adopted for this study was therefore, appropriate since it obtained data from snail farmers on the extent of adoption of technologies as well as their productivity in snail production, using questionnaire, observation and available farm records.

137 125 138

Area of the Study

The study was conducted in Bayelsa State of Nigeria. Geographically, the state is in the south Eastern part of Nigeria, bounded by Delta State on the

North, Rivers State on the East and the Atlantic Ocean on the Western and

Southern parts. The state is located within latitude 040.15” North, 050.23” South and longitude 050.22” West and 050.4” East, with an area of about 21,110 square kilometers (Ekiyor, 2006).

Bayelsa State is a lowland maritime area characterized by tidal flood and coastal beaches, beach ridge barriers and flood plains. There are numerous rivers, creeks and lagoons of varying sizes. It has a tropical climate marked by prolonged wet and short seasons. The vegetation comprises of four ecological zones viz: coastal barriers, high forest, mangrove forest, fresh water swamp and lowland rainforest. Suffice to say that the terrain is swampy with an extensive areas of land flooded for most of the year. Hence, crop production is limited to plantain, banana, cocoyam, yam, cassava, oil palm, raffia palm, coconut, pineapple and vegetables.

Bayelsa State has a total population of about 1,703,358 people whose economic activities are predominantly in the artisanal sector of capture fisheries, because of the abundant creeks, rivers, and lagoons therein (Alamieyeseigha,

2005). Nevertheless, the ecological and climatic conditions favour snail production. For instance, the vegetation is thickly forested with high relative

138 139 humidity and damp environment. Also there are numerous suitable habitats like abundant litter, organic matter, fallen logs, hollows in trees and complex root systems, good enough for snail production.

The state comprised of eight Local Government Areas, which are divided into three senatorial zones. The study covered all the three Senatorial Zones, which also stand as the agricultural zones. The Senatorial Zones and the corresponding Local Government Areas are shown below.

Table 1: Senatorial (Agric.) Zones and Corresponding Local Government Area

S/No. Senatorial Zones Local Government Areas

1. Brass Brass, Ogbia, Nembe

2. Sagbama Ekeremor, Sagbama

3. Yenagoa Kolokuma/Opokuma,

Southern Ijaw, Yenagoa

Population for the Study

The target population for the study comprised all the snail farmers in the three Senatorial Zones of Bayelsa State. This comprise 153 registered snail farmers spread across the State in which Brass has 18, Sagbama 34 and

Yenagoa senatorial zone 101 respectively (Source: Bayelsa State Ministry of

Agriculture and Natural Resources, Statistic Unit, 2007). The entire population of 153 snail farmers was used for the study. Thus, there was no sampling.

139 140

The distribution of the subjects according to the agricultural zones is shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Distribution of Snail Farmers in the Various Agricultural Zones used for the study

Agricultural Zone Population Brass 18 Sagbama 34 Yenagoa 101 Total 153 Source: Bayelsa State Ministry of Agric. Statistic Unit, 2007

Instrument for Data Collection

A researcher designed questionnaire titled “Snail Production

Technologies and Productivity Questionnaire” (SPTPQ) was used in collecting data for the study.

The items generated and used in the instrument on snail production technologies in the different areas of production, were derived from literature and direct observation from existing farms.

The instrument was arranged into part A and B.

Part A focused on the demographic data of the respondents such as farm location, L.G.A., senatorial zone, sex, farming experience and educational background.

Part B was organized into ten sections as follows:

140 141

Section I was designed to obtain information on the level of application of site preparation technologies by snail farmers.

Section II focused on the level of application of technologies in stocking.

Section III solicited for data on the extent of application of technologies in feed management.

Section IV was concerned with pests, predators and diseases control.

Section V sought for data on the level of application of technologies in harvesting and marketing of the products.

Section VI was designed to elicit information on the respective rates of input application.

Section VII sought for data on the corresponding cost of the inputs while

Sections VIII, IX and X obtained information on farmers’ productivity, constraints and measures for enhancing farmers’ productivity respectively.

Section IX was organised in two clusters, A and B. While cluster A focused on constraints as perceived by snail farmers, cluster B was on the perceived constraints by extension agents. In same vein, Section X also had two clusters,

A and B that were concerned with perceived measures by farmers and extension agents respectively.

In sections I – V and IX – X of the instrument, a four point rating scale as described below was used to obtain data on the level of: technology application, problem and agreement respectively.

141 142

The rating scales for Sections I to V was as follows: High (H) = 4 points Moderate (M) = 3 points Low (L) = 2 points Not Applied (NA) = 1 point

The scale points for Section X were as follows: Very Serious Problem (VSP) = 4 points Serious Problem (SP) = 3 points Little Problem (LP) = 2 points Not A Problem (NAP) = 1 point

The scale points for Section XI were as follows:

Strongly Agree (SA) = 4 points

Agree (A) = 3 points

Disagree (D) = 2 points

Strongly Disagree (SD) = 1 point

Validation of the Instrument

The instrument was face validated by five experts, three in Agricultural

Education of the Department of Vocational Teacher Education, and two in

Animal Science Department of the Faculty of Agriculture, all in the University of Nigeria, Nsukka. The face validation is the degree to which experts agree that items in the instrument are appropriate within the level of the respondents (Gay,

1987; Ezeudu, Agwagah and Agbaegbe, 1997 and Osuala, 2005).

142 143

The five expert validators were requested to critically, examine the items in the instrument in terms of relevance of content, clarity of statements and suitability of the rating scale. The comments of these experts were taken into consideration in the final form of the instrument.

Reliability of the Instrument

To determine the reliability of the instrument, copies of the questionnaire were trial tested on 20 snail farmers from Rivers State who were not part of the main study. The data for the reliability test were collected by the researcher and the internal consistency of the instrument determined using Cronbach alpha (α) reliability co-efficient. The choice of Cronbach alpha reliability co-efficient was informed by the fact that the questionnaire items were of the multiple response type and it provides for a more stable measure of homogeneity (Eze, 2005 and

Emeka, 2009). Reliability indices of 0.70, 0.61, 0.60, 0.61, 0.83, 0.61, 0.57,

0.66, 0.68 and 0.71 were obtained separately for each of the ten sections of the instrument. The overall value for the reliability of the instrument is 0.66 showing that the instrument is reliable.

Method of Data Collection

In a bid to facilitate the administration and retrieval of the instrument,

153 copies of the questionnaire were administered by personal contacts through the assistance of six research assistants. The six research assistants were hired and trained by the researcher on the content, method of administration and

143 144 retrieval of the instrument; and were deployed to the three agricultural zones.

Then, two research assistants were detailed to cover one agricultural zone

(senatorial zone) whilst the researcher closely supervised the research assistants in the data collection activity. The research assistants visited the snail farmers/farms on monthly basis during which they explained the contents of the research instrument to the non-literate farmers and in the process, systematically recorded the responses of the farmers by ticking the appropriate response options in parts A and B of the instrument.

In sections VI, VII and VIII of the instrument, the research assistants in same vein, explained the contents of the questionnaire to the snail farmers

(concerning the respective quantities of input application, the corresponding cost of the inputs, monthly yield, sales, revenue as well as information needed for determining the depreciation cost of the fixed assets) and recorded the responses of the farmers by filling in the questionnaire. For the literate snail farmers, after brief explanation of the purpose/contents of the research instrument to them, copies of the questionnaire were left with them to fill in the required data. Out of the 153 copies of the questionnaire administered to the snail farmers, 150 copies were properly filled and returned and were used for the analysis. This represented 98% return rate.

144 145

Method of Data Analysis

Data collected for the study were analyzed using mean in answering research questions 1-5 and 9-10. The seven null hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of significance using the t-test. The mean was computed for each item of the instrument on sections I, II, III, IV, V, IX, and X. The mean values obtained for each item was interpreted in relation to the real limits of the nominal values of the scale points used for data collection as follows:

Table 3: Interpretation of Mean Scores Using Real Limits of Numbers

Response Mode Nominal Value Real Limit Decision on Level of Application High 4 3.50-4.00 High (H) Moderate 3 2.50-3.49 Moderate (M) Low 2 1.50-2.49 Low (L) Not Applied 1 0.50-1.49 Not Applied (NA) Response Mode Nominal Value Real Limit Decision on the level of problem Very Serious Problem 4 3.50-4.00 Very Serious Problem (VSP) Serious Problem 3 2.50-3.49 Serious Problem (SP) Little Problem 2 1.50-2.49 Little Problem (LP) Not A Problem 1 0.50-1.49 Not A Problem (NP) Response Mode Nominal Value Real Limit Decision on the level of agreement Strongly Agree 4 3.50-4.00 Strongly Agree (SA) Agree 3 2.50-3.49 Agree (A) Disagree 2 1.50-2.49 Disagree (D) Strongly Disagree 1 0.50-1.49 Strongly Disagree (SD)

In sections I to V and IX to X of the instrument, all items with mean scores of 3.50-4.00 were interpreted as High/Very Serious Problem/Strongly

Agree respectively. Items with mean scores range of 2.50-3.39 were considered

145 146 as Moderate/Serious Problem/Agree respectively. Then, those items with mean scores falling within 1.50-2.49 were regarded as Low/Little Problem/Disagree respectively, while items with mean scores within 0.50-1.49 were interpreted as

Not APplied/Not A Problem/Strongly Disagree respectively.

For sections VI, VII and VIII of the instrument, gross margin, depreciation and profit analysis were adopted in determining the net profit in snail production. Gross margin is the difference between total revenue earned and the variable costs incurred while the difference between the gross margin and the overhead and depreciation costs of fixed inputs is known as net profit

(Downey & Trocke, 1981).

Ijiomah (2002) described depreciation as a measure of the wearing out, consumption or rather loss of value of a fixed asset whether arising from technology in use, the passage of time or obsolescence through technological and market changes. It is a means of spreading the cost of a fixed asset over its useful life so matching the cost against the full period which it earns profit for the business. Methods of calculating depreciation abounds: straight-line, reducing balance, sum of the digits, machine hour, revaluation, sunking fund and annuity methods (Omuya, 1983; Millichamp, 1987 & Ebirim, 2002).

However, Ebirim (2002) stated unequivocally that the straight-line method is easy to use and is by far the most commonly used method in practice.

Concomitantly, the straight-line method was found to be more convenient, thus, it was adopted for the study.

146 147

In Sections VI and VII of the instrument, the average quantity of inputs applied per year and the corresponding average cost per year were determined by summing-up the rates applied/costs in years one and two and dividing the total value by two. Hence, the obtained value of the average quantity applied and corresponding average cost of the inputs per year were divided by the total number of farms to arrive at the quantity/cost of inputs applied per farm. The average rate of input applied per year per square meter and the corresponding average cost per year per square meter were determined by dividing the obtained value of the average quantity applied/corresponding average cost of the inputs per year by the average size of the farm. Then the obtained values of the average quantity applied/corresponding average cost per year per square meter were multiplied by 1,000m2 and 10,000m2 to get the average rate/cost of the inputs applied per year per 1,000m2 and hectare respectively.

The same procedure was adopted in section VIII of the instrument, in determining the average yield/sales/revenue/depreciation/profit per farm/year, per m2/yr and per ha/yr whilst profit was determined by subtracting the total overhead and depreciation costs from the total gross margin. The average annual proceeds per naira outlay were determined by dividing the total revenue by the total cost (depreciation, overhead and variable) of production. Then the obtained value there from was divided by the number of years (2 years). The payback period refers to the number of years required to recover the original

147 148 cash outlay invested in a project (Arene, 2008). The payback period was determined by dividing the total cash outlay by the monthly cash inflow.

A harvest data was considered profitable if the total gross margin over the total overhead and depreciation costs were greater than one. Also if the total revenue earned divided by the total production cost, were greater than one, it was considered profitable.

The seven null hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of significance, using students’t-test. A null hypothesis was considered not significant, thus, accepted if the t-test result shows that the calculated t-value was less than the tabulated t- value of 1.96 for two-tailed test with degree of freedom of 148 at 0.05 level of significance and vice versa.

148 149

CHAPTER FOUR

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

This chapter deals with the presentation and analysis of data collected during the study. The order of presentation and analysis is in accordance with the research questions and hypotheses.

Research Question 1

What is the level of application of site preparation technologies by snail farmers in Bayelsa State?

The following tables present the mean scores and standard deviation analysis of the responses of snail farmers on the level of technology application.

137 149 150

Table 4: Farmers Mean Scores on the Level of Application of Site Preparation Technologies

Item Site Preparation Technologies X SD Decision No. 1. Selecting shady well-drained leeward 3.59 .69 H site. 2. Mechanical clearing. 1.14 .54 NA 3. Fencing the farm.. 3.83 .62 H 4. Selection of good substrate. 3.25 .81 M 5. Loosening the soil substrate before 3.31 .77 M stocking. 6. Cultivation of food/shelter plants. 3.04 1.09 M 7. Cultivation of wind-breaks. 1.76 1.22 L 8. Applying organic manure for food/shelter 2.76 1.13 M plants. 9. Application of inorganic fertilizer. 1.43 .90 NA 10. Providing snail hide-out. 3.17 .92 M 11. Heat treatment of soil substrate. 1.64 1.06 L 12. Inoculating soil substrate with 2.39 1.3 L earthworm. 13. Use of wood shavens as substrate. 1.59 .99 L 14. East-West snailery orientation. 2.58 1.29 M 15. Liming the substrate. 2.65 1.27 M 16. Use of paddock snailery. 3.17 .92 M 17. Use of raised wooden cage. 3.77 .52 H 18. Use of surface concrete cage. 2.46 1.29 L 19. Use of raised rack cage. 1.87 1.26 L 20. Use of trench snailery. 1.14 .54 L Over-all Mean Score 2.54 .13 M

X = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation; n = 150; H = High; M = Moderate; L = Low; NA = Not Applied

Table 4 shows farmers mean scores on the level of application of site preparation technologies. From the table 4, it was observed that the mean values for item numbers 1, 3 and 17 are 3.59, 3. 83 and 3.77 respectively. Based on the scale used for data collection, the mean scores of these three items (1, 3 and 17)

150 151 fell within the real limits of the nominal value of high; hence they are interpreted as highly applied.

This implies that the following site preparation technologies are highly applied by the snail farmers: selection of quiet shady well-drained leeward site, fencing the snailery and use of raised wooden snailery. It was also observed that the mean scores for seven items (4, 5, 6, 10, 14, 15 and 16) ranged between 2.58 and 3.31, which fell within the real limits of the nominal value of moderate, thus, they are considered as moderately applied. This implies that the technologies of these seven items are moderately applied by the snail farmers.

In contrast, items 7, 11,12,13,18 and 19 had mean values ranging from

1.59 to 2.46 which is between the real limits of the nominal value of low, therefore; they are regarded as low. This means that farmers’ level of application of the following technologies is low: cultivation of wind breaks, heat treatment of substrate, inoculation of soil substrate, substrating (bedding) with wood shavens, use of surface concrete and raised rack snaileries. But mechanical clearing, inorganic fertilizer and trench snailery were regarded as not apllied as evidenced by the mean scores of 1.14, 1.43 and 1.14 respectively, which fell within the real limits of the nominal value of not applied.

Notwithstanding, the over-all mean score( X =2.54) fell within the real limits of the nominal value of moderate, hence the conclusion that site preparation technologies are moderately applied by snail farmers in the study area.

151 152

Research Question 2

What is the level of application of stocking technologies by farmers in snail production?

Table 5: Farmers Mean Response on the Level of Application of Stocking Technologies

Item Stock Preparation and Stocking Technologies X SD Decision No. 1 Selection of breeding stock from farms. 3.83 .62 H 2 Sourcing breeding stock from the wild (forest). 3.04 1.09 M 3 Selection of breeding stock from market. 2.48 1.29 L 4 Selection of medium sized active sore-free snails. 2.46 1.29 L 5. Selecting properly formed snail. 3.56 .86 H 6. Selecting slimy shell-filled foot with fragile shell 3.17 .96 M edge. 7. Selection of the same species and size. 3.44 .49 M 8. Selection of common/edible species within the locality 3.59 .69 H 9. Introducing snails to farms in the morning/evening. 2.45 1.26 L 10. Purging snails on corn meal. 1.23 .69 NA 11. Quarantining snails for 7 – 14 days 1.21 .66 NA 12. Washing snails with clean untreated water before 2.69 1.27 M stocking. 13. Snails are stocked between 15-20 giant snails/m2. 2.20 1.19 L 14. Snails are stocked between 25-30 adults/m2. 3.19 .67 M 15. Snails are stocked between 45 – 50 juveniles/m2. 3.77 .52 H 16. Snails are stocked between 90 – 100 hatchlings/m2. 1.24 .67 NA 17. Raising snails in separate pens based on age, size and 1.87 1.26 L condition. 18. Reared species is Archachatina marginata. 3.68 .47 H 19. Reared species is Achatina achatina. 2.31 1.09 L 20. Reared species is Achatina fulica. 1.39 .87 NA Overall Mean Score 2.64 0.90 M X = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation; N = 150; H = High; M = Moderate; L = Low; NA = Not Applied

Table 5 shows farmers mean scores on the level of application of stocking

technologies. It was revealed that the mean scores for items 1, 5,8,15 and 18

152 153 ranged from 3.56 to 3.83 which are within the real limits of the nominal value of high; hence they are interpreted as highly applied. This implies that the following technologies are highly applied by the farmers: selection of breeding stock

(Archachatina marginata) from farms, selecting properly formed shell, selection of common/edible species and stocking juvenile snails between 45–50 per m2.

Similarly, the mean scores for items 2, 6, 7, 12 and 14 ranged between 2.69 and

3.44 which fell within the real limits of the nominal value of moderate, hence the decision as moderately applied. This implies that the technologies of these five items (2, 6, 7, 12 and 14) are moderately applied by the farmers.

However, the mean scores for items 3, 4, 9, 13, 17 and 19 ranged between

1.87 and 2.48 which fell within the real limits of the nominal value of low thus, they are interpreted as low. This implies that the level of application of the following technologies is low: sourcing breeding stock from market, selection of medium sized snails, introducing snails to farm in the morning/evening, stocking between 15 – 20 adults/m2, raising snails in separate pens and rearing Achatina achatina. Technologies such as purging, quarantining, stocking between 90 – 100 hatchlings/m2 and Achatina fulica species were interpreted as not applied since the mean scores of items 10, 11, 16, and 20 fell within the real limits of the nominal value of not applied. The overall mean score indicated that stocking technologies are moderately applied by the farmers as evidenced by the overall mean value of 2.64 which is within the real limits of the nominal value of moderate

153 154

Research Question 3

What is the extent of application of feed management technologies by farmers?

Table 6: Farmers Mean Scores on the Level of Application of Feed Management Technologies

Item Feed/Substrate Management Technologies X SD Decision 1 Mulching the soil substrate. 3.17 .96 M 2 Removal of dead snails and fouled droppings. 3.86 .35 H 3 Replacement of stale/fouled feed or water. 3.44 .49 M 4 Gently dropping climbing snails from high surfaces. 3.19 .67 M 5. Feeding snails with plant parts. 3.81 .41 H 6. Feeding in relation to age, size and condition. 2.46 1.29 L 7 Use of farmer made feed devoid of salt. 1.87 1.09 L 8 Application of commercial feed. 1.91 1.09 L 9 Ad-libidum supply of calcium. 1.93 1.06 L 10 Provision of clean untreated drinking water. 3.77 .52 H 11 Starving snails to enhance calcium intake. 1.24 .67 NA 12 Illumination of snailery at night to increase feed consumption. 1.65 1.01 L 13 Moistening the substrate with water. 3.78 .50 H 14 Reverting aestivated snails. 1.73 1.08 L 15 Transferring and ovipositing exposed eggs. 2.87 1.12 M 16 Egg candling to determine fertility. 2.20 1.19 L 17 Placing the incubator in warm location to enhance hatching. 1.54 .99 L 18 Moistening the substrate in the incubator. 3.25 .87 M 19 Cultivation of legumes in the incubator. 1.39 .87 NA 20 Transfer of hatchlings to nursery from incubator. 2.53 1.28 M 21 Feeding hatchlings with succulent leaves or powdered or 3.10 .90 M moistened compounded feed. 22 Culling undesirable snails. 3.37 .61 M 23 Periodic cleaning of feed/water trough. 3.33 .63 M 24 Extensive system of husbandry. 2.31 1.09 L 25 Semi-intensive system of husbandry. 3.78 .50 H 26 Intensive system of husbandry. 2.87 1.12 M 27 Periodic replacement of hard substrate. 2.56 1.27 M 28 Periodic loosening of hard substrate. 2.36 1.32 L 29 Weighing snails to determine growth rate. 1.25 .73 NA 30 Keeping farm records. 1.41 1.03 NA Overall Mean Score 2.49 .16 L X = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation; N = 150; H = High; M = Moderate; L = Low; NA = Not Applied

154 155

Table 6 shows the mean scores of items on feed management technologies applied by snail farmers. From the table, item numbers 2, 5, 10, 13, and 25 had mean score range of 3.77 and 3.86. Based on the scale used for data collection, the mean values of these five items fell within the real limits of the nominal value of high, thus, these 5 items were considered as highly applied.

This means that the following feed management technologies are highly applied by the snail farmers: removal of dead snails/fouled droppings, feeding snails with plant parts, provision of clean untreated drinking water and semi-intensive system of husbandry.

It was observed also that eleven items (1, 3, 4, 15, 18, 20-23, 26 and 27) have mean scores range of 2.53 and 3.44. With reference to the scale used for data collection, the mean scores of these eleven items fell within the real limits of the nominal value of moderate, thus they are regarded as moderately applied.

This implies that the farmers have moderately applied the following feed/substrate management technologies: mulching, replacement of stale feed/water with fresh ones, gently dropping climbing snails from high surfaces, ovipositing exposed eggs, moistening the substrate in the incubator and transfer of hatchlings to nursery from incubator. Others include feeding hatchlings with succulent or moistened feed, culling undesirable snails, periodic cleaning of feed/water troughs, intensive husbandry system and periodic replacement of hard substrate.

155 156

On the contrary, the mean scores for 10 items (6-9, 12, 14, 16, 17, 24 and

28) ranged between 1.54 and 2.46, which is within the real limits of the nominal value of low, thus they are regarded as low. This implies that snail farmers level of application of the following technologies is low: feeding in relation to snail age, size and condition, use of farmer made feed, application of commercial feed, ad-libidum supply of calcium, feed/calcium intake enhancement measures, reverting aestivated snails, enumeration of snails, egg candling, location of incubator in warm places, extensive husbandry system and periodic loosening of hard substrate. However, the following technologies were considered not applied by the farmers: use of hygrometer, weighing snails, use of thermometer and keeping of farm records. This is evidenced by the mean scores of items 11,

19, 29 and 30 with a range of 1.24 and 1.41 which fell within the real limits of the nominal value of not applied. The overall mean value ( X =2.49) indicates that feed management technologies application by the snail farmers is low.

Research Question 4

What is the extent of application of pests and diseases control technologies by snail farmers in Bayelsa State?

156 157

Table 7: Farmers Mean Response on the Level of Application of Pests, and Diseases Control Technologies

Item Pests, Predators and Diseases Control Technologies X SD Decision No. 1 Manual weeding. 3.85 .46 H 2 Closing snailery doors. 3.96 .30 H 3 Inspection of materials brought to snailery. 3.43 .81 M 4 Foot dipping before entering snailery. 1.66 1.11 L 5 Killing pests/predators manually. 2.97 .88 M 6 Snailery reinforcement with wire gauze/mosquito nets. 2.46 1.22 L 7 Soil sterilization. 1.43 .90 NA 8 Providing pest/predator-proof floor. 1.69 1.06 L 9 Moating cupped wooden legs of cages. 2.54 1.39 M 10 Applying moat round the snailery. 3.09 1.15 M 11 Trapping predators with gill nets. 2.61 1.16 M 12 Washing soldier-ants infested snails. 1.92 1.11 L 13 Smoking to scare soldier-ants. 2.20 1.26 L 14 Moderate perforation of snailery. 3.35 1.22 M 15 Stocking disease resistant species. 1.55 1.12 L 16 Burning infected snails. 1.71 1.09 L 17. Rotational penning. 1.48 .97 NA 18 Using anti-biotics through feed. 1.52 .99 L 19 Employing veterinary services. 1.25 .79 NA Overall Mean 2.35 .33 L X = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation; N = 150; H = High; M = Moderate; L = Low; NA = Not Applied

Table 7 shows the mean scores of farmers on the level of application of

pests, predators and diseases control technologies. It was found that items 1 and

2 had mean scores of 3.85 and 3.96 respectively. With reference to the scale

used for data collection, the mean scores of items 1 and 2 fell within the real

limits of the nominal value of high hence; these two items are interpreted as

highly applied. This implies that manual weeding and closing snailery doors are

highly practised by snail farmers. It was also observed that the mean scores for

157 158 items 3, 5, 9-11 and 14 ranged between 2.54 and 3.43 which are within the real limits of the nominal value of moderate, hence, the interpretation as moderately applied. This implies that the technologies of these six items (3, 5, 9-11 and 14) are moderately applied by the snail farmers.

In contrast, the mean values for items 4, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 18 ranged between 1.52 and 2.46 which is within the real limits of the nominal value of low. These eight items were therefore, considered as low. This meant that technologies such as: foot-dipping, snailery reinforcement, pest-proof floor, washing soldier-ants infested snails, smoking to scare off pests, stocking disease resistant species, burning infested snails and use of anti-biotics, are applied at low level by the farmers. While the mean scores for items 7, 17 and 19 are 1.43,

1.48 and 1.25 respectively which are between the real limits of the nominal value of not applied. These three items (7, 17 and 19) are thus, regarded as not applied, which implies that snail farmers have not applied soil sterilization, rotational penning and employing veterinary services. The overall mean score revealed that pests and diseases control technologies are applied at low level by the farmers as evidence by the overall mean value of 2.35 which fell within the real limits of the nominal value of low.

158 159

Research Question 5

What is the level of application of marketing technologies of snail products?

Table 8: Farmers Mean Scores on the Level of Application of Harvesting and Marketing Technologies

Item Harvesting and Marketing Technologies X SD Decision No 1 Feeling the hardness of the edge of the shell to 3.56 .86 H determine maturity. 2 Determination of maturity via counting whorls on 1.27 .76 NA the shell. 3 Weighing snails to determine maturity. 1.68 1.08 L 4 Harvesting with hand-gloves. 1.13 1.15 NA 5 De-shelling. 3.55 .96 H 6 Gutting the viscera 3.63 .98 H 7 De-slimation of secretions. 3.61 1.00 H 8 Storing live snails with perforated containers 3.55 .82 H 9 Storing processed snails in refrigerators. 1.34 .86 NA 10 Treading adult live snails with ropes for sale. 2.54 1.12 M 11 Sale of live snails in farm shops. 3.78 .50 H 12 Sale of fried/stewed snails. 3.09 1.15 M Overall Mean 2.67 .44 M

X = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation; N = 150; H = High; M = Moderate; L = Low; NA = Not Applied

Data presented in Table 8 indicates that the mean scores for items 1, 5, 6,

7, 8, and 11 are 3.56, 3.55, 3.63, 3.61, 3.55 and 3.78 respectively. Based on the

scale used for data collection, the mean scores of these seven items fell within

the real limits of the nominal value of high, thus, the technologies of these seven

items are considered as highly applied. This implies that snail farmers are highly

applying the following technologies. Feeling the hardness of the edge of the

shell to determine maturity, de-shelling, gutting the viscera, de-slimation of

159 160

secretions, storing live snails in perforated containers, sale of live snails based

on numbers and sale of live snails direct from farm shops.

It was also observed that the mean scores for items 10 and 12 were 2.54 and 3.09 respectively which fell within the real limits of the nominal value of moderate hence; these two items were interpreted as moderately applied. This means treading adult snails with ropes for sale and sale of fried/stewed snails are moderately applied by snail farmers.

Conversely, item number 3 had mean value of 1.68 which is within the real limits of the nominal value of low, thus, it is considered as low. This implies that snail farmers level of application of weighing snails to determine maturity is low. While the mean values for items 2, 4, and 9 are 1.27, 1.13 and 1.34 respectively which is between the real limits of the nominal value of not applied.

These three items (2, 4 and 9) were therefore, regarded as not applied which means snail farmers are not applying the following technologies: counting suture rings on the shell to determine maturity, harvesting with hand-gloves and storing processed snails in refrigerators. The overall mean score ( X =2.67) however, reveals that marketing technologies are moderately applied by farmers in the study area.

Research Question 6

What are the respective rates of input application?

160 161

Table 9: Mean Rates of Input Application by Farmers Item CAPITAL QUANTITY APPLIED No. INPUTS Yr 1 Yr2 Total Average Average Average Av./yr/ Average/ /yr /yr/farm / yr/m2 1,000m2 Yr/ha

1 Land (m2) 5,0857 2,344 7,429.7 3,715 24.77 1 1,000 10,000 2 Fence (m2) 5,0857 2,036.6 7,122.3 3,561.2 23.74 0.96 960 9,600 3 Snailery (m2) 4,912 1,873 6,785 3,392.5 22.62 0.91 910 9,100 4 Intra-snailery 3,222 1,556 4,778 2,389 15.93 0.64 640 6,400 plants (nos) 5 Parent stock 50,393 25,197 75,590 37,795 252 10.17 10,170 101,700 (nos) 6 Water 100 61 161 80.5 0.54 0.02 20 200 sprinkler (nos) 7 Weighing 43 8 51 25.5 0.17 0.01 10 100 scale (nos) 8 Wheelbarrow 83 17 100 50 0.33 0.01 10 100 (nos) 9 Feeders (nos) 600 124 724 362 2.41 0.1 100 1000 10 Drinkers (nos) 624 100 724 362 2.41 0.1 100 1000 11 Spade (nos) 102 25 127 63.5 0.42 0.02 20 200 12 Rake (nos) 73 5 78 39 0.26 0.01 10 100 13 Garden fork 56 5 61 30.5 0.20 0.01 10 100 (nos) 14 Basin (nos) 232 57 289 144.5 0.96 0.04 40 400 15 Bucket (nos) 220 40 260 130 0.87 0.04 40 400 16 Cutlass (nos) 149 20 169 84.5 0.56 0.02 20 200 17 Knife (nos) 200 81 281 140.5 0.94 0.04 40 400 18 Tray (nos) 93 21 114 57 0.38 0.02 20 200 19 Plasic drum 100 10 110 55 0.37 0.02 20 200 (nos)

Total 71373.4 33580.6 104954 52477 349.9 14.12 14,120 141,200 Item OVERHEAD QUANTITY APPLIED No. Yr1 Yr2 Total Average Average/ Average Average/ Average/ INPUTS / yr yr/farm / yr/m2 yr/1,000m2 yr/ha

20 Permanent 5 2 7 3.5 0.02 0.001 1 10 labour 21 Transportation 500 400 900 450 3 0.12 120 1,200 22 Maintenance 350 250 600 300 2 0.1 100 1,000 23 Telephone 860 640 1,500 750 5 0.2 200 2,000 charges Total 1,710 1,290 3,000 1,500 10 0.4 400 4,000

161 162

Item VARIABLE QUANTITY APPLIED

No. INPUTS Yr 1 Yr 2 Total Average Average/yr/farm Average/yr/m Average/yr/1,00 Average/yr/h per yr 0m2 a 24 Feeds (kg) 9,627,720 3,627,72 13,255,440 6,627,720 44,184.8 1,784 1,784,000 17,840,000 0 25 Lime (kg) 10,725 725 11,450 5,725 38.17 1.54 1,540 15,400 26 Substrate 700 313 1,013 506.5 3.38 0.14 140 1,400 (kg) 27 Fertilizer 600 100 700 350 2.33 0.09 90 900 (kg) 27 Disinfectant 3,500 3,100 6,600 3,300 22 0.89 890 8,900 (ml) 29 Engine oil 2,580 2,980 5,560 2,780 18.53 0.75 750 7,500 (litre) 30 Marker pen 61 86 147 73.5 0.49 0.02 20 200 (nos) 31 Plastic 267 295 562 281 1.87 0.08 80 800 spoon (nos) 32 Torchlight 244 300 544 272 1.81 0.07 70 700 (nos) 33 Battery 8,544 9,000 17,544 8,772 58.48 2.36 2,360 23,600 (nos) 34 Packer 300 244 544 272 1.81 0.07 70 700 (nos) 35 Broom 281 281 562 281 1.87 0.08 80 800 (nos) 36 Litter bin 291 253 544 272 1.81 0.07 70 700 (nos) Total 96,55,813 3,645,397 13,301,210 6,650,605 44,337.37 1,790.20 1,790,200 17,902,000

Total number of farms surveyed = 150.

Total farm size for all farms = 7,429.7m2

Average farm size per farm = 24.77m2

Table 9 shows farmers mean rate of input application. There are one

hundred and fifty snail farms with varied sizes that were surveyed in the study

area. The total size of all the 150 farms surveyed was 7,429.7m2 while an average

2 size of N24.77m /farm/yr was utilized. On the average, fence was at

2 2 2 N23.74m /farm/yr, N0.96m /yr or N960/1,000m /yr. While food/shelter plants

were cultivated at 15 stands/farm, 640 stands/1,000m2 or 6,400 stands/ha. Parent

2 stocks were stocked at N10 snails/m /yr, N252 snails/farm/yr, N10,170

2 snails/1,000m /yr or N101,700 snails/ha/yr. Furthermore, it was observed that

162 163 each farm utilized an average of one unit of these capital inputs: watering can, weighing scale, wheelbarrow, spade, cutlass, tray and drum whilst two each of feeders, drinkers, basins, knives and buckets were used per farm.Although permanent labour was not utilized but an average of 3 times transportation, 2 times maintenance and 5 times telephone calls, were recorded per farm per year.

It was also observed that the following quantities of variable inputs were applied by the farmers. Feeds were applied at the rate of N44,184kg/farm/yr,

2 2 N1,784kg/m /yr, N1,784,000kg/1,000m /yr or N17,840,000kg/ha/yr while lime

2 2 was at N38.17kg/farm/yr, N1.54kg/m /yr, N1,540kg/1,000m /yr or

N15,400kg/ha/yr. Fertilizer was applied at the rate of

2 2 N2.33kg/farm/yr,0.09kg/m /yr, N90kg/1,000m /yr or N900kg/ha/yr, disinfectants

2 2 were applied at N22ml/farm/yr, N0.89ml/m /yr, N890ml/1,000m /yr or

N8,900ml/ha/yr whilst engine oil was at the rate of N18.53 litres/farm/yr, N0.75

2 2 litres/m /yr, N750 litres/1,000m /yr or N7,500 litres/ha/yr. It was further indicated that farmers, on the average, utilized two each per farm of these variable inputs- plastic spoons, torchlights, packers, brooms and litter bins.

163 164

Research Question 7

What are the costs of the inputs?

Table 10: Mean Value of Cost of the Inputs Applied

ITEM CAPITAL COST OF INPUTS (N) NO. Average Average Average Per Average INPUTS Yr1 Yr2 Total Per yr Per Per yr/per yr/ha yr/farm yr/m2 1,000m2 1 Land (m2) 833,333 416,667 1,283,500 625,000 4,166.67 168.24 168,240 1,682,400 2 Fence 1,021,800 114,900 1,136,700 568,350 3,789 152.99 152,990 1,529,900 (m2) 3 Snailery 10,705,934 5,036,316 15,742,250 7,871,125 52,474.17 2,118.74 2,118,74 21,187,400 (m2) 0 4 Intra- 266,000 133,000 399,000 199,500 1,330 53.70 53,700 537,000 snailery plant(nos) 5 Parent 1,512,000 1,511,600 3,023,600 1,511,800 10,078.67 407 40,700 4,070,000 stock (nos) 6 Water 22,000 26,300 48,300 24,150 161 6.50 6,500 650,000 sprinkler (nos) 7 Weighing 150,500 28,000 178,500 89,250 595 24.02 24,020 240,200 scale (nos) 8 Wheelbar 705,500 144,500 850,000 425,000 2,833.33 114.40 114,400 1,144,000 rroow (nos) 9 Feeders 120,000 24,800 144,800 72,400 482.67 19.49 19,490 194,900 (nos) 10 Drinkers 124,800 20,000 144,800 72,400 482.67 19.49 19,490 194,900 (nos) 11 Spade 153,000 37,500 190,500 95,250 635 25.64 25,640 256,400 (nos) 12 Rake 87,600 6,000 93,600 46,800 312 12.6 12,600 126,000 13 Garden 28,000 2,500 30,500 15,250 101.67 4.11 4,110 41,100 fork (nos) 14 Basin 58,000 14,250 72,250 36,125 240.83 9.72 9,720 97,200 (nos) 15 Bucket 60,000 5,000 65,000 32,500 216.67 8.75 8,750 87,500 (nos) 16 Cutlass 119,200 16,000 135,200 67,600 450.67 18.2 18,200 182,ooo (nos) 17 Knife 20,000 8,100 28,100 14,050 93.67 3.78 3,780 37,800 (nos) 18 Tray (nos) 9,300 2,100 11,400 5,700 38 1.53 1,530 15,300 19 Plastic 217,000 80,000 297,000 148,500 990 39.97 39,970 399,700 drum (nos) Total 16,213,967 12,196,433 28,410,400 14,205,200 94,701.33 3,823.74 3,823,74 38,237,400 0

164 165

ITEM OVERHE- INPUTS (N) NO AD COST OF

INPUTS Yr1 Yr2 Total Average Average Average Average Average Per yr per per yr/1,000 yr/ha yr/farm yr/m2 m2 20 Permanent 1,200,000 480,000 1,680,000 840,000 5,600 226.11 226,110 2,261,100 labour 21 Transport 847,250 847,250 1,694,500 847,250 5,648.33 228.06 228,060 2,280,600 ation 22 Maintenan 857,500 1,157,500 2,015,000 1,007,500 6,716.67 271.2 271,200 2,712,000 ce 23 Telephone 2,004,800 1,604,800 3,609,600 1,804,800 12,032 485.81 485,810 4,858,100 charges Total 4,909550 4,089,550 8,999,100 4,499,550 29,997 1,211.02 1,211,180 12,111,800

ITEM VARIABLE COST OF INPUTS (N) NO. INPUT 24 Feeds (kg) 20,412,800 16,412,800 36,825,600 18,412,800 122,752 4,956.34 4,956,340 49,563,400 25 Lime (kg) 16,800 800 17,600 8,800 58.67 2.37 2,370 23,700 26 Substrate 226,801 699 227,500 113,750 758.33 30.62 30,620 306,200 (kg) 27 Fertilizer 13,000 1,000 14,000 7,000 46.67 1.88 1,880 18,800 (kg) 28 Disinfecta 8,560 8,160 16,720 8,360 55.73 2.25 2,250 22,500 nt (ml) 29 Engine oil 116,500 300,500 417,000 208,500 1,390 56.12 56,120 561,200 (litre) 30 Marker 3,050 4,300 7,350 3,675 24.5 0.99 990 9,900 pen (nos) 31 Plastic 2,670 2,950 5,620 2,810 18.93 0.76 760 7,600 spoon (nos) 32 Torchlight 61,000 7,000 136,000 68,000 453.33 18.30 18,300 183,000 (nos) 33 Battery 512,640 540,000 1,052,640 526,320 3,508.8 141.67 141,670 1,416,700 (nos) 34 Packer 15,000 12,200 27,200 13,600 90.67 3.66 3,660 36,600 (nos) 35 Broom 14,050 14,050 28,100 14,050 93.67 3.78 3,780 37,800 (nos) 36 Litter bin 72,750 63,250 136,000 68,000 453.33 18.30 18,300 183,000 (nos) Total 21,475,621 17,435,709 38,911,330 19,455,665 129,704.43 5237.060 5,237,06 52,370,600 0 Sum Depreciat 25,923,100. 21,995,300.0 47,918,400. 23,959,200. 159,728,000 6,449 6,449,000 64,490,000 Total ion, 02 2 04 04 1 overhead and variable inputs

Table 10 shows farmers mean value on the cost of inputs applied. The cost

of land applied for snail farming in the study area has been determined as

2 2 N4,166.67/farm/yr, N168.24/m /yr or N168,240/1,000m /yr, fence was at the rate

165 166

2 2 N3,789/farm/yr, N152.99/m /yr or N152,990/1,000m /yr while snailery was at

2 2 N52,474.17/farm/yr, N2,118.74/m /yr or N2,118,740/1,000m /yr.

Parent stocks, watering can, weighing scales and wheelbarrows were procured at a unit cost of N40/snail, N300/sprinker, N3,500/weighing scale and

N8,500/wheelbarrow respectively. While spades were bought at the cost of

N1,500/spade, trays at N100 each, drum at N800 each, feeders and drinkers at

N200 each and basins and buckets at N500 each.

Furthermore, it was found that the followings were the costs of the overhead inputs applied by snail farmers in the study area. Permanent labour incurred an average cost of N5,600/farm/yr, N226.11/m2/yr, N226,110/1,000m2/yr or

N2,261,100/ha/yr while transportation cost was N5,648.33/farm/yr,

N228.06/m2/yr, N228,060/1,000m2/yr or N2,280,600/ha/yr. Maintenance had a cost of N6,716.67/farm/yr, N217.2/m2/yr, N217,200/1,000m2/yr or

N2,712,000/ha/yr whilst telephone calls incurred a cost of N12,032/farm/yr,

N485.81/m2/yr, N485,810/1,000m2/yr or N4,858,100/ha/yr.

The analysis also indicated the following variable costs for the inputs applied. The cost of feed application was at N122,752/44,184kg/farm/yr,

N4,956.34/1,784kg/m2/yr or N4,956,340/1,784,000kg/1,000m2/yr. Lime was at the cost of N58.67/38.17kg/farm/yr, N2.37/1.54kg/m2/yr,

N2,370/1,540kg/1,000m2/yr or N23,700/15,400kg/ha/yr while fertilizer was at

N46.67/2.33kg/farm/yr, N1.88/0.09kg/m2/yr, N1,880/90kg/1,000m2/yr or

N18,800/900kg/ha/yr. The cost implication for disinfectant was

166 167

N55.73/22ml/farm/yr, N2.25/0.89ml/m2/yr, N2,250/890ml/1,000m2/yr or

N22,500/8,900ml/ha/yr, whereas engine oil had a cost of N1,390/18.53 litres/farm/yr, N56.12/0.75 litres/m2/yr, N56,120/750/litres/1,000m2/yr or

N561,200/7,500 litres/ha/yr. Plastic spoons were purchased at a unit cost of N10, torchlight at N250, packer at N50, broom at N50 and litter bin at N50 each.

Thus, capital (fixed) inputs incurred an average cost of

N94,701.33/farm/yr, N3,823.74/m2/yr or N3,823,740/1,000m2/yr, overhead inputs had an average cost of N29,999/farm/yr, N1,211.81/m2/yr or

N5,257,060/1,000m2/yr whilst variable inputs had an average cost of

N129,704.43/farm/yr, N5,237.06/m2/yr or N5,237,060/1,000m2/yr.

On the whole, the sum of N47,918,400.00 accounted for the overall (depreciation, overhead and variable) cost of production, with an average cost of

N23,959,200/yr, N159,728/farm/yr, N6,449/m2/yr, N6,449,000/1,000m2/yr or

N64,490,000/ha/yr respectively.

Research Question 8:

What is the productivity of farmers in snail production?

Productivity was measured in three ways – mean quantity of snails produced, gross margin and profit. Data analysis on yield of snail is presented in Table 11, while gross margin and profit analysis are shown in Table 13 and 15 respectively.

167 168

Data analysis on farmers mean yield in snail production is shown in table 11.

Table 11: Mean Yield in Snail Production by Farmers QUANTITY OF SNAILS PRODUCED Item No No of Yr 1 Yr 2 Total Av. Average Average Average Average Average Average No of parent Farm farm per yr per farm per per ha per yr farms stock Size size per yr m2 /yr 1000m2 per farm (m2) (m2) per yr

1 5 30 2808 2010 4,818 17.5 3.5 2,409 482 275 275,000 2,750,000

2 14 60 13,988 13,000 26,988 70 5 13,494 964 386 386,000 3,860,000

3 10 100 16, 209 15,921 32,130 78.2 7.82 16,065 1,607 411 411,000 4,100,000

4 8 450 37,834 77,834 115,668 160 20 57,834 7,229 723 723,000 7,230,000

5 95 500 853,089 673,089 1,526,178 3,800 40 763,089 8,033 402 402,000 4,020,000

6 11 1,000 187,816 165,614 353,430 1,144 104 176,715 16,065 309 309,000 3,090,000

7 5 1,5000 122,489 118,489 240,978 1,200 240 120,489 24,098 201 201,000 2,010,000

8 2 2,000 52,059 76,461 128,520 960 480 64,260 32,130 134 134,000 1,340,000

Total 150 75,590 1,286,292 1,142,418 2,428,710 7,429.7 900.32 1,214,355 8,096 327 327,000 3,270,000

Table 11 shows the mean values on the yield of farms in snail production.

It was observed that 5 different farms with a size of 3.5m2 each stocked 30

snails per year and had a yield of 482 snails per farm/yr, 275 snails per m2/yr,

275,000 snails/1,000m2 and

2,750,000 snails per hectare/yr while 14 farms measuring a total size of 70m2

which stocked 60 snails each had a yield of 13,494 adult snails/yr, 964

168 169 snails/farm/yr, 386 snails/m2/yr, 386,000 snails/1,000m2 and 3,860,000 snails/ha/yr.

With respect to production, 10 farms measuring a total size of 78.2 m2 seeded

100 snails each and produced 16,065 adult snails/yr, 1,607 snails/farm/yr, 411 snails/m2/yr, 411,000 snails/1,000m2 and 4,110,000 snails/hectare/yr whereas 8 farms with total size of 160m2 stocked 450 snails each and got an output of

57,834 adult snails/yr, 7,229 snails/farm/yr, 723 snails/m2/yr, 723,000 snails/1,000m2 and 7,230,000 snails/ha/yr.

It was also found that a yield of 763,089 snails/yr, 8,033 snails/farm/yr,

402 snails/m2/yr, 402,000 snails/1,000m2/yr and 4,020,000 snails/ha/yr were produced from 95 farms with a total farm size of 3,800m2 while 176,715 snails/yr , 16,065 snails/farm/yr, 309 snails/m2/yr, 309,000 snails/1,000m2 and

3,090,000 snails/ha/yr were produced from 11 farms with a total farm size of

1,144m2 which stocked 1,000 snails. Also, a yield of 120,489 adult snails/yr,

24,098 snails/farm/yr, 201 snails/m2, 201,000 snails/1000m2/yr and 2,010,000 snails/ha/yr, were produced from 500 farms with a total farm size of 1,200m2 which stocked 1,500 snails whilst 2 farms measuring a total farm size of 960m2 that seeded 2,000 snails, produced 64,260 snails/yr, 32,130 snails/farm/yr, 134 snails/m2/yr, 134,000 snails/1,000m2 and 1,340,000 snails/ha/yr. Therefore, a total of 150 farms measuring a total farm size of 7,429.7m2 that stocked 75,590 snails produced an average of 1,234,355 adult snails annually.

169 170

Analysis on Sales and Revenue of Adult Snails

Table 12: Farmers’ Mean Value of Sales and Revenue from Adult Snails

Items No. No of QUANTITY OF ADULT SNAILS SOLD (NOS) no. of Parent Yr1 Yr2 Total Total Av Average Avera Avera Aveage/ Average farms stocks Farm Farm Per yr ge ge/m2/ yr/1,000 per ha per Per Size Size farm/y yr m2 Yr farm (m2) r 1. 5 30 2,808 2,010 4,818 17.5 3.5 2,409 482 275 275,000 2,750,000 2. 14 60 13,988 13,000 26,988 70 5 13,494 964 386 386,000 3,860,000 3 10 100 16,209 15,921 32,130 78.2 7.82 16,065 1,607 411 411,000 4,110,000 4 8 450 37,834 77,834 115,668 160 20 57,834 7,229 723 723,000 7,230,000 5 95 500 853,089 673,089 1,526,178 3.800 40 763,089 8,033 402 402,2000 4,020,000 6 11 1,000 187,816 165,614 353,430 1,144 104 176,715 16,065 309 309,000 3,090,000 7 5 1,500 122,489 118,489 240,978 1,200 240 120,489 24,098 201 201,000 2,010,000 8 2 2,000 52,059 76,461 128,520 960 480 64,600 32,130 134 134,000 1,340,000 Total 150 75,590 12,862,921 1,142,418 2,428,710 7,429.7 900.32 1,214,355 8,096 327 327,000 3,270,000 REVENUE FROM SALES (N) Itmes No. No of Yr 1 Yr 2 Total Total Avera Average Average Average Average Average/h no of Parent Farm ge /yr farm/yr /m2/yr /yr/1,000 a/yr size 2 farms stocks 2 farm m Per (m ) size farm (m2) 1 5 30 168,480 120,600 289,080 17.5 3.5 144,540 28,908 16,519,000 16,519,000 165,190,000 2 14 60 839,280 780,000 1,619,280 70 5 809,640 57,831.43 23,133 23,133,000 231,330,000 3 10 100 972,540 955,260 1,927,800 78.2 7.82 963,900 433,755 24,652.2 24,652,200 246,522,000 4 8 450 2,270,040 4,670,040 6,940,080 160 20 3,470,040 433,755 43,376 43,376,000 433,760,000 5 95 500 51,185,340 40,385,340 91,570,680 3,800 40 45,785,340 481,951 24,098 24,098,000 240,980,000 6 11 1,000 11,268,960 9,936,840 21,205,800 1,144 104 10,602,900 963,900 18,537 18,537,000 185,370,000 7 5 1,500 7,349,340 7,109,340 14,458,680 1,200 240 7,229,340 1,445,868 12,049 12,049,000 120,490,000 8 2 2,000 3,123,540 4,587,660 7,711,200 960 480 3,855,600 1,927,800 8,033 8,033,000 80,330,000 Total 150 75,590 77,177,520 68,545,080 145,722,600 7,429.7 900.32 72,861,300 485,742 19,613 19,613,000 196,130,000

Table 12 shows the mean values of sales and revenue from farmers in

snail production. It was observed that five farms measuring a total of 17.5m2

made an average sales (N60/adult snail) of 2,409 adult snails per year and

realized the sum of N144,540/yr, N28,908/farm/yr, N16,519/m2/yr,

N16,519,000/1,000m2/yr and N165,190,000/ha/yr while fourteen farms sold an

average of 13,494 adult snails annually and realized an income of N809,640/yr,

170 171

N5,783,143/farm/yr, N123,133/m2/yr, N23,133,000/1,000m2/yr and

N231,330/ha/yr. Similarly ten farms measuring a total farm size of 78.2m2, sold an average of 16,065 adult snails yearly and recorded a revenue of N963,900/yr,

N96,390/farm/yr, N24,652.2/m2/yr, N24,652,200/1,000m2/yr, and

N246,522,000/ha/yr whilst an average income of N3,470,040/yr,

N433,755/farm/yr, N43,376/m2/yr, N43,376,000/1,000m2/yr and

N433,760,000/ha/yr, were realized from eight farms that sold 57,834 adult snails annually.

It was further indicated that an average revenue of N45,785,340/yr,

N481,951/farm/yr, N24,098/m2/yr, N24,098,000/1,000m2/yr and

N240,980,000/ha/yr were realized from 95 farms which made an average sales of

763,089 adult snails/yr whereas eleven farms with total size of 1,144m2 sold

176,715 adult snails yearly and got an average revenue of N10,602,900/yr,

N963,900/farm/yr, N18,537/m2/yr, N18,537,000/1,000m2/yr and

N185,370,000/ha/yr.

Five farms with total size of 1,200m2 realized the sum of N7,229,340/yr,

N1,445,868/farm/yr, N12,049/m2/yr, N12,049,000/1,000m2/yr and

N120,490,000,ha/yr from the sales of 120,489 adult snails, the sum of

N3,855,600/yr, N1,927,800/farm/yr, N8,033/m2/yr, N8,033,000/1,000m2/yr and

N80,330,000/ha/yr were realized from two farms which sold 64,260 adult snails annually.

171 172

Table 13: Gross Margin Analysis of Snail Production

VARIABLE COST (N) Yr 1 Yr 2 Total Per yr Per Per m2 Per Per ha Farm 1,000m2 21,475,621 17,433,709 38,911,330 19,455,665 129,704.43 5,237.06 5,237,060 52,370,600 REVENUE (N) Yr 1 Yr 2 Total Per yr Per Per M2 Per Per ha farm 1,000m2 77,177,520 68,545,080 145,722,600 72,861,300 485,742 19,613 19,613,000 196,130,000 GROSS MARGIN (N) Yr 1 Yr 2 Total Per Yr Per Per m2 Per Per ha Farm 1,000m2 58,405,635 48,405,635 106,811,270 53,405,635 356,037.57 14,373.74 14,373,740 143,737,400

Table 13 shows analysis of gross margin of snail production in Bayelsa

State. The values under variable cost in table 13, were obtained from the total variable cost column in table 10 (captioned Mean Value of Cost of Inputs) whereas those values under revenue in same table 13, were got from total revenue column in table 12 captioned Farmers Mean Revenue from Sales. It was found from table 13 that a gross margin of N53,405,635 per year, N356,037.57 per farm, N14,373.74 per m2, N14, 373,740/1,000m2 and N143, 737,400 per hectare were observed. The values of the gross margin were obtained by subtracting the variable cost items (per yr, farm, m2, ha) from the corresponding revenue items.

The gross margin posits that the average revenue realized per year from the sales, was greater than the variable cost of production.

172 173

Table 14: Depreciation Analysis of Fixed Assets, Original Cost, Useful live and Age

S/ Fixed Total Cost of Assets (N) Year of Useful Total Age of Asset purchase No Assets Qty of life of useful life during data Fixed unit of all collection Assets Yr 1 Yr 2 Total Asset Assets (yrs) (yrs) Yr 1 Yr 2 1 Land (m2) 7,429.7 833,333 450,167 1,283,500 1999 100 742,970 9 10 2 Fence (m2) 7,122.3 1,021,800 114,900 1,136,700 2003 10 71,223 5 6 3 Snailery (m2) 6,785 10,765,934 5,036,316 15,742,250 2004 15 101,775 4 5 4 Intra-snailery 4,778 266,000 133,000 399,000 2003 5 23,890 5 6 plants (nos) 5 Parent stock 75,590 151,200 1,511,600 3,023,600 2005 3 226,770 3 4 (nos) 6 Watering can 161 22,000 26,300 48,300 2005 5 805 3 4 (nos) 7 Weighing 51 150,500 28,000 178,500 2007 5 255 1 2 scale (nos) 8 Wheel barrow 100 705,500 144,500 850,000 2005 5 500 3 4 (nos) 9 Feeders (nos) 724 120,000 24,800 144,800 2005 6 4,344 3 4 10 Drinkers (nos) 724 124,800 20,000 144,800 2005 6 4,344 3 4 11 Spade (nos) 127 153,000 37,500 190,500 2005 4 508 3 4 12 Rake (nos) 78 87,600 6,000 93,600 2004 4 312 4 5 13 Garden fork 61 28,000 2,500 30,500 2004 4 244 4 5 (nos) 14 Plastic basin 289 58,000 14,250 72,250 2005 6 1,734 3 4 (nos) 15 Bucket (nos) 260 60,000 5,000 65,000 2005 5 1,300 3 4 16 Cutlass (nos) 169 119,200 16,000 135,200 2003 4 676 5 6 17 Knife (nos) 281 20,000 8,100 28,100 2005 4 1,124 3 4 18 Tray (nos) 114 9,300 2,100 11,400 2005 4 456 3 4 19 Plastic drum 110 217,000 80,000 297,000 2006 7 770 2 3 (nos) Total 104,954 16,213,967 12,196,433 28,410,400 202 1,185,734 74 88

173 174

DEPRECIATION COST (N) S/N Fixed Assets Yr 1 Yr 2 Total Average Per Per m2 Per Per ha Per yr farm 1,000m2 1 Land m2 1.73 1.73 3.46 1.73 0.012 0.001 1 10

2 Fence m2 15.96 15.96 31.92 15.96 0.11 0.004 4 40

3 Snailery (m2) 154.68 154.68 309.36 154.68 1.03 0.04 40 400

4 Intra-snailery plants 16.70 16.70 33.4 16.70 0.11 0.01 10 100

5 Parent stock (nos) 13.33 13.33 26.66 13.33 0.09 0.004 4 40

6 Watering can (nos) 60 60 120 60 0.4 0.02 20 200

7 Weighing scale (nos) 700 700 1,400 700 4.67 0.19 190 1,900

8 Wheelbarrow (nos) 1,700 1,700 3,400 1,700 11.33 0.46 460 4,600

9 Feeders (nos) 33.33 33.33 66.66 44.44 0.22 0.01 10 100

10 Drinkers (nos) 33.33 33.33 66.66 33.33 0.22 0.01 10 100

11 Spade (nos) 375 375 750 375 2.5 0.10 100 1,000

12 Rake (nos) 300 300 600 300 2 0.08 80 800

13 Garden fork (nos) 125 125 250 125 0.83 0.03 30 300

14 Plastic basin (nos) 41.67 41.67 83.34 41.67 0.28 0.01 10 100

15 Bucket (nos) 50 50 100 50 0.33 0.01 10 100

16 Cutlass (nos) 200 200 400 200 1.33 0.05 50 500

17 Knife (nos) 25 25 50 25 0.17 0.01 10 100

18 Tray (nos) 25 25 50 25 0.17 0.01 10 100

19 Plastic drum 114.29 114.29 228.58 114.29 0.76 0.03 30 300

Total 3,985.02 3,985.02 7,970.04 3,985.02 26.57 1.07 1,070 10,700

Table 14 shows depreciation analysis of snail production in the study

area. The straight line method was adopted in determining the depreciation cost,

in which the total cost of fixed assets were divided by the total useful life of all

the fixed assets.

174 175

From the table, annual depreciation values have been determined as N1.73 for land, N15.96 for fence, N154.68 for snailery, N16.70 for food/shelter plants and

N13.33 for parent stocks. While watering can, weighing scale, wheel barrow and feeders had annual depreciation charges of N60, N700, N1,700 and N33.33 respectively.

Also, the following annual depreciation values have been determined as

N33.33 for drinkers, N375 for spades, N300 for rakes, N125 for garden forks and

N41.67 for plastic basins. Other depreciation costs include N50 for buckets, N200 for cutlasses, N25 for knives, N25 for trays and N114.29 for plastic drums. The fixed assets had a depreciation cost of N3,985.02/yr N26.57/farm/yr,

N1.07/m2/yr, N1,070/1,000m2/yr and N10,700/ha/yr in the study area under two years period.

175 176

Table 15: Profit Analysis in Snail Production GROSS MARGIN (N) Total Per yr Per farm/yr Per m2/yr Per 1,000m2/yr Per ha/yr 106,811,270 53,405,635 356,037.57 14,373.74 14,373,740 143,737,400 DEPRECIATION COST (N) Total Per yr Per farm/yr Per m2/yr Per 1,000m2/yr Per ha/yr 7,970.04 3,985,02 26.57 1.07 1,070 10,700 OVER HEAD COST (N) Total Per yr Per farm/yr Per m2/yr Per 1,000m2/yr Per ha/yr 8,999,100 4,499,550 29,997 1,211.02 1,211,020 12,110,200 PROFIT (N) Total Per yr Per farm/yr Per m2/yr Per 1,000m2/yr Per ha/yr 97,804,199.96 48,902,099.98 326,014 13,162 13,162,000 131,620,000

Table 15 shows profit analysis in snail production. The values under

gross margin, depreciation cost and overhead costs in table 15 above, were

obtained from table 13 (captioned gross margin analysis), 14 (captioned

depreciation analysis) and 10 (captioned mean value of cost of inputs)

respectively. Net profit thus, was determined by subtracting the depreciation

cost and overhead cost values from the values of gross margin. From the

analysis in table 15, it was observed that a net profit of N48,902,099.98 per

year, N326,014 per farm, N13,162 per m2, N13, 162,000/1,000m2 and

N131,620,000 per hectare, were realized. Similarly, the average annual

proceeds per naira outlay was also determined by dividing the total revenue by

176 177 the total cost (depreciation, overhead and variable costs) of production and the value obtained divided by the number of years. From the analysis, it was observed that the sum of N 2.00/yr was realized for every one naira invested in snail production. Also, pay back period for snail production was determined by dividing the total cost of prodcution by the mouthly revenue. From the analysis, it revealed a break-even period of 121/2 months per farm; which implies that snail farmers recouped their initial capital invested at the 121/2 months and earned profit from the 13th month.

Based on the established bench mark in chapter three (methodology) that an output (revenue) data was considered productive if the gross margin less depreciation and overhead costs, were greater than one and more so if the total revenue received divided by the total cost of production were greater than one.

Thus, since a net profit of N48,902,099.98/yr, N326,014/farm/yr,

N13,162/m2/yr, N13,162,000/1,000m2 and N131,620,000/ha/yr, were realized; and the sum of N2.00/yr was also realized for every one naira invested,snail farming is productive in the study area.

Research Question 9: What are the constraints of farmers in snail production in Bayelsa State?

177 178

Table 16: Farmers/Extension Agents Mean Response on the Constraints of Farmers’ in Snail Production Item Constraints as Perceived by farmers X SD Decision No. 1 Lack of suitable land. 2.65 .89 SP 2 Inexperience in snail production. 3.47 .68 SP 3 High cost of labour. 1.69 .63 LP 4. Aestivation of snails due to poor management. 1.90 .75 LP 5 Shortage of improved snail species. 3.64 .68 VSP 6 Lack of fund. 3.14 .62 SP 7 Escalating cost of inputs. 2.50 1.11 SP 8 Seasonal flooding of snail farms. 3.28 .80 SP 9 Non-supply of farm inputs by extension agents. 3.36 .74 SP 10 Impracticable research recommendations. 2.40 1.06 LP 11 Non-commitment to service by extension agents. 3.35 .79 SP 12 High mortality rate. 1.97 .83 LP 13 Low rate of egg hatchability. 2.45 1.05 LP 14 Serious pest attack. 3.41 .88 SP 15 Low growth rate. 1.77 .72 LP 16 High incidence of predators. 2.61 1.02 Sp 17 Frequent incidence of diseases. 1.72 .75 LP 18 Lack of processing and storage facilities. 2.79 .91 SP 19 Inexperience in processing and storage methods. 2.57 1.01 SP 20 Low market prospects for giant land snails. 1.35 .77 NAP Constraints as perceived by Extension Agents. 21 Inadequate agric. extension services. 3.23 .69 SP 22 Lack of vehicles for extension agent’s field work. 3.02 .96 SP 23 Extension agent’s inexperience in snail 3.40 .75 SP production. 24 Farmer’s apathy to attend agric. workshops. 2.57 .96 SP 25 Farmer’s conservatism due to traditional beliefs. 2.67 .86 SP 26 Farmer’s adherence to indigenous technologies. 2.73 .97 SP 27 Inadequate literature on snail production. 1.75 .75 LP 28 Inadequate government/non-governmental 3.61 .63 VSP agencies financial support to snail production programme/ projects. Overall mean score. 3.12 .24 SP

X = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation; n= 150; VSP = Very Serious Problem; SP = Serious Problem; LP = Little Problem; NAP = Not A Problem

178 179

Table 16 shows farmers/extension agents’ mean responses on the constraints of farmers in snail production. The result indicates that the mean score for item number 5 is 3.64 which based on the scale used for collecting data; fell within the real limits of the nominal value of very serious problem.

Item number 5 was therefore, interpreted as very serious problem which implies that snail farmers perceived shortage of improved snail species as a very serious constraint in snail production. It was also observed that the mean values for eleven items (1, 2, 6-9, 11,14,16,18 and 19) ranged from 2.50 to 3.47 which is between the real limits of the nominal value of serious problem, thus they were considered as serious problems. This implies that the statements of these eleven items (1, 2, 6-9, 11, 14, 16 and 19) are being perceived as serious problems by snail farmers.

However, items 3,4,10,12,13,15 and 17 have mean values ranging from

1.69 to 2.45 which is between the real limit of the nominal value of little problem, thus, they are regarded as little problems. This means snail farmers considered the statements of these seven items (3, 4, 10,12,13,15 and 17) as little problems in snail production which in other words are not problems since their mean scores are lower than the bench mark of 2.5. Similarly, the mean score for item 20 is 1.35 which is within the real limit of the nominal value of not a problem hence, it was interpreted as not a problem. This implies that snail farmers do not perceive low market prospects for giant land snails as a problem in snail production.

179 180

On the other hand, item 28 had a mean score of 3.61 which fell within the real limits of the nominal value of very serious problem, hence, it was considered as a very serious problem. This implies that inadequate government/non-governmental agencies financial support to snail production programmes is being perceived as a very serious problem by extension agents in snail production. Whilst the mean values for items 21-26 ranged between 2.57 and 3.40 which fell within the real limits of the nominal value of serious problems thus, they were interpreted as serious problems. This implies that the statements of these six items (21-26) are being perceived as serious constraints in snail production by extension agents. However, the mean score for item 27 is

1.75 which fell within the real limit of the nominal value of little problem, hence it was regarded as little problem. This means extension agents perceive inadequate literature as little problem in snail production and therefore, it is regarded as not a problem because the mean value (1.75) is lower than the cut off point of 2.5. However, the overall mean value ( X =3.12) indicates that farmers are having serious challenges in this area of food production.

Research Question 10:

What are the measures for enhancing farmers’ Productivity?

180 181

Table 17: Mean Scores of Farmers/Extension Agents on Measures for Enhancing Farmers’ Productivity Item Enhancement Measures as Perceived by X SD Decision No Farmers 1 Regular organization of workshops for snail 3.91 .39 SA farmers by A.D.P. 2 Increasing farmer-extension agent’s contact. 2.71 1.20 A 3 Use of radio/television programs for the delivery 3.58 .53 SA of extension services. 4 Regular management of snail farms. 3.59 .52 SA 5 Provision of balanced diet feed. 3.10 .67 A 6 Improving the availability of breeding stocks. 3.11 .74 A 7 Establishment of snail breeding centres. 2.75 .98 A 8 Increasing availability of soft loans to farmers. 3.37 .55 A 9 Provision of subsidized inputs to farmers. 3.40 .52 A 10 Funding snail production programs by oil 3.88 .43 SA companies. 11 Improving the availability of veterinary services. 2.58. .97 A 12 State support to provide snail processing centres. 2.56 .97 A 13 Establishing of snail feed factories. 2.69 .98 A 14 Proper site feasibility survey. 3.33 .53 A 15 Construction of drainage system. 3.58 .53 SA Measures as Perceived by Extension Agents 16 Recruitment of heliculture extension agents. 3.79 .47 SA 17 Provision of vehicles for extension agent’s field 3.31 .52 A work. 18 Regular supervision of extension agents. 3.52 .69 SA 19 Establishment of snail demonstration farms. 3.25 .64 A 20 State support for research on snail production. 3.07 .78 A 21 Recruitment of subject matter specialists for the 2.80 .91 A state extension service. 22 Development of local/international markets for 3.31 .62 A snail products. Overall mean 3.30 .32 A X = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation; N = 150; SA = Strongly Agree; A = Agree; D = Disagree; SD = Strongly Disagree.

Table 17 shows mean responses of farmers and extension agents on measures for enhancing farmers’ productivity. From the table, it was shown that

181 182 items 1, 3,4,10 and 15 had mean values of 3.91, 3.58, 3.59, 3.88, and 3.58 respectively. Based on the scale used for data collection, the mean scores of these five items fell within the real limits of the nominal value of strongly agree.

Thus, these five items (1, 3,4,10 and 15) were interpreted as strongly agree; which implies that farmers strongly agree with the statements of these five items as enhancement measures.

Also, it was indicated that the mean scores for ten items (2, 5-9 and 11-

14) ranged from 2.56 to 3.40 which fell within the real limits of the nominal value of agree. Therefore, these ten items were considered as agree which implies that farmers agree with the statements of these ten items (2, 5-9 and 11-

14) as measures that would enhance the productivity of farmers.

Similarly, extension agents strongly agree with the statements of items

16 and 18 as enhancement measures while they agree with the statements of items 17 and 19-22 as measures for enhancing farmers’ productivity as evidenced by the mean scores range of 2.80 and 3.31 which fell within the real limits of the nominal value of agree.

Hypothesis 1

There is no significant difference between the mean scores of non-literate and literate snail farmers on the level of application of site preparation technologies.

182 183

Table 18: t-test Analysis values of Non-literate and Literate Snail Farmers on the Level of Application of Site Preparation Technologies (t-tab = 1.96) Item Technologies in site Non-literate Literate t-cal Remarks No. Preparation. X 1 SD1 X 2 SD2

1 Selection of shady well- 3.63 .71 3.57 .69 .57 NS drained site. 2 Mechanical clearing. 1.1 .44 1.17 .60 .73 NS 3 Fencing the snailery. 3.83 .59 3.82 .65 .11 NS 4 Determination of soil 3.1 .94 3.38 .69 2.33 S type. 5 Loosening the soil 3.18 .87 3.40 .69 1.68 NS substrate. 6 Cultivation of snailery 2.98 1.09 3.08 1.08 .52 NS plants. 7 Cultivation of wind- 1.98 1.29 1.62 1.17 1.69 NS breaks. 8 Applying organic manure 2.65 1.16 2.83 1.11 .97 NS for snailery plants. 9 Application of inorganic 1.60 1.08 1.32 .75 1.87 NS fertilizer. 10 Installation of snail hide- 3.00 1.03 3.29 .82 1.91 NS out. 11 Heat treatment of 1.68 1.07 1.61 1.07 .41 NS substrate. 12 Substrate inoculation 2.48 1.23 2.32 1.35 .74 NS with earthworm. 13 Use of wood shavens as 1.87 1.14 1.41 .83 2.82 S substrate. 14 East-West snailery 2.45 1.23 2.50 1.34 .23 NS orientation. 15 Liming the substrate. 2.62 1.19 2.68 1.33 .29 NS 16 Use of paddock snailery 2.23 1.16 1.70 .91 3.01 S 17 Using raised wooden 3.32 .73 3.20 .95 .81 NS cage. 18 Use of raised rack cage. 3.1 .94 3.38 .69 1.68 NS 19 Use of surface concrete 1.10 .44 1.17 .64 .70 NS snailery. 20 Use of trench snailery. 2.08 1.21 2.28 1.18 .98 NS Overall t-cal 2.54 .14 2.53 .12 .37 NS

183 184

Key

X 1 = Mean score of Non-literate snail farmers.

SD1 = Standard Deviation for Non-literate snail farmers.

X 2 = Mean Score of literate snail farmers.

SD2 = Standard Deviation for literate snail farmers. t-cal = Calculated value of t. t-tab = Tabulated or critical value of t. df = Degree of freedom = n1+n2-2(60+90-2)=148.

NS = Not Significant (P>.05).

S = Significant (P<.05)

Table 18 shows the data analysis of t-test on the level of application of the site preparation technologies. The t-test analysis result shows that the calculated t-values for items 1-3, 5-12, 14, 15 and 17-20 were less than the tabulated t-value of 1.96 (two-tailed) with 148 degree of freedom at 0.05 level of significance, thus, not significant (P>.0.05). Therefore, the postulated null hypothesis of no significant difference, in respect of these seventeen (17) items was accepted. In contrast, the t-test result shows that the calculated t-values for items 4, 13 and 16 were higher than the tabulated t-value of 1.96 (two-tailed) with 148 degree of freedom at 0.05 level of significance, thus, significant

(P<0.05). Hence, the null hypothesis in respect of these three items was rejected.

184 185

Literacy level of farmers therefore, has no influence on the level of application of site preparation technologies in respect of items 1-3, 5-12, 14-15 and 17-20. While literacy level of farmers has influence on the level of application of site preparation technologies in respect of items 4, 13 and 16. The overall calculated t-value (.37) however, was lower than the tabulated t-value

(1.96) at 0.05 level of significance. Thus, it was concluded that there is no significant difference between the mean scores of non-literate and literate snail farmers on the level of application of site preparation technologies.

Hypothesis 2

There is no significant difference between the mean scores of female and male snail farmers on the level of application of stock preparation and stocking technologies.

185 186

Table 19: t-test Analysis values of Female and Male Snail Farmers on the Level of Application of Stocking Technologies(t-tab = 1.96)

Item Stocking Technologies Female Male t-cal No. Remarks X 1 SD1 X 2 SD2 1 Selection of breeding stock from 3.02 1.20 3.13 1.12 .61 NS farm. 2 Sourcing breeding stock from the 3.85 .48 3.86 .44 .07 NS wild (forest). 3 Selection of breeding stock from 1.93 .69 1.86 .65 .61 NS market. 4 Selection of medium sized active 2.50 .17 2.48 .16 .69 NS sore-free snails. 5 Selection of properly formed snail. 2.34 .36 2.36 .32 .43 NS 6 Selection of slimy shell-filled foot 2.74 .37 2.63 .48 1.43 NS with fragile shell edge. 7 Selection of snails of the same 2.13 1.16 2.12 1.15 .06 NS species and size. 8 Selection of common/edible species 3.1 .94 3.38 .69 2.33 S that command good market price. 9 Introducing snails to farms in the 2.58 1.32 2.37 1.22 1.03 NS morning/evening. 10 Purging snails on corn meal. 1.20 .68 1.24 .69 .39 NS 11 Quarantining snails for 7-14 days 1.15 .58 1.24 .71 .86 NS before stocking. 12 Cleaning snails with untreated water 2.67 1.22 2.70 1.30 .16 NS before stocking. 13 Snails are stocked between 15-20 1.65 1.15 1.63 1.11 .09 NS giant snails/m2. 14 Snails are stocked between 25-30 3.60 .81 3.53 .89 .47 NS adults/m2. 15 Snails are stocked between 45-50 3.57 .81 3.27 1.04 1.89 NS juveniles/m2 16 Snails are stocked between 90-100 3.93 .25 3.81 .39 2.13 S hatchlings/m2. 17 Raising snails in separate pens based 2.05 1.33 1.76 1.20 1.41 NS on age, size, and condition. 18 Reared species is Archachatina 1.38 .94 1.3 .80 .50 NS marginata. 19 Reared species is Achatina achatina. 1.77 1.11 1.62 1.07 .80 NS 20 Reared species is Achatina fulica. 1.30 .77 1.24 .75 .44 NS Overall t-cal 1.93 .69 1.86 .65 .61 NS

NS = Not Significant (P = >0.05); S = Significant (P = <0.05); df = n1+n2-2 (64+86-2) = 148

186 187

Table 19 shows the data analysis of t-test on the level of application of stocking technologies. The calculated t-test values were less than the critical table value (1.96) two-tailed for items 1-7, 9-15 and 17-20 at 0.05 level of significance. These eighteen (18) items, are therefore, statistically not significant (P = < 0.05), thus, the stated null hypothesis of no significant difference, in respect of these items was accepted. However, the calculated t- values were more than the t-test tabulated value (1.96) 2-tailed for items 8 and

16 at 0.05 level of significance. These two items are statistically significant (P =

< 0.05), hence, the rejection of the null hypothesis in respect of these two items.

Gender therefore, has influence on the level of application of stocking technologies in respect of items 1-7, 9-15 and 17-20. While gender influences the level of application of stocking technologies in respect of items 8 and 16.

Hypothesis 3: There is no significant difference between the mean scores of inexperienced and experienced snail farmers on the level of application of feed and substrate management technologies.

187 188

Table 20: t-test Computation on the Level of Application of feed Management Technologies between Inexperienced and Experienced Snail Farmers(t-tab = 1.96) Item Feed Management Technologies Inexperience Experienced t-cal Remarks No. d Farmers Farmers

X 1 SD1 X 2 SD2 1 Mulching the substrate. 3.23 .98 3.12 .95 .69 NS 2 Inspection of snailery 3.68 .47 3.68 .47 .07 NS environment. 3 Removal of dead snails and fouled 3.93 .25 3.81 .39 S droppings. 2.13 4 Replacement of stale feed/water 3.52 .50 3.39 .49 NS with new ones. 1.55 5 Gently dropping climbing snails. 3.20 .76 3.19 .62 .09 NS 6 Feeding snails with plant parts. 3.75 .44 .84 .39 NS 1.38 7 Feeding based on snail age, size 2.47 1.24 2.46 1.33 .05 NS and condition. 8 Use of farmer made feed. 1.97 1.18 1.80 1.02 .92 NS 9 Application of commercial feed. 2.23 1.16 1.70 .99 3.01 S 10 Ad-libidum supply of calcium. 2.13 1.11 1.80 1.00 1.12 NS 11 Provision of clean drinking water. 3.79 .42 3.76 .59 .32 NS 12 Starving snails to enhance calcium 1.13 .47 1.31 .74 1.60 NS intake. 13 Illumination of snailery at night to 1.50 .91 1.74 1.07 1.46 NS enhance increased feed consumption. 14 Moistenning snailery substrate. 3.87 .34 3.72 .58 1.73 NS 15 Reverting aestivated snails. 1.60 1.05 1.81 1.10 1.17 NS 16 Transferring/ovipositing eggs in 2.78 1.12 2.92 1.11 .75 NS the incubator. 17 Egg candling. 2.08 1.21 2.28 1.18 .98 NS 18 Placing the incubator in warm 1.62 1.08 1.49 .94 .77 NS location. 19 Moistening the substrate in the 3.32 .73 3.20 .95 .81 NS incubator. 20 Cultivation of legumes in the 1.43 .91 1.36 .85 .53 NS incubator. 21 Shifting hatchlings to nursery from 2.40 1.25 2.62 1.29 1.04 NS incubator. 22 Feeding hatchlings with soft feed. 3.08 .87 3.11 .93 .18 NS

188 189

23 Culling undesirable snails. 3.37 .61 3.37 .61 .00 NS 24 Periodic cleaning of feed/water 3.38 .49 3.29 .71 .90 NS troughs. 25 Extensive system of snailery. 2.13 1.11 1.80 1.00 1.12 NS 26 Semi-intensive system of snailery. 2.40 1.25 2.62 1.29 1.04 NS 27 Intensive snailery system. 2.48 1.19 2.44 1.25 .19 NS 28 Periodic replacement of hard 2.52 1.24 2.59 1.29 .34 NS substrate. 29 Periodic loosening of hard 2.27 1.27 2.42 1.35 .71 NS substrate. 30 Weighing snails. 1.22 .67 1.28 .77 .50 NS 31 Keeping adequate farm records. 1.53 1.07 1.49 1.01 .26 NS Overall t-cal 2.50 .17 2.49 .16 .69 NS

NS = Not Significant (P = > 0.05); S = Significant (P = < 0.05); df = n1+n2- 2(79+71-2) =148

Data presented in table 20 shows the calculated t-values of the mean

scores of inexperienced and experienced snail farmers on the level of

application of feed/substrate management technologies. The t-test results

revealed that no significant difference exists in the opinions of inexperienced

and experienced snail farmers in twenty nine (29) items (1, 2, 4-8 and 10-31)

because the calculated t-test values were less than the critical table value of 1.96

(two-tailed) with 148 degree of freedom for these 29 items. Consequently, the

hypothesis of no significant difference, with respect to the 29 items, was

accepted.

On the other hand, the t-test results show that significant difference

exists between the inexperienced and experienced snail farmers in respect of

items 3 and 9, since the calculated t-test values were greater than the tabulated t-

value (1.96) with 148 degree of freedom for these 2 items hence, the rejection of

189 190

the null hypothesis. It means therefore, that farmers level of experience has no

influence on the level of application of feed and substrate management

technologies in 29 items (1-2,4-8 and 10-31) whilst farmers experience level has

influence on the level of application of feed management technologies in two

items (3 and 9). The overall t-test analysis in table 20 indicates that calculated t-

value (.69) was less than the tabulated t-value (1.96) at 0.05 level of

significance. Thus, it was concluded that no significant difference exists in the

opinions of inexperienced and experienced snail farmers on the level of

application of feed management technologies.

Hypothesis 4

There is no significant difference between the mean scores of rural and urban snail farmers on the level of application of pests, and diseases control technologies.

190 191

Table 21: t-test Analysis values of Rural and Urban Snail Farmers on the extent of Application of Pests, and Diseases Control Technologies(t-tab = 1.96)

Item Pests, and Diseases Control Technologies. Rural Urban t-tab Remarks

t-cal X 1 SD1 X 2 SD2

1 Manual weeding. 3.85 .48 3.86 .44 .07 .94 NS

2 Closing snailery doors. 3.97 .26 3.96 .33 .22 .83 NS

3 Inspection of materials brought to snailery. 3.42 .79 3.44 .84 .20 .84 NS

4 Foot-dipping before entering snailery. 1.70 1.15 1.63 1.09 .36 .72 NS

5 Killing pests/predators manually. 2.98 .93 2.97 .85 .11 .91 NS

6 Snailery reinforcement with wire gauge. 2.48 1.19 2.44 1.25 .19 .85 NS

7 Soil sterilization. 1.42 .89 1.44 .91 .18 .85 NS

8 Providing pest/predator-proof floor. 1.52 .89 1.80 1.15 1.61 .11 NS

9 Moating cupped wooden legs of cages. 2.48 1.41 2.58 1.38 .41 .69 NS

10 Moating the farm 3.02 1.20 3.13 1.12 .61 .55 NS

11 Trapping predators with gill nets. 2.72 1.04 1.53 1.24 .95 .35 NS

12 Washing soldier-ant infected snails. 1.90 1.12 1.93 1.11 .18 .86 NS

13 Smoking to scare soldier-ants. 2.08 1.25 2.28 1.27 .92 .36 NS

14 Moderate perforation of snailery. 3.45 1.14 3.28 1.26 .85 .39 NS

15 Stocking disease resistant species. 1.42 .99 1.63 1.19 1.16 .25 NS

16 Burning infected snails. 1.72 1.11 1.70 1.09 .09 .93 NS

17 Rotational penning. 1.47 .98 1.49 .97 .14 .89 NS

18 Use of anti-biotics through feed. 1.53 1.05 1.51 .95 .14 .89 NS

19 Employing veterinary services. 1.27 .83 1.23 .77 .29 .78 NS

Overall t-cal 2.34 .36 2.36 .32 .43 .67 NS

NS = Not Significant (P = > 0.05); S = Significant (P = < 0.05); df = n1+n2-2(100+50)=148

191 192

Table 21 shows the calculated t-values of rural and urban snail farmers on

the level of application of pests, predators and diseases control technologies.

The table indicated that the calculated t-test value of for all the nineteen (19)

items were less than the tabulated t-value of 1.96 (two-tailed) with 148 degree

of freedom at 0.05 level of significance hence, not significant (P = > 0.05).

Thus, the null hypothesis in respect of all the 19 items, was accepted. This

posits that farmers’ location has no influence on the level of application of

pests, and diseases control technologies in respect of all the 19 items.

Hypothesis 5

There is no significant difference between the mean scores of non- literate and literate snail farmers on the level of application of marketing technologies.

192 193

Table 22: t-test Analysis values of Non-literate and Literate Snail Farmers on the level of Application of Marketing Technologies (t-tab = 1.96)

Item Marketing Technologies. Non-literate Literate t-cal Remarks No.

X 1 SD1 X 2 SD2 1 Determining maturity via 3.60 .81 3.53 .89 .47 NS feeling the shell edge.

2 Determining maturity through 1.30 .77 1.24 .75 .44 NS counting whorls on the shell.

3 Determining maturity via 1.77 1.11 1.62 1.07 .80 NS weighing .snails.

4 Harvesting with hand-gloves. 2.13 1.16 2.12 1.15 .06 NS

5 De-shelling. 3.57 .81 3.27 1.04 1.89 NS

6 Gutting the viscera. 3.78 .76 3.52 1.09 1.61 NS

7 De-slimation of secretions. 3.73 .84 3.52 1.09 1.27 NS

8 Storing live snails with 3.63 .76 3.50 .85 .98 NS perforated containers.

9 Storing processed snails in 1.38 .94 1.31 .80 .50 NS refrigerators.

10. Treading snails with ropes for 1.65 1.15 1.63 1.11 .09 NS sale.

11 Sale of live snails in farm shops 3.02 1.20 3.13 1.12 .61 NS

12 Sale of fried/stewed snails 3.78 .76 3.52 1.09 1.61 NS

Overall t-cal 2.74 .37 2.63 .48 1.43 NS

NS = Not Significant (P> .05); S = Significant (P< .05); df = n1+n2-2(60+90- 2) =148

193 194

The analysis presented in table 22 shows the calculated t-values of the mean scores of non-literate and literate snail farmers on the extent of application of marketing technologies. The t-test result indicated that the calculated t-values were lower than the tabulated t-value of 1.96 (two-tailed) with 148 degree of freedom for all the twelve (12) items, so they are statistically not significant (P

= > 0.05). The hypothesis of no significant difference in respect of these twelve items, was therefore accepted. It implies therefore that farmers’ level of literacy has no influence on the level of application of marketing technologies in respect of all the twelve items.

Hypothesis 6

There is no significant difference between the mean scores of subsistence and commercial farmers on the constraints of farmers in snail production.

194 195

Table 23: Calculated t-values of Subsistence and Commercial Snail Farmers on the Constraints of Farmers in Snail Production (t-tab = 1.96 )

Ite Farmers Conatraints in Snail Subsistence Commercial t-cal Remark m Production s X 1 SD1 X 2 SD2

1 Lack of suitable land. 3.32 .73 3.20 .95 .81 NS

2 Inexperience in snail production. 3.1 .94 3.38 .69 1.68 NS

3 High cost of labour. 2.23 1.16 1.70 .99 3.01 S

4 Aestivation of snails due to poor 2.05 1.33 1.76 1.20 1.41 NS management.

5 Shortage of improved snail species. 3.00 1.03 3.29 .82 1.91 NS

6 Lack of fund. 3.83 .59 3.82 .65 .11 NS

7 Escalating cost of inputs. 2.65 1.16 2.83 1.11 .95 NS

8 Seasonal flooding of snail farms. 2.67 1.22 2.70 1.30 .16 NS

9 Non-supply of farm inputs by 3.08 .87 3.11 .93 .18 NS extension agents.

10 Impracticable research 2.13 1.11 1.80 1.00 1.12 NS recommendations.

11 Non-commitment to service by 2.78 1.12 2.92 1.11 .75 NS extension agents.

12 High mortality rate. 2.23 1.16 1.70 .99 3.01 S

13 Low rate of egg hatchability. 2.47 1.24 2.46 1.33 .05 NS

14 Serious pest attack. 2.40 1.25 2.62 1.29 1.04 NS

15 Low growth rate. 2.52 1.24 2.59 1.29 .34 NS

16 High incidence of predators. 1.97 1.18 1.80 1.02 .92 NS

17 Frequent incidence of diseases. 1.13 .47 1.31 .74 1.60 NS

195 196

18 Lack of processing and storage 1.93 .69 1.86 .65 .61 NS facilities.

19 Inexperience in processing and 1.20 .68 1.24 .69 .37 NS storage methods.

20 Low market prospects for giant land 2.67 1.22 2.70 1.30 .16 NS snails.

21. Inadequate number of extension 3.20 .76 3.19 .62 .09 NS agents.

22 Lack of vehicles for extension 3.1 .94 3.38 .69 2.33 S agents field work.

23 Extension agent’s inexperience in 2.58 1.32 2.37 1.22 1.03 NS snail production.

24 Farmer’s apathy to attend agric 2.05 1.33 1.76 1.20 1.41 NS workshops.

25 Farmer’s conservatism due to 3.23 .98 3.12 .95 .69 NS traditional beliefs.

26 Farmer’s adherence to indigenous 2.78 1.12 2.92 1.11 .75 NS technologies.

27 Inadequate literature on snail 3.38 .49 3.29 .71 .90 NS production.

28 Inadequate government/non- 3.79 .42 3.76 .59 .32 NS governmental agencies financial support to snail production programmes/projects.

Overall t-cal 2.67 1.22 2.70 1.30 .16 NS

NS= Not Significant (P> 0.05); S=Significant (P< 0.05); df=n1+n2-2(115+35- 2)=148 The analysis presented in Table 23 shows the calculated t-values of the

mean scores of subsistence and commercial snail farmers on the constraints of

farmers in snail production. The t-test results revealed that the calculated t-test

196 197 values were less than the tabulated t-value of 1.96 (two-tailed) with 148 degree of freedom for item numbers 1-2, 5-11, 13-21 and 23-28 at 0.05 level of significance therefore; they are not significant (P=> 0.05). Thus, the postulated null hypothesis of no significant difference, in respect of these twenty –five (25) items was accepted. Conversely, item 3, 12 and 22 are significant (P=< 0.05) since the calculated t-values were higher than the tabulated t-value (1.96) at

0.05 level significance, hence, the null hypothesis in respect of these three (3) items, was rejected.

Therefore, significant difference does not exist between the mean scores of subsistence and commercial snail farmers on the constraints of farmers in snail production in respect of items 1-2, 4-11, 13-21 and 23-28. While there was significant difference between the mean scores of subsistence and commercial snail farmers on the constraints of farmers in respect of items 3, 12 and 22.

Hypothesis 7

There is no significant difference between the mean scores of farmers and extension agents on the measures for enhancing farmers’ productivity.

197 198

Table 24: Calculated t-values of Farmers and Extension Agents on the Measures for Enhancing Farmers’ Productivity (t-tab = 1.96)

Item Enhancment Measures for Farmers’ Farmers Extension t-cal Remarks Productivity Agents

X 1 SD1 X 2 SD2 1 Combining snail enterprise with rubber 3.73 .84 3.52 1.09 1.27 NS or oil palm enterprise.

2 Regular organization of workshops for 3.57 .81 3.27 1.04 1.89 NS snail farmers by A.D.P.

3 Increasing farmer-extension agents 3.45 1.14 3.28 1.26 .85 NS contact.

4 Use of radio/television programs for the 3.60 .81 3.53 .89 .47 NS delivery of extension services.

5 Regular management of snail farms. 2.98 .93 2.97 .85 .11 NS

6 Provision of balanced diet feed. 2.48 1.19 2.44 1.25 .19 NS

7 Improving the availability of breeding 2.72 1.04 2.53 1.24 .95 NS stock.

8 Establishment of snail breeding centres. 2.52 1.24 2.59 1.29 .34 NS

9 Improving the availability of farm credit 3.20 .76 3.19 .62 .09 NS facilities to farmers.

10 Increasing availability of soft loans. 3.75 .44 3.84 .39 1.38 NS

11 Provision of subsidized inputs to 3.63 .76 3.50 .85 .98 NS farmers.

12 Funding snail programs by oil 3.85 .48 3.86 .44 .07 NS companies.

13 Improving the availability of veterinary 3.93 .25 3.81 .39 2.13 S services.

14 State support to provide snail processing 2.67 1.22 2.70 1.30 .16 NS centres.

198 199

15 Establishment of snail feed factories. 2.74 .37 2.63 .48 1.43 NS

16 Proper site feasibility survey. 3.23 .98 3.12 .95 .69 NS

17 Construction of good drainage system. 3.97 .26 3.96 .33 .22 NS

18 Recruitment of heliciculture extension 3.42 .79 3.44 .84 .20 NS agents.

19 Provision of vehicles for extension 3.08 .87 3.11 .93 .18 NS agents field work.

20 Regular supervision of extension agents. 3.52 .50 3.39 .49 1.55 NS

21 Establishment of snail demonstration 3.87 .34 3.72 .58 1.73 NS farms.

22 State support for research on snail 3.38 .49 3.29 .71 .90 NS production.

23 Recruitment of subject matter specialists 3.37 .61 3.37 .61 .00 NS for the state extension service.

24 Development of local/international 2.78 1.12 2.92 1.11 .75 NS markets for snail products.

Overall t-cal 3.20 .76 3.19 .62 .09 NS

NS = Not Significant (P > 0.05); S = Significant (P < 0.05); df = n1+n2- 2(135+15-2) = 148 Table 24 shows the calculated t-values of the mean scores of snail

farmers and extension agents on the measures for enhancing farmers’

productivity. The t-test analysis indicated that the t-calculated values for items

1-12 and 14-24 were less than the tabulated value of 1.96 (two-tailed) with 148

degree of freedom at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, the hypothesis of no

significant difference, in respect of these twenty three (23) items, was accepted.

The t-test result, however, revealed that the t- calculated value was higher than

199 200 the t- tabulated value (1.96) at 0.05 level of significance item number 13. Thus, it is significant (P< 0.05), hence, the null hypothesis in respect of item 13, was rejected. It implies therefore that no significant difference exists between the mean scores of farmers and extension agents on the measures for enhancing farmers’ productivity in respect of all the items except item 13. The overall t- calculated value (.09) was lower than the t tabulated value (1.96) at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis (Ho)7 was upheld, hence it was concluded that there was no significant difference between the mean scores of farmers and extension agents on the measures for enhancing farmer’s productivity.

Major Findings of the Study

Based on the result of data analysis, the following findings were made in snail production in Bayelsa State.

A. Highly Applied Technologies by Snail Farmers in Site Preparation

• Selection of quiet shady well-drained leeward site.

• Fencing the farm.

• Raised wooden snailery

Moderately Applied Technologies in Site Preparation

• Cultivation of snailery crops.

• Organic manuring for snailery crop growth.

200 201

• Flooring the snailery with loose soil substrate.

• Installation of snail hide-out.

• Liming soil substrate with woodash.

Technologies that are Appled at Low Level in Site Preparation

• Cultivation of wind-breaks.

• Heat treatment of substrate

• Substrate inoculation with earthworm

• Construction of trench snailery.

Technologies that are Not Applied in Site Preparation

• Mechanical clearing

• Application of inorganic fertilizer

B. Technologies that are Highly Applied in Stocking

• Selection of common/edible species (Archachatina marginata) from farms and markets.

Moderately Applied Technologies in Stocking

• Cleaning snails in an untreated clean water before stocking.

• Moistening the substrate before stocking.

• 2 2 Stocking snails between 25-30 adults/m and 45-50 juveniles/m .

201 202

Technologies that are Applied at Low Level in Stocking

• Selection, based on medium size active sore-free parent stock.

• Stocking early in the morning or late evening

• Raising snails in separate pens based on age, size and condition.

• Stocking between 15-20 giant snails/m2.

• Stocking Achatina achatina

Technologies that are Not Applied in Stocking

• Purging snails on corn meal.

• Quarantining snails for 7-14 days before stocking.

• Stocking Achatina fulica.

C. Highly Applied Technologies in feed/substrate Management.

• Cleaning off fouled droppings and dead snails.

• Feeding snails with plant parts.

• Provision of clean untreated drinking water.

• Moistening snailery substrate.

• Semi-intensive system of husbandry

202 203

Moderately Applied Technologies in Feed Management

• Mulching the substrate.

• Replacement of stale feed/water with new ones.

• Ovipositing exposed eggs.

• Feeding hatchlings with succulent/moistened feed.

• Culling undesirable snails.

Technologies Applied at low Level in Feed Management

• Feeding snails in relation to age, size and condition.

• Application of commercial feed.

• Illumination of snailery at night to increase feeding hours

• Reverting aestivated snails.

• Egg candling.

Technologies that are Not Applied in Feed Management

• Starving snails to enhance calcium intake.

• Cultivation of legumes in the incubator as hatchery feed.

• Weighing snails to determine growth rate.

• Keeping farm records.

203 204

D. Technologies Moderately Applied in Pests and Diseases Control.

• Manual destruction of pests and predators.

• Moating cupped wooden legs of snailery.

• Moating round the snailery.

• Trapping predators with gill nets.

Technologies that are Applied at Low Level in Pests and Diseases Control

• Foot dipping before entering snailery

• Provision of pest/predator-proof floor

• Washing soldier-ants infested snails.

• Smoking to scare pests.

• Stocking disease resistant species

• Administration of drugs through feed.

Technologies Not Applied in Pests and Diseases Control

• Substrate sterilization.

• Rotational penning

• Employing veterinary services.

E. Technologies Highly Applied in Marketing of snail products.

• Determining snail maturity through feeling of the shell edge.

• De-shelling.

204 205

• Gutting the viscera.

• De-slimation of secretions from the flesh.

Technologies Moderately Applied in Marketing of Snail Product

• Storing live snails in perforated containers.

• Treading live snails with ropes for sale.

Technologis Applied at Low Level in Marketing of Snail Products

• Weighing snails to determine maturity.

• Determination of maturity via counting whorls on the shell.

• Storing processed snails in refrigerators for sale.

F. Rate of input Application

For the 150 farms surveyed in the study area, the average farm size per year was 24.77m2 and each farm utilized an average of one unit of these capital inputs - watering can, knife, wheelbarrow, spade, cutlass, tray and drum. Snails were stocked at 10 snails/m2/yr or 252 snails/farm/yr whilst two each of feeders, drinkers, basins and buckets were used per farm. Also variable inputs such as feeds were applied at the rate of 44, 184kg/farm/yr or 1,784 kg/m2/yr, lime was at 38.17 kg/farm/yr or 1.54kg/m2/yr while engine oil was at the rate of 18.53 litres/farm/yr or 0.75 litres/m2/yr. On the average, farmers utilized two each per farm of these variable inputs-plastic spoons, touch lights, packers, brooms and litter bins.

205 206

G. Corresponding Cost of the Inputs

The cost of land applied for snail farming was at the rate of

N4,166.67/farm/yr or N168.24/m2/yr; fence was at N3,789/farm/yr/ or

N2,118.74/m2/yr. While parent stocks (juveniles) were procured at N40/snail.

Watering cans, knives and wheel barrows were bought at a unit cost of N300,

N100 and N8,500 respectively. While spades, trays, drums and feeders were purchased at a unit cost of N1,500, N100, N800 and N200 respectively.

Drinkers and buckets were procured at a unit cost of N200 and N250 respectively.

Over head inputs such as permanent labour, incurred an average cost of

N5,600/farm/yr or N226.11/m2/yr; transportation had N5,648.33/farm/yr or

N228.00/m2/yr and maintenance incurred a cost of N6,716.67/farm/yr or

N271.2/m2/yr while telephone charges incurred N12, 032/farm/yr or

N485.81/m2/yr.

Cost implication for feed was at N1, 22,752/farm/yr or N4,956.3/m2/yr; lime was at N58.67/farm/yr or N2.37/m2/yr while engine oil was at N1,390/18.53 litres/farm/yr or N56.12/0.75 litres/m2/yr.

Plastic spoons, touch lights, packers, brooms and litter bins were bought at a unit cost of N10, N250, N50, N50 and N250 respectively. Capital inputs incurred an average cost of N94,701.33/farm/yr or N3,823.74/m2/yr; over head

206 207 inputs had average cost of N29,999/farm/yr or N1,211.81/m2/yr, while the sum of N129, N704.43/farm or N5,237.06/m2 were expended on variable inputs annually.

An average production cost of N159,728/farm/yr or N6,449/m2/yr was expended on inputs.

H. Productivity of Farmers in Snail Production

Heliciculture is a productive venture as evidenced by the average yield of 327 adult snails/m2/yr, 8,096 adult snails/farm/yr, 327,000 adult snails/1,000m2/yr and 3,270,000 adult snails/ha/yr with over 8,096 potential (eggs) snails. An adult snail lays an average of thrice yearly with 7 eggs per clutch and 28 eggs/year.

Snail farming is also profitable as could be observed from a net worth of N13,

163.42/m2/yr, N326,014/farm/yr, and a proceed of N2.00/yr per naira outlay.

1 The payback period was 12 /2 months.

I. Major Constraints of Farmers in Snail Production

• Farmer’s inexperience in snail production.

• Gross inadequacy of improved snail species.

• Lack of fund.

• Seasonal flooding of snail farms.

207 208

• Inadequate government/non-governmental organization’s financial

support to snail production programmes/projects.

J. Measures for Enhancing Farmers’ Productivity

• Regular organization of workshops for snail farmers by ADP.

• Recruitment of subject matter specialists for the state extension service.

• Regular supervision of extension agents for improving commitment and productivity.

• Establishment of snail breeding centres by Government/non governmental agencies.

• Provision of grants to farmers by oil companies for research and development of snail farming.

• Increasing availability of soft loan facilities to snail farmers.

• Construction of good drainage system in the snailery. The result of the hypotheses tests revealed that:

Ho1: There was no significant difference between the mean scores of non-

literate and literate snail farmers on the level of application of site

preparation technologies in the following items: 1-3, 5-12, 14-15 and 17-

20. It was also found that there was significant difference between the

mean scores of non-literate and literate snail farmers on the level of

application of site preparation technologies in items 4, 13 and 16.

208 209

Ho2: There was no significant difference between the mean scores of female and

male snail farmers on the level of application of stocking technologies in

items 1-7, 9-15 and 17-20. The findings also indicated that significant

difference exists between the mean scores of female and male farmers on

the level of application of and stocking technologies in items 8 and 16.

Ho3: There was no significant difference between the mean values of

inexperienced and experienced snail farmers on the level of application of

feed and substrate management technologies in items 1-2, 4-8 and 10-31;

whilst significant difference exists between the mean values of

inexperienced and experienced snail farmers on the level of application of

feed management technologies in items 3 and 9.

Ho4: There was no significant difference between the mean scores of rural and

urban snail farmers on the level of application of pests, and diseases

control technologies in all the nineteen (19) items.

Ho5: There was no significant difference between the mean values of non-

literate and literate snail farmers on the level of application of marketing

technologies in all the twelve (12) items.

Ho6: There was no significant difference between the mean scores of

subsistence and commercial snail farmers on the constraints of farmers in

snail production, in items: 1-2, 5-11, 13-21 and 23-28. The findings also

209 210

revealed that there was significant difference between the mean scores of

subsistence and commercial farmers on the constraints of farmers in snail

production, in items: 3,4,12, and 22.

Ho7: There was no significant difference between the mean scores of farmers

and extension agents on the measures for enhancing farmers’ productivity

in items 1-12 and 14-24. The findings also shows that significant

difference exists between the mean scores of snail farmers and extension

agents on farmers productivity enhancement measures in item 13.

Discussion of the Findings

The findings of this study were organized and discussed according to the research questions and the hypotheses.

Site Preparation Technologies in Snail Production

Findings from the study revealed that the following site preparation technologies are highly applied by snail farmers: they include selection of shady well- drained leeward site, fencing the snailery and raised wooden snailery.

While selection of good substrate, loosening hard soil substrate, cultivation of snailery crops, organic manuring, installation of snail hide- out, east – west snailery orientation, liming and paddocking were moderately applied. The finding of this study is in line with the investigation of Adeleke (2006) who reported that a high degree of farmers’ response to the application of land preparation technologies in snail production were achieved in Ibadan. The high

210 211 rate of farmers’ response to the application of site preparation technologies could be attributed to three factors: the ability of farmers to positively transfer land preparation skills/knowledge gained in other agricultural enterprises to snailery, readily availability/cheap source of inputs like humus, woodash.

The study however, further indicated that the following site preparation technologies have not been applied by farmers. Such technologies include mechanical clearing, wind- breaking measures, inorganic fertilization and trench snailery. Whereas use of wood shavens as substrate, treatment of substrate, raised rack snailery and surface concrete snailery are applied at low level.Complexities in the transfer of these technologies through non- availability of inputs and the poverty level of farmers could be indicted for the non application or low level of application of these site preparation technologies.

The transfer of heliciculture technologies especially at this teething stage, is not nearly simple, as in the transfer of cropping or farming technologies and the problem is further compounded by ignorance, illiteracy and poverty level of farmers (Abowei and Sikoki, 2005).

It was also evident from the analysis of data in table 18 that there was no significant difference between the mean scores of non- literate and literate snail farmers on the level of application of site preparation technologies in items 1-

3,5-12,14,15 and 17-20.This finding is however, contrary to the investigation of

Lipper (2001) who reported that there is high degree of awareness and response to adoption of new technologies by literate farmers than non- literate farmers

211 212 whose (non-literate) adoption of such technologies are always occasioned by clear demonstration of the potential economic benefits there-from.

Notwithstanding, the finding from items 4,13and 16 in table18 shows that significant difference exists between the mean scores of non- literate and literate snail farmers on the level of application of site preparation technologies. This finding affirmed the studies of Sandoval (1998) who indicted ignorance and illiteracy as being responsible for low level of awareness and consequently slow rate of adoption of modern agricultural technologies by farmers. It was on this premise that Uwadie and Ochu (1991) advocated for vocational agricultural education for farmers to remedy their educational deficiencies. Hence,

Svivastava and Rewat (1982) maintained that the axe of education cut down the thick root of traditions, superstition, ignorance, backwardness, and pay way for modernization.

Stock Preparation and Stocking Technologies in Snail Production

From table 5, it was found that the following technologies are highly applied by snail farmers: sourcing Archachatina marginata from farms and wild (forest), using criteria such as properly formed shell, slimy shell filled foot with fragile shell edge, the same species and size and common/edible species that command good market prices. Other technologies highly applied include washing snails with untreated clean water and stocking Archachatina marginata between 45-50 juveniles per square meter. The seemingly high rate of

212 213 application of these technologies especially Archachatina marginata could be attributed to the over whelming advantages of Archachatina marginata over other snail species in the study area. For instance, it is more common/adaptable edible as well as does not change colour/texture during processing.

In contrast, transporting and introducing snails to farms in the evening/morning, rearing snails in separate pens, rearing Achatina achatina and fulica are applied at low level while purging and quarantining technologies are not applied at all. The low level of application of these technologies could be attributed to farmers’ low level of awareness of these technologies, occasioned by inadequate heliciculture extension services, snail workshops and mass media channels of information dissemination. These channels have been noted to be very effective in creating awareness that spurs farmer’s response to adopt new innovation (Royers, 1995).

Furthermore, it was found from the t-test analysis in table 19 that there was no significant difference in the mean scores of female and male snail farmers on the level of application of stock preparation and stocking technologies in items 1-7, 9-15, and 17-20.This finding is at variance with the position of Eboh and Ogbazi (1990) who lamented that non-literate female farmers are the hardest hit over the problems of inadequacy and inaccessibility of modern technology which prevents producers from adopting innovation especially where mechanical, biological and chemical forms of inputs were involved. However, efforts have been made in recent times to make modern

213 214 agricultural technologies available to farmers in larger quantities but the rate of diffusion has been slow and the adoption level by non-literate female farmers is sub-optimal, which is a major bottleneck to agricultural development (Aluu and

Osinem, 2006).

However the result from item 8 and 16 in table 19 revealed that there was significant difference between female and male snail farmers on the extent of application of stocking technologies. These findings are in line with the report of Olaitan and Mama (2001) who opined that non-literate female farmers are very conservative to indigenous practices/technologies due to their traditional beliefs, hence, they show apathy to modern productivity enhancement technologies. Thus, Osinem (2008) advocated for vocational agricultural education for non-literate farmers to remedy their educational deficiencies and usher in accelerated but sustainable agricultural development in the nation.

Feed Management Technologies

Findings from table 6 show that the following feed/substrate management technologies are highly applied by snail farmers. Such technologies include substrate mulching, inspection of intra-snailery environment, removal of infected or dead snails and fouled droppings, feeding snails with plant parts, provision of clean untreated drinking water and moistening of substrate. Feed management technologies applied moderately by the farmers include semi- intensive system of husbandry, replacement of stale feed/water, gently dropping

214 215 climbing snails, ovipositing exposed eggs, moistening the substrate in the incubator, feeding hatchlings with soft feeds, culling undesirable snails, periodic cleaning of feeding/watering troughs and periodic replacement of hard or fouled substrate. The high level of application of these technologies could be explained by three reasons:

1. labour/capital /time required and risk involved in snail farming, is very

infinitesimal vis-à-vis other livestock management;

2. Water, plant parts and mulching materials are cheap and readily available;

and

3. Snail farming does not interrupt the normal schedule of service of working

ith government/non-governmental agencies.

On the other hand, farmers level of application of the following feed management technologies is low: provision of commercial feeds, ad-libidum supply of calcium, illumination at night, reverting aestivated snails, periodic enumeration of snails, egg candling, hatchability enhancement measures and periodic loosening of hard substrate. Technologies such as starving snails to enhance calcium intake, cultivation of legumes in the incubator, weighing snails and extensive system of snailery are not applied. These findings corroborates the observation of Aluu and Osinem (2006) who rated that there is very low rate of farmers response to adoption of productivity enhancement inputs especially where mechanical, biological and chemical forms of inputs were involved, occasional by traditional beliefs, conservatism, ignorance and poverty. While

215 216 supporting this view, Lipper (2001) maintained that since most of the farmers are either single family units or non literate producers with small profit margins, they cannot afford to undertake the risk of adopting new technologies unless it’s potential economic benefits were demonstrated beyond any doubt.

Also, it was revealed in Table 20 that experience level of snail farmers has no influence on the high rate of application of feed management technologies in items 1-2, 4-8 and 10-31 . These findings do not agree with the position of Adeleke (2006) who contended that literate and experienced snail farmers rate of adoption of innovations and ultimately productivity, were higher than non-literate and inexperience farmers, thus, it becomes imperative for state government to mobilize literate and experienced snail farmers to complement the efforts of extension agents since there is gross inadequacy of trained heliciculture extension workers. However, items 3 and 9 in table 20 shows that farmers experience level significantly influenced the high rate of application of feed management technologies. This finding agreed with the report of

Chinwuko (2003) who opined that for optimal productivity in snail farming, trained and experienced personnel are imperative for effective technology application, resources management, administration, equipment operation and maintenance.

216 217

Pests and Diseases Control Technologies

The result obtained from Table 7 concerning pests, predators and diseases control shows that manual weeding and shutting of snailery doors are highly practised while inspection of incoming inputs, manual killing of pests/predators, moating can-cupped legs of wooden cages, moating round the snailery, trapping predators with gill nets and perforation of snailery for minimal ventilation, are moderately applied by the snail farmers.

The high level of application of cultural (mechanical) method of pests/diseases control by farmers could be attributed to it’s simplicity and non toxidity to snails and the environment. In line with this view, Akinyemi, Ojo and Akintomide (2007) aver that the evolutionary trend of snail hunting to snail farming is an index of a rise in the sustainable developmental thermometer of food security. But note that heliciculture is at it’s teething stage, therefore, efforts made so far to discover economically viable and environmentally friendly control measures for pests, predators and diseases, have not yet yielded the desired result, hence, the emphacy on physical control. Adeleke (2006) thus advised snail farmers to maintain hygiene to the highest order in their farms because it is the best pests, predators, and diseases control measure for now.

Conversely, it was found that the following technologies are applied at low level by the farmers. Such technologies include foot-dipping, snailery reinforcement with wire gauge/nets, pest-proof floor, treatment of soldiers-ant infested snails, disease resistant species, burning infested snails and use of anti-

217 218 biotics. Whereas, soil sterilization, rotational penning and veterinary services, had not been apllied by the farmers. The non application of these technologies could be explained by the involvement of biological and chemical control measures. Supporting this view, Omole, et al(2004) maintained that the present disease control measures are merely preventive and palliative in nature and quantification of dosage of various drugs in snail still constitutes a serious problem. Okafor (2001) thus lamented that consequent upon lack of knowledge of snail physiology and effective management of pests, predators, and diseases of snail, several pioneer farms were beset with serious losses due to mortality caused by pests, predators, diseases and unfavourable environmental condition.

It was also evident from the t-test analysis in Table 21 that farmers’ location has no influence on the level of application of pests, predators and diseases control technologies in all the 19 items. This finding disagreed with the report of Eboh and Ogbazi (1990) who asserted that rural farmers predominates the farming population whose participation in agricultural activities are mostly at the subsistence level with little or no access to modern inputs since the availability of productivity enhancing inputs and services are concentrated in the urban centres. Thus, these rural farmers are faced with a whole range of disabilities in fulfilling their role as partners in agricultural production. While corroborating this view, Floyd (1995) lamented that women farmer who constitutes the rural farming population produces between 60 and 80% of the food in most developing countries and is responsible for half of the world’s food

218 219 production. However, despite their contribution to global food security, they have more difficulties than their urban counterparts in gaining access to productivity enhancement inputs and services. No wonder that Aluu and

Osinem (2006) unequivocally concluded that the rural farmers have been marginalized due to certain obnoxious, institutional and technical factors, thus, they should not be blamed for their sub-optimal participation in agricultural production.

Harvesting, and Marketing Technologies

Findings from table 8 shows that technologies such as determining snail maturity through feeling shell edge, de-shelling, gutting, de-slimation, storing live snails with perforated containers, treading adult snails with ropes for sale and sale of live snails in farm shops, are highly applied by the farmers. The findings of this study are in agreement with the works of Paul (2000), Okafor

(2001), Chinwuko (2003) and Wosu (2003) who in their respective studies commended that farmers are very good at harvesting and processing technologies such as feeling the hardness of the shell edge and observing the fullness of the foot to determine maturity, de-shelling through evisceration of flesh and de-slimation of secretions using lime, alum, garri or fermented liquid.

Nevertheless, snail farmers are applying weighing snails to determine maturity at low level, whereas counting the number of suture rings, harvesting with hand-gloves and storing processed snails in refrigerators are not applied by

219 220 the farmers. These findings, to a large extent, agrees with the report of

Cobbinah (1993), Hodasi (1998) and Joledo (2007) who respectively asserted that counting the number of suture rings and or weighing snails to determine maturity are often times misleading and that treaded snails should not be procured for stocking because of the deformed shell and the unimaginable stress they (snails) must have passed through in the market.

The t-test result in table 22 indicated that there was no significant difference between non-literate and literate snail farmers on the extent of application of harvesting, and marketing technologies. The findings of this study do not agree with the investigation of Ebenso and Okafor (2002) and

Hamzat et al. (2004) who in their respective works reported that significant difference exists between non-literate and literate farmers in the degree of adoption of processing, storage and marketing technologies.

For instance, Ebenso and Okafor (2002), noted that literate farmers weigh snails to determine maturity and de-shell snails by evisceration of flesh unlike the non-literate farmers who determine snail maturity by feeling and observation and de-shell snails by destruction of the shell. Furthermore, the authors emphasized that literate farmers de-slime snails mechanically and uses viscera as source of feed for fish/poultry unlike the non-literate farmers who de- slime manually and condemn viscera as waste. In a similar development,

Hamzat et al. (2004) observed that literate farmers stores processed snails in refrigerators and stores live snails in perforated containers for sale unlike non-

220 221 literate counterparts who cook and consume processed snails and tread live snails with ropes for sale. Hamzat el at. noted further that live adult snails were sold based on body weight by literate farmers whereas non-literate farmers sells live adult snails based on size and counting of numbers.

In view of the fact that the snail farming population is predominated by non-literate snail farmers, it will imperative to improve the rate of application of harvesting, processing, storage and marketing technologies by these non-literate snail farmers to enhance their productivity.

Rate of Input Application and Corresponding Cost of Input

It was found in Table 9 that an average of one capital equipment was utilized by each farm per year whereas an average of two variable equipments were utilized per farm (24.77m2) per year.

Parent stocks, feeds and lime were applied at the rate of 10 snails/m2/yr,

1,784kg/m2/yr and 1.54kg/m2/yr respectively while an average fixed cost of

N3,823.74/m2; overhead cost of N1,211.18/m2 and variable cost of

N5,237.06/m2 were incurred annually.

It was also observed that many snail enterprises were rather integrated into an already existing farms that had several crop/animal enterprises, thus, no additional costs were incurred for acquiring/developing new lands for establishment of snaileries. This mixed farming technology applied by the

221 222 farmers apparently enhanced enterprise combination (output-output relationship) as evidenced by the use of snail viscera and snail shell (from snail enterprise) in feeding fish and poultry enterprises respectively. While the decomposed poultry droppings and plant parts (from poultry/crop enterprise) were utilized as snailery substrate and snail feeds respectively.

The relatively small quantities of inputs applied by the farmers could be attributed to the small size of snail and it’s slow rate of input consumption/utilization whereas the low cost of production could be explained by the prevailing enabling climatic factors and cheap readily available local inputs therein. The establishment of snaileries in already existing farms which had several enterprises could be attributed to snail small size that can be reared in spaces of land which are not feasible for other livestock. Besides, snails are docile, harmless, odourless without irritation, environmentally friendly, hence, can easily be farmed with other enterprises in the same farm. The observed enterprise combination could be explained by the fact that most of the farmers have more than one enterprise in their farms.

The findings of this study agreed with the feasibility study of Welson (2001) who reported that snail farming is feasible and profitable business in the Niger

Delta areas, due to the availability of abundant broodstock, their prolificacy, cheap and readily sourced local inputs as well as the favourable climatic conditions therein. Welson thus advised farmers to engage in heliciculture in view of its overwhelming comparative advantages.

222 223

Productivity of Snail Production

From Tables 11-15, it was revealed that an average yield of 372 adult snails/m2 were produced and average sales of 372adult snails/m2 were made

(N60/adult snail) which earned a revenue of N19, 626/m2 annually. It was indicated also that the snail farm made break-even at the 12th month and then earned an average net profit of N13, 163.42 per m2 per year and a proceed of

N2.00/yr per naira outlay with over 8,096 potential snails (eggs) per farm per year.

The findings of this study corroborates the gross margin analysis of

Joledo (2007) who reported that a snail enterprise measuring 15m x 7.5 stocked

650 Archachatina marginata with laying capacity of 40 snails/yr and an hatchability and mortality of 85% and 10% respectively. According to Joledo, the farm incurred total cost of N685, 040 but recouped the initial invested fund at the 13th month and earned a total income of N388, 900 with a huge net profit of N3,203,960. Supporting this view, Akinyemi, Ojo and Akintomide (2007) reported that a water rack snailery (in Ogun State, Nigeria) measuring 24 x 20ft stocked 600 Archachatina marginata with laying capacity of 6 eggs per clutch and an hatchability and survivability of 80% and 90% respectively. Akinyemi et al. explained that the farm made net worth of N532,740 from total expenses of

N2, 310,000. The break-even analysis revealed that the farm recouped the equity capital at the 13th month and thence realized over 400% profit. Also the

Net Present Worth (NPW) and Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) analysis were greater

223 224 than one with 50.9% internal rate of return. The positivity of the discounted measures attest to the fact that heliciculture is a viable and profitable business venture (Adeleke, 2006).

Major Constraints of Farmers in Snail Production as Perceived by Farmers/Extension Agents

From Table 16, it was observed that farmers considered the followings as constraints in snail production: lack of fund, farmers inexperience in snail farming, seasonal flooding of snail farms, pest (soldier-ant) attack and shortage of improved snail species.

The findings of this study, to a large extent, conformed with the studies of

Welson (2001) who observed that poor credit facilities, low level of literacy of farmers, acute shortage of improved species, seasonal flooding and pest attack, were responsible for the low productivity of farmers in the Niger Delta States.

In line with this view, Abowei and Sikoki (205) lamented that several pioneer farms in the Niger Delta were beset with serious losses due to seasonal flooding of farms and mortality caused by predators and soldier-ants.

It was further revealed that inadequate trained heliciculture extension workers, inadequate governmental and non-governmental agencies financial support, were considered as problems by extension agents in snail production.

The findings are consistent with the position of Wosu (2003) who blamed the

Nigerian government for her inability to enunciate viable snail programmes that will sensitize prospective farmers and attract entrepreneurs. Supporting this

224 225 view, Simpson (1990) indicted that lack of viable snail programmes, paucity of literature on heliciculture through acute shortage of trained/experienced extension workers in snail farming, has been responsible for the ignorance of the nutritional and therapeutic values of snail meat by so many people, hence, apathy towards snail production.

On the contrary, statements such as high cost of labour, aestivation of snails, impracticable research recommendations, high mortality rate, low rate of egg hatchability, low growth rate, frequent disease incidence and low market prospects for giant land snails, were regarded as little problems in snail production. This finding agreed with the studies of Wosu (2003) who identified the uniqueness inherent in snails. Wosu explained that snails are highly prolific in which they have the ability to lay several times over a period after a single mating, thus, can produce at least five times its own body weight of meat in a year. Interestingly still, snails have the advantage of low mortality rate which is feasible because of their ability to aestivate during unfavourable conditions and feed slowly on the body reserve until conditions becomes favourable again.

Therefore, unlike other livestock production, farmers do not incur severe losses at a time due to poor management and or disease incidence (Joledo, 2007).

From Table 23, the t-test result indicated that there was no significant difference between the mean scores of subsistence and commercial snail farmers on the constraints of snail production. This finding is at variance with the report of

Wosu (2003) and Simpson (1990) who lamented that substistence farmers are

225 226 the hardest hit, over the absence of snail workshops/seminars, non- governmental support on snail production, non-availability of credit facilities through acute shortage of trained extension workers. No wonder that their productivity cannot keep pace with population growth, despite attempts made to improve their agricultural practices in boosting food production (Olaitan &

Mama, 2001).

Measures, as Perceived by Farmers and Extension Agents, for Enhancing Farmers’ Productivity

From Table 17, it was revealed that the following proactive measures would enhance farmers’ productivity: recruitment of subject matter specialist for the state extension service, regular organization of workshops for farmers by

A.D.P, regular supervision of extension agents for improving commitment and productivity, establishment of snail breeding research centres by government/non-governmental agencies, provision of grants by the state government and oil prospecting companies, increasing availability of soft loan facilities to snail farmers, proper feasibility survey of the site and construction of effective drainage system in the snailery.

The findings corroborates the evidence given by Obibuaku (1983) who stated that recruitment of subject matter specialist to the state extension service through provision of vehicles for extension agent’s fieldwork and regular supervision of extension agent would improve the agents’ commitment and productivity. Consequently, the farmer-extension worker contact will be

226 227 increased with ultimate higher productivity of the farmers. In view of the absence of snail breeding/research centres and feed factories in the southern states of Nigeria whose environmental conditions have comparative advantage in snail production, Adeleke (2006) solicited for the establishement of snail breeding/research centres as well as feed factories to increase availability of improved breeding stocks and compounded feeds.

In line with the proactive measures, Welson (2001) contended that funding heliciculture programmes, improving the availability of credit facilities to farmers via A.D.P by government/non-governmental agencies through proper site feasibility survey and construction of effective drainage system would serve as a panacea to the problems of poverty of farmers and seasonal flooding of farms.

It was also found from the t-test analysis in table 24 that farmers and extension agents did not differ significantly in their mean scores on the measures for enhancing farmers’ productivity. This finding is in harmony with the view of

Akinyemi, Ojo Akintomide (2007) who succinctly stated that the productivity enhancement measures as perceived by snail farmers were also considered as same solutions to the problems of snail production by extension workers and vice versa.

227

228

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Restatement of the Problem

The inhabitants of Bayelsa state are beset with acute food shortages particularly protein. Suffice to say that the demand for protein has outstripped supply and consequently, the prices of sources of animal protein have soared beyond the affordability of the low-income earners (Steve & Nkasiobi, 2003). It was the need for good quality but cheap source of animal protein that led to increased consumption of snail meat in the state. Apparently, the demand for snail meat has become high in the state and consequently, hike in the prices of the meat.

Perhaps motivated by the high demand for snail meat and the expected income from the increasing prices of snail meat in the study area, Bayelsa farmers are now rearing snails using various types and quantities of technologies. Although, snail farming has being in existence however, there is no documented record based on empirical research for use in improving the management practices of farmers. Knowledge of such data and other constraints in snail production, are expedient for the development of this area of food production in the study area. Thus, the study specifically was designed to:

(1) determine the level of application of site preparation technologies by the

farmer;

228 216 229

(2) access the level of technology application in stock preparation and

stocking;

(3) examine the level of application of farm maintenance technologies by

the farmers;

(4) determine the level of technology application in pests and diseases

control;

(5) ascertain the extent of application of technologies by snail farmers in

marketing of the products;

(6) determine the respective rates of input application;

(7) determine the corresponding cost of the inputs;

(8) evaluate the productivity of farmers in snail production;

(9) identify the constraints of farmers in snail production and

(10) identify the measures for enhancing farmers’ productivity.

Description of the Procedure used

Ten research questions and seven null hypotheses based on the specific objectives were formulated to guide the investigation. The study adopted a descriptive survey research design. There was no sampling as the entire population of 153 registered snail farmers in the three agricultural zones (Brass,

Sagbama and Yenagoa), was used for the study.

The instrument used for data collection was a structured questionnaire developed by the researcher and validated by five experts, three in Agricultural

229 230

Education of the Department of Vocational Teacher Education and two in

Animal Science, Department of the Faculty of Agriculture, all in the University of Nigeria, Nsukka. The instrument which contained 214 items was trial-tested on a sample of 20 snail farmers from Rivers State who were excluded in the main study. The internal consistency of the instrument was determined, using the Cronbach alpha procedure which yielded a reliability coefficient of 0.66.

The questionnaire contained two parts (A and B). While part A focused on the demographic data of the respondents, part B addressed the respective ten objectives of the study.

One hundred and fifty three (153) copies of the questionnaire were administered by personal contacts with the assistance of six research assistance from the study area. Out of the 153 copies of the questionnaire distributed, 150 were properly filled and returned. Data collected were analyzed using mean, standard deviation, gross margin and profit analysis whilst the student’s t-test statistic was employed to test the hypotheses at 0.05 probability level.

Major Findings of the Study

Based on the result of data analysis, the following findings were made in snail production in Bayelsa State.

A. Highly Applied Technologies by Snail Farmers in Site Preparation

• Selection of quiet shady well-drained leeward site.

• Fencing the farm.

• Raised wooden snailery

230 231

Moderately Applied Technologies in Site Preparation

• Cultivation of snailery crops.

• Organic manuring for snailery crop growth.

• Flooring the snailery with loose soil substrate.

• Installation of snail hide-out.

• Liming soil substrate with woodash.

Technologies that are Appled at Low Level in Site Preparation

• Cultivation of wind-breaks.

• Heat treatment of substrate

• Substrate inoculation with earthworm

• Construction of trench snailery.

Technologies that are Not Applied in Site Preparation

• Mechanical clearing

• Application of inorganic fertilizer

B. Technologies that are Highly Applied in Stocking

• Selection of common/edible species (Archachatina marginata) from farms and markets.

231 232

Moderately Applied Technologies in Stocking

• Cleaning snails in an untreated clean water before stocking.

• Moistening the substrate before stocking.

• 2 2 Stocking snails between 25-30 adults/m and 45-50 juveniles/m .

Technologies that are Applied at Low Level in Stocking

• Selection, based on medium size active sore-free parent stock.

• Stocking early in the morning or late evening

• Raising snails in separate pens based on age, size and condition.

• Stocking between 15-20 giant snails/m2.

• Stocking Achatina achatina

Technologies that are Not Applied in Stocking

• Purging snails on corn meal.

• Quarantining snails for 7-14 days before stocking.

• Stocking Achatina fulica.

C. Highly Applied Technologies in feed/substrate Management.

• Cleaning off fouled droppings and dead snails.

• Feeding snails with plant parts.

• Provision of clean untreated drinking water.

• Moistening snailery substrate.

• Semi-intensive system of husbandry

232 233

Moderately Applied Technologies in Feed Management

• Mulching the substrate.

• Replacement of stale feed/water with new ones.

• Ovipositing exposed eggs.

• Feeding hatchlings with succulent/moistened feed.

• Culling undesirable snails.

Technologies Applied at low Level in Feed Management

• Feeding snails in relation to age, size and condition.

• Application of commercial feed.

• Illumination of snailery at night to increase feeding hours

• Reverting aestivated snails.

• Egg candling.

Technologies that are Not Applied in Feed Management

• Starving snails to enhance calcium intake.

• Cultivation of legumes in the incubator as hatchery feed.

• Weighing snails to determine growth rate.

• Keeping farm records.

233 234

D. Technologies Moderately Applied in Pests and Diseases Control.

• Manual destruction of pests and predators.

• Moating cupped wooden legs of snailery.

• Moating round the snailery.

• Trapping predators with gill nets.

Technologies that are Applied at Low Level in Pests and Diseases Control

• Foot dipping before entering snailery

• Provision of pest/predator-proof floor

• Washing soldier-ants infested snails.

• Smoking to scare pests.

• Stocking disease resistant species

• Administration of drugs through feed.

Technologies Not Applied in Pests and Diseases Control

• Substrate sterilization.

• Rotational penning

• Employing veterinary services.

234 235

E. Technologies Highly Applied in Marketing of snail products.

• Determining snail maturity through feeling of the shell edge.

• De-shelling.

• Gutting the viscera.

• De-slimation of secretions from the flesh.

Technologies Moderately Applied in Marketing of Snail Product

• Storing live snails in perforated containers.

• Treading live snails with ropes for sale.

Technologis Applied at Low Level in Marketing of Snail Products

• Weighing snails to determine maturity.

• Determination of maturity via counting whorls on the shell.

• Storing processed snails in refrigerators for sale.

F. Rate of input Application

For the 150 farms surveyed in the study area, the average farm size per year was 24.77m2 and each farm utilized an average of one unit of these capital inputs - watering can, knife, wheelbarrow, spade, cutlass, tray and drum. Snails were stocked at 10 snails/m2/yr or 252 snails/farm/yr whilst two each of feeders, drinkers, basins and buckets were used per farm. Also variable inputs such as feeds were applied at the rate of 44, 184kg/farm/yr or 1,784 kg/m2/yr, lime was at 38.17 kg/farm/yr or 1.54kg/m2/yr while engine oil was at the rate of 18.53 litres/farm/yr or 0.75 litres/m2/yr. On the average, farmers utilized two each per

235 236 farm of these variable inputs-plastic spoons, touch lights, packers, brooms and litter bins.

G. Corresponding Cost of the Inputs

The cost of land applied for snail farming was at the rate of

N4,166.67/farm/yr or N168.24/m2/yr; fence was at N3,789/farm/yr/ or

N2,118.74/m2/yr. While parent stocks (juveniles) were procured at N40/snail.

Watering cans, knives and wheel barrows were bought at a unit cost of N300,

N100 and N8,500 respectively. While spades, trays, drums and feeders were purchased at a unit cost of N1,500, N100, N800 and N200 respectively.

Drinkers and buckets were procured at a unit cost of N200 and N250 respectively.

Over head inputs such as permanent labour, incurred an average cost of

N5,600/farm/yr or N226.11/m2/yr; transportation had N5,648.33/farm/yr or

N228.00/m2/yr and maintenance incurred a cost of N6,716.67/farm/yr or

N271.2/m2/yr while telephone charges incurred N12, 032/farm/yr or

N485.81/m2/yr.

Cost implication for feed was at N1, 22,752/farm/yr or N4,956.3/m2/yr; lime was at N58.67/farm/yr or N2.37/m2/yr while engine oil was at

N1,390/18.53 litres/farm/yr or N56.12/0.75 litres/m2/yr.

Plastic spoons, touch lights, packers, brooms and litter bins were bought at a unit cost of N10, N250, N50, N50 and N250 respectively. Capital inputs

236 237 incurred an average cost of N94,701.33/farm/yr or N3,823.74/m2/yr; over head inputs had average cost of N29,999/farm/yr or N1,211.81/m2/yr, while the sum of N129, N704.43/farm or N5,237.06/m2 were expended on variable inputs annually.

An average production cost of N159,728/farm/yr or N6,449/m2/yr was expended on inputs.

H. Productivity of Farmers in Snail Production

Heliciculture is a productive venture as evidenced by the average yield of

327 adult snails/m2/yr, 8,096 adult snails/farm/yr, 327,000 adult snails/1,000m2/yr and 3,270,000 adult snails/ha/yr with over 8,096 potential

(eggs) snails. An adult snail lays an average of thrice yearly with 7 eggs per clutch and 28 eggs/year.

Snail farming is also profitable as could be observed from a net worth of

N13, 163.42/m2/yr, N326,014/farm/yr, and a proceed of N2.00/yr per naira

1 outlay, with a payback period of 12 /2 months.

I. Major Constraints of Farmers in Snail Production

• Farmer’s inexperience in snail production.

• Gross inadequacy of improved snail species.

• Lack of fund.

• Seasonal flooding of snail farms.

• Inadequate overnment/non-governmental organization’s financial support to snail production programmes/projects.

237 238

J. Measures for Enhancing Farmers’ Productivity

• Regular organization of workshops for snail farmers by ADP.

• Recruitment of subject matter specialists for the state extension service.

• Regular supervision of extension agents for improving commitment and productivity.

• Establishment of snail breeding centres by Government/non governmental agencies.

• Provision of grants to farmers by oil companies for research and development of snail farming.

• Increasing availability of soft loan facilities to snail farmers.

• Construction of good drainage system in the snailery.

K. There was no significant difference between the mean scores of non-literate

and literate snail farmers on the level of application of site preparation

technologies in most of the technology items presented to the farmers in the

study area.

L. There was no significant difference between the mean scores of female and

male snail farmers on the level of application of stocking technologies in

most of the technology items presented to the farmers in the study area.

M. There was no significant difference between the mean scores of

inexperienced and experienced snail farmers on the extent of application of

farm maintenance technologies in most of the technology items presented to

the farmers in the study area.

N. There was no significant difference between the mean scores of rural and

urban snail formers on the level of application of pests, predators and

238 239

diseases control technologies in all the technology items presented to the

farmers in the study area.

O. There was no significant difference between the mean scores of non-literate

and literate snail farmers on the extent of application of marketing

technologies in all the technology items presented to the farmers in the study

area.

P. There was no significant difference between the mean scores of subsistence

and commercial snail farmers on the constraints of farmers in snail

production in most of the constraints items presented to the farmers in the

study area.

Q. There was no significant difference between the mean scores of farmers and

extension agents on the measures for enhancing farmers’ productivity in

most of the improvement items presented in the study area.

Conclusions

The findings of this study served as the basis for making the following conclusions.

Snail is a quality source of animal protein and has high nutritional and therapeutic values. This has made the production of snail popular among the south-south states in Nigeria inclucding Beyelsa State. Heliciculture requires modern technologies to boost food production.To supplement the protein requirement and bridge the aggregate protein supply-demand deficit in Bayelsa

239 240

State food balance sheet, there is need to search for alternative technologies other than the traditional approach, so as to make snail products cheap, readily available and to expand the farming of snail in other areas.

The findings of this study has provided useful information on the new technologies that could be adopted to improve snail production which can of course packaged and made available at affordable cost to snail farmers to enhance their productivity and ultimately improve their socio-economic status.

Implications for the Study

The findings of this study have far reaching socio-economic implications for food security/sustainability, farmer education and poverty reduction.

Implications for Food Security

Agricultural development is the bedrock of rural and national prosperity.

The nation’s food security system can be built on ecological security and acquisition of requisite skills in food production (F.A.O, 2006). Ecological security implies the conservation and sustainable management of the basic life support systems of the environment. It involves concurrent and integrated attention of all components of the biosphere including food production. Food security is, thus, dependent on harnessing and sustaining production of food including snail. The findings of the study indicated that traditional snail production technologies have been applied by the farmers and consequently not

240 241 much yield was obtained by the farmers which has serious implications for the present food security efforts of the federal and state governments.

The government interest in food security is expressed in the nature and functions of the various agencies, policies and programmes created to deal with food production in the country. Consequently, government has created a number of agencies that are not exclusively agriculture or rural in function but also to support government in various ways in a bid to impact on rural farmers. One of such efforts is translated into the counterpart funding of Agricultural

Development Project (A.D.P).

It is an indisputable fact that government agencies are centers of agricultural development but the control forces for all agricultural development programmes are the farmers because they contribute a significant proportion of the human resources involved in any food production efforts.

The study revealed that some of the snail production technologies are highly applied while others are moderately applied by the farmers. This finding suggest the expediency not only in encouraging the farmers to sustain the tempo but also to spur them (farmers) to increase their rate of application of all the economically viable technologies in snail production for optimal productivity.

This is, thus, a clarion call on extension agents to re-double their efforts in ensuring a high rate of application of all economically viable productivity enhancement technologies by the farmers.

241 242

Implications for Farmer Education

It was also found from the study that majority of the modern productivity enhancement technologies in snail production, are applied at very low level by the farmers. Several factors, ranging from traditional beliefs, conservation, ignorance, illiteracy to poverty, were indicted for the low level of application of these modern heliciculture technologies; which has strong implications for farmer education. No wonder that Uwadie and Ochu (1991) advocated for vocational agricultural education for farmers to cut down the thick root of traditional beliefs, superstition, ignorance, illiteracy and poverty in order to usher in sustainable agricultural development in the nation.

Thus, it posits the use of appropriate farmer education methods such as agricultural extension, mass media and agricultural education because reliance on agricultural extension alone could largely be ineffective. It was against this backdrop that Ogbazi (1992) lamented that the efforts of agricultural extension workers in educating the rural farmers, have been quite minimal and thus advocated for agricultural education to compliment the efforts of agricultural extension services.

Agricultural education according to Olaitan (1985), prepares personnel that are technically competent in different fields of agriculture and pedagogically sound in manipulating interaction between man and agriculture.

Agricultural education is designed to train people for efficient, profitable and satisfying employment in different fields of agriculture. It is a special type of

242 243 education designed to train people in art and science of farming and in the pedagogy of agriculture (Ogbazi, 1992). While Osinem (2008) succinctly describes it as the process of imparting agricultural skills, knowledge and attitude to the learner at any level of education. Therefore, it is an important school programme that is offered at all levels of education ranging from home to school, implying that it can be formal, informal and non-formal.

Thus, the introduction of agricultural education, through adult education programmes and extension education activities, would not only create awareness in farmers on the available modern snail production technologies, but would also arouse and improve the interest and aptitudes of farmers.

Consequently, it will initiate prospective farmers into heliciculture as well as facilitate farmers response to the application of the modern snail production technologies so as to increase their productive potentials and ultimately raise their social-economic status.

Agricultural education is necessary for snail farmers to be able to benefit from extension methods directed towards increasing their productive capacity and developing in them the sense of responsibility and respect for dignity of labour. Snail farmers need this education to be efficient farm managers capable of planning, organising, implementing, evaluating and operating the basic elements of production (land, labour and capital) of snail farming business.

With the acquisition of appropriate productive skills and technical knowledge in snail production through farmer education programmes, farmers can easily

243 244 mobilize funds from government/non-governmental agencies and other financial houses to be able to procure the required technologies and apply them to enhance maximum output. This will enable them to go into large scale production and accrue the socio-economic benefits therefrom.

Implications for Poverty Reduction

The study further identified major constraints of farmers in snail production which is an indication that the farmers have not yet achieved their maximum output. This finding has strong linkage/implication for the present poverty reduction efforts of the federal and state governments. The present poverty reduction programme of the government is a laudable effort in this direction. The scheme has many short term measures like provision of soft loans to grassroot based and small-scale investors, education and skills acquisition training programmes focused on the poor rural farmers through credible grassroot based organizations. This is because rural farmers have made unalloyed contribution in protecting and developing agricultural resources in particular and diversity of cultivated semi-wild and wild plants used for food, fuel and medicine.

Poverty reduction programmes should make provision to support food production, encourage village-based rural farmers institutions and promote the roles of non-governmental organizations. It should ensure that farmers have access to grants and credits to promote the utilization and improvement of local

244 245 varieties/species as well as marketing and processing. Successful poverty reduction programmes focused on rural farmers will apparently usher in benefits because their efforts in maintaining and developing crops/animals will make direct and vital contributions in improving mini-livestock production including snail.

The study also identify measures for enhancing farmers productivity which has serious implications for poverty reduction. The identified measures can be religiously implemented through multi-dimensional approach, involving appropriate farmer education and active participation of all major stalkholders in the study area. It is pertinent to note that mere reliance on one farmer education method like mass media communication, is largely ineffective. A variety of approaches must be employed. Even in the widely acclaimed participatory approach, a rational combination of techniques needed to be designed to encourage active involvement of both snail farmers and major stalkholders. For snail farmers to feel the impact of poverty reduction effort of the government, they should be involved in heliciculture improvement activities/programmes of the state. Whilst farmer education approach such as group communication should be welcomed because of it’s potential in creating powerful emotions, urges and interest; all major stalkholders should actively be involved in the religious implementation of the identified measures to enhance the productivity of farmers in the study area.

245 246

Recommendations

Based on the findings and conclusions made in this study, the following recommendations have been proffered:

1. Modern technologies which are found technically and economically viable to

improve snail production enterprise should be packaged into training manual

and be made available to snail farmers and extension workers.

2. Agricultural extension workers should regularly organize snail workshops,

conferences and seminars for snail farmers.

3. Subject matter specialists should be recruited to train agricultural extension

workers on snail production.

4. The state government should partner with non-governmental agencies to

establish snail breeding centres at Local Government Levels of the State.

5. The availbilty of soft loan facilities to snail farmers be increased by the state

government and non-governmental organizations.

6. The petroleum production, refining and marketing firms in the state should

be made to contribute to the state Agricultural Development fund for

research and development of snail production in the state.

7. Proper survey on the trend of seasonal flooding on the proposed area should

be conducted before establishment of snail farm.

8. Schools, Colleges and other institutions of higher learning should be

encouraged to establish snaileries as school demonstration farms to arouse

246 247

students’ interest as well as enable them acquire heliciculture competencies

for entrepreneurship , on graduation.

Suggestions for Further Research

The following topics have been suggested for further studies.

1. Snail production competency needs of teachers of agricultural science in

secondary schools in Bayelsa State.

2. In-service training needs of Agricultural extension officers in snail production

in Bayelsa State.

3. Snail product marketing constraints of farmers in Bayelsa State.

4. Strategies in snail feed improvisation by farmers in Bayelsa State.

247 248

REFERENCES

Abbott, J.C. & Makeham, J.P (1980). Agricultural Economics and Marketing in the Tropics (2nd ed.) . London: Wing Tai Cheung Printing co. Ltd.

Abowei, J.F.N. & Sikoki, F.D. (2005). Water Pollution Management and Control. Port Harcourt: Doubletrust Publication company.

Adeleke, L.O. (2006). Snail Rearing: A New Investment Opportunity for Small and Medium Scale Enterprises (2nd ed.). Ibadan University press.

Ademolu, K.O., Idowu, A. B., Mafiana, C.F. & Osinnowo, O.A. (2004). Performance, proximate and mineral analysis of African giant land snail (Archachatina marginata) fed with different nitrogen sources. African Journal of Biotechnology, 3 (8), 412-417.

Akindele, S.O. (2004). Basic Experimental Designs in Agricultural Research. Akure: Royalbird Ventures.

Akinnusi, O. (1998). Introduction to Snails and Snail Farming. Lagos: Omega science publisher.

Akintomide, T.O. (2004). Tropical Snail Farming. Abeokuta: OAK Ventures.

Akinyemi, A.F., Ojo, S.O. & Akintomide, T.O. (2007). Tropical Snail Farming (2nd ed).Abeokuta: OAK Ventures.

Alamieyeseigha, D.S.P. (2005). Managing Youths unrest in Nigeria: A holistic Approach. London: News Africa Ltd.

Aluu, H.C. & Osinem, E.C. (2006). Institutional and technical factors influencing women farmers, access to capital resources in Ebonyi State. International Journal of Educational Research, 1 (1), 159-166.

Animal Welfare Extension Services (2005). A Handbook on the Basics of Snails Rabbits and Grasscutter Production and Health. Ibadan: CBI Publishers.

Arene, C.J. (1998). Introduction to the Economic Analysis of Projects in Tropical Agriculture. Nsukka: Fulladu Publishing Company.

Arene, C.J. (2002). Introduction to the Economic Analysis of Projects in Tropical Agriculture. Nsukka: Fulladu Publisher Company.

248 249

Arene, C.J. (2008). Economic Analysis of Agricultural and Rural Development Projects (2nd ed.). Enugu: Prize Publisher.

Arene, C.J. (2008). Agricultural Economics: A functional Approach. Enugu: Prize Publishers.

Awah, A.A. (2000). Snail farming in mature rubber plantation: studies on aspects of specialized production technigues for farming Archachatina marginata. Snail Farming Research. 4, 33-39.

Ayichi, D. (1995). Agricultural Technology Transfer for Sustainable Rural Development. In E. C. Eboh, C. U. Okoye and D. Ayichi (Ed.), Rural Development in Nigeria Concepts, Processes and Projects. Enugu: Auto- century Publishing Company Ltd.

Ayinla, O.A. (1991). Economic Analysis of Aquaculture in the Tropic. Lagos: NIMOR.

Berkeley, H. (1990). An Introduction to Economics for Students of Agriculture. England: Pergamon Press Plc. Heading ton Hill Hall.

Benjamin, C.E. (2001). Fundamental of Animal Agriculture. Enugu: Mike Social Press.

Bruinsma, D. H., W. W. Witsenhbunrg, and W. Wurdemann (1995). Selection of Technology for Food Processing in Developing Countries. Malaysia: Wageningen Publishing Ltd.

Butt, C.S. (2002). A Practical Manual in Accounting. London: Cassel Publishers.

Campbell, R.M. (1993). Economic Principles, Problems and Polices. New York: Mcgraw Hill Inc.

Chinwe, N. (2000). Poverty alleviation through science and technology education. Journal of Nigerian Educational Research Association, 14(1), 121-127.

Chinwuko, B.A (2003). Tropical Approach to Snail Farming on Land. Production Processes, Snail diseases, Treatment and Management. Onitsha: Joanee educational Publishers Ltd.

249 250

Cobbinah, J.R. (1994). Snail Farming in West African-A practical guide. U.K: Sayce Publication.

Donald, R. (1992). Dictionary of Economics. London: Rouledge, New Fettetr Lane.

Downey, W.D. & J.K. Trocke. (1981). Agribusiness Management. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.

Ebenso, I.E. & Okafor, N.M. (2002). Alternative diets for growing Archachtina marginata snails in South-Eastern Nigeria. Tropical Science (England), 42 (3), 144-145.

Ebenso, I.E. (2003).Dietary calcium supplement for edible tropical land snails (Archachatina marginata) in Niger Delta. University of Uyo, Uyo. Ebirim, C.O.J. (2002). Business Accounting (4th ed.). University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria: Bastina consolidated publishers.

Eboh, E.C. & Ogbazi, J.U. (1990). The role of women in Nigeria agricultural production and development. In Ikeme, A.I (Ed); The challenges of Agriculture in Nigeria development. A publication of the faculty of agriculture, University of Nigeria. Optimal computer solution Ltd. Nsukka.

Ebong, V.O. (2001). Agribusiness Management in a Development Economy the Nigerian perspective. Uyo: Longman Publishers.

Edozie, G.C. & Maduewesi, B.U. (2003). Citation and Referencing: The APA style (6th ed.). Onitsha: West and Solomon publishing co Limited.

Egwui, P.C. (2000). Homestead concrete fishpond, iii. Economic appraisal. In O.A. Ayinla (Ed.), Proceedings of the aquaculture training programme (ATP). 185-196. Port-Harcourt: Rivers State.

Ekiyor, C.W. (2006). Bayelsa Paradise Revealed: Bayelsa Handbook. Yenagoa Government press.

Emeka, N. (2009). Research Methods: An Integrated Approach. Enugu: ABIC Books and equipments Ltd.

Eyiyere, D.O. (2003). Economics Made Easy for SSCE, Jamb and Similar Examination (New ed.). Benin: Quality publishers Ltd.

250 251

Ezeh, D.N. (eds.). (2005). What to write and how to write: A step-by-step guide to Educational Research Proposal and Report. Enugu: pearls and gold publishers Limited.

Ezeudu, S.A., Agwagah, U.N.V. & Agbagbu, C.N. (1997). Educational Measurement and Evaluation for Colleges and Universities. Onitsha: Cape publishers international Limited.

FGN (1992). Report of the Workshop of Appropriate Technology for Rural Women in Nigeria. Federal Government Press. Lagos.

Floyd, S. (1995). A fairer future for rural women. Fact sheet prepared on the occasion of the fourth world conference on women. Rome: FAO of the United Nation.

Food and Agricultural Organization (2002). Modern Snail Farming Technology. Rome: FAO of the United Nation.

Garg, M. K. (2000). The Upgrading of Traditional Technologies in India: Manufacturing and the Development of Home Living Technologies. In Nicholas J. (Ed.), Appropriate Technology, Problems and Promises. Development centre of the organization for economic cooperation and development.

Gay, L.R. (1987). Educational Research: Competence for Analysis and Application. Ohio: Mervil publishing co.

Gittinger, J.P. (1990). Economic Analysis of Agricultural Projects (3rd ed.). Baltimore; The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hamzat, R.A., Omole, A.J., Oredein, A.O.& Longe, O.G. (2003). Growth performance of African giant land snails (Archachatina marginata) on dried kola nut test and palm kernel cake mixture. African Journal of Livestock Extension Vol.2.

Hodasi, J.K.M. (1982). The effects of different light regimes on the behaviour and biology of Achatina achatina (line). Journal of molluscan studies, 48 (3).

Ijere, M.O.&Okorie, Aja (1998). Readings in Agricultural Finance. Nsukka: Longman publishers.

Ijiomah, M.I. (2002). An Introduction to Farm Management and Accounting. Enugu: Smartlink publishers.

251 252

Ikeme, A.I. (1990). Meat Science and Technology- A Comprehensive Approach. Onitsha: Africana-First publishers limited.

Jim, M. (1994). Snail Producton Research: Dani, 8 (3).

Joledo, O. (2007). Technology of Snail Farming: A highlight. National Biotechnology Development Agency. Bioresources Development Center, Odi.

Joshua, S.S.& Keremah, R.I. (1996). Occurance of white apex denudation disease in the periwinkle (Tympanotonus fuscatus) in Brass River swamplands of Niger Delta of Nigeria: Journal of Agricultural Teacher Education, 5 (2), 139-145.

Kalu, O.O. (2002).Basic Principles of Economics for Agricultural Projects and Policy Analyses. Nsukka: Prize Publishers.

Lipper, L. (2001). Dirt poor. Poverty, farmers and soil resources investment socio-economic aspects of soil degradation. Economic and Social Development paper 149. FAO: Rome. Lubell, D.(2004). Land snail – A Signature for the Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition. Edmonton: Canada Press.

Massaquoi, J. G. M. (1993). Indigenous Technology for Farm Rural Activities. Journal of Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor 1(3), 2-3.

Mead, A.R. (1996). Comparative genital anatomy of some African Arachatindae (Pulmonata). Bulletin of Mollusion Comparative Zoology 105:219-291 Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Meier, G. M. (2004). Leading Issues in Economic Development. New York and oxford: oxford university press.

Meller, J. W. (2001). The Economics of Agricultural Development. Ithaca and New York: Cornell University Press.

Millichamp, A. H. (1987). Foundation Accounting. London: D. P. P. Publisher.

Moody, R. (2001). Principles of Accounts. Ibadan, Nigeria: Spectrum Book Publishers.

Moses, B.S. (1992). Introduction to Tropical Fisheries (2nd ed.). Ibadan University Press.

252 253

Murphy, B. (2001). Breeding and growing snails commercially in Australia. Rural industries research and development corporation. (1-38). Australia.

Ngama, J.I. (1992). Studies on parasites of terrestrial snails (Archatina archatina). Unpublished B.Sc. Thesis. University of Jos, Nigeria.

Ngoddy, P. O. (1991). Food Technology, Nutrition, and Agricultural Strategies in Economic Development. Keynote address to the NIFST Annual Conference.

Nwagbo, E.C. (1998). Investment decision criteria: Undiscouned measures. In Ijere, M.O & Okorie, (eds), Readings in Agricultural Finance. Nsukka: Longman Publishers.

Nweze, N.J. (2002). Agricultural Production Economics: An Introductory Text. Nsukka: AP Express Publishers Ltd.

Nworgu, B.G. (1991). Educational Research: Basic Issues and Methodology. Ibadan: Wisdom Publishers Limited.

Nworgu, B.G. (2006). Educational Research: Basic Issues and Methodology (2nd ed.). Nsukka: University Trust Publishers.

Obibuaku, L. O. (1983). Agricultural Extension as a strategy for Agricultural Transportation. Nsukka: University of Nigeria Press.

Obinna, O.E. (1998). Cash flow analysis for agricultural projects. In Ijere, M.O & Okorie, Aja (eds.). Readings in Agricultural finance. Longman.

Ogbazi, N. J. (1992). The Role of Agricultural Education in Rural Development: The case of Nigeria. In Michael S. O. Olisa and Obiukwu J. I. (Ed), Rural Development in Nigeria, Dynamics and Strategies. Mekslink publishers (Nig.).

Ojoye, E. B., Ajala, C. G. & Meludu, N.T. (2004). Enhancing income generation and nutrition security through the transfer of short cut snail production technology in Nigeria. African Journal of Livestock Extension1, (3) 19-22.

Okafor, F.C. (2001). Edible land Snail: A Manual of Biology, Management and Farming of Snails. Lagos: Splendid Publishers.

Okoro, O.M. (1994). Measurement and Evaluation in Education. Anambra: Pacific Publishers.

253 254

Olagoke, A.M. (1990). “Comparative economics of resources use in rice and yam based crop production in Uzo-Uwani L.G.A. of Anambra State”. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria.

Olaitan, S.O. (1985). Agricultural Education in the Tropics. London: Macmillan Publishers.

Olaitan, S. O. and Ndomi, B.M. (2000). Vocametrics-A high-tech Problem Solving quantitative text with computer skills. Onitsha: Cape Publisher International Limited.

Olaitan, S.O. & Mama, R.O. (2001). Principles and Practice of School Farm Management. Onitsha: Cape Publishers Int’l Ltd.

Olukosi, J.O. & Erhabor, P.O. (1998). Introduction to Farm Management Economics: Principles and Application. Department of agricultural economics and rural sociology, A.B.U Zaria, Nigeria.

Omole, A.J., Ayodeji, I.O. & Raji, M.A. (2004). The potential of peels of mango, plantain, cocoyam and pawpaw as diets for growting snails (Archachatina marginata). Livestock Research For Rural Development. 3,(1), 40-52.

Omuya, J.O. (1983). Business Accounting. England: Longman group Ltd. Essex.

Onah, E.E. (1998). Investment decision criteria: discounted measures. In Ijere M.O. & Okorie, Aja (eds.). Reading in Agricultural finance. Nsukka: Longman Publishers.

Onu, D. O. and A. C. Anyanwu (1991). Effecting Agricultural and Rural Development Through Agricultural Extension Services. In A. I. Ikeme (Ed.); The Challenges of Agriculture in National Development. Optimal Computer Solutions, Nsukka.

Osinem, E. C. (2005). Environmental Education in Agriculture. Enugu: Cheston Agency Limited.

Osinem, E. C. (2008). Managing Agricultural Education and Training: Resources, Principles and Methods. Enugu: Belony International Publishers.

Osuala, E.C. (2001). Introduction to Research Methodology (3rd eds.). Onitsha: African-First Publishers Limited.

254 255

Osuala, E.C. (2005). Introduction to Research Methodology: The Millennium edition (4th ed.).Onitsha: African – First Publishers Limited.

Otoboetekere, T.A. (2005). Aquaculture-A new hope for the nation in fish supply. Port Harcourt: City –creeks Publishers.

Oyaide, O.F.J. (1992). The Achievement of Agricultural Development Programme in Nigeria. Paper presented at a symposium of the 1992 ADP fair in Kaduna.

Paul, O.N. (2000). Snail Farming: A practical Guide. Enugu: Splash media.

Raw Materials Research and Development Council (RMRDC) (1999). Nigeria Audit of Indigenous and Emerging Technologies/Machinery for processing Agricultural Raw Materials into Industrial Inputs. Main Report, RMRDC, Lagos: Nigeria.

Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York.

Sandoval, R.P. (1996). Agricultural credit and small farmers; Experience policies and programmes. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development. 1(10), 75-96.

Simpson, R.D. (1990). Investigation of biological factors of snails in relation to commercial snail farming and the marketing of snails in Australia as food. University of New England, Amidale.

Srivastave, R.K. & Rawart (1982). Attitude of Herijan women towards education, A comparative study of a city and surrounding village. Indian Journal of Adult Education, 43 (7), July 31.

Steve, S.A. & Nkasiobi, O. (ed.). (2000). Agricultural-An agenda for change in the Nigeria Delta. Yenagoa: Treasure Communication Resources Limited.

Stewart, F. (2005). Technology and Underdevelopment (2nd ed.) New York, London and Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Suwari, G.S. (2004). Evaluation of Bayelsa State Homestead Aquaculture Development Programme. Unpublished Masters Thesis. University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Thompson, R. (1996). Raising Snails. Alternative system. Beltsvile: Mary and Publishers.

Tobby, A.J. (2002).Cash flow management models: A survey and critique. The National Journal of Economics and Social Studies, 19(4).

255 256

Tobias, B.I.O. (2002). Modern snail breeding technology. African Journal of Food and Agriculture, 1(1), 30-33.

Ukpong, G.E. (1997). Agribusiness, the environment and sustainable economic growth in Nigeria. CBN Bulletin 19(4).

Upton, M. (1991). Women participation in agriculture. National light Sunday September 11.

Umebali, E.E. (2002). Agribusiness and Financial Analysis. (Rev.ed.). Enugu: Amazing Grace printing and Publishing Company.

Umeh, E. (1992). Indigenous Technology in National Development. Enugu: The Government House Printer.

Upton, M. (1996). The Economics of Tropical Farming System. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Uwadie, S. A. & Ochu, A. (1991). Women participation in Agriculture. National Light Sunday September 11.

Uzogaulu, A.E. (1998). Practical Guide to Writing Research Project Reports in Tertiary Institutions. Enugu: John Jacob’s Classic Publishers Limited.

Welson, A. (2001). Snail Farming (Rev. ed.). Port-Harcourt; Page works publishers Ltd.

Wilbur, M. & Younge, C.M. (1996). Physiology of Mollusca. Vol. 1.Academic Press Inc. New York: 103-105.

Wosu, I. O. (2003). Commercial Snail Farming in West Africa: A. Guide. Nsukka: AP Express Publishers Limited.

256 257

APPENDIX A

Department of Vocational Teacher Education (Agriculture), University of Nigeria, Nsukka. Date: ______

Dear Sir/Madam,

REQUEST FOR VALIDATION OF A RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

I am a postgraduate student in the Department of Vocational Teacher Education (Agricultural Unit), University of Nigeria, Nsukka, currently conducting a research work titled –Snail Production in Bayelsa State: Technologies, Productivity and Enhancement Measures.

Kindly validate the attached questionnaire, for relevance of content, clarity of statements and suitability of the rating scale. Also, I humbly request that you write your comments and suggestions in the blank space provided.

Thanks in anticipation for your co-operation.

Yours faithfully,

…………………….. Suwari, Godstime S. PG/Ph.D/04/35563

257 258

APPENDIX B

Department of Vocational Teacher Education (Agriculture), University of Nigeria, Nsukka. Date:______

Sir/Madam,

I am a postgraduate student in the Department of Vocational Teacher Education (Agricultural Unit), University of Nigeria, Nsukka, currently conducting a research work titled –Snail Production in Bayelsa State:

Technologies, Productivity and Enhancement Measures.

Kindly complete the attached questionnaire, as honestly and independently. The information sought from you is strictly for research purposes and thus, will be treated confidentially.

Thanks in anticipation for your co-operation.

Yours faithfully,

…………………….. Suwari, Godstime S. (Researcher)

258 259

APPENDIX C

RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE

PART A

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

INSTRUCTION: please tick (√) in the spaces provided against the statement below as it applies to you.

1. Location of farm …………………….... (2) Name of Farm………………

(3) L.G.A…………………………………. (4) Senatorial zone :(a) Brass ( )

(b) Sagbama ( ) (c) Yenagoa ( )

5. Sex: Male ( ), Female ( )

6. Age of farmer

(a) 21-30 years ( )

(b) 31 – 40 years ( )

(c) 41-50 years ( )

(d) 51- 60 years ( )

(e) Above 60 years ( )

7. Educational background:

(a) No formal education ( )

(b) Received primary education ( )

259 260

(c) Received post-primary education ( )

(d) Received tertiary education ( )

8. Snail farming experience

(a) 1-5 years ( )

(b) 6-10 years ( )

(c) 11-15 years ( )

(d) Above 15 years ( )

260 261

PART B

Site preparation technologies applied by farmers in snail production.

Please, respond by ticking (√) in the appropriate response option in the scale below to indicate the level of your application of these site preparation technologies in your farm. The scale points are as follows:

RESEARCH QUESTION 1

SECTION I

High - H

Moderate - M

Low - L

Not Applied - NA

261 262

S/NO SITE PREPARATION TECHNOLOGIES RESPONSEOPTIONS

H M L NA

1. Selecting quite shady well-drained leeward site

2. Mechanical clearing.

3. Fencing the snailery.

4. Selection of good substrate.

5. Loosening the soil substrate before stocking.

6. Cultivation of food/shelter plants.

7. Cultivation of wind-breaks.

8. Applying organic manure for food/shelter plant’s growth.

9. Application of inorganic fertilizer for food/shelter plant’s growth.

10. Providing snail hide-out.

11. Heat treatment of soil substrate.

12. Inoculating soil substrate with earthworm.

13. Use of wood shavens as substrate.

14. East-West snailery orientation.

15. Liming the substrate.

16. Use of paddock snailery.

17. Use of raised wooden cage.

18. Use of surface concrete cage.

19 Use of raised rack cage.

20. Use of trench snailery.

262 263

RESEARCH QUESTION 2

SECTION II: STOCKING TECHNOLOGIES RESPONSE OPTIONS S/N STOCKING TECHNOLOGIES H M L NA

21. Selection of breeding stock from farms.

22. Sourcing breeding stock from wild (forest).

23. Selection of breeding stock from market.

24. Selecting medium sized sore- free snails.

25. Selection of properly formed snail.

26. Selecting slimy shell-filled foot with fragile shell edge.

27. Selection of the same species and size.

28. Selection of common/edible species that command good market price.

29. Introducing snails to farms in the morning/evening.

30. Purging snails on corn meal.

31. Quarantining snails for 7-14 days before stocking.

32. Washing snails with clean untreated water before stocking.

33. Snails are stocked between 15-20 giant snail/m2.

34. Snails are stocked between 25-30 adults/m2.

35. Snails are stocked between 45-50 juveiles/m2.

36. Snails are stocked between 90-100 hatchlings/m2.

37. Raising snails in separate pens based on age, size and condition.

38. Reared species is Archachatina marginata

39. Reared species is Achatina achatina

40. Reared species is Achatina fulica

263 264

RESEARCH QUESTION 3

SECTION III: HELICICULTURE MAINTENANCE TECHNOLOGIES

S/No Heliciculture Maintenance Technologies Response Options

H M L NA

41. Mulching the soil substrate.

42. Inspection of intra/inter snailery environment.

43. Removal of dead snails and fouled droppings.

44. Replacement of stale/fouled feed or water with fresh one.

45. Gently dropping climbing snails from high surfaces.

46. Feeding snails with plant parts.

47. Feeding in relation to age, size and condition.

48. Use of farmer made feed devoid of salt.

49. Application of commercial feed.

50. Ad-libidum supply of calcium.

51. Provision of clean untreated drinking water.

52. Starving snails to enhance calcium intake.

53. Illumination of snailery at night to increase feed consumption.

54. Moistening the substrate with water.

55. Reverting aestivated snails.

56. Transferring and ovipositing exposed eggs.

57. Egg candling to determine fertility.

58. Placing the incubator in warm location to enhance hatching.

264 265

59. Moistening the substrate in the incubator.

60. Cultivation of legumes in the incubator.

61. Transfer of hatchlings to nursery from incubator.

62. Feeding hatchling with succulent leaves or powdered or moistened compounded feed.

63. Culling undesirable snails.

64. Periodic cleaning of feed/water trough.

65. Extensive system of husbandry.

66. Semi-intensive system of husbandry.

67 Intensive system of husbandry.

68. Periodic replacement of hard substrate.

69. Periodic loosening of hard substrate.

70. Weighing snails to determine growth rate.

71. Keeping farm records.

265 266

RESEARCH QUESTION 4

SECTION IV: Pests and Diseases Control Technologies

S/N Pest, and Diseases Control Technologies Response Options

H M L NA

72. Manual weeding.

73. Closing snailery doors.

74. Inspection of materials brought to snailery.

75. Foot dipping before entering snailery.

76. Killing pests/predators manually.

77. Snailery reinforcement with wire gauze/ mosquito nets.

78. Soil sterilization.

79. Providing pest/predator-proof floor.

80 Moating cupped wooden legs of cages.

81. Applying moat round the snailery.

82. Trapping predators with gill nets.

83. Washing soldier-ants infested snails.

84. Smoking to scare soldier-ants

85. Moderate perforation of snailery.

86. Stocking disease resistant species

87. Burning infected snails.

88. Rotational penning.

89. Using antibiotics through feed.

90. Employing veterinary services.

266 267

RESEARCH QUESTION 5

SECTION V: Marketing Technologies Response Options S/N Marketing Technology H M L NA

91. Feeling the hardness of the edge of shell to determine maturity.

92. Determination of maturity via counting whorls on the shell.

93. Weighing snails to determine maturity.

94. Harvesting with hand-gloves.

95. De-shelling.

96. Gutting the viscera.

97. De-slimation of secretions from the flesh.

98. Storing live snails with perforated containers.

99. Storing processed snails in refrigerators.

100. Treading adult snails with ropes for sale.

101 Sale of live snails in farm shops.

102 Sale of fried/stewed snails.

267 268

RESEARCH QUESTION 6 AND 7

Section VI and VII: Rate of Input Application/Cost/ Year of Purchase/Expected Used Life of the Input Against each input below, there are blank columns provided, please

respond by filling in the respective quantities of inputs/cost you have applied as

well as the year of purchase and expected useful life of the input.

S/N Fixed Inputs Qty applied Cost (N) Year of Expected Age of asset purchase useful life during data Yr 1 Yr 2 of asset collection

Yr 1 Yr 2

103 Land (ha/plots/m2)

Fencing materials:

(a) wood/metal posts

(b) rolls of chicken wire mesh

104 (c) rolls of binding wire

(d) rolls of mosquito nets.

(e) split bamboo stands

(f) nails

(g) labour

(h) Livestock

(i) cane ropes

105 Snailery Materials:

(a) Posts

(b) Woods

268 269

(c) rolls of chicken wire mesh

(d) rolls of binding wire

(e) rolls of mosquito nets

(f) roofing materials

(g) inch board

(h) Cement

(i) blocks

(k) bolt and hinges

(I) bundles of bartin

(j) sand

(m) nails

(n) empty cans

(o) labour

106 Food/shelter plants (indicate the varieties)

107 Parent stocks (nos)

108 Water sprinklers (nos)

109 Weighing scales (nos)

110 Wheelbarrows (nos)

111 Feeders (nos)

112 Drinkers (nos)

113 Shovels/spades (nos)

114 Rakes (nos)

115 Garden fork (nos)

269 270

116 Basins (nos)

117 Buckets (nos)

118 Cutlass (nos)

119 Knives (nos)

120 Plastic drums (nos)

121 Plastic trays (nos)

122 Other fixed inputs (specify)

S/No Overhead Inputs Qty Applied Cost (N)

Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 1 Yr 2

123 Permanent labour

124 Farm manager

125 Transportation

126 Maintenance

127 Telephone charges

128 Tax

129 Other overhead inputs (specify)

270 271

S/N VARIABLE QUATITY APPLIED PER MONTH Tot INPUTS al

Year 1 Total Year 2

Jan Feb Mar April Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

130 Substrate (soil/wood shavens) (kg)

131 Feeds (kg)

132 Lime (kg)

133 Hand-gloves (nos)

134 Fertilizer (kg)

135 Disinfectant (liter)

136 Brooms (nos)

137 Marker pen (nos)

138 Plastic spoons (nos)

139 Packers

140 Litter bins

141 Touch lights 271 272

(nos)

142 Battries (nos)

143 Old engine oil (liter)

144 Other variable inputs (specify)

272 273

S/N VARIABLE MONTHLY COST PER INPUT (N) Tot INPUTS al

Year 1 Total Year 2

Jan Feb Mar April Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

145 Substrate (soil/wood shavens) (kg)

146 Feeds (kg)

147 Lime (kg)

148 Hand-gloves (nos)

149 Fertilizer (kg)

150 Disinfectant (liter)

151 Brooms (nos)

152 Marker pen (nos)

153 Plastic spoons (nos)

154 Packers

155 Litter bins (nos) 273 274

156 Touch lights (nos)

157 Battries (nos)

158 Old engine oil (liter)

159 Other variable inputs (specify)

274 275

RESEARCH QUESTION 8

SECTION XIII: Productivity of Farmers in Snail Production

Please fill in the blank spacesproviding the quantities of snail produced and values of your monthly sales

S/N OUTPUT QUANTITY OF ADULT SNAILS PRODUCED/SOLD AND REVENUE RECEIVED PR MONTH o

Year 1 Total Year 2 Tot al

Jan Feb Mar April Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

160 Adult snails produced

161 Sales (Qty)

162 Revenue (N)

275 i

RESEARCH QUESTION 9

SECTION IX: Constraints of farmers in snail production

Rate on the scale provided the level to which the items listed below are problems of snail production. The scale points are as follows:

Very Serious problem - VSP

Serious problem - SP

Little problem - LP

Not A problem - NAP

S/No Constraints as perceived by farmers Response Options

VSP SP LP NAP

163 Lack of suitable land.

164 Inexperience in snail production.

165 High cost of labour.

166 Aestivation of snails due to poor management.

167 Shortage of improved snail species.

168 Lack of fund.

169 Escalating cost of inputs.

170 Seasonal flooding of snail farms.

171 Non-supply of farm inputs by extension agents.

172 Impracticable research recommendations.

173 Non-commitment to service by extension agents.

174 High mortality rate.

i ii

175 Low rate of egg hatchability.

176 Serious pest attack.

177 Low growth rate.

178 High incidence of predators.

179 Frequent incidence of diseases.

180 Lack of processing and storage facilities.

181 Inexperience in processing and storage methods.

182 Low market prospects for giant land snails.

Constraints As Perceived By Extensive Agents

183 Inadequate number of extension agents.

184 Lack of vehicles for extension agent’s field work.

185 Extension agent’s inexperience in snail production

186 Farmer’s apathy to attend agric workshops.

187 Farmer’s conservatism due to traditional beliefs.

188 Farmer’s adherence to indigenous technologies.

189 Inadequate literature on snail production.

190 Inadequate government/non-governmental agencies participating in snail production programme/projects

ii iii

RESEARCH QUESTION 10

Section X: Measures as Perceived by Farmers and Extension Agents for Enhancing Farmer’s Productivity. Rate on the scale provided your degree of conformity to the statement below by

ticking (√) one of the four response options. The scale points are as follows:

Strongly Agree - SA

Agree - A

Disagree - D

Strongly Disagree - SD

S/No Enhancement measures as Perceived by Farmers Response Options

SA A D SD

191 Combing snail enterprise with rubber or oil palm enterprise.

192 Regular organization of workshops for snail farmers by A.D.P.

193 Increasing farmer-extension agent’s contact.

194 Use of radio/television programs for the delivery of extension services.

195 Regular management of snail farms.

196 Provision of balanced diet feed.

197 Improving the availability of breeding stock.

198 Establishment of snail breeding centres.

iii iv

199 Improving the availability of farm credit facilities to farmers.

200 Increasing availability of soft loans opportunities.

201 Provision of subsidized inputs to farms.

202 Funding snail programs by oil companies

203 Improving the availability of veterinary services.

204 State support to provide snail processing/storage facilities.

205 Establishment of snail feed factories.

206 Proper site feasibility survey.

207 Construction of drainage system.

Enhancement measures as Perceived by Extension Agents 208 Recruitment of heliciculture extension agents.

209 Provision of vehicles for extension agent’s field work

210 Regular supervision of extension agents.

211 Establishment of snail demonstration farms.

212 State support for research on snail production.

213 Recruitment of subject matter specialists for the state extension service.

214 Development of local/international markets for snail products.

iv v

APPENDIX D

GODSTIME SUWARI’S DATA

Computation of Reliability Coefficient

Section 1- Technologies in Site Preparation

N % Reliability Statistics

Cases valid 20 100.0 Cronbach ’s

Alpha N0. of items Excluded a 0 0

.704 20 Total 20 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure

Section II- Technologies in Stock preparation/stocking

N % Reliability Statistics

Cases valid 20 100.0 100.0 Cronbach ’s

Excluded a 0 0 Alpha N0. of items

Total 20 100.0 .607 20

v vi a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

Section III-Heliciculture maintenance technologies

N % Reliability Statistics

Cases valid 20 100.0 Cronbach ’s

Excluded a 0 0 Alpha N0. of items

Total 20 100.0 .604 34

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure

Section IV- Pests, Predators and Diseases Control Technologies

N % Reliability Statistics

Cases valid 20 100.0 Cronbach ’s

Excluded a 0 0 Alpha N0. of items

Total 20 100.0 .613 19

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure

vi vii

vii viii

Section V- Technologies in Harvesting, Processing, Storage and

Marketing of products

N % Reliability Statistics

Cases 20 100.0 Cronbach’s Cronbach’s valid Alpha Based on Alpha Standardized Excluded a 0 0 Items N0. of items Total 20 100.0

.833 .848 10

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure

Section VI-Rate of Input Application

N % Reliability Statistics

Cases 20 100.0 Cronbach’s Cronbach’s valid Alpha Based on Alpha Standardized Excluded a 0 0 Items N0. of items Total 20 100.0

.614 .549 49

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure

viii ix

Section VII-Cost of Inputs

N % Reliability Statistics

Cases 20 100.0 Cronbach’s Cronbach’s valid Alpha Based on Alpha Standardized Excluded a 0 0 Items N0. of items Total 20 100.0

.617 .553 49

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure

Section VIII- Farmers Productivity

N % Reliability Statistics

Cases 20 100.0 Cronbach ’ s Cronbach ’s valid Alpha Based on Alpha Standardized Excluded a 0 0 Items N0. of items Total 20 100.0

.567 .549 3

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure

ix x

Section IX- Farmer’s Constraint in snail Production

Reliability Statistics N %

Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Cases 20 100.0 Alpha Based on valid Alpha Standardized

Items N0. of Excluded a 0 0 items

Total 20 100.0

.657 .549 29 a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure

Section X- Productivity Enhancement Measures

N % Reliability Statistics

Cases 20 100.0 Cronbach’s Cronbach’s valid Alpha Based on Alpha Standardized a Excluded 0 0 Items N0. of items Total 20 100.0

.678 .660 24 a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure

x xi

APPENDIX E SUMMARY SHEET ON RATE OF INPUT APPLICATION/COST OF INPUT

S/NO. FIXED DESCRIPTION OF FREQUENCY/COST TOTAL

INPUT No of respondents 5 14 10 8 95 11 5 150 2 1 Land (nos) Qty applied 3.5m2 5m2 7.82m2 20m2 40m2 104m2 7429.7 240m2 480m2 Cost of inputs (N) Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil 50,000 1,283,500 150,000 80,000

No of 5 4 10 8 95 11 5 150 respondents 2 2 Land cleaning Qty applied 3.5m2 5m2 7.82m2 20m2 40m2 104m2 7429.7 240m2 480m2 Cost of imputs Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil 1,000 2,5000 33,500 (N) 5,000

No of respondents 5 4 10 8 95 11 5 150 3 Fence (m2) 2 Qty applied 7429.7 3.5m2 5m2 7.82m2 20m2 40m2 104m2 240m2 480m2 Cost of inputs Nil Nil Nil 5,000 8,560 13,500 1,136,700 (N) 15,000 30,000

No. of 5 14 10 8 95 11 5 150 respondents 2 4 Snailery (m2) Qty applied 1.m2 4m2 6m2 18m2 35m2 100m2 7429.7 233m2 465m2 Cost of inputs (N) 4,000 8,550 27,000 64,750 129,500 140,000 15,742,250 105,000 223,525

No of respondents 29 103 18 150 5 Food/shelter Qty applied 19 33 46 4,778 plants (nos) Cost of inputs (N) Nil 3,000 5,000 399,000

Parent No of respondents 5 14 10 8 95 11 5 150 stock 2 6 (nos) Qty applied 30 60 100 450 500 1,000 1,500 75,590 2,000 Cost of inputs (N) 3,000 6,000 10,000 45,000 50,000 100,000 7,559,000 150,000 200,000 `

xi xii

Water No of respondents 51 88 11 150 7 sprinkler Qty applied 1 1 2 161 (nos) Cost of inputs (N) Nil 300 600 48,300

Weighing No of respondents 109 31 10 150 8 scale (nos) Qty applied Nil 1 2 51 Cost of inputs (N) Nil 3,500 7,000 178,500

Wheelbarrow No of respondents 56 88 6 150 9 (nos) Qty applied Nil 1 2 100 Cost of inputs (N) Nil 8,500 17,000 850,000

5 24 8 95 11 5 2 No of respondents 150 10 Feeders (nos) Qty applied 1 2 3 5 7 11 20 725 Cost of inputs (N) 200 400 600 1,000 1,400 2,200 144,800 4,000

Drinkers No of respondents 5 24 8 95 11 5 2 150 11 (nos) Qty applied 1 2 3 5 7 11 20 720 Cost of inputs (N) 200 400 600 1,000 1,400 2,200 144,800 4,000

Spade No of respondents 33 107 10 150 12 (nos) Qty applied Nil 1 2 127 Cost of inputs (N) Nil 1,500 3,000 190,500

Rake No of respondents 80 62 8 150 13 (nos) Qty applied Nil 1 2 78 Cost of inputs (N) Nil 1,200 2,400 93,600

Garden No of respondents 95 49 6 150 fork 14 (nos) Qty applied Nil 1 2 61 Cost of inputs (N) Nil 500 1,000 30,500

No of respondents 30 108 5 7 150 15 Basin (nos) Qty applied 1 2 3 4 289 Cost of inputs (N) 250 500 750 1,000 72,250

No of respondents Plastic 40 100 Iron 10 150 16 Bucket (nos) Qty applied 1 2 2 169 Cost of inputs (N) 250 5,000 1,000 65,000

No of respondents 133 15 2 150 17 Cutlass Qty applied 1 2 3 169 Cost of inputs (N) 800 1,600 2,400 135,200 No of respondents 37 95 18 150

xii xiii

18 Knife (nos) Qty applied 1 2 3 281 Cost of inputs (N) 100 200 300 28,100

No of respondents 45 96 9 150 19 Tray (nos) Qty applied Nil 1 2 114 Cost of inputs ((N) Nil 100 200 11,400

No of respondents Bags 88 11 51 150 20 Plastic drum Qty applied 4 1 2 110 (nos) Cost of inputs (N) 800 2,700 5,400 297,000

VARIABLE INPUTS No of respondents 5 14 10 8 96 11 5 150 2 21 Feeds (kg) Qty applied 527 10,516 17,536 78,912 87,680 175,360 263,040 13,255,440 350,720 Cost of inputs ((N) Nil Nil Nil Nil 2,630,400 5,260,800 7,891,20 36,825,600 10,521,6000

No of respondents 30 109 11 150 22 Lime (kg) Qty applied Nil 109 50 11,450 Cost of inputs ((N) Nil Nil 1,600 17,600

No of respondents 5 14 10 8 95 11 5 150 2 23 Substrate Qty applied 1 2 3 5 7 10 15 1,013kg 30 (nos) Cost of inputs ((N) Nil Nil Nil Nil 1,750 2,500 3,750 227,500

No of respondents 136 14 150 24 Fertilizer (kg) Qty applied Nil 50 700kg Cost of inputs ((N) Nil 1,000 14,000

No of respondents 136 14 150 25 Disinfectant Qty applied Nil 600m 6,600ml (ml) ml Cost of inputs ((N) Nil 1,520 16,720

No of respondents 29 103 18 150 26 Engine oil Qty applied Nil 40 80 5,560 (liter) Cost of inputs (N) Nil 3,000 6,000 417,000

Marker No of respondents 115 28 7 150 27 Pen (nos) Qty applied Nil 4 5 147 Cost of inputs ((N) Nil 200 250 7,350

No of respondents 37 95 18 150

xiii xiv

28 Touch light Qty applied 2 4 5 544 (nos) Cost of inputs ((N) 500 1,000 1,250 136,000

No of respondents 37 95 18 150 29 Plastic spoon Qty applied 2 4 6 562 (nos) Cost of inputs (₦) 20 40 60 5,620

No of respondents 37 95 18 150 30 Battery (nos) Qty applied 96 120 144 17,544 pairs Cost of inputs (₦) 5,760 7,200 8,640 1,052,640

No of respondents 37 95 18 150 31 Packer (nos) Qty applied 2 4 5 544 Cost of inputs (₦) 100 200 250 27,200

No of respondents 37 95 18 150 32 Broom (nos) Qty applied 2 4 6 562 Cost of inputs (#) 100 200 300 28,100

No of respondents 37 95 18 150 33 Litter bins Qty applied 2 4 5 544 (nos) Cost of inputs (₦ 500 1,000 1,250 136,000

OVERHEAD INPUTS

Permanent No of respondents 143 7 150 34 labour Qty applied Nil 1 7 Cost of inputs (((N) Nil 240,000 1,680,000

35 Transportation No of respondents 29 103 11 5 2 150 Cost of inputs ((N) 5,000 12,000 15,000 16,000 33,000 2,015,000

36 Maintenance No of respondents 19 10 8 95 8 10 150 Cost of inputs ((N) 2,000 5,000 9,000 15,000 20,000 27,000 2,015,000

No of respondents 13 12 22 8 95 150 37 Telephone Charge Cost of inputs ((N) Nil 1,009 1,600,0 500,500 3,609,600 ``` 100 00 00

xiv xv

SUMMARY SHEET ON THE PRODUCTIVITY OF SNAIL PRODUCTION

S/NO OUTPUT DESCRIPTION OF YIELD/SALES/REVENUE TOTAL

No of respondents 5 14 10 8 95 11 5 150 2 1 Yield (adult Qty stocked 30 60 100 450 500 1,000 1,500 75,590 snails) 2,000 Qty produced 4,818 26,988 32,130 115,668 1,526,178 353,430 240,978 2,428,710 128,520

No of respondents 5 14 10 8 95 11 5 2 150 2 Sales (adult Qty sold 4,818 26,988 32,130 115,668 1,526,178 353,430 240,978 2,428,710 snails) 128,520 Revenue (#) 289,080 1,619,280 1,927,800 6,940,080 91,570,680 21,205,800 4,458,680 145,722,6 7,711,200 00

xv xvi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pages

Title page………………………………………………………………………………………...i Approval page…………………………………………………………………………………...ii Certification …………………………………………………………………………………….iii Dedication ………………………………………………………………………………………iv Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………… …v Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………..vi List o Tables…………………………………………………………………………………….viii List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………x Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………… ..xi

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………..1 Background of the Study……………………………………………………………….……1 Statement of the Problem...... 22 Purpose of the Study ...... 23 Significance of the Study ...... 24 Research Questions ...... 26 Research Hypotheses ...... 27 Scope of the Study ...... 28 Limitations of the Study ...... 29

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ...... 30

Conceptual Framework of the Study: ...... 30 * Meaning, Development and Values of Heliciculture ...... 31-25 * Taxonomy and Biology of African giant land snail (Archachatina marginata) ……….33-40 * Snailery Types and Heliciculture husbandry system...... 54-60 * Technology Types and Snail Production ...... 62-70 * Constraints and Prospects of Snail Production ...... 85-92 * Measures for Enhancing Farmers' Productivity ...... 94

Theoretical Framework of the Study………………………………………………………….100 * Theory of Production……………………………………………………………………..101

xvi xvii

* Theory of Cost and Revenue …………………………………………………………….108

Related Empirical Studies...... 129

Summary of Review of Related Literature ...... 135

CHAPTER THREE:METHODOLOGY ...... 137 Design of the Study ...... 137 Area of the Study...... 138 Population for the Study ...... 139 Instrument for Data Collection ...... 140 Validation of the Instrument ...... 142 Reliability of the Instrument ...... 143 Method of Data Collection ...... 143 Method of Data Analysis ...... 145

CHAPTER FOUR:PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA ...... 149 Research Question 1………………………………………………………………………..137 Research Question 2………………………………………………………………………..140 Research Question 3………………………………………………………………………..142 Research Question 4………………………………………………………………………..144 Research Question 5………………………………………………………………………..147 Research Question 6………………………………………………………………………..148 Research Question 7………………………………………………………………………..152 Research Question 8………………………………………………………………………..155 Research Question 9………………………………………………………………………..165 Research Question 10………………………………………………………………………168 Hypothesis 1………………………………………………………………………………..170 Hypothesis 2………………………………………………………………………………..173 Hypothesis 3………………………………………………………………………………..175 Hypothesis 4………………………………………………………………………………..178 Hypothesis 5………………………………………………………………………………..180 Hypothesis 6………………………………………………………………………………..182

xvii xviii

Hypothesis 7………………………………………………………………………………..185 Major Findings of the Study ...... 200 Discussion of the Findings ...... 210

CHAPTER FIVE:SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 228 Restatement of the Problem ...... 228 Description of the Procedure used ...... 229 Major Findings of the Study ...... 230 Conclusions ...... 239 Implications of the Study ...... 244 Recommendations ...... 246 Suggestions for Further Research ...... 247

REFERENCES ...... 248

APPENDICES………………………………………………………………………………… ..245 A Request for Validation of Research Instrument ……………………………...…………245 B Letter of Introduction (transmittal)……………………………………………………....246 C Questionnaire for Snail Farmers …………………………...……………………………247 D Computation of Reliability Coefficients …………….…………………………………..268 E Summary sheet on Rate of Input Application/Corresponding Cost of Input and Productivity of Snail Farmers……………………………………………………………273

xviii