Post by Ismail AbdulAzeez on Dec 26, 2013 19:52:32 GMT 1
Abstract— Economic aspects of grasscutter farming and their implications for sustainable adoption and conservation were studied in Ondo, Osun and Oyo States, southwest Nigeria. Data were collected through questionnaire administration from 4 Local Government Areas in Ondo and Osun States while they were collected in 5 Local Government Areas in Oyo State where grasscutter farming has been adopted. Thirty grasscutter farms were randomly selected from 150 farms in the three states, thus, 20% of the farms were selected. Data were on demographics of the grasscutters’ farmers, amount invested and income generated from 2003 to 2005. Analyses of data were through descriptive statistics, student’s t-distribution, multiple regression and cost benefit analysis. Rate of return on investment and its trends for the enterprise were also determined. The results indicated that the enterprise was below poverty line in each of the three states. Osun State had the highest cost benefit ratio with 3.64 while Ondo State had the least with 1.77. Also, Osun State had the highest rate of return on investment while Ondo State had the least. The trend in the rate of return on investment showed that Oyo State had the highest with R2 of 0.9934, while Ondo State had the least with R2 of 0.7135. The study concluded that grasscutter farming is relatively young and as such profitability and its poverty alleviation potentials may take several years of investment to materialize.
Index Terms— Economic, grasscutter farming, poverty line, sustainable adoption, conservation.
—————————— ——————————
1 INTRODUCTION
URAL communities in many parts of Africa, Asia, central This has obvious attractions where bushmeat fetches a high Europe and the Americas are increasingly concerned price [9], and logically, it could lead to reduced demand for about losing self-sufficiency as their local wild popula- wild caught specimens [8]. Again, captive rearing of rodents wildlife biomass of tropical forests is generally low IJSER[1]. Wild- wild [10]. Grasscutter or canerat has been suggested as one of tions of animals used for bushmeat dwindles because the and enclosures might augment the bushmeat supply from the
life hunting may be sustained but only where human popula- the minilivestock having potential for domestication. tion densities are low [2]. It has been suggested that for people Grasscutter rearing has been stated to have health related addepending exclusively on wild meat, hunting may not be sus- vantages including better nutrition from consumption of meat tainable if human population densities are greater than 1 or 2 [11]. There is also strong evidence that local diets in some
person/km2 [3]. Unrestricted access to valued but vulnerable species may provide a high initial harvest, but this will merely be a temporary “bonanza” followed by loss of local selfsufficiency and higher effort or prices to get the species elsewhere [1].
The shortage of animal protein in the third world countries can be ameliorated by improving the existing conservation programme of wildlife particularly the domestication of rodents that are tractable, prolific, and widely accepted to the public for consumption [4]. Captive breeding of game species as a possible way to satisfy local demand without compromising the wild stock has also been recommended by several authors [5, 6, 7, 8].
————————————————
• Adedapo Ayo Aiyeloja is currently a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Forestry and Wildlife, University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria. E-mail: aiyeloja@yahoo.com
• Adekunle Anthony Ogunjinmi is currently a Lecturer in the Department of
Ecotourism and Wildlife Management, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria. E-mail:seak1402@gmail.com
parts of Africa frequently include non-conventional livestock such as canerats that make significant contributions to the nutritional well-being of marginal households [12, 13].
Economic viability of grasscutter farms depends on the socio-economic context of the farm. If the farm is placed near urban centers where bushmeat prices and demand are high, a middle-sized cane rat farm can certainly be profitable [14]. In Libreville, Gabon’s capital city, for example, wild cane rat meat is sold at 2.8 US$ /kg (1 US$= 695 FCFA) but farmed animals are sold at 5 US$/Kg without any difficulty [14]. A World Bank study showed that small-scale cane rat farming with a yearly stock of 260 animals (40 reproductive females) was the most profitable system of animal exploitation in Ghana, followed by poultry and rabbit farming [15].
A farm of this size could easily reach a profitability threshold of between 350 and 400 US$ /year with the sale of 14 to 20 animals for meat at 5 US$/Kg [14]. Several authors in different African countries seem to agree that a small-scale farm of 40 reproductive does is the most profitable scale of production for that species and that well managed cane rat farms can substantially contribute to local economies and produce enough profit to make a living [16, 17]. It has been noted that grasscutter breeders generally earn two (2) times more than what they invested in the grasscutter husbandry [18].
IJSER © 2013
www.ijser.or g
This is a crucial point for the development of grasscutter farming in Africa that deserves further analysis or investigation [14]. Generally speaking, canerat farming profits are variable depending on the country and the area where the farm is based and show better prospects of economic success in periurban areas where demand for bushmeat is higher, transport costs are limited and game is sold at high prices. In rural areas, hunting management of wild canerats certainly shows more promise than farming since these rodents are abundant, and their capture reduces predation on and damages to feeding crops. Moreover, prices in rural areas are at least two times lower than those paid in urban centres [19] and spending money in producing animals that are abundant in the wild seems unrealistic, unless hunting is prohibited and respect of the law can be guaranteed [14]. Studies indicate that grasscutter farming possesses environmental related advantages such as reduction in poaching and bushfires [11]. It also reduced bushfires caused by poachers [11, 20, 21].
There is a large body of literatures on grasscutter domestication, especially in the last twenty years and some enterprises specialized in its rearing are already in existence in Nigeria and other parts of West Africa. In the savanna area of West Africa, people have traditionally captured wild grasscutters and raised them at home. As an extension of this, organized grasscutter husbandry has been initiated. Many researchers and longitude 030 001E. Oyo State is bounded by the States of Kwara on the north, Osun on the east, Ogun on the south and by Republic of Benin on the west.
The climate of southwest Nigeria is tropical in nature and it is characterized by wet and dry seasons. The temperature ranges between 210C and 340C while the annual rainfall ranges between 1250mm and 3000mm. The wet season is associated with the southwest monsoon winds from the Atlantic Ocean while the dry season is associated with the northeast trade winds from the Sahara desert. The vegetation of southwest Nigeria is made up of freshwater swamp and mangrove forest at the coastal belt, the lowland rainforest stretches to Ogun and parts of Ondo State while secondary forest is towards the northern boundary where derived and southern Guinea savanna exist [28].
have reported the potential inherent in domesticated grasscut- above the poverty lines, analysis using the Student’s t Distriter in West Africa [22, 23, 24, 25] and reported various degrees bution was carried out. In order to determine whether the cost of successful domestication of grasscutter in Ghana, Benin and exceeds benefits from grasscutter farming, cost benefit analyto both local and export earnings of countries like Kenya, BIJSERe- occurred over a period of time, direct comparison is not apNigeria. It has also been reported that grasscutter contributes sis was also carried out. Since enterprise costs and benefits
nin Republic and Nigeria [26]. Its meat, said to resemble suck- propriate. This is because value is intimately associated with ling pig, often sells for more per kilogram than chicken, beef, time [29]. Therefore, an adjustment factor (discount rate) also pork or lamb. It is the preferred, and perhaps most expensive referred to as interest rate is applied. The Central Bank of Nimeat in West Africa. Indeed, in Ivory Coast it sells for about geria pegged interest rate on agricultural loans at 14 percent
Data were collected through questionnaire administration from 4 Local Government Areas in Ondo and Osun States while they were collected in 5 Local Government Areas in Oyo State where grasscutter farming has been adopted. Thirty grasscutter farms were randomly selected in the three states, thus, 20% of the farms were selected in each of the States. Analyses of data were through descriptive statistics, and multiple regression. Rate of return on investment for the enterprise was also determined. In order to determine if the profits made from grasscutter farming are able to lift the farmers
U$9 per kilogram [27]. With prices like that, grasscutter is culinary luxury that only the wealthy can afford. If domestication of this wild species is successful in providing meat at a price similar to that of poultry, markets would be unlimited. In an effort to capitalize on the markets for this delicacy, agricultural extension services of Cameroon, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Nigeria and Togo and particularly Benin are already encouraging farmers to rear grasscutter as backyard livestock. The need to evaluate the profitability and economic viability of grasscutter farming as well as the implications for sustainable and continued adoption of the technology and conservation justifies the present study.
2 MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study areas-Ondo, Osun and Oyo States are in Southwest of Nigeria. Ondo State lies between latitudes 50 451 and 60 051E. It is bounded on the east by Edo State and Delta States, on the north by Ekiti and Kogi States and to the south by the Bight of Benin and the Atlantic Ocean. Osun State covers an area of approximately 14,875 square kilometers, lies between longitude 040 331E and latitude 070 281N, and is bounded by Ogun, Kwara, Oyo, and Ondo States in the South, North, West, and East respectively. Oyo State also lies between latitude 070 001N since March, 2006 [30]. Therefore, 14 percent discount rate was used in the analysis.
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The demographic Characteristics of the selected grasscutter farmers are presented in Table I. All the farmers were male (100%), majority were in the age range of 26-50 years (83.3%). This indicates that they are in their active age. Majority had tertiary education (76.7%) while large percentage was teachers and civil servants respectively (23.3%), and crop (16.7%), and poultry farmers (10.0%). Higher level of education is needed in grasscutter farming; this is because it requires high technical knowledge and skills to be successful in its domestication. In addition, Grasscutter farming is adopted as a secondary occupation.
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GRASSCUT-
TER FARMERS (N=30)
Table II presents the farming and production characteristics of grasscutter farmers. In terms of experience, majority (63.3%) of the selected farmers had relatively few years of experience in grasscutter farming. This might not be unconnected to the fact that domestication of grasscutter in Nigeria is relatively new, spanning few decades. In addition, the 30 farmers had 74 workers with 60.8% of the workers constituting full-time and 39.2% as part time workers. This is also an indication that grasscutter farming is becoming a source of employment for the people. Furthermore, 63.3% of the farmers invested between N1000 (US$6.2) and N50000 (US$3086.4), this might have resulted from the scale of the farms involved. More than 76% of the farmers’ source of income was personal savings. This is not surprising since farmers tend to avoid obtaining loans from commercial banks due to high interest rates being charged (this might range from 14%-25%). The source of land acquisition by the large number of the farmers was through tenancy (50.0%). This is in contrast from various studies that indicated that land acquisition in Nigeria is through inheritance [31].
TABLE II
FARMING AND PRODUCTION CHARACTERISTICS OF
GRASSCUTTER FARMERS
A family of grasscutter consists of a male and four females. According to the majority of the farmers, the cost of producing a family in three months was between N17000 (US$104.9) and N18000 (US$111.1), N20000 (US$123.5) and N21000 (US$129.6) in six months, and N26000 (US$160.5) and N30000 (US$185.2) in nine months. This is an indication that grasscutter farming requires high capital outlay for production. In addition, majority of the farmers (60.0%) sold a family of 3 months old grasscutters for N28000 (US$172.8), between N30000 (US$185.2) and N31000 (US$191.4) for a 6 months old family and between N35000 (US$216) and N37000 (US$228.4) for a 9 months old family of grasscutters. However, a matured grasscutter was sold for between N3000 (US$18.5) and N5000 (US$30.9). This is an indication that grasscutter farming is profitable (Table III).
Table III
COST AND RETURNS FROM INVESTMENT IN
GRASSCUTTER FARMING
Cost of Production/Family
(In Naira)
3 Months Old
15000-16000 10 33.3
17000-18000 20 66.7
Six Months Old
18000-19500 9 30
20000-21000 17 56.7
>21000 4 13.3
9 Months Old
20000-24000 14 46.7
26000-30000 16 53.3
Matured Grasscutter/Month
1200-2700 20 66.7
2500-2700 4 13.3
2800-2900 6 20.0
Selling Price/Family (In
may not be profitable, although, they may command higher prices in the cities, which can make the investment to be attractive.
From the cost benefit analysis (CBA), Osun State had the highest cost benefit ratio (CBR) of 3.64 while Ondo State had the least (1.77). When the three States were grouped, they had 1.97 as their cost benefit ratio (Table V). These are indications that grasscutter farming is economically viable since none of the ratios was below 1. For rate of return on investment (RORI), Osun state also had the highest rate of return on investment from year 2003 to 2005 while Ondo State had the least. The trend in the rate of return on investment shows that Oyo State had the highest trend (R2=0.9934) while Ondo State had the least (R2=0.7135) (Fig1-3). This underscores that the enterprise is young and is undergoing development. The profitability of the enterprise (grasscutter farming) considered across the three states was significantly affected by the demographic characteristics of the entrepreneurs (Table VI).
TABLE IV
PROFITABILITY OF GRASSCUTTER FARMING IN ONDO,
State Standard Mean Poverty Devia Annual Line($1/Day) tion Profit 6 People/Yr. Poverty
Line($2/Day)
6 People/Yr
3 Months Old
26000-27500
28000
6 Months Old 28000-29500
30000-31000 Ondo 98186.4 309583.3 291270 12 40.0 Osun 7267.8 43166.7 291270
IJSER Acros 44402.8 287464 291270
18 60.0 Oyo 132032.7 509642 291270
7 23.3 s the
22 73.3 states 582540
582540
582540
582540
>31000 1 3.3 Student’s Student’s t Distri- t Distri-
Naira) ) (N) (N)
OSUN AND OYO STATES
9 Months Old
30000-34000 2 6.7 35000-37000 28 93.3
The study showed that Oyo State had the highest mean annual profitability from the enterprise among the three states considered with N509,642 (US$3145.9) while Ondo State had the least with N309,583.30 (US$1911). With poverty line of $1/day for 6 people/year at N291,270 (US$1798); the enterprise in each of the three States was above poverty line. However, when the 3 States were grouped together, the mean annual profitability was N287,464 (US$1774.5) which was below the poverty line of N291,270 (US$1798) of $1/day for 6 people/year. Also, if the poverty line of $2/day for 6 people (N582,540, US$3595.9) is considered, then, the enterprise was below poverty line (Table IV). This might be due to high capital involved in the establishment of grasscutter farm. Heavy financial investment is required in the procurement of foundation stocks, housing, and establishment of feed farms. This might make the enterprise not profitable to the farmers. Considering the cost of acquisition of a family (one male, four females) at N6000.00 per animal, and the selling price of between N1500 (US$9.3) and N3500 (US$21.6) when culled or to be sold in the rural area, investment in grasscutter farming
bution bution
($1/Day) ($2/Day)
Osun -34.14 -
74.21
Oyo 1.65 -0.55
Acros -0.09 -6.65
Ondo 0.19
s the states
TABLE V
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF GRASSCUTTER FARMING IN
ONDO, OSUN, AND OYO STATES
State Cost/
Benefit Ratio RORI (%) 2003 2004 2005
Ondo 1.77 67.25 74.04 78.06
Osun 3.64 159.26 233.33 331.82
Oyo 2.09 30.43 89.73 134.33
Across the States 1.97
49.52 88.44 106.81
TABLE VI
EFFECT OF DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS ON PROFITABILITY
OF ENTERPRISES INVESTIGATED ACROSS THE STATES
Functional Form (Model)
line- semi Exponen- dou-
Enter-
ar log tial ble prises
log
0
2002 2003 2004 2005
2013 Year 21
Fig. 3: Trend in Grasscutter Farming (RORI) in Oyo State
4 IMPLICATIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE ADOPTION AND
CONSERVATION
Cane rat 3.34* 2.82 5.61* 3.69* ey [32, 33]. The cost of even small-scale wildlife farming may
Farming still be significant for the poor, remote, or landless people of ten envisioned as wildlife farmers [34, 35, 36, 37]. Most sys-
* = significant at p = 0.05
y = 24.097x - 48199 tems of keeping wildlife in captivity require an initial capital investment in infrastructure to hold animals-wire fencing, concrete, or cage materials may be prohibitively expensive for farmers [37]. This high capital involvement in wildlife farming
may make adoption to be less attractive. One issue of long standing discussion and debate has been the relative im portance of economic factors as drivers of adoption. There are several important influences on adoption, and economic benefit (broadly defined) is one of them [38]. Econ omists typically assume that decision to adopt a specific farm-
0 ing practhas been ice is based on profitobserved that profit e-maximizing behaviour xpectations are an important [39]. It
2004 2005
Year influence on investment plans (and thus on adoption deci sions). Lack of financial viability would be expected to inhibit
IJSERalso been found that short-term expectations about variables
Fig. 1: Trend in Grasscutter Farming (RORI) in Ondo State adoption of innovations by reducing the capacity to adopt, rather than the benefits of adopting [40]. In addition, it has
y = 106.95x - 213992 related to profitability influenced the adoption of conservation practices [41]. It has been indicated that actual and perceived returns from a particular ‘conservation’ practice is one of the factors affecting the adoption and continuing use of sustaina-
Domestication of grasscutter serves conservation purpose and the continued and sustainable adoption of the technology is paramount to the conservation of the wild populations. Like farming of most wildlife species, grasscutter domestication and rearing require substantial investments of time and money.
Year
Fig. 2: Trend in Grasscutter Farming (RORI) in Osun State ble agricultural practices [42]. Also, wildlife farming is only likely to be widely embraced, therefore, if production costs and efforts are lower than hunting [37, 43]. To be economically attractive, wildlife farming would have to offer returns per unit investment equivalent to rearing domestic species [32]. However, returns from wildlife farming are long-term, sometimes requiring several years of investment before significant returns are forthcoming. Widespread adoption of grasscutters farming may be substantially affected if profitability from the investment on the enterprise is low.
Various factors were also identified in the literature regarding adoption of sustainable technologies. Major constraints to adoption identified were little or no financial benefit and associated financial factors, and complexity of technology considered [44]. Innovations will not be adopted if the farmer perceives them to be too risky financially, too complex, and to not fit with the farmer's situation or available resources [44]. The importance of profit as one of the drivers for most farmers has strong implications for conservation practices [38]. Among those farmers with a focus on profit, the farm-level economics of a proposed conservation practice will be important. Those conservation practices that are not profitable at the farm level will tend to be adopted only by farmers with stronger conservation goals. The lower the perceived profitability, the stronger the conservation goals need to be for adoption to occur. Unprofitable conservation practices are likely to be more widely adopted if they are able to generate conservation benefits when adopted at a small scale.
5 CONCLUSION
The analysis of grasscutter farming in Southwest Nigeria clearly shows that although the adopter of the technology has a relatively few years of experience, the investment is worthwhile and profitable, and serves as a source of employment for a considerable number of people. The enterprise however requires large capital outlay, which may not be within the reach of large number of the rural communities, particularly the support zone communities of Nigeria’s protected areas who are the main target of this technology thus reducing its potential for adoption. It should also be noted that grasscutter farming as an enterprise in Nigeria is relatively young and as such, profitability and its poverty alleviation potentials may take several years of investment to materialize.
REFERENCES
2013 22
[11] P. Boateng, “Economic Analysis”, International Forum on Promoting Grasscutter for business in West-Africa Accra, Ghana 12-16 December 2005.
[12] F. Jori, and P. Chardonnet, “Cane rat farming in Gabon. Status and perspectives”. H. Ebedes, B. Reilly, W. van Houven and B. Penzhorn, eds, Sustainable Utilisation – Conservation in Practice, South Africa, Pp. 99-109, 2002
[13] A. Obi, J. Bashi, M. Tshilamatanda, and H. van Schalkwyk, “Food flows at the community level: Examining the market potential of rabbits and canerats and implications for poverty alleviation and food security”. In: Re-inventing the food chain, new markets, customers, and products, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, World Food and Agribusiness Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 25-28 June, 2005.
[14] F. Jori, D. Edderai, and P. Houben, “The potential of rodents for minilivestock in Africa”. Programme ECONAP, CIRAD EMVT,
29Pp, not dated.
[15] K.A. Tutu, Y. Ntiamoa-Baidu and S. Asuming-Brempong, “The Economics of living with wildlife in Ghana”. J. Bojo, ed, The Economics of wildlife, AFTES working paper n°19, The World Bank, Pp. 11-34, 1996
[16] A. Fantodji, and G.A. Mensah, “Rôle et impact économique de l’élevage de gibier en Côte d’Ivoire”. Actes du Séminaire International sur l’élévage intensif de gibier à but alimentaire en Afrique, Libreville, pp. 25-42, 2000
[17] M. Dabogrogo, “La Ferme pilote d’aulacodiculture de Ouagadou-
[1] Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, “Sustainable
gou”. Actes du Séminaire International sur l’élévage intensif de management of non-timber forest resources”. Montreal, CBD Techgibier à but alimentaire en Afrique, Libreville, pp. 167-170, 2000. nical Series no. 6, 30Pp. 2001
IJSERconstraints to its development”. International Forum on Promoting
[2] Bodmer, R.E.; Fang, T.G. Moya, L. and Gill, R., “Managing wildlife to [18] E. Sodjinou and G.A. Mensah, “Technico-economic analysis of the grasscutter rearing in Benin: cost of production, profitability, and conserve Amazonian forests: population biology and economic considerations of game hunting”. Biological Conservation, vol. 67, pp 29-
Grasscutter for business in West-Africa Accra, Ghana 12-16 Decem-
35, 1994
[3] E.L. Bennett and J.G. Robinson, “Hunting of wildlife in tropical for- ber 2005 ests: Implications for biodiversity and forest peoples”. Biodiversity [19] E.A. Steel, “Study of the Value and Volume of Bushmeat Commerce in Gabon”. WWF Programme pour le Gabon, 1994. Series Paper 76. The World Bank, Washington D.C. 2000.
[4] L.A.K. Mbah, “The influence of season and age of stand on the nutri- [20] GTZ, “Grasscutter promotion, Ghana: Farmers target their local markets and environment”. www.gtz.de/biod. Not dated tive value of elephant grass (Pennisetum Purpureum) and sugar cane
[21] Bulletin BEDIM, “News Update. Bureau for Exchange and Distribu-
(Saccharium officinarium) fed to the canerat (Thryonomys swinderition Information on Minilivestock”, Bulletin BEDIM, vol. 14, no. 2, anus)”, M.Sc Dissertation, University of Ibadan, Nigeria, 1989.
[5] P. Auzel, and D.S. Wilkie, “Wildlife use in Northern Congo: Hunting 2005 in a commercial logging concession”. J.G. Robinson and E.L. Bennett, [22] E.O.A. Asibey, “Some problems encountered in the field study of the grasscutter (Thryonomys swinderianus) population in Ghana”. S.S. eds, Hunting for Sustainability in Tropical Forests. Columbia Universi-
Ajayi and L.B. Halstead, eds, Wildlife management in savanna woodland, ty Press, New York, Pp. 413-426, 2000
[6] E.L. Bennett, 2000. Timber certification: where is the voice of the Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K, pp 214-217, 1979 biologist?” Conservation Biology, vol. 14, pp. 921-923, 2000” [23] R. Baptist, and G.A. Mensah, “The canerat- farm animal of the fu-
[7] J.E. Fa, “Hunted animals in Bioko Island, West Africa: Sustainability ture”. World Animal Review, vol. 60, pp. 2-6,1986 and future”. J.G. Robinson and E.L. Bennett, eds, Hunting for Sustain [24] S.S. Ajayi and O.O. Tewe, “A quantitative assessment of wildlife and their nutritive value as a source of food in Nigeria”. L. Akinyele and ability in Tropical Forests. Columbia University Press, New York, Pp
T. Atome, eds, Nutrition and Food Policy in Nigeria. National Institute
168-198, 2000
[8] E. Bowen-Jones, D. Brown, and Robinson, E. “Assessment of the for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Ibadan, Nigeria. Pp 138-
148, 1983 solution-orientated Research needed to promote a more sustainable
[25] O.O. Tewe, S.S. Ajayi, S.S. and E.O. Faturoti, “Giant rat and canerat”. bushmeat trade in Central and West Africa”. Fauna and Flo-
I.L. Mason, ed, Evolution of domesticated animals. Longman, London. ra/NRI/ODI/ DEFRA, 127Pp, 2002
[9] E.A.O. Asibey, and G. Child, “Wildlife management for rural devel- Pp 291-293. 1984 opment in sub-Saharan Africa”. Nature et Faune, vol. 7, pp. 36-47, [26] Y. Ntiamoa-Baidu, “Sustainable use of bushmeat”. Wildlife Development plan 1998-2003. Wildlife Department, Accra, vol. 6, 78 Pp,
1991
[10] A.E. Onyeanusi, O.O. Akinola and A.O. Bobadoye, “Performance of 1998 grasscutter (Thryonomys swinderianus) fed varying level of dietary [27] BOSTID, “Microlivestock: Little known small animals with a promising economic future”, BOSTID, 435 Pp, 1991 protein”. J. innov. Dev. Strategy, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1-4, 2008
2013 23
[28] S.A. Agboola, “An Agricultural Atlas of Nigeria”, Oxford University Press, Nigeria, 248Pp, 1979
[29] FAO, “Economic Assessment of Forest Project Impacts”. Food and
Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, pp. 99– 124, 1992
[30] CBN,”Loan Boost for Nigerian Farmers”. www.news24.com. 2006.
[31] A.A. Aiyeloja and A.A. Ogunjinmi, “Poverty Alleviation Potential of
Snail Farming in Ondo State, Southwest Nigeria”. Journal-
International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Sciences, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 44-48, 2010
[32] M.H. Mockrin, E.L. Bennett and D.T. La Bruna, “Wildlife farming: a viable alternative to hunting in tropical forests?” WCS Working Paper no. 23, Wildlife Conservation Society, 32 Pp, November 2005.
[33] S.Y. Annor and C. Kusi,”Factors influencing the adoption of grasscutter production in the Brong Ahafo region of Ghana”. Livestock Research for Rural Development, vol. 20, no. 9, 2008.
[34] N. Smythe, “Steps toward domesticating the paca and prospects for the future”. J. G. Robinson and K. H. Redford, eds, Neotropical Wildlife Use and Conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 202-216, 1991
[35] J. Hardouin, “Minilivestock: from gathering to controlled production”. Biodiversity and Conservation, vol. 4, pp. 220-232, 1995
[36] N. Smythe and O. Brown de Guanti, “Domestication and husbandry of the paca (Agouti paca)”. FAO Conservation Guide 26. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 1995.
[37] Y. Ntiamoa-Baidu, “Wildlife and food security in Africa”. FAO Conservation Guide 33. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 1997
[38] D.J. Pannell, G.R. Marshall,IJSER N. Barr, A. Curtis, F. Vanclay and R.
Wilkinson, “Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders”. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, vol. 46, no. 11, pp. 1407-1424, 2006.
[39] D. Lambert, P. Sullivan, R. Claassen and L. Foreman, “Conservationcompatible practices and programs: who participates?” A report from the Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Report No. 14, February 2006.
www.ers.usda.gov, 2006
[40] J. Cary, T. Webb and N. Barr, “The adoption of sustainable practices: Some new insights. An analysis of drivers and constraints for the adoption of sustainable practices derived from research.’ Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra, 2001
[41] J.W. Cary and R.L. Wilkinson,”Perceived profitability and farmers’ conservation behaviour. Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 48, pp. 13-21, 1997
[42] N.A. Shadbolt, “Field Testing of Financial Indictors of Sustainable
Agriculture”. MAF Policy Research Report, MAF, New Zealand, 1998 [43] D. Wilkie and J.F. Carpenter, “Bushmeat hunting in the Congo Basin:
as assessment of impacts and options for mitigation”. Biodiversity and Conservation, vol. 8, pp. 927-955, 1999
[44] H. Stiefel, “Factors that influence grower adoption and implementation of the ENZA Integrated Fruit Production Programme”. Masters thesis, Massey University, 1999
Index Terms— Economic, grasscutter farming, poverty line, sustainable adoption, conservation.
—————————— ——————————
1 INTRODUCTION
URAL communities in many parts of Africa, Asia, central This has obvious attractions where bushmeat fetches a high Europe and the Americas are increasingly concerned price [9], and logically, it could lead to reduced demand for about losing self-sufficiency as their local wild popula- wild caught specimens [8]. Again, captive rearing of rodents wildlife biomass of tropical forests is generally low IJSER[1]. Wild- wild [10]. Grasscutter or canerat has been suggested as one of tions of animals used for bushmeat dwindles because the and enclosures might augment the bushmeat supply from the
life hunting may be sustained but only where human popula- the minilivestock having potential for domestication. tion densities are low [2]. It has been suggested that for people Grasscutter rearing has been stated to have health related addepending exclusively on wild meat, hunting may not be sus- vantages including better nutrition from consumption of meat tainable if human population densities are greater than 1 or 2 [11]. There is also strong evidence that local diets in some
person/km2 [3]. Unrestricted access to valued but vulnerable species may provide a high initial harvest, but this will merely be a temporary “bonanza” followed by loss of local selfsufficiency and higher effort or prices to get the species elsewhere [1].
The shortage of animal protein in the third world countries can be ameliorated by improving the existing conservation programme of wildlife particularly the domestication of rodents that are tractable, prolific, and widely accepted to the public for consumption [4]. Captive breeding of game species as a possible way to satisfy local demand without compromising the wild stock has also been recommended by several authors [5, 6, 7, 8].
————————————————
• Adedapo Ayo Aiyeloja is currently a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Forestry and Wildlife, University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria. E-mail: aiyeloja@yahoo.com
• Adekunle Anthony Ogunjinmi is currently a Lecturer in the Department of
Ecotourism and Wildlife Management, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria. E-mail:seak1402@gmail.com
parts of Africa frequently include non-conventional livestock such as canerats that make significant contributions to the nutritional well-being of marginal households [12, 13].
Economic viability of grasscutter farms depends on the socio-economic context of the farm. If the farm is placed near urban centers where bushmeat prices and demand are high, a middle-sized cane rat farm can certainly be profitable [14]. In Libreville, Gabon’s capital city, for example, wild cane rat meat is sold at 2.8 US$ /kg (1 US$= 695 FCFA) but farmed animals are sold at 5 US$/Kg without any difficulty [14]. A World Bank study showed that small-scale cane rat farming with a yearly stock of 260 animals (40 reproductive females) was the most profitable system of animal exploitation in Ghana, followed by poultry and rabbit farming [15].
A farm of this size could easily reach a profitability threshold of between 350 and 400 US$ /year with the sale of 14 to 20 animals for meat at 5 US$/Kg [14]. Several authors in different African countries seem to agree that a small-scale farm of 40 reproductive does is the most profitable scale of production for that species and that well managed cane rat farms can substantially contribute to local economies and produce enough profit to make a living [16, 17]. It has been noted that grasscutter breeders generally earn two (2) times more than what they invested in the grasscutter husbandry [18].
IJSER © 2013
www.ijser.or g
This is a crucial point for the development of grasscutter farming in Africa that deserves further analysis or investigation [14]. Generally speaking, canerat farming profits are variable depending on the country and the area where the farm is based and show better prospects of economic success in periurban areas where demand for bushmeat is higher, transport costs are limited and game is sold at high prices. In rural areas, hunting management of wild canerats certainly shows more promise than farming since these rodents are abundant, and their capture reduces predation on and damages to feeding crops. Moreover, prices in rural areas are at least two times lower than those paid in urban centres [19] and spending money in producing animals that are abundant in the wild seems unrealistic, unless hunting is prohibited and respect of the law can be guaranteed [14]. Studies indicate that grasscutter farming possesses environmental related advantages such as reduction in poaching and bushfires [11]. It also reduced bushfires caused by poachers [11, 20, 21].
There is a large body of literatures on grasscutter domestication, especially in the last twenty years and some enterprises specialized in its rearing are already in existence in Nigeria and other parts of West Africa. In the savanna area of West Africa, people have traditionally captured wild grasscutters and raised them at home. As an extension of this, organized grasscutter husbandry has been initiated. Many researchers and longitude 030 001E. Oyo State is bounded by the States of Kwara on the north, Osun on the east, Ogun on the south and by Republic of Benin on the west.
The climate of southwest Nigeria is tropical in nature and it is characterized by wet and dry seasons. The temperature ranges between 210C and 340C while the annual rainfall ranges between 1250mm and 3000mm. The wet season is associated with the southwest monsoon winds from the Atlantic Ocean while the dry season is associated with the northeast trade winds from the Sahara desert. The vegetation of southwest Nigeria is made up of freshwater swamp and mangrove forest at the coastal belt, the lowland rainforest stretches to Ogun and parts of Ondo State while secondary forest is towards the northern boundary where derived and southern Guinea savanna exist [28].
have reported the potential inherent in domesticated grasscut- above the poverty lines, analysis using the Student’s t Distriter in West Africa [22, 23, 24, 25] and reported various degrees bution was carried out. In order to determine whether the cost of successful domestication of grasscutter in Ghana, Benin and exceeds benefits from grasscutter farming, cost benefit analyto both local and export earnings of countries like Kenya, BIJSERe- occurred over a period of time, direct comparison is not apNigeria. It has also been reported that grasscutter contributes sis was also carried out. Since enterprise costs and benefits
nin Republic and Nigeria [26]. Its meat, said to resemble suck- propriate. This is because value is intimately associated with ling pig, often sells for more per kilogram than chicken, beef, time [29]. Therefore, an adjustment factor (discount rate) also pork or lamb. It is the preferred, and perhaps most expensive referred to as interest rate is applied. The Central Bank of Nimeat in West Africa. Indeed, in Ivory Coast it sells for about geria pegged interest rate on agricultural loans at 14 percent
Data were collected through questionnaire administration from 4 Local Government Areas in Ondo and Osun States while they were collected in 5 Local Government Areas in Oyo State where grasscutter farming has been adopted. Thirty grasscutter farms were randomly selected in the three states, thus, 20% of the farms were selected in each of the States. Analyses of data were through descriptive statistics, and multiple regression. Rate of return on investment for the enterprise was also determined. In order to determine if the profits made from grasscutter farming are able to lift the farmers
U$9 per kilogram [27]. With prices like that, grasscutter is culinary luxury that only the wealthy can afford. If domestication of this wild species is successful in providing meat at a price similar to that of poultry, markets would be unlimited. In an effort to capitalize on the markets for this delicacy, agricultural extension services of Cameroon, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Nigeria and Togo and particularly Benin are already encouraging farmers to rear grasscutter as backyard livestock. The need to evaluate the profitability and economic viability of grasscutter farming as well as the implications for sustainable and continued adoption of the technology and conservation justifies the present study.
2 MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study areas-Ondo, Osun and Oyo States are in Southwest of Nigeria. Ondo State lies between latitudes 50 451 and 60 051E. It is bounded on the east by Edo State and Delta States, on the north by Ekiti and Kogi States and to the south by the Bight of Benin and the Atlantic Ocean. Osun State covers an area of approximately 14,875 square kilometers, lies between longitude 040 331E and latitude 070 281N, and is bounded by Ogun, Kwara, Oyo, and Ondo States in the South, North, West, and East respectively. Oyo State also lies between latitude 070 001N since March, 2006 [30]. Therefore, 14 percent discount rate was used in the analysis.
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The demographic Characteristics of the selected grasscutter farmers are presented in Table I. All the farmers were male (100%), majority were in the age range of 26-50 years (83.3%). This indicates that they are in their active age. Majority had tertiary education (76.7%) while large percentage was teachers and civil servants respectively (23.3%), and crop (16.7%), and poultry farmers (10.0%). Higher level of education is needed in grasscutter farming; this is because it requires high technical knowledge and skills to be successful in its domestication. In addition, Grasscutter farming is adopted as a secondary occupation.
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GRASSCUT-
TER FARMERS (N=30)
Table II presents the farming and production characteristics of grasscutter farmers. In terms of experience, majority (63.3%) of the selected farmers had relatively few years of experience in grasscutter farming. This might not be unconnected to the fact that domestication of grasscutter in Nigeria is relatively new, spanning few decades. In addition, the 30 farmers had 74 workers with 60.8% of the workers constituting full-time and 39.2% as part time workers. This is also an indication that grasscutter farming is becoming a source of employment for the people. Furthermore, 63.3% of the farmers invested between N1000 (US$6.2) and N50000 (US$3086.4), this might have resulted from the scale of the farms involved. More than 76% of the farmers’ source of income was personal savings. This is not surprising since farmers tend to avoid obtaining loans from commercial banks due to high interest rates being charged (this might range from 14%-25%). The source of land acquisition by the large number of the farmers was through tenancy (50.0%). This is in contrast from various studies that indicated that land acquisition in Nigeria is through inheritance [31].
TABLE II
FARMING AND PRODUCTION CHARACTERISTICS OF
GRASSCUTTER FARMERS
A family of grasscutter consists of a male and four females. According to the majority of the farmers, the cost of producing a family in three months was between N17000 (US$104.9) and N18000 (US$111.1), N20000 (US$123.5) and N21000 (US$129.6) in six months, and N26000 (US$160.5) and N30000 (US$185.2) in nine months. This is an indication that grasscutter farming requires high capital outlay for production. In addition, majority of the farmers (60.0%) sold a family of 3 months old grasscutters for N28000 (US$172.8), between N30000 (US$185.2) and N31000 (US$191.4) for a 6 months old family and between N35000 (US$216) and N37000 (US$228.4) for a 9 months old family of grasscutters. However, a matured grasscutter was sold for between N3000 (US$18.5) and N5000 (US$30.9). This is an indication that grasscutter farming is profitable (Table III).
Table III
COST AND RETURNS FROM INVESTMENT IN
GRASSCUTTER FARMING
Cost of Production/Family
(In Naira)
3 Months Old
15000-16000 10 33.3
17000-18000 20 66.7
Six Months Old
18000-19500 9 30
20000-21000 17 56.7
>21000 4 13.3
9 Months Old
20000-24000 14 46.7
26000-30000 16 53.3
Matured Grasscutter/Month
1200-2700 20 66.7
2500-2700 4 13.3
2800-2900 6 20.0
Selling Price/Family (In
may not be profitable, although, they may command higher prices in the cities, which can make the investment to be attractive.
From the cost benefit analysis (CBA), Osun State had the highest cost benefit ratio (CBR) of 3.64 while Ondo State had the least (1.77). When the three States were grouped, they had 1.97 as their cost benefit ratio (Table V). These are indications that grasscutter farming is economically viable since none of the ratios was below 1. For rate of return on investment (RORI), Osun state also had the highest rate of return on investment from year 2003 to 2005 while Ondo State had the least. The trend in the rate of return on investment shows that Oyo State had the highest trend (R2=0.9934) while Ondo State had the least (R2=0.7135) (Fig1-3). This underscores that the enterprise is young and is undergoing development. The profitability of the enterprise (grasscutter farming) considered across the three states was significantly affected by the demographic characteristics of the entrepreneurs (Table VI).
TABLE IV
PROFITABILITY OF GRASSCUTTER FARMING IN ONDO,
State Standard Mean Poverty Devia Annual Line($1/Day) tion Profit 6 People/Yr. Poverty
Line($2/Day)
6 People/Yr
3 Months Old
26000-27500
28000
6 Months Old 28000-29500
30000-31000 Ondo 98186.4 309583.3 291270 12 40.0 Osun 7267.8 43166.7 291270
IJSER Acros 44402.8 287464 291270
18 60.0 Oyo 132032.7 509642 291270
7 23.3 s the
22 73.3 states 582540
582540
582540
582540
>31000 1 3.3 Student’s Student’s t Distri- t Distri-
Naira) ) (N) (N)
OSUN AND OYO STATES
9 Months Old
30000-34000 2 6.7 35000-37000 28 93.3
The study showed that Oyo State had the highest mean annual profitability from the enterprise among the three states considered with N509,642 (US$3145.9) while Ondo State had the least with N309,583.30 (US$1911). With poverty line of $1/day for 6 people/year at N291,270 (US$1798); the enterprise in each of the three States was above poverty line. However, when the 3 States were grouped together, the mean annual profitability was N287,464 (US$1774.5) which was below the poverty line of N291,270 (US$1798) of $1/day for 6 people/year. Also, if the poverty line of $2/day for 6 people (N582,540, US$3595.9) is considered, then, the enterprise was below poverty line (Table IV). This might be due to high capital involved in the establishment of grasscutter farm. Heavy financial investment is required in the procurement of foundation stocks, housing, and establishment of feed farms. This might make the enterprise not profitable to the farmers. Considering the cost of acquisition of a family (one male, four females) at N6000.00 per animal, and the selling price of between N1500 (US$9.3) and N3500 (US$21.6) when culled or to be sold in the rural area, investment in grasscutter farming
bution bution
($1/Day) ($2/Day)
Osun -34.14 -
74.21
Oyo 1.65 -0.55
Acros -0.09 -6.65
Ondo 0.19
s the states
TABLE V
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF GRASSCUTTER FARMING IN
ONDO, OSUN, AND OYO STATES
State Cost/
Benefit Ratio RORI (%) 2003 2004 2005
Ondo 1.77 67.25 74.04 78.06
Osun 3.64 159.26 233.33 331.82
Oyo 2.09 30.43 89.73 134.33
Across the States 1.97
49.52 88.44 106.81
TABLE VI
EFFECT OF DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS ON PROFITABILITY
OF ENTERPRISES INVESTIGATED ACROSS THE STATES
Functional Form (Model)
line- semi Exponen- dou-
Enter-
ar log tial ble prises
log
0
2002 2003 2004 2005
2013 Year 21
Fig. 3: Trend in Grasscutter Farming (RORI) in Oyo State
4 IMPLICATIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE ADOPTION AND
CONSERVATION
Cane rat 3.34* 2.82 5.61* 3.69* ey [32, 33]. The cost of even small-scale wildlife farming may
Farming still be significant for the poor, remote, or landless people of ten envisioned as wildlife farmers [34, 35, 36, 37]. Most sys-
* = significant at p = 0.05
y = 24.097x - 48199 tems of keeping wildlife in captivity require an initial capital investment in infrastructure to hold animals-wire fencing, concrete, or cage materials may be prohibitively expensive for farmers [37]. This high capital involvement in wildlife farming
may make adoption to be less attractive. One issue of long standing discussion and debate has been the relative im portance of economic factors as drivers of adoption. There are several important influences on adoption, and economic benefit (broadly defined) is one of them [38]. Econ omists typically assume that decision to adopt a specific farm-
0 ing practhas been ice is based on profitobserved that profit e-maximizing behaviour xpectations are an important [39]. It
2004 2005
Year influence on investment plans (and thus on adoption deci sions). Lack of financial viability would be expected to inhibit
IJSERalso been found that short-term expectations about variables
Fig. 1: Trend in Grasscutter Farming (RORI) in Ondo State adoption of innovations by reducing the capacity to adopt, rather than the benefits of adopting [40]. In addition, it has
y = 106.95x - 213992 related to profitability influenced the adoption of conservation practices [41]. It has been indicated that actual and perceived returns from a particular ‘conservation’ practice is one of the factors affecting the adoption and continuing use of sustaina-
Domestication of grasscutter serves conservation purpose and the continued and sustainable adoption of the technology is paramount to the conservation of the wild populations. Like farming of most wildlife species, grasscutter domestication and rearing require substantial investments of time and money.
Year
Fig. 2: Trend in Grasscutter Farming (RORI) in Osun State ble agricultural practices [42]. Also, wildlife farming is only likely to be widely embraced, therefore, if production costs and efforts are lower than hunting [37, 43]. To be economically attractive, wildlife farming would have to offer returns per unit investment equivalent to rearing domestic species [32]. However, returns from wildlife farming are long-term, sometimes requiring several years of investment before significant returns are forthcoming. Widespread adoption of grasscutters farming may be substantially affected if profitability from the investment on the enterprise is low.
Various factors were also identified in the literature regarding adoption of sustainable technologies. Major constraints to adoption identified were little or no financial benefit and associated financial factors, and complexity of technology considered [44]. Innovations will not be adopted if the farmer perceives them to be too risky financially, too complex, and to not fit with the farmer's situation or available resources [44]. The importance of profit as one of the drivers for most farmers has strong implications for conservation practices [38]. Among those farmers with a focus on profit, the farm-level economics of a proposed conservation practice will be important. Those conservation practices that are not profitable at the farm level will tend to be adopted only by farmers with stronger conservation goals. The lower the perceived profitability, the stronger the conservation goals need to be for adoption to occur. Unprofitable conservation practices are likely to be more widely adopted if they are able to generate conservation benefits when adopted at a small scale.
5 CONCLUSION
The analysis of grasscutter farming in Southwest Nigeria clearly shows that although the adopter of the technology has a relatively few years of experience, the investment is worthwhile and profitable, and serves as a source of employment for a considerable number of people. The enterprise however requires large capital outlay, which may not be within the reach of large number of the rural communities, particularly the support zone communities of Nigeria’s protected areas who are the main target of this technology thus reducing its potential for adoption. It should also be noted that grasscutter farming as an enterprise in Nigeria is relatively young and as such, profitability and its poverty alleviation potentials may take several years of investment to materialize.
REFERENCES
2013 22
[11] P. Boateng, “Economic Analysis”, International Forum on Promoting Grasscutter for business in West-Africa Accra, Ghana 12-16 December 2005.
[12] F. Jori, and P. Chardonnet, “Cane rat farming in Gabon. Status and perspectives”. H. Ebedes, B. Reilly, W. van Houven and B. Penzhorn, eds, Sustainable Utilisation – Conservation in Practice, South Africa, Pp. 99-109, 2002
[13] A. Obi, J. Bashi, M. Tshilamatanda, and H. van Schalkwyk, “Food flows at the community level: Examining the market potential of rabbits and canerats and implications for poverty alleviation and food security”. In: Re-inventing the food chain, new markets, customers, and products, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, World Food and Agribusiness Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 25-28 June, 2005.
[14] F. Jori, D. Edderai, and P. Houben, “The potential of rodents for minilivestock in Africa”. Programme ECONAP, CIRAD EMVT,
29Pp, not dated.
[15] K.A. Tutu, Y. Ntiamoa-Baidu and S. Asuming-Brempong, “The Economics of living with wildlife in Ghana”. J. Bojo, ed, The Economics of wildlife, AFTES working paper n°19, The World Bank, Pp. 11-34, 1996
[16] A. Fantodji, and G.A. Mensah, “Rôle et impact économique de l’élevage de gibier en Côte d’Ivoire”. Actes du Séminaire International sur l’élévage intensif de gibier à but alimentaire en Afrique, Libreville, pp. 25-42, 2000
[17] M. Dabogrogo, “La Ferme pilote d’aulacodiculture de Ouagadou-
[1] Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, “Sustainable
gou”. Actes du Séminaire International sur l’élévage intensif de management of non-timber forest resources”. Montreal, CBD Techgibier à but alimentaire en Afrique, Libreville, pp. 167-170, 2000. nical Series no. 6, 30Pp. 2001
IJSERconstraints to its development”. International Forum on Promoting
[2] Bodmer, R.E.; Fang, T.G. Moya, L. and Gill, R., “Managing wildlife to [18] E. Sodjinou and G.A. Mensah, “Technico-economic analysis of the grasscutter rearing in Benin: cost of production, profitability, and conserve Amazonian forests: population biology and economic considerations of game hunting”. Biological Conservation, vol. 67, pp 29-
Grasscutter for business in West-Africa Accra, Ghana 12-16 Decem-
35, 1994
[3] E.L. Bennett and J.G. Robinson, “Hunting of wildlife in tropical for- ber 2005 ests: Implications for biodiversity and forest peoples”. Biodiversity [19] E.A. Steel, “Study of the Value and Volume of Bushmeat Commerce in Gabon”. WWF Programme pour le Gabon, 1994. Series Paper 76. The World Bank, Washington D.C. 2000.
[4] L.A.K. Mbah, “The influence of season and age of stand on the nutri- [20] GTZ, “Grasscutter promotion, Ghana: Farmers target their local markets and environment”. www.gtz.de/biod. Not dated tive value of elephant grass (Pennisetum Purpureum) and sugar cane
[21] Bulletin BEDIM, “News Update. Bureau for Exchange and Distribu-
(Saccharium officinarium) fed to the canerat (Thryonomys swinderition Information on Minilivestock”, Bulletin BEDIM, vol. 14, no. 2, anus)”, M.Sc Dissertation, University of Ibadan, Nigeria, 1989.
[5] P. Auzel, and D.S. Wilkie, “Wildlife use in Northern Congo: Hunting 2005 in a commercial logging concession”. J.G. Robinson and E.L. Bennett, [22] E.O.A. Asibey, “Some problems encountered in the field study of the grasscutter (Thryonomys swinderianus) population in Ghana”. S.S. eds, Hunting for Sustainability in Tropical Forests. Columbia Universi-
Ajayi and L.B. Halstead, eds, Wildlife management in savanna woodland, ty Press, New York, Pp. 413-426, 2000
[6] E.L. Bennett, 2000. Timber certification: where is the voice of the Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K, pp 214-217, 1979 biologist?” Conservation Biology, vol. 14, pp. 921-923, 2000” [23] R. Baptist, and G.A. Mensah, “The canerat- farm animal of the fu-
[7] J.E. Fa, “Hunted animals in Bioko Island, West Africa: Sustainability ture”. World Animal Review, vol. 60, pp. 2-6,1986 and future”. J.G. Robinson and E.L. Bennett, eds, Hunting for Sustain [24] S.S. Ajayi and O.O. Tewe, “A quantitative assessment of wildlife and their nutritive value as a source of food in Nigeria”. L. Akinyele and ability in Tropical Forests. Columbia University Press, New York, Pp
T. Atome, eds, Nutrition and Food Policy in Nigeria. National Institute
168-198, 2000
[8] E. Bowen-Jones, D. Brown, and Robinson, E. “Assessment of the for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Ibadan, Nigeria. Pp 138-
148, 1983 solution-orientated Research needed to promote a more sustainable
[25] O.O. Tewe, S.S. Ajayi, S.S. and E.O. Faturoti, “Giant rat and canerat”. bushmeat trade in Central and West Africa”. Fauna and Flo-
I.L. Mason, ed, Evolution of domesticated animals. Longman, London. ra/NRI/ODI/ DEFRA, 127Pp, 2002
[9] E.A.O. Asibey, and G. Child, “Wildlife management for rural devel- Pp 291-293. 1984 opment in sub-Saharan Africa”. Nature et Faune, vol. 7, pp. 36-47, [26] Y. Ntiamoa-Baidu, “Sustainable use of bushmeat”. Wildlife Development plan 1998-2003. Wildlife Department, Accra, vol. 6, 78 Pp,
1991
[10] A.E. Onyeanusi, O.O. Akinola and A.O. Bobadoye, “Performance of 1998 grasscutter (Thryonomys swinderianus) fed varying level of dietary [27] BOSTID, “Microlivestock: Little known small animals with a promising economic future”, BOSTID, 435 Pp, 1991 protein”. J. innov. Dev. Strategy, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1-4, 2008
2013 23
[28] S.A. Agboola, “An Agricultural Atlas of Nigeria”, Oxford University Press, Nigeria, 248Pp, 1979
[29] FAO, “Economic Assessment of Forest Project Impacts”. Food and
Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, pp. 99– 124, 1992
[30] CBN,”Loan Boost for Nigerian Farmers”. www.news24.com. 2006.
[31] A.A. Aiyeloja and A.A. Ogunjinmi, “Poverty Alleviation Potential of
Snail Farming in Ondo State, Southwest Nigeria”. Journal-
International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Sciences, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 44-48, 2010
[32] M.H. Mockrin, E.L. Bennett and D.T. La Bruna, “Wildlife farming: a viable alternative to hunting in tropical forests?” WCS Working Paper no. 23, Wildlife Conservation Society, 32 Pp, November 2005.
[33] S.Y. Annor and C. Kusi,”Factors influencing the adoption of grasscutter production in the Brong Ahafo region of Ghana”. Livestock Research for Rural Development, vol. 20, no. 9, 2008.
[34] N. Smythe, “Steps toward domesticating the paca and prospects for the future”. J. G. Robinson and K. H. Redford, eds, Neotropical Wildlife Use and Conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 202-216, 1991
[35] J. Hardouin, “Minilivestock: from gathering to controlled production”. Biodiversity and Conservation, vol. 4, pp. 220-232, 1995
[36] N. Smythe and O. Brown de Guanti, “Domestication and husbandry of the paca (Agouti paca)”. FAO Conservation Guide 26. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 1995.
[37] Y. Ntiamoa-Baidu, “Wildlife and food security in Africa”. FAO Conservation Guide 33. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 1997
[38] D.J. Pannell, G.R. Marshall,IJSER N. Barr, A. Curtis, F. Vanclay and R.
Wilkinson, “Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders”. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, vol. 46, no. 11, pp. 1407-1424, 2006.
[39] D. Lambert, P. Sullivan, R. Claassen and L. Foreman, “Conservationcompatible practices and programs: who participates?” A report from the Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Report No. 14, February 2006.
www.ers.usda.gov, 2006
[40] J. Cary, T. Webb and N. Barr, “The adoption of sustainable practices: Some new insights. An analysis of drivers and constraints for the adoption of sustainable practices derived from research.’ Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra, 2001
[41] J.W. Cary and R.L. Wilkinson,”Perceived profitability and farmers’ conservation behaviour. Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 48, pp. 13-21, 1997
[42] N.A. Shadbolt, “Field Testing of Financial Indictors of Sustainable
Agriculture”. MAF Policy Research Report, MAF, New Zealand, 1998 [43] D. Wilkie and J.F. Carpenter, “Bushmeat hunting in the Congo Basin:
as assessment of impacts and options for mitigation”. Biodiversity and Conservation, vol. 8, pp. 927-955, 1999
[44] H. Stiefel, “Factors that influence grower adoption and implementation of the ENZA Integrated Fruit Production Programme”. Masters thesis, Massey University, 1999
