This study focused on Profitability and constraints of pig production in southern Kebbi State. A purposive and Snowball sampling techniques were employed in the selection of 252 pig farms. The data obtained from the farmers were analyzed using descriptive statistics and net farm income. The rate of return on investment was 1.70. This implies that every ₦1 invested in the pig business yielded ₦1.70K as profit. The benefit cost ratio (BCR) of 2.70, which means pig production, is a profitable business. The gross ratio of 0.36 implies that 36K is spent for every one naira gained in the business. The cost of feeds had 48.0%, water had 32.7%, labor 14.3%, cost of stocking piglets 4.7% and medication had 0.3%, housing cost 77.4% and feeders had 22.6%. Majority of the farmers (40.0%) reported cost of commercial feeds and feed ingredients as their major problem in pig production, followed by Insufficient startup funds (16.6%), effect of religion (9.5%), Low demand for Pigs and their products (7.5%), High cost of piglets (6.7%), Mortality (5.9%), Disease incidence (4.7%), Destructive behavior of pigs (4.3%), Theft and predators (3.2%) respectively. Despite the constraints and the high costs involvement, pig production is a profitable venture in the study area, as indicated by the profitability ratio technique employed in the analysis. Government should establish more research institutes for various disease control, breeding centers, effective extension services, market linkages for pig products to encourage more involvement in pig production. The result of the research recommends that farmers, whose profit level is very low, are expected to seek advice from the prospective ones on how to improve and attain greater level of efficiency in their production.

1. Profitability and Constraints of Pig Production in Southern Kebbi State, Nigeria
Profitability and Constraints of Pig Production in Southern
Kebbi State, Nigeria
*L. E. Dorh1, A. A. Gindi2, A. Gona3
1,2,3Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Kebbi State University of Science and Technology, Aliero,
Nigeria
This study focused on Profitability and constraints of pig production in southern Kebbi State. A
purposive and Snowball sampling techniques were employed in the selection of 252 pig farms.
The data obtained from the farmers were analyzed using descriptive statistics and net farm
income. The rate of return on investment was 1.70. This implies that every ₦1 invested in the pig
business yielded ₦1.70K as profit. The benefit cost ratio (BCR) of 2.70, which means pig
production, is a profitable business. The gross ratio of 0.36 implies that 36K is spent for every
one naira gained in the business. The cost of feeds had 48.0%, water had 32.7%, labor 14.3%, cost
of stocking piglets 4.7% and medication had 0.3%, housing cost 77.4% and feeders had 22.6%.
Majority of the farmers (40.0%) reported cost of commercial feeds and feed ingredients as their
major problem in pig production, followed by Insufficient startup funds (16.6%), effect of religion
(9.5%), Low demand for Pigs and their products (7.5%), High cost of piglets (6.7%), Mortality
(5.9%), Disease incidence (4.7%), Destructive behavior of pigs (4.3%), Theft and predators (3.2%)
respectively. Despite the constraints and the high costs involvement, pig production is a
profitable venture in the study area, as indicated by the profitability ratio technique employed in
the analysis. Government should establish more research institutes for various disease control,
breeding centers, effective extension services, market linkages for pig products to encourage
more involvement in pig production. The result of the research recommends that farmers, whose
profit level is very low, are expected to seek advice from the prospective ones on how to improve
and attain greater level of efficiency in their production.
Key words: Pig, Net Farm Income, Constraints, Profitability, Returns on Investment, Southern Kebbi
INTRODUCTION
The livestock sub-sector of Agricultural sector is vital to the
national economy since it is the main supplier of the
essential animal protein. The importance of livestock sub-
sector is in line with recommendation of the F.A.O (2003)
that on an average basis, a man’s daily protein intake
should be between 65-72 grams and 53% (about 35
grams) of this should be animal based. Animal protein is
essential in human nutrition because of its biological
significance. In realization of this, the various
governments in Nigeria have been pursuing programmes
at national, state and local levels to boost the mass
production of food and livestock. Some of the programmes
include the Farm Settlement Scheme, Agricultural
Development Project (ADP), Better Life Programme,
Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA), and
Microcredit Scheme for Livestock, to mention few. Pig
production is an example of such community level
livestock programmes.
The name pig is broadly applied to all mammals of the
family Suidae and order Artiodactayla but specifically to
the domestic animal known scientifically as Suss cofa from
which domestic pig was developed. One of the major
advantages of pigs is the ability to convert different kinds
of feed including kitchen waste to meat (Rahman et al.,
2008). Considering general feed conversion, pig is by far
the most efficient among farm animals in the conversion
of feed energy to body energy. The high rate of
productivity is another major advantage of pigs, ranging
from 9.3-9.96, live piglets per sow. CTA (1995), and Okoli
(2006). Though, before weaning, an average of 1.51 will
*Corresponding Author: Luka E. Dorh, Department of
Agricultural Economics and Extension, Kebbi State
University of Science and Technology, Aliero, Nigeria.
E-mail: dorhmen@gmail.com. Tel: +234-7087815522,
+234-7034264447
Research Article
Vol. 5(2), pp. 569-571, July, 2019. © www.premierpublishers.org, ISSN: 2167-0477
Journal of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development

2. Profitability and Constraints of Pig Production in Southern Kebbi State, Nigeria
Dorh et al. 570
die, leaving the average number of piglets weaned per
sow to be 8.45. The sow has ability of farrowing twice a
year with an average of 16.9 piglets per year, this is a
remarkable advantage over other ruminants like cattle
whose maximum are two young one within such period.
Other researchers such as Tewe and Adesehinwa, (1995)
revealed that the pig is more efficient carcass yielder than
cattle, sheep or goat, dressing out at about 70% compared
to 52.5% for cattle and about 50% for sheep and goat. In
addition, pig carcass has a smaller proportion for bones
and higher proportion of edible meat. It is relatively easy
to establish intensive pig production in a developing
country like Nigeria; if capital is available and adequate
feed supplies are assured (Ogunniyi and Omoteso, 2011).
Profitable pig production will however not be achieved
unless the right products are produced in the right place at
the right price. It is therefore important for the intending pig
producer to understand the economic, physical, social,
ethnic and religious forces which operate to determine the
effective way of producing swine. All over the world, meat
production remains overwhelmingly the main purpose of
keeping pigs. The pork can be utilized by the producer and
his family or sold as a source of income. Processed meats
such as bacon sausage are also being produced and are
increasingly gaining recognition. By-products such as
pigskin and bristle are used in manufacturing of light
leather and brushes especially in Asian countries (Young
2005). Pig manure is a valuable fertilizer and can be
aerobically digested to produce cooking gas; it also
stimulates the growth of microorganisms and plants for
feeding fresh water fish and ducks (Okoli, 2006).
Pigs provide a ready and regular source of cash to meet
the rural families’ needs, such as paying school fees,
health expenses and farm inputs, on a day-to-day basis.
It’s advantage of converting feed wastes to body energy
and high birth rate. Despite these attributes and
contributions, production of pigs in Southern kebbi State,
has remained low. The study area has majority of Muslim
faithful and their religion prohibits the rearing of pigs,
consumption and marketing of pig and its product.
Though, despite these problems, there is still existence of
pig farms in the study area. One can conclude that there
are reasons of their existence. Based on this assertion,
The objective of the study is to;
• Describe the socio-economic characteristics of pig
farmers in the study area,
• Their production behavior,
• Determine the profitability of Pig production in the study
area and to
• Determine the constraints of pig production in the study
area.
METHODOLOGY
Study Area
This research was carried out in Southern Kebbi State
(Zuru Emirate), Nigeria. Zuru Emirate is one of the four
Emirates in Kebbi state. The Emirate comprises of four
Local Government Areas (LGAs) namely; Danko-Wasagu,
Fakai, Sakaba and Zuru. The Emirate is located within
latitudes 11o and 12o N and longitudes 4o and 5o E of the
equator (KBSG. 2003). The state was carved out from the
former Sokoto State in 1991; it covers an area of
approximately 9,000 square kilometers. It is located on a
hilly terrain and is bounded to the north by Gummi Local
Government Area of Zamfara State, North-west by Koko
Local Government Area, South-west by Yauri Local
Government Area, North-east by Bukuyum Local
Government Area of Zamfara State and south by Rijau
Local Government Area of Niger state (Girma, 2008).
The estimated population of the Emirate is 582, 106 people
(NPC, 2006). The various indigenous cultural and ethnic
groups of the Emirate are the Dakkarkari, Fakkawa,
Dukkawa, Kelawa, Kambarawa, Katsinawan laka and
Achifawa. Other non-indigenous ethnic groups in the area,
Hausa, Fulani, Yoruba, Igbo and other tribes found in
Nigeria. Animal husbandry was practiced side by side with
crop production, even though on limited scale. The people
of the Emirate depend largely on the pastoral Fulani for
meat, milk and butter. The sales and marketing of pig and
piggery products in the study area seems to be very low,
this could be due to discriminatory attitude towards the
production and consumption of pigs and their products.
Sampling Procedure and Sample Size
A purposive and Snowball sampling techniques were
employed to obtain a sample size for the study, Four Local
government areas were used, namely: Danko-wasagu,
Fakai, Sakaba and Zuru. Three districts from each of the
selected local governments based on the concentration of
pig farmers were purposively selected, giving a total of 12
districts. A snowball sampling was employed in selecting
twenty-one (21) pig farmers from each of the selected
districts, giving a total of 252 respondents.
Data Collection
Primary data was collected through the use of a weigh
band to measure the weight of the animals. A weigh band
is a tape-like instrument of measuring weight of live
animals particularly Cattle, Sheep, Goat and Pigs and
structured questionnaires designed in line with the
objectives of the study. Data collected was on, information
on the socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents,
type of breeds produced, the input–output data such as
quantity and cost of various production inputs, prices of
output obtained.
Analytical Technique
The analytical tools used for the study include: descriptive
statistics and Net Farm Income.

3. Profitability and Constraints of Pig Production in Southern Kebbi State, Nigeria
J. Agric. Econ. Rural Devel. 571
Table 1: Show the sampling Planned
LGA District Village Number of
respondents
Dankowasagu Waje
Ribah/Machika
Danko
Yarbuga
Kurku
Machika
Dungu
Kyabo
Shindig
09
12
14
07
10
11
Fakai Fakai
Bajida
Marafa
Uragi
Tungan sori
Boko
Gele
Noma kawo
Kanji
09
12
08
13
11
10
Sakaba Sakaba
Dirin-daji
Maganda
Makuku
Wangaci
Maza-maza
Dokadere
Maganda
Dangira
10
11
13
08
12
09
zuru Dabai
Rikoto
Rafin-Zuru
Dabai
Rumu
Rikoto
Shadawanka
Dongo
Bedi
14
07
08
13
10
11
Total 12 24 252
Source: field survey, 2018
Specification of Models
Budgetary Analysis
This technique was used to estimate the profit level that
was generated from the enterprise. Depreciation using
straight line method was used in achieving the value of the
total cost of the fixed assets
This can be stated as:
Profit (Net Returns) = Total Revenue (TR) − Total Cost
(TC) …………………………………..…… (1)
Where: Total Revenue (TR) = Output (Q) * Unit price (P)
Total Cost (TC) = Total Variable Cost (TVC) + Total Fixed
Cost (TFC)
Profitability
This is a measure of the performance of the pig enterprise.
It was estimated using the returns to investment as stated
in equation
Returns on Investment (ROI) =
𝑁𝑒𝑡𝑅𝑒𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑠
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡
……………(2)
ROI is the amount of money that would be generated on a
naira invested in business. The higher the rate of return,
the more profitable an enterprise is
RESULTS OF THE STUDY
Table 2: Socioeconomic Characteristics of Pig Farmers
Age Frequency Percentage (%)
<18 7 2.8
18-35 86 34.1
36-45 94 37.3
>45 65 25.8
Total 252 100.0
Gender
Male 148 58.7
Female 104 41.3
Total 252 100.0
Education
Primary 117 46.4
Secondary 61 24.2
Tertiary 46 18.3
Non formal educ. 28 11.1
Total 252 100.0
Occupation
Civil servant 31 12.3
Trader 23 9.1
Farming 174 69.0
Student 24 9.5
Total 252 100.0
Marital status
Married 197 78.2
Single 27 10.7
Divorce 5 2.0
Widow 23 9.1
Total 252 100.0
Family Size
1-5 116 46.0
6-10 101 40.1
11-15 32 12.7
16-20 3 1.2
Total 252 100.0
Farming
Experience
2-6 119 47.2
7-11 73 29.0
12-16 39 15.5
17-21 17 6.7
>21 4 1.6
Total 252 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2018.
Figure 1: Feeding of Pigs. Source: Field Survey, 2018.

4. Profitability and Constraints of Pig Production in Southern Kebbi State, Nigeria
Dorh et al. 572
Figure 2: Medication of Pigs
Source: Field Survey, 2018.
Figure 3: Type of Breed Farmers Reared
Source: Field Survey, 2018.
Figure 4: Type of Housing
Source: Field Survey, 2018
Figure 5: Extension Agent Contact
Source: Field Survey, 2018.
Table 3: Cost and Return of Pig Production in ₦/Year
Cost/Returns Average
Amount (₦)
Total
Amount (₦)
Percentage
(%)
Total Revenue
(TR)
300,795 75,800,500
Variable Cost
Cost of stocking 4,553 1,147,300 4.7
Feeds 46,622 11,748,800 48.0
Water 31,666 7,979,772 32.7
Labour 13,833 3,486,000 14.3
Medication 286 72,000 0.3
Total Variable
Cost
96,960 24,433,872 100.0
Fixed Cost
Housing Cost
Feeders
11,004
3216
2,773,000
810,500
77.4
22.6
Total Fixed
Cost (TFC)
14,220 3,583,500 100.0
TC= TFC+TVC 111,180 28,017,372
GM= TR-TVC 203,835 51,366,628
NFI= GM-TFC 189,615 47783128
NR= TR-TC 189,615 47783128
ROR= NR/TC 0.006 1.70
BCR= TR/TC 0.010 2.70
GR= TC/TR 0.001 0.36
Source: Field Survey, 2018.
Table 4: Constraints of Pig Production in Southern
Kebbi State
Constraints Frequency Percentage
(%)
High cost of piglets 17 6.7
High cost of feeds 101 40.0
Insufficient startup funds 42 16.6
Low demand for Pigs and their
products
19 7.5
Disease incidence 12 4.7
Mortality 15 5.9
Theft and predators 08 3.2
Religion 24 9.5
Destructive behavior of pigs 11 4.3
Source: field survey, 2018.

5. Profitability and Constraints of Pig Production in Southern Kebbi State, Nigeria
J. Agric. Econ. Rural Devel. 573
DISCUSSIONS OF THE RESULTS
Table 2 shows the age distribution of pig farmers in the
study area. The majority of the pig farmers’ age are
between 36-45 years with 37.3% while the age of 18-35
constitutes 34.1% of the pig farmers in the study area, and
the age of above 45 years constitute 25.8% of the pig
farmers, and the age below 18 constitute 2.8%. This shows
that teenagers are less involved in pig production but the
adults who are agile are more engaged in pig production
in the study area. This could be attributed to the fact that
pig management is labour intensive and requires patience
from the farmers.
On gender of the respondents the result indicated men to
be the highest in production of pigs in the study area with
58.7%, while the female carries 41.3% of the pig farmers.
This indicates that men were more involved in pig
production than females. The finding is in consonance with
those of Umeh et al. (2015) who stated that men who are
relatively stronger are mostly involved in pig production
and also suggested that sex may increase technical
efficiency as male producers who often are the head of the
family, who are energetic to procure and administer
production inputs are the majority of pig farmers in the
study area. Though the male is more involved in pig
production, females also contributed to labour on light farm
operations such as serving of feed and water, and cleaning
of the piggery as corroborated by Osondu et al. (2014).
The educational level of pig farmers indicated that majority
of pig farmers (46.4%) in the study area are primary school
leavers. Twenty four percent (24.2%) of the pig farmers
have been found to have attained secondary school while
eighteen percent (18.3%) of the pig farmers have tertiary
level of education and eleven percent (11.1%) of the pig
farmers has non-formal education.
The Table 2, also shows the majority (69.0%) of pig
farmers to be farmers who took farming as their primary
source of living. This could be because; they have ample
time to stay around their pigs to take care of them. Civil
servants appeared to be the next majority (12.3%) in pig
farming. This could be attributed to them for having
acquired skills on animal husbandry and could manage
their pigs efficiently. Also, students (9.5%) were found to
be involved in pig farming. The low involvement of students
in pig farming could be based on not having ample time to
stay at home and take good care of their pigs. Also, traders
who are known to be always very busy with their trading
business are found to be less involved (9.1%) in pig
farming. The result indicates that farmers are more actively
involved in keeping of pigs than the rest. This is because
pig has less prestige when compared to other domestic
animals in the study area. Furthermore, people have
wrong perception that pigs are dirty animals and should
not be reared by people of higher social status. Midau et
al (2011), in their survey found that, majority of the
respondents (about 75%) had little or no education. The
implication of this is that it will be difficult for them to accept
and adopt improved production technique that will
enhance their productivity.
Majority (78.2%) of the pig farmers in the study area are
married. While single constitute 10.7% of the pig farmers
in the study area. Widows who engaged in the pig farming
constitute 9.1% of the pig farmers. But divorced women
constitute only 2.0% which appeared to be the least in pig
farming probably because of their small size in number.
The low involvement of widows and divorced could be, that
they could not afford a reasonable amount to start up the
pig farming looking at the cost involvement in pig
production, especially on the feeds, medication and
labour.
The Table 2 also indicates family size distribution of the pig
farmers in the study area. The least family size (1-5)
appeared to be the largest with (46.0%) in the study area;
this could be because the youths are very agile and could
easily carry out the labor needed in pig farming. While the
family size 6-10 have the second (40.1%) and the third
farmers of pig in the study area fall at 11-15 family sized
populace, with 12.7%. But the family size of 16-20
appeared to be the least in pig farming. This reveals that
as the family size kept on increasing the lesser family
member will engage in pig farming, this is because larger
families could exert their family problems on the pig farms
and as the result the production could deteriorate.
The farming experience of the pig farmers indicated that
those having 2-6 years farming experience have the
highest population (47.2%) in pig farming in the study area,
this could be that, they are starting with a good zeal to pig
farming. Those with 7-11 years farming experience have
population of about 29.0% while those ranging from 12-16
years of farming experience constitute 15.5% of the pig
farmers and those ranging from 17-21 takes 6.7% of the
total population. Those above 21 years are the least in pig
farming in the study area, probably because they became
tired and old.
Figure 1 shows that, 93% of the pig farmers in the study
area were those who do provide feeds to their pigs while
7% of the farmers do not provide feeds to their pigs rather,
they allowed the pigs to scavenge. The implication is that,
under fed pigs will not give the farmer expected output,
because feed is never a compromising variable in livestock
production.
Most of the feeds used by the farmers in the study area
were similar and are mainly traditional feed resources
which are agricultural by-products such as maize and rice
bran and vegetables, or weeds that grow naturally in the
forests, along the banks of streams, and in cropping areas.
This was in accordance with the finding by Kumaresan et
al. (2007) in North Eastern India, who showed that farmers
used all locally available materials for feeding pigs. These
feed resources are vulnerable to seasonal weather
patterns. In the dry season, feed is always in short supply,

6. Profitability and Constraints of Pig Production in Southern Kebbi State, Nigeria
Dorh et al. 574
and one of the main limitations of pig production is feed
shortage. Feed is limited in both quantity and quality, which
severely limits productivity (Thorne2005).
The result in figure2, indicated that 73% of the pig farmers
do not provide healthcare services (medication) to their
pigs while only 27% provides healthcare services to their
pigs. The implication is that, when disease outbreak of pigs
occurs many pig farmers stand the risk of losing their pigs.
Helminthoses, diarrhoea, cough and mange were
observed to be the commonest diseases in the herds
followed by mastitis and ascaris. Defang et-al (2014)
The result in figure 3, revealed that all the surveyed
households raised indigenous native pigs. It indicates that
farmers in the study area prefer the local breeds due to
their adaptive nature to the harsh environment, which
could also resist the hardship of not providing them with
good management operatives by the farmer. Above all
they are easily accessed by the farmer due to their
presence in the environment. The result conformed to
Phonepaseuth at-el. (2010), who reported that,” all
surveyed households raised indigenous native pigs. The
mature weight was very similar and ranged from 80 to 120
kg and that the main reason why farmers preferred raising
local pigs is a better adaptation to local environment and
management condition.
The result from figure 4 shows that majority of pig farmers
in the study area constituting 68% are those who erect pig
houses using local materials. The implication is that pigs
can easily find their way out of the house and therefore
cause destruction of farm produce particularly in the rainy
seasons, because pigs are usually destructive in nature.
29% of pig farmers in the study area are those who
constructed concrete houses for their pigs while 3% of the
farmers made wire fencing which is a good and
recommended house for pig keeping.
The result of figure 5 showed that, 90% pig farmers of the
study area do not ever receive any service from an
extension worker. The implication is that the pig farmers
may not have access to new techniques that may help
them in pig production. It could also be that the extension
workers are scanty such that they cannot reach every
farmer. It is also indicated that 10% of the farmers were
able to receive advices by the extension workers on
matters related to pig production. This could be the reason
why, only 8 farmers out of 252 were able to attain between
0.90-0.99 efficiency levels in their production. This agrees
to earlier researchers, (Akeeb 1997, Agbato, 1997, Midau
et al (2011) who found that about 61.90% of the pig
producers did not have access to good extension teaching
on improved practices in pig production. This may result to
low productivity and poor returns from the small-holder pig
enterprises.
Table 3, Presented detailed information on the costs,
returns and profitability ratios of pig production in the study
area. The average total cost of production as shown in
Table 3 was ₦111,180 per annum, out of which ₦96,960
were variable costs and ₦14,220 were fixed costs. The
average total revenue per annum was ₦300,795. The
average gross margin was ₦203,835 and the net farm
income per annum was ₦189,615. The rate of return on
investment in the study area was 1.70. This implies that
every ₦1 invested in the pig business yielded ₦1.70K as
profit. The benefit cost ratio (BCR) of 2.70, shows that pig
production is a profitable business in the study area. The
gross ratio of 0.36 implies that 36K is spent for every one
naira gained in the business.
On the percentage side, cost of feeds with average amount
(₦46,622) had 48.0% of the total variable costs incurred,
which is the highest among the variable costs. While cost
of water had 32.7%, labour had 14.3%, cost of stocking
piglets had 4.7% and medication had 0.3%. On the fixed
costs incurred, housing cost takes the greatest percentage
(77.4), having average cost of ₦11,004 while, feeders had
22.6% having an average cost of ₦3,216
Despite the costs involved, pig production is a profitable
venture in the study area, as indicated by the profitability
ratio technique employed in the analysis.
Table 4, shows the result of Constraints in pig production
at Southern Kebbi State, Majority of the farmers (40.0%)
indicated high cost of commercial feeds and feed
ingredients as their major problem, this could be the
reason why some piggery farms were found underfed in
the study area. This is in agreement with report of Adejoba
et al. (2004).
Insufficient startup funds, this has significant effect
(16.6%). Most of the farmers in the study area have no
adequate capital to embark on improved or modern pig
production which is capital intensive as reported by
Charlse (2009)
Influence of religion (9.5%), this indicated that many
potential pig farmers in the study area could not embark
on the business since the religion forbids them of keeping
such animals. Religion has a high influence on
acceptability, consumption and marketing of pig and its
products.
Low demand for Pigs and their products (7.5%), marketing
of pig and its products is not specialized when compared
to cattle, sheep and goats. This is primarily due to effect of
religion. The study area has Muslim faith that prohibits the
rearing of pigs and consumption of pork. This is in line with
the observation of Agunbiade (2001), that certain religious
injunction, social believes and norms have hindered
production of pigs.
High cost of piglets (6.7%), some of the farmers reported
that high cost of piglets hinders them embarking on pig
production, this could be attributed to the poverty level the
found themselves.

7. Profitability and Constraints of Pig Production in Southern Kebbi State, Nigeria
J. Agric. Econ. Rural Devel. 575
Mortality (5.9%), some farmers also reported that, they
had a high mortality rate especially on the piglets. This
could be attributed to Disease outbreak as identified by
(4.7%) of the respondents who complained of cases of
swine fever, ecto and endo parasites, which often leads to
high mortality, reduced productivity and consequently
affecting earnings from investment. Agunbiade, et al.
(2001) reported that tape worm is a major disease of pigs
causing a great economic loses.
Some farmers (4.3%) reported that the destructive
behavior of pigs made them not to embark on pig
production while (3.2%) of the respondents reported theft
as their major problem in pig production.
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
The variables like gender, household size, farming
experience, and management system had negative effect
on technical inefficiency but farming experience and
management system was significant at (10%) level. The
negative effect of these variables implies increase in
technical efficiency. This conformed to a priori expectation
and was similar to the findings of Ajibefun and Daramola
(1999). The result indicated that the more the age and the
higher the education status, the more likely farmers are to
be inefficient on their production. This result conformed to
that of Kebede (2001), who reported a positive coefficient
for age.
On the percentage side, cost of feeds with average amount
(₦46,622) had 48.0% of the total variable costs incurred,
which is the highest among the variable costs. While cost
of water had 32.7%, labour had 14.3%, cost of stocking
piglets had 4.7% and medication had 0.3%. on the fixed
costs incurred, housing cost takes the greatest percentage
(77.4), having average cost of ₦11,004 while, feeders had
22.6% having an average cost of ₦3216.
The rate of return on investment in the study area was
1.70. This implies that every ₦1 invested in the pig
business yielded ₦1.70K as profit. The benefit cost ratio
(BCR) of 2.70, shows that pig production is a profitable
business in the study area. The gross ratio of 0.36 implies
that 36K is spent for every one naira gained in the
business.
CONCLUSION
This study was conducted to measure profitability and
constraints of pig production in Southern Kebbi State,
Nigeria. The study revealed that majority of the sampled
respondents were male, married and within the
economically active age group.
Majority of the farmers (40.0%) reported cost of
commercial feeds and feed ingredients as their major
problem in pig production on variable costs and housing
cost (77.4%) on the fixed costs.
Despite the constraints and the costs involved, pig
production is economically rewarding and profitable in the
study area. Based on the value of benefit and profitability
indicator, it can be concluded that pig production is
profitable and it is capable of creating employment,
augmenting income and improving the standard of living in
the study area.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings of the study, some
recommendations have been made.
1. Efficiency in pig production in southern Kebbi State
could be increased through better use of available
resources, given the current state of technology and
through policies that would encourage pig farming.
2. Pig farmers are encouraged to belong to pig farmers’
association around them so as to have access to
relevant information about new technologies or
practices and the accessibility of credit facilities.
3. Policies that would encourage in depth research by
research institutions to proffer solutions to prevalent
diseases in pig production are advocated. This would
reduce the risk in pig production and also increase
efficiency.
4. An effective extension service should be established to
bridge the gap between pig farmers and the research
institutions, and also to create awareness about
improved technologies in pig production
5. The government should consider the possibility of
establishing pig breeding center, pork processing units
and creating market linkage which can motivate pig
producers. It could be more promising to support
innovative community-based systems and encouraging
other private-sector investment to better meet the
unsatisfied demand.
6. Though Pig production in the study area was profitable,
but increase in the scale of production is advocated so
that the high cost of feed will be distributed among large
number of pigs which will cut down the cost.
7. As a way of minimizing cost also, the farmers in the
study area should learn how to formulate their feeds
and utilize local feed stuffs.
8. To the farmers whose efficiency level is very low, are
expected to seek advice from the prospective ones on
how to improve and attain greater level of efficiency in
their production.

8. Profitability and Constraints of Pig Production in Southern Kebbi State, Nigeria
Dorh et al. 576
REFERENCES
Adejoba O.R, Adu A.O, Meduna AJ, Adekunle RF.
Participation, prospects and problems of piggery
Business in selected local government areas in Ibadan
Metropolis. Trop. J. Ani. Sci. 2004;7(1): 155-159.
Agbato, O.A. (1997). Effective strategies for egg
marketing in Nigeria. Paper presented at workshop
organized by the Nigerian Society for Animal
production (NSAP).
Agunbiade JA, Akeula OI, Awojobi HA. An assessment of
pig production systems. Ogun Journal of Agricultural
Sciences. 2001;1(1):108-115.
Ajibefun, I.A., Daramola, A.G. (1999). Measurement and
sources of technical inefficiency in poultry egg
production In Ondo State. Journal of Rural Economics
and Development,Environmental Sci.2(2): 182-188.
Akeeb, S. (1997). Problems of poultry production in
Nigeria. Paper presented at workshop organized by the
Nigerian Society for Animal production (NSAP).
Augie, A. R. and S. U. Lawal (1990). Studies in the History
of the People of Zuru Emirate. Enugu: Fourth
Dimension Publishing Co. Ltd., 112Pp.
C.T.A. Agricultural Extension in Africa, Technical Centre
for Agriculture and Rural Cooperation. Yaunde
Cameron, 1995.
Charles O. Animal management and health issues; tapas
institute of scientific research and development; 2009.
Defang et-al, (2014). Discourse Journal of Agriculture and
Food Sciences Vol. 2(1): 11-20, January, 2014
Food and Agriculture Organization. (2003). Agriculture in
Nigeria. F.A.O of United Nation, Rome.
Girma, S.A. (2008). Agro-climatology of Millet Production
in Desert Fringe Zone of Nigeria, A Case Study of
Kebbi State. Unpublished M.Scdessertation. Federal
University of Technology Minna, Niger state. 97Pp.
Kebbi State Government (KBSG) (2003). Kebbi State
Government Official Diary. Directorate of Information,
Kebbi. 10Pp.
Kebede, T.A., (2001). Farm Household Technical
Efficiency: A Stochastic Frontier Analysis. A Study of
Rice Producers in Mardi Watershed in the Western
Development Region of Nepal. A Master Thesis
Submitted to Department of Economics and Social
Sciences, Agricultural University of Norway.
Kumaresan, A., Bujarbaruah, K. M., Pathak, K. A.,
Chehetri, B., Das, S.K., Das, A. and Ahmed, S. K.,
2007. Performance of pigs reared under traditional
tribal low input production system and chemical
composition of non-conventional tropical plants used as
pig feed. Livestock Science, 107, 294-298.
Midau et-al (2011) Global Journal of Science Frontier
Research V0l.11 Issue 7 Version 1.0
National Population Commission (NPC), (2006). 2006
National Population Census Figures, Abuja, Nigeria.
Ogunniyi L. T. and Omoteso O. A. (2011). Economic
Analysis of Swine Production in Nigeria: A Case Study
of Ibadan Zone of Oyo State. J. Hum. Ecol., 35(2): 137-
142
Okoli, C.I. (2006). Topical Tips On Intensive Pig
Production; Animal Management and Health Issues.
Technical Notes. Tapas Institute of Scientific Research
and Development.
Osondu C. K., Ijioma, J.C., Anyiro, C. O., Obike K.
(2014): Economic analysis of pig production in Abia
State, Nigeria. International Journal of Applied
Research and Technology 3: 3–10.
Phonepasenthphengsavanh, (2010). Feeding and
Performance of Pigs in smallholder systems in Northern
Lao.
Rahman, S., Barthakur, S.G. Kalita. (2008). Pig production
and management system in Aizawl District of Mizoram,
India. Livestock Research for Rural Development,
20(9).
Tewe, O., Adesehinwa, A.O.K. (1995). Resource
requirement for profitable pig farming. In: Pig
Production Workshop Training Manual, pp.16-26.
NAERLS, A.B.U., Zaria.
Thorne, P., 2005. Pig raising in Northern Lao PDR.
Working Paper, No 4 Participatory Livestock
Development Project (ADB PPTA No 4287-Lao).
CIAT/ILRI: Vientiane, Lao People’s
DemocraticRepublic.
Umeh J. C., Ogbanje C., Adejo M. A. (2015): Technical
efficiency analysis of pig production: A sustainable
animal protein augmentation for Nigerians. Journal of
Advanced Agricultural Technologies 2: 19–24.
Accepted 10 July 2019
Citation: Dorh LE, Gindi AA, Gona A (2019). Profitability
and Constraints of Pig Production in Southern Kebbi State,
Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Rural
Development, 5(2): 569-576.
Copyright: © 2019: Dorh et al. This is an open-access
article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author and source are cited.