JUTA, JEREMIAH

PG/[Link]/12/64219

CONSTRAINTS TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL

PRODUCTS BY LOCAL PRODUCERS IN TARABA STATE

FACULTY OF VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL

EDUCATION

BUSINESS EDUCATION

Digitally Signed by: Content manager’s Name

Ebere Omeje
DN : CN = Webmaster’s name

O= University of Nigeria, Nsukka

OU = Innovation Centre
 CONSTRAINTS TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTS BY LOCAL PRODUCERS IN TARABA STATE

BY

JUTA, JEREMIAH
PG/[Link]/12/64219

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS EDUCATION, FACULTY OF VOCATIONAL

TECHNICAL EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA.

SEPTEMBER, 2015
 i

TITLE PAGE

CONSTRAINTS TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS BY

LOCAL PRODUCERS IN TARABA STATE

BY

JUTA, JEREMIAH

PG/M. ED/12/64219

A PROJECT REPORT PRESENTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF

BUSINESS EDUCATION, FACULTY OF VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL
EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA, IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF
MASTER’S DEGREE IN BUSINESS EDUCATION.

SEPTEMBER, 2015

i
 ii

APPROVAL PAGE

This research project has been approved for the Department of Vocational Teacher

Education, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

By

________________________ ___________________________
Prof. E. E. Agomuo Internal Examiner
(Supervisor)

____________________________ ___________________________
External Examiner Prof. C. A. Igbo

(Head of Department)

_____________________
Prof. Uju C. Umo
(Dean, Faculty of VTE)

ii
 iii

CERTIFICATION

I, JUTA, JEREMIAH, a postgraduate student of the Department of Business

Education, with registration number PG/[Link]/12/64219, has satisfactorily completed and

fulfilled the requirements for the award of Degree of Master of Education- Business

Education. The thesis embodied in this work is original and has not been found submitted in

part or in full for any other degree or diploma of this or any other university.

____________________ _____________________
Juta, Jeremiah Prof. E. E. Agomuo
(Student) (Supervisor)

iii
 iv

DEDICATION

This thesis work is dedicated to the entire family of Juta; for their prayers, supports

and understanding in the course of my pursuing this programme.

iv
 v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The success of this thesis would not have come without the support of several
individuals. I first and foremost, wish to give my gratitude to the Almighty God who in His
plans brought me to this height of education successfully.

I acknowledge the spirit of my supervisor, Prof. E. E. Agomuo, for accepting me as

his supervisee in the face of all engagements and circumstances; and the guidance he gave
which resulted in the completion of this work and programme. May God bless and reward
him.

I equally appreciate the contributions of C. J. Olelewe who stood to see that the work
went on well by reading all through and the inputs he offered in variety of ways. The
researcher also owes the lecturers of the Department of Vocational Teacher Education (most
specifically Business Education unit) appreciation for their individual and collective
contributions towards the completion of this programme.

I must not wrap up my acknowledgements without a mention of my brothers; Hon.

Zechariah B. Yurma and Emmanuel P. Diah, for their advice and supports in diverse ways.
May God bless you the more in your endeavours. To my nucleus family members (Mrs.)
Vesty, Zipporah, Wilberforce and Glad; I thank you for the patience you all took while I was
away for this education programme. The counsel and assistance of my friends and colleagues
in academics such as Worship Atswenbuma, Ann Ogbonnaya, Idiwere Danfulani, Jugah
Ananias, Igboanusi Ngozi Roseline, Dauda Tawal Sale,Orji T. Chibueze; among others, are
accorded the utmost gratitude.

v
 vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title page i
Approval page ii
Certification iii
Dedication iv
Acknowledgements v
Table of Contents vi
List of Tables vii
Abstract viii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study 1
Statement of the Problem 5
Purpose of the Study 6
Significance of the Study 7
Research Questions 8
Hypotheses 8
Scope of the Study 9

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATEDLITERATURE

Conceptual Framework 10
Local Producers 10
Agricultural products 10
Distribution of Agricultural Products 12
Channels of Distribution of Agricultural Products 17
Constraints to Distribution of Agricultural Products 18
Infrastructural Constraints 22
Warehousing Constraints 25
Channels of Distribution Constraints 27
Government Policy Constraints 28
Schema of the Conceptual Framework 32
Theoretical Framework 33
Theory of Production 33
Theory of Constraints 33
Related Empirical Studies 34
Summary of Literature Reviewed 37

vi
 vii

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Design of the Study 39
Area of the Study 39
Population for the Study 40
Sample and Sampling Technique 40
Instrument for Data Collection 40
Validation of the Instrument 41
Reliability of the Instrument 41
Method of Data Collection 41
Method of Data Analysis 41

CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

Research Question 1 43
Hypothesis 1 44
Research Question 2 46
Hypothesis 2 48
Research Question 3 50
Hypothesis 3 52
Research Question 4 54
Hypothesis 4 55
Research Question 5 56
Hypothesis 5 58
Findings of the Study 59
Discussions of the Findings 62

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Re-statement of the Problem 67
Summary of Procedures Used 68
Principal Findings of the Study 69
Implications of the Findings 71
Conclusions 72
Recommendations 72
Suggestions for Further Studies 73
vii
 viii

REFERENCES 74
APPENDICES 79
Appendix A: Introductory letter and Questionnaire to the Respondents. 79
Appendix B: The Reliability Co-efficient of the Instrument. 85
Appendix C: Interpretation of Yaro Yamane’s formula for calculation of
Sample size. 86
Appendix D: Interpretation of the formula for calculation of Mean and
Standard Deviation. 87
Appendix E: Interpretation of the formula for calculation of t-test. 97
Appendix F: Interpretation of the formula for calculation of Analysis
of Variance (ANOVA). 108

viii
 ix

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

Table 1: Mean Ratings with Standard Deviation of Reponses of local

producers on Infrastructural Constraints to the Distribution of
Agricultural products. 45

Table 2: Analysis of the Responses of Male and Female local Agricultural

Producers on the Infrastructural Constraints to the Distribution
of agricultural products. 47

Table 3: Mean Ratings with Standard Deviation of Responses of local

producers on Warehousing Constraints experienced by
Agricultural producers in the Distribution of products. 49

Table 4: Analysis of the Responses of local Agricultural producers of

Tea and Tomatoes on the Warehousing Constraints to the
Distribution of Agricultural products. 51

Table 5: Mean Ratings with Standard Deviation ofResponses of local

producers on Channels of Distribution Constraints experienced
by Agricultural producers in the Distribution of products. 53

Table 6: Analysis of the Responses of Local Agricultural producers of Tea,

Tomatoes and Dairy on the Channels of Distribution Constraints
to the Distribution of agricultural products. 54

Table 7: Mean Ratings with Standard Deviation of Responses of Local

Producers on Government’s Policies Constraints by Agricultural
producers in the Distribution of products. 56

Table 8: Analysis of the Responses of Local Agricultural Producers of Dairy

and Tomatoes on the Government’s Policies Constraints to the
Distribution of Agricultural products. 57

Table 9: Mean Ratings with Standard Deviation ofResponses of Local

Producers on the Strategies for Improving the Distribution of
Agricultural Products. 59

Table 10: Analysis of the Responses of Local Agricultural Producers of Dairy

and Tomatoes on the Strategies for Improving the Distribution of
Agricultural Products. 60

ix
 x

ABSTRACT
This study was embarked upon for the purposes of finding out constraints to the distribution
of agricultural products by local producers in Taraba State, and to identify strategies for
improving the distribution of agricultural products. In carrying out the study, five research
questions were developed and five null hypotheses were formulated. Questionnaire was the
only instrument used for data collection. Local producers of tea, tomatoes and dairy products
in the Central Zone of Taraba State were identified as the population for the study. Two-
hundred and thirty farmers of tea, tomatoes and dairy products drawn from the five local
government areas of the Zone by means of simple randomization, made up the sample for this
study. The data collected were analyzed using mean to answer research questions, standard
deviation to determine the closeness or otherwise of the responses from the mean, t-test and
analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistics to test the null hypotheses. The results of the data
collected and analyzed showed that: (1) That the present means of transportation of products
such as bicycles, motorcycles, donkeys, etc. encourage incidence of damage/theft of products.
(2) that poor conditions of roads during rainy season limit distribution of agricultural
products through the season. (3) absence of warehouse/storage facilities prevents efficient
distribution of agricultural products. (4) different agricultural products require different
storage facilities. (5) that use of middlemen compound distribution of agricultural products
by causing delay and rise in prices of products. (6)that excessive excise duties on agricultural
products by government hampers distribution of products. (7) that the scrapping of some
agricultural organizations by the government limits distribution of products. (8) that excise-
free should be granted for distribution of some agricultural products by the government. (9)
government should encourage the creation of farmers’ Associations for producers of different
types of products. Based on the findings of this study, a conclusion was drawn that if the
constraints considered by local farmers and strategies for improving distribution utilized;
distribution of agricultural products will greatly be efficient. Among the recommendations
that were adduced include: (1) need for infrastructural development advocacy and revival of
rail system of transportation. (2) communities should embark on communal road-
maintenance, at least twice during rainy season. (3) government should minimize the number
and functions of revenue deriving agencies on distribution of some agricultural products. (4)
government should construct public warehouses in every local government head-quarters so
as to help store goods after harvest while waiting for distribution.

x
 1

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
Agricultural products encompass all categories of products related to agriculture.
They range from raw and finished goods under the classifications of plants, animals and other
life forms. Agricultural products can, therefore be referred to as crops and animals grown
under cultivated conditions whether used for personal consumption, subsistence or sold for
commercial benefits (Calestous, 2011).Agricultural products come in the form of fruits and
vegetables, grains or cereals, livestock, natural fibres, forest and marine products (Adirika,
2001). Some agricultural products produced in Taraba state include: sugarcane, rice,
groundnuts, beans, oil palms, cocoa, coffee, cattle, millet, maize, guinea corn, cotton,
tomatoes, cowpea ,cocoyam, sweet potatoes, tea, timber, banana, yam, beniseed, coconut,
cassava, citrus fruits, oranges, guavas, sheep, goats, pigs, apples, and grapes (Taraba State
Ministry of Information, Culture and Tourism, 2012).Being agrarian in nature, the
predominant population of Taraba state is engaged in farming as an occupation. About
seventy-five percent (75%) of the population of the people are farmers or local producers
while an estimated twenty-five percent (25%) is engaged in other economic activities. John
(2002) stated that local producers are unsophisticated farmers in rural communities who are
engaged in agricultural production which include raising of livestock, cultivation of crops and
vegetables to eat and to sell at a local markets. Local producers therefore, are farmers
(comprising of both male and female farmers) who own, work on or operate an agricultural
enterprise either for commercial purpose or self-sustenance. Farmers in Taraba State usually
move their products to local markets in small quantities by carrying them either on their
heads or backs. A few others use either donkeys or bicycles to convey their goods to market
places, due to the fact that vehicles do not reach their locations or farm centers. Equally,
farmers make use of short channel structure, which is selling goods directly to the consumers
without involving wholesalers and agents in the distribution process. The use of short channel
of distribution is often done because farmers will want to dispose of their products
immediately after harvest even when the prices are low, for fear that the products, especially
perishable ones, might get spoilt soon as they cannot be stored because of lack of storage
facilities, hence restricting the distribution of their products.
The words “distribution” and “place” are synonymous in marketing, and is one of the
components of marketing mix. In the view of Kotler, Keller& Burton (2009), distribution is
the handling, movement, and storage of goods from the points of origin or production to the

1
 2

point of consumption, via various channels. It is a marketing function aimed at getting goods
and services from the producer to the ultimate consumer, transferring ownership and
physically moving the goods to place of need. Distribution is an important marketing
function, not only in the post-production marketing situation, but also in the pre-production
situation by bringing about time and place utilities; aiding demand creation and satisfaction.
The physical distribution of goods from producer to users requires the integration of sub-
systems such as fixed infrastructural facilities, warehousing, inventory, and logistics supports.
A good distribution system brings a reduction in handling cost, a reduction in the incidence of
product damage especially through physical spoilage and deterioration, a reduction in the
incidence of loss through theft, and leads to considerable savings in transport cost. Through
distribution, products are made available throughout the market place; such that a large
number of people can buy them (Braton, 1998). Distribution involves a good transport system
to take the goods into different geographical areas; a good tracking system so that the right
goods reach at the right time and in the right quantity; a good packing, which takes the wear
and tear of transport, tracking the places where the goods can be placed such that there is a
maximum opportunity for sales; and a good distribution channel.
Channels of distribution (also known as trade channels), as defined by Nicholson
(2007), are the paths or route along which goods or products move from producer or
manufacturer to ultimate consumers or industrial users. In other words, they are distribution
networks through which farmers or local producers put their products in the market and pass
them to the actual users. Channels of distribution normally serve as a bridge or link between
the gap in time and space where goods are produced to the period of consumption of the
products. Henderson (2008) suggested that Channels of distribution make it possible for
products to be moved from the producer to the ultimate consumer. The author further stated
that there are usually five channel alternatives for marketing of goods, namely: producer to
consumer, producer to retailer to consumer, producer to wholesaler to retailer or consumer,
producer to agent/broker to wholesaler to retailer to consumer and producer to agent/broker
to retailer to consumer. Adirika, Ebue and Nnolim (2001) stated that where middlemen are
not available for one reason or the other, direct selling and therefore, short channel structure
is forced on the producer. The unavailability of middlemen may arise as a result of a
prohibitive cost of using them or as a result of their inability to offer the services required by
the producer or unacceptability of the producer’s channel policy and terms or by government
action.
 3

According to Ross (2004) there are basically two types of channel used for the
distribution of goods; marketing channel for industrial good as well as that for consumer
goods. Both types of channels directly and indirectly make goods available to end-users.
While all goods and services pass through the marketing channels of distribution, the
perishability of farm produce sometimes compel farmers to make use of direct distribution
channels. Also, since majority of farmers reside in rural areas and are separated from their
customers they on the other side make use of the indirect marketing channels. There are
special characteristics of most farm produce that require unique commercial distribution such
as seasonality, bulkiness, perishability and scattered production among others. Therefore, the
agricultural produce distribution channel could take any of the following forms: Direct
channel: From the producers (farmers) to the consumers, and no intermediaries at all. This is
common with fruits and vegetables, and fresh livestock products which are highly
perishable. Short channel: The products are moved from the producer through an
intermediary before getting to the consumer. This is favoured by products like Yam, Cassava,
and Potato which have long shelve life. Long channel: Many intermediaries are involved in
the movement of the commodities. This type of channel is common with products that can be
stored for longer period such as grains, yam flour, maize flour, hide and skin, cotton and
live animals. Coyle (2003) explained that channels of distribution serve to bridge the gap
between the point of production and the point of consumption; thereby creating time, place
and possession utilities. It involves the management of such elements as order processing,
finished goods management, material handling and packaging, transportation, storage and
warehousing.
Warehousing is the use of scientific storage structures, especially constructed for the
protection of the quantity and quality of stored products (Kent& Jonathan, 2000). It helps in
stabilizing price of agricultural products by checking the tendency of making post-harvest
sales among farmers. Moses (2000) stated that warehousing is helpful in storing goods after
the demand is less than the supply, thereby regulating supply of goods and also stabilizing
prices. It enables businessmen and producers to curtail various risks like loss, fire, theft, and
damage of goods. Storage is another important marketing function, which involves holding
and preserving goods from the time they are produced until they are needed for consumption.
Storage of goods from the time of production to the time of consumption ensures a
continuous flow of goods in the market, protects the quality of perishable and semi-perishable
products from deterioration, and helps in coping with products that have seasonal
demand(Paul&Kelvin,2010).In order to achieve cost-effective marketing, minimize post-
 4

harvest losses and to reduce health risks that may occur at all stages between the farm level
and the final level of consumption, storage facilities and infrastructures are very essential.
Infrastructural facilities play a significant role in Africa’s economic development, and
will need to play an even greater role if the continent’s development targets are to be reached
(World Bank, 2006). The World Bank further stated that in most African countries,
particularly the developing countries, infrastructure is a major constraint to doing business,
and is found to depress productivity by around forty percent. Infrastructural deficit is to be
found in the power and transport sectors. The infrastructural deficit in power sector could be
measured in terms of shortage of generation capacity, electricity consumption, or lack of
security of supply of power in those countries. In the transport sector, Africa’s road density is
sparse when viewed against the vastness of the continent, and as a result, only one-third of
Africans living in rural areas are within two kilometers of an all-season road, compared with
two-thirds of the population in other developing regions. According to Teruel and Kuroda
(2005) the basic agricultural infrastructure (electricity, telecommunications, irrigation and
transportation) directly impacts on productivity by providing farmers and rural households
with feasible options for production, processing, marketing and distribution. Transportation is
one of the factors of production in an economic process (David & Jaclyn, 2013). Readily
available, low-cost transportation makes it possible to bring raw materials from the mines,
fields, and forests to the factory to be transformed into desired products. Likewise,
dependable transportation makes it possible for the factories to supply finished products to
their customers where and when they are needed and in the form and quantities desired.
Without an efficient, well-managed transport system, the growth and development of an
economy and/ or region is adversely affected.
The authors further noted that because of special characteristics of agricultural
products such as perishability, seasonality, bulkiness; it is uniquely dependent on a
dependable and flexible transportation system, and that a dependable transport system
enables farmers to sell surpluses at affordable cost to the market place and fulfills three of the
“rights” of supply which are: getting the goods to the market at the right time, in the right
condition, and in a cost- effective manner. Goods will arrive as scheduled, at the right price,
in maximized loads with no breakages or pilferage. A good transport system complements an
efficient distribution system, which may be from points of production, storage or pre-
positioning to points of use, or from hubs to end- use, or from distribution points to end-use,
or return from end-use back to hub and pre-positioning points or producers; on the other
hand, a bad transport system constitutes a distribution constraint.
 5

Constraint, as described by Collins (2003),is anything that limits or controls what a

person wants to do. It is an element, a factor, or sub-system that works as a bottleneck.
Constraint restricts an entity, project, or system (such as manufacturing or decision making
process) from achieving its goal. Constraint to the distribution process refers to something
that imposes a limit or restriction or that prevents the movement of goods to other places of
need from occurring or occurring smoothly. These constraints may vary among products and
also among local producers from one State or location to another, which is applicable to
agricultural producers in Taraba State that are faced with distribution constraints for their
products; which are in the forms of poor road networks for transportations, absence or poor
electricity supply, absence or inadequate warehousing and storage facilities, inadequate farm
inputs and high cost of distribution occasioned by unfavourable government policies on
agriculture.
Agricultural Policies are the instruments of action that governments employ to effect a
change within the agricultural sector. Handcock (2012) stated that government’s agricultural
policy is a set of decisions and actions relating to domestic agriculture and imports of foreign
agricultural products. Governments usually implement agricultural policies with the goal of
achieving a specific outcome in the domestic agricultural markets; some of which includes
risk management and adjustment (including policies related to climate change, food safety
and natural disasters), economic stability (including policies related to taxes), natural
resources, and environmental sustainability (especially water supply policy),research and
development; and market access for domestic commodities (including relations with global
organizations and agreements with other countries). Hancock further explained that Policy
programmes can range from financial programmes, in the forms of taxation, subsidies, tariffs
and other measures, sometimes meant to encourage producers to enroll in voluntary quality
assurance programmes. Government policy, as described by Richard (2002), may have a
direct or indirect effect on the prevalent agricultural system through increasing productivity
and ensuring regular food supply in the country, improving farmers’ standards of living,
stabilizing market prices at a level beneficial to farmers and reasonable for consumers
through the instrument of price support policies. Some of these policies have bearing on
distribution of agricultural products.

Statement of the Problem

With the advent of new farming technologies such as machinery and farm inputs, self-
sufficiency is almost being achieved in agriculture (John, Oral, Parr & Richard, 2010). What
 6

is now needed is the efficient distribution and marketing of the products to the places that
require them for consumption and other uses.
Greater thrust is laid on the problems of marketing. If the marketing facilities are developed;
it gives signals to increase production and thereby ensures the availability of agricultural
goods and services both locally and internationally. To distribute the surplus agricultural
products, the marketing facilities have to be strengthened through provision and upgrading,
right from the center of production to place of market.
Despite the agrarian nature of Taraba state, with about seventy-five percent (75%) of
the population engaged in farming various forms of agricultural products such as rice,
groundnuts, beans, cocoa, coffee, cattle, millet, cotton, tea, timber, bananas, yams, cassava,
tomatoes, maize, sheep and goats, among others, (Taraba state Ministry of Information,
Culture, & Tourism, 2012), the distribution systems have been observed to be very inefficient
and ineffective; products are damaged either in the field or on transit, high cost of goods,
delay in goods reaching places of use or markets, or some goods not spread at all throughout
the state and even beyond. The absence of good infrastructure causes significant loss of
earnings on the local producers and deprives them of capital for reinvestment and acquisition
of machines for project expansion. Infrastructural deficiencies create high scarcity and cost of
agricultural products borne by end-users in needed places of the state.
Constraints arising from warehousing lead to inability of local producers to store
goods in order to meet demand during off-production seasons (Ashok & Balasubramanian,
2006). Lack of warehousing and storage facilities compel local producers to sell their
products at give –away price during harvesting period and even when demand is low as a
way of avoiding waste or spoilage, especially perishable goods; this causes decline in their
income and standards of living; hence the need for this study, constraints to distribution of
agricultural products by local producers in Taraba State and to identify the strategies for
improving the distribution of agricultural products.

Purpose of the Study

The major purpose of this study was to ascertain the constraints to the distribution of
agricultural products by local producers in Taraba State. Specifically, the study sought to:
1) determine the infrastructural constraints (land transportation) to the distribution of
agricultural products by producers.
2) determine the warehousing constraints to the distribution of agricultural products by
producers.
 7

3) determine the channel of distribution constraints to the distribution of agricultural

products.
4) determine the constraints posed by government policies on the distribution of
agricultural products.
5) Identify the strategies for improving the distribution of agricultural products in Taraba
State.

Significance of the Study

The findings of this study will be of immense benefit to local producers of agricultural
products, consumers/industrialists, government agencies, and researchers.
Agricultural producers who constitute the bulk of the population of Taraba state and
by extension, the country, will benefit from the results of this study. The results of this study
will make the general public aware of the constraints to distribution faced by farmers.
Through this study, farmers will understand the effects of channels of distribution and need
for adopting good channels of distribution of different types of products produced. This study
will still be of great benefit to agricultural producers as the findings on the constraints if
solved, will help reduce costs of production and distribution incurred by them, thus raising
their propensity to save and standards of living. All these shall be made known to the local
producers through organization of workshops and seminars by the researcher for them to
learn.
Equally, consumers/industrialists who are the ultimate users of agricultural products
will have value in this study as it will expose them to the various challenges producers face in
getting products available to them, and the reasons responsible for high prices of the goods
they pay. This study will also enable consumers and industrialists understand the link
between government policies on agriculture and distribution of quantitative and qualitative
goods they consume, thereby channeling complaints to Consumers Protection Council for
redress, thus enabling them buy better goods in the desired quantity and at affordable prices.
Government agencies (especially, Federal and States ministries of agriculture) will
also find the findings of this study significant because it will uncover the different constraints
farmers encounter in the distribution of the products, which is the last stage of the production
process, which may include the effects of the policies made on agriculture. This will then
enable the government to formulate favourable policies on agriculture in order to ensure
availability of agricultural products all over the country.
 8

Finally, future researchers will find this study useful and as a premise for further
studies either through replication or as a source of literature to future studies. The findings of
this study when published, will be displayed in public libraries for all people including
government officials to read and extract relevant information, for decision making

Research Questions
The following four research questions were developed to guide this study:
1) What are the infrastructural constraints to the distribution of agricultural products?
2) What are the warehousing constraints experienced by agricultural producers in the
distribution of products?
3) What are the channels of distribution constraints to the distribution of agricultural
products?
4) What are the government’s policies constraints to the distribution of agriculture
products?
5) What are the strategies for improving the distribution of agricultural products?

Hypotheses
The following null hypotheses formulated to guide the study will be tested at 0.05
level of significance.
Ho1: There is no significant difference in the mean responses of male and female
agricultural producers on the infrastructural constraints to the distribution of
agricultural products in Taraba State.
Ho2: There is no significant difference in the mean responses of agricultural producers of tea
and tomatoes on the warehousing constraints to the distribution of products in Taraba
State.
Ho3: There is no significant difference in the mean responses of producers of tea, tomatoes
and dairy products on the channels of distribution constraints to the distribution of
agricultural products in Taraba State.
Ho4: There is no significant difference in the mean responses of producers of dairy and
tomatoes products on the warehousing constrains to the distribution of agricultural
products in Taraba State.
Ho5: There is no significant difference in the mean responses of producers of dairy and
tomatoes products on the government’s policies constraints to the distribution of
agricultural products.
 9

Scope of the Study

This study was delimited to constraints to the distribution of agricultural products by
local producers in Taraba state. The agricultural products covered in this study are tomatoes,
dairy and tea products. The study was focused on local producers of the agricultural products
in the Central Senatorial zone of the State, which is composed of five Local Government
Areas, namely: Bali, Sardauna, Gassol, Kurmi and Gashaka.
 10

CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter was concerned with the review of related literature to the study. The
review was organized under the following sub-headings:
Conceptual Framework
• Local producers
• Agricultural products
• Distribution of agricultural products
• Channels of Distribution of Agricultural products
• Constraints to Distribution of Agricultural products:
Infrastructural constraints
Warehousing and storage constraints
Channels of distribution constraints
Government policy constraints
Theoretical Framework
• Theory of production
• Theory of constraints
Related Empirical Studies
Summary of Literature Reviewed

Conceptual Framework
Local producers
Local producers according to John (2002) are unsophisticated farmers in rural
communities who are engaged in agricultural production which include raising of livestock,
cultivation of crops and vegetables to eat and to sell at a local market. Onyebinama and
Onyebinama (2010) stated that in physical terms, the environment of local producers of
agricultural products in Nigeria vis-à-vis Taraba state, is largely rural which is characterized
by lack of functional modern infrastructure such as pipe borne water, electricity, all season
roads, communication services, hospitals, storage and preservation facilities, markets, etc.

Agricultural products
Agricultural products have been variously defined by several authors in so many
ways. They may be referred to as any agricultural commodity or product, whether raw or
processed, including any commodity or product derived from livestock that is marketed for

10
 11

human or livestock consumption (Dyer, 2007). Agricultural products in the view of Colestous
(2011) refer to all products raised or produced on farms and processed or manufactured to be
transported in interstate and/or foreign commerce. Agricultural products are, therefore, crops
and animals grown under cultivated conditions whether used for personal consumption,
subsistence or sold for commercial benefits.
Agricultural products in Nigeria fall into two main groups: food crops produced for
home consumption and exports (Omolola, 2007). According to Jordan (2012), the major
agricultural products can be broadly grouped into foods, fibers, fuels and raw materials.
Specific food crops include: cereals (grains), vegetables, fruits, oils, meats and spices. Fiber
crops include: cotton, wool, hemp, silk and flax. Raw materials include lumber and bamboo.
Other useful agricultural products are produced by plants, such as resins, dyes, drugs,
perfumes, biofuels and ornamental products such as cut flowers and plants. According to the
author, farm products might be sold either to a market, in a farmers’ market, or directly from
a farm. The author also stated that in a subsistence economy, farm products might to some
extent be either consumed by the farmer's family or pooled by the community. Agricultural
products are the life force, the very source of survival for the man kind. It is not only that
man breathes with the support of food but a major chunk of the world population is also
dependent on agriculture as their source of survival.
Agricultural products are of different nature than industrial products (Cheng, 2002).
So the features of products can be divided in three major types on the basis of production,
marketing and consumption. The production related features includes seasonal and scattered
productions. Most of the agricultural goods are produced only in certain season. The food
crops such as maize, paddy (unprocessed rice), wheat etc. and cash crops such as sugarcane,
tobacco, jute and vegetables, potato and fruits are produced in certain suitable seasons. But
some products such as fish, dairy products, eggs etc. can be produced in all seasons.
Everything cannot be produced in all seasons. So, seasonal products affect agricultural
market. Except some limited goods, most of the agricultural goods are produced in all parts
of the country by farmers who live scattered in different parts of the country; hence
middlemen collect agricultural products and supply to the major markets found around the
states of the country.
Cheng (2002) further stated that major marketing-related features of agricultural goods
include perishable products, bulky products, quantity and quality variation. Most of
agricultural products are of perishable nature, but all are not equally perishable within same
duration of time. Some perish within shorter time and some others remain usable for little
 12

longer. Fish, milk, meat, fruits, vegetables, etc. remain fresh only for shorter time, so they are
quick perishables. Such products should be supplied to the market as quickly as possible,
which requires special cold storage to keep such goods safe and fresh.
Most of the agricultural products are weighty and bulky; so, transport and storage cost rises
higher than the value of these products. Quality and quantity of agricultural products become
different according to the productivity of land, season and climate. The quality of seeds, use
of fertilizers etc. also causes difference in quality. Cheng (2002) concluded that the
consumption-related features of agricultural goods include continuous consumption, inelastic
consumption and price fluctuation.
Agricultural products are very important to meet daily needs of people; therefore, it is
necessary to have regular supply of agricultural products such as food grains, fish, meat,
milk, fruits etc to satisfy daily demand. The demand for agricultural products remains
relatively less elastic, which does not decrease or increase due to rise or fall of prices.

Distribution of agricultural products

Distribution, according to Achison (2000), is the process of getting products and
services from producers to consumers or users, when and where they are needed. It provides
time, place, and possession utilities. Schewe and Smith (1990) asserted that distribution is the
physical movement of products to the ultimate consumers. They went further by stating that
production is not complete till goods get to the final consumers, and goods are worthless until
they are made available to those who need them. Physical distribution is the set of activities
concerned with efficient movement of finished goods from the end of the production
operation to the consumer. Physical distribution takes place within numerous wholesaling and
retailing distribution channels, and includes such important decision areas as customer
service, inventory control, materials handling, protective packaging, order procession,
transportation, warehouse site selection, and warehousing. Physical distribution is part of a
larger process called "distribution," which includes wholesale and retail marketing, as well as
the physical movement of products. It is in the channel of distribution that the marketer
encounters risk and dangers. Etonyeaku (2012) contributed by explaining that risk is used to
describe any uncertain situation that may occur, or a situation whose outcome is not certain.
The author further stated that risk is the chance of loss or the possibility of a financial loss
occurring as a result of the happening of an event. Therefore, risk in agricultural marketing
involves transaction cost both apparent and hidden; such as destruction, negligence, non-
 13

payment, loss of transit, etc. Thus, a careful choice and evaluation of the channel partner is a
necessity to preventing or reducing risks.
In the views of Kotler and Armstrong (2008), distribution is the process of planning,
implementing and controlling the physical flow of materials, final goods and related
information from points of origin to points of consumption to meet customer requirements at
a profit. To them, physical distribution is the group of activities associated with the supply of
finished product from the production line to the consumers. The authors argued further that
physical distribution considers many sales distribution channels such as wholesale and retail,
and includes critical decision areas such as customer service, inventory, materials, packaging,
order processing, and transportation and logistics. Accounting for nearly half of the entire
marketing budget of products, the physical distribution process typically garnishes a lot of
attention from business managers and owners. As a result, these activities are often the focus
of process improvement and cost saving initiatives in many companies. Osuala (1998) added
that efficient physical distribution makes it possible for geographical regions to specialize in
producing products that best fit the natural resources, climatic conditions and other local
characteristics of the region. The author contended that the major objectives of physical
distribution system is to move products to other channel members and to consumers in the
most efficient way possible that is consistent with the level of service that customers require.
In this own sense, efficiency and satisfactory service are key goals of physical distribution,
but they may conflict with each other; for instance, it may be more efficient in terms of cost
to ship products by rail, however, in terms of service the customer may demand extra fast
delivery which may warrant the use of air freight. Therefore, marketing managers must make
frequent trade-offs between efficiency and service to achieve the best end result such as
profitable sales and a satisfied customer. Kotler and Gary (2008) concluded that cost –
effective management of physical distribution provides many opportunities for cost
reduction; which includes determining the optimum number and location of warehouse,
improving materials handling to speed movement of products inside warehouses, increasing
stock turnover through better inventory management, and using sealed containers to ship
products (which can reduce costs and still meet customer requirements).
Schewe and Smith (1990) insisted that the importance of physical distribution to a
company can vary, and is typically associated with the type of product and the necessity it
has to customer satisfaction. The authors affirmed that strategically staging products in
locations to support order shipments and generating a rapid and consistent manner to move
the product enables companies to be successful in dynamic markets. Therefore, physical
 14

distribution is managed with a systems approach and considers key interrelated functions
such as customer service, inventory, materials, packaging, order processing, and
transportation and logistics to provide efficient movement of products. These functions are
interrelated because any time a decision is made in one area it has an effect on the others.
Schewe and Smith (1990) argued that managing physical distribution from a systems
approach can provide benefit in controlling costs and meeting customer service demands. The
key functions within the physical distribution system are customer service, order processing,
inventory control, transportation and logistics, and packaging and materials.
Kotler and Gary (2008) added that customer service function is a strategically
designed standard for consumer satisfaction which the business intends to provide its
customers; this could be in form of quick delivery of goods to the customer within short
period of order. Kotler and Gary maintained that order processing is designed to take the
customer orders and execute the specifics the customer has purchased. In the authors’ own
opinions, the business is concerned with this function because it directly relates to how the
customer is serviced and attaining the customer service goals. If the order processing system
is efficient, then the business can avoid other costs in other functions, such as transportation
or inventory control. Jim (2008) contributed that inventory Control is a major role player in
the distribution system of a business. The author stated that costs consider investment into
current inventory, loss of demand for products, and depreciation. The author further
mentioned that there have been inventory control systems implemented such as first- in-first-
out (FIFO) and flow through, which are methods for businesses to handle products. First- in-
first- out, or FIFO, is a method in which the new products coming into the warehouse replace
existing products of the same Stock Keeping Unit (SKU- an identifier of inventory item) so
that merchandise is cycled and does not expire or become old as more recent production is
available.
Osuala (1998) continued by stating that inventory is a supply of raw materials, work-
in-progress, or finished goods being held for further processing or sale. The author listed the
essentials of inventory which are for the purposes of: balancing seasonal production and year-
round consumption for many products, particularly agricultural goods such as grains and
fruits, which are produced seasonally but consumed all year long; balancing year-round
production and seasonal consumption for some products such as hoes, whose demand is
seasonal; due to age or season of the product, especially products that require time to reach a
peak of flavor, ripeness or taste such as banana, tobacco, coffee, brewed and distilled
beverages and some meat products which may be stored for weeks, months or even years
 15

before they are ready to be consumed. The author equally mentioned another essential use of
inventory, which is to meet normal demand by having products available when consumers
want them. Osuala (1998) concluded by stating that inventory helps in taking advantage of
special purchase opportunities, which is done by buying a large quantity of goods at a
favourable price.
Transportation and logistics costs are a large component of the marketing budget for a
product. The system is what moves the products from the production line to the end
consumer; which involves transportation over the land, sea, and air; and the storage and
processing of goods through warehouses and distribution centers. For Central Bank of
Nigeria (CBN, 2003) the poor state of transport system in Nigeria impacts negatively on cost
of production and represents, a major trigger of cost push inflation in the country. Adirika,
Ebue and Nnolim (2011) explained that logistics support aspects are activities involving
packaging and grouping of materials in such a way as to achieve economies of movement and
storage. The authors added that putting freight on pallets or using bubble wrap or paper to
hold the products in place are common approaches to securing the value of the goods and are
also logistical functions of transportation. The authors also viewed materials handling as the
capacity of moving products into storage areas and then moving them out as orders are filled,
and held that the objectives are to have the right assortment and quantity of products in
storage; to fill orders quickly, accurately and efficiently using as little labour as possible; to
minimize theft and minimize damage to products.

Physical distribution
system

Customer Orders Inventory Warehousing Transportation Material

service processing control handling

Fig.1: Elements of physical distribution

Source: Kotler and Armstrong (2008)
 16

According to Aparajita (2010), agricultural marketing or distribution covers the

services involved in moving an agricultural product from the farm to the consumer. The
author opined that numerous interconnected activities are involved in doing this, such as
planning production, growing and harvesting, grading, packing, transport, storage and food
processing, distribution, advertising and sale. Aparajita (2010) further stated that marketing
systems are dynamic; they are competitive and involve continuous change and improvement.
the also emphasized that businesses that are dynamic have lower costs, are more efficient,
and can deliver quality products, and are those that prosper; while those that have high costs
fail to adapt to changes in market demand and provide poorer qualities and are often forced
out of business. Therefore, marketing has to be customer-oriented and has to provide the
farmer, transporter, trader, processor, etc. with a profit. This requires those involved in
marketing chains (intermediaries) to understand buyer requirements, both in terms of product
and business conditions.
Olsztynski (2005) stated that goods produced in factories and/or commodities
produced in agriculture must reach consumers; the systems by means of which goods reach
the consumer are known as distribution channels. In the author’s own explanation,
distribution channels are organizations that facilitate the sale and movement of products, and
that the totality of all distribution channels forms a distribution network. The author again,
added that distribution is a very complex system but can be conceptually divided into four
major categories, namely: market makers, sellers, transporters, and hybrids with distinct
participants. The author further explained that market makers are organizations that provide
either a real or virtual place where goods may be bought and sold. Classical examples are the
farmer's market, considered as the entity that actually rents space to farmers for their stalls, a
stock market that controls who may or may not trade by selling seats on its exchange, a
shopping mall that makes its money by leasing space to stores at the mall, and a franchiser
who, in effect, sells a method, a name, and an image. The author asserted that markets need
not be "places." Therefore catalog publishers and web-based sellers are also "market makers."
According to author, the distribution function fulfilled by market makers is the aggregation in
a real or virtual place of diverse and competing sellers. Thus market makers provide a
convenience to the customer who likes to compare many competing products with the least
amount of trouble.
Olsztynski (2005) continued by stating that selling organizations either purchase or
own the goods they sell or they fulfill a selling function without ownership. If they are in the
 17

first category, they will be called distributors, wholesalers, jobbers, retailers, or dealers. If
sellers are in the second category, they will be called brokers, traders, rep organizations, and
agents. The distinction between these categories is all important from the producer's point of
view. "Purchasing and owning" sellers are the most desirable because they take possession
and cannot return the merchandise. Sales agents just represent; they take no ownership risk.
The author further stated that central to every distribution system, but usually least talked
about, is the community of organizations that physically store and move the goods. These
elements may be owned by sellers or producers; most often they are independently owned.

Channels of distribution of agricultural products

Levine (2000) stated that members of channels of distribution typically buy, sell, and
transfer titles to goods. There are, however, many other flows between channel members in
addition to physical possession and ownership of goods. These include promotion flows,
negotiation flows, financing, assuming risk, ordering, and payments. The author also pointed
out that there are also a number of support functions that help channel members perform their
distribution tasks. Transportation, storage, insurance, financing, and advertising are tasks that
can be performed by facilitating agencies that may or may not be considered part of the
marketing channel. Levine (2000) concluded that improved performance of the overall
distribution system is achieved through managing such variables as channel structure and
channel flows.
Distribution channels as noted by Avittathur and Shah (2005) can be understood by
analyzing their constituents, structure, functions, and contributions. In their view, channels
consist of networks of different types of independent businesses which need to be aligned to
assist manufacturers in fulfilling and creating consumer demand for products and services.
The authors pointed out that channels consist of three categories of entities: agents,
merchants, and facilitators. Agents promote products and generate sales but do not
themselves buy and stock products. Agents can be independent or they may be employees of
the company. Merchants such as retailers, wholesalers, and distributors buy, stock, and sell
goods to others in the chain or to ultimate consumers. Merchants are usually independent but
some companies may have their own wholesale trading units or retail outlets. Facilitators
such as logistics service providers, independent warehouses, carrying and forwarding agents,
and transporters facilitate movement, storage, and delivery of products but are not involved in
promoting or trading. Avittathur and Shah (2005) ended by stating that distribution channels
 18

are configured by putting together agents, merchants, and facilitators in specific ways
depending on the market, product, and competitive context.

Constraints to Distribution of Agricultural products

Problems in agricultural marketing include large number of middlemen who intervene
between producers and consumers and cause the producers’ share of profit to reduce (John,
Oral, Parr & Richard, 2010).Another problem is poor handling and packaging which expose
the products to substantial physical damage and quality deterioration and that these losses do
not only cut down the supply of products reaching the consumers, but also raise the price of
the remaining products. Also, inadequate storage facilities, especially for perishable products
such as fruits, vegetables, milk, meat, fish, etc. which results in physical damage due to
infestation of pests, rodents and quality deterioration, discolouration and unpleasant odour
that make the products unfit for human consumption.
There are a number of critical functions performed by the channel distributor. Ross
(2004) described these functions as: product acquisition, which is the acquiring of products in
a finished or semi-finished state from either a manufacturer or through another distributor
that is higher up in the supply channel. The author further explained that these functions can
be performed by independent channel intermediaries or by the distribution facilities of
manufacturing companies. Equally, channel distributor performs the function of product
movement, which implies significant effort spent on product movement up or down the
supply channel. Another function noted by her was that channel distributor carry out product
transaction, they can be characterized as selling products in bulk quantities solely for the
purpose of resale or business use. This is a form of downstream businesses which then sell
these products to other distributors or retailers who will sell them directly to the end customer
or to manufacturers who will consume the material/components in their own production
processes. Most products are purchased from channel intermediaries whose main purpose is
to deliver product from the manufacturers to the end users. The purpose of a channel
intermediary is to move products to consumers, whether business or consumer. Some
intermediaries take title, or ownership, of the product from the producer. This means that they
can set the price and control the final method of sale. This would be an example of a retailer.
Solomon and Stuart (2003) added that a wholesaler acts as a middleman in the
channel of distribution as he buys goods in large quantity from the manufacturer and sells
these to retailers in small quantities. His roles in distribution of goods includes buying and
assembling, selling and dispersing, transportation, storage, packaging and grading,
 19

advertising and sales promotion, financing, and risk-taking. The authors explained that a
wholesaler forecasts the demand for goods and assembles different varieties of goods from
several manufacturers. Some wholesalers also import goods from foreign countries. A
wholesaler equally breaks the bulk so that retailers and users can buy them in small lots. A
wholesaler arranges transportation of goods from producers to his own warehouse and from
there to retailers. According to them, in performing the storage function, a wholesaler holds
large stocks and serves as a reservoir and supplies to retailers. He helps in stabilizing prices
by adjusting supply of goods to their demand. In the Packing and grading roles, a wholesaler
packs and repacks goods in convenient lots. He sorts out goods in different grades. He also
gives brand names to the products packed and graded by him. A wholesaler performs
advertising and sales promotion activities to increase the sale of products; he also takes the
services of experts for this purpose. Sometimes a wholesaler buys goods on cash basis from
manufacturers and sells them on credit to retailers. In this way, he provides financial help
both to the producers and retailers. If necessary, the wholesaler also provides financial help
by way of advance payment to producers. They concluded by stating that in risk-taking, a
wholesaler bears risks of changes in demand and prices, bad debts and damage to goods in
the course of transportation and storage, and that by undertaking various risks he simplifies
the process of distribution.
McGraw, (2009) contributed to the roles of channels of distribution by stating that a
retailer buys goods from wholesaler and sells them directly to consumers. Thus, he acts as a
direct link between the wholesaler and consumers. The author further observed that a
retailer’s role in distribution of goods includes wide choice of consumers, making of goods
available in small quantities and at convenient locations, home delivery of goods and
assurance of regular supply thereby creating place utility, credit facility, and close interaction
with customers. The author concluded by stating that the retailer anticipates needs
of consumers by maintaining close interaction with customers, hence, brings new products to
the notice of customers and educates them in their uses. A retailer thus, acts as a friend and
guide to his customers. Indeed his interaction with customers is of intimate personal nature
and thus he is able to provide feed- back to wholesalers and manufacturers about consumers'
preferences.
Daphne (2003) emphasized that intermediaries are very important players in the
market. Both consumers and producers gain immensely from roles of middlemen, who ensure
that there is a seamless flow of goods in the market by matching supply and demand.
According to the author, intermediaries provide feedback to the producers about the market,
 20

thus influencing the decisions made by the manufacturers. Buyers, on the other hand, gain
from services offered by intermediaries, such as promotion and delivery. Buyers can get the
right quantity they want, as intermediaries are able to sell in small units. The author however,
noted that regardless of the important roles they play, there are some disadvantages to having
intermediaries in the distribution channel, which includes price inflation as the goods are
exchanged from one intermediary to the other. Daphne (2003) explained that the rationale
behind such higher prices is to cover expenditures on the goods such as warehousing,
insurance and transportation costs. Another rationale behind price inflation noted by the
author was that intermediaries are also out to make profits; hence they have to include some
profit markup in the sales. The author concluded by stating that consumers then bear the price
of having intermediaries in the channel through the consumption of the products..
Gaedeke (2003) pointed out that important factors affecting the choice of channels of
distribution by the manufacturer are in these forms: Considerations Related to Product. The
author suggested thatwhen a manufacturer selects some channel of distribution he/she should
take care of such factors which are related to the quality and nature of the product; which
includes unit value of the product, standardized or customized product, perishability, and the
technical nature of the product. The author further stated that when a product is very costly, it
is best to use small distribution channel. On the other hand, for less costly products long
distribution channel is used. The author went further to state that standardized products are
those which are pre-determined and there is no scope for alteration, to sell this, long
distribution channel is used. On the other hand, customized products are those which are
made according to the discretion of the consumer and also there is a scope for alteration, for
example, furniture; for such products, face-to-face interaction between the manufacturer and
the consumer is essential. Under the Perishability considerations, Gaedeke (2003) opined that
a manufacturer should choose minimum or no middlemen as channel of distribution for such
an item or product which is of highly perishable nature. On the contrary, a long distribution
channel can be selected for durable goods. The author equally observed that if a product is of
a technical nature, then it is better to supply it directly to the consumer. This will help the
user to know the necessary technicalities of the product.
Considerations Related to Market includes number of buyers, types of buyers, buying habits,
buying quantity, and size of market. Here, Gaedeke (2003) postulated that if the number of
buyers is large, then it is better to take the services of middlemen for the distribution of the
goods. On the contrary, the distribution should be done by the manufacturer directly if the
number of buyers is less. The author further stated that buyers can be of two types: General
 21

Buyers and Industrial Buyers. If more buyers of the product belong to general category then
there can be more middlemen. But in case of industrial buyers, there can be fewer
middlemen. In considering the buying habits, according to him, a manufacturer should take
the services of middlemen if his financial position does not permit him to sell goods on credit
to those consumers who are in the habit of purchasing goods on credit. Under the buying
quantity, Gaedeke (2003) suggested that it is useful for the manufacturer or producer to rely
on the services of middlemen if the goods are bought in smaller quantity. When considering
the size of market, if the market area of the product is scattered fairly, then the producer must
take the help of middlemen.
Considerations Related to Manufacturer/Company includes goodwill, desire to control
the channel of distribution, and financial strength. The author stressed that a manufacturer’s
goodwill also affects the selection of channel of distribution. For instance, a manufacturer
enjoying good reputation needs not depend on the middlemen as he can open his own
branches or sell easily. Gaedeke (2003) maintained that a manufacturer’s ambition to control
the channel of distribution affects its selection; here, consumers should be approached
directly by such type of manufacturer. For example, electronic goods sector with a motive to
control the service levels provided to the customers at the point of sale are resorting to
company owned retail counters. According to him, a company that has a strong financial base
can evolve its own channels. On the other hand, financially weak companies would have to
depend upon middlemen.
Considerations related to the government also affect the selection of channel of distribution.
For example, only a license holder can sell medicines in the market according to the law of
the government. In this situation, the manufacturer of medicines should take care that the
distribution of his product takes place only through such middlemen who have the relevant
license.
The author ended by stating that there are also other considerations such as cost,
availability of the channel, and possibilities of sales. A manufacturer should select such a
channel of distribution which is less costly and also useful from other angles. The author
regrettably noted that sometimes some other channel of distribution is selected if the desired
one is not available. Under the possibilities of sales, a special consideration should be given
to such a channel which has a possibility of large sale.
In the view of Anyanwu (2000), one thing is to produce goods and quite another to
make the goods available to the ultimate consumers. The middlemen help in making the
goods available as at when needed and always. The author pointed out that in their bids to
 22

discharge their duties or functions, they encounter many problems such as the geographical or
spatial gap, the places information gap, and time separation. The geographical or spatial gap
is caused by the distance between the producers and consumers; this is from the places of
production to places of consumption. In the places information gap, the problem arises
because consumers do not automatically know about the existence of goods and the reason
why they should buy. Anyawu (2000) finally stated that the time separation problem occurs
because there are usually a time-lag between the production of goods and the consumption of
such goods. Under this time- lag, there is artificial scarcity.

Infrastructural constraints
Infrastructures, according to Hayes (2005), are the basic physical and organizational
structures needed for the operation of a society or an enterprise, or the services and facilities
necessary for an economy to function. It can be generally defined as the set of interconnected
structural elements that provide a framework supporting an entire structure of development. It
is an important term for judging a country or region's development. The term infrastructure
typically refers to the technical structures that support a society, such as roads, bridges, water
supply, sewers (underground pipe for drainage), electrical grids, telecommunications, and so
forth, and can be defined as the physical components of interrelated systems providing
commodities and services essential to enable, sustain, or enhance societal living conditions.
Viewed functionally, infrastructure facilitates the production of goods and services,
and also the distribution of finished products to markets, as well as basic social services such
as schools and hospitals; for example, roads enable the transport of materials to a factory
(Fulmer, 2009). Munnell (1992) explained that investments in infrastructure allow goods and
services to be transported more quickly and at lower costs, resulting in both lower prices for
consumers and increased profitability for firm.
Infrastructure refers to services drawn from the set of public works that traditionally
has been supported by the public sector, though in many cases, the infrastructure services
may be produced in the private sector. Water supply, sanitation, transportation, electricity,
telecommunications, irrigation dams, regulated markets and banks are some of the examples
of infrastructure that generate services. The agricultural infrastructure includes all of the basic
services, facilities, equipment, and institutions needed for the economic growth and efficient
functioning of the food and fiber markets. Infrastructure investment demands a strong
commitment to the research and cooperative extension system that enhances production,
marketing, food safety, nutrition, natural resource conservation, and all other functions of
 23

different agencies concerned with agricultural infrastructure (Felloni, 2001). The author
identified the following other benefits of agricultural infrastructures:
Infrastructure in the agricultural sector enhances the comparative advantages of that
region in which the infrastructural investment is made. When the region gains comparative
advantage in the agricultural activities, the net result is increase in the production and
productivity of various agricultural goods and services in general. Development of
agricultural infrastructure in a particular region not only enhances the agricultural production
and productivity but in many cases, leads to reduce the marginal cost of production. An
important benefit derived from the agricultural infrastructure is that it helps to increase the
level of value added in the region. Increased level of agricultural infrastructure in a particular
region would extend investment in allied sectors which can produce high value added
products. Provision of initial level of agricultural infrastructure or enhancement of the
existing one may lead to a different kind of cropping pattern from the existing one that would
generate some indirect positive benefits that may be called social benefits. These benefits are
enjoyed not only by the regional economic activities but also by activities beyond the
administrative and political boundaries of the region.
Felloni (2001) still postulated that certain types of agricultural infrastructures enhance
improvements in both producers as well as consumer surplus. Increase in the number of
regulated market committees, increased availability of banking operations in rural areas,
increased availability of transportation facilities, etc. prevent the middlemen and the money
lenders from appropriating a substantial amount of producer and consumer surplus.
Infrastructure results in form of loss of producer and consumer surplus caused by the
oscillation (swing) in the price of the agricultural commodities. When there is a supply
shortage and the demand for the commodity being constant, the producer/seller will charge a
price equivalent to the quasi-rent, thereby converting a considerable amount of consumer
surplus into profit; conversely, when there is an excess supply of the same commodity, the
market becomes a buyer’s market and the price paid by the consumers would be sub-optimal.
According to African Development Bank (ADB) (2010), there are three types of
agricultural infrastructure, which are road networks, irrigation technology and post-harvest
storage technology. These all have a direct impact in boosting agricultural productivity. Other
types of infrastructure (e.g. telecommunications and electricity supply) also play a major role
but their impact is more evenly dispersed across all sectors, less specifically targeting
agriculture.
 24

A well-maintained road network is crucial when infrastructural issues relating to

agricultural productivity and marketing are being considered. Roads link farmers not only
with their input markets but also with their product markets. Lack of efficient transportation
links and substandard roads decrease farmers’ margins by increasing the cost of inputs and
reducing their accessibility to their product market. The current state of Africa’s road
networks is in dire straits and a scaling-up of investment is badly needed to confront the
problem. Only about 30 percent of the region’s rural residents have access to all-season roads
(ADB, 2009). The African region continues to lag behind other parts of the world in the
quality of its road networks, which impacts not only on agriculture but all other sectors of the
regional economy. This acts as a constraint to conducting trade at all levels, both among
African countries and at the international level, since the premium it adds to transaction costs
renders African goods more expensive and less competitive in the global marketplace.
Another effect of the resulting high transportation is that it prevents price equalization
of traded agricultural commodities, which induces shortages in some regions and surpluses in
others that are separated by short distances. This issue can be easily demonstrated with the
case of rice and maize in Eastern Africa. Given that both commodities are tradable and fairly
homogeneous, there should be very a small price differential across cities within a given
country, if transportation costs were kept within reasonable limits. This is, however, not the
case. ADB continued by stating that high transportation costs stemming from poor road
networks inhibit market integration between countries and sub-regions. Another increasingly
important complementary infrastructure in this area is telecommunications, which can
enhance the multiplier effects of a good road network. Given the high penetration rate of
mobile telecommunication in the African region over the past decade, there is scope for
innovation that allows for both the aggregation of market information and its dissemination to
farmers to take advantage of price information when road networks are improved. Inadequate
infrastructure in the form of poor road networks also exacerbates unequal access to credit,
particularly for small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs). Given the reality of the low
population density in most African countries, this inadequacy leads to higher financial
intermediation costs, since long distances increase the administrative cost of lending,
monitoring, and loan recovery.
ADB (2009) still stated that another type of infrastructure of paramount importance
for agriculture is irrigation technology. Agriculture in the region continues to be almost
wholly dependent on rainfall, which is highly unpredictable. This leads the substantial shocks
in agricultural outputs. It also increases the risk for individual farmers due to the fact that
 25

rainfall is spatially covariant, which reduces the scope for idiosyncratic risk-sharing among
farmers located in a given area. The importance of irrigation stems from its ability to free
farmers from these limiting factors.
Even when farmers manage to achieve higher crop yields through input subsidies,
favorable rainfall patterns, or irrigation infrastructure, their harvests are still at risk because of
inadequate storage facilities. For example, most existing storage facilities cannot protect
crops from destructive pests or weather-accelerated decay. Sub-Saharan countries face huge
post-harvest losses for perishable agro-commodities such as fruits and vegetables, the losses
average 35-50 percent of total attainable production, while for grains the loss varies between
15 and 25 percent. Food availability decreases just a few months after harvest because sellers
find it difficult to store perishable commodities. The reduction in the food supply inevitably
increases prices, leading to high temporal price variations, in addition to the existing spatial
price variations caused by poor road infrastructure. The effect of poor storage facilities also
limits the development of high-value agri-business industries that specialize in horticulture or
other highly perishable agricultural products.
ADB (2010) concluded that poor infrastructure raises production prices. Poor energy
availability causes black outs and power rationing and, poor roads and transport infrastructure
inhibit intra country trade and also increase production costs. Limited and expensive
communication infrastructure makes it difficult for the country to keep with technology in
this information age. Limited access to potable water increases health costs and limits the
workforce productivity. Rural infrastructure development is justified mainly on account of
reducing transaction costs, and increasing access by producers to input and output markets.
Good infrastructure makes it easier to deliver services to beneficiaries. Good infrastructure
creates sustainable environment for production to take place.

Warehousing and storage constraints

Warehousing is the use of scientific storage structures, especially constructed for the
protection of the quantity and quality of stored products (Kent & Jonathan, 2000). It helps in
stabilizing price of agricultural products by checking the tendency to making post-harvest
sales among farmers. Moses (2000) added that warehousing is helpful in storing goods after
the demand is less than the supply, thereby regulating supply of goods and also stabilizing
prices. It enables businessmen and producers to curtail various risks like loss, fire, theft, and
damage of goods.
 26

According to Salyanarayana and Sukumaran (2005), a warehouse is a storage

structure constructed for the protection of the quality and quantity of the stored products. The
need for a warehouse arises due to the time gap between production and consumption of
products. Warehousing or storage refers to the holding and preservation of goods until they
are dispatched to the consumers. By bridging this gap, storage creates time utility. The
authors continued by stating that there is a need for storing the goods so as to make them
available to buyers as and when required. Storage or warehouse enables a firm to carry on
production in anticipation of demand in future, and to sell their products whenever there is
adequate demand. The need for warehouses arises also because some goods are produced
only in a particular season but are demanded throughout the year. Similarly, certain products
are produced throughout the year but demanded only during a particular season.
A warehouse can either be private or public (Wyke, 2008).Private warehouses are
owned and operated by big manufacturers and merchants to fulfill their own storage needs.
Big business firms which need large storage capacity on a regular basis and who can afford
money, construction and maintain their private warehouses. The private warehouses are
licensed to private persons and only the goods imported by or on behalf of the licensee are
stored in such warehouse. The author went further by stating that public warehouses are a
specialized business establishment that provides storage facilities to the general public for a
certain charge. They may be owned and operated by an individual or a cooperative society. It
works under a license from the government. They are generally located near the junctions of
railways, highways and waterways. They therefore, provide excellent facilities for the easy
receipt, dispatch, loading and unloading of goods. They are very important in the marketing
of agricultural products. A public warehouse is also known as 'duty paid warehouse'. The
author added that public warehouses are very useful to the business community as they can
meet their storage needs easily and economically without heavy investment. Such warehouses
provide storage facilities to small manufacturers and traders at low costs. They provide
facilities for the inspection of goods by prospective buyers. They also permit packaging and
grading of goods. Wyke (2008) enumerated some characteristics a good warehouse should
have, which includes: Organization, so that things are easily found, and use a system of some
sort to keep up with where everything is; cleanliness and clutter free, so that it looks nice and
there are no safety issues; Place things so that they are easily moved, and have equipment to
move things around (such as a pallet jack and forklift); shelving, so that warehouse space is
used optimally, and enough ladders or vehicles for lifting people so that people can get to
high shelves quickly; have enough workers to handle all of the above jobs.
 27

Langseth (2004) contributed by emphasizing that in today’s materials handling

industry, it is fundamental for companies to ensure the smooth running of their warehouses.
The author also pointed out that the most common warehousing problems and issues are
insufficient warehouse space, slow picking process and stock discrepancies, and warehouse
slotting problems. Providing an adequate amount of storage space and the correct planning of
a warehouse is vital for the smooth running of a business. Disorganized warehouse spaces
can cause unnecessary labour costs and the incorrect use of storage systems and racking
arrangements result in many companies finding their warehouse shelves full, with no space to
receive new inventory. Igben and Eyo (2002) further stated that every minute that is spent on
each inventory item can add up over the day, therefore having a major impact on operating
costs. When inventory location is not organized and easily available, pickers will take longer
to find items that need to be shipped. This can ultimately lead to a backup in labour.
Langseth (2004) concluded that warehouse slotting presents a problem as forklift
operators often make multiple trips around the warehouse searching for slots in the storage
racking for new inventory. This results in them slotting the pallet of inventory wherever they
find an empty space. As the pallet family and size is not carefully considered in its allocation,
you will eventually find a large amount of inventory slotted in an unorganized manner, with
no room to reorganize due to limited warehouse space.

Channels of Distribution constraints

Distribution channels according to Ross (2004) are formed to solve three critical
distribution problems: functional performance, reduced complexity, and specialization. The
central focus of distribution is to increase the efficiency of time, place, and delivery utility.
The author further stated that when demand and product availability are immediate, the
producer can perform the exchange and delivery functions itself. However, as the number of
producers grows and the geographical dispersion of the customer base expands, the need for
both internal and external intermediaries who can facilitate the flow of products, services, and
information via a distribution process increases. According to the author distribution
management also can decrease overall channel complexity through sorting and assistance in
Routinization. Sorting is the group of activities associated with transforming products
acquired from producers into the assortments and quantities demanded in the market-place.
Routinization refers to the policies and procedures providing common goals, channel
arrangements, expectations, and mechanisms to facilitate efficient transactions. The author
described sorting as including four primary functions: Sorting which is the function of
 28

physically separating a heterogeneous group of items into homogeneous subgroups. This

includes grading and grouping individual items into an inventory lot by quality or eliminating
defects from the lot; accumulating which refers to the function of combining homogeneous
stocks of products into larger groups of supply; allocation which means the function of
breaking down large lots of products into smaller salable units; and assorting which is the
function of mixing similar or functionally related items into assortments to meet customer
demand. There are a number of critical functions performed by the channel distributor. Ross
(2004) described these functions as product acquisition, product movement, and product
transaction. Product acquisition means acquiring products in a finished or semi-finished state
from either a producer or through another distributor that is higher up in the supply channel.
Product movement implies significant effort spent on product movement up or down the
supply channel. Product transaction can be characterized as selling products in bulk quantities
solely for the purpose of resale or business use.
According to the author, movement of goods from the producer to the consumer is a
critical function of distribution channel which encompasses those activities that are necessary
to ensure that the right product is available to the customer at the right time and right place.
This frequently means that a structure of central, branch, and field warehouses,
geographically situated in the appropriate locations, are needed to achieve optimum customer
service.

Government Policy Constraints

Agricultural policy describes a set of laws relating to domestic agriculture and imports
of foreign agricultural products. Government normally implements agricultural policies with
the goal of achieving a specific outcome in the domestic agricultural product markets. Such
outcomes can involve, for example, a guaranteed supply level, price stability, product quality,
product selection, land use or employment (Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of
United Nations, 2008).
Hancock (2012) contributed further by stating that government’s agricultural policy is
a set of decisions and actions relating to domestic agriculture and imports of foreign
agricultural products. The author went ahead by stating that Governments usually implement
agricultural policies with the goal of achieving a specific outcome in the domestic
agricultural markets; some of which includes risk management and adjustment (including
policies related to climate change, food safety and natural disasters), economic stability
(including policies related to taxes), natural resources, and environmental sustainability
 29

(especially water supply policy),research and development; and market access for domestic
commodities (including relations with global organizations and agreements with other
countries). Hancock further explained that Policy programmes can range from financial
programmes, in the forms of taxation, subsidies, tariffs and other measures, sometimes
meant to encourage producers to enroll in voluntary quality assurance programmes.
Government policy will have a direct or indirect effect on the prevalent agricultural system
through increasing productivity and ensuring regular food supply in the country, improving
farmers’ standards of living, stabilizing market prices at a level beneficial to farmers and
reasonable for consumers through the instrument of price support policies. Some of these
policies have bearing on the distribution of agricultural products (Richard, 2002). The author
added further that beginning from the era of Commodity Board in the 1960s, the country has
witnessed a myriad of policies and programmes ostensibly introduced to address perceived
problems in the agricultural sector. Such policies and schemes have focused on enhancing
agricultural output, improving the expected linkages (backward and forward) with the
manufacturing sector, increasing earnings and employment opportunities, increasing food
security, etc. They have therefore, basically touched on availability of supplies and
equipment production, incentives to farmers, transportation, agricultural credit, land reform,
food preservation, extension services, infrastructural facilities, etc. Government involvement
in agriculture not only goes beyond providing supportive services, it also includes direct
participation in the production of agricultural products (Babajide, 1999).
The author still explained that one of the first steps by government was the launching
of the National Accelerated Food Production Programme in 1972, a campaign to grow more
food. In 1973, the Federal Government established the Nigerian Agricultural Credit Bank
(NACB) with an initial paid up capital of N20 million. In further recognition of the need to
make credit available for the development of agriculture, the Agricultural Credit Guarantee
Scheme Fund was set up under Decree 20 of 1977 with an authorized capital of N100
million. This programme brought financial institutions into the financing of agriculture in the
country. Since then, and up till 1996 when sectoral allocation of credit was abolished, it
became compulsory for a specified proportion of bank's credit to be made available for
agricultural activities. As at 1996, a minimum of 18 per cent of the total loans and advances
of a bank went to agriculture and agro-allied activities.
In 1976, the Operation Feed the Nation (OFN) programme was launched with
objectives of increasing food production, attaining self-sufficiency in food supply,
encouraging all sections of the Nigerian population to grow food, encouraging balanced
 30

nutrition and by extension a healthy nation. The scheme encouraged mass participation.
During the same period, the government announced guaranteed minimum prices for
agricultural outputs and also reformed the marketing board system to generate adequate
returns to farmers thereby ensuring that customers are charged reasonable prices. Various
other incentive schemes were offered in the areas of tax relief, subsidy of prices of
agricultural inputs, and machinery and equipment. Etonyeaku (2012) contributed by
explaining that agricultural schemes are meant to provide financial reliefs to such farmers
who suffer losses arising from natural hazards such as drought, pests (avian flu) and other
related diseases.
Babajide continued by stating that a major policy that was designed to improve
agricultural production was the promulgation of the Land Use Decree in 1978. The focus of
the Decree was to reform the land tenure system, which was believed to constitute a
formidable obstacle to the development of agriculture in Nigeria. The Central focus of
government policies in the 1980s was the objective of changing agricultural production to
large-scale production. It was identified that the bulk of food production in Nigeria was being
undertaken by small holder farmers who rely on muscles rather than equipment, thereby
resulting in low output. Emphasis therefore shifted into provision of credit and skilled
manpower, and expansion of agro-allied businesses to mention a few. From 1986 when the
Structural Adjustment programme was introduced, the focus had been on returning Nigeria to
self-sufficiency and enhancing the contribution of agriculture to foreign exchange earnings.
Part of the programmes had been the establishment of relevant institutions. Thus, there were
agricultural research institutes like the National Cereal Research Institute, the National
Agricultural Extension and Research Liaison Service, Nigeria Institute for Oceanography and
Marine Research, Veterinary Research Institute, the Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria,
Forestry Research Institute of Nigeria, Rubber Research Institute of Nigeria etc. In the 1980s
the Federal Government also established Universities of Agriculture, apart from various
schools of Agriculture in Nigeria and the faculties of Agriculture in the conventional
Universities and the Polytechnics. Moreover, there was also established the National
Agricultural Land Development Authority (NALDA), the River Basin Development
Authorities and the Agricultural Development programmes (ADP).
Babajide (1999) emphasized that one major problem that has become the bane of
Nigeria’s policy is the lack of continuity associated with government programmes. The effect
of this on agricultural development has been far-reaching. Successive governments came in
to introduce new programmes, schemes and institutions, which in most cases do not represent
 31

continuity nor compliment with the existing ones. Policies are therefore abandoned midway,
in most cases, before their effects became manifested.
A corollary to the above is the uncoordinated manner in which agricultural
programmes and schemes have been handled. Policies are pronounced and institutions are set
up that are in most cases either the negation of existing facility, or a duplication of it. A
cursory look at the institutions mentioned above shows duplication and overlapping of
functions and activities in the operations of most of them. It is therefore clear that there are
issues of inconsistent policies and lack of will in policy implementation that would need to be
addressed. These two issues are negatively reinforced by intermittent change in government,
resulting in lack of continuity. Overall, even with the proliferation of institutions,
programmes and schemes, the impact on the ordinary farmer is minimal and thus no serious
effect on agricultural output and outlook in recent times.
Agricultural production and trade flows are significantly affected by government
policies and regulations. Government policies affecting the agricultural industry, such as
taxes, tariffs, duties, subsidies, and import and export restrictions on agricultural commodities
and commodity products, can influence industry profitability, the planting of certain crops
versus other uses of agricultural resources, the location and size of crop production, whether
unprocessed or processed commodity products are traded and the volume and types of
imports and exports. Government policies on excise duties for agricultural products adversely
affect the supply, demand for and prices of products, restrict ability to do business in existing
and target markets and causes financial results to suffer (Pakin, Powell & Matthew, 2007).
Myers and Kent (2001) defined subsidy as a form of financial or in kind support
extended to an economic sector (or institution, business, or individual) generally with the aim
of promoting economic and social policy. Although commonly extended from Government,
the term subsidy can relate to any type of support - for example from Non-Governmental
Organizations (NGOs) or implicit subsidies. Subsidies come in various forms including:
direct (cash grants, interest-free loans) and indirect (tax breaks), insurance, low-interest loans,
depreciation write-offs, rent rebates). The authors stated furthermore, that subsidy can be
broad or narrow, legal or illegal, ethical or unethical. The most common forms of subsidies
are those given to the producer or the consumer. Producer/Production subsidies ensure
producers are better- off by supplying market price support, direct support, or payments to
factors of production. Consumer/Consumption subsidies commonly reduce the price of goods
and services to the consumer.
 32

SCHEMA OF THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Producers
(Agricultural Products)
• Tomatoes
• Tea
• Dairy
• Cassava
• Cotton Transportation
• etc

Government
Distributions policies
Constraints
Intermediaries

Warehouse/
Consumers Storage

Figure 3: Showing schematic representation of agricultural products by local producers.

Source: Developed by the researcher, 2015

The schema shows the constraints exerted by demand, transportation, government policies,
intermediaries and warehouse/storage on distributions, and how such influences are further
transferred to producers of agro-based products and consumers. The influences each of them
exerts might either be favourable or unfavourable for distribution of the products.
 33

Theoretical Framework
Theory of Production
George J. Stigler propounded the theory of production in 1941, in an effort to explain
the principles by which a business firm decides how much of each commodity that it sells (its
“outputs” or “products”) it will produce, and how much of each kind of labour, raw material,
fixed capital good, etc., that it employs as “inputs” or “factors of production”. The theory
involves some of the most fundamental principles of economics. These include the
relationship between the prices of commodities and the prices (wages or rents) of the
productive factors used to produce them and also the relationships between the prices of
commodities and productive factors, on the one hand, and the quantities of these commodities
and productive factors that are produced or used, on the other. The various decisions a
business enterprise makes about its productive activities can be classified into three layers of
increasing complexity. The first layer includes decisions about methods of producing a given
quantity of the output in a plant of given size and equipment. It involves the problem of what
is called short-run cost minimization. The second layer, including the determination of the
most profitable quantities of products to produce in any given plant, deals with what is called
short-run profit maximization. The third layer, concerning the determination of the most
profitable size and equipment of plant, relates to what is called long-run profit maximization.
However much of a commodity a business firm produces, it endeavours to produce it
as cheaply as possible. Taking the quality of the product and the prices of the productive
factors as given, which is the usual situation, the firm’s task is to determine the cheapest
combination of factors of production that can produce the desired output. The factors could
be variable or fixed, such as raw materials, land, labour, physical distribution, warehouse,
transportation and management. These factors of production and distribution must be very
cheap (in terms of their availabilities and qualities) for distribution purpose to be actualized.

Theory of Constraints
The theory of constraints was propounded by Goldratt M. Eliyahu in 1997. The
essential belief of the theory is that every organization must have at least one constraint.
Depending on the environment of the organization, the theory stipulates that the constraint
can be located in different areas, sometimes internally (production, warehouse, purchasing,
policies, etc.) and sometimes externally (in the market). The theory believes that the
constraints can affect production, marketing, management, etc.
 34

The theory of constraints (TOC) has significant relationship with this study in that the
production and distribution of agricultural products have their constraints. Some of these
agricultural products distribution constraints could come in the market-place by way of poor
demand; others could originate in the warehouse due to distance of location or inadequate
space; still, some constraints might occur as a result of the nature of the mode of
transportation chosen for the physical movement of agricultural products, while others could
be from government’s unfavourable policies (which are broadly referred to as environmental
factors) on agriculture. Any mal-function in any of these areas among others, will badly
affect agricultural products’ distribution.

Related Empirical Studies

Ukwueze (2007) carried out a study on appraisal of distribution strategies of
companies in Enugu State. The major purpose of the study was to appraise distribution
strategies of production companies. The population of the study was 875, made up of staff,
management and customers of Nigeria Bottling Company (NBC) Plc Enugu. The study
applied survey research design. The major finding of the study was that physical distribution
policies of NBC have encouraged their customers’ patronage. Another finding of the study
was that the chosen channels of physical distribution have made impact on consumer
patronage. This study is related to the current study because both appraise distribution
strategies of the companies. It is also related to the present study because both studies
applied survey method for data collection. Nevertheless, both studies differ in their objects of
the distribution, in that the current study is focused on agro-based products while the previous
study was on distribution strategies of production companies. They differ in the scope of
study; this study is done on agricultural farmers in Taraba State while the former investigated
production companies in Enugu State.
Nwodo (2012) conducted a study on the effects of palm produce distribution on
consumer demand in Nsukka Area. The major purpose of the study was to evaluate the
effects of transportation of palm produce to consumers in rural and urban areas; also to
determine the relationship between poor storage of this produce and its marketing and
consumption. The population of the study comprised 1,378,408 population of Nsukka (both
sexes). The study adopted survey research design. The major findings of the study were that
producers and middlemen do not have enough capital to provide adequate storage or
warehousing facilities for palm produce which affects its quality. It was also revealed that the
middlemen (sellers) of palm produce found it difficult to reach a wider market in the rural
 35

areas because of poor development of roads and railways. This study is related to the present
study because it studied the effects of infrastructures (roads and railways) and storage or
warehousing facilities on marketing and consumption. The previous study is also related to
the present study because it adopted survey research design like the present one. However,
they differ in two major areas: while the current study is on constraints to distribution, the
previous study was on effects of distribution of products. Though they share similarities in
the concept of study, they are not also the same in their areas of study, while the former was
carried out in Nsukka Area; the area of the present study is Taraba State.
Ilodigwe (2011) conducted a study on assessment of effectiveness of the distribution
strategy of A-Z Petroleum products Ltd. The purpose of the study was to assess the effect of
high cost of transportation on the company’s distribution activities, determine the impact of
poor road network on the company’s distribution strategies, and assesses the effect of
government policy on the company’s distribution strategies. The population of the study
consisted of the management staff, company’s distributors in Aba (150 of them in all). The
study adopted survey research design. The major findings of the study were that the cost of
transportation significantly affected the price of A-Z lubricants because the firm bears the
cost of transportation right from the source of raw materials (additives) to the point of
delivery at the distributor’s warehouse. Also, bad road network significantly affected the
demand of A-Z lubricants in Aba metropolis because some of the potential customers that
supposed to buy from Aba moved to other neighbouring towns like Port Harcourt, Uyo,
Owerri, to buy. This study is related to the present one in that both of them are assessing
elements of distribution and their effects as their purposes of study. However, the previous
study differs in the types of goods for distribution and population of study. The former study
was on A-Z lubricants and company employees, while the current study is on agricultural
products and local producers in Taraba state.
Inyama (2004) carried out a study on the problems of marketing agricultural products
in Enugu State. The purpose of the study was to investigate problems facing the farmers in
the marketing of their agricultural products. The population of the study was 131,669 farmers
from which a sample was taken. The study used survey method. One of the major findings of
the study was that there was price instability in the marketing of agricultural products caused
by changes in the quality of products in form of deterioration due mainly to lack of adequate
preservation facilities. This study is equally related to the present study because it studied the
marketing of agricultural products just as the present study. Their areas of differences come
in the geographical position. The previous study was done on population of farmers in Enugu
 36

State, while the present study is on farmers of tomatoes, tea and dairy products in Taraba
State.
Nwodo (2010) carried out an investigation on the problems of effective and efficient
distribution of NBC products in Abia State. The objective of the study was to determine
whether the company has sufficient number of warehouses that are strategically located. The
population of the study was 196 staff of the Nigeria Bottling Company (NBC). The study
applied survey research design. The major findings of the study revealed that there were no
warehouses at all in Abia State owned or used by NBC to store their products for easier and
more effective distribution; this has equally resulted in high costs in the distribution of the
company’s products from the depot to the nooks and crannies of the state. This study is
related to the present study in that both studies are on problems of distribution of products.
However, they differ in the types of products they investigate about; while the previous study
was on NBC products in Abia State, the present inquiry is on agricultural products in Taraba
State.
Nwodu (1994) conducted an investigation on the distribution system and its impacts
on the availability of petroleum products in Nigeria: A case study of kerosene in Enugu and
Anambra States. The major purpose of the study was to examine the marketing channels
presently used in the distribution of kerosene. The population of the study was eighteen (18)
filling stations. The study used survey research method and data were analyzed using
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).The major findings of the study were that the non-
availability of kerosene was caused more by the intermittent closure of refineries and depots,
than inefficient distribution activities. It was also discovered that major policy measures
taken by the government in response to the constraints, weaknesses and problems associated
with the distribution of kerosene in Nigeria, and also lack of good roads hinder transportation
of kerosene to rural communities. Lastly, it was discovered that NNPC storage facilities
(depots) are not adequate, both in number and size. This study has bearing with the present
one in that it investigated constraints associated with distribution of products. The areas of
variance between the two studies is in the types of products and geographical location; while
the past study was on distribution of petroleum products in Enugu and Anambra States, the
present study is on constraints to distribution of agricultural products in Taraba State.
Okafor (2009) conducted a study on the assessment of effectiveness of the distribution
strategies of manufacturing roofing sheet: A case study of Emenite Nigeria Ltd, Emene,
Enugu. The purposes of the study were to ascertain the availability and quality of the
products, examine the effects of high cost of transportation on the company to their
 37

distribution strategy, examine how poor road network affects the company’s distribution
strategies, and assess the effect of government impediment (Local government by-laws) to
the distribution strategies of the company. The population of the study included the
management staff of Emenite Ltd and company’s distributors in the country. The study used
survey research design in collecting data from respondents and the data were analyzed with
the use of percentages, chi-square and t-test. The major findings of the study were that the
cost of transportation has effects on manufactured roofing sheets; that poor road network
significantly affected the demand for manufactured roofing sheets; and that government laws
have constituted impediments in distributing manufactured roofing sheets. This research is
similar to the present study because both studies focused on distribution of goods. Their great
differences are in the type of goods distributed and areas of study; while the past study was
conducted on population of managers and distributors in Emenite Nigeria Ltd, Enugu, the
current study, on the contrary, is on the distribution of agricultural products by local
producers in Taraba State.

Summary of Literature Reviewed

The various literature reviewed indicated that agricultural products include a
comprehensive range of raw and finished goods under the classifications of plants, animals
and other life forms which could be for home consumption or export. The authors reviewed
also agreed that the agricultural products have distinct features such as bulkiness, seasonality,
perish ability, etc. which make the marketing of the products very unique. It was also
gathered from literature that distribution is one of the factors of production which involves all
activities that ensure the flow of goods from the producers to the final consumer. Literature
also revealed that a constraint is any factor that limits an or an individual organization from
getting more of whatever it strives for, example, profit. The authors were in agreement that
the constraint can be located in different areas, sometimes internally (production, warehouse,
purchasing, policies, etc.) and sometimes externally (market driven).
Several areas and components of distribution such as channels of distribution or
intermediaries, physical distribution and major functions of it; agricultural channels of
distribution constraints and functions performed by the channels such as product acquisition,
product movement and product transaction; factors affecting choice of channels of
distribution of agricultural products; infrastructural constraints; warehousing/storage
constraints; channels of distribution constraints; and government policies constraints to the
distribution of agricultural products were also reviewed for the study.
 38

On the theoretical framework, the relevant theories reviewed for the study were:
Theory of production and Theory of constraints. These theories are related to the study at
hand because constraints facing distribution of goods could be during production or
marketing of the goods, which may inhibit the goods from being moved to places of need,
and as such not getting to the final consumers and also not benefiting the producers.
Several empirical studies related to this study were also reviewed. Some of the
empirical studies were on appraisal of distribution strategies of companies in Enugu; effects
of distribution on consumer demand in Nsukka Area; problems of marketing of agricultural
products in Abia State, etc. Nevertheless, incidentally, none of the empirical studies or any of
the literature reviewed was on constraints to the distribution of agricultural products by local
producers in Taraba State of Nigeria, which is the gap which this study seeks to fill in
literature.
 39

CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the procedures that were adopted by the researcher in carrying
out the study. The procedures were organized under the following sub-headings: design of the
study, area of the study, population for the study, sample and sampling technique, instrument
for data collection, validation of the instrument, reliability of the instrument, method of data
collection and method of data analysis.

Design of the Study

This study adopted descriptive survey research design. Descriptive survey, according
to Kotler and Gary (2007), focuses on obtaining information about people’s knowledge,
attitudes, preferences, behavior, satisfaction, using questionnaire. The descriptive survey was
suitable for this study because the study determined the constraints to the distribution of
agricultural products by local producers in Taraba State; by using questionnaire to ascertain
the opinions of the respondents.

Area of the Study

This study was conducted in Taraba State, Nigeria. Taraba State is one of the North-
Eastern States of Nigeria. The State is made up of sixteen Local Government Areas with
three senatorial zones (North, South and Central Senatorial zones). The study covered only
the Central Senatorial zone of the State which has five Local Governments, namely: Bali,
Sardauna, Gassol, Kurmi and Gashaka. The people of the zone are mostly engaged in farming
as their major occupations. The dry and rainy seasons common to tropical regions is also the
dominant climatic feature in the zone. Rainy season starts in April and ends in October, while
the dry season begins in November and terminates in March. The climate, soil, and hydrology
of the zone is conducive for the cultivation of most staple food crops, grazing land for
animals and fresh water for fishing as well as forestry. The researcher’s choice of the area
was motivated by his conversant with the area in terms of accessibility to the farmers and
low- cost in carrying out the study. Furthermore, the area was chosen for the study because of
the loss of agricultural products to perishability and the high cost of the products which may
be due to the distribution constraints.

39
 40

Population for the Study

The total population for this study was 543 farmers of tomatoes, tea and dairy
products registered with the Taraba State Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The
break-down of the population according to the products: Tea 137, Tomatoes 279, and Dairy
127. (Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Taraba State, 2012).

Sample and Sampling Techniques

The sample for the study was 230 farmers, drawn using Yaro Yamane formula. For
Yaro Yamane’s formula and interpretation, see appendix 1.
The sampling technique applied in extracting the sample size was simple
randomization. A number of 230 “Yes” and 313 “No” papers were written according to the
total population of the study. The Yes/No papers were folded, mixed and shuffled, and were
kept in a separate container. Accordingly, names of the farmers were written on a sheet of
paper each and were folded and shuffled, then kept in another separate container.
The drawing exercise was done by picking each of the papers with the farmers’ names
at a time and simultaneously picking each Yes/No paper. Paper name that corresponded with
its Yes/No was determined for either selection or rejection. Names that had corresponding
“Yes” paper were chosen for representation in the sample. This technique was done for each
of the products in the Local Government Areas in order to get samples from them.

Instrument for Data Collection

Structured questionnaire titled “Constraints to the Distribution of agricultural products
Questionnaire”, CDAPQ was used for collection of data from the respondents. The 36-item
questionnaire was developed by the researcher from literature to address each of the research
questions. The questionnaire was organized into seven sections: Section “A” solicited
information on the bio-data of the respondents. Section “B” solicited information on the
infrastructural constraints to the distribution of agricultural products by local producers in
Taraba State. While section “C” was designed to solicit for information on
warehousing/storage constraints to the distribution of agricultural products by local producers
in Taraba State. Section “D” was for gathering information on channels of distribution
constraints to distribution of agricultural products by local producers in Taraba State. Section
“E” collected information on government policy constraints to the distribution of agricultural
products by local producers in Taraba State. Finally, Section “F” obtained information on
 41

strategies for improving the distribution of agricultural products by local producers in Taraba
State.
The questionnaire was structured on a four-point rating scale of.
Strongly Agree (SA) =4, Agree (A) = 3, Disagree (DA) = 2, and Strongly disagree (SD) = 1

Validation of the Instrument

The questionnaire was subjected to face- validation by three experts. Two of the
validates were from Business Education unit and one from Agricultural Science Education
unit of the Department of Vocational Teacher Education, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
They were required to paraphrase, expunge and add items as they feel necessary, to ensure
clarity and content coverage. The comments, corrections and observations of the validates
were used to standardize the questionnaire items by the researcher.

Reliability of the Instrument

The questionnaire was administered to 20 registered farmers in Jalingo Local
Government Area in the Northern zone of the state, which is outside the study area, to
ascertain the internal consistency of the items of the questionnaire. The data collected were
analyzed using Cronbach Alpha (α) reliability technique which yielded reliability coefficient
of 0.895 indicating a very high reliability index, thus showing that the instrument was
consistent in measuring what it was intended to measure.

Method of Data Collection

The structured questionnaire was administered to the respondents by the researcher
with the help of five (5) research assistants, who were briefed on how to carry out the work.
The instruments were retrieved from the respondents by the researcher and the research
assistants immediately after completion for analysis.

Method of Data Analysis

The data collected from the respondents were analyzed using mean
̅  to answer the
research questions, standard deviation to determine the closeness or otherwise of the
responses from the mean. t-test statistics was used to test null hypotheses 1, 2, 4 & 5, while
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) statistics was used to test null hypothesis 3, at 0.05 level of
significance respectively. The research questions were answered using the cut-off point of the
mean value, which is 2.50
 42

Thus, any item with mean below 2.50 was considered as disagreed. Conversely, any
item with mean of 2.50 and above was considered as agreed. The null hypothesis would be
rejected if the computed significant value was less than the criterion value of 0.05. On the
other hand, if the computed significant value was greater than or equal to the criterion value
of 0.05, the hypothesis will be accepted.
 43

CHAPTER FOUR

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

This chapter deals with the presentation and analysis of data collected for the study.
The data were presented based on the research questions and hypotheses of the study. The
Findings of the study were also discussed.
Research Question I
What are the infrastructural (land transport) constraints to the distribution of
agricultural products?
Data providing answer to this research question are presented in Table 1
Table1
Mean responses of local producers on infrastructural constraints to the distribution of
agricultural products
S/N Infrastructural Constraints N1 = 70 N2 = 103 N3 = 57 XG SD Remark
Χ1 Χ2 Χ3
1. Poor road condition leading to farms for 3.71 3.57 3.74 3.66 0.58 Agreed
distribution or moving of products to the
market limits products distribution.
2. The present means of transportation of 3.47 3.35 3.50 3.42 0.70 Agreed
products (bicycles, farm animals, etc.)
from the field to storage site immediately
after harvest limit product distribution.
3. Buyers/Customers accessibility to 3.29 3.43 3.42 3.38 0.74 Agreed
products right at the farm gate
discourages farmers for their product
distribution.
4. Slow speed of transportation of products 3.41 3.21 3.41 3.32 0.84 Agreed
to market after harvest limits distribution.
45
5. Poor conditions of transportation of 2.83 2.92 3.02 2.91 0.99 Agreed
products to the market during rainy
seasons limit distribution of products.
6. High costs incurred in transporting goods 3.17 3.24 3.33 3.25 0.82 Agreed
to markets impede distribution of
products.
7. The present means of transportation 3.40 3.32 3.28 3.33 0.81 Agreed
encourages incidences of damage/theft of
goods while on transit.
Cluster Summary 3.33 3.29 3.39 3.36 0.78 Agreed

Key: N1 = Tea Producers; N2 =Tomatoes Producers, N3 =Dairy Producers

SD = Standard Deviation, Χ 1= mean of Tea Producers; Χ 2 = mean of Tomatoes Producers, Χ 3 = mean of
Dairy Producers; Χ G = Grand mean.

43
 44

In Table 1, the mean rating of respondents on the infrastructural constraints to the

distribution of agricultural products is presented. The data revealed that the values of the
grand mean ranged from 2.91 to 3.66, indicating that the responses of the respondents for all
the items fall under agree. The value for the standard deviation of the items for this cluster
ranged from 0.58 to 0.99. This indicates that the respondents were not too far from one
another regarding their opinion on the infrastructural constraints to the distribution of
agricultural products. It can be deduced from the mean values that all the identified items of
Table 1 are the infrastructural constraints to the distribution of agricultural products.

HO1: There is no significant difference in the mean responses of male and female
agricultural producers on the infrastructural constraints to the distribution of
agricultural products.
T-test result on this hypothesis is presented in Table 2.
 45

Table 2
t-test analysis of male and female local agricultural producers on the infrastructural
(land transport) constraints to the distribution of agricultural products
S/N Infrastructural Constraints N1 =111 N2 =119 XG SD F-value Sig. of F Remark
Χ1 Χ2
1. Poor road condition leading to 3.77 3.55 3.66 0.58 15.8 0.01 S
farms for distribution or moving
of products to the market limits
products distribution.
2. The present means of 3.47 3.38 3.42 0.70 6.59 0.31 NS
transportation of products
(bicycles, farm animals, etc.)
from the field to storage site
immediately after harvest limit
product distribution.
3. Buyers/Customers accessibility to 3.28 3.47 3.38 0.74 .005 0.63 NS
products right at the farm gate
discourages farmers for their
product distribution.
4. Slow speed of transportation of 3.41 3.24 3.32 0.84 1.25 0.15 NS
products to market after harvest
limits distribution.
5. Poor conditions of transportation 3.03 2.81 2.92 0.99 12.9 0.11 NS
of products to the market during
rainy seasons limit distribution of
products.
6. High costs incurred in 3.27 3.23 3.25 0.82 6.41 0.72 NS
transporting goods to markets
impede distribution of products.
7. The present means of 3.31 3.35 3.33 0.81 .005 0.73 NS
transportation encourages
incidences of damage/theft of
goods while on transit.

Cluster Summary 3.37 3.29 3.36 0.78 6.14 0.38 NS

Key: N1 = Tea Producers; N2 =Tomatoes Producers, N3 =Dairy Producers, SD = Standard

Deviation, Χ 1= mean of Tea Producers; Χ 2 = mean of Tomatoes Producers, Χ 3 =
mean of Dairy Producers; Χ G = Grand mean, F is significant at Sig of F ≤ =0.05, F
value = T-test.
 46

As shown in Table 2, the p-value for six variables are greater than 0.05 which implies
that the hypothesis is accepted on those variables while one variable whose p-value is less
than 0.05 indicates that there is significant differences and therefore the null hypothesis that
there is no significant difference in the mean responses of male and female agricultural
producers on the infrastructural constraints to the distribution of agricultural products was
rejected.

Research Question 2

What are the warehousing constraints experienced by agricultural producers in the

distribution of products?

Data providing answer to this research question are presented in Table 3

 47

Table 3

Mean responses of local producers on warehousing constraints experienced by

agricultural producers in the distribution of products
S/N Warehousing constraints N1 = 70 N2 = 103 N3 = 57 XG SD Remark
Χ1 Χ2 Χ3
1. Absence of warehousing/storage 2.80 2.87 2.89 2.84 0.94 Agreed
facilities prevents efficient
distribution of agricultural
products.
2. Storage facilities are sited far 2.97 3.06 3.11 3.04 0.79 Agreed
away from farm sites.
3. Various agricultural products 3.28 3.35 3.20 3.29 0.75 Agreed
require different storage facilities.
4. The available storage facilities 3.34 3.41 3.38 3.39 0.89 Agreed
whether public or private are
insufficient, leading to poor
distribution.
5. The storage facilities being used 3.24 3.29 3.21 3.26 0.83 Agreed
currently are largely spacious to
preserve products in large quantity
against quantity demand in the
future.
6. Agricultural products that are 3.25 3.50 3.25 3.37 0.72 Agreed
perishable require storage
facilities with special
conditionings, than other types of
products; and the facilities are not
available.
7 Reliance on the present facilities 2.91 3.05 2.95 2.99 0.92 Agreed
in use limits farmers’ efforts at
value delivering of products.
8 The siting of storage facilities far 3.07 3.23 3.02 3.13 0.89 Agreed
away from farm site affects
distribution of products.
Cluster Summary 3.10 3.22 3.13 3.16 0.84 Agreed
Key: N1 = Tea Producers; N2 =Tomatoes Producers, N3 =Dairy Producers, SD =
Standard Deviation, Χ 1= mean of Tea Producers; Χ 2 = mean of Tomatoes
Producers, Χ 3 = mean of Dairy Producers; Χ G = Grand mean.
 48

In Table 3, the mean rating of respondents on the warehousing constraints

experienced by agricultural producers in the distribution of products is presented. The data
revealed that the values of the grand mean ranged from 2.84 to 3.39 indicating that the
responses of the respondents for all the items fall under agree. The value for the standard
deviation of the items for this cluster ranged from 0.72 to 0.94. This indicates that the
respondents were not too far from one another regarding their opinion on the warehousing
constraints experienced by agricultural producers in the distribution of products? It can be
deduced from the mean values that all the identified items of Table 3 are the warehousing
constraints experienced by agricultural producers in the distribution of products?

H02: There is no significant difference in the mean responses of agricultural producers of tea
and tomatoes on the warehousing constraints to the distribution of products.
t-test result on this hypothesis is presented in Table 4.
 49

Table 4

t-test analysis of the responses of local agricultural producers of Tea and Tomatoes on
the warehousing constraints to the distribution of agricultural products
S/N Warehousing constraints N1 =70 N2 =103 XG SD F- Sig. F Remark
Χ1 Χ2 value
1. Absence of warehousing/storage 2.79 2.87 2.83 1.03 1.43 0.63 NS
facilities prevents efficient
distribution of agricultural
products.

2. Storage facilities are sited far 2.97 3.05 3.01 0.89 1.86 0.53 NS
away from farm sites.

3. Various agricultural products 3.28 3.34 3.31 0.75 .332 0.56 NS

require different storage facilities.

4. The available storage facilities 3.34 3.42 3.38 0.88 .372 0.61 NS
whether public or private are
insufficient, leading to poor
distribution.

5. The storage facilities being used 3.24 3.29 3.27 0.82 2.07 0.71 NS
currently are largely spacious to
preserve products in large
quantity against quantity demand
in the future.

6. Agricultural products that are 3.26 3.50 3.38 0.72 1.65 0.02 S
perishable require storage
facilities with special
conditionings, than other types of
products; and the facilities are not
available.

7. Reliance on the present facilities 2.91 3.06 2.99 0.93 .427 0.32 NS
in use limits farmers’ efforts at
value delivering of products.

8 The siting of storage facilities far 3.07 3.23 3.15 0.89 .287 0.24 NS
away from farm site affects
distribution of products.

Cluster Mean 3.11 3.22 3.36 0.86 1.05 0.46 NS

Key: N1 = Tea Producers; N2 =Tomatoes Producers, N3 =Dairy Producers, SD = Standard

Deviation, Χ 1= mean of Tea Producers; Χ 2 = mean of Tomatoes Producers, Χ 3 = mean of
Dairy Producers; Χ G = Grand mean, F is significant at Sig of F ≤ =0.05, F value = T-test .
 50

The hypothesis sought to compare the mean responses of local agricultural producers
of Tea and Tomatoes on the warehousing constraints to the distribution of agricultural
products. The rating was done on a 4- point scale from strongly agree (“4”) to strongly
disagree (“1”). A t-test was run to test the significant difference in the mean ratings of the two
groups of respondents. Out of the eight items on the scale, there was no significant difference
(p > 0.05) in seven of the variables while there was significant difference (p < 0.05) in the
remaining one of the variables. Therefore, the null hypothesis was accepted.

Research Question 3

What are the channels of distribution constraints to the distribution of agricultural

products?

Data providing answer to this research question are presented in Table 5

 51

Table 5

Mean responses with standard deviation of local producers on channels of distribution

constraints experienced by agricultural producers in the distribution of products.

S/N Channels of distribution N1 =70 N2 = 103 N3 = 57 XG SD Remark

constraints Χ1 Χ2 Χ3
1. Use of distribution channels 3.09 2.85 3.16 3.00 0.91 Agreed
(intermediaries) by farmers in
the marketing of products
hampers effective distribution.
2. Middlemen used in the 3.20 3.49 3.43 3.39 0.83 Agreed
distribution of agricultural
products compound the way
products are distributed.
3. The channels of distribution in 3.56 3.57 3.63 3.59 0.63 Agreed
use by farmers do not give
satisfaction to consumers or
customers, thereby limiting
product distribution.
4. The use of middlemen in 3.26 3.46 3.36 3.38 0.79 Agreed
distribution of agricultural
products causes price rise to the
detriment of both producers
and consumers.
5. The channels of distribution or 3.16 3.33 3.32 3.28 0.79 Agreed
intermediaries do not help in
the positive communication of
products to customers in other
locations; hence, impeding
product distribution.
6. Perishable agricultural products 3.33 3.44 3.28 3.37 0.78 Agreed
having the existence of
middlemen in their marketing
limit their effective
distribution.
Cluster Summary 3.27 3.35 3.36 3.34 0.78 Agreed

Key: N1 = Tea Producers; N2 =Tomatoes Producers, N3 =Dairy Producers, SD = Standard

Deviation, Χ 1= mean of Tea Producers; Χ 2 = mean of Tomatoes Producers, Χ 3 = mean of
Dairy Producers; Χ G = Grand mean.
 52

In Table 5, the mean rating of respondents on the channels of distribution constraints

to the distribution of agricultural products is presented. The data revealed that the values of
the grand mean ranged from 3.00 to 3.59 indicating that the responses of the respondents for
all the items fall under agree. The value for the standard deviation of the items for this cluster
ranged from 0.63 to 0.91. This indicates that the respondents were not too far from one
another regarding their opinion on the warehousing constraints experienced by agricultural
producers in the distribution of products. It can be deduced from the mean values that all the
identified items of Table 5 are the warehousing constraints experienced by agricultural
producers in the distribution of products.

H03: There is no significant difference in the mean responses of producers of tea, tomatoes
and dairy products on the channels of distribution constraints to the distribution of
agricultural products.
ANOVA result on this hypothesis is presented in Table 6.
 53

Table 6
Analysis of Variance on the responses of local agricultural producers of Tea, Tomatoes
and Dairy on the channels of distribution constraints to the distribution of agricultural
products
S/N Channels of Distribution N1 =70 N2 =103 N3 = 57 XG SD F- Sig. F Remark
Constraints
Χ1 Χ2 Χ3 value
1. Use of distribution channels 3.09 2.85 3.16 3.00 0.91 2.54 0.08 NS
(intermediaries) by farmers in
the marketing of products
hampers effective distribution.

2. Middlemen used in the 3.20 3.49 3.43 3.39 0.83 2.82 0.06 NS
distribution of agricultural
products compound the way
products are distributed.

3. The channels of distribution in 3.56 3.57 3.63 3.59 0.63 .210 0.81 NS
use by farmers do not give
satisfaction to consumers or
customers, thereby limiting
product distribution.

4. The use of middlemen in 3.26 3.46 3.36 3.38 0.79 1.62 0.20 NS
distribution of agricultural
products causes price rise to the
detriment of both producers and
consumers.

5. The channels of distribution or 3.16 3.33 3.32 3.28 0.79 1.14 0.32 NS
intermediaries do not help in the
positive communication of
products to customers in other
locations; hence, impeding
product distribution.

6. Perishable agricultural products 3.33 3.44 3.28 3.37 0.78 .835 0.43 NS
having the existence of
middlemen in their marketing
limit their effective distribution.

Cluster Summary 3.27 3.36 3.36 3.33 0.79 1.53 0.32 NS

Key: N1 = Tea Producers; N2 =Tomatoes Producers, N3 =Dairy Producers, SD = Standard Deviation, Χ 1=

mean of Tea Producers; Χ 2 = mean of Tomatoes Producers, Χ 3 = mean of Dairy Producers; Χ G =
Grand mean, F is significant at Sig of F ≤ =0.05, F value = ANOVA .
 54

The result presented in Table 6 shows that the p-value for all the variables used to
determine the channels of distribution constraints to the distribution of agricultural products
are greater than 0.05. The implication here is that the hypothesis which states that there is no
significant difference in the mean responses of producers of tea, tomatoes and dairy products
on the channels of distribution constraints to the distribution of agricultural products was
accepted.
Research Question 4

What are the government’s policies constraints to the distribution of agriculture

products?

Data providing answer to this research question are presented in table 7

Table 7

Mean responses with standard deviation of local producers on government’s policies

constraints by agricultural producers in the distribution of products
S/N Government’s Policies constraints N1 =70 N2 =103 N3 =57 XG SD Remark
Χ1 Χ2 Χ3
1. The excessive excise duties (tax) on 3.33 3.12 3.23 3.21 0.85 Agreed
agricultural products by the
government limits distribution of the
products to the market.
2. The scrapping of some agricultural 3.19 3.37 3.35 3.31 0.78 Agreed
organizations such as the
“Agricultural Marketing Boards” by
the government adversely affects
distribution.
3. High importation of agricultural 3.36 3.34 3.33 3.34 0.79 Agreed
products by government is a threat to
domestic agricultural products’
distribution.
4. Creation of too many revenue- 3.44 3.49 3.37 3.45 0.70 Agreed
generating agencies by the
government discourages distribution
of agricultural products.
Cluster Summary 3.33 3.33 3.32 3.33 0.78 Agreed

Key: N1 = Tea Producers; N2 =Tomatoes Producers, N3 =Dairy Producers, SD = Standard

Deviation, Χ 1= mean of Tea Producers; Χ 2 = mean of Tomatoes Producers, Χ 3 = mean of
Dairy Producers; Χ G = Grand mean.
 55

In Table 7, the mean rating of respondents on the government’s policies constraints to

the distribution of agriculture products is presented. The data revealed that the values of the
grand mean ranged from 3.21 to 3.45 indicating that the responses of the respondents for all
the items fall under agree. The value for the standard deviation of the items for this cluster
ranged from 0.70 to 0.85. This indicates that the respondents were not too far from one
another regarding their opinion on the government’s policies constraints to the distribution of
agriculture products. It can be deduced from the mean values that all the identified items of
Table 7 are the government’s policies constraints to the distribution of agriculture products.

H04: There is no significant difference in the mean responses of producers of dairy and
tomatoes products on the government’s policies constraints to the distribution of
agricultural products.
T-test result on this hypothesis is presented in Table 8.
Table 8
t-test analysis of the responses of local agricultural producers of Dairy and Tomatoes on
the government’s policies constraints to the distribution of agricultural products
S/N Government’s policies constraints N2 =103 N3 =53 XG SD F-value Sig. of F Remark

Χ2 Χ3
1. The excessive excise duties (tax) on 3.23 3.12 3.18 0.84 7.93 0.45 NS
agricultural products by the government
limits distribution of the products to the
market.
2. The scrapping of some agricultural 3.35 3.37 3.36 0.80 0.00 0.87 NS
organizations such as the “Agricultural
Marketing Boards” by the government
adversely affects distribution.
3. High importation of agricultural products by 3.33 3.33 3.33 0.81 0.48 0.96 NS
government is a threat to domestic
agricultural products’ distribution.
4. Creation of too many revenue-generating 3.37 3.49 3.43 0.71 0.22 0.29 NS
agencies by the government discourages
distribution of agricultural products.
Cluster Summary 3.32 3.33 3.33 0.79 2.16 0.64 NS

Key: N1 = Tea Producers; N2 =Tomatoes Producers, N3 =Dairy Producers, SD = Standard Deviation, Χ

1= mean of Tea Producers; Χ 2 = mean of Tomatoes Producers, Χ 3 = mean of Dairy Producers; Χ G
= Grand mean, F is significant at Sig of F ≤ =0.05, F value = T-test .
 56

The result presented in Table 8 shows that the p-value for all the variables used to
determine the government’s policies constraints to the distribution of agricultural products
are greater than 0.05. The implication here is that the hypothesis which states that there is no
significant difference in the mean responses of producers of dairy and tomatoes products on
the government’s policies constraints to the distribution of agricultural products was
accepted.
Research Question 5

What are the strategies for improving the distribution of agricultural products?
Data providing answer to this research question are presented in Table 9
Table 9
Mean responses of local producers on the strategies for improving the distributionof
agricultural products
S/N Strategies for Improvement N1 =70 N2 =103 N3 =57 XG SD Remark
Χ1 Χ2 Χ3
1. Employment of manual labourers to 3.42 3.45 3.46 3.44 0.72 Agreed
ensure good road maintenance and
repair.
2. Government should establish public 3.61 3.52 3.61 3.57 0.68 Agreed
warehouse/storage facilities near every
farm site.
3. Price-floor policy should be enacted 3.67 3.47 3.53 3.57 0.68 Agreed
for agricultural products.
4. Excise-waver should be granted to 3.30 3.21 3.17 3.23 0.91 Agreed
marketing of agricultural products.
5. Trade exhibition should be organized 3.45 3.36 3.44 3.41 0.64 Agreed
periodically for agricultural products.
6. Middlemen in agricultural products 3.34 3.33 3.29 3.32 0.70 Agreed
should operate under license.
7. Policy on Interest-free loans to be 3.20 3.23 3.19 3.23 0.78 Agreed
granted to farmers should be
promulgated by government.
8 Farmers’ Associations should be 3.07 3.17 3.18 3.15 0.72 Agreed
created for different groups and
registered with the government.
Cluster Summary 3.38 3.34 3.36 3.37 0.73 Agreed

Key: N1 = Tea Producers; N2 =Tomatoes Producers, N3 =Dairy Producers, SD = Standard Deviation, Χ 1=

mean of Tea Producers; Χ 2 = mean of Tomatoes Producers, Χ 3 = mean of dairy Producers; Χ G =
Grand mean.
 57

In Table 9, the mean rating of respondents on the strategies for improving the
distribution of agricultural products is presented. The data revealed that the values of the
grand mean ranged from 3.15 to 3.57 indicating that the responses of the respondents for all
the items fall under agree. The value for the standard deviation of the items for this cluster
ranged from 0.64 to 0.91. This indicates that the respondents were not too far from one
another regarding their opinion on the strategies for improving the distribution of agricultural
products. It can be deduced from the mean values that all the identified items of Table 9 are
the strategies for improving the distribution of agricultural products.
 58

H05: There is no significant difference in the mean responses of producers of dairy and
tomatoes products on the strategies for improving the distribution of agricultural
products.
t-test result on this hypothesis is presented in Table 10.

Table 10

t-test analysis of the responses of local agricultural producers of Dairy and Tomatoes on
the strategies for improving the distribution of agricultural products
S/N Strategies for Improvement N2 =103 N3 =57 XG SD F- Sig. of Remark
Χ2 Χ3 value F
1. Employment of manual labourers to 3.46 3.45 3.46 0.74 0.15 0.89 NS
ensure good road maintenance and
repair.

2. Government should establish public 3.61 3.52 3.57 0.67 1.65 0.42 NS
warehouse/storage facilities near every
farm site.

3. Price-floor policy should be enacted 3.52 3.47 3.50 0.71 1.08 0.62 NS
for agricultural products.

4. Excise-waver should be granted to 3.17 3.21 3.19 0.92 0.82 0.76 NS

marketing of agricultural products.

5. Trade exhibition should be organized 3.44 3.36 3.40 0.63 0.19 0.45 NS
periodically for agricultural products.

6. Middlemen in agricultural products 3.29 3.33 3.31 .70 0.88 0.79 NS

should operate under license.

7. Policy on Interest-free loans to be 3.19 3.24 3.27 0.76 2.04 0.70 NS

granted to farmers should be
promulgated by government.

8 Farmers’ Associations should be 3.18 3.19 3.19 0.64 1.48 0.94 NS

created for different groups and
registered with the government.

Cluster Summary 3.36 3.35 3.36 0.72 1.04 0.70 NS

Key: N1 = Tea Producers; N2 =Tomatoes Producers, N3 =Dairy Producers, SD = Standard

Deviation, Χ 1= mean of Tea Producers; Χ 2 = mean of Tomatoes Producers, Χ 3 =
mean of Dairy Producers; Χ G = Grand mean, F is significant at Sig of F ≤ =0.05, F
value =T-test .
 59

The result presented in Table 10 shows that the p-value for all the variables used to
determine the strategies for improving the distribution of agricultural products are greater
than 0.05. The implication here is that the hypothesis which states that there is no significant
difference in the mean responses of producers of dairy and tomatoes products on the
strategies for improving the distribution of agricultural products was accepted.
Findings of the Study

The following findings emerged from the study based on the answered research questions and
the tested null hypothesis:

A. The following are the infrastructural constraints to the distribution of

agricultural products:
1. The present means of transportation encourages incidences of damage/theft of
goods while on transit.
2. High costs incurred in transporting goods to markets impede distribution of
products.
3. Poor conditions of transportation of products to the market during rainy seasons
limit distribution of products.
4. Slow speed of transportation of products to market after harvest limits
distribution.
5. Buyers/Customers accessibility to products right at the farm gate discourages
farmers for their product distribution.
6. The present means of transportation of products (bicycles, farm animals, etc.)
from the field to storage site immediately after harvest limit product distribution.
7. Poor road condition leading to farms for distribution or moving of products to the
market limits products distribution.
8. There was no significant difference in the mean responses of male and female
agricultural producers on the infrastructural constraints to the distribution of
agricultural products.
B. The following are warehousing constraints experienced by agricultural
producers in the distribution of products:
1. Absence of warehousing/storage facilities prevents efficient distribution of
agricultural products.
2. Storage facilities are sited far away from farm sites.
3. Various agricultural products require different storage facilities.
 60

4. The available storage facilities whether public or private are insufficient, leading
to poor distribution.
5. The storage facilities being used currently are largely spacious to preserve
products in large quantity against quantity demand in the future.
6. Agricultural products that are perishable require storage facilities with special
conditionings, than other types of products; and the facilities are not available.
7. Reliance on the present facilities in use limits farmers’ efforts at value delivering
of products.
8. The siting of storage facilities far away from farm site affects distribution of
products.
9. There was no significant difference in the mean responses of agricultural
producers of tea and tomatoes on the warehousing constraints to the distribution of
products.
C. The following are channels of distribution constraints to the distribution of
agricultural products:
1. Use of distribution channels (intermediaries) by farmers in the marketing of
products hampers effective distribution.
2. Middlemen used in the distribution of agricultural products compound the way
products are distributed.
3. The channels of distribution in use by farmers do not give satisfaction to
consumers or customers, thereby limiting product distribution.
4. The use of middlemen in distribution of agricultural products causes price rise to
the detriment of both producers and consumers
5. The channels of distribution or intermediaries do not help in the positive
communication of products to customers in other locations; hence, impeding
product distribution.
6. Perishable agricultural products having the existence of middlemen in their
marketing limit their effective distribution.
7. There was no significant difference in the mean responses of producers of tea,
tomatoes and dairy products on the channels of distribution constraints to the
distribution of agricultural products.
 61

D. The following are government’s policies constraints to the distribution of

agriculture products:
1. The excessive excise duties (tax) on agricultural products by the government
limits distribution of the products to the market.
2. The scrapping of some agricultural organizations such as the “Agricultural
Marketing Boards” by the government adversely affects distribution.
3. High importation of agricultural products by government is a threat to domestic
agricultural products’ distribution.
4. Creation of too many revenue-generating agencies by the government discourages
distribution of agricultural products.
5. There was no significant difference in the mean responses of producers of dairy
and tomatoes products on the government’s policies constraints to the distribution
of agricultural products.
E. The following are strategies for improving the distribution of agricultural
products:
1. Employment of manual labourers to ensure good road maintenance and repair.
2. Government should establish public warehouse/storage facilities near every farm
site.
3. Price-floor policy should be enacted for agricultural products.
4. Excise-waver should be granted to marketing of agricultural products
5. Trade exhibition should be organized periodically for agricultural products.
6. Middlemen in agricultural products should operate under license.
7. Policy on Interest-free loans to be granted to farmers should be promulgated by
government.
8. Farmers’ Associations should be created for different groups and registered with
the government.
9. There was no significant difference in the mean responses of producers of dairy
and tomatoes products on the strategies for improving the distribution of
agricultural products.
 62

Discussion of Findings

The discussion of the findings is presented according to issues addressed by the research
question:

Infrastructural Constraints to the Distribution of Agricultural Products

The result of the study revealed that 7 items constitute the infrastructural constraints
to the distribution of agricultural products. The items are; the present means of transportation
encourages incidences of damage/theft of goods while on transit, high costs incurred in
transporting goods to markets impede distribution of products, poor conditions of
transportation of products to the market during rainy seasons limit distribution of products,
slow speed of transportation of products to market after harvest limits distribution,
Buyers/Customers accessibility to products right at the farm gate discourages farmers for
their product distribution, the present means of transportation of products (bicycles, farm
animals, etc.) from the field to storage site immediately after harvest limit product
distribution, poor road condition leading to farms for distribution or moving of products to
the market limits products distribution.

The findings of the study is in agreement with Davis (2000) that transport constraints
on rural livelihoods are not simply a result of poor road condition, but a culmination of
inadequate infrastructure, poor public transport provision and exorbitant tariffs imposed by
private transporters whose services are infrequent, and further impede the ability of the rural
to generate a sustainable livelihood. Hine and Ellis (2001) also supported the motion that the
pattern of agricultural marketing is strongly influenced by the nature of transport services and
that if transport services are infrequent, of poor quality or expensive then farmers will be at a
disadvantage when they attempt to sell their crops. They further argued that the main causes
of high transport cost identified by Hine and Ellis (2001) appear to be a combination of high
input costs, low utilization and poor maintenance. Seasonally impassable roads or slow and
infrequent transport services, coupled with poor storage, can lead to losses as certain crops
(e.g. milk, fresh vegetables, tea) deteriorate quickly over time. If the journey to market is
made over rough roads then other crops (e.g. bananas, mangoes) may also suffer losses from
bruising; this will also result in lower prices to the farmer.

The findings on the test of hypothesis 1 revealed that there was no significant
difference in the mean responses of male and female agricultural producers on the
 63

infrastructural constraints to the distribution of agricultural products in all the items except
item 1. Therefore, the null hypothesis of no significance was upheld for all the items except
item 1 where the alternative hypothesis was upheld. This indicated that the respondents rated
these items differently.

Warehousing Constraints Experienced by Agricultural Producers in Distribution of

Products
With regards to the warehousing constraints experienced by agricultural producers in
distribution of products, the result of the study revealed that 8 items constitute the
warehousing constraints experienced by agricultural producers in distribution of agricultural
products. The items are; Absence of warehousing/storage facilities prevents efficient
distribution of agricultural products, Storage facilities are sited far away from farm sites,
Various agricultural products require different storage facilities, The available storage
facilities whether public or private are insufficient, leading to poor distribution, The storage
facilities being used currently are largely spacious to preserve products in large quantity
against quantity demand in the future, Agricultural products that are perishable require
storage facilities with special conditionings, than other types of products; and the facilities are
not available, Reliance on the present facilities in use limits farmers’ efforts at value
delivering of products, The siting of storage facilities far away from farm site affects
distribution of products.
The findings of the study is in agreement with Njoku (1994) who has recommended
improved marketing policy to involve improved marketing facilities such as stable packaging
equipment and storage facilities. The more propensities the women have towards coexistence
in groups the greater the accessibility of women marketers to credit. Accessibility of women
marketers to credit enhance their aptitude in procuring good facilities needed to counter bad
weather and environmental degradation in milled rice and gari marketing. This study also
agrees with that of Onyeabor (2009) who reported inadequate access to credit as a serious
obstacle to rural transformation, Agricultural production expansion and produce marketing in
rural Nigeria. Evidently, successful marketing of perishable produce such as vegetables,
milled rice and gari requires good marketing focus on preservation and storage facilities
(Usman, Omoayena and Ishaya, 2006). This situation requires greater efforts on the part of
women marketers to co-exist in groups for better performance in procuring preservation and
storage facilities needed for marketing of milled rice and gari.
 64

The findings on the test of hypothesis 2 revealed that there was no significant
difference in the mean responses of agricultural producers of tea and tomatoes on the
warehousing constraints to the distribution of products on 7 items. While their opinions
differed significantly on 1 item. Therefore, null hypothesis of no significant difference was
upheld for those 7 items while alternative hypothesis was upheld for 1 item on the
warehousing constraints to the distribution of agricultural products. This shows that the
respondents rated these items differently.
Channels of Distribution Constraints to the Distribution of Agricultural Products
The result of the study revealed that 6 items constitute the channels of distribution
constraints to the distribution of agricultural products. The items are: use of distribution
channels (intermediaries) by farmers in the marketing of products hampers effective
distribution, middlemen used in the distribution of agricultural products compound the way
products are distributed, the channels of distribution in use by farmers do not give satisfaction
to consumers or customers, thereby limiting product distribution, the use of middlemen in
distribution of agricultural products causes price rise to the detriment of both producers and
consumers, the channels of distribution or intermediaries do not help in the positive
communication of products to customers in other locations; hence, impeding product
distribution, perishable agricultural products having the existence of middlemen in their
marketing limit their effective distribution. The findings of the study is in agreement with
Levine (2000) that improved performance of the overall distribution system is achieved
through managing such variables as channel structure and channel flows and when such
variables are not in place the overall distribution chain is disrupted.
The findings on the test of hypothesis 3 revealed that there was no significant
difference in the mean responses of producers of tea, tomatoes and dairy products on the
channels of distribution constraints to the distribution of agricultural products. Based on the
above result, the hypothesis of no significant difference in the mean responses of producers
of tea, tomatoes and dairy products on the channels of distribution constraints to the
distribution of agricultural products was accepted for all the six items.

Government’s Policies Constraints to the Distribution of Agriculture Products

The result of the study revealed that 4 items constitute the government’s policies
constraints to the distribution of agricultural products. The items are: the excessive excise
duties (tax) on agricultural products by the government limits distribution of the products to
the market, the scrapping of some agricultural organizations such as Agricultural Marketing
 65

Board by the government adversely affects distribution, high importation of agricultural

products by government is a threat to domestic agricultural products’ distribution, creation of
too many revenue-generating agencies by the government discourages distribution of
agricultural products. The findings of the study is in agreement with Hancock (2012) who
stated that government’s agricultural policy is a set of decisions and actions relating to
domestic agriculture and imports of foreign agricultural products. Governments usually
implement agricultural policies with the goal of achieving a specific outcome in the domestic
agricultural markets; some of which includes risk management and adjustment (including
policies related to climate change, food safety and natural disasters), economic stability
(including policies related to taxes), natural resources, and environmental sustainability
(especially water supply policy),research and development; and market access for domestic
commodities (including relations with global organizations and agreements with other
countries). Hancock further explained that policy programmes can range from financial
programmes, in the forms of taxation, subsidies, tariffs and other measures, sometimes
meant to encourage producers to enroll in voluntary quality assurance programmes.
Government policy, as described by Richard (2002), may have a direct or indirect effect on
the prevalent agricultural system through increasing productivity and ensuring regular food
supply in the country, improving farmers’ standards of living, stabilizing market prices at a
level beneficial to farmers and reasonable for consumers through the instrument of price
support policies. Some of these policies have bearing on distribution of agricultural products.
The findings on the test of hypothesis 4 revealed that there was no significant
difference in the mean responses of producers of dairy and tomatoes products on the
government’s policies constraints to the distribution of agricultural products. Based on the
above result, the hypothesis of no significant difference in the mean responses of producers
of dairy and tomatoes products on the government’s policies constraints to the distribution of
agricultural products was accepted for all the four items.
Strategies for Improving the Distribution of Agricultural Products
The result of the study on strategies for improving the distribution of agricultural
product revealed that 8 items constituted strategies for improving the distribution of
agricultural products. The items are: employment of manual labourers to ensure good road
maintenance and repair, government should establish public warehouse/storage facilities near
every farm site, price-floor policy should be enacted for agricultural products, excise-waver
should be granted to marketing of agricultural products, trade exhibition should be organized
periodically for agricultural products, middlemen in distribution of agricultural products
 66

should operate under license, policy on Interest-free loans to be granted to farmers should be
promulgated by government, Farmers’ Associations should be created for different groups
and registered with the government. The findings of the study is in agreement with Ajiboye,
(1994) that availability of transport facilities is a critical investment factor that stimulates
economic growth through increased accessibility, its efficiency and effectiveness. All affects
the basic functions of production, distribution, marketing and consumption in many ways.
Transportation also influences the cost of commodity consumed and the purchasing power of
the consumers.
The result of the findings from test of hypothesis 5 revealed that there was no
significant difference in the mean responses of producers of dairy and tomatoes products on
the strategies for improving the distribution of agricultural products. Based on the above
result, the hypothesis of no significant difference in the mean responses of producers of dairy
and tomatoes products on the strategies for improving the distribution of agricultural products
was accepted for all the four items.
 67

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the re-statement of the problem, summary of procedures used,
the principal findings of the study, educational implications of the study, conclusion,
recommendations, limitations of the study and the suggestions for further study.
Re-Statement of the Problem
With the advent of new farming technologies such as machinery and farm inputs, self-
sufficiency is now almost being achieved in agriculture (John, Oral, Parr & Richard, 2010).
What is now needed is the efficient distribution and marketing of the products to places that
require them for consumption and other uses. Greater thrust is laid on the problems of
marketing. If the marketing facilities are developed; it gives signals to increase production
and thereby ensures the availability of agricultural goods and services both locally and
internationally. To distribute the surplus agricultural products, the marketing facilities have to
be strengthened through provision and upgrading, right from the center of production to place
of market.
Despite the agrarian nature of Taraba state, with about seventy-five percent (75%) of
the population engaged in farming of various forms of agricultural products such as rice,
groundnuts, beans, cocoa, coffee, cattle, millet, cotton, tea, timber, bananas, yams, cassava,
tomatoes, maize, sheep and goats, among others, (Taraba state Ministry of Information,
Culture, & Tourism, 2012), the distribution systems have been observed to be very inefficient
and ineffective; products are damaged either in the field or on transit, high cost of goods,
delay in goods reaching places of use or markets, or some goods not spread at all throughout
the state and even beyond. The absence of good infrastructure causes significant loss of
earnings on the local producers and deprives them of capital for reinvestment and acquisition
of machines for project expansion. Infrastructural deficiencies create high scarcity and cost of
agricultural products borne by end-users in needed places of the state.
Constraints arising from warehousing result in inability of local producers to store
goods in order to meet demand during off-production seasons (Ashok & Balasubramanian,
2006). Lack of warehousing and storage facilities compel local producers to sell their
products at give –away price during harvesting period and even when demand is low as a
way of avoiding waste or spoilage, especially perishable goods; this causes decline in their
income and standards of living; hence the need for this study. To address these issues

67
 68

therefore, the following specific objectives were pursued. Specifically the study sought to
determine:
1. infrastructural constraints to distribution of agricultural products by local producers,
2. warehousing constraints to the distribution of agricultural products,
3. channels of distribution constraints to the distribution of agricultural products,
4. government policy constraints to the distribution of agricultural products,
5. strategies for improving the distribution of agricultural products by local producers.

Summary of Procedures Used

The study adopted the descriptive survey research design. The study was aimed at
determining the constraints to the distribution of agricultural products by local producers.
To achieve the objectives, five research questions and five null hypotheses were
formulated. The total population for the study was 543 farmers of tomatoes, tea and dairy
products registered with the Taraba State Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The
break-down of the population according to the products were as follows: Tea 137, Tomatoes
279, and Dairy 127. Simple random sampling technique was used to sample 230 farmers. The
instrument used for data collection was structured questionnaire. Thirty- six (36) copies of the
questionnaire were administered by the researcher with help of five research assistants and
retrieved immediately after completion. The questionnaire were organized into two parts, A
and B. Part A solicited information on the bio-data of the respondents. Part B was sub-
divided into sections A, B, C, D and E which had to do with information related to the
research questions. Reliability of the instrument was tested using cronbach alpha which gave
0.89 as the total reliability. The data collected from the respondents were analyzed using
mean to answer the research questions, standard deviation to determine the closeness or
otherwise of the responses from the mean. T-test statistics was used to test null hypotheses 1,
2, 4 & 5, while Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) statistics was used to test null hypothesis 3 at
0.05 level of significance respectively. The research questions were answered using the cut-
off point of the mean value. Thus, any item with mean below 2.50 was considered as
disagreed. Conversely, any item with mean of 2.50 and above was considered as agreed. The
null hypothesis was rejected if the computed significant value was less than the criterion
value 0.05 level of significance. On the other hand, if the computed significant value was
greater than or equal to the criterion value of 0.05 level of significance, the hypothesis was
accepted.
 69

Principal Findings of the Study

Based on the data collected and analyzed, the following were the principal findings of
the study:
1. The respondents agreed that 7 infrastructural constraints to the distribution of
agricultural products include: The present means of transportation encourages
incidences of damage/theft of goods while on transit, High costs incurred in
transporting goods to markets impede distribution of products, Poor conditions of
transportation of products to the market during rainy seasons limit distribution of
products, Slow speed of transportation of products to market after harvest limits
distribution, Buyers/Customers accessibility to products right at the farm gate
discourages farmers for their product distribution, The present means of transportation
of products (bicycles, farm animals, etc.) from the field to storage site immediately after
harvest limit product distribution, Poor road condition leading to farms for distribution
or moving of products to the market limits products distribution.
2. The respondents agreed that 8 warehousing constraints experienced by agricultural
producers in the distribution of products include: Absence of warehousing/storage
facilities prevents efficient distribution of agricultural products, Storage facilities are
sited far away from farm sites, Various agricultural products require different storage
facilities, The available storage facilities whether public or private are insufficient,
leading to poor distribution, The storage facilities being used currently are not largely
spacious to preserve products in large quantity against quantity demand in the future,
Agricultural products that are perishable require storage facilities with special
conditionings, than other types of products; and the facilities are not available, Reliance
on the present facilities in use limits farmers’ efforts at value delivering of products,
The siting of storage facilities far away from farm site affects distribution of products
3. The respondents agreed that 6 channels of distribution constraints to the distribution of
agricultural products include: Use of distribution channels (intermediaries) by farmers
in the marketing of products hampers effective distribution, Middlemen used in the
distribution of agricultural products compound the way products are distributed, The
channels of distribution in use by farmers do not give satisfaction to consumers or
customers, thereby limiting product distribution, The use of middlemen in distribution
of agricultural products causes price rise to the detriment of both producers and
consumers, The channels of distribution or intermediaries do not help in the positive
communication of products to customers in other locations; hence, impeding product
 70

distribution, Perishable agricultural products having the existence of middlemen in their

marketing limit their effective distribution.
4. The respondents agreed that 4 government’s policies constraints to the distribution of
agriculture products include: The excessive excise duties (tax) on agricultural products
by the government limits distribution of the products to the market, The scrapping of
some agricultural organizations such as the “Agricultural Marketing Boards” by the
government adversely affects distribution, High importation of agricultural products by
government is a threat to domestic agricultural products’ distribution, Creation of too
many revenue-generating agencies by the government discourages distribution of
agricultural products.
5. The respondents agreed that 8 strategies for improving the distribution of agricultural
products include: Employment of manual labourers to ensure good road maintenance
and repair, Government should establish public warehouse/storage facilities near every
farm site, Price-floor policy should be enacted for agricultural products, Excise-waver
should be granted to marketing of agricultural products, Trade exhibition should be
organized periodically for agricultural products, Middlemen in agricultural products
should operate under license, Policy on Interest-free loans to be granted to farmers
should be promulgated by government, Farmers’ Associations should be created for
different groups and registered with the government.
6. There was no significant difference in the mean responses of male and female
agricultural producers on 6 infrastructural constraints to the distribution of agricultural
products. While there was significant difference in the mean responses of male and
female agricultural producers on the infrastructural constraints to the distribution of
agricultural products on 1 identified item.
7. There was no significant difference in the mean responses of agricultural producers of
tea and tomatoes on 8 warehousing constraints to the distribution of products. While
there was significant difference in the mean responses of producers of tea and tomatoes
on the warehousing constraints to the distribution of agricultural products on 1
identified item.
8. There was no significant difference in the mean responses of producers of tea, tomatoes
and dairy products on all the 6 channels of distribution constraints to the distribution of
agricultural products.
 71

9. There was no significant difference in the mean responses of producers of dairy and
tomatoes products on all the 4 government’s policies constraints to the distribution of
agricultural products.
10. There was no significant difference in the mean responses of producers of dairy and
tomatoes products on all the 8 strategies for improving the distribution of agricultural
products.

Implications of the Findings

The findings of the study have the following implications for the local producers of
agricultural products, consumers/industrialists, government agencies, and researchers.
The study has implication to Agricultural producers. The study will make the general
public aware of the constraints to distribution faced by farmers. Through this study, farmers
will understand the effects of channels of distribution and need for adopting good channels of
distribution of different types of products produced. All these shall be made known to the
local producers through organization of workshops and seminars by the researcher for them
to learn.
Again, this study has implication to consumers/industrialists who are the ultimate
users of agricultural products. The study will expose them to the various challenges producers
face in getting products available to them, and the reasons responsible for high prices of the
goods they pay. Also it will enable consumers and industrialists understand the link between
government policies on agriculture and distribution of quantitative and qualitative goods they
consume, thereby channeling complaints to Consumers Protection Council for redress, thus
enabling them buy better goods in the desired quantity and at affordable prices.
The study has great implication to government agencies (especially, Federal and
States ministries of agriculture) the study will uncover the different constraints farmers
encounter in the distribution of the products, which is the last stage of the production process,
which may include the effects of the policies made on agriculture. This will then enable the
government to formulate favorable policies on agriculture in order to ensure availability of
agricultural products all over the country.
The study has implication for researchers. The result will offer researchers challenges
to conduct further researches on how to effectively distribute agricultural products produced
by local farmers so as to reduce the mentioned constraints.
 72

Conclusion
The outcomes of the study were closely related to the purpose of the study. The study
outlined the infrastructural constraints, warehousing constraints, the channels of distribution
constraints, government policy constraints and the strategies to improve the distribution of
agricultural product by local farmers in Taraba state. It is believed therefore that if all these
constraints considered by local farmers are corrected and the strategies for improvement
utilized, the problem faced local producers in distribution of their products especially tea,
tomatoes and dairy in Taraba State will be ameliorated.

Recommendations
Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations were made:
1. The researcher recommends the need for infrastructural development advocacy to
revive the rail system of transportation of rural farmers.
2. There is need for research and dissemination of information in order to improve
understanding on rural transport needs and travels in the rural areas to support
agricultural development.
3. Government should ensure construction and regular maintenance of roads leading to
major farm sites in every community of the state, through employment of manual
labourers. This will pave way for movement of farm products throughout the season
to market-places by producers.
4. Various communities should organize for collective communal road maintenance, at
least twice during rainy season. This should be done to take care of major and path-
ways to where crops will be evacuated for distribution to markets.
5. Public warehouses should be made available, at least, one in every local government
head-quarters. This will enable farmers to harvest and store their products therein,
while arranging for the time and place of distribution.
6. Legislation should be enacted mandating the use of only registered middlemen, in the
distribution of agricultural products; and also specifying the skills required of them as
well as delimiting their functions in the distribution business. This will check their
excesses.
7. Federal, state and local governments should minimize the number of bodies or
agencies established for derivation of revenue on distribution of some agricultural
products that are statutorily consumable. This will curtail cost incurred on
 73

distribution, hence bringing about a rise in income and standard of living of local
producers of agricultural products.
8. The formation of Marketing Organizations by farmers of different types of products
should be tolerated and encouraged by the government. By this, farmers will have a
common front and collectively seek ways of surmounting their identical challenges.
9. Laws limiting the importation of some agricultural products that are sufficiently
produced in the country should be promulgated by the government. This act will boost
the production and distribution of local agricultural products, thereby avoiding
internal markets being flooded with foreign agricultural products.

Suggestions for Further Studies

The following suggestions were made for further research:
1. A similar research that will involve the distribution of other types of agricultural
products in the same central zone of Taraba State can be carried out by future
researchers.
2. Study on the constraints to the distribution of agricultural products (tea, tomatoes and
dairy) could be replicated in another different geographical location.
3. Research on strategies for overcoming constraints to distribution of agricultural
products could be conducted in other zones of Taraba State.
 74

REFERENCES

Achison, C.B. (2000). Strategic marketing management. Enugu: Precision Publishers and
Printer.

Adirika, E.O., Ebue, B.C. & Nnolim, D.A. (2001). Principles and practice of marketing:
Enugu: John Jacob’s Classic Publishers Ltd.

Adirika E.O. (2001). Principles and practice of marketing: Enugu. John Jacob’s Publishers
Ltd.

African Development Bank (ADB) (2009). African Economic Outlook. Annual report, South
Africa.

African Development Bank (ADB) (2010). The state of food insecurity in the world. Tunis.

Ajiboye, A. O. (1994). Rural Accessibility and Transportation Problems. A case study of

Ijebu North Local Government Area, Ogun State. Unpublished PGD in Transport
Thesis, Department of Geography and Regional Planning, Ogun State University,
Ago-Iwoye.

Anyawu, C. (2000). Agricultural science for schools and colleges.5th ed. Onitsha. African 1st
publisher ltd.

Ashok, K. R. & Balasubramanian (2006). Role of infrastructure in productivity. Washington

DC. Island press.

Aparajita, G. (2010). Information, direct access to farmers and rural market performance,
centre. India:

Avittathur, J. & Shah, O.K. (2005). Distribution centre location modeling for different sales
tax structure. European Journal of Operations Research, 191-205.

Balisacan, A. & Pernia, E. (2002). Probing beneath cross national averages: Poverty,
inequality and growth in the Philippines. Asian Development Bank.

Calestous, J. (2011). The new harvest: Agricultural innovation in Africa. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Central Bank of Nigeria (2003). Highway maintenance in Nigeria: Lesson from other
countries. Research.

Cheng, X. (2002). Vegetables prices forecast and predict system research. Agricultural
products wholesale markets. Beijing: Quinghua University Press.

Colander, D.C. (2008). Microeconomics (7th Ed.), Lagos: McGraw Hill. pp. 132-33.

Collins, C. (2003). English dictionary of advanced learners, (4th Ed.), Therasus, Harper
Collins Publishers.

Coyle, D. (2003). Physical distribution management. Minnesota, The Macmillan company.

 75

Coyle, J.J., Edward, J.B. & Langley, C.J. (2013). The management of business logistics: A
supply chain perspective (7th Ed.), Mason: South-Western/Thomson Learning.

Daphne, A. (2003). Offshore investment. Rodman: Ryerson University Press.

David, R.J. & Jaclyn, D.K. (2013). “The rise of supermarkets in Africa, Asia and Latin
America”: America Journal of Agricultural Economics, 95, 1049-1069. Oxford
University Press.

Davis, A. S. C. (2000). The application of transport and sustainable rural livelihoods in

Zambia: A case study, Rural Transport Knowledge Base 1 Rural Travel and Transport
Program 5 (3b), 1-15.

Dyer, G. (2007). Breeds of livestock. Ausi-Ok State: Oklahoma State University.

Ehrbar, A. (2008). Concise encyclopedia of economics (2nd Ed.), Indianapolis.

Etonyeaku, E.A.C. (2012). Fundamentals of insurance for senior secondary schools. Enugu:
Cheston Agency Press Ltd.

Felloni, G. (2001). Infrastructure and agricultural production: Cross-country evidence. New

Delhi: Himalaya Publishing House.

Fulmer, J. (2009). Jump up ^: What in the world is infrastructure? PEI Infrastructure Investor
(July/August): 30–32.

Gaedeke, R.M. (2003). Marketing principles and applications. Minnesota: West Publishing
Company.

George, J. S. (1994). Production and distribution theories. Washington: University of

Washington.

Handcock, J.F. (2012). Jumup: Plant evolution and the origin of crop species (3rd Ed.), CABI
Publishing.

Hayes, B. (2005). Infrastructure: The book of everything for the industrial landscape (1st
Ed.), New York: City, Norton.

Henderson, D.R. (2008). Demand: Concise encyclopedia of economics (2nd Ed.), Indianapolis
Library of Economics and Liberty.

Hine, J. L. & Ellis, S. D. (2001). Agricultural Marketing and access to transport services,
Rural Transport Knowledge Base 1, Rural Travel and Transport Program,4 (3a), 1-11.

[Link]

[Link]

Igben, I. & Eyo, E.O. (2002). Agricultural economics: An introduction to basic concepts.
Uyo: Best Print Business Press.
 76

Ilodigwe, S.C. (2011). Assessment of effectiveness of distribution strategies of A-Z Aba:

Petroleum Products Ltd.

Inyama, A. (2004). Problems of marketing agricultural products in Enugu [Link]

Unpublished Project, Department of Marketing, University of Nigeria, Enugu
Campus.

John, B.P., Otal, C., Parr, C.R. & Richard, T.W. (2010). Introduction to agricultural
economics (5th Ed.), London: Pearson Education Ltd.

Jordan, D.K. (2002). The agricultural revolution: The Neolithic. California: University of
California, San Diego.

Jumpup, W.T. (2008). Manchester warehouses, revealing histories: Remembering slavery.

Manchester City Galleries. Aparajitagoyal, information, direct access to farmers, and
rural market performance in central India, Retrieved 24 January, 2014.

Kent, A. & Jonathan, D. (2008). Marketing encyclopedia

Britanica:[Link]
research-firms.

Kotter, P. & Gary, A. (2008). Principles of marketing. U.S.A: Prentice Hall Inc.

Kotter, P., Keller, K.L. & Burton, L. (2009). Marketing management Australia. Pearson
Education Inc.

Langseth, J. (2004). Real-time data warehousing: Challenges and solutions. Manchester:

Papillon Graphics.

Levin, H.M. & Patrick, M. (2008). Cost-effectiveness analysis: Methods and applications.
Thousand Oaks, C.A: Sage Publications Inc.

Levine, B. (2000). Marketing channels. McGraw Hill (Encyclopedia of Business, 2ndEd.).

McGoldrick, P. (2009). Retail marketing: New York: McGraw-Hill.

McGraw, B. (2009). Production and operation management: Quality, performance, and value.
New York. West publishing company.

Moses, J. (2000). Textile industries and warehouses. Manchester: Papillon Graphics.

Munnell, A.H. (1992). Infrastructure investment and economic growth. Journal of economic
perspectives, American Economic Association 6(4), 189-198.

Myers, N. & Kent, J. (2001). Perverse subsidies: How tax dollars can undercut the
environment and the economy. Island: Washington D.C., Island Press.

Nicholson, T. E. (2007). Role of transportation in agricultural marketing and development.

Georgia, Oxford University press.
 77

Njoku, J. E. (1994). The Economics of Wholesale Marketing of Vegetables in Owerri of

Southern Nigeria: The case study of onions; Tropical Agriculture, Trinidad, 7; (2):
139-143.

Nwodo, A.A. (2010). Problems of effective and efficient distribution of Nigeria Brewery
Company (NBC) products, Abia State.

Nwodo, S.I. (2012). Effects of palm produce distribution on consumer demand in Nsukka
Area, Enugu State. An Unpublished [Link]. Project, Department of Marketing,
University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus.

Nwodu, B. (1994). The distribution system and its impacts on the availability of petroleum
products in Nigeria, (A case study of kerosene, in Enugu and Anambra State).An
Unpublished [Link]. Project, Department of Marketing, University of Nigeria, Enugu
Campus.

Nworgu, B.G. (2009). Home Economics Research Association of Nigeria (HERAN):

Developing research skills: Concepts and conceptual frameworks. Nsukka, Nigeria:
Great AP Express Publishers Ltd.

Okafor, D.A. (2009). An assessment of the effectiveness of the distribution strategies of

manufacturing roofing sheet (A case study of Emenite Nig. Ltd, Emene, Enugu
State).An Unpublished [Link]. Project, Department of Marketing, University of
Nigeria, Enugu Campus.

Onyeabor, E. N. (2009). Marketing and Distribution Channels; Agricultural Marketing for

Developing Economies. Enugu, John Jacob’s Classic Publishers.

Onyebinama, U.A.U & Onyebinama, I. C. (2010) “Extension Education and

Entrepreneurship Development in Nigerian Agriculture”. Agricultural Journal, vol. 5,
63-69. Medwell Publishing.

Olsztynski, J. (2005). Why the middleman hangs around: Excerpted from an address given to
the ft. Wayne India: ASHRAE.

Omoda, A.S. (2007). Strategies for managing the opportunities and challenges of the current
agricultural commodity booms in SSIA, in seminar papers on managing commodity
booms in sub-Saharan Africa. Nairosi: AERC Publishers.

Osuala, E.C. (1998). Fundamentals of Nigerian marketing, Onitsha: Cape Publishers

International Ltd.

Pakin, M., Powell, M. & Matthew, K. (2007). Economics, (7th Ed.), Wesley: Harlow,
Addison-Wesley.

Paul, H. & Kelvin, G. (2010). Jumup: Effectively slotting a warehouse or distribution centre.
Lancaster: Carnegie Publishing.

Rettenberg, O. & Tregarthen, G. (2012). Principles of microeconomics. Retrieved June 19,

2013.
 78

Richard, T.W. (2002). Introduction to agricultural economics (5th Ed.), London: Person
Education Ltd.

Ross, D.F. (2004). Distribution planning and control: Managing in the Era of supply chain
management (2nd Ed.), Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Salyanarayana, C.U.V. & Sukumaran, C.R. (2005). Large-scale drying of ripe Chillies: Food
and Bioprocess, India: New Delhi.

Schewe, D.C. & Smith, R.M. (1990). Marketing concepts and applications. New York:
McGraw-Hill, B.K. Company.

Solomon, G. & Stuart, C. (2003). Contemporary marketing. U.S.A: Prentice Hall.

Steven, M.S. (2003). Economics: Principles in action. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Stone, D. (2005). Decision-making in medieval agriculture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Taraba State Ministry of Information, Culture and Tourism (2012). Diary. Jalingo:
Ammarana Investment Ltd.

Teruel, R. & Kuroda, Y. (2005). Public infrastructure and productivity growth in Philppine
agriculture. Journal of Asian Economics, 16, 555-576.

The World Bank (2006).[Link]

Thompson, J.G. (2000). The nature of demand for agricultural products and some important
consequences. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press
[Link]

Ukweze, E.O. (2007). Appraisal of distribution strategies of companies. Enugu: NBC.

Ukwueze, E.O. (2007). Appraisal of distribution strategies of companies (NBC), An

Unpublished [Link] Project, Department of Marketing, University of Nigeria, Enugu
Campus.

Usman, M. B., Omoayena, B. O. & Ishaya, B. T. (2006). Marketing Analysis of Cabbage

(Bracica Alleracea) in Jos South Local Government Area of Plateau State. In: Shola,
A. O. A. and Peter, B. O. (eds.). Technology and Agricultural Development in
Nigeria. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Farm Management
Association of Nigeria (FAMAN).18th September; pp217-280.

Wyke, T. (2007/2008)Jump up. “Manchester warehouses”. Revealing Histories: Remembering

Slavery. Manchester City Galleries. Retrieved 24 January 2012.

Zhang, S.L. (2002). Growth, inequality and poverty. China: International Food Policy
Research Institute.
 79

APPENDIX I

Department of Vocational Teacher Education,

(Business Education Unit),
University of Nigeria,
Nsukka.
20th October, 2014.

Dear Respondent,

QUESTIONNAIRE ON “CONSTRAINTS TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS BY LOCAL PRODUCERS IN TARABA STATE”

I am a postgraduate student of the department named above. I am conducting a

research on: “Constraints to the distribution of agricultural products by local producers in
Taraba State”.
Please kindly give your responses to the questions herein, according to your
knowledge and feeling. Every information supplied here will be given the utmost confidential
treatment; as they are for the purpose of research only.
Thank you for co-operation.

Yours faithfully,

Juta, Jeremiah.
 80

QUESTIONNAIRE
Instruction:
Please check (√) as appropriate in the box of each of the under listed items.
Section “A”

1. Gender: Male Female

2. Type of product(s) produced: Tea Tomatoes Dairy

Section “B”
Use the keys below for your guide:
Strongly Agreed =SA
Agreed =A
Disagreed =DA
Strongly Disagreed =SD

Infrastructural constraints (land transportation) to the distribution of agricultural

products by local producers in Taraba State.
S/N item statements SA A DA SD
1 Poor road condition leading to farms for distribution or moving of
products to the market limits products distribution.
2 The present means of transportation of products (bicycles, farm animals,
etc.) from the field to storage site immediately after harvest limit product
distribution.
3 Buyers/Customers accessibility to products right at the farm gate
discourages farmers for their product distribution.
4 Slow speed of transportation of products to market after harvest limits
distribution.

5 Poor conditions of transportation of products to the market during rainy

seasons limit distribution of products.
6 High costs incurred in transporting goods to markets impede distribution
of products.
7 The present means of transportation encourages incidences of
damage/theft of goods while on transit.
 81

Section “C”
Warehousing constraints to the distribution of agricultural products.
Use the keys below for your responses:
Strongly Agree = SA
Agreed = A
Disagreed = DA
Strongly disagreed = SD
S/N item statements SA A DA SD
1 Absence of warehousing/storage facilities prevents efficient
distribution of agricultural products.
2 Storage facilities are sited far away from farm sites.
3 Various agricultural products require different storage
facilities.
4 The available storage facilities whether public or private are
insufficient, leading to poor distribution.
5 The storage facilities being used currently are largely spacious
to preserve products in large quantity against quantity demand
in the future.
6 Agricultural products that are perishable require storage
facilities with special conditionings, than other types of
products; and the facilities are not available.
7 Reliance on the present facilities in use limits farmers’ efforts
at value delivering of products.
8 The siting of storage facilities far away from farm site affects
distribution of products.
 82

Section D
Channels of distribution constraints to the distribution of agricultural products in
Taraba State
S/N item statements SA A DA SD
1 Use of distribution channels (intermediaries) by farmers in the
marketing of products hampers effective distribution.
2 Middlemen used in the distribution of agricultural products
compound the way products are distributed.
3 The channels of distribution in use by farmers do not give
satisfaction to consumers or customers, thereby limiting
product distribution.
4 The use of middlemen in distribution of agricultural products
causes price rise to the detriment of both producers and
consumers.
5 The channels of distribution or intermediaries do not help in
the positive communication of products to customers in other
locations; hence, impeding product distribution.
6 Perishable agricultural products having the existence of
middlemen in their marketing limit their effective distribution.
 83

Section E

Government policies constraints to the distribution of agricultural products.

S/N item statements SA A DA SD
1 The excessive excise duties (tax) on agricultural products by
the government limits distribution of the products to the
market.
2 The scrapping of some agricultural organizations such as the
“Agricultural Marketing Boards” by the government adversely
affects distribution.
3 High importation of agricultural products by government is a
threat to domestic agricultural products’ distribution.
4 Creation of too many revenue-generating agencies by the
government discourages distribution of agricultural products.

Section F
Strategies for improving the distribution of agricultural products in Taraba State.
Use the keys for your guide.
Strongly Agreed = SA
Agreed = A
Disagreed = DA
Strongly Disagreed = SD

S/N item statements SA A DA SD

1 Employment of manual labourers to ensure good road
maintenance and repair.
2 Government should establish public warehouse/storage
facilities near every farm site.
3 Price-floor policy should be enacted for agricultural
products.
4 Excise-waver should be granted to marketing of agricultural
products.
 84

5 Trade exhibition should be organized periodically for

agricultural products.
6 Middlemen in agricultural products should operate under
license.
7 Policy on Interest-free loans to be granted to farmers should
be promulgated by government.
8 Farmers’ Associations should be created for different
groups and registered with the government.