THE ECONOMICS OF 
POST-HARVEST HANDLING AND MARKETING 
OF LEGUMES IN GHANA: THE CASE OF 
COWPEA, GROUNDNUTS AND BAMBARA BEANS.
BY
JOYCE AFIJA BEDIAKO
THIS THESIS IS SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF 
GHANA, LEGON, IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE 
REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF Ph.D DEGREE IN 
AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 
AND AGRIBUSINESS,
FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE,
UNIVERSITY OF GHANA,
LEGON.
SEPTEMBER, 2000.
Se>%'TUg&31
U i c  c ’ s
I, Jocyce Afua Bediako, author of this research report do hereby declare that the research 
work presented in this thesis:
“The Economics of Post-Harvest Handling and Marketing of Legumes in Ghana:
The Case of Cowpea, Groundnuts and Bambara Beans”, 
was done entirely by me in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, 
University of Ghana, Legon.
This work has never been presented either in whole or in part for any other degree of the 
Univeristy or elsewhere.
DECLARATION
JOYCE AFUA BEDIAKO
This research work has been submitted for examination with our approval as supervisors.
DEDICATION
To JEHOVAH GOD 
and to
my LORD JESUS CHRIST. 
For the gift of 
Life and Strength 
to complete this work.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
My profound gratitude goes to my main Supervisor, Professor J. A. Dadson. for 
his encouragement, guidance and valuable suggestions throughout the course of this 
research work. I am also very grateful to the following for the useful contributions they 
made to make this work a success: Professor E. O. Asante, Dr. Seth Buatsi and Mr. K. 
Owusu Baah who are the Co-supervisors of this research work. I also wish to extend my 
thanks to Dr. G. T M. Kwadzo, who supervised and helped to shape up the initial stage 
of this work before proceeding on sabbatical leave.
I thank Rev. Dr. S. As*iming-Brempong, head of the Economics and 
Agribusiness Department for his useful suggestions and guidance throughout the study. 
My gratitude also goes to Dr. (Mrs.) R. Al-Hassan, the former Head of Department, for 
her concern, guidance and useful suggestions. I thank Mr. K. Yerfi Fosu, for assisting to 
put this project on course.and Mr. D. P. K. Amegashie for his untiring assistance and 
encouragement.
My gratitude also goes to Professor R.B Bening, the formerVice Chancellor of the 
University for Development Studies (UDS), and the present Vice Chancellor Prof. J 
Kaburise. I also thank most sincerely, Professor G M. K. Mensah, Professor F. K. Fianu 
and Prof J. C. Norman who collectively assisted me to get a World Bank financial 
support through the National Agricultural Research Project (NARP). I thank Mr. J. D. 
Owiredu of the National Agricultural Research Project for his patience and for being 
there whenever I needed his help. I extend my profound gratitude to Prof. and Mrs. 
Dittoh of the University for Development Studies, for their prayers, encouragement and 
material assistance.
I extend my sincere gratitude to Dr. Peter Gollop, Dr. Stephanie Gallat, Dr. John 
Brice and Mr. Andrew Goodland, all of the Natural Resources Institute (U.K) for their 
support and encouragement.
I also extend my gratitude to Professor J. Lowenberg-DeBoer, and Mr. A. 
Langyintuo of Purdue University for their contributions towards the success of this 
study. I wish to extend my profound gratitude to Ms. Peace Ntumi, Mrs. C. Honu, Mr. E. 
T. Adikah, Mr. R Darko, and all others at the Department of Agricultural Economics and 
agribusiness, Legon, for their useful services towards the success of this work.
My thanks also go to Messrs. Manfred and Devine Kumah, Miss V. Kuwomu,
Col. O. Y. Okyere, Mr. Samuel Quaicooh for their various services. I cannot end without 
extending my gratitude to all my colleagues at the University for Development Studies 
(UDS), and the Savannah Agricultural Research Institute (SARI) for their encouragement 
in various ways.
Finally, my thanks go to my dear mother Emilia, and the Bediako family in 
Accra, Cape Coast and Nkonya Guan, for their support and prayers and to my son Martin 
for his help in data entry and typing.
J. A. Bediako
ABSTRACT
The study examined the efficiency of the legume market with respect to post - 
harvest handling and the structure, conduct and performance of the marketing process. 
The legume crops involved in the study are cowpea, groundnuts and bambara beans. 
Bambara beans was however studied only at the farm level because of its limited sale at 
the wholesale level.
The techniques employed for primary data collection include Rapid 
Reconnaissance Survey, Participatory Rural Appraisal, Direct Observation, and Case 
Studies. The data from secondary sources consisted of documented information from 
institutions. They include wholesale prices collected mainly from the PPMED of the 
Ministry of Food and Agriculture.
Methods for the analysis of data include descriptive and inferencial statistics. 
Results obtained at the production level reveal that farmers have over the years developed 
many storage structures and protection methods as measures to protect legumes, namely, 
cowpea and threshed bambara beans, from destruction by insect pests during storage and 
to promote food security. The treatment of legumes on farms involve the use of 
traditional methods with limited application of chemicals. It was found that farmers store 
larger quantities of groundnuts and bambara beans in villages than cowpea, which is 
stored mainly in the markets by traders. The major marketing functions performed on 
legume markets by middlemen include purchasing, assembling, and distribution. 
Transporting, packaging, and storage were found to be important marketing services 
supporting the markerting functions. Other functions observed include direct and indirect 
financing through the provision of loans to farmers by traders and stock crediting among 
traders.
Unlike bambara beans, cowpea and groundnuts were found to have a large 
number of intermediaries in the trade resulting in a multi-marketing channel. A situation, 
which contributes significantly to high marketing costs with consequent high consumer 
prices. Both farmers and traders were found to have limited or no access to market 
information on legumes prices and supply situations in the country. Insect pest damage 
on markets was found to be high for untreated stocks, ranging from 3.4 to more than 70 
percent in some cases, thereby resulting in price discounts. The results revealed annual
v
revenue losses to traders ranging from 11.7 — 58.4 percent of net revenue through price 
discounts for damaged grades of cowpea, caused by weevils.
The results on pricing policies in the cowpea market give the indication of 
collusive pricing policies, with an imperfectly competitive marketing system resulting 
from traders’ monopoly of the market. The results also indicated weak associations 
between cowpea markets with only 9 out of 56 market pairs being highly associated, 
implying the existence of delayed transmission of price changes between cowpea 
markets. For the groundnuts market, the results indicate the presence of a higher market 
competition and a faster rate of price transmission between markets resulting in 22 highly 
associated market pairs
The results of price spread estimations between farmers and wholesalers indicate 
that groundnut farmers enjoy a higher share of consumer prices than cowpea farmers.
The study recommends that further study be made to identify simple, durable but 
affordable structures for introduction to farmers for legume storage. The use of 
underground storage facilities for instance may be additional options for study and 
consideration. The study also recommends an aggressive approach to insect pest 
eradication from farms and markets to forestall the incidence of seasonal produce damage 
and enhance the elimination of revenue losses to traders and farmers particularly in the 
cowpea market.
It is recommended therefore that trial experiments be undertaken to select the 
most potent plant materials and their recommended dosage of application for 
reintroduction to farmers as well as the use of appropriate and affordable solar energy 
technologies for insect pests eradication. It is also recommended that the problem of 
farmers’ inability to adopt high-yielding varieties be tackled from the market and 
consumer levels in addition to the farm level.
Extension services need to be introduced to markets to help in educating traders in 
operational practices and record-keeping as well as the formation of trader groups for 
linkage to credit institutions for financial assistance.
Pest control and modem storage facilities need to be constructed in the wholesale markets 
for the proper handling and marketing of grains, cereals and legumes.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ............................................................................................................................. i
DEDICATION  ..........................................................................................................................     ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................ iii
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................  v
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................vii
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................  xi
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................   xii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................   1
1.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................1
1.2 Background ............................................................................................................ 1
1.3 The problem ........................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Research questions................................................................................................ 7
1.5 Research objectives................................................................................................ 8
1.6 The need for the study.............................................................................................8
1.7 Scope of the study...................................................................................................9
1.8 Study area  ..........................................................................................................    9
1.9 Organization of the study..................................................................................... 14
1.10 Limitations of the study.......................................................................................14
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE....................................................15
2.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................15
2.2 The process of marketing.................................................................................... 15
2.3 Market analysis.................................................................................................  16
2.3.1 Market structure................................................................................................  .16
2.3.2 Market conduct..................................................................................................... 17
2.3.2.1 Mark-up policies...................................................................................................17
2.3.3 Market performance ................................................................................................
2.3.3.1 Marketing channels ..............................................................................................20
2.3.3.2 Market integration .................................................................................................
2.3.3.3 Producer-wholesaler price spread.........................................................................22
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY   24
3.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 24
3.2 Analytical framework .......................................................................................... 24
3.2.1 Market structure: insect damage to cowpea  .......................................................25
3.2.2 Procedure of damage assessment.........................................................................26
3.2.3 Revenue loss assessment...................................................................................   27
3.2.4 Market conduct: pricing policies......................................................................... 27
3.2.5 Marketing efficiency ........................................................................................... 28
3.2.6 Market integration................................................................................................ 29
3.2.7 Degree of market integration............................................................................... 31
3.2.8 Producer - wholesaler price spread.......................................................................32
3.3 Data requirements.................................................................................................33
3.4 Data sources ..........................................................................................................34
3.5 Data collection...................................................................................................... 34
3.6 Sample size...........................................................................................................35
3.7 Sampling...............................................................................................................37
CHAPTER 4 FARM-GATE AND MARKET LEVEL STORAGE
PROCEDURES.................................................................................. 38
4.1 Introduction........................................................................................................... 38
4.2 Farm level storage structures and crop protection methods .................................38
4.2.1 Storage structures.................................................................................................. 38
4.2 1 1 Factors determining the choice of storage structures by farmers....................... 41
4.2.1.2 Ranking results of legume storage structures........................................................42
4.2.2 The protection of legume stocks on farms............................................................44
4.3 Marketing of legumes at farmgate........................................................................46
4.3.1 Household marketing procedures  ...................................................................... 46
4.3.1.1 Means of transporting produce by farmers......................................................... 46
4.3.1.2 Gender role in legume marketing at the farm level........................................... 47
4.3.1.3 Marketing problems on farms.............................................................................. 48
4.3.2 Legume marketing by traders...............................................................................49
4.3.2.1 The social background of legume traders in Ghana .............................................49
4.3.2.2 Market facilities ....................................................................................................51
4.3.2.3 Marketing functions ..............................................................................................52
4.3.2.4 The channels of distribution ................................................................................. 57
4.3.2.5 Types of traders.................................................................................................... 61
4.3.2.6 The storage operations of cowpea........................................................................64
4.3.2.7 The storage of improved cowpea varieties and related problems ........................66
4.4 Groundnuts marketing..........................................................................................67
4.4.1 Damage to groundnuts on markets...................................................................... 67
4.5 Bambara Beans...................................................................................................68
CHAPTER 5 STRUCTURE, CONDUCT AND PERFOMANCE OF
....................................... LEGUME MARKETS........................................................................... 69
5.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................69
5.2 Legume market structure ..................................................................................... 69
5.2.1 Cowpea............................................................................................................... 69
5.2.1.1 Revenue losses on cowpea................................................................................... 71
5.2.2 Groundnuts......................................................................................................... 72
5.2.2.1 Revenue losses on groundnuts............................................................................. 72
5 3 The conduct of legume marketing......................................................................74
5.3.1 The pricing policies of legume traders...............................................................74
5.3.1.1 Pricing policies of middlemen in cowpea markets............................................ 75
5.3.1.2 The pricing policies of middlemen in groundnuts markets............................... 76
5.4 Market integration .............................................................................................. 78
5.5 Degree of market integration..............................................................................83
5.6 Producer - wholesaler price share ...................................................................... 86
CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 89
6.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... -89
6.2 Summary ............................................................................................................  89
6.2.1 Farm-gate storage procedures and marketing ...................................................... 89
6.3 Functions and facilities in legume markets ..........................................................90
6.4.1 Market structure ................................................................................................... 91
6.4.2 Pricing policies ...................................................................................................   92
6.4.3 Market perfomance .............................................................................................. 93
6.4.3.1 Marketing channels  ............................................................................................. 93
6.4.3.2 Market integration ..............................................................................................   93
6.4.3.3 Producer-wholesaler price spread ........................................................................ 94
6.5 Overview of study results .....................................................................................94
6.6 Conclusions ........................................................................................................   96
6.6.1 Summary of the objectives of the study ...............................................................96
6.6.2 Post-harvest handling and control of losses at the farm and market........97
6.6.3 Channels of distribution and functions of channel members  .......................... 97
6.6.4 Entry barriers of the legume market .....................................................................99
6.6.5 Market conduct: pricing policies of market intermediaries................................ 99
6.6.6 The spatial market integration of legume markets .............................................100
6.6.7 The fanners’ share of payments to urban wholesalers .......................................101
6.7 Policy recommendations ................................................................................... 102
6.8 Areas of further research.................................................................................... 103
REFERENCES................................................................................................. 104
APPENDIX A...................................................................................................108
APPENDIX B ................................................................................................  114
APPENDIX C ..................................................................................................116
APPENDIX D...................................................................................................117
APPENDIX E..............................................................................................  ....124
APPENDIX F................................................................................................... 131
APPENDIX G...................................................................................................133
x
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
3.1 Farm level coverage ........................................................................................................... 3 ^
4.1 Types of storage structures used by men and women legume farmers............................ 40
4.2 Ranking of storage structures by functional characteristics............................................ 43
4.3 Materials and methods used for produce protection on farms  45
4.4 The social background of legume traders......................................................................... 50
4.5 Purchasing trend of cowpea stocks in Northern Ghana.................................................... 65
4.6 Price trend of stored cowpea............................................................................................   66
5.1 Estimated equations of cowpea pricing policies...............................................................75
5.2 Estimated equations of groundnuts pricing policies.........................................................77
5.3 Highlights of cowpea market integration results..............................................................79
5.4 Highlights of groundnuts market integration results........................................................81
5.5 A matrix of cowpea market associations with the determinant IMCs..............................84
5.6 A matrix of groundnuts market associations with the determinant IMCs....................... 85
6.1 Summary of study results................................................................................................. 95
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
1.1 Nominal average annual price trend of cowpea, 1963 - 1996 ...........................................2
1.2 Nominal average annual price trend of groundnuts, 1963 - 1996  2
1.3 Trend in index of annual average price of groundnuts, 1963 - 1996 ............................... 3
1.4 Trend in index of annual average price of cowpea, 1963 - 1996  3
1.5 Population of cattle by country in West Africa, (1999-2000)............................................5
1.6 Population of goats by country in West Africa by country................................................6
1.7 Population of sheep by country in West Africa ..................................................................6
1.8 A map of Ghana showing the farm-gate survey areas...................................................... 10
1.9 Regional production levels of groundnuts in metric tonnes (1987-1989)......................  11
1.10 Regional production levels of cowpea in metric tonnes (1987-1989)............................  11
1.11 Annual production levels of groundnut and cowpea in MT (1984 - 1990)..................... 12
1.12 A map of Ghana showing important legume marketing centres......................................13
4.1 Producers’marketing problems........................................................................................-48
4.2 Stock treatment in markets .................................................................................................. . • • 55
4.3 Cowpea marketing channel ...............................................................................................58
4.4 Groundnut marketing channel..........................................................................................  59
4.5 Bambara beans marketing channel ................................................................................... 60
5.1 Percentage grain damage in numbered stacks at time of sale.......................................... 70
5.2 Average price discount per bag for corresponding % damage to stocks......................... 71
5.3 Percentage revenue losses by cowpea traders................................................................... 72
5.4 Percentage revenue losses by groundnuts traders.............................................................73
5.5 Producers share of urban wholesale prices: cowpea and groundnuts (1996)...................87
5.6 Producers share of urban wholesale prices: cowpea and groundnuts (1997).................. 88
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
1. FAO Food and Agricultural Organization
2. GFDC Ghana Food Distribution Corporation
3. GPRTU Ghana Private Road Transport Union
4. GRPC Ghana Export Promotion Council
5. MOFA Ministry of Food and Agriculture
9. PPMED Policy Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Department
10. PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal
11. UER Upper East Region
12. UWR Upper West Region
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION 
1.1. Introduction
The contribution of post-harvest management to the attainment of food and 
nutrition security in Ghana cannot be overemphasized. In this chapter the background and 
importance of marketing in the development of agriculture, and the problems and 
expectations associated with the post-harvest handling and marketing of legumes are 
discussed. Also highlighted are the research objectives, scope and limitations of the 
research as well as a description of the study area.
1.2. Background
There has been widespread public outcry about the rising cost of food in the 
country in recent times. In particularly, the prices of cowpea and groundnuts, which are 
important to boarding schools, homes, industries and refugee camps, for instance, 
continue to rise sharply on our markets. Figures 1.1 and 1.2 show the nominal average 
price trends for cowpea and groundnuts, both of which present sharp increases from 
1980.
The actual price situations, depicted by the trend of price indexes are also 
presented in Figures 1.3 and 1.4. The figures reveal that cowpea prices have been 
persistently unstable with sharp fluctuations over the years. The annual prices for 
groundnuts show a more stable and regular trend than cowpea prices. For both crops, the 
price indexes for 1983 is the highest portraying the severity of food scarcity in the 
country in that year. Although lack of data on annual prices of bambara beans made it 
impossible in this study to present an illustration of its price trend over the years, the high 
price and low quality of the crop on the markets indicate similar situations over the years.
1
Pimmmm 
Pmmmmm
I ammmm<D
r kmmmm
o
er tmmmmQ.
20000 
0
Pkm Pk Pm P Pam Pa Pm P immm
Years
Source: PPMED, MOFA
 PP     r !" # $%&'
Pk( )Pk
 Pi     r !" #  
*"+,' Pk( )Pk
ammmm 
mmmm 
I kmmmm 
 mmmm 
- tmmmm 
 (mmmm 
. 20000 
Pmmmm 
0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
/,
Source: PPMED, MOFA
2
 P( !",  0"1 #    r #
*"+, 2Pk( )Pk3
Source: PPMED, MOFA
Fig.1.4: Trends in Index of Annual Average Price of 
Cowpea (1963 -1996).
Source: PPMED, MOFA
3
Olayemi (1972) has indicated that production and marketing constitute a 
continuum and a lack of development in one retards progress in the other. Marketing can 
contribute to the development process of an economy in two ways. Firstly, it provides a 
channel for an efficient allocation of economic resources, ensuring high value production 
and mayimnm consumer satisfaction. Secondly, it stimulates growth by promoting 
technological innovation and increased supply and demand (Scarborough and Kydd, 
1992). It is only when prices established through the marketing system transmit demand 
back to producers and supply conditions forward to consumers with a minimum of lag, 
imperfection and distortion that the economy can achieve efficient allocation and use of 
its resources in satisfying wants (Bressler and King, 1970). In a market economy, prices 
guide producers in their choice of enterprises as to which commodity to produce, how 
much to produce, what production methods to use and when and how to produce for 
maximum returns. To increase food output therefore, there is the need to develop an 
efficient marketing system for all food output and food products. The more efficient the 
stages of the food systems, namely production, protection, marketing, processing and 
consumption, the more rewarding it is to everyone associated with the food industry and 
to the national economy (Dittoh, 1994). Resolving the marketing problems of legumes 
would help increase their production and consumption, with subsequent reduction of 
Protein Energy Malnutrition (PEM), which is prevalent in Ghana, especially among 
children. Effective legume marketing would help to stimulate an increase in their output 
by providing the needed incentives that would encourage the farmer to increase 
production. Groundnuts, for instance, which serve as a raw material for some vegetable 
oil and feed mill industries, would be produced in abundance to promote the operation of 
such industries.
In addition, efficiency in the marketing operations of a commodity lowers 
marketing costs, resulting in low consumer prices, which encourage consumers to utilise 
more of the commodity. An improvement in legume marketing would therefore, not only 
improve the living standards of the producer but would also increase legume supply and 
plant protein intake in Ghana. Furthermore, an increase in legume production would help 
improve soil fertility through its nitrogen fixing capability.
4
It is against this background and the persisting influx of holed legumes, especially 
cowpea and bambara beans into our markets and also the persistent high market prices, 
that it becomes necessary to undertake a research study of the operational mechanisms of 
the post-harvest handling and marketing of legumes in the country.
1.3. The problem
Even though Ghana is one of the countries with a low population of both wild and 
domesticated livestock per capita as shown by Figures 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7, there is 
insufficient incentives for the production and consumption of legumes, which are suitable 
plant protein substitutes.
 P  &+ # $++ 45 $+5  6,+ #r'  
2P)immP3
v >co
£ct43
£3
Z
(9
J ?
$+,
B1999 
El 2000 
02001
Source: Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) Library, Accra
5
Fig. 1.6: Population of Goats by Country in West Africa, 
(1999-2001)
(m 
. i
I 20
. P
I 10
°  K  0. 5
0
m I
rm til .. . rm . 0111 i-m 1 11. 1.1 RH ran
^ fiP ^ -A® ^ i’P' tP ^
V/// *' </ ^  V *v/v><r o^ &o^ ^ ♦ j
$+,
@1999 
B2000 
□ immP
Source: Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) Library, Accra
Fig. 1.7: Population of Sheep by Country in West Africa 
(1999-2001)
) ----------, Lea I , m 1^—^-------------------- , LEil-l I. E3 I 11=1 I , I F 1 I, _L
cp ^ sP #■ A®- ^ ^
f <?<?«? y * /• V
$+,
@1999 
S2000 
□ 2001
Source: Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) Library, Accra
6
Over the years, there has been widespread dissatisfaction over the quality of 
legumes, particularly cowpea and bambara beans, and high consumer prices. Peter Golob 
et al (1995) have this to say concerning the seriousness of the situation, “..the condition 
of grain in storage is affected by insect and rodent pests, which cause significant losses”.
Even though other grains are also affected, pulses are most heavily damaged, 
perhaps 20% by weight of cowpea is lost on the average but often the entire crop is 
damaged in storage. Bambara losses may also exceed 20% but also important is the 
reduced seed germination.
Inspite of the alarming figures of food losses at the post-harvest level, literature 
indicates that, “ the last three decades have witnessed a dramatic increase in the amount 
of research on food production issues in developing countries. A growing body of 
literature therefore exists on topics related to food production, consumption and nutrition. 
On the contrary, studies on the internal distribution and sale of locally produced crop, 
livestock and fish products have tended to receive less attention” (Scott, 1995). In Ghana, 
for instance, several theories of agricultural marketing, are yet to be verified in the 
domestic marketing contest
The study examines the legume marketing procedures and processes in Ghana 
including intra-market relationships, type of pricing policies in the conduct of marketing, 
the status of farmers remuneration from consumers of the major legumes, the causes of 
related problems and the possible remedies for improvement.
1.4. Research questions
The main questions which the research hopes to address, are:
1. How do fanners and traders preserve and store legumes.?
2. What methods and infrastructure facilities exist for storage and control of losses in 
the system?
3. What are the structural components of the legume marketing system?
4. What are the functions of participants in the marketing system?
5. How do the major legume markets relate in time and space?
6. How is price determined at the important levels of the marketing channel?
7
7. What problems exist in the industry between harvesting and the retail level and how 
can they be resolved?
8. What are the areas needing further research study in the marketing of legume?
1.5. Research objectives
The overall objective of the project is to study the structure, conduct and 
performance of legume marketing in Ghana. The study seeks to find the problems in the 
post -harvest management and marketing of legumes, which limit the enhancement of 
post-production activities for the maximization of returns / satisfaction to producers, 
traders and consumers.
The specific objectives of the study are to:
1. Examine the post-harvest handling and control of losses at the farm and market 
levels;
2. Identify the marketing channels for cowpea, bambara beans and groundnuts;
3. Examine the functions of actors in the marketing channel of legumes;
4. Determine the structure of the legume market with regard to entry barriers into 
cowpea market because of its susceptibility to insect pests;
5. Determine the pricing policies of actors along major channels;
6. Determine the spatial market integration of cowpea, and groundnuts for some selected 
markets;
7. Determine the producers’ share of urban wholesale prices;
8. Identify existing problems and to suggest remedies for redress.
The aim is to provide relevant information for remedial policies to help stabilize 
supply, reduce post-harvest losses and subsequently curb the rising cost of legumes in the 
country.
1.6. The need for the study
Very little published information is available on post-harvest handling and 
marketing of legumes in Ghana. Any rational planning as well as economic forecast of 
legume production and consumption has to be based on a thorough knowledge and 
understanding of the peculiar characteristics of its market. A knowledge of the processes
8
and procedures of legume trade will provide guidance for policy changes aimed at 
enhancing post-production activities in the legume industry.
It is hoped that this study will provide information that may assist policy makers, 
development planners and the private sector to put in place the required corrective 
measures towards improving the post-harvest management and marketing of legumes in 
Ghana and subsequently curb the rising cost and low quality of these crops in Ghanaian 
markets.
1.7. Scope of the study
Marketing refers to those business activities involved with the flow of goods and 
services from production to consumption. This study concerned mainly the private sector 
marketing of cowpea, groundnuts and bambara beans in Ghana. The aspects of operations 
covered include pricing efficiency, involving mark-up policies, price movement across 
time and space along the channels and the effect of insect damage to the revenue of 
traders.
Other aspects considered are the structure of the marketing channel and marketing 
functions along the channels. Special attention was given to indiginous methods of post- 
harvest storage and control of losses at farm villages. A wholesaler was simply classified 
as any middleman or woman selling cowpea, bambara beans or groundnuts in bags of 50 
kilogramme weight or more. The sale of cowpea, bambara beans and groundnuts at the 
retail level was not covered by the study.
1.8. Study area
Areas for the study of post-harvest handling and marketing procedures at the 
fkrmgate consisted of villages in Upper East, Upper West and Northern Regions of 
Ghana (Fig. 1.8), which constitute the major producing regions for the three crops.
Even though the legumes under study are grown in smaller quantities in other parts of the 
country, their production on a larger scale occurs in the Guinea and Sudan Savannah
9
pig L8: MAP OF GHANA SHOWING THE FARM- GATE SURVEY AREAS
These comprise the Northern, Upper East, and Upper West Regions, and the 
margins of the semi-deciduous forest of the Brong Ahafo Region (Figs. 1.9 and 1.10), All 
three legumes are grown under rain-fed conditions. The districts covered are Wa, Lawra, 
Nadoli and Tumu from the Upper West Region; Tamale, Tolon-Kumbungu, Yendi, 
Saboba and Walewale from Northern Region; and Bongo, Kasena Nankana, Bawku West 
and Bawku East from the Upper East Region.
10
P 7  "r+ 8, # *"+,  9+r  
!, 2Pa)Pa3
Source: PPMED, MOFA
PPm 7  "r+ 8, # $%&  9+r  
!, 2Pa)Pa3
i-,
ooo
■Oo
/■ / f 
& <r
A J? + J* j? ^ J?
& J- 
' <<f
7,
Source: PPMED, MOFA
: Pa  
;PPaa 
<Pa
11
Available data indicated that unlike groundnuts, which are produced on a larger 
scale, the ecological adaptability of cowpeas limits its production in the country (Fig. 
1.11), thus compelling traders to import cowpeas from neighbouring countries to satisfy 
demand.
 PPP   "r+ 8, # *"+,  
" $%&  9+r !, 2Pat )Pm3
= *"+  
>?>$%&
Source: PPMED, MOFA
The study of marketing processes and procedures took place in selected major 
legume markets. The markets include Bolgatanga, Wa, Tamale and Bawku, which served 
as rural markets for the study. Others were Techiman market, which served as a transit 
market while Koforidua, Kumasi, Tema and Accra markets served as urban markets (Fig. 
1.12).
12
Fig. 1.12:A MAP OF GHANA SHOWING IMPORTANT LEGUME
MARKETING CENTRES
13
1.9. Organization of the study
The study has been organised into six chapters. Chapter one introduces the subject 
matter of the study, while the review of existing relevant literature is presented in chapter 
two. Chapter three comprises an outline of the logical framework and methodology used. 
The findings of the study and the discussion of results are presented in chapters four and 
five. In chapter six is presented the summary and conclusions together with 
recommendations drawn from the study.
1.10. Limitations of the study
Data for the study was varied and had to be collected over a wide area of the 
country and from different sources. Like most developing countries, the lack of recorded 
data at the primary level required farmers and traders to depend mainly on memory 
recovery for the provision of information, requiring trangulation procedures and cross- 
examination of data, which made the assembling of data from primary sources time 
consuming and difficult. Secondary data from the Ministry of Food and Agriculture 
(MOFA) were inadequate and had to be supplemented by data from other offices like the 
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and the Ghana Food Distribution Corporation 
(GFDC). For reasons of limited logistics and other facilities, only cowpea, bambara beans 
and groundnuts were covered in the study. Other legumes, namely, soya beans, pigeon 
peas, lima beans, geocarpa beans, winged beans and sword beans, which are in any case 
produced in insignificant quantities in the country, were not included in the study. 
Another limitation was the lack of current reference material for literature review in the 
country’s libraries.
In spite of these limitations, painstaking efforts were made to obtain reliable data 
to help render the results of the study accurate and reliable.
14
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1. Introduction
This chapter discusses some fundamental concepts of marketing and market 
analysis as a review of related studies to the topic. The discussion dwells on some 
relevant approaches to the study of commodity markets in developing countries, 
measures and methods employed and the problems involved in the choice of analytical 
tools. The review provides the fundamental principles for understanding the basic 
requirements of the subject area. It also helps to identify appropriate methods of data 
analysis.
2.2. The process of marketing
The importance of agricultural marketing has long been recognised by 
economists, planners, and policy makers as a critical component in the process of 
economic development (Scott, 1995). Marketing has been defined among others as “ All 
those business activities involved in the flow of goods and services from production to 
consumption” (Abbot, 1958) and also as “...the process that links production to 
consumption” (Scott, 1995).
Based on these definitions of marketing, agricultural marketing has been 
described as: “Those processes applied to a commodity from the time it leaves the farm 
where it was grown to the time it is converted into another form or consumed several 
months later at a place many miles away” (Whetham, 1972). Like other researchers, 
Edith Whetham agrees also that, “ Marketing may be said to begin when farmers plan 
their output or the quality of their products in response to expected market prices”. 
Agricultural marketing has also been defined as “ the performance of all business 
activities involved in the flow of goods and services from the point of initial agricultural 
production until they are in the hands of the ultimate consumer” (Kohls, 1967).
In this study, legume marketing is perceived to comprise all the operations 
involved in the flow of legumes, in particular cowpea, groundnuts and bambara beans
15
from production to consumption. It also includes the handling of the produce at the farm 
that enhances good quality and minimizes waste.
2.3. Market analysis
Market analysis can be classified using descriptive, price efficiency, and
organizational criteria (Pomery and Trinidad, 1995).
The descriptive approach contains little statistical analysis and reaches
conclusions on market performance and efficiency on the basis of the researchers 
subjective assessment. Although this method has been extensively used as a basis for 
studying commodity flows and marketing techniques, it is not regarded as “ useful for 
intercommodity comparisons” (Smith, 1981). “The price efficiency approach analyses 
marketing in its dimensions of time, space and form” (King and Henry, 1959; King, 
1965; Bressler and King, 1970).
Efficiency here refers to the effectiveness with which the marketing system 
transmits information among the different channel groups of the market, namely
producers, wholesalers and retailers or market intermediaries.
The industrial organization approach relies on the theory that the market structure, 
which forms the environment, determines market conduct, consisting of the behaviour of 
the economic agents within the environment, and which in turn determines the
performance or the standard of operation of the market.
2.3.1. Market structure
Market structure is defined as the characteristics of the organization of a market 
which seem to influence strategically the nature of competition and pricing behaviour 
within the market (Bain, 1968). The term market structure refers to “the number of 
buyers and sellers, their size distribution, the degree of product differentiation, and the 
ease of entry of new firms into an industry” (Tomek and Robinson, 1990). The structural 
characteristics of a market may be used as a basis for classifying markets. Accordingly, 
markets may be classified as perfectly competitive (i.e many buyers and sellers), or 
oligopolistic (i.e more than one seller but where the number is not large enough to render 
negligible, the contribution or behaviour of each).
16
Market structure is the environment in which the firm operates. It includes 
buyer/seller concentration, product/service differentiation, and entry barriers (Pomeroy et 
al, 1995)
The market structure, therefore, “ determines the market conduct or the behaviour of 
economic agents within the market environment and thereby sets the level of market 
performance” (Caves, 1982).
However, problems of time and logistics support, limited this study to the 
conditions in legume markets, specifically cowpea and groundnuts, which act as barriers 
to entry into these markets.
2.3.2. Market conduct
Market conduct refers to the patterns of commercial behaviour arising from 
market structure. Some practical guidelines for analyzing market conduct are buying and 
selling practices and pricing behaviour (Pomeroy et al, 1995). The types of policies that 
traders employ in setting prices for commodities along the various stages of the 
marketing channels constitute the determining factors of the conduct of a commodity 
market. Consequently, the mark-up policies of traders in the legume market was used in 
this study to determine market conduct.
2.3.2.1 Mark-up policies
Many researchers have used the analysis of market margins as a basis for the 
study of market conduct in the marketing of various crops. Allen (1957) in his study of 
marketing margins and producer prices of the marketing of fruits and vegetable indicated 
some criteria for identifying mark-up policy types in commodity markets. He identified 
fixed margins, semi-fixed margins and percentage margins as mark-up policy types used 
to fix prices by middlemen in food markets. Olayemi (1977) applied Allen’s method to 
determine market conduct for some foodstuff markets in Nigeria. His method was 
outlined as follows:
Suppose the relationship between the farm-gate price and wholesale price of a 
commodity is given as:
17
Pw = a + pPF 
Where:
Pw = wholesale price,
TH = farm-gate price,
a = a constant term, denoting benefits derived from factors other than the price.
P = regression coefficient denoting the rate of price change.
According to Allen, when;
• a equals zero or close to zero, margins are determined by a percentage of the farm- 
gate prices or purchase price.
• P equal l,.a fixed margin is added to the purchase price.
• a is negative or p is more than twice the value of a, a percentage margin is indicated.
• p is less than one-tbrid the value of a, fixed margin is indicated.
• p is between one-third and twice (inclusive) the value of a, semi-fixed margin is 
indicated.
Other reserchers, namely, MacArthur and Rashid (1971), carried out similar studies 
with the method on retail margins in the marketing of fruits and vegetables in Egypt, 
Pakistan and India. With some modifications in procedure and classification they 
estimated the required relationships with slight contradictory results. A weakness was 
however detected in Allen’s results by Moro (1981) who questioned the absence of 
inverse margins in Allen’s results. According to Hallet (1971) an inverse margin is one 
which falls in absolute terms when the selling price or purchase price rises and vice versa. 
A margin is also said to be inverse if the selling price remains unchanged when the 
purchase price changes.
In developing countries like Ghana and Nigeria, factors that contribute to the 
presence of inverse margines are:
1. The fear of loosing customers;
2. The belief that it is more difficult to attract customers through price reduction than it 
is to lose them through price increases;
3. The practice of “expatriate”and “tourist” pricing systems; and
4. Charges from market queens.
18
In his study on the subject Moro (1981) used margins as the dependent variable 
instead of selling prices, which were used by Allen. Moro’s regression equations were 
presented as follows;
Where:
pR . pF = distributors’ margin, representing the whole channel from the producer to the 
consumer,
I , JI o = wholesalers’ margin,
I c  - Pw = retailers’margin,
I oy farm-gate price,
Pw = wholesale price,
PR = retail price,
a = a constant term representing benefits from other factors other than price.
P = the regression coefficient indicating the change in the margin resulting from a change 
in price.
A major advantage of this method is that the type of margin shown by the analysis is 
obvious at a glance.
• If p is negative we have an inverse margin.
• If p is zero we have a fixed margin.
• If a is zero then the margin becomes a proportion of the purchase price and is simply 
regarded as a percentage margin.
2.3.3. Market performance
The use of the industrial organizational approach, better known in market research 
as the structure, conduct, performance approach, emerged in the developed countries 
context, where industries, often dominated by a few very large firms represent a 
prominent sector of the economy (Bain, 1968). Some researchers have questioned the
Pr - Pf ~ a + PPf 
TE CTH = a + TTH O 
PR - Pw = a + PPW
(1)
•(2)
(3)
19
applicability of the method to the “atomistic situation typical of mainly agricultural factor 
and product markets in developing countries” (Smith, 1972). He believed that the 
structure-conduct-performance framework has limited transferability to the scene of 
developing countries because of underdeveloped infrastructure, intersectoral relations, 
and development objectives, as well as the unique social and political structure found in 
these countries. After further development of new approaches, however, Smith found it 
only necessary to revise the performance dimension, thus maintaining most of the 
original framework of the industrial organizational approach
Market performance refers to the impact made on the standard of the marketing 
system by the elements of structure and conduct. Perfomance is measured in terms of 
variables like prices, costs and output (Bressler and King, 1970). When a marketing 
system is allocatively efficient, consumer preferences are transferred without distortion to 
producers who will use such price information to make production decisions, which are 
also allocatively efficient (Harris-White, 1995)
The following measures have been used to determine market performance.
1. The type of the marketing channel. The objective is to trace the movement (purchase 
and sale) of the product from the source of supply through as many steps as exists before 
it reaches its point of final sale (Mendoza, 1995).
2. Market integration, which illustrate whether legume markets are associated, and how 
strong the associations are, indicating price movements and pricing efficiency in markets.
3. The producer’s share of consumer payments to urban middlemen
2.3.3.I. Marketing channels
According to Weld (1917), two kinds of specialisations may have developed in 
the evolution of the marketing system The first kind of specialisation is the division of a 
market into separate trades whereby each class of dealers handle a single commodity or 
group of commodities. The second is the splitting up of the marketing processes into a 
number of successive steps, regarded as specialisation by functions. This latter type of 
specialisation is not generally understood and popular opinion is that the subdivision of 
the marketing process into a number of successive steps has been carried too far. In other
20
words, there may be too many middlemen between the producer and the consumer of a 
commodity. While some researchers studying food marketing in developed ecomomies 
have argued that the existence of many intermediaries in the marketing channel ensures 
efficient allocation of available resources, (Wilcock, 1978), others studying the Sub- 
Saharan African situation have claimed that it results in marketing inefficiencies 
(Adegeye and Dittoh 1986; Dittoh, 1994).
The functions of the legume market that determine the number and types of 
channels which form the structure of legume marketing include purchasing, assembling, 
sorting, grading, processing, packaging, storage, transportation, distribution and 
financing.
In his study of marketing channels, Stigler (1951) provides a conceptural 
framework for measuring and anticipating channel structural arrangements. His approach, 
which involves isolating the reason why channel members would limit themselves to a 
particular function, is to break down the average total cost curve of the market into 
functional cost curves. His proposal is that marketing structures consist of various cost- 
efficient functional channels.
In other studies of marketing channels, Vaile, Grether and Cox (1952), Alderson 
(1957), and Bucklin (1966) depended on four dimensions of the marketing system which 
combine to form the structure of a marketing channel. The dismensions are:
i. the number of channel levels identified;
ii. the type of middlemen at each level;
iii. the number of middlemen at each level; and
iv. the number of channels, whether one (single), two (dual) or more than two (multi).
2.3.3.2. Market integration
A considerable amount of research studies have been done on the determination 
of marketing efficiency. Earlier researchers like Jones (1968, 1972) Gilbert (1969) and 
Thodey (1969) have used the bivariate market integration as a measure of marketing 
efficiency. Dittoh (1994) used Ravallion’s (1985, 1986) model in its extended version by 
Dahlgram and Blank (1992) for the estimation of market integration, to infer the
21
marketing efficiency of vegetable markets in Nigeria. In the various sources mentioned, 
marketing efficiency has been equated to low price variations across space and time. 
Waugh (1964) has postulated that it is only in the short-run that food prices can be 
expected to be determined at the farm level, especially, for storable non-perishable crops. 
In the long run, demand at the retail level is the dominant force in price formation, thus 
depicting a one-way price transmission from the retail level to the producer level for a 
greater part of the year. This phenomenon is prevalent in rain-dependent single or dual 
farming seasonal areas of developing countries like Ghana and Nigeria.
Olayemi and Olatunbonsun (1974/75) applied Waugh’s principle in thier 
approach to the study of marketing efficiency of some selected food crops in Nigeria. A 
feature of their studies was the nature and length of time lag between changes in prices at 
the retail level and those at the farm level. Although farm prices may be expected to lag 
behind retail prices, the period of the lag should be of interest to researchers.
In their study, unlagged prices as well as prices lagged by one, two and three 
weeks were regressed for different foodstuffs and between different markets. This 
enabled them to determine both market integration and the rate of price transmission 
from urban to rural markets.
The one-way regression equation was presented as:
TN = f(prt-i),
Where;
Pa = Farm-gate price in time t,
Pju-i = Urban retail price in time t-i, and 
i = 0,1,2 and 3 weeks.
2.3.3.3. Producer-wholesaler price spread
Another approach to the study of marketing efficiency is the producer- 
wholesaler/retailer price spread. The price spread describes the proportion or share of the 
consumers’ payments that is received by the farmer, and the proportion received by the 
wholesaler or retailer. Moro (1981) used the method to determine the percentage of 
consumer spending at the urban retail level that reached the producer.The method is most
22
suitable for commodities that arrive in the consumers’ storeroom in relatively the same 
form it left the farm-gate.
The use of farm and urban wholesale prices in this method of analysis is intended to 
satisfy two important objectives:
1. The need to know the proportion of the consumer’s payment that reaches the 
former’s pocket;
2. For the consuming public the need to know the extent to which any rise in urban 
food price is the result of increases in farm-gate prices, which reflect the cost of 
direct production and farmers revenue.
A study of the producer-urban wholesale or retail price spread for farm commodities 
also helps to confirm or dispel the assertion that market intermediaries receive too much 
for their services at the expense of consumers and producers. The type of price spread in 
a market system is also an indication of the marketing efficiency in terms of the cost 
effectiveness of marketing operations along the marketing channel as well as the 
efficiency in the allocation of resources to enterprises in production, processing and 
distribution of commodities.
23
CHAPTER3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 
3.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the methods used in the analysis. It includes the analytical 
framework outlining the theoretical concepts within which the analytical models are 
applied. The framework incorporates descriptive analysis and regression models to 
determine the market structure and conduct of the legume market with regard to the type 
of entry barriers and the pricing policies of middlemen. Also included in the analysis are 
the methods used to determine the efficiency of legume marketing with respect to 
channel types, market integration and the producer - wholesaler price spread.
3.2 Analyitical framework
The first objective of examining the post-harvest practices used by farmers and 
middlemen for handling and protecting legumes stocks on farms and markets was 
achieved through the Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) method of informal focus 
group discussion of indegenous storage practices. This aspect of the study involved a 
matrix scoring and ranking of storage structures as well as a descriptive analysis of data 
by statistical estimates of descriptive variables.
The ranking of storage structures was done in the open with the bare ground 
serving as the ranking board. Farmers were made to sit around a clean open space after 
they had been briefed on the procedures involved. Objects were used to represent fectors 
or characteristics that farmers considered important for storage structures. Different 
objects chosen by farmers were used to represent each of the structures being ranked. A 
quantity of maize seeds given to groups were used in awarding points to structures 
according to the importance of a characteristic of the structure. The session was repeated 
in each of the villages visited and the mean values of the results were tabulated for each 
structure. Men and women farmers performed ranking sessions together even though 
women were separated from men in formal interviews whenever it became necessary. 
Women were sometimes reluctant to offer certain information in the presence of men.
24
A storage structure possessing the strongest quality for a particular factor or 
characteristic was given ten (10) seeds in a space below the structure as shown in Table
4.2. The structure with the least satisfaction to farmers for that factor was given only one 
(1) seed and in between these two levels farmers placed a number of seeds representing 
their level of satisfaction for any factor or characteristic of the structure.
The second and third objectives of identifying types of marketing channels and 
the functions of middlemen were addressed by identifying channel members and 
constructing the marketing channels based on the dimensions used by Vaile and Cox 
(1952) and later by Alderson (1957), Bucklin (1966) and Mendoza (1995). Depending on 
the type of channel, the efficiency of the marketing system of a commodity was assessed. 
The procedure involved the use of descriptive analysis of primary data on the number of 
middlemen and the functions performed by each middleman or group of middlemen, as 
well as the sources of supply and destinations of the commodities. Marketing channels 
can be single, dual or multiple, resulting in a short or long channel from the producer to 
the consumer. The channel type obtained indicated the cost of marketing operations 
between the producer and the consumer. Long marketing channels suggests a large 
number of groups of intermediaries between producers and consumers implying high 
operational costs, and resulting in higher consumer payments and low marketing 
efficiency.
The fourth objective, which is to determine the structure of legume markets, was 
achieved by dertermining the barriers to entry into the legume market. A study was first 
conducted at the farm level from which the involvement of farmers in the marketing of 
legumes was assessed. This was followed by cowpea damage and revenue loss 
assessment for cowpea traders in the 1996/97 trade season. The assessment confirmed the 
fear of farmers for storing cowpea in contrast to the storage of groundnuts and bambara 
beans.
3.2.1. Market structure: insect damage to cowpea
Cowpea contributes significantly to farm household and urban food security in 
Ghana. Given the limitation of cowpea production relative to consumption, the role of 
storage cannot be over-emphasized. Incidentally, cowpeas are very vulnerable to storage
25
pests. The infestation of stored grains by bruchids or weevils cause losses in food value to 
consumers and revenue losses to both farmers and traders. Due to time limitation, a case 
study of the extent of insect damage to stock; and losses in revenue to traders arising 
from insect pest activity was undertaken in Tamale market to determine the extent to 
which insect damage serves as an entry barrier to traders and farmers and their 
contribution to the type of market structure in the marketing of legumes and in particular 
in the cowpea market.
3.2.2 Procedure for damage assessment
The case study approach was adopted for an assessment of insect pest damage to 
stored grains and its impact on traders’ revenues. From a list of traders in the Tamale 
market, four were selected by the simple random method. The selected traders had 
varying stacks of stocks stored at different locations in the market. A stack or heap is a 
number of bags of cowpea packed together. The total number of heaps or stacks made 
available by the four traders for the case study was fourteen. The number of bags per 
heap or stack ranged from 2 to 200 and the total number of bags examined was 918.
The damage assessment involved a weekly sampling and counting of holed grains 
out of 100 randomly scooped grains from two different positions of marked bags below 
each stack. An average of the two results was taken and recorded every fortnight The 
average of the results for two fortnights within a month was used as the measure of 
percentage damage for the month. Bags below heaps were chosen to avoid early sale of 
samples under study. Specially-made containers divided into 25 cells or compartments 
were used for identifying and counting holed grains. Four grains were dropped into each 
ceE at random so that 100 grains were examined at each counting. Only one hole made 
by a weevil was sufficient for a bean to be damaged. The number of holed beans in the 
container of 100 beans is the percentage damage. Two readings were normally taken for 
each stack every fortnight and the average recorded as the percentage damage for the 
stack that fortnight. The average of these records from two fortnights was the monthly 
damage for the stack.and the study continued throughout the storage period of each of the 
stack. The Natural Resources Institute (NRI) of the United Kingdom provided the 
assessment materials needed for the case study.
26
3.2.3 Revenue loss assessment
The revenue loss assessment involved an analysis of all financial transactions on:
1. Cowpea stocks used for the damage assessment
2. Groundnuts sold by the respondents.
Data used included the date of purchases, purchase prices, treatment cost if treated, shed 
levy, cost of jute sacks, labour, and all other related costs. Also recorded were dates of 
sale, selling prices and prices of clean grain in the market at the time of sale. Clean grains 
as previously stated refer to undamaged and wholesome beans. The data helped to 
determine revenue actually obtained and revenues expected if grains had remained clean. 
The price variation represented a loss to the trader and was used to determine the revenue 
losses on the cowpea and groundnuts.
3.2.4 Market conduct: pricing policies
The fifth objective, which is to determine the pricing policies of middlemen for 
each commodity market was achieved by assessing the mark-up policies of middlemen 
along the marketing channels. Following Moro’s modification of Allen’s original model, 
the empirical model specified for this study is:
P wi - I o = ot + P Pp...........................................(1)
P W2 - Pwi = a + pPwi.......................................(2)
I c J I , e y AA f I I ue aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaBdi
P R - P F= a  +  p P F ...........................................( 4 )
Where:
Pwi - P f = the wholesaler’s margin in rural market 
P w 2 - P w i = the wholesaler’s margin in urban market 
Pr - Pw2 = the retailer’s margin in urban market
I c  J I o = the distributor’s margin
a = the intercept of the graph which indicates an initial benefit resulting from
other factors like gifts or bush allowances.
27
P = regression coefficient indicating the rate and direction of change in the
margins
The advantage of the revised model, which was also adopted for this study is that 
the value and sign of the intercept (a) and the regression coefficient (p) directly indicate 
what pricing policy is being adopted by the market intermediary:
• a negative coefficient imply the presence of Harris inverse margin;
• a zero coefficient means a fixed margin while;
• a zero intercept indicates that the margin is a proportion or percentage of the
purchase price
Unlike Moro (1981) who studied only the retailer and distributor margins, this 
study identifies the pricing policies at the farm, rural and urban markets for farm-gate 
middlemen, urban middleman and the entire system known as the distribution system
3.2.5 Marketing efficiency
The efficiency of a marketing system implies the achievement of the least cost
commensurate with the performance of the business activities that go into moving a
commodity from the producer to the consumer. Marketing efficiency involves two 
aspects of a commodity market, namely:
■ The technical or operational efficiency which focuses on reducing the cost of 
accomplishing a marketing function without reducing consumer satisfaction, and
■ The economic or pricing efficiency, which is concerned with the purchasing, 
selling, and pricing aspects of the marketing process aimed at providing goods 
and services to the consumer at the lowest possible cost consistent with the 
interest of the producer.
While marketing efficiency has been equated to low price variations across space and 
time, thereby implying the need for strong associations between markets, high market 
performance is equally reliant on efficient pricing and operational efficiency.
The sixth objective, which is to examine the spacial market integration of legume 
markets was addressed by determining whether the legume markets were integrated or
28
associated, after which the strength of the association between the markets were 
estimated using Timmer’s Index of Market Connection or Concentration (IMC).
3.2.6 Market integration
A marketing system is spatially associated when prices in each individual market 
respond not only to its own supply and demand conditions but also to the supply and 
demand situations of other markets such that a local scarcity in an integrated system 
induces the arrival of produce from other locations. For the two-way market integration, 
prices in the primary market, referred to as the local market in this study, responds to the 
supply and demand conditions of the secondary market, referred to as the reference 
market, such that a local scarcity or glut in an integrated system induces the arrival or 
departure of produce from the secondary market. The reverse also holds.
The two-way regression equations used for the evaluation of spatial market 
integration were stated as follows:
1.Pl = f (Pr, xl, u)...........................................1
2. Pr = f (PI, xr, u).......................................... 2
Where,
1 and 2 are the first-way and second-way equations respectively.
PI represents the wholesale price at the local market in a first-way regression equation, 
and becomes a reference market price Pr in a second-way equation and vice versa.
XI and Xr are dummies representing the seasonal price changes for harvesting and lean 
periods.
U is the standard error of the equation.
29
The expanded, distributed lag forms of the equations are:
1). Pit = Plt-l + Plt-2 + Prt + Prt-1 + Prt-2 + Prt-3 + Xi + Uu.................................................................. 3,
Stated explicitly,
Pit — S Otit Pit-k 2 Pie P2 t-e ^PlXjt + Uit.............................................................................................................................4
(1st way equation)
Where,
Pit = prices in market 1 at time t in the first-way equation; 
a ik = coefficients of prices in market 1 for k number of weeks;
Pit-k=prices in market 1 in t-k lags;
k = 1 and 2 weeks for local market status
Pie = coefficients of prices in market 2 for e number of weeks;
e = 0,1,2 and 3 weeks for reference market status.
P2t - prices in market 2 at time t;
P2t-e~ prices in market 2 in the three previous weeks;
(pi = coefficient of exogenous variable in first-way equation;
X]t = exogenous variable in first-way equation;
Uu = error term in first-way equation.
2) Prt = Prt.i + Prt-2 + Pit + Plt-1 + Plt-2 + Ph-3 + X + U2t.......................................................... 5
Also stated explicitly:
P2t = S0C2k P2t-k + 2 p2e Plt-e + ^2X21 + U2t....................................................................................  6
(2nd way equation)
Where,
P2t = prices in market 2 in time t;
<*2k = coefficients of prices in market2 the previous week and two weeks before; 
P2t-k = prices in market 2 at time t-k; 
k = 1 and 2;
30
p2e - coefficients in market 1 in time t-e; 
e = 0, 1,2 and 3 weeks time lags;
Pn-e = prices in market 1 in at time t-e;
cp2 = coefficient of exogenous variable in 2nd way equation representing the influence of
external factors on the price in market 1
X2t = exogenous variable at time t in 2nd way equation;
U2t = error term in second-way equation 2;
The a‘s and P‘s represent the coefficients of local market prices and reference market 
prices prespectively.
X represents seasonal influences (lean and harvesting seasons) on price;
U represents the standard deviation; 
k = 1 and 2 weeks time lags for local market while; 
e = 0, 1,2 and 3.weeks time lag for reference markets;
The hypothesis is that, in the short-run;
Pit-e + 0, and 
P2t-e =£ 0
This implies the presence of relationships between legume markets in both directions in 
the specified time lags. However, e = 0 which was regarded as a transit period and e = 3, 
considered close to a long-run situation, were not given much prominence in the 
discussion of the results. Similarly, the focus of the study dwelt on local/reference 
relationships and not on local/local relationships, hence only one and two-week lags were 
considered in the local/ local situations. The size of the sample used for the market 
integration was 112 and consisted of the number of prices used for the analysis. The 
number of markets studied was eight (8), resulting in the derivation of equations, for 
fifty-six (56) market pairs for each of the two crops, viz. groundnuts and cowpea.
3.2.7 Degree of market integration
The regression model enabled the identification of the presence or absence of 
association between markets. In order to measure the strength of the integration,
31
however, it became necessary to estimate the Index of Market Concentration (IMC), also 
known as Timmer’s Index. The value of the IMC obtained helped to determine whether 
the association between two markets was high or low. The hypothesis is that the higher 
the association between market pairs the faster the transmission of price and supply 
conditions of one market to the other.
From the regression model,
an, a.12 and p2,p2i, P22, P23, are the coefficients of Pu-i, Pit-2, and P2t, P2t-i, P2t-2, and P2t-3, 
respectively.
Similarly,
a2i, a22, and Pi, Pn, P12, P13 are the coefficients of P2t-i, P2t-2, and P!t> Pn-i, Pit-2, and Pk-3, 
respectively.
IMC 1 = Absolute (an / P21) or 
(an / P22)
IMC 2 = Absolute (a2i / P u )  or 
(a2i / Pi2)
IMCs lie between zero and infinity and the closer the value of the IMC to zero the higher 
the association between the two markets. For statistically significant equations, the IMCs 
were rated in this study as follows:
IMC up to 1.9 implied high market integration;
IMC from 2.0 to 6.9 implied weak market integration;
IMC > 7 were considered infinity and implied no market integration, a condition which 
was classified as market independence, market segmentation or market concentration, 
meaning the two market pairs were found to be independent of one another at the time of 
the study..
3.2.8 Producer-wholesaler price spread
The model employed for this study was basically the one used by Moro in 1881 to 
study the producer-retailer price spread in Nigeria. It involved determining the percetage 
of urban wholesaler prices that reached producers.in 1996 and 1997. Data for the study
32
comprised urban wholesale prices and farm-gate prices at corresponding periods of the 
years. Since Accra is the highest consumer of cowpea and groundnuts on account of its 
high population density, prices in Accra were used for the estimates. For the farm-gate. 
prices in villages around Tamale were used. The choice of wholesale prices helped to 
maintain uniformity in the urban prices used.
The producer-wholesaler price spread was determined as follows:
 X 100
Pw2
Where,
TH = farm-gate price
Pw2 = urban wholesale price,
Producers in Tamale district were chosen for the exercise while Accra served as 
the consumer market. This study covered only cowpea and groundnuts since bambara 
beans are not traded in appreciable quantities at the wholesale level. The data was revised 
to reflect the producer price of ten percent on the average below prices at Tamale market 
for the correction of errors arising from overloaded bags at farm gate referred to as bush 
weight.
3.3 Data requirements
The study covered the period 1996 1997 and covered farm and market level
storage structures, produce protection materials and methods. The data required also 
included types and functions of market intermediaries, regional district and farm-gate 
wholesale prices for 1996 and 1997, stock damage assessment records, and purchasing 
and selling prices of cowpea for selected traders. The data types are both qualitative and 
quantitative comprising:
(a) descriptive information such as marketing functions, sources of
supply, customer types, types of market services, storage methods,
33
length of stroage period, and methods of control of post-harvest 
losses; and
(b) numerical forms, depicting trends in prices, quantities and costs.
3.4. Data sources
Both primary and secondary data were used for the study. A sample of legume 
farmers and traders in the study areas formed the major source of primary data. These 
data were collected at the farm-gate, local markets, transit markets and at urban markets 
in southern Ghana. The selected farmers and traders were interviewed with the aid of pre­
tested structured questionnaire. Additional data on the case study of insect damage to 
cowpea and revenue losses to cowpea and groundnuts traders were collected in selected 
markets.
Secondary source data were obtained from both published and unpublished 
documented materials. Seasonal and annual production levels of the crops, prices, annual 
production levels and other relevant statistical data were collected from district and 
regional offices of the Policy, Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Department 
(PPMED) the Statistical Division of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA), the 
Statistical Services Department, and the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) 
library.
3.5. Data collection
The methods used to collect data were determined by:
• The type of data required, whether primary or secondary;
• The place of collection;
• The type of respondents involved; and
• The sample size.
The techniques employed for primary data collection included:
1. Questionnaire administration;
2. Participartory Rural Appraisal and Rapid Reconnaissance survey;
3. Direct observation; and
4. Case studies.
34
Holtzman J. S, (1986) defines a rapid reconnaissance survey as a broad and 
preliminary overview of the organization, operation and performance of a system, or 
components thereof, designed to identify system constriaints and opportunities In a 
Participatory Rural Appraisal the respondents or activists in the system under study 
participate in the process of data collection and form the basic source of the information 
so collected.
By directly observing marketing processes and functions, investigators are able to 
indentify marketing problems and evaluate what key informants say about the 
organisation and operation of the system against what is actually observed (Holtzman J. 
S, 1986).
Data types obtained by direct observation included the following:
0 The general state of roads, vehicular availability and conditions;
0 Availability and condition of stores, market sheds, selling and buying measures 
storage containers, storage structures and the condition of the market environment;
0 Selling and pricing methods.
The case study approach involved a detailed study of the operations of selected 
traders who performed storage functions in the marketing of cowpea in Tamale market at 
the time of the study. The severity of insect activity in cowpea and the limitation of 
logistics prompted the choice of cowpea only for the case study.
The method involved a limited questio nnaire administration and observational 
survey. Data collected by this method included the financial operations of traders and 
monthly insect pect activity on stored cowpea, and the length of storage
3.6.Sample size
At the production level where Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) techniques 
were used, focus group discussions formed the main procedure for data collection, and 
two hundred and thirty-three (233) farmers were interviewed in seventeen (17) villages 
(Table 3.1)
35
Table 3.1: Farm Level Coverage
No Region District Town/Village Group Composition
Male Female Total
1 U.W.R Wa Nakore 11 5 16
2 66 Wa Kpongu 8 2 10
3 66 Lawra Brutu 7 4 11
4 66 Lawra Lawra 9 3 12
5 66 Nadowli Goli 6 1 7
6 66 Nadowli Serekpere 6 0 6
7 66 Tumu Nabolo 7 2 9
8 66 Tumu Silbelle 8 3 11
9 N.R Tamale Wovo-Guma 14 0 14
10 66 T olon-Kumbungu Tuunayili 12 6 18
11 66 Yendi Bagbani 11 8 19
12 66 Saboba Gbenja 12 3 15
13 66 Walewale Bungoazia 5 6 11
14 U.E.R Bongo Bongo Soe 12 7 19
15 66 Kasena Nankana Nangalikinia 10 8 18
16 66 Bawku West Komega 9 8 17
17 66 Bawku East Pialoko Pusiga 20
TOTAL 155 78 233
Source: Field survey, 1996
A total of eighty-two (82), seventy-seven (77), and seventy-four (74) fanners 
respectively were involved in focus group discussions in Upper West, Northern and 
Upper East Regions. Thirty-three percent (33%) of the participants were women farmers 
At the market level, only eighty-five (85) out of two hundred (200) wholesalers 
selected in eight important legume markets were successfully interviewed The number 
comprised an average of 10.6 traders per market. Apart from the lower numbers of
36
legume traders in comparison to traders of vegetables or roots and tubers, for instance, 
the main reason for the low sample size achievement was the reluctance and sometimes 
refusal of many legume traders to participate in interviews and group discussions. 
Business secrecy which formed the basis of this position appeared to be an important 
norm of the legume market.
3.7 Sampling
The simple random sampling technique was adopted for the selection of traders in 
the markets with a sample frame which enabled all willing traders to be interviewed from 
one shed out of every three succesive sheds. The choice of one out of three successive 
sheds made it easy to find replacements for traders who were not willing to offer 
information. In the villages, focus group discussions which were open to all, were 
organized for farmers with assistance from district extension officers from the Ministry of 
Food and Agriculture (MOFA). The selection of districts and villages however, was 
purposively made with assistance from the regional offices of MOFA to comprise major 
legume-growing areas of each region.
37
CHAPTER 4 
FARM-GATE AND MARKET LEVEL STORAGE PROCEDURES.
4.1. Introduction
The findings and discussion of results from descriptive analysis are presented in 
this chapter. The presentation is centered on farm gate and market storage procedures, 
produce protection practices, insect pest damage to cowpea and its impact on the revenue 
of traders. Also included in this chapter are the functions of market intermediaries and 
marketing channels of cowpea, groundnuts, and bambara beans.
4.2. Farm level storage structures and crop protection methods.
The protection of farm produce from destruction by rodents and insect pests is 
very important for the achievement of food and nutrition security. The practices and 
procedures employed for the attainment of this goal must therefore be of special interest 
to agricultural researchers. Legumes in particular suffer great losses from insect damage 
while on route to the consumer through space and time. In a study of post-harvest 
management, particular attention should be given to the understanding of traditional 
methods and practices which are used for the management of these problems on a wide 
scale on farms and markets in developing countries. Consequently, the structures and 
methods which farmers and traders use for the storage and protection of legumes in farm 
villages and markets are covered in this study. The following sections give the findings 
uncovered for legume storage and protection practices on farms.
4.2.1. Storage structures
The types of storage structures found in each village were related to the ethnic 
origin of the farmers. For instance, a group of Kokombas living in a village on Dagomba 
land and among Dagombas, were found using structures originating from Kokomba 
tribes. In this study, only structures belonging to the ethnic group of villages visited were 
selected for study in each village. The procedure helped to prevent double counting of 
structural types in places visited. The results obtained are shown in Table 4.1 in which
38
local names given in each village are followed by their meanings in brackets. Details of 
storage structures used in villages visited are given in the table while illustrations of some 
of these structures are shown in Appendix A.
The results indicate that a variety of storage structures with some similarities have 
been developed over many years to store different kinds of food products against drought 
and pests. In many villages men and women farmers use different structures. Women 
who produce smaller quantities of the crops do most of their storage in small mud silos 
{buopla, bugopla, etc.) and clay pots called duku, dugo, or vigen in diferent localities or 
dialects. Some women mould the pots for sale to those who are not able to make them
Men on the other hand prefer the big mud silos and the woven baskets especially 
the kunchun. Threshed and unthreshed legume products are also stored in different 
structures. Groundnuts are normally stored in pods only on farm villages. Bambara beans 
is however stored partly in pods and partly in the grain form in limited quantities. 
Cowpea, however, can only be stored in grains, which renders it more susceptible to 
insect attack.
The bowrpla or buopla is a small indoor mud silo used for storing threshed 
produce by both male and female farmers in the Upper West Region. The other structures 
were found in all the regions, sometimes with small variations in make and under 
different local names. Many male farmers were found keeping threshed untreated cowpea 
in jute sacks signifying only short periods of storage. Some large-scale producers were 
however found keeping chemically treated cowpea in jute sacks for long-term storage.
39
Table 4.1: Types of Storage Structures used by Men and Women Legume Farmers
Unthreshed Groundnut and Bambara 
Beans: structure used by;
Threshed Cowpea and Bambara Beans: 
structure used by;
REGION VILLATE/
TOWN
MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE
UW Brutu Bowr (Large 
Mud silo)
Bowr 1. Bowr pla (small 
bowr)
2. Jute sacks
1. Bowr pla
2. Duku (clay pot)
UW Lawra Bowr (Large 
Mudsilo
Bowr 1. Bowrpla
2. Jute sacks
1. Bowrpla
2. Duku
UW Nakore Bool (Large 
mudsilo)
Bool 1. Boolpla
2. Jute sacks
X.Dogu \ 
2. Jute sacks |
UW Kpongu Bool (Large 
Mudsilo)
Buul 1. Buopla
2. Jute sacks
1. Dogu |
2. Jute sacks
UW Gole Bugo (Large 
mudsilo)
Bugo 1. Bugopla
2. Jute sacks
1. Dugo
2. Bugopla
UW Serekpere Bugo Bugo 1. Jute sacks
2. Bugopla
1. Dogo (Clay pot)
2. Bugopla
UW Nabolo Namvuri (Brick 
silo)
Namvuri 1. Jute sacks
2. Vijen
Vijen (Fired clay pot)
UW Sibelle 1. Namvuri
2. Pulu
(Wood + Zana 
mat)
1. Namvuri
2. Pulu
1. Clay pot
2. Jute sacks
1. Vijen
2. Jute sacks
NR Tunayile 1. Pupure
2. Napogu 
(Napoo) 
Mud silos
1. Pupure 1. Jute sacks
2. Mud silos
1. Clay pots
2. Jute sacks
NR Gbani 1. Napogu 1. Napogu 1. Jute sacks
2. kunchun
1. Jute sacks
NR Bomboazio 1. Napoo
2. Lenga
1. Lenga 1. Jute sacks 1. Clay pots
UER Bongo Soe 1. Large basket
2. Mud silos
1. Large basket 1. Jute sacks
2. kunchim
1. Dokoh (clay pot)
2. Jute sacks 1
UER Mangalikiia 1. Napogu
2. Mud silos
Napogu 1. Large basket
2. Gourd
3. Jute sacks
1. Clay pot
2. Jute sacks
UER Gbenga 1. Mud silos
2. Napavo
1. Napavo 1. Jute sacks
2. Bottles
1. Duk (clay pots)
2. Jute sacks
UER Pialoko-
Pushiga
1. Bool (mud 
silos)
2. Napava 
(Kambori)
1. Basket 1. Jute sacks 1. Duk (clay pot)
2. Jute sacks
NR Gbenja 1. Kpachariga
2. Lipil (mud 
silo)
Kpachariga 1. Jute sacks
2. Kunchun
3. Lipil
1. Clay pot
Note: 1. Words in italics are local names of storage structures in villages visited.
2. Abbreviations and sample size: see Table 3.1
Source: Field survey, 1996
40
4.2.1.1 Factors determining the choice of storage structures by farmers
Generally, farmers do inherit or borrow storage structures from relatives in the 
early stages of their farming lives. As they settle down to long term farming however, it 
becomes necessary for them to construct their own structures. Since storage structures are 
expensive and could last for several seasons, farmers need to consider various factors 
before installing a particular structure in their home in order to derive maximum benefit 
from them. The factors listed by farmers during group discussions as the most likely to 
affect their choice of a storage structure are many. They are presented below:
1. Flexibility in use
This refers to the different types of crops the structure can store. If a partcular 
structure can be used to store as many crop types as possible, a farmer will not have to 
construct another one if that structure is available and empty. Assuming a structure was 
originally constructed for the storage of maize, a farmer would find the structure more 
functional or serviceable if in the absence of maize he could store other grains like 
cereals or legumes in that same structure. Being flexible or functional refers also to the 
ability of a structure to contain more than one item at the same time. Mud silos in 
particular are often compartmentalized or divided into two or more chambers for storage, 
making it possible for farmers to store different crops in one structure and therefore, were 
found to be very popular among farmers.
2. Fire resistance
Farmers rationally prefer to use structures, which will not bum easily.
3. Life span/Durability
A structure is most preferred if it can be used for many years and if possible by many 
generations of the family.
4. Maintenance
Farmers prefer to use structures which are durable and able to withstand long usage at 
minimum cost of maintenance per season.
41
5. Maximum protection against insects and rodents
The structure must be able to protect stored food from insect and rodent destruction. It 
emerged that many farmers had bitter experiences of the loss of large quantities of food 
stocks to insects and rodents while in storage. Due to the single raining season in these 
parts of the country farmers were found to be very sensitive to the problem of food safety 
from animals.
6. Cost of construction
Depending on the crop to store and the expected quantity of an impending harvest, 
farmers choose affordable structers in terms of construction cost and the expected benefit.
7. Availability of construction material
Materials required for the construction of the structure should be locally available and in 
sufficient quantity.
8. Safety from water entry
The body of the structure should be resistant to the entry of water.
9. Capacity of structure
The structure should preferably be able to store all quantities of food harvested. A farmer 
does not see the need to install a big structure if his harvest is small.
10. Ease of construction
Farmers prefer structures that are easy to make
11. Ease of use
Preferably, it should be easy to fill and remove food from.the structure.
12. Security against theft of produce
Structures preferred are those that provide sufficient resistance to entry by thieves.
4.2.1.2 Ranking results of legume storage structures
The scoring and ranking results of storage structures are presented in Table
4.2.The most preferred storage structure for storing unthreshed groundnuts, and bambara 
beans was found to be the mud silo which possesses many of the qualities discussed 
above. It was followed by the clay pot, which is used mainly by women for storing 
threshed cowpea and bambara beans, while the kunchun (conical basket) which came 
third is used by men to store threshed cowpea and. All three structures are also capable of
42
storing millet, sorghum, maize, other cereals, and related farm produce. Jute sacks are 
widely used for temporarily storage of produce ready for sale.
Table 4.2 Racking of Storage Structures by Functional Characteristics
Factors Mud silos Clay pots Kunchun*
Purposefulness 10 3 8
Fire 8 7 1
Life span 10 7 4
Maintenance 10 10 7
Insect attack 8 7 6
Cost 2 3 8
Storage length 10 8 6
Purity (neatness) 10 10 6
Material availability 1 8 10
Water entry 9 10 5
Ease of construction 1 2 7
Ease of use 2 9 10
Storage capacity 10 3 7
Security 8 5 6
Safety from rodents 10 10 4
Safety from termites 5 9 8
Total 114 111 103
Rank 1st 2nd 3rd
Note:
*Kunchun = Conical local storage basket 
Source: Field survey data, 1996
43
4.2.2 The protection of legume stocks on farms
The study results indicated that for the crops under study many farmers prefer the 
use of traditional materials, which they obtain locally, for the protection of farm produce 
Farmers maintained that, unlike chemicals, traditional materials have the advantage of 
being free of poisons and produce treated with them were safe for use the same day it is 
applied.
For groundnuts, drying was the only form used for protecting the pods before 
storage by all the farmers interviewed. Seventy-three (73) percent of the farmers 
interviewed stored bambara beans in pods after drying without the application of any 
other protection. Twenty-seven (27) percent, mainly women, thresh bambara beans and 
protect the grains with traditional materials like harbal preparations, oils, heat, or ash 
before storage.
None of the farmers was found to apply chemical insecticides to bambara beans 
and groundnuts. Even though cowpea is always stored as grains, forty-six (46) percent of 
the farmers who stored cowpea during the review period did not apply any treatment as 
protection against insect attack; thirty-eight (38) percent used traditional materials in the 
form of powdered herbs, ash, or heat for protection; and only sixteen (16) percent used 
chemicals. The chemicals applied were mainly acetylic as powder, liquid or gas, and 
phoxtoxine tablets. The methods of applying the various materials by both farmers and 
traders are described in Table 4.3.
Apart from parboiling and shea butter application, which are used for treating 
only threshed bambara beans, all methods applicable to cowpea were also used to treat 
bambara beans. As already stated, sun-drying was found to be the only method used for 
treating both threshed and unthreshed groundnuts. Unthreshed bambara beans were also 
found stored as dried pods.
44
Table 4.3: Materials and Methods used for Produce Protection on Farms
Region Village/Town Treatment Materials/Chemicals Method of Treatment
N.R Wovo-Guma 1. Phoxphine tablets
2. Acctyic liquid
3. Shea butter residue
1. One Phoxphine tablet covered with rag and 
placed in the middle of grains.
2. Mix liquid or powder with grains
3. Mix residue with grains and dry before 
storage.
Tunayile 1. Wood ash
2. Powdered pepper
3. Palega roots
4. Shea butter residue
5. Acetylic gas
1. Grains mixed with wood ash
2. Powdered pepper sprinkled first in the bottom 
of the container and then on top of grains after 
filling the container.
3. Roots of a tree called Palega: beaten into 
powder and mixed with grains.
4. Mix with grains
5. Acetylic gas sprayed into container before 
filled with grains
N.R Bagbani 1. Neem seeds
2. Acetylic powder
3. Acetylic liquid
4. Phosphine (PH3) of bags
1. Mix with gains and store.
2.Mix a quantity of the powder with grains 
normaly 10 bags. Mix thoroughly and re-bag for 
storage.
3. Mix with a quantity of acetyllic liquid.
4. Place a tablet of Phoxtoxine in cotton wool and 
push into the middle of grains.
N.R Gbenja 1. Acetylic powder
2. Acetylic liquid
3. Phosphine
4. Shea butter residue
5. Lidikcmja plant. Arrange the leaves 
in container and pour small quantities 
of grain layer by layer with the leaves 
before closing container.
6. Wood ash mixed with grains.
1. Acetylic powder
2. Acetylic liquid
3. Phoxphine (as above)
4. Mix with grains
5. Arrange the leaves of lidikonja plant at the 
bottom of a container, pour in small quantities of 
cowpea or bambara beans and cover again with 
the leaves.
6. Mix grains thoroughly with wood ash then seal 
the container very tightly and store.
N.R Bumboazia 1. Wood ash
2. Acetylic powder and liquid
3. Phoxtoxine tablet placed in middle 
of bagged grains
1. Grain mixed with wood ash.
2. Mix with grains and store
3. Cover with a piece of cloth or cotton wool and 
place one or two tablets in the middle of filled
bags.
U.E.R Bongo Soe 1. Sun shine
2. Kpaliok leaves
1. Thorough sun drying
2. Kpaliok leaves are dried, broken into pieces, 
and mixed with grains and stored.
U.E.R Nangalikinia 1. Wood ash
2. Chia leaves
3. Kolaa leaves
4. Kul-enka leaves
5. Orange peels
1. Mix with grains.
2. Dry then, pound into pieces, and mix with the 
grains.
3. Boil and use liquid to parboil bambara beans.
4. Pound dried orange peels and mix with grains.
U.E.R Kamega (Bawku 
West)
1. Acetylic
2. Phoxtoxine
3. Kim-kim leaves
4. Dakpe Zungwari leaves
5. Shea butter residue
1. Mix with grains
2. Cover with a piece of cloth or cotton wool and 
place one or two tablets in the middle of filled
bags.
3. Boil and use liquid to parboil bambara beans
4. Mix with grains
U.E.R Pialoko, Pus. 
(Bawku East)
1. Phoxtoxin 1. Mixed with food and thrown around bams to 
kill and scare away rodents.
1. Words in italics are local plants names 2. Source: Field survey, 1996.
45
4.3. Marketing of legumes at famgate
The marketing of legumes is treated in two sections. The first section deals with 
legume marketing at the farm level (4.3.1), the second with marketing by traders at the 
market level (4.3.2).
4.3.1. Household marketing procedures
The results of the farm study indicated that farmers prefer to store larger 
quantities of groundnuts and bambara beans over a period of four to eight months. Only 
small quantities of these legumes were sold at harvest to resolve pressing financial 
problems. The results indicated that on the average only twenty-four (24) percent of the 
bambara beans harvested was sold out while seventy six (76) percent was kept by the 
farmers in storage. For groundnuts, the average quantity sold by farmers after harvest 
during the study period was approximately seventeen (16.8) percent while eighty three 
(83.2) percent was kept in storage. In contrast, the situation found for cowpea showed 
that a greater quantity of the crop was sold after harvest. On the average farmers sold 
seventy-eight (78) percent of the cowpea harvested, storing only twenty two (22) percent 
during the study period. This result conformed with complaints by farmers that efforts to 
store cowpea by traditional methods have not succeeded in curbing the distraction of 
cowpea stocks by insects. According to farmers the high prices of chemicals and the lack 
of technical knowhow on the use of chemical insecticides contributed to their inability to 
provide effective protection for cowpea stocks. In contrast, groundnuts and bambara 
beans could store for longer periods in their hard protective pods, compelling farmers to 
sell more cowpea as a cash crop at harvest time.
4.3.1.1. Means of transporting produce by farmers.
General observation revealed four main methods by which farm produce were 
transported from the farm to the village and from the village to the local markets. These 
are described below:
46
Portage
Farm produce were carried by portage as head loads mainly by women from 
farms to homes and from homes to nearby markets. The head loads indicated the 
quantities that a household could sell in the market at a given time over the storage 
period. According to respondents however, larger quantities were normally shared among 
women friends or relations called in to assist in carrying the produce to the market. 
Bicycles:
Bicycles were also used by men to transport goods to the market, and the 
assistance of other men who have bicycles were solicited when necessary.
Donkey Carts
Donkeys saddled with carriages and driven by young boys were observed 
transporting farm produce to markets in the Upper Regions 
Tracks
Trucks are also used to transport foodstuffs from villages to markets. The 
condition of many village roads, were observed to be almost unmotorable. Transport 
services were found to be more frequent from one market to the other, than from farm 
gates to markets. Farmers complained that whenever they were not able to transport their 
goods to the markets, traders stepped in to buy the produce in the village at low prices.
4.3.1.2: Gender role in legume marketing at the farm level.
Apart from the Upper West Region where many women were found in charge of 
storage bams, men were found in control of household food in the other two regions. 
Only produce wholly owned by a woman in the Upper East and Northern Regions were 
permitted according to culture to be stored and controlled by her. However, women visit 
markets more frequently and for the men are the channels of market information on 
prevailing prices in the markets and for guidance on the best time to sell. At the 
household level, when the decision to sell is taken, the required quantity is threshed and 
measured out into bags with bowls by women and either left with the man for traders to 
come and buy or sent to the market with his consent for sale. Many women were 
observed on market days carrying headloads of produce to the market. They walked long 
distances ranging from half a kilometer to ten kilometres.
47
43.1.3. Marketing problems on farms
Farmers cited various problems arising from post-harvest handling and marketing 
of legumes during group discussions in all the villages visited (Fig. 4.1). Approximately 
eighty-eight (88.5), fifty-nine (59), forty-two (42.5), sixty-four (64) eighty-five (85), and 
thirty-two (32) percent respectively of the farmers interviewed mentioned low prices, 
poor roads, lack of transport, inability to buy chemicals for storage, lack of knowledge on 
the use of insecticides and victims of costly pre-finance help from traders. These factors 
could interact in a vicious cycle of poverty. For example, low prices which result in low 
farm revenues with consequent poverty and low standards of living, arise from farmers 
lack of access to good roads and transport as well as the money and know how for good 
storage techniques. Situations, which render farmers easy victims to various profiteering 
strategies like the unfavourable pre-finance (or credit) conditions of traders.
 tP  "r,@ 9A+  4,
 4, r+" 45 #,
Source: Field survey, 1996
48
4.3.2. Legume marketing by traders.
This section presesnts the results of descriptive analysis of legume marketing. The 
results cover the physical facilities in legume markets, the socio-cultural background of 
legume traders, and the procedures and processes used by traders in the marketing of 
legumes. These include the marketing functions and services, the operations and 
problems involved in cowpea storage in terms of stock protection practices, insect pest 
damage, and their effects on the revenue of traders. Also covered are the channels of 
distribution and the types of middlemen operating within the channels.
4.3.2.I. The social background of legume traders.
This is described under the following five factors:
1. Ethnicity
Study results indicated that apart from retailing, which is undertaken by women of 
all ethnic groups, the predominant ethnic groups dealing in legume wholesaling in Ghana 
come from the producing regions of Northern Ghana, implying that people from these 
areas have acquired the needed expertise in performing the functions associated with 
legume marketing (Table 4.4). A number of Hausas, Kotokolis, and Moshis, from Niger, 
Nigeria, Burkina Faso and Mali were also found wholesaling legumes especially in 
Bawku, Ho and Tema.
2. Gender
Out of a sample of eighty-nine wholesalers interviewed in markets, only nineteen 
comprising twenty-one percent were women.
3. Age
The age of traders interviewed ranged from twenty-eight to sixty-five, with 56.8 
percent of the respondents above fifty years of age.
4. Education
Formal education among the traders was found to be low. Sixty-seven (67) 
percent of them had never been to school. Twenty-six (26) percent had attended 
elementary school, while only six (6) percent had post elementary education.
49
5. Trading experience
The trading years of experience ranged between one (1) year and twenty-two (22) 
years, and as much as 68 percent of them had stayed in the trade for over ten (10) years.
Table 4.4. The Social Background of Legume Traders.
Town/
Market
Reg. Predominant 
ethnic group
Gender 
composition 
of respondents
Total Age
group
Educational status Yrs. of 
experie 
nee
Inherited
busness
from
relations
m f None Post
ele.*
Post
SS+
Aboabo
(Tamale)
NR Dagombas
Gonjas
8 0 8 31 -62 6 2 0 8-20 5
Yendi NR Dagombas 5 2 7 28- 65 4 2 1 8 - 2 2 6
Gushiegu NR Dagombas 6 0 6 3 1 - 6 2 4 1 1 6 - 2 0 4
Bolga UER Frafras 4 2 6 3 6 - 6 0 2 4 0 3 - 1 4 5
Zebilla UER Frafras 1 5 6 2 5 - 5 5 4 2 0 1 - 1 2 2
Bawku UER Hausas 4 1 5 3 1 - 6 8 4 1 0 2 - 2 1 4
Wa UWR Wallas
Datatis
4 1 5 30-58 3 1 1 4-13 3
Techiman BA Dagombas
Gonjas
7 1 8 4 2 - 6 5 6 1 1 1 0 - 1 8 5
Sunyani BA Dagatis
Dagombas
6 I 7 3 3 - 5 8 6 1 0 6 - 1 2 2
Central Ash Dagombas
Hausas
4 1 5 3 5 - 6 5 4 1 0 4 - 1 5 5
Nima GA Dagombas
Hausas
Kotokoli
8 2 1 0 3 6 - 6 6 8 2 0 3 - 1 2 7
Timber GA Dagombas
Gonjas
6 1 7 3 2 - 5 3 3 2 2 2 - 1 2 8
Main VR Hausas
Dagombas
3 0 3 4 5 - 5 8 2 1 0 5-9 2
Kotokoraba CR Hausas
Frafras
Kokomba
2 1 3 3 6 -  5 2 2 1 0 8-12 5
Main WR Hausas 2 1 3 3 2 - 5 5 2 1 0 5-9 3
7 0 19 89 6 0 2 3 6 66
* Post Elementary School. 
+ Post Secondary School
Source: Field survey, 1996
50
4.3.2.2. Market facilities
Market facilities refer to the physical structures in the form of market space, 
buildings for keeping or displaying stocks and the containers to measure out grains for 
storage and/or for sale. Observations in aE markets visited indicate inadequacies in 
market structures leading to over crowding and the inability of traders to properly stack 
and fumigate stocks under storage. A summary of information on market structures is 
provided in Appendix B. The key factors are highlighted below:
1. Storage structures
Conventional warehousing types of storage structures were not available in grain 
and legume markets at the time of the study. Structures used for storage and selling 
activities in many markets are constructed from corrugated roofing materials and wood. 
Thus, in Nima, and Amaamo markets in Accra, and Bolgatanga, Tamale, Yendi, and 
Techiman markets, legumes were being sold in roughly constructed wooden sheds which 
were inappropriate for effective fumigation.
About eight percent (7.8%) of the traders interviewed in Tamale and Bolga 
markets, for instance, have cement block stores outside the market where additional 
groundnuts and cowpea were found under storage. The remaining traders interviewed 
were operating in wooden sheds inside the market. Similarly, in the markets of southern 
Ghana where cowpea and groundnuts are consumed in greater quantities almost ninety 
(89.6) percent of traders interviewed were operating in wooden market sheds. Inspite of 
the limitation, traders in all the markets visited preferred to keep stocks in markets to 
facilitate business operations.
Market sheds in most of the country’s markets were loosely and poorly 
constructed with insecure doors and unhygienic floors which were highly infested with 
insect pests and rodents and unsuitable for long storage purposes. Storage facilities in 
Techiman, Sunyani, Kumasi, Accra (Nima and Amaamo Markets), Ho, Cape Coast and 
Takoradi had equally poor conditions. With a World Bank financial assistance the 
government through the then Agricultural Sector Investment Project (ASIP), now Village 
Infrastructural Project was found reconstructing a number of markets at the time of the
51
study. Markets like Wa, Bolgatanaga, Techiman and Mankesim had then been 
demolished for reconstruction.
2. Weights and measures
Traders use jute sacks for packaging legumes. The weight of a full bag of cowpea 
in the market was higher than the 100 kilograms standard used in grain marketing 
corporations and referred to as maxi bags. Full bags of cowpea arrived from village 
markets at weights ranging from 112 to 115 kilograms and referred to as “bush weight”. 
The grains would then be poured out and the bags refilled in the market to reduce the 
weights to between 103 and 109 kilograms. The refilled bags then contain forty (40) of 
the small retailing bowls weighing 2.5 to 2.75 kilograms. The weights of bags of 
groundnuts were found to range from 80 to 84 kilograms in the market.
4.3.2.3. Marketing functions
The functions mentioned by traders as the type of duties they were performing in the 
legume markets comprise the following:
1. Purchasing and assembling
Legumes are mainly produced in the three regions of northern Ghana, namely 
Northern Region, Upper East Region and Upper West Region (See Figs. 1.9 and 1.10). 
Like other regions, farmers producing legume and other crops are scattered over a wide 
area producing small quantities of each crop on small plots of land ranging between one 
and four acres. The purchasing and assembling of legumes in Ghana are painstaking 
functions undertaken at the primary levels of the marketing channel of each of the 
legumes. The traders at these levels comprise local village trader, inter-village market 
traders, and purchasing or commissioned agents.
Apart from the purchasing or commissioned agents who operate with relatively 
large amounts of money from their employers, like the Grains Marketing Board and the 
Ghana Food Distribution Corporation, and therefore buy large quantities at the primary 
levels, the local village and inter-village traders operate in small quantities. They are 
important, however, as a channel link to remote farm villages from where they bring
52
produce for sale in district villages for larger quantity assembling by the bigger traders 
down the channel.
2. Processing in markets.
This involves picking, packaging and stock treatment.
i. Picking
It involves the removal of moulded and broken nuts, chuff and seeds of other 
plants, which find their way into stocks during harvesting and winnowing. Only a few 
traders were observed performing this function during our visits. More picking was done 
on groundnuts for the separation of broken pieces than cowpea which was found on sale 
with large quantities of foreign materials. Picking was observed being performed mostly 
by retailers, even though some wholesalers said they sometimes employ labourers to pick 
out moulded grains and chuff during rebagging. In Ghana traders have no technology for 
the removal of stones and broken grains from stocks, accounting for the low quality of 
legumes on sale in markets.
ii. Packaging
After purchases traders repackage their stocks into standard measures of 105 - 109 
kilogram bags of cowpea and 80 - 84 kilograms of groundnuts. Bambara beans are 
packaged into fifty kilograms mini bags. All legumes are packed into jute sacks for sale 
and for storage in markets.
iii. Stock Treatment
Stock treatment is done against weevils. Adult weevils lay eggs on the cowpea in 
the field before it is harvested. The eggs hatch out larvae which penetrate the beans and 
eat up the contents while developing into adults leaving the beans holed and empty by the 
time they emerge as adult weevils. Only cowpeas were found treated on a limited scale in 
markets visited. Nine percent (9%) of the traders interviewed store and sell bambara 
beans, and none of them applied any chemical to the few bags of bambara beans they had 
in stock.
53
Out of 54 wholesalers who stock produce for the creation of time utility, only 
twelve (12), i.e 22.2% applied insecticides to their cowpea stocks. With the exception of 
traders who revealed that they kept their stocks under the care of Ghana Food 
Distribution officials in GFDC warehouses there was no re-application of insecticide by 
these group of traders. All the traders interviewed have some knowledge on the use of 
storage chemicals such as phoxtoxine tablets and acetylic gas, powder and Hquid which 
they buy from quack drug peddlers and have at one time or other used these chemicals. 
The study revealed that various methods were employed in the application of these 
chemicals. The most prevalent method described by respondents is placing tablets of 
phoxtoxine covered with pieces of cloth or cotton wool in the middle of bags of cowpea. 
Other traders reported mixing ten (10) bags of cowpea with unspecified quantities of 
acetylic powder or Hquid. These practices are unconventional and unsafe. Some traders 
also place balls of camphor in bags of cowpea. Approximately eight (8.2) percent of 
respondents were found using these method, while some three percent (3.2%) had their 
stocks fumigated for them at a moderate fee at three-month intervals during the storage 
period by government experts from the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Grains 
Warehousing Corporation. Approximately eleven (10.8) percent of the traders 
interviewed fumigate their stocks with assistance from officials of the Ministry of Food 
and Agriculture (Fig. 4.2). The study revealed that groundnuts and bambara beans are not 
given any form of treatment in the markets.
54
 ti Stock !++  9A+,
0,r+r"
+++
Source: Market survey, 1996/7
Seventy-eight percent (77.8%) of the traders interviewed do not apply any 
chemicals to stored stock for reasons of high treatment cost and yet others believe they 
have “good” hands and therefore touching the stocks prevent insects from eating the 
grains. This belief in safety hands was found to be popular in both markets and farms of 
producing areas
3. Storage
For many reasons like the lack of capital and storage sheds and the fear of insect 
damage, only 28.9 percent of the traders interviewed did regular storage of cowpea. 
Eleven of these traders participated in a case study, which helped to provide a better 
understanding of the operations of cowpea storage. The study was done in Tamale, 
Bolgataga and Bawku markets. In the three markets, groundnuts were found to be stored 
in greater quantities in Bolgatanga and Tamale markets while larger quantities of cowpea 
were stored in Tamale market. Bawku market was found to be playing the role of an all- 
year-round transit centre for cowpea fanners and traders in Ghana as well as
55
neighbouring countries. Thus cowpea is sold throughout the year in Bawku, with minimal 
storage.
4. Transportation
This function involves the transfer of stocks from purchasing centres at all levels 
to the next point of exchange. Transportation occurs at all levels in the marketing chain 
including retailer to consuming points. Study results indicate that the transfer of legumes 
through the marketing channel is done mainly by vehicular means with big cargo trucks. 
The important points through which stocks are transported in the legume market are from 
district markets in producing regions through regional markets to consuming centres in 
Southern Ghana. The problem of transport was found to be insignificant from the district 
markets to the urban centers during the study period with cargo trucks of many sizes 
carting large quantities of legumes and grains to districts and regional markets to 
consuming areas. The groups of traders who were found performing the function of stock 
transfer through the successive levels of the marketing channel were village market 
traders and inter-regional middlemen.
Village market traders were found transferring produce from local villages and 
village markets to district and regional markets in producing regions by passenger and 
cargo trucks for sale to wholesalers. The means of transferring legumes and indeed other 
foodstuffs from farms to village markets was found to consist of head portage, carried by 
women as head load and on bicycles carted by men. The inter-regional middlemen 
operate between regions transferring stocks by cargo trucks and articulator vehicles from 
district and regional markets in producing regions of the North of the country to various 
markets and marketing institutions in consuming centres of Southern Ghana.
A few wholesalers have cooperative vehicles, while the majority depend on public 
transport services like the Ghana Private Road Transport Union (GPRTU). The GPRTU 
in addition undertakes the important function of registering food stocks like legumes, 
cereals, grain and root/tuber stocks leaving district and regional markets on behalf of the 
Ministry of Food and Agriculture. For every vehicle leaving a market, the quantity of 
each of these items on the vehicle, date of departure and destination are recorded as part 
of MOFA’s market statistics.
56
5. Financing
None of the traders interviewed had ever received a loan from any banking 
institution for the finance of his or her trading operations. The study results showed that 
traders had no official sources of finanace and that they have devised ways of depending 
on one another in the food trade business. Thus, traders have developed varieties of credit 
systmes with interests built into the price of the goods for fellow wholesalers and retailers 
who buy on credit and pay later. As already indicated, traders also help in financing 
needy farmers during production seasons.
4.3.2.4 The channels of distribution.
The channels of distribution for cowpea, groundnuts, and bambara beans are 
shown in Figures 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 respectively. More than 75 percent of bambara beans 
produced in northern Ghana is consumed in the territory itself where it forms an 
important food item. Groundnuts and cowpea on the other hand are used more 
extensively outside the production areas for food, and on a limited scale, as industrial raw 
materials for the production of animal feed, cooking oil, infant weaning foods, and peanut 
paste. The channels for the distribution of these two crops were found to be wide and 
long in comparison to the channel for bambara beans. The implication is that the 
marketing channels of cowpea and groundnuts involve many intermediaries including 
frontmen or market brokers who represent secondary and tertiary wholesalers with no 
defined value-added functions. Consequently, consumers may be paying more than 
necessary for these commodities as unnecessary charges for maintaining these groups of 
middlemen in the cowpea and groundnuts markets.
The channel members found in the legume markets consist of producers, wholesalers and 
retailers:
1. Producers
They constitute the farmers producing legumes. They are scattered over a wide 
area comprising the study areas in Northern Regions of Ghana and parts of neighbouring 
countries like Burkina Faso, Niger, Togo and the Ivory Coast.
57
Fig.4.3: Cowpea Marketing Channel
Producers
Purchasing agents
Grain Marketing 
Organizations
Intra-village market 
traders
Wholesaler in producing areas
Wholesalers in consuming areas Retailers
1 r
Local village traders
'l r
Consumers
Key:
Main performers of storage functions 
Major channels
Source: Market survey, 1996/97
58
Fig. 4.4:Groundnuts Marketing Channel
Key;
Main performers of storage functions || 
Major channels —
Source: Market survey, 1996/97
59
Fig. 4.5: Bambara Beans Marketing Channel
Producers
Local village traders
Intra village traders
Retailers
Consumers
Key:
Main performers of storage functions [ f r :  " ***
Major channels ►--------------►---------------►
Source: Market survey, 1996/97
60
2. Primary assemblers
These are made up of purchasing agents, local village traders and inter-village 
market traders. The purchasing agents are normally commissioned by marketing 
corporations, education and health institutions. Local village traders are normally 
members of the locality or village. They buy from households within the village for sale 
in district or regional markets, while inter- village traders are those who go round village 
markets to buy and assemble produce into larger quantities for sale to secondary 
assemblers in regional markets.
3. Secondary assemblers
Secondary assemblers are traders in the regional markets of producing areas. Even 
though some of these traders contact and buy directly from large scale producers, the 
greater number receive their stocks from the primary assemblers. Secondary assemblers 
try to avoid transport and other problems associated with purchasing at the primary level 
by buying and assembling their consignments from primary assemblers who bring the 
legumes to them in the regional markets.
4. Consuming area wholesalers
This group of intermediaries operates at the consuming areas with the main 
function of satisfying the demand of the consuming public. They receive supplies from 
secondary assemblers and distritute to the consuming public or processors either directly 
or through retailers who sell in smaller units to households.
4.3.2.5. Type of traders
The results portrayed traders in the major legume markets as comprising two 
major groups, namely, wholesalers and retailers.
1. Wholesalers
Wholesalers in the groundnuts and cowpea trade are mainly men. Only 2.4 
percent of the traders interviewed were women with the highest numbers found in Nima 
market in Accra, Bolgatanaga and Yendi markets. In contrast, the Bambara beans trade is
61
dominated by women and mainly sold at the retail level. These women operate between 
villages and in the big markets. However, the retailing operations of groundnuts and 
cowpea are also exclusively performed by women. The different types of wholesalers 
revealed by the study are the following.
a. Forwarding wholesalers
Forwarding wholesalers are traders with low capital who cannot tie up trade 
money in storage. They do not store grain but sell to customers immediately after 
purchase with a profit margin ranging between 8 and 10 percent. These traders also 
operate on credit occasionally, by procuring goods from district market suppliers and 
large-scale storers to sell before making payment. Upon agreement by both parties, the 
interest on such credit is normally built into the price of the goods. Forwarding 
wholesalers do significant business on market days, buying and selling up to 50 bags or 
more of different types of legumes and grains.
b. Front-men
These men do not directly purchase to sell. Their duty is to identify potential 
customers and direct them to those traders who have stocks to sell. They also operate 
between suppliers with goods from village markets and the large-scale traders. Their 
strategy is to act as a trade link by intercepting customers from meeting actual owners of 
stocks and selling the goods themselves to the customers at a profit. Such victims were 
found to be new traders who have no trading partners in the markets. Front men are 
common in Tamale, Techiman, Bawku, Nima and Amaamo markets in Accra, and in 
Kumasi markets.
c. Large - scale wholesalers
These are traders with large capital who store and sell in large quantities. These 
traders normally have other businesses and tend to be absentee traders who leave their 
stock to relations or employees to manage in the markets. They appear periodically for 
inspection and to give instructions on the conduct of the business. During interview 
sessions such traders are difficult to get while the caretakers are not able to supply needed
62
information. Some large-scale wholesalers are able to store as much as ten thousand bags 
or more of cowpea and groundnuts per season. Most often part of these goods is kept in 
rented warehouses or in the houses of the owners, outside the market They prefer to sell 
to big customers like schools, Ghana Food Distribution (GFDC), the Grains Development 
Board and the World Food Program (WFP) at high profits in the cities. Some large-scale 
traders own big trucks and articulators for transit operations.
d. Small-scale wholesalers
Small-scale wholesalers operate with smaller capital and store below one 
thousand bags at a time. They form over 90 percent of legume storage operators in the 
country. In addition to storing they operate forwarding trade operations, which keep them 
in business while waiting for peak prices before selling stocks under storage. They are 
always available in the markets and are therefore useful sources of information to 
researchers.
e. Off-market wholesalers
These are storers who operate at home and around town where they keep stocks of 
cowpea or groundnuts. They may be organizations like churches or individuals like 
workers and housewives who store legumes for sale later in the season.
2. Retailers
These are mainly women traders who buy from wholeasalers for sale in smaller 
units to consumers. Retailers buy mainly from wholesalers in single bags usually on 
credit, to retail out in 2 to 3 days. Wholesalers sometimes take advantage of the lack of 
capital by selling bags of grain containing infested grain to such retailers while keeping 
grains of better quality. In the Tamale market, retailers commonly put on sale holed 
cowpea by routinely mixing infested grains with clean grains. The practice is most 
common from February, and persists up to the next harvest in September and October.
The bambara beans trade was found to be mainly limited to the retail level. The 
study showed that some retailers from high-consuming centers, travel to the regional and 
district markets of producing areas to buy all three legumes for short-term storage and 
then sale. However, for lack of time and logistics, the study did not cover detailed 
operations of legume retailing.
63
4.3.2.6 The storage operations of cowpea.
Among the legumes in Ghana, cowpea is the most vulnerable to insect pest 
destruction. Large quantities of beans are eaten up and damaged by insects annually. 
Consequently a study of the trading operations of some selected cowpea storers was 
undertaken over the study period. The aim was to provide a deeper insight into the 
operations of the cowpea market.
The case study approach was adopted for this study and structured questionnaires 
were administered to individual traders, willing to provide operational information. The 
specific areas covered in the case study are:
1. The period of cowpea purchases for storage
2. The trend of the purchase price.
3. Insect damage assessment.
4. The effect of insect damage on revenue.
The results of the last two are presented in chapter 5
1. The period to purchase cowpea for storage
During the trading season of 1996/1997, purchases of small white cowpea for 
storage in Tamale market began in July 1996, while the purchases of the large white 
varieties in Bolgatanga and Bawku markets started in October and November 
respectively (Table 4.8). Stocks of early-maturing varieties bought in July by traders in 
Tamale market were stored for only one to two months and resold. Due to a price fall in 
September and October many traders sold out the early purchases at a loss to free capital 
for the purchase of what they termed “hard grains” for longer storage. Losses of this 
nature, which seem frequent on food markets, are quietly suffered by traders alone.
Purchases in Bolgatanga and Bawku started in October and November 
respectively implying that traders in these markets did not store early-maturing grain in 
the study year. Some of the traders interviewed bought cowpea for long storage in August 
and September but many traders buy the greater part of storage stocks between October 
and December; with a few late purchases in January (Table 4.5). October, November and 
December are the peak harvesting months, and therefore the low price periods of cowpea.
64
For any serious and rational trader, this is the best period to buy and store cowpea. All 
purchases made by traders after these months aare resold in ongoing direct trade 
transactions.
Table 4.5: Purchasing Trend of Cowpea Stock in Northern Ghana.
TAMALE (ABOABO) BOLGATANGA BAWKU
July: Purchases for short storage
August: Purchases for short storage
Sept: Purchases for early sales and 
long storage
October: Purchases for long storage October: Purchases for 
early sales and long 
storage
November: purchases for long 
storage
November: purchases 
for long storage
November: purchases 
for long storage
December: Purchases for long 
storage
December: Purchases 
for long storage
December: Purchases 
for long storage
January: purchases for long 
storaage
January: Purchases for 
long storage
January: Purchases for 
long storage
Source: Market survey, 1996/97
2. The price trend of cowpea purchased for storage.
Results indicated that during the period under review the prices of cowpea bought 
for storage varied widely within the harvesting period for the different markets and for 
the different varieties (Table 4.6). At the onset of the harvesting period prices of new 
early-maturing varieties which arrived in the markets were higher due to the rush for new 
cowpea by consumers. This set traders and farmers to push old cowpea stocks into the 
market at lower prices. In the meantime, more newly harvested cowpea stocks arrive in
65
the market, causing prices of both old and new stock to fall in September and October. In 
November the prices reached the lowest level and started rising through December to 
January when all purchases for storage were complete. From study results 87.5 percent of 
the storage operators bought stocks for keeping in October and November during the 
1996/97 season, in Tamale market.
Table 4.6: Price Trend of Stored Cowpea.
(Prices in ‘000’ cedis per bag in the indicated month}*
Variety Market Jul. 1996 Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. 1997 Feb. Mar.
Small
White
Tamale 72 70 64 64 62 64 66
Large
White
Bolga 70 70 75 80 i
l
1
Large
White
Bawku 65 68 80 85 90 j
i:
j:
• These are prices for the 1996/97 season 
Source: Market survey, 1996/97
4.3.2.7: The storage of improved cowpea varieties and related problems
Concerns have been raised in many developing countries over what has been termed 
farmers low adoption rate of produce scientifically developed seeds and planting 
materials of some crops. Since late-maturing and low-yielding local varieties of cowpea 
still predominate in Ghanaian markets, it become necessary to inquire from traders, the 
cause (s) of the problem. On the farms, producers blamed traders for their lack of interest 
in unfamiliar scientific varieties in preference for local cowpea varieties. The main 
reasons given by traders for the problem were:
• Soft grain;
• High water content;
66
• Consumer preference.
Soft grain
Traders complained during group discussions that early-maturing grains are soft and 
become powdered after a short period of storage.
High water content
The early-maturing cowpea is havested during the raining season when farmers find it 
difficult to dry the produce well enough for long storage. Early-maturing cowpeas kept in 
storage are therefore more vulnerable to mould, and most often become powdered or 
prone to early insect attack.
Consumer preferences
Traders maintained that consumers prefer the local grains which are said to have a better 
taste and also increase in bulk after cooking.
4.4. Groundnuts
Unlike cowpea, which is stored mainly by traders, farmers perform the function of 
storing groundnuts on a larger scale. The farmers store unshelled groundnut pods at home 
while traders and organisations like the Grains Development Board, Churches, private 
businesses and individuals store groundnuts in shelled form as grains or nuts.
4.4.1 Damage to groundnuts
The study identified three main causes of damage to groundnuts in the market, as 
described below.
1. Cracking and peeling of skin cover
The first and most serious cause of damage identified is the peeling-off of skin covering 
and cracking of nuts in the markets. This problem becomes very obvious from February 
when humudity is low. The dry air causes over drying of nuts, leading to nut-breaking 
and skin covers peeling off during handling and when in transit.
67
2. Moulding
This occurs when nuts do not dry properly before storage. The high water content of the 
nuts causes moulding and rot with severe health hazard to consumers and economic loss 
to traders.
3. Insect damage
The nuts are eaten by insect larvae and destroyed.
4.5. Bambara beans
Study findings indicated that wholesalers store insignificant quantities of bambara 
beans and that the storage function is performed mainly by producers themselves who 
store the beans in pods to sell periodically in small quantities on villlage market days 
They are then bought and assembled into larger quantities by village traders, who sell to 
district and regional retailers for sale to consumers in bowls. Traders from Burkina Faso 
and Northern Togo were found bringing quantities of bambara beans into the country 
through Bolgatanga, Zebilla, Bawku and other border markets.
68
CHAPTER 5
THE STRUCTURE, CONDUCT AND PERFORMANCE OF LEGUME
MARKETS
5.1 Introduction
Results on the structure, conduct and perfomanee of the legume markets are 
presented in this chapter. The market structure, which involved a study of entry barriers 
of the legume markets, were determined through a case study of insect damage to cowpea 
and groundnuts, and the effect of the damages on the net income of traders during the 
study period. The conduct of the legume market was examined by determining the 
pricing policies of middlemen along the marketing channels of groundnuts and cowpea. 
The level of association among eight major legume markets in the country, the producer- 
wholesaler price spread for the two commodities in the 1996 and 1997 trade season, and 
the type of channels being used by intermediaries for the distribution of the legumes 
which have already been discussed in chapter four,.were also used to determine the 
performance and the resulting marketing efficiency of the legume market.
5.2. Legume market structure
5.2.1. Cowpea
A graph of the results on the level of insect damage to cowpea stocks at the time 
of sale in Tamale market is shown in Fig.5.1 The results show the percentages of cowpea 
grains damaged in various stocks during storage. The first two stocks, which were mixed 
with acetylic powder before storage, did not suffer any damage. The chemical treatment 
prevented insect attack throughout the storage period of five months. The fourth, ninth 
and tenth stocks were treated after insect attack, which prevented further damage through 
out the rest of the storage period even though the stock was already damaged to some
69
extent. The remaining stocks, which were not protected against weevils throughout their 
storage periods ranging from four to eight months suffered high percentages of grain 
damage ranging from 38 to 70 percent at the time they were sold.
 P  r+  "  4" ,+rA, + +
# ,
$%& ,+rA 4
Source: Market survey, 1996/97
70
5.2.1.1. Revenue losses on cowpea
The damages in Figure 5.1 resulted in price discounts, with consequent revenue 
losses to the owners (Fig. 5.2)
Fig. 5.2: Average price discount per bag for correspondng % damage
to stock.
w
®o
(0o
®
s
Stack Number
Source: Market survey, 1996/97
Sales in the legume and grain markets are preceded by long bargaining between traders 
and their customers. The quality of the stock was found to be important for determining 
what price a customer was willing to pay for the stock. This compelled traders to sell 
stocks of low grade at discounts
Results on the financial analysis of the stocks are shown in Fig. 5.3. The 
indication is that price discounts demanded by customers for damaged stock, did cause 
significant losses in the net revenue of traders during the season. Losses ranging from
11.7 - 58.4 percent of net revenue were made on 63.6 percent of the stocks, while 18.2 
percent of them, which were treated did not suffer any revenue loss. The results on the
71
remaining 18.2 percent of the stocks were not conclusive and have not been represented 
in Figure 5.3.
 (  r+  ,,, 45 r%& +",
120
i ( t 
Stack number
8
B 7 8,,  
: + 
Source: Market survey, 1996/7
5.2.2. Groundnuts
5.2.2.I. Revenue losses on groundnuts
In contrast, revenue losses estimated on groundnut stocks through a review of the 
financial operations of groundnut traders for the period under study indicated that the 
losses made on groundnut stocks were lower even though none of the stocks had been 
treated against insect attack. In addition to insect damage, losses in groundnuts revenue 
occurred as a result of moulding, cracking and peeling off of skin covering. The losses
72
estimated ranged from 5 to 25 percent of revenues for stack numbers 1,2, 3.and 5. There 
was no loss in revenue on stack number 4 (Fig.5.4). The groundnut stocks did not 
undergo damage assessment studies.
 t  r+  ,,, 45 "+ +",
Pim
100
jj 80 
®
is 60
r
40
©
CL 20
5
;+rA 4 ;C ,,    
: C  "
Source: Market survey, 1996/97
The high losses in cowpea revenue resulting from insect damage and the high 
investment required for the purchase of both groundnuts and cowpea stocks (Appendix 
C) were found as the main barriers preventing farmers and traders from engaging in 
legume marketing. The problem particularly affects farmers, many of whom expressed 
the wish to store at least part of their cowpea harvest after selling a quantity to settle 
financial responsibilities. Consequently, the operation of cowpea storage services, are 
vitually left in the hands of traders, who were found to dominate in the storage and 
marketing of cowpea
73
5.3. The conduct of legume marketing
The results for determining the conduct of legume markets in Ghana are presented 
under the pricing policies of traders in legume markets.
5.3.1 The pricing policies of legume traders
The pricing policies operating at three different channel levels were used to 
determine and characterise the conduct of the legume market. The channel levels at 
which policies were studied are:
1. The farm gate and the regional market.
2. The regional market and the urban market.
3. The farm gate and the urban market referred to as the overall channel.
The results of pricing policies operating along the marketing channels for cowpea 
and groundnuts are presented in Table 5.1 and 5.2. By the indication of the adjusted R2 s, 
the estimates of the equations fall within acceptable limits. Most of the F and t- statistics 
indicate that the coefficients are significant at less than 5 percent significance level. The 
Durbin-Watson statistical tests indicate no serial correlation among the independent 
variables. While the model is not intended for predicitive purposes, results obtained do 
provide the required information for determining the pricing policies of middlemen in 
both cowpea and groundnut and hence the conduct of the legume market in the country
74
5.3.1.1. Pricing policies of middlemen in cowpea markets.
The results obtained for the farm-gate level in equation (1), page 27, suggest that 
on the average, the margins made by farm-gate middlemen were found to be 8.8 percent 
of the farm-gate price plus a fixed sum of 22,842 cedis (Table 5.1).
Table 5.1: Estimated Equations of Cowpea Pricing Policies.
level a. b RJ R-adj. DW Sig. F Indication
1 22.8428 -0.0884 0.9242 0.9165 1.8992 0.0791 Inverse and fixed 
margin
(3.7220) (0.0499)
Sig. T 0.0000 0.0791
2 72.0591 -0.2076 0.9205 0.9127 1.6212 0.1065 Inverse and fixed 
margin
(11.6007) (0.1276)
Sig. T 0.0000 0.1065
3 101.4661 -0.4341 0.9641 0.9567 1.7968 0.0039 Inverse and fixed 
margin
(11.0153) (0.1477)
Sig. T 0.000 0.0039
Standard errors are presented in parentheses.
Source: PPMED, MOFA
The results for middlemen operating between regional markets of producing areas 
in equation (2) suggests that, on the average the margins of middlemen were 20.7 percent 
of the prices in the regional markets, plus a fixed sum of 72,000 cedis 
For the overall channel or total distribution, the margin was 43.4 percent of the prices at 
farm gate plus a fixed sum of 101,466 cedis. The implication is that the price charged by 
intermediaries at all levels comprises the margin plus the purchase price
75
The signs of all three coefficients for all the channel levels studied in the cowpea 
equations were negative depicting the presence of Harris inverse margins, which imply 
that the margins made by middlemen at all the levels did not reflect a positive 
relationship with the price change at the source of procurement. In other words, a fell or 
rise in the price of cowpea at the supply location did not necessarily lead to a fall or rise 
in the margin of intermidiaries at the selling point.
Using both Allen and Moro as well as Harris interpretations, results obtained for 
the cowpea market suggests the absence of perfect competition. The results indicate a 
collusive pricing system of market conduct, with oligopolistic marketing tendencies 
along the cowpea channel especially as trading moves away from the farm towards the 
cities. This is indicated by the high intercepts of 22,842, 72,059 and 101,466 cedis, 
portraying high overhead costs, which do not justify transit and other marketing 
expenses. The indication is that collusive pricing is being operated by large-scale 
middlemen in the cities, reflecting the domination of traders in cowpea storage. The trend 
of fixed costs however, show an increase as trading moves from producing areas towards 
the far away cities which are long distances from the supply markets, as well as increases 
in channel members and marketing costs, rising from 22,842 for the farm level equations 
(1), to 72,059 for the transit level equation (2), to 101,466 for the overall equation (3).
5.3 1.2. Pricing policies of middlemen in groundnuts markets
In the groundnuts market, the results show a tendency towards a more competitive 
marketing system especially at the primary level of the marketing channel This is 
indicated by the low intercepts and coefficients, most of which are significant at the 5 
percent level (Table. 5.2).
76
Table 5.2 Estimated Equations of Groundnuts Pricing Polices.
Level a. b Rz R-adj. DW Sig. F Indication
1 -2..969 0.1109 0.9308 0.9123 1.9190 0.0000 Percentage margin
(2.1597) (0.0258)
Sig. T 0000 .1716
2 25..91 0.1419 0.9138 0.9068 1.8910 0.0001 Semi fixed margin
(3.2353) (0.0329)
Sig. T 0.0000 0.0001
3 18..3246 0.3206 0.9658 0.9607 1.7092 0.0000 Semi fixed margin
(3.1897) (0.0376)
Sig. T 0.0000 0.0000
Standard errors are presented in parentheses
Source: PPMED, MOFA
The low intercept value of - 2.96 of equation (1) indicates a highly competitive 
pricing system in which margins are estimated as percentages of the purchase price. As 
one moves further down the channel towards urban centres, transit and other marketing 
costs play a greater role in determining margins. This is shown by the higher but 
favourable intercepts of 25.91 between the transit and urban market centres and the 
overall marketing intercept of 18.32 between the urban wholesaler and the fanner.
The positive coefficients for all the equations indicate the absence of inverse 
margins in the groundnuts market, a condition depicting the existence of interactions and 
information flow, among groundnut markets. Consequently, unlike the cowpea market, 
all channel members including producers who store a higher proportion of the crop do 
influence pricing policies in the groundnuts market.
77
5.4 Market integration
Details of the market integration results are presented in Appendices D.and E, 
while Tables 5.3 and 5.4 provide highlights of the areas of specific interest to the study. 
The results show that the statistical significance of the coefficients of variables, Pu-i, and 
Pit-2, and P2t, P2t-i, and P2t.3, give indications of the presence of associations between the 
prices of the market pairs. Estimated coefficients, pn and pi2, of one and two weeks 
lagged prices, P^ and Pit.2 respectively, are the results for the 1st way price movement, 
(e.g Accra to Koforidua), while p2i and p22, represent the coefficients of, P2t-i and P2t.2pj 
the prices for one and two weeks time lags for the 2nd way price movement (e.g 
Koforidua to Accra).
The values of the coefficients and the levels of significance shown in asterisk 
below the tables indicate the existence of associations between prices in the markets 
studied. The situation of no time lag, Pt.o, was not vital to the study since the commodities 
are non-perishable, and could be stored for an appreciable length of time, and also require 
time for transfer between markets.
The condition of pn-e = o, and p2t.e=o, implying no association between markets did 
not occur for all 56 market pairs for each of the commodities studied. In other words, the 
results of all market pairs studied did reflect some level of integration between market 
pairs. However, the degree of these associations had to be estimated in order to determine 
those market pairs with high or weak associations and those whose associations are so 
low as to be classified as independent, concentrated, or segmented markets.
The coefficients of dummy variables, which for lack of space are not indicated, were 
found to exhibit some influence on the pricing situation of market pairs by the estimated 
coefficients. Even though R2 and the adjusted R2 are not reliable in this method of 
determining market integration, the values obtained did confirm the existence of 
associations between prices in the markets studied. The results of the Durbin-Watson 
tests indicate the absence of residual serial correlation among variables.
78
Table 5.3: Highlights of Cowpea Market Integration Results.
Market
pairs
1st way estimates after 1st and 2nd Weeks lag period 2nd way estimates after 1st and 2nd weeks lag period
P n std.
error
Pl2 std.
error
R2 DW P21 std
error
Pl2 std.
error
R2 RZadJ DW
EMC
Accra/
Koforidua 0.1115 0.1785 -0.0272 0.1794 0.9068 0.9003 2.0367 0.1333 0.0964 -0.1093 0.0966 0.9334 0.9288 1.9931
Accra/
Kumasi 0.1613 0.1346 -0.2553* 0.1325 0.9185 0.9129 1.9837 -0.1371 0.1179 0.0402 0.1186 0.8901 0.8825 2.0723
Accra/
Techiman -0.3054* 0.1598 0.1542 0.1606 0.916 0.91 1.9419 -01999* 0.1044 0.0421 0.1045 0.8875 0.8796 2.1190
Accra/
Tamale -0.0413 0.1152 -0.0129 0.1143 0.9046 0.8980 1.9818 -0.0502 0.1285 0.0126 0.0192 0.7694 0.7535 1.9985
Accra/
Wa 0.2901 0.2359 -0.7020 0.2427 0.9112 0.9050 1.9583 0.0152 0.0707 0.0722 0.0706 0.9333 0.9287 2.0967
Accra/
Bolga 0.1752 0.1548 -0.0419 0.1545 0.9136 0.9076 1.9930 -0.1161 0.1060 0.1595 0.1071 0.9094 0.9031 2.0501
Accra/
Tema -0.2228 0.0915 -0.1048 0.1186 0.9268 0.9218 2.004 -0.0298 0.1125 -0.0537 0.1121 0.9357 0.9312 1.9981
Tema/ 
Koforidua 0.1176 0.1750 -0.0785 0.1730 0.9173 0.9116 2.012 -0.1578* 0.0981* 0.1636 0.0992 0.9342 0.9297 2.0310
Tema/ 
Kumasi 0.0568 0.1337 -0.1480 0.1320 0.9222 0.9168 2.027 -0.1308 0.1185 0.7654 0.1191 0.8899 0.8822 2,0830
Tema/ 
Techiman -0.2539* 0.1550 -0.0165 0.1561 0.9230 0.9176 1.9998 -0.1425 0.1057 0.0677 0.1058 0.8859 0.8780 2.1368
Tema/ 
Tamale 0,0915 0.1119 -0.0595 0.1115 0.9132 0.9072 1.9512 0.0133 0.1320 -0.0631 0.1315 0.7620 0.7455 1.9863
Tema/
Wa 0.1216 0.2437 -0.4714* 0.2495 0.9099 0.9037 1.9628 0.0353 0.0713 -0.0449 0.0714 0.9333 0.9287 2.0154
Tema/
Bolga 0.0554 0.1568 -0.1055 0.1577 0.9131 0.9071 1.9895 0.0466 0.1027 -0.3247 0.1033 0.9155 0.9097 1..9745
Kumasi/
Koforidua
-0.4050*** 0.1630 0.1947 0.1677 0.8987 0.8917 2.0148 -0.0454 0.1064 0.5468 0.1030 0.9431 0.9392 1.9736
Kumasi/
Techiman
-0.1020 0.1452 0.1063 0.1454 0.9078 0.9014 2.0222 -0.0389 0.1139 0.6365 0.1134 0,9008 0.8939 2.0539
Kumasi/
Tamale
-0.1691* 0.1074 -0,0534 0.1083 0.8968 0.8869 2.0571 0.0934 0.0674 -0.2291* 0.1359 0.8125 0.7995 1..9270
79
Table 5.3: (Continued)
Kumasi/
Wa
0.2141 0.2333 -0.2096 0.2403 0.8874 0.8796 2.0442 0.0410 0.0842 0.0200 0.0838 0.7824 0.8726 1.9857
Kumasi/
Bolga
0.7865 0.1445 -0.0424 0.1435 0.9032 0.8965 1.9574 -0.1927 0.1.204 -0.0742 0.1219 0.9123 0,9062 1.9691
Techiman/
Kofbridua
0.3361 0.1566 -0.2504 0.1546 0.8870 0,8791 2.0546 0.3566*** 0.1275 -0.2285* 0.1300 0.9381 0.9339 1.9750
Techiman/
Tamale
-0.0275 0.0961 -0.1159 0.0945 0.8914 0.8839 2.0592 -0.1306 0.1631 0.1966 0,1636 0.7983 0.7844 1.9904
Techiman/
Wa
0.1538 0.2100 -0.1738 0.2162 0.8823 0.8741 2.0836 0.0604 0.0981 0.1791* 0.0675 0.8823 0.8741 2.0836
Techiman/
Bolga
-0.0975 0.1347 -0.1476 0.1353 0.8883 0.8804 2.0588 -0.1535 0.1429 0.0215 0.1435 0.9095 0.9032 1.9937
Tamale/
Koforidua
0.0148 0.1853 -0.1768 0.1860 0.7722 0.7564 1.9270 0.0746 0.0865 0.0234 0.0664 0.9377 0.9333 2.0378
Tamale/
Wa
-0.2609 0.2546 -0.0635 0.2581 0.7805 0.7653 1.9756 -0.1337** 0.0664 0.5467 0.0456 0.9334 0.9288 2.0101
Tamale/
Boiga
-0.4146*** 0.1541 0.2920* 0.1554 0.8258 0.8119 2.0002 -0.2670*** 0.0974 0.1122 0.0962 0.9185 0.9129 1.9920
Bolga/
Koforidua
0.0975 0.1622 -0.1759 0.1585 0.9037 0.8970 1.9826 0.2972*** 0.1204 -0.1226 0.1242 0.9378 0.9335 1.9931
Bolga/
Wa
-0.3653* 0.2073 0.1125 0.2154 0.9108 0.9047 2.0158 -0.0467 0.0899 -0.0342 0.0897 0.9377 0.9334 2.0103
Koforidua/
Wa
-0.1086 0.1947 0.0988 0.1994 0.9368 0.9258 2.0417 0.0490 0.1052 -0.1311 0.1055 0..9300 0.9252 2.0007
* denotes significance at the 10% significant level, based on asymtotic t-ratios. 
** denotes significance at the 5 % significance level, based on asymtotic t-ratios 
*** denotes 1% significant level, based on asymtotic t-ratios
Table 5.4: Highlights of Groundnuts Market Integration Results
Market
pairs
1st way estimates after 1st and 2nd Weeks lag period 2nd way estimates after 1st and 2nd weeks lag period
Pn std.
error
Pl2 std.
error
R2 R adj DW P21 std
error
P22 std.
error
R2 RZadJ DW
IMC
Accra/
Koforidua
0.0594 0.2365 -0.0962 0.2379 0.9512 0.9482 1.9678 -0.0623 0.0780 0.0622 0,0783 0.9730 0.9713 1.9805
Accra/
Kumasi
0.0594 0.0535 0.0583 0.0523 0.9504 0.9473 1.9617 0.3049 0.2297 0,0420 0.2297 0.7804 0.7670 1.9974
Accra/
Techiman
0.0132 0.0559 0.0477 0.0562 0.9514 0.9484 1.9880 -0.0214 0.2427 0.1305 0.2427 0.7951 0.7826 1.8900
Accra! 
Tamale
-0.1529 0.1444 -0.2353* 0.1435 0.9623 0.9600 1.9895 -07712* 0.0993 -0.0449 0.0728 0.9548 0.9521 1.9986
Accra/
Wa
0.2166 0.3429 -0.0146*** 0.3201 0.9502 0.9480 1.9913 1.5376 1.9276 03192 1.8941 0.1608 0.1097 2.0021
Accra/
Bolga
-0.0441 0.2467 0.3065 0.2424 0.9528 0.9499 1.9391 0.1097* 0.0699 -0.692 0.0706 0.9775 0.9761 2.0777
Accra/ 
Tema
-0.3687 0.0895 -0.2933 0.0909 0.9731 0.9715 2.0593 -0.3229*** 0.1210 -0.1754 0.1199 0.9616 0.9593 1.8928
Tema/
Koforidua
-0.1875 0.2558 0.1158 0.2518 0.9390 0.9359 1.9240 -0.1456*** 0.0623 0.1443*** 0.0640 0.9754 0.9739 1.9215
Tema/ 
Kumasi
0.9776 0.0561 0.0475 0.1236 0.9359 0.9320 1.9410 0.1945 0.1961 0.0481 0.1964 07699 0.7559 2.020
Tema/
Techiman
0.0451 0.0616 -0.2144 0.0623 0.9308 0.9265 1.9770 0.0472 0.2126 0.3556* 0.2121 0.7708 0.7568 1.878
Tema/ 
Tamale
0.0836 0.1498 -0.4164*** 0.1479 0.9529 0.9500 1.8910 -0.1376* 0.0867 0.0763 0.0877 0.9504 0.9474 1.986
Tema/
Wa
0.0461 0.2310 0.0325 0.0740 0.9358 0.9318 2.0180 -0.2349 1.5734 0.1641 1.5837 0.1698 0.1193 2.003
Tema/
Bolga
-0.2036 0.2645 0.2541 0.2502 0.9373 0.9334 2.0038 0.0773 0.0581 -0.0746 0.0502 09774 0.9760 2.0602
Kumasi/
Koforidua
-0.4805 0.4429 0.0240 0.4475 07638 0.7494 2.0539 -0.0240 0.0304 0,2753 0.0305 0.9740 0.9724 1.9637
Kumasi/
Techiman
0.0742 0.1306 0.0559 0.1162 07291 0.7126 2.0717 0.6782**** 0,0679 0.3111*** 0.0846 0.8903 0.8836 1.8732
Kumasi/
Tamale
0.1551 0.2928 -0.2095 0.2935 0,7671 0.7529 2.0623 0.0384 0,0439 0.0712 0.0439 0.9436 0.9401 1.9838
81
Table 5.4: (Continued)
Kumasi/
wa
0.4326 0.128 0.0100 0.0126 0.7151 0.6978 2.1493 0.9926 0.4175 0.4175 0.7242 0.1486 0.0967 2.0016
Kumasi/
Bolga
-0.2602 0.4410 -1.0869*** 0.4363 0.7842 0.7711 1.9446 0.0519* 0.0286 0.0121 0.0190 0.9759 0.9745 2.1217
Techiman/
Koforidua
-0.0844 0.4981 0.7642* 0.5006 0.7490 0.7338 1.9078 -0.0218 0.0341 0.0114 0.0346 0.9725 0.9709 1.9622
Techiman/
Tamale
-0.1496 0.3170 0.3129 0.3184 0.7740 0.7602 1.9070 0.0234 0.0469 0.0574 0.0473 0.9414 0.9407 1.9979
Techiman/
Wa
0.0124 0.0139 0.0135 0.0139 0.7094 0.6917 1.9893 0.2077 0.8312 0.2179 0.8354 0.1209 0.0673 2.0039
Techiman/
Bolga
0.2214 0.5210 -0.5491 0.5148 0.7523 0.7372 1.9538 0.0336 0.0322 -0.0109 0.0324 0.9749 0.9733 2.0515
Tamale/
Koforidua
0.0926 .01939 -0.5065*** 0.1943 0.9482 0.9450 1.9876 -0.1347 0.0965 0.4234 0.0976 0.9734 0.9718 1.9500
Tamale/
Wa
0.2312 0.4123 0.1242 0.2341 0.9433 0.9398 1.9791 2.6588 2.3592 -2.1839 2.3809 0.1525 0.1010 2.0026
Tamale/
Bolga
-0.0742 0.2069 -0.1458 0.2053 0.9466 0.9428 1.9928 0.0750 0.0848 -0.1073 0.0679 0.9787 0.9774 2.1055
Bolga/
Koforidua
-0.0220 0.1326 -0.1187 0.1330 0.9736 0.9720 1.9609 -0.2377 0.1500 0.0243 0.1496 0.9736 0.9720 1.9609
Bolga/
Wa
0.4563 0.0115 0.6542 0.3241 0.9735 0.9719 2.0518 2.4619 3.7252 -2.7799 3.6939 0.1333 0.0805 1.9964
Koforidua/
Wa
0.6548*
**
0.8831 -1.4556 0.6547 0.9734 0.9717 1.9564 0.3603 3.7090 -0.2678 3.7050 0.0837 0.0279 2.0063
• * denotes significance at the 10% significant level, based on asymtotic t-ratios.
• ** denotes significance at the 5 % significance level, based on asymtotic t-ratios
• *** denotes 1% significant level, based on asymtotic t-ratios
82
5.5: Degree of market integration
The estimated Index of Market Concentration (IMC), which measures the strength 
of integration for the cowpea and groundnuts markets are presented in Tables 5.5 and 5.6.
For the cowpea market, nine (9) market pairs consisting of six 1st way and three 
2nd way associations were found to be highly integrated (H). These are Accra/Wa, 
Kumasi/Tema, Tema/Wa, Koforidua/Kumasi, Techiman/Kumasi, Kumasi/Bolgatanga, 
Wa/Tamale, Tamale/Bolgatanga, and Bolgatanga/Wa.
Other levels of associations identified, as shown in the Tables were, weak market 
integration (W), independent (also known as segmented or concentrated) markets (I), and 
those whose results were unclear and therefore classified as undefined results (U).
In the cowpea market, weak market integration, were identified for twenty-six 
market-pairs for both ways of information flow, while the remaining twenty-one market- 
pairs were identified as being independent or segmented.
In the groundnuts market results revealed twenty-two highly associated markets, 
consisting of eleven 1st way and eleven 2nd way directions.
They consist of Kumasi /Accra, Techiman/Accra, Accra/Tamale, Tamale/Accra, 
Tema/Kumasi, Kumasi/Tema, Tema/Techiman, Techiman/Tema, Tema/Tamale, 
Tema/Bolgatanga, Bolgatanga/Tema, Kumasi/Koforidua, Techiman/Kumasi, 
Kumasi/Tamale, Kumasi/Wa, Wa/Kutnasi, Kumasi/Bolgatanga, Techiman/Koforidua 
Techiman/Tamale, Tamale/Techiman, Techiman/Bolga, and Bolgatanga/Wa.
83
Table 5.5: A Matrix of Cowpea Market Associations with the Determinant IMCs.
Name of market 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Accra Tema Koforidua Kumasi Techiman Tamale Bolga Wa
1 Accra 0 W W W W I W H
2.4 6.3 2.5 4.3 17.3 3.7 1
2 Tema I 0 W W W I W H
9.8 6.1 4.2 2.5 7.4 4.2 1.5
3 Koforidua I W 0 H W I W I
7.5 6.1 1.6 2.8 38.1 3.3 9.4
4 Kumasi W H W 0 I I H W
6.5 1.1 4.5 7 16.2 1.0 4
5 Techiman W I W H 0 I I I
5.5 7.6 3.2 1.3 8.6 7 7
6 Tamale I I W W W 0 H W
13.1 10.4 3.5 2.3 2.8 1.3 25.6
7 Bolga W W W W I W 0 H
5.9 2.9 5.7 4.6 43.7 3.8 1.3
8 Wa I I I I W H | I 0
13.7 21.4 8 12.2 5.9 1.9 20.7
H = High association 
W = Weak association 
I = Independent
Source: Market survey, 1996
The number of market-pairs identified as having weak associations in the 
groundnuts market was fifteen. In addition, fourteen market-pairs were found to be 
independent, while the results of five market-pairs were unclear and declared undefined.
84
Table 5.6: A Matrix of Groundnuts Market Associations with the Determinant IMCs.
Name of market 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Accra Tema Koforidua Kumasi Techiman Tamale Bolga Wa
1 Accra 0 W
2.1258
I
9.3752
I
15.5523
I
19.0838
H
1.0951
W
2.8597
W
4.5235
2 Tema 2.4
W
0 W
3.6821
H
0.7019
H
1.2448
H
1.2754
H
1.3624
I
16.1605
3 Koforidua I
18.5826
I
7.9773
0 W
4.1754
I
54.28
W
2.6365
W
4.7126
U
0.8144
4 Kumasi H
0.4421
H
1.0503
H
0.6039
0 I
7.9743
H
0.9651
H
0.1950
H
1.0435
5 Techiman H
1.2882
H
1.7131
H
0.8954
H
0.7292
0 H
1.9306
H
1.2063
W
3.775
6 Tamale H
1.1026
W
6.3037
W
2.0177
I
14.3314
H
0.6811
0 W
6.5370
W
4.5099
7 Bolga I
10.1814
H
1.4282
I
9.7927
I
22.5722
I
35.5357
I
10.0086
0 H
1.9136
8 Wa W
2.6382
W
2.6053
U
0.1018
H
1.6041
U
0.1921
U
0.0098
U
0.0160
0
H = High association
W = Weak association
I - Independent or Segmented
U = Undefined
Source: Market survey, 1996/97
85
The overall market integration results indicate delayed price information flow in 
both directions for both commodities. However, the results of groundnuts markets imply 
that information flow between groundnut markets are faster than information flow 
between cowpea markets. In particular, cowpea prices in rural producing markets seem to 
be little influenced by urban prices while the urban prices are even more so, with veiy 
minimal relations with rural prices.
5.6. Producer -wholesaler price share
The results obtained for the producer’s share of payments made by consumers to 
urban wholesalers revealed higher dividends to farmers from groundnuts sales than from 
cowpea sales in both 1996 and 1997 (Figs. 5.7 and 5.8). With the exception of April 
1997, during which cowpea farmers obtained a higher share per bag than groundnut 
farmers, the share of consumer payments that went to groundnut farmers was higher for 
the two-year period than what was received by cowpea farmers.
In 1996 groundnut farmers obtained shares ranging from 46% to 69% with an 
average share of 63.7 % of the payments made to wholesalers in urban markets.
In 1997, the average share received by fanners for groundnuts increased to 67%, ranging 
from 59% to 72% over the twelve-month period.
In contrast, the situation identified for the cowpea market indicated lower compensation 
to farmers with an average share of 43% in 1996, ranging from 24% to 61.5%. The share 
to farmers however rose to an average of 48% in 1997, with a range of 46% to 63% 
share.
86
Pe
rc
en
ta
ge
Fig. 5.5: Producers Share of Urban Wholesale Prices:
Cowpea and Groundnuts (1996)
Months -Cowpea
‘Groundnuts
Source: Market survey, 1996/97
87
Fig. 5.6: Producers Share of Urban Wholesale Prices:
Cowpea and Groundnuts (1997)
70
60
| 50 
a
0II
t 40
p*
30
20
10
0
80
Jan. Feb Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Months —1 Cowpea
•&— Groundnuts
Source: Market survey, 1996/97
The outcome of the producer-whosaler price spread analysis confirms earlier 
results at the farm gate, that many farmers are not able to store as much cowpea as they 
are able to store groundnuts, hence do not benefit from the high prices of cowpea during 
its off-season. The results also comfirm the outcome of the market conduct analysis for 
cowpea indicating market monopoly in favour of intermediaries along regional and urban 
channels.
88
CHAPTER 6
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Introduction
The study examined the procedures of legume storage and the processes involved 
in their marketing. These included storage structures and treatment procedures used for 
stock protection, the structure of the markets in terms of entry barriers, the conduct of the 
markets in relation to the types of pricing policies used by intermediaries, and the 
marketing efficiency with respect to the types of marketing channels, intra-market 
relationships, and the share farmers get from the prices paid by consumers to urban 
wholesalers for the major legumes. The methods employed included statistical 
procedures involving descriptive, graphical and regression analyses.
6.2. Summary
6.2.1 Farm-gate storage procedures and marketing
The study at the farm-gate revealed that:
1. Farmers have over many years developed different types of storage structures and 
protection methods in their efforts to protect legumes, in particular cowpea and bambara 
beans, which are vulnerable to insect pest damage.
2. The main storage structures found in villages for storing threshed legumes are the clay 
pot {duk, vijen or dokoh), mainly used by women, and the conical basket (kunchun) and 
jute sacks; used mainly by men.
3. The mud silos, which are constructed in diferent shapes were found to be widely used 
by men for storing unthreshed grains and legumes. Different ethnic groupings have 
different local names such as lipi\ among the Kokombas in Northern Region, bowr, bood 
or buul in the Upper Regions and napoo in some parts of the Northern Region.
89
4. The use of the improved mud silo, “the mamprusi” mud silo were found to be limited 
to chiefs and opinion leaders for whom the silo had been constructed by the Ministry of 
food and Agriculture and the Natural Resources Institute, for demonstration purposes. A 
temporary storage platform lenga, also used for drying grains and legumes was also 
found in villages.
2. It was found that seventy six (76) and about eighty-three (83.2) percent of bambara 
beans and groundnuts respectively harvested were kept in storage by farmers during the 
study period, while only twenty two (22) percent of the cowpea harvested was stored. 
The low quantities of cowpea storage was found to be caused by the need to sell cowpea 
for money and the high levels of insect damage to cowpea during storage
5. The inability of farmers to buy chemcials like phoxtoxine and acetylic and the lack of 
know-how on their application, was found to constitute a limitation to chemical usage on 
farms.for produce protection. The use of indigenous methods of protection like sun 
drying and the use of plant materials and wood ash was very popular with farmers.
6. The problems mentioned by farmers during group discussions were, (l).inadequancies 
of facilities in households for the application of chemicals, (2) low farm-gate prices, (3) 
lack of transport; (4). poor state of village roads; (5) lack of credit facilities, and (6) 
exploitation by creditors
6.3 Functions and facilities in legume markets
1. The major marketing functions found on the legume markets visited include 
purchasing, assembling, processing, and distribution.
2. The marketing services encountered during the survey are transportation, packaging, 
insecticide application and storage. The results showed however that for reasons of high 
cost of treatment, the lack of know-how, and the lack of awareness on the need to protect 
stocks, approximately seventy-eight percent (77.8%) of the traders interviewed did not
90
apply any chemicals to their stocks during the study period. Indirect financing through 
stock crediting was also mentioned.
3 The study revealed that many grain and legume markets did not have the conventional 
facilities required for standard warehousing and storage operations such as fumigation 
and, like farmers who could only monitor price levels through their wives, traders were 
found to have limited or no access to market information concerning prices, supply 
situations and other relevant information on legumes in the country.
6.4.1 Market structure
1. In addition to the high capital required for stock purchases, and expenses on 
transportation, and insecticides (Appendices B and C), revenue losses resulting from high 
insect damage to stocks emerged as an important factor influencing the structure of 
legume markets. Traders who were not able to apply chemicals to cowpea stocks suffered 
high percentages of insect damage ranging from 38 to 70 percent of the stocks stored 
over periods ranging from four to eight months.
2. Since good quality influences the price of legumes, many of the traders studied 
suffered high discounts over stocks, which were rendered low-grade by insects. Income 
losses ranging from 11.7 - 58.4 percent of net revenue were estimated on 63.6 percent of 
cowpea stocks. In contrast, revenue losses estimated on groundnut stocks were lower 
even though all the groundnut stocks studied were not treated against insect attack.
3. The high losses in cowpea revenue resulting from insect damage and the high 
investment required for stock purchases and assembly were found as the main barriers of 
entry into legume marketing The results also comfirmed complaints from farmers that 
even though cowpea is a cash crop many of them would have stored more cowpea for 
better prices if insect damage to cowpea were not as high and persistent.
91
6.4.2. Pricing policies
The results of the analysis of pricing policy indicated that:
1. For the cowpea market, price setting at all levels of the distribution channel, were for 
most part of the year, controlled from the consumer end of the channel. The inverse 
situations indicated by negative coefficients imply that wholesalers neither pass 
reductions in prices at supply locations forward for the benefit of consumers, nor 
increases in prices at the urban level to producers.
2. Using, the Allen, Moro and Harris indicators, the results obtained for the cowpea 
market suggest the absence of perfect competition, and collusive pricing systems of 
market conduct, with oligopolistic marketing tendencies along the cowpea channel 
particularly as trading moves away from the farm towards the cities. This was indicated 
by the rising intercepts of 22,842, 72,059 and 101,466 cedis from the farm-gate channel 
to the regional channel and the urban market channel, in that order. The high intercepts 
also portray rising overhead costs on goods between channel levels.and increases in 
transfer costs as trading moves from producing areas towards the cities, which are long 
distances from the supply markets.
3. In the groundnuts market, however, the results show a tendency towards a more 
competitive marketing system especially at the primary level of the marketing channel 
This is indicated by the low intercepts and positive coefficients of estimated equations, 
depicting price interactions and information flow between channel levels.
The low intercept value of - 2.96 for the primary level indicates a highly 
competitive pricing system in which margins are revealed as percentages of the purchase 
price. As one moves further down the channel towards urban centres, transit and other 
marketing costs play a greater role in determining margins. This is shown by the higher 
but more favourable intercepts of 25.91 between the transit and urban market centres and 
the overall marketing intercept of 18.32 between the urban wholesaler and the farmer.
92
4. The positive coefficients for all the equations indicate the absence of inverse margins 
in the groundnuts market, a condition which depicts the existence of interactions and 
information flow, among groundnut traders along the marketing channel. The implication 
is that, unlike the cowpea market, all channel members including producers who store a 
higher proportion of the crop do influence pricing policies in the marketing of 
groundnuts.
6.4 3. Market perfomance
The performance of the legume marketing was found by determining the types of 
marketing channels, market integration, and the producer-wholesaler price spread.
6.4.3.1 Marketing channels
The channels determined for the distribution of groundnuts and cowpea were 
found to be wide and long in comparison to the channel for bambara beans. The reason 
was that the marketing channel for cowpea and groundnuts involves many intermediaries 
including frontmen or market brokers who represent secondary and tertiary wholesalers 
with no defined value-added functions. From the types of functions performed, the._study 
revealed that these long chains of middlemen do contribute to the high consumer-prices 
of cowpea and groundnuts.
6.4.3.2. Market integration
1. The overall market integration results indicate better price information flow from 
producing to urban centers than the reverse. Cowpea prices in rural producing markets in 
particular seem to be very little influenced by urban prices, implying that cowpea storage 
and trading in the lean season is limited mainly to traders in the markets.
2. The results of groundnut market integration revealed a better interaction between 
markets, showing higher market associations in both 1st and 2nd way directions, thus 
depicting a better information flow among markets and indicating a condition of perfect 
competition and a wider level of involvement by all intermediaries in the performance of 
marketing functions and services.
93
6.4.3.3. Producer-wholesaler price spread
The results of the producer’s share of payments to the urban wholesaler revealed 
higher dividends to farmers from groundnuts than from cowpea in both 1996 and 1997 
This confirms earlier results that many farmers are not able to store as much cowpea as 
they are able to store groundnuts, hence do not benefit from the high prices of cowpea 
during its off season.
6.5. Overview of study results.
A summary table providing an overview of the study results is given below (Table 
6.1.) The Table provides the important features of the farm and market operations which 
were studied for each of the commodities. These consisted of handling of produce, 
market structure, market conduct and market performance. The measures for determining 
these features are storage structures used and treatment of stocks in villages and markets, 
the entry barriers into the marketing of the commodities, the pricing policies or pricing 
behaviour of middlemen in the conduct of the market. The market performance was 
determined by three measures, namely: the type of marketing channel, the integration of 
legume markets, and the producer-wholesaler price spread or share. The results obtained 
are shown under each of the commodities studied, namely, cowpea, groundnuts and 
bambara beans, the last being excluded from some of the studies for lack of stock at the 
wholesale level. The overall marketing efficiency of each commodity resulting from the 
influence of each of the measures studied, is indicated.
94
Table 6.1: Summary of Study Results
Market and farm 
Characteristic 
Feature Studied
Measure of 
Determination
Results
COWPEA GROUNDNUTS BAMBARA BEANS
Handling of 
produce
Storage structures 
and treatment of 
stock
Ineffective effort 
at farm level. Less 
care at markets
Pod storage on 
farms is very 
effective. Less care 
at markets
Pod storage on farms 
not very effective. 
Insignificant storage 
on markets
Market structure Entry barriers: 
Insect damage and 
effect on revenues
Substantial stock 
damages resulting 
in high revenue 
losses
Less damage and 
minimal revenue 
losses
Not available at 
wholesale markers 
for study
Market conduct Pricing policies Prices are inverse 
and mainly fixed 
by collusive 
forces and high 
demand at retail 
level. Limited 
participation by 
farmers
Prices set by 
perfectly
competitive market 
forces. Extensive 
participation by 
farmers
Not available at 
wholesale markets for 
study
Market
performance
Marketing
channel
Long, broad and 
overcrowded
Long, broad and 
crowded
Short and close to 
consumers
Market
performance
Market
integration
Many market 
pairs not 
associated.
Many market pairs 
associated in both 
directions
Not available at 
wholesale markets for 
study
Market
performance
Producer- 
wholesaler price 
spread
Traders keep 
higher share of 
consumer 
payments
Producers get 
higher share of 
consumer payments
Not available at 
wholesale markets for 
study
Marketing efficiency Inefficient Efficient Inconclusive
Source: Study results
95
6.6. Conclusions
For an agriculturally dependent economy like Ghana, information on commodity 
prices are required to guide producers in their choice of enterprises as to which 
commodity to produce, how much to produce, what production methods to use and when 
and how to produce for maximum returns. It is expected therefore in the case of legumes 
that an effective legume marketing system will help stimulate an increase in their output 
by providing the needed incentives that will encourage the farmer to increase his resource 
allocation in favour of their increased production
In addition, efficiency in the marketing operations of a commodity lowers its 
marketing costs, resulting in low consumer prices, which encourage consumers to utilise 
more of the commodity. An improvement in legume marketing will, therefore, not only 
improve the living standards of the producer but also increase legume supply and plant 
protein intake in the country. It is against this background and the persistent influx of 
holed legume grains, especially cowpea and bambara beans into food markets for sale by 
traders as well as the persistently high consumer prices, that it becomes necessary to 
undertake a research study of the operational mechanisms of the post-harvest handling 
and marketing of legumes in the country.
6.6.1 Sumary of the objectives of the study
The overall objective of this project was, essentially, to determine the structure, 
conduct and performance of legume marketing in Ghana. Specifically, the study sought to 
examine the post-harvest handling and control of losses at the farm and market levels; to 
identify the marketing channels for cowpea, bambara beans and groundnuts; to examine 
the functions of channel members in the legume market; to determine the entry barriers of 
the legume market; to determine the pricing policies of middlemen along major channels; 
to determine the spatial market integration of cowpea, and groundnuts for some selected 
markets; to determine the producer’s share of the urban wholesale price and to identify 
existing problems and suggest remedies for redress.
96
6.6.2. Post-harvest handling and control of losses at the farm and market
1. The study revealed that five main structures are used in farm villages for the storage of 
legumes. These are the big mud silos comprising the improved mamprusi silo, which is 
being used on a limited scale and locally constructed mud silos of variuos types which 
are extensively utilised. They are used mainly for the storage of unthreshed stocks. Other 
storage structures found comprise the small egg-shaped container called buopla or 
mamvuri and found only in the Upper West Region, the conical basket known locally as 
kunchun found in Northern and Upper East Regions, and the clay pots. These latter 
structures are all used for the storage of threshed legume stocks.
2. In the markets, jute sacks were the only containers used for packaging legumes.
3. Both chemical insecticides and traditional methods were found being used 
simultaneuosly by farmers. In contrast, only chemicals sold by drug peddlers were used 
for stock treatment in the markets. Whereas 46% of the farmers intervieved did not 
protect their stocks, 38% used traditional methods in the form of botanicals and 
substances like wood ash and ground pepper. The remaining 16% used chemicals like 
acetylic powder, liquid or gas and phoxtoxine tablets. In the market as much as 77.8 % of 
the respondents did not make any attempt to protect their stocks during the period under 
study. The remaining 22.2% used camphor, acetylic and phoxtoxine.
4. The marketing problems which were revealed in the farm-gate survey consisted of low 
produce prices at harvest time, cited by 88.5% of the respondents; poor road network: 59 
%; lack of transport for carting goods to the market: 42.5 %; the lack of money to buy 
chemicals for stock treatment: 64%; lack of know-how on the use of chemicals: 85; and 
the cheating of fanners by prefinance creditors: 32%.
6.6.3. Channels of distribution and functions of channel members in legume 
marketing
1. The marketing channels for the distribution of cowpea and groundnuts were found to 
be wide and long in comparison to the channel for bambara beans. This implies that
97
cowpea and groundnut marketing involves a large number of intermediaries. The type of 
intermediaries encountered in the marketing of these two commodities consisted of 
secondary and tertiary wholesalers like frontmen or market brokers with no defined 
value-adding functions. Accordingly, consumers may be paying more than necessary for 
these commodities as charges for maintaining the long chain of middlemen in the cowpea 
and groundnuts markets.
2. The channel members found in the legume market comprised:
• Producers who constitute the farmers who produce legumes;
• Primary assemblers who are made up of purchasing agents, village traders and 
inter-village market traders;
• Secondary assemblers who are traders in the regional markets of producing areas;
• Urban wholesalers who form a group of intermediaries operating at consuming 
areas with the main function of satisfying the demand of the consuming public 
and institutions;
• Retailers; and
• Consumers.
Even though some traders contact and buy directly from large-scale producers, the 
great number of them receive their stocks from the primary assemblers. Secondary 
assemblers, for instance, try to avoid transport, and other problems associated with 
purchasing at the primary level. They preferred to buy and assemble their consignments 
from primary assemblers who brought the legumes to them in the regional markets.
Wholesalers of both producing and consuming areas consisted of large-scale and 
small-scale operators who operated with assistance from brokers. Some wholesalers 
operate forwarding services, buying and reselling directly without storage while others 
perform storage services. Groups of other wholesalers like workers and housewives as 
well as corporate organizations, churches and institutions were also encountered 
performing some marketing functions in the legume market.
98
3. Retail trading was found to be the domain of women who bought from wholesalers to 
resell in smaller units to consumers. The bambara beans trade was found to be mainly 
limited to the retail level.
6.6.4. Entry barriers of the legume market
1. The case study on the effect of insect damage confirmed the fears expressed by farmers 
for weevils on account of which 78 % of average quantities harvested were sold. Even 
though cowpea is a cash crop like groundnuts, the quatity sold at low prices during 
harvest could have been less.
2. The results on insect damage assessment revealed that unprotected cowpea stored for 
periods ranging from four to eight months suffered high percentages of grain damage 
ranging from 38 to 70 percent. The damage resulted in price discounts.causing losses 
ranging from 11.7 - 58.4 percent of net revenue on 63.6 percent of the stocks studied.
In contrast to cowpea, revenue losses estimated for groundnut stocks ranged from only 5 
to 25 percent. The high losses suffered by legume traders from insect damage in addition 
to other factors like treatment cost and the high investment required for purchases caused 
many traders to deal in the marketing of grains and cereals which suffer less losses.
6.6.5. Market conduct: pricing policies of market intermediaries
I. For the pricing policies of cowpea traders, the results of the farm-gate level suggest 
that margins made by farm-gate middlemen were 8.8 percent of the farm-gate price plus a 
fixed sum of 22,842 cedis. For middlemen operating between regional markets of 
producing areas and urban consuming areas the margins estimated were 20.7 percent of 
the prices in the regional markets, plus a fixed sum of 72,000 cedis. For the overall 
channel between farm-gate and urban areas, the estimated margin was 43.4 percent of the 
prices at farm gate plus a fixed sum of 101,466 cedis. However, the presence of negative 
coefficients indicate Harris inverse margins, implying that the margins made by 
middlemen at all three levels did not reflect a positive relationship with the price change 
at the source of procurement. In other words, a fall or rise in the price of cowpea at the 
supply location is not passed forward at the selling point and vice versa implying a lack
99
of perfect competition and the presence of monopolistic and oligopolistic operations 
leading to one-sided type of pricing policies in favour of intermediaries in the cowpea 
market.
2. Results of pricing policies of groundnuts traders revealed low intercept values of 
-2.96, 25.91, and 18.32 with positive coefficients of 0.11, 0.14, and 0.32 indicating a 
highly competitive pricing system in which margins are estimated as 11, 14, and 32 
percent plus fixed sums of-2,969, 25,910, and 18,324 cedis respectively for the farm- 
gate level, regional level and the overall distribution level. The positive coefficients for 
all the equations indicate the absence of inverse margins in the groundnuts market. A 
condition depicting the existence of interactions and information flow, among groundnut 
markets. Consequently, unlike the cowpea market, all channel members inducing 
producers who store a higher proportion of the crop, do influence pricing policies, in the 
groundnuts market.
6.6.6. The spatial market integration of legume markets
The spatial market integration was studied in two phases:
1. The first phase required the use of multiple regression models, fitted to determine 
whether legume markets were associated across space and time in the short-run The 
results indicated that the condition of Pe=o, which implies no association between markets 
did not occur for all 56 market pairs studied. In other words all the market pairs studied 
do have some level of marketing relationship
2. The second phase involved a determination of the strength of the association between 
markets. This was achieved by determining the Index of Market Concentration (IMC), 
which indicated markets with high, and weak integration, as well as markets which were 
independent of other markets. For the cowpea market, the market pairs found to exhibit a 
high market association were nine consisting of five 1st way and four 2nd way associations 
These markets pairs were Accra/Wa, Kumasi/Tema, Tema/Wa, Koforidua/Kumasi,
100
Techiman/Kumasi, Kumasi/Bolgatanga, Wa/Tamale, Tamale/Bolgatanga, 
Bolgatanga/Wa.
3. In contrast, the groundnut market results revealed twenty-two high market associations 
consisting of twelve 1st way and ten 2nd way directions. These market-pairs were:
Kumasi /Accra, Techiman/Accra, Accra/Tamale, Tamale/Accra, Tema/Accra, 
Tema/Kumasi, Kumasi/Tema, Tema/Techiman, Techiman/Tema, Tema/Tamale, 
Tema/Bolgatanga, Bolgatanga/T ema, Kumasi/Koforidua, Techiman/Kumasi, 
Kumasi/Tamale, Kumasi/Wa, Wa/Kumasi, Kumasi/Bolgatanga,
Techiman/KoforiduaTechiman/Taniale, T amale/T echiman, Techiman/Bolga,
Bolgatanga/Wa.
6.6.7. Farmers share of payments to urban wholesalers
1. The results revealed that in 1996 groundnut farmers enjoyed a monthly average of 63.7 
percent of consumer payments from January to December. The range of farmers share 
over the same period was 46 - 68 percent. Over the same period in 1996, cowpea farmers 
obtained a monthly average share of only 43.8 percent ranging between 24 - 61 percent.
2. During the same period in 1997 groundnut farmers enjoyed a monthly average of 67 
percent of consumer payments with monthly shares ranging between 59 and 72 percent 
from January to December while cowpea farmers were trailing with a monthly average 
share of 54.8 percent. The range of the share of the consumer payments to cowpea 
farmers in 1997 ranged from 46 to 63 percent for the months of January to December.
101
6.7. Policy Recommendations
1. Even though farmers have over many years developed different types of storage 
structures, the study revealed that many of the structures in use are vulnerable to climatic 
conditions and pest attack, which respectively result in a reduction in the life span of 
structures and high storage losses. It is recommended, therefore, that further study be 
made to identify or develop simple, durable but affordable structures for introduction to 
farmers. The use of underground storage facilities, for instance, may be additional 
options for study and consideration.
2. The study uncovered many indigenous methods that farmers have developed over the 
years in their effort to protect grains and legumes, especially, cowpea and bambara beans, 
from pest damage. The high percentage damage to stocks under the protection of these 
methods and the failure of farmers to successfully preserve produce for the required 
length of time portray the limitations and lack of efficacy of these methods. It is 
recommended therefore that trial experiments be undertaken to select potent practices and 
recommended dosage of application for reintroduction to farmers. A solution to the 
problem of pest damage would go a long way to encourage farmers to store part of their 
cowpea to enable them take advantage of the higher prices of lean seasons to help 
increase their share of consumer payments, remove the dominance of traders in cowpea 
storage, and increase and streghten the integration of legume markets.
3. The study revealed also that many grain and legume markets do not have the 
conventional standard type of facilities required for effective storage and marketing 
operations. It is therefore recommended that standard warehousing and stock treatment 
facilities be built in major grain storage and marketing centers to enhance the efficiency 
of grain and legume marketing in the country.
4. During group discussions in markets, traders persistently complained of their inability 
to access bank loans for the successful operation of their businesses in this very important 
sector of agriculture. It is therefore recommended that the Ministry of Food and
102
Agriculture introduce market extension education services in food markets to educate and 
assist traders to form groups that could link with relevant banks and institutions, 
including NGOs, to assist them with loans or in-kind credit facilities to enhance food 
processing and marketing in the country.
5. The high level of illiteracy among traders and the absence of extention services in the 
markets created difficulties in the collection of data during the field survey. The absence 
of operational and accounting records in the operation of the agri-businesses visited led to 
difficult memory recovery sessions that caused delays in the collection of reliable data. 
The institution of extension education in markets to assist traders to resolve these issues 
would be most desirable.
6. Finally, there is an urgent need for the installation of pest control plants and 
conventional storage facilities in wholesale markets for the proper handling and 
marketing of grains, cereals and legumes.
6.8. Areas of further research
This study examined some fundamental marketing operations and the factors that 
control the marketing of the major legumes in Ghana and problems facing post-harvest 
handling and management. Inspite of the wide coverage and scope of the study, the 
limitation of time and available logistics did not permit a complete analysis of the 
industrial organization and marketing of legumes in the country.
For further understanding of the legume market, additional studies are desirable in the 
following areas.
1. The scale economics of legume marketing in Ghana and cross boundary 
marketing with neighbouring countries.
2. Responsiveness of the legume industry to policy changes in the country
103
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Abbot, J. C. 1958. “Marketing Problems And Improvement Programs”. FAQ 
Marketing Guide No. 1.
2. Adegeye, A. J. and S. Dittoh. 1986. “Increasing Cocoa Production Through Effective 
Marketing of Cocoa Spraying Chemicals in Nigeria” Journal of Agricultural 
Administration Vol. 22 (2): 105-5
3. Alderson, W. 1957. Marketing Behaviour and Executive Action: A Functionalist 
Approach to Marketing Theory Homewood II: R. D. Irwin, Inc.
4. Allen, G.R. 1959. “Short -Term Variations in Retailing Margins On Fruits in East 
Pakistan” Farm Economist. Vol. IX, No.6.
5. Bain, J. S. 1968 Industrial Organization 2nd Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 
New York.
6. Bressler, R.G. and R.A. King. 1970. “Markets, Prices and International Trade” 
International Research and Rural Studies. New York, John Wiley and Sons.
7. Bucklin, L.P. 1966. “A Theory of Distribution Channel Structure” Food Policy..
8. Caves, R. 1982. “American Industry: Structure, Conduct, Performance”. 5th Edition. 
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
9. Cox, R and W. Alderson. 1957 Theory in Marketing Homewood III, Richard D. Irwin, 
Inc. pp. 269-273.
10. Vail, R Grether, R. Cox. 1952. “Distribution in a High Level Economy” Englewood 
CliffJNJ Prentice-Hall.
11. Dittoh, S. J. 1994. “Market Integration: The Case of Dry Season Vegetables”. Issues 
in African Rural Development Vol. 2: 89-101
12. Dahlgranm, R. A and S.C. Blank, 1992. “Evaluating the Integration of Contiguous 
Discontinuous Markets”. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74 (2): 469-79.
13. Gilbert, E. H. 1969. “The Marketing of Stable Foods in Northern Nigeria: A Case 
Study of the Stable Food Marketing System Serving Kano City” Unpublished Ph. D 
Thesis. Stanford University.
104
14. Golop, P., R. Stringfellow, and E. O. Asante. 1995. “A Review of the Storage and 
Marketing systems of Major Food Grains in Northern Ghana.” Natural Resources 
Institute, U. K.
15. Hallet, Graham, 1971. The Economics of Agricultural Policy Basil, Blackwell, 
Oxford.
16. Harriss, B. 1979. “There is a Method in My Madness: Or Is It Vice Versa? Measuring 
Agricultural Market Performance”. Food Research Institute Studies 17 (2): 197-218. 
Stanford: Stanford University.
17. Harriss-White, B. 1995 “Efficiency and Complexity: Distributive Margins and the 
Profits of Market Enterprises”. Prices. Products And People: Analyzing Agricultural 
Markets in Developing Countries. Linne Rienner, USA. 1st Edition.
18. Holtzman, J. S. 1986 “Rapid Reconnaissance Guidelines for Agricultural Marketing 
and Food systems Research in Developing Countries” MSU International Development 
Working Paper No. 30. East Lansing, Michigan: Department of Agricultural Economics, 
Michigan State University.
19. Jones, W.O. 1968. “The Structure of Staple Food Marketing in Nigeria as Revealed 
by Price Analysis”. Food Research Institute Studies, 8:2 pp 95-123.
20. Jones, W.O. 1972. Marketing Staple Foods in Tropical Africa. Ithaca: Cornell 
University Press.
21. King, R A. 1965. “Interregional Competition Research Methods”. The Agricultural 
Policy Institute Journal, University of North Carolina, Raleiigh, NC, USA.
22. King, R. A. and W. R. Henry. 1959. “Transportation Models In Studies of 
Interregional Competition”. Journal of Farm Economics Vol. 4, p. 997-1011.
23. Kohls, R. L. 1967. Marketing of Agricultural Products Macmillan 3rd Edit, p. 9
24. MacArthur, J. D and A Rashid. 1971. “Retail Margins in the Marketing of Fruits and 
Vegetables” The Farm Economist.
25. Moro, R.S 1981. “Distributor’s Margins in the Marketing of Foodstuffs in Rivers 
State of Nigeria” Journal of Rural Economy and Development.
26. Mendoza, G. 1995. “ A Primer on Market Channels and Margins”. Prices. Products 
And People: Analyzing Agricultural Markets in Developing Countries. Linne Rienner, 
USA.
105
27. Olayemi, J.K. 1972, “Improving Marketing as a Strategy for Generating Increased 
Food Production. The Nigerian Experience”. Journal of Rural Economy and 
Development.
28. Olayemi, J. K. and D. Olatunbosun 1974/75. “Some Rural-Urban Food Price 
Relationships in Nigerian Food Commodities”. Journal of Rural Economy and 
Development 11 (1) 69-80.
29. Olayemi, J.K. and D. Olatunbosun 1974/75. “Some Rural-Urban Food Price 
Relationships in Nigeria” Journal of Rural Economic and Development Vol. 9.
30. Pomeroy, R. S. and A. C. Trinidad 1995. “ Industrial Organization And Market 
Analysis: Fish Marketing”. Prices. Products And People: Analyzing Agricultural Markets 
in Developing Countries. 217 - 238.
31. Ravillion, M. 1985. ‘The Performance of Rice Markets in Bangladesh During the 
1974 Famine” The Economic Journal 92:15-29.
32. Ravallion, M. 1986. “ Testing Market Integration” American Journal of Agricultural 
Economics 68 (4): 88-109.
33. Ritson, C. 1982. “Agricultural Economics: Principles and Policy” Granada
34. Scarborough, V and J. Kydd 1992. “Economic Analysis of Agricultural Markets: A 
Manual” NRI Marketing Series Vol. 5 Chatham, U.K: Natural Resources Institute.
35. Scott, G. J. 1995. “ Agricultural Marketing Research In Developing Countries: Old 
Tasks And New Challenges”. Prices, Products And People. International Potato Center 
(CIP), Lynne Rienner
36. Smith, E. D. 1972. “Agricultural Marketing Research for Less Developed Areas”. 
American Journal Of Agricultural Economics. 54(4) p 666-670
37. Stigler, G. J. 1951. The Theory of Price New York: Macmillan co.
38. Thodey, A. R. 1969. “Analysis of Stable Food Price Behaviour in Western Nigeria” 
Unpublished Ph. D Thesis. University of Illinois.
39. Timmer, C.P 1987. ‘Tood Marketing and Price Policy in Agricultural Marketing 
Strategy” World Bank Symposium. Elz, E., ed. Washington: World Bank.
40. Tomek, W. G. and Robinson. 1990. Agricultural Product Prices. 3rd Edition. Ithaca, 
NY: Cornell University.
106
41. Waugh, F.V. 1964. “Demand and Price Analysis: Some Examples From Agriculture” 
U.S.D.A Technical Bulletin No. 1316.
42. Weld, L. D 1917: “Marketing Functions and Mercantile Organization” American 
Economics Review. Vol. 7, 306-318.
43. Whetham, E. H. Agricultural Marketing Tn Africa London: Oxford University Press.
44. Wilcock, D.C 1978. “ The Political Economy of Grain Marketing and Storage in The 
Sahel”. African Rural Economy. Paper No.24. Department of Agricultural Economics. 
East Lansing, Michgan State University.
107
Appendix A
ILLUSTRATIONS OF STORAGE STRUCTURES
I. Lenga*
* A wooden platform with zana mat Spread on top. It is used for drying and temporary 
storage.
Note:
Also called kikaafi in Kokomba areas and apata by the Akans.
Appendix A (Continued)
2. Mud Silos
Traditional mud silos are in all three Northern Regions. As seen in pictures 1 to 7 below, 
they occur in various shapes and sizes depending on their locality. The local names are napogu, 
napoo (Parts of Northern Region); lipil (Kokombas); bool, buud, bowr or baare (Upper East 
Region); bui, bugo, nauvuri and mamvuri or buopla, among others (Upper West Region). Apart 
from the mamvuri or buopla, the entrance into mud silos are normally at the top and the openings 
are kept closed by woven grass hats, however some farmers in the Upper East Region also paint 
or clothe the body of the silos with thatch (pictures 3 and 4) as protection against rain water. Mud 
silos are built with soil fortified with cement or cow dung and dawadawa herbal preparations and 
are very popular for the storage of legumes grains and cereals. Termite clay is the best material 
for mud silo construction and has been used by the kokombas for silo consruction for many years. 
Some napogu, napoo, baare, hood, buul and bowr are built on top of short wooden platforms or 
stones creating a chamber beneath for chicken scoop, while others are built on bear ground. 
Grounded mud silos are vulnerable to termite attack and the destruction of storage items than 
those seated on supports. Mud silos are usually cylindrical though other shapes like the nauvuri 
and buopla are found in the Upper West Region. They have a big space inside for keeping both 
threshed and unthreshed produce including cowpea, groundnuts and bambara beans. A type of 
mud silo called the “mamprusi” mud silo possibly from the Mamprusi areas, has been 
recommended for extension to other farmers in Northern Ghana by the Ministry of Food and 
Agriculture (MOFA). The mamprusi mud silo is rounded in shape, built on legs and could have 
more than one chamber like the lipil of the Kokombas.
l.Mumprusi mud silo 2. Nauvuri (large mud silo)
Upper West Region
1 0 9
Appendix A (Continued)
5. Bowr (opened to remove food)
4. Bood, buul or bowr 
(clothed with thatch)
6: Baare, napoo, napogu 
(fowls can sleep beneath)
3. A grounded bood, bowr or buul 
(painted against rain water) -
110
Appendix A (Continued)
7. Buopla or mamvuri (small mud silo)
It is a small mud silo oblong or egg-shaped sealed at the top with a small rectangular 
opening on the mid-top side like a mouth. It can have different shapes in diferent areas. It is used 
for storing threshed cowpea, bambara beans groundnuts, millet, sorghum, rice and others.
I l l
3. Storage basket
The storage basket is locally called lamchun, pupure, kosoku and koyonko in different villages. The basket is 
conical in shape and woven from sorghum stalks. After construction the outside is plastered with a mixture of water 
and cow dung after which it is dried before filled with grains. The structure is widely used in Northern and Upper East 
Regions for the storage of threshed cowpea, bambara beans, millet and sorghum. It is used mainly by male farmers. 
After filling with produce, the basket is placed in a room or set on a lenga outside the house and covered with a woven 
thatch hat.
Appendix A (Continued)
Above: A kunchun, pupure, kosoku or koyonko.
Below: Kunchuns filled with farm produce, placed on lengas and covered with woven thatch hats.
112
4. CLAY POTS
They are called dokoh. dugu, vijen, duk, or yor in various areas of Northern 
Ghana. They are made from clay by women, who produce them in various shapes and 
sizes and can either be baked or just dried. They are normally used to store threshed 
legumes, grains and cereals.
Appendix A (Continued)
5, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE WAREHOUSES (DEPOTS)
They are government storage structures constructed at vantage points in farmin 
communities in the Upper Regions by the Ministry of Food and Agriculture for 
communal storage purposes. Farmers call them “depots” and refuse to patronise these 
structures for fear of inadequate security and care for their food stocks.
113
Appendix B: General Information from Selected Traders in Northern Ghana. (1996/97 trade seasons)
Jroup
dumber
EXPECTED 
LENGTH OF 
STORAGE
ACTUAL
LENGTH
OF
STORAGE
AVAILABLE
STORAGE
STRUCTURE
CAPACITY
OF
STRUCTURE
CONDI­
TION
OF STRUC­
TURE
LOCA­
TION OF 
STRUC­
TURE
REASON
FOR
LOCA­
TION
TRADERS
FEELINGS
ABOUT
STRUCTURE
SUGGES­
TION FOR 
STRUCTURE 
IMPRO­
VEMENT
AMOUNT 
TRADER 
CAN PAY 
FOR
REMEDY
TYPE OF 
TRAINING 
TRADER 
THINkS 
HE NEEDS
6 month 5 month Market shed 
and store
8ft by 10ft but 
shared by 5 
others
Old open 
wooden 
structure 
uncemented 
floor, leaking 
low roof
Market Fast
business 
also has 
no other 
place
Not
happy
Want block 
structure with 
high root and 
cemented floor
Anything
reasonable
Bookkeeping 
and stock 
protection
1
il
6 months Not
disclosed
GFDC
Warehouse
Very spacious 
but shared by 
other GFDC 
customers
Block 
cemented 
floor, high 
roof
GFDC
offices
For
treatment 
and better 
protection
Satisfied Wants to have a 
block structure 
in the market
Willing to 
pay but did 
not
mention 
any amount
Stock
treatment and 
management
3 4 months 4 months Market shed 8ft by 10ft but 
shared by 5 
others
Old open 
wooden 
structure 
uncemented 
floor, leaking 
low roof
Market Fast
business 
also has no 
other place
Not
happy
Want block 
structure with 
high root and 
cemented floor
Anything
reasonable
Stock
protection ! 
methods and 
type of 
chemical
4 4 months Not
disclosed
Market shed 
and store
8ft by 10ft but 
shared by 5 
others
Structure Market Fast sales Not satisfied Want block 
structure with 
high root and 
cemented floor
0400,000 Stock
treatment and 
management
5 6 months Not
disclosed
Market shed 
and store
12ft by 8ft but 
shares with 
others in 
market. 
Refused to 
show us the 
store
Old open 
wooden shed. 
High root, 
uncemented 
floor, dirty 
surroundings
Bblock
store
outside
market
Fart
business 
and for 
long 
storage
Not
happy
with
condition of 
market shed
Wants block 
cemented floor 
high roof in 
market
2 (two) 
million
Accounting 
and stock ! 
management
114
Appendix B (Continued)
Group
Number
EXPECTE 
D LENGTH 
OF
STORAGE
ACTUAL
LENGT
HOF
STORAG
E
AVAILABLE
STORAGE
STRUCTURE
CAPACITY
OF
STRUCTU
RE
CONDITION
OF
STRUCTURE
LOCATI 
ON OF 
STRUCT 
URE
REASON
FOR
LOCATI
ON
TRADERS 
FEELING S 
ABOUT 
STRUCTU 
RE
SUGGESTI 
ON FOR 
STRUCTU 
RE
IMPROVE
MENT
AMOUN
T
TRADER
CAN
PAY
FOR
REMED
Y
TYPE OF 
TRAINING 
TRADER 
THINS HE 
NEEDS
6 5 months 5 monthsMarket shed 6ft by 6ft Old open 
wooden shed. 
Uncemented 
floor low roof.
Market Fast
sales
Not
happy
Block, high 
roof
cemented
floor
Whatever 
I can get
Pest
control
7 4 mouths 8 monthsMarket shed 10ft by 8ft Old open 
wooden shed. 
Uncemented 
floor low roof.
Market
shed
Fast
Sales
and
have
no
other
place
Not
happy
Wants 
block, high 
roof
cemented
floor
Can't 
tell, will 
pay be 
installme 
nt
Pest
control
8 9 months 8 monthsMarket shed 
but
demolished
12ft by 10ft Wooden 
tightly built 
with high roof, 
cemented floor
Market Fast
business
Want
block
structure
Block
structure
Cannot
telL
Governm
ent
already
building
Pest
control
9 5 months 5 months Market shed + 
block
Small shed 
+ spacious 
block store
Market shed 
demolished. 
New stores 
being
constructed by 
Government
Market + 
store 
outside 
market
Fast 
business 
+ long 
storage
Indifferent Needs block 
structure in 
market
Store
already
being
construct
ed
Pest
control
11 6 months 
always 
selling and 
buying from 
village 
traders
2 months Block store 15ft by 
12 ft
Strong block 
walls cemented 
floor, high roof
Street
side
Fast
business
Happy Satisfied
with
store
No need Pest
control
12 6 months 2 months Block store 18ft by 15ft 
+ high roof
u « U « Pest
control
115
Appendix C: Financial Results of Cowpea Trading Operations
Group
Number
TOWN TOTAL
SALES
(BAGS)
NET
REVENUE
OBTAINED
TOTAL 
LOSS IN 
REVENUE
TOTAL
MARKETING
COST
% OF 
NET
REVENU 
E OVER 
TOTAL 
INVESTM 
ENT
AVERAGE
NET
REVENUE 
PER BAG
AVERAGE 
COST PER 
BAG
AVERAG
ELOSS
IN
VALUE 
PER BAG
CAUSE OF LOSS 
IN REVENUE
1 Tamale 500 6,806,000 3,086,000 33,970,000 20,03% 13,612,00 67,940,00 4,172,00 Infestation and low 
demand
2 Tamale 50 855,000 100,000 3,645,00 23,45% 17,1000= 72,900 2,000 Infested grains but 
sold at time of high 
demand
3 Tamale 300 5,256,000 1,859,000 20,724,000 25.36% 17,520 69,080 6,196.66 Infestation and 
delayed sales
4 Tamale 55 8233,600 249,600 3,983,000 20.67% 14,974.54 72,418.18 4,538.18 Good quality grain 
but delayed sales
5 Tamale 50 586,200 566,000 3,422,000 17.1% 11,724.00 68,440.00 11,320,00 Infestation and 
delayed sales
6 Bolga 140 4,321,500 75,000 11,003,500 39.27% 30,867.8 78,596.42 535.7 Limited infestation 
in UER due to dry 
weather
7 Bolga 90 2,851,000 Nil 7,359,000 38.74% 31,677.78 81,766.67 Nil Suppliers schools at 
high tender prices. 
And has regular 
customers
8 Bolga 230 2,937,500 NU 11,470.500 25.6% 12,771.7 49,871.7 Nil Sells to regular 
customers at higher 
prices than market 
prices
9 Bawku 1,150 13,125,000 Nil 75,521,000 . 17.34% 11,413.0 65,670 NU Dry weather and 
high demand
116
Apppendix D: Cow pea Market Integration Results.
!%)%5 I97DE!P F,+r
4G
A+,
2,3
97DE!iP  P9  II  H i  II  i ' II  i+ )' II  i 'i    iP )( 00 7 i  00 7@ i  00 09$ II F6
++
EJ+
P rr ( D#" mP( miii mP(( mPPP )mmii )miP mmka mmm( k(  im(k
2mPmPi3 2mPm3 2mPit3 2mPa3 2mPt3 2mPP(3
mmmmmP mm( mm
i D#" ( rr Pmm(t )mimmk mmat mP((( )mPm( mmtai m((t miaa  P(P
2mPmm(3 2mPmP3 2mmk3 2mmkt3 2mmkk3 2mmam3
m mm
P rr Pk D, mktm mPtP mi(a mPkP( )mi( mmk mPa mPi i ) Pa(
2mma(3 2mmt3 2mmk3 2mP(tk3 2mP(i3 2mPmii3
mmmmmP mPP mmPmP mmka
1 D, Pk rr matt )mmt mimP )mP(P mmtmi )mm(i mamP maai k im
2mPmi3 2mPmk(3 2mmaP3 2mPP3 2mPPak3 2mmmP3
m mmPi(
0 rr it !rK mkkai mPPP m(mt )m(mt mPti mPi mPk mP t)(  PtP
2mmt3 2mmPP3 2mPPmi3 2mPa3 2mPkmk3 2mPPk3
m mmmk mma
3 !rK it rr PPmi )mikP miit )mP mmtiP maam maa mak ; iPP
2mmk3 2mPmPk3 2mma3 2mPmtt3 2mPmt3 2mmama3
m mmPPt mmPmP mmat
0 rr tmk ! mPk mPia miiPt )mmtP( )mmPi mm(t mmtk maam P)( PaPa
2mPmm(3 2mm3 2mmtt3 2mPPi3 2mPPt(3 2mmt3
m mPk
! tmk rr mkkP mmtt mi(ia )mmmi mmPik )mmki mkt m(  P(P@ Pa
2 mm(3 2mi 2mPmm3 2mPia3 2mmPi3 2)mm
m miia
317
Appendix D (Continued)
I !%)%5 I97DE!P F,+r
4G
A+,  
2,3
97DE!i   Plt-2 Pa P2I-1 P 2t-2 P21-3 7 i 7L i 09$ F6
++  
I EJ+ I
P rr 6 m(a mmk miPP mimP )mmim m(k(( mPPi mmm  P Pa(
2mm(3 2mmk3 2mPkP(3 2mi(3 2miti3 2mPmP3
mm Pi 'mmt mm(
i 6 rr mt( )mmk( mma mmPi mmii )mP( m((( mia P(  imk
2mPmmk3 2mPmPP3 2mmP3 2mmm3 2mmmk 2mmt3
mm mmPt
P rr mk B mkk(P m'P( mPaP mPi )mmtP )mPtm mP(k mmk ( P(m
2mma3 2mPmmt32mPmk3 2mPta3 2mPt 2mPPk(3
mm PP mm(a
i B mk rr mtai )mPtmk mPi )mPPkP mP )mPm( mmt mm(P  imm
2mPmtP32mPakk3 2mmak3 2mPmkm3 2mPmP32mmai3
mm mmtk
P rr Pa ! mtP mPta ma )miiia )mPmta mm(Pi mika miPa it immt
2mPm(t3 2mPma3 2mma(3 2mmP3 2mPPak3 2mmaP3
mm mmmmk
i ! Pa rr m(P mmai mP( )mmia )mm( )mmkP m( m(Pi ?M C N Pa
2mPmmi32mPmP3 2mmam3 2mPPi3 2mPPiP32mmaaP3
mm mm
P ! P D#" mP( mPta mi)a ) mPPk )mma )miim mP( mPPk kP imPi
2mm3 2mPmt(3 2mPP3 2mPm3 mP(m 2mPPai3
mm mmiit mmkta
i D#" P ! Pmmm )mim( mPm )mPa mPk(k )mmtik m(ti mi kPN' im(P
2mPm(m3 2mPmtk32mmm3 2mmaP 2mmi3 2mm(k3
mm mmm( mmPi mPPm mPmi
118
Appendix D (Continued) ,
I !%)%5  
++  
I EJ+
97DE! P F,+r 97DE!i Pim P11-2 Pat PiP)P P2t-2 P2t-3 R R IMC D.W
4G
A+,
29,3
P ! Pa D, mk(ia mm miaa mmka )mPtam mPka miii mPka ti)' imi
2mma 2mPk3 2mma3 2mP((3 2mP(im3 2mPm(m3
mm mmm( mP(
i D, Pa ! mPm )mPPit mikkP )mP(ma mkt )mmikt maa maaii @ PP ima(
2mPmim3 2mPmk32mmka3 2mPPa3 2mPPP3 2mma3
mm mmmP
P ! i( !rK mktP(mmat m(Ptm )mi( )mmPk m(im mi(m mPk i Pa
2mmk3 2maka3 2mPma3 2mPm3 2mPkP3 2mPPk3
mm mmmt mPmt mmmkm
i !rK i( ! PmaaP )miPP mPk )mPti mmk )mmki maa maam O BPQ  iP(ka
2mm3 2mPmik3 2ma3 2mPm3 2mPma3 2mma3
mm mmPki mmi(
P ! tit ! mkata mmt mP(m mmP )mm mPmm mP(i mmi t )Q P'Pi
2mPmm3 2mmi3 2mmPk3 2mPPP3 2mPPP3 2mmkt3
mm mm( mPi
i ! tit ! mkkPP mmtmtPmPtt mmP(( )mmk(P )mmimk mkim mt e Pmt Pak(
2mPmP3 2mPm(i3 2mPmt3 2mP(im3 2mP(P3 2mm3
mm mk
P ! tk( 6 mtik mmaa m((tP mPiPk )mtPt mii(i mm mm( P Pkia
2mPmm3 2mmaa3 2mPk3 2mit(3 2mit3 2mP(3
mm mmt( mmkPa
i 6 tk( ! mk( )mmtm mPPim mm(( )mmtt )mmaPt m((( mia iPt imPt
2mPmP3 2mPmtm3 2mm3 2mmP(3 2mmPt3 2mmt3
mm mmt
119
Appendix D (Continued)
I !%)%5 Imarketi F,+r
4G
A+,
29,3
97DE!i   Pit-2 Pa PiM   2t-2 P2t-3 7 i 7@ i 09$ F6
++  
I EJ+ 0
 0 I it B mk mPia mia mmt )mPm )mmiaa mP(P mmP ti P Pa
2mPmP3 2mma3 2mPPia3 2mPka3 2mP3 2mPPkk3
mm mmP(
i B it ! miP )mmk( mimk mmtkk )m(it mPtam mP mm) i Pt
2mPmim32mPmit3 2mmaP(3 2mPmi 2mPm((3 2mmm3
mm mmP mmmi mmk
P A, Pit A#" maak )mmtm mtta )mtmm mPt )Pi maa maP e t M imPta
2mmmk3 2mPm(a3 2mPPkk3 2mPk(m32mPk3 2mPmk3
mm mmmi mmPt mm
i A#" Pit D, maa )mtPm mikP )mmtt mtka )mmk( mt(P m'(i Pk ' P(P
2mmP3 2mmt(3 2mm(3 2mPmkt3 2mPm(m3 2mmi3 ) @
mmmm mmmmtI I
P D, a !rK mtt )mm(k m(kPP )mPmim mPmk( )mmkPk mma mmPt  imiii
2mPmma32mm(3 mmPm(( 2mPti3 2mPtt3 2mPmkm3
mmmm mmm
i !rK a D, mam )mPi m(mP( )mm(a mk(k )mPi( mmma ma( ? P  ( im(
2mP(3 2mPmia3 2mmaa3 2mPP(3 2mPP(t3 2mmam(3
mmmm mmm

R
P D, i( ! makP )mm( m(ta )mPkP )mm(t mmPkP O 'maka maak Pki eimP
2mPm((3 2mPm(k3 2mmm(3 2mPmt3 2mPma(3 2mmaim3
mmm mmmmi mPP
i ! i( D, mtP mma m(aP SSSSS )miiP mmiP maPi m i( Pim
2mma3 2mmt3 2mmki3 2mP(3 2mmki3
m mmmP mm
120
Appendix D (Continued)
I !%)%5 I97DE!P F,+r
4G
A+,
29,3
97DE!i   P«-2 Pa P2M   2t-2 P2t-3 7 i 7L i 09$ F6
++  
I EJ+ 0
P D, ik 6 mktt )mPmPP mPPi miPtP )mimk )mmPa maat mak  t NT imtti
2mma3 2mmaa3 2mPkmP3 2mi(((3 2mitm(3 2mPk(3
mmmm
i 6 ik D, Pm(ia )PiPt mm(tP mmtPm mmimm )mmaa o-rl0£6 0.2171 122@ \^ns
2mPmm32mm3 2mmkP3 2mmati3 2mma(a32mmkmi3
mmmm
P D, (( B 0.8484 3.8794 D.3152 0.7865 ■0.0424 ■0.1733 0.0.9032 0.8965 P P Pt
2mmm3 2mma3 2ma3 2mPtt3 2mPt(3 2mPmt(3
mmmm mmmiP
i B (( D, mata )mmtiP m(mti )mPi )mmti mmkm mPi( mmki tk ) PkP
2mPm(3 2mPmii3 2mma3 2mPimt3 2mPiP3 2mmam3
0000 0.0010
P !rK imi D#" PPmik miP )mmkk( m((kP )mimt)mmPP( maam maP (i imtk
(0.1031) (1042) (0.1112) (0.1566) (0.154 6) (0.1015) )
m mm( mm(t( mPma
i D#" imi !rK PmPaP )mPkmk)mmt( m(kk )miia mmti m(aP m(( ia) Pm
2mPmm32mmP3 2mma3 2mPi3 2mP(mm3 2mm(3
mmm mmtk mmmki mma
P !rK iak ! PmmP( )mPa(k miti )mmi )mPP mmimP maPt maa(  a k@ imi
2mma(3 2mPmPi3 2mmam3 2mmkP32mmt3 2mmP3
mmm mmia mmmia
i ! iak !rK mk mmkm m(Pa )mP(mk mPkk )mPi ma( @ matt ia ePat
2mmi3 2mmi(3 2mPPtk3 2mPk(P3 2mPk(k3 2mPPk3 ) . ^
mmmm mmmk
121
Appendix D (Continued)
I !%)%5 97DE! P F,+r
4G
A+,
29,3
97DE!i Pim  11-2  i  i+)P  21-2 P2t-3 7
i 7P i 09$ F6
++  
I EJ+
P !rK Pa 6 PmatP )mimtP mmkmP(a )mP(a mi(t maai( matP  ima(k
mmmP 2mma(3 2mPtt3 2miPmm3 2miPki3 2mit(3
mmmm mmtmP
i 6 Pa !rK 1.0658 ■0.1488 0.0110 ■0.0604 0.1791 ■0.0893
0.9305 0.9267  Pa(m
2mPmmP32mmP3 2mmkt3 2mmaP3 2mmaP32mmka3
mmmm mmm
P !rK ((P B Pm( )mPa mi( )mm )mPtk mmtiP maaa( maamt   imaa
2mmt3 2mmaa3 2mmi3 2mP(t3 2mP((3 2mmk(3
mmm mmP((
i B ((P !rK mtPP )mmkm mitii )mP( mmiP )mmPi mm mm(i t(' P(
2mPmma3 2mm3 2mPmmP3 2mPti3 2mPt(3 mmmt
mmm mmP
P ! (kP D#" mkikt mPmmm m(Ptt mmPta )mPka )mmi( mii mkt  ( v Pim
2mPmPa3mmPmi 2mP(ia3 2mPa(3 2mPakm3 2mPiP3
mmm mmPa
i D#" (kP ! ma( )mmaia mPkaa mmtk mmi(t mmi(m m( m((( (aP H im(a
2mPmPm3 2mm(a3 2mmma3 2mmak32mmakt3 2mmtk3
mmmm mmPP
P ! P 6 mkka mmkta mPmt )mikm )mmk( S mam mk( ik Pk
mmmak 2mmP3 2mPka3 2mitk3 2miaP3
mmmm mmm(P
i 6 P ! Pmtmk )mPtt mPkaa)mP(( mtk mm(am m((t miaa P' imPmP
2mPmmmi3 2mPmmt3 2mmti3 2mmkkt32mmtk3 2mmii3 ■s
mmmm mmmit mmtkk
122
&&"1 D 2$+"3
P !%)%5 I97DE!P F,+r
4G
A+,
29,3
97DE!i    11-2 Pat   2t-1  21-2 PiP)( 7 i 7@ i 09$ F6
++  
I EJ+ I
P ! Pmm B m( )mmitt m(kPa )mtPtk miim )mmm maia maPP P(  immmi
2mm3 2mmmt3 2mPmk(3 2mPtP3 2mPt3 2mPmtk3
mmmm mmmPmmmmat mmk(i
i B Pmm ! Pmik )mPktm m(ik )mikm mPPii )mm( mPa mPi 3-8 Pim
2mmP3 2mmk3 2mmki3 2mmt3 2mmki3 2mm(3
mmmm mmkm mmmm mmm(
P B tkP D#" Pmmkk )mm( mmPm mm )mP mmi(t mm( mam  Paik
2mPmkP3 2mPPPi3 2mPPkP3 2mPkii3 2mPa3 2mPmi3
mmmm
i D#" tkP B maim )mPia( mmPP mii )mPiik )mmti m(a m(( (( P(P
2mmai3 2mmtt3 2mmai3 2mPimt3 2mPiti3 2mmti3
mmmm mmP
P B PP 6 ULm(P )mP(a mt(a )m(k( mPPi S mPma mmt mi @ imPa
2mPmP3 2mPm(3 2mPt3 2mim(3 2miPt3
mmmm mmm(( mmaPm
i 6 PP B mkk )mPk mP(m )mmtk )mm(ti mm(im m( m((t im imPm(
2mmaP3 2mmai3 2mmk(m3 2mma3 2mma3 2mmkki3 '
mmmm mmakk mmmia
P D#" tmm 6 Pmi(( )mPk( mP(k )mPmak mmaa mmi m(ka mia t imtP
2mm3 2mm3 2mP(tP3 2mPt3 2Pt3 2mP(a3
mmmm mmmk
i 6 tmm D#" Pm )mPPki mm mmtm )mP(PP mPPt m(mm mii  a immm
2mma3 2mPmtm3 2mm(P3 2mPmi3 2mPm3 2mmkP3
mmmm
Source: From Study
123
Appendix E: Groundnuts market Integration Results. f
+%)%5
++
EJ+
97DE!P F,+r 97DE!i Pin Pit-2 Pat Pa-1 Pa)i PiP)( 7 i 7@ i 09$ F6
4G
A+,
2,3
P rr ( D#" mmP mik mPkaa mmt )mmki )mm(mi mPi mtai (i Pka
2mm3 2mmkm3 2mPP3 2mi(k3 2mi(3 2)mm(mi3
;! mmmm
i D#" ( rr PP )miPt mmkai )mmki( mmkii )mmii m(m mP( Paaik Pam
2mmtP3 2mmt(3 2mm3 2mmam3 2mma(3 2mma3
mmmmm mmiPa
P rr Pk D, mmk )mmi mmtki mmt mma( mtk mmt mt( Pi( PkP
1 2mmkk3 2mPmPam 2mmit32mm(3 2mmi(3 2mmPi3
mmmm 
i D, Pk rr mP(ta mm(t mPi(m m(mt mmtim mPkP mamt mkm mttiP Pt
(■0^)947) 2mmt3 2mPkkt32miit3 2mii3 2mPt3
P rr it Tectjfjn^fT mPm( )mmit mmam mmP(i mmt )mm(im mPt mtat Pma(a Paam
2mmtm3 2mmt3 2mmt3 2mm3 2mmki3 2mmta(3
;! mmmm mmk(
i !rK it rr mi(t )miaPk mik( )mmiPt mP(m mtmk( mP maik \ Piaai Pamm
2mmmP3 2mmaak32mPi3 2miti3 2miti3 2mPaPm3
@ k mmmmm mmmP mmika
P rr tmk ! mi )mmPtm P )mPi )mi(( mPaik mki( mkmm PmP Pa
2mm(PP3 2mmka3 2mmkt32mPttt3 2mPt(3 2mPm(a3 )
mmmm mmmm 0.103 mV(aPi 
)
i ! tmk rr mamt )mma m(PP )mPi )mmtt mmtt mta miP PPmik Pak
2mm(3 2mPmim3 2mmi3 2mm(3 2mWmmk3 2mmia3
mmmmm mmmmmmmat
124
, Appendix E (Continued)
!%)%5
++
EJ+
97DE!P F,+r
4G
A+,  
2,3
97DE!i    X)i    S  )i P2t-3 7 i 7@ i 09$ F6
P rr 6 ma mmPat makm miPkk )mmPtk mmii mmi mtam ti( PP(
2mmt(3 2mmi3 2mkma(3 2m(ti3 m(imP 2mtkkt3
mmmm mmiP
i 6 rr )matP )mmti )mt(P( P(k m(Pi mPii mmPkma mPm ik(ki immiP
2mm((3 2mmki3 2Ptmi3 2Pik3 2PatP3 2P(a3
*
P rr mk B mak mi(a mPPa )mmttP m(mk )m(i(P mia mt ia P(P
2mmk(3 2mPmm(3 2mPkt3 2mitk3 2mititm 2mPk3
mmmmm mmtP
i B mk rr PPPk )mi(i mmktk mPm )mmki mm(a m mkP PmPaPt im
2mma3 2mmaka32mmP(3 2mmk3 2mmmk3 mmm
mmmmmmmPm mPPt
P rr Pa ! ma(a mmka mtk )m(ka )mi(( miiki m(P mP iPia im(
2mmmk3 mmPk 2mmk(3 2mma3 2mmm 2mmk(i3
mmmmm mmmmmmmmP mmmPkmmmm
i ! Pa rr mm miP( mkaka )m(ii )mPt mt mkPk m( PmkP Paia
mmmP 2mmmi3 2mmai3 2mPiPm3 2mPP3 2mmai3
mmmmm mmmki mmmmm mmma
P ! P D#" mkmtmPmi mttPk )mPa mPPa )mPk m(m m(( (kaiP Pitm
2m'mti3 2mmam3 2mPkmi3 2mia3 2miPa3 2mPkma3
mmmmm mmmka
i D#" P ! PPkP )miP mP(k )mPtk mPtt( )mkam mt m( ( PiP
2mmtm3 2mm(a3 2mmm(3 2mmki(3 2mmktm32mmmt3
mmmmm mmma( mmmkt mmiPi mmikP
S
125
Appendix E (Continued)
!%)%5
++
EJ+
97DE!P F,+r
4G
A+,
29,3
97DE!i Pn-i Pit-2 Pa PiP)P P2t-2 P2t-3 7 i 7@ i 09$ F6
S
P
P ! Pa D, mkaki mma mPtt mk mmt mmtP m( m(im mmP PtP(
2mmt3 2mmkm3 2mm(P32mmkP3 2mmkP3 2mm(k3
mmmmm mmm
i D, Pa ! mimt( mPmP( mt(tk mPt mmtaP mmka mmk m Pmm( imim
2mmtP3 2mmt3 2mP(3 2mPkP3 2mPkt3 2Pt3
mm(P mmmk
P ! i( !rK mikk mmPit mm(m mmtP )miPtt mmta m(ma mik Pitta Pt
2mmi3 2mmai3 2mmiP3 2mmkPk3 2mmki(3 2mmP(3
mmmmm mPi(t
i !rK i( ! mkmi )mPt( mPiti mmti m(k )maam mma mka PP(P Paat
2mm(3 2mmm3 2mPka3 2miPik3 2miPiP3 2mPtt3
mmmmm mm(tm mmk(
P ! tit ! m(PP mPkai mt(P mma(k )mtPkt miim mi mmm Pit PaP
2mmaa(3 2mmai3 2mmak3 2mPta3 2mPt3 2mPPmP3
mmmmmmk( mmmmm mmmmm(a
i ! tit ! makt mmmt m((aa )mP(k mmk( mmi(P mmt mtt k(m( PakP
2mPmi3 2mPmkP3 2mm(3 mmak 2mma3 mmkk
mmmmm mmmmm mPPt
P ! tk( 6 mtm mP(m mmima mmtkP mm(i mm(ki m(a m(Pa PkPkm imPam
2mmP3 2mmm3 2mmkiP3 2mi(Pm3 2mmtm3 2mmiP3
mmmmm mm(i mmmP
i 6 tk( ! )mkPim PP(i tmP( )mi(t mPktP )PPiim mPka mPP( ikm(
2mm((3 2mm(i3 2Pii((3 2P(t3 2Pa(3 2PikP3 imm(P
mmmPt
126
Appendix E (Continued)
!%)%5
++
EJ+
97DE!P F,+r 97DE!i  )  )+)i  i+   21-1  i+)i P2t-3 7 i 7N i 09$ F6
4G
A+,'
29,3
P ! it B m(tki mPa mtmk )mim(k mitP )mikPk m(( m((t P(kit imm(a
2mma 2mm 2mPk3 2mikt3 2mimi3 mPk(
mmmmm mPma( mmi(P mPimk
i B it ! mPPmt )mikP mPPt mm( )mmtk mmPP mt mkm Ptiai imkmi'
2mmma3 2mmaak3 2mmtkk3 2mmaP3 2mmak32mmmi3
mmmmm mmm(a mmP(
P A, Pit A#" mimi mPa mki )mtam mmitm mPP( mk(a mtt mkm(V im(
2mma(3 2mmak3 2mim3 2mtti3 2mtt3 2mia(
mmmPmm(k( mmm(
i A#" Pit D, PPt )mima mma(m )mmitm mi( )mP mtm mit tPt Pk(
2mm((3 2mm(P3 2mmik3 2mm(mt3 2mm(m3 2mmit3
mmmmm2mmiP3 mmmkm
P D, a !rK mP m(ii )mPPP mmti mm mPmki miP mPik t( imP
2mPPt3 2mPia3 2mPi(3 mP(mk3 2mPPki3 2mmiP3
@ mmmmm 0.0134
i !rK a D, mttk )mmki )mm(tP mkai m(PPP )m(kam mam( maa(k mii Pa(i
2mmakk3 2mmP(3 2mmkkm3 2mmk3 2mmatk32mmP3
mmmmm mmmmm mmmtm mmP
P D, i( ! mimii mPPk m(it mPP )mim m(ak mkP mi mkP imki(
2mm(3 mm(i 2mPi3 2miia3 2mi( 2m'iPt3
mm(i mPmP mm(k
i ! i( D, Pmimt )mP(ka mmkkm mm(at mmPi mmitk mt(k mtmP Pt((Pt Pa(a
2mmt3 mPmtm 2mmti32mmt(3 2mt(3 2m'mtii3
mmmmm mPi((
127
Appendix E (Continued)
!%)%5
++
EJ+
97DE!P F,+r
4G
A+,
29,3
97DE!i  X) P P+)i  i+  i+)P  i+)i P2t-3 7 i 7@ i 09$ F6
1, D, ik 6 mtPt m(tiP mi(ti mt(ik mmPmm mPim mPP mka Pmt( iPt(
2mma(3 2mmat3 2mmPi3 2mPia3 2mmPik3 2mmPi3
mmmmmmmmi
2. 6 ik D, )mm(ma)mmi(a mtPt( mik mtP )mPPa mPtak mmk PkmtP immPk
?  2mm(t3 2m(3 2mmi(3 2mtP3 2miti3 2mk3

P D, (( B 0.2120 0.1353 0.7732 -0.2602 -1.0869 1.1674 0.7842
0.7711 mPm Pttk
2mmaaP3mmaam 2miak3 2mttPm3 2mt(k(3 2miamt3
mmPa mPii mmma mmPti mmmmP
i B (( D, PPP )mi(P ? mmt mmP mmPiP mmkP m mt iiii iPiP
 2mmaaa32mmakm3 2mmik3 2mmiak3 2mmPm3 2mmia3
mmmmm T0.0009 0.0504 0.0720
P !rK imi D#" mkat( )mP(im mmPk )mmatt mkti)m(PaP mtm m((a mat Pma
(0.0951) (0.0939) (0.3182) (0.4981) (0.5006) (0.3303)
mmmmm mPik
i D#" imi !rK PPa(t )mimai mmki )mmiPa mmPPt mmPk mi mm tia Pkii
2mmia3 2mmkP3 2mmi3 2mm(tP3 2mm(tk3 2mmia3
mmmmm mm(it
P !rK iak ! mkmtP )miPai m((Pa )mPtk m(Pi mPk( mtm mkmi P(mk Pmm
2mmPa3 2mmmk3 2miPP3 2m(Pm3 2m(Pat3 2miii3
mmmmm mmP mPii
i ! iak !rK mPm(P )mPi(t mmkkP mmi(t mmt )mm(( mttP mtm mkaPP P
2mm(m3 2mma3 2mm(3 2mmtk3 2mmt(3 2mm((3
mmmmm mm(
.
128
Appendix E (Continued)
!%)%5
++
EJ+
97DE! P F,+r
4G
A+,
29,3
97DE!i  <   P t-2  Y+  S  i+)i P2t-3 7 i 7@ i 09$ F6
P !rK Pa 6 mamkm )mm(i mmP mmPit mmP( mmP( mmt mkP ( Pa(
2mm3 2mm3 2mmP(3 2mmP(3 2mmP(3 2mmP(3
mmmmm
i 6 Pa !rK 0.04188 0.1768 0.5624 0.2077 0.2179 0.40081
0.1209 0.0673 mPiP imm(
2mm((3 2mmkt3 2mkmi3 2ma(Pi3 2ma(t3 2mkka3
P !rK ((P B mkkit )mPti mtP miiPt )mtP m(( mi( m(i Pimk( P(a
2mmta3 2mmi3 2m((k3 2miPm3 2mPta3 2m(iP3
mmmmm mmk
i B ((P !rK PPtm )mitt mm(mm mm((k )mmPm mmPkk mt m(( (( imP
2mmPm32mmaai3 2mmikP32mm(ii3 2mm(it3 2mmi(3
mmmmm mmmit
P ! (kP D#" Pmiim )mmtit miP mmik )mmk mP(t mtai mtm imP Pak
2mmti3 2mPmik3 2mPii3 2mP(3 2mPt(3 2mPia3
mmmmm mmim mmPmt
i D#" (kP ! PPPk( )mPi mPmi )mP(t mti(t mmak m(t mPa ik(k Pmm
2mma3 2mmi3 2mmk3 2mk3 2mmk3 2mmPi3
mmmmm mPik mmiaP
P ! P 6 Pmti )mmki mmP(( mi(Pi mPiti mt( mt(( m(a tm PP
2mm3 2mm3 miPk mtPi( mi(tP mkt(t
mmmmm
i 6 P ! )mmiki )mmtt mtaP ikaa )iPa( mai(i mPi mPmPm mmma immik
2mmti3 2mmm3 2Pki(m3 2i(i3 2i(am3 2Pka3
129
Appendix E (Continued)
!%)%5
++
EJ+
97DE! P F,+r
4G
A+,
29,3
97DE!i    +)i  21  iP)P $I#I
C
L  i+)( 7 i 7@ i 09$ F6
P ! Pmm B m(P )mPP m(m( )mmti )mPta mmimk mtkk mtia k(m Pia
2mm3 2mmP(3 2mPtP3 2mimk3 2mim(3 2mP(mk3
mmmmm mm(tk
i B Pmm ! Pm( )mi(t mPiaa mmm )mPm( mPm( ma mt Pmmmak iPm
2mmPk3 2mma3 2mmam3 2mmata3 2mmam32 mk3
mmmmm mmmi mmia( mPPka
P B tkP D#" PPkit )mi( mimP )mmiim )mPPa mmt( mk mm i imat
2mmam 2mmaa3 2mmati3 2mP(ik3 2mP((m3 2mmaa3
mmmmm mmma mmPk
2. D#" tkP B PPimi )mPkta mi(m )mi( mmit( mtmP m(k mim tPik Pkm
2mmkm3 2mmkk3 2mma3 2mPmm3 2mPtk32mmt3
mmmmm mmma mmPP mPP mPP
P B PP 6 PiP )miami mmt mtk( mkti m(iP m( mP PP(k imPa
2mma3 2)mmai3 2mmi(P3 2mmPP3 2m(itP3 2mm(t3
mmmmm mmmiP
2. 6 PP B mmtk )mmPiP mtaPm itkP )i P(P mP((( mmam mmPkt Pkt
2mm((3 2mm(t3 2i(kP(3 2(ii3 2(k(3 2i(tta3 @
P D#" tmm 6 PPa )miPk m(k mkta )Ptk PkiP m(t mP maPtt Pkt
2mmi3 2mmP3 mmk maa(P mkt mktk
mmmmm mmP mm(P
i 6 tmm D#" mm(k mm(a m(aaP m(km( )mika mtt mma( mmi mPmPa immk(
2mmm3 2mmP3 2i(ki 2(mm3 2(mm3 2i((m3
Q
Source: From study; 130
Appendix F: Indicated Types of Associations per Market Pairs
Two-way Local Market Reference
Market
Distance
(miles)
Direction Cowpea Groundnuts
1 Accra Koforidua 53 W N
2 Koforidua Accra 53 N N '
l ! Accra Kumasi 169 W N
2 Kumasi Accra 169 w H
1 Accra Techiman 247 w N
2 Techiman Accra 247 w H
1 Accra Tamale 407 N H
2 Tamale Accra 407 N H
1 Accra Wa 445 H W
2 Wa Accra 445 N W
1 Accra Bolga 506 W W
2 Bolga Accra 506 w N
1 Accra Tema 18 w W
2 Tema Accra 18 N W
1 Tema Koforidua 71 w w
2 Koforidua Tema 71 w N
1 Tema Kumasi 187 w H
2 Kumasi Tema 187 H H
1 Tema Techiman 293 W H
2 Techiman Tema 293 N H
1 Tema Tamale 424 N H
2 Tamale Tema 424 N W
1 Tema Wa 463 H N
2 Wa Tema 463 N W
1 Tema Bolga 524 W H
2 Bolga Tema 524 W H
1 Kumasi Koforidua 124 w H
2 Koforidua Kumasi 124 H W
1 Kumasi Techiman 78 N N
2 Techiman Kumasi 78 H H
1 Kumasi Tamale 237 N H
2 Tamale Kumasi 237 W N
1 Kumasi Wa 276 W H
2 Wa Kumasi 276 N H
1 Kumasi Bolga 337 H H
2 Bolga Kumasi 337 W N
1 Techiman Koforidua 202 W H
2 Koforidua Techiman 202 W N
Appendix F (Continued)
131
_L
±
2_
_2
JL
2_
J_
2
J_
1
_2
2
J.
_2
Appendix F (Continued
Techiman
Tamale
Techiman
Wa
Techiman
Bolga
Tamale 286
Techiman 286
Wa 198
Techiman 198
Bolga 331
Techiman 331
N
W
N
W
N
N
H
H
W
U
H
N
Tamale Koforidua 361 W W
Koforidua Tamale 361 N W
Tamale Wa 195 N W
Wa Tamale 195 H U
Tamale Bolga 100 H W
Bolga Tamale 100 W N
Bolga Koforidua 461 W N
Koforidua Bolga 461 W W
Bolga Wa 171 H H
Wa Bolga 171 N U
Koforidua Wa 400 N U
Wa Kofiridua 400 N U
H = High
W = Weak association 
N = No association
U = Regression results not well defined.
132
Appendix G: Questionnaire
Name of crop/item.................... .Date
1. Region (1) NR (2) HER (3) UWR
2. Town................................................................................................................................
3. Name of respondent (not compulsory)....................................................................
4. Sex (1) Male (2) Female
5. Age group (1) 16-30yrs.
(2) 31-40yrs.
(3) 40 - 50 yrs.
(4) More than 50 yrs.
Educational Status (1) Never been to school
(2) Up to middle form 4
(3) Up to J.S.S
(4) Post elementary/ Post SSS
7. Name of target market.............................
8. Frequency of market days per week
(1) Once (2) Twice (3) Three times
Target market supply sources
Village Market Distance 
away (km)
Transport fare 
(0) in and our
Frequency of 
Market days.
Bimbilla
Karaga
Yendi
Gushiegu
133
10. What category of trader are you?
(1) Wholesaler (sells in bags)
(2) Retailer (sells in bowls)
11. Since when did you start selling this crop..........................................................................
12. Do you sell here permanently (1) Yes (2) No If not, name the
other markets you trade in  .....................................................................................................
13. List all the different categories of people or groups of people (including government 
and non-government organisations) engaged in selling this grain in this area/market.
(1) (2) (3)
(4) (5) (6)
14. List all others who come to buy the crop from this area/market (e.g. Housewives, 
matrons other traders etc.)
(1) (2) (3)
(4) (5) (6)
15. What is the largest quantity of stock you are able to store in the year?
16. What is the quantity of grain that passed through your hands?
(1)1994.............................................................................. (2) 1995...........................
17. Among the other traders of this crop how many can be considered large scale traders 
(handling over 50 bags at a time)
18. Do traders in this area constitute themselves into associations (1) Yes
(3) No.
19. If YES, how many different associations are operating and how many members are in 
each group
(1) No. of groups.................................................  (2) Membership/Groups.....................
20. Are associations specific for specific communities? eg. cowpea sellers association or 
groundnuts sellers association
134
21. What is the name of the group you belong to?.
22. Name the town/village where you buy your sock/goods from
Town/
Village
of
purchase
Dist
(Km)
Price
Per
bag
Price
per
bowl
No. of 
bags 
bought 
per trip
No. of 
trips 
per 
month
Lorry 
Fare 
in and 
out
Charge
per
bag
Loading 
and off 
loading 
charges
Other
expenses
(tax
eontariner
feeding)
1.
Bimbilla
2. Karaga
3. Yendi
4.
Gushiegu
6.
7.
8.
9.
23. From which sources do you buy your stock?
1) Farmers...............................................2)
24. Which sources do you get good quality grains? 
1) Farmers...............................................2)
25. Do you consider quality in buying grains?
Other traders,
Other traders
135
1) Yes........................................................................  2) No...................
26. If Yes what do you expect to see in the grain to consider it good quality
27. Where do you prefer to buy your grains from?
1) At farmers home
2) On the market route on a market day
3) In the market
28. What are the advantages in your choice of place of purchase?.........................................
29. Do you buy stock throughout the year ?............................................................................
30. In which months do you buy the largest quantities?....................................................
31. In what measurers do you buy your stock?......................................................................
32. Do you use a similar measure to sell?..........................................................................
33. Sales purchase schedule in quantities per month (From time of Harvest, July
Month July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec/ Jan Feb Mar Apr May June
Quantity
bought
Price per 
bag
Price per 
bowl
Quantity
sold
136
Price per 
bag
Price per 
bowl
34. What quantity of grain did you carry over from
1) 1994 (My)................................................... (2) 1996 (July)...........................
35. What was the quality of the carry overt stock?
1) Weeviled 2) Powdered 3) Good
36. Spoilage percentage of carry over stock.
1) 5% 2) 10% 3)15% 4) 20% per bag 5) >20% (Good)
37. Do you sell at the same place where you buy your stock
1) Yes 2) No If No Name the other markets/town or villages
38. Do you have your own means of transport?...................................
39. If No how do you transport your sock to your storage place
40. What problems do you face during transportation.
41. Has any government official ever examined your measures?
1) YES.................................................................  2) NO..............
42. If yes what was their reason............................................................
Pest/Infestation Control
43. Where do you normally store your stock.............................................
(1) Home (2) Market.......................................
44. What is your reason.............................................................................
45. In what structure do you store it?
137
(1) Mud silo (2) Sacks (3) Other (specify)
46. Do you pay rent for storage?...............................................................................................
47. If Yes how much per month/per bag?.............................................................................
48. How long do you store before selling?...........................................................................
49. What margin do you make at the time of sale?.........................................................................................
50. Do you treat tour stock before storage?.....................................................................................................
51. If yes what chemical do you use?.........................................................................................................
52. How do you apply the chemical?.........................................................................................................
53. What other method of control do you use?
(1) Herbs (2) smoke (3) Ash (4) Other (specify)
54. Have you ever been trained in the treatment of stocks?............................................................................
55. If Yes, by whom?.......................................................................................................................................
56. Do you think the Ministry of Agric should come periodically to treat your stocks for you?
57. What problems do you encounter while storing
58. What are the causes of stock spoilage
(1) Weevils (2) Moulding (3) Powdering (4) Other (specify)
59. Do some customers return grains which are bad?
(1) Yes (2) No
60. If yes do you collect them back?
(1) Yes (2) No
61. If yes, what do you do with it? We keep it, or transfer to someone who prefers 
it.
138
62. Quantity of Spoilage declared
Month July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec/ Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June
Quantity
stored
4 4 9
Quantity
sold
4 4 9
Spoilage
sold
63. Which varieties spoil more quickly in storage (Local names).In order of importance, give 
reasons.
Local Name Reason
1. Black millet More palatable
2. White
3. Nara
4.
5.
64. Storing Period
Variety (Local Name Length of Length of Reason
Storage Storage with
Without treatment treatment
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
139
65. How many times do you treat your stored stocks in a 
year/season?.....................................................................................
66. At how many months interval..................................................
67. What time after purchase do you do the first treatment?.
Source of Capital
68. Where do you get money to start trading in this crop?
(1) Self [ ] (2) Husband [] (3) Loan from bank [ ]
(4) Loan from money Lender [ ]
(5) Grain credit from farmers [ ]
(6) Cash Asst, from relatives [ ]
(7) Grain credit from larger traders [ ]
69. If loan from bank or money lender, what is the interest rate
(1) Bank...............................................................................................................
(2) Money Lender................................................................................................
(3) Other source of loan or credit condition........................................................
Pricing and Competition
70. Who sets the price for a produce per unit measure 
(1) Farmer (2) Trader
71. How is the price normally determined.......................................................................
72. Do you relate price of purchase to the
(1) Selling price.............................................. (2) Transport cost...........
73. Do you experience any competition during?
(a) Buying (1) Yes (2) No
(b) Selling (1) Yes (2) No
74. If Yes who are your competitors
(a) Buying competitors..............................................................................
(b) Selling competitors...............................................................................
140
75. If one decides to go into the trading of this crop what problems is the newcomer likely to
face.....................................................................................................................................................
76. Do you have a market queen/king for this crbp?.....................................................................................
77. If yes what are your obligations to him /her......................................................................................
78. When do you pay the least price for a bag or bowl?
(1) Month...............................................
(2) What was the price?
(1) 1994.........................................  (2) 1995............................................
79. At what month did you pay the highest price per bag/bowl 
(1) Month.............................................................................
80. What was the highest price for?
(1) 1994.................................. (2) 1995..............................
Variety Preference/customer type
81. List the varieties of this crop which you normally sell (Local name)
1) 2) 3)
4) 5) 6)
82. Which customer buys what variety.
Customer Variety No. Of bags or 
bowls per visit.
Who is your 
main customer 
(Rank)
Other traders
House Wives
School factories
Others(Specify)
83. Do you sometimes experience low sales:.............................
84. If yes what period is that (months) December, January
85. Do you sometimes find it difficult to get supplies? Yes
86. If yes, what month (s) is the October, November?
87. Do you offer credit sales.............................................................
141
88. If yes, at what condition..............................................................................................
89. Do your creditor pay back....................................................................................................
90. If not what do you do......................................................................................................
91. Any bad experience since....................................................................................................
92. What other crops/produce do you sell?...........................................................................
93. List the problems you encounter as a trader in this crop 
1.
2
3.
4.
5.
6
7.
8.
94. Do you have adequate sales facilities in the market for your 
trading?................................................. ................................................................
95. If No what do you suggest should be done to improve facilities in the market?
142