#1APPRAISAL OF FRESH FISH MARKETING IN ONDO STATE, NIGERIA M. L. ADELEKE¹, J.A. AFOLABI² ¹Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture Technology 2Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria. Email: [email protected], [email protected]#2Outline Introduction Objectives Research methodology Results and discussions Summary and recommendations#3• Introduction Marketing is a management process responsible for anticipating, identifying and then satisfying consumer wants and needs with a view of making profit. Fish is a diverse group of animal that live and breathe under water by means of gill. Therefore, fish marketing is a management process responsible for: anticipating identifying and then satisfying consumer wants and needs with a view of making profit in fish and fish related business(es)#4Objectives This study therefore carried out an appraisal of fresh fish marketing in Ondo State, Nigeria. Specifically, it; Examined the socio-economic characteristics of fresh fish marketers in the study area. *Determined the profitability of fresh fish marketing in the study area and Examined the market structure for fresh fish in the study area.#5RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Study Area This study was carried out in Ondo State situated in the South-Western Nigeria. This State lies between longitude 4º30" and 6° east of the Greenwich Meridian and latitude 5º 45 and 8º 15" North of the equator. The state has a population of 3,441,024 (National Population Commission, 2006).#6• RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Sampling Technique: A Multi-stage sampling technique was used for this study. Stage I: Akure South Local Government Area was purposively selected because of the prevalence of fresh fish marketers in the area. Stage II: a random sampling technique was used to select 45 respondents and structured questionnaire administered on them. Analytical Technique: Descriptive statistics was to analyze the socio economic characteristics of fresh fish sellers, Gross margin analysis was used to estimate the profitability of fresh fish marketing, Gini coefficient was used to examine the concentration of fresh fish market in the study area.#7RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Table 1a Socio-Economic Characteristics of Respondents AGE OF THE RESPONDENTS: Most of the respondents (85.0%) were between the age of 20-50 years, this implies that the respondents were young and agile to carry out fresh fish marketing activities in the study area. Frequency 20-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 Above 60 20% 4% 11% 18% Age (years) 20-30 Total Sex Single Widow Total Frequency Percentage 8 17.8 31-50 30 66.7 51and above 7 15.5 45 100.00 Frequency Percentage Male 12 26.7 Female 33 73.3 Total 45 100.00 Status Frequency Percentage 6 13.3 Married 38 84.4 1 2.2 45 100.00 Household Size Frequency Percentage 1-5 18 40 6-10 27 60 Total 45 100 Educational status Frequency Percentage Primary education 11 24.4 Secondary 23 55.6 education National diploma 2 4.4 NCE 2 4.4 Modern III 1 2.2 University 4 8.9 education Total 45 100 Years of Frequency Percentage experience 1-10 32 71.1 47% 11-20 10 22.9 21-30 3 6.6 Total 45 100.00 Figure 1 Age distribution#8RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Table 1b Most of the respondents (73%) were female this was in line with the general belief of the people in the study area that marketing is the business of woman. Age (years) 20-30 31-50 51 and above Total Frequency Percentage 8 30 17.8 66.7 7 15.5 45 100.00 Sex Frequency Percentage Male 12 26.7 Female 33 73.3 Total 45 100.00 Status Frequency Percentage Single 6 13.3 Married 38 84.4 Percentage Widow 1 2.2 Total 45 100.00 Household Size Frequency Percentage 73.3% 1-5 18 40 6-10 27 60 Total 45 100 Educational status Frequency Percentage Primary education 11 24.4 26.7% Secondary 23 55.6 education National diploma 2 4.4 NCE Modern III University 21+ 4.4 2.2 4 8.9 education Total 45 100 Years of Frequency Percentage Male Female experience 1-10 32 71.1 11-20 10 22.9 21-30 3 6.6 Total 45 100.00 Figure 2 Gender#9RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Table 1c Age (years) 20-30 Frequency Percentage 8 17.8 31-50 30 66.7 51 and above 7 15.5 Percentage Total 45 100.00 Sex Frequency Percentage Male 12 26.7 84.4% Female 33 73.3 Total 45 100.00 Status Frequency Percentage Single Married 6 38 13.3 84.4 Widow 2.2 Total 45 100.00 Household Size Frequency Percentage 1-5 18 40 6-10 27 60 Total 45 100 Educational status Frequency Percentage Primary education 11 24.4 13.3% Secondary 23 55.6 education National diploma 2 4.4 2.2% NCE 2 4.4 Modern III 1 2.2 University 4 8.9 education Total 45 100 Years of Frequency Percentage experience Single Married Widow 1-10 32 71.1 11-20 10 22.9 Figure 3 Marital status 21-30 3 6.6 Total 45 100.00#10Distribution Respondents by household size Table 1d Age (years) 20-30 31-50 51 and above Percentage 17.8 66.7 Frequency 8 30 7 Total 45 15.5 100.00 Sex Frequency Percentage Male 12 26.7 Percentage Female 33 73.3 Total 45 100.00 Status Frequency Percentage Single 6 13.3 Married 38 84.4 Widow 1 2.2 Total 45 100.00 Household Size Frequency Percentage 1-5 18 10 60% 10 27 60 40% Total 45 100 Educational status Frequency Percentage Primary education 11 24.4 Secondary 23 55.6 education .1-5 .6-10 National diploma 2 4.4 NCE 2 4.4 Modern III 1 2.2 University 4 8.9 Figure 4 education Total 45 100 Years of Frequency Percentage experience 1-10 32 71.1 11-20 10 22.9 21-30 3 6.6 Total 45 100.00#11Educational Status Table 1e Age (years) 20-30 Frequency Percentage 8 17.8 31-50 30 51and above 7 Total 45 66.7 15.5 100.00 Percentage Sex Frequency Percentage Male 12 26.7 Female 33 73.3 Total 45 100.00 Status Frequency Percentage 55.6% Single 6 13.3 Married 38 84.4 Widow 1 2.2 Total 45 100.00 24.4% 4.4% Household Size Frequency Percentage 1-5 18 40 2.2% 8.9% 6-10 27 60 4.4% Total 45 100 Primary education Secondary education National diploma Educational status Frequency Percentage Primary education 11 24.4 Secondary education 23 55.0 NCE Modern III University education National diploma 2 4.4 NCE 2 4.4 Modern III 1 2.2 University education 4 8.9 Total 45 100 Years of experience Frequency Percentage 1-10 32 71.1 11-20 10 22.9 Figure 5 21-30 3 6.6 Total 45 100.00#12Years of experience Table 1f Age (years) 20-30 Frequency Percentage 17.8 66.7 8 31-50 30 51 and above 7 Total 45 15.5 100.00 Sex Frequency Percentage Percentage 44.4% Male 12 Female 33 Total 45 26.7 73.3 100.00 Status Frequency Percentage Single 26.7% 16.2% il.i. 6.7% 4.4 2.2% Married 6 38 13.3 84.4 Widow 1 2.2 Total 45 100.00 Household Size Frequency Percentage 1-5 18 40 6-10 27 60 Total 45 100 Educational status Frequency Percentage Primary education 11 24.4 Secondary 23 55.6 education National diploma 2 4.4 NCE 2 4.4 Modern III 1 2.2 University 4 8.9 education Total 45 100 Years of Frequency Percentage .1-5 .6-10 .11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 experience 1-10 32 71.1 11-20 10 22.9 Figure 6 21-30 3 6.6 Total 45 100.00#13GROSS MARGIN ANALYSIS Table 2 Table 2 Items Cost of storage Cost of equipment Cost of purchase Cost of labour Cost of transportation Total variable cost Total revenue (TR) Gross margin (GM = TR-TVC) Average total variable cost (TVC/n) Average total revenue (TR/n) Average gross margin (GM/n) Source: field survey, 2011 Cost (N)/(USD) 11300/75.33 269940/1799.60 21588000/143920.00 440000/2933.33 694120/4627.50 23003360/153355.73 27849400/185662.70 4846040/32306.93 511185.78/3407.91 618875.56/4125.81 107689.78/717.91 Where n = Number of sellers at the market (Respondents)#14RESULT OF THE GROSS MARGIN ANALYSIS (Table 2) • The total revenue over the same period was N27849400 (185662.70USD) while the gross margin was N4,846,040 (32306.93 USD). This implies that on the average a fresh fish marketer incurred N511,185.78 (3407.91USD) as variable cost and earned N618,875.56(4125.81USD) as monthly revenue. • This result indicates that a fresh fish marketer earns an average of N107, 689.78(717.91USD) monthly as gross margin. This reveals that fresh fish marketing is averagely profitable in the study area.#15Computation of Gini Coefficient for fresh fish marketing in the study Area Table 3 sales (N) Number Proportion Cumulative Total of of sellers proportion sales (N) of sales Proportion Cumulative XY proportion sellers (X) of sellers of total sales (Y) 4 0.09 0.09 420,000 0.015 0.02 0.0018 .250000 6 0.13 0.22 1178400 0.04 0.06 0.0078 .350000 7 0.16 0.38 1970000 0.07 0.13 0.0208 .450000 8 0.18 0.56 3090000 0.11 0.24 0.0432 .550000 1 0.02 0.58 480000 0.017 0.26 0.052 .650000 2 0.04 0.62 1200000 0.04 0.30 0.0120 1 17 0.38 1.00 19269000 0.70 1.00 0.3800 45 1.00 27629400 1.00 0.4708#16Result of GINI coefficient analysis Gini co-efficient = 1 - XY This indicates: = 1-0.4708 = 0.5292 high level of concentration and • This is in-line with the fact that Gini coefficient close to 1.00 indicates inequitable distribution of sales/ income in the market place.#17MARKET CONDUCT OF FRESH FISH ➤ Price determination: (cost of purchase plus margin 86.7%) ➤Method of creating awareness/ attraction :open display :persuasive method :advertisement#18Constraints of fresh fish Marketing in the study area ➤ Transportation Seasonal increase in price of fresh fish High cost of fresh fish Seasonal variation in price and fluctuation in demand ➤Lack of market space#19Summary and Conclusion Analysis showed that fresh fish market was dominated females which accounted for 73.3% of the sellers. The study revealed that 95.6% of the respondents belong to the active segment of the population while the remaining 4.4% were aged. The profitability analysis showed that fresh fish marketing was averagely profitable in the study area. Gini-coefficient of 0.5292 obtained in this study indicates a high level of concentration and inequality in the fresh fish market.#20Recommendations Government intervention ➤ Conducive market location ➤Improved fish farming/ Aquaculture ➤ Cooperative societies that are gender sensitive#21ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Professor Dapo Fagbenro Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria#22• THANK YOU ALL FOR LISTENING