Int. J. Agric.Sc & Vet.Med.

2014 M A Maikasuwa and Jabo M S M, 2014

ISSN 2320-3730 www.ijasvm.com

Vol. 2, No. 1, February 2014
2014 www.ijasvm.com. All Rights Reserved
Research Paper

ANALYSIS OF SHEEP AND GOATS MARKETING IN

SOKOTO METROPOLIS, SOKOTO STATE, NIGERIA
M A Maikasuwa1* and Jabo M S M1,2

*Corresponding Author: M A Maikasuwa, mkzuru2002@yahoo.co.uk

The study examined the nature of sheep and goats marketing by determining the marketing
margins, efficiencies and structures of sheep and goats marketing in Sokoto metropolis. Kara
Market was purposively selected for the study. The selection of kara market was based on the
high concentration of sheep and goat marketers in the market. Simple random sampling technique
was used to select 10% of the registered sheep and goats marketers giving a total of 81
respondents who were used for the study. A structured questionnaire was use to collect relevant
information from the selected marketers. Data analyses were done using descriptive statistics,
farm budgeting, measures of performance and Gini-coefficient. Results of the study showed
that sheep marketers were faced with higher cost per head (N 16, 637.04) and they obtained
higher net profit per head (N 5, 704.6). While goat marketing was faced with higher cost of
marketing (N 1, 261.29), on the one hand, it attracted higher marketing margin (N 4, 6.60) and
higher marketing efficiency (1.46), than the sheep. Although the two markets were oligopolistic
in nature, Sheep market was found to be more concentrated (0.56) than goat market (0.49).
Based on the results of the study, it was concluded that both sheep and goat marketing were
profitable. However, while sheep marketing was more lucrative in terms of business turnover
than goat, goat marketing was more stable and had more capacity to respond to competition in
the market.

Keywords: Sheep, Goats, Marketing, Sokoto metropolis

INTRODUCTION income, especially to the poor in the rural areas.

Sheep and goats form an important economic The small size of sheep and goats has distinct
and ecological niche in the agricultural systems economic, managerial, and biological
across developing countries. This is because they advantages. Economically, low individual values
make a very valuable contribution to household mean a small initial investment and
1
Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto, Nigeria.
2
Department of Agribussiness and Information System, Faculty of Agriculture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor,
Malaysia.

This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijasvm.com/currentissue.php

68
Int. J. Agric.Sc & Vet.Med. 2014
corresponding to small risk of loss by individual
death. Managerially, they are conveniently cared
for and occupy little housing space, have lower
feed requirements, and supply both meat and milk
in quantities suitable for immediate family
consumption. This attribute may partly be due to
their lower feed requirements compared to cattle,
because of their body size (Okunlola et al., 2010).
Sheep and goats are biologically more
advantageous than larger ruminants. For
example, sheep and goats appear to withstand
drought better than cattle. Their short reproductive
cycle allows them to quickly recover from rapid
resumption of breeding following a drought or
devastating disease infestation. Thus, rearing of
sheep and goats provide the easiest and a readily
accessible source of finance to meet immediate
social and financial obligations (Isaac and Titilayo,
2009).
In Nigeria, Sheep and goats play a significant
role in the food chain and overall livelihoods of
rural households, where they are largely the
property of women and their children (Lebbie,
2004). Okali and Sumberg (2003) stated that,
Nigeria has a population of 40.8 million goats and
27 million sheep. These animals are reared for
various reasons such as income generation,
religious purpose, household consumption and
hobby and as security against crop failure. Before
now, sheep and goats production has followed
the conventional agricultural production systems
relying on external inputs and the development of
animal breeds which respond well to increasing
demand for nutrient-rich feed.
In recent time, the transition from conventional
agriculture to sustainable agriculture has changed
the pattern of sheep and goats production thus
emphasizing the use of low-internal inputs and
resource conserving technology development
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijasvm.com/currentissue.php
69
M A Maikasuwa and Jabo M S M, 2014
and transfer, and efficient marketing (Olukosi and
Isitor, 2007). Peacock (1995) pointed out that
marketing stimulates production and enterprise
specialization, thus leading to improved
productivity in all sectors of the economy. Hence,
availability of marketing information is second to
none in determining the efficiency of a market.
Considering the paucity of information on small
ruminants markets in Nigeria, this study provides
a useful information that enable small holder
farmers to consider goat marketing as a lucrative
venture to diversify their income. This study
attempted to examine the nature of sheep and
goats marketing as a way of determining the
marketing margin, efficiency and structure of
sheep and goats marketing in the study area.
THE CONCEPTS OF
MARKETING MARGIN,
MARKET EFFICIENCY AND
MARKET STRUCTURE
A marketing margin is similar to a profit margin in
that it shows the relationship between the amount
a firm pays for a product and the amount its
customers pay (Kimmons, 2013). However, while
marketing margin is the difference between cost
to the seller and the cost to the consumer, profit
margin is the percentage of the final sale price
that comes as profit for the seller. Companies
use marketing margin as a way of figuring
profitability. A high marketing margin reflects a high
level of profitability. It also reflects a high level of
business stability, as it shows the business has
the ability to pay for unexpected liabilities. Also, a
high marketing margin shows a business has the
ability to respond to new competitors in the market
by reducing prices.
An ef ficient marketing system is one
capable of moving goods from producer to
Int. J. Agric.Sc & Vet.Med. 2014
customer at the lowest cost consistent with the
provision of the services that customers
demand (FAO, 2013). Once the costs involved
in marketing have been identified then means
can be devised to make the system more
efficient. Increases in efficiency can be
achieved in a variety of ways: by increasing the
volume of business using improved handling
methods, investing in modern technology,
locating the business in the most appropriate
place, implementing better layouts and working
practices in production, improving managerial
planning and control and/or by making changes
in marketing arrangements (e.g., through
horizontal or vertical integration).
The structure conduct per f or mance
paradigm was developed by Marson (1957) and
later Bain (1968). The SCP was developed to
analyse the competitive nature of a given
industry or market. The two commonly used
measures of market structure are; t he
concentration (CR) and Herfindah-Hirschman
Index (HHI) Bain (1968) classified concentration
ration and HHI indicators into:
To measure the relative market concentration,
the Lorenz curve developed by Max Otto Lorenz
in 1905 and Gini Coefficient (GC) are commonly
used. The GC ranges from 0 to 1. The lower the
GC the more evenly spread are the farms or
industry. High value of coefficient indicates a high
market concentration.
Table 1: Concentration Ratios
Concentration Ratio
C4 75-100 Highly concentrated
C3 50-75 Moderately concentrated
C2 25-50 Slightly concentrated
C1 0-25 Atomistic
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijasvm.com/currentissue.php
70
M A Maikasuwa and Jabo M S M, 2014
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The Study Area
Sokoto State is located in the northern part of
Nigeria. The state is bounded by Zamfara State
to the East, Kebbi State to the West and
Republic of Niger to the North. It lies between
latitude 10-13N and longitudes 5-15E. The
mean annual rainfall varies from 380-763 mm
Sokoto Energy and Research Council (SERC,
2005). The mean annual maximum and
minimum temperature is 22.5-36.2 C (Nigeria
Meteorological Agency, 2004). The state also has
a projected population of 2,208,874 males and
2,261,302 females Ministry of Agriculture (MOA,
2005). The vegetation of the state fails within
Sudan savannah agroecological zone of Nigeria.
The major crops grown in the area include
groundnut, sorghum, millet, Soya beans and
cotton. The state has an estimated number of
3,457,993 cattle, 2,531,336 sheep, 4,273,721
goats, 6,177,030 poultry, 85,307 horses, 8,134
donkeys and 70,299 camels (MOA, 2005).
Sokoto state has its livestock market in different
local government areas of the State. This study
was carried out at Kara market, in Sokoto North
local government area. The market is divided
into two parts; the first part is for the large
ruminants (Camels and Cattle), while the other
part is for the small ruminants (goats and
sheep). The two types of animals are separated
only by ordinary space and passages are made
available to ease movement and transaction
HHI
AHI < 1000 Concentrated
1000 < HHI</800 Moderately concentrated
HHI > 1800 Slightly concentrated
Int. J. Agric.Sc & Vet.Med. 2014
among the marketers (Personal Communication
with Chairman Kara market, 2012).
SAMPLING AND DATA
COLLECTION
Kara market which was located at the northern
part of the Sokoto metropolis was purposively
selected for this study. The selection of the kara
market was based on the high concentration of
sheep and goats marketers in the market. The
list of all registered sheep and goats marketers
at the market was collected from the secretary
of the Sheep and Goats Marketers Association.
Simple random sampling technique was then
used to collect 10% of the registered marketers
given a total of 81 respondents who were used
for the study.
Data for the study were collected from primary
and secondary sources. The primary data were
collected through the administering of
questionnaire to the sheep and goats marketers
while the secondary data were obtained from
relevant journals, textbooks, internet, other related
research projects, ministry of Agriculture and
federal Bureau of statistics, Sokoto State.
DATA ANALYSIS
Data analyses were done using descriptive
statistics, farm budgeting, measures of market
performance and Gini Coefficient. The descriptive
statistics employed were simple frequency and
percentage. Farm budgeting was used to
estimate Net Profit as follows:
Net profit/animal = Average selling price
(Average cost /head + Average cost of marketing)
Measure of market Performance
Marketing margin was determined as follows
Selling price supply price
Marketing margin
Selling price
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijasvm.com/currentissue.php
M A Maikasuwa and Jabo M S M, 2014
Marketing efficiency was estimated as follows:
Average selling price
Marketing efficiency
Average cost / head average cost of marketing
Gini coefficient will be use to analyze the
market structure
as thus; G = 1 xiyi
where
xi = Percentage of sellers in the class of ith
class marketer.
yi = Cumulative percentages of sellers in the
th
i class of marketers.
G = Gini co-efficient.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Comparing the Performance of Sheep and
Goat Marketing
The results of the performances of sheep and
goats marketing in the study area were presented
in Table 1. The results show that sheep attracted
higher initial per head cost (N 16, 637.04) than
goat (N 4, 460.49). This means that marketing of
sheep require more initial capital outlay compared
to goat. The higher initial capital requirement
exhibited by sheep may be associated to more
cultural and religious values attached to sheep in
the study area than goat. On the other hand, goat
marketing incurs more marketing cost per head
(N 1, 261.29) than sheep (N 4, 41.29). This may
not be surprising because, more cultural and
religious values attached to sheep may result to
it higher demand bringing about higher turnover
leading to shorter selling time, and hence,
reduced cost of marketing.
Net profits per head of N 5, 704.6 and N 2,
630.74 were recorded for sheep and goat,
respectively. This shows that both sheep and goat
100
marketing were profitable in the study area but
71
Int. J. Agric.Sc & Vet.Med. 2014 M A Maikasuwa and Jabo M S M, 2014

sheep marketing was more lucrative. The finding
concurred with (Afolabi, 2007) who believed profit
to be positively correlated with the volume of initial
capital investment as was the case for sheep
marketing. Goat marketing had a higher marketing
margin (N 46.60) than sheep marketing (N 27.09).
This means that goat marketing was more stable
and possesses more capacity to responds to
competition in the market by reducing price. In
other words, marketing risk associated to market
competition for sheep was higher than that of goat
in the study area.
Marketing efficiency which is one of the
frequently used measures of market performance
Table 2: Net Profit, Marketing Margins and
Marketing Efficiencies of Sheep and Goats
Variable Sheep (N)
Average cost/Animal 16,637.04
Average cost of marketing 441.29
Average selling Price 22,800.00
Net profit 5,701.67
Marketing margin 27.09
Marketing efficiency 1.33
Source: Field Survey (2012)
is the ultimate concern of farmers, marketing
agencies, consumers and society at large.
Marketing efficiencies of sheep and goats were
also present in Table 2. It was revealing in that,
marketing efficiencies of 1.33 and 1.46 were
recorded for sheep and goat, respectively. This
means that marketing of sheep and goats
overreact to market information. This could be
as a result of too much speculation about the
spatial and seasonal fluctuations in the prices of
sheep and goats by the marketers.
Structures of Sheep and Goats Markets
The Gini-coefficient of 0.56 for sheep and 0.49
for goats markets as shown in Tables 3 and 4
indicated that sheep markets in the study area
are moderately concentrated while goats markets
Goats(N) are slightly concentrated. The concentration ratios
4,460.49 show that the two markets exhibit oligopolistic
1,261.29 market structures. This corroborates Jabo (2004)
8,352.50 who reported cattle markets in Sokoto State to
2,630.72 be oligopolistic in nature. Therefore, it is very
46.60 difficult to rule out collusive tendencies in the two
1.46 markets, which further reflect imperfection among
markets. However, low concentration ratios in the

Table 3: Distribution of Sheep Marketers by Monthly Sales

No. of Value of % of Cumm %

% of of Total Y
Buyer Class N Buyers in Monthly Monthly X XY
Buyers Sale
Class Sales Sale
>62,999 1 1.28 16,000 0.12 0.12 0.013 0.001 0.000013
63,000-109,999 15 17.95 1,181,500 9.16 9.28 0.180 0.093 0.01674
110-156,999 28 35.90 3,699,000 28.68 37.96 0.360 0.380 0.1368
157,000-203,999 13 16.67 2,811,000 21.80 59.76 0.167 0.600 0.1002
204,000-250,999 14 16.67 2,461,738 19.09 78.85 0.107 0.789 0.08443
251,000-297,999 8 10.25 2,387,000 18.51 97.36 0.103 0.974 0.100322
<298,000 2 1.28 340,000 2.64 100.00 0.013 0.1 0.0013
Total 81 100 12,896,238 100 0.44
Note: G = 1 xy
= 1 0.44 = 0.56

Source: Field Survey (2012)

This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijasvm.com/currentissue.php

72
Int. J. Agric.Sc & Vet.Med. 2014 M A Maikasuwa and Jabo M S M, 2014

Table 4: Distribution of Goat Marketers by Monthly Sales

No. of Total Value % of Cumm. %

% of of Monthly X Y XY
Buyer Class N Buyers in of Monthly Monthly
Buyers Sale
Class Sales Sale
>47,999 20 25.32 821,000 16.50 16.50 0.2532 0.165 0.0418
48, 000-63,999 24 30.38 1,113,900 22.39 38.89 0.3039 0.3889 0.1318
64,000-79,999 15 18.99 1,050,500 21.11 60.00 0.1899 0.600 0.1139
80,000-95,999 13 15.19 1,130,000 22.71 82.71 0.1519 0.8271 0.1256
112,000-127,999 5 6.33 509,000 10.23 92.94 0.0633 0.9294 0.0588
128,000-143,999 4 3.8 351,500 7.06 100 0.038 1.00 0.038
Total 81 100 4,975,989 100 0.5099
Note: G = 1 xy
= 1 0.5099 = 0.49
Source: Field Survey (2012)

two markets may be a reflection of face entry and
exist into and out of the markets. These could
also be predatory pricing at low level. This agrees
with Bifarin et al. (2005) who reported product
differentiation, price collusion and predatory
pricing the markets with low level concentration
of ratio.
CONCLUSION
Sheep and goats are the most important species
of small-ruminants traded in the study area. The
study revealed that sheep and goats marketing
are profitable ventures in the study area, however,
sheep marketers tends to acquire more profits
given their high capital outlays as compare to
goats. Oligopolistic market structure with
moderate and low concentration ratios were
identified for sheep and goats respectively. In
terms of general pricing efficiency goat marketers
are more efficient than sheep marketers. Entry
and exist into and out of the two markets is free
but high probability for entry and exist is recorded
in sheep markets.
The study recommends that, whenever the
motive is to increase profit through high business
turn over, sheep marketing should be selected.
If on the other hand, the motive is to avoid
business risk, goats marketing should be
selected.
REFERENCES
1. Afolabi J A (2007), Evaluation of Poultry Egg
Marketing in South-Western Nigeria,
International Journal of Poultry Science,
Vol. 6, No. 5, pp. 362-366, doi:10.3923/
ijps.2007.362.366
2. Bain J S (1968), Barriers to New Competition,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
3. Bifarin J O, Ajibola M E and Fadiyimu A A
(2008), Analysis of Marketing Bush Meat in
Idanre Local Government Area of Ondo State,
Nigeria, African Journal of Research,
Vol. 3, No. 10, pp. 667-671.
4. FAO (2013), Agricultural and Ood Marketing
Management, A Corporate Documentary
Repository, Food and Agricult ure
Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
5. Isaac Oluwatayo and Titilayo Oluwatayo
(2009), Small Ruminants as a Source of

This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijasvm.com/currentissue.php

73
Int. J. Agric.Sc & Vet.Med. 2014
Financial Security: A Case Study of Women
in Rural, South West, Nigeria.
6. Jabo M S M (2004), Structure Conduct and
Performance of Cattle Markets in Four
Selected Local Government Areas of Sokoto
State, Nigeria, An Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis
Submitted to the Post-Graduate School,
Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto,
Nigeria.
7. Kimmons R (2013), Small Business,
Advertising & Marketing, Hears
Communications, Inc., Houston Chronicle,
Houston, Texas.
8. Lebbie S H B (2004), Goats Under
Household Conditions, Small Ruminant
Research, Vol. 51, pp. 131-136.
9. Mason E S (1957), Economic of
Concentration and the Monopoly Problem,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
10. Nigerian Meteorological Agency (2004),
Annual Temperatures, Nigeria States.
11. Okali C and Sumberg J E (2003), Sheep
and Goats, Men and Women: Household
Relations and Smallruminant Development
in Southwest Nigeria Small Ruminant
Programme International Livestock Centre
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijasvm.com/currentissue.php
74
M A Maikasuwa and Jabo M S M, 2014
for Africa P.M.B. 5320, Ibadan, Nigeria,
Paper Presented for the Conference on Intra-
Household Processes and Farming
Systems Analysis, 5-9 Mare FT984, Bel]agio,
Italy.
12. Okunlola O O, Amuda A J and Ayanwamide
F M (2010), Farmers Perception of
Livestock Farming in Oyo State: A Case
Study of Small Ruminant Farmers, Proc.
35th Conf., Nig. Soc. for Anim. Prod., March
14-17, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
13. Olukosi J O and Isitor S U (2007),
Introduction to Agricultural Marketing, Pricing
and Application, Living Books Series, 3rd
Edition, p. 34, G. U. Publication Abuja, Nigeria.
14. Peacock C (1995), Improving Goat
Production in the Tropics, A Manual for
Development Workers, An Oxfam/FARM/
Africa Publication.
15. Sokoto Energy Research Centre (SERC)
(2005), Usmanu Danfodiyo University,
Sokoto, Sokoto State, Nigeria.
16. Sokoto State Ministry of Agriculture (MOA)
(2005), Survey of the State Agricultural
Resources, Sokoto State Ministry of
Agriculture, Sokoto State, Nigeria.