i

Digitally Signed by: Content manager’s Name

DN : CN = Webmaster’s name

O = University of Nigeria, Nsukka

OU = Innovation Centre

Ugwoke Oluchi C.

Faculty of Agriculture

Department of Agricultural Extension

TECHNOLOGICAL CAPABILITIES OF MECHANICAL

OIL PALM PROCESSORS IN ANAMBRA STATE, NIGERIA

OFOKA, INNOCENT CHIDIKE

PG/Ph.D/03/34835

ii

TECHNOLOGICAL CAPABILITIES OF MECHANICAL OIL PALM

PROCESSORS IN ANAMBRA STATE, NIGERIA

OFOKA, INNOCENT CHIDIKE

PG/Ph.D/03/34835

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION

UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL

EXTENSION, FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE, UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA,

NSUKKA, IN PATIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE

AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Ph.D) IN

AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION (ADMINISTRATION)

MAY, 2014

iii

CERTIFICATION

Ofoka, Innocent Chidike, a post graduate student in the Department of

Agricultural Extension, with registration number PG/Ph.D/03/34835 has satisfactorily

completed the requirements for course and research works for the degree of Doctor of

Philosophy (Ph.D) in Agricultural Extension Administration.

The work embodied in this thesis is original and has not been submitted in part

or full for other diploma or degree of this or any other University.

…………………………………… ……………………………….

PROF. A. E. AGWU PROF. E. M. IGBOKWE

(Head of Department) (Supervisor)

……………………………………………….

PROF. A. O. ANI

External Examiner

iv

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to Almighty God for his grace to me to complete and

make the programme a reality. I say may all glory, power, majesty, praise and

adoration be ascribed to Him alone in Jesus name.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I give my deep appreciation to my supervisor, Professor E. M. Igbokwe for his

great encouragement, fatherly advice, counsel and efforts that made this programme a

great success.

Worthy of mention are the following academic staff in the Department of

Agricultural Extension for their useful contributions viz: Professor M. C. Madukwe,

Prof. A. E. Agwu, Prof. (Mrs.) E. A. Onwubuya, Dr. (Mrs.) M. U. Dimelu, Dr. (Mrs.),

J. M. Chah, Rev. Dr. I. A. Enwelu, Dr. (Mrs.) J. Iwuchukwu, M/s I. Irohibe, Dr. O.

M. Akinnagbe and Dr. (Mrs.) A. N. Asadu.

Special appreciation goes to my friends, and well wishers in deed, Dr.

Ogbonna Nkwole (DPO), Mr. Emeka Okoye, Engineer V. Ejike, Mr. Ngosi Ubah, Dr.

F. Anaeto, Pst. D. U. Orji, Dr. (Mrs.) C. J. Obiora, Rev. and Mrs. Joe Ndefo and Prof.

D. O. Ohajianya for their assistance morally and financially during the period of this

programme. More appreciation to Mrs. F. O. Onuoha who typed, and formatted the

work to readable presentations.

I also give special thanks to my darling wife, Mrs. E. U. Ofoka and children;

Favour, Chimdiuto and Chioke for standing with me during the period of this

programme. May God continue to bless all of you.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE……………………………………………………….. i

CERTIFICATION………………………………………………….. ii

DEDICATION………………………………………………………. iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………… iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………… v

LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………….. viii

LIST OF FIGURES ………………………………………………… x

LIST OF PLATES …………………………………………………. xi

ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………… xii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background information…………………………………………….. 1

1.2 Problem statement…………………………………………………… 5

1.3 Purpose of the study………………………………………………… 7

1.4 Significance of the study……………………………………………. 8

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 9

2.1 The role of oil palm in the economy and environment……………… 9

2.2 Innovation system paradigm………………………………………… 12

2.3 Agricultural technological capabilities concept……………………… 18

2.4 Technological and production capabilities of oil palm-fruits

processing enterprise…………………………………………………

31

2.5 Expected role of extension…………………………………………… 48

2.6 Constraints to the development of improved oil palm production and

processing technological capabilities…………………………………

50

2.7 Conceptual frame work for the study of technological capabilities of

mechanical oil palm processing industry……………………………

51

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 55

3.1 Study area…………………………………………………………… 55

3.2 Population and sampling procedure………………………………… 58

3.3 Data collection………………………………………………………. 59

3.4 Measurement of variables…………………………………………… 60

vii

3.5 Data analysis………………………………………………………… 66

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 67

4.1 Socio-economic characteristics of mechanical oil palm fruits

processing enterprise…………………………………………………

67

4.2 Socio-economic characteristics of mechanical oil palm

processor……………………………………………..……………

74

4.3 Description of available technologies to mill owners/operators……… 83

4.4 Description of available technologies to oil mill floor workers……… 88

4.5 Investment capabilities of oil mill operators………………………… 91

4.6 Investment capabilities of oil mill managers………………………… 93

4.7 Investment capabilities of floor –workers within the last three

years……………………………………..……………………………

95

4.8 Production capabilities of oil/owner operators……………………… 98

4.9 Production capabilities of processing floor workers……………….. 100

4.10 Minor and major change capabilities of mill operators……………… 111

4.11 Minor and major change capabilities of managers…………………… 113

4.12 Linkage capabilities of oil mill operators…………………………… 116

4.13 Linkage capabilities of processing managers………………………… 118

4.14 Strategic marketing capabilities of processing managers…………… 118

4.15 Learning capabilities of mill operators……………………………… 121

4.16 Learning capabilities of processing managers……………………… 122

4.17 Factors influencing the development of technological capabilities of

floor workers………………………..

123

4.18 Mean score of factors influencing the development of technological

capabilities of floor workers……………………………………….

124

4.19 Factors influencing the development of technological capabilities of

mill operators…………………………………………………………

127

4.20 Means score of factors influencing the acquisition/development of

technological capabilities among mill operators……………………

129

4.21 Factors influencing the development/acquisition of technological

capabilities of processing managers…………………………………

132

viii

4.22 Mean score of factors influencing the acquisition/development of

technological capabilities of processing managers……………………

133

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

137

5.1 Summary…………………………………………………………….. 137

5.2 Conclusion………………………………………………………….. 140

5.3 Recommendations…………………………………………………… 141

5.4 Suggestions for further research……………………………………… 142

REFERENCES…………………………………………………….. 143

APPENDIX…………………………………………………………. 154

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Palm fruits processing hazard analysis chart………………………. 36

Table 2: Summary of palm oil processing unit operations………………….. 47

Table 3: Summary of composition of population and sample size………….. 59

Table 4: Percentage distribution of mills based on age, organizational structure

and mode of services…………………………………….

68

Table 5: Percentage distribution of mills based on management and

communication in oil enterprising………………………………….

72

Table 6: Percentage distribution of mills based on number of workers……… 73

Table 7: Percentage distribution of mill operators, managers and floor workers

based on socio-economic characteristics……………………

78

Table 8: Percentage distribution of mill operators based on available

technologies to them……………………………………………………

86

Table 9: Percentage distribution of floor workers based on available

technologies/tools………………………………………………………

89

Table 10: Percentage distribution of mill owner/operators based on investment

capability…………………………………………………………………

93

Table 11: Percentage distribution of oil mill managers based on investment

capability…………………………………………………………………

95

Table 12: Percentage distribution of floor workers based on investment

capability…………………………………………………………………

96

Table 13: Percentage distribution of oil mills based on production capabilities…… 99

Table 14: Percentage distribution of mill operators based on cleaning capability of

production equipment……………………………………………………

100

Table 15: Percentage distribution of floor workers based on different kinds of

work performed………………………………………………………

101

Table 16: Percentage distribution of floor workers based on produce (products/by-

products) capabilities……………………………………………………

103

Table 17: Percentage distribution of floor workers based on packaging capabilities 106

Table 18: Percentage distribution of floor workers based on cleaning methods…… 107

Table 19: Percentage distribution of floor workers based on effluent and solid

waste disposal methods………………………………………………….

109

x

Table 20: Percentage distribution of managers based on identifiable causes of

palm oil spoilage capabilities…………………………………………….

110

Table 21: Percentage distribution of mill operators based on minor and major

change capabilities………………………………………………………

112

Table 22: Percentage distribution of managers based on acquisition of minor and

major change capabilities……………………………………………….

114

Table 23: Percentage distribution of mill operators based on linkage capabilities… 116

Table 24: Percentage distribution of managers based on linkage capabilities…… 117

Table 25: Percentage distribution of managers based on strategic market

capabilities…………………………………………….………………

120

Table 26: Percentage distribution of mill operators based on learning capabilities. 122

Table 27: Percentage distribution of managers based on learning capabilities…… 123

Table 28: Mean distribution of floor workers based on factors that influence the

development of technological capabilities………………………………

124

Table 29: Varimax rotated matrix of factors that influence the development of

technological capabilities of floor workers………………………………

127

Table 30: Mean distribution of mill operators based on factors that influence the

development of technological capabilities………………………………

129

Table 31: Varimax rotated matrix of factors that influence the development of

technological capabilities of oil mill operators…………………………

131

Table 32: Mean distribution of managers based on factors that influence the

development of technological capabilities………………………………

133

Table 33: Varimax rotated matrix of factors that influence the development of

technological capabilities…………………………………………….…

136

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Non-mechanical traditional methods of palm oil extraction………….. 37

Figure 2: Flow chat for mechanical oil palm fruits processing………………. 34

Figure 3: Schema for the study of the technological capabilities of mechanical

oil palm processing industry in Anambra State, Nigeria …………

54

Figure 4: Map of Nigeria showing 36 States and F.C.T. ……………………… 56

Figure 5: Map of Anambra State showing derivable agricultural and natural

resources………………………………………………………………

57

Figure 6: Percentage distribution of mill operators based on number that have

acquired investment capabilities…………………………

92

Figure 7: Percentage distribution of oil mill managers based on the number that

have acquired investment capabilities……………………

94

Figure 8: Number of floor workers that had acquired investment

capabilities………………………………………………………….

96

Figure 9 Percentage distribution of mill operators, managers and floor workers

that had acquired production capabilities ……………………

98

Figure 10: Percentage distribution of mill operators that had acquired minor and

major change capabilities………………………………

111

Figure 11: Percentage distribution of managers that had acquired minor and

major change capabilities………………………………………

114

Figure 12: Percentage distribution of managers and operators that had acquired

linkage capabilities……………………

115

Figure 13: Percentage distribution of managers that had acquired strategic market

capabilities…………………………………………

118

Figure 14: Percentage distribution of managers and mill operators that had

acquired learning capabilities……………………………………

121

xii

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 1: (a) Fully automated oil mill comprising sterilizer, digester, press, fibre

separator and oil clarification………………………

(b) Semi-automated oil mill comprising cooking drums, digesters,

press, manual fibre separation and oil clarification…………………

87

87

Plate 2: Fibre separator, jack press, palm fruits cooking drums and manual

removal of fibre/nuts from press…………………………………………

88

Plate 3: Non-automated oil mill method showing the use of manual screw press

and manual fibre separator………………………………………………

90

Plate 4: Products and by-products of processing oil palm fruits………………… 104

xiii

ABSTRACT

The survey was undertaken to assess the technological capabilities of mechanical oil

palm processors in Anambra State, Nigeria. Specifically, the study identified the

socio-economic characteristics of the mechanical oil palm

enterprises/processors/consumers; described the available technologies to processors

(fully automated, semi-automated and non-automated oil palm processors; examined

technological capabilities (investment, linkage, minor change, major change, strategic

marketing and learning mechanisms) of the processors and identified factors

influencing the development of technological capabilities of the processors. The

survey was carried out in Anambra State, Nigeria. The population of the study

comprised mechanical oil palm processors and palm oil consumers in three out of four

agricultural zones. Two extension blocks were purposively selected from each of the

three zones, while also purposive selection of four circles in each block was done to

get a list of two oil mills, two mill operators, two mill managers, two floor workers

and two consumers. Thus 48 oil mills were used out of which 48 mill operators, 48

manages, 48 floor workers and 48 oil consumers were selected using simple random

sampling technique to get a total of 192 respondents. Data were collected using

modified enterprise level interview schedule that contained structured and semi-

structured questions. Data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics,

including percentage, mean score standard deviation and factor analysis. The findings

revealed that socio-economically, the enterprises were small-scale, public/personal

service oriented and had three units viz: mill operation for operators, management for

managers and production for floor workers. The mill operation was dominated by

males only whereas all the processors belonged to low income earners, literate group,

middle aged and were mainly married men and women. All the mill operators had

mill presses while 97.9% had digesters. All the processors assessed for production

showed strong production capabilities which made their oils to rate very good. Both

mill operators and managers had poor minor and major change capabilities. All the

respondents had high linkage capabilities. The mill operators had strong linkage with

consumers group, managers had strong linkage with marketers and abundant linkage

xiv

with oil consumers. The managers had abundant strategic market capabilities with

highest capabilities with open market followed by sales depots as distribution

channels. All the assessed respondents for learning capabilities; mill operators and

managers had abundant learning capabilities in avoiding oil spoilage. Production,

policy/institutional and technological related factors influenced the development of

technological capabilities of processing managers. Manpower, technical, personnel

and infrastructural related factors influenced the development of technological

capabilities of mill operators. Also, management, infrastructural and personnel related

factors influenced the development of technological capabilities of floor workers. The

study recommends that as all the studied processors were primary processors,

extension should co-ordinate the activities of the stakeholders in the oil palm

processing industry in areas of policy formulation and implementation and should

liaise with state and federal governments to support the industry through fiscal

measures such as grants, loans, tax relief and subsidies. This will give the processors

capabilities to be involved in secondary processing of palm oil, palm kernel oil and

other by products which will add additional financial value to them.

1

CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Food and nutrition securities remain Africa’s most fundamental challenges for

human welfare and economic growth. The effectiveness of farmers in producing and

processing food is a critical factor in the level of access to food enjoyed by farmers

themselves and the much broader population with whom they are linked via markets.

Growth in food supplies has the dual effect of increasing the income of the farming

household and reducing the prices households must pay to acquire food in the market,

both of which enhance nutrition and food security. To achieve the above, the global

economy is undergoing a series of broad changes driven by rapid technological

progress in the industrialized economies. These changes are fundamentally altering

the methods and organizations of the production of goods and services and the skills,

information, infrastructure and institutions needed to operate an economy efficiently.

So broad and far reaching are these technological developments that analysts see the

emergence of a new industrial “revolution” within the world (FMST, 2001).

The new paradigm of production involves not only new technologies (in the

traditional sense) but also new management and organizational techniques, different

forms of linkage between enterprises and tighter relations between industry, pure

science and flow of information between economic agents. The nature of the current

industrial revolution is such that the long-term success of all productive systems,

including those in the food industry and in particular oil palm processing industry in

2

developing countries ultimately depends on the ability to harness these new

technologies (UN, 1995).

The world economy is also experiencing the impact of rapid globalization and

the emerging information age, which is bringing about a new global economic order

dominated by information and knowledge based economies (IKES) (UN, 1995). The

emerging information age characterized by information and communication

technologies (ICTs) and the extra ordinary increase in the spread of knowledge has

given rise to an era of knowledge and information. These technologies are offering

even less developed agricultural countries like those in Africa the opportunity to

transform their economies and accelerate their socio-economic development process

as part of the process of addressing the challenges of globalization and the socio-

economic implications of the widening digital divide. The concept of digital divide

and its implications is often defined in terms of the degree of access to ICTs in general

and in particular to the Internet and its related and emerging technologies. The threat

posed by the technological divide is more of an economic development problem than

a technological one.

The nature of skills required at all levels for efficient operation in many

activities is changing along with technology and organization. There are moves

towards a closer integration of science and engineering with production, marketing

and managerial know how and changes are also occurring in the relation between

firms themselves, their customers and suppliers and even their competitors in what is

today termed technological capabilities. There is need for a multidimensional, multi-

disciplinary and multi-institutional technological capability interaction between actors.

3

Technological capabilities are the skills (technical, managerial or organizational) that

enable firms (farms or actors) to efficiently use equipment and information and

improve on the technology. Among social scientists, technology includes all tools,

machines, utensils, weapons, instruments, housing, clothing, communicating and

transporting devices and the skills by which we produce and use them

(http:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/technology). Technological capabilities are built through

interactions both within the firm (farm) and with external actors (Malerba, 1992).

Following this definition, technological capabilities are the result of interactive

learning processes and linkages between a number of actors such as firms, universities

and research centers through collaborations both complementary and competing ones

(Bell and Paoith, 1993; Szogs and Mwanitma, 2010). In order to create, mobilize and

improve technological capabilities, firms need continuous and reliable access to

certain complementary assets which include finance, human resources, material,

intermediate inputs and support services. Consequently, to make their analysis

manageable, technological capabilities are categorized into six; namely, investment

capability, production capability, minor change capability, major change capability,

strategic marketing and linkage capability (Ernest, Ganiates, and Mytelka, (1994).

Biggs, Manju and Srivastava (1995) in their study identified learning

capability/mechanism as a seventh category. However, it is important to note that

learning capability cuts across the other six capabilities since they enable firms to

augment their endowments of the other six types of capabilities

4

The development of the oil palm processing industry should be considered as

part of agricultural development at the rural and urban settings and as an integral part

of sustainable Agricultural and Rural Development (SARD). If the oil palm

processing industry is to experience the level of change going on in other industrial

sectors in this century, its technological capabilities must be transformed to meet the

challenges associated with it.

The oil palm processing industry, presents many facets, from traditional

labour–intensive activities that are often found in developing countries to the capital-

intensive industrial processes common in the industrial world. In order to increase

extraction efficiency and increase palm oil production, three types of mechanical

processing equipment viz: the screw press, the pioneer mills and hydraulic press

which have extraction efficiencies of 66 – 86% were first introduced into Nigeria

since the 1930s. It includes majorly the processing of the fruits, and kernels for oil by

the continued efforts of some actors like research, fabricators, millers (mill owners)

and other processors and the attendant reactions from the consumers of the products

(oils) (NIFOR, 2009).

Also in order to improve extraction efficiency and increase palm oil output, the

earlier mentioned machines (screw press, pioneer oil mill and hydraulic press) were

complemented with other machines or equipment to achieve continued processing

operations mechanically (i.e. starting from introduction of fresh bunch to sterilization-

stripper-digester-press-continuous clarifier-oil purifier-oil dryer-oil storage tank).

Efforts have been made to disseminate these technologies to processors (NIFOR,

1981, 2009). This study was designed to examine the technological capabilities of

5

mechanical oil palm processors. The processors use their technological capabilities to

exploit, harness and process the oil palm.

The mechanical oil palm processing industry is classified into full automated,

semi-automated and non-automated operating mills and the technological capabilities

of the processors was based on these classifications.

According to ATPS (2003), there are some major problems hindering oil palm

processing in the oil palm producing states. The major problems include;

transportation, scarcity of (FFB) fresh fruit bunch, unstable market price, cost of

storage facilities, lack of soft credit, cost of processing machines, cost of labours, and

lack of infrastructure. They however advised that stakeholders in oil palm processing

should liaise with the various governments to solving the above problems through

enabling policies which when followed effectively will bring the desired sustainable

solutions.

1.2 Problem statement

Oil palm production provided the most important export products like palm oil,

kernel oil etc until the mid 1960s when the decline started in export products in

Nigeria and Anambra State in particular. The acceptability and demand for palm oil

have continued to rise in Nigeria. In Anambra State, some oil mills have gone out of

business due to poor technological capabilities, some new ones have been established,

while others have continued to flourish over the years. The Nigeria Oil Palm Produce

Marketing Board (NP-PMB) has played an important role in bringing the quality of

Nigeria palm oil up to the standards set in South East Asia (PIND, 2011). According

to the standards, a grading system was set up as follows: Grade 1 under 9% Free Fatty

6

Acids (FFA), Grade II –9-18% FFA, Grade III –18% to 27% FFA, Grade IV –27% -

36% FFA and Grade V over 36%.

The qualities and quantities of oil processed by some fruit processors are

acceptable according to the above grading system while those of others are

inconsistent and sometimes objectionable with regard to taste, flavour, colour, texture,

low quantities and general appearance due to differences in the technological

capabilities of the processing enterprises. Also extraction of oil from palm kernel and

palm fruits through traditional method has its defects in terms of high labour intensity,

only convenient for subsistent small-scale enterprise, inefficient extraction (poor

yield) of reasonable quantity of oil from the kernels/palm fruits due to; (1) inadequate

technological tools e.t.c.

These poor quality and poor yield of oil processed have been also attributed to:

(2) biophysical constraints such as disease and pest prevalence, bruising of palm fruits

many hours before processing thereby causing fermentation effects, lack of improved

varieties of oil palm, etc. According to Okonkwo (2010), there are hazards and

sources (HS) in oil palm fruits processing steps that must be avoided through

appropriate control measures, e.g. (in fruit bunch ripening on a tree as the first step,

hazard and source are that the birds or insects eat the fruits giving entry point for

microbial infection which could be avoided through regular inspection and early

harvesting as control measure); (3) processing of oil palm is faced with some socio-

economic constraints such as lack of effective marketing information channels, poor

distribution and high prices of inputs (equipment), lack of credit facilities and poor

infrastructure (including roads and poor or low government subsidized equipment.

7

Many new technological equipment had been developed by manufacturers/fabricators

to arrest the quality decline but some are lying unused due to the above factors; and

(4) Processors and other agents in the oil palm processing industry are responding

tacitly to their environments and available resources to solve their perceived problems.

However, appropriate combination of technological capabilities which include

technical, engineering, behavioural, managerial, organizational and institutional

capabilities allow productive enterprise to utilize equipment and technology

efficiently even in the oil palm processing industry. Based on the combination

approach selected, seven technological capabilities are to be identified at the

enterprise or industry level. They include investment, production, minor change,

linkage, strategic marketing, major change and learning mechanism (Ernest, Gainates

and Mytelka, 2000; Biggs, Shan and Srivaste, 1995). The study sought to determine

what technological learning capabilities have been developed by the mechanical oil

palm processors. Which capabilities are lacking and why? Who are the stakeholders

involved in the development of these capabilities? What were the factors affecting the

development of technological capabilities of the processors? What lessons were to be

learnt for improving the agro transfer practices in oil palm processing industry? What

were the causes of poor quality and low yield of quantity of oil processed?

1.3 Purpose of study

The overall purpose of the study was to determine the technological

capabilities of mechanical oil palm processors in Anambra State. The specific

objectives of the study were to:

8

i. identify the socio-economic characteristics of the mechanical oil palm

enterprises/processors;

ii. describe technologies that are available to the processors (fully automated, semi-

automated and non-automated oil mill processors);

iii. examine technological capabilities (investment, production, linkage, minor change,

major change and strategic marketing and learning mechanisms) of the processors;

and

iv. identify factors influencing the development of technological capabilities of

processors.

1.4 Significance of the study

The study will help processing mill operators, managers and mill floor workers and

other stakeholders in oil palm processing industry in Nigeria and in particular Anambra State

to identify and prioritize areas of intervention, investment needed for success and bridge

identified gaps that will allow coordinated efforts and increase production, quality, quantity,

marketing and profitability of the processed products. The identified gaps and needs will

guide and model the expected role extension will play in oil palm processing industry.

The findings of the study also will be a source of information for research purposes,

the oil palm processing industry, consumers, and government institutions and non-

governmental agencies that may need to use them. It will serve as a baseline data for

universities, research institutes, and polytechnics conducting research on oil palm processing

industry. Information such as processes, products, packages and equipment used by the

processors will be available to them. Consumers will also obtain information on the type

(quality) of oil they have been consuming. The findings will also provide policy makers with

new information that they require in formulating new policies and improving or modifying

existing ones so as to regulate and improve the performance of the industry.

9

CHAPTER TWO

2.0 Literature Review

Literature was reviewed under the following headings:

2.1 The role of oil palm in the economy and environment

2.2 Innovation system paradigm

2.3 Agricultural technological capabilities concept

2.4 Technological capabilities of oil palm processing enterprise

2.5 Expected role of extension

2.6 Constraints to the development of improved oil palm production and

processing technological capabilities

2.7 Conceptual framework for the study of technological capabilities of mechanical

oil palm processing industry

2.1 The role of oil palm in the economy and environment

The use to which products of oil palm can be put is limitless as almost all parts

of the crop are useful to mankind. The Nigerian Institute for Oil Palm Research

(NIFOR), (2009) reports that oil palm produce (palm oil and palm kernel oil)

accounted for about 52.1% of the Nigeria’s domestic export between 1906 and 1913.

It earned the nation about 22% of the foreign exchange up to the beginning of the civil

war.

During the period 1948-1963 Nigeria was a leading producer of palm produce

in the world. The discovery of crude oil and the civil war adversely affected the

production of the produce in Nigeria. Other competing countries such as Malaysia and

Indonesia became leading producers. Nigeria’s domestic palm oil production as at

10

1986 was estimated at 760,000 metric tones. Palm kernel is also produced in large

quantities in Nigeria. Palm kernel output however, declined from 419,000 metric tons

during the period 1960 and 1965 to 358,000 metric tons between 1985 and 1987. Palm

kernel cake, which is a major ingredient in livestock feed manufacture is a by –

product of palm kernels. The kernel oil, which is used very extensively in bakery trade

and for making ice creams, detergents and pomades, is a product of palm kernel.

These two products palm kernel oil and palm kernel cake are obtained in the process

of crushing palm kernels.

The ever-popular palm wine, which is also of socio-economic importance, is

obtained from the male inflorescence. In some areas of Nigeria, the trade in palm wine

competes greatly with that of palm oil. The leaflets of the oil palm are used for

making thatch for roofing houses, the leaf rachises are used for fencing, reinforcing

buildings and basket making. The mid ribs of the leaflets are used for brooms. The

cabbage, soft tissue around the apical bud, serves as a delicacy for eating. The bunch

refuse, which is left after the fruits have been removed from the palm bunch is a rich

source of potassium. Locally, it is used for making soap. The fibre residue left after oil

has been extracted from the fruit provides fuel while the shell from cracked palm nuts

provides not only fuel, but also serves as an aggregate for flooring houses.

The palm trunk may be sawn into timber and used in constructing fences,

roofing houses and reinforcing buildings. The importance of the crop in the overall

economy of the country cannot therefore be over emphasized. In Nigeria, oil palm

cultivation, processing and other oil palm products based industries provide

employment to millions of its citizens.

11

On environment, World Rainforest Movement Bulletin (WRMB, 2000)

reported that during the international negotiations on climate change, some

governments committed themselves to reducing carbon dioxide emissions in their own

countries. Oil palm plantations were noted for absorption of carbon dioxide. They

emphasized that caution should be taken not to industrialize palm plantations. There

are attendant effects of deforestation on local flora, fauna, soil and water resources.

Local people are also deprived of their communal land. This is as well as fluctuations

in price of oil palm products. World Rainforest Movement Bulletin (WRMB, 2001)

had these to say in favour of oil palm plantation on environment:

(a) forests are a natural storage of carbon. Oil palm plantations have similar net carbon

fixation to lowland forests;

(b) like Hevae spp. oil palm trees are environmentally friendly. They remove carbon

dioxide from the air and release oxygen to the atmosphere;

(c) well managed oil palm forest sequesters more carbon per unit area than tropical

rainforest and oil palm estates are predicted to become important part of carbon

offset management in the next century;

(d) in the same way as rubber tree plantations, the cultivation of palms is also regarded

as environmentally friendly, because it helps to fix carbon during the plant growth

stage, cutting or filtering down on the green house effect, besides providing other

environmental advantages;

(e) oil palm as an excellent “machine” can fix carbon dioxide using solar energy; and

12

(f) an oil palm plantation can “sequester” up to 15 tonnes of carbon dioxide from the

atmosphere for each hectare planted, thus contributing to mitigate the green house

effect (a planted forest is replacing another forest.).

The Malaysia Daily Express (MDE, 2000) had it that Malaysia emitted 144

million tonnes of green house gases – almost half (68.7 million tonnes) of the

emissions were absorbed by “carbon sink” planted forest; oil palm turned out to be the

country’s largest carbon sink, taking up 63% of the 68.7 million tonnes of green house

gases absorbed due to their extensive areas.

2.2 Innovation system paradigm

Innovation concept (lineal technology diffusion paradigm) is the search for

development, adoption or imitation and the subsequent adoption of technologies that

are new within a specific context (Hall and Dijkman, 2006). In agricultural terms,

innovation is the process by which farmers and farms accept and use agricultural

technologies and services that are new to them, irrespective of whether they are new

to their competitors. In the neo-classical economics tradition, innovation was

understood to be induced by the relative scarcity (hence, price) of factors (Rogers,

1995). It follows that there is a lineal, input/output relationship between agricultural

research, development of technology and its dissemination, and at the end, adoption

by farmers leading to economic and social effects and impacts (Hall; Bockett; Taylor;

Sivamotian; Clark, 2001). This paradigm of lineal technology diffusion, was

criticized for its failure to understand the source, nature, and dynamics of most

innovations processes in particular in the context of developing countries (Berdegue,

2005), as well as for failing to pay sufficient attention to the distributional or equity

13

issues related to innovation (Hall et al, 2001). The concept of innovation system

emerged because the conventional economic models had limited power to explain

innovation, which it viewed conventionally as a linear process driven by research

(Berdegue, 2005). The innovation systems framework sees innovation in a more

systemic, interactive and evolutionary way, whereby networks of organizations,

together with the institutions and policies that affect their innovative behaviour and

performance bring new products and process into economic and social use (Freeman,

1987; Edquist, 1997).

An innovation system is therefore a network of organizations within an

economic system that are directly involved in the creation, diffusion and use of

scientific and technological knowledge, as well as the organizations responsible for

the coordination and support of those processes. An innovation system refers to both

the nature of the institutions that make up the system as well as to the linkages and

flows that connect them to one another. The incentives to innovate vary on the basis

of individual endowments of wealth, income, or capacity and collective endowments

of a similar nature. The concept recognizes that innovations emerge from systems of

actors (Hall, Sulaiman, Clark, Sivamohan and Yoganand, 2002; Clark, Hall,

Sulaiman, and Naik, 2003). In the context of the study, these actors include directly

or indirectly farmers, agro-processors, marketers, researchers, universities, the

ministries of agriculture, science and technology, environment and education,

Agricultural Development Programme (ADP), state and local governments and others.

Processes and systems invariably evolve and change because the actors involved in

the innovation learn along the way and modify their behaviour accordingly.

14

Spielman (2005) stated that the organizing principle of innovation system

involves studying interactions and institutions that affect heterogeneous agents’

strategic efforts to innovate, adapt and complement an equilibrium outcomes. He

further stated that development is driven by the institutional context in which

technological change occurs. The innovation systems perspective usefully widens

otherwise narrow horizons in the agricultural research community. The framework

can be used to fill knowledge gaps and frame socio-economic research within a wider

context of diverse actors, knowledge sources, institutions and interactions.

Rivera, Alex and Hansen (2006), define innovation as the introduction of

something new – a new idea, method or device. The Agricultural Science Technology

Innovation System (AIS) is about the importance of developing and diffusing

innovations. The model appears to have emerged directly from the concept of

National Systems of Innovation (NSI), which was developed in the late 1980s and

presumes to cover all sectors but focuses particularly on the industrial sectors to which

oil palm processing belongs. One important aspect of the concept is its emphasis on

interconnected institutions that create, store and transfer the knowledge, skills and

artifacts that define new technologies. National system of innovation is defined as:

that set of distinct institutions which jointly and individually contribute to the

development and diffusion of new technologies and which provides the framework

within which governments form and implement policies to influence the innovation

process. As such it is a system of interconnected institutions to create, store, and

transfer the knowledge, skills, and artifacts which define new technologies” (Chema,

Gilbert, and Roseboom 2003). The economy-wide industrial emphasis of NSI has

15

been re-envisioned by the international agricultural development community into a

more sectoral framework, the AIS. Not an entirely new analytic concept, AIS

emphasizes “agricultural” innovations and goes beyond previous knowledge system

concepts by incorporating the goals of current reform measures, such as political

decentralization, public sector alliances with the public sector, enabling the private

sector, advancing consensus approaches to development, and promoting demand-

driven services. AIS also reviews innovation as “the transformation of an idea into a

new or improved product introduced on the market or a new or improved operational

process used in industry and commerce or into a new approach to a social service”.

Thus technological innovation is seen to involve more than Research and

Development (R & D); it also entails the workings of the marketplace. While the

notion of advancing the development and diffusion of innovations is not new,

certainly knowledge system success depends on innovations being disseminated,

adopted and practised. We observe, however, that in addition to its origins from the

term NSI, the AIS nonetheless resembles in several respects earlier models of

agricultural knowledge systems, most obviously the Agricultural Technology System

(ATS), developed in the mid-1980 by the University of Illinois INTERPAKS team

(Swanson 1986) and adopted both by the International Fund for Agricultural

Development (IFAD) and the International Service for National Agricultural Research

(ISNAR) as a conceptual framework for studying the links between agricultural

research and technology transfer in developing countries. Like the AIS framework,

the ATS emphasizes innovative research. ATS seeks to map and track three types of

technological components through national systems; they include: (a) genetic

16

technology, such as new crop varieties, hybrids and livestock breeds; (b) agricultural

chemicals, such as new pesticides; and (c) new cultural or management practices, such

as plant population and fertilizer usage, were organized into agronomic

recommendations adapted to major agro-ecological zones and reflective of the socio-

economic conditions under which small-scale farmers operated. Thus, the ATS

emphasizes new technology, either developed or introduced into a country. This

earlier effort is very much in line with AIS thinking, although the more contemporary

AIS stresses decentralized, demand-drive approaches and broad stakeholder

participation in the control, support and implementation of the agricultural technology

agenda.

The World Bank (2006) stated that investments in knowledge especially in the

form of science and technology have featured prominently and consistently in most

strategies to promote sustainable and equitable agricultural development at the

national level. Although many of these investments have been successful, the context

for agriculture is changing rapidly and sometimes radically. Six changes in the

context for agricultural development that heightened the need to examine how

innovation occurs in the agricultural sector were identified as follows:

1. Markets, not production, increasingly drive agricultural development.

2. The production, trade, and consumption environment for agriculture and

agricultural products is growing more dynamic and evolving in unpredictable

ways.

3. Knowledge, information, and technology increasingly are generated, diffused, and

applied through the private sector.

17

4. Exponential growth in information and communications technology has

transformed the ability to take advantage of knowledge developed in other places

or for other purposes.

5. The knowledge structure of the agricultural sector in many countries is changing

markedly.

6. Agricultural development increasingly takes place in a globalized setting.

For a new perspective on the systems of agricultural innovation to yield

practical approaches to agricultural development that may be more suited to this

changing context the World Bank reviewed the changing approaches for supporting

agricultural innovation. As the context of agricultural development has evolved, ideas

of what constitutes “research capacity to innovate: In the 1980s, the “national

agricultural research system” (NARS) concept focused development efforts on

strengthening research supply by providing infrastructure, capacity, management, and

policy support at the national level. In the 1990s, the “agricultural knowledge and

information system” (AKIS) concept recognized that research was not the only means

of generating or gaining access to knowledge. The AKIS concept still focused on

research supply but gave much more attention to links between research education,

and extension and to identifying actor like farmers’ processor etc demand for new

technologies.

More recently, attention has focused on the demand for research and

technology and on the development of innovation systems, because strengthened

research systems may increase the supply of new knowledge and technology, but may

not necessarily improve the capacity for innovation throughout the agricultural sector.

18

Matanmi (1994) has viewed that end users’ (farmers, processors etc) perceived

attributes of innovations has a lot to do with their adoption or acceptance. According

to him, a standard classification scheme for describing the perceived attributes of

innovations is needed. Five different attributes of innovations are described. These

are somewhat empirically inter-related but they are conceptually distinct. These

attributes are the receivers perceptions of the attributes of innovations and not the

attributes as classified by experts or extension agents, per se. As an adage says of

beauty, similarly, the beauty of innovations exists only in the eyes of the users. The

five criteria in acceptance of agricultural innovations by endusers in Nigeria include;

relative advantage, compatibility, complexibility, potentiality and divisibility and

observability.

2.3 Agricultural technological capabilities concept

The challenges of increasing agricultural productivity and thus farm income

require, among other things, a strong ‘agricultural technology system’ (ATS), which

Sumberg and Okali (1997) defined as comprising “all the individuals and groups

working on development, diffusion and use of new and existing technologies, the

action they engage in and the relations between them” in order to develop, diffuse and

use new agricultural technologies. Agricultural research thus plays an important role

in the struggle for improving the livelihood of the rural poor in developing countries.

Agricultural research is assumed to be most effective if accompanied by ‘participatory

approaches, which direct the research priorities towards the choices of the rural

population. The extent to which participatory methods can enable people to influence

the process of research and development activities depends not only on the

19

performance of participatory methods but also on the institutional environment in

which they are applied (Bechstedt, 2000). Since the institutional environment often

restricts the potential to participate. Thus the agricultural technology system (ATS)

consists of all the individuals, groups, organizations and institutions engaged in

developing and delivering new or existing technology.

The emphasis is on both “new technology,” i.e. that which has been recently

developed and older technology that is being introduced into a new area or group of

users; ATS is thus an analytical framework rather than a formal system’s model.

Swanson, Bentz and Sofranko (1997) stated that there is need for a close relationship

between national agricultural research and extension organizations and with different

categories of farmers, processors, millers, fabricators etc. organizations in a broader

system, the agricultural technology system (ATS) which will allow a more effective

contribution of each organization to the boarder goal of getting improved agricultural

technology in all major categories of farmers, end users/clientele/actors in innovation

system. He identified systems analysis as an effective procedure in identifying linkage

problems, since it is a problem-solving methodology.

Systems analyses had been successfully applied in numerous fields, especially

as a management tool to analyse, design, and implement complex technical processes,

this system analysis systematically examines a problem and makes each step of the

analysis explicit. Agricultural technology system (ATS) will need to develop and

transfer a package of recommendations for all of the economically important

commodities being produced within different farming systems in each agro ecological

zone. By using a systems approach, it is possible to examine each system component

20

and linkage at different levels within an ATS. In the process, specific system

constraints and weaknesses can be easily identified, and then the most appropriate

intervention strategy can be determined. ATS is based on primary functions and tasks

as well as functional linkages so that the framework can be used to analyse technology

systems in any type of political economy (Swanson, Bentz and Sofranko, 1997).

To clarify this earlier ATS framework’s basic similarity to the AIS, (Rivera,

Alex and Hanson, 2006), highlighted its four major functional components, which

emphasize those internal to the technology system and those external factors that

influence the technology system.

1. Policy, which includes those external factors that directly impact the

technology system, including the utilization of technology by processors, or

end users.

2. Technology development, which includes that part of the agricultural research

system that is devoted to applied and adaptive research

3. Technology transfer, which is broken down into the sub-functions of

knowledge transfer and input transfer.

4. Technology utilization by end users (processors) with an emphasis on fully

automated (continuous system), semi automated (batch system) and non

automated mills.

AIS draw attention not only to the need for innovation but also to the pluralistic

involvement of different institutions in agricultural research. Rivera, Alex, and

Hanson, (2006) explained the features of the AIS further with USAID approach to

promoting agricultural innovation through her focus change in its many country-based

21

research and extension project of the 1980s with a plethora of “agribusiness projects”

in 1990s. Those projects in effects supported innovation by for-profit firms working

in specific sectors and with specific business plans. The firms, frequently drawing on

existing capacity within research, extension and education institutions, supported

innovations in production technology, market linkage, sector organization, policies,

and financing. The aggregation of innovations by many individual firms can be a

powerful force for change in behaviour and development across a country’s

agricultural sector.

Scott, Gotsch and Bahri (2003) state that everyone involved in agricultural

policy and project analysis should have a clear way of thinking about evaluating

decisions. Some pertinent questions were raised, on what grounds can one alternative

be judged better than another? How much policy is enough? Is economic efficiency

the only thing that matters? While stating that for rational decision-making to take

place, each of us needs a clear and logical way to evaluate policy options. A well –

understood framework for agricultural policy analysis is needed for decision-makers

and interest groups to understand the consequences of policy actions. The clarity of

definitions is critical in policy analysis. What is meant by the term, “framework for

agricultural policy analysis?” A framework is an organized and consistent approach

for clear thinking. Without it, policy debate can quickly reduce to misunderstanding

and emotionalism. A framework is designed to permit the study of linkages in

economic systems. Good economic analysis is fascinating for economists, frustrating

for non economists, and relevant for everyone because it focuses on linkages within an

economy – on why one group’s actions influence others in the system. Agriculture

22

refers to the production and consumption of commodities that are produced by

cultivating crops or raising livestock and how best to process them for human or

animal consumption. Policies are government actions intended to change behaviour

of producers and consumers. Analysis consists of the evaluation of government

decisions to change economic behaviour. They concluded that a framework for

agricultural policy analysis, therefore, is a logical system for analyzing public policies

affecting producers, marketers, processors and consumers of crops, and livestock

products.

The four central components in the framework for agricultural policy analysis,

as proposed by De Gorter (2004) are objectives, constraints, policies and strategies.

Most goals of government policy fall under one of three fundamental objectives;

efficiency, equity, or security. Efficiency is achieved when the allocation of scarce

resources in an economy produces the maximum amount of income and the allocation

of goods and services brings highest consumer satisfaction. Equity refers to the

distribution of income among groups or regions that are targeted by policy makers.

Typically, greater equity is achieved by more even distribution of income. However,

because policy refers to government actions, the policy makers (and indirectly voters

in a democracy) define equity. Security is furthered when political and economic

stability allows producers and consumers to minimize adjustment costs. Food security

refers to the availability of food supplies at affordable and stable prices (FAO, 1998).

According to Barry (2000) technology effectiveness could take a variety of

forms. In addition to examining the more traditional effectiveness criteria of those

involved in market impacts, the model considers a number of alternative effectiveness

23

criteria, including political and capacity building. Thomas and Gatignon (1986)

examined competitive effects on technology diffusion and suggested how the supply-

side competitive environment and the adopter industry competitive environment both

affect diffusion of a new technology. The work sought to extend the current

behavioural paradigm for studying innovation diffusion by incorporating competitive

factors as explanatory variables. Competitiveness as described by Agri-business

council of Jamaica (2003) is the ability of a nation’s commodity to sell in domestic

and international markets alongside similar goods produced in other countries.

Among the many concepts applied to measure policy effects, competitiveness and

comparative advantage (longer-run competitiveness) are the measurements of

production and private social profitability. Anambra State has higher capability

potentials for processing of oil palms because of high concentration of oil palm

plantations (Ofoka, 2000). Thus concentration of her efforts on oil palm processing

will give her a comparative advantage and competitiveness as explained by

Agribusiness Council of Jamaica (2003).

Cramb (2000) focuses on the higher order factors affecting successful adoption

of technologies. Drawing on the “actor-oriented perspective” in rural sociology, he

argued that successful examples of adoption at this higher level result from a complex

conjunction of people and events, with outcomes that may have been quite

unanticipated at the outset. From this perspective research and extension projects and

programs are viewed as arenas in which social actors-village leaders, processors,

fabricators, millers as incase of oil palm processing, farmers, researchers (local and

international), aid officials, municipal agents, extension workers, and traders-pursue

24

their own short-and long-term objectives and strategies. He submitted that the actors

have to manoeuvre, negotiate, organize, cooperate, participate, coerce, obstruct, form

coalitions, adopt, adapt, and reject, all within a specific geographical and historical

context. These chain of actions normally influenced policy leading to improve

technology development, dissemination, and incorporation into farming systems and

many of the actors may be made better off. However, there is nothing predetermined

about this outcome. Hence, a detailed, case history approach is needed to understand

and explain the patterns of success in achieving beneficial technical change he

concluded.

Biggs (1990) views technology development from an actor-oriented

perspective, and concluded that it is a complex, multithreaded, and multidirectional

process, involving many actors other than scientists in the formal research system

(learning mechanism). Moreover, the emergence of a particular technology depends

not only on its scientific merits but also on the actions of “development coalitions” or

loose groupings of actors who combine their resources to push for a particular path of

technical change. He stated further that while it is appropriate to evaluate a given

technology in itself, the result often leads to an incomplete account of what it takes to

succeed in technology development. This typically involves networking, advocacy,

lobbying, and other activities, which can be called “coalition building.” These

activities are often excluded from conventional accounts of technology development.

He submitted that policy coordination is the key to successful and profitable

development efforts. Biggs and Smith (1998) in their study of conventional extension

theory, based on the central source model of technology development and diffusion,

25

examined the role of various organizational arrangements and communication

techniques in persuading end users to adopt a recommended technology, he stated

further that the rural development interventions, such as agricultural extension

projects, involve a variety of social actors with diverse histories and agenda from both

within and beyond rural communities. Hence, a project intervention needs to be

recognized as part of an ongoing, continually renegotiated social process, not simply

the execution of a pre-specified plan of action with expected outcomes. Moreover,

any technology dissemination activity takes place in a specific historical, political, and

economic, agro climatic, and institutional context. The influence of these contextual

factors may be crucial in determining the outcome of a particular project.

Oyeyinka (2003) views broadly technological capability as the knowledge

required to master new technologies, adapt, adopt, improve, and diffuse them within

the economy and exploit them. They are important in creating, and sustaining

competitiveness in actors within the extension innovation system. Technological

capabilities are acquired through learning. The individuals within the actors or agency

as well as the agency learn. Generally, technological capability has seven

components. These include: investment, production, minor and major change,

linkage, marketing and learning capabilities. The learning capability spans through

the other six technological capabilities. When actors in an innovation system learn

over time they accumulate technological knowledge and progressively undertake new

activities and acquire capabilities (Oyeyinka, 2003). Technological capabilities of

clientele or end users are the final impact of the agricultural extension innovation

system. They are measures of the degree to which the extension innovation system is

26

successful and provide useful information for policy making and policy revision.

However, Khalil –Timamy (2002) agrees with Oyeyinka but separates investment into

further components such as pre-investments, project-execution stage and project

implementation stage. The various components according to Khalil –Timamy’s

concept and other authors are discussed briefly below and will form the basis to

ascertain the capabilities of the processors.

a) Pre – investment

Pre-investment stage is the period when the following activities are under

taken: opportunity cost studies, screening of project ideas, market studies, technical

requirement studies, techno-economic feasibility studies, technical evaluation of

project, economic and financial evaluation, location studies and evaluation of means

of financing. Positive answers to the above undertaking encourage the processors, to

forge ahead.

b) Project implementation stage

This is the stage when production activities, technological personnel training

and maintenance occur. In the context of technological capabilities, the services

offered during the pre investment, project execution and implementation constitute

strategic technical capabilities. Careful attention should be paid to these stages,

especially technical personnel training to acquire skill and avoid costly pitfall during

the operational life of the enterprise. At this stage, production activities begin and

workers (both skilled and casual) are instructed on what to do and how. At this stage

those who will operate the mills (the stripper, sterilizers, press machines either screw

or hydraulic, digester etc) are sent on a training to be able to manage the proposed

27

project of processing before capital investments on those machines or equipment are

made (Okonkwo, 2010).

c) Investment capabilities

Every application of technology begins with an investment. Investment

capabilities are skills and information needed to identify feasible projects, locate and

purchase suitable technologies (embodied and disembodied), design and engineer the

plant, manage the construction, commission and start –up. The development of an

investment capability in an industry or country, rather than just in an enterprise, can be

of great help in setting up plants economically and later expanding and improving

upon them (Biggs and Srivastava, 1995; Lall 1992; Hassan and Wartensleben, 1988).

Investment could be in the areas of capital goods, eg. Land, machinery mills,

equipment, pilot plant, engineering plants-generators, blue prints, models, systems

analysis, feasibility reports, products and process patents and human resource

development. Enwere, (2000) has it that if respondents residence is used for

processing; investments are made on items that the households do not have already.

Chima, 2011; Enwere, 2000; Agwu 2006; Ofoka, 2000) identify personal savings,

borrowed money from friends, Bank loans, cooperative societies, family or communal

funds and funds transferred from other business as sources of fund for investments in

Agricultural enterprises.

d) Production capabilities

Once a firm has acquired technology of any sort, it must have adequate

production capabilities to remain in business. Production capabilities are skills,

knowledge and information needed for plant operation and improvement, quality

28

control, maintenance, equipment stretching, research, design, innovation, scheduling

or reaching prescribed level of machine efficiency. These capabilities are categorized

as production management, production engineering and repair and maintenance of

physical capital.

These capabilities range from routine functions to intensive and innovative

efforts to adapt and improve technology. They require considerable expenditure of

time and effort. The more advanced capabilities require high or different skills, more

time and greater investment. Production capabilities include both process and product

technological capabilities such as product Research and Development (R&D), design

engineering, procurement, production, marketing, sales and customers services. The

production capabilities are highlighted in line with either traditional or mechanical

processing methods of palm oil extraction and they are acquired through learnings and

practices, (Enwere, 2000). To the processor, efficient operation of a mill with a given

production technology could include: use of stripper, steriser, digester etc.

e) Linkage capabilities

Linkage capabilities refer to skills required to receive and transmit information

from external sources such as components and raw materials suppliers, sub –

contractors, consultant services, other firms and technology institutions. Linkage

capability plays a significant role in improving the effectiveness of firm level

innovation strategies. Linkage capabilities enhance training and learning through

interactions of stakeholders. How farmers, processors, millers, and fabricators link

one to another or among themselves. Enwere (2001) views that linkage of

29

stakeholders in processing industries lead to actors’ development of technological

capabilities using baking industry in south-eastern Nigeria as an example.

f) Minor change

This refers to the firm’s capability to improve and adapt continuously its

products and processes. This includes adaptive engineering and organization

adjustments involved in the incremental upgrading of product design and performance

features and of process technology (Ernest, Ganiates and Mytelka, 1994).

Successful adaptation of technology is beneficial in that it leads to modification

of products’, processes and equipment themselves, creates new technology or

knowledge, after leading to future improvements. This process of minor innovations

can accumulate over time to significant improvements in productivity, sometimes

larger than a major single jump in technology. The nature of this learning process

means that different firms can operate at quite different rates of technological

development and end up with different level efficiency while using the same

technologies (Biggs, Shan and Srivasta, 1995). Processors can change from the use

of drums and firewood to cook palm fruits to the use of sterilizer (Okonkwo, 2010).

Without strong minor change capabilities a firm is ill equipped to reap the dynamic

benefits of technology diffusion.

g) Strategic marketing capability

This broadly includes the knowledge and skill required for collecting marketing

intelligence, development of new markets, establishment of distribution channels and

provision of customers services, (Ernest, Ganiates and Mytekal, 1994). Knowledge of

30

behavioural pattern of customers is needed (Lall, 1992). In order to be able to translate

its knowledge about customer needs into successful products and services, a company

needs storing products design and systems engineering capabilities. All of these

require that the company redefines its marketing into strategic management function.

This requires a precise knowledge of customer needs and consumers reactions towards

the products. Marketing channels involved in agro processing industries include;

processors residence, kiosk, local market places, soap making industries, along the

street, office distribution vans, co-operative marketing societies, primary/secondary

schools, super markets (Enwere, 2000 ; Okonkwo, 2010).

h) Major change capability

This refers to the knowledge and skills required for creation of new technology,

that is, major changes in design and core features of products and production process.

It is a capability that drives from many sources, internal and external to the firm.

These include in- house R & D, external R & D, outfits of universities, public and

private laboratories, specialty research institutes e.t.c. This capability is particularly

required when the challenge is to upgrade product performance and to enter middle

level and upper level market segments. The acquisition of mechanical equipment or

mills to change from traditional methods to machine operated mills is major change

capability. It calls for higher investment cost, skill acquisition and new knowledge to

operate with (Obibuaku, 1986; Okonkwo 2010).

i) Learning mechanisms

According to Biggs, Shan, and Srivaste (1995) learning mechanisms are

capabilities required and are available to acquire new or improve existing investment

31

and production capabilities. Learning mechanisms constitute the dynamic element of

technological capabilities, enabling firms to change over time the levels of

investments and production capabilities. The attention to learning processes,

particularly technological accumulation and the institutions affecting these processes

are very important and span through the other six capabilities. Khalil – Timamy

(2002) showed that a large increase in factor productivity (capital and labour

combination) is accounted for by improvement in worker’s skills, minor or

incremental technical innovations and time saving improvement. The growth in skills

and knowledge has not only been a time dependent process, but has also involved

deliberate efforts and investments in the accumulation of technological capability. The

accumulation of technological capability has been achieved through various forms of

learning. For examples, stakeholder and participation, workshop, exhibitions and site

visits, computer supported collaborative learning, mentoring process, partnership,

apprenticeship demonstration, visit, seminars, exhibitions, on spot training are such

various forms of learning (Paulsen, 2011; Emenyeonu, 1987; Enwere, 2005).

Learning at farm or firm level emerges and accumulates via a continuous process of

trial and error, testing of different processing methods on the basis of an experimental

and pragmatic approach to the situations of problems. This articulated process is

referred to as in-firm learning (Andreoni, 2011). Thus, mechanical processors and

others stakeholders can learn from field experience.

2.4 Technological and production capabilities of oil palm-fruits processing

enterprise

32

Bell and Pavitt (1993) make a clear distinction between production capability

and technological capability. According to them production capability incorporates the

resources used to produce industrial goods at a given efficiency and at given input

combinations, equipment (capital embodied technology), labour, skills (operating and

managerial know-how and experience), products and input specifications and the

organizational methods and systems used. Technological capabilities on the other

hand, incorporate the resources needed to generate and manage technical change,

including skills, knowledge and experience and institutional structures and linkages.

Lall (1992) identifies three categories of firm level capabilities. They include:

(a) Investment capabilities – which describe the firms ability to identify and prepare

projects, procure equipment and artifacts, carry out detailed design, construct,

install and operate production facilities.

(b) Production capabilities – This pertains to operation, quality control, maintenance,

adaptation, equipment stretching, research, design and innovation.

(c) Linkage capabilities – relating to skills required to receive and transmit

information from component or raw material suppliers, sub contractors,

consultants, service firms and technology institution. These capabilities are

facilitated or hindered by factors both internal and external to the firm. Firm level

capabilities interact and are complemented by national level capabilities. These are

categorized into aggregate levels of physical investments, human capital and

technology effort.

33

Technological capabilities for the processing of oil palm fruits have emerged

over the years. The available methods for oil palm fruit processing have their own

distinct technology (skills, knowledge and procedures). The procedures involve

materials, equipment and machinery. Information, financial resources, skills,

managerial capability and nature of organization determine the technology and

method used. Some of the methods identified in literature for oil palm fruits

processing majorly fall into two, and include: 1. Non – mechanical traditional methods

of palm oil extraction. 2. Mechanical methods (fully automated, semi-automated and

non-automated mill methods. Their schematic diagrams and explanations are as

follow:

Traditional oil palm fruits processing method

The traditional methods of palm oil extractions according to NIFOR, (1999)

involves basically soft oil and hard oil processes or methods. The soft oil process

involves bunch reception which is followed by chopping into spikeletes to remove

fruits within 2 – 4 days. The separated fruits are then boiled for 1 – 2 hours in drum

or pot, before pounding in mortar/big iron pot. The nuts are removed from the

mesocarp which is reheated and hand pressed or that the pounded fruits are washed in

water in cemented trough to remove fibre and nuts. The crude oil from any of the

above methods is heated and dry oil is recovered for storage. The hard oil method

involves the boiling of fruits which are put in water trough like canoes and treaded on

after 2 – 3 days to remove mesocarp fibre and nuts. The crude oil water mixture is

agitated heated and oil decanted for storage.

34

NIFOR (2009) says that the traditional method of oil palm fruits processing are

known to be labour intensive, low through-puts and give oil of low quality – the free

fatty acid (FFA) level of 8% and above, high moisture content over 0.5% and high

dirts content over 0.3% - have very low extraction rates 6 – 8%.

35

1. Oil palm fruit processing

Traditional Process Mechanical Process

Bunch reception & chopped into Boiled fruits in water spikelets (2-4 days) troughs (eg. Canoes)

Fruit threshing or separation Fruit foot treaded (2 –3 days) Sterilization/Boiling (1 – 2 hours) Removal of mesocarp fibre & nuts

Digested/pounded in mortar Removal of mesocarp fibre & nuts

Nut removal Crude oil water mixture agitated

Mesocarp reheated (in pots) Froth/Crude oil heated

Hand pressed Oil stored Crude oil fried in pots Oil separation from

Oil packaging (b) Bunch reception & chopped into spiklets (2-4 days)

Fruit separation Boiling

Fruit pounded Washed in H20 in trough cemented Removal of fibre & nuts Hot water oil mixture agitated Crude oil scooped Crude oil heated

Dry oil recovery

Oil storage

Source: (NIFOR, 1999)

Fig. 1: Non-mechanical traditional methods of palm oil extraction.

(a) Soft Oil

(b) Hard oil

36

Okonkwo (2010) assesses the traditional or indigenous oil palm wet processing

with the hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP) system for food safety

and quality. The analysis shows that hazards exist at all stages (20) of process. The

critical control points are the sorting stage of the palm fruits, clarification to remove

moisture and storage which were identified as the important operations in oil palm

processing. The actions recommended for eliminating the hazards in production of

quality red palm oil are discussed.

Twenty stages of process are identified with the hazards associated with each

stage. Good quality crude red palm oil production starts from the raw materials –

palm fruits which must be fresh with minimal signs of damage or contamination from

harvest to detachment of fruits from the spikes. Fruit sorting ensures that different

grades of fruits are not mixed which ultimately affect oil quality. An innovation to

obtain high grade fruits is boiling the fruits in the spikes for easy detachment.

Badmus (1987) notes in his study that in mechanized method, the weakening of the

attachment bonds of the fruits is achieved by boiling bunches. The critical control

points were the boiling mixture stage to reheating stage (clarification) for removal of

residual mixture from the crude palm oil. The reheating of the oil must not exceed the

limit time to avoid partial bleaching and cooking of oil which will affect B-carotene

content. Storage conditions include dry and cool environment, storage in opaque

containers (plastics) is best advised. The summarized process steps, hazards and

sources with the control measures are shown in Table 1.

37

Table 1: Hazard analysis chart

Process step Hazard and source Control measure

1. Fruit bunch ripening on tree Birds/Insects eat fruit. Entry point for

microbial infection

Regular inspection and early

harvesting

2. Dropping of ripe fruit On the soil. Point of microbial infection

and contamination with sand particles

Regular inspection and early

harvesting

3. Fresh Fruit Bunch Harvesting

Technique

Damage of fruits in the process of

pruning fronds, Insects hidden. Free tall

on the ground by gravity, causing

bruises on some of the fruits. Increase

FFA

Skilful and careful pruning

techniques. Unbruised fruits

Alternative method to traditional

harvesting method to minimize fall

(Badmus, 1990)

4. Post harvest Transport Rust and dirty basket, head pan or wheel

barrow. Allows contamination and

further deterioration

Quality standard. Clean materials.

Good handling practices

5. Bunch cutting into spikes Some fruits broken Microbial activity Skilful cutting for detachment of

spikes from bunch

6. Detachment of fruits from spikes Dirty materials for covering, chemical

activity-lipolytic enzyme changes at the

base.

Personal hygiene. Good handling

practices. Innovation. Boil fruits

with spikes

7. Fruit sorting Mixed fruits of all grades. Unwashed

fruits

Grade fruits for quality control. Use

wholesome fruits

8. Fruit boiling Contaminants from rusty containers Good grade and clean container.

Personal hygiene

9. Fruit pounding Dirty mortar/pestle and environment. Clean environment. Personal

hygiene with cloak/work dress/apron

Process step Hazard and source Control measure 10. Fruit washing (pulp) Cold mash. Wash quickly. When cold add hot or

warm water to release oil. Personal

hygiene.

11. Fibre-nut separation Tick (viscous) mixture Hard squeezing. Add hot water and

filter

12. Mixture sieving Rusted containers, old raffia basket Use clean and rust free materials

13. Clarification (Boiling mixture) Rusted containers, Inadequate boiling

period.

Rust free/good grade containers.

Boil for maximum time till foam is

darker.

14. Decanting oil Contains moisture, dirt, fibre and slurry. Second heating

15. Second boiling Engrained dirt and residual moisture,

increase FFA

Careful skimming off the dried oil

16. Reheating Over heating Heat for appropriate time limit.

17. Fibre-nut disposal Indiscriminate and improper drying. Keep fibre near kitchen fire. Sun dry

nuts in clean environment or heap

near kitchen fire for later cracking.

18. Packaging Inadequate cooling, Odour development,

Rancidity

Allow proper cooling. Personal

hygiene

19. Storage containers Tins, transparent bodies and plastic jars

on floor, Rancidity.

Opaque or coloured plastic

containers and amber glass jars on

platform.

20. Storage conditions Hot environment Dry and cool environment

Okonkwo, (2010) Oil Palm Product: Domestic crude palm oil: Date: March 26

2008.

38

39

Oil palm fruits processing operations (mechanical method)

According to NIFOR, 2009, palm oil processors of all sizes go through these

unit operational stages (Fig. 2). They differ in the level of mechanization of each unit

operation and the inter-connecting materials transfer mechanisms. The operational

mechanism could either be semi automated single batch or continuous systems (fully

automated) and or non-automated. The scale of operations differs at the level of

process and the product quality control that may be achieved depends on the method

of mechanization adopted. In palm oil extraction mechanically, there are three

systems: (1) fully automated continuous processing mill system. In this process,

starting from bunch receiving, sterilizing-stripping-digesting-pressing to clarifying are

done automatedly, ie the extraction of oil from boiled palm fruits can be

accommodated by handling successive batches of materials or continuously feeding

materials to the machine; (2) semi-automated processing mill – some processing

equipment are done manually before/after engaging the automated processing mill at

different stages to finish processing. Eg. A processor may manually remove the fruits

from spikes, cook the fruits in drums before carrying the hot boiled fruits to semi-

automated mill to digest, press out oil and separate (or not) the nuts from fibres

automatedly; (3) non-automated processing mill – all the mechanical equipment

involved in the processing are not machine/engine operated.

Some of the technical terms referred to in figure two are described below:

1. Bunch reception: This is reception of well ripped, unbruised and timely

conveyed fresh fruit bunch to the sterilizer.

40

2. The sterilizer: The fruit process to which the fresh fruit bunch (FFB) is

subjected is sterilization in the sterilizer, the aim of which is to;

i. inactivate the lipase or fruit enzyme, which is thermolabile i.e. stops at both

enzymatic hydrolysis that causes acidification of palm oil.

ii. coagulate the nitrogenous and mucilagerious matters so as to prevent the

formation of emulsions of the in the crude oil during purification.

iii. improve extraction by proper stripping of the bunches as well as the breaking

up of the oil-carrying cells of the mesocarp.

Sterilization is commonly carried out by means of horizontal or vertical

sterilizers, the FFB are contained in a mild steel fruit cage of either 1.5 or 2.5 tonne

capacity. The sterilizer normally has two cylindrical carrier rings to facilitate the

lifting and smooth discharge of fruit into the stripper.

The vertical sterilizer is generally used for small to medium scale factories and

the FFB are normally discharged directly into the sterilizer by means of a bunch

elevator. The sterilizer is discharged manually by workers who rake out the sterilized

fruits to a conveyor that feeds the stripping or threshing machine.

Small-scale mills employ vertical type sterilizers which steam at atmospheric

pressure, though bunches are however quartered or cut into spikelets before

introduction into the sterilizer. Where traditional method of sterilization is followed by

picking fruit from the bunches after cutting up and heaping for 2-4 days, then fruit

sterilizer can be used. This consists of a 44 gallons (200 litres) sterilizing drum set in a

special tipping frame. If sufficient loose fruits are being supplied to keep the press in

operation during the daytime then about four drums will be needed. Fruit boiling is

41

carried out for 1 hour after steam appears at the top of the drum usually covered with

layers of tick jute bags.

3. The stripper – The stripper removes sterilized fruits from the bunches stalk and

this should be carried out when the bunches are still at high temperature. The

fruit bunches are off loaded from the cooker/sterilizer and placed in the rotation

stripper. The stripper is made to rotate by turning the handle in a clockwise

direction. As the stripper rotates it knocks about the bunches and the fruits drop

off and are collected. In mechanized method the stripper usually requires one

man and can handle 0.5 tonnes of fresh fruit bunches per hour.

Traditionally, stripping in a hand-operated mill can be by beating out the fruits

from the sterilized bunches by means of wooden batons or pronged forks.

4. Digestion by digester

The fruits from the stripper which constitute about 62-65 percent of the FFB

are fed into the digester. The aims of the digester are;

i. to release oil from the pericarp cells by mashing them,

ii to raise the temperature of the mash to facilitate subsequent pressing (usually to

about 900)

iii. to drain away free oil and so reduce the volume to be pressed.

The digester is usually a cylindrical vessel enclosed in a steam jacket, the heat

maintains the viscosity of the oil in the mash at a low level. The digester is equipped

with rotating beater arms or blades. The fruit is admitted at the top and the wet mash is

drained off to the press at the bottom. Oil is allowed to drain off through drainage

holes at the bottom and joins the oil expelled by the press. The greater the amount of

42

oil which can be drained away during digestion, the drier will be the mixture of nuts

and fibre to be pressed. It is better when digester is fully loaded with fruits to generate

full pulping and stirring action of the beater aims or blades. Charging of digester,

maceration and discharge take 10 minutes. Usually the digester can handle 64.6 kilos

of fresh fruit bunches depending on the capacity, pattern and make-designer per batch

and maybe operated by two men.

Traditional digestion is by pounding stripped fruit in a mortar with wooden

pestles by 4 to 6 men. Hot water is introduced to maintain relative steady temperature

of the mash. Also foot-trampling the cooked but cold fruits in canoes or specially

constructed wooden troughs form traditional method.

5. Pressing (crude oil extractions)

The efficient extraction of oil from the pericarp is the basic objective of the

entire process. There are two basic mechanical methods of oil extraction, one is by use

of centrifugal force and the other is by squeezing (pressing method) the oil and

moisture from the digested mash. The oil contains non-oily solids (nos) and water and

is called crude oil. The extraction could be done using the following tools to enhance

the two methods:

a) Centrifugal oil extraction method: These were in common use in by gone

years and are beneficial where through-puts are small. Oil losses on fibre are

relatively high compared with modern equipment dealing with perforated fruit

types. The centrifuge consists of a perforated steel drum into which the

digested mash is introduced and revolved at high speed. The oil and water in

the mash is thrown out through the perforations by centrifugal force, more or

43

less independently of pressure transmitted through the press cake from nut to

nut.

b) Press methods

Hand pressing is the traditional way of pressing mashed fruits oil out when the

mash is relatively having low temperature. This is best used for in household kitchen

cooking. It was long realized that traditional pressing or cultural methods were a

bottleneck in small-scale palm oil processing. The process was usually conducted

slowly/fastly (in case of centrifugal) to avoid the huge loss of oil that might result

from inadequate pressing or force. The economic importance of this process was

therefore long recognized and has received the greatest attention for mechanization.

Presses developed over the years have included models such as:

1. Manual vertical screw press

2. Stork hydraulic hand press

3. Motor-jack press

4. Motor-jack/canti-lever press

5. NIFOR, hydraulic hand press

6. Combined screw/hydraulic press

7. Mechanical screw press

8. NIFOR mechanical screw press

9. Manual spindle press

The manual vertical screw press, the stork hydraulic hand press and NIFOR

hydraulic hand press enjoyed the highest patronage in Nigeria for a long time, even

44

though oil loss/fibre ratio for those presses range from 18 – 35 percent because these

presses operation depends on the strength of the operator (in non-automated method).

There are three common issues about the above models – either Screw/spindle

press or hydraulic press. They guarantee relative efficiency, productivity and

maximal extraction of oil from fruit fibre (NIFOR, 2009). Sequel to the above

reasons, the mechanism of screw spindle/press and hydraulic press are to be described

here briefly.

b (1) Hydraulic press

In the hydraulic press, the downward pressure of the press ram is transmitted

via the press cake through the nuts and fibre. The press cage is cylindrical and with

perforated holes on it. This is the manually operated press used in small-scale mills

and the automated press used in the large medium scale mills. Automatic hydraulic

presses are effectively used to process fruit with a proportion of nuts to pericarp of

about 30% (nuts to fibre ratio of 35:65) where the percentage of nuts falls to around

20% as may commonly be found in modern tenera material the current choice would

be for screw presses. AGRICA in Ghana introduced the use of manually operated

hydraulic presses to Ghana and Nigeria from India to complement the mechanical

digester though presses have frequent presses seals problem leading to wearing of

hydraulic cylinder.

b (2) Screw press

The screw press is a very simple and easily operated equipment. It comprises of

a helical screw turning within a perforated cage. It exerts gradually increasing

pressure on the press cake as it is screwed down towards a loaded or precet cone,

45

which permits eggress from the press only after the requite pressure has been applied.

The main disadvantage of screw presses has been the amount of nuts broken and

kernels lost when sufficient pressure is applied to reduce oil losses on fibre to an

acceptable level. When mainly tenera type fruits are processed, nut breakage ceases to

be a problem. Another problem with screw press is the rapid wear of the screw, this

can be addressed thoroughly by use of harder metals for construction. The NIFOR

mechanical screw-press is the latest used by the small-scale palm oil processing

industry in Nigeria. This consists of a perforated tube inside which a transport screw

rotates. The press outlet is more or less closed by a cona that regulates the pressing

pressure. The worm transports and gradually compresses the macerated fruit.

Released oil drains through the perforations in the tube. Trials have shown that the

press can handle over 1 tonne FFB per hour with an average oil loss to fibre of 10.7

percent.

b(3) Manually operated screw spindle press

It is a kind of screw press manufactured by the University of Science and

Technology, Kumasi, Ghana in early seventies in efforts to deliver a low cost press to

the smaller village processors with small patches of palm farms. It operates little

screw press (with narrow cage) to deliver low pressures and relies on manual labour

for pressure developments.

The through-put is about 50kg per hour or 1.5 tonnes per day. The spindle

press is mounted in between an inverted “U” shaped stand attached to a container at

the bottom to collect oil.

46

6. Crude oil clarification

The oil recovered from pressing needs to be clarified before it can be consumed.

According to (NIFOR, 2000) clarification involves the removal of dirt, water and other

impurities from the oil. This is done in the clarifier, a specially built container consisting;

a) the crude oil tank where the oil from the press is first vigorously boiled after

adding hot water to reduce its viscosity. The dilution ratio of two crude oil to

one of water is commonly used. Separation takes place better at a temperature

of 900c

, boiling should be avoided because it promotes the formation of

emulsions. Pre heaters are used to raise the temperature of the crude oil at the

boiling chamber;

b) a settling compartment where the sludge fraction is separated and eliminated.

This is controlled by some valves.

c) a cleaning/drying tank compartment for further elimination of dirt and water.

The two compartments are connected by means of a pipe and control valve;

and

d) there are also two chimneys in the equipment. Each chimney is fitted with a

butterfly valve (or damper valve), which enables the chimney to be isolated from the

furnace. The temperature of the chimney is controlled by opening or closing this

valve. The arrangement in the clarifier makes it possible for the mixture of oil, sludge,

and water to be transferred into the settling tank compartment while it is still being

boiled at 900c

in the boiling compartment.

From the settling compartment the oil is recovered and transferred by water

displacement into the heat exchanger where it is dried. The clarifier thus functions as a

continuous clarifying unit complete with a cleaning and drying system. Big clarifier

47

e.g. NIFOR can handle oil produced in one day from 2 tonnes of FFB. This is

equivalent to 0.25 tonnes FFB/hour or 12 tonnes FFB/hour per annum from 50

hectares. The oil thus refined is stored in drums, tankers, tins or bottles ready for sale.

The recent innovation of small-scale improved oil extraction technologies

(equipment and machines) has reduced the threat presented to women’s income which

large modern mills establishment posed earlier. Now the women and men alike can

process their palm fruits to derive oil, nuts and other by-products directly. This was

not so with large modern mills (pioneer oil mills) where fruits were sent to and

husbands received money for oil directly. This deprived the women of their income

from palm “Kernel” sales which traditionally was women’s personal reward for

processing oil palm fruits. The small-scale technologies have improved the income of

individual processors especially women and relieved them of some of their arduous

tasks. The technologies at small-scale had enabled raw materials owners to process

raw materials (rather than sell them for instant cash) and this general a greater income.

In developed economies, palm oil has vast food uses and non-food uses as a

result o refinery capabilities. Food uses include cooking oil, deep frying oil

(vegetable oil), margarine and spreads, bakery fats, cocoa butter alternative fats,

confectionary fats, ice cream fats, infant nutrition fats and other food applications.

The non-food uses include cosmetics and personal care, soaps, candles,

pharmaceuticals, lubricants and grease, surfactants, industrial chemicals, agro-

chemicals, coatings, paints, and lacquers, electronics oils, leather and biodiesel

48

7. Disposal of the oil mill effluent

Pollution problems arise in the disposal of sterilizer condensate and sludge

after clarification. The oil and solid content makes the sludge very

objectionable since it emits a very strong and disagreeable smell as breakdown

via microbiological activity takes place. A common disposal method is the use

of a series of sludge pits. The amount of solid material decreases in each

successive pit as water and dirt sink to the bottom and the lighter oil at the top.

Surface is held by a partition. This oil is sold as technical quality palm oil and

is used for soap manufacture.

Table 2: Summary of palm oil processing unit operations

Unit Operation Purpose

1. Fruit fermentation To loosen fruit base from spiklets and to allow ripening

processes to abate

2. Bunch chopping To facilitate manual removal of fruits.

3. Fruit sorting To remove and sort fruit from spiklets

4. Fruit boiling To sterilize and stop enzymatic spoilage, coagulate

protein and expose microscopic oil cells.

5. Fruit digestion To rupture oil bearing cells to allow oil flow during

extraction while separating fibre from nuts

6. Mash pressing To release fluid palm oil using applied pressure on

ruptured cellular contents.

7. Oil purification To boil mixture of oil and water to remove water soluble

gums and resins in dry decanted oil by further heating.

8. Fruit nut separation To separate de-oiled fibre from palm nut

9. Second pressing stock To recover residual oil for use as soap stock

10. Nut drying To sundry nuts for later cracking.

Essential precautions in processing palm fruits

1. Fruits should not be wounded during harvesting, transportation to the mill and

during feeding of bunches to the mill.

2. Fruits should be harvested when they are just ripe, over ripening should be

avoided.

49

3. The barest minimum time internal should be allowed between harvesting and

processing (sterilization).

4. The processing system must ensure that the material remains at high

temperature through out period of processing.

5. Processed oil must be stored in clean, dry and sterilized containers

According to Okonkwo (2010) quality control in oil palm mills is indispensable

in all products derivable from the fruits. In order to ensure such a high quality, it is

standard practice to attach a quality control laboratory to palm oil mills. The main

functions of the laboratory are to analyze the major products for their quality

characteristics. The palm oil is analyzed for its moisture content in standard laboratory

set up, FFA content, (by titration against sodium hydroxide) and iodine value. The

palm kernel is analyzed for amount of pieces of shell, broken kernel, whole kernel,

moisture and FFA content. If these processing conditions of palm oil and palm kernel

oil are maintained, oil of both will maintain their qualities NIFOR (2009). At the

moment in Nigerian, there is no policy regulating the activities of the oil palm

processors in order to ensure that products sold to consumers are of good quality and

safe for consumption. However, if there is policy regulating the activities of oil palm

processors, there is obvious need for the enforcement of its implementation in the oil

palm processing industry. The opinion in this paper is that agricultural extension can

help to formulate or enforce such policies and help to implement them.

2.5 Expected role of extension

Extension is among the publicly-funded systems established by government

and non governmental organizations to improve the conditions of life and well being

50

of rural and urban populations and to increase agricultural productivity to better the

life of rural and urban dwellers (Peterson, 1997). Specifically agricultural extension

can be viewed from the aim which extension service strives to accomplish. According

to Asiabaka (2002) the aim of agricultural extension is to teach rural and urban

clientele how to determine their problems using their own resources. The oil palm

industry makes its contribution by utilizing, processing and adding value to

agricultural produce. Thus, it is a stakeholder in sustaining agricultural development.

However, extension in Nigeria has focused on farmers and rural farm families in their

various programmes to the neglect of the agro-processing industry including the oil

palm processing industry.

The technology utilization component encompasses the users of agricultural

technology not only farmers but also agro-processors. User awareness, adaptation and

adoption of improved technology from various sources should be pursued by

extension in the oil palm processing industry to improve productivity and ultimately

economic growth at individual and national level.

Government and private extension should be involved in the transfer of

knowledge, skills, information and inputs to the oil palm processing industry. The

challenging for extension in the context of sustainable agricultural development is

how to help the oil palm processing industry make better use of resources-physical,

human, and capital so as to improve their performance not just as individual

processors but by action taken as a group (Rolling and Pretty, 1997).

51

In this approach, sustainability is not a scientific ‘hard’ property, which can be

measured according to some objective scale or a set of practices to be fixed in time

and space. Rather, sustainability is a quality that emerges when people individually or

collectively apply their intelligence to maintain the long-term productivity of natural

resources on which they depend (Sriskandarjah 1991). In oil palm processing industry,

the processors association (national and state) becomes the platform for group action

which extension will necessarily need to collaborate with during programme planning

and implementation. This is in line with Ofoka (2000) where the use of oil palm

farmers associations was made to reach out to the farmers who through team work

were able to adopt improved oil palm seedlings and received incentives and

subsidized inputs from the state government.

2.6 Constraints to the development of improved oil palm production and

processing technological capabilities

UNCTAD’s 2007, report on the least developed countries (including Nigeria)

stated that these countries domestic firms and farms have low technological

capabilities, undeveloped skills, and ineffective or lack of domestic institutions which

could support technology acquisition and diffusion. The report noted that agricultural

productivity is low, but the population is rising and farm sizes are declining.

Similarly, UNCTAD (2003) identified physical infrastructure, skills, financing,

market, technology and supply dusters as the factors affecting technology

development in Africa. Other constraints include lack of access to improved seeds,

fertilizers, and pesticides as well as the knowledge and information to use them

effectively and efficiently (FAO, 2007).

52

According to ATPS (2003) in appropriate packaging of technology and

information, lack of participation by recipients in the knowledge generation process,

abrupt or lack of funding continuity, and inefficient or inappropriate markets and

institutions are some of the bottlenecks to successful transfer of technology.

Furthermore, Asoegwu and Asoegwu (2007) note that a major constraint to

agricultural production in Nigeria is lack of labour-saving devices for field operations,

harvesting and processing.

In case of improved oil palm production and processing technological

capabilities, (NIFOR, 1990) identified pests and disease problems, farmers lack of

interest, ignorance of improved production methods amongst farmers, input limitation,

poor pricing of produce, lack of access to credit facilities and lack of infrastructural

facilities as factors that militate against optimum production of oil palms in Nigeria.

Agwu (2006) also agrees with NIFOR in some areas by identifying high cost of agro-

chemicals (insecticides and herbicides), high cost of fertilizers, unavailability of

fertilizers and high cost of labour to carry out necessary farming operations as

hindrance to improved oil palm production.

In oil palm processing, high cost of processing palm fruits in mechanized mills,

unavailability of labour to carryout necessary processing operations and unavailability

of enough mechanized mills in some areas where oil palms are located constitute

factors that militate against oil palm fruit processing (Agwu, 2006).

2.7 Conceptual framework for the study of technological capabilities of

mechanical oil palm processing industry

The conceptual framework for studying the technological capabilities of

mechanical oil palm processors in Anambra State is shown in Fig 3. The

53

technological capabilities include investment, production, linkage, minor change,

strategic marketing and major change capabilities and learning mechanisms or

learning processes. Through investment, the operators of the oil palm industry acquire

these capabilities to varying degrees. Through learning mechanisms or learning

processes, the other six technological capabilities are improved and developed. The

level of success of the industry is dependent on these seven capabilities. The ability to

develop and improve determines the technological development of the oil palm

processing industry. This varies among enterprises. Inability to develop and improve

the existing technological capabilities creates needs and gaps. It also results into errors

and distortions in the technological capabilities.

In order to determine the technological capabilities existing and lacking in the

mechanical oil palm processing industry, the enterprise level survey design model

(Marsden, K. and Garzia, M. 1998) was used. Enterprise survey model is a

questionnaire that contains structured and semi-structured questions which are

designed and administered to the different processors during the interview. The

technological capabilities of the mechanical oil palm processors in relation to what

were expected of them were identified. Based on the findings of the study in chapter

four, the extension implications of the technological capabilities of mechanical oil

palm processors were determined.

In summary, the conceptual framework tended to identify the expected technological

capabilities (investment, production, minor and major changes, linkages, strategic marketing

and learning) of oil palm processors in relation to what were existing among them through

the process of learning. Hence, their influencing gaps, needs, errors and lacks were identified

during the study for the policy statement which they (the processors) should note to direct

54

their roles in the development of their technological capabilities in the oil palm processing

industry to satisfy the consumers (household users of Technical Palm Oil (TPO), commercial

users of TPO and Industrial users of Special Palm Oil (SPO) and Palm Kernel Oil (PKO).

Box “A” contains the oil palm processing industry making up of fully

automated mill and semi-automated mill processors, non –automated mill who

are expected to acquire the technological capabilities in Box “B” ,

Box “B” contains the expected oil palm processing technological

capabilities which the processors should acquire through process of leaning

mechanisms.

Box “C” contains the acquired and existing technological capabilities

among the processors which are used in comparison to the expected

technological capabilities at the enterprise level.

Box “D” exposes the areas of technological capabilities which the

processors lacked, needed, gaped and errored in that call for acquisition and

correction in order to enhance expected success in their oil palm processing

enterprises.

Box “E” brings in the policy makers who would make policy statements

based on the findings of the study for stakeholders in oil palm processing

enterprises

Box “F” contains the processors (mill operators, managers and floor

workers) who must adhere to the policy statement of policy makers in other to

55

acquire and improve their technological capabilities in oil palm processing

enterprises.

B C D

A

•

Enterprise

level

Learning

processes

Fig. 3: Schema for the study of the technological capabilities of mechanical oil palm processing

industry in Anambra State, Nigeria

The oil palm

processing industry

Technological

capabilities expected

of the oil palm

processing industry • Investment

• Production

• Linkage

• Minor change

• Strategic marketing

• Major change

* Learning mechanism

Technological

capabilities

existing in the

oil palm

processing

industry

Technological

capabilities

*Lacking

*Needs

*Gaps

*Errors

Policy

implication

for

stakeholders

in oil palm

processing

industry

Mechanical oil

palm processors

*Fully

automated mill

processors

* Semi-

automated mill

processors

* Non-

automated mill

processors Processors

• Mill operators

• Managers

• Floor workers

F

E

56

CHAPTER THREE

3.0 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Study area

The study was carried out in Anambra state, Nigeria. Anambra State which

lies between latitude 5o4

1 and 7

o05

1 North and longitude 6

o31

1and 8

o31

1 East occupies

an area of approximately 5025km (Egboka and Nwafor, 1994). The state has an

estimated population of 4.18 million people (NPC, 2006). The climate is characterized

by uniformly high temperatures and seasonal distribution of rainfall (Osinem, 2005;

Okigbo, 1972). The rainfall pattern begins in April with a steady increase in rain

through August and intense rains during September after which emerges decreasing

rain which stops in October and November. The inhabitants of the rural communities

are mainly farmers producing staple food crops such as cassava, yam, pear, raffia

palm, mangoes, cashew, oil palm, oil bean, african breadfruit, Ogbono, guava e.t.c.

The state has four agricultural zones namely; Aguata, Anambra, Awka and Onitsha

which are further divided into extension blocks and circles. Also, the inhabitants are

engaged in tradings and other industrial activities eg. fabrication of agro-equipment

and artesanal workmanships, processing of palm fruits and kernels etc.

57

Anambra State

Fig. 4: Map of Nigeria showing 36 states and F.C.T.

Source: http://www.maplibrary.org/stacks/Africa/Nigeria/Anambra/index.php.

58

Fig. 5: Map of Anambra State showing deriveable agricultural and natural

resources.

Thick line is the areas covered by study.

Source: Anambra State Ministry of Agriculture (MOA, 2012)

59

3.2 Population and sampling procedure

All mechanical oil palm processors and consumers in Anambra State

constituted the population. The processors were classified into mill operators, mill

managers and floor workers according to their functional activities. A multi-stage

sampling procedure was used to select samples of mechanical oil palm processors.

The multi-stage sampling procedure was based on the existing four agricultural zones

namely: Aguata, Anambra, Awka and Onitsha. According to Small Holder

Management Unit (SMU) of Ministry of Agriculture report (2010), there were 1,250

oil palm farmers, 300 processors, 15 industrial mills, 200 automated small-scale

processing equipment, 48 hydraulic presses and 350 screw presses in Anambra state.

There were also poorly co-ordinated Oil Palm Farmers Association (OPFs) and Oil

Palm Produce Association (PPAs) in some of the Extension Blocks (EBs) in Anambra

state. Anambra State Agricultural Development Programme (ADP) has it that there

are 21 LGAs, 21 extension blocks (EBs) and 177 circles (ADP, 2012).

The above information stood as over all population for the study. Based on the

concentration of mechanical oil palm processing mills, three agricultural zones were

purposively selected, namely; Aguata, Awka and Onitsha. Two extension blocks

(EBs) were purposively selected from each agricultural zone for the same reason of

concentration of processors making a total of six EBs. The six selected extension

blocks included, Aguata, Anaocha, Awka South, Ekwusigo, Idemili South and Nnewi

North.

60

Similarly, a purposive selection of four (4) circles in each EB was done and a

list of two oil mills, two mill owner/operators, two processing managers, two floor

workers and two consumers was selected in each circle. Subsequently, 48 oil mills,

48 mill owner/operators, 48 processing managers, 48 floor workers were selected

using purposive sampling technique to get a total of 144 respondents for the study.

The summary of sampling frame is presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Summary of composition of population and sample size

Respondents

Anambra

State

Agric.

Zone

Extension

blocks

Circles Oil

mills

Mill

operators

Processing

manager

Floor

workers

Grand total

of

respondents

Aguata 2 8 16 16 16 16

Awka 2 8 16 16 16 16

Anambra - - - - - -

Onitsha 2 8 16 16 16 16

Total 6 24 48 48 48 48

Grand total of respondents 48 48 48 144

3.3 Data collection

Data were collected from both primary and secondary sources. The instrument

for primary data collection was a modified enterprise level interview schedule that

contained structured and semi structured questions (Marsden and Garzia, 1998; in

Enwere 2006). Four different interview schedules were designed and administered to

oil mill owner/operators, processing managers, and processing floor workers in order

to obtain relevant information from them. Additional information were collected

through direct observation of activities, equipment and environment of the oil palm

61

processing mills and by participations in mill operations. Information about some

advertisement and strategic marketing gimmicks were collected from sign boards and

distribution vans.

The interview schedule was divided into four sections for the respondents.

Section 1 sought information on the socio-economic profile (characteristics) of the

enterprises/processors. Section 2 was on description of available technologies to the

processing respondents. Section 3 sought information on technological capabilities of

the respondents in terms of investments, production, linkage, minor and major

changes, strategic marketing and learning mechanisms. Section 4 identified the

factors influencing the development of technological capabilities of respondents.

3.4 Measurement of variables

Objective 1: Information on the socio-economic characteristics of the

enterprise, processors, (mill owners/operators, processing managers and processing

floor workers) was measured thus:

Enterprise socio-economic characteristics

Business name/address: With exception of managers and floor workers, the

mill owners/operators were required to give their business names and addresses.

Organizational structure: The processing managers were required to indicate

how many departments they have, and rationale for creating them.

Management functions: The processing managers were required to indicate

what functions they perform whether planning, evaluating, organizing, decision

making, monitoring, controlling and all of the above. The processing managers were

required to indicate whether they delegated duties or authorities to their subordinates

62

and how, recruitment procedures and type of worker they prefered to recruit, and good

communication channels adopted.

Year of establishment: Mill owner/operators or managers were asked the

actual year of starting/establishing the business.

Sources of enterprise Labour: The mill owner/operators and processing

managers were asked to state sources of their labour for production. On the basis of

their responses, the sources were grouped into 3 thus: family, hired, and family/hired.

Type of employment: The processing managers and floor workers were

required to indicate whether they were employed on permanent or temporal basis. No

of workers employed and areas trained in, were required also.

Number of employees: The mill owner/operators were required to state the

number of workers working with them in mill operations. While the managers were

required to state the total number of workers in the entire processing enterprise.

Estimated monthly income: All the respondents were required to state or

estimate monthly income accruing to them.

Processors (Objective 1)

Sex: The sex of all the respondents was recorded at nominal levels as 1 and 2

for male and female, respectively.

Age: All the respondents gave their actual ages in years.

Marital status: Nominal levels of 1, 2, 3, 4 for married, widowed, divorced

and single, respectively were used to measure the marital status of all the respondents.

Educational levels: The respondents were measured by requesting them to

state their highest level of educational attainment and the basis of their response was

63

grouped into five categories viz: no formal education, (NFE), First School Leaving

Certificate (FSLC), Secondary Education (SE), Tertiary Education (TE), (OND, NCE,

HND, First degree) and Higher degrees (MSc. and Ph.D).

Years of experience: Respondents were asked to specify number of years they

have worked in the enterprise.

Number of people living in a household: The respondents such as

mill/operators, managers and floor workers were required to state the number of

people living in their households.

Objective 2: Sought to describe the available technologies of key actors. The

respondents were asked to mention the technologies they have acquired/adopted. The

mill owner/operators were asked to indicate the types of processing system (that is

whether fully automated, semi automated and or non-automated) they were using.

They were required to mention the different components involved in the system they

are using such components could be: use of sterilizer, stripper, digester, pressing

machine, clarifier, type of engine being used to operate the equipment and effluent

disposal pits. The processing managers were asked similar questions as in the case of

mill owner/operators while floor workers who worked under mill owner/operators and

managers. .

Objective 3: Sought information on technological capabilities of the

respondents.

Investment: Was measured by requesting for the investment made within 3

years in the enterprise of oil palm processing as mill owner/operators, processing

managers and processing floor workers. The investments were on machinery

64

(equipment) or human resource development. As investment is represented by project

execution activities including feasibility studies, equipment search, assessment of

equipment, employee training, all respondents were asked to itemize investments

their enterprises had made in terms of equipment and human resources within last

three years. For human resources (development), they specified the number of staff

with their qualifications, the type of training on processing of oil palm fruits,

maintenance training and amount invested into such trainings.

Production capability: Involved the skills and knowledge needed for the

efficient operation in the maintenance of equipment during production and timely

monitoring of processes during processing of oil palm fruits by processors. The mill

owner/operators were asked to indicate the quantity of fresh fruit bunch (FFB) their

machine/equipment could process at a time/process, method of heating the palm fruits

– that is either sterilizer use or local heating in drums, whether they used fully

automated, semi-automated or non automated methods in processing, how they stored

their oil, whether they underwent analysis of their oil in relation to chemical

composition; or the use of sensory method to measure taste, appearance, shelf life,

flavour, overall quality, texture, colour, mouth feel and congeality. The oil mill owner

and processing managers were asked to indicate likely causes of oil spoilage they

know, how they did their cleaning and disposal of wastes with or without problems.

Minor and major change capabilities: This involves short and long term

improvements and adoptions of equipment and human resources. The mill

owner/operators, managers and floor-workers were required to itemize both minor and

major changes with regards to processing technological capabilities that have taken

65

place in their enterprise/firm within the last three years. They were asked to list and

describe the type and nature of minor and major changes that have been carried out in

relation to equipment design, equipment replacement, method/process, investment,

product, packaging, manufacturer quality control, marketing, communications,

linkages, organization, management and other investments within last three years.

Strategic marketing: This involved knowledge and skill required for

collecting marketing intelligence, development of new markets, establishment of

distribution channels and provision of consumer services. The respondents were

asked to state marketing channels they used in marketing their products. The strategic

management function of marketing between the processors and consumers were

asked. With the exception of others, only managers were asked to also list and

describe methods for collection of information about customer/consumers needs and

complaints and promotions/advertisement of their products.

Linkage capability: The mill owner/operators and managers were asked to

indicate the type linkage capabilities among themselves and with external sources.

Nominal levels of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 for direct, indirect, vertical, horizontal, internal

and external, respectively were used to measure the linkage type that existed among

the processors and other external actors such as sellers of equipment, technology

transfer group, extension agents (government or individual), consumers, markers,

farmers etc). The respondents ticked against the type of linkage that applied to them.

Frequency counts and percentage were used to determine the type of linkage.

Learning mechanisms capabilities: The mill owner/operators, floor workers

and processing managers were asked to list and describe the type of formal education

66

non-formal education, private support learning mechanisms received from private

organizations, and collective support learning mechanisms from different government

and non-government institutions in the last three years. The managers and mill

operators were asked to indicate what they have learnt to be the causes of low quality

oil.

Objective 4: Factors (constraints) that influence the technological capabilities

development of the actors. Such factors included: poor linkage with other

stakeholders/actors, no price control, poor financing, poor infrastructures policy, poor

environmental regulations, inflation, crime and theft, lack of labour, unavailability of

equipment, finance, no water supply, poor marketing/distribution of products,

consumers attitude/complaints, spoilage, storage facilities, no preservative measures,

power outage, poor quality of production and factory space etc. The respondents were

asked to respond to the above possible factors using a four-point Likert type of scale

of “to a great extent” (4), “to some extent (3)”, to a little extent (2)” and “to no extent

(1)”. The mean value of 2.5 was used to determine the factors. Variables that have a

mean value of 2.5 and above were considered as factors that influence technological

capability development and those below 2.5 were not. For policy relevance, data were

further subjected to exploratory factor analysis procedure using the principal factor

model with varimax in grouping the influencing factors (Cornrey 1962). Only

variables with loadings of 0.4 and above (10% overlapping variance) were used in

naming the factors.

67

3.5 Data analysis

The data from the study were analyzed with mean scores and factor analysis

and the results presented in percentages.

Objective one was analysed using percentage and mean to identify socio-

economic characteristics of the mechanical oil palm enterprise/processors. Objective

two was analysed using descriptive statistics. Objective three was analysed using

percentage and mean to examine the respondents technological capabilities. Objective

four was analysed using mean scores and factor analysis.

Version 16.0 of the Statistical Product for Service Solution (SPSS) software

was used for the analysis.

68

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 Results and Discussions

Results of the study are presented as follows:

* Socio-economic characteristics of enterprise/processors

* Description of available technologies to the processors

* Mechanical oil palm processing technological capabilities (investment, minor

and major changes, production, strategic marketing, linkage and learning) of

processors.

* Factors influencing the development of technological capabilities of

processors.

4.1 Socio-economic characteristics of mechanical oil palm fruits processing

enterprise

Information on the above title were responses from either mill operators (MOs)

and or processing managers (PMs). Names and addresses of the oil mills are

presented in Appendix 1(one)

Ages of the oil mills are given in Table 4. Age of enterprises ranged from1 - 10

years (35.4%), 16 - 25 years (31.2%) and 26 - 30 years (10.4%). The oldest oil mill,

which is located in Oraifite was 52 years as at the time of the study. All the oil mills

studied had management, mill operation and oil production units (100%). The only

rationale for creating the various units was for ease of function. The mill operators

were responsible for operation of the machines and equipment, the managers were for

management while floor workers were for production activities.

69

The structure of an organization is the manner in which the various sub-units

are arranged and inter-related. It is the institutional arrangements and mechanisms for

mobilizing human, physical and information resources at all levels of the system. It is

used in the division of work into activities, linkage between different functions,

hierarchy, and authority structure and relationships and co-ordination (Sachedeva,

1990; Robins and Judge, 2007).

The mode of service for the oil mills was 97.9% for personal and public

services and 2.1% for personal services only. This shows that all except one oil mill

engaged in commercial services to the public in processing oil palm fruits in addition

to their personal services. The respondents said they engaged in commercial services

to the public in order to break even and make more profits.

Table 4: Percentage distribution of mills based on age, organizational structure

and mode of service

Characteristics Percentage (n = 48) Mean

Age 1 – 5 8.3

6 – 10 27.1

11 – 15 12.5

16 – 20 10.4 15.8

21 – 25 20.8

26 – 30 10.4

Above 30 10.4

*Organizational structure (units) in the oil mill

industry

Management for managers 100.00

Mill operation for mill operators 100.00

Oil production for the floor workers 100.00

Rationale for creating units

Function 100.00

Mode of service

Personal services only 2.1

Personal and public services 97.9

*Multiple responses

70

Management and communication in oil mill enterprises

Data in Table 5 show that management of oil mills studied was in the hands of

owners or delegated family members (62.5%) and employed managers (37.5%).

Managers are the people who see that things are done by themselves or through other

people. In mechanical oil palm fruit processing, there were about 62.5% of

respondents who functioned as both managers and mill owners and 52% of them were

managers who actually performed functions either as mill operators or oil production

workers. Other managers (37.5%) took part in general work especially where the

employers were engaged in commercial production of palm oil. Although there were

few manager/owners (10.5%) who did not actually perform the work, but they were

usually responsible for successful completion of work (Nzeoma, 2000; Bererlien et al.,

1995).

The managers’ management functions which the respondents said they were

involved in included planning (50%), evaluation (41.6%), organizing (72.9%),

decision making (37.5%), monitoring (83.3%) and controlling (93.75%). Those who

said they performed all of the above functions were 4.2%. However, they also

delegated authorities, and guidelines for delegation of duties or authorities to

subordinates were; on result expected (89.6%), task to be done (95.8%), open line of

communication (62.5%) and family members (58.3%). Controlling all the workers

and activities was mainly to maintain peace among workers, prevent damage of

equipment and increase production.

71

Types of worker

Types of worker in mechanical oil palm fruits processing included; full time

workers (20.8%), part-time workers (47.9%) and family members (31.3%) Table 5.

These are employees who did work in the oil mills on daily or monthly basis or in

kind as in the case of family workers who might get their pay (reward) through

payment of school fees for their wards or in feeding and clothing.

Methods of communication

Methods of communication used in the oil mill are shown in Table 5. On the

whole, briefing (83.3%), GSM phone calls (79.2%) and personal discussion (41.6%)

were prominent methods. Communication through other workers (20.0%) was less

used.

Communication is a basic element in an organizational structure and function.

It is the key mechanism for achieving integration and co-ordination of the activities of

the specialized units at different levels in an organization (Asopa and Beye, 1997).

According to (Fisher, 1982; Adedoyin 2011), communication is the basis of society

for effective communication flow and it should be a multilateral process.

Staff recruitment in oil mill enterprise

Staff recruitment procedure in oil mill is given in Table 5. The advertisement

of vacancies was done mainly through the processing fruit owners who recruited

floor-workers (43.8%), and through present employees (25%). Further, staff

recruitment was done through friends and neighbours (14.6%), unsolicited applicants

(10.4%) and notice boards (6.2%) which was used in less important level. According

to Bererlien et al (1995), word of mouth (that is announcing vacancies to employees

72

and other people) can be a valuable method for advertising a job. This is particularly

important and less expensive method for small businesses such as oil mill industry.

Consideration for filling vacancies

The conditions for filling vacancies were; no preference (41.7%), no

experience (37.5%) and previous experience (20.8%). Some works/tasks require no

preference to either male or female, hence no gender barrier or experience was

required before one is employed and such tasks include cooking of fruit, manual fibre

separation, cleaning of the equipment, hewing of fire wood and cooking of oil for

clarification. Workers without experience are given on-the-job training as they start

work. The jobs that need previous experience and gender preference border on

operation of machines and equipment with routine maintenance.

73

Table 5: Percentage distribution of mills based on management and

communication in oil mill enterprising

Management and communication Percentage *(n = 48)

Manager/mill owner 62.5

Manager (employed) 37.5

Manager/owner who performed work and mill operation 52.0

Managers management functions Planning 50.0

Evaluation 41.6

Organizing 72.9

Decision making 37.5

Monitoring 83.3

Controlling 93.75

All of the above 4.2

Delegation of authority

Guides for delegation of authority to subordinates Result expected 89.6

Task to be done 95.8

Open line of communication 62.5

Family member 58.3

Types of worker Hired full-time workers 20.8

Hired part-time workers 47.9

Family members 31.3

Methods of communication to workers

Briefing 83.3

Personal discussion 41.6

Phone calls 79.2

Through other workers 20.8

Staff recruitment procedures

Through present employers 25.0

Notice boards 6.2

Through friends and neighbours 14.6

Unsolicited applicants 10.4

Processing fruit owners recruit floor-workers 43.8

Consideration for filling vacancies

No preference of gender 41.7

Previous experience 20.8

No experience 37.5

* Multiple responses

74

Average number of workers

Majority (83.3%) of oil mill enterprises employed 6 – 10 workers while 8.4%

employed 1 – 5 persons. The mean number of workers was 8 persons. Also 8.3% of

the enterprise employed 11 – 15 persons. The workers comprised of fulltime workers,

part time or casual workers and family members in proportion of what was discussed

in types of worker (Table 5). This implies that oil palm mill industry is a small scale

business. According to Akwuodo (2006) small scale industry is one that has 11 – 100

workers or a total amount of money of not more than N50 million including working

capital. The number of workers in an enterprise depended on the available equipment

mechanized (less workers), firm size and infractural developments. Manpower,

otherwise known as human resource, employee, worker, personnel and staff is an

active part of production. Man has to do the thinking, invention and operation of

machine and so human resource constitutes the ultimate basis for production

(Harbison, 1982 in Enwere, 2001). Therefore, the type of employee by the processing

enterprises will determine their success or failure.

Table 6: Percentage distribution of mills based on number of workers

Workers Percentage

(n = 4.8)

Mean

1 – 5 8.4

6 – 10 83.3 8.0

11 – 15 8.3

Above 15 0.0

75

4.2 Socio-economic characteristics of mechanical oil palm processors

The socio-economic characteristics of human resources in oil palm processing

enterprises are given in Table 7. The human resources studied included oil mill

operators, managers, floor workers and consumers. Human resource is at the centre of

all the technological capabilities. They have to acquire the skill, knowledge and

experience required for investment, production, changes (minor and major), marketing

and linkage (Adeboye and Clark, 1996; Barry, 2000). It is also important to know

how the nature and quality of the human resources in the oil palm processing

enterprise affect all the other technological capabilities. Manpower is therefore, the

catalyst that makes all the other resources fail or succeed (Osuji, 1992 in Enwere,

2001).

Sex

Data in Table 7 show that all the mill operators (100%) were males. Also,

majority (79.2%) of mill managers were males while 20.8% were females and

majority (95.8%) of floor workers were females. These findings show that females

were favoured in mill operation tasks that involved lifting of palm fruits into

sterilizer/digester, operation of heavy running machines such as digesters, presses and

fibre separators and or nut crackers as the case may be. In the management of mill,

managers are involved in tedious and energy expending works which on the contrary,

managers in bakery industries are not but to see that floor workers and supervisors did

the work under their instructions and monitoring (Enwere,. 2001). The finding on

floor workers agrees with Enewre’s (2000) finding where females dominated the work

force in soymilk enterprises in Nsukka Urban. This may be attributed also to the

76

nature of work done such as cooking of palm fruits, manual fibre separation, washing

of equipment/containers, cooking of crude oil for clarification, packing of oil, fibres,

nuts and other containers used in the oil mills etc which are socially and traditionally

regarded as females’ work.

Age (years)

Entries in Table 7 show that 36.5% of the processing managers (PMs) were

between the ages of 41 – 50 years and 20.5% above 60 years. The mean age was 46.2

years. The data for the ages of mill operator (MOs) show that majority (54.1%) of

them were within the age range of 31 – 50 years, 18.8% of them within the age range

of 51 – 60 years and about 12.6% were with the age range of 26 – 35 years. The mean

age was 43.62 years. The age of floor workers (FWs) ranged from ≤ 20 – 60 years.

The majority (68.8%) of FWs ranged between 26 – 40 years and 17.0% of them also

fell between the age range of 41 – 50 years. The mean age was 36 - 76 years.

The fact that the mean ages of the PMs, MOs and FWs were 46.6, 43.6 and

36.7 years, respectively implies that the processors were matured people. Hence they

should be able to take rational decisions and appreciate the importance of their work

and environment in terms of development of technological capabilities. This implies

also that the processors were still within their middle age as well as active years to do

their works effectively. The above findings agree with the findings of Enwere (2001)

where mean ages of the processors of bakery industry fall between 40 – 50 years.

Marital status

Data in Table 7 also show that majority (91.7%) of the mill operators (MOs)

were married while very few (3.3%) were single, majority (79.2%) of the processing

77

managers (PMs) were males while 20.8% were females, majority (91.7%) of the floor

workers (FWs) were married, 6.2% were widows. These findings are in support of the

findings of Okonkwo (2010). In her findings, majority (95.8%) of the processors of

oil palm in Anambra State were married. The finding also portrays sustained

marriages which are regarded as an act of responsibility on part of both make and

female in Anambra State as they divide their time between work and family (Obiora,

2012). This also implies that oil palm processing enterprise is a household sustaining

business to take care of their basic needs (food, shelter and clothing).

Educational status

Entries in Table 7 reveal that half (50%) of MOs obtained West African

Examination Council Certificates, 45.8% obtained First School Leaving Certificates,

2.1% obtained tertiary institution certificates while 2.1% had no formal education.

The PMs (50%) had their secondary education completed, 29.1% had First School

Leaving Certificates, 18.8% had uncompleted secondary education while only 2.1%

had tertiary education (MSc). On the other hand, 47.9% of the FWs were WAEC

holders, 37.5% obtained tertiary education certificates, 10.4% obtained FSLCs while

4.2% did not complete primary school education. It could be inferred from these

findings that about 100%, 97.9% and 95.8% of the PMs, MOs and FWs respectively

had attended formal school and they could be described as literate who could read and

write. Hence, the level of education attained by the respondents is relatively high.

This finding is in agreement with the findings of Okonkwo (2010) and Enwere (2001).

In their findings, they discovered that processors of oil palm fruits and bread in

Anambra State and South Eastern Nigeria respectively, had high level of education.

78

Sheik, Mohammed, Bashir and Kashif (2006) note that high literacy level makes

adoption in the agricultural sector high. This could therefore be an advantage as it

could enhance high level of adoption of technological capabilities/innovations by the

respondents in oil palm processing industry.

79

Table 7: Percentage distribution of oil mill operators, managers, floor workers and consumers

based on socio-economic Characteristics

Socio-economic characteristics

of

processors and

consumers

Mill

operators

(%)

Mean Managers

(%)

Mean Floor

workers (%)

Mean

Sex

Male 100 79.2 4.2

Female 0 20.8 95.8

Age (years)

Up to 25 6.3 0.0 6.6

26 – 30 6.3 2.4 15.5

31 – 35 12.5 0.0 15.5

36 – 40 24.9 18.7 37.8

41 – 45 16.7 0.0 6.6

46 – 50 6.3 43.6 36.5 46.6 10.9 36.7

51 – 55 12.0 0.0 4.4

56 – 60 8.4 21.9 2.2

Above 60 2.1 20.5 0.0

Marital status

Married 91.7 81.3 91.7

Single 8.3 8.3 6.2

Widowed 0.0 10.4 2.1

Education status

Uncompleted FSLC 0.0 0.0 4.2

FSLC completed 45.8 29.1 10.4

Uncompleted secondary

education

0.0 18.8 0.0

Completed secondary education 50.0 50.0 47.9

Tertiary education 2.1 2.1 37.5

No formal education 2.1 0.0 0.0

Household size

1 – 2 20.8 20.8 20.8

3 – 4 45.8 41.6 41.6

5 – 6 25.0 4 31.3 5 31.3 5

7 – 8 8.3 6.3 6.3

Above 8 0.0 0.0 0.0

Cannot assess 0.0 0.0 0.0

Estimated monthly income (N)

≤ N15,000 10.4 37.5 25.0

N15,001 – N30,000 62.5 41.6 20.8

N30,001 – N45,000 12.5 N18,584 4.2 N17,291.67 8.4 N22,843.70

N45,001 –N 60,000 4.2 6.3 16.0

N60,001 – N75,000 0.0 0.0 20.8

Cannot assess 10.4 10.4 8.4

Training in mill operation

Trained before working 12.5

On-the-job training 87.5

Trained in (as managers)

Mill operators 39.6

Management 6.2

Equipment fabrication 10.4

Hydraulic press operation 2.1

Machine/equipment installations 2.1

No formal/informal training 39.6

Employer of labour (mill

operators)

Individuals 33.3

Co-operative society 20.8

Family joint business 4.2

Self employed 41.7

Type of employee (n = 28)

Permanent 35.7

Temporary 28.6

Daily paid 35.7

Types of employee (floor

workers)

Temporary(Daily paid) 22.9

Self employed 77.1

Years of experience

1 – 5 0.0 7.5 45.9

6 – 10 58.3 12.6 24.9 5

11 – 15 0.0 18.8 29.2

16 – 20 22.9 0.0 11.6

21 – 25 0.0 12.5 44.9

26 – 30 8.3 16.2

Above 30 10.5 0.0

Ownership of fruits processed

Owned the fruits 77.1

Did not own the fruits 22.9

Household size (persons)

80

Table 7 reveals that about 45.8% of the MOs had a household size of 3 – 4

persons while 25.0% of them had a household sized of 5 – 6 persons as well as 20.8%

of them had household size of 1 – 2 persons. On the other hand, 41.6% of the PMs

had household size of 3 – 4 persons, 31.3% of them had 5 – 6 persons while 20.8% of

them also had household size of 1 – 2 persons. Data in Table 7 further show that

about 41.6% of the FWs had household size of 3 – 4 persons, 31.3% of them had

household size of 5 – 6 persons, while 20.8% of them had household size of 1 – 2

persons. The average household size for the MOs, PMs and FWs were 4, 5 and 5

persons, respectively.

These findings are in agreement with the findings of Okonkwo (2010). In her

findings, she discovered that processors in Anambra State had moderate household

size. Household size could influence the level and rate of adoption of technological

capabilities. The larger the household size, the more likely the enterprise labour will

be available to enhance the practice of technological capabilities and more mouths to

feed. Also, in consonance with Enwere (2001), processors with large household size

are capable of readjusting to sudden changes in labour supply at peak periods of

labour demand.

Estimated monthly income (N)

Entries in Table 7 show that the estimated income of mill operators MOs

ranged from N15,000 – N45,000 and above N45,000. Majority (62.5%) of the MOs

earned between N15,001 – N30,000 per month, 12.5% of them earned N30,001 –

N45,000, 10.4% of them earn < N15,000 while 4.2% earn above N45,000. Data in

Table 7 further show that about 41.6% of the processing managers (PMs) earned

81

between N15,001 – N30,000, 37.5% earned ≤ N15,000, 6.3% of them earned between

N45,001 – N60,000 while 10.4% could not estimate. Entries in Table 5 further show

that majority (54.1%) of the floor workers (FWs) earned ≤ N45,000 while 37.4%

earned between N40,000 to above N60,000.

The fact that the mean estimated monthly incomes of the MOs, PMs and FWs

were N18,584, N17,291.67 and N22,843.7, respectively, implies that some of the

processors were earning monthly income below the Nigerian minimum wage of

N18,000 only, some of them were earning monthly income within the Nigerian

minimum wage of N18,000 while some earned monthly income slightly above it.

This implies that the processors belong to low income earners which encourages

labour mobility from oil palm processing business to other businesses of greener

pasture. Hence, technological capabilities are influenced negatively in areas of

productions and investments. Some of the processors did not say their estimated

income thinking it would incur tax payment or that the income fluctuated from time to

time and they could not do proper accounting. However, business can not perform

effectively without proper accounting. Accounting is the process of recording,

classifying and summarizing business transactions. The respondents who could not

estimate their incomes should make sure that their basic financial statement for

business control are well handled (Beierlien et al 1995 in Enwere, 2001).

Training in mill operation/trained in (as managers)

Entries in Table 7 show that 87.5% of the MOs were trained as on-the–job

trainees while 12.5% were trained in some other mills before starting work in a new

mill. The same Table 7 further shows that about 39.6% of the processing managers

82

were trained in mill operation. 10.4% were trained in equipment fabrication, 6.2%

were trained in oil mill management while 2.1% and 2.1% were trained in operation

and maintenance of hydraulic press and installation of machines and equipment,

respectively. About 39.6% of the PMs did not have formal or informal training before

starting work. The above findings agree with some of the findings of Enwere (2000)

and Okonkwo (2010). In their findings, on-the-job trainings were used to train

workers in soymilk and oil palm processing in Nsukka urban and Anambra State,

respectively. The on-the-job training of MOs shows that there is no specialized

training institute where formal training could be attained and this may have

implication of wastage of resources or damages of equipment before the MOs master

the skill of operating machine or equipment. The PMs on the other hand who did not

have any training in mill management before becoming managers must have been

trained later as on-the-job trainees implying trial and errors that often resulting in

wastage and damage of resources.

Years of experience

Data in Table 7 show that majority (58.3%) of MOs had ≤ 10 years experience

in mill operation, 22.9% of them had between 10 – 19 years experience, while 10.5%

had 30 years and above experience. The table further shows that 44.9% of the PMs

had between 21 – 25 years experience, 18.8% had between 11 – 15 years, 16.2% had

between 26 – 30 years experience while 12.6% had 6 – 10 years experience in

management of oil mill. The mean years of experience for MOs and PMs were 12.5

year and 11.6 years, respectively. The fact that the mean years of experience for both

MOs and PMs were 12.5 years and 11.6 years, implies that both MOs and PMs were

83

experienced in oil mill operation and management respectively which by implication

will incur less wastage/damage of working equipment, guarantee proper maintenance

and management of both equipment and human resources.

Employer of labour (mill operators)

Entries in Table 7 show that 41.7% of the MOs were self employed, 33.3% of

them were employed by individuals, 20.8% were employed by co-operative societies

while 4.2% were employed by family joint business. The results above agree with

Enwere (2001) where certain tasks that required moving machineries, high

temperature and high expenditure of energy were given to males alone in bakery

industries. The implication also is that those oil mills owned by females or women

co-operative societies and families employed male workers to do the task of mill

operations for them. It can also be said that female workers were favoured and not

discriminated against. This then, on the other hand posses danger to mechanical oil

palm processing where male workers are not available or the male workers may

decide to demand high pays unreasonably knowing that without them, the mechanical

processing will be influenced adversely.

Types of employee

Data in Table 7 show that among the MO employees, about 35.7% were

employed as permanent workers, 28.6% were employed as temporary workers while

35.7% were daily paid workers. Table 7 further shows that majority (77.1%) of floor

workers were self employed, while 22.9% were temporary daily paid floor workers.

The results about the MOs show classes of non-self employed, the respondents said

that because of peak and off peak periods of oil palm fruiting, the mill operation work

84

is seasonal, resulting to often changes in recruitment of all the above classes of

workers. The results about the FWs might imply that as most of them were self-

employed and owned the fruits, were ready to work for themselves. The temporary

daily paid employees were unsolicited workers who came to seek for job in the

enterprises and were offered job as need arose.

Ownership of palm fruits processed (FWs)

Entries in Table 7 show that 77.1% of the FWs owned the palm fruits

processed. This is might be as a result of public service nature of oil palm processing

industry. The smaller (22.9%) proportion of the respondents could belong to owners

of the mill who employed their own floor workers or did the work themselves.

Description of available technologies to mill operators/floor workers

Technologies here include knowledge embodied in machines, skill of people,

behavioural patterns, and procedures which are not reduced to machines alone.

Available technologies are assessed for mill owner/operators and floor workers.

4.3 Description of available technologies to mill owner/operators

Available oil mill system

Data in Table 8 show that majority (87.4%) of mill operators operated semi-

automated oil mill system, 10.4% operated fully automated oil mill system while 2.2%

of the mill operators operated non-automated milling system. Automated refers to

those equipment or machines that are connected to auto-engines to operate. The

results show that fully automated milling system starts from steam sterilization-

automated digesters - automated press - oil filter (or clarifier tanks) and finally to

automated fibre separator. The semi-automated starts from drum cooking of fruits –

85

automated digesters – automated presses – manual oil filtering to manual fibre

separation. Non-automated implies that the mechanical screw press and any other

equipment are operated manually.

Available equipment/ machines

Data in Table 8 show that the majority (97.9%) of the mill operators had

digester, 10.4% had sterilizer, 45.8% had hydraulic press, 31.3% had jack press,

22.9% had manual screw presses while 29.2% and 2.1% had fibre separator and

stripper respectively. Also, 4.2%, 4.2% and 4.2% of the oil mill operators had lift

(conveyor), nut cracker and welding plant, respectively. The availability of the above

equipment and machines relieve processors of some of their arduous tasks and

improve production efficiency and quantity of palm oil produced.

Combination of equipment/machines in batch system

Entries in Table 8 show that 10.6% of the mill operators combined sterilizer,

digester, hydraulic/jack press and fibre separator (fully automated), 29.8% of the MOs

combined digester, hydraulic/jack press and fibre separator (semi automated), 36.2%

of them combined digester and hydraulic press (semi automated) while 23.4% of them

as well combined digester and hand screw press (semi automated). The proper

combination of equipment is a function of money availability which enhances

investments. Some of the processors bought the equipment at the initial stage of the

business while some bought as money began to accrue from the business. Fully-

automated system is more capital intensive, hence the semi-automated is more

acceptable and patronized.

Available horse power engines used

86

Data in Table 8 show that the mill operators used different horse-power

engines in fully automated mills. It was observed that 4.2% and 4.2% of the mill

operators used 16 – horse power and 17 horse power engines (diesel), respectively

while 2.1% of the mill operators used 12 horse-power engines to operate fully

automated mills. For semi-automated mills, 38.0%, 31.3% and 21.2% of the mill

operators used 12 – horse-power, 10 horse-power and 8 horse-power engines,

respectively. Low throughput equipment and machines use low horsepower engines.

The use of low horsepower engines to run high throughput equipment spoils the

engines, in a short run, hence it is discouraged.

87

Table 8: Percentage distribution of mill operators based on available technologies

to them Available technologies Percentage (n = 48)

Oil mill system operated:

Fully automated oil mill 10.4

Semi-automated oil mill 87.4

Non-automated oil mill 2.2

Equipment/machine:

Sterilizer 10.4

Stripper 2.1

Digester 97.9

Presses:

Hydraulic press 45.8

Jack press 31.5

Handscrew/press 22.9

Fibre/nut separator 29.2

Lift (conveyor) 4.2

Nut cracker 4.2

Welding machine 4.2

Combination of equipment/machines:

Sterilizer, digester, hydraulic/Jack press and fibre separators (full automated) 10.6

Digester, hydraulic/Jack press and fibre separator (semi automated) 29.8

Digester and hydraulic/Jack press (semi automated) 36.2

Digester and hand screw press (semi automated) 23.4

Horse power engine used (diesel):

Fully automated mills

12 – horse power 2.1

16 – horse power 4.2

17 – horse power 4.2

Semi automated mills

8 – horse power engine 21.2

10 - horse power engine 31.3

12 - horse power engine 38.0

88

Plate 1: Fully automated oil mill comprising sterilizer, digester, press, fibre

separator and oil clarification.

(b) Semi automated oil mill comprising cooking drums, digesters, press, manual

fibre separation and oil clarification

89

Plate 2: Fibre separator, jack press, palm fruits cooking drums and manual

removal of fibre/nuts from press

4.4 Description of available technologies to oil mill floor workers

Available oil mill system

Data in Table 9 show that all (100%) of the floor-worker respondents operated

non-automated oil mill.

Type of equipment/tools used

Data in Table 9 show that all (100%) of the floor workers operated the manual

screw press. It was observed that some (77.1%) of the automated and all non-

automated oil mill enterprises used manual screw presses. Those who had automated

presses used manual screw presses to extract oil (2nd

time) from fibre after nuts were

90

separated. This was done most often by the floor workers without involving the

automated mill operators. Most (83.3%) of the floor workers had manual fibre

separators, 100% had crude oil cooking drums, 89.6% fruits cooking drums, 77.1%

had wheel barrows, 100% had iron or plastic buckets, while 37.5% had oil palm

weaven baskets. These are tools the floor workers were using manually in processing

of oil palm fruits which took them more time and energy than the use of automated

equipment.

Table 9: Percentage distribution of floor workers based on available

technologies/tools

Available Technologies Percentage* (n = 48)

Non-automated oil mill 100

Type of equipment/tools used

Screw press 100

Manual fibre separator 83.3

Wheel barrow 77.1

Iron or plastic buckets 100

Earth sunken digestion drums 2.1

Fruits cooking drums 89.6

Crude oil cooking drums 100

Oil palm weaven baskets 37.5

*Multiple responses

91

Plate 3: Non-automated oil mill method showing the use of manual screw

press and manual fibre separator

92

Mechanical oil palm fruits processors’ technological capabilities (investment,

minor change, major change, learning, linkage, production and strategic

marketing)

Investment capability

4.5 Investment capabilities of oil mill operators.

. Figure 6 shows that 75% of the mill owner/operators claimed they had no

capability while 25% had in terms of investment in equipment. The same figure also

shows that (89.6%) had no investment capability while 10.4% had in human resource

development. Investment capabilities are represented by project execution activities

including feasibility studies, equipment acquisition, equipment search, employee

training etc. Hence investment capability was either investment in machinery

(equipment) or human resource development within the last three years of the oil mill

establishment.

This finding indicates that majority of the mill owner/operators have little

investment capability in terms of both equipment and human resources. This implies

that oil mill owner/operators are not adequately prepared in terms of finances for

innovational changes or that the investments made so far in terms of equipment and

human resources are durable investments that do not need changes often (whether

minor or major changes). This result agrees with the findings of Obiora (2012), but is

in contrast with the findings of Enwere (2001) and Oyebisi, Olamide, and Agboola

(2004) where investment capability was found to be high among the bakery and

telecommunications industry, respectively.

93

Figure 6: Percentage distribution of mill owner/operator based on

number that had acquired investment capabilities

Table 10 further shows the investment capability (equipment and human

resource), which the respondents had acquired. Hundred percent (100%) of the

respondents had acquired digester, 50% had acquired hydraulic press, 41.7% had

acquired fibre/nut separator, 25.0% had acquired Jack press, 16.7% had acquired

nutcracker, 16.7% had acquired welding plant while 25.0% invested in construction of

oil mill house. The result implies that investment within the last three years was done

for those equipment needed in the oil mill industry more especially for respondents

that changed from non-automated equipment to automated milling equipment. The

investinent within three years was adopted to take care of minimal number of years

the equipment could stay before developing fault and number of years a worker could

94

step before deicing to move to another profession. The low investment could also be

attributed to long shelf life of processing equipment.

The same table equally shows investment in human resource. It shows that

100% had undergone on-the-job training, which was meant to acquaint them with

skillful operating capability of the machines/equipment.

Table10: Percentage distribution of mill owner/operators based on investment

capability within the last three years

Equipment capability % *(n = 12) Human Resource capability % * (n = 5)

Type of equipment Type of training

Digester 100 On-the-job training 100

Hydraulic press 50.0

Fibre/nut separator 41.7

Jack press 25.0

Nut cracker 16.7

Welding plant 16.7

Construction of mill house 25.0

*Multiple responses

4.6 Investment capability of oil mill managers

Entries in Figure 7 show that 41.6% of the processing managers invested in

equipment capability. The same table also shows that 89.6% did not have investment

capability in human resource development while 10.4% had. The finding also does

not agree with the findings of Enwere (2001) where investment capability was high in

bakery equipment and human resource development. Investment was mainly directed

to equipment they did not have but felt that investing in those equipment or machines

will help alleviate the arduousness associated with crude tools in processing oil palm

fruits.

95

Figure 7: Percentage distribution of oil mill managers based on numbers that had

acquired investment capabilities.

Table 11 further shows the investment capability (equipment and human

resources), which oil mill managers had acquired. One hundred percent (100%) of the

respondents had acquired record books, 100% had acquired motor vehicle, 20.0% had

acquired motor cycle, 30.0% had acquired office table while 75.0% had acquired

chairs. This result shows that there was investment in transportation and office

equipment. The same table shows that 100% of the respondents who said they

acquired investment capability underwent workshop training for management of

equipment and human resources.

96

Table 11: Percentage distribution of oil mill managers based on investment

capability within the last three years

Equipment capabilities %* (n = 20) Human resource %* (n = 5)

Type of equipment Type of training

Record books 100 Workshop/on-the-job 100

Motor-vehicle 100

Motor cycle 25.0

Table 30.0

Chairs 75.0

* Multiple responses

4.7 Investment capability of floor workers within the last three years

Entries in figure 8 show that only 14.6% of the floor workers invested in

acquisition of human resource development. There was no investment acquisition of

equipment among the floor workers. This result shows that though the floor workers

acquired investment in training, it was very poor.

97

Fig. 8: Percentage number of floor the floor workers that had acquired investment capabilities

Entries in Table 12 show that 100% acquired investment capability in

operation of manual screw press while 100% acquired manual operated fibre

separator,. This result implies that the investment acquisition of floor workers for

human resource development was very poor. It could also imply that the skill

acquisition does not require much training other than physical energy to obey simply

instructions in operating the equipment or their maintenance.

Table 12: Percentage distribution of floor workers based on investment

capability within the last three years

Human resource capability % (n = 7)

Area/type of training

Operation of hand screw press 100

Use of hand fibre separator 100

* Multiple responses

98

Production capabilities

The respondents assessed were the mill operators, floor workers, and managers

who worked as either mill operators or as floor – workers. Data in Figure 9 show that

97.9% of the mill operators, 100% of the managers and 100% of the floor workers

acquired production capabilities. Production capabilities here include production

activities, such as; packaging of products produced, different products and by-

products produced, cleaning methods for processing equipment and tools and causes

of bad palm oil.

The above result shows abundant production capabilities for all the different

players in oil palm processing enterprise. This implies that the actors have ability to

remain in business despite the influencing factors to oil palm technological

capabilities. This finding agrees with an empirical study by Biggs, et al (1995) where

the respondents showed abundant production capabilities which enabled them remain

in business.

99

4.8 Production capabilities of oil mill/owner operators

Entries in Table 13 show that 21.3% of the mills processed between 80 –

100kg of fruits per batch, 10.6% of them processed 101 – 150kg of fruits, 25.5% of

them processed 151 – 200kg of fruits per batch, 31.9% of them processed 201 – 250

kg of fruits per batch, 10.6% of them processed between 251 – 300kg of fruits per

batch, and 2.2% of the mills processed above 300kg per batch.

The result shows varying quantities of fruits processed per batch. This could

derive from the different capacities of auto-engines operating the equipment. Engines

with low horse-power operated equipment of low capacities while engines of high

horse-power operated equipment (for example digester, presses etc) of high capacities

Fig. 9: Percentage distribution of respondents based on acquired production capabilities

100

as well. The operators emphasized that use of small auto-engines with big equipment

damages the engine very fast.

Table 13: Percentage distribution of oil mills based on production capabilities

Quantity (Kg) of fruits processed per batch Percentage (n = 47)

18 - 100kg 21.3

101 – 150kg 10.6

151 – 200kg 25.5

201 – 250kg 31.9

251 – 300kg 10.6

Above 300kg 2.2

Cleaning of production equipment capabilities

Entries in Table 14 show that 10.6% of the respondents cleaned their sterilizer

equipment by mopping with hot water and foam; 100% cleaned their digester

equipment by mopping with dry fibre; 31.9% cleaned their jack press by occasional

mopping with dry fibre; 46.8% of the respondents mopped out stains with dry fibre;

29.8% cleaned by daily mopping with dry fibre, 4.1% cleaned the nutcracker by

brushing out dirts and broken shells after production exercise; 4.3% did occasional

dusting of the welding plants with foam or broom; and 100% drained out oil and

refilled with fresh one (every two – three months). Generally, stubborn dirts on any of

the above equipment were scraped off with metal wire, brush or knife as the case may

be. This result implies that apart from cleaning of digester and changing of engine oil,

the general cleaning of the equipment used was poor and needs to be improved. The

level of this poor state could be seen in some of the pictures captured during field

101

work. The respondents reported that they were doing the cleaning of equipment but

not very often cleaning of equipment ad machines very often prevents contamination

of palm oil with dirts.

Table 14: Percentage distribution of mill operators based on cleaning capability

of production equipment

Item Cleaning method Percentage*

(n = 48)

Sterilizer Occasional washing with hot water 10.6

Digester Mopping with dry fibre after

production process

100

Jack press Occasional cleaning with dry fibre 31.9

Hydraulic press Clean out stains when noticed 46.8

Automated fibre separator Daily mopping with dry fibre 29.8

Nut cracker Occasional brushing out of dirts and

broken shells

4.3

Welding plant Occasional dusting with broom or

foam

2.2

Engines Draining out dirt oil and refilled

with new one in 2 – 3 months

100

*Multiple responses

4.9 Production capabilities of processing floor workers

Different kinds of work done by floor workers

Entries in Table 15 show that 83.3% of the floor workers were involved in

cooking palm fruits, 10.4% of them were involved in hewing of wood, 70.8% did

hand fibre separation, 62.5% did manual pressing of screw press, 83.3% were

involved in cleaning of equipment/tools, 83.3% were involved in sweeping of the

environments, 4.2% were involved in sorting kernels from shell, 52.1% were involved

in clarification, and 50% of them were involved was in disposal of effluents and solid

102

waste. This result shows that apart from mill operation and cleaning of the automated

equipment by mill operators, all other works involved in oil mills were done by floor

workers. This could imply that most of the private palm fruits processors engage in

production themselves to save cost and minimize wastage of resources. Also the

activities involved are gender inclined, hence the 95.8% female floor workers.

Table 15: Percentage distribution of floor workers based on different kinds of

work performed

Different kinds of work activities Percentage*

(n = 48)

Cooking of palm fruits 83.3

Hewing of fire wood 10.4

Hand fibre separation 70.8

Manual pressing of screw press 62.5

Cleaning of equipment/tools (screws press, hand fibre separation,

containers etc)

83.3

Sweeping of the environments 83.3

Sorting out kernels from shell 4.2

Cooking of oil to remove water and dirts (clarification) 52.1

Disposal of effluents and solid waste 50.0

*Multiple responses

Products and by-products of processing oil palm fruits

Entries in Table 16 show that 100% of the respondents produced palm oil,

100% produced palm nuts and sold, 100% produced fibre, 100% produced effluent,

62.5% produced sludge, 4.2% cracked nuts to produce palm kernel and also 4.2%

cracked nuts to produce kernel shell. About six percent of the respondents produced

light sticks. This result implies that all the products and by-products listed above have

value for one purpose or the other. Even the solid wastes are being used by local soap

makers. The light sticks are kindled with fire for illumination when electric power is

103

off during the night processing or sold to the public. The findings of the study ended

at the above products and by products due to low/limited refinery capabilities (primary

processors). The oils are both technical palm oil (TPO) and special palm oil (SPO).

The processors reported that if SPO is to be achieved, fresh fruits should be processed,

neat containers used, and clarification should not exceed the limit time to avoid

bleaching

In advanced palm oil processing industry, Special Palm Oil (SPO) and Palm

Kernel Oil (PKO), can be further refined into Refined Bleached Deodorized Oil

(RBDO) and Refined Palm Kernel Oil, (RPKO) respectively which they mix together

to get vegetable oil. These are the end products that are further fractionated into Olein

Oil (liquid) and Stearin oil (solid) which are the end-products used in the food

industry (PIND, 2011). . In developed economies, the Olein oil is further refined or

fractionated to get agrochemical oils, industrial chemical oils, paint oils, bio-diesel

(fuel), etc. Stearin oil however, is also fractionated further to get candles, soap

substance, lubricants etc. However, domestic population’s preference to technical

palm oil (TPO) is high due to it’s odour and taste but it raises serious public health

concerns and as such calls for measures to help educate the masses on the risks

involved in the consumption of high levels of FFAs oil. In addition, the overall low

quality with high iron content (residues from oil machines) might also endanger the

health of the poorest who consume the lowest quality oils available (Lade, 2007 in

PIND, 2011).

104

In Nigeria, there is serious need to step up the limited transformation and uses

of the primary or secondary products of oil palm for either food or non food

applications by government and non governmental organizations. This is necessary

because in some cases, the prices of oil and palm kernel do not give sufficient market

returns to pay for all the labour and capital that goes into their processing. However

in many cases, the profit may come from the production of the secondary, higher

value products if harnessed. Hence, processors in Anambra state should be made

aware of potential value of by-products such as fibres and residues to make for

example, briquettes or animal feeds and not rely solely on extracted oil or palm kernel

sales.

Table 16: Percentage distribution of floor workers based on produce

(products/by products) capabilities

Different products produced Percentage (%)* (n = 48)

Oil 100.00

Nuts 100.00

Fibre 100.00

Effluents 100.00

Sludge 62.5

Palm kernel 4.2

Kernel shell 4.2

Light sticks (Uli-oku) 6.3

*Multiple responses

105

Plate 4: Products and by-products of processing oil palm fruits

Packaging capabilities

Oil

Entries in Table 17 show that all (100%) of the respondents packaged the oil in

plastic containers of 20 litres, and 25 litres, respectively; 52.1% packaged their palm

oil in plastic drums, 8.3% packaged the oil in metal barrels; and 20.8% packaged their

palm oil in either glass or plastic bottles (1 litre). This result implies that there were

very few who were still using metal barrels which is discouraged because of the

rusting nature of melts. Also the bottle containers (1 litre) were used mostly when a

processor wants to give out oil for taste to would-be buyers. The packaging

capabilities enhance easy conveyance of oil from one location to another and ensure

storage convenience.

106

The processors reported that storage of crude oil in a dry and cool

environment, and in opaque containers example, plastic, bottles etc help to avoid

decomposition (lipolysis) from light ray. Also that storage of containers containing

oils on platform would increase the self life of the oil.

Nuts

All (100%) the respondents stored their nuts in heaps before cracking while

10.4%of them stored their nuts in jute bags before cracking. The storage in jute bags

was done for small quantities of nuts while heaps were for big quantities of nuts

(whether dry or not) before they are sold to buyers who crack and sell the kernel and

shell.

Kernel and kernel shell

Data in the same table show that 4.2% of the respondents stored their kernel

shell in jute bags while 4.2% stored their kernel shell in heaps before being sent to the

burner. Thirty one percent of the respondents packaged their solid waste in open

plastic or iron containers before being sold to local soap makers. Thirty one percent

of the respondents stored the fibre in jute bags while 100% stored the fibres in heaps

in dry cool places. The shell fibre and effluents are used in making carbon briquettes

used as fuel which substitutes fuel wood.

107

Table 17: Percentage distribution of floor workers based on packaging

Capabilities

Items and packaging capabilities Percentage*

(n = 48)

Oil

packaged in iron drums 8.3

Packaged in plastic drums 52.1

Packaged in plastic containers (20 litre capacity) 100.00

Packaged in plastic containers (25 liters capacity) 100.00

Packaged in either glass or plastic bottles (1 litre capacity) 20.8

Nuts

Stored nuts in heaps before cracking 100

Package nuts in jute bags before cracking 10.4

Fibre

Packed in jute bags 31.3

Packed in heaps in cool dry places 100

Kernel

Stored kernel in jute bags 4.2

Kernel shell

Stored in heaps before being sent to burner 4.2

*Multiple responses

Methods of cleaning the environment, equipment and tools

Environment

Entries in Table 18 show that 100% of the respondents swept their

environment with either broom or iron rake, 79.1% cut the bushes around the mill

with machetes, while 41.7% smothered the weeds with effluents and later raked out

dead and dry weeds. Cleaning of environment enhances reduction of mosquito bite or

other deadly reptiles to ensure/improve health condition.

108

Earth sunken digesting drum and pestles

Table 18 entries also show that 2.2% of the respondents cleaned the earth

sunken drum and pestles with dry fibre. The screw presses were mopped by the

respondents (77.1%) with dry fibre, 62.5% scraped off stubborn dirt on presses with

knife or iron wire or bar, 58.3% of the respondents cleaned the oil clarifying drums

with dry fibre and kept the drums slanted, 83.7% mopped the hand fibre separator

while 100.0% and 62.5% of the respondents washed buckets with detergent and water

and wheel barrow with water, respectively. Regular cleaning of processing tools

reduces the incidences of contamination of oil with dirts and prevents the metal

barrels from rusting which posses health hazards to the vulnerable poor who consume

most of oils produced with such tools.

Table 18: Percentage distribution of floor workers based on cleaning methods

Item Cleaning method Percentage*

(n – 48)

Environment Sweeping with broom or raking with

iron rake

100

Cutting of bushes around the oil mill

with matchet

79.1

Smothering the weed with effluents

and later rake out dead weed

41.7

Earth sunken digesting drum

and pestles

Mopping the drums and pestles with

dry fibre

2.2

Screw press Mopped clean with fresh dry fibre 77.1

Scrapping of stubborn dirts with

knife or iron bar/rod

62.5

Oil clarifying drums/oil

cooking drums)

Mopping with dry fibres and kept

started

58.3

Hand fibre separator Kept cleaned by moping with dry

fibre

83.7

Kept cleaned by washing with hot

water

16.3

Wheel barrow Washing with water 62.5

Buckets Washing with detergent and water 100

*Multiple responses

109

Waste disposal methods in production capabilities

Method used to dispose coagulated solids (non oily solid)

Entries in Table 19 shows that 62. 5% of the respondents disposed their solid

waste ashes by giving to people who need them, 60.4% of the respondents sold their

solid waste to local soap makers, 58.3% disposed theirs into the open farm/garden,

31.3% disposed unsold waste into public refuse dump, 20.8%disposed their wastes

into the bush while 10.4% of the respondents disposed into pit that will be evacuated

out during the dry season. This result implies that some of what was supposed to be

wastes were sold for money while the rest were disposed effectively.

Methods used to dispose liquid waste (effluents)

Entries in the same Table 19 show that 87.5% of the respondents disposed their

effluents into disposal pit, 41.6% of floor workers used the effluents to smother weeds

as herbicide, 25% of them poured into public gutters, 20.8% of them used the

effluents in feeding animals (pigs) while 10.4% of them disposed their effluents in the

bush. This result shows that greater percentage of the respondents had effective

effluents disposal methods. However, about 25% of the respondents had problems of

waste disposal methods in polluting drainage system, (8.3%) had problem of polluting

farm land and 6.3% of them had complaints from neighbours. The liquid effluent is

used in making carbon briquette used as fuel wood for cooking fruits. The effluents

are spread over fibre and shell.

110

Table 19: Percentage distribution of floor workers based on effluent and solid

waste disposal methods

Waste disposal methods Percentage*

(n = 48)

Methods used for solid waste (non oily solid and ashes)

Ashes given to people who need them

62.5

Sold at times to local soap makers 60.4

Disposal into the open farm/garden 58.3

Pit disposal 10.4

Disposal of excess unsold wastes into public refuse dump 31.3

Disposed in the bush 20.8

Methods used for disposing liquid wastes

Disposal into pit 87.5

Animal (pig) feed 20.8

Smothering of weeds (as herbicide) 41.6

Pouring into gutter drainage 25.0

Disposed in the bush nearby 10.4

Problems arising from waste disposal

No problem 83.3

Pollution of air (bad odour) 6.3

Pollution of drainage system 25.0

Complaints from neighbour 6.3

Pollutions of land 8.3

*Multiple responses

Causes of bad palm oil based on managers production capability

Entries in Table 20 show that 90.0% of the respondents claimed that oil

spoilage come from processing of rotten oil palm fruits, 70.0% claimed that oil

spoilage could be caused by improper clarification of oil to remove dirts and water

contents, 50% claimed that mixing of bad oil with fresh oil could spoil the quality of

111

oil, 48.0% responded that storage of oil over a long period of time could spoil a good

oil. Various other causes the respondents claimed are; 20.4% of them claimed that

bruises on the fruits introduce microbial activities, 20.4% said processing of palm

fruits with dirty tools and equipment, 15% claimed processing of palm fruits with hard

water, while 10.0% of them said soaking of fresh fruits in cold water before

processing. This result implies that processors should avoid the above indicated

causes or sources of oil spoilage in order to produce good quality palm oil. The

results also agree with Okonkwo (2010) findings in her studies of indigenous oil palm

processing with hazard analysis and critical controls.

Table 20: Percentage distribution of respondents/managers, capabilities based on

identifiable causes of palm oil spoilage

Causes or sources of palm oil spoilage Percentage*

(n = 48)

Processing of rotten palm fruits 90

Storage of oil in too cold or hot places 45

Processing of palm fruits with dirty tools and equipment 20.4

Mixing of bad oil with fresh oil 50.3

Over boiling of oil to bleaching point 10.0

Storage of oil for a long period of time 48.0

Processing of palm fruits with hard water 15.0

Soaking of fresh fruits in cold water before processing 10.0

Improper clarification of oil to remove dirts and water 70.0

Bruises on fruits that introduce microbial activities 20.4

*Multiple responses

112

Minor and major change capabilities

Minor and major changes involve short and long term improvements and

adaptations of equipment and human resources. Here the key actors involved in these

minor and major changes are the mill owner/operators and the processing managers.

4.10 Minor and major change capabilities of mill operators within the last

three years

Minor and major change capabilities are the short and long term

improvements and adaptations to equipment and human resources. Figure 10 shows

that 52.1% of the mill operators had acquired minor and major changes where as

47.9% of them said they had acquired none.

The mill operators (100%) said they had minor changes which include

processing of fresh fruits only, (48.0%), of them had replacement of damaged wheel

barrow, (80.0%) of them had changed to use of plastic containers and 20.0% of them

e c Figure 10: Percentage distribution of mill operators based on number that had

acquired minor and major change capabilities

113

change to the use of mobile phones for communication (Table 20). This result shows

processing of fresh fruits only as more obvious minor change of the mill operators

followed by replacement of wheel barrow. The table equally shows the major change

capabilities of the mill operators included construction of pit for waste disposal

(40.0%), change from manual screw press to automated press (24.0%), change from

manual pounding to automated digester (36.0%), and training for equipment bought

(36.0%), as prominent major changes. The result depicts that there was poor major

change capabilities of the respondents. The processing of fresh fruit as a minor

change will improve the quality of oil and major changes from manual press to

automated press will ensure labour efficiency and increase in quality of processed oil.

Also the use of automated digester will remove the drudgery associated with the use

of pestle to digest fruits.

Table 21: Percentage distribution of mill operators based on minor and major change

capabilities

Percentage (n = 25)

Minor changes

Processing of fresh fruits only 100

Change to use plastic container 30.0

Change or replace old wheel barrows 48.0

Use of mobile phone for communication 20.0

Major changes

Change to automated fibre separator 8.0

Dug pit for waste disposal 40.0

Change from hand screw press to automated press 24.0

Change from use of pestle pounding of fruits to automated digesters 36.0

Had indoor training for equipment/machine bought 36.0

Welding plant bought 4.0

Changed from drum cooking of fruits to steam sterilization 8.0

*Multiple responses

114

4.11 Minor and major change capabilities of managers within the last three

years

Figure 11 shows that 41.7% of the processing managers had acquired minor

and major changes. Entries in Table 22 show that among the managers that acquired

minor changes, the use of GSM in communication were (100%), replacement of

damaged table were 15% and those that bought plastic chairs were (25%). The result

shows use of GSM as only conspicuous minor change capability. The table also

shows that the major change capabilities of processing managers were thus; change

from use of lantern to electricity (25%), change from motorcycle to motor vehicle

(10%), renovation of oil mill house (25%) and change of marketing channels to the

Northern parts of Nigeria (50%). The overall change capabilities of the respondents

were poor.

This result also may imply that both minor and major change capabilities were

not needed within the last three years as oil mill equipment do not need very often

changes. The low income of the managers might have affected their minor and major

change capabilities hence (NACDB) Nigeria Agricultural Cooperative and

Development Bank should facilitate soft loan or grants to processors.

115

Table 22: Percentage distribution of managers based on acquisition of

minor and major change capabilities

Capability Percentage* (n = 20)

Minor changes

Use of GSM in communication 100

Replaced damaged table 15.0

Bought plastic chairs 25.0

Major changes

Changes from lantern to electricity 25.0

Changed from motor cycle to motor vehicle 10.0

Renovation of oil mill house 25.0

Changed marketing channels to the Northern and Western parts of

Nigeria

50.0

*Multiple responses

Figure 11: Percentage distribution of processing managers based on number

that acquired minor and major changes

116

Linkage capability

In the study, the key respondents involved in linkage capabilities are the

managers, oil mill operators and consumers. Data in Fig. 12 show that 95.8% of

managers acquired linkage capabilities, 95.8% of the mill operators acquired linkage

capabilities; and 79.2% of consumers acquired direct linkage capabilities. This shows

high direct linkage capabilities for all the respondents (manager, mill operators and oil

consumers). It implies also that learning could take place when actors link and

interact in different context which are especially embarked within

institutions/enterprises. Ogelaram – Oyeyinka (2004) opines that interaction fosters

knowledge flow, either old knowledge used in new ways or new knowledge diffused

as innovation. System interaction otherwise known as linkage capability is an

important asset which is composed of knowledge, skill and experience to engage other

actors in the process production of innovation.

Fig. 12: Percentage distribution of respondents based on the number that have acquired

linkage capabilities

managers no yes mill

operators

no yes consumers no yes

4.2%

95.8%

4.2%

95.8%

20.8%

79.2%

117

4.12 Linkage capabilities of oil mill operators

Data in Table 23 show that mill operators (89.1%), had direct and vertical

linkage with marketers of oil, (100%) had direct/vertical linkage with consumers

(73.9%), had horizontal linkage with other fellow mill operators, and (73.9%), had

direct linkage with fabricators. This result shows that mill operators had linkage

capabilities with actors mentioned above except farmers and extension agents. This

could be attributed to commercial nature of service rendered by most oil mill

enterprises who don’t have direct contact with farmers that produce fruits and sell

directly or indirectly to other commercial processors. Also monitoring and evaluation

of the activities of oil mill operators in Anambra State by extension agents is yet to be

given adequate attention, hence the low linkage of mill operators with extension

agents.

Table 23: Percentage distribution of mill operators based on linkage capabilities

Institutional/actors Percentage* (n = 46)

Marketers group 89.1

Consumers group 100

Fabricators 73.9

Other mill operators 69.5

Extension agents 6.5

Farmers group 19.6

*Multiple responses

4.13 Linkage capabilities of processing managers

Data in Table 24 show that the processing managers (87.0%) had direct

linkage with equipment suppliers, 69.5% had horizontal linkage with managers,

73.9% had direct/vertical linkage with consumers and 100% had direct linkage with

118

oil marketers. This result shows the same trend of low linkage of managers with

farmers and extension agents which may imply that managers don’t have direct

contact with farmers who sell fruit to middlemen/other processors they are dealing

with directly. The impact of extension agents for now is more on oil palm plantation

establishment other than processing capabilities in Anambra State (Ofoka, 2000).

Building, effective networks of relevant actors requires vision, funding, skills and

commitment – all these may be in short supply, explaining why strong linkages

between managers, and extension agents and farmers may be lacking (Gijobers, 2009)

Table 24: Percentage distribution of managers based on linkage capabilities

Institutions/actors Percentage* (n = 46)

Equipment suppliers 87.0

Other processing managers 69.5

Consumers 73.9

Marketers 100

Farmers 21.7

Extension agents 10.8

*Multiple responses

Strategic marketing capabilities

In the study, strategic marketing capability was assessed for processing

managers only. Data in Fig. 13 show that 97.8% of the respondents acquired strategic

marketing capabilities. This is also high strategic marketing capabilities. Strategic

marketing capability is the knowledge and skills for collecting market intelligence,

development of new markets and establishing distribution channels and customer

services in order to be able to translate it’s knowledge about customer requirements

into successful products and services. Any industry which undergoes commercial

119

production of products must find ways of selling out otherwise they will go out of

business.

4.14 Strategic marketing capabilities of processing managers

Data in Table 25 show that 95.7% of the respondents used open markets as

distribution channel, 80.2% used oil mill gate, 59.5% used workers and 55.3% used

middle men sellers. This result shows that open market and oil mill gates were major

distribution channels for marketing of their products. Sales at the mill gates save the

processors logistic cost of transportation, while when they need money quickly they

don’t wait for mill gate sales but go to open markets.

The same table also shows that 96.5% of the respondents had eastern part

(Onitsha) as outlets or depots, 61.7% had Northern parts and 29.8% had western part

Fig. 13: Percentage distribution of processing managers based on the

number that acquired strategic marketing capabilities

120

as depot for the marketing of palm oil. This result shows that Anambra State has the

capability of producing palm oil for her citizens and also for other parts of Nigeria.

Table 25 also shows that 82.9% of the respondents collected consumers’

complaints through middle men, 68.0% used workers as methods of collection of

consumers’ complaints, 61.7% used consumers’ direct complaints to processors,

8.29% used drivers who conveyed oil to depots, while 31.9% used palm oil retailers.

The use of the above channels was cheaper to the processors when compared with the

use of organized market survey on consumers’ complaints.

Table 25 shows that 63.8% of the respondents used workers to advertise or

promote their products, 53.1% used contact through phone call, 31.3% used sign

board and 42.5% used giving of sample to would-be buyers. In this result, the use of

workers information and phone calls are more prominent in advertisement of products

as they were considered cheaper when compared with radio or public announcement

which incur more cost.

121

Table 25: Percentage distribution of managers based on strategic market capabilities

Strategic market capabilities Percentage* (n = 47)

Distribution channels

Oil mill gate 80.8

Open market 95.7

Middlemen sellers 55.3

Workers 59.5

Retail oil marketers 8.5

Hotels 25.5

Soap makers 8.5

Outlets/depots:

Eastern parts – (Onitsha) 96.5

Southern part 0 (Port Harcourt) 8.5

Western part – (Lagos) 29.8

Northern pars (Kano, Maiduguri, Zaria etc) 617

Consumers’ complaints collection methods:

Palm oil retailers 31.9

Drivers that convey oil to depot 82.9

Consumer direct complaints to processors 61.7

Middlemen who sell to retailers 82.9

Workers in the oil mill processing 68.0

Methods used for promotion of products

Workers information 63.8

Sign boards 31.9

Contact through phone calls 53.1

Church announcement 21.2

Giving sample for testing 42.5

*Multiple responses

Learning mechanisms capabilities

Mill operators and processing managers were assessed for learning capabilities.

Data in Fig 14 show that 100% and 100% of managers and mill operators,

respectively, acquired learning mechanism capabilities. This result shows that the

respondents had high learning capabilities in the industry. According to Biggs, Shan

and Srivastava (1995) learning mechanisms are capabilities required and are available

to acquire new or improve existing investment and production. The attentions to learn

processes, particularly technological accumulation and the institutions affecting these

processes are very important and span through the other six capabilities.

122

4.15 Learning capabilities of mill operators

Data in Table 26 show that 100%, 100% and 100% of the respondents learnt

operation of equipment and machines, maintenance services of engines and routine

cleaning of equipment for their life sustenance, respectively. Also 52% learnt that

using small capacity engine to operate big equipment spoils the engine very fast while

37.5% and 8.3% learnt minor repairs of equipment and fabrication of equipment parts,

respectively. This result indicates adequate learning capability of the respondents

(mill operators). This result also implies that new technologies which will help them

cope with the challenges of mechanical oil palm processing industry had been learnt.

The finding agrees with Bangens and Laage-Helman (2002) where majority of the

respondents have adequate learning capabilities that enable them to be competitive,

avoid damages to the machines and equipment and save costs that could have arisen

from wastages (incompetence in operations).

Fig 14: Percentage distribution of respondents, based on learning mechanisms capabilities

123

Table 26: Percentage distribution of mill operators based on learning capabilities

Leaning capabilities (experience between non-farm oil

training

Percentage* (n = 48)

Fabrication of equipment parts 8.3

Operation of mill equipment and machines 100.0

Minor repairs of equipment when spoilt 37.5

Maintenance services of the engines 100.0

Routine mill/equipment cleanings 100.0

Learnt that the use of small capacity engine to operate big

equipment spoils the small engine

52.0

*Multiple responses

4.16 Learning capabilities of the processing managers

Data in Table 27 show that 83.3% and 83.3% of the managers learnt causes of

oil spoilage, preventive measures of oil spoilage and period of palm fruits abundance

(February – June), respectively, 100% learnt marketing strategies, 62.5% learnt

operation of oil mills, 41.7% and 41.7% learnt, minor repairs of equipment/machines

and routine maintenance of mill engines, respectively, 31.3% learnt installation of

equipment/machines and 83.3% learnt that tenera spp of oil palm give light red oil

where as local oil palm fruits give thick red oil in colour. This result shows that the

managers had learning capabilities in abundance in areas indicated above especially

the knowledge of the causes and preventive measures of oil spoilage. These learning

capabilities will in the long run of the business prevent wastages and improve income.

124

Table 27: Percentage distribution of managers based on learning capabilities Learning (experience and non formal training) Percentage* (n = 48)

Learnt causes of oil spoilage 83.3

Preventive measures of oil spoilage 83.3

Operation of oil mills 62.5

Minor repairs of equipment and machines 41.7

Installation of equipment and machines 31.3

Routine maintenance of mill engines 41.7

Period of palm fruits abundance (February – June) 83.3

Marketing strategies 100

Learnt that palm fruits from tenera oil palm give light red oil 83.3

while local oil palm fruits give thick red oil in colour

*Multiple responses

Factors influencing the development/acquisition of technological capabilities of

processors

4.17 Mean score of factors influencing the acquisition/development of

technological capabilities among floor-workers

Entries in Table 28 show that lack of labour availability (M = 2.6), lack of

water supply (M = 3.0), power outage (M = 3.3), no price control (M = 2.8) and

seasonal scarcity of palm fruits (M = 3.06), were the mean scores for the factors that

influenced the development of technological capability. The table also shows the

factors that were not considered as factors that influenced the development of

technological capability. The prominent among such non influencing factors include;

no training facilities (M = 2.3), poor waste disposal (M = 1.9), poor infrastructure for

example transportations, road etc (M = 2.3) and terrorism/kidnapping (M = 2.0). This

result shows high mean scores for lack of labour and power outage implying high cost

of labour and high cost of production due to use of liquid fuel. Also no price control

may imply fluctuations of prices during the peak period of palm oil production which

is not favouring the processors. Moreover, the seasonal scarcity of palm fruits imply

125

that some of the processors will be less busy or go out of production during the period

of scarcity. Some of the above results agree with Enwere, (2001) where power outage

and no price control were major factors that influenced technological capability in an

empirical study of technological capability in bakery industry.

Table 28: Mean distribution of floor workers based on factors that influence the

development/acquisition of technological capabilities

Factors (n = 48) Mean Std deviation

Managers negative influence 1.17 .559

Fellow floor worker attitude 1.46 .651

Lack of labour availability 2.60* 1.067

Owner of mill’s attitude 1.73 1.026

Old equipment/machinery 1.98 .758

Lack of water supply 3.00* .851

Poor waste disposal 1.92 1.200

Oil spoilage 1.67 .883

Poor environmental protection 1.71 1.031

Poor storage facilities 1.98 1.390

Power outage 3.31* .971

Non government interference 1.92 1.350

Consumers’ attitude/complaints 1.73 .939

No training facilities/programmes 2.27 1.216

Poor infrastructures 2.27 1.747

No price control system 2.85* .799

Crime and thefts 1.79 1.091

Terrorism/kidnapping 2.06 .885

Labour unrest/strike 1.89 1.127

Seasonal scarcity of palm fruits 3.06* .845

*Significant influencing factor

4.18 Factors influencing the development/acquisition of technological

capabilities of floor-workers

Table 29 shows varimax rotated factors influencing the development of

technological capability. Based on variable loading, three factors were identified and

named. Factor one was named management factors. They include such factors like;

lack of labour availability, owner of mills’ attitude, poor water supply, poor waste

disposal, poor storage facilities, non-government interference, lack of training

126

opportunities and seasonal scarcity of palm fruits; factor two (2) was named

infrastructural factors and included non-availabilities of equipment, frequent power

outage, poor infrastructure such as roads, transportation, market etc and poor security

or terrorism; and factor three (3) was named personnel/manpower and included

managers and floor workers attitudes toward one another and their interaction which

may have positive or negative effect on production depending on the prevailing

situations.

Factors that loaded high under management factors (Factor 1) were lack of

labour (.689), attitude of owner of mill (.836), poor water supply (.749), poor waste

disposal system (.858), poor environmental protection (.741), inadequate storage

facilities (.902), non-government interference (.928), poor training opportunities

(.892), crime and thefts (.470) and seasonal scarcity of palm fruits (.650). According

to www.Britainica(2008), management of production activities involve five (Ms) of

management viz; the manpower, machine, methods, materials and money. In other

words, proper management of the processing mill entails effective planning and

control of industrial processes to ensure that they move smoothly at required level.

Seasonal scarcity of palm fruits has been found out to be very important factor

influencing the development of technological capabilities.

This finding has implication for research to be concerned about production of

cross breed of species of oil palms that will be fruiting all the year round such as we

find in improved budded citrus (oranges). This result also shows lack of labour

availability (.689) which corroborates the report of Manyong, Ikpi, Olayemi, Yusuf, et

al (2005) that a major problem of agricultural production and processing in Nigeria is

127

the seasonal labour shortage, especially at the peak periods of labour demand (during

production and processing) due to the increasing migration of able-bodied youths

from rural to urban cities. Non-government interference was also a very important

problem in this sector. This implies therefore that government should make policies

on price control to stabilize prices, on waste disposal system and provide law

enforcement/implementation agency, on environmental protection, on training of

processors before embarking on such business and adequate provision of storage

facilities. Crime and theft were also found to be an important factor. This implies that

the government and NGOs (communities) should liaise together to provide adequate

security for the safety of the properties and life of the processors.

Factor 2 on infrastructural problems, power outage dominated the factors

implying that government (NPHC) Nigeria Power Holding Company should give

priority attention to providing power to minimize costs of production to the

processors. There should also be infrastructure like good roads, supply of water and

other marketing infrastructures by government to the processors for effective

development of the technological capabilities in this sector. Terrorism was also a

problem implying that government and NGOs should ensure security of life and

property to enhance continued linkages for business transactions in this sector.

Factor 3 on personnel/manpower problems was another important problem

implying that adequate management training and role definition among the processors

will help them maintain ranks and coordinate with one another for effective

development of their technological capabilities. Labour unrest/strike loaded high

128

under both factors I (.450) and 2 (.779) and was not considered in naming the

extracted factors according to SPSS rule.

Table 29: Varimax rotated matrix of factors that influence the development of

technological capabilities of floor workers

Influencing factors Factor 1

Management

related

Factor 2

infrastructure

related

Factor 3

personnel/manpower

related

Managers attitudes .368 .48 .771

Fellow-floor workers attitudes .141 -.125 .788 Lack of labour availability .689 -.191 .156

Owner of the mill’s attitudes .836 .250 .257

Inadequate equipment and machinery .208 .515 .377

Lack of water supply .749 -.113 -.229

Poor waste disposal .858 .115 .268

Spoilage of products .649 .331 .467

Environmental protection .741 .100 .067

Poor storage facilities .902 .257 .158

Power outage -097 -575 -.083 Non government interference .928 .218 .174

Consumers attitudes/complaints -.413 .121 .659

Lack of training opportunities .892 .086 -.092

Poor infrastructural facilities -.141 .576 -.039

No price control .618 -.640 -.133

Crime and theft .470 .267 .358

Terrorism -296 -.677 .120

Labour unrest/strike .450 .779 .024

Seasonal scarcity of fruits -.650 -.315 -119

Extraction method: principal component analysis

Rotation method: varimax with Kaiser Normalization (Loading at .4 and above)

Boldly typed is used to highlight high factor loads.

4.19 Mean score of factors influencing the acquisition/development of

technological capabilities among mill operators

Data in Table 30 show that lack of manpower (M = 3.19), market forces (M =

3.35), poor remunerations/profit (M = 2.69), lack of interactions (M = 3.42), seasonal

scarcity of fruits (M = 3.54) and lack of fund for business expansion (M = 3.56) were

the factors that influenced technological capabilities of the mill owner/operators. The

table also shows non-influencing factors and prominent among such factors were;

129

poor fiscal government policies (M = 2.15), poor infrastructure (M = 2.29), poor

learning opportunity (M = 1.98), poor funding for research (M = 1.73) and lack of

legal framework (M = 1.54). This implies that if infrastructural facilities are built,

workers that move to cities will stay, if there is price control, processors income will

not be determined by market forces, hence improving their income to invest more.

The issue of seasonal scarcity of palm fruits is a natural factor influence, hence

processors should engage themselves in other businesses during the non peak fruits

yielding to keep themselves busy. Such businesses may include cracking of kernels,

secondary processing of stored palm oil, petty trading, etc.

130

Table 30: Mean distribution of mill operators based on factors that influence the

development of technological capabilities

Influencing factor Mean (n = 48) Std. deviation

Poor funding for research 1.73 .765

Poor learning opportunity 1.98 .565

Lack of manpower 3.19* .610

Unavailability of technology 1.40 .660

Farm size 1.23 .444

Bureaucracy/bottleneck of firm 1.19 .491

Poor government fiscal policy 2.1 5 .875

Market forces 3.35* .483

Poor remunerations/profits 2.69* .512

Lack of interaction among actors 3. 42* .613

Lack of legal frame work 1.54 .771

Poor access to knowledge 1.48 .714

Poor infrastructure 2.29 .824

Seasonal scarcity of palm fruits 3.54* .683

Lack of fund for the expansion 3.56* .616

* Significant influencing factors

4.20 Factors influencing the development/acquisition of technological

capabilities of mill operators

Data in Table 31 show varimax variable loading factors as viz factor 1 =

manpower; factor 2 = technical problems; factor 3 = personnel problems and factor 4

= infrastructural problems.

Entries in the same Table show that factors that loaded under manpower

problem (Factor 1) were lack of manpower (.663), poor government fiscal policy

(.428), seasonal scarcity of palm fruits (.580) and poor fund for business expansion

(.675). Lack of skilled manpower has been identified as important factor for the low

level of technological capability development in many firms in developing countries

131

(Panda and Ramanathan, 1997). Inadequate funding will not allow actors to invest in

business expansion, training and development or state of the art technology

acquisition. Also poor funding will not allow business diversifications to cushion the

effects of seasonal scarcity of palm fruits during some months of the year (July –

January).

Farm size (.683), organizational bureaucracy (.446), knowledge (.757) loaded

high under technical factors (Factor 2) (Table 32). Poor remunerations means

financial handicap, hence limiting the ability to invest in or access knowledge which

also affects negatively the firms’ size in the long run retarding the technological

capabilities of the mill operators.

Factor 3 has to do with loadings of poor learning opportunities (-.659) and lack

of interactions among actors (-.537). Interactions between actors will allow them

swap information and enhance learning (Dominguez and Brown, 2004). Such

learning will permit the actors to accumulate technological capability in mechanical

oil palm fruits processing industry. Lack of interaction hence implies that there will

be no opportunity of learning and development of technological capabilities of the

mill operators.

Factor four on infrastructural problems were dominated by poor infrastructure

(.739) and firm’s poor organizational structures (.612). According to FAO (1997) a

good marketing infrastructure, maintenance of rural roads, supply of water, and

marketing services have profound effects on food availability, market prices and

physical access to food at the community level. Conversely, poor marketing

132

infrastructure, particularly price fluctuations etc limit the investment and production

capabilities of the actors/processors.

However, poor government fiscal policy loaded high under both manpower

(.428) and personnel (.777) factors while lack of legal framework loaded high under

both technical (-.628) and infrastructural (.417) factors. Under (SPSS) version 16.0,

the above loaded factors were not considered in naming the extracted factors.

Table 31: Varimax rotated matrix of factors that influence the development of

technological capabilities of oil mill operators

Influencing factors Rotated component matrix

Factor 1

Manpower

related

Factor 2

Technical

related

Factor 3

Personnel

related

Factor 4

Infrastructure

related

Poor funding for research -.376 -.063 -.077 -.032

Poor learning opportunities .197 .006 -.659 -.355

Lack of manpower .663 .116 -.053 .115

Unavailability of technology -.224 -218 -.192 .187

Farm size .260 .680 .039 -.017

Bureaucracy .140 .446 .013 .711

Firm’s organizational

structure

-.031 -.254 .016 .612

Poor government fiscal policy .428 .098 .777 -.032

Market forces .510 .110 .709 -.070

Poor remunerations/profits .346 .427 .186 .073

Lack of interaction among

actors

.174 -.024 -537 .022

Lack of legal framework .258 -.628 .202 .417

Poor access to knowledge -.009 .757 .110 .203

Poor infrastructure .045 .128 .040 .739 Seasonal scarcity of palm

fruits .580 .172 -.155 .106

Poor fund for business

expansion .675 -.172 .074 -.195

Extraction method: principal component analysis

Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization (Loading at 0.4 and

above)

Boldly typed is used to highlight high factor loads

133

4.21 Mean score of factors influencing the acquisition/development of

technological capabilities of processing managers

Data in table 32 show that market forces (M = 3.30), poor access to knowledge

and information of new technologies (M = 2.94), poor remuneration (M = 3.23), lack

of interactions among actors (M = 2.85), lack of labour (M = 3.30), no price control

(M = 2.70), power outage (M = 3.40), no quality control laboratory (M = 2.82) and

seasonal scarcity of palm fruits (M = 3.42) were the factors that influenced the

development of technological capabilities. The same table also shows factors that did

not influence the technological capabilities of the processing managers. Prominent

among the factors were culture of the firm (M = 2.06), organizational bottle necks (M

= 2.38), poor government fiscal policies (M = 2.45), poor water supply (M = 2.06),

terrorism/kidnapping (M = 2.28), poor quality of products (M = 1.55) and policy

dynamics (M = 1.53). This results almost show the same influencing factors like that

of mill operators. The occurrence of frequent power outage will increase the

production cost due to use of liquid fuel. Also lack of interactions among the

processors will limit information flow which also affects their technological

capabilities in the oil palm processing industry. There is need also for the government

(oil palm marketing board) to fix prices for oil to stabilize the income of the

processors which has been subject to market forces. This situation most often favour

oil marketers who buy oils when there are fluctuations in prices of oil to stock and sell

when the price improves.

134

Table 32: Mean distribution of processing managers based on factors that influence the

development/acquisition of technological capabilities

Influencing factors (n = 47) Mean Std. deviation

Unavailability of technologies 1.23 .520

Unavailability of equipment 1.23 .476

Size of firm 1.09 .282

Culture of firm 2.06 .485

Lack of training opportunities 1.19 .576

Bureaucratic bottle necks 2.38 .795

Poor government fiscal policies 2.45 .775

Market forces 3.30* .657

Policy dynamics 1.53 .620

Poor access to knowledge and information of

new technology

2.94* .528

Poor remunerations 3.23* .633

Lack of interactions among actors 2.85* .625

Lack of labour 3.30* .657

Crime and thefts 1.94 .919

Poor infrastructures 1.38 .768

No price control 2.70* .689

Poor water supply 2.06 .919

Consumers attitudes/complaints 1.53 1.018

Power outage 3.40* 1.077

Spoilage of products 1.47 .905

Poor storage facilities 1.49 .975

No quality control laboratory 2.82* 1.093

Poor quality of production and factory space 1.28 .750

Poor preservation of products 1.47 .718

Poor waste disposal system 2.23 .560

Terrorism/kidnapping 22.8 .743

Poor quality of products 1.55 .999

Seasonal scarcity of fruits 3.42* .823

*Significant influencing factors

4.22 Factors influencing the development/acquisition of technological

capabilities of processing managers

Entries in Table 33 show that factors that loaded high under production factors

(Factor 1) were power outage (-.820), spoilage of products (.531), poor storage

facilities (.523), no quality control laboratory (-.522) poor waste disposal system

(.846) and quality of product (.650). The above results imply that such factors like

power, storage facilities and quality control laboratory equipment should be provided

135

to processors at a subsidized rate and given priority attention by government. Also

government should institute or enforce existing environmental and consumer

protection authorities to do periodic inspection of oil mills to ascertain the quality of

products being produced. When there is adequate storage facility and quality control,

the issue of poor products and spoilage will be highly minimized.

Factors that loaded high in (factor 2) policy/institutional factors include; lack

of training opportunities (.528), bureaucratic organizational bottle necks (.854), poor

government fiscal policies (.768), market forces (.638), lack of labour (.729), crime

and thefts (.677) and poor water supply (.796). Government can be instrumental in

stimulating technological capability enhancement through a number of fiscal

incentives (Porter, 1980). Aderemi, et al (2009) maintained that government has the

roles of setting priorities, participating and enacting laws that could enhance

technological capabilities development and accumulation. The technological

capabilities of the processors could be enhanced if government should provide

laboratory and milling equipment at subsidized prices and make a law that before any

processor wishes to enter the industry, he/she must meet the above requirement.

The table equally shows the factors that loaded high under technological

factors (factor 3) such as unavailability of technologies (.687), unavailability of

equipment (.614), poor access to knowledge (.537), policy dynamics (.596), poor

infrastructure (.530), no price control (.466) and seasonal scarcity of fruits (.432).

Asoegwu and Asoegwu (2007) opine that non-availability of improved/modern

technologies for agricultural production and processing including oil palm fruits

136

processing, which are time and energy saving is one of the main constraints in agro-

processing in Nigeria.

This finding has implication for government/NGOs to provide processors with

modern-technologies that will reduce the drudgery in processing at subsidized rates.

However, few of such technologies namely; mechanical fibre separators, digesters,

sterilizers etc abound but in the hands of individuals/NGOs at exorbitant prices as was

reported during the course of the study.

However, lack of interactions loaded in both factor 2 and factor 3 (.573 and

.473), consumers attitude that loaded in factor 1 and factor 3 (.757 and .482), poor

preservation of products that loaded in factor 2 and factor 3 (.459 and 500) and

terrorism/kidnapping that loaded in both factor 1 and 3 (-.708 and .456) were not

considered as extracted factors according to SPSS 16.0 version.

137

Table 33: Varimax rotated matrix of factors that influence the development of

technological capabilities

Influencing factors Factor 1

Production

related

Factor 2

Policy/institutional

related

Factor 3

Technological

related

Unavailability of technology .023 -.178 .687

Unavailability of equipment .097 -.051 .614

Size of firm -.239 .206 .303

Culture of firm -.179 -131 .048

Lack of training opportunities -.196 .528 .302

Bureaucratic/organizational bottle

necks

.145 .854 -017

Poor fiscal government policies .021 .768 .186

Market forces .281 .638 -120

Policy dynamics .117 .163 .596

Poor access to knowledge and

information of new technology

.156 .333 .537

Poor remunerations -.198 .382 -.134

Lack of interactions among

actors/poor linkage with other

actors

-.023 .573 .473

Lack of labour -.020 .727 -.366

Crime and thefts .278 .677 .085

Poor infrastructures -.214 .035 .530

No price control -.166 .289 .466

Poor water supply .175 .796 .150

Consumers attitudes/complaints .757 .170 .482

Power outage -.820 .110 -.346

Spoilage of products .531 .231 .243

Poor storage facilities .523 .234 .214

No quality control laboratory -.832 .185 -.074

Poor quality of production and

factory space

.522 .396 -.037

Preservation of products .064 .459 .500

Poor waste disposal system .846 .085 .085

Terrorism/kidnapping -.708 .208 .456

Quality of products (oil) .650 .017 .192

Seasonal scarcity of palm fruits -.353 -.086 .432

Extracted method: Principal component analysis

Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization (Loading at .4 and above)

Boldly typed are used to highlight high factor loads.

138

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation

5.1 Summary

Technological capabilities of mechanical oil palm processors entail acquisition

of requisite technological capabilities – the skills, knowledge, competence and

information required and the learning ability to upgrade these capabilities when

needed.

This study has shown that the palm enterprises in Anambra state operated at

small – scale level and have simple centralized classical organizational units viz– mill

operation, management and production units. The enterprises were commercial

oriented, majority (72.2%) of the processors communicated to staff and recruited new

staff via fruit owners (43.3%)

This study has also shown that the various stakeholders (processors) in the oil

palm processing enterprises (manager, mill operators and floor workers) have

contributed to the development of the technological capabilities in the oil palm

processing enterprises. The processors were literate, married men and women

between the ages of 25 to 60 years. Generally, majority of the enterprises were

managed by their owners and have the mean score of 8 workers.

With regards to years of experience, the manager, mill operators and floor

workers have mean scores of 11.6, 12.5 and 5 years experience, respectively. Also the

processors were low income earners having mean estimated monthly income of N17,

29167, N18, 584 and N22, 84370 for managers, mill operators and floor worker,

respectively.

139

With regards to available technologies, the mill operators (87%) operated semi

–automated oil mills having sterilizers ,digesters ,presses and used 17 or 18 horse

power engine for fully automated equipment. Also the floor workers (100%) have

operated non- automated mill system using manual screw presses and fibre/nut

separators.

The poor finances of the oil palm processing enterprises reduced to a

reasonable extent the investment capabilities. Some of the enterprises that needed to

expand by buying new site, equipment and machines, and human development

resource capabilities could not afford to acquire them .There is need for financial

intervention in oil palm processing enterprises by non –governmental organizations

(NGOS) and public sectors in terms of fiscal measures. Also there were poor minor

and major change capabilities in equipment and human resources development.

Moreover, there was no quality control laboratory in any of the oil palm mills which

was an indication for poor research and development capabilities.

With regards to production, majority of the processors have abundant

production abilities to produce very good oil called special palm oil (spo), kernel,

shell and light sticks. They also have technological capabilities in marketing their

products, strategically using open market, deports in eastern and northern parts as

distribution channels. Most of the processors have direct linkage with their equipment

and raw material suppliers, and products – buyers but with weak linkage with

extension. Their linkage with equipment and raw materials suppliers served as one

avenue for learning in oil palm processing enterprises .In terms of learning

mechanisms, the mill operators have high capabilities in learning more especially in

140

operation of mills and routine cleaning of equipment. The manager processors learnt a

lot of capabilities in areas of causes and preventive measures of oil spoilage, strategic

marketing and period of a oil palm fruits abundance.

However, the managers have policy/ institutional (.854) and technological

(.687) related factors influencing their technological capabilities development. The

mill operators also have man - power (.675) and infrastructural (.737) related factors

influencing the development of their capabilities development. The floor workers also

have management (.928) and personnel /man-power (.788) related factors influencing

the development of their capabilities in oil palm processing enterprises .`

This study has shown that despite assistance from some governmental and non-

governmental agencies, extension (activities through government interference, price

control, quality control, information dissemination etc) did not play any direct role in

the activities of oil palm processing enterprises in Anambra state though their indirect

roles have affected the production of raw materials and equipment supplied to

processors. However, the combined efforts of processors as the agencies to which they

were linked helped to develop all the seven technological capabilities to their present

level, which is inadequate in few of them due to probably lack of co-ordination and

fund. Extension organizations should therefore help to co-ordinate the activities of all

the stakeholders in oil palm processing enterprises to ensure that their efforts produce

the desired impact of developing the technological capabilities in the oil palm

processing industry to an advanced level in the 21st.

141

5.2 Conclusion

The study has shown that mechanical oil palm processing enterprises were

organized along simple organizational structure, only three of the managers were

professional managers, one third of them was trained in mill operation. Most of the

managers worked as mill operators and managers in function. The highest

qualifications of most of the workers were primary and secondary education. All they

learnt about oil palm fruits processing was in form of non-formal training obtained

from fellow workers in the oil mill with occasional training for some workers in form

of on-the-job training from equipment suppliers to which these enterprises were

linked.

Remunerations in form of income or profit or salaries were low for most of the

workers (stakeholders) including mill owner processors. Most of them produced palm

oil, nuts, fibre, effluents as their products. Strategic marketing capabilities included

distribution channels and outlets depots. The majority of changes (both minor and

major) were in areas of office up keeps and equipment/tools. Majority of the mills

operated semi-automated mechanical processing industry. The processors possessed

adequate production capabilities. All the actors; mill operators, managers and floor

workers had linkage with other complementing actors but at times with weak

interactions.

The various processors identified a lot of factors that influenced the

development of their technological capabilities. Included in the factors were; power

outage, spoilage of products, poor storage facilities, seasonal scarcity of palm fruits,

lack of interactions among actors, markets forces, no price control, no quality control

142

laboratory services, lack of labour, terrorism and kidnapping, poor government fiscal

policies, poor water supply and poor remunerations/profit. These problems need to be

seriously addressed by government and non-government organizations in order to

improve the performance of the mechanical oil palm processing industry.

5.3 Recommendations

Based on the findings from the study, the following recommendations are

made:

1. Government (MOA) and (NAFDAC) should formulate or enforce existing

policies to regulating the production, preservative measures, packaging,

storage, price control and marketing of commercial oil palm products such as

palm oil and/palm kernel oil.

2. Government (NAFDAC) should establish quality control laboratories in major

towns or communities where oil palm processors can test their finished

products (oils) to ensure acceptable quality at subsidized rates. Or processors

Association coming together to form financial synergy to get equity to

establish quality control laboratories.

3. Extension organizations should form linkages between oil palm processing

enterprises and other agencies such as research and technology transfer groups

like ADP, Ministry of Agriculture etc that make input into the enterprises and

the consumers of the output from the oil palm processing enterprises.

4. Extension in addition, should co-ordinate the activities of all the stakeholders

in the oil palm processing industry in areas of policy formulation and

implementation and should sensitize government to support the industry

143

through appropriate fiscal measures such as grants, loans, tax relief and

subsidies.

5. Extension should liaise with oil palm processors for dissemination of

information about the existing new technologies, tools and knowledge in oil

palm processing which the processors had been responding tacitly to their

existence and availability. Hence the drudgery in oil palm processing will be

highly minimized.

6. A forum should be formed for all stakeholders in the oil palm processing

industry in which the factors influencing them should constantly be discussed

and solutions sought. Membership for this forum should comprise or include

the oil palm processors, equipment fabricators/research, extension

organizations, technology transfer group, financial institutions and non-

governmental agencies.

5.4 Suggestions for further research:

The study carried out was found to be only on technological capabilities of

mechanical oil palm fruits primary processors. However, I suggest that further studies

should be on technological capabilities of mechanical processors of secondary

products such as palm oil/palm kernels.

144

References

Adebayo, K., Babu, S. and Rhoe, V. (2009). Institutional capacity for designing and

implementing agricultural and rural development policies and strategies in

Nigeria. Background paper No. 008, Nigeria Strategy Support Program

(NSSP) of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

Adebayo, T, and Clark, N (1996). Methodological issues in science and technology

policy research technological capability. African Technology Policy Studies

Network (ATPS), Working Paper No. 2.

Aderemi, H. O. Oyebisi, T. O. and Adeniyi, A. A. (2009). Development of a measure

for technological capability in the information and communications technology

industry in Nigeria. A paper submitted to Globelics, Dakar, Senegal. Pp. 68 –

70.

Adedoyin, S. F. and K. Adebayo, (2011). Communication and Advocacy Strategies

in Extension. In: Adedoyin, S.F. (ed.) Agricultural Extension in Nigeria.

Agricultural Extension society of Nigeria (AESON). Pp. 27 – 35.

African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) (2003). Science and technology

and food security in Africa. Nairobi, Kenya. Technology Brief 11

http://www.atps/net.org.12th-May/2007.

Agricultural Development Programme (ADP, 2012). Information from Extension

Department. Anambra State ADP, 19th

February.

Agwu, A. E. (2006). Adoption of Improved Oil Palm Production and Processing

Technologies in Arochukwu Local Government Area of Abia State, Nigeria

Agro Science Journal of Agriculture, Food, Environment and Extension.

vol. 5(1) pp. 26 – 35.

Akwuodo, S. D. A. (2006). The Business Entrepreneur, Entrepreneurial

Development, Small and Medium Enterprises. Entrepreneurship Academy

Publishing, Kaduna, Nigeria.

Asiabaka, C.C. 2000). Agricultural Extension: A Handbook for Development

practitioners. Masyfem United Services. Port Harcourt, Nigeria.

Asoegwu, S. N., and Asoegwu, A. O. (2007). An overview of agricultural

mechanization and its environmental management in Nigeria. Agricultural

Engineering International: the CIGRE Journal Invited Overview, vol.

9(6),pp.34 – 39.

145

Asopa, V. N. and Beye, G. (1997). Management of agricultural research: A

training manual. Module 8: Research Extension Linkage. Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations pp. 32 - 33.

Badmus, G. A. (1987). An assessment of the performance of a palm fruit bunch

threshing machine Niger J. palms seeds vol. 3; pp. 78 – 90.

Badmus, G. A. (1990). Factors affecting the design of a fruit bunch harvesting

system of tall palm trees in plantation. Niger. J. Palms seeds, vol. 11: pp.

102 – 114.

Bangeus, L. and Laage-Hellman, J. (2002). Development of technological

capability in South African industry: An industrial network approach.

Paper submitted to the 18th

annual IMP Conference in Dijon, 5th

– 7th

September (2002).

Barry, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research

and theory. Research Policy, vol. 29 pp. 627 – 655.

Bechstedt, H. D. (1999). Eleven steps for participatory technology development

(PTI) in sustainable land management. IBSRAM Newsletter, No. 51.

Bell, M. (1993). Technological accumulation and industrial growth: Contract

between developed and developing countries. Industrial and corporate

change 2pp 157 – 210.

Bell, R.M. and Pavit, K. L. R. (1993). Technological accumulation and industrial

growth: Contrasts between developed and developing countries. Industrial

and corporate change 2(2): pp. 152 – 210.

Berdegue, J. A. (2005). Pro-poor innovation system. Background paper

submitted to International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).

Berelien, I. G., K. C. Schneeberger, and O. D. Osburn, (1995). Principles of

Agribusiness Management, 2nd

Edition, Illinois, Wave land press.

Biggs, S. D. (1990). A multiple source of innovation model of agricultural

research and technology promotion. Agricultural Administration (Research

and Extension) Network paper. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Biggs, S. D. and G. Smith (1998). Beyond methodologies: Coalition building for

participatory development. World Development. Vol. 26 pp. 239 – 248.

Biggs, T., Shan, M and Srivastava, P. (1995). Technological capabilities and

leaving mechanisms in African Enterprises, Technical paper No. 288,

African Technical Department Series, Washington, D.C., World Bank.

146

Biggs T., Manji, S. and Serivastava, P. (1995). Technological Capabilities and

learning in African enterprises. World Bank Technological paper 288.

Chema, S., E. Gilbert and J. Roseboom (2003). A review of key issues and recent

experiences in reforming agricultural research in Africa. Research Report

24 The Haguli ISNAR.

Chima, U. D. (2010). Oil palm in Nigeria: Shifting from smallholders and women

to mass production World Rain Forest Movement (WRM). 7/29/2011

11.45A.M.

Chima, U. D. (2010). Oil Palm in Nigeria WRM draft. Retrieved from:

http://oil.palm-in-africa.wprd.press.com. on 2010/08/06.

Chukwumah, A. (2010). Women and intertribal marriages, Nigerian films.

Retrieved from http/www.com/news/9229/18/woman/7.0907am. on

2012/11/25

Clark, N. A.; Hall, R., Sulaiman, and G. Naik (2003). Research as capacity

building: The Case of an NGO facilitated post-harvest innovation system

for the Aimalayan hills. World Development 31 (II): pp 1845 – 1863.

Cramb, R.A. (2000). Processes affecting the successful adoption of new

technologies by smallholders. In: Hacker, B. (ed.) Working with farmers:

the key to the adoption of forage technologies, pp. 11 – 22. ACIAR

Proceedings No. 95. Canbersa: Australian Centre for International

Agricultural Research Creating a Trading system for Development, World

Bank, Washington D.C.

Crowder, L. Van and Anderson, J. (1997). Linking research, extension and

education: Why is the problem so persistent and pervasive? European

Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, vol. 3 (4), pp. 145 – 152.

De Gorter, H. Ingco, M. and Ignacio, L (2004). Domestic support: Economics

and policy instruments. In: Ingco, M., and Nash, J. (Eds.) Agriculture and

the WTO. p.95 - 98.

Dominguez, L. and Brown, F. (2004). Measuring technological capabilities in

Mexican industry. CEPAL Review vol. 83, pp. 129 – 144.

Ebii, C. O. (1993). Sociological variable facts of inhibition of the farming

communities, of Imo and Abia States. Paper presented at Imo Concord

Hotel on 29th

November 1993.

147

Edem, D. O. (2002) Palm oil biochemical, physiological, nutritional,

hematological and toxicological aspects. A Review. Plant Foods Cum.

Nutrition, vol. 57, pp. 319 – 341.

Edquist, C. 9ed.) (1997). Systems of Innovation Approaches: Technologies,

Institutions and Organizations. Printer, Cassel Academic, London.

Egboka, B. and Nwafor, U.E.T. (1994). River boundary agricultural lands in

Anambra State. Agricultural Forum National Light Newspaper. August

10: p. 11.

Emenyeonu, B. N. (1987). Communication and adoption of agricultural

innovations: qualifications and notes towards a conceptual model pp. 120

124.

Emodi, A. I. (2010). Analysis of rice (oryza spp) innovation system in Southeast

Nigeria. A Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Agricultural Extension, University

of Nigeria, Nsukka pp. 66 – 68.

Enwere, N. J. (2001). Extension implications of the technological capabilities of

the baking industry in South eastern Nigeria. Ph.D thesis, Department of

Agricultural Extension, University of Nigeria, Nsukka pp. 98 - 101.

Enwere, N. J. (2005) Improving the technological capabilities of the food

industries in Benue State through extension learning methods: implications

for the University of Agriculture, Makurdi Lecture at the University of

Agriculture, Makurdi, Benue State, September 29, 2005.

Enwere, N. J. (2000). Extension implication of the technological capabilities of

small-scale soymilk enterprises in Nsukka urban. M.Sc. Thesis,

Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Nigeria Nsukka pp. 58

- 62.

Ernest, D., Ganiates, T, and Mytelka, L. (1994). Technological capabilities: A

conceptual framework Draft UNCTAD Six Country Research Project on

Technological Development in south and East Asia, Geneva.

Esechie, H. A. (1978). Mesocarp oil and free fatty acid accumulation in oil

hazards analysis and control point in oil palm processing in Anambra State,

Nigeria – 1 palm fruits during ripening. Niger Agric. J. vol 15 pp. 114 –

129.

FAO (2004) The market for non-traditional agricultural exports. Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United nations, Rome

148

Faturoti, B. O. (2008). Analysis of innovation system in plantain and banana Belt

in Nigeria. A Ph.D. thesis, Department of Agricultural Extension,

University of Nigeria, Nsukka pp. 77-79.

Fisher, D. (1982). The Right to communicate: A Status Report; Reports and

papers on mass communication No. 94, Paris, UNESCO. Pp 81 – 84.

FMST, (2001). Federal Ministry of science and technology. The National

Information Technology Policy, pp 3.

Food and Agriculture Organization (1970). Consultations on palm oil and palm

kernel production FAO, Rome.

Food and Agriculture Organization (1987). Consultations on oil palm production

FAO, Rome.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO, 1997).

Agriculture, food and nutrition for Africa. A resource book for teachers of

agriculture. Food and Nutrition Division, FAO, Rome pp 1 – 125.

http://www.proteinresearch.net. 12th

February, 2007.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (1997). Agriculture, food and nutrition

for Africa. A resource book for teachers of agriculture. Food and

Nutrition Division, FAO, Rome pp 1 – 25. http://www.proteinresearch.net.

12th

February 2007 jtt://www.proteinresearch.net, 3rd

March, 2010.

Freeman, C. and Perez, C. (1998). Structural crises of adjustment, business cycles

and investment behaviour. In G. Dosi (ed). Technical Change and

Economic Theory. London, Printer.

Gijsbers, G. (2009). Missing linkages in Asian agricultural innovation and the

role of public research organizations paper presented at the 6th

Asialics

International Conference, 6 – 7th

July Hong Kong.

Hall, A. (2006). Public private sector partnerships in an agricultural system of

innovation: concepts and challengers. United Nations University (UNU-

Merit) Working Paper Series, 2006 – 002.

Hall, A; Bockett, G; Taylor, S., Siramohan, M.V.K. and Clark, N. (2001). Why

research partnerships really matter: innovation theory, institutional

arrangements and implications for developing new technologies for the

poor. World Development 29(5): pp 783 – 797.

149

Hall, A. J., V. R. Sulaiman, N. G. Clark, M.V.K., Sivamohan and B. Yoganand

(2002). Public private sector interaction in the systems perspective on

installation reform. In: Byerlee, D. and R. G. Echeverry (eds). Agricultural

Research Policy in an Era of Privatization: Experiences from the

Developing World. CABI, Walling Ford.

Hall, A. and Dijikman, J. (2006). Capacity development for agricultural

biotechnology in developing countries: concept, context, case studies and

operational challenges of a system’s perspective. United nations University

(UNU-Merit) working paper series, 2006-003.

http://www.namy.wedding.com/article. The Igbo traditional weddings in Nigeria.

Retrieved on 12th

October 2012.

Khalil-Timamy, M.H. (2002). Pursuing technology policy research In Sub-

Saharan Africa, ATPS Special Paper No. 7, African Technology Policy

Studies Network Nairobi.

Lall, S. (1992). Structural problems of African industry. In: F. Stewart, S. Lall

and S. M. Wangwe (eds). Alternative Development Strategies in Sub-

Saharan Africa. London McMillan, pp. 103 – 144.

Lall, S. (1992). Technological capabilities and industrialization. World

Development 20 (2) pp. 165 0 186. Amsterdam, Elsevier Science.

Madukwe, M.C. (2008). Practice without policy: The Nigerian agricultural

extension service. An Inaugural lecture of the University of Nigeria,

Nsukka on April 28.

Malaysia Daily Express (MDE) (2001). More law to be needed for oil palm areas.

Available:www.wrm.org.Uy/plantations/material/oil.palm.6.html(2001)

February, 13th 2001, Malaysia.

Malerba, F. (1992). Learning by firms and incremental technical change. The

Economic Journal 102: pp. 845 – 859.

Manyong, V.M.; Ikpi, I, I; Olayemi, J.K.; Yusuf, S. A.; Omonona, B. T.;

Okoruwa, V. and Idachaba, F.S. (2005). Agriculture in Nigeria: identifying

opportunities for increased commercialization and investment.

International Institute for Topical Agriculture (IITA), Ibadan, Nigeria. Pp.

159.

Marsden, K. and Gerzia, M. (1998). Agro-Industrial policy review –

Methodological Guidelines. Training Materials for Agricultural Planning,

No. 24, FAO, Rome.

150

Matanmi, B. M. (1994). Some criteria in acceptance of agricultural innovations by

small-scale farmers in Nigeria. NOMA Magazine Vol. II.

Mytelka, L. (2000). Local system of innovation in a globalized world economy.

Industry and Innovation 7(1): pp 35 – 54.

NIFOR (1981). NIFOR Highlight of Activities 1981. NIFOR, Benin, Edo State,

Nigeria.

NIFOR, Nigerian Institute For Oil Palm Research, (1999, 2009). The manuals on

small-scale oil palm fruit processing equipment. P.M.B. 1030, Benin City,

Nigeria.

Nigeria Institute For Oil Palm Research (NIFOR, 2009). Small-Scale Oil Palm

Fruit Processing Equipment Operational Manual. NIFOR, Benin City,

Nigeria. Revised fourth edition.

NPC (2006). National Population news, Federal Republic of Nigeria.

NUC (2011). National Universities Commission. List of approved Universities in

Nigeria. True Verdict Magazine, May – June.

Nwalieji, H. U. (2006). Evaluation of phase one vegetable production project of the

Anambra State ADP. M.Sc. Dissertation, Department of Agricultural

Extension, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. Pp. 56 – 66.

Obiora, C. J. (2012). Technological Capabilities of Climate Change Actors in the

Agricultural Innovation System of South East, Nigeria. A Ph.D. thesis,

Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Nigeria, Nsukka pp. 66 -

68.

Ofoka, I. C. (2000). Adoption of improved oil palm seedlings among farmers in five

selected local government areas of Anambra State. An M.Sc. thesis,

Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Faculty of Agriculture,

Enugu State University of Science and Technology, Enugu, November 2000.

Ofoka, I. C. (2007). Small holder oil palm tenureship, exploitation arrangements, and

conflicts: implication for oil palm developments in Anambra State, Nigeria. A

pre-Ph.D. Seminar paper of Department of Agricultural Extension, University

of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Ohajianya, D. O. (1999). Marketing of oil palm produce in Imo State Department of

Agricultural Economics, Federal University of Technology, Owerri.

Okigbo, B. N. (1972). Land use, soil fertility and crop specialization in east Central

State of Nigeria.

151

Okonkwo, E. U. (2010). Hazard analysis and critical control points in palm oil.

Processing in Anambra State, Nigeria. African Journal of Agricultural

Research Vol. 6(2) pp. 244 – 247, 18 January, 2011. Available online at

http://www.acade-org-journals-org/AJAR,ISSN-1991-637X©2011. Academic-

Journals.

Okoli, J. U. (2009). Processing of oil palm fruits Agricultural Engineering

Research Division, Nigeria Institute for Oil Palm Research, Benin City,

Nigeria.

Oluka, I. and Amefule, E. (2011). Unveiling the wealth potential of oil palm punch

Newspapers, Community-Chairman, Nigerian Institute of Agricultural

Engineer’s. Wednesday 27 July, 2011.

Olagunju, F. I. (2008). Economics of palm oil processing in Southwestern

Nigeria. International Journal of Agricultural Economics and Rural

Development, vol. 1(2), pp 24-29.

Omobuwajo, T. O., Ige, M. T., Ajayi, O. A. (1997). Heat transfer between the

pressing chamber and the oil and oil cake streams during screw expeller

processing of palm kernel seeds. J. Food Engine, vol. 31(1) p. 1.

Opute, F. I.; Obasola, C. O. (1979). Breeding for short strummed oil palm in

Nigeria: Fatty acids, their significance and characteristics. Annual Bot.,

vol. 43 (6) pp. 677 – 681.

Ortiz, R. (1990). A joint venture in technology transfer to increase adoption rates;

In W. F. Whyte (ed), Participatory Action Research, Newburg Park, CA;

Safe.

Osin, B. (1989). The return of the oil palm tree. Sunday Champion, May 28, pp.

7.

Osinem, E. C. (2005). Environmental Education in Agriculture. Cheston Agency

LTD, Enugu, Nigeria. Pp 54 – 56.

Oyebisi, T. O., Odimide, O. O. and Agboola, A. A. (2004). An assessment of the

level of availability of technological capabilities in the Nigerian

telecommunications industry. Available on line at

http://www.science.direct.com/science.

Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, B. O. (2003). Technological capacity of systems of

innovation: concepts and perspectives. Netherlands: United Nations

University, Institute of New Technology.

152

Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, B. O. (2004). A systems perspective on inter firm and

organizational collaboration in African industry. M united Nations

University Institute for new Technologies. Discussion Paper Series. No

2004 – 18.

Panda. H. and Ramanathan, K. (1997). Technological capability assessment as an

input for strategic planning: case studies at Electricite de France and

Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand. Technovation, 17 (7): pp 359

– 390.

Partnership Initiatives in the Niger Delta (PIND, 2011). A report on palm oil

value chain analysis in the Niger Delta. 167 Ademola Adetokunbo

Crescent, Wuse II, Abuja, Nigeria.

Paulsen, M. E. (2011). Teaching methods and techniques for computer-mediated

communication.

Porter, M. (1980). Competitive Strategy. Free Press, New York.

Pray, C. and R. Echeverria; (1990). Private Section Agricultural Research and

Technology Transfer Links in Developing countries; In: D. Kaimowits

(ed.), Making the link: agricultural research and technology transfer in

developing countries. Bouldu Westview Press 1990: pp. 197 – 226

Production year book. FAO Rome publishing, pp. 13 – 44.

Rivera, W. M. Alex, G. Hanson, J. (2006). Enabling agricultural development the

evolution and promise of agricultural knowledge systems. Paper presented

at Association for International Agricultural and Extension Education

(AIAEE) Conference May, 2006 World Bank, Washington D. C.

Rivera, W. M. and M. K. Quamar, (2005). Agricultural knowledge and

information systems for Rural Development (AKIS/RD): A Comparative

Review of Ten Country case studies on AKIS/RD. Rome: FAO

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. 5th

edition New York: the Free

Press.

Scott, P., C. Gotch and S. Bahri (2003). Applications of the policy analysis Matrix

in Indonesian Agriculture.. FAO Rome publishing, pp. 65 – 68.

Sheikh, A. D.; Mohmmod, M. A., Bashir, A. and Kashif, M. (2006). Adoption of

rice technology package by farmers of irrigated Punjab, Pakistan. Journal

of Africa cultural research, vol. 44(4) pp. 341 – 352.

153

Smallholder Management Unit (SMU, 2010). Ministry of Agriculture and Natural

resource, Anambra State, Nigeria. 19th

January.

Smith, K. (1996). The Norwegian national innovation system: A pilot study of

knowledge creation, STEP report, Oslo.

Spielman, D. J. (2005). Innovation systems perspectives on developing country

agriculture: A critical review. IFPRI discussion paper Washington, D.C.

Spielman, D. J. (2006). A critique of innovation systems perspectives on

agricultural research in developing countries. 2006. Bio Development

International Institute. Inc. Ithaca NY, USA.

Spielman, D. J. and K. VON Gebmer, (2004). Public private partnerships in

agricultural research: an analysis of challenges facing industry and the

consultative group on international agricultural research. EPTD Discussion

paper No 113 Washington, D.C.: IFPRI.

Sumberg, J. and Okali, C. (1997). Farmers’ experiment: Creating local

knowledge. Boulder London: Lynne Reinner

Swanson, B. E., Bentz, R. P., Sofranko, A. J. (1997). Improving agricultural

extension a reference manual was prepared under a contract between FAO

and the International Programme for Agricultural Knowledge System

(INTERPAKS), College of Agriculture, consumer, and Environmental

Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana – Champaign, United States.

Szogs, A and Mwanitima, K. (2010).Technological Capability building in

informal firms in the agricultural subsistence Sector in Tanzania assessing

the role of Gats by clubs. African series of science, Technology, Innovation

and Development 130-138

Ugbaja, F. N. (1993). A survey of the role of the oil palm industry in the

development of the rural economy with particular reference to Isu L.G.A.

of Imo State. A B.Sc. project, Department of Agricultural Science A.J.C.E.

Owerri pp.

UN (1995). Science and technology in the new global environment: Implications

for developing countries, Science and Technology Issues, New York,

UNCTAD.

UNCTAD, (2003). Africa’s technology gap: Case studies on Kenya, Ghana,

Uganda and Tanzania, United Nations publication,

UNITAD/ITE/IPC/MISC.13.

154

UNCTAD, (2007). The least Development Countries Report 2007: Reduce

poverty by narrowing technology gap. United Nations publication, Vienna,

19 July http://www,unis.univerma.org/presrels/2007. 17th May, 2008.

UNIDO, (2010). United Nations industrial development organization WRM’s

Bulletin No. 161. Oil palm in Nigeria Shifting from smallholders and

women to mass production April, 2010.

United Nations and Environment (2003). Small and medium-sized enterprises and

sustainability, Big Challenge for small business. Sustainability and SMES

Industry and Environment, vol. 26 (4), pp. 4 – 6.

Usoro, E. J. (1974). The Nigeria Oil Palm Industry. Ibadan Nigeria: University

Press.

World Bank (2006). Enhancing agricultural innovation: How to go beyond the

strengthening of research systems. The International Bank For

Reconstruction and Development. The World Bank 1818 H. Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20433.

WRMB (2001). World Rainforest Movement Bulletin Sustaining Agricultural

Development in Malaysia Experience in Plant sties Sector. In bulletin of

the World Rainforest Movement Bulletin.

155

Appendix 1

The addresses of different oil mills sampled according to circles in each

extension block (EB) of the agricultural zones. The data were collected in July –

August 2012.

A) Aguata agricultural zone

Aguata extension block 1. Women Cooperative Oil Mill, Igboukwu Development Union (IDU),

Ihuowele, Ngo-Igboukwu.

2. Igwezim Oil Mill Company, behind Museum, Igboukwu

3. Late Chief Isaac Umebido Oil Mill, Amaekwulu Ezinifite

4. John Eze Oil Mill, Aku, (market square), Ezinifite

5. Umuocha, Awalasi Multi-purpose Cooperative Society LTD, Uga.

6. Dennis Umeike Oil Mill, Umuocha, Ebe, Awalasi, Uga.

7. Ifekandu Palm Oil Processing Mill, Ula, Ekwuluobia (Adjacent to Igwe’s

Palace).

8. Dozie Ezeagha Oil Mill, Umueze, Ula, Ekwuluobia

Nnewi north extension block:

9. Emmanuel Okoli Oil Palm Mill, Obiofia, Otolo, Nnewi.

10. Dennis Muonanu Oil Mill, Eziogwugwu, Otolo, Nnewi

11. Sylvester Okeke Oil Mill, Obiofia, Nnewichi, Nnewi

12. *Timothy Udechukwu Oil Mill, Okofia, Otolo, Nnewi

13. Goddy Amago Oil Mill, Ndiakwu, Umudim, Nnewi.

14. Okoledo Nwachukwu Oil Mill, Umudimkwa, Denka Services road, Umudim,

Nnewi.

15. Mrs. Helen Nsofor Family Oil Mill, Akaboezem, Uruagu, Nnewi

16. Oguadimma Family Oil Mill, Akaboeze, Uruagu, Nnewi

B) Onitsha agricultural zone:

Ekwusigo extension block 17. Fidelis Nwakaile Oil Mill, Amakwa, Ozubulu.

18. Lotanna Udorji Oil Mill, Eziora, Ozubulu.

19. John Okafor Oil Mill, Ubahu, along Okija/Ihiala road, Ihembosi.

20. Okoye Angelina Family Oil Mill, Inyaba, Egbema Ngo, Ihembosi.

21. Chukwuka Okafor Oil Mill, Oka, Ichi

22. Ikenna Obianefo Oil Mill, Enugu-aja, Ichi

23. Chief J. A. Ofoka Oil Mill, Urudunu, Ifite, Oraifite

24. St. Augustine Catholic Church Oil Mill, Amakom, Ifite, Oraifite

Idemmili-south extension block 25. Louis Okafor Oil Mill, Ngo-Ogwugwu, Ojoto.

26. St. Barnabas Anglican Church Oil Mill, Ezema, Ojoto

27. *Chukwudi Ibekwe Oil Mill, Amadum Nnobi (Nnewichi Nnobi by pass road).

28. Philip Okafor Oil Mill, Unugu, Nnobi (Near Nnobi Police Station).

29. Dr. Obiegbu Paul Oil Mill, Umuoshi, Alor (Near Market Square).

30. Chukwuma Okwesirieze, Umuoshi, Alor.

31. Azubuike Otokoto Oil Mill, Near Eke Market, Abor, Nnokwa.

156

32. Mrs. .Kelechi Ughanze Oil Mill, Near Eke Market, Abor, Nnokwa.

Awka agricultural zone

Aniocha extension block 33. Ichida Women Oil Mill, Afor Market Square, Ezebuazu, Ichida.

34. Omenka Family Oil Mill, Mgbudu, Ichida (opposite Okada garage).

35. Late Chief Richard B. Obikezie Mill (A.K.A. Women Co-operative Oil Mill)

Uhunkwo, Adazi-ani.

36. Ben. Onodo Oil Mill, Uhunkwo, Adazi-ani.

37. Alphonsus Eze Oil Mill, Off roundabout, Etitinabo, Neni.

38. Simon Anaka Oil Mill, Opposite Chrisudus Petrol Station, Umuabani, Neni.

39. Adazinnukwu, Women Co-operative Oil Mill, Amaolu, Adazinnukwu.

40. Olisa Alor Family Oil Mill, Amata, Adazi Nnukwu

Awka – south extension block 41. Ignatus Ogbaju Oil Mill, Enugu, Umuawulu

42. Ike Okeke Oil Mill, Agbani, Umuawulu.

43. Berthran U. Chinedu Oil Mill, Ezeoye, No. 1 Erike road, Nibo.

44. Ven. A. E. Nweke Oil Mill, Ifite, Nibo.

45. The virtuous Women Multipurpose Co-operative Society LTD Oil Mill,

Ngene, Oka, Nise.

46. Chinemelum MCSLTD, Nibo Oil Mill (% Christopher Nwobu).

47. Mrs. Udoka Okoyeocha Oil Mill Nkwelle Amaenyi, Awka.

48. Sunday Okeke Oil Mill, Nkwelle, Amaenyi, Awka.

* Fabricators of processing equipment as well as processors.

157

Appendix II

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE ON TECHNOLOGICAL CAPABILITIES OF

MECHANICAL OIL PALM PROCESSORS IN ANAMBRA STATE

I am a Ph.D student of University of Nigeria, Nsukka carrying out a research

on technological capabilities in oil palm processing. Inappropriate methods in

production and processing of oil palm fruits lead to poor quality and quantity of

produce (output).

The purpose of the study is therefore to identify and document the

technological capabilities in oil palm processing industry.

Technological capability is defined as the variety of knowledge which

processing firms/organizations need so that they can acquire, assimilate, use, adopt,

change and create technology. Technology here is not reduced to machine; it has to

do with knowledge embodied both in machines and in the skills of people, in

behavioural patterns and in the organizational structure and procedures. Your

responses are to be kept in confidence.

By

Ofoka, I. C.

158

Instruction: Please write in the blank spaces provided or tick (√) the correct

options to each question.

SECTION A (i): Socio-economic characteristics of oil mill enterprise (using mill owner

or mill managers as respondents).

1. Name of enterprise: …………………………………………………………

2. Address of enterprise ………………………………………………………

3. Location: ……………………………………………………………………

4. Age……………………………………………………………………..

Organizational structure of the processing enterprise:

5. How many departments/units do you have in oil palm processing please list them

(1)………………………… (2)……………………………………….

(3)………………………………. (4)………………………………………..

6. What was the rationale for creating the units (departments?)

a) Discipline ( ) (b) Function ( )

(c) Commodity or product ( ) (d) Geographical area ( )

and flow of authority ( )

7. Mode of service: (a ) Personal services ( ) (b) personal and

public services ( )

8. What functions do you perform (tick those applicable) planning ( ),

Evaluating ( ) Organizing ( )

Decision making ( ) Monitoring ( )

Controlling ( ) All of the above ( )

9. Do you sometimes delegate authority to your subordinates, that is asking them to act

for you? ( ) Yes ( ) No

10. If yes do you use any of the items in the following guidelines?

( ) Define assignment and delegate authority in light of result expected

( ) Select persons in light of task to be done

( ) Maintain open line of communication

( ) Establish proper controls

( ) Reward effective delegation

( ) Reward successful assumption of duty

( ) Others (specify)

11. Identify areas from the list below) through which you have been encouraging good

communication in the processing enterprise

( ) Staff meeting ( ) Briefings ( ) Circulation of

reports ( ) Identifying and developing the staff who have the potential to be good

communicators ( ) Providing opportunities for participating in house

meetings, seminars and professional meetings ( )

Being a good teacher of effective communication skills ( ) others

12. What recruitment procedures do you use when you want to employ new staff?

Specify

( ) Advertise vacancies in newspaper

( ) Inform recruitment agencies

( ) Inform schools and tertiary institutions

( ) Ask your present employees to tell their friends and relations

( ) Advertise vacancies on a board inside or outside the processing mill premises

Other methods (specify)………………………………………………………………

159

13. When you fill vacancies for production, mention type of worker you prefer (tick) (√)

to recruit

( ) School leavers ( ) Adult with no previous experience

( ) Youth with previous experience ( ) Men/boys ( )

Women/girls ( ) no preference ( )

14. Average number of workers in the oil mill enterprise?

a) 1 – 5 ( ) (b) 6 – 10 ( ) (c) 11 – 15 ( )

(d) Above 15 ( )

15. Is your mill periodically inspected by environmental and consumer protection

authorities in the following fields? ( ) Yes ( ) No.

If yes what agencies?

SN

Field

Inspected

Agency responsible Yes No

Waste disposal

Noise abatement

Air pollution

Workers safety and health

Product safety and hygiene

Product quality

Others specify

Section A(ii): Socio-economic characteristics of processors and consumers.

Instruction: Please write in the blank spaces provided or tick (√) the correct

options to each question.

(1) Socio-economic characteristics of Mill owner/operators

1. Sex: Male ( ) Female ( )

2. Age…………………………………………………………………………………

3. Marital status: Married ( ) Widowed ( )

Divorced ( ) Single ( )

4. Highest level of education ……………………………………………………

5. What is the number of people living in your household? 1 – 2 persons ( )

3 – 4 person ( ) 5 – 6 person ( ) 7 – 8 person ( ) above 8 ( )

6. Have you been trained in oil mill operations? Yes ( ) No ( )

7. If yes, in what areas (please specify)

a) …………… (b) ………………… c) ………………… (d) ………………………….

8. Are you the owner of the oil mill? Yes ( ) No ( )

9. If No, who are you working for?

a) Individual ( ) (b) Cooperative ( ) Family joint

business ( ) others: (1) ……………………………………….

(2)………………………………………..

10. What type of employee are you? Permanent/ Shareholder ( )

Temporary ( ) Daily paid ( ) self paid ( )

160

11. How many workers do you work with in your processing mill………………………

12. Indicate the number of years of experience in oil mill operations …………………….

SECTION B: Available Technological capabilities in your firm/enterprises

13. What type of mechanical mill system do you have?

a) Fully automated oil mill ( ) (b) Semi automated oil ( )

c) Non-automated oil mil ( )

14. Give reasons for joining oil palm processing business?

a)………………………………………… (b) ……………………………………………..

15. On the average, what is your estimated monthly income from processing business

(N)?

0 – 15,000 16,000 – 30,000 31,000 – 45,000

Above 45,000 Cannot assess

16. What are the available technological capabilities to you in the areas of the

following/Available equipment/machine?

a) Use of sterilizer (boiler) Yes ( ) No ( )

b) Stripper: Yes ( ) No ( )

Advantage:……………………………. Disadvantage:…………………………..

c) Use of digester: Yes ( ) No ( ), if yes what

type……………………………………………………………………………

Advantage:……………………………. Disadvantage:…………………………..

d) Use of pressing machine Yes ( ) No ( ), if yes what

type…………………………………………………………………………………

Advantage:……………………………. Disadvantage:…………………………..

e) Use of crude oil clarifier: Yes ( ) No ( ), if yes what

type…………………………………………………………………………………

Advantage:……………………………. Disadvantage:…………………………..

Others: No ( ) Yes ( ) if yes indicate

(1) ………………… (2) ………………(3) ……………(4) ……………

f) Use of disposal pits: Yes ( ) No ( )

161

g) Do you combine some of the above (a – e in full/semi automated operation:

Yes ( ) No ( )

h) If yes, which of the above equipment/machine do you combine?

(i) …………………(ii) ……………………… (iii) ………………………

i) What type of motor engine do you use to operate the (i) Semi automated ………..

horse power engine? (2) Fully automated………. horse power engine?

……………………………………… horse power (engine)

SECTION C: Technological capabilities

i) Investment

17. Has your oil palm processing firm made any investment in equipment/working tools

with regards to oil palm processing industry within the last years? Yes ( )

No ( )

18. Has your oil palm processing firm made any investment in human resource? ? Yes

( ) No ( )

19. If your answer to No 17 or 18 above is yes, please, fill the tables below

S/NO Name of Equipment Cost of equipment N Years of

purchase

Function of the

equipment

1

2

20. Investment in human resources (fill the table)

S/NO Qualification of

staff/Category of staff

Type of Training Period of

training

1

2

ii) Minor and major changes capabilities. Itemize changes with regards to oil palm

processing that have taken place in your oil mill firm within the last three years.

These changes may include changes in models of equipment and tools, course

taught or training undergone or researches carried out by the oil mill operators.

a) ………………(b)……………… (c) ……………… (d) ………………..

iii) Linkage capabilities

21. In tackling oil palm processing, do oil mill operators have links/interactions with one

another? Yes ( ) No ( ) if yes what type……………………..

22. Does your oil mill firm have links with other oil mill operators? Yes ( )

No ( )

23 If yes, how many institutions do you have links with? No:…………………….

162

24. Do you have links with any of these institutions below? (Please tick) (√)

Institutions /Actors Yes No

� Research group Yes ( ) No ( )

� Government agencies eg (NAFDAC, FMA) Yes ( ) No ( )

� Donor agencies Yes ( ) No ( )

� Technology transfer group Yes ( ) No ( )

� Marketers group Yes ( ) No ( )

� Consumer group Yes ( ) No ( )

� Fabricators group Yes ( ) No ( )

� Other Oil mill operator group Yes ( ) No ( )

� Extension group Yes ( ) No ( )

� Financial institutions Yes ( ) No ( )

� Farmers group Yes ( ) No ( )

� Processors group Yes ( ) No ( )

� Others (specify) Yes ( ) No ( )

iv) Learning capabilities

25. Please could you identify what you have learnt over the years with regards to oil palm

processing (in particular oil mill operators)

i) ………………(ii) ……………………(iii)………………(iv)………………

26. Production: What quantity of fruits do you process at a batch ………………………

27. Cleaning and Waste disposal: How do you clean your equipment/tools ……………

Cleaning and waste disposal

28. How do you clean the different equipment or containers after oil production?

S/N Equipment Method of cleaning

1

2

29. How do you clean your environment after palm oil production

…………………………………………………………………………………...

30. Describe methods used for disposing liquid and solid wastes from your processing

enterprise

S/N Solid waste method S/N Liquid waste method

1 1

2 2

31 Are there problems arising from your present method of waste disposal?

( ) Yes ( ) No

32. If yes, what kind of problems do you encounter?

( ) Pollution of land ( ) Pollution of air (bad odour)

( ) Pollution of water ( ) Pollution of drainage system

(eg. Gutter) ( ) Complaints from neighbours.

163

SECTION D: Factors that influence the level of oil palm processing capabilities of the

mill operators:

33. Indicate the strength of these factors in influencing the level oil palm processing

technological capabilities of the actors (please, tick) (√) (As mill owner/operator)

Factors To no

extent

To little

extent

To some

extent

To a great

extent

1. Poor funding of research

2. Poor learning opportunities

3. Lack of manpower

4. Unavailability of

technology

5. Size of firm

6. Bureaucracy/organizational

bottle neck

7. Firm organizational

strategy

8. Poor fiscal government

policies

9. Market forces

10. Poor remunerations/profit

11. Lack of interactions among

actors/poor linkage with

other actors

12. Lack/weak legal

framework

13. Poor access to knowledge

and information on new

technologies

14. Poor infrastructures (roads)

15. Poor fund for expansion

16. seasonal scarcity of fruits

17. High maintenance cost of

equipment

18. Others (specify)

Section A(ii)2: Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents (Managers)

1. Age (a) Below 30 years ( ) (b) 31 – 40 years ( )

(c) 41 – 50 years ( ) (d) 51 – 60 years ( )

(e) > 60 years ( )

2. Sex: Male ( ) Female ( )

3. Marital status: ( ) Single ( ) Divorced ( )

Married ( ) Widowed ( ) Separated

4. Highest educational qualifications attained

( ) uncompleted secondary education ( ) First School

Leaving Certificate ( ) Secondary Education ( ) Tertiary

education (OND, NCE, HND and First Degree ( ) Higher degree

(M.Sc. M.Phil, Ph.D)

5. What is the number of people living in household?

164

1 – 2 ( ) 3 – 4 ( ) 5 – 6 ( )

7 – 8 ( ) Above 8 ( )

6. Have you been trained in any aspect of oil palm processing? ( )

Yes ( ) No

7. If yes in what areas? Please specify

(1) …………… (2)……………… (3)……………(4)………………………….

8. How many workers do you have in your enterprise? …………………………………

9. Years of experience in oil palm processing ……………………………………………

10. Are you the owner of the mill as well Yes ( ) No ( )

11. On the average, what is your monthly estimated income from oil palm fruit

processing enterprise? Income (N)

0 – 15,000 ( ) 16,000 – 30,000 ( )

31,000 – 45,000 ( ) 46,000 - 60,000 ( )

61,000 – 75,000 ( ) Above 75,000 ( )

Cannot assess ( )

SECTION B: Available technologies to the respondents (Managers)

Available technologies

12. What are the available processing technologies (methods) being used in your oil palm

processing enterprise?

a) ( ) Fully automated mill (continuous system)

b) ( ) Semi automated mill (batch system)

c) ( ) Non- automated mill

13. Based on your answer above, what types of machine/equipment (mill) do you have?

1) ……………………………………… (2)……………………………

(3) ………………………………………. (4)……………………………

SECTION C: Technological capabilities

i) Investments

14. What investments have your oil palm processing enterprises made in areas of human

resources in the last three years?

Category of staff Type of training Period of training Cost of training

ii) Production capabilities

15. List the various products from your oil palm processing enterprises

1) 2) 3) 4)

16 That kind of fuel do you use for heating/cooking your palm fruits?

( ) Wood ( ) Diesel ( ) Electricity ( )

Coal ( ) Charcoal ( ) Fibre ( ) Nut

chaff/shell

17. What methods do you use in heating your palm fruits ( ) Local

heating in drums ( ) Sterilizers

18. Do you cook your fruits in bunch or do you cook already loosed fruits?

( ) In bunches ( ) Loosed fruits

19. If your answer is heating the bunches, do you have strippers to remove fruits?

Yes ( ) No ( )

20. After heating your fruits, do you do manual pounding or use digester?

( ) Pounding ( ) Digester

21. If you still retain hand screw press, when /why do you use it?........................................

165

…………………………………………………………………………………………..

22. What model of presses do you use?

( ) Manual vertical press ( ) Stork hydraulic hand press

( ) Motor-jack press ( ) Motor-jack canti-lever press

( ) NIFOR hydraulic hand press ( ) Combined screw/hydraulic press

( ) Mechanical Screw press ( ) NIFOR mechanical screw press

( ) Manual spindle press ( ) Automated hydraulic press

23. Do you add food additives (herbs and spices) ( ) Yes ( ) No

24. If yes, what type of reason (1) ……………… (2) …………………………

25 How do you remove dirts, water and other impurities (clarification) from the oil?

( ) Heating in pot/drum and decant oil

( ) Clarifier containers (tanks)

26. How do you store your oil ( ) In drum (buta) ( ) in tanks ( )

In tins ( ) in bottle ( ) in plastic container

27. Can you rate the oil grades according to these characteristics using a 5 point likert

scale using sensory method?

S/N Characteristics Product according to grades

1 2 3 4 5

1 Appearance

2 Colour

3 Flavour

4 Texture

5 (Mouth feel)

6 Taste

7 Shelf life

8 Overall quality

9 Congeality

Rating 5 = Excellent, 4 = Very good, 3 = Good, 2 = fair, 1 = poor

28. Do you know causes of spoilage of palm oil (poor grade)? Yes ( ) No

( )

If yes, describe:

1. …………… 2. …………………… 3) ……………………………

29. Where do you carry out your quality control analysis (name and address)

…………………………………………………………………………………………

iii. Minor and major change capabilities

30. Describe the minor improvements and minor adaption/changes that your processing

industry has carried out since you started as manager under the following headings

within 3 years

Item Improvement Adoption

Equipment

1

Investment

1

Product

1

Process

166

1

Package

1

Human resources

Training/learning

1

Quality control

Linkage

1

Management

1

Organization

1

Consumer protection

1

Environment waste disposal

1

Communication

1

Marketing

v) Linkage capabilities

a) What type of Linkage with external and internal sources? (i) Direct ( ) (ii) Indirect

( ) (iii) Vertical ( ) (iv) Horizontal ( )

31. What type of after service has your processing industry received from your machinery

supplier

Yes No

a) After – sale service: Assistance in installing the machinery within

your own factory

b) Assistance in training your workers in operating within your

industry

c) Assistance in training your service engineers in maintenance and

repair

d) Assistance in training your operatives in order industries prior to

installation

e) Visit by suppliers staff to deal with technical problems that have

arisen during subsequent operation of machinery

f) Other forms of assistance from machinery suppliers

32. Was the assistance from suppliers provided under what condition?

Condition Yes No

a) Free or included in the price of machinery

b) Covered by special service contract

c) Covered by a technical license

d Paid for on an adhoc basis according to work performed

33. Have you ever heard about agricultural extension/technology transfer agents?

Yes ( ) No ( )

167

Has any agricultural extension/technology transfer agent helped you in any aspect of

your oil palm processing business? Yes ( ) No ( )

34. If yes, what role has agricultural extension/technology transfer agent played in your

oil palm processing business?

1……………………………………………. 2……………………………………….

Linkage within the processing industry

35. How is information transmitted from one unit to another within the processing

industry? If yes, how?....................................................................................................

vi) Strategic marketing capabilities

36. List your distribution channels and outlets/depots

S/N Distribution channels S/N Outlets Depots

1 Farm gate 1 Soap manufacture marketers

2 Open market 2 Hotels

3 Middlemen oil sellers 3 Retail oil marketers

4 Workers 4

37. List and describe methods used for collecting information about customers/consumers

needs and complaints

S/N Method e.g. Description

1

38. List and describe methods used for promotion and advertisement of your products

S/N Method e.g. Description

1

vi) Learning mechanisms

39. List and describe the type of formal education (in educational institutions) undergone

by the staff in your oil processing industry in the last 3 years

S/N Category of staff Number of staff Certificate obtained Period

1

2

40. List and describe the type of non-formal training (Learning on the job) undergone by

staff in your oil palm processing industry in the last 3 years

S/N Category of Staff Nature of training Period of learning

1

2

41. Are there problems arising from the different learning mechanisms (training

methods)? ( ) Yes ( ) No

42. If yes, list these problems

S/N Learning mechanisms Problems

1

2

3

168

SECTION D: Factors that influence oil palm processing technological

capabilities of the processors (Manager)

43. Please indicate to what extent the following factors affect you

Factors To no extent To little

extent

To some extent To a great extent

Unavailability of

technology

Unavailability of

equipment

Size of firm

Culture of firm

Lack of training

opportunity

Bureaucracy/organizational

bottle necks

Poor fiscal government

policies

Policy dynamics

Market forces

Poor access to knowledge

and information new

technology

Poor remunerations

Lack of interactions among

actors/poor linkage with

other actors

Lack of labour

No price control

Poor infrastructures (roads)

Crime and thefts

Poor water supply

Consumers attitudes/

Complaints

Spoilage of products

Power outage

Poor storage facilities

Poor quality of production

and factory space

No quality control

laboratory

Preservation of products

Waste disposal

Quality of products (oil)

Terrorism/kidnapping

Owner of the industry

Poor fund for expansion

Scarcity of fruits

169

SECTION Aii, 3: Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents (factory floor

workers)

1. Sex: Male ( ) Female ( )

2. Age: ………………………………………………………………………..

3. Marital status: Married ( ) Widowed ( ) Divorced

( ) Single ( )

4. Highest level of education?....................................................................................

5. What is the number of people living in your household?

1 – 2 persons 3 – 4 person 5 – 6 person

7 – 8 person above 8

6. Are you a floor-worker processor? (that is owner of fruits)

( ) Yes ( ) No

Management

7. Indicate the number of years of experience in oil palm processing

industry………………………………………………………………

8. What type of employee are you? ( ) Permanent ( )

Temporary ( ) Daily paid ( ) Self employed

9. If you are paid, are you paid in cash? Or in kind?

10. What is your estimated monthly income from oil palm fruits processing enterprise?

N0 – 10,000 10,001 – 20,000

20,001 – 30,000 30,001 - 40,000

40,001 – 50,000 Above 50,000

Cannot access

11. In what area of the processing industry are you currently working in?

( ) production ( ) Technical repairs ( )

Laboratory ( ) Sales ( ) others (specify)

SECTION B: What are the available technologies to you in areas of the following?

a) Fully automated oil mill ( ) (b) Semi automated oil mill ( )

(c) Non-automated oil mill ( )

12. If your answers is (a or b or c) what type of machine or equipment do you have and

use?

a) …………… b) ……………… c) …………… d) …………………

170

SECTION C: Technological capabilities

13. Have you under gone any training in oil processing ( ) Yes

( ) No

14. If yes, in what areas or types? (1) ………………………………………………………

2)………………………………………. (3) …………………………………………...

15. Have you helped to train any of your fellow workers ( ) Yes ( ) No

16. If yes, give number and category of people, type of training and length of time

Number of people Category of workers Type of training Length of training

1

Production

17. What kind of work are you currently doing in the oil palm processing industry?

1. ………………2. ……………………3. ………………………

18. What kind of storing/packaging containers do you use for the following products?

Oil (1) drums ( ) (2) tin ( ) (3) tank ( )

(4) bottles ( ) (5) plastic containers ( )

Nuts (1) in heaps ( ) (2) stacked in jute bags ( )

Fibre (1) staked in bags ( ) (2) in heaps ( )

stacked in jute bags

Effluent (1) stored in drums before disposed ( ) (2) stored in

tanks before disposal ( )

19. How do you clean your environment?.............................................................

…………………………………………………………………………………...

20. How do you clean your equipment/machines?

Equipment/machine Methods

1

21. How do you dispose the effluents and wastes from your processing industry?

Waste/effluent Methods of disposal

1

171

SECTION D: Factors influencing the technological capabilities of mechanical oil palm

processing (floor workers)

Factors To no extent To little

extent

To some

extent

To a great

extent

Manager

Fellow floor workers

Labour availability

Owner of mill

Equipment /machinery

Water supply

Waste disposal

Spoilage

Environmental protection

Storage facilities

Power outage

Government interference

Consumer

attitudes/complaints

Training facilities

Infrastructure (road)

Price control

Crime and theft

Terrorism/kidnapping

Labour unrest/strike

Fruit scarcity

Others specify

SECTION Aii4: Socio-economic characteristics of the consumers

1. Sex: Male ( ) Female ( )

2. Age……………………………………………………………………………………...

3. Marital status: Married ( ) Widowed ( )

Divorced ( ) Single ( )

4. Highest level of education? …………………………………………………………….

5. Years of experience in palm oil: ……………………………………………………….

6. Can you rate the grades of oil according to these characteristics using a 5 point-scale

using sensory method?

S/N Characteristics Product according to grades

5 4 3 2 1

1 Appearance

2 Colour

3 Flavour

4 Texture

5 Mouth feel

6 Taste

7 Shelf life

8 Overall quality

9 Congeality

Rating 5 = Excellent, 4 = Very good, 3 = Good, 2 = Fair, 1= Poor

clxxii

7. Do you know causes or sources of spoilage of products (oil)? Yes ( ) No

( )

If yes, describe:

a) …………… (b)………………… (c)…………………… (d) ……………………….

8. What quantity of oil do you buy in 6 months? ………………….. (litre)………………

9. Do you have direct link with (1) processors ( ) (2) marketers? ( )

10. If you buy from processors, do you have linkage problems?

a) ……………… (b) ……………… (c) ……………… (d) ………………