Cassava - A Market Research Study - Betuco - Market Research Study Zambia.pdf · Cassava - A Market...

Market analysis and strategy recommendations

Cassava - A Market Research Study

Zambia, July 2003

Prepared for the Smallholder Enterprise and Marketing Programme (SHEMP)

Reference: IFAD Loan No 521-ZM; Tender Number: SHEMP/S/33/2003

Date 09 August 2003

Commercial liability Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that information contained in this report is accurate, up-to-date and reliable, Langmead & Baker Ltd cannot be made liable for any errors, omissions or incorrect information it may contain, or for any loss or consequential loss arising as a result of decisions taken based on its contents.

Langmead & Baker Ltd, PO Box 81, Fringilla, Zambia. Tel: +260 (01) 233939 / 213939; [email protected]; www.langmead.com

L ANGMEAD & B AKER L TD

Cassava Market Research Study

LANGMEAD & BAKER LTD 1

Contents

1 Executive Summary ................................................................................. 8

2 Introduction ........................................................................................... 12

2.1 Background......................................................................................... 12

2.2 Objective............................................................................................. 13

2.3 Products.............................................................................................. 13

2.4 Food security to cash crop................................................................... 13

2.5 The importance of cassava .................................................................. 14 2.5.1 Domestic production .............................................................................................. 14 2.5.2 International trade .................................................................................................. 15

2.6 Methodology....................................................................................... 16

3 Cassava Production and Characteristics.................................................. 18

3.1 General ............................................................................................... 18

3.2 Agronomy........................................................................................... 18 3.2.1 Yields .................................................................................................................... 18 3.2.2 Maturity................................................................................................................. 19 3.2.3 Disease and Pests ................................................................................................... 19 3.2.4 Cassava varieties.................................................................................................... 21 3.2.5 Cultivation practices............................................................................................... 25

3.3 Characteristics..................................................................................... 28 3.3.1 Taste and toxicity ................................................................................................... 28 3.3.2 Nutritional composition of cassava roots and leaves................................................ 29

3.4 Conclusions ........................................................................................ 30

4 Market structure..................................................................................... 31

4.1 The products ....................................................................................... 31

4.2 Domestic market structure................................................................... 31

4.3 Prices .................................................................................................. 32

4.4 Logistics, transport and distribution..................................................... 37 4.4.1 Transport ............................................................................................................... 37 4.4.2 Levies .................................................................................................................... 37 4.4.3 Licences................................................................................................................. 38 4.4.4 Packaging .............................................................................................................. 38 4.4.5 Quality Requirements............................................................................................. 39

4.5 Potential demand................................................................................. 39 4.5.1 Food products ........................................................................................................ 39 4.5.2 Animal feed products ............................................................................................. 44 4.5.3 Actual supply......................................................................................................... 46

4.6 Issues affecting trade........................................................................... 48 4.6.1 Key internal and external influences ....................................................................... 48 4.6.2 Key market drivers and forces for change ............................................................... 49



4.7 Conclusions ........................................................................................ 54

5 Cassava Products ................................................................................... 56

5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 56

5.2 Unprocessed products ......................................................................... 58 5.2.1 Fresh roots ............................................................................................................. 58 5.2.2 Leaves ................................................................................................................... 61 5.2.3 Cuttings ................................................................................................................. 63

5.3 Processed products.............................................................................. 65 5.3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 65 5.3.2 Process elements.................................................................................................... 67 5.3.3 Dried roots............................................................................................................. 70 5.3.4 Chips ..................................................................................................................... 74 5.3.5 Cassava meal ......................................................................................................... 78 5.3.6 Gari ....................................................................................................................... 82 5.3.7 Beverages .............................................................................................................. 86 5.3.8 Charcoal/cassava fire briquettes.............................................................................. 90

5.4 Substitute products.............................................................................. 95 5.4.1 Cassava meal substitution of maize meal ................................................................ 95 5.4.2 Cassava/maize blends............................................................................................. 96 5.4.3 Cassava/wheat blends............................................................................................. 97

5.5 Animal Feed ....................................................................................... 98 5.5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 98 5.5.2 Silage..................................................................................................................... 99 5.5.3 Chips and pellets.................................................................................................. 100 5.5.4 Compound feeds .................................................................................................. 102

5.6 Industrial products............................................................................. 105 5.6.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 105 5.6.2 High quality cassava flour (HQCF)....................................................................... 105 5.6.3 Starch .................................................................................................................. 110

5.7 Summary and conclusions................................................................. 119 5.7.1 Summary ............................................................................................................. 119 5.7.2 Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 124

6 Competitive situation ........................................................................... 126

6.1 Competing products .......................................................................... 126 6.1.1 Food .................................................................................................................... 126 6.1.2 Animal Feed ........................................................................................................ 130

6.2 Competing cassava producers............................................................ 132 6.2.1 Profiles of major Zambia-based cassava growers and processors........................... 132 6.2.2 An overview of the international and regional cassava industry............................. 134 6.2.3 Production area and yields.................................................................................... 134 6.2.4 Processing............................................................................................................ 137 6.2.5 Consumption........................................................................................................ 138

6.3 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 141 6.3.1 Food .................................................................................................................... 141 6.3.2 Animal feed ......................................................................................................... 142 6.3.3 Zambian producers............................................................................................... 142 6.3.4 Cassava producers................................................................................................ 142



7 Marketing Plan..................................................................................... 144

7.1 SWOT profile ................................................................................... 144

7.2 Objectives ......................................................................................... 146

7.3 Marketing Strategy............................................................................ 146 7.3.1 Increase customers’ awareness of cassava products............................................... 147 7.3.2 Increase customers’ awareness of farmer group .................................................... 147 7.3.3 Increase customers’ willingness to buy................................................................. 149 7.3.4 Increase customers’ ability to buy......................................................................... 149

7.4 Marketing action plan........................................................................ 150

7.5 Resource requirements for implementation........................................ 151

7.6 Potential venture partners .................................................................. 152

8 Recommendations................................................................................ 153

8.1 For farmers ....................................................................................... 153

8.2 Promoting cassava utilisation ............................................................ 153

8.3 Promoting the growing of cassava by farmers ................................... 154

8.4 Promoting the processing of cassava by farmers................................ 154



Tables Table 1 shows the estimated area and quantity of cassava production for 2003/04..................................................................................................... 15 Table 2 shows world trade in cassava........................................................ 15 Table 3 shows EU imports of cassava in 2001........................................... 16 Table 4 describes the characteristics of the roots and leaves ...................... 22 Table 5 lists the seven varieties recommended by the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives and summarises their key characteristics..... 24 Table 6 is a summary of the yields of the new improved varieties, the average duration for yield, the annualised yields, the two-year yields, the labour estimate and the two-year yield per man-day. ................................. 24 Table 7 shows the amount of planting material of improved varieties currently being grown by the Root and Tuber Improvement Programme, Mansa Research Station, for the 2003/4 season. ........................................ 25 Table 8 shows the nutritional composition of cassava roots (FW), with the values of the leaves, which have been converted from dried weights. ........ 29 Table 9 shows the prices found for the basic cassava products in the market.................................................................................................................. 33 Table 10 shows the sensitivities of demand to prices and income for aggregated cassava products. .................................................................... 33 Table 11 shows the sensitivities of fresh root prices to maize prices, and the price elasticity of supply of cassava. ......................................................... 36 Table 12 gives the levies payable to selected district councils for the movement of cassava. ............................................................................... 38 Table 13 gives the distribution of population and main languages spoken in cassava-growing regions and a summary of potential food demand for basic cassava products. ...................................................................................... 42 Table 14 shows the urban populations of selected language speakers and the potential urban demand for cassava meal. ................................................. 43 Table 15 shows consumption of various cassava products in the market.... 43 Table 16 illustrates preferences for maize and cassava meals. ................... 44 Table 17 shows preference for preparing cassava products........................ 44 Table 18 shows the cassava components for animal feed products............. 46 Table 19a) shows the distribution of cassava production and the supply of fresh roots, together with cassava ‘dried product’ equivalent; b) gives the consumption of fresh roots and cassava meal for food and feed; and c) reports the surplus or deficit for each product for each province. ............... 47 Table 20 lists the influences on demand and supply of cassava-based products. ................................................................................................... 49 Table 21 is a matrix of the source of demand for particular types of product.................................................................................................................. 57 Table 22 gives the distribution of the range of man-days found by the COSCA study for cassava production in the DRC and Nigeria together with estimates for cassava and maize in Zambia. .............................................. 59 Table 23 shows the costs and revenues of cultivating one hectare of cassava.................................................................................................................. 59



Table 24 shows the costs and revenues from selling leaves in the local market....................................................................................................... 62 Table 25 shows the incremental revenues and costs of cutting and bundling stakes. ....................................................................................................... 64 Table 26 shows the increase in revenue and costs arising from making dried roots.......................................................................................................... 72 Table 27 sets out the activities associated with women, when preparing dried roots................................................................................................. 72 Table 28 shows the incremental revenue and costs associated with machine chipping.................................................................................................... 76 Table 29 gives the amount of cassava chips to be bought by the FRA in various centres. ......................................................................................... 77 Table 30 shows the incremental revenues and costs of making cassava meal or flour from chips or by using a grater. .................................................... 81 Table 31 shows the incremental revenues and costs of producing gari. ...... 83 Table 32 gives the Zambian consumer dislikes and likes about gari .......... 84 Table 33 shows the expected price range of gari from a survey of interviewees in Lusaka. ............................................................................. 85 Table 34 shows the incremental costs and revenues for the production of munkoyo................................................................................................... 89 Table 35 gives the features of different types of briquette.......................... 91 Table 36 shows the incremental costs and revenues of producing charcoal briquettes at village level........................................................................... 92 Table 37 gives the weight and volume of bread using different blends of cassava and wheat flour. ........................................................................... 98 Table 38 shows the prices of cassava pellets and selected feed components in EU ...................................................................................................... 102 Table 39 illustrates maize and cassava-based mixes for broilers. ............. 103 Table 40 shows imports of wheat starch to African countries from EU.... 114 Table 41 shows imports of potato starch into African countries from EU 115 Table 42 gives prices of principal starches (US cents/kg) ........................ 115 Table 43 shows the estimated cost per metric tonne of freight to regional centres from Port Elisabeth, Lusaka and Mombasa.................................. 116 Table 44 shows the approximate price breakdown to farm-gate prices in the focal areas............................................................................................... 116 Table 45 shows the types of cassava suitable for each province and the products most in demand. ....................................................................... 121 Table 46 shows the returns to labour for the domestically producible products. ................................................................................................. 125 Table 47 gives the household consumption and preferences for staple foods in Western Province and Luapula Province. ............................................ 127 Table 48 shows the composition of staple foods consumed per month in survey households in Western Province and Luapula Province................ 128 Table 49 shows the sources of cassava for selected districts. ................... 128 Table 50 shows the number of apparent and available calories from major crops. ...................................................................................................... 129 Table 51 gives the comparative prices of animal feeds sold in Zambia. ... 131 Table 52 shows world production trends in root equivalent ..................... 135 Table 53 shows area, yields and production in selected regions ............... 136



Table 54 shows cassava yields in root equivalent. ................................... 137 Table 55 shows area of cassava plantings. ............................................... 137 Table 56 shows per capita cassava food use ............................................ 139 Table 57 shows feed use in root equivalent ............................................. 140

Figures Figure 1 shows an example of cassava mosaic disease in Bangweulu variety.................................................................................................................. 21 Figure 2 gives the generalised structure of the cassava market................... 32 Figure 3 shows the average selling prices for 25kg bags of fresh cassava root in Lusaka over the last year................................................................ 34 Figure 4 shows the prices of 25 kg bags by volume in Lusaka during the last year........................................................................................................... 35 Figure 5 shows the elasticity of supply. ..................................................... 36 Figure 6 shows samples of the packaging of cassava meal and gari in plastic heat-sealed bags. ....................................................................................... 39 Figure 7 illustrates the products that can be made from cassava................. 57 Figure 8 illustrates the relationships between the processing sequences of the dried root and chip products. ............................................................... 70 Figure 9 shows dried Munkoyo roots, which are added to cassava porridge to make a refreshing beverage. .................................................................. 87 Figure 10. Panel (a) shows the cylindrical briquette together with its cooker, which takes two briquettes. Panel (b) shows the pillow briquette with its five-kilogram bag made from reused cement bags. .................................... 90 Figure 12 shows part of the starch and glucose manufacturing equipment at the Nisha Starch plant in Kitwe, mothballed since 1989. ......................... 118



Acronyms BOD Biological Oxidation Demand CAP Common Agricultural Policy (EU) CBB Cassava Bacterial Blight CBSD Cassava Brown Streak Disease CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CGM Cassava Green Mite CIAT Centro Internacionale de Agricultura Tropical CLUSA Cooperative League of the United States of America CMB Cassava Mealy bug CMD Cassava Mosaic Disease COD Chemical Oxidation Demand CRS Catholic Relief Services DRC Democratic Republic of the Congo DW Dry weight EARRNET East African Root Crops Research Network EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation FRI Food Research Institute, UK FW Fresh weight GATS General Agreement on Trade and Services (current) GATT General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, (old, see GATS) HCN Hydrocyanic Acid HQCF High quality cassava flour IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture MACO Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, (see MACO MAP Months after planting MSG Monosodium glutamate Mt Metric tonnes NISIR National Institute of Scientific and Industrial Research NGO Non-government Organisation NRI Natural Resources Institute, UK PAM Programme Against Malnutrition RTIP Root and Tuber Improvement Programme SADC Southern African Development Community SARRNET Southern African Root Crops Research Network SBA Starch-based adhesives SHEMP Smallholder Enterprise and Marketing Programme SIDA Swedish International Development Agency SMD Standard Man Day (6 hours) TDS Total Dissolved Solids ZATPID Zambia Agricultural Training, Planning and Institutional

Development Programme ZMK Zambian Kwacha

Exchange Rate: US$1=ZMK5,000



1 Executive Summary

This study was commissioned by SHEMP to enable smallholder farmers to access market information about products that can be made from cassava. These are the unprocessed products of fresh roots, leaves and cuttings, the value-added processed products of dried roots and chips, cassava meal and gari, and beverages and charcoal briquettes. Also discussed are cassava meal, as a substitute to maize meal, blended cassava/maize meals and cassava/wheat blends for bakery products, and animal feeds including silage, an on-farm product, chips and pellets, and compound feeds. The industrial products considered were high quality cassava flour (HQCF) and starch.

Cassava is an important crop in many parts of the country, and indeed the area under cultivation is 47 per cent of that under maize. Most cassava, however, is of traditional low-yielding landrace varieties, although yields can be increased through the adoption of new varieties and by improving traditional farming practices, particularly time of planting and weeding frequency. There is also a need for training of extension workers and farmers on newly developed technology, particularly the selection of clean planting materials, and the importance of the correct time of planting, and of plant spacing. Fortunately, there are relatively low incidences of disease and pests in Zambia, making the crop particularly appropriate.

Cassava is seen predominantly as a food crop, but its preparation must be done correctly in order to reduce the levels of cyanogens in roots and leaves to safe amounts. The nutritional value of the fresh root is high in carbohydrates but low in proteins. The high level of proteins found in the leaf counters this however.

Currently, most cassava grown in Zambia is used for household food security, but there are opportunities for increased sales to consumers, particularly in urban areas. Most consumers buy cassava products from retailers, not from farmers. Pricing is characterised by broad price bands and standardised units of measurement are weak at the farmers’ level. The generic cassava product is price sensitive, sales rising and falling with price changes, and is also income sensitive, the more people are earning, the more they will buy.

Supply is seasonal and so there are seasonal price changes. The price is



higher in the wet season. It may be that prices would rise further if the quality of the product in the wet season were the same as that in the dry season. There appear to be two distinct price ranges depending on quantity. This suggests the presence of wholesalers even if not recognised as such. These wholesalers receive lower prices for buying bulk. If maize prices rise by one per cent then cassava fresh root prices rise by 1.38 per cent and a cassava root price rise of one per cent is associated with a sales volume increase of two per cent. This appears to be attributed to quality rather than quantity.

Levies must be paid for inter-district trade and on transporting packing products and licences are required for business activities: a manufacturing licence would be required for full-time production of cassava meal. Packaging and quality must be ‘safe and sanitary’.

There is large potential demand and accessible demand for cassava products in all urban markets. Nearly all households eat maize products but many prefer cassava. Most prefer fresh root peeled and boiled, many like to mix it with maize meal or to add it to recently boiled water (nshima). There is also substantial demand for cassava meal and leaves in the animal feed market, particularly, the poultry and pig feeds markets, and for silage for cattle.

There is shortage of supply of fresh root, cassava meal and leaves in all urban markets for human and animal consumption. Recognising a shortage of demand is only part of the equation, however, and there are some important internal and external factors influencing demand and supply. The difficulties in bridging the gap between demand and supply are starting to be tackled by a number of Zambian, regional and international institutions in the agriculture sector, providing material and technical assistance at different levels to small-scale farmers.

Because of the wide distribution of the cassava-familiar people in the urban centres, from Luapula, North-Western and Western among others, there exists a substantial market for nearly every food product in all the provinces of Zambia, particularly cassava meal, dried roots for roasting and chips for making cassava meal. In addition, there are a number of manufacturers of cassava-cut biscuits and other baked products, and cassava meal is a valuable substitute to maize in animal feeds and together with leaves, can completely replace it.

Some of the products have better returns to labour than others, but these generally reflect the degree of difficulty, capital expenditure and the availability of markets.

Cuttings are the most profitable per day’s labour, followed by cassava meal made from chips and gari. Cuttings and gari are considered risky business propositions because of the shaky markets, but meal made from chips appears to be a good opportunity.

Following these are chips made with a machine, chips made from the manual grater, and leaves. These are considered lower risk products.



Cassava meal made with the grater, briquettes and munkoyo have intermediate returns to labour; and then fresh and dried roots are the lowest risk and have the lowest returns to labour.

Cuttings and gari appear to have limited market outlets.

Cassava meal made from chips or with the grater, gari and machine chips use engine-driven machines, which are unreliable and need fuel and spare parts. Machines increase business risk.

Gari is the highest degree of difficulty, followed by the briquettes, munkoyo and cassava meal using the grater, then machine chips.

High quality cassava flour and starch are industrial products that have more complex production processes and are premature for the focal area groups at this stage.

Zambian cassava farmers face competition on two fronts, from substitute products and from other cassava growers and processors. Maize is the most obvious competitor, and of particular importance is maize meal, against which cassava meal offers potential as a substitute.

Preference for either maize or cassava varies from one area of the country to another, with households in areas of high cassava cultivation tending to prefer cassava to maize, and households in cassava-abundant areas such as Luapula consume more cassava than maize, while the opposite is the case in other areas, such as Western Province.

Yet despite set preferences, households do not necessarily always consume what they prefer. This may be attributed to lack of availability of their preferred food, or high prices. Most consumption of cassava is from home-grown stocks. Increasing consumers’ ability to buy cassava through improved availability is thus key to making such products competitive.

Availability is only one factor, however, and willingness to buy is influenced by consumer preferences, including taste, nutritional content and preparation. Cassava has 34.6 Kcal of energy per kg, similar to maize at 36.5Kcal, and awareness of these and other benefits has a bearing on demand. Zambian consumers are also extremely price sensitive, and competitive pricing will encourage customers’ willingness to buy.

Animal feed is another area where cassava can compete, but the prescriptive nature of feed formulations makes it difficult for cassava-based feed to differentiate itself from other feeds in any way other than on price.

Competition from other cassava growers and producers, domestically, regionally and internationally is a consideration. Locally, the market is dominated by small-scale farmers, along with a handful of intermediate farmers. Internationally, world cassava supply is growing on the strength of increased demand, largely for starch, but protectionist policies in the main industrialised markets make them difficult to enter, although Africa’s



production is mainly for domestic consumption and so should be less affected by that.

When marketing cassava products, producers, processors and traders should consider four elements to their strategy, increasing customers’ awareness of cassava products, increasing customers’ awareness of their farmer group, increasing customers’ willingness to buy and increasing customers’ ability to buy.

Recommendations for farmers include the use of improved certified cassava cuttings, and following extension recommendations, particularly on early planting, spacing and weeding. They should also attend processing training by SHEMP, identify appropriate cassava products for their focal area, research market factors and form groups to help in the processing.

The farmers’ efforts can be supported by institutions that can create demand for cassava products, make available clean certified cassava cuttings of the improved varieties, support multiplication nurseries in the focal areas, support research into new varieties, provide effective extension and training services on cassava growing and cassava products, including literature support, and provide supporting information, particularly on market prices and potential buyers.

On product processing, they should create demand for cassava products, ensure a reliable and consistent supply of cassava raw materials, provide processing training and support, provide food health and safety testing facilities, provide marketing support, including generic advertising and packaging advice, provide support for sales, distribution and transport, ensure a reliable and consistent supply of finished cassava goods to retail and wholesale outlets by farmers and make available cassava processing machines.



2 Introduction

2.1 Background

Cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) is a tropical tuberous root crop, not a tuber, grown across a wide area of the world between 30 degrees north and south of the Equator, originally from Brazil. The Portuguese brought it to the west coast of Africa in the 16th century, but it is generally accepted that most of the spread of cassava occurred in the 20th century because of its resilience to locusts and drought.

Zambia produces an estimated 950,000 Mt1 of cassava root per year, around 0.58 per cent of total global production of approximately 163,746,000 Mt2. While a number of countries, including Nigeria, Brazil, Thailand, Indonesia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo process cassava on a commercial basis for export, virtually all of Zambia’s production is consumed at household level as a food staple.

In the context of Zambia, cassava production can be divided into two types: that grown for household food security and that sold as a cash crop, either as fresh root or processed. It is the latter component that is the key focus of this report, although food security inevitably plays an important interrelated role. An estimated 92 per cent of cassava farmers process their crop, either into chips or on to flour.3

The uses of cassava in terms of a cash crop can broadly be classified into three elements, food for human consumption, animal feed and industrial products including high quality cassava flour and starch.

1 FAO estimate for 2001. Source: “Applying a Sub-Sector Analysis Approach to Studying the Marketing of Cassava and Sweet Potato in Southern Africa: The Case of Zambia”, Rural Net Associates Ltd for the Southern Africa Root Crops Research Network, December 2002. 2 Estimate for 1993-1995, “The World Cassava Economy. Facts, Trends and Outlook”, IFAD and FAO, 2000. 3 “Applying a Sub-sector Analysis Approach to Studying the Marketing of Cassava and Sweet Potato in Southern Africa: The Case of Zambia”, RuralNet Associates Ltd, for Southern Africa Root Crops Research Network, December 2002.



Demand for the first two, food and animal feed, is by-and-large domestic, with perhaps some potential for export to neighboring countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The market for starch, meanwhile, is a global one in which Zambia must be competitive in order to participate. Successful market penetration thus encompasses such issues as yield, processing efficiency, quality, pricing and promotion. The challenge is to fit existing resources and expertise to market demands while also blending that with the introduction of new approaches to improve productivity and expand market reach.

2.2 Objective

The object of this study is to assess the present and potential market for cassava products and identify ways in which small-scale farmers in Zambia can benefit from meeting part of that demand.

2.3 Products

The products considered in this report are unprocessed products of cassava fresh root, leaves and cuttings; the processed products of dried root, chips and cassava meal, gari, beverages and charcoal briquettes; the substitute products of maize meal, blended maize and cassava meals and blended wheat and cassava flour for bread products; animal feeds of silage, chips, pellets and compound feeds; and finally the industrial products of high-quality cassava flour (HQCF) and starch.

2.4 Food security to cash crop

There are four distinct stages in the transformation of cassava from a household food security crop to a cash crop for farmers4. These are:

• Famine reserve crop

4 Nweke F, Spencer D, Lynam J (2002). ‘The Cassava Transformation. Africa’s Best Kept Secret’, IITA published by Michigan State University Press.



• Rural food staple

• Cash crop and urban food staple

• Industrial raw material

In Zambia a combination of the first two is apparent. In the traditional cassava-growing regions of Luapula, Northern Province and parts of North-Western Province, cassava is a rural food staple; while in drought-prone areas of Southern Province it is being promoted as a famine reserve crop.

Some cassava is processed on-farm and sold in local market places, and there is a small trade taking dried roots and chips into Lusaka, the Copperbelt and provincial capitals, but there is a long way to go before cassava is considered an urban food staple. Lack of industrial processing facilities effectively precludes the fourth stage for the time being.

Most Zambian cassava farmers are thus on a cusp between using their crop as a rural food staple and developing it into a cash crop. Momentum is gaining in that direction, however, and this study aims to assist in the shift.

2.5 The importance of cassava

2.5.1 Domestic production

An estimated 165,000 hectares of land was used for cassava cultivation in 2001, representing 3.1 per cent of all arable land in Zambia and being a 50 per cent increase on the estimates for 1991. Cassava production rose by 40 per cent to 950,000Mt during the same period, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization, which worked on the basis of average yields of 5.8Mt per hectare.5 The Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives used a more optimistic yield assumption of 7Mt/ha to arrive at expected production figures of 815,248Mt for 2000/01 from 116,464 hectares of land.

Table 1 shows the estimated area and quantity of cassava production for 2003/04. The estimate was revised upwards, using a yield of 11.7Mt/ hectare, to 958,113Mt from 327,560 hectares. When only mature cassava is considered, the hectarage is 140,251 and production 410,235Mt, based on a 25 per cent conversion rate of fresh root to dried product. This compares with an estimated 699,276 hectares under maize yielding 1,157,861Mt.

5 Food and Agriculture Organization.



Table 1 shows the estimated area and quantity of cassava production for 2003/04.

Province/ District

Area Under Cassava (Ha)

Area Under Mature Cassava (Ha)

Expected Production (MT) @ 11.7MT/Ha * 25%

Potential production 2002/03

Central 11,282 2,208 33,000 6,458.40 Copperbelt 3,973 1,030 11,621 3,012.75 Eastern 5,835 1,475 17,067 4,314.38 Luapula 97,822 42,605 286,129 124,619.63 Lusaka 1,128 42 3,299 122.85 Northern 113,040 40,226 330,642 117,661.05 Nwestern 38,036 19,279 111,255 56,391.08 Southern 1,575 388 4,607 1,134.90 Western 54,870 32,998 160,495 96,519.15 NATIONAL 327,560 140,251 958,113 410,234.18 Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Early Warning Unit.

2.5.2 International trade

Table 2 shows world trade in cassava. Thailand is the leading exporter with six million Mt. The next largest exporter is Indonesia with only 400,000 Mt. Correspondingly, substantially the most important importer is the European Union, importing three million Mt. China is the next most important, buying 1.2 million Mt.

Table 2 shows world trade in cassava

1999 2000 2001 Million Mt World Exports 6.8 7.1 6.5 Thailand 6.2 6.5 6.0 Indonesia 0.3 0.4 0.4 Others 0.3 0.2 0.1 World Imports 6.8 7.1 6.5 EC 4.3 3.7 3.0 China 1.1 1.0 1.2 Indonesia 0.1 0.5 0.5 Japan 0.5 0.6 0.6 Korea Republic 0.1 0.1 0.2 Malaysia 0.2 0.2 0.2 USA 0.1 0.1 0.1 Others 0.4 0.9 0.7

Source: FAO



Table 3 shows EU imports of cassava in 2001. Thailand is again the most important, half of its cassava is sold to Europe, 2.9 million Mt, distantly followed by the Cameroons with only 44 Mt. Zambia is not on the list of importers to Europe.

Table 3 shows EU imports of cassava in 2001

€ 1000s M Tons Price €Exporting countryIvory Coast 30 26 1,154Ghana 12 37 324Togo 14 25 560Benin 25 39 641Cameroon 69 44 1,568Congo 2 0Comoros 0 2 0Ecuador 4 10 400Brazil 51 124 411Thailand 218,467 2,913,584 75Vietnam 2 2 1,000Indonesia 3 1 3,000Philippines 2 6 333Total EU imports 218,681 2,913,900 75

Intra EU trade 17,814 190,421 94

Imports to EU

Source: EUROSTAT.

2.6 Methodology

This report starts by considering the existing resources and expertise in Zambia: ‘Agronomy’ considers yields, maturity, diseases and pests; ‘Improved varieties’ looks at the alternatives to low-yielding traditional varieties; ‘Cultivation practices’ includes traditional practices, recommended practices and international perspective; and ‘Characteristics’ discusses taste and toxicity and the nutritional values of cassava.

It then examines the market structure, looking at the domestic products, which are fresh roots, dried roots and chips, cassava meal and leaves, and the domestic market structure, pricing, including sensitivity of demand to price, seasonality, the price-volume relationship and the sensitivities of fresh root to maize prices and sales volumes to prices. The logistics of operations are considered, including transport, levies, licensing, packaging and quality requirements for these basic products. Potential demand is estimated of each of the basic products, for the country and each of the provinces, together



with accessible potential demand and consumer preferences. The demand for animal feed is also examined, for the country.

The actual supply is reported with the distribution of products according to the potential market. The issues affecting trade are discussed from the perspectives of internal and external influences. Finally, the key market drivers and forces for change are examined, including an historical perspective of the cassava industry in Zambia and the institutional framework.

The section on products describes the product, the process of production, the economics, the demand and the supply, of the unprocessed products, the processed products, the substitute products, animal feeds and the industrial products.

The ‘Competitive situation’ identifies: the competing food and animal feed products, examining product differentiation, price leadership; the competing cassava producers, looking at the international and regional cassava industry, production areas and yields, processing, consumption; and the profiles of Zambian-based producers.

The ‘Marketing plan’ draws the observations together to assess the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to potential Zambian producers, providing measurable but achievable objectives, and a marketing strategy to increase customers’ awareness of cassava products, increase customers’ awareness of farmer groups, increase customers’ willingness to buy and to increase customers’ ability to buy. This is followed by a marketing action plan, the resources required to implement the plan and potential venture partners.

There are recommendations for farmers, for promoting cassava utilisation, for growing of cassava by farmers and the processing of cassava by farmers.

The appendices provide ancillary information including the quality, packaging and code information, product production processes, equipment designs, equipment suppliers, cassava product buyers, environmental impact and control, references and contacts.



3 Cassava Production and Characteristics

3.1 General

Cassava is a crop that grows well in poor conditions, both climatic and of soil. It does well at temperatures between 25 °C and 29 °C and in the rainfall band between 600mm and 1500mm6. Soils should be friable to accommodate root growth and facilitate ease of harvesting7.

3.2 Agronomy

3.2.1 Yields

The national average yields in Zambia have been reported to be between seven and 11 Mt per hectare, but these yields are probably not at the recommended plant spacing. At one-by-one metre plant spacing, yields of around 18Mt ha-1 have been found under farmer conditions without fertiliser; and with fertiliser, Bangweulu can produce about 30Mt ha-1 in 12 to 16 months, whereas Nalumino can produce 28Mt in 16 to 24 months. It is reported in other countries that yield can increase by around 30 per cent through the use of irrigation, but this has not been verified in Zambia.

The Root and Tuber Improvement Programme, Mansa Research Station, has conducted trials on the new varieties it has developed, but has noticed considerable differences between the yields achieved on-station and those achieved by farmers. Poor cultural practices have resulted in yields being

6 In Alves, 2001 7 Cassava Production Guide, Soils and Crops Research Branch, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, 2002.



between half and three-quarters of those achievable under experimental conditions8. In addition, most cassavas in Zambia are traditional landraces with expected yields of below 9Mt over two years, giving an average expected yield of only 4.5ha per annum.

3.2.2 Maturity

The expected maturity of cassavas in Zambia are from twelve months onwards: Bangweulu is the earliest variety being from 12 to 16 months; Mweru, Chila, and Kampolombo are around 16 months, Tanganyika around 16-18 months; and Nalumino and Kapumba between 16 and 24 months. These long maturity durations make the crop less susceptible to erratic rainfall and increase food security.

3.2.3 Disease and Pests

The general advice on reducing incidence of diseases and pests is to use the cultural practices of intercropping, rotations, varietal mixtures, changing planting dates, disease and pest-free planting material and burning plant debris. The main pests are the cassava mealy bug, CMB, the cassava green mite, CGM and the whitefly, which are also vectors for the Cassava Mosaic Disease. Other pests include monkeys when they can see the roots, and wild pigs and warthogs when they have young. The most important diseases in Zambia are the Cassava Mosaic Disease (CMD) and the Cassava Bacterial Blight Disease. There is little evidence of Cassava Brown Streak Disease, but this may be due to lack of surveillance.

The most effective way of preventing the spread of the threatening diseases of the Uganda variant of CMD, UgV, and Cassava Brown Streak Disease from neighbouring countries is by restricting movement of planting materials9.

Pests

Cassava Green Mite (CGM)

During the dry season, losses from this important pest (Mononychallus tanajoa) can rise from 21 per cent in the first three months to 53 per cent by six months. The losses can be up to 80 per cent for susceptible cultivars, but only 15 per cent for resistant varieties. At the moment the methods of control are using resistant varieties, cultural practices such as early planting, biological control with predators and acaricides10. Work continues in other countries on resistance, and biological control through natural predators and

8 Interview, P. Sisupo, Mansa Research Station 9 Moses Simwanbana, Principal Agricultural Officer, MACO, Mutanda Research Station. 10 Ibid.



fungal pathogens. There is a high reported incidence of the green mite in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 59 per cent of villages with 38 per cent of plants per hectare affected. The incidence in the Northern regions of Zambia is unknown.

Cassava Mealy Bug (CMB)

Phenacoccus manihoti is pink with a fine coat of mealy wax, found on stems, leaves and apices, and is one to three millimetres long by 0.7 to 1.5mm wide. Terminal shoots become stunted and deformed, internode length reduced and stems twisted. This important pest has the potential to destroy up to 80 per cent of the root crop. The most important method of control is using resistant improved varieties. In addition, before planting, cuttings can be treated with diomethoate or dipped in water of 52°C for ten minutes. After planting, it is most effectively controlled by the use of Apoanagyrus lopezi 11, which is a wasp available from Mt. Makulu.

Whitefly

Bemisia tabaci transmits Cassava Mosaic Disease and possibly Cassava Brown Streak Disease. Of late, the whitefly is becoming a pest in its own right, injuring the plant.

Diseases

African Cassava Mosaic Disease (CMD)

The disease is spread principally by planting material but also by the whitefly, Bemisia tabaci, and can lead to 20 to 90 per cent root losses. In 1995, the incidence of CMD in Zambia was 41 per cent, but the disease is considered epidemic, spreading from Uganda since the late 1980s. The symptoms are light green or yellow to white patches on the leaf. Figure 1 shows an example of cassava mosaic disease in Bangweulu variety. In DRC, mosaic infected leaves are preferred because they are more palatable as a vegetable, so farmers do not consider the disease a problem and therefore do not control it. Meanwhile, IITA has a protocol limiting the movement of planting materials to prevent the spread of the disease, which has been ignored by some important NGOs in Zambia recently.

11 Formerly named Epidinocarsis lopezi



Figure 1 shows an example of cassava mosaic disease in Bangweulu variety.

Cassava Bacterial Blight (CBB)

The disease is reported to be nearly as damaging as CMD, and it has been found in Luapula Province. The consequences are serious, the Root and Tuber Improvement Programme destroyed whole fields of infected cassava.

Cassava Brown Streak Disease (CBSD)

CBSD seems to be mostly in eastern coastal areas of Africa, but infected material may have been brought into Zambia. The disease has been reported in Malawi and Tanzania. It is an economically important disease that needs to be checked. The most effective form of control is the introduction of disease resistant varieties. It is believed the spread of the disease is due to whitefly.

3.2.4 Cassava varieties

Cassava characteristics and traits

Cassava is a dicotyledon, Euphorbiaceae, one to four metres tall, otherwise called tapioca, manioc, yuca or mandioca. Of the Manihot genus there are around 100 species, but only Manihot esculenta Crantz is cultivated. There are two types of plant, one with or without branching at the top and one spreading.

Table 4 describes the characteristics of the roots and leaves. There can be up to 14 roots per plant with a fresh weight (FW) of up to 3.4kg per plant. A root can weigh up to 2.35kg and be a metre long and 15cm across. The dry weight (DW) of a root is between 23 and 43 per cent. The dry matter in a leaf is around 25 per cent of the fresh weight12.

12 Various sources, in Alves, 2002



Table 4 describes the characteristics of the roots and leaves

Root Leaves Roots per plant 3-14 FW per plant 0.5-3.4kg FW per root 0.17-2.35kg Length 15-100cm Diameter 3-15cm DM in root 23-34% 25%

Source: various, in Alves 2002

The cassava root is a tuberous root and cannot be used for vegetative propagation. The leaf area is positively associated with root yield. The plant needs high temperatures (25ºC to 29ºC) to optimise yields. At temperatures below 17ºC leaf production and dried weight of the root diminishes. At below 15ºC growth is inhibited. The optimal photoperiod is around 12 hours; longer days reduce root development but promote the growth of shoots, and vice versa. Solar radiation is also important; shade delays the root bulking process. Although drought tolerant, because of stomatal closure and reduced leaf growth, a two-month water deficit in the first five months reduces root yield by up to 60 per cent. The root deteriorates within 24 to 72 hours after harvesting and is difficult to store.

Zambian improved varieties

Cassava varieties can be classified as traditional and improved types. The latter have evolved out of a recognised hierarchical system of development internationally, in practice by the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), followed by localisation by domestic institutions – in Zambia’s case the Root and Tuber Improvement Programme (RTIP) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives.

Table 5 lists the seven varieties recommended by the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives and summarises their key characteristics. These improved varieties are not widespread in Zambia and most the cassava found in Zambia remains indigenous landraces, predominantly Kabala in Luapula Province and Mwakamoya in North-Western Province and Kaoma District. In Western Province is some Nalumino and Kapumba and there are pockets of Chila and Mweru in Chama and Lundazi Districts. Many of the new varieties have been named after Zambian lakes. Bangweulu, Kapumba and Nalumino are from the local germplasm collection and later varieties are from the crossing blocks.

Bangweulu

Bangweulu has a yield of about 31Mt ha-1, and a maturity of between 12 and 16 months. It is moderately resistant to CMD and to CMB and is a bitter variety. It is distinguished from Kapumba by having a slightly darker green leaf whilst having the same maroon-coloured petiole. Bangweulu is the most widespread improved variety and is found countrywide.



Nalumino

Nalumino’s yield is about 29Mt ha-1 over a 16 to 24 month period. The variety is resistant to CMD and CMB and is said to be ‘cool’ (sweet). Nalumino is reportedly the favorite for roots, has a green and maroon petiole and is distinguished from Mweru by its smaller leaf size and shorter petiole. Nalumino is mostly found in Western Province and in pockets around Mutanda Research Station in North-Western Province and in Southern Province.

Kapumba

Kapumba yields 22Mt ha-1 over 16 to 24 months. It is moderately resistant to CMD and CMB, and is a sweet variety. It is distinguished from Bangweulu by its lighter green leaf. Kapumba is found mostly in Western Province.

Mweru

Mweru’s yield is around 40Mt ha-1 over around 16 months and is a sweet variety. It is distinguished from Nalumino by its greater sized leaf and longer maroon and green petiole. It is moderately resistant to CMD and CMB. Being one of the recently released varieties, with those below, it is mostly found around Mansa Research Station and in isolated places in Chama and Lundazi districts and in Southern Province.

Chila

Chila is a slightly bitter variety yielding 35Mt ha-1 over around 16 months, and is moderately resistant to CMD and CMB. The short yellowy-green petiole of this variety is most distinctive. Chila is mostly around Mansa Research Station, Chama and Lundazi districts and in Southern Province.

Tanganyika

Tanganyika yields 38Mt ha-1 over 16 to 18 moths and is a sweet variety. It is moderately resistant to CMD and CMB. Its bright pink petiole and small delicate finger leaves make the variety easy to identify. This is a new variety only found around Mansa Research Station.

Kampolombo

The yield from Kampolombo, a sweet variety, is around 38Mt ha-1 over about 16 months. It is moderately resistant to CMD and CMB. This variety is only found around Mansa Research Station.



Table 5 lists the seven varieties recommended by the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives and summarises their key characteristics.

Variety Yield (Mt/ha)

Maturity Resistance Taste

Bangweulu 31 12-16 Moderately resistant to CMD and CMB

Bitter

Nalumino 29 16-24 Resistant to CMD and CMB Cool (Sweet)

Kapumba 22 16-24 Moderately resistant to CMD and CMB

Sweet

Mweru 40 16 Moderately resistant to CMD and CMB

Sweet

Chila 35 16 Moderately resistant to CMD and CMB

Slightly bitter

Tanganyika 38 16-18 Moderately resistant to CMD and CMB

Sweet

Kampolombo 38 16 Moderately resistant to CMD and CMB

Sweet

Source: Cassava Production Guide, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives

Table 6 is a summary of the yields of the new improved varieties, the average duration for yield, the annualised yields, the two-year yields, the labour estimate and the two-year yield per man-day. The yields for the improved varieties are over different durations. To compare these, the average duration per year can be examined, to find the best yielding variety per year, but the two-year yield may be a better measure of the varieties’ performance. Since the main input is labour, the performance can be assessed by kilogram man-days. With this measure, the highest yielding seems to be Mweru with 125kg/man-day, followed by Kampolombo with 119kg/md. The lowest yielders are Kapumba with 55kg/md and Nalumino with 73kg/md.

Table 6 is a summary of the yields of the new improved varieties, the average duration for yield, the annualised yields, the two-year yields, the labour estimate and the two-year yield per man-day.

Yield potentials of the improved varieties Variety Yield Av. Duration' Annualised yield Two-year yield Labour estimate kg/man-day Bangweulu 31 14 26.6 15.5 140 111 Nalumino 29 20 17.4 14.5 200 73 Kapumba 22 20 13.2 11 200 55 Mweru 40 16 30.0 20 160 125 Chila 35 16 26.3 17.5 160 109 Tanganyika 38 17 26.8 19 170 112 Kampolombo 38 16 28.5 19 160 119



Table 7 shows the amount of planting material of improved varieties currently being grown by the Root and Tuber Improvement Programme, Mansa Research Station, for the 2003/4 season. These varieties are in short supply, therefore farmers have experienced difficulties in obtaining cuttings. Only seven hectares of improved planting material is being grown in Mansa Research Station, enough for only 56 hectares. The Programme Against Malnutrition (PAM), and Care International, among others, have distribution programmes, mainly in Southern and Eastern Provinces. Alternatively, farmers, who must be in groups, can approach their District Agricultural Officer, who can then contact staff at the Root and Tuber Improvement Programme, Mansa Research Station, in order to arrange distribution. Often, however, requests have been scaled back due to lack of material, in turn a function of lack of programme resources.

Table 7 shows the amount of planting material of improved varieties currently being grown by the Root and Tuber Improvement Programme, Mansa Research Station, for the 2003/4 season.

Variety Area of cuttings

Approx. area of planting

Mweru 3 ha 24 ha Chila 2.5 ha 20 ha Bangweulu 1 ha 8 ha Tanganyika 0.25 lima 2 ha Kampolongo 0.25 lima 2 ha Total 7.0ha 56ha

In addition to the Mansa Research Station supply of cuttings, there have been attempts to encourage farmer multiplication programmes in various parts of the country, although these have not always proved successful in distribution to other farmers13. Cuttings via the DACO are available free of charge, although given on the understanding that when multiplied they should be distributed to other farmers.

3.2.5 Cultivation practices

Traditional practice

Dry planting is more common in Western and North Western Provinces; but elsewhere farmers plant either at the onset of the rains or a bit earlier. In Northern and North-Western provinces, the cuttings are planted on ridges or mounds, sometimes on dambos, without fertiliser nor plant protection. Although there are always exceptions, generally, little attention is paid to the plant for one or two years, until it is harvested. On dambos, mounds are made after the end of the rains and then cuttings planted in April/May. The

13 Presley Sisupo, Technical Officer, Root and Tuber Improvement Programme, Mansa Research Station.



harvest is taken as the water levels in the dambo are rising again, or even in the following season.

Recommended practices14

1) Land Preparation

a. Mounds should be 0.75m to 2m radius and between 15cm and 50cm high. The advantage of this method is there is better drainage than ridges; the method is commonly used on dambos. The drawback is the plant population is likely to be low.

b. Ridges should be 0.8m to 1m between centres, 30cm high and 40cm wide.

c. Flat planting is only recommended on loose soils and sands.

2) Planting

a. Select clean disease-free planting material.

b. Early planting is recommended, in November/December.

c. For normal applications, plant cuttings upright along the ridge. If the variety is a branching type, use a 1m ridge with a 1m spacing between plants, if a non-branching variety, use a 1m ridge and 0.8m spacing between plants.

d. Planting at an angle (45º) is recommended for leaf production.

3) Trimming

a. If the variety is vigorously branching, some branches could be trimmed.

4) Weeding

a. Three times at 45-day intervals from planting is recommended.

b. Re-ridge at the same time while weeding.

c. Ensure the roots are covered and try not to disturb them.

5) Fertilising

a. Apply 10cm to 35cm from the plant base at 10cm deep.

14 Soenarjo (1997).



b. Poor soils

i. Nitrogen 60-90kg/ha, � at planting � at 2 -4 months after planting (MAP).

ii. P2O5 50-60kg/ha at planting.

iii. K2O 60-90kg/ha, � at planting � at 2-4MAP.

This is roughly equivalent to one bag of murate of potash, five bags of compound M and one and a half bags of urea.

c. Good soils

i. Nitrogen 45-50kg/ha, � at planting � at 2 -4 months after planting (MAP).

ii. P2O5 25-30kg/ha at planting.

iii. K2O 50-60kg/ha, � at planting � at 2-4MAP.

These recommendations are roughly equivalent to one bag of murate of potash, three bags of compound M and one and a half bags of urea.

International practices

Fertiliser applications of commercial cassava are of particular interest: in Columbia, rates of 100kg N, 200kg P2O5 and 150kg K2O increased yields from 32Mt/ha to 40Mt/ha.; in Malaysia 112kg N, 156kg P2O5 and 187kg K2O maintained 50Mt/ha. Declining yields are associated with lack of K: in India, 100kg of K2O maintained yields at 20-30Mt/ha for ten years; in Columbia, 150kg K2O maintained 30Mt/ha. Increased potassium is also associated with increased starch content and declining HCN.15

Irrigation can substantially raise yields; increases of up to 30 per cent have been reported. Contour ridging, cover crops and rotations are common recommendations.

15 In Howeler (2001)



3.3 Characteristics

3.3.1 Taste and toxicity

Cassava roots are broadly classified as either sweet or bitter tasting, with degrees of each in between. There is a high correlation between bitter tasting varieties and higher levels of hydrocyanic acid ( HCN). Bitter-tasting varieties are generally preferred in the Northern and Luapula Provinces, where cassava is a traditional staple and people are familiar with the processing regime required to remove the associated cyanide. In areas where people are unfamiliar with the crop, or prefer to eat the roots raw, a sweet variety is recommended16.

Cyanide content is attributed to cyanogenic glucoside. If this is higher than 100mg/kg fresh weight, the root is considered bitter, otherwise sweet; however, there have been incidences when bitter roots have had low levels of HCN, a phenomenon that has been associated with environmental conditions. Generally, less than 10mg/kg is considered a safe level for human consumption, less than 100mg/kg for livestock consumption. The leaf has the highest levels of HCN, followed by the peel and then the root itself. Cyanogens in the root are reduced by expression of the juice, rasping, heating, fermenting and drying17. The HCN in the leaf is best removed by dry pounding until there is juice from the leaf and the whole is a mash. This is then boiled, washed and then sometimes dried or eaten in a stew.

Although the poor nutritive value of cassava and the effect of HCN may not be related, it is reported that proteins help to ameliorate the effects of cyanogens. In Northern and North-Western provinces, these proteins are from fish and groundnuts, which are both commonly included in the diet. In prolonged cases of improperly processing cassava root or leaf, growth can be stunted. A condition called konzo can also develop, which is caused by the effect of HCN on the nervous system, and results in paralysis.

16 There is a very important caveat to this: the Kariba variety, which was developed along with Mweru, Chila, Tanganyika and Kampolombo, is reported to have not been released because it is sweet and has a high cyanogen content. 17 Linamarase in the cell wall is released when the cell wall is ruptured, mixing with the linamarin, which hydrolyses to acetone cyanohydrin and glucose. The cyanohydrin, which volatises at around 87ºC, breaks down to hydrocyanic acid (HCN) either at a rate dependent on temperature and pH or enzymatically. HCN volatises around 25.7ºC and is water soluable. Westby (2001).



The cyanogens in cassava root are to protect itself: in varieties that have the toxic gene, toxicity levels can rise with the drought period, even in sweet varieties. Declining water supply compounds this danger of poisoning. This combination has caused a serious incident in Tanzania in the past, and so it is unwise to distribute cassava to areas that suffer drought periods without knowledge of the responses of the improved varieties to dry spells. At the moment the response of the improved sweet varieties to drought periods is not well understood.

3.3.2 Nutritional composition of cassava roots and leaves

Table 8 shows the nutritional composition of cassava roots (FW), with the values of the leaves, which have been converted from dried weights. The roots have moisture content of 63 per cent and have a high energy content of 580 kJ per 100g. The protein levels however are very low, 0.53 per cent, but the starch levels are very high, 31 per cent18. In comparison, the leaves have little or no energy content but are high in protein, 5.1 per cent, and fat, 2 per cent.

Table 8 shows the nutritional composition of cassava roots (FW), with the values of the leaves, which have been converted from dried weights.

Component Roots Leaves Moisture (%) 62.8 74.8 Energy (kJ 100g-1) 580 Protein (%) 0.53 5.1 Fat (%) 0.17 2.0 Starch (%) 31.0 Sugar (%) 0.83 Dietary Fibre (%) 1.48 5.1 Ash (%) 0.84 2.7 Minerals (mg 100g-1) Calcium 20 350 Potassium 302 56 Phosphate 46 Magnesium 30 Iron 0.23

Source: In Westby 2001

18 Bitter varieties are usually higher in starch content than sweet varieties. This figure suggests a bitter variety; sweet varieties are expected to be around 20 per cent.



3.4 Conclusions

• The expected area under cassava for the last year is 47 per cent of that under maize.

• Yields can be increased through the adoption of new varieties and by improving traditional farming practices, particularly time of planting and weeding frequency.

• There is a need for training of extension workers and farmers on newly developed technology, particularly the selection of clean planting materials, time of planting, spacing, etc.

• There are relatively low incidences of disease and pests in Zambia, making the crop particularly appropriate.

• Proper care and attention is important in the preparation of cassava-based products. The presence of cyanogens in roots and leaves mean processing must be effective at reducing these to a safe level.

• Cyanogens can increase during a drought period, even in sweet varieties. Care should be taken not to distribute such varieties into drought areas.

• The nutritional value of the fresh root is high in carbohydrates but low in proteins. The high level of proteins found in the leaf counters this however.



4 Market structure

4.1 The products

The main products in the market are fresh roots, dried root and chips, cassava meal and leaves, and the dried roots and chips are used to make the cassava meal. Dried roots, chips and cassava meal are referred to in this chapter as dried cassava products.

4.2 Domestic market structure

Figure 2 gives the generalised structure of the cassava market. Farmers use cassava products themselves or sell roots and dried cassava products to processors, traders, retailers and consumers directly. The processors mostly make cassava meal and they then sell the processed product to traders, which sell to retailers, or to retailers directly. Traders sell either to retailers or to processors that produce an end product and on-sell to traders and retailers. Most consumers acquire cassava products from retailers (69 percent), while 16 per cent buy direct from a producer19.

19 “Applying a Sub-sector Analysis Approach to Studying the Marketing of Cassvaa and Sweet Potato in Southern Africa: The Case of Zambia”, RuralNet Associates Ltd, for Southern Africa Root Crops Research Network, December 2002.



Cassava Industry Market Structure

Household Use

Consumers

Retailers

Traders

Consumers

Retailers

Processors

Consumers

Retailers

Consumers

Retailers

Traders

Consumers

Retailers

Processors

Traders

Consumers

Retailers Consumers

Small-scale Farmers

Figure 2 gives the generalised structure of the cassava market.

Another practice is for farmers to sell designated rows or patches of cassava growing in their fields to neighbours or traders on a contract basis.

4.3 Prices

Local market pricing is characterised by broad pricing bands and lack of standardisation of units of measurement, making comparisons by researchers and consumers difficult.

A number of factors affect customers’ sensitivity to price, including:

• Buyer’s perceptions and preferences

• Buyer’s awareness of and attitude towards alternatives

• Buyer’s ability to pay

Table 9 shows the prices found for the basic cassava products in the market. Fresh roots were selling for ZMK2,000 (US$0.40) per kilogram or heap, ZMK1,000 (US$0.20) per piece or ZMK400 (US$0.08) for a small piece; the retailers were buying for between ZMK360 (US$0.07) and ZMK970 (US$0.19) per kg usually in 25kg but also 50kg bags. Dried roots were selling to retailers for ZMK1,200 (US$0.24) per kilogram and the buying price from farmers was between ZMK400 (US$0.08) and ZMK600 (US$0.12) per 50kg bag. Chips were found to be a snack and sold at ZMK100 (US$0.02) per piece and were made by the vendor. Cassava meal was being sold at ZMK2,000 (US$0.40) per kilogram or ZMK250 (US$0.05) per cup and was being bought for ZMK1,200 (US$0.24) per kilogram in 50kg or 90kg bags. Leaves were being sold for between ZMK100 (US$0.02) and ZMK300 (US$0.06) per 20-leaf bundle and being



bought for ZMK230 (US$0.05) to ZMK550 (US$0.11) per kg in 25kg or 50kg bags.

Table 9 shows the prices found for the basic cassava products in the market.

Market product

Selling Prices Buying prices

Packaging

Fresh roots K2,000/kg or heap; K1,000 per piece; K400 per small piece.

K360-K970/kg

25kg/50kg bag

Dried roots K1,200/kg K400-K600/kg

50kg bag

Chips K100 per piece Meal K2,000/kg; K250 per cup K1,200/kg 50kg/90kg

bag Leaves K100-K300 per 20 leaf bundle K230-

K550/kg 25kg/50kg


Table 10 shows the sensitivities of demand to prices and income for aggregated cassava products. If the price rises, 51 per cent of interviewees would reduce consumption whilst, if prices fall, 51 per cent of interviewees would increase consumption, so elasticity of demand to prices is around unity.

If the interviewees have more money, half of them would increase consumption, while the remainder would continue with their present buying habits, suggesting an elasticity of demand to incomes is also around unity. RuralNet (2002) found a similar result, but 77 per cent of respondents20 said they would buy more cassava if their incomes increased. This suggests that cassava is more price elastic. Both results suggest sales increase if incomes rise.

Table 10 shows the sensitivities of demand to prices and income for aggregated cassava products.

Demand sensitivities Higher price Lower price Higher income Mean -51% 51% 50% StDev 51% 51% 55%

Figure 3 shows the average selling prices for 25kg bags of fresh cassava root in Lusaka over the last year. Prices fall after harvesting early in the dry season when cassava farmers are also drying for dried root. Later, when the rains come, because it is difficult to dry the roots, farmers also reduce the harvest of fresh root, and prices rise.

20 Ibid.



Monthly average prices for fresh root per 25kg bag in Lusaka

0.00

10000.00

20000.00

30000.00

40000.00

50000.00

60000.00

70000.00

Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May

Months

Pri

ces

(ZM

K)


Figure 3 shows the average selling prices for 25kg bags of fresh cassava root in Lusaka over the last year.

Figure 4 shows the prices of 25 kg bags by volume in Lusaka during the last year. It is similar to the variations found in maize prices against volume, prices rise for low volumes, decline in intermediate quantities and then rise again, because of strong but small volume demand and difficulties in supplying large quantities, or because of the presence of wholesalers.



Price v. volume of fresh roots

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

25kg bags

Pri

ce (

ZM

K)


Figure 4 shows the prices of 25 kg bags by volume in Lusaka during the last year.

Table 11 shows the sensitivities of fresh root prices to maize prices, and the price elasticity of supply of cassava. Cassava meal tends to trade at a premium to maize meal prices. If prices of maize rise by one per cent then the price of cassava fresh root rises by 1.38 per cent21.

Figure 5 shows the elasticity of supply. A one per cent increase in price is associated with a two per cent increase in volume supplied, Table 11: because elasticity is greater than unity, supply of cassava is price elastic.

21 Maize prices for four years are standardised and averaged for 2002/3 season.



Table 11 shows the sensitivities of fresh root prices to maize prices, and the price elasticity of supply of cassava.

Sensitivity of fresh root to maize prices ln(Cassava) = -3.36 + 1.38 ln(Maize) Predictor Coef Stdev t-ratio p Constant -3.361 2.739 -1.23 0.248 ln(maize) 1.3802 0.2700 5.11 0.000 s = 0.09457 R-sq = 72.3% R-sq(adj) = 69.6% Elasticity of supply ln(volume) = - 18.3 + 2.08 ln(prices) Predictor Coef Stdev t-ratio p Constant -18.31 5.483 -3.34 0.002 ln(prices) 2.0798 0.5207 3.99 0 s = 1.036 R-sq = 28.5% R-sq(adj) = 26.7%

Elasticity of supply

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9.8 10 10.2 10.4 10.6 10.8 11 11.2 11.4

ln(price)

ln(v

olum

e)

Figure 5 shows the elasticity of supply.



4.4 Logistics, transport and distribution

4.4.1 Transport

The general rule of thumb for transport costs is K500 per tonne per kilometre. This generally applies for larger quantities of several tonnes and more. In most cases, the product is transported locally by bus with the product costing between ZMK2,000 (US$0.40) and ZMK4,500 (US$0.90) per 25kg to 50kg bag. Bicycle is also a low-cost option for shorter distances.

Case Study

Simple dried cassava pieces are being sold by farmers on the side of the road at Mumba, Chief Muchinga’s area, on the Mansa road north of Serenje for between ZMK50,000 (US$10) and ZMK65,000 (US$13) per 50kg bag depending on the season. Flour is priced at ZMK80,000 (US$16) per bag.

A system has evolved at Mumba where traders give advanced notice to farmers of the day on which they intend to collect, then farmers bring their cassava, usually by bicycle, from a catchment area of around 12-15km, which encompasses more than 100 farmers who grow mainly traditional varieties. Buyers then buy for cash or barter for other goods such as bicycles clothes or blankets. Farmer Vincent Chisenga says he and his fellow farmers would appreciate loans and would like to see more buyers.

4.4.2 Levies

District Councils throughout Zambia charge levies on crops when they cross district borders. These levies vary between councils, but once paid in one area they cover those crops for the whole of its journey, regardless of the number of districts passed through. Table 12 gives the levies payable to selected district councils for the movement of cassava. The levy can be paid in advance at the district council office, which will issue a receipt for presentation at checkpoints. This levy applies to fresh and dried cassava root and is reviewed regularly. If the product is considered an industrial product the crop levy is not payable, but instead a packing and loading levy must be paid at each checkpoint. Levies are not generally payable on a small number of bags.



Table 12 gives the levies payable to selected district councils for the movement of cassava.

District Levy Amount (ZMK) Per Unit Mansa Crop 2,500 25kg bag Crop 5,000 50kg bag Packing and Loading 10,000 Truck (any size) Mwense Farm produce 500 25kg bag 1,000 50kg bag 1,500 90kg bag


4.4.3 Licences

Licences are necessary to undertake business activities. District councils issue them for manufacturing, retail and wholesale businesses. Typically, these are ZMK100,000 (US$20) for manufacturing businesses, K90,000 (US$18) for retail businesses and K180,000 (US$36) for wholesale businesses.

4.4.4 Packaging

Figure 6 shows samples of the packaging of cassava meal and gari in plastic heat-sealed bags. The presentation and packaging of cassava and cassava-based products can range from simple loose sales of fresh root or chips, to sealed bags of flour and meal. Packaging of food for sale in Zambia must be “safe and sanitary” and protect its contents from contamination, degradation or nutritional losses22.

By law, food must be labeled and should give the following information:

a. Brand or trade name, if any;

b. Common name of the food;

c. Net contents in terms of weight, volume or number in accordance with usual practice;

d. Ingredients, in descending order of their proportions

e. Coding and date marking (if required);

f. Name and address of manufacturer, packer, distributor, importer, exporter or seller;

g. Sell-by date

22 S. 31, Food and Drug Regulations 2001.



h. Special storage conditions (if applicable).

Detailed provisions are set out in the regulations for the size of lettering for each requirement.

Figure 6 shows samples of the packaging of cassava meal and gari in plastic heat-sealed bags.

4.4.5 Quality Requirements

The production of any food product requires certain standards of hygiene to be observed. Zambia’s Food and Drug Regulations 2001 require growing and harvesting operations to be of a “clean and sanitary nature”23. Detailed requirements are also listed for hygiene of plant and equipment.

Apart from the standards for hygiene, labeling and flour requirements, there are no prescribed standards for cassava. SARRNET recommends that knowledge of the grades and standards required by industrial processors should be disseminated to producers to enhance marketing24.

4.5 Potential demand

4.5.1 Food products

The potential demand for cassava-based food products is the population of cassava eaters. Much traditional cassava growing is within the 1300mm

23 s. 479 24 Summary: 2nd SARRNET Workshop, Lusaka, 19-22 May 2003.



rainfall isohyet, and there are also other areas where cassava is eaten traditionally, particularly in Western Province. The people from these areas are considered ‘cassava familiar’ and are most likely to consume cassava as their staple food, and they represent the lowest potential demand for cassava-based foodstuffs, wherever they are living.

Potential demand

Table 13 gives the distribution of population and main languages spoken in cassava-growing regions and a summary of potential food demand for basic cassava products. The language is used as the basis for estimating the potential demand in each province. Chief cassava growing areas are Luapula and Northern Provinces, North-Western Province and parts of Western Province. The languages spoken in these areas are Bemba, Lunda(i), Mambwe, Lungu, Nyika, Lala, Bisa, Lunda(ii), and Lozi. Because some languages are omitted, the estimates are conservative. If it is assumed that all the people in the country consume maize meal, then the total consumption for 9.3 million people in 1.56 million households is 1.49 million Mt; however, around 50 per cent of households are cassava-familiar and know how to prepare cassava-based foodstuffs.

The minimum requirement for a household of six is estimated to be 80kg of roller meal (maize) per month25, so the total number of cassava-familiar households, 779,005, would consume 747,845 Mt of cassava meal, if it were available. Despite the presence of rural and urban peoples in this analysis, cassava meal could take a maximum of 50 per cent of the market share of maize meal across the country.

In the focal areas, the potential market for cassava-based foodstuffs in Lusaka is 34 per cent of households, consuming 73,938 Mt; in Central Province, 48 per cent of households consuming 73,103 Mt; in Southern, 12 per cent of households consuming 21,375 Mt; and in Eastern Province, 4 per cent of households consuming 7,395 Mt. These represent potential cassava meal demand, assuming that the cassava-familiar population eats only cassava meal, although many eat the fresh root as well.

In practice, however, a number of factors constrain the use of cassava food products, reducing the size of the potential market unless they can be addressed. Non-availability was the chief reason (48 percent) given for not using cassava meal, according to a consumer survey in Lusaka that found that 36 per cent of respondents had never used cassava meal and 81 per cent did not currently use it. Other reasons for non-use were unfamiliarity (18 percent), ignorance about preparation (26 percent) and dislike of the taste (8 percent). Association with rural dwelling was also mentioned.26

25 1991 Household Income and Expenditure Survey. 26 Project Gari – Report, prepared for CLUSA by MRIS



Non-availability can be addressed by improved distribution, and production. The remaining 8 per cent who disliked the taste are unlikely to be persuaded otherwise.

Unfamiliarity – respondents said they were not used to it – is in part a function of individual upbringing. As a very broad generalisation, one can assume that people who speak the language of an area in which cassava is traditionally grown are likely to be familiar with it. Personal preferences will also have a bearing on demand, regardless of familiarity.

Cassava consuming families eat fresh root for 35 per cent of meals27 and cassava meal for 65 per cent of meals28. The potential demand for fresh root is around 259,653Mt for the whole country. 25,381Mt in Central Province, 58,400Mt in Copperbelt, 2,567Mt in Eastern, 39,696Mt in Luapula, 25,671Mt in Lusaka, 61,019Mt in Northern, 12,143Mt in North-Western, 7,421Mt in Southern and 27,354Mt in Western Province; for cassava meal potential demand is 488,192Mt for the whole country, 47,721Mt in Central Province, 109,802Mt in the Copperbelt, 4,827Mt in Eastern, 74,634Mt in Luapula, 48,266Mt in Lusaka, 114,727 in Northern, 22,831 in North-Western, 13,953Mt in Southern Province and 51,430Mt in Western province; and for cassava leaves, 284,337Mt in the whole country, 27,794Mt in Central, 63,952Mt in the Copperbelt, 2,812Mt in Eastern, 2,812Mt in Luapula, 28,112Mt in Lusaka, 66,820Mt in Northern, 13,297Mt in North-Western, 8,127Mt in Southern and 29,954Mt in Western Province.

27 The demand for fresh root and cassava meal is assumed to be equivalent weight for weight. 28 The expected percentage values of consumption, determined from data in RuralNet (2002)



Table 13 gives the distribution of population and main languages spoken in cassava-growing regions and a summary of potential food demand for basic cassava products.

Total population distribution by languageProvince Languag Totals Central CB Eastern Luapula Lusaka Northern NW Southern WesternTotal population

9,337,425 957,288 1,527,294 1,226,767 729,828 1,341,167 1,174,316 539,822 1,132,810 708,133

Population, (%)

100% 10% 16% 13% 8% 14% 13% 6% 12% 8%

Households 6 persons 1,556,238 159,548 254,549 204,461 121,638 223,528 195,719 89,970 188,802 118,022Meal use, Mt/yr

0.96 1,493,988 153,166 244,367 196,283 116,772 214,587 187,891 86,372 181,250 113,301

Bemba/ Lunda

3,134,521 383,297 868,770 35,032 705,973 303,283 769,154 21,398 42,768 4,846

Mambwe / Lungu

550,256 31,123 102,629 5,760 6,384 71,701 324,925 987 6,140 607

North- Lunda 257,998 4,738 44,128 557 787 12,629 782 186,814 2,698 4,865Western Province

Lozi 731,257 37,734 35,732 4,868 1,419 74,497 3,555 9,387 81,987 482,078

Cassava 4,674,032 456,892 1,051,259 46,217 714,563 462,110 1,098,416 218,586 133,593 492,396Language, % 100% 10% 22% 1% 15% 10% 24% 5% 3% 11%Province, % 50% 48% 69% 4% 98% 34% 94% 40% 12% 70%

Households 6 persons 779,005 76,149 175,210 7,703 119,094 77,018 183,069 36,431 22,266 82,066Meal equivalent, Mt0.96 747,845 73,103 168,201 7,395 114,330 73,938 175,747 34,974 21,375 78,783Fresh roots, Mt 35% 259,653 25,381 58,400 2,567 39,696 25,671 61,019 12,143 7,421 27,354Meal for humans, Mt65% 488,192 47,721 109,802 4,827 74,634 48,266 114,727 22,831 13,953 51,430Cassava leaves, Mt 284,337 27,794 63,952 2,812 43,469 28,112 66,820 13,297 8,127 29,954Source: 2000 Census of Population and Housing, National Statistical Office.

Luapula/ Northern

Potential national demand

Potential urban (accessible) demand

Potential national demand does not indicate the accessible demand to market sellers, although it does demonstrate how important cassava ought to be to the economy. Accessible demand is better understood by examining the urban populations. Table 14 shows the urban populations of selected language speakers and the potential urban demand for cassava meal. The total urban population is 3.35 million, with a total minimum estimated consumption of 535,531Mt of maize meal per year. An estimated 54 per cent of the urban population is cassava-familiar, 58 per cent of the urban population of Central, 68 per cent of Copperbelt, 9 per cent of Eastern, 95 per cent of Luapula, 38 per cent of Lusaka, 89 per cent of Northern, 43 per cent of North-Western, 33 per cent of Southern and 69 per cent of Western. This suggests that 302,704 urban households might consume 100,895Mt of fresh root, if it were available; 7,422Mt in Central Province, 46,780Mt in Copperbelt, 566Mt in Eastern Province, 5,972Mt in Luapula, 22,987Mt in Lusaka, 8,063Mt in Northern, 1,680Mt in North-Western, 4,394Mt in Southern and 3032Mt in Western Province. In addition they could consume 189,701Mt of cassava meal, 13,955Mt in Central Province, 87,954Mt in Copperbelt, 1,063Mt in Eastern, 11,229Mt in Luapula, 43,219Mt in Lusaka, 15,159Mt in Northern, 3,159Mt in North-Western, 8,261Mt in Southern and 5,701Mt in Western. Potential leaf sales in urban areas are 110,487Mt for the country, 8,128Mt in Central Province, 51,227Mt in Copperbelt, 619Mt in Eastern, 6,540Mt in Luapula, 25,172Mt in Lusaka, 8,829Mt in Northern,



1,840Mt in North-Western, 4,811Mt in Southern and 3,320Mt in Western Province.

Table 14 shows the urban populations of selected language speakers and the potential urban demand for cassava meal.

Province Languag Totals Central CB Eastern Luapula Lusaka Northern NW Southern WesternUrban population

3,347,069 232,188 1,236,570 108,763 112,982 1,102,684 162,589 71,026 240,669 79,598

Population, (%)

100% 10% 16% 13% 8% 14% 13% 6% 12% 8%

Households 6 persons 557,845 38,698 206,095 18,127 18,830 183,781 27,098 11,838 40,112 13,266Meal use, Mt/yr

0.96 535,531 37,150 197,851 17,402 18,077 176,429 26,014 11,364 38,507 12,736

Bemba/ Lunda

1,307,094 102,543 684,113 7,360 103,487 275,298 98,515 6,054 26,966 2,758

Mambwe / Lungu

232,628 17,178 94,578 1,184 2,657 67,001 44,113 568 4,907 442

North- Lunda 70752 2,467 31,702 248 457 11,460 456 21,341 1,894 727Western Province

Lozi 205,750 11,423 31,697 1,389 906 60,027 2,050 2,284 45,323 50,651

Cassava 1,816,224 133,611 842,090 10,181 107,507 413,786 145,134 30,247 79,090 54,578Language, % 100% 10% 22% 1% 15% 10% 24% 5% 3% 11%Province, % 54% 58% 68% 9% 95% 38% 89% 43% 33% 69%

Households 6 persons 302,704 22,269 140,348 1,697 17,918 68,964 24,189 5,041 13,182 9,096Meal equivalent0.96 290,596 21,378 134,734 1,629 17,201 66,206 23,221 4,840 12,654 8,732Fresh roots, Mt 35% 100,895 7,422 46,780 566 5,972 22,987 8,063 1,680 4,394 3,032Meal for humans, Mt65% 189,701 13,955 87,954 1,063 11,229 43,219 15,159 3,159 8,261 5,701Cassava leaves, Mt 110,487 8,128 51,227 619 6,540 25,172 8,829 1,840 4,811 3,320

Luapula /Northern

Potential urban (accessible) demand

Urban population distribution by language

Consumer preferences

For the purposes of this study consumer surveys were conducted in Lusaka, Kabwe, Monze, Chipata, Mongu, Mansa, Ndola and Solwezi.

Table 15 shows consumption of various cassava products in the market. Most of the consumers interviewed, 83 per cent, were regular consumers of cassava products in markets around the country, 58 per cent bought fresh root, 33 per cent bought chips as snacks, 44 per cent bought cassava meal and 21per cent bought leaves.

Table 15 shows consumption of various cassava products in the market.

Consumption

Regular

consumers Fresh root Chips Meal Leaves Mean 83% 58% 33% 44% 21% StDev 38% 50% 47% 50% 41%

Table 16 illustrates preferences for maize and cassava meals. Most interviewees preferred maize meal, 61 per cent, while 32 per cent preferred cassava meal. Seven per cent were indifferent.



Table 16 illustrates preferences for maize and cassava meals.

Meal preference Incidence Per cent Maize 27 61% Cassava 14 32% Both 3 7% Total 44 100%

Table 17 shows preference for preparing cassava products. Most people, 31 per cent, preferred fresh cassava root peeled and boiled; 14 per cent liked to mix cassava meal with maize meal; and 14 per cent liked cassava meal prepared by adding it to boiled water. Some 10 per cent added cassava meal to boiling water, contrary to recommendations; five per cent liked chips as a snack; five per cent liked cassava leaves cooked with tomato, onion and oil; 10 per cent liked snacks made from soaked and roasted dried root or peeled and roasted fresh root; and further five per cent liked (sweet) cassava raw. Two per cent liked fresh root boiled in milk, two per cent liked fried chips; and two per cent had no idea.

Table 17 shows preference for preparing cassava products.

Preparation Incidence Per cent Peel and boil 13 31% Mix with maize meal 6 14% Add to boiled water 6 14% Boil water adding meal 4 10% Snack chips 2 5% Cook with tomato, onion and oil

2 5%

Soak and roast 2 5% Peel and roast 2 5% Raw 2 5% Boil in milk 1 2% No idea 1 2% Peel, chip and fry 1 2% Total 42 100%

4.5.2 Animal feed products

Table 18 shows the cassava components for animal feed products. The animal distribution data are from the post-harvest survey 1999/2000. A cassava-based mix for growers has a lower percentage of cassava than broilers or layers, and the Post-harvest Survey does not distinguish, so the estimate is on the conservative side. The total national chicken population is 7.9 million, so the potential demand is for 281,044Mt of feed, and 553,514



households would be affected. If the feed were made from cassava meal and leaf, 30 per cent and eight per cent respectively, the demand would be for 84,300Mt of cassava meal and 22,500Mt of cassava leaf. In the focal areas, Lusaka potentially needs 2,100Mt of meal and 562Mt of leaf, Central needs 9,600Mt of meal and 2,560Mt of leaf, Eastern needs 15,500Mt of meal and 4,137Mt of leaf and Southern needs 24,200Mt of meal and 6,450Mt of leaf. Copperbelt needs 3,373Mt of meal and 899Mt of leaf, Luapula needs 5,565Mt of meal and 1,484Mt of leaf, Northern needs 11,888Mt of meal and 3,170Mt of leaf, North-Western needs 3,794Mt of meal and 1,012Mt of leaf, and Western needs 8,263Mt of meal and 2,203Mt of leaf.

There are 361,500 pigs in the country, potentially consuming 53,500Mt of feed, and 75,535 households would be affected. A 30 per cent cassava mix can be used, which consumes 16,000Mt of cassava meal. In the focal areas, 48Mt is needed in Lusaka, 722Mt in Central, 9,980Mt in Eastern and 1,350 in Southern Province. Copperbelt needs 225Mt, Luapula needs 947Mt, Northern 2,135Mt, North-Western 177Mt and Western 465Mt.

There are 1.19 million cattle in the country, and 121,207 households would be affected. It is unlikely that supplements would be used in practice; however, silage may be possible for small-scale stockmen. Assuming one tonne of silage per annum per animal, the total silage need is 1.19 million Mt, which can be produced from 59,345 hectares of cassava. In Lusaka, this needs 1,000ha, in Central 6,585ha, in Eastern 15,247ha and in Southern 18,900ha. Copperbelt needs 713ha, Luapula 178ha, Northern 3,975ha, North-Western 771ha and Western 11,984ha.

The total potential demand is 100,400Mt of cassava meal, 22,500Mt of cassava leaves and 1.19 million Mt of silage. In Lusaka, this is 2,160Mt of cassava meal, 562Mt of leaves and 20,171Mt of silage; in Central, 10,334Mt of cassava meal, 2,560Mt of leaves and 131,701Mt of silage; in Eastern, 25,500Mt of meal, 4,184Mt of leaves and 304,930Mt of silage; in Southern, 25,550Mt of meal, 6,450Mt of leaves and 377,306Mt of silage; in Copperbelt 3,597Mt of meal, 899Mt of leaves and 14,238Mt of silage; in Luapula, 6,512Mt of meal, 1,484Mt of leaves and 3,560Mt of silage; in Northern, 14,023Mt of meal, 3,170Mt of leaves and 79,496Mt of silage; in North-Western, 8,728Mt of meal, 2,203Mt of leave and 238,672Mt of silage; in Western 100,363Mt of meal, 22,484Mt of leave and 1,186,499Mt of silage.

Cassava meal and leaves directly compete with maize meal and other protein sources in animal feeds.



Table 18 shows the cassava components for animal feed products.

Cassava component of chicken feed (growers) Households 553,514 Central CB Eastern Luapula Lusaka Northern NW Southern Western Totals n(chickens) 7,894,499 899,973 315,780 1,452,588 521,037 197,363 1,113,125 355,253 2,265,722 773,661 7,894,502 %(chickens) 100.0% 11.4% 4.0% 18.4% 6.6% 2.5% 14.1% 4.5% 28.7% 9.8% 100% Annual feed,Mt 100g 32,039 11,242 51,712 18,549 7,026 39,627 12,647 80,660 27,542 281,044 Cassava meal,Mt 30% 9,612 3,373 15,514 5,565 2,108 11,888 3,794 24,198 8,263 84,313 Cassava leaves 8% 2,563 899 4,137 1,484 562 3,170 1,012 6,453 2,203 22,484

Cassava component of pig feed (fattening) Households 75,535 Central CB Eastern* Luapula Lusaka Northern NW Southern Western Totals n(pigs) 361,487 16,267 5,061 224,845 21,328 1,085 48,078 3,977 30,365 10,484 361,490 %(pigs) 100.0% 4.5% 1.4% 62.2% 5.9% 0.3% 13.3% 1.1% 8.4% 2.9% 100% Annual feed,Mt 148kg 2,408 749 33,277 3,157 161 7,116 589 4,494 1,552 53,501 Cassava meal,Mt 30% 722 225 9,983 947 48 2,135 177 1,348 465 16,050

Cassava component of cattle Households 121,207 Central CB Eastern* Luapula Lusaka Northern NW Southern* Western Totals n(cattle) 1,186,495 131,701 14,238 304,930 3,560 20,171 79,496 15,425 377,306 239,672 1,186,499 %(cattle) 100.0% 11.1% 1.2% 25.7% 0.3% 1.7% 6.7% 1.3% 31.8% 20.2% 100% Silage 1Mt 131,701 14,238 304,930 3,560 20,171 79,496 15,425 377,306 239,672 1,186,499 Hectares 20Mt 6,585 712 15,247 178 1,009 3,975 771 18,865 11,984 59,325

Totals Central CB Eastern* Luapula Lusaka Northern NW Southern* Western Totals

Cassava meal,Mt 10,334 3,597 25,497 6,512 2,156 14,023 3,971 25,546 8,728 100,363 Cassava leaves,Mt 2,563 899 4,137 1,484 562 3,170 1,012 6,453 2,203 22,484 Silage,Mt 131,701 14,238 304,930 3,560 20,171 79,496 15,425 377,306 239,672 1,186,499

Preferences

Price and nutritional content are the two factors of prime importance for purchasers of animal feed.

4.5.3 Actual supply

Table 19a) shows the distribution of cassava production and the supply of fresh roots, together with cassava ‘dried product’ equivalent; b) gives the consumption of fresh roots and cassava meal for food and feed; and c) reports the surplus or deficit for each product for each province. The supply data are from the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, and the potential demand is from above.

There are an estimated 327,560 hectares of cassava production in Zambia and 140,251 hectares are considered mature for harvesting. The potential supply of fresh root in the country is 1.64 million Mt in 2003/04, which is equivalent to 410,234Mt of cassava meal. Taking into account the consumption pattern for fresh root and cassava meal, and that 12 per cent might be used in animal feeds, 435,880Mt will be consumed as fresh root, 214,042Mt as cassava meal and 87,222Mt incorporated into animal feed as meal. There is potential supply of 958,113Mt of leaves, 887,903Mt for human consumption and 70,210Mt for livestock.



Overall there is a deficit of fresh root of 65,673Mt in the country, 42,165Mt in Central, 109,606Mt in the Copperbelt, 375Mt in Eastern, 49,457 in Lusaka and 13,130Mt in Southern; there is a surplus of 55,733Mt in Luapula, 7,150Mt in Northern, 36,461Mt in North-Western and 49,716Mt in Western Province. There is a total deficit in cassava meal for human consumption of 32,249Mt for the country, 20,706Mt for Central, 53,823Mt for Copperbelt, 184Mt for Eastern, 24,286Mt for Lusaka and 6,447Mt for Southern; there are surpluses of 27,368Mt in Luapula, 3,511Mt in Northern, 17,904Mt in North-Western and 24,413Mt in Western. Whilst there is a deficit in cassava meal for human consumption, little or none will be available for animal feed. There is an overall surplus of leaves, surpluses in Central of 2,787Mt, Eastern of 13,005Mt, Luapula of 221,693Mt, Northern of 239,593Mt, North-Western of 89,805Mt and Western of 118,780Mt but deficits in Copperbelt of 53,182Mt, Lusaka of 25,054Mt and in Southern of 3,858Mt.

Table 19a) shows the distribution of cassava production and the supply of fresh roots, together with cassava ‘dried product’ equivalent; b) gives the consumption of fresh roots and cassava meal for food and feed; and c) reports the surplus or deficit for each product for each province.

a) Distribution of cassava production and fresh root supply Central CuBelt Eastern Luapula Lusaka Northern NW Southern Western Total Hectares* 11,282 3,973 5,835 97,822 1,128 113,040 38,036 1,575 54,870 327,560 Mature hectares* 2,208 1,030 1,475 42,605 42 40,226 19,279 388 32,998 140,251 E(Mt)* 33,000 11,621 17,067 286,129 3,299 330,642 111,255 4,607 160,495 958,113 Supply of fresh root, mature ha. 25,834 12,051 17,258 498,479 491 470,644 225,564 4,540 386,077 1,640,937 Dried product equivalent* 6,458 3,013 4,314 124,620 123 117,661 56,391 1,135 96,519 410,234 *MACO

b) Consumption patterns of supply,Mt Central CuBelt Eastern Luapula Lusaka Northern NW Southern Western Total Fresh root 6,862 3,201 4,584 132,410 131 125,017 59,916 1,206 102,553 435,880 Meal for human consumption 3,370 1,572 2,251 65,021 64 61,390 29,422 592 50,359 214,042 Meal for animal consumption 1,373 641 917 26,496 26 25,016 11,990 241 20,521 87,222 Total meal 4,743 2,212 3,168 91,517 90 86,407 41,412 833 70,881 301,264 Leaves for human consumption 30,582 10,769 15,817 265,162 3,058 306,413 103,103 4,269 148,734 887,903 Leaves for animal consumption 2,418 852 1,251 20,967 242 24,229 8,153 338 11,761 70,210 Total leaves 33,000 11,621 17,067 286,129 3,299 330,642 111,255 4,607 160,495 958,113

c) Surplus/deficit of cassava products Central CuBelt Eastern Luapula Lusaka Northern NW Southern Western Total Fresh root (42,165) (109,606) (375) 55,733 (49,457) 7,150 36,461 (13,130) 49,716 (65,673) Meal for human consumption (20,706) (53,823) (184) 27,368 (24,286) 3,511 17,904 (6,447) 24,413 (32,249) Meal for animal consumption (8,961) (2,957) (24,579) 19,984 (2,130) 10,994 8,019 (25,305) 11,793 (13,142) Total meal (29,666) (56,779) (24,764) 47,353 (26,416) 14,505 25,923 (31,752) 36,207 (45,391) Leaves for human consumption 2,787 (53,182) 13,005 221,693 (25,054) 239,593 89,805 (3,858) 118,780 603,566 Leaves for animal consumption (145) (48) (2,886) 19,483 (320) 21,059 7,141 (6,115) 9,558 47,726 Total leaves 2,642 (53,230) 10,119 241,176 (25,374) 260,652 96,946 (9,973) 128,337 651,293



4.6 Issues affecting trade

4.6.1 Key internal and external influences

Table 20 lists the influences on demand and supply of cassava-based products. For demand, the internal factors are the awareness of cassava products, awareness of suppliers, willingness to buy, price sensitivity, product preferences and the lack of price information; the external factors are income, availability to buy, competing products, non-standard measurement, packaging, foreign exchange exposure, price and quality.

For supply, the internal factors are the number of farmers growing how many hectares and receiving what yields, the processing techniques, marketing ability, lack of storage facilities, processing time and lack of funds including working capital and for investment in increased production; the external factors include the availability of finance, disorganised market structure, lack of price information, lack of transport and/or high transport costs, limited market, high market fees and low retail prices.



Table 20 lists the influences on demand and supply of cassava-based products.

Demand Supply Internal Factors Internal Factors Awareness of cassava products Number of farmers Awareness of suppliers Hectarage cultivated Willingness to buy Yield Price sensitivity Processing techniques Product preferences Marketing ability Lack of price information Lack of storage facilities* Processing time* Lack of funds, including working

capital and for investment in increased production*

External Factors External Factors Income Availability of finance Availability (Ability to buy) Disorganised market structure Competing products Lack of price information Non-standard measurement units Lack of transport and/or high

transport costs* Foreign exchange exposure* Limited market* Packaging High market fees* Quality Low retail prices* Price Price Distribution *- See footnote 29

4.6.2 Key market drivers and forces for change

Ultimately change must be market driven in order to be sustainable. Drivers of increased demand boil down to product competitiveness, while on the supply side, the commercial incentive of potential profit and wealth creation should be the engines of growth. The market is currently in a nascent stage, however, and a number of initiatives exist to encourage change.

These initiatives cover a range of activities, including:

• Initiatives to encourage cultivation of improved varieties

• Initiatives to encourage an increase in hectarage of cassava cultivation

• Encouragement of processing techniques

• Development of new products incorporating cassava

29 “An Evaluation of the Commercial Potential for Cassava in Zambia”, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries in cooperation with the Zambia Agricultural Training, Planning and Institutional Development Project (ZATPID II), June 1993.



• Marketing initiatives to encourage consumer demand

The institutions and initiatives active in these programmes tend to overlap in their activities, so they are considered as a whole below.

Historical perspective

Historically, Zambia’s agricultural policies have emphasised maize over other traditional food crops. However, with the introduction of liberalisation of the agricultural sector in the early 1990s, major shifts in crop production and marketing have occurred.

Presently, cassava is food for about 30 per cent of Zambians. It is grown for its ability to store well in the ground for long periods. It is produced with ease, requiring no fertilizer and other expensive inputs such as insecticides and herbicides. The crop produces decent yields even in poor soils.

Over the past 10 years Zambia and Malawi reported increases in cassava production for cash, land allocated to cassava increased and productivity per unit of land increased. Cassava now ranks third to maize and rice in the two countries. In Tanzania, production stagnated during the same period.

The recurrent drought that has affected southern African countries since 1991, including Zambia, has left families with little to eat. In Zambia, drought resulted in a national grain deficit of about 720,000 Mt of maize by 1995. Over two million rural households were threatened with starvation.

During the food relief operation, which was necessitated by the drought, the government of Zambia mandated the Program Against Malnutrition (PAM), a local NGO, to execute a seed distribution intervention to mitigate the negative impact of the drought. The program ran from 1995 to 2000 and was conducted through a network of affiliate NGOs. The objective was to facilitate development of sustainable agriculture production systems among small-scale farmers in disaster-prone areas of Zambia through the distribution of seeds that were drought tolerant and early maturing. Later in the program cassava was included on the list of planting material to be distributed.

PAM’s involvement with cassava was for a long time aimed at improving household food security. A total of 154,000 cassava cuttings were distributed by 1999. By 2003 PAM had distributed about 6 million cuttings to affected areas of the country30. Little marketing by farmers was reported. Farmers trained in seed production and entrepreneurship were encouraged to include commodity exchange and seed-for-work transactions besides cash for marketing the seed. Little effort went into processing and marketing. It

30 This is enough to plant 600ha at 10,000 plants per hectare, which emphasises the size of the problem of planting material multiplication.



was not until 2000 that PAM considered processing and marketing as a major concern.

This is atypical of other NGOs that are known to be promoting cassava in Zambia. Other NGOs include Catholic Relief Services (CRS) who are distributing cassava cuttings in Sesheke and Shang’mbo districts. Another NGO promoting cassava in Kalomo and Kazungula districts is CARE Zambia. The organization’s involvement is limited to distributing planting material. Africare introduced early maturing cultivars of cassava obtained from North-western Province to farmers in Choma and Kalomo districts. None of these NGOs had a ‘cassava marketing’ component in their programs.

The concept of marketing cassava is relatively new among Zambian institutions. In the past, farmers got free cassava cuttings from friends. With the introduction of a cash budget, research stations started selling cassava cuttings. However, during the past four years or so, things changed. Cassava researchers trained farmers to become multipliers of cassava cuttings for sale to fellow farmers and to NGOs. There was no mention of the NGO’s intentions to promote marketing after the cassava was distributed to farmers. Current programmes aim at providing cassava for household food security as the ultimate goal.

The Cooperative League of United States of America (CLUSA) is probably an exception. CLUSA has taken the program one step further and is working with a women’s group in Itezhi-Tezhi near Mumbwa where CLUSA is processing cassava into gari, a product that finds itself on the urban markets of Lusaka. Africare and PAM followed suit. With the help of IITA the two organizations are promoting cassava processing into chips using introduced chippers and graters. These machines speed up the processing of cassava roots into good quality flour and chips.

Some of the commercial farmers have captured the opportunity and have diversified into cassava production and marketing. One such commercial farm is Kalundwe Estate Ltd of Serenje district.

The participation of the private sector is becoming more proactive in SARRNET’s initiatives. In May 2001, SARRNET invited the managing director of the South African company Cassava Starch Manufacturing Ltd (CSM) based in Polokwane. In May 2002 SARRNET was able to bring to Pretoria the Executive Director of the Brazilian giant cassava starch factory Halotek-Fedel. Participants toured the factory where cassava roots were processed into starch. In addition, a consultative business meeting was organised by SARRNET between the Brazilian and South African cassava processors. SARRNET and its stakeholders, including USAID, are encouraging such interaction for large investment on cassava processing as these are being linked to smallscale farmers on an out-grower scheme model, which will generate more income for rural farmers and drive rural cassava production and marketing upwards. CMS has started an out-grower



scheme in Mpumalanga, South Africa, and is planning to invest in other African countries.

Institutional Framework

International

A number of international institutions are involved in the promotion of cassava production and marketing. They include the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) in Colombia, East Africa Root Crops Research Network (EARRNET), and FOODNET. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) and the Rockfeller Foundation have funded cassava activities in different countries.

Of these, the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) based in Ibadan, Nigeria has greatest influence on the development of cassava in Zambia and in many other African countries. IITA was established as a non-profit organization in 1967. The Ford Foundation and Rockfeller Foundations provided initial funds for development. IITA is organised in five research programs. One of these is the Root and Tuber Improvement Program (RTIP), covering cassava, yam, sweet potato and coco yam.

In Africa, IITA is the leading organization in cassava research. IITA has a geographical mandate from CGIAR to improve food crop production in the humid and sub-humid tropics. The institute has a wide network with National Research Stations (NARS). IITA shares with member countries planting materials developed by its breeders. In addition, IITA has a wealth of experts working in Africa, Asia and South America.

Also, IITA develops and disseminates new appropriate post-harvest technologies to different regions in Africa. Such technologies include cassava chippers, and graters. The contribution of cassava to farm income was found to be low in Tanzania and Uganda because the majority of farmers lacked access to mechanised cassava processing equipment.

Regional Institutions

Zambia is a member of SARRNET. Consequently, activities related to cassava promotion are to a large extent influenced by SARRNET programmes. Since the implementation of Phase II in 1999, SARRNET has provided technical and financial support in the promotion of cassava for food security and as a commercial crop. The support was in form of technical and financial support for development and wide dissemination of small-scale cassava processing equipment. With funding from IITA, Zambia benefited from financial and technical support to promote cassava processing technologies and build capacity of smallholder processors in selected parts of Zambia.



Most of the cassava promotion and support within the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region is coordinated and supported by the Southern Africa Roots Crops Research Network (SARRNET). The network is a regional project operating within SADC with the aim of promoting research, production, processing and marketing of root crops.

There are a number of regional networks with which SARRNET interacts. They include networks such as FOODNET, ASARRECA and EARRNET. These networks are supported in one way or another through IITA therefore their approach to promoting cassava is similar to that of SARRNET.

Zambian Institutions

In Zambia the government has for a long time supported cassava research through the National Research programme. Technologies introduced over the past decade resulted in a 300 per cent increase in production or a 39 per cent annual increase between 1990 and 1998. The Root and Tuber Improvement Program (RTIP) undertook the initiative with research stations at Mutanda Research Station in Solwezi, North-western Province and Mansa Research Station in Luapula Province. The Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) and SARRNET under Phase I funded the work.

The devastating impact of droughts experienced over the past decade have made Zambians appreciate the need to diversify the food base by emphasising the production of crops that are drought tolerant and low input. Cassava and sweet potato have as a consequence received prominence over the past ten years.

Government research stations have adopted small-scale farmers surrounding the research stations and away from the stations and trained them in multiplication of cassava planting material for sale to other farmers or more recently to NGOs like PAM, CRS and CARE. A number of NGOs have made the promotion of cassava production and utilisation a priority in combating malnutrition and poverty. PAM CRS, Africare and CARE are only a few examples of local NGOs promoting cassava production, processing and marketing.

Most of the Zambian institutions concentrate on promoting cassava for household food security. Little effort has been put into promoting cassava marketing.

Regional initiatives

SARRNET was launched in 1994. At the end of Phase I, the project entered its Phase II in 1999. The objective of Phase II was to increase the income and improve the household food security of resource poor farmers in Southern Africa by promoting production and utilisation of cassava and sweet potato. Phase II started in 1999 with a principal focus on demand-led research for development in cassava and sweet potato with a strong bias



towards income generation, private sector participation and food security. Since then SARRNET conducted a comparative analysis of the marketing of cassava and sweet potato in Southern Africa covering Zambia, Malawi and Tanzania. Zambia has benefited from both financial and technical support in the area of promoting cassava research, processing and commercialisation.

4.7 Conclusions

This chapter has looked at the generic market structure of domestic cassava products.

• Most consumers buy cassava products from retailers, not from farmers.

• Pricing is characterised by broad pricing bands and standardised units of measurement are weak at the farmers’ level.

• The generic cassava product is price sensitive, sales rising and falling with price changes.

• The generic cassava product is income sensitive, the more people are earning, the more they will buy.

• Supply is seasonal and so there are seasonal price changes. The price is higher in the wet season, possibly because of drying and quality difficulties, and lower volumes. It may be that prices would rise further if the quality of the product in the wet season were the same as that in the dry season.

• There appear to be two distinct price ranges depending on quantity. This suggests the presence of wholesalers even if not recognised as such. These wholesalers receive lower prices for buying bulk.

• If maize prices rise by one per cent then cassava fresh root prices rise by 1.38 per cent.

• A cassava root price rise of one per cent is linked to a sales volume increase of two per cent. This appears to be attributed to quality rather than quantity.

• Levies must be paid for inter-district trade and on transporting packing products.



• Licences are required for business activities: a manufacturing licence would be required for full-time production of cassava meal.

• Packaging and quality must be ‘safe and sanitary’.

• There is large potential demand and accessible demand for cassava products in all urban markets. Nearly all households eat maize products but many prefer cassava.

• Most prefer fresh root peeled and boiled, many like to mix it with maize meal or to add it to recently boiled water (nshima).

• There is substantial demand for cassava meal and leaves in the animal feed market, particularly, the poultry and pig feeds markets, and for silage for cattle.

• There is shortage of supply of fresh root, cassava meal and leaves in all urban markets for human and animal consumption.

• There are some important internal and external factors influencing demand and supply.

• There are a number of Zambian, regional and international institutions in the agriculture sector, providing material and technical assistance at different levels to small-scale farmers.



5 Cassava Products

5.1 Introduction

Figure 7 illustrates the products that can be made from cassava. The classification of cassava-based products is not straightforward. Some products, such as flour, are generally intermediate products that are stored and then used as ingredients in more complex foods. Others, such as gari, are an end product in themselves. In addition cassava flour can be used as the raw material for production of sugar syrups and industrial alcohol, for example.

Many classification systems have been suggested (Nweke, et al., (2002)31, but this study classifies the products as unprocessed products, processed products, substitutes, animal feed products and industrial products. Unprocessed products are the fresh roots, leaves and cuttings; processed products are the dried roots, chips, cassava meal or flour, gari, beverages and charcoal briquettes; Substitute products are cassava for maize, cassava/maize blends and cassava/wheat blends; animal feed products are silage, chips, pellets and compound animal feeds; and industrial products are high quality cassava flour and starch.

31 Nweke F, Spencer D, Lynam J. “The Cassava Transformation. Africa’s Best Kept Secret”, 2003.



Cassava Uses

Fresh Roots

Leaves

Cuttings

Unprocessed products

Dried Roots

Chips

Cassava meal/flour

Cassava/maize blend

Cassava/wheat blend

Gari

Drinks

Charcoal briquettes

Processed products

Silage

Chips

Pellets

Compound feeds

Animal feed products

Adhesives

Glucose/Dextrose

Fructose

Maltose

Modified Starches

Alcohol

Citric/Lactic Acid

Starch

Bakery products

Paperboard adhesives

Plywood glue extender

Sugar syrup

Industrial alcohol

High Quality Cassava Flour

Industrial products

Cassava

Figure 7 illustrates the products that can be made from cassava.

Cassava production in Zambia is characterised by its small-scale home-based nature. There are few “commercial” farmers, and as a consequence, most of the processing is conducted on a low-investment basis at domestic level. Processing is mostly for direct domestic consumption but also as a means of income generation. The most important products at the rural level are fresh roots, dried roots, dried chips, cassava meal and fresh leaves.

Table 21 is a matrix of the source of demand for particular types of product. Within those dynamics, demand can come from within Zambia, regionally or internationally. Unprocessed products can be marketed domestically, processed products and animal feeds can be sold locally and regionally, and industrial products can be sold locally, regionally and internationally. The constraints on regional and international sales will be quantities, transport costs, consistency, quality and reliability, and to find the agent that has the appropriate contacts.

Table 21 is a matrix of the source of demand for particular types of product.

Unprocessed products

Processed products

Animal feed

products

Industrial products

Domestic ü ü ü ü Regional ü ü ü

Dem

and

International ü

The focus of this study is on the practical options for small-scale farmers, who are able to use low and intermediate-level technology to process their crops. Most of the products mentioned below can be processed at this level. The industrial products, starch and high-quality cassava flour are usually more capital-intensive industrial processes, and may not be appropriate for small-scale farmers.



5.2 Unprocessed products

5.2.1 Fresh roots

The product

Fresh root begins to deteriorate immediately after harvesting; hence fresh root consumption is restricted to domestic use and sale within a relatively local catchment area. Sweet varieties are commonly found as snacks: peeled and boiled, in water or milk; peeled and roasted; peeled, chipped and fried; or simply taken raw. Pieces of fresh root can also be pounded to form dough that is steamed before consumption (Ghanaian foufou). Such products made from bitter varieties should be avoided.

Processing

Most farmers (77 percent) grade their fresh roots before selling in order to obtain a higher price32. Criteria for grading are size, colour, damage and taste.

Economics

Table 22 gives the distribution of the range of man-days found by the COSCA study for cassava production in the DRC and Nigeria together with estimates for cassava and maize in Zambia. The analysis assumes that men and not women provide the labour33. Land clearing in the study took between 44 and 66 man-days per hectare, and is assumed by this study to be similar to the chitemene system. In sedentary agriculture practiced in the focal areas, land clearing can be excluded form the total man-days for production. The seedbed preparation, of ridges or mounds, took between 21 and 41 days, which compares with 87 man-days for CF maize34; planting took between 22 and 39 days where planting of maize takes about 10 days; weeding between 27 and 38 days for cassava and 54 days for maize, and harvesting took 44 to 62 days for cassava and 51 days for maize. We can see that the land clearing in Congo took much longer than Nigeria whereas Nigerians spent more time on the seedbed. Planting was more efficient in Nigeria, and there appears to be more weeding. The harvesting in Nigeria probably took longer because of the larger harvest. If sedentary agriculture is practiced, 180 days are required for cassava, which compares with 201

32 “Applying a Sub-sector Analysis Approach to Studying the Marketing of Cassava and Sweet Potato in Southern Africa: The Case of Zambia”, RuralNet Associates Ltd, for Southern Africa Root Crops Research Network, December 2002. 33 This may make the results unreliable because men reported to be more often involved with cash crops than women, and in Nigeria, cassava is more of a cash crop than in the Congo, because of demand for gari. 34 Maize planted in conservation farming basins.



days for maize, but in this economic analysis, it is assumed that cassava takes the same number of man-days as maize.

Table 22 gives the distribution of the range of man-days found by the COSCA study for cassava production in the DRC and Nigeria together with estimates for cassava and maize in Zambia.

Man-days per hectare Zambia est. Task COSCA range Congo Nigeria Cassava Maize Land clearing 44-66 66 49 Seedbed preparation 21-41 21 41 41 87 Planting 22-39 39 32 39 10 Weeding 27-38 27 38 38 53 Harvesting 44-62 48 62 62 51 Total 201 222 180 201

Sources: COSCA study and Conservation Farming Unit, Lusaka

The SHEMP focal areas groups are expected to be using improved varieties together with competent farming practice but without inputs, and so the expected yield is 18Mt over a two-year period. Table 23 shows the costs and revenues of cultivating one hectare of cassava. With the expected yield of 18 Mt at ZMK100,000 (US$20) per metric tonne, and cultivation costs of 201 days at ZMK2,500 (US$0.50) per day, the profit is ZMK1,297,500 (US$259.50). The lowest market price was ZMK360/kg (US$0.07), but selling smaller quantities, or selling in the market directly can increase the profit. At the ZMK100/kg (US$0.02) farm-gate selling price, the return on labour is ZMK8,955 (US$1.79) per day and the return on investment is 258 per cent.

Table 23 shows the costs and revenues of cultivating one hectare of cassava.

Fresh Roots Activity No Unit Unit value Value Revenue 18 Mt K100,000 K1,800,000 Cultivation labour 201 Days35 K2,500 K502,500 Profit K1,297,500 Return to labour 201 Days K8,955 Return on investment 258%


Considerations

There are three important considerations on the production and sale of fresh roots:

35 Under sedentary systems this figure may be closer to 140 days. The 201 days reflects a chitemene farming system. The calculation also assumes the cost of cuttings is zero.



1. fresh roots deteriorate very quickly and are difficult to sell even within 24 hours after harvesting. There are some solutions to the deterioration of the root; for example, exports from Costa Rica bound for Europe are either frozen or waxed, but these methods are not appropriate in Zambia at this time.

2. they have a low value per metric tonne.

3. they are very bulky and are expensive to transport. The value of the fresh root is such that the cost of commercial transport becomes prohibitive within a short distance: one hundred kilometres puts the price up by around 50 per cent.

Demand

The complexities of preparation of fresh root make it a less popular product for consumers. Nevertheless, among farmers who grow cassava, some 41 per cent use the fresh root, while 96 per cent make flour for their own use36. Only 8 per cent sell fresh root, probably due to the difficulties of transportation and its perishability.

Urban demand for fresh root appears to be around 100,895Mt for the country, 7,422Mt for Central, 46,780Mt for Copperbelt, 1,092Mt for Eastern, 5,972Mt for Luapula, 44,402Mt for Lusaka, 8,063Mt for Northern, 1,680Mt for North-Western, 8,487Mt for Southern and 3,032Mt for Western.

Zimbabwean demand for cassava-based products was estimated in 1995 to be 855,000Mt of fresh root equivalent including 240,000Mt for the production of 40 million litres of ethanol. Zimbabwean industry is no longer in a position to sustain such levels of demand and they may not return to these levels in the foreseeable future.

Supply

The potential supply is large but the logistics limit actual supply to the environs around the urban centres. The small amounts of fresh roots found in the markets commonly coming from long distances seemingly contradict this, but they are coming in small quantities as back loads in trucks and smaller vehicles on other business, and they are avoiding the crop levy. Since the value of the transport is not necessarily factored in, the quantities are small enough to avoid the levy, and there is oversupply at the origin, it is more difficult for local suppliers to compete. Despite these distortions, there are still fewer fresh roots in the urban market than the market can bear, and it is a clear opportunity for farmers to supply this much demanded root.

36 Van Otterdijk, R. Baseline Survey, Production and Field Management, Post Harvest and Marketing of Root Crops in Zambia, Mutanda Regional Research Station, MAFF, 1996.



The overall supply of fresh root for Central, 6,862Mt, Lusaka, 131Mt, and Southern, 1,206Mt, are all substantially less than the demand just from the towns in those provinces, suggesting a good market for fresh cassava root. Only in Eastern Province does the supply exceed the demand for urban areas, and even here, most of the cassava is consumed in rural areas and observation suggests little comes to town.

5.2.2 Leaves

The product

Leaves are less well known by the development agencies but are popular throughout Zambia, particularly in the north, within the cassava-growing zone above the 1,300mm rainfall isohyet. Considering the high protein levels found in the leaves, 28.8 per cent DW, this is an oversight. The leaves also contain cyanogens and should not be consumed raw. They should be well pounded to ensure that the cell walls of the leaf are ruptured: merely cutting or chopping them is not sufficient to enable the cyanogens to volatise. Once the leaves are well pounded, they are cooked until they change colour. They are often served in a stew known as Shombo, Katapa or Mafo37.

Process

The leaves used for the preparation of a relish are the top three leaves of the stem, taken with the shoots. These are the softer leaves. They are generally sold in the market in bundles of 20 leaves. There are three to four harvests a year. It takes about one hour to pick 100 bundles, but the bundles neither last nor travel well. They tend to be prepared by pounding and boiling with groundnuts, fish and oil and are particularly popular in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Tanzania. The optimal planting density for leaf cultivation is around 20,000 per hectare, 1m by 0.5. The yield of the root will decline slightly and nitrogenous fertiliser will increase leaf yield.

37 Luhila F. M. (2001). ‘Household Cassava Processing’. PAM Training Guide No 1, Programme Against Malnutrition, Lusaka.



Economics

It is assumed that one person spends two hours picking the leaves in the early morning, valued at ZMK825 (US$0.17), and then is able to walk to the market, sell the product and then return home within two hours. The total cost of sales is ZMK1,668 (US$0.33). The value of a bundle of leaves varies from between ZMK100 (US$0.02) and ZMK300 (US$0.06). This analysis assumes ZMK100 (US$0.02) and so the 205 bundles of leaves sell for ZMK20,500 (US$4.10), leaving a profit of ZMK18,832 (US$3.77). Since the only cost is the labour, the return to labour is ZMK30,750 (US$6.15) and return on investment is 1129 per cent. The seller should be prepared to spend up to ZMK18,832 (US$3.77) on transport.

Table 24 shows the costs and revenues from selling leaves in the local market.

Leaves Activity No Unit Unit value Value Picking 2.00 Hours K417 K834 Selling cost and travel 2.00 Hours K417 K834 Total cost 4.00 Hours K417 K1,668 Local market revenue 205 Bundles K100 K20,500 Labour cost K1,668 Profit K18,832 Return on labour 0.33 Days K30,750 Return on investment 1129%


Considerations

There are two considerations. The first is the poor traveling ability of the cassava leaf, which must be sold fresh and not limp, and there is no question of selling the product tomorrow. This means that the distance between the market and the cassava field must be short. The cost-benefit analysis suggests that the distance must be closer than around 50km to recover costs. The second consideration is the volume that can be picked in time to make the market. The product cannot be picked the evening before. These two considerations make cassava leaves a difficult product to manage.

Demand

The potential accessible market demand for fresh cassava leaf is around 110,487Mt, 8,128Mt in Central, 51,227Mt in Copperbelt, 619Mt in Eastern, 6,540Mt in Luapula, 25,172Mt in Lusaka, 8,829Mt in Northern, 1,840Mt in North-Western, 4,811Mt in Southern and 3,320Mt in Western.



Supply

The potential supply of fresh leaves is large, at about 958,113Mt per year, 33,000MtMt in Central, 11,621Mt in Copperbelt, 17,067Mt in Eastern, 286,129Mt in Luapula, 3,299Mt in Lusaka, 330,642Mt in Northern, 111,255Mt in North-Western, 4,607Mt in Southern and 160,495Mt in Western Province. Potential supply is spectacularly short in the Copperbelt with a deficit of 53,250Mt, in Lusaka with a 25,374Mt deficit, and in Southern, with a deficit of 9,973Mt. There is however very little real supply in the market, just a few tens of kilograms a day, even in the main markets. For the Lusaka markets, the leaf cannot be supplied from further than, say, four hours traveling time but must arrive early, preferably around six hours. This means that farmers must pick at 24 hours and then travel from 2am: not desirable practice for most farmers. Most cassava is more than four hours away, explaining the shortage of leaves.

5.2.3 Cuttings

Product

Although cuttings are sold and traded by farmers, the market for quality planting material has expanded because of NGOs buying to distribute to food insecure areas. Cuttings are 25cm sticks of cassava with at least four nodes on them. They are used for planting. Commercially, four cuttings are taken from a stake of around one metre length that is much of the stem of the plant. Sixty stakes, but sometimes one hundred, are tied together to form a bundle. The number of stakes available from each plant is dependent on the vigour of the plant. Less vigorous plants on poor soil may only produce one to two stakes.

Processing

Cuttings need to be cut and tied in bundles, generally of 60 stakes, each of 1m length. It is important, however, that the cuttings are disease-free. The spacing for growing cuttings is 0.5 by 0.5 metres, 40,000 plants per hectare. There is no need to ridge and weeding needs can be expected to be low. Chila is a particularly vigorous variety, providing more stems than others and minimising weeding needs, and it is a sweet variety most suited to Southern Province. At this plant population and without ridging, do not expect much of a root yield.

Economics

The bundles are valued at ZMK6,000 (US$1.20) per bundle of 60 x 1 metre lengths. For 100 bundles this earns revenue of ZMK600,000 (US$120). It will take about three days to cut the stakes and bundle them, costing ZMK7,500 (US$1.50), leaving a profit of ZMK592,500 (US$118.50). The



return to labour is ZMK200,000 (US$40) per day and the return is 7,900 per cent of the investment.

Table 25 shows the incremental revenues and costs of cutting and bundling stakes.

Cuttings Activity No Unit Unit

value Value

Revenue 100 Bundles K6,000 K600,000 Cutting and bundling cost

3 Days K2,500 K7,500

Profit K592,500 Return to labour 3 Days K200,000 Return on investment 7900%


Considerations

There are four important considerations. To sell to the large buyers, the NGOs such as Care International, Lutheran World Federation and PAM, large quantities are needed, in the order of 4,000 bundles for one truckload depending on the variety. With a vigorous variety, three stakes may be available from each plant, but other varieties will only give one stake per plant, which gives 167 bundles from one hectare, requiring 24 hectares for a large truck and trailer, and more if the planting density is low. The only workable way of meeting an order of this size is to cooperate with your neighbours.

A second consideration is the distance your field is from a road motorable by a large truck. Moving the material from a remote place to the road will add significantly to your costs.

The third consideration is that the NGOs are not always reliable. It is advisable not to believe that you have sold your cassava stakes until the truck arrives, which means that you should not cut your stakes until the truck arrives. Although stakes can be taken and be kept for some length of time (three months is possible), a truckload is a big pile. In addition, payment is unlikely to be immediate.

Additional administration costs may also be incurred in finding NGO customers. At the least, telephone calls and faxes will need to be made or letters written. Formal tenders may have to be submitted in some cases.

Care should be taken in agreeing contracts. It should be clear who is paying for transport, cutting labour and twine, whether an identified area of cuttings is being sold, and whether payment is for a fixed number of cuttings or the yield from a designated area.



The last consideration is that NGOs are not always fussy about the varieties they are buying or whether they are disease-free. Although this is of no benefit to Zambia, farmers can take advantage of this shortsighted behaviour. There is a phytosanitary facility in Zambia and there is an international protocol against haphazard movement of planting stock, so there may be repercussions to selling disease-infested cassava stakes in the future.

Demand

Some 4.2 per cent of respondents in the RuralNet survey bought cuttings, while most of the remainder used their own, were given them or obtained them from research stations. The proportion of farmers buying can be translated into a demand for cuttings to plant 4.2 per cent of the total land under cultivation of 165,000 hectares, i.e. 6,930 hectares. This needs 288,750 bundles at ZMK6,000 (US$1.20) each, or ZMK1,732 million (US$346.40).

There is also demand for cuttings from the organisations currently distributing cuttings to drought-stricken areas in Southern Province. These include the Lutheran World Federation, the Programme Against Malnutrition, Care International and the Cooperative League of the USA (CLUSA). The requirement by these organisations for bulk supply often means prices per bundle are higher.

Demand for cuttings is seasonal, in that they must be planted quickly after harvesting to avoid drying, and should be planted early in the rains.

Supply

There is a severe shortage of quality planting material from the improved varieties throughout the country, and there is an abundance of poor yielding local landraces. See Section 3.2.4 for details of distribution of improved varieties.

5.3 Processed products

5.3.1 Introduction

Processed products are defined as those that can be readily made by small-scale farmers. Many are familiar to cassava growers and to marketeers. The high perishability of cassava roots means that processing is important to allow for storage, especially to even-out supply during the rainy season,



when drying is difficult. The same problem also affects transportation of fresh roots, hence urban purchase and consumption of cassava is usually in the form of a processed or semi-processed product, generally chips or meal, which can then be used in a variety of dishes. Such treatment is also important in the reduction and/or elimination of cyanogens present at toxic levels in bitter varieties of cassava.

Once the basic ingredients, chips, meal and flour, are produced, they can be used to make a variety of foods such as nshima, scones and Munkoyo, which is a non-alcoholic sweet beverage. The cassava meal that is produced from dried roots and chips is a direct substitute for maize meal, can be mixed with maize meal and can be cut with wheat to make bakery products.

Traditional dried roots and chips ferment during soaking, but because this is done in running water in Zambia, the strong flavours associated with fermentation are not found in local products; however, the Cooperative League of the USA (CLUSA) is promoting gari, a traditional Nigerian/Ghanaian dish in Zambia. Gari is made from fresh cassava gratings fermented under pressure in a closed sack. Fermentation by lactic acid bacteria imparts a strong flavour of mixed organic acids that is enhanced by the roasting process.

The processing of fresh root into dried root and chip products varies in different parts of the country. Figure 8 illustrates the relationships between the processing sequences of the dried root and chip products. In Western Province, the sequence involves soaking, peeling and then washing, slicing/mashing and drying before grinding, although the washing and slicing/mashing phases may be omitted. In Luapula Province the predominant traditional processing technique starts with peeling, after which the roots are then either dried and soaked, or simply soaked before being washed, sliced/mashed or ground and dried. Again, the washing and slicing/mashing or grinding phases may be omitted38.

Peeling, drying and grinding have been identified as bottlenecks in the production process. Peeling machines have been developed but are not considered efficient, while drying and grinding machines are available.39 It is interesting to note that no cost effective peeling machine has been developed anywhere in the world. Typically machines either fail to remove all of the peel or remove too much of the valuable parenchyma as part of the peeling process. The main reason for these problems is the irregular shape of the cassava roots. Large-scale starch factories use rotary washers that remove all of the bark and sometimes as much as 90 per cent of the peel from cassava roots.

38 Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries in cooperation with the Zambia Agricultural Training, Planning and Institutional Development Project (ZATPID II), “An Evaluation of the Commercial Potential for Cassava in Zambia”, MAFF, June 1993. 39 Ibid.



5.3.2 Process elements

Introduction

Fresh cassava roots are turned into dried roots, chips or grates, which can be pounded into meal and then sieved to produce flour. There are two variations on the process of making chips or grates, the sequences are:

1. The sequence is: peeling – soaking – washing – slicing/mashing or grinding - drying

2. The sequence is: soaking – peeling – washing – slicing/mashing or grinding - drying

The steps in italics may be omitted.

Peeling

Peeling is generally done by hand using a knife, but this is slow work, taking around 3.6 woman-days per metric tonne under Zambian conditions. Although no practical peeling machine exists, peeling rates can be greatly enhanced by using a proper peeling knife. In India root peelers use a simple peeling knife made from a short length of metal sheet bent into “U” shape in cross section with a slot cut down the middle of the sheet. One edge of the slot is bent outwards and sharpened to form the blade. These cost about US$2 and are easy to make locally. Women in India cassava starch and sago factories can peel between 0.9 and 1.35 Mt of roots per day (Trim & Curran, 1993).

Soaking

The peeled root is soaked in water, in a dambo, river or container, for two to seven days, depending on temperature. Soaking removes the bitterness, improves the flavour and softens the root40. During this soaking, fermentation is occurring.

Washing

Washing in water ensures any dirt is removed. This is usually done by hand in rural Zambia, although there are mechanical root washing machines available elsewhere, some of which remove all of the bark and most of the peel as well as washing.

40 Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries in cooperation with the Zambia Agricultural Training, Planning and Institutional Development Project (ZATPID II), “An Evaluation of the Commercial Potential for Cassava in Zambia”, MAFF, June 1993.



Slicing, chipping and mashing

Slicing or chipping is usually done by hand using a knife and is normally done after soaking, but a machine can be used immediately after peeling. After soaking, the peeled fresh root can be mashed into a pulp by a mortar and pestle.

Grating

Grating makes grates or gratings from peeled fresh root. These are usually pressed to dewater the grates and then dried. Grates are less fine than the product from a hammer mill and can be used to make flour or gari.

Grinding

Grinding, or milling, can be done my hand using a pestle and mortar or using a hammer mill to product cassava meal. It is important to note that inadequately dried cassava can damage a hammer mill, and some millers are reluctant to accept cassava for milling as a result.

Drying

Drying at household level is usually done by sun drying or fire/smoke drying. It takes one to ten days to complete depending on the size of the chips, the season and climate, and has an important influence on the length of time for which the cassava can be stored. For long-term storage moisture levels should not exceed 12 percent41.

Sun drying is achieved by spreading the chips on the ground or other flat surface in the sun, either directly on hard earth, or on a plastic sheet, the latter of which is more hygienic and may allow for faster drying. Fire drying is generally considered faster than sun drying.

Artificial driers are also available, including solar driers and those using wood, electricity, petrol and diesel. Solar driers are considered the most appropriate for Zambia and can be for three types – a cabinet drier, hot house drier or box drier. They are more expensive than unassisted sun drying, but the quality of product is better and contamination is minimised. The University of Zambia’s Technical Development Advisory Unit (TDAU) has designed solar driers.42

Cassava meal

Meal is produced by pounding dried chips, either by hand in a pestle and mortar or in a hammer mill of the type also used for maize. The size and uniformity of chips is important in order to avoid clogging and/or damaging

41 Ibid. 42 Ibid.



the mill. Indeed some millers are reluctant to accept chips for milling because of that problem.

Cassava flour

Flour is produced by sieving meal to the required particle size.

Fermenting

1. Roots are stacked in a heap, covered with leaves and left to ferment for about one week.

2. The fermenting process can also be replaced by grating, after which the pulp is put in a perforated container for about three hours with a weight on top to squeeze out the effluent. The remaining pulp is then sun-dried43.

3. Fresh roots are soaked in water for three to seven days, after which they are peeled and dried as whole roots44.

The duration of the fermentation affects the flavour, the longer the stronger. One to two days is too short, it is insufficient for the lactic acid fermentation and the development of the flavour from the activities of complex mixed microflora45.

43 Nweke F et al. “The Cassava Transformation. Africa’s Best-kept Secret”, IITA, 2002. 44 Ibid. 45 A. Graffham, 17/7/03



Dried Root Products

Chipping

Chips

Meal

Flour

Sieving

Grinding

Drying

Slicing/mashing or grinding

Washing

Soaking

Peeling

Peeling

Soaking

Fresh Root

Figure 8 illustrates the relationships between the processing sequences of the dried root and chip products.

5.3.3 Dried roots

Product

Since the fresh roots deteriorate within a day or so46, it is necessary to process the root to store it effectively. Roots are harvested, peeled and then soaked in water for approximately three days. During soaking, autolysis of tissues occurs accompanied by a certain amount of bacterial fermentation and as a result, both the cyanogenic glucosides and enzymes systems for their degradation are released from the tissues thus making the cassava safe to consume. The roots are then dried whole47.

The most important method of preserving cassava root in Zambia is to dry the whole root. Once the root is properly dried it can be stored for some considerable time, around one year, but is susceptible to larger grain borer48. Fungal problems arise if the root is stored not properly dried and in the wet season.

46 Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries in cooperation with the Zambia Agricultural Training, Planning and Institutional Development Project (ZATPID II), “An Evaluation of the Commercial Potential for Cassava in Zambia”, MAFF, June 1993. 47 Alternatively, the wet roots can be crushed in a basket inside a sack submerged in water, to separate the pulp and fibre. The pulp is squeezed out as a paste that is then pounded and cooked before use. 48 The LGB can be overcome by using mini-chips. A. Graffham 17/7/03



Dried roots are generally soaked and roasted and eaten for breakfast or as a snack, or are made into a cake with roasted groundnuts.

Processing

The fresh root on the day of harvesting is peeled and then commonly soaked in a river for three to five days. This leaches out the cyanogens and allows the root to ferment. The roots are then sun dried, usually on the ground on black plastic, but also on raised wooden trays, which is the better way. Because of the size of the leached roots, the drying time can be long, up to ten or so days. A common complaint of service millers is the roots are not properly dry, which can damage the hammer mill. The solution to this problem is to make cassava chips, which is discussed below.

Economics

Table 26 shows the increase in revenue and costs arising from making dried roots. The farm-gate revenue from selling a 50kg bag (weighing about 40kg) is around ZMK60,000 (US$12). From this is subtracted the opportunity cost of contributing the fresh root, which is ZMK5,580 (US$1.12), making an increase in revenue from dried root production ZMK54,420 (US$10.88), for a 50kg bag.

The making of dried cassava root is essentially women’s work. Table 27 sets out the activities associated with women, when preparing dried roots. The peeling takes 3.6 woman-days per metric tonne. It is assumed that washing takes one hour of a woman’s time, to walk to the river and back and to arrange the roots; the washing process is concurrent and a new load replaces the existing load; the average washing quantity is ten kilos per head-load; and the standard woman day is six hours: so it takes 16 woman-days to wash a metric tonne of fresh cassava root.

Assuming that it takes ten days to dry the roots on black plastic and bearing in mind that the ten kilograms takes 20 minutes each day to layout at the beginning of the drying period and 10 minutes at the end of the drying period, the average laying out time is 42 woman-days per metric tonne. These activities take a total of 61.6 woman-days for a metric tonne.

Converting these figures to the 50kg bag of dried roots, peeling 200kg of fresh root takes four and a half hours, valued at ZMK1,499 (US$0.30); washing 200kg of fresh root takes an average of 3.2 days, valued at ZMK6,400 (US$1.28); and drying takes ten days, valued at ZMK16,800



(US$3.36). The total costs are ZMK24,699 (US$4.94), leaving a profit of ZMK29,722 (US$5.94). The incremental labour involved is 12.35 days, which gives a return to labour of ZMK4,406 (US$0.88). The return on investment is 120 per cent.

Table 26 shows the increase in revenue and costs arising from making dried roots.

Dried roots Activity Number Unit Unit

value Value

Farm-gate revenue 50 kg bag K60,000 K60,000 Less OC of fresh root 200 kg K28 K5,580 Increase in revenue K54,420 Costs Peeling 4.50 Hours K333 K1,499 Washing 3.2 Days K2,000 K6,400 Drying 8.4 Days K2,000 K16,800 Total costs 12.35 Days K24,699 Increase in revenue K54,420 Labour K24,699 Profit K29,722 Return to labour 12.35 Days K4,406 Return on investment 120%


Table 27 sets out the activities associated with women, when preparing dried roots.

Task Woman-days/Mt fresh root

Peeling 3.6 Washing 16 Drying 42 Picking Total 61.6

Considerations

Demand for cassava is closely linked to the availability of other staple foods, and tends to peak during the rainy season between November and March when other crops, such as maize, are in short supply49. Storage and processing issues also become an issue at that time for cassava, however.

49 “Applying a Sub-sector Analysis Approach to Studying the Marketing of Cassvaa and Sweet Potato in Southern Africa: The Case of Zambia”, RuralNet Associates Ltd, for Southern Africa Root Crops Research Network, December 2002.



Constraints to consumption include:

• Seasonality

• Low supply

• High costs

• Poor quality50

It can be seen in Table 27 that the main time-consumers are washing and drying. The drying time can be halved or better by making traditional chips or by using a chipping machine. This is discussed in the next section. Washing can be avoided by making chips from sweet varieties, for human consumption. Peeling is unavoidable51.

Unlike the fresh root, dried roots are readily transportable, but they do need plenty of water for leaching out the cyanogens. Rivers are preferred but large lakes are as effective, but the difference may affect the taste.

Demand

Demand for cassava-based food products can be loosely divided into rural and urban requirements. In the rural setting, most consumers grow enough for their household’s needs. It is thus the urban centres that are of most interest in terms of sales. Kitwe, in the Copperbelt, Mansa, in Luapula, and Lusaka are among the main centres of interest.

The demand for whole dried root is mostly for making cassava meal and for soaking and roasting for snacks. There is no shortage of demand for both all year around. Prices are highest at the beginning of the harvest and the end, with lowest prices, as to be expected, in the middle of the harvest.

For a well-organised group, bulk sales to an organisation may prove attractive. For example, in 2002/03 the Programme Against Malnutrition (PAM) planned to buy 5,000Mt of cassava chips from Mwinilunga and Kasempa for distribution as food relief in Southern Province. Its calculations were based on a cost of US$204 per metric tonne with transport costs of US$240 per Mt and overheads of 10 per cent of the total purchase and transport price.

The urban demand for dried cassava products, including dried roots, chips and meal is 189,701Mt, 13,955Mt in Central Province, 87,954Mt in Copperbelt, 1,063Mt in Eastern, 11,229Mt in Luapula, 43,219Mt in Lusaka,

50 “Applying a Sub-sector Analysis Approach to Studying the Marketing of Cassvaa and Sweet Potato in Southern Afria: The Case of Zambia”, RuralNet Associates Ltd, for Southern Africa Root Crops Research Network, December 2002. 51 If cassava is not peeled, the result is a dark brown cassava meal with an unpleasant flavour and odour, due to phenolic oxidase effects from the peel. A. Graffham 17/7/03



15,159Mt in Northern, 3,159Mt in North-Western, 8,261Mt in Southern and 5,701Mt in Western Province.

Supply

The supply of dried roots is mostly a function of weather, but is slim. Dried roots can be made at any time of the year but they are difficult to dry properly in the rainy season. Availability starts in early August and continues generally for three months. This is the period of the lowest prices.

The supply of dried cassava products for the country is 214,042Mt, but there are deficits in Central of 20,706Mt, in Copperbelt of 53,823Mt, in Eastern of 184Mt, in Lusaka of 24,286Mt and in Southern of 6,447Mt, so there is an expected market for cassava dried products in these provinces. There is a surplus of 27,368Mt in Luapula, 3,511Mt in Northerm 17,904Mt in North-Western and 24,213Mt in Western Province.

5.3.4 Chips

The product

There are two types of chip: the first is the traditional chip that is made by breaking recently washed roots into small pieces by hand, whilst they are still wet and soft; and the second is machine produced. In both cases, chips substantially reduce the drying period, make it easier to produce cassava meal and increase the weight-to-volume ratio, which in turn reduces transport costs. Machine chips are imported to Europe from Thailand for incorporation into animal feeds.

Mill operators are frequently reluctant to process whole dried roots, because if they are not dry, they damage the hammers. For this reason, chips are often used to make cassava meal. These traditional chips should be low in cyanogens.

Another way to produce chips is to peel the root, wash it and then use a chipping machine. A chipping machine produces a relative uniform and small chip that dries even more quickly than the traditional chip.

Processing

The traditional chip is entirely different from the machined chip. The traditional chip is made from a peeled and washed (fermented) root, which



means that HCN levels are low. Once the chip is dry it can be safely made into cassava meal for human or animal consumption. Machine chips are made from the fresh peeled root, which is not subsequently washed. The chips are then sun dried. If bitter roots are used to make these chips, they may not be safe for human consumption, because the chips dry too fast for the cyanogens to fully volatise52. If bitter varieties are to be used to make cassava meal, they should be grated, expressed and dried53. If sweet varieties are used, the chips are safe for human consumption. Both are safe as animal feed.

Economics

The incremental costs of breaking freshly washed root into smaller pieces are small and are covered by the error in the analysis of the incremental benefits of whole root production. This part therefore looks at the economics of machine chips.

Table 28 shows the incremental revenue and costs associated with machine chipping. The revenues for a 50kg bag are expected to be about the same as whole dried root and the opportunity cost of the fresh roots is deducted, giving an incremental revenue of K54,420. The peeling of the 200kg of fresh root remains the same as dried root.

The engine-driven processing machine reportedly can chip two Mt in six hours, and so 200kg of roots are chipped in 40 minutes. The machine operator is valued at ZMK280 (US$0.06) for this period. The machine costs US$450. Writing this off over three years and using it for two hours a day for 90 days per annum values depreciation at US$0.83 (ZMK4,167) per operating hour. The fuel cost is estimated at ZMK1,500 (US$0.30) per hour and maintenance, US$0.25 (ZMK1,250), making the operating cost ZMK6,917 (US$1.38) per hour. So for 40 minutes, the operating costs for the engine-driven machine are ZMK4,634 (US$0.93).

The drying period is very much reduced from that of dried roots, to an estimated two days. The labour for moving the chips in and out of the store or house is estimated to be one hour, valued at ZMK333 (US$0.07). The total costs are ZMK6,747 (US$1.35), so the profit is ZMK47,673 (US$9.53). The incremental labour required is 1.14 days, and the income due to the labour is the farm-gate revenue less the machine costs, which gives a return to labour of ZMK43,672 (US$8.73). The return on investment is 707 per cent. This is a substantial improvement over making traditional chips.

The alternative is the manual machine, which costs US$100. Writing this off over three years and using it for 4 hours a day for 90 days per annum values depreciation at ZMK463 (US$0.09) per hour. It is estimated that a 50kg bag

52 A. Graffham 17/7/03 53 Discussed later.



of fresh peeled root will take four hours to chip, so the incremental cost of the operator for three hours 20 minutes is ZMK1,399 (US$0.28) and the machine operating cost is ZMK1,852 (US$0.37), a reduction of operating cost of ZMK2,782 (US$0.56). The impact it to reduce costs to ZMK6,747 per 50kg bag and increase profit to ZMK47,673 (US$9.53). The amount of labour increases to 1.58 days and the return due to labour is ZMK33,201 (US$6.64). The return on investment increases to 914 per cent, which provides a dilemma: the machine-driven machine provides the higher return to labour and is the less reliable alternative, but the manual machine is more labourious.

Table 28 shows the incremental revenue and costs associated with machine chipping.

Chips Activity Number Unit Unit

value Machine chipper

Manual chipper

Farm-gate revenue 50 kg bag K60,000 K60,000 Less OC of fresh root

200 kg K28 K5,580

Increase in revenue K54,420 Costs Peeling 4.50 Hours K333 K1,499 Machine chipping 0.67 Hours K420 K281 K1,399 Machine operation cost

0.67 Hours K6,917 K4,634 K(2,782)

Drying 1 Hours K333 K333 Total costs 6.84 Hours K6,747 K5,364 Increase in revenue K54,420 K54,420 Labour K2,113 K3,512 Machine operation K4,634 K1,852 Profit K47,673 K49,056 Return to labour 1.14 Days K43,672 K33,201 Return on investment

707% 914%


Considerations

Machines are notoriously unreliable, but if they work they are a pleasure. If they breakdown, spare parts are certainly further away than desirable, and possibly not in the country. Since the processing period is only three months, a missing spare could result in a lost season.



Only cassava meal from sweet varieties can safely be produced from this process for human consumption54. Chips from bitter varieties can be used for animal feed or for heat-processed products such as gari. The danger is that there can be confusion over whether sweet or bitter varieties have been used to make the chips and so there may be resistance to buying these chips for making cassava meal.

Demand

There is considerable demand for chips from Europe for inclusion in animal feed but this is a difficult market to access for small-scale producers. There is little demand from gari producers because they tend to produce their own chips.

The government has announced it will buy 1,167Mt of cassava chips in 2003 in selected centres through the Food Reserve Agency, Table 29. It will buy at its warehouses in the centres named, with agents acting on its behalf to coordinate purchases. The minimum purchase lot is a 1 x 40kg bag, and farmers will receive ZMK600 (US$0.12) per kg, or ZMK24,000 (US$4.80) per 40kg bag. Buying was scheduled to commence in mid-June 2003, but delays in funding had led to a postponement. Announcements would be made on a new date for purchases.

Table 29 gives the amount of cassava chips to be bought by the FRA in various centres.

District Quantity (Mt) Agent Mansa/Kawambwa 367 Padua Marketing Agencies Kasama 200 Northern Cooperative Union Solwezi 300 Naberamaya Investments Kaoma 300 Sable Transport Total 1,167

Farmers will be given a Goods Received Note (GRN) immediately on delivery of their cassava to the FRA warehouse and that can then be redeemed at a designated local bank on presentation of the GRN and ID card.

The FRA intends to release the chips on the market for sale at a profit, to reflect its transport costs, at a later date. It already has 100Mt in store from 2002 when a pilot purchasing exercise in Kawambwa, during which time the FRA paid ZMK28,000 per 40kg bag, resulted in purchases of 169Mt when no quantity limit had been set55.

The FRA standards for purchase of cassava chips are:

1. Moisture levels of no more than 12 percent

54 Although the cooked cassava meal may have volatised the HCN, the uncooked meal must be below 2mg/kg of HCN according to the Zambia Food and Drug Regulations 2001. 55 Simon Phiri, marketing information officer, Food Reserve Agency, Lusaka



2. Visual appearance:

a. Whitish in colour

b. Not fibrous

c. Not infested with pests

d. Mould free

e. Generally clean

3. Chip form of maximum size 3 cm

The urban demand for dried chips is included in demand for dried cassava products, which includes dried roots and meal, see page 73.

Supply

Although there is considerable supply potential for chips both for government purchases and animal feed, there is relatively little traditional chip production and all but no machined chip production.

The supply of dried chips is the same as that reported for dried roots on page 73.

5.3.5 Cassava meal

Product

Cassava meal is made from dried roots or chips and is reported to compete with maize meal. Like maize it can be used for human consumption and for animal feed. Although cassava and maize may compete because they are both staples, they are different products with different features, and should be sold as such. A common error is to try to cook them in the same way. Cassava meal is cooked by adding the flour to recently boiled water, and is not subsequently boiled like maize meal. It is much faster to prepare than maize meal and is a fast food in the real sense.

Dried roots, traditional chips and machined chips can be made into cassava meal or flour. The difference between meal and flour is the size of the milled particle. Meal is generally filtered to less than 600 microns and flour is less than around 250 microns56. The meal/flour can then be made into a variety of dishes, including nshima, bread, scones, pastry, cakes and biscuits. The flour can also be mixed with maize or wheat flour. There is some confusion because the Food and Drugs Regulations 2001 define as flour all cassava of less than 600 microns, and thus has labeled what is

56 Codex 1995 specification.



really cassava meal as ‘cassava flour’, which presents a problem of defining real cassava flour.

Some 70 per cent of consumers in one survey used their purchased cassava to make nshima, 9 per cent boiled dried chips, 12 per cent made scones and 7 per cent made Munkoyo brew.57 Three quarters of interviewees said they used cassava as a substitute for other products, including sweet potatoes, Irish potatoes and bread.

Processing

There are two ways of making cassava meal, either from dried roots or chips, which are passed through a hammer mill and then sieved, or from grated, peeled fresh root that is pressed, dried, milled and sieved.

If the product is to be sold then there are standards that must be met. Zambia’s Food and Drugs Regulations 2001 set out the following standard requirements for cassava flour58. Cassava flour shall be the product obtained by grinding cassava Manihot esculenta such that not less than 95 per centum of it through a wire mesh sieve of 600 microns aperture and shall have not more than

a. 14.5 per centum moisture;

b. 1.5 per centum crude fibre;

c. 2.0 per centum total ash;

d. 0.2 per centum ash insoluble in hydrochloric acid;

e. 0.5 per centum acidity determined as lactic acid;

f. and 2.0 mg/kg total hydrocyanic acid determined as free hydrogen cyanide.

Item f. above is important. To achieve this low level of HCN, meal for human consumption should not be made from bitter varieties unless they are properly processed. Sweet varieties can be used in any process, but bitter varieties must be grated, expressed and dried. Machined chips made from bitter varieties should not be used to make cassava meal for human consumption.

The Bureau of Standards is responsible for monitoring and enforcing the standards, while the National Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research (NISIR) will analyse samples, which should be a minimum of 500g. Test results take approximately 10 days to complete59 and cost around

57 “Applying a Sub-sector Analysis Approach to Studying the Marketing of Cassava and Sweet Potato in Southern Africa: The Case of Zambia”, RuralNet Associates Ltd, for Southern Africa Root Crops Research Network, December 2002. 58 s. 336. 59 Rodah Zulu, National Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research.



ZMK200,000 (US$40). Normal practice is to batch test, where the entire product made consistently from one source is tested.

Economics

Table 30 shows the incremental revenues and costs of making cassava meal or flour from chips or by using a grater. The farm-gate revenue is estimated to be ZMK80,000 (US$16) in both cases.

When using chips, the opportunity cost is the fresh root and the process, which is ZMK12,327 (US$2.47) for 50kg. This represents an increase in revenue of ZMK67,673 (US$13.53). The only costs are the hire of a service miller and the time it takes. The total cost is estimated to be ZMK20,666 (US$4.13), which results in a profit of ZMK47,007 (US$9.40). The number of man-days involved is 0.33 and the return to labour is ZMK144,463 (US$28.89). There is only ZMK666 (US$0.13) difference between the labour input for the chips and the meal if a service miller is used. The return on investment is 227 per cent.

When using a grating machine, the opportunity cost of using fresh root is only ZMK5,580 (US$1.12), compared with ZMK12,327 (US$2.47) for using chips, giving an increased revenue of ZMK74,420 (US$14.88). The peeling is the same as for chips. It is estimated that the cost of operating the grater is 1.5 times the cost of the chips, and that it grates 200kg in 40 minutes. After the cassava is grated, the gratings are pressed for two hours to express the juice, although the operator is only needed for 20 minutes. The press machine cost is US$200, and is used for two hours a day for 90 days. The operating cost is estimated to be ZMK1,852 (US$0.37) per hour. After expression, the gratings take one man-day to dry. The hammer mill is used for the final milling. The total cost of production is ZMK33,388 (US$6.68) making a profit of ZMK41,032 (US$8.26). The process takes a total of 2.36 days. The return to labour is ZMK19,315 (US$3.86). The return on investment is 123 per cent.



Table 30 shows the incremental revenues and costs of making cassava meal or flour from chips or by using a grater.

Cassava Meal/flour Activity No Unit Unit value Grater Value Chips Value Farm-gate revenue 50 kg K80,000 K80,000 K80,000 Less OC of chips 50 kg K12,327 Less OC of fresh root 200 kg K28 K5,580 Increase in revenue K74,420 K67,673 Costs Peeling 4.50 Hours K333 K1,499 Machine grating labour 0.67 Hours K420 K281 Grating operation cost 0.67 Hours K10,375 K6,951 Expression labour 0.33 Hours K420 K139 Expression machine cost 1.00 Session K1,852 K1,852 Drying 1.00 Days K2,000 K2,000 Hammer mill charge 1.00 Session K20,000 K20,000 K20,000 Travel time, hammer mill 2.00 Hours K333 K666 K666 Total costs 2.36 Days K33,388 K20,666 Increase in revenue K74,420 K67,673 Labour K4,585 K666 Machine operation K8,803 Service cost K20,000 K20,000 Profit K41,032 K47,007 Return to labour 2.36 Days K19,315 K144,463 Return on investment 123% 227%


Considerations

Cassava meal is a potential substitute for maize meal but promotion needs to be extended to make consumers aware of the different preparation techniques involved. This should be part of wider considerations on consumer preferences

The fineness of cassava meal/flour requires a larger mesh size to be used in milling and sieving in order to avoid creating an unmanageable dust.

Demand and supply

The supply and demand for cassava meal is included in the estimates for cassava dried products, reported under dried roots, see page 73.



5.3.6 Gari

Introduction

Gari is a popular Nigerian and Ghanaian dish made by gelatinising grated fermented cassava. Because of the process, it is one of the safest cassava products. It can be served as a beverage, mixed with water or milk, hot or cold. The dilemma is that Nigerians reportedly like gari fermented for one day and roasted in palm oil, the Ghanaians like gari fermented for two to three days60 and roasted in salade61, and little research has been conducted on Zambian preferences, although one study did find that they did not like the product roasted in palm oil.

There are several attempts to make gari in Zambia, by Nigerians and Ghanaians. There are other granulated cassava products, such as attieke62 and tapioca63,64 but it is premature to introduce these products. Gari is a granulated product that is gelatinised on the outside. It is particularly safe against the hazards of cyanide toxicity.

Processing

Gari originates from Nigeria and Ghana; fresh roots are peeled, washed and grated. The wet gratings are packed in a sack and kept under pressure (weighted boards or screw press) for four to seven days, depending on the level of flavour required. During pressing fermentation occurs and water is

60 The gari fermentation needs four days or more for the lactic acid fermentation and the activities of complex mixed microflora to impart the gari flavour. A. Graffham 17/7/03 61 Local and very popular oil made from sunflower seeds. 62 Attieke is a product of Cote d’Ivoire made by a similar process to gari, except that fermented gratings are steamed rather than roasted.

63 Tapioca is a similar gelatinised product to gari but it is made from pure starch, which is not fermented, rather than fermented cassava gratings. To prepare tapioca fresh cassava roots are peeled and washed, and then reduced to a pulp in a mechanised grater. Wet pulp is packed into a muslin bag or placed on a sieve over a bucket water is poured onto the pulp and the pulp is squeezed and kneaded by hand to release starch in the form of a starch milk. The starch milk is allowed to settle in the bucket for several hours, and then the clear supernatant is removed. The wet starch is then passed back though the grater to form small granules of starch. These granules are then roasted on as hot sheet of metal coated with oil like gari. During roasting the starch gelatinises to give a semi translucent product. The gelatinised granules are sun dried for one day to form a hard whitish product. 64 Nweke F et al. “The Cassava Transformation. Africa’s Best-kept Secret”, IITA, 2002.



squeezed out of the dough. Fermented gratings are broken up into small granules and roasted on hot metal sheets coated with oil. Roasted granules are sun dried prior to sale.

Economics

The farm-gate price on offer is ZMK4000 (US$0.80) per kg, so for 50kg, the value is ZMK200,000 (US$40), Table 31. The opportunity cost of fresh root is ZMK5,580 (US$1.12), leaving an increase in value of ZMK194,420 (US$38.88). The fresh root is peeled, washed and grated in the same way as Cassava meal above. Assuming the expression of the juice and the fermentation period is 24 hours, the US$200 press is amortised over 90 pressings per year for three years, which is ZMK3,204 (US$0.64) per 50kg. It takes two-and-a-half hours to sieve the gratings, costing ZMK833 (US$0.17). The roasting tray cost is not significant but the roasting takes four hours. The oil used to roast the gratings cost ZMK10,000 (US$2). The total cost is ZMK24,696 (US$4.94) and takes 3.33 man-days. The profit is ZMK169,724 (US$33.94), the return to labour is ZMK55,279 (US$11.06) and the return to investment is 687 per cent.

Table 31 shows the incremental revenues and costs of producing gari.

Gari Activity Number Unit Unit value Grater Value Farm-gate revenue 50 kg K4,000 K200,000 Less OC of fresh root 200 kg K28 K5,580 Increase in revenue K194,420 Costs Peeling 4.50 Hours K333 K1,499 Machine grating labour 0.67 Hours K420 K281 Grating operation cost 0.67 Hours K10,375 K6,951 Expression labour 0.33 Hours K420 K139 Expression machine cost 1.00 Days K3,204 K3,204 Sieving 2.50 Hours K333 K833 Roasting 4.00 Hours K420 K1,680 Palm/Salade oil 1.00 Bottle K10,000 K10,000 Packaging 0.33 Hours K333 K110 Total costs 3.33 Days K24,696 Increase in revenue K194,420 Labour K14,541 Machine operation K10,155 Profit K169,724 Return to labour 3.33 Days K55,279 Return on investment 687%




Considerations

Unfamiliarity with gari is a prime consideration in the Zambian market, making estimates of demand difficult to quantify. If there is going to be a serious attempt to market gari in Zambia, rather than supplying resident Nigerians and Ghanaians, a proper marketing campaign is needed, including substantial generic advertising.

Demand

In May 2003 the Cooperative League of the USA (CLUSA) commissioned a study by MRIS into likely consumer acceptance of gari, a product produced in Western Province by Chunno Agri with support from CLUSA. The research was based on a random sample of households in various parts of Lusaka and first considered the use of cassava meal. Some 19 per cent of interviewees currently used cassava meal and 64 per cent had never used it.

Asked about gari and their likes and dislikes, the following results were found, Table 32. By and large, Zambians preferred gari without palm oil.

Table 32 gives the Zambian consumer dislikes and likes about gari

Gari (with palm oil) Gari (without palm oil) Dislikes Sour taste 69% 2% Too much fibre 18% 15% Unappealing colour 61% 9% Unpleasant small 71% 23% Not smooth when solid 16% 19% Cannot be eaten when cold 58% 63% Difficult to chew as snack 9% 11% Likes Economical 73% 81% Easy to prepare 89% 84% Pleasant colour 21% 68% Good taste 18% 67% Filling 59% 64%

The CLUSA research then identified that 18 per cent of consumers asked would definitely not buy gari with palm oil and 6 per cent would not buy it without palm oil. 38 per cent and 41 per cent respectively said they would definitely buy. Preferred pack sizes for gari were 2kg (88 percent), 500kg (71 percent), and 5kg (36 percent). Asked about price expectations, interviews gave the following responses:



Table 33 shows the expected price range of gari from a survey of interviewees in Lusaka.

Expected price range Respondents ZMK 1,500-2,000 11% ZMK 2,000-2,500 33% ZMK 2,500-3,000 41% ZMK 3,000-3,500 11% ZMK 3,500+ 4%


The survey made the following recommendations:

• Gari should be produced without palm oil;

• A marketing campaign should be developed to stimulate trial use, using electronic and print media;

• A recipe competition would help penetration and product understanding;

• Gari should be launched on a test market basis before extending the launch nationally.

Case Studies

1. Noble Chola Kanga, a retired technician in the Root and Tuber Improvement Programme at Mansa Research Station, says Zambians do not like the way that gari is eaten by putting it in a glass and then adding hot or cold water and sugar. The colour is also unattractive, he says.

2. Women at the Mantumbusa Nutrition Group like gari because it is quicker and easier to prepare than maize nshima. Normally they eat it with beans, or mixed with milk and sugar. Once prepared and bagged it can be stored and eaten as is.

Internationally, application of cassava to food was estimated to be 102 million Mt in 2000, of which 63 million Mt is consumed in Africa in the form of fresh roots and processed products such as gari or foufou. Civil strife in places such as the DRC has affected the consumption since cassava is stored in the ground and is therefore susceptible to dislocation of the inhabitants. In comparison, Asia consumes about 28 million Mt.

Supply

The production of gari in Zambia is currently extremely limited. A Nigerian entrepreneur, Mr. Goddy Eneke of Chuno-Agri Group, is working with small-scale farmers in Kaoma to produce the product and Mantumbusa Nutrition Group is attempting to get off the ground in Mansa. Both ventures are relying on West African champions to promote the concept and market the finished product.



Case Study

Mantumbusa Nutrition Group, is a community of 15 farmers who are fortunate enough to live close to the Mansa Research Station and have thus been given access to the centre’s chipping machine and a building for making gari. They make chips into porridge for distribution to the needy in the area and are learning to produce gari under an agreement with a local Ghanaian who has offered to pay ZMK2,000 (US$0.40) per 500g bag and plans to market it to embassies and the West African community in Lusaka. They make 25kg per week, which takes them one day to fry, but they are hoping to raise ZMK73 million (US$14,600) from ZAMSIF to buy buildings and equipment and take production up to 200kg per day. They have discovered that Ghanaians prefer their gari fermented for two to three days, while Nigerians prefer one day.

The group pays ZMK20,000 (US$4) for four baskets (approximately 200kg) of fresh root, empty sacks cost ZMK1,500 (US$0.30) and a 750ml bottle of cooking oil costs ZMK10,000 (US$2). They are experimenting with both palm oil and salade oil. It takes two women 2.5 hours to sieve 50kg of fermented cassava. The frying pans were made by the group using second hand metal sheet, which cost ZMK50,000 (US$10).

5.3.7 Beverages

Introduction

A number of beverages are made from cassava: adding an enzyme to cassava gruel makes the non-alcoholic munkoyo. The gruel is a porridge made by boiling cassava meal in water. Munkoyo, an enzyme, when added to this, will convert the porridge into a beverage overnight, by breaking down the starch into sugars.

The production of beverages is a common use for cassava in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda as well as in some parts of Latin America, and to a lesser extent is a use in Zambia at a household level, particularly in Western Province. Many of these beverages are alcoholic, but non-alcoholic recipes also exist in India and Zambia.



Figure 9 shows dried Munkoyo roots, which are added to cassava porridge to make a refreshing beverage.

There are three types of beverages made from cassava in Zambia: non-alcoholic beverage, an alcoholic beer (chibuku) and a spirit (kashasu). Both the non-alcoholic beverage and the beer have good food nourishment properties. The non-alcoholic beverage is particularly underestimated as a source of energy for children after weaning and for sick patients unable to take solid foods: the hydrolysis improves the availability of minerals, enhances some of the food’s vitamin content and makes the starchy food easier to digest. The fermentation to beer may also raise the availability of proteins, vitamins and minerals.

Processing

The non-alcoholic beverage is made from cassava porridge: cooking cassava meal with water makes the porridge. After cooling, the munkoyo65, Figure 9, is added and stirred into the porridge. Munkoyo has a lemon flavour. Usually, the munkoyo root is added to the porridge in the evening for consumption the following day. It acts like malt and breaks down the carbohydrates of the cassava meal into sugars. Munkoyo is not the only malting agent available, malted finger millet or sorghum66 can also be used, as can any malt used for making chibuku, found in many households. The result is not alcoholic for a day or so after making, and fermentation can be avoided by boiling.

If the munkoyo is allowed to ferment, it makes an alcoholic beer (chibuku). The inoculum is typically derived from the residue from a previous batch, but the unclean side of the fermentation vessel will also provide a source of microorganisms and commercial brewers yeast could be used. The fermentation vessel is covered and fermentation is allowed to proceed for

65 Mukoyo is seasonal and is commonly available in the dry season on the side of the road. 66 Finger millet and sorghum are malted by allowing the seed to germinate.



several days. The liquor is then decanted off and can be drunk as an alcoholic beer at this stage.

However, in most cases the liquor is distilled using a crude form of steam distillation to produce a strong spirit containing approximately 40-44 per cent ethyl alcohol. This spirit is sold under the name waragi in Uganda, gongo in Tanzania, and kashasu in Zambia. After the fermentation has continued for a week or so, the fermentation drum is sealed except a hosepipe from the top, which is passed through a bucket containing cooling water to a collection vessel. The drum is then heated to slightly below the boiling point of water. The early condensate is an ethyl alcohol. In the absence of careful control, methyl alcohols may be present, resulting in liquor that is hazardous to health; home production cannot be recommended and is not discussed further. There is however an opportunity to produce a quality marketable spirit product.

Economics

Ordinarily munkoyo is made in small quantities; however, there may be a market for fresh munkoyo in the domestic market, because munkoyo is made in the similar way to maheu67. Table 34 shows the incremental costs and revenues for the production of munkoyo. To make 20 litres, one tin of cassava flour is needed, costing ZMK11,521 (US$2.30). The dried munkoyo root is valued at zero, because it can be collected at any time when there is no opportunity cost. The labour to make the cassava meal and add the munkoyo is estimated to be one hour, costing ZMK420 (US$0.08) at a standard man day cost of ZMK2,500 (US$0.50). Since the product can only practicably be sold locally but cannot be sold at farm-gate, the selling and travel cost is included and estimated to be four hours, costing ZMK1,675 (US$0.34). The total cost for 20 litres of munkoyo is ZMK13,273 (US$2.65).

The expected revenue per cup is ZMK200 (US$0.04) in the local market, giving a revenue of around ZMK20,000 (US$4). The total labour cost is ZMK1,752 (US$0.35) and the total material cost is ZMK11,521 (US$2.30), leaving a profit of ZMK6,727 (US$1.35). The return to labour is ZMK10,174 (US$2.03) and the return to investment is 34 per cent.

67 Rodah Zulu (NISIR) was responsible for developing the product that is now known as Maheu.



Table 34 shows the incremental costs and revenues for the production of munkoyo.

Beverage Costs No Unit Unit value Cost Cassava meal 1 Tin K11,521 K11,521 Dried munkoyo root 1 Handful K0 K0 Making cassava meal and adding dried munkoyo root

1.00 Hour K420 K420

Selling cost and traveling time

4.00 hours K333 K1,332

Total 20 litres K13,273 Local market revenue 100 Cups K200 K20,000 Labour cost 0.83 K1,752 Material cost K11,521 Profit per 20 litres K6,727 Return to labour 0.83 K10,174 Return on investment 34%


Considerations

This product is familiar to many farmers. The first consideration is the bulkiness of the product: it is difficult to transport too far and there is not much leeway on transport costs. The second consideration is the lack of availability of munkoyo for most of the year. Thirdly, packaging is an issue as it can be expensive and needs to be bought in bulk.

Demand

The substitute is Maheu, which is now a household name that is sold throughout Zambia, from Shoprite to the smallest shop. Since the rural people have their own supply and are unlikely to purchase the product unless at a local market, the lowest potential demand estimate is the urban living cassava-familiar people, around 302,704 households. The highest potential demand is the entire urban population, 557,845 households. Small-scale producers should have no difficulty making low profile sales in local markets, and if Maheu can be commercialised then so can Munkoyo.

Case Study

Lusaka-based research assistant Simon Phiri says his grandmother makes Munkoyo in October as a refreshing beverage during the hottest month. She puts the roots in the porridge overnight and it is ready by the next morning. “People don’t know it’s an energy food, but it keeps me going,” he said.



Supply

Supply is at present limited to October because of the availability of munkoyo. At this time, many eagerly drink the non-alcoholic beverage. The supply could be enhanced by storing the dried munkoyo or by using other enzymes or malting agents, particularly malted finger millet or sorghum. There is no commercial supply.

5.3.8 Charcoal/cassava fire briquettes

The product

Developed in Zambia by Dr J. Kaoma of the Institute of Scientific and Industrial Research, Lusaka, charcoal briquettes provide the same heat capacity as charcoal but they are cheaper and last longer. In addition, they are clean to handle. They are an excellent product that has potential to substitute charcoal in urban areas.

There are two types of fire briquette developed by the National Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research in Zambia; the cylindrical briquette68 is for small-scale household production, and can be used in specially made cookers, Figure 10(a); and the pillow briquette is for large and medium-scale industrial production69, Figure 10(b).

(a) (b)

Figure 10. Panel (a) shows the cylindrical briquette together with its cooker, which takes two briquettes. Panel (b) shows the pillow briquette with its five-kilogram bag made from reused cement bags.

Table 35 gives the features of different types of briquette. Both charcoal briquettes and charcoal on their own contain more energy (30MJ/kg) than the coal briquette equivalent (25MJ/kg), but the burn time of a coal briquette (12 hours) is twice that of the charcoal briquette (six hours). The charcoal briquette however burns for three times longer than plain charcoal (two

68 This is new technology developed by Dr Julius Kaoma of the National Institute of Scientific and Industrial Research, Lusaka. 69 Pillow briquette production requires an investment of around US$600,000 (K3 billion) for a capacity of around 2Mt per hour.



hours). The coal briquette is the cheapest to burn per kilogram per hour (ZMK42 (US$0.01)), but has little or no availability. The cost of the charcoal briquette is ZMK167 (US$0.03)/kg/hr, but at the moment it is not available on the market, because it is a new product. This compares with the cost of ZMK250 (US$0.05)/kg/hr for readily available plain charcoal, which is 50 per cent more expensive than the charcoal briquette70. These are based on Lusaka prices; charcoal and cassava meal prices in the districts are much lower, as little at ZMK4,500 (US$0.90) and ZMK25,000 (US$5) per 90kg bag respectively.

There are at least three other features: first, the weight per volume is higher for charcoal briquettes than for charcoal, which means that distribution costs are reduced; second, the level of charcoal dust is lower, reducing the incidence of charcoal-related lung diseases; and third, the charcoal briquette is clean to handle.

Table 35 gives the features of different types of briquette.

Product Energy Burn time

Unit price Price/kg Price/kg/hr Availability

Coal briquette

25MJ/kg 12 hours

K12,500/25kg K500 K42 Limited availability

Charcoal briquette

30MJ/kg 6 hours

K5000/5kg K1,000 K167 Not available

Charcoal 30MJ/kg 2 hours

K12,500/25kg K500 K250 Readily available


Process

The charcoal is crushed, using a heavy roller, which can be made from a steel pipe filled with concrete, similar to small grass rollers. The binder is made from cassava and water, which is done in a 200 litre plastic drum of the type commonly found in Zambia. The binder and the crushed charcoal is then mixed together in a trough and poured in to a former and consolidated by hitting the outside rim. A half-litre empty oilcan or an equivalent is needed as a measure. Because the research is funded by private funds, the proportion of the mix is available to the purchaser of the intellectual property rights of the process.

Economics

Although the proportion of cassava in the mix is not disclosed, and accurate pricing is not possible, the binding capacity of cassava is high, it is well-known glue, and so it is conjectured that the amount of cassava in the mix is small, and the price of cassava meal supports this belief.

70 Ibid.



Table 36 shows the incremental costs and revenues of producing charcoal briquettes at village level. At the village level, charcoal costs around ZMK4,500 per 5kgs71 and cassava flour has an opportunity cost of ZMK493 (0.10) per kg, costing ZMK985 (US$0.20) for two kgs. Crushing the charcoal with a roller takes about one-and-a-half hours. Mixing the cassava with water to make the binder takes about fifteen minutes, as does mixing the binder with the charcoal. Forming the charcoal cylinders takes around four hours for 52 kilograms. The total labour input is about one day, costing around ZMK2,500 (US$0.50) after the end of the cropping season, which is about half the minimum wage rate. The cylinders take three days to dry and should be taken in or covered overnight to avoid the dew. The total costs of production are ZMK8,005 (US$1.60) for 52 kgs of finished product.

The farm-gate revenue is estimated to be half the selling price in Lusaka, ZMK500 (US$0.10)/kg, which gives a total revenue of ZMK26,000 (US$5.20) for one day’s activity. The labour cost is ZMK2,500 (US$0.50) and the material cost is ZMK5,485 (US$1.10). The total capital cost of the equipment is ZMK300,000 (US$60), which is depreciated over five years to nothing, which is equivalent to a 22 per cent cost of capital per annum at today’s prices. The profit is ZMK17,495 (US$3.50), the return to labour is ZMK15,011(US$3) per SMD and the return on investment is 219 per cent.

Table 36 shows the incremental costs and revenues of producing charcoal briquettes at village level.

Charcoal Briquettes Activity Number Unit Unit value Value Village charcoal 50kg bag K4,500 K4,500 Crushing 1.50 hours K420 K630 Cassava flour 2.00 kg K493 K985 Mixing the binder 0.25 hours K420 K105 Mixing binder and charcoal

0.25 hours K420 K105

Forming 4.00 hours K420 K1,680 Drying 3.00 days Total 1.33 days K8,005 Farm-gate revenue 52 kg K500 K26,000 Labour cost 1.33 days K2,520 Material cost K5,485 Equipment depreciation

K500

Profit K17,495 Return to labour 1.33 K15,011 Return on investment 219%


71 Kalundwe Estate Ltd.



Constraints

The constraints to commercialised production are the ban on the export of “carbonised biomass” from Zambia and the levy structure. There are three core reasons why this ban should be reviewed in the interests of Zambia’s economic benefit.

1. The ban itself is flawed on four accounts: first, charcoal is a sustainable industry whilst fossil fuels (coal) are not sustainable; charcoal generates wealth that extends to the deepest rural areas, whilst fossil fuel, generates wealth only for the elite; third, carbonised biomass includes sugar bagasse, a sugar by-product, cassava stems and other by-products from the agricultural sector, thus wasting valuable export potential; fourth, charcoal is part of the coping mechanism to earn cash during the hunger period.

2. The argument that Zambian forestry would be destroyed in a few years from the charcoal production is weak and economically unlikely. Similar arguments of doom have all floundered: London was never four feet under horse droppings: the United Kingdom never ran out of oak to build ships or coal to fuel its industry; and the world seems unlikely to run out of petroleum any time soon.

3. The charcoal industry contributes K270 billion (US$54 million) to the Zambian economy and provides livelihoods for 50,000 producers, 3,500 transports and 10,000 distributors; further, it represents 58 per cent of revenue is some areas, twice as much as agriculture72, and is often used to purchase farm inputs73. There could be substantial regional demand for charcoal briquettes, particularly from South Africa’s power stations, that could make them key to rural poverty reduction strategies.

The second constraint is the council levy imposed on charcoal, which is around K360 (US$0.72) per bag depending on the district. This levy provokes the heightened 90kg bags of charcoal seen on the side of roads radiating Lusaka and arriving in Lusaka, rather than the 5kg bags of charcoal product that are sold in Lusaka. A per-kilogram levy would more fairly redistribute wealth to rural areas.

The simple and workable solutions to ease environmental concerns are to ban charcoal production in some areas, for example, around Lusaka, but licence value-added export production in others, like North-Western Province.

Demand

In Zambia, most of the populations of all the urban centres use either wood or charcoal for cooking and for heating, and few have electricity or gas. The

72 Karekezi S, Kalumiana O, Eng SE Mwangwengwende (2003). ‘Energy Services and the Poor in Urban Africa’. World Bank Energy Lecture Series. March. 73 ‘Charcoal production in Southern Africa’. Stockholm Environmental Institute.



charcoal briquette is therefore a substitute for plain charcoal and wood, where charcoal accounts for 75 per cent of the urban market. Although charcoal and charcoal briquettes provide about the same amount of heat energy, the briquettes last three times longer, and wood provides only about half of that energy (14MJ/kg).

From the market’s perspective, the briquette is a new-to-the-world product and therefore it will be difficult to break into the retail markets in the main commercial centres such as Lusaka, Kabwe, Monze and Chipata. As a rule of thumb, weight-for-weight and despite its better features, the briquette may have to be discounted by up to 20 per cent initially, and must be readily available, to take market share from charcoal in the mass market. The target market is urban dwellers and workers, and clean, appropriately sized packaging and advertising should increase sales.

In local markets, near the focal area groups, sales of the product will be constrained by the presence of substitutes at the cost of household labour. In niche markets such as Shoprite and Game, the competition will be from imported charcoal and coal briquettes, priced at K15,000 for four kilograms74, from South Africa. These shops may provide the best market opportunity and the highest prices, and further, the demand is sufficiently small to be met by a small group of producers: the product however must be packaged in triple-ply kraft bags, with a printed label in colour, and preferably with a carrying handle. It is likely to be an opportunistic sale and therefore advertising may not increase sales, and the most attractive will be purchased.

In the presence of a ban on exporting carbonised biomass and the unsatisfied domestic potential, neither the regional nor international export potential is reported.

Supply

There is presently no supply: the potential supply is from cassava producers in the focal areas.

74 Game, Manda Hill.



5.4 Substitute products

5.4.1 Cassava meal substitution of maize meal

Cassava meal has the potential to act as a substitute for maize meal in Zambia. Notwithstanding the current lack of availability of sufficient quantities of cassava meal, ignorance about is preparation is a barrier to adoption. While maize meal is prepared by boiling it with water, it is important that cassava meal is added to hot, not boiling water, and incorporated away from direct heat, otherwise it becomes transparent and “bubblegum-like”.

Around 1.56 million households consume around 1.5 million Mt of maize meal a year. Around 50 per cent of the population speak languages associated with cassava consumption areas and is therefore considered to be cassava-familiar: 779,005 households might start consuming cassava meal tomorrow, if it were available. They represent the most important potential market for cassava-based product, but unfortunately, many of them, particularly in urban areas, have been brought up on diets of maize meal. Notwithstanding the existing consumption of home-made cassava meal by the rural population, the potential for switching remains 50 per cent, but it will be a hard target to meet in the near total absence of cassava meal to compete in availability and quantity with maize meal. Although many point to the government’s intervention in maize pricing, cassava meal does not currently compete with maize meal on availability, quality, distribution, packaging or price.

In addition, a number of the remaining people, unfamiliar with cassava products, may convert through suitably targeted promotion, which could include instruction on preparation techniques. Perhaps 10 per cent of those might be convinced.

The bottleneck in terms of using cassava meal as a substitute for maize meal rests with commercial millers. Few of those interviewed for this study were interested in milling cassava. Reasons for the reluctance included the need to change sieving equipment75, lack of resources for further buying, lack of availability of cassava chips76, and a general unease to change existing business practices and procedures. APG Milling, which has mills in Monze, Choma, Mongu and Lusaka, was prepared to try milling cassava, on an experimental basis77.

75 AM Banda, production manager, Chirardi Milling Ltd, Lusaka. 76 Kwacha Milling, Chipata. 77 George Konidaris, Managing Director, APG Group of Companies.



Mills tend to be working at full capacity for maize meal during the hunger months from November to January, so cassava milling may be more appropriate during their less-busy times, which also coincide with the season when it is easiest to dry cassava chips. Small or intermediate-scale hammer mills were considered a more appropriate method for pounding cassava than a commercial roller mill.

Case Study

At Chalilo, in Chief Chitambo IV’s area, Serenje District, former MP Donald Ngosa has a service hammer mill operation milling mostly maize, but he is considering spending ZMK14 million (US$2,800) to buy a mill from Saro Agri Equipment especially to grind cassava. He currently charges ZMK3,000 (US$0.60) per tin (20kg)78 to mill maize and ZMK2,500 (US$0.50) for cassava, and while he serves a catchment area of around 30km, he mills very little cassava, mainly because the size of the holes in his mill’s sieve, 1.5mm, are too fine. A 2mm sieve would be better. His mill operates for eight hours per day, during which time he can process ten 90kg bags of maize and makes a profit of around ZMK3 million (US$600) per month, after operating costs of approximately ZMK600,000 (US$120). An equivalent bag of cassava weighs half as much as maize, so he could double his throughput of bags if more cassava was milled, hence the lower charge for it, as less diesel is required per bag.

5.4.2 Cassava/maize blends

Many people like to blend cassava with maize meal. Here the maize meal is cooked, and the cassava meal is added after the maize meal is removed from the heat. There is a continuum of mixes from ten per cent maize meal to ten per cent cassava meal. Although there may be one or two mixes with sufficient market to warrant commercial blending, cassava’s best interest is to compete head-to-head with maize meal since a large percentage of the market is cassava-familiar.

Around 1.56 million households consume around 1.5 million Mt of meal a year. Fourteen per cent of a sample collected for this report said they liked to mix cassava meal with maize meal. If the 14 per cent came from a random sample, then 218,000 households might be expected to cut their maize meal with say 20 per cent cassava meal, representing demand of 41,856Mt of cassava meal per year for the mix. Since there are deficits of cassava meal in each of the focal areas, the conclusion is that strong markets exist in each of them.

Blends of cassava meal with maize meal are a matter of personal taste and wealth. It can extend from ten per cent cassava meal to ten per cent maize

78 A tin is equivalent to four medas, also known as gallons.



meal, and it may seem that the product extension is logical; however, it is probable that some mixes would be more popular than others, but the increased distribution cost combined with increased shelf life of different mixes seem unnecessary when customers can readily mix their own. The only shortfall is the availability of cassava meal. It seems to be more appropriate to distribute cassava meal so that customers can mix their own blends.

5.4.3 Cassava/wheat blends

The cassava/wheat blend is relevant for making bread and biscuits. Cassava flour has no gluten so it is not good for making bread. It can however be mixed up to 20 per cent with flour without making much difference to the bread. This mix is important because it can reduce foreign exchange expenditure on wheat flour. Although there may be an economic interest, there is frequently no cost incentive for the baker.

The success of these blends, however, depends on the technology involved in the bakery process to ensure acceptable quality in terms of lack of breakages, shelf life and characteristics desired by consumers. Blends using up to 40 per cent cassava meal have been used without a significant impact on taste, although ultimately the adjustment of temperatures and cooking times will affect product quality and compensate for any attributes brought about by the change in ingredient mix79.

In terms of extending the use and acceptability of unfamiliar products such as cassava flour, the approach should be to introduce it via a vehicle such as biscuits that are already familiar to the segment of consumers being targeted. Care should be taken not to over-stretch consumers’ liking by increasing the amount of new ingredient to the point where the difference becomes noticeable80.

In practice, cassava flour will only be used on a commercial basis as a blended product if the price is considered attractive to bakeries. A significant discount is likely to be required, along with a demonstration of consistency and reliability of supply, in order to persuade them to adopt.

The National Council for Scientific Research (1992) compared the physical characteristics of composite cassava flour and wheat flour in bread81. Table 37 gives the weight and volume of bread using different blends of cassava and wheat flour. The figures in brackets are the standard deviations and

79 Dr M.T.Kaputo, consultant, nutrition, food science and technology, National Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research, Lusaka. 80 Ibid. 81 Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries in cooperation with the Zambia Agricultural Training, Planning and Institutional Development Project (ZATPID II), “An Evaluation of the Commercial Potential for Cassava in Zambia”, MAFF, June 1993.



show that the weight of the bread is more variable when cassava flour is used, although the volume is less variable.

Table 37 gives the weight and volume of bread using different blends of cassava and wheat flour.

% level of diluent in product

Bread weight (gm)

Bread volume (ml)

Specific volume

Specific volume (as % of control)

Wheat only 396.4 (1.7) 1,189 (60.1) 3.00 (0.16) 100.0 10% cassava starch

397.4 (4.3) 1,110 (39.0) 2.54 (0.11) 93.0

20% cassava starch

395.5 (3.4) 1,064 (40.3) 2.69 (0.12) 89.8

Figures in brackets are standard deviations.

Expected domestic wheat production for 2003/4 is 137,968Mt, the expected consumption is 140,000Mt, a shortfall of around 2,000Mt. At these levels, substituting wheat for cassava flour in bread and other food products may not appear important, but a 15 per cent mix leaves 19,000Mt free to be exported to earn valuable foreign exchange.

5.5 Animal Feed

5.5.1 Introduction

By-products of cassava processing such as leaves, stalks, peels and waste pulp from starch processing can all be used as sources of carbohydrate energy in feed formulations; however, these are minor products. There is potential in some countries for the production of cassava specifically for use in livestock feed rations. In countries with a large beef industry there is likely to be a domestic market. The export market for cassava chips and pellets feeding into the European Union is very large but is very price sensitive, highly competitive and is effected by fluctuations in price and availability of protein supplements and alternative carbohydrate energy sources. Cassava is most commonly prepared as dry chips or pellets but silage can also be made in rural areas.



5.5.2 Silage

Product

Silage is the lactic acid enrichment of roots and leaves, which are chopped, put into a pit and sealed with black plastic for three weeks. It is a valuable on-farm dairy and beef cattle feed.

Silage is used mostly to feed cattle but can be used to feed any ruminants, including goats and sheep. There are three types of cassava silage that are used, silage made from the tops of the plants, silage from the roots or peelings and silage from a mixture of roots and leaves. The cost of silage is low and is an on-farm activity, which cannot be sold under most circumstances.

Processing

To make silage, a pit should be dug. The biomass is put in the pit and then sealed with black plastic. The best quality cassava silage is made with 80 per cent leaf and 20 per cent fresh root by weight. This is macerated and put in a pit and sealed. As a general rule it can be assumed that the weight of leaves produced by a plant is about the same as the weight of the roots over a year; however, four times the amount of leaves by weight are required, which means if the harvested root is from one lima, roughly seven limas are required to produce around 63Mt of fresh biomass per year at a yield of 18Mt per hectare. Leaves can be taken from the plant after the first four months and then quarterly thereafter. Ratooning and using nitrogenous fertilisers can increase the leaf yield, but should not be done for more than two years on a one-year variety, to avoid an increased incidence of disease.

Cassava-based silage made with roots and leaves is high in protein and both bitter and sweet varieties can be used, because the HCN in the roots and leaves are reduced to safe levels within a couple of days. Nevertheless, the silage should not be fed to livestock until at least three weeks after making it.

Another way of making silage is to use the cut tops of cassava, which is the part of the stem with leaves on. This can be made the same way or by putting the macerated tops in black plastic bags. Fresh roots can also be used on their own, but they tend to produce a lot of effluent, which can be mitigated by mixing the macerated roots with grass or other crop residues.

Considerations

Smallholder cattle farming appears to be characterised by resistance to selling cattle, except those that are old or unfit, and appears not to be commercially driven. Browsing, which is a public good, is the main source of feed, so it seems unlikely that smallholders would go to the trouble of



digging silage pits and growing cassava to improve their stock, unless there is a considerable advertising and extension campaigning to change their attitudes. Also, the areas of highest cattle population broadly coincide with those of lowest cassava production.

Economics

There is insufficient literature to make estimates of the benefits of making silage from cassava, but there is little doubt that making silage in the right quantities for the dry season would maintain live weight and the value of the animals, if they were to be sold. The issue is not whether feeding silage has a benefit, it is well known that it has, the issue is whether smallholders can be persuaded to invest the time and effort to supplement browsing during the dry season.

5.5.3 Chips and pellets

Chips

These chips are prepared the same way as those used for human consumption, other than they can be made from bitter cassava varieties. Chips are the lowest order of transportable animal feeds.

The processing and economics of chips have already been discussed above on page 74. The important difference between chips for animal feeds and chips for eventual human consumption is the acceptable level of cyanogens in the chips: chips for animal consumption must be below 100mg per kilogram whereas chips for eventual human consumption must be lower than 10mg per kilogram, and lower than that to meet safety standards in most countries. The implications of this are that the bitter varieties are likely to be safe for animal consumption.

Chips are low density when packed, which means a lot of fresh air is included in the packaging, making them expensive to transport per cubic metre. The drying process tends to pick up dirt from the ground and the chips themselves produce dust. The result is a product that is dusty and dirty, neither of which is desirable for buyers, and they are also hard to handle.

There is demand for chips from Europe, particularly the Netherlands, but there is also some demand locally and regionally. The supply is predominantly from Thailand, but there is potential to supply from Zambia.

Pellets

Pellets are superior to chips as an animal feed because the density is greater per unit volume, they are less dusty, they contain less dirt and they are easier to handle. There is a strong export market to the Netherlands.



Moist plastic animal feed is forced through holes in a die by a roller, and sometimes with steam assistance. The plastic feed is cassava meal mixed with water. The finished product is a hard cylindrical nut of 6mm in diameter. Because they are small they pack well and are easily handled. They are far superior to chips. Pellets are usually made by machine-driven pelletisers, which are powered by engines of 7.5kW and more.

Making feed pellets is an industrial undertaking, which needs access to electricity and substantial raw material supply. It might be a pursuable activity for a moderately sized and wealthy cooperative but it cannot be considered appropriate for small-scale group production at this time.

Trade in chips and pellets

World trade in Cassava products fluctuated through the 1990s between 5 and 7 million Mt or 14 and 19 million Mt of root equivalent), of which about 85 per cent consisted of chips and pellets for feed. Cassava is used mostly as a component (36 per cent of the formula) for feeding dairy cows and pigs with an additional protein source such as soyabean cake (28 per cent of the formula). It is not well suited without added protein to feeding of chickens and shrimps. Global utilisation of cassava as feed has remained at about 34 million Mt mostly used in Latin America, the Caribbean and EU. Thailand and Indonesia are the main exporters, 80 per cent and 10 per cent respectively, and EU is the main destination, importing 80 per cent of the world trade in the form of pellets and chips for feed with the other 20 per cent spread between China, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and the Philippines.

The comparative price of grain has the major influence on cassava product imports since grain competes with cassava as a source of starch. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in Europe heavily influences this comparison, which was responsible for the leap in EU imports of cassava products from 1.5 million Mt to 10.5 million in 1989 due to the support afforded to the price of grain and the reduction in import tariff. Low tariff quotas were agreed in the Uruguay Round of talks giving access to the EU market to Thailand for 5.5 million Mt annually, Indonesia 825,000 Mt, and other GATT member’s82 145,590 Mt. China and Vietnam, as non-GATT members were allocated 350,000 and 30,000 Mt annually and imports in excess of the quota were subject to the same duty as barley plus a fixed fee of €3.20 per tonne. CAP reform has induced a fall in the demand for cassava as a result of falling grain prices such that the growth in production in Thailand was curtailed.

Prices of cassava pellets reached a maximum of US$183 per tonne in 1992 but have declined since to US$102 a tonne in 1999, Table 38, together with substitute products, because of the weakness in EC demand due to low grain

82 Zambia is a member of the World Trade Organisation, the successor to GATT.



prices and the rise in the price of soya, which is combined with cassava to give the required nutritional value to replace alternatives. Prices of cassava pellets then fell for the first time below $100 per tonne by 18 per cent to an averaged $84.

Table 38 shows the prices of cassava pellets and selected feed components in EU

Cassava Soyabean Cassava/ Barley Maizepellets meal soya meal

Year US$/T1995 177 197 181 209 1241996 152 268 175 194 1651997 108 276 142 161 1171998 107 170 120 145 1021999 102 149 111 144 88

In 2000 the international trade in dried cassava products was estimated to have risen by 4 per cent to 7.7 million Mt in cassava pellet equivalent. The increase reflects a 37 per cent expansion in the volume traded in the form of flour and starch, to 2.6 million Mt (1.3 million Mt in product weight) while trade in chips and pellets fell by 9 per cent to 4.5 million Mt. This decline was due to the uncertainties in connection with the outbreak of Foot and Mouth disease in Europe and the consequent slow release of import certificates.

5.5.4 Compound feeds

Product

Cassava is an energy source well suited for animal feeds, as demonstrated by its utilisation in many countries. In 1994, about a quarter of the global cassava production was estimated to be used as an ingredient in pork, poultry, cattle, and fish feeds. However, cassava can never be used on its own. Cassava must always be formulated with a protein balancer and other ingredients to form a compound feed. The following is an example of a broiler ration using cassava flour as a source of carbohydrate energy (Graffham, et al., 2000):

Zambian companies like National Milling Company, Tiger Animal Feeds and other commercial producers make compound animal feeds. They are mixes of ingredients that match the needs of the animals to optimise performance, and they can easily be made in small quantities. The ingredients are available in Zambia and competitive advantages exist because of transport costs.

Compound animal feeds are made from a combination of food products, commonly maize, soybean meal, groundnut cake, fish meal, blood meal,



bone meal and other additives that contribute to the animal’s needs in terms of crude protein, metabolisable energy and others. Much of the energy is from maize and this can be partially substituted with cassava. This is not a direct substitution because maize has more protein than cassava, so the shortfall in cassava’s protein level must be made up through more soybean meal, for example.

Although compound animal feed is normally made by companies such as National Milling or Tiger Feeds, it is not difficult to make. The main difficulty with feeds is the mix of ingredients to meet the animal’s dietary need. This is done by linear programming and is done whenever prices change or a new batch or type of ingredient is delivered. The balance is important because even very small changes in formulations can unsettle an animal’s performance.

Processing

At a small-scale level, the ingredients are measured out and mixed on a clean surface using a shovel. The ingredients otherwise can be mixed in a drum with paddles in it, such as the drum used for seed dressing. Table 39 illustrates maize and cassava-based mixes for broilers. Without leaves, maize is still required, but with leaves, maize can be dropped completely. Most of the ingredients are available in Zambia, premix, methionine and lysine are available from Livestock Services in Lusaka, but a substitute may have to be found for oyster shell, which probably contributes calcium. This mix should not be used without verification of the nutritional values of the components.

Table 39 illustrates maize and cassava-based mixes for broilers.

Ingredients (%) Maize Cassava (1)

Cassava (2)

Maize 50.0 27.0 Cassava flour 23.0 45.0 Cassava leaves 5.0 Palm oil 3.0 3.0 Soybean (full fat) 20.0 Soybean meal 12.0 20.0 Groundnut cake 20.0 12.0 15.25 Wheat offal 6.3 3.25 Fish meal 6.0 6.0 6.0 Oyster shells 2.0 2.0 2.0 Salt 0.25 0.3 0.3 Premix 0.25 0.25 0.3 Methionine 0.1 0.1 0.1 Lysine 0.1 0.1 0.1 Expected price differential

100% 99.5% 89%

Source: Tewe and Bokanga, 2002



Economics

The economics of compound animal feed are not analysed because there are many different combinations of ingredients needed for different animals, and because the identification and chemical analysis of suitable ingredients available in Zambia and the linear programming requirement is beyond the scope of this study; however, another study has been commissioned by SHEMP to more fully consider this subject. It would appear however, that cassava-based feeds should be cheaper than maize-based feeds.

Considerations

A major consideration is that the cost of transport prevents existing suppliers from cost effectively meeting demand in northern areas of the country. The mix of the ingredients is important and failure to get it right will result in a lost customer; poultry producers are particularly fussy but will try new products.

Demand

There is potential demand from commercial cattle producers, which is characterised by a relatively small target customer base but with relatively large potential demand. They will require reliable and consistent supply and delivery, have existing suppliers and are likely to be difficult to deal with. On the other hand, the demand from smallholder stockmen is likely to be small because of the lack of cash resources and the availability of common grazing land.

Pigs are normally allowed to browse so there is little demand, although pig fattening may be a growing industry in Western Province.

The most important demand is from poultry producers, for layers and broilers. There are many small-scale producers of poultry and they all need quality feed. Many try to make up their own mixes and some do a poor job, the evidence is fishy smelling eggs and wrongly coloured yolk. Importantly, many of them buy poultry feed and are resource poor, meaning they are price sensitive, and will respond to a lower price. There is a large potential market at the right price.

If bulk quantities can be supplied there may be a market to supply commercial feed producers with a lower-cost substitute for maize. National Milling Corporation Limited is one the largest producers of poultry feed and contributes about 1,500 Mt of feeds per month; Meadow Quality Feeds Limited produces about 1,000 Mt; and Tiger feeds produces about 2,000 Mt. The limiting factors are the price of cassava, which competes with maize, and the ability of smallholder farmers to reliably supply the required cassava chips. Tiger Animal Feeds in Lusaka would consider a supply of cassava meal if 60-100Mt per month could be supplied and costs were approximately 50 per cent of those of maize. The discount would reflect the



need to reformulate feeds and add additional nutrients to compensate for lower protein levels. Reliability and consistency of supply is also important83.

Supply

The supply of compound animal feeds is mostly from National Milling, Tiger Feeds and other milling companies. All these without exception are using maize in their feeds and face a shortage of cassava dried products in the market. There is a cost to incorporating cassava in animal feeds that makes the milling companies reluctant to convert their equipment in the absence of a secure, consistent and reliable supply of raw material. There is therefore an opportunity to go head-to-head with existing producers with cassava-based products, competing directly on price.

5.6 Industrial products

5.6.1 Introduction

The industrial products are high-quality cassava flour and starch. They are classed here as industrial because they have direct industrial applications, careful quality processing is required to access the industrial markets, and medium- to large-scale, production is required.

5.6.2 High quality cassava flour (HQCF)

Introduction

Flour is a mixture of mainly starch with a percentage of fibre and ash, protein and fat. Flour is prepared by dry milling of chips or grits, followed by screening to 250 microns, sometimes coarser but rarely finer.

In comparison, meal is similar but with a higher percentage of fibre and fat, prepared by coarse dry milling of chips or grits, followed by screening. Flour makers in Uganda and Ghana use mosquito mesh in layers for screening, most are screening to approx 600 - 500 um, but there is one operator who makes a very fine meal (ultra smooth) that is passed through a metal mesh of 430um (automotive screen). Milling and screening of meal depends very much on the texture required for the final product.

83 Steve Kyriazis, Nutritionist, Tiger Animal Feeds, Lusaka.



A number of products can be made from HQCF, including bakery products, paperboard adhesives, plywood glue extender, sugar syrup and industrial alcohol.

Many countries face difficulties in making the leap from traditional processing of cassava to production of cassava starch. An alternative to cassava starch is to establish an industry based on production of high quality cassava flour (HQCF) and products derived from HQCF. The Natural Resources Institute (NRI) of the United Kingdom working in collaboration with the Food Research Institute (FRI) and other partners in Ghana has developed and promoted methods for production and utilisation of HQCF and a range of products derived from the flour (Graffham, et al., 1999 & 2002). A summary of the key features of HQCF production and brief descriptions of several applications are given below.

Processing

Production of High Quality Cassava Flour (HQCF)

The production technique described can be used at almost any scale of production, the main difference between small-scale farmers being the level of mechanisation and access to facilities for artificial drying. HQCF need not be capital-intensive, unlike starch. In Ghana, individual farmers have been producing around one tonne per month for sale to local bakers within ten kilometers. For industrial uses, centralised processing is needed to achieve sufficient scale of production.

Preparation of roots – To prepare HQCF cassava roots should be freshly harvested and processed within one day of harvest, preferably within 12 hours. One-year varieties should be harvested at 10-12 months and two-year varieties at 22-24 months. Immature roots should not be used as these contain higher water content and less starch. Over-mature roots must be avoided as these have a high fibre content and poorer quality starch. Variety is a key parameter as different varieties of cassava contain starch that is suited for different applications. Varietal selection is a matter for practical investigation in Zambia, but as a general rule varieties with high water content should be avoided as these increased drying times and processing costs. Prior to chipping or grating roots must be peeled to remove all bark and peel, and washed to avoid introducing dirt into the process.

Grating (with pressing) or chipping – Rapid drying is a key feature of the HQCF process, for this reason peeled cassava roots must be reduced to small pieces to give the maximum surface area for water loss during drying. If sweet varieties of cassava are used, an IITA mini chipper is most affective as this produces thin spaghetti like chips that dry quickly in strong sunlight. However, if bitter varieties are used, the mini chipper must be avoided as the chipping process does not cause sufficient damage to the root tissue to release sufficient enzymes for elimination of cyanide from the chips. In addition the chips dry too quickly thus stopping the removal of the cyanide.



In the case of the bitter varieties the roots should be passed through a mechanical grater. The wet grates (pulp) are then packed into a sack and pressed in a screw or hydraulic press for a maximum of 2 hours to reduce water content before drying. Grates should not be pressed for longer than 2 hours as HQCF should not have a fermented taste or odour. Prior to drying the pressed grates must be broken up to ensure a high surface area for drying purposes.

Drying – Mini chips of cassava or pressed grates can be dried using either sun, solar or artificial drying techniques. The key points are to get the product dry (10-12 per cent moisture) within 1 day, avoiding excessive heating and exposure to contaminants. Sun drying is carried out on raised and rendered concrete drying floors. The rate limiting step for all cassava processors is typically access to drying facilities (surface area and availability of sunlight or fuel for artificial drying). Artificial drying should be carried out in a forced air dryer running at 55°C. Higher temperatures must be avoided as this will damage the product.

Milling – Dried chips and grits need to be finely milled before screening. Previous studies have shown that roller mills give the best results (Graffham, et al., 1999) but in practice an ordinary hammer mill is used as this is usually the most readily available and affordable mill.

Screening – After milling the flour must be screened through a 250µm aperture mesh to provide a fine flour to meet the specifications of the different end users. Manual sieving or mechanical sifters can be used, but care must be taken to use stainless steel mesh. Plastic mosquito netting must be avoided, as this is not fine enough and also tends to fray, depositing fine filaments of plastic into the product.

Economics

The costs of production are the same as for producing cassava meal with the grater and expression; however the final products are industrial and production quantities need to be substantial to participate in the market, with the exception of bakery products.

Demand

Bakery products- HQCF can be used as a partial substitute for wheat flour in many bakery products (Onabolu, et al., 1998). However, as HQCF contains no gluten, the level of substitution is limited in gluten sensitive products such as bread and biscuits. As the level of HQCF increases the sensory characteristics of the product changes until it becomes unacceptable to the consumer or leads to undesirable characteristics such as excessive brittleness in the case of biscuits containing >50 per cent HQCF. In some cases the levels of other ingredients (eggs and margarine) can be increased to compensate for the reduced level of gluten, but this leads to increased costs that negate any advantages gained from using HQCF. In Ghana,



incorporating 30 per cent HQCF improved bakers profit margins by 107 per cent. In contrast pancakes made using HQCF reduced bakers profits by 55 per cent due to the need to increase levels of other ingredients to compensate for textural changes caused by the HQCF (Graffham et al., 2002).

It is most important to carry out cost benefit analyses of bakery products under practical conditions to determine which of the many technically feasible products will generate profits for bakers in Zambia. Consumer acceptability studies are essential, as differences will be seen between rural and urban consumers. In a study of rural and urban bakers and consumers in Ghana Graffham, et al., (2002) found that rural consumers preferred bread containing 30 per cent HQCF to conventional bread containing 100 per cent wheat flour because the cassava bread had a heavy cake-like texture and gave a satisfying feeling of being full. In contrast urban consumers complained about the heavy spongy texture of bread containing 30 per cent HQCF as being unbreadlike.

Paperboard adhesive - The process of paperboard production involves gluing together several sheets of heavy paper (kraft paper) to form a much thicker and stronger board. The inner most sheet (sandwiched between the flat outer or facing sheets) is formed into a series of ridges known as corrugations, hence the name corrugated board or corrugated cardboard. The individual sheets are stuck together using starch based adhesives (SBA’s). The adhesive is applied as a cold suspension to the sheets of paper, which then pass through heated rollers that apply pressure, and heat (~165°C) to form a bond between the sheets and drive off excess water from the adhesive.

Bauer-type84 starch-based adhesives (SBA) consist mainly of starch or flour blended with certain chemicals. The essential ingredients for an HQCF SBA are HQCF, gelatinisation modifier (sodium hydroxide), viscosity enhancer/stabiliser (borax) and preservative (sodium formaldehyde). A basic formulation for 1 tonne of HQCF SBA in dry form would be as follows:

(i). HQCF (98.4 per cent) = 984kg

(ii). Caustic soda (1 per cent)85 = 10kg

(iii). Borax (0.1 per cent)86 = 5kg

(iv). Sodium formaldehyde (0.1 per cent) = 1kg

84 Invented by Bauer in 1935. 85 This is also known as caustic soda and used in the range of 1-5 per cent depending on pasting temperature required. 86 The range is 0.05 per cent to18 per cent depending on operating speed of machinery, and type of paperboard required.



Case Study

Industrial Cartons of Zambia Ltd, Lusaka, makes its own glue for sticking packaging, using cornstarch supplied by Olympic Milling, Mufulira. Water, caustic soda and borax are added to produce the glue. The company pays between ZMK55,000 (US$1.10) and ZMK80,000 (US$16) per 50kg bag of cornstarch and uses approximately 1Mt per month. It would consider using cassava flour/starch subject to satisfactory sample and supply87.

Plywood glue extender - The process of plywood production involves gluing together a number of thin sheets of timber (laminates) to form a much thicker and stronger board or panel. The laminates are stuck together using synthetic resin-based glues (urea or phenol formaldehyde) that require a combination of catalyst (hardener), high temperature and pressure to form a bond between the laminates. Synthetic resin glues are expensive, typically costing around $2,000/Mt. To reduce costs, synthetic glues are normally mixed with either maize starch88 or food-grade wheat flour. These compounds are known as extenders because they enable the factory to produce more plywood panels per bag of glue, thus reducing unit costs of production. Typically 50kg of synthetic glue will make 55-60 1/8” plywood panels, with an extender this increases to 80-85 panels of 1/8” plywood. For each 50 kg batch either 10kg of maize starch or 25kg of wheat flour is normally required.

In a conventional plywood process, synthetic adhesive contributes approximately US$1.85-US$2.0 per sheet. Conventional glue extenders (maize starch & wheat flour) can reduce this cost to US$1.38-US$1.54 (inclusive of cost of extender) depending on the cost and amount of extender used. In many countries high quality cassava flour can be produced at a significantly lower cost than wheat flour, thus offering potential to make further savings on unit cost of production.

Many plywood factories in tropical regions rely on expensive imported wheat flour as a means of reducing the cost of production, and thus are very keen to achieve a 100 per cent replacement of wheat flour with cheaper locally produced cassava flour. This is not possible in practice, as cassava flour is not as efficient as wheat flour at forming a strong bonding complex with the resin. The percentage of cassava flour that can be used without unacceptable reductions in bond strength is determined by the quality of flour, and the demands of the end user of the plywood (typically 20-40 per cent by weight).

Plywood manufacturers are not concerned with cyanide content, microbiology, colour, taste or odour of the flour, but would not expect flour to show signs of mould. In practice the flour must be prepared from peeled

87 J Patel, production manager, Industrial Cartons of Zambia Ltd. 88 Maize starch in American is cornstarch. ‘Maize starch’ is used to avoid confusion because corn is the generic name for any cereal crop in the UK.



roots, dried to 10-12 per cent moisture content and milled and screened through 0.25mm steel or brass mesh. Fibre content should be kept low as this interferes with adhesive bonding.

Sugar syrup – HQCF can be converted into sugar syrup using enzymes derived from plant seedlings. HQCF is mixed with water and cooked to gelatinise the starch granules, allowed to cool and mixed with crushed seedlings of selected varieties of rice or maize. The mixture is covered and left to hydrolyse overnight. On the following day the mixture is filtered to remove the residue of the plant seedlings and then boiled in an open pan fitted with a chimney (to prevent foaming) to reduce the water content and create syrup of glucose, maltose and a range of malt sugars. The composition and viscosity of the syrup can be controlled so as to produce syrup to meet the needs of different users. Sugar syrups are important for food and pharmaceutical industries and can also be converted into alcohol.

Industrial alcohol – Sugar syrup prepared from HQCF can be used as the raw material for production of industrial or potable alcohol. Conventional fermentation and distillation techniques are used but fermentation conditions must be optimised to ensure maximum conversion of the mixed sugars in the syrup to ethyl alcohol. Potable alcohol should only be prepared under controlled conditions to avoid the health risks associated with distillate containing alcohols other than ethanol (methanol and propanol are the most common contaminants in poorly controlled stills).

Supply

The authors are not aware of any production of HQCF in Zambia. The potential exists, however, for a commercial producer or strong farmer group to explore opportunities in this field.

5.6.3 Starch

Introduction

Starch is a virtually pure powder of starch granules with traces of fibre and ash present, which is extracted using a wet process (aqueous extraction for cassava). Final powder is often screened to 180um but finer grades are available. In practice starch is always extracted using a wet process from fresh roots. In theory starch can be recovered by wet processing of dry chips, grits or flour, but in practice yields are very poor both in terms of recovery and quality. Nobody with knowledge of starch would use this.

Products that are made from starch include adhesives, glucose/dextrose, fructose, maltose, modified starches, alcohol and citric acid.



Cassava roots contain a significant proportion of starch, which has numerous applications in industry. Quality varies depending on root maturity, time between harvesting and processing, water quality and methods used for extraction and drying.

Processing

Aqueous extraction of native cassava starch is a simple process when compared to any other commercial starch, and can even be done at the artisan level using a drum of water and handheld screen. However, to achieve economy of scale and high quality a medium or large-scale factory is required with considerable capital investment. Once starch is extracted from cassava, it can be processed into a range of products, including adhesives, sago, liquid glucose and dextrose, fructose syrup, maltose, maltodextrin, modified starches including acid-modified starches, oxidised starches, cross-linked starches, acetylated starches, cationic starches, biodegradable plastic, alcohol, citric and lactic acid89. However, most of these products require sophisticated equipment and can only be handled in large factories with the latest equipment and facilities for downstream processing of native starch. The production of starch from dry chips is not an option as the recovery rate and product quality is very poor.

Starch production can be carried on at three levels of scale and sophistication, these levels are discussed briefly below, but it should be clearly understood that only the first option could be directly exploited by a small-scale farmer.

Small-scale starch processing

Fresh cassava roots (50-100kg) are peeled and passed through a mechanical grater to produce a wet pulp. The starch pulp is wrapped in a muslin bag and placed on a sieve over a large drum of water. Water is poured over the pulp and the pulp squeezed and kneaded to release the starch milk into the drum. The contents of the drum are allowed to settle for several hours and then the water is poured off. Settled starch may be sun dried on a plastic sheet, but is often broken into chunks and sold immediately in the market place in a wet form as laundry starch.

89 Balagopalan C. “Cassava Utilization in Food, Feed and Industry”, 2002.

Figure 11 shows biodegradable products made from cassava in Thailand for the fastfood business.



Traditional process using sun drying

In the traditional process (Graffham & Westby 1998) fresh roots are washed and de-barked before crushing in a rotary rasper. Starch is separated from the crushed pulp by passing through a series of reciprocating nylon screens of decreasing mesh size (50-250 mesh). The resultant starch milk is settled over a period of 4-8 hours using a shallow settling table or a series of inclined channels laid out in a zig-zag pattern. Settled starch is sun dried on large cement drying floors for approximately 8 hours. During this period the moisture content reduces from 45-50 per cent down to 10-12 per cent. To achieve efficient drying sunny conditions are required with ambient temperatures of >30°C and relative humidities of 20-30 per cent. Dried starch is ground to a fine powder and packaged for sale.

Modern “Alfa Laval type” process

In the modern process roots are washed and de-barked, sliced and then crushed in a rotary rasper. Starch pulp is passed through two conical rotary extractors to separate starch granules from fibrous materials, and then fed via a protective safety screen and hydrocyclone unit to a continuous centrifuge for washing and concentration. The concentrated starch milk is passed through a rotary vacuum filter to reduce water content to 40-45 per cent and then flash dried. The flash drier reduces moisture content to 10-12 per cent in a few seconds without allowing time for the starch granules to heat up and suffer thermal degradation.

Comparison of traditional and modern processes

The modern process has the advantage of a very short processing time and excellent product quality. However, modern factories require a high level of capital investment, are costly to operate and require highly skilled labour to maintain the equipment. In addition a reliable electricity supply must be available throughout the process. In contrast, the traditional factory offers greatly reduced capital and operating costs at the expense of a longer processing time and some loss of quality. In practice this quality is sufficient to meet the specifications of food, pharmaceutical and textile industries in India and Latin America and thus unlikely to limit access to either national or export markets. In the traditional factory electricity is only required for rasping and filtration, settling relies on gravity and drying using solar energy. This can be useful in areas where electricity is in short supply, and also helps to greatly reduce operating costs. The downside of the traditional factory is the large area of land required and the need for more regular maintenance to replace mild steel, plastic and nylon parts that are much less durable than stainless steel.

Considerations

Although smallholders can produce starch, in reality only large-scale industrial processing will be competitive. Quality considerations are also an issue.



Demand

Companies in the food industry such as Specialty Foods in Kitwe use starch. The textile industry is a user of modified starches, while plywood manufacturers also represent potential demand.

Cassava starch can be used as a substitute for cornstarch. The local demand for starch is not significant, and could be met by one small producer. The Export Board of Zambia estimated starch imports was 300Mt in 1993, and there appears to be no more recent information. Although imports are now probably a bit higher, the figure is still trivial. Nevertheless, local companies, ever conscious of costs, would consider buying cassava starch as an alternative to cornstarch if the cassava starch was competitively priced, of suitable quality, and supply was consistent and reliable.

Case Study

Lusaka-based pharmaceutical company Pharco Ltd currently imports 100-300kg of cornstarch per month from established suppliers in Europe for use in manufacture of tablets. Its ingredients follow standards set out in the British or US Pharmacopoeia, and any substitute for cornstarch must do the same. In principle, if the standards are met and the product is price competitive the company would consider using cassava starch as filler instead of cornstarch90.

Internationally, about 15 per cent of the trade in cassava products was for starch and flour for food and industrial uses during the 1990s and that has expanded recently despite the decline in demand for chips and pellets described below. The major importers are Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, USA and the Philippines. More than one million Mt of product have been exported each year since 1997, mainly supplied by Thailand and Indonesia although African and Caribbean exporters have also gained market share.

Trade patterns are susceptible to changes in exchange rates and also to the relative prices of substitute products including rice, wheat, maize and potatoes.

Most starch is produced in countries of the Northern Hemisphere and the majority is derived from maize, wheat and potato. Only about 5 per cent is produced from cassava, which originates from South-East Asia, Latin America and Africa and is incorporated into niche products. Bitter varieties of cassava (Manihot palmata) are used for industrial starch production because of their higher starch content at around 24 per cent (slightly higher than potatoes). The native starch is made into modified starches including syrups and dextrins for use in the food and paper industries.

90 David Ndhlovu, Quality Assurance Manager, Pharco Ltd.



The starch market is subject to instability due to the price fluctuations in the traded commodity resulting from market protection of local starch sources. As a result tariffs vary between 0 per cent in Canada, Indonesia, Malaysia and USA and 480 per cent in the Republic of Korea. The EU has imposed a cassava starch quota of 10,000 Mt subject to €170.59 per tonne.

Thailand is the major exporter of tapioca starch, exporting close to 1 million Mt per annum mostly to Japan and Taiwan and secondly to the US and the EU. Brazil exports about 30,000 Mt per year while Indonesia has fluctuated considerably between 100,000 and 0 Mt per annum. Since CAP reform, tapioca pellet exports from Thailand to the EU for animal feed have declined. Demand from Japan has also fallen, but exports of modified starch to Japan, where Thailand has a 50 per cent market share, increased by 15 per cent from 1980 to 1995 so that overall exports of Thai cassava have remained at around 250,000 Mt per annum.

Thai starch is mainly exported to Asia, and Brazilian starch to the Americas so that imports to the USA and EU are only 2 per cent of the total exports of their starch.

Demand for starch in the African region can be gauged from the imports of wheat and potato starch from the EU during the 1990s, Table 40 and Table 41.

Table 40 shows imports of wheat starch to African countries from EU

1994 1995 1996Importer Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value

Tonnes US$ '000 Tonnes US$ '000 Tonnes US$ '000Morocco 107.7 18.3 6.2 4.8 7 3.1Algeria 4.8 2Tunisia 9.6 4.8 12 7.3 14.4 8.9Egypt 16.2 19.3 6.7 7.5 18.8 16.1Senegal 3.9 3.6 10.1 8.7 7.9 7Ivory Coast 12.2 12.2 7.2 5.3 13.1 6.5Benin 2.6 3.2Cameroon 2.6 11.1 3.2 13.6 2 2Congo 13.7 4.7 8.3 3.5 5.2 2Kenya 13.5 5.5 24.1 9.2Madagascar 7.3 3.3Reunion 2.8 2.9

Total 165.9 74 67.2 56.2 110 66.2



Table 41 shows imports of potato starch into African countries from EU

Importer Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity ValueTonnes US$ '000 Tonnes US$ '000 Tonnes US$ '000

Morocco 142.2 79.4 584.5 345.9Algeria 6 2.3 360.4 196.9 136.8 77.7Tunisia 17.4 9 19.5 15.1Libya 2.7 7.5Egypt 121 72 101 51 100 82.6Cape Verde 2.8 5.7 1 2.3 2 3.4Guinea Bissau 0.1 0.5 0 0.1 0.1 0.5Ghana 15.3 10.2 20 8.6Nigeria 4.9 10 1 1.6 18.5 12.4Angola 5.4 8.6 0.9 2.5 8 25.8Reunion 23.8 48.3 6.6 14.3Zambia 1.5 1.4 0 0Zimbabwe 29.6 12.5 105 47.1 63 35.7Lesotho 2 6.2Total 169.8 111.6 774.2 463.5 959 622

1994 1995 1996

Food-grade maize starch is 173 per cent more expensive than cassava starch, wheat starch 55 per cent more expensive and potato starch 43 per cent more expensive, Table 42. For non-food use, maize starch is 31 per cent more expensive than cassava starch, which competes directly with wheat starch on price and is 16 per cent more expensive than potato starch.

The price of cassava starch has followed the price of cassava fairly constantly with cassava being 15 per cent of the price of starch. The ratio of the price of corn to maize starch has been much more volatile and has ranged from 25 per cent to 50 per cent in the USA. The growth of the paper industry in South-East Asia and Brazil has been a significant influence on the increased demand for starch in recent years.

Table 42 gives prices of principal starches (US cents/kg)

Starch source 1999 2000 2001 2002 Maize starch- Food use 71.7 67.7 70.5 69.8 Maize starch –non-food use 37.5 38.6 36.1 33.6 Potato starch – food use 40.3 37.1 38.1 36.5 Potato starch – non-food use 23.6 26.6 25.3 22.1 Cassava starch 26.0 22.8 25.7 25.6 Wheat starch - food use 42.6 39.9 38.0 39.6 Wheat starch – non-food use 21.8 22.9 25.0 25.7

Basis: C.i.f. import values, North American markets.

Source: LMC Starch and Fermentation Analysis.

Regional Pricing

Table 43 shows the estimated cost per metric tonne of freight to regional centres from Port Elisabeth, Lusaka and Mombasa. The price in Lusaka for



a metric tonne of cassava starch is expected to be around US$320, but the produced cost is US$250, making a premium of US$70 for local commercial producers. Lusaka can export pricing at a premium to Blantyre, Harare, Lubumbashi and Windhoek, but otherwise has to discount to compete with imported starch from Port Elisabeth and Mombasa.

Table 43 shows the estimated cost per metric tonne of freight to regional centres from Port Elisabeth, Lusaka and Mombasa.

Port Elisabet Lusaka

Mombasa

Port Elisabet Lusaka

Mombasa

Premium

fob price

Blantyre $75 $24 $325 $274 $51 $301Dar es Salaam $112 $51 $362 $301 $250 ($51) $199Durban $23 $54 $273 $304 ($32) $218Gabarone $35 $36 $285 $286 ($1) $249Harare $63 $13 $313 $263 $50 $300Kampala $61 $32 $311 $282 ($30) $220Lubumbashi $84 $14 $334 $264 $69 $319Lusaka $70 $0 $320 $250 $70 $320Mabuto $38 $42 $288 $292 ($4) $246Nairobi $61 $15 $311 $265 ($46) $204Pretoria $32 $38 $282 $288 ($7) $243Windhoek $51 $48 $301 $298 $3 $253

Average price $256Less margin $51

Less packaging $50Offer price Lusaka $155

Delivered price/MtCost/Mt Lusaka prices/Mt

Table 44 shows the approximate price breakdown to farm-gate prices in the focal areas. The exporter/producer in Lusaka expects to make a mark-up on his cassava of US$51, and to that is added the cost of testing and packaging, leaving a Lusaka bid price of US$155, which is ZMK774 (US$0.15) per kilogram. Because of transport costs, this declines to ZMK699 (US$0.14) in Kabwe, ZMK674 0.13) in Monze and ZMK474 (US$0.09) in Chipata.

Table 44 shows the approximate price breakdown to farm-gate prices in the focal areas.

Implied prices

Focal areaDistance

Farm-gate, US$/Mt

Farm-gate, K/kg

Average fob price, Lusaka $256 K1,280Less margin $51 K256Less packaging $50 K250Lusaka 0km $155 K774Kabwe 150km $140 K699Monze 200km $135 K674Chipata 600km $95 K474


Supply

Most starch used by industry in Zambia is imported from South Africa, mainly from African Products Ltd. Some is also sourced from Europe.

Although small-scale processors of starch exist in many countries, their role is very limited due to low production and poor product quality. Typically starch produced by these artisans is sold for domestic laundering or use in



traditional food such as Ghanaian cassava starch biscuits. Opportunities exist for small-scale farmers to supply fresh roots to a medium or large-scale processor, but there is very little potential for home production of starch.

Commercial production of cassava starch is often seen as an attractive option by developing countries but careful consideration needs to be given to the following factors (Graffham & Westby, 1998):

(i). Road infrastructure. A good road infrastructure is required to ensure that cassava roots can reach the factory for processing within 12 hours of harvest.

(ii). Cassava supply. To produce high quality cassava starch a reliable supply of roots at optimal maturity of 10-12 months is critical. Immature roots will have high water content and soluble sugars and less starch. Over mature roots will contain reduced amounts of starch of lower quality and high fibre. Starch factories require at least 20-40 Mt of high quality fresh roots a day for a period of at least 100 days a year to be effective. To supply these demands cassava has to be treated as a high value cash crop and grown on a large-scale. Reliability of supply could be a serious issue in an area where cassava had always been perceived as a low value, food security or marginal crop. To be effective starch factories need a long processing season with continuous supplies of roots of constant quality.

(iii). Water supply. Starch factories require large amounts of water of good quality for processing. Process water should be free of solid particles, low in iron (<0.3mg ferrous ions/litre) and as soft as possible.

(iv). Power supply. Starch is a mechanised process so a reliable source of power needs to be provided. This may have to be self contained as starch factories are likely to be situated in rural areas close to the cassava farms.

(v). Access to land. This is most important for traditional factories that require a large area for settling tanks and drying yards.

(vi). Availability of skilled labour. Modern and traditional starch factories have a relatively low labour requirement, but both require efficient management and the modern factories need highly skilled personnel both to operate and maintain the facility.

(vii). Choice of drying method. Sun drying will reduce costs but increase processing time and can only be used if the factory is situated in an area of low rainfall, high air temperatures and low humidity. Artificial drying may seem the obvious solution, but flash drying is the major cost burden of any modern factory both in terms of capital investment and running costs. To be economic a flash dryer must have a high loading for most of the year.

(viii). Market size, access and price competitiveness. In many countries the national markets for starch remain small and may not grow significantly



in the short to medium term due to a combination of macro-economic factors that limit the rate of industrialisation. Given this situation it would be difficult to imagine a modern starch factory providing an economic return by supplying to a purely national market of small size (<10,000 Mt per annum). The alternative may be to aim primarily at export markets. Cassava starch is versatile material that competes well with maize, wheat and sweet potato starches. However, it should be realised that many markets are not completely open in nature (e.g. European Community) and also that price competition is fierce. Much of the market will be for modified and speciality starches prepared from the cheapest raw material available. To enter any of the markets be it national or international the product price and quality must be competitive. Users will always aim for the lowest price from a reliable source.

In many cases commercial starch production is not an option in the short-term, but high quality cassava flour could prove attractive, with more options open for small-scale farmers to supply dry chips and grates to the cassava flour factory as well as fresh roots.

Case Study

In 1989 Nisha Starch Ltd installed a plant in Kitwe to produce starch from cassava locally, Figure 12. The plant required 120 Mt of raw roots daily, more than the total production of the country. It also did not have adequate backup to ensure the quality of the starch produced met the requirements of the industry being supplied. The plant never became fully operational and was mothballed within weeks. A lesson can be learnt from the experience. The development of any industry must consider all requirements for the business to be successful. In fact, without good market research and understanding markets, no business could ever hope to succeed.

Figure 12 shows part of the starch and glucose manufacturing equipment at the Nisha Starch plant in Kitwe, mothballed since 1989.

Paper is the most significant user of cassava starch, consuming over 130,000Mt per annum. Cassava also competes well with molasses as a



substrate for monosodium glutamate (MSG) and lysine and is used for production of glucose syrup, sorbitol and fructose syrup.

In Brazil there has been a trend towards the production of modified starches and these are mostly supplied from maize starch since they represent the most recent investments in the starch sector and have the capacity to meet the most recently expressed demand in modified starch products.

In Africa about 90 per cent of the total output of cassava is for human consumption and the tapioca starch industries in Uganda, Tanzania, Malawi and Madagascar are small in comparison to those in Latin America and Asia. In South Africa there is a large modern and efficient maize starch industry. As a result, although Africa is a large-scale producer of cassava, most of its starch is derived from potato and wheat and imported from EU, with about 3,000Mt coming from Thailand.

5.7 Summary and conclusions

5.7.1 Summary



Table 45 shows the types of cassava suitable for each province and the products most in demand. Selection of the types of cassava, bitter or sweet, suitable for each province is based on a general assessment of the familiarity of people in the province to cassava. Southern, Central, Lusaka and Northern Provinces are less familiar with cassava and the importance of the correct processing of bitter varieties, thus sweet varieties are considered more appropriate there, at least in the short term.

The products are ranked in order of potential demand, although the final choice of product will vary from one group to another depending on a wide range of other factors, including resources, skills, proximity to market, desired return and risk threshold. These issues are discussed in detail later in this study. All products can be made from sweet varieties, while the bitter varieties are limited to silage, animal feed and charcoal briquettes unless the processor is particularly skilled and has the facilities to test and monitor toxicity levels.



Table 45 shows the types of cassava suitable for each province and the products most in demand.

Province Sweet Varieties Bitter Varieties

Nalumino Bangweulu

Mweru Chila (slightly bitter)

Kapumba

Kampolombo

Tanganyika

Central Bitter varieties should not be promoted in Central province

Silage Silage

Fresh root

Meal (animal consumption) Meal (animal consumption)

Leaves (human consumption) Leaves (human consumption)

Meal (human consumption) Meal (human consumption) made from traditional soaking method

Leaves (animal consumption) Leaves (animal consumption)

Beverages Beverages from meal made by traditional soaking method

Products in order of accessible demand

Charcoal briquettes Charcoal briquettes

Copperbelt Both sweet and bitter varieties are known

Fresh root

Silage Silage







Leaves (animal consumption)



Eastern Bitter varieties should not be promoted in Eastern province

Silage Silage



Fresh root






Luapula Bitter varieties are common

Fresh root




Silage Silage





Lusaka Bitter varieties should not be promoted in Lusaka Province

Fresh root Fresh root



Silage Silage








Northern Mostly used to sweet varieties

Silage Silage









North-Western

Mostly used to sweet varieties

Silage Silage









Southern Bitter varieties should not be promoted in Southern province

Silage Silage











Western Mostly used to sweet varieties

Silage Silage









5.7.2 Conclusions

Table 46 shows the returns to labour for the domestically producible products. Generally, the higher the return to labour is, the higher the degree of risk.

• Cuttings are the most profitable per day’s labour, followed by cassava meal made from chips and gari. Cuttings and gari are considered risky business propositions because of the shaky markets, but meal made from chips appears to be a good opportunity.

• Following these are chips made with the machine, chips made from the manual grater, and leaves. These are considered lower risk products.

• Cassava meal made with the grater, briquettes and munkoyo have intermediate returns to labour; and then fresh and dried roots are the lowest risk and have the lowest returns to labour.

• Cuttings and gari appear to have limited market outlets.

• Cassava meal with chips or with the grater, gari and chips (machine) use engine-driven machines, which are unreliable and need fuel and spare parts. Machines increase business risk.

• Gari is the highest degree of difficulty, followed by the briquettes, munkoyo and cassava meal using the grater, then machine chips.



• High quality cassava flour and starch are industrial products that have more complex production processes and are premature for the focal area groups at this stage.

Table 46 shows the returns to labour for the domestically producible products.

Ranking by return to labour day Process Return to labour Cuttings K200,000 Cassava meal, chips K144,463 Gari K55,279 Chips, machine K47,672 Chips, manual K33,201 Leaves K30,750 Cassava meal, grater K19,315 Briquettes K15,011 Munkoyo K10,174 Fresh root K8,955 Dried roots K4,406




6 Competitive situation

Cassava growers and processors face competition on two fronts. First, their product must compete with other similar products, such as maize, in the eyes of consumers. Second, individual farmers and groups must compete with other cassava producers from elsewhere in the country and at times from other countries.

In either case, competition can be on two platforms –product differentiation and cost leadership.

6.1 Competing products

6.1.1 Food

Product differentiation

Maize, particularly in the form of maize meal, is undoubtedly the most important competitor to cassava meal as a base for nshima, although its importance varies from one province to another. Sorghum and millet are also important sources of staple food in some parts of the country.

As Table 47 shows, personal and household preference for a given staple food does not necessarily coincide with the household’s actual consumption. The table shows that households in Western Province overwhelmingly prefer to eat maize (80 per cent), but nevertheless they all eat cassava as well. In Luapula, in contrast, most people prefer cassava (57 per cent), but most still also eat maize. The results demonstrate that household preferences are not the only determinant of consumption choice, otherwise, only 12 per cent of households in Western Province would eat cassava and only 43 per cent of people in Luapula would eat maize.



Table 47 gives the household consumption and preferences for staple foods in Western Province and Luapula Province.

Western Province Luapula Province Mongu Kaoma Total Mansa Nchelenge Total Household consuming:

Maize 100% 100% 100% 95% 95% 95% Cassava 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Sorghum 30% 32% 31% 14% 0% 7% Millet 20% 27% 24% 14% 19% 17% Households preferring:

Maize 80% 95% 88% 43% 43% 43% Cassava 20% 5% 12% 57% 57% 57% Source: “An Evaluation of the Commercial Potential for Cassava in Zambia”, ZATPID II.

While personal preference should have a strong bearing on potential consumption patterns, in practice there are clearly other factors working to influence consumption, and those are likely to include product availability and price. Thus, even if cassava is preferred, it must still compete with maize on availability and price.

Indeed, the use of a given staple food varies from one area of the country to another, usually reflecting local availability. Table 48 shows the composition of staple foods consumed per month in survey households in Western Province and Luapula Province. This indicates that consumption patterns are closely related to the availability of particular foods, and people will eat the food most readily available, despite preferences to the contrary. Luapula has more cassava available locally, and thus households there tend to eat more of it. Availability is key to cassava’s ability to compete in the market against maize.



Table 48 shows the composition of staple foods consumed per month in survey households in Western Province and Luapula Province.

Crop Western Province Luapula Province Kg/ month % of total Kg/ month % of total Maize Quantity 96 55.8 73 37.3 Range (25-250) (0-270) Cassava Quantity 64 37.2 117 59.7 Range (10-270) (25-320) Sorghum Quantity 7 4.1 2 1.0 Range (0-100) (0-75) Millet Quantity 5 2.9 4 2.0 Range (0-90) (0-75) Total 172 100 196 100

Source: “An Evaluation of the Commercial Potential for Cassava in Zambia”, ZATPID II.

Table 49 shows the sources of cassava for selected districts. One of two explanations can be surmised from this. Either households are growing sufficient cassava for their own use, and thus do not generally need to buy more, or that lack of availability in the market has forced them to grow their own. Given that more is obtained off-farm, mainly by barter, in Luapula, it suggests that where there is more cassava available it will be bought, or bartered. Again this reinforces the importance of availability in the competitive equation.

Table 49 shows the sources of cassava for selected districts.

Source of Cassava Province/District Own Farm Purchases Barter

Western Province: Mongu District 80% 20% 0% Kaoma District 73% 36% 5% Total Province 76% 29% 2% Luapula Province Mansa District 86% 19% 48% Nchelenge 76% 33% 19% Total Province 81% 26% 33%

Source: “An Evaluation of the Commercial Potential for Cassava in Zambia”, ZATPID II.

Increasing customers’ ability to buy through improving availability of cassava-based products is thus crucial to successful competition with other products, but it is clearly not the whole story.

Once availability has been addressed, attributes such as preferred taste, nutritional content, and ease of preparation, will have a bearing, this time on consumers’ willingness to buy and hence on cassava’s competitiveness in



the marketplace. Price is also a major factor, and is discussed further in the next section.

Table 50 shows the number of apparent and available calories from major crops. Maize provides 36.5 Kcal of available energy per kg, while dry cassava provides 34.1 Kcal and fresh cassava 15.3 Kcal. Groundnuts come top with 52.9 Kcal. While dry cassava ranks sixth, the difference between it and competitors is marginal, other than groundnuts. It is feasible to suggest that cassava can thus compete well with maize in terms of energy content.

Table 50 shows the number of apparent and available calories from major crops.

Crop Apparent Energy (Kcal/kg)

Available Energy (Kcal/kg)

Groundnuts 55.7 52.9 Maize 37.5 36.5 Rice 36.2 36.2 Sorghum 36.7 35.8 Bulrush Millet 36.4 34.6 Cassava (dry) 35.0 34.1 Finger Millet 35.6 33.8 Mixed Beans 35.4 33.6 Cassava (fresh)

15.3 15.3

Sweet Potatoes 15.0 15.0 Source: “An Evaluation of the Commercial Potential for Cassava in Zambia”, ZATPID II.

One final element of competitiveness concerns customers’ awareness of cassava products; their uses and benefits will have a bearing on demand and purchase decisions. Unfamiliarity with preparation techniques is cited as a particular factor in this respect.

In terms of competition, cassava can thus compete in terms of overall preference and energy content, both of which are crucial determinants of willingness to buy, but its availability in the marketplace is still open to question, as is awareness in some less cassava-familiar areas.

Price leadership

Making consumers aware of cassava, and making products readily available to potential consumers are still only part of the equation, however. Once in the marketplace, cassava products must compete with other products on price. Investigations and observations suggest Zambian consumers are extremely price sensitive, invariably opting for the lowest priced staple goods available.

Increasing customers’ willingness to buy thus depends on ensuring prices are competitive in comparison with maize and other substitutes. The



competitive pricing of cassava products should also be viewed in tandem with differentiation from its competitors.

The issue can be illustrated most clearly with reference to the price of cassava meal and its strongest competitor, maize meal. Transport costs cause distortions in the retail price in various part of the country, hence direct comparisons are not straightforward, however, as a rule of thumb, maize meal prices at the time of the survey were ZMK28,000 (US$5.60) to ZMK30,000 (US$6) per 25 kg bag of breakfast meal and ZMK20,000 (US$4) to ZMK21,000 (US$4.20) for roller meal. Cassava meal prices, on the other hand averaged ZMK50,000 (US$10) for the same amount. Cassava prices are considerably more volatile, however, due to variable supply and seasonality, and scarcity value may be pushing up prices. Comparison is made more complex by the differences in volume-to-weight ratios.

It would seem that cassava meal is considerably more expensive than maize meal, perhaps explaining why many households rely on their own supplies rather than purchases in the market. The figures have a strong bearing on cassava’s competitiveness, acting as a major barrier to growth in sales.

6.1.2 Animal Feed

Product differentiation

Prescribed optimal formulations make it difficult for cassava-based animal feeds to differentiate themselves from other feed. In order to be successful at all they must all contain similar nutrients.

Presentation and ease of use, for example by processing into pellet form, could make a product more attractive, but that cannot be done at the expense of increasing prices.

Price leadership

Price is the most important factor in the decision making process when animal feed is purchased. In order for cassava products to compete, they must be sold on a cost-leadership basis when compared with maize-based feeds. One advantage here is that existing maize-based feeds tend to be more expensive the further the distance from the main points of manufacture in Lusaka. In contrast, cassava feeds can be manufactured closer to the sources of cassava and hence transport costs are reduced. As yet there is no commercial animal feed production in Zambia using cassava, so price comparisons are academic. Nevertheless, any new product must be priced to compete with existing maize-based products, and probably at a discount in order to encourage new adopters to switch.



Table 51 gives the comparative prices of animal feeds sold in Zambia. Differences in price are also explainable by distances. Mansa prices are more expensive in part because of additional transport costs.

Table 51 gives the comparative prices of animal feeds sold in Zambia.

Per 25kg Equivalent Tiger Animal Feeds, Lusaka

National Milling, Mansa (50kg bags)

Poultry Chicken Run 1 37,800 Chicken Run 2 37,500 Broiler Maintenance 34,000 Broiler Starter (mash) 40,800 45,600 Broiler Grower (mash) 40,200 44,600 Broiler Finisher (mash) 39,000 43,600 Supreme Broiler Starter (mash)

43,900

Supreme Broiler Grower (mash)

43,400

Supreme Broiler Finisher (mash)

42,400

Layers Supreme 110 33,700 38,600 Layers Standard 110 32,300 37,600 Golden Egg Meal 29,500 Per 50kg Pullet Rearing Starter 80,200 Pullet Rearing Grower 75,200 Pullet Rearing Developer 68,700 Broiler Breeder Starter 74,200 Broiler Breeder Grower 66,000 Broiler Breeder Pre-layer 65,400 Broiler Breeder Layer 70,100 Pigs Pig Starter Pellets 75,800 Pig Grower Pellets 64,600 Sow and Boar Mash 68,100 Cattle Calf Starter 54,200 Dairy Budget 15 54,200 Dairy 19 54,200 Dairy 1 (urea) 54,200 Beef winter pellets 54,200 Fish (pellets) Pond Breeder 67,200 Pond Finisher 56,900 Tiger Grower 98,900 Tiger Finisher 88,500 Other Dog Food 138,700




6.2 Competing cassava producers

6.2.1 Profiles of major Zambia-based cassava growers and processors

Growers

Virtually all cassava production in Zambia is by small-scale farmers. A handful of intermediate level farmers in Luapula are beginning to emerge, however, and at least one large-scale producer, Kalundwe Estate Ltd91, has begun operations.

Kalundwe Estate Ltd started operations in 2002 in Serenje District. Currently 12 hectares of cassava nursery have been planted, and work is underway to develop a further 100 hectares for planting in 2003/04. The intention, subject to the financial viability of the project, labour availability and reliability, and climatic conditions, is to gradually increase the hectarage of cassava and rotation crops under cultivation to 3,000 hectares or more, enough to supply a starch processing facility with 100Mt of fresh root per day. Cassava root will also be purchased from local outgrowers, subject to demand and supply.

Mr. Morris Mayani, of Samfya, has an estimated six hectares of cassava, which he sells for cuttings to agencies such as Care International. Another entrepreneurial farmer, Bright Mwangulu Lukumba of Mendamakabe Farm, Mansa, was also offering cuttings for sale in 2002/03 and has demonstrated a proactive approach to marketing through personal contact with potential purchasers.

Processors92

Initially there were only two known Lusaka based firms processing cassava chips into flour. These are Namando Investments Limited and Peco Limited. At present there are three more that have come on the market. Namando Investments Limited is a major supplier of cassava flour to supermarkets in Lusaka including Shoprite, which has a chain of outlets in all provincial headquarters throughout Zambia. But transportation of cassava flour to outlets outside Lusaka has been a limiting factor in expanding its market share.

91 The authors of this report own Kalundwe Estate Ltd. 92 Much of this information is from Ms. M. Zulu, Mt. Makulu, Chilanga.



Peco Ltd is involved in milling cassava chips into flour and in the production of biscuits using 20 per cent cassava flour. These biscuits are supplied to some supermarkets based in Lusaka.

Mr Goddy Eneke, a Nigerian who has lived in Zambia for many years, runs Chunno Agro Group. His main focus is to promote small-scale cassava processing machinery for making gari, and he is working with CLUSA in a project to help train farmers in their use.

Wood Processing Industries Limited has plants in Ndola and Kitwe for primary and secondary processing of timber into products such as particleboards, laminated boards and wood timber for domestic and foreign markets. Cassava flour is used as an extender and binder in laminating particleboards. The firm stopped using the flour some two years ago because they had problems with storage. However, there are indications of reverting back to cassava flour and they would require at least 67 Mt per year to cater for the two plants.

Monterey Printing and Packaging Company uses cassava flour in the production of carton boxes, because it was found to be better and cheaper than imported maize starch. The flour is bought from a local market or delivered at the factory by cassava processors. The annual consumption of cassava flour is between 9-12 Mt.

Unity Packages Limited also uses cassava flour in the production of packaging materials. The monthly consumption of flour has increased from 6 to 10 Mt towards the end of 2002 due to an increase in demand for their products. The company used about 100 Mt of flour by the end of 2002.

Zambezi Paper Mills Limited makes various products from recycled paper including white and khaki paper and tissue paper. Cassava flour is only used in the production of khaki paper. A total of 150Mt cassava flour was used 2000/2001.

Mwinilunga Farm Products processes cassava into flour, which is sold to supermarkets in Copperbelt towns and Lusaka. The annual production is between 3.5-4 Mt of flour.

Trishul Company Limited is the largest producer of adhesives in Zambia. Its annual consumption of cassava was about 120Mt per year, but since the privatisation of the major consumer of its adhesives, Kafironda Explosives Ltd, the demand has declined because the new owners import finished explosives.



6.2.2 An overview of the international and regional cassava industry

World production of cassava is growing on the strength of a forecasted increase in demand which is expected to be derived more markedly from starches than from human and animal feeds, such that proportional utilisation will be altered from 59 percent, 24 percent, and 17 per cent for food, feed and other uses, and wastage, to 58 percent, 22 per cent and 20 per cent respectively.

However, the demand for the internationally-traded component is subject to the impact of policy-induced distortions particularly in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) where substitute products such as wheat, maize and potatoes receive varying levels of support or protection. Since most of Africa’s production is for local consumption as food, the international trade has not had a significant impact on the growth in production, which is driven in Africa by local demand for food. However, exports of cassava products are likely to remain subject to policy distortions of the market for some years to come.

6.2.3 Production area and yields

Zambia borders one of the world’s five largest producers of cassava – the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The others are Nigeria, Brazil, Thailand and Indonesia. Total global production is expected by FAO analysts to increase from 164 million Mt in 1997 to 208.8 million Mt by 200593, an increase of 2.3 per cent per annum, Table 52. Production in Africa is expected to reach 114 million Mt by 2005 with Nigeria and Ghana playing the major role in its expansion.

It is anticipated that the increased production will be attributable to continuation of the trend of an increase in area planted of 1.8 percent, and an increase in yield per unit area of 0.5 per cent and will reflect the liberalised marketing environment emanating from trade talks.

The global distribution of production in the table below demonstrates the trends in thousands of tonnes of periods within the last 30 years.

As can be seen from Table 52, the major source of growth has been Africa despite the adverse conditions induced by floods in Ghana, Togo, Mozambique and Madagascar. Cassava mosaic virus also depleted production in DRC – the second largest producer in the region – and Tanzania, which was also affected by drought and recorded a drop in production of 20 per cent. In Central African Republic cassava output was

93 FAO 1997 estimates



affected not only by floods, but also by a decline in the returns from cotton that reduced plantings of cassava, which is associated with cotton in the rotation. Nigerian production, which accounts for more than one third of Africa’s output, was increased by 2.4 per cent in response to Government support, and in Uganda there was a massive increase due to a surge in local demand. In Angola, Cameroon and Burundi production increased as a result of the restoration of civil order.

Table 52 shows world production trends in root equivalent

Region Production, ‘000Mt Growth, % per annum

1973-75 1983-85 1993-95 1995-00 73-75: 83-85

83-85 93-95

93-95 2000

World 105,400

131,424

163,746

175,500

2.2 2.2 1.4

Africa 43,378 55,207 83,062 92,700 2.4 4.2 2.3 Latin America and the Caribbean

31,628 28,690 30,804 32,100 -1.0 0.7 0.8

Asia 30,262 47,371 49,740 50,500 4.6 0.5 0.3

In Malawi there has been an increase in industrial use of cassava products where they are currently using 21,000Mt of cassava flour (equal to about 63,000 Mt of fresh roots) and this is expected to double in the next three years. Cassava and sweet potatoes are already contributing 30 per cent to the national food balance sheet.

The strong growth in Asia between the 1970’s and 80’s was a response to increased export demand, which was followed by a reduction in growth due to changes in the prices of alternative sources of starch in the EU. Only support buying by the Thai Government contained the trend towards replacing cassava plantings with maize and sugar and reduced the decline in plantings to 1.3 per cent, Table 53. At the same time improved varieties enhanced yield so that reduction in total output was contained at about one half of a percent. Indonesian production fell by 4 per cent due to bumper crops in rice, which competes directly with cassava in human consumption, depressed domestic demand for cassava products and plantings. In Vietnam, however, plantings increased by 13 per cent and in India by 2 per cent.

In the Latin American and Caribbean Regions a negative growth in the 70’s was reversed by the 90’s due largely to an increase of 12 per cent in Brazil, which accounts for 70 per cent of the regional output, but supported by 10 per cent increases in Colombia and even 34 per cent in the Dominican Republic.



Table 53 shows area, yields and production in selected regions

Production 1000 MT89 to 91 1999 2000 2001 89 to 91 1999 2000 2001 89 to 91 1999 2000 2001

Africa 9,000 10,739 11,038 10,894 8,000 8,760 8,577 8,742 72,032 94,071 94,679 95,239Congo Dem R 2,324 2,034 1,967 1,902 8,045 8,114 8,114 8,114 18,694 16,500 15,959 15,436Malawi 69 166 183 185 2,274 5,392 4,905 4,865 156 895 900 900Mozambique 939 958 926 926 4,256 5,587 5,791 5,791 3,994 5,353 5,362 5,362Tanzania 647 656 848 761 11,594 10,952 6,789 7,423 7,383 7,182 5,758 5,650Zambia 103 170 165 165 6,199 5,711 4,941 5,758 641 971 815 950

N & C America 195 197 188 181 4,520 5,382 6,014 5,891 880 1,059 1,128 1,068South America 2,481 2,228 2,324 2,433 12,375 12,792 12,981 13,347 30,703 28,502 30,162 32,469Asia 3,914 3,462 3,467 3,496 13,143 13,895 14,605 14,277 51,467 48,107 50,638 49,914

Area Harvested 1000 ha Yield Kg/Ha

Source: FAO Yearbook. 2001.

Yield in all agricultural crops is a function of cultivars planted, season of planting, weather patterns, soil-type and fertility and cultivation practices applied. Under good conditions cassava yields can exceed 70 Mt per ha, but in Africa the practice under subsistence situations is to regard cassava as a safety net for food security and to use it to scavenge for residual fertility at the tail end of rotations when applied or residual fertility has been absorbed by cereal crops. Cassava yield potential is therefore seldom achieved under traditional management practices and world averages have risen only from 9.5 to 9.9 Mt per hectare between the 1980’s and 90’s, Table 54. African yields have been still lower although they have shown greater proportional increases than those of Asia and Latin America and Caribbean where yields leveled off in the 1990’s.

In Africa large post-harvest losses could be reduced by controlling pests and diseases and by improving processing, which could increase the economic yield of cassava by more than 150 per cent. Market opportunities also exist for the development of convenient forms of cassava such as gari for the urbanised populations of African societies.

In Thailand cassava yields are 14 Mt per hectare on average, which is similar to Brazil, however the best Brazilian producers, using modern technologies can achieve 70 Mt per ha. Starch content in Brazil can also reach 30 per cent compared to 26 per cent in Thailand. This implies that in Brazil 20 Mt per hectare of starch can be produced while in Thailand approximately 4 Mt per hectare are produced.



Table 54 shows cassava yields in root equivalent.

Region Production, Mt/ha Growth, % per annum

1973-75 1983-85 1993-95 73-75 to 83-85

83-85 to 93-95 93-95 to

World 8.3 9.5 9.9 1.4 0.4 Africa 6.2 7.3 8.2 1.6 1.2 Latin America and the Caribbean

11.6 11.1 11.9 -0.4 0.7

Asia 10.3 12.7 13.2 2.1 0.4

The area under cassava increased worldwide by 1.3 per cent from the 1970’s from 12.7 million hectare to 16.5 million in the early 90’s, Table 55. However, in the early 1980s the devastating drought in Africa reminded planners and farmers of the value of cassava’s tolerance of adverse conditions and drought, resulting in expansion of production on the continent.

In Asia the area cultivated increased in response to strong export demand in the 1970’s and early 80’s but stagnated as export demand receded. In Latin America and the Caribbean cassava production was inhibited and even contracted in the 1970’s and 80’s by policies promoting expansion of cereal crops but, as interventions ceased, production again expanded.

Table 55 shows area of cassava plantings.

Production, ‘000ha Growth, % per annum 1973-

75 1983-

85 1993-

95 73-

75,83-85

83-85,93-

95

93-95

World 12,693 13,855 16,450 0.9 1.8 Africa 7,030 7,518 10,158 9.7 3.1 Latin America and the Caribbean

2,722 2,592 2,593 -0.5 0.0

Asia 2,928 3,730 3,775 2.5 0.1

6.2.4 Processing

In 1998 the average value of cassava starch plus by-products from one hectare in Thailand was $680. Maize produces more valuable by-products and so one hectare of maize in the US under the same price regime would produce starch and by-products worth $1,600. Since the value per ton of cassava is less than that of maize and wheat, the economies of production of cassava require that processing facilities are modest so as not to draw raw material from great and, therefore, uneconomical distances. Cassava processing units also necessarily close for a substantial portion of the year because of the seasonality of the crop that, unlike maize and wheat, has limited storage potential.



The proportion of production that is wasted is significant at 19 per cent throughout the period analysed. The wastage occurs due to deterioration of the root between harvest and processing that ought to be performed within 48 hours but is often delayed or done inefficiently. A typical cassava root contains 70 per cent water, 24 per cent starch, 2 per cent fibre, 1 per cent protein and 3 per cent of other components, and the water content makes it highly perishable.

Cassava processing has traditionally been the preserve of owner-operated factories due to the constraints on scale imposed by logistical considerations. Maize and wheat based starch factories, on the other hand, have been operated by multinational companies with the research and development capabilities to apply the latest technology. This condition is now changing in Brazil where foreign companies are beginning to take advantage of the newly developed production techniques that improve the logistical tolerances.

6.2.5 Consumption

Food consumption is expected to continue to represent about 58 per cent of production with 22 per cent for feed and 20 per cent being used for industrial purposes or going to waste, which is a slight reduction over previous decades.

Food

The increase in world consumption of cassava from 130 million Mt in 1984 and 167.7 million Mt in 1999 to a projected 208.8 million Mt by 2005 represents an absolute increase in food, feed and industrial use.

Cassava roots and leaves are used as food in significant quantities only in developing countries where more than 500 million people rely on cassava as a basic food, and the increase has been dynamic in Africa. Ghana, for instance, has managed to reduce under-nourishment more rapidly than any other country in the world between 1980 and 1996 by the introduction of high yielding varieties of cassava. In Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ghana and Tanzania the per capita consumption of cassava exceeds 200 kg per year, and it is also an important component of consumption in Benin, Central African Republic, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Mozambique, Nigeria and Togo. The leaves provide proteins and minerals and the roots provide carbohydrates but must be treated to remove cyanohydrin, which is toxic. Sweet varieties having reduced levels of toxin are bred for human consumption while the bitter ones have higher starch levels and are used for animal feed.

The significance of cassava as a supplier of the daily calorie intake on the world level in 1994 is 2 per cent compared to 20 per cent for wheat and 21



per cent for rice. However in Africa as a whole cassava’s contribution to calorie intake is 10 per cent while wheat and maize are 15 per cent each and rice is only 7 percent. The contribution is greater in some of Zambia’s neighbouring countries, particularly Congo at 50 percent, and Angola and Mozambique at 35 per cent each.

Consumption in Africa increased in total while decreasing in other regions. It is also shown to be a food of the rural communities since there is negative correlation between consumption and urbanisation. Increases in income levels do not necessarily increase the consumption of cassava since there is competition from cereal crops.

Per capita levels of consumption increased to 17.2 kg of root equivalent per capita in the early 1990’s from 15.9 kg in the early 1980’s on a World level and in Africa to 97.2 kg from 86.2 kg, Table 56. It is consumed in various forms known, among many other names, as fou-fou, gari, and farinha in Ghana, Nigeria and Latin America respectively.

Table 56 shows per capita cassava food use

1973-75 1983-85 1993-95 73-75 to 83-85 to 83-85 93-95

World 15.50 15.90 17.20 0.3 0.8Developing countries 21.50 21.20 22.30 -0.1 0.5Africa 83.50 86.20 97.20 0.3 1.2Latin America and Caribbean 37.30 27.60 24.40 -3 -1.2Asia 8.70 8.10 6.80 -0.7 -1.7Oceana 22.80 24.10 17.30 0.6 -3.3

Consumption Growth

kilogrammes per year percent per year

Feed

Bitter varieties with high starch content comprising about 25 per cent of world production or 39 million Mt are applied to the feed industry, mostly in the form of chips and pellets added to compound feeds for pork, poultry, cattle and fish, although in producing countries fresh roots are also fed directly to pigs, Table 57. While in Africa feed use accounts for only 6 per cent of cassava, in Latin America it accounts for 47 per cent due to high usage in Paraguay and Brazil.

Use of cassava in the feed industry in EU countries is subject to the influence of the CAP on cereal prices, which were strongly supportive during the 1980’s and 90’s. Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Spain and Portugal provided the largest markets for cassava products within the EU.



Table 57 shows feed use in root equivalent

1973-75 1983-85 1993-95 73-75 to 83-85 to 83-85 93-95

World 24,249 35,812 39,242 4 0.9Developing countries 18,299 18,212 24,503 0 3Africa 2,012 2,341 5,117 1.5 8.1Latin America and Caribbean 17,762 13,549 14,432 -2.7 0.6Asia 1,521 2,315 4,890 4.3 7.8Developed countries 5,950 17,601 14,470 11.5 -1.9EC 5,949 17,194 14,556 11.2 -1.7

Consumption Growth

Thousand tonnes percent per year

Starches and other uses

The International Starch Institute states that the starch market has been growing at 4.7 per cent a year since 1980 reaching 35 million Mt by 1997 for starches from all sources. “Native” starches are those that have not been modified by processing such as gelatinisation, sterilisation, centrifugation or more complex chemical transformation to affect their properties. Further products from cassava include a range of food additives, flour, sweeteners, medicines, animal feed, and industrial goods such as glue and alcohol and components of paper, cardboard, plywood and textiles. The use of cassava starch in industrial applications is expected to more than double during the decade leading up to 2005, equivalent to 13 per cent per year, to 12.9 million Mt. Most of this dynamic demand increase is expected to come from the industries of Asia, although modest expansion is also expected in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Main alternative sources of starch are maize, wheat and potato in order of importance, and starch manufacture for industrial purposes accounted for 6 million Mt of root equivalent or 4 per cent of total cassava production. The quality of the root used determines the ratio of starch to roots, which can vary from four-to-one to ten-to-one by weight depending on the quality of the root.

Constraints to the viability of factories producing industrial products from cassava include the high cost of transporting fresh roots to the factory and the seasonality of the crop which implies closure for several months a year. Low maize prices also introduce risk into the commercial viability of cassava-derived starch. These factors have contributed to the closure of cassava starch factories in Uganda, Tanzania and Madagascar, and most of the large scale working industrial capacity remains in Asia.



6.3 Conclusions

Producers of cassava products face competition from two fronts – from substitute products, and from other cassava producers, locally and internationally.

6.3.1 Food

• Cassava products compete for market attention with a number of other products in the domestic market, particularly with maize. Of particular importance is maize meal, against which cassava meal offers potential as a substitute.

• Preference for either maize or cassava varies from one area of the country to another, with households in areas of high cassava cultivation tending to prefer it to maize.

• Households in cassava-abundant areas such as Luapula consume more cassava than maize, while the opposite is the case in other areas, such as Western Province.

• Despite set preferences, households do not necessarily always consume what they prefer. This may be attributed to lack of availability of their preferred food, or high prices.

• Most consumption of cassava is from homegrown stocks. In Luapula Province 81 percent of households obtained their supplies from their own farm while in Western Province the figure was 76 percent. Some 26 per cent and 29 per cent respectively was bought, and the remainder, 2 per cent and 33 per cent respectively was bartered.

• Demand for cassava food products exists, but ability to buy is often lacking.

• Increasing consumers’ ability to buy cassava is necessary to make such products competitive.

• Willingness to buy is influenced by consumer preferences, including taste, nutritional content and preparation.

• Cassava has 34.6 Kcal of energy per kg, similar to maize at 36.5Kcal.

• Awareness of the benefits of cassava products has a bearing on demand.

• Zambian consumers are extremely price sensitive.

• Competitive pricing will encourage customers’ willingness to buy.



6.3.2 Animal feed

• Prescribed animal feed formulations make it difficult for cassava-based feed to differentiate itself from other feeds.

• Cassava-based animal feed must thus compete on price.

6.3.3 Zambian producers

• Small-scale farmers, along with a handful of intermediate farmers, dominate Zambian production.

6.3.4 Cassava producers

• World cassava supply is growing on the strength of increased demand, largely for starch.

• Protectionist policies in Western markets are distorting the market, but while Africa’s production is largely for domestic consumption, it will remain relatively unaffected by these policies.

• The world’s largest producers of cassava include the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, Brazil, Thailand and Indonesia.

• Total global production is forecast to increase by 2.3 per cent a year from 164 million Mt in 1997 to 208.8 million Mt in 2005. Africa’s production is expected to reach 114 million Mt by then, making it a major source of growth.

• Increases in area planted and in yield will contribute to the increase in production.

• Disease, drought and flood have impacted production in Congo, Tanzania and the Central African Republic.

• Malawi’s use of cassava products is expected to double in the next three years.

• Asia’s cassava exports have declined following strong growth in the 1970s and 1980s. Government buying programmes in Thailand have helped keep the industry going.

• South American production has increased, largely bolstered by Brazil.

• Under good growing conditions cassava yields can exceed 70 Mt per hectare, but subsistence-farming methods have kept world averages at 9.9Mt, up only slightly from 9.5Mt in the 1980s.



• Yields in Asia and Latin America have leveled off, while Africa’s show greater potential for increase, albeit from lower bases.

• Controlling pests and diseases and improving processing could reduce Africa’s large post-harvest losses.

• Worldwide area under cultivation has grown to 16.5 million Mt in the early 1990s.

• Zambia needs strong yields and economies of scale in order to compete on the international markets.

• The value per tonne of cassava is less than maize and wheat.

• Processing units must be close to the source of raw material for cassava.

• Cassava is characterised worldwide by a high proportion of waste.

• Consumption in Africa increased while decreasing in other regions. Average per capita consumption of cassava in Africa is expected to rise from 17.2kg in 1994 to 19kg in 2005.

• Use of cassava in animal feeds in Europe is subject to market protection policies.

• The world starch market grew by 4.7 per cent a year since 1980, reaching 35 million Mt by 1997.

• The use of cassava starch in industrial applications is expected to more than double in the decade to 2005.

• Main alternative sources of starch are maize, wheat and potato.

• Constraints to the production of cassava starch include the high cost of transporting fresh roots and crop seasonality. This has contributed to the closure of factories in Uganda, Tanzania and Madagascar.



7 Marketing Plan

Small-scale farmers in Zambia need to form themselves into effective groups in order to properly and more easily process and market their cassava. In business parlance, those groups should adopt the business strategy of a “prospector” searching for new markets, and their marketing approach should thus be one of a “pioneer” aiming for mass-market penetration.

This section is general in that it does not attempt to make specific recommendations for each of the many products that can be made from cassava. Instead, it aims to provide guidelines and ideas that can be adapted to farmers’ circumstances, markets and the products they are marketing.

7.1 SWOT profile

Before a marketing strategy is considered, it is helpful to summarise the cassava market in Zambia in terms of a SWOT (strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats) analysis.

Strengths

• Low cost

• Strong demand

• Simple processing

• Proximity to markets

• Familiarity (Northern, Western, Luapula)

• Available land for expansion

Weaknesses

• Lack of supply



• Unfamiliarity (Southern/ urban markets)

• Transport costs

• Cost of processing equipment

• Consumer perceptions

• Lack of price information

• Price volatility

• Non-standard units of measurement

• Disorganised market structure

• Lack of bulk supply

• Weak extension and training services

Opportunities

• Maize meal substitution

• Volume increases

• Export

• Added-value processing

• Industrial processing

• Substitution of cornstarch

• Leaves

• Cuttings

• Improved yields

• Animal feed production

Threats

• Undermining of food security94

• Crop disease

• Lack of funds, including working capital and for investment in increased production.

• Lack of transport and/or high transport costs

94 Food security may be compromised if farmers sell too much cassava, leaving themselves short for household consumption.



• Limited market

• Lack of storage facilities

• Processing time

• High market fees

• Low retail prices

• Availability of competing products

• Competitive pricing of competing products

• Government intervention in markets.

7.2 Objectives

Each group should consider its marketing objectives carefully, and ensure they are not confused with marketing strategies. An objective is a goal, while a strategy is the means in which to achieve that goal.

The following objectives are suggested:

• Increase farmer/group income by 10 per cent for three years; • Increase cassava product production by 20 per cent per year for three

years; • Generate and grow profitable sales in line with production capacity.

7.3 Marketing Strategy

In order to achieve those goals, a marketing strategy is required in order to generate sales. This should include the following:

• Increase customers’ awareness of cassava products;

• Increase customers’ awareness of farmer group;

• Increase customers’ willingness to buy;

• Increase customers’ ability to buy.

Each of these is considered in turn.



7.3.1 Increase customers’ awareness of cassava products

Unless potential purchasers are aware of the existence of cassava and its benefits vis-à-vis other products they are unlikely to buy, unless on impulse. To encourage new users and maintain their regular use of cassava they must be convinced of the benefits.

Stress generic benefits

Promoting the general benefits of cassava is a task best conducted by an industry association, an institution such as SHEMP, or the government. Areas where cassava is less well known, such as in Southern Province, should be targeted for a promotional campaign to heighten awareness.

Publicise preparation techniques

There is widespread ignorance about the preparation of cassava-based products by consumers, and this is a significant reason for reluctance to buy. Cookery demonstrations, in markets, shops and on television, would help this, as would leaflets and recipe books.

Price information and comparisons

Market cassava prices tend to be erratic, mainly due to seasonality, and differ from one market centre to another as a result of transport factors. Making it easier to compare prices, and improving the predictability of prices, should instil confidence in buyers to become regular purchasers. Simple marking of prices at market stalls, clear and consistent pricing to traders, and publicising of prices, perhaps over local radio, would help.

Nutritional benefits

Many people are unaware of the nutritional benefits of cassava, particularly in terms of energy content. In conjunction with the promotion of the other generic benefits, this feature of cassava-based food products should be emphasised on packaging and perhaps backed by an advertising campaign.

7.3.2 Increase customers’ awareness of farmer group

Cassava products, at local level are fairly homogenous. There is currently little to distinguish one root or bag of meal from another. More proactive farmers and groups can exploit this by focusing attention on themselves in order to persuade customers to buy from them rather than a rival. If the farmer or group can make consumers aware of its presence, it can then build on that to establish a good reputation and gain the loyalty of customers. It is, after all, easier and cheaper to maintain an existing customer than find a new one.



Branding

Developing a brand name, either for a specific product or more generally for the farmer/group enables customers to identify the messages being conveyed with a simple, easily memorable image or name that becomes a proxy for those elements. Simply putting the farmer/group name on packaging, or inventing a catchy name for the product, will set it apart from competitors and increase awareness and confidence among customers.

Stress track record

Tell customers about the farmers/group’s experience in cassava production and processing. How long has it been going and what skills do you have?

Commitment to production

Stressing the group’s track record should encourage customers to feel the group is reliable, will be around next year and is not a “fly-by-night” operation. Customers, particularly industrial ones relying on a regular supply, need to be assured that the producer is committed to long-term production.

Reliability and consistency of supply

Promoting commitment to production must be backed by practical evidence of performance, however. Customers will quickly lose confidence if the reliability and consistency of supply is not there, even if advertising says the producer is committed. Words must be backed by action.

Join forces to supply bulk

Traders, processors and industrial users will find it easier to buy a large amount from one source than spend extra time and expense gathering product from a number of different places. Farmers that can join forces and offer a convenient source of the right quantity should win customers over those who do not, and should even be able to charge a premium for the service.

Consumer standards

Emphasis on consumer standards is an effective way for sellers to differentiate themselves from competitors and endear themselves to customers. Making the effort to obtain Bureau of Standards approval that standards are being followed, and then publicising that on packaging, advertising and to potential customers is a useful tool for increasing sales.



7.3.3 Increase customers’ willingness to buy

Customers may be aware of cassava and the producers locally, but they must still be persuaded to buy. They will make their decision based on a complicated range of internal and external factors – the realities of the marketplace and their own perceptions and preferences.

Price-leadership in comparison with competing products

Price is one of the most important factors. Someone is unlikely to be willing to buy if he or she believes the price is too high, and that better value can be obtained from another product.

Product differentiation through awareness of benefits

The Zambian market is particularly price-sensitive, but there may be ways to encourage sales by making a product that is distinctive from competitors, perhaps through better quality, additional features or other factors. Customers must be made aware of these differences, however.

Move quickly to extend offerings and lines

A successful product or promotion technique is likely to be copied by other producers, so it is important to stay one-step ahead and introduce new variations on the product quickly to maintain product differentiation. What about changing packaging from a bag to a box or offer different sized packages.

Reduction of perceived risk

A customer weighs up the different benefits, price and features before making a decision to buy. The product and price may be attractive, but there may be an element of perceived risk that has to be addressed. What about cyanogen toxicity? Will the product taste the same as the last batch bought? Is he/she being cheated on the weight? Will the family, particularly children, like it? These can be addressed by standards approval, including certification of cyanogens levels, standardisation of measurement units, existing usage reports or recommendations from other customers, and incentives such as a right of return/refund if there are problems.

7.3.4 Increase customers’ ability to buy

Customers may be aware of the product and seller, and keen to buy, but a sale may still not be achieved because the buyer does not have the ability to make the purchase, for one reason or another.



Ensure consistent availability

The buyer may go to the market, but find there is none there. They must be assured that there will be reliable and consistent supply when it is needed, and availability should be convenient to access in the market.

Trade promotion to gain extensive distribution

Broadening the range of outlets through which cassava products is sold will give customers more opportunity to buy. Encouraging stalls and shops to stock the products, through promotion is a way of doing this.

Deliveries to favoured customers (traders)

Transport is a problem for buyers and sellers. Taking on some of that burden, and thus adding value by providing a delivery service could attract more customers.

Penetration pricing (low) or start high and reduce as competitors respond

Cash constraints are often the main reason hampering a customer’s ability to buy. Cassava products should thus be priced competitively, starting at levels below that of competitors such as maize meal. As more producers enter the market with cassava products the original sellers should be prepared to drop their prices to maintain customers.

Extended credit terms for bulk purchases (backed by guarantee or invoice discounting scheme)

Once groups have increased production enough to supply bulk orders they could encourage sales by offering simple credit terms, perhaps allowing a trader to pay after he has sold the goods. This strategy would attract customers, but is undoubtedly risky, however, and is only suitable for stronger groups with backing from organisations such as SHEMP, who may be able to share the risk of default.

7.4 Marketing action plan

The strategies discussed above need to be implemented with a firm plan of action. Marketing initiatives can be divided into four types – public relations, advertising, personal selling and other promotion. The follow is an inexhaustive list of suggested action, which can be tailored to suit the resources, abilities and needs of individual groups.

1) Public relations/ publicity



a) Send press releases to print and electronic media b) Interviews with print and electronic media

2) Advertising (Subject to budget constraints) a) Generic advertising on benefits of cassava (SHEMP) b) Devise a slogan (core business proposition) c) TV, radio and print media advertising d) Posters

3) Personal Selling a) Stimulate demand b) Meetings with shop managers c) Free samples d) Door-to-door delivery e) Customer database f) Brochure - full, summary, technical specifications g) Presentation

4) Other Promotion a) Recipe competitions b) Cookery demonstrations c) Point of sale promotion d) Banners/ marching / parade e) T-shirts and caps f) Buy-one get-one free g) Free cooking utensil/recipe book with purchase h) Market research – doubles as a useful selling tool i) Focus group discussions on consumer preferences j) Celebrity endorsement

7.5 Resource requirements for implementation

Promotion campaigns can be very expensive, although usually they will pay-off in terms of the extra revenue they generate. Nevertheless, they may require considerable investment to start and techniques such as national television advertising campaigns are beyond the reach of small-scale farmers individually, or even in community groups. It is possible, however, to make steps towards promotion with a relatively modest budget, for example by holding cooking demonstrations in the market, and making well-prepared visits to shop managers.

In addition, technical or financial assistance may be available from agencies and NGOs such as SHEMP.



7.6 Potential venture partners

Tying up with an NGO or other organization will give the group access to additional resources and expertise. Group leaders could write to some of those listed below and ask them to visit and discuss possible collaboration. Contact details are listed in the appendices.

• The Cooperative League of the USA (CLUSA)

• The Programme Against Malnutrition (PAM)

• Africare

• Care International

• Chunno-Agri Group

• Zambia Agribusiness Technical Assistance Centre (ZATAC)

• The Smallholder Enterprise and Marketing Programme (SHEMP)



8 Recommendations

8.1 For farmers

• Use improved certified cassava cuttings.

• Follow extension recommendations, particularly

o Early planting

o Plant population, 10,000/ha,

§ one metre spacing on one metre ridges

o Weed until there is leaf cover.

• Always pull out CMD infected plants.

• Attend processing training by SHEMP.

• Identify appropriate cassava products for the focal area.

• Research market prices, transport costs for you and product, stall rent.

• Form groups to facilitate financing of cassava processing machines:

o Identify and select appropriate technology.

o Contact SHEMP for advice on funding sources for machinery.

8.2 Promoting cassava utilisation

See section 7.3 Marketing Strategy on page 146.



8.3 Promoting the growing of cassava by farmers

• Create demand for cassava products.

• Make available clean certified cassava cuttings of the improved varieties.

• Support multiplication nurseries in the focal areas.

• Support research into new varieties.

• Provide effective extension and training services on cassava growing and cassava products, including literature support.

• Provide supporting information, particularly on market prices and potential buyers.

8.4 Promoting the processing of cassava by farmers

• Create demand for cassava products.

• Ensure a reliable and consistent supply of cassava raw materials.

• Provide processing training and support.

• Provide food health and safety testing facilities.

• Provide marketing support, including generic advertising and packaging advice.

• Provide support for sales, distribution and transport.

• Ensure a reliable and consistent supply of finished cassava goods to retail and wholesale outlets by farmers.

• Make available cassava processing machines.

o Identify makers of processing machines.

o Train the makers of cassava processing machines.

o Fund the makers of cassava processing machines.

o Facilitate the distribution and sale of cassava processing machines.



• Establish cassava-processing groups in the focal areas.

• Investigate rainy season drying and storage.

Cassava - A Market Research Study - Betuco - Market Research Study Zambia.pdf · Cassava - A Market...

Documents

Transcript of Cassava - A Market Research Study - Betuco - Market Research Study Zambia.pdf · Cassava - A Market...