Cassava Africa Cost

8/4/2019 Cassava Africa Cost

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cassava-africa-cost 1/28



The economics of dryingcassava chips for use of

cassava as a filler crop in multi-feed plants

Andrew Westby



Topics • Issues in cassava drying to produce a feedstockfor bio-ethanol production

• Economics of cassava drying in Africa

•

Lessons from implementing a cassava valuechain project based on cassava

African perspective using data from the Cassava:

Adding Value for Africa project.



Why cassava chips as a feedstock? • Cassava is 70% water, dried chips are more

efficient in terms of transport costs;

• Sun-drying is less expensive than drying with

fossil fuels, lower CO2 footprint

• Dried chips can be stored, more

flexible utilisation



Quality issues for production ofbioethanol

• Food safety requirements;

• Quality issues;

•

Peeling;• Economics (based on C:AVA project)



Food safety issues Cyanogenic compounds

• Greater cellular damage, greater loss of cyangogens.

• For human consumption (HQCF) use grating• Probably not an issue for bioethanol – usechipping

Microbiological food safety• For human food – raised platforms

• For bioethanol – concrete drying floors



Quality issues for chips • Avoid spoilage during drying – loss of carbohydrate

• Impact of physiological deterioration before drying onfermentation qualities of cassava chips unknown.

• Properly dried chips (<14% moisture content) shouldstore for > one year as long as kept dry and insectscontrolled.

• Has been report of 5% loss in starch extraction after

8 months at 30°C (DOI: 10.1002/star.200300247)• No information on storage of sugary cassava



To peel or not? • Economically labour peeling represents 10% of costof producing dried cassava.

• Physical losses. Sauer et al. of IITA in Congo with 4varieties of cassava.

• Tops and tips 4-14%

• Peeling 15-19%

• Major benefit of not peeling is in terms of reduced

losses (if physical losses =20% then saving = 25+%)• Unpeeled product differentiates it from chips/flourfor human consumption



HQCF value chain development



Value chain development for cassava

Village Processing Units

Bakeries – replacingwheat with HQCF

Farmers/FarmerProcessors

Grow cassava and sellsemi-processedproduct to intermediary

Intermediaries (privatesector)

Semi-

processedproduct

HQCF

Roots Grated roots

Value chain

Food/non-foodprocessing industry

using HQCF

BenefitsRural areas- Increased farmer incomes

- Employment

Intermediaries- Business opportunity- Employment

End-users:- Increased profitability- Lower consumer prices

Nationally- Reduced imports

Main inputs

- Business development services- Financial services- Technical support in processing- Ensure quality

-Technical supportin adopting HQCF

-Financial services

- Support farmer organisations- Increase cassava productivity- Support Village Processing Units- Ensure quality

Service providers capacity strengthening

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://cookalicious.files.wordpress.com/2006/05/Bread%2520001.jpg&imgrefurl=http://cookalicious.wordpress.com/2006/05/&h=839&w=1024&sz=192&hl=en&start=2&um=1&tbnid=lawdG-X2vFfQFM:&tbnh=123&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbread%2B%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den




Production costs and margins - Sun drying versus flash drying

Sun drying Flash drying

Nigeria Ghana Nigeria Ghana

Production costs wet

mash ($/t FCR)68 53 68 53

Sun-drying ($/t FCR)Labour costs

Other variable costs

Total variable costs

Capital costs

4

2

75

15

4

2

60

15

Flash-drying ($/t FCR) Profit on wet mash

Labour costs

Fuel costs

Other variable costs

Total variable costs

Capital costs

16

7

23

52

145

12

16

3

23

34

124

13



Options for producing cassava feedstock for ethanol

conversion ROOTS

Peel

Grate

Sun dry and

mill

HQCF

SCENARIO 1

Flash dry

and mill

HQCF

ROOTS

(Peel)

Grate/mill

Conversion

to Ethanol

Sun dry and

mill

SCENARIO 2

Taking knowledge

on key costs andmodelling toethanol scenario



Value chain development for ethanol

FCR = fresh cassava roots

Country Nigeria Ghana Tanzania Uganda Malawi

Yield (t/ha) 15 18 12 10 15

Production costs ($ per t FCR) 26.0 26.0 28.0 27.1 17.6

Farm gate cassava (($ / t FCR) 50.0 35.0 33.3 51.3 45.0

Farmers margin ($ / t FCR) 24.0 9.0 5.3 24.2 27.4

labour cost for peeling ($ / t FCR) 6.7 7.4 22.0 6.9 4.2

Cost of chipping (50% cost of grating)($ / t FCR) 5.9 5.5 3.8 2.5 2.5

Labour costs sun drying ($ / t wet

product) 8.00 7.14 4.40 2.06 2.00

Other costs sun drying ($ / t wetproduct) 4 4 3 3 3



Projected costs of cassava chips without farmers margin

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

Nigeria Ghana Tanzania Uganda Malawi

$ / t D

M

Production costs unpeeled chips, without farmer margin

Cost of sun drying

Cost of chipping

Labour costs peeling

Farmer margin

Production costs

raw materials



Projected costs of cassava chips with farmers margin

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0


$ / t D

M

Production costs unpeeled chips, with farmer margin

Cost of sun drying

Cost of chipping


Farmer margin

Production costs raw

materials



Alternative uses of cassava

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0


$ / t D M

Production costs peeled chips, with farmer marginCost of sun drying

Cost of chipping


Farmer margin

Production costs raw

materials



Observations

• Does not include transport/capital depreciation costs•

In terms of production costs in $ terms the productioncosts for cassava were similar across 5 countries, lowest inMalawi• In terms of farmers margins - great differences, highest inNigeria, Uganda and Malawi (reflection of shortages in

some countries at the time of collecting the data 2009/2010)• Production costs/farmers margin are a very high % oftotal costs. Improvements in productivity are likely to have amajor impact on profitability and competiveness•

Not peeling makes a >30% saving in cost of production -assuming a 20% peeling loss.• Major issue will be competiveness of cassava againstother feed stocks




• There are alternative uses of cassava

•

Fresh cassava (good prices near urban areas)• Traditonal processed products (good returns, with

added value at household/village level)

• New/commercial uses (HQCF, glucose, starch,livestock feed etc)

• Cassava for biofuel will have to compete with theseuses – it will depend on the price that biofuelcompanies are willing to pay against other competive

feed stocks.




0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

N e t p r o f i t s

( G H C ) p e r h a

Grits Agbelima Gari C. Roots

Cassava value added products

Net profits made by farmers who process cassava roots produced

from from 1 ha of land

rent land, hire labour own land, hire labour

rent land, own labour own land, own labour

Source: Jonathan Anaglo, PhD Thesis, University of Greenwich



Competitiveness of cassava chips

• Key issue is the ability of cassava to compete as

feedstock for bioethanol.• Just for comparion cassava chip export price to

China from Thailand is of the region of USD 168/pertonne in November 2009 (Food Outlook).

•

Price of kokonte (dried cassava chips from peeledcassava) sold for plywood glue extender use($300/t)

• Africa will find it hard to compete internationally.

Main markets likely to be local.• If potential market is large then will need

continues efforts to improve cassava productivity



Some value chain lessons from C:AVA (HQCF)

- Selection of appropriate, cost effective technology

to specific situations.- Use of specific strategies to benefit women e.g.

Working with women’s groups, training serviceproviders, is proving beneficial.

- Awareness of needs of poorest in terms of accessto resources (e.g. access to transport) andimproved varieties and agronomic support.

- Often not a one model fits all solution.

- More processing done at small-holder level, thegreater the financial returns to them.

- Profitability of HQCF is location specific



Some value chain lessons from C:AVA

- Selection of appropriate, cost effective technology

to specific situations.- Use of specific strategies to benefit women e.g.

Working with women’s groups, training serviceproviders, is proving beneficial.

- Awareness of needs of poorest in terms of accessto resources (e.g. access to transport) andimproved varieties and agronomic support.

- Often not a one model fits all solution.

- More processing done at small-holder level, thegreater the financial returns to them.

- Profitability of HQCF is location specific



Success factors for small-holder inclusion in markets

•

Farmers who are trained,organized, and empoweredto deliver the quantity andquality of producerequired in a consistent andcost-efficient way;

• A receptive business sector;

• A public sector with a conducivebusiness environment including infrastructure, contractenforcement mechanisms and financial intermediation; and

•

Partnership facilitation which can be done by a third party(e.g. NGO) or a value chain champion.

Peppelenbos (2008)



Conclusions

• Sun-drying best option

• Location with/near farmers saves transport costs and anypotential problems with physiological deterioration.

• Use of unpeeled cassava, saves labour, reduced losses,differentiates product in market, if acceptable.

• Systems based on chipping and drying involve low capital

investment and provide additional small-holder incomesthan just selling roots.

• Concern about competition with other feedstocks

• Concern about competition for cassava for other end

users, especially where biofuel use in lower end of valuespectrum.

• Issues surrounding how to maximise benefits for small-holder farmers/processors worth careful investigation.




THANK YOU

Project team

Andrew Westby, Kolawole Adebayo, Louise Abayomi, Adebayo Abass,Francis Alacho, Victor Antwi, Aurelie Bechoff, Nanam Dziedzoave, Lora

Forsythe, Richard Gibson, Andrew Graffham, Paul Ilona, Vincent Kaitano,Michael Kirya, Ulrich Kleih, Richard Lamboll, Grace Mahende, AdrienneMartin, Shija Msikula, Gideon Onumah, Helena Posthumus, Vito Sandifolo,Lateef Sanni, Andrew Sergeant, Bernard Siwoku; John Orchard; PatriciaHarvey

Cassava Africa Cost

Documents

Transcript of Cassava Africa Cost