Post-Harvest Management Practices of Yam and Farmers' Information Needs in the North-Central of Nigeria

Abstract

The study investigated the post-harvest handling of yam and needed information by farmers in Kogi and Benue States, Nigeria. The population of this research comprise of all the yam farmers in the two states. Data were collected from 240 yam farmers who were randomly selected from the four agro-ecological zones of Kogi State (Zone A, B, C and D) and three zones of Benue State (A, B and C) using interview schedule. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data collected. Results show that most (78.75%) of the farmers were engaged in transporting of yam from farm to home, home to markets or farm to markets. Analysis on the level of information needs shows that 50.00% of the yam farmers were highly in need of information on storage of tubers in the study area. Analysis on the access of yam farmers to improved post-harvest management technologies shows that majority (77.50%) of the yam farmers had access to improved transportation system and 14.28% had least access to storage of yams in the warehouse. It is recommended that farmers should have access to information on improved post-harvest management, and the practices of some effective indigenous post-harvest management of yam would ensure better value addition on yam.

Full text

2017
Vol. 2 No. 3: 9
Journal of Nutraceuticals and Food Science
www.
i
m
e
dpub.
c
om
Research Article
iMedPub Journals
© Under License of Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License | This arcle is available in: hp://nutraceucals.imedpub.com/archive.php
Adejo PE*
Department of Agricultural Economics and
Extension, Kogi State University, Nigeria
Corresponding author: Adejo PE
 emmypar2002@yahoo.co.uk
Department of Agricultural Economics and
Extension, Kogi State University, Anyigba
P.M.B. 1008, Kogi State, Nigeria.
Tel: +234 009-87-1-762538-275
Citaon: Adejo PE (2017) Post-Harvest
Management Practices of Yam and
Farmers’ Information Needs in the North-
Central of Nigeria. J Nutraceuticals Food
Sci. Vol. 2 No. 3:9
Abstract
The study invesgated the post-harvest handling of yam and needed informaon
by farmers in Kogi and Benue States, Nigeria. The populaon of this research
comprise of all the yam farmers in the two states. Data were collected from 240
yam farmers who were randomly selected from the four agro-ecological zones of
Kogi State (Zone A, B, C and D) and three zones of Benue State (A, B and C) using
interview schedule. Descripve stascs were used to analyse the data collected.
Results show that most (78.75%) of the farmers were engaged in transporng of
yam from farm to home, home to markets or farm to markets. Analysis on the
level of informaon needs shows that 50.00% of the yam farmers were highly in
need of informaon on storage of tubers in the study area. Analysis on the access
of yam farmers to improved post-harvest management technologies shows that
majority (77.50%) of the yam farmers had access to improved transportaon
system and 14.28% had least access to storage of yams in the warehouse. It is
recommended that farmers should have access to informaon on improved post-
harvest management, and the pracces of some eecve indigenous post-harvest
management of yam would ensure beer value addion on yam.
Keywords: Post-harvest losses; Post-harvest management; Yam farming
Post-Harvest Management Pracces
of Yam and Farmers’ Informaon
Needs in the North-Central of Nigeria
Received: June 19, 2017; Accepted: September 12, 2017; Published: September 19,
2017
Introducon
Yam (Dicorea spp) is one of the staple crops which thrive well
in the North-central and Southern regions of Nigeria. There has
been advocacy to develop the post-harvest sector of agriculture in
the country due to inherent post-harvest losses in the producon
of crops like yam. Nigerian government has recently put in place
a yam export policy to reduce post-harvest losses and improve
farmers’ income [1]. Postharvest loss reducon has received
aenon in many policy documents across naons to ensure
global food security, parcularly in developing countries [2].
More than 95% (2.8 million) of the current global area under yam
culvaon is in Sub-Saharan Africa, where the mean gross yield
is 10 t/ha. About 90% to 95% of world yam producon is from
West Africa and Nigeria is rated the largest producer [3]. Nigeria
produced over 65% (38 million metric tons) of the global yam
producon followed by Ghana (6.6 million metric tons) and Côte
D’Ivoire (5.8 million metric tons) in 2012 [4]. An average prot
per yam in Nigeria was calculated at over US$13,000 per hectare
harvested [5]. According to KSADP (201) report, Kogi State
produced 1286.96 MT in 2008 and rose minimally to 1290.73
MT in 2010; the area under culvaon 2008 was 104.56 Ha and
in 2010 an area of 111.20 ha was culvated. Benue State with
396.45 (‘000 ha) area under culvaon, had an output esmated
to be 3,914.17 metric tons [6]. Several yam literatures in West
Africa acknowledge that yam has a key role in the culture of the
people in major producing areas in the region [7]. On the account
of post-harvest losses, about 30% to 40% of agricultural produce
is not reaching the consumer. These losses are largely caused by
factors such as insect pests, poor logiscs, fungal and bacterial
diseases, poor management and inadequate storage facilies,
mechanical damage. About 10% to 15% of storage losses in yam
were recorded and aer the rst three months, it approached
50% aer six months storage was reported [3,8]. Yams are largely
grown in only three parts of the world: West Africa, Caribbean
Islands and Southeast Asia. The world producon is 25.5 million
tonnes excluding the people’s republic of China [9]. By far the
largest acreage and greatest amount of yam producon is in the

2017
Vol. 2 No. 3: 9
Journal of Nutraceuticals and Food Science
2This arcle is available in: hp://nutraceucals.imedpub.com/archive.php
Sub-Saharan African where 97% of the total global producon
abounds. Within West Africa, yam producon is conned to the
region stretching from the Ivory Coast to Cameroon. The major
yam producing countries in this region, in order of importance,
are Nigeria, the Ivory Coast, Ghana and Togo. Nigeria alone
accounts for 78% of World producon [10]. The major problems
of yam producon globally were armed as postharvest rot [11].
Access of farmers to both technical and economic informaon
allows them to make good decisions and sound opinion in
selecng probable soluon from alternaves.
The post-harvest acvies peculiar to yam can be categorized
into three classes of which the rst set is that of collecng the
mature crops which covers operaons such as harvesng,
transporng to farm gate and storing. Second, is distribuon
which entails transporng to farm gate/local markets, sorng,
grading and merchandizing? The third, is the task of making
commodies ready for consumpon which involves processing
for mely ulity, packaging and preparing into various forms of
food items or consumer dishes. Moreover, proper storage also
helps to ensure household and community food security unl the
next harvest and helps producers to avoid selling at low prices
during the glut period that oen follows harvest.
Researchers have innovated producon technologies for dierent
crops in the last two decades without necessary post-producon
technologies that will preserve these crops [12]. As a result of
high levels of investment in crop producon, post-harvest losses,
in the form of quanty or quality, should be kept at a minimum.
Many key funcons like informaon, promoon, negoaon,
ordering, nancing, risk-taking, physical possession, payment
and tle add value to the markeng of commodies [13].
Nigerian government at various stages has found it needful to
prevent post-harvest loss of crops produced by farmers. This
has become imperave to help the small-scale farmers who
are always at the mercy of the buyers of their commodies at
every producon season for lack of storage facilies. A probable
soluon to overcome these constraints is by strengthening the
post-harvest sector at naonal level through the improvement
of the indigenous agro-industries. Processing of food crops to a
form which has a longer shelf life and at the same me adding
value to the original crop help the farmer not only to overcome
the spoilage and losses, but also earn more money due to the
newly added value of the product [14].
Despite the necessity of producing more food to meet the
ever-increasing global populaon, African farmers are oen
discouraged from increasing their producon because of
unstable market prices, lack of storage facilies, limited access
to processing technologies, and poor market opportunies [15].
The United Naons Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA)
noted that the African food crisis had developed over some
decades causing widespread hunger and these results in the gap
in food producon. Losses in crop producon in the Sub-sahara
Africa connue to grow high due to inadequate post-harvest
technologies. Farmers, therefore, grow what they can easily sell
or store and new producon technologies remain unused.
Nigerian administraons have long focused on strengthening the
links along the chain from fork to farm in several commodies of
key importance to Nigerian smallholder farmers/marketers [16].
The presidenal iniaves on some commodies are cases in
point. However, imperfecons along the chain connue to widen
the disparity between farm gate and retail prices, leaving poor
farmers with the least value. The widening disparity connues to
worry the government, which is working to reduce poverty and
increase the income of poor farmers [17].
Improved livelihood of small-scale farmers can be ensured
through the development of post-harvest technologies
compable with the indigenous pracces of the farmers and
enhanced value chain. Nigerian government over some years
took cognizance of this fact and has established programmes,
agencies and projects with the mandates to carry out research on
post-harvest management and technologies in order to add value
to crops. Notable among these agencies include Nigerian Stored
products Research Instutes (NSPRI) established in 1954 to
conduct research in all aspects of post-harvest handling of crops
and their products, pescide development, residue analysis and
mycotoxin survey on food items in Nigeria as stated in Decree
5 of 1977. Raw Materials Research and Development Council
(RMRDC), Abuja has a mandate to carry out research on post-
harvest management of agricultural commodies and a way of
reaching the farmers through extension. Kogi and Benue States’
yam farmers like most farmers in other parts of Nigeria are faced
with the problem of seasonal post-harvest losses.
In view of the foregoing, the following research quesons are
pernent for this study:
1. What are the crical post-harvest management pracces
of yam in the study area?
2. What are the post-harvest informaon needs of yam
farmers?
3. What are the sources of post-harvest informaon
available to yam farmers?
4. Do farmers/traders readily have access to informaon on
how to handle their harvested yam?
Objecves of the Study
The objecves were to:
1. Idenfy post-harvest management pracces among yam
farmers in the study area;
2. Assess the areas and level of post-harvest informaon
needs of yam farmers;
3. Idenfy informaon sources on improved post-harvest
management technologies of yam among the respondents
in Kogi State;
4. Ascertain the access of farmers to informaon on
improved post-harvest management of yam in the study
area.

2017
Vol. 2 No. 3: 9
3
© Under License of Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
Journal of Nutraceuticals and Food Science
Methodology
Study area
The study was carried out in Kogi and Benue States North-central
of Nigeria. Kogi State was created on August 27th 1991 from Kwara
and Benue states with the capital at Lokoja. Geographically, it
is located between latude 60301N and 80481N and Longitude
50231E and 70481E sharing boundaries with Kwara, Ondo, Eki,
Niger, Benue, Nassarawa, Anambra, Enugu, Edo states as well as
the Federal Capital Territory.
Kogi State has populaon of about 3,278,487 people and consists
of 1,691,737 males and 1,586,750 females with an esmate of
172,000 farm families [18]. About 1.2 million farmers grow root
and tubers crops including yam [17]. The conuence of rivers
Niger and Benue creates alluvial ferle soil which is very good for
crop producon.
Benue State was carved out of the former Benue-Plateau State
in 1976. The State lies between longitude 7° and 10° East and
between latude 6°251 and 8°81 North of the equator. It has a
total populaon of 4,219,244 according to FRN in 2007. The State
is basically an agrarian area and one of the largest producers of
yam in the country. Over 2.1 million people grow yam in Benue
State. The State is made up of 23 local government areas.
The agricultural sector provides a very wide opportunity for
investment as the major occupaon of the people. The two states
are marked with two disnct seasons in a year; these are wet
and dry seasons. The wet season spans between middle of March
and October and the dry season is usually experienced between
the months of October and March. The common crops grown in
the area include maize, cassava, yam, rice, guinea corn, cowpea,
citrus, oil palm, cocoa, coee, cashew and kolanut. The people of
these states also rear animals like cale, pig sheep, goats, swine,
poultry and sh.
Populaon and sample size selecon
This study considered all yam farmers in Kogi and Benue States
as its populaon. A sample size of 346 respondents was selected
using mul-stage sampling techniques.
The rst stage is the purposive selecon of six local government
areas from the straed four agro-ecological zones of Kogi
State (A, B, C and D) and the three agricultural zones of Benue
State (A, B and C) in the study area based on the concentraon
of yam farmers in these areas. These were summed up to eight
(12) Local government areas which include: Ijumu, Kabba/Bunu,
Dekina, Bassa, Adavi, and Ibaji respecvely from Kogi State
and Agatu, Guma, Gwer-west, Logo, Katsina-Ala and Otukpo
respecvely from Benue State. Yam farmers in this State with
a populaon of 9,653 households were the sampling frame of
this study. According to the ndings, sampling frame is a list
of every member (or unit) of the populaon from which the
sample will be drawn [18]. In the second stage involve use of
proporonal allocaon of 3.5% of the contact farmers in all the
Local Government Area. A total sample size of 246 was obtained.
Aer the administraon of the interview schedules, a total of 240
interview schedules for yam farmers were recovered from the
expected 246 respondents. Some could not be retrieved, while
others were with incomplete informaon that may lead to the
distoron of the analysis.
Method of data collecon
Primary data was collected using interview schedule since
majority of the farmers were not literate and could not read or
write. The enumerators helped in recording and interpreng to
those respondents who could not read or write. The interview
schedule was used to generate the following informaon:
1. Personal characteriscs of the respondents such as age,
gender, marital status, educaonal aainment, income
level, household size and farm size.
2. Post-harvest operaons peculiar to yam producon in the
study area.
3. Post-harvest informaon need of yam farmers in the
study area.
4. Sources of informaon on improved post-harvest
technologies of yam in the study area.
5. Farmers level of access to needed post-harvest informaon
on yam.
Enumerators were trained to conduct the interview since
majority of the respondents were not educated enough
to be administered with quesonnaire.
Measurement of variables
The level of post-harvest informaon needs of farmers: level of
informaon needs of yam farmers was measured using a 4-point
Likert scale ranging from “low” to “high, and not needed at all”.
The responses and the assigned points are:
Not needed at all=0
Just needed=1
Moderately needed=2
Highly needed=3
Techniques of data analysis
Data generated from the interview schedule were subjected to
descripve such as percentage, frequency distribuon for the
nominal data and pictorial presentaon.
Results and Discussion
Post-harvest management pracces of yam
The result on post-harvest management pracces of yam by
farmers is contained in Table 1. Most of the respondents (78.75%)
Yam operaons Frequency Percentage
Processing 90 37.5
Storage 174 72.5
Grading/sorng/packaging 122 50.83
Transportaon 189 78.75
Note: Mulple responses; Field survey in 2014
Table 1 Post-harvest management pracces of yam (N=189).

2017
Vol. 2 No. 3: 9
Journal of Nutraceuticals and Food Science
4This arcle is available in: hp://nutraceucals.imedpub.com/archive.php
claimed that transportaon (including loading and unloading)
is one of the post-harvest management pracces of yam they
engaged in. Transportaon of yam tubers is done by some of the
farmers on their heads using a container like a basket, sack or
ed together. Bicycles could also be used to transport the tubers.
It could be done using improved transportaon system like
motorcycle, pick-up vans, Lorries and trucks in conveying their
yam tubers from the farm to their homes or markets. The farmer
may employ extra hands for the job of loading or o-loading
respecvely where and when necessary.
It was indicated that 72.50% of the respondents menoned
storage as an important post-harvest management pracce of
yam. Yam tubers are stored using indigenous barns, burring in
the ground or heaped under shade of trees as can be seen in
Figures 1 and 2. About 50.83% of the respondents claimed that
they carried out grading/sorng/packaging. Sorng/grading was
normally done by selecng good tubers from the roen ones,
the big ones from the small and medium ones. Some of the
respondents (37.50%) said that they carried out processing of
yam by cung/peeling, drying, grinding, boiling and pounding.
Yam tubers are cut, peeled and boiled, then, eaten directly or
further pounded (pounded yam) before eaten with soup. Yam
tubers are somemes cut into pieces before drying as slabs or
chips and then, later grinded into our as ‘alebo’.
The implicaon for this is that majority of the yam farmers in
Kogi and Benue States were mostly engaged in both indigenous
and improved post-harvest management pracces of yam. This
result agrees with that of who idened the above-menoned
acvies to be the post-harvest management pracces common
among farmers [3].
Post-harvest handling informaon needs of yam
farmers
Table 2 indicates that 17.92, 28.75%, 50.00% and 3.33% of yam
farmers said they just needed, moderate, high informaon on
storage of yam tubers, and not needed at all. Emphasis on the
needed informaon was in the area of access to warehouses in
order to improve the shelf life of tubers and also, to protect them
from the. This result agrees with that of who reported that the
highly sought informaon by yam farmers was that of storage of
yam tubers [19].
With respect to informaon on markets/market prices, 24.17%,
16.25%, 39.17% and 20.42 of the respondents said they just
needed, moderate, high informaon and not needed at all
respecvely. The proporon of respondents who did not indicate
need for the informaon at all may be due to fact that market
integraon among farmers is high in terms of geng informaon
readily from neigbours/friends and fellow farmers and as such
may not consider the response to this informaon necessary. This
result does not agree with those who in their various respecve
studies idened yam markeng informaon to be highly sought
for by yam farmers in Ghana [20,21].
In terms of informaon on credits, 17.08%, 20.83%, 40.00% and
22.08% claimed they just needed, moderate, high informaon
and not needed at all, especially on the availability of credits
in order to boost their post-harvest acvies. With respect to
pescides/inseccides, 25.00%, 21.67%, 18.75% and 34.58%
Yam tuber stored under a shade by a farmer.
Figure 1
A typical yam barn (storage method) in Ibaji, Kogi State.
Figure 2
Variables Just needed
1 (Freq)
Moderate
2 (Freq)
High 3
(Freq)
Not needed
at all
Storage 43 (17.92) 69 (28.75) 120
(50.00) 8 (3.33)
Processing 85 (35.42) 40 (16.67) 36 (15.00) 79 (32.92)
Transportaon 42 (17.50) 102 (42.50) 73 (30.42) 23 (9.58)
Markets/market
prices 58 (24.17) 39 (16.25) 94 (39.17) 49 (20.42)
Weather 67 (27.91) 54 (22.50) 22 (9.17) 97 (40.42)
Pescides/
inseccides 60 (25.00) 52 (21.67) 45 (18.75) 83 (34.58)
Credit availability 41 (17.08) 50 (20.83) 96 (40.00) 53 (22.08)
Drying 76 (31.67) 30 (12.50) 37 (15.42) 97 (40.42)
Note: Mulple responses; Field survey in 2014. The gures in parenthesis
are in percentages (%).
Table 2 Distribuon of respondents according to their level of post-
harvest management informaon needs on yam, n=154.

2017
Vol. 2 No. 3: 9
5
© Under License of Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
Journal of Nutraceuticals and Food Science
of the respondents claimed the needed low, moderate, high
informaon, and not needed at all respecvely; on where and
how to procure/apply them on yam.
In terms of processing of yam into forms like our (alebo or
ibe), boiled yam, fried yam, pounded yam and others, 35.42%,
16.67%, 15.00% and 32.92% of the respondents claimed they
just needed, moderate, high informaon and not needed at
all respecvely. The farmers who did not respond to this area
of informaon need might be ed to the fact that there was no
improved method of processing yam available to them and too,
the major product of yam is pounded yam and very few farmers
processed the tubers into yam pellet or our (alebo) and other
forms.
With respect to transportaon, 17.50%, 42.50%, 30.42% and
9.58% of the respondents just needed, moderate, high informaon
and not needed at all respecvely on how to transport their yams
either from farm-gate to their homes/markets or from home to
the markets.
This result implies that informaon on post-harvest handling of
yam that was highly sought for was only in the area of storage by
farmers in Kogi and Benue States. This means that informaon
on storage of yam was the priority need of yam farmers as of the
me of this research. This result agrees that high level of post-
harvest informaon need by yam farmers were recorded [22].
This could also be deduced that the group of yam farmers who
claimed just needed informaon for some of the post-harvest
management technologies could be ed to the fact that they
might be sased with the exisng post-harvest pracces they
are used to or they informaon available to them might not
sasfy their felt needs.
Sources of informaon on improved post-
harvest management technologies to yam
farmers
Table 3 indicated the sources of informaon on improved post-
harvest management technologies available to yam farmers.
The result shows that 81.67.87% of the respondents claimed
they sourced their post-harvest informaon from their friends/
neigbours (including fellow farmers). This result is dierent from
that of Ibrahim et al. in 2009 who reported that 46.00% of the
farmers claimed they sourced their post-harvest management
informaon from their friends/neighbours.
The result shows that 41.67% of the respondents received their
post-harvest informaon from community-based organizaons
in the study area. Example of these organizaons are the youth,
women and men organizaons that operate under various names
and umbrellas, age grade or peer groups and credits and thri
sociees.
The result shows that 39.58% of the respondents obtained
their source of post-harvest management informaon on yam
from religious organisaons like the Catholic Men Organisaon
(CMO), Catholic Women Organisaon (CWO), and ANSAR’DIN of
the Moslem Faith which create forum for both men and women
farmers to meet and interact.
The result also reveals that 67.91% of the respondents sourced
their post-harvest management informaon on yam from Kogi
State Agricultural Development Project (KSADP) and Benue State
Agricultural and Rural Development Agency (BNARDA).
The KSADP and BNARDA through the extension agents (village
extension workers) relay post-harvest informaon to their
contact farmers who also diuse the informaon to the non-
contact farmers in the study area.
About 2% of the respondents said they received their post-
harvest informaon from the research instutes such as the
sub-staons of the Coacoa Research Instute at Ochaja and that
of Naonal Instute for Oil Palm Research (NIFOR) at Acharu-
Egume in Dekina Local Area of Kogi State which apart from their
major research and extension mandates, engage in research into
some food crops like maize, yam, cassava and others.
Access of yam farmers to informaon
on improved post-harvest management
technologies
Table 4 shows the result of the access of yam farmers to
informaon on improved post-harvest management technologies.
It reveals that majority of the respondents (77.50%) claimed
that they had access to informaon on improved transportaon
system (motorcycles, pick-up vans, lorries and other trucks).
Figure 3 shows some of the transportaon systems used in the
study area. The result also shows that 32.08% of the respondents
had access to informaon on pescides/inseccides applicaon;
42.08% of them said they had access to improved informaon
on processing the yam tubers into yam slabs or chips, our
and pounded yam; 27.08% of the respondents had access to
informaon on storage of yam in a warehouse found in and
Source of informaon Frequency Percentage (%)
Research instutes 20 8.33
Universies 38 15.83
KSADP/BNARDA 163 67.91
NGOs 75 31.25
Colleges of educaon 13 5.42
Friends/neighbors 196 81.67
Religious organizaons 95 39.58
Community meengs 100 41.67
Note: Mulple responses; Field survey in 2014.
Table 3 Distribuon of respondents according to the sources of post-
harvest informaon on yam available to them, n=154.
Improved post-harvest
management technologies Access No access Total (%)
Transportaon 186 (77.50) 54 (22.50) 100
Processing into yam our 101 (42.08) 139 (57.92) 100
Pescides/inseccides
applicaon 77 (32.08) 163 (67.92) 100
Storage of yam in warehouses 65 (27.08) 175 (72.92) 100
Table 4 Access to In f orma on on Impr o v e d pos t -harvest management
technologies of yam n=154.

2017
Vol. 2 No. 3: 9
Journal of Nutraceuticals and Food Science
6This arcle is available in: hp://nutraceucals.imedpub.com/archive.php
around the markets as earlier discussed in the case of maize. This
means that majority of the yam farmers in Kogi State had lile or
no access to informaon on improved post-harvest management
technologies.
Yam being transported in lorries.
Figure 3
Conclusion
This result agrees with those of that yam farmers had lile or
no access to informaon on improved post-harvest management
technologies [20,23,24]. The ndings on implicaon of inadequate
access to informaon on improved post-harvest management
technologies, especially in area of storage leading to losses of the
order of 10% to 15% aer the rst three months and approaching
50% aer six months of storage is applicable here [3,8].
The implicaon for this is that, yam farmers in Kogi and Benue
States have suered losses and were normally compelled to sell
their yams at give-away prices. Yam farmers could not access
the post-harvest management technologies probably due to
the fact that these technologies were not available or they
were not aware of their availability owing to ineciency and
ineecveness of the extension agents, and that if they were
available, they were not aordable in terms of the cost-sharing
approach of the KSADP and BNARDA. Opined that improving the
rao of extension agents to farmers will improve their access
to informaon and subsequently improve their knowledge of
postharvest acvies of yam [25-28].
References
1 Ayado S (2017) Discordant tunes over yam export policy in
Nigeria. Arcle published in the Leadership Newspaper 19th June 2017.
2 Ansah IGK, Teeh BKD (2016) Determinants of yam postharvest
management in the Zabzugu district of northern Ghana. Adv in Agr
2016: 1-9.
3 Osunde ZD (2008) Minimizing post-harvest losses in yam (dioscorea
spp): Treatment and techniques. Internaonal Union of Food Science
and Technology, Federal University of Technology, Nigeria. Chapter 12.
4 Verter N, Becvarova V (2015) An analysis of yam producon in
Nigeria. Acta Univ Agric Silvic Mendelianae Brun is 63: 659-665.
5 Lopez SK, Maroya N (2013) Healthy yam seed producon.
Internaonal Instute of Tropical Agriculture IITA, Africa.
6 Reuben J, Barau AD (2012) Resource use eciency in yam producon
in Taraba state, Nigeria. J of Agr Sci 3: 71-77.
7 Nweke FI (2017) West African yam food technologies: Prospects and
impediments to change. Afr J Fd Sci Tech 8: 40-49
8 FAO (2000) Improvement of post-harvest techniques. FAO Corporate
Document Repository. The World Cassava economy: Facts, Trends
and outlook, Rome. p. 34.
9 FAO (2003) African experience in the improvement of post-harvest
techniques. FAO Corporate Document Repository. The World Cassava
economy: Facts, Trends and outlook, Rome.
10 IITA (2008) Root and tuber system documents. Press Release in the
News Bullen, IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria. pp. 3-4.
11 Awuah RT, Akrasi KO (2007) Suppression of tuber rot of yam caused
by Aspergillus niger with a yam Rhizobacterium. African Crop Science
Society. pp. 875-879.
12 Tinsley RL (2009) Post-harvest handling and seed quality evaluaon
for selected value chain commodity in Nigeria. CNFA-WASA/seeds
USAID/MARKETS, Nigeria. p. 8.
13 Kotler P (1997) Markeng management: Analysis, planning,
implementaon and control. Internaonal (Ed) Prence- Hall
Internaonal Inc., USA. pp. 530.
14 Akoroda MO (2009) Global economic meltdown and Nigerian
agriculture. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Conference of the
Agricultural Society of Nigeria. p. 4.
15 Ferris RSB (1995) Postharvest technology and commodity markeng.
Proceedings of a Postharvest Conference 2nd November, Ghana.
16 Salau S (2008) Enhancing commodity value chains in Nigeria.
Internaonal Food Policy Research Instute. Abuja, Nigeria.
17 Omolehin RA, Olukosi JO (2008) Linkage between technology
generaon and disseminaon for sustainable food security in
Nigeria. Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Conference of the Agricultural
Extension Society of Nigeria, Nigeria. pp. 59-67.
18 Eboh EC (2009) Social and economic research, principles and
method. Enugu African Instute for Applied Economics. pp. 69-71.
19 Ofem NI, Ndifon HM, Kalu IO, Ntui OE (2011) Extension communicaon
and farmers’ adopon of yam producon technologies in South-
South Nigeria. Global J Agri Sci 10: 145-150.
20 Martey E, Annin K, Nimo W, Aoh C (2012) Does access to market
informaon determine the choice of markeng channel among
smallholder yam farmers in the Brong Aghafo region of Ghana? A
mulnomial logit regression analysis. J Econ Sustain Dev 3: 21-28.
21 Centre for Technology and Economic Development (CTED) (2013)
Market informaon system for rural farmers evaluaon of esoko MIS
year 1 result. New York University, NY, USA.
22 Uganneya S, Umaru I (2008) Access to informaon and communicaon
media by women farmers in Benue State, Nigeria. Pat J 4: 53-61.
23 Okoedo-Okojie DU, Onemolease AE (2009) Factors aecng the
adopon of yam storage technologies in the Northern ecological
zone of Edo State, Nigeria. J Hum Ecol 27: 155-160.
24 Nnadi FN, Akwiwu CD (2007) Farmers’ disconnuance decision

2017
Vol. 2 No. 3: 9
7
© Under License of Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
Journal of Nutraceuticals and Food Science
behaviour of yam mini set technology in Imo state, Nigeria. Int J and
Rural Dev 9: 80-84.
25 Adisa RS, Adefalu LL, Olanwo LK, Balogun, KS, Opeyemi OO
(2015) Determinants of post-harvest losses of yam among yam
farmers in Eki state, Nigeria. Bull Inst Trop Agr Kyushu Univ 38: 73-78.
26 Centre for Development Innovaon (2010) Impact of improved
post-harvest management on food security in developing countries.
Wageningen UR Centre for Development Innovaon, Netherlands.
27 Expanded Programme for Root and Tuber Crops (2011) Annual
Report of the Programme under the auspices of KADP. pp. 12.
28 Federal Government Nigeria (2007) Federal Republic of Nigeria
Ocial Gazee, Nigeria. 94: 182-183.