


































1  

 
Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. 

 

 

Full Length Research Paper 

The Socioeconomic Characteristics of Pig 
Farmers in the Tropics as a Determinant of Pig 

Production and Profitability 

Dozie de A. and Tamunotonye V. 

University of Abuja, Abuja, Nigeria 

  Accepted 22 January, 2025  

 

In Nigeria's Imo State, the socioeconomic traits of pig farmers were examined as factors influencing 
their output and financial success. Determining the socioeconomic characteristics of pig farmers, 
identifying the pig production systems in the study area, estimating the costs and returns associated 
with pig production, analyzing the constraints to pig production in the study area, and describing the 
socioeconomic characteristics of pig farmers will be the specific objectives. For a detailed 
investigation, 90 pig farmers will be selected using a multi-stage random sample process. Structured 
questionnaires and secondary sources from conferences, seminars, journals, published and 
unpublished theses, and workshops provided the data for this study. The frequency distribution table 
and percentage response were used to record the first, second, and third objectives. Gross margin 
analysis and the Cobb Douglas production function, respectively, were used to address objectives iii 
and iv. The socioeconomic characteristics of the sampled farmers were as follows: they were male, 
older, educated, had a large household, were more likely to use family labor, were experienced, and the 
majority of pig farmers used intensive rearing techniques, while the least number used extensive 
methods. Additionally, the majority of farmers were involved in Farrow to finish enterprises, with animal 
breeding being the least common. The Cobb Douglas production function revealed that piglet type, 
raising experience, organization membership, and pharmaceutical costs were positively correlated with 
the profitability of pig farming. Because their return scale was 3.0141, which is higher than unitary, the 
pig farmers in the study area were working in stage 1 (irrational stage), which is not at their optimal 
production size. With net farm income of N334,542 and gross revenue of N740,000 per sampled farmer, 
pig production was profitable in the research area. High feed and housing costs, issues with product 
marketing, high labor costs, and limited financing availability were the main obstacles to pig production 
in the research area. Among the suggestions made were the necessity of improving farmers' access to 
commercial bank credit, encouraging extension agents by covering their local transportation costs 
while doing their tasks, and guaranteeing that farmers have access to legitimate medications. 

 
Key words: Socioeconomic characteristics, Pig, Farmers, Profitability, Determinant, Pig production. 

 

 
INTRODUCTION 

 

A large percentage of the rural population in many sub-
Saharan African countries suffers from hunger and 
malnutrition due to a lack of animal protein, a situation 
that has been extensively documented in various 
publications (Ajala et al., 2007; Food Agriculture 
Organization, FAO, 2008, Ume et al., 2019). For 
example, in many Nigerian rural areas, the daily 
consumption of animal protein was 38 grams per caput, 
which is less than the Food Agriculture Organization's 

(FAO) minimum recommendation of 65 grams per caput per 
day. The aforementioned situation has a significant impact 
on their health, and the most frequently mentioned health 
issues in the research include poor mental capacity, low 
labor productivity, and slow national economic growth (FAO, 
2008, Ewuziem, et al., 2010).  
 

One of the quickest ways to combat the lack of animal 
protein in the diets of the majority of people in rural parts of 

 
 

 

 

African Journal of Pig Farming ISSN: 2375-0731 Vol. 13 (1), pp. 001-008, January, 2025. Available online at 

www.internationalscholarsjournals.org © International Scholars Journals 

 
 

http://www.internationalscholarsjournals.org/


 

 

 

developing nations is to increase the consumption of 
pigs. This may be due to the pig's inherent traits, such as 
its ability to adapt to situations in which other animals are 
unable to survive, its ability to efficiently use household 
waste and byproducts to produce fresh meat, its large 
litter size per sow, its superior carcass yielding ability 
over cattle, sheep, and goats, its high dressing 
percentage of roughly 70% as opposed to 52.5% for 
cattle and roughly 50% for sheep and goats, and its 
effective conversion of feed energy to body energy 
(Okolo, 2011, Osondu, et al., 2014). According to 
Steinbach (1997) and Bamiro et al. (2008), pig carcasses 
also have a larger proportion of edible meat and less 
bones, as well as high fecundity, high feed conversion 
efficiency, early maturity, short generation intervals, and a 
relatively small space demand.Its meat (bacon), however, 
is the main source of income and foreign exchange 
earnings; pigskin and bristles are used to make light 
leather and brushes (John, 2007); pig manure is a 
valuable fertilizer; it can be aerobically digested to 
produce cooking gas; it may promote the growth of 
microorganisms and plants for aquatic animals to eat 
(Osondu et al., 2013); and it can be used as a source of 
labor and employment (Umeh et al., 2015). Pig and 
poultry businesses are growing at the quickest rates in 
the livestock industry, while other emerging nations are 
seeing stagnant or declining growth (FAO, 2008).Pig 
production is declining, which could have a negative 
impact on the enterprise's profitability. This decline could 
be caused by a number of factors, including poor quality 
feeds from unbalanced rations, poor access to veterinary 
services, farmers' illiteracy, limited credit available for 
purchasing material inputs, poor housing due to the high 
cost of building materials, and occasionally pigs kept in 
makeshift shelters (Pond and Manr, 1998; Ume, et al, 
2018). Moreover, the country's absence of a pig product 
processing business, high feed costs, inadequate 
infrastructure, a lack of genetically sound breeders, and 
the concern of a small market for pig products are all 
factors (Ewusiem et al., 2008, Getara, 2009, Ume et al., 
2017). The aforementioned issues have the potential to 
lower the production output of pig farmers, which would 
lower their profit margins. According to Ironkwe and 
Amefule (2008), successive governments at the state and 
federal levels have implemented various programs to 
boost animal production, including the farm settlement 
scheme, the Agricultural Development Programme 
(ADP), the Better Life Program, and a microcredit 
scheme for livestock parent/foundation stock. However, 
these initiatives have not produced much. In actuality, 
many farmers have abandoned their operations, making 
the nation's population's protein intake deficiency much 
more complicated. However, research indicates that 
suitable disease control methods, such as appropriate 
medicine, adequate feed and feeding (drugs), good 
breeding selection, and acceptable housing practices, 
can achieve optimal pig development and profitability 
(Agada, 1991, Ajala, et al., 2007). Therefore, the purpose 
of this work is to evaluate the socioeconomic traits of pig 
farmers as a factor that influences pig profitability in the 
research region. This could be useful because, with a 
thorough understanding of the socioeconomic 

characteristics of farmers and other swine production 
attendants, the management options they use or have 
access to, and the likely effects on production, it could help 
stakeholders and policy makers focus on the areas that 
require immediate intervention to improve the productivity 
and production of piggery enterprises and address the lack 
of protein in the diets of the majority of Nigerians, especially 
those living in rural areas. The specific goals are to: (i) 
characterize the socioeconomic traits of pig farmers; (ii) 
identify the systems of pig production in the study area; (iii) 
ascertain the impact of the socioeconomic traits of pig 
farmers on their profit; (iv) calculate the costs and returns 
associated with pig production; and (v) identify and analyze 
the barriers to pig production in the study area. 

 
MATERIALS AND METHODS 

 
The Study Area 
 
Imo State, Nigeria, which lies between latitudes 7056" and 
6064'N of the Equator and longitudes 6046' and 5049E of the 
Greenwich Meridian, was the subject of the study. Anambra State 
borders the state to the north, Abia State borders it to the east, 
and Rivers and Imo States border it to the south and west, 
respectively. Its temperatures range from 26 to 440 degrees 
Celsius, its rainfall ranges from 1500 to 2800 mm, and its relative 
humidity is moderate at 65%. Imo is made up of numerous 
villages, numerous autonomous communities, and twenty-seven 
Loc al Government Areas (LGAS). With a population of 3,934 
million, it occupies an area of 5100 km² (11). Yam, cassava, 
maize, and cocoyam are among the crops grown by the Imo 
people, who are mostly farmers. Pigs, poultry, goats, lambs, 
rabbits, and snails were among the animals raised by the 
farmers. The farmers also worked as saloon workers, auto 
mechanics, traders, civil servants, and hostelers. 

 
Sampling Procedure and Sample Size 

Local Government Areas (LGA), communities, villages, and 
respondents were chosen using purposive and multi-stage 
random selection approaches. First, three LGAs were 
specifically chosen for pig production due to their proximity to 
three-three (3-3) breweries. Okigwe North, Ideato North, and 
Ideato South were the LGAs that were chosen. Second, from 
each of the chosen LGAs, three communities were chosen at 
random out of five.  
 
This resulted in nine communities overall. Third, out of the nine 
communities, ten villages were chosen at random. This 
increased the number of villages to 90. Lastly, a total of 90 
farmers were chosen for in-depth analysis, one from each of the 
90 communities.  
 

Method of Data Collection 
 
Both primary and secondary sources provided the data for this 
investigation. Structured questionnaires and informal or oral 
interviews with respondents were used to derive the primary 
data. Information on labor costs, medication costs (drugs, 
disinfectants, and vaccines), years of farming experience, 
educational attainment, water use in pig production, household 
and flock sizes, and access to institutional and non-institutional 
credit were all gathered through the questionnaire. 



 

 

 

 
Method of Data Analysis 
 
The frequency distribution table and percentage response 
were used to record the first, second, and third objectives. 
Gross margin analysis and Cobb Douglas production function 
and factor analysis were used to meet objectives iii, iv, and v, 
respectively. 
 

Model Specification Cobb Douglas 
 

Since the 1930s, the Cobb-Douglass theory of production has 
offered a crucial framework for calculating productivity and the 
use of production factors. Under the presumption of constant 
returns to scale production, Cobb and Douglas modeled the 
increase of output in the American manufacturing sector 
between 1899 and 1922, where the output of commodities was 
determined by the combination of two factor inputs, namely 
labor and capital. The technological link between the quantities 
of two or more inputs (often labor and physical capital) and the 
output that can be produced in a production process is 
commonly denoted by the Cobb-Douglas production function. 
Cobb-Douglas is preferred in both developed and emerging 
nations since it can be used to analyze diverse economic 
policies and to function in numerous sectors of a nation's 
economy. It is used, for example, to rationally decide how 
much of each input factor to use in order to reduce production 
costs. It’s mathematically expressed as: 

 
Y = ALαKβ (1) 

 
Where Y = total output, L = units of labour, K = units of 

capital, and α and β are elasticity of labour and capital, and A 
is an efficiency parameter. The parameter A is the efficiency 
parameter. It serves as an indicator of the state of technology. 
The higher the value of A, the higher would be the level of 
output that can be produced by any particular combination of 
the inputs. The Cobb Douglas production function A, a and b 
are positive parameters where = a > O, b > O. The equation 
describes that productivity depends directly on L and C and 
that part of output which cannot be explained by L and C are 
explained by A which is the residual, often called technical 
change (Hajkova andHurnik, 2007). 
 
The function was criticized from three fronts by economics 
scholars, namely on assumption of constant returns to scale 
which the model built its analysis, on the omission of technical 
change, thereby having the notion that technology I static 
within the duration of the study which is not possible in realities 
(Fraser, 2002). Furthermore, the neoclassical economists 
criticized the model on the basis that the productivity theory 
centered more of an pensiveness than a proven. 
In Logarithms, the equation is: 

Log Y = log Xo + log X1 + log X2……… + log Xn (2) 

Where; 
X1 = Quantity of feed consumed in kilogram, X2 = Labour ( 
Mandays), X3 = Cost of Medication (Drugs, disinfectants and 
vaccines) (N), X4 = Years of rearing experience (Years), . X5 = 
Educational level (Years), X6 = Quantity of water(Litres), X 7 

= Household Size (No), X8 = Flock Size(No), X9 = Credit (N) 
 

Benefit cost Ratio: 
 
This was used to estimate farm net revenue for pig production. 
Theoretically, net revenue (NR) is the total revenue (TR) less 
the total cost(TC); 
NR = TR – TC ................................................ (3) 
Total cost is the addition of the entire variable cost(VC) and 
fixed cost (FC) items; TC = TVC + TFC ........... (4) 
Total revenue is the total amount of money that a farmer 
received from the sale of stock; 
TR = ΣPxQx ................................................ (5) 
Gross margin (GM) = TR – TVC…    (6) 
Net farm income (NFI) = GM − TFC   (7) 
The rate of return is a performance measure used to measure 
the amount of return on an investment relative to the investment 
cost. It is given by: 
Rate of Returns (ROR) = NR/TC...................... (8) 
Gross Ratio (GR) = TC/TR ..............................(9) 
Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) = TR/TC   (10) 
P = price per pig 
Q = quantity of pig sold 
Pig production is profitable if its BCR ≥ 1. The higher the BCR, 
the more profitable the pig production business is. Depreciation 
was calculated using the straight line method Factor analysis 
 
Factor analysis was used to analysis the constraints to pig 
production in the study area using principal component factor 
analysis with varimax -rotation with factor loading of 0.3 was 
used. The constraints to pig production in the study area were 
categorized into three factors using varimax rotation and factor 
loading of 0.30. The principal component factor analysis model 
is stated thus 
R1 = Y11 M1 + B12 M2 +----------Yn1 Mn 

……………….. (11) 

R2 = Y21 M2 + B22 M2 + ----------------- Y
2
nMn 

………………..(12) 

R3 = Y31 M3 + B32M2+ --------------------- Y3nMn 

,………………(13) 

Rn = Yn1M1 +Bn2M2 + ------------------------------ YnnMn 

…………………….(14) 

Where; 
R 1 = cn= observed variable /constraints in pig production pdts 
Y1= Yn = Factor loading or correlating coefficients 
M1 = Mn =unobserved underlying challenging 
factors facing pig production 
 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

 

Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Farmers 
 
Table 1 shows that 58.9 % of the respondents were more than 41 
years and above, whilst 42.1% of them were within the age range 
of less than 41 years. 
 
 
 
 



 

 

 

 

Table 1: Distribution of Respondents According to 
Socioeconomic Characteristics 

 

Variable Frequen
cy 

Percentag
e 

Mean 

Age    

21- 30 15 27.5  

31 – 40 22 24.4 42 

41 – 50 20 22.2  

51 and above 33 36.7  

Educational Level    
Non formal 
education 

15 16.7  

Primary education 25 27.8  

Secondary 
education 

17 18.9  

Tertiary education 8 6.7  

Household size    

1 – 5 18 20  
6 – 10 35 39.9 7.2 

11 -16 30 33.4  
17 – 21 7 7.8  

Farming 
Experience 

   

1 – 10 20 22.2  

11- 20 56 66.2  
21 and above 14 15.6 11.4 

Drug/Vaccine 
Usage 

   

Yes 90 100  

No - -  

Labour Source    

Family 41 45.6  
Hired 17 18.9  

Communal 6 6.7  

Hired & Family 26 28.9  

Water Usage    

Yes 90 100  
No - -  

Rearing Method    

Intensive System 59 65.6  

Semi Intensive 21 23.3  
Extensive 10 11.1  

Enterprises    
Farrow 23 25.6  

Farrow - Finish 40 44.4  

Finishing 
operation 

20 22.2  

Breeding 7 7.8  

Source; Field Survey; 2018 

 

This suggested that older farmers dominated the production 
of pigs in the research area, and older farmers are typically 
knowledgeable and skilled managers who can run their 
businesses to generate large profits (Duniya et al., 2013). 

This result contradicted the findings of Rahman et al. (2008), 
who claimed that young people dominated their field of study. 
They noted that this farming group is typically creative and 
inspiring to advance the frontier of pig production and achieve 
high profitability.  
 

Additionally, primary education was held by the majority of pig 
farmers (27.8%), followed by secondary education (18.7%), and 
university education (6.7%). Farmers' educational attainment 
improves their managerial skills, openness to innovation, and 
comprehension and evaluation of new production technology, all 
of which contribute to increased farm productivity and business 
profitability (Ironkwe and Amaefule, 2008).According to Table 1, 
77.8% of the sampled farmers had more than 11 years of 
farming experience, whereas 22.2% had less than 11 years. 
This suggested that the farmers in the research region had a 
great deal of expertise raising pigs. According to Ume et al. 
(2018), farmers with years of experience raising livestock are 
better able to set reasonable goals and use their resources 
wisely in order to increase their output, which might potentially 
result in significant profits. Additionally, all of the pig farmers in 
the study area who were sampled employed drugs and vaccines 
to treat and prevent pig production diseases, respectively. The 
main issues with the usage of these medications and 
vaccinations are their scarcity at the farm level, their poor 
quality, and the fact that the majority of the vaccines are not 
maintained in the cold chain, which causes them to lose their 
viability. High mortality, low productivity, and low profitability are 
the results (Ewuziem et al., 2009).  
 

According to Table 1 above, the majority of respondents 
(38.9%) had households with 6–10 people, while the smallest 
(7.8%) had households with 16–20 people. Pig production 
typically employs larger farming households with a larger 
number of labor-age members in order to lower production costs 
resulting from high labor costs and high profit margins (Ezeibe, 
2010). In addition, the chart shows that 45.6% of the farmers in 
the sample employed family labor to raise pigs, followed by 
family and hired labor (28.0%) and communal labor (6.7%). 
Small-scale farmers in sub-Saharan Africa employ family labor 
in a unique way to reduce high production costs, which may be 
related to great profitability.  
 

Additionally, water was employed in pig production by all of the 
sampled pig producers in the research area. According to 
studies, water makes up around 82 percent of the body weight 
of young pigs and 55 percent of the body weight of market hogs, 
making it the single greatest ingredient of the body (Ewuziem et 
al., 2010). However, a high water content (86–98%) in pig dung 
raises storage and disposal costs, according to Holness (1999). 
Furthermore, the majority of respondents (65.6%) raised their 
pigs in an intense system, followed by those who raised them in 
a semi-intensive system (23.3%) and the respondents who 
raised them in an extended system of management (11.1%). 
According to studies, rearing practices are important for swine 
production since they facilitate management and enable farmers 
to successfully raise 85% or more of the animals in the lowest 
amount of time (Pathraja and Oyedipe, 1990).However, the 
following traits are present in pigs raised under intensive 
management: Slow growth, insect and disease infestation, 
irregular sow breed, high piglet mortality, and low output due to 



 

 

 

inconsistent seasonal feeding (Getara et al., 2009). 
According to Table 11, the majority of respondents (52.2%) 
worked in the farrow and finish enterprise, while the smallest 
percentage (22.2%) worked in the finishing operation. 
Compared to other prosperous businesses, the farrow and 
finish process required greater facilities (Pond and Manar, 
1998).  

 

Results of Cobb Douglas Production Function 
 

The Results of Cobb Douglas production function is presented 
in Table 2 

As per the findings of Ume et al. (2018), the profitability of the 
pig operation was negatively correlated with the age of the 
household head. Contrary to the strength needed for pig 
production, the variable's sign identity may be linked to the 
waning of strength that comes with aging. The result is that 
these family heads use labor to carry out the pig producing 
activities, which hurts the farm's bottom line. Furthermore, at a 
1% significance level, the breed type of the piglets' coefficient 
correlates positively with the profitability of the pig farm. This 
suggests that piglets with traits like good litter sizes, leanness, 
muscle, current growth rates, and high feed conversion to pork 
efficiency are more likely to yield high profits than piglets with 
traits that contrast with the previously mentioned characteristics 
(Bamiro et al., 2008).Additionally, the labor cost coefficient was 
statistically significant at the 5% significance level and had a 
negative sign to the profit of pig producers. Because pig 
production requires a lot of labor, only a small number of 
workers could volunteer, but at extremely high wages. The low 
worker acceptability may be due to their fear of pig bites and 
their allergy to the smell of the animal's produce. This outcome 
supported the findings of Ogunfowona et al. (1990), who noted 
that raising pigs is a laborious process that requires effective 
management to lessen the odor connected with its production. 
Additionally, there was a positive correlation between the 
farmers' level of profit and the rearing experience coefficients. 
This means that a one-year increase in the number of years of 
household farming experience might lead to a profit gain equal 
to the coefficient's size. Mpofu and Makuza's (2003) findings 
supported the aforementioned claim. They believed that 
farmers with a lot of experience are more likely to combine 
resources in the best way to increase productivity, which could 
result in a large profit. Nevertheless, the household size 
coefficient was statistically significant at the 5% alpha level and 
positive, as predicted by a priori analysis. According to Ume et 
al. (2017), "the more household members of labor age and 
availability the household head has, the more likely it is that 
they will use them to implement pig husbandry management 
technologies and save the money that could have been paid to 
hired laborers as part of the business profit." In order to 
alleviate the labor constraints that are typical in agricultural 
production, particularly during the peak farming season when 
labor is expensive and scarce, they proposed that families with 
large and mature household members have a greater chance 
of implementing labor-intensive technologies related to pig 
production.  
 

Furthermore, at a 95% confidence interval, the feed cost 
coefficient demonstrated an indirect association with farm profit 
in pig production. This could imply that the higher the 

proportion of concentrates in pig diets compared to domestic and 
crop leftovers, the higher the outputs, but the lower the potential 
profit due to the high cost of the resource (concentrates). This 
result is consistent with a number of studies (Bama et al., 2004; 
Rahman et al., 2008; Okolo, 2011) that show the detrimental 
effects of feeding pigs to grains, particularly in the majority of sub-
Saharan African nations where grains are in short supply and 
fiercely compete with humans, resulting in low farm productivity 
and little profit. Furthermore, as anticipated, the pig farmer's 
educational status coefficient was positive, meaning that a unit 
increase in the family head's years of education will result in a 
profit rise equal to the coefficient. The variable's positive sign may 
be explained by the fact that farmers with higher levels of 
education are better able to understand and respond to new and 
improved innovations, which can increase their output and profit 
on their farms compared to those with lower levels of education. 
However, research indicates that a sufficient extension delivery 
system could compensate for farmers' lack of education, 
particularly with regard to the adoption of new technology 
(Rahman et al., 2008). Additionally, at the 10% alpha level, the 
flock size coefficient was positive and statistically significant. The 
coefficient's sign matched the a priori hypothesis, indicating that 
farmers are more likely to make more money from pig sales if 
their flock size is larger. This result is consistent with Ume et al. 
(2018)'s analysis of the economics of pig production in Nigeria's 
Ebonyi State's Ezza North Local Government Area. Additionally, 
at the 5% alpha level, the drug cost coefficient was positive and 
significant. The outcome might make it necessary for pig farmers 
to have greater access to pharmaceuticals, disinfectants, and 
vaccines in order to increase their level of output and profit. On 
the other hand, the FAO (2008) found that subpar and adulterated 
drugs and vaccines were flooding many markets in the majority of 
Africa's developing nations. Additionally, the high cost of these 
medications to farmers could result in high animal mortality and 
low profit margins. Additionally, the organization's membership 
coefficient was significant at the 1.0% risk threshold and positively 
correlated with pig profitability in the research area. This suggests 
that farmers who belong to groups like cooperatives are more 
likely to turn a profit than those who do not. This could be 
explained by the cooperative's capacity to instill in its members a 
more positive attitude toward adopting innovations through 
information access, member interactions, and training (Osundu et 
al., 2014). 

 
Production Elasticity and Return to Scale  
 

The return to scale of the production function is shown in Table 2 

The degree to which output responds to changes in inputs is 
measured by the elasticity of production. Given the Cobb 
Douglas specification of the model, the direct elasticity of 
production for the different inputs serves as an estimate for the 
parameters of stochastic frontier production.  
 
Pig production in the study area had a return to scale of 3.0141. 
Since this number exceeds unity, the return to scale is 
increasing. This suggests that the farmers were not producing at 
their best scale and were instead functioning in stage 1, or the 
irrational stage. Therefore, in order to increase their outputs, 
farmers must add additional resources or inputs to their 
production. 

  



 

 

 

Table 2: Production Elasticity and Return to Scale 

 

Variable Elastici
ty 

Piglet Type 0.6591 

Cost of feed -
0.48632 

Cost of Capital 0.5430 
Cost of 

Medication 
1.4390 

Cost of Water 0.5741 

Flock Size 0.8444 

Cost of Labour -0.5591 

Return to 
Scale 

3.0141 

Source; Field Survey; 2018 

 

Costs and Returns in Pig Production  

 

Table 3 showed that the average total cost of production 
incurred by the respondents was N101,810. 
 
Both variable and fixed costs make up the overall cost; 
according to the table, variable costs account for 86% of the 
production costs, while fixed costs make up 5.29%. 
Furthermore, the cost of feed accounts for 50.5%, labor for 
28.97%, and medications, disinfectants, and vaccines for 
6.83%. Each respondent's average gross revenue was N444, 
000. For each respondent, the average gross margin was 
N350, 330. Each respondent's average net farm income was 
N342,190. Consequently, N19,010 was the average net farm 
income per pig. This suggested that raising pigs is a lucrative 
endeavor. According to the table, the total cost of production 
for ten (10) pigs in the study region, including total variable 
costs and total fixed costs, was N 383,458.  
 
Eighty-six percent of the overall production costs were 
variable, and ninety-four percent were fixed. Furthermore, the 
cost of feed accounted for 56.6% of the overall production 
costs, followed by the cost of piglets (17.2%) and the least 
expensive drug (1.5%). The competition for human 
consumption of the same ingredients may be the cause of the 
high cost of pig feed. As is frequently observed in African 
markets, the cheap cost of medication may be attributed to the 
fact that the majority of resource-poor farmers use Indigenous 
Known Technologies (IKT), which are expensive and of poor 
quality (Okolo, 2011). Each farmer in the sample had an 
average gross revenue of N740,000, while their net farm 
income was N334,542.  
 
Pig production had a 55% rate of return on investment, 
meaning that for every N1.00 invested, 54K was made. 
Because the Benefit-Cost Ratio (B C R) is greater than 1, it 
indicates that pig production is a lucrative enterprise. The 
gross margin ratio (G M R) was no different. The results of the 
expense structure ratio (E S R) also showed that the pig 
industry is financially sound. In conclusion, the business is 
profitable, according to the examination of the several 
profitability ratio methodologies.  

Varimax-Rotated Factors Against pig production 
 
Table 4, three factors were take out based on the reaction of the 
respondents to the questionnaire issued to them, 
 

Table 4 Varimax-Rotated Factors Against pig production in 
the Study Area. 

Variable Factor 
1 

Factor 
2 

Factor 
3 

Feed -0.115 0.312 0.171 
Poor breed 0.216 0.320* 0.003 

Housing 0.236 0.093 0.339 

Marketing of 
products 

-0.308 0.414 -
0.367 

Lack of capital 0.346* -0.137 0.212 

High labour cost 0232 0.329* -
0.119 

Poor extension 
contact 

0.318* -0.028 0.140 

Disease 0.122 -0.304 0.322* 

Veterinary posts 0.007 0.128 0.349* 

Inadequate 
equipment 

0.307 0.190 0.326* 

Lack of drugs 0.118 0.439* 0.127 

Source: computed from SAS 2018. 

Factor 1= economic/institutional factor, Factor 2 = infrastructural 
factor and Factor 3 = socio-financial factor (Ikani and Dafwang, 
1995). Only variable with factor loading of 0.30 and above at 10% 
overlapping variance were used in naming the factors.The factor 
loading of less than 0.30 and variables that loaded more than 
one factor were discarded. The variables that loaded more than 
one factor like inadequate equipment and marketing of product 
were revealed. In identification of the factors, Ume, et al; (2018) 
opined that each factor is assigned a value considering their 
disposition. The limitations underneath the economic /institutional 
factor include Capital problem (0.346) and poor access to 
extension services (0.318). The problem of poor access to credit 
has been a bane to agricultural development in Nigeria and this 
could be correlated to lack of collaterals, high interest rates, short-
term repayment and ignorance of loan source by the farming 
population (Ume, et al; 2018). In addition the problem of poor 
extension services to most pig farmers could be associated to 
high extension – farmers ratio, lack of technological information in 
pig farming and inadequate incentives to the change agents 
(Ezeibe, 2010) 
 
The following variables are loaded under factor 2 (infrastructure 
factor): high labor costs (0.329), feed costs (0.312), disease costs 
(0.304), and medicine costs (0.439). Since the majority of low-
income resource farmers use family labor in their pig operations, 
the high cost of labor has led to both a decrease in flock size and, 
as Okolo (2011) asserts, a high cost of production. 
 
Furthermore, the high cost of feed, particularly commercial 
components, forces farmers, especially those with limited 
resources, to feed their pigs with domestic or local food 
ingredients, which stunts their growth (Duniya et al., 2013).  
Furthermore, the majority of farmers abandon their farms due to 
low productivity to other economic activities because farm profits 
are no longer sufficient to support them due to the high cost of 
medications and vaccines, their inaccessibility at the farm level, 



 

 

 

and their lack of knowledge about how to use these 
medications (Ume et al., 2019). Additionally, the majority of 
pig-producing societies in developing nations continue to use 
local breeds of pigs due to their ability to withstand harsh 
weather conditions, low cost of piglets, resistance to pests and 
diseases, hardiness, and ability to be raised with minimal 
inputs through extensive rearing (Bama et al., 2008). 
Veterinary post (0.349), sickness (0.322), and housing (0.339) 
were the variables under socio-financial aspects. Due to the 
problem of substandard housing, mice, insects, and odors 
have proliferated, polluting the near and neighboring 
environments. For example, pigs are kept in unfinished 
housing in most rural locations, close to residential buildings 
and natural materials like bamboos. This means that pigs are 
frequently unrestrained and harm home property and the 
environment (Ajala et al., 2007). Due to limited access to 
veterinary care in most rural areas, most farmers are forced to 
self-medicate, about which they lack sufficient knowledge, and 
seek the services of quacks, which has resulted in the 
complete or partial eradication of a significant portion of the 
farmers' flocks (Agada, 1991). Furthermore, a significant 
mortality rate in pig production, especially for piglets, may 
result from diseases such brucellosis, Africa swine fever, 
diarrhea, and coccidiosis (Adesechinwa et al., 2003). 
 
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 

 

Conclusion 

 

These conclusions were reached in light of the data.  
The results of the socioeconomic characteristics revealed 
that the majority of the respondents were men, older, better 
educated, more likely to have a large home, more 
accustomed to family labor, and more experienced. The 
majority of pig farmers also worked in farrow-to-finish 
businesses and intensive rearing.Additionally, piglet type, 
raising experience, organization membership, pharmaceutical 
costs, flock size, household size, and educational attainment 
all had an impact on the profitability of pig farms in the 
research area. The research area's pig production was 
further hindered by high feed and housing costs, issues with 
product marketing, high labor costs, limited financing 
availability, and weak extension contacts.  

  

Recommendation 
The following suggestions were interpreted: Workshops, 
seminars, and adult education should raise farmers' 
educational attainment. Additionally, by offering superior 
breeds to increase their output, both new and experienced 
farmers could be persuaded to remain in the pig business. 
For easier access to pig material inputs like feed, veterinary 
medications, and vaccines, pig farmers should also be 
encouraged to establish or join cooperatives. In order to 
reduce manufacturing costs, large-family households are also 
urged to employ them as a source of labor. 

 

REFERENCES 

 
1. Adesehinwa, A.O.K. Makinde, G.E.O. and Oladele, I.O. 

(2003). Demographic characteristics of pig farmers as 

determinant of pig feeding pattern in Oyo State, Nigeria. 
Proceedings 8th Annual Conference of Animal Science 
Association (ASAN), September 16-18 in FUTO. 

2. Agada, E.S. (1991). Economics of swine production: A 
study of two Local Government Areaa in Kaduna State. 
B.Sc. Project, unpublished. Department of Agricultural 
Economics and Farm Management, University of Ilorin, 
Kwara State, Nigeria. 

3. Ajala, M.K., Adesehinwa, A.O.K. and Mohammed, A.K. 
(2007). Characteristics of small holder pig production in 
southern Kaduna Area of Kaduna State, Nigeria. 
American-Eurasian Journal of Agriculture and 
Environmental Science, 2(2), 182-188, 

2007. 

4. Bamiro O. M. (2008): Technical Efficiency in Pig Production 
in Ogun State, Nigeria. Research Journal of Animal 
Sciences 2(3): 78 – 82. 

5. Bawa G. S., Balogun T. F., Ega L., Omage 
J. J. (2004): Urban Backyard Swine Production: A Case 
Study Of Kaduna, A Nigerian Metropolitan City. Journal of 
Animal Production 31: 237 – 244. 

6. Duniya K. P., Akpoko J. G., Oyakhilomen O., Nandi J. A. 
(2013): Measurement of Pig Production Profitability in 
ZangonKataf and Jema’a Local Government Areas of 
Kaduna State, Nigeria. British Journal of Applied Science 
and Technology 3(4): 1455 – 1463. 

7. Ezeibe A. B. C. (2010): Profitability analysis of pig 
production under intensive management system in Nsukka 
Local Government Area of Enugu State, Nigeria. 
International Journal of Economic Development Research 
and Investment 1(2): 48 – 54. 

8. Ewuziem, J.E. Onyenobi, V.O. and Dronkwe, A.G. (2010). 
Technical efficiency of pig farmers in Imo State, Nigeria. A 
trans log stochastic frontier production function approach. 
Nigeria Agric. Journal 4(1):137- 143. 

9. Ewuziem,  J.E.,  Nwosu, A.C.,  Amaechi, 
E.C.I. and Anyaegbu, P.O. (2009). Piggery waste 
management and profitability of pig farming in Imo State, 
Nigeria. Nigeria Agric Journal 40(1):29-36. 

10. Fraser, I. (2002), The Cobb-Douglass production function: 
A antipodean defence? Part 1. Economic Issues, 7, 39-58. 

11. Food and Agriculture Organization (2008): Pig sector 
Kenya: FAO Animal Production and Health Livestock 
Country Reviews. No 3 FAO, Rome. Accessed online on 
the 12 October, 2017 from 
http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2566e/i256 6e00.pdf 

12. Gekara, O., Garner, J.O.O and Dunbar, T.V (2009). 
Evaluating production techniques to improve efficiency and 
profitability of hog farms in South East Arkansas. University 
of Arkansas Press.Pp: 321-324. 

13. Hajkova, D., Hurnik, J. (2007), Cobb- douglas production 
function: The case of a converging economy. Czech 
Journal of Economics and Finance, 57(9-10), 465-476. 

14. Hall, H.H. (1998), Choosing an Empirical Production 
Function: Theory, Nonnested Hypotheses,  Costs  of  
Specifications, Agricultural Economics. Research Report 
No. 59. 

15. Holness, D.H. (1999). Pigs: Tropical Agriculturists. GP 
Maisonneurve et larose, IS rue victor – cousin, 75005 
Paris, France. 

16. Ironkwe M. O., Amefule, K. U. (2008): Appraisal of 

http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2566e/i2566e00.pdf
http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2566e/i2566e00.pdf


 

 

 

Indigenous Pig Procution and Management Practices in 
Rivers State, Nigeria. Journal of Agriculture and Social 
Research (JASR) 8(1):1 – 7. 

17. Miller, E. (2008), An Assessment of CES and Cobb-
Douglass Production Functions. Available from: 
http://www.cbo.gov. 

18. Mishra, S.K (2007), A Brief History of Production 
Function. Munich Personal RePEc Archives (MPRA, 
5254). 

19. Mpofu, I. and Makuza, S.M.M. (2003). Pig production 
science and technology, 1st edition (ed.). MrShonhiwa 
up front publishing, UK. 

20. National Population Commission (NPC, 2006). National 
Population Census Figure, Abuja, Nigeria. 

21. Ikani I.E. and Dafwang, I.I. (1995): Pig production 
technology for piggery farmers. Extension 
Bulletin,Livestock Series No 25. NAERLS, ABU, Zaria. 

22. Ogunfowora O, Olayemi J K, Fetuga B L and Amogu U 
(1980)An evaluation of the state of development and 
economics of Pig production in Nigeria. Report 
prepared for the Federal Livestock Department, Lagos. 
Nigeria 

23. Okolo, C.I. (2011). Tropical Tips on Intensive Pig 
Production: Animal Management and Health Issues. 
Technical Notes: Tapas Institute of Scientific Research 
and Development. Pp 240-246. 

24. Osondu C. K., Ijioma J. C., Anyiro C. O and Obike K. 
(2014): Economic Analysis of Pig Production in Abia 
State, Nigeria. International Journal of Applied 
Research and Technology 3(3): 3 – 10. 

25. Pathraja, N. and Oyedipe, E.O. (1990). Indigenous pigs 
of Nigeria. Animal Genetic Resources information, 
7:67-78. 

26. Pond, W.G and Maner, J.H. (1998). Swine production 
in temperate and tropical environment. Freeman and 
Company. Second edition. 

Rahman S., Barthakur S., Kalita G. (2008): Pig 
production and management system in Aizawl district of 
Mizoram, India. Healthcare 95, 5 p.  

27. Raval, D. (2011), Beyond Cobb-Douglass: Estimation of 
CES production function with factor augmenting 
technology. Centre of Economic Studies, 2011, 5-11. 

28. Steinbach, J. (1997). Effect of season and breed on sow 
performance in the seasonal equatorial climate of 
Southern Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Science 
(Cambridge), 77:331-336. 

29. Ume, S I, Ezeano, CI, Gbughemobi, B O (2018)Analysis 
of the Environmental Effect of Pig Production in Okigwe 
Local Government Area of Imo State, Nigeria 
International Journal of Environmental & Agriculture 
Research (IJOEAR) ISSN:[2454-1850] [Vol-4, 
Issue-6, June- 2018] 

30. Ume SI, Ezeano CI, Onunka BN, (2018). Technical 
efficiency of pig production in Enugu north agricultural 
zone of Enugu state, Nigeria. International Journal of 
Research and Review. 2018; 5(9):61-69. 

31. Ume Smiles I., Jiwuba, Peter–Damian, C., Okoronkwo. 
MO and S. O. Okechukw (2019)Economics of Pig 
Production in Ezza North Local Government Area of 
Ebonyi State, Nigeria Asian Journal of Agricultural 
Extension, Economics & Sociology; 29(1): 1-11. 

 
 

http://www.cbo.gov/

	INTRODUCTION
	MATERIALS AND METHODS
	The Study Area
	Sampling Procedure and Sample Size
	Method of Data Collection
	Method of Data Analysis
	Model Specification Cobb Douglas
	Benefit cost Ratio:
	Where;

	RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
	Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Farmers
	Results of Cobb Douglas Production Function
	Varimax-Rotated Factors Against pig production

	CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
	Conclusion


