




































 AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL STUDIES 7(1) (2023), 20-31  

20 

 

      AGRICULTURAL STUDIES 

                                                               AIJAS VOL 7 NO 1 (2023) P-ISSN 2641-4155   E-ISSN 2641-418X 
                                                  

                                                                                                                        Available online at www.acseusa.org      

                                                                                                                                     Journal homepage: https://www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas 
                                                                                                                                         Published by American Center of Science and Education, USA 

 DIFFERENTIALS IN PROFITABILITY AND EFFICIENCY OF 

COWPEA MARKETING IN RURAL, SEMI- URBAN AND URBAN 

MARKETS IN NASARAWA STATE, NIGERIA  
 

 Luka Anthony (a)1  Elizabeth Samuel Ebukiba  (b)   Funso Omolayo Alabuja (c)   Ahanotu Kenedy Chigozie  (d)   

 Jeremiah Samuel Aluwong (e)   
 

(a)Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Abuja, Gwagwalada Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria; E-mail: gqluka11@gmail.com 
(b) Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Abuja, Gwagwalada Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria; E-mail: odudu4sure@yahoo.com 
(c) Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Abuja, Gwagwalada Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria; E-mail: funsoalabuja@gmail.com 
(d) Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Abuja, Gwagwalada Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria; E-mail: kennygold500@gmail.com 
(e) Department of Agricultural Extension and Management, School of Agricultural Technology, Nuhu Bamali Polytechnic, Zaria, Samaru Kataf Campus, 

Kaduna State, Nigeria: E-mail: jeremiahaluwong1@gmail.com 

 

 
A R T I C L E I N F O 
 

 

Article History: 
 

Received: 21st  January 2023 

Revised: 20th March 2023 

Accepted: 25th June 2023   

Published: 15th July 2023   

 

Keywords: 

 

Differentials, Profitability,  

Marketing Efficiency, Cowpea 

  

JEL Classification Codes:  

       

G32 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
A B S T R A C T 
 
This study analyzed differentials in profitability and efficiency of cowpea marketing in rural semi-urban 

and urban markets in Nasarawa State, Nigeria. Multistage sampling technique was employed for this 

study. Data was collected from 150 sampled cowpea marketers through the use of well-structured 

questionnaires. The following statistical and econometric tools was used to achieve the stated objectives 

of the study, Descriptive statistics, Budgetary technique, Multinomial logit regression model and Likert 
scale. The results of the socioeconomic characteristics of the samples cowpea marketers show that the 

mean age of the sampled cowpea marketers operating in rural, semi-urban and urban markets were 35 

years, 33 years and 35 years respectively. The gross margin obtained by rural marketers was 

N680,744.91, while the gross margin obtained by the semi-urban and urban marketers was N209,539.45 

and N2,498,189.69 respectively. The marketing efficiency level achieved by the marketers were 38%, 

16% and 35% and were all less than 1. The mean price of the cowpea in Naira/50kg at the various 

market under study were rural market price N20,909.64, semi-urban market price was N21,439.65 and 

urban market price was found to be N22,954.96 on average basis. The results further show that the 
following factors influencing the choice of rural semi-urban and urban market were age of the marketers 

(P<0.01). Household size (P<0.01), Education level of the marketers (P<0.01), marketing experience 

(P< 0.05) market price of cowpea (P<0.01) and cost of transportation (P<0.01). The constraints faced 

by cowpea marketers include rodents, inadequate security, market leadership, customers, weevil, lack 

of fund, bad roads, lack of electricity, rainfall, and high price of the commodity. Therefore, the study 

recommends that extension services should be made available, storage facilities should be provided in 

the markets at all levels credit facilities should be provided to the marketers to increase their capacity 

either through government or nongovernmental organizations or microfinance banks or institutions, 
good roads and other infrastructural facilities should be made available specially to link the rural 

markets in the rural areas, security personnel should be provided to secure the markets at all levels.   

 
 

© 2023 by the authors. Licensee ACSE, USA. This article is an open-access article distributed under 
the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license 

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).                           

 

INTRODUCTION 

Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) also known as beans in Nigeria is included among one of the most ancient crops that has been 

in existence that is well known to man. It is classified as an important source of protein derived from plant in the developing 

world and most especially in West African Countries; it is also the among most important crop that is economically and 

nutritionally indigenous African legume crops, especially in West and Central African regions (Kaka et al., 2020). 

Sustainability of agricultural production all over the World is hinged on active pricing system driven by market forces. In 

the recent years in the past, the marketing trend for agricultural products and commodity in Nigeria has revealed the pattern 

of long-term price fall of cowpea and short-term price instability. Nigeria is the major world‘s leading cowpea (Vigna 

                                                      
1Corresponding author: ORCID ID: 0000-0001-8337-2341  

© 2023 by the authors. Hosting by ACSE. Peer review under responsibility of American Center of Science and Education, USA.  

https://doi.org/10.46545/aijas.v7i1.287 
 
To cite this article: Anthony, L., Ebukiba , E. S., Alabuja , F. O., Chigozie , A. K., & Aluwong, J. S. . (2023). DIFFERENTIALS IN PROFITABILITY 

AND EFFICIENCY OF COWPEA MARKETING IN RURAL, SEMI- URBAN AND URBAN MARKETS IN NASARAWA STATE, NIGERIA . 

American International Journal of Agricultural Studies, 7(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.46545/aijas.v7i1.287 

https://doi.org/10.46545/aijas.v7i1.287
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8337-2341
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6765-8697
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7579-1041
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6921-2923
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8462-538X


Anthony et al., American International Journal of Agricultural Studies 7(1) (2023), 20-31 

  

21 
 

Unguiculata) producing country, with the production capacity of over 2.91 million tons of dry grains (Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations Rome (2014); Coker et al., 2018). Some Countries in Africa such as Niger Republic 

produces (1.57 million tons) Ghana, Burkina Faso, Senegal and Cameroon are also significant producers of cowpea. Outside 

Africa, the major cowpea production areas are in Asia, North and South America. Nigeria’s production of cowpea is about 

58 percent of the global supply, making the country the largest producer of cowpea all over the world. Nigeria is also the 

largest consumer of the cowpea crop. Cowpea is one of the most important foods consumed across all the geo-political 

zones in the country. According to NAERLS (2020), the national demand for cowpea in Nigeria is about 5.6 million tons. 

Out of this figure, the domestic supply by the country farmers is 4.1 million tons, while the deficit balance of 1.5 million 

tons is imported into the country. Nigeria can earn almost about $638 million annually on cowpea export to Europe but the 

European Union has extended the ban on export of beans from Nigeria to Europe till 2022 as a result of the pesticides 

content and failure to implement food safety plan. The main market channels of distribution of cowpea are through the local 

market, within the farming community, and bulk merchants, outside the farming community. According to Mohammed and 

Mohammed (2014), cowpea grain has a protein content of about 23% making it a good source of plant protein. They further 

asserted that it is has an ability to cover a protein gap created by inadequacy of animal protein in the diet of common people 

living in Nigeria. Cowpea is gradually attaining its economic importance in Nigeria particularly in the southern and eastern 

States of Nigeria. The appreciating economic importance may be due to its ability to generate revenue to farmers and 

marketers across the value chain and also food value which made it a good supplement/complimentary source of animal 

protein.   

 Marketing can be defined as the topmost performance of all line of activities involved business which lead to the 

easy flow of goods and services from the point of initial agricultural production passes through different channels until they 

are in the hands or custody of the ultimate final consumers (Ali et al., 2019). Agriculture in all its embodiment has evolved 

into marketing and has already tuned and become a vast and complex system which has now reaches far beyond the ordinary 

farm operation but includes all those who are involved in the activities of bringing food and fiber to bosom of the consumers 

(Kaka et al., 2020). Agricultural marketing involves the performance of all business activities that comprises of direct flow 

of agricultural commodity, goods and services to potential consumers in order to accomplish the purpose of producer’s 

objectives. Thus, marketing leads to the creation of the goods form, the place of sale, time of sale or purchase and possession 

utilities. Marketing has to do with the process of building lasting relationships between producers, retailers, wholesalers and 

consumers through decision of planning, executing and controlling the conception of the plan including; pricing, promotion 

and distribution of ideas, goods and services to create mutual exchange that satisfy individual and organizational needs and 

objectives (Ali et al., 2019; Premjit, 2013). Agricultural marketing is being started and initiated right from the supplies of 

farm inputs up to the time when a product reaches the ultimate consumer (Katanga et al., 2016). In performing the roles of 

marketing, products pass through various marketing agents or intermediaries called market channels 9 (Kaka et al., 2020). 

These market intermediaries are the wholesalers and retailers and both play an important role in the marketing system (Girei 

et al., 2013). Variability in products prices in different markets in the same county could be unfavorable to the marketing 

system and the economy as a whole. This could cause allocation of resource inefficiency among sellers as well as consumers 

depending on the sources and causes of the variability in commodity prices. It might also upsurge poverty level between 

low income earners in the humanity (Polaski, 2013; Akpan et al., 2014). Price of cowpea grains is highly unstable between 

seasons and consumers pay different amounts of money for the same product in different markets locations separated by 

just a few kilometers of distance (Kaka et al., 2020). According to Kaka et al. (2020) the sustainability of agricultural 

marketing and flow of commodities is highly hinged on active pricing system. Just in the recent years past, the market for 

agricultural products in Nigeria has revealed a pattern of long-term price fall and short-term price instability in the 

commodity market. Economically, cowpea has a great value in the internal trade within the country because it promotes 

trading between the producing areas and the non-producing areas. It also serves as a source of providing income for those 

that involved in the marketing process such as middlemen who embark on transporting cowpea from one location to another. 

The returns earned from cowpea marketing like any other type of business or firm ensure sustainability of the system through 

the enhanced revenue generated by both marketers and producers. However, the challenge that marketers face is to satisfy 

consumer’s wants at a reasonable profit level and in a socially acceptable manner.  Cowpea marketing in Karu LGA is 

currently getting prominent attention at both local and national levels following the creation of a hub market for the selling 

of grains majorly cowpea in Auta-balefi market of the LGA in November, 2016 by Cowpea (beans) Dealers Association 

dominated by displaced person from Gwoza Local Government Borono State Nigeria.  As a result of the establishment of 

the Cowpea hub market otherwise non as’’ bags market’’ in the area, the production, demand and subsequent marketing of 

cowpea at different market levels is growing from strength to strength. The marketing activities has increased tremendously 

in the area as so much demand on grains, like beans are brought by traders and taken to places like Lagos and Ibadan with 

many middlemen playing their intermediary roles between the farmers and the buyers. To   meet up with the rising demand, 

the quantities of cowpea produced in the catchment areas have also increased. The need to examine the market price trends, 

the profit margins accruable from marketing of cowpea at different market levels in the area to the market operators, the 

possible effects of the socioeconomic characteristics on the marketing of cowpea and the associated marketing problems 

become not only necessary but imperative in the area. Marketing system studies such as the structure and performance 

approach to marketing studies is one of the most important approaches to the analysis of markets.  

 Efficiency attainment in marketing of agricultural commodities encourages the participation of a large number of 

people operating at various types of markets and exchange points where the marketing services of assembling, storage, 

processing, transportation and break-of bulk are performed. The effects of an efficient market can go a long way in 

influencing positively the supply response of agricultural products (Gaya et al., 2020). The different categories of market 

players such as middlemen, whole sellers and retailers operating at different market levels have contributed immensely in 



Anthony et al., American International Journal of Agricultural Studies 7(1) (2023), 20-31 

  

22 
 

making farm produce readily available to the consumers at different market locations nationwide; however, there is generally 

limited information on the profit margin accruing to each market player in the marketing of cowpea. Producers habitually 

assent to lower prices as they are unaware of the market prices or since they lack the time, money or resources to transport 

cowpea grains to the market in urban areas for better profits (Abah & Tor, 2012). Features influencing price setting of 

cowpea in various markets outlets are: cowpea grain quality, the selling price, transportation fare, storage facilities, market 

tolls, commissions and levies (Kaka et al., 2020). In the recent past, the market for agricultural produce in Nigeria has 

revealed a pattern of long-term price fall and short-term price instability (IMF, 2010). The instability in price of agricultural 

produces in Nigeria has been credited to several factors including variances in the bargaining power among consumers, 

recurring earnings fluctuation amid sellers and consumers, seasonality of production, natural shocks such as a result of 

climate change such as flood, high temperature, torrential rainfall,  inadequate rainfall, pests and diseases, and inappropriate 

response by farmers to price signals (Kaka et al., 2020).There are numerous categories of market players such as retailers, 

middlemen and whole sellers involved in the marketing of agricultural commodities such as cowpea, in different market 

levels across the nation and their quantum (capital base) are observed to be low. Despite the important roles of such 

categories of market players that are bringing the needed commodities to the consumers at the designated market locations, 

there is generally limited information on their respective profitability levels from marketing the various commodities 

including cowpea.  

 Food consumption expenditures accounts for higher proportion of the total households’ expenditures in Nigeria 

and the food demand has been growing at the rate of 3.5% per annum with food production growing at a rate of 2% per 

annum in recent years, while, the annual growth rate of population is as high as 2.9 percent, thereby, creating a serious food 

deficit in the country. The ability of Nigeria agricultural production to perform its role in development has been on a decline 

for decades thus creating wider gap between the demand for and supply of food  (Alabi et al., 2012).  Agricultural commodity 

marketers are usually faced with problem of inadequate finance arising from the difficulties in accessing funds for their 

marketing operations and inadequate infrastructure.  The problem necessitating this study in the chosen study area is an 

attempt to ascertain the profit margins (returns) accruable to the different categories of market players (retailers, middlemen 

and whole sellers) involved in the marketing of cowpea at different market levels (rural, semi- urban and urban markets). 

Several studies have been conducted by several authors on marketing (Gaya et al., 2020; Kaka et al., 2020; Ali et al., 2019; 

Katanga et al., 2016). There is a gap in the existing literature regarding the differentials in profitability and the efficiency of 

cowpea marketing in different markets in the study area that need to be investigated, to fill this gap an attempt was made to 

carry out this study, Hence, this research work was Conducted to examined the differentials in profitability and efficiency 

of the resources being used in the marketing of cowpea at different market levels among  the different market operators in 

Karu local government area of Nasarawa State.  

The broad objective of this study is to analyze the differentials in profitability and efficiency of cowpea marketing 

in rural, semi-urban and urban area in Nasarawa State Nigeria. The Specific Objectives were: 

 To determine the socio-economic characteristics of the different categories of cowpea marketers operating different 

market levels,   

 To estimate the profitability margin acquiring to different categories of market players in the marketing of cowpea 

at different market levels,   

 To determine marketing efficiency in urban, semi and rural cowpea markets in the study area, 

 To determine the marketing channels of distribution of cowpea in the study area 

 Determine the factors influencing the choice of cowpea marketing outlets 

 Determine the constraints of cowpea marketing in the study are 

 

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS 
Study Area 

This study was conducted in Nassarawa State, Nigeria. Nasarawa State is bounded in the North by Kaduna State, in the 

West by the Abuja Federal Capital Territory, in the South by Kogi and Benue States and in the East by Taraba and Plateau 

States. The State lies between Latitudes7° 45’ and 9° 25’ North of the equator and between Longitudes7° and 9° 37° East 

of the Greenwich meridian. The average annual temperature is 28.4 °C and about 839 mm of precipitation falls annually. 

The temperatures are highest on average in April, at around 32.9 °C and lowest average temperature of 25.1 °C in January. 

The state has a total land area of 27,137.8 Square Kilometer and a population of about 1,826,883 people (NPC, 2006). 

Nasarawa State is divided into 13 Local Government Areas. The soil texture is predominantly sandy-loam. The major crops 

grown in large quantities are: cassava, yam, sesame, rice, maize, millet, groundnut, and cowpea, while tree crops include: 

mango, cashew, citrus and guava. 

 

Method of Data Collection 

The methodology used in collecting data for this study was through the use of well-structured questionnaires including 

primary and secondary sources. The primary sources include the use of well-structured questionnaires for collecting detailed 

information from randomly selected categories of market players at different market levels.  Oral interviews and discussions 

using both online and offline were also used to collect information from those market players who cannot read and write. 

 

Sampling Techniques and Sample Size 
This study employ multi-stage sampling technique to arrive at the sample size; first stage adapts purposive selection of 



Anthony et al., American International Journal of Agricultural Studies 7(1) (2023), 20-31 

  

23 
 

Nasarawa State, Nigeria. This is because the State is becoming known for cowpea production and marketing. The second 

stage Karu Local Government Area was also purposively selected in the third stage random sampling procedure was used 

to select six (6) markets using ballot-box raffle draw method in the fourth stage simple random sampling was used to select 

target respondents (cowpea marketers). A total sample size of 150 categories of market players operating at different levels 

were randomly selected and administered with questionnaires and interviewed with 25 respondents or operators targeted in 

each of the six randomly selected markets consisting of 2 rural, 2 semi- urban and 2 urban markets. Eleven (11) 

questionnaires were not retrieved from the respondents. 

 

Method of Data Analysis 

Data will be analyzed using various statistical tools such as 

 Descriptive Statistics 

 Marketing efficiency   

 Budgetary Technique 

 Financial analysis 

 Multinomial Logit Regression Model 

 

Descriptive Statistics 
This tool was used to examine the socio-economic characteristics of the marketers in the study area. These include their 

gender, marital status, household size, age, level of education etc. Statistical package for social science (SPSS 20) and 

STATA Version 14 were used for analyzing the collected data. Descriptive statistics involve the use of mean, mode, range, 

frequency distribution tables, minimum, maximum values, standard deviations and percentages etc. 

 

Marketing Efficiency  

Marketing efficiency (ME) reflects the benefit accruing to the marketers in comparison to the price that consumers are 

satisfied to pay as delivered by the marketing system. The marketing efficiency ratio is expressed in percentage as used by 

Alabi et al. (2020) and it is stated thus:  

 

𝑀. 𝐸 =
𝑁𝑒𝑡 𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑘𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑖𝑛

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑘𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡
𝑋 100 

Where,  

If M.E =1, marketing is efficient 

If M.E is < 1 marketing is inefficient 

If M.E is >1 marketing is highly efficient 

 

Budgetary Technique 

Gross Margin Analysis  

Gross Margin Analysis is a tool used in farm budgeting by definition is the difference between the gross farm income and 

total variable cost (Olukosi & Erhabor, 2005). Normally, gross margin analysis is used to test the effects of changes that do 

not alter the fixed cost of production, especially the cost of land and other durable factors. It is used to determine the potential 

profitability and effect on farmer’s farm income.  

Gross Margin Model is expressed as follows: 

 

𝐺𝑀 = 𝑇𝑅 − 𝑇𝑉𝐶 … … … … … (1) 

Where, 

GM = Gross Margin (N), 

TR = Total Revenue Obtained (N), 

TVC = Total Variable Cost (N), and 

TR = P.Q (N). 

Where: -P = Price of cowpea Produced in Naira per Kilogram,  

Q = Output of cowpea Produced in Kilogram 

 

Financial Analysis  

The following financial ratios was used in this study in order to determine the profitability of cowpea marketing. This will 

be used to achieve part of specific objective three (iii) 

 

𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑖𝑛 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 =
𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑖𝑛

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑢𝑒
 

 

Operating ratio and rate of return per naira invested in cowpea marketing. The operating ratio (OR) is stated thus:  

 

𝑂𝑅 =
𝑇𝑉𝐶

𝐺𝐼
… … . (3) 

Where, OR= Operating Ratio (Units);  



Anthony et al., American International Journal of Agricultural Studies 7(1) (2023), 20-31 

  

24 
 

TVC= Total Variable Cost (Naira);  

GI= Gross Income (Naira). 

 

 The rate of return invested per naira is stated thus; 

 

𝑅𝑂𝑅𝐼 =
𝑁𝐼

𝑇𝐶
… … … (4) 

Where, 

 RORI= Rate of Return per Naira Invested (Units);  

NI= Net income from Maize Production (Naira);  

TC= Total Cost (Naira). (Fixed cost is negligible on a short run).  

This was used to achieve part of specific objective three (iii) 

 

Multinomial Logit Model Analysis 

Multinomial Logit model was used to analyze the factors that influence the choice of urban, Semi and rural markets. 

 

 

Pr(𝑦 = 1) =
𝑒𝑥𝛽(1)

𝑒𝑥𝛽(1) + 𝑒𝑥𝛽(2) + 𝑒𝑥𝛽(3)
… … … … … … … … … … … … … (5) 

 

𝑃𝑖𝑗 =
𝑒𝑥𝑖

′β𝑗

∑ 𝑒𝑥𝑖
′β𝑙𝑚

𝑙=1

= 𝑗 = 1, … , 𝑚 … … … … … … … … … (6) 

 

In the multinomial logistic regression model, a set of coefficients, ‘y’is estimated, corresponding to each result of the 

following probabilities for each case of the value of the dependent variable markets 

 

 

Pr(𝑦 = 2) =
𝑒𝑥𝛽(2)

𝑒𝑥𝛽(1) + 𝑒𝑥𝛽(2) + 𝑒𝑥𝛽(3)
… … … … … … … … … … . (7) 

Pr(𝑦 = 3) =
𝑒𝑥𝛽(3)

𝑒𝑥𝛽(1) + 𝑒𝑥𝛽(2) + 𝑒𝑥𝛽(3)
… … … … … … … … … … . (8) 

 

𝐿𝑛𝑌𝑖 = 𝛽0 + ∑ 𝛽𝑖

10

𝑖=1

𝐿𝑛𝑋𝑖 + ⋯ 𝛽𝑛𝐿𝑛𝑋𝑛 + 𝑈𝑖 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . (9) 

      

The explicit function is stated thus: 

𝐿𝑛𝑌𝑖 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1𝐿𝑛𝑋1 + 𝛽2𝐿𝑛𝑋2 + 𝛽3𝐿𝑛𝑋3 + 𝛽4𝑙𝑛𝑋4 + 𝛽5𝐿𝑛𝑋5 + 𝛽6𝑙𝑛𝑋6 + 𝛽7𝐿𝑛𝑋7 + 𝛽8𝑙𝑛𝑋8 + 𝛽9𝐿𝑛𝑋9 + 𝛽10𝑙𝑛𝑋10 +
𝑈𝑖……… ……………………………………………………………………………………………...(10) 

 

Where, 

𝐿𝑛𝑌𝑖 = Markets (1, urban; 2, semi; 3, rural), 

𝑋1= Sex of Head of Household (1, Male; 0, Otherwise), 

𝑋2 = Age (Years)  

𝑋2 = Marital Status of the Household Head (1, Married; 0, Otherwise),  

𝑋4 = Households Size (Total Number of Persons), 

𝑋5 = Level of Education (0, Non-Formal; 1, Primary; 2, Secondary; 3, Tertiary), 

𝑋6 = Marketing Experience (Years) 

𝑋7 = Market Price of Cowpea (Naira) 

𝑋8 = Distance to Market (Kilometers) 

𝑋9 = Incurable Costs (Naira) 

𝑋10 = Cost of Transportation (Naira) 

𝑈𝑖 = Error Term  

𝛽0 = Constant Term 

𝛽1 − 𝛽10 = Parameters to be Estimated 

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 

Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Different Categories of Cowpea Marketers Operating at Different Market 

Levels 

Table 1 presents the results of the analysis of the socioeconomic characteristics of the different categories of cowpea 

marketers operating at different market levels in the study area. The results show that 12.9% of the sampled respondents 

from the rural market were male while 10.1% were female. Majority 57.6% of the sampled cowpea marketers from semi-



Anthony et al., American International Journal of Agricultural Studies 7(1) (2023), 20-31 

  

25 
 

urban market were male while 2.1% were female 18% and 8.6% of the sampled cowpea marketers in urban market were 

male and female respectively. The mean age of the sampled cowpea marketers operating in rural, semi-urban and urban 

markets were 35 years, 33 years and 35 years respectively. The implication of this result is that the sampled marketers were 

young marketers that are still in their productive age, this could make them to be able to travel to rural areas and source for 

cowpea commodity where the price may be lower than that of the semi-urban and urban markets for more profit. This result 

is in agreement with Katanga et al. (2016) who posited that market participation reduces as the age of farmer’s increases 

because the older farmers are known to be risk averse. Table 1 also show that 19.4%, 45.3% and 23.7% of the marketers 

from all market level were married while 3.6%, 14.4% and 2.9% of the cowpea marketers were single from rural, semi-

urban and urban markets respectively. About 20.9%, 57.6% and 17.3% of the samples marketers from all markets had 1-15 

members per household respectively. The average persons per households in rural area was 3 while that of semi-urban area 

was 3 persons per households and the average persons per household in the urban area was 6 persons per household. The 

results also show that 18%, 3.6% and 5.8% of the sampled marketers in rural, semi-urban and urban markets had no formal 

education respectively while 1.4% and 10.8% of the marketers from rural and urban market had primary education. The 

study further revealed that 3.6%, 5.8% and 4.3% of the cowpea marketers from market categories obtained secondary 

education respectively. About 51.1% of the sampled cowpea marketers from the semi-urban market obtained tertiary 

education level  while 5.8% of the urban marketers obtained tertiary education, education level of a marketer enables them 

to access market information easily about the price and which market outlet offers a better price for their commodity for 

profit making this is in consonance with Alabi et al. (2020) who reported that educated marketers makes more profit than 

the uneducated farmers and they further stated that illiteracy is one of the factors working against agricultural development 

in Nigeria. About 2.9% and 13.7% of the sampled marketers from rural, semi-urban and urban markets had business as their 

major occupation while 6%, 5% and 8.5% of the marketers in the markets outlets had farming as their major occupation and 

13.7% and 4.3% had other business as their major occupation in the study area respectively. More so 2.3%, 57.6% and 

25.2% of the cowpea marketers from rural, semi-urban and urban had business as their secondary occupation. The average 

years of marketing experience of the sampled marketers from different markets were rural marketers 6 years, semi-urban 

market 6.6 years and urban marketers was 7.6 years marketing experience. The study also shows that 20.9% of the marketers 

from the rural market had 1-10 years marketing experience while 59.7% sampled marketers from semi-urban and 21.8% 

marketers from rural market had 1-10 years of marketing experience. This result is in line with Gaya et al. (2020) who 

reported that long term experience in the marketing business have influence on decision making by the marketers as well as 

market efficiency level and performance, beside the technique and strategies of marketing takes time to adopt.  The mean 

price of the cowpea commodity at the various outlets market under study was rural market price N209,09.64, semi-urban 

market price was N21,439.65 and urban market price was found to be N22,954.96 on average basis. This implies that the 

market price of cowpea in the study areas has no much significant variance according to the evidence from the results of the 

study. This is result is consistent with (Ddungu et al., 2015) who asserted that there is an indication of seasonal variations. 

As expected, cowpea grains are cheaper during the harvest period and immediately afterwards. There was a clear difference 

between the prices in different markets. Generally, crop prices set their seasonal low at harvest followed by a post-harvest 

rally. These finding is also line with Kaka et al. (2020) who asserted that the price of cowpea is lower in the markets that 

are closer to the production area of the crop. 

 

Table 1. Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Different Categories of Cowpea Marketers Operating at Different Market 

Levels, in the Study Area 

 
Variables Rural Market Semi-Urban Market Urban  Market 

 Freq % Mean Freq % Mean Freq % Mean 

Sex          

Male 18 12.9  80 57.6  25 18.0  

Female 14 10.1  3 2.2  12 8.6  

Age   35.59   32.61   35.21 

20          

21-30 7 5.0  55 39.6  8 5.8  

31-40 14 10.1  17 12.2  19 13.7  

41-50 11 7.9  5 3.6  6 4.3  

51 and above    6 4.3  4 2.9  

Marital Status          

Married 27 19.4  63 45.3  33 23.7  

Single 5 3.6  20 14.4  4 2.9  

Divorced          

Widow/Widower          

Household Size   3.34   2.72   5.45 

1-5 29 20.9  80 57.6  24 17.3  

6-10 3 2.2  3 2.2  11 7.9  

11-15 - -  - - - 2 1.4  

Educational Level          

No Formal Education 25 18.0  5 3.6  8 5.8  

Primary Education 2 1.4  - -  15 10.8  

Secondary Education 5 3.6  8 5.8  6 4.3  

Tertiary Education - -  71 51.1 - 8 5.8  

Major Occupation          

Business 4 2.9  4 2.9  19 13.7  



Anthony et al., American International Journal of Agricultural Studies 7(1) (2023), 20-31 

  

26 
 

Farming 9 6.5  9 6.5  12 8.6  

Others 19 13.7  19 13.7  6 4.3  

Occupation          

Business 32 23.0  80 57.6  35 25.2  

Others    3 2.2  2 1.4  

Marketing Experience   5.46   6.62   7.6 

1-10 29 20.9  83 59.7  25 18.0  

11-20 3 2.2     10 7.2  

21-30 - -  - - - 2 1.4  

Price Trends          

Rural Market Price   20,909.64       

Semi-Urban Price      21,439.65    

Urban Market Price         22,954.96 

Total 139       100  

Source: Field Survey (2021) 

  

Cost and Benefits of Cowpea Marketing in the Study Areas 

Table 2 presents the results of the analysis of cost and benefits of cowpea marketing in rural, semi-urban and urban markets, 

the study shows that the average cost of purchasing cowpea by marketers in the rural market was N1487931,0345 

representing 86.7% proportion of the total cost of investment in cowpea marketing by rural marketers, the total variables 

cost expended by the rural marketers was N228,910.27 representing 13.3% of the total cost of marketing in the rural markets, 

the total cost involved in cowpea marketing in the rural market was N171,6841.30 while the total revenue realized by the 

rural marketers on average was N2,397,586.23 with the gross margin of  N680,744.91 and gross margin ratio 0.28, operating 

ratio 0.34 and rate of return on investment 0.39, the value of rate of return on investment 0.39 indicates that every 1 naira 

invested yields 39 kobo as an interest which covers taxes, commissions and profits,  this implies that cowpea marketing is 

profitable in the rural markets, this result is in line with Gaya et al. (2020) who discovered that the retailers and wholesalers 

were able to cover their total variable cost of marketing and earn some level of returns that makes them earn profit from 

cowpea marketing.  The study further show that the average cost of purchasing cowpea by cowpea marketers in semi-urban 

and urban markets was N1,262,308.642 and N6,987,027.03 respectively. The total cost of cowpea marketing in semi-urban 

and urban areas which comprises of cowpea purchases, cost of transportation, incurable costs, commissions and cost of 

storage was N1,310,213.64 and N7,220,143.64 respectively and the total revenue realized in the semi-urban and urban 

markets was N1,519,753.09 and N9,718,333.33 accordingly. The gross margin obtained by the semi-urban and urban 

marketers was N209,539.45 and N2,498,189.69 respectively with gross margin ratio of (0.13, 0.23), operating ratio (0.22, 

0.09) and rate of return (0.16, 0.35) respectively this results implies that cowpea marketing is profitable in the semi-urban 

and urban markets. Comparatively urban marketers are more profitable than those operating in semi-urban and rural markets 

this could be because rural marketers don’t have access to price information due to the unavailability of the means of 

communication easily through social media, internet, and mobile phones or unwillingness to take risks to take their crop to 

the urban markets. This is consistent with (Alabi et al., 2020; Gaya et al., 2020).     

The formula for calculating marketing efficiency is stated thus. 

 

𝑀. 𝐸 =
𝑁𝑒𝑡 𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑘𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑖𝑛

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑘𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡
𝑋100 

 

The calculated value of marketing efficiency of the rural, semi-urban and urban market was 0.39, 0.16 and 0.35 

respectively.  % M.E = 0.39X100 = 39%, 0.16X100 =16%, and 0.35 X100 =35%   

A marketing efficiency of 38%, 16% and 35% are all less than 1, therefore, the cowpea marketing is not efficient 

in rural, semi-urban and urban market respectively. This is in line with (Onyemauwa, 2010). 

 

Table 2. Average Costs Involved and Benefits of Marketing Cowpea at Different Market Levels in the Study Area  

 
Cost Items        Rural Market Semi-Urban Market Urban Market 

 Average Value  

(N) 

        (%) Average Value  

(N) 

    

(%) 

Average Value  (N)  (%) 

Cowpea Purchase 1,487,931.03  86.7 1,262,308.64  96.3 6987027.0270  96.8 

Variable Cost          

Transportation 76,437.50  4.5 9,986.75  0.7 43,951.35  0.6 

 Incurable Costs 26,218.75  1.5 9801.20  0.7 37,661.62  0.5 

Commissions 42,142.86  2.5 14,472.46  1.1 67,140.00  0.9 

Storage 82,111.11  4.8 13,644.58  1.0 84,363.64  1.1 

Total Variable Cost 228,910.27  13.3 47,904.994  3.7 233,116.61  3.2 

Total Cost 1,716,841.30   1,310,213.64   7,220,143.64   

Total Revenue 2,397,586.21   1,519,753.09   9,718,333.33   

Gross Margin 680,744.91   209,539.45   2,498,189.70   

Gross Margin Ratio 0.28   0.13   0.23   

Operating Ratio 0.34   0.22   0.09   

Rate on Return 0.39   0.16   0.35   

Marketing Efficiency 0.39   0.16   0.356   

Source: Field Survey (2021) 

 



Anthony et al., American International Journal of Agricultural Studies 7(1) (2023), 20-31 

  

27 
 

Sources of Transportation of Cowpea Produce to the Market by the Marketers in the study area 

Table 3 presents the available sources of transportation used by cowpea marketers in the study area, the results show that 

majority 86.3% of the sampled marketers involving rural, semi-urban and urban marketers transported cowpea from one 

location to another while 10.8% of all the marketers do not transport cowpea, they probably sold their cowpea at farm gate 

market or sold to representative agents. The study revealed that 25.2% of the marketers transport their cowpea to the market 

using motorcycle while 67.6% used Lorries (Tucks) for transporting their product 3.6% of the sampled marketers used other 

means of transportation for transporting their products. Also majority 74.1% of the sampled rural, semi-urban and urban 

marketers used the seasonal road link while 22% used dry season roads and 3.6% used no motor able roads in the study 

area. The average distance covered by the rural marketers to reach the market was 63.84km while semi-urban marketers 

covered 9.12km to reach the market and urban marketers covered 21.1km to reach the market. The average cost of 

transportation paid by the rural marketers was N76,437.5 naira while semi-urban marketers paid an average amount of 

transportation of N9986.74 naira and the urban marketers paid an average amount of N43,951.35 naira to the markets. 

presents the distribution of cowpea marketers according to the marketing channels and distribution in the study areas. The 

results show that 25.2% of the sampled marketers from rural, semi-urban and urban markets belongs to category of 

wholesalers. 64% were retailers while 10.8% of the marketers were assemblers. 

 

Table 3. Distribution of Sampled Marketers According to the Sources of Transportation of Cowpea in the Study Area 

 
Variables Rural Semi-Urban Urban 

 Freq % Mean Freq % Mean Freq % Mean 

Transport to Market          

Yes 120 86.3  120 86.3  120 86.3  

No 15 10.8  15 10.8  15 10.8  

Type of Transport Use          

Motor cycle 35 25.2  35 25.2  35 25.2  

Lorries (Trucks 94 67.6  94 67.6  94 67.6  

Others 5 3.6  5 3.6  5 3.6  

Type of Road Link          

All Seasonal Road 103 74.1  103 74.1  103 74.1  

Dry Season Road 31 22.3  31 22.3  31 22.3  

No Motor able Road 5 3.6  5 3.6  5 3.6  

Others          

Distance to Market   63.84   9.12   21.11 

Cost of Transportation   76,437.50   9,986.74   43951.35 

Category of Market Operators          

Wholesalers 35 25.2  35 25.2  35 25.2  

Retailers 89 64.0  89 64.0  89 64.0  

Assemblers 15 10.8  15 10.8  15 10.8  

Source: Field Survey (2021) 

 

The Channels of Cowpea Marketing and Distribution in the Study Area 

Table 4 presents the distribution of cowpea marketers according to the marketing channels and distribution in the study 

areas. The results show that 25.2% of the sampled marketers from rural, semi-urban and urban markets belongs to category 

of wholesalers. 64% were retailers while 10.8% of the marketers were assemblers. The level of entry to the market by 

marketers show that 5% of the sampled marketers were retailers in rural market while 55.4% and 26.6% of the rural and 

urban marketers entered as retailers into the market 1.4%, 4.3% and 3.6% were wholesalers at all market levels respectively 

and 3.6% entered as a commission agent. The study further show that the current status of the marketers in all the markets 

revealed that 8.6%, 44.6% and 15.1% were retailers while 3.6% were wholesalers in the rural market markets 15.1% and 

10.1% were wholesalers in the semi-urban and urban market respectively. About 10.1% of the sampled marketers were 

operating in rural markets 33.1%were operating in semi-urban market and 56.8% marketers operates in the urban markets. 

More so 18.7% of the rural and urban marketers are operating as wholesale marketers while 18%, 67.6% were operating as 

assemblers 13.7% operates as retailers in all the types of market. Table 7 show that 12.2% purchased their cowpea at harvest 

in the rural market while 39.6% and 21.6% of the semi-urban and urban marketers purchases their cowpea at harvest. The 

study also revealed that 7.2%, 18% and 4.3% of the sampled marketers in rural, semi-urban and urban markets purchased 

their cowpea after harvest respectively. About 21.6%, 59.7% and 23.2% of the sampled marketers in all markets purchased 

their cowpea from farmers while 1.4% and 2.9% of the marketers purchase their cowpea from commission agents 

respectively. 10.4%, 44.6% and 12.2% of the sampled marketers in rural, semi-urban and urban areas used mudu as the type 

of measurement while 1.4%, 12.2% used 50kg bags and 2.2%, 1.4% and 4.3% used 80kg as the type of measurement 

respectively in the study areas.  10.8%, 11.5 sold their cowpea directly to retailers while 6.5%, 46.2% and 5.85% of the 

marketers in rural, semi-urban and urban market sold their cowpea to wholesalers 3.6% sold to commission agent’s 

consumers respectively.  



Anthony et al., American International Journal of Agricultural Studies 7(1) (2023), 20-31 

  

28 
 

Table 4. Distribution of Cowpea Marketers According to the Marketing Channels and Distribution in the Study areas 

 
Variables Rural Semi-Urban Urban 

 Frequency %  Frequency %  Frequency %  

Category of Market Operator          

Wholesaler 35 25.2  35 25.2  35 25.2  

Retailer 89 64.0  89 64.0  89 64.0  

Assembler 15 10.8  15 10.8  15 10.8  

Level of Entry          

Retailer 7 5.0  77 55.4  38 26.6  

Wholesaler 2 1.4  6 4.3  12 8.6  

Assembler 18 12.9     4 2.9  

Commission Agent 5 3.6        

Type of Measurement          

Mudu 27 19.4  62 44.6  17 12.2  

Bags 50kg 2 1.4  17 12.2  2 1.4  

80kg 3 2.2  2 1.4  6 4.3  

100kg - -  - -  12 8.6  

Others    2 1.4     

Type of Market          

Rural  14 10.1  - -  - -  

Semi-Urban -  - 46 33.1  - -  

 Urban       79 56.8  

Level of Operation          

Whole sale 26 18.7  26 18.7  26 18.7  

assembler 94 67.6  94 67.6  94 67.6  

Retailer 19 13.7  19 13.7  19 13.7  

Period of Purchase          

At harvest 17 12.2  55 39.6  30 21.6  

After harvest 10 7.2  25 18.0  6 4.3  

Others 5 3.6  3 2.2  4 2.9  

 

Factors Influencing the Choice of the type of Market Rural, Semi-Urban and Urban Markets 

Table 5 presents the results of the maximum likelihood estimates of the multinomial logit regression model for the factors 

influencing the choice of the type of market by the marketers in the study areas. The results show that age of the marketers 

influences the cowpea marketers to sale at semi-urban and urban market negatively and was statistically significant at 

(P<0.01). The marginal effect of the age of marketers 1.79 and 1.67 implies that a unit change in the age of marketer by 1 

year will result in the decrease in the probability or likelihood of the marketers to sale at semi-urban and urban market by 

1.79% and 1.67% respectively. This could be as a result of old age or because the variation in price in rural market, semi-

urban and urban market is not much to cover the cost of transporting the cowpea to these markets therefore the marketer 

will prefer to sell his product at the nearby market. 

Household size influences the choice of semi- urban and urban market positively and was statistically significant 

at (P<0.01). The marginal effect of household size 2.90 and 1.19 implies that a unit change in the household size by I person 

will result in the increase in the probability of the cowpea marketers to sale at semi-urban and urban market by 2.9 % and 

1.19% respectively.  Education level of the marketers influences the choice of semi –urban and urban market negatively and 

was statistically significant at (P<0.01). The marginal effect of the education level -8.24 an d -6.96 implies that a unit 

increase in the level of education of the marketers will results in the decrease in the probability of the cowpea marketers to 

choose semi-urban and urban markets by 8.24% and 6.96% accordingly. Educated marketers may first find out about the 

price of the commodity in each market before going to the market this could be that the price of the cowpea in the semi-

urban and urban market would not be able to cover the costs of purchase and the required profit.  This is in line with (Ali et 

al., 2019) who reported that marketers or farmers who had a higher level of education could have better skills in marketing, 

especially the formal marketing systems in urban areas. Therefore, an increase in the level of education, exposes a farmer 

to be profit oriented and struggle to lower the transactional costs of marketing. Marketing experience was also negative and 

was statistically significant at (P< 0.05). The marginal effect of marketing experience -2.28 and -2.05 signifies that a unit 

increase in the marketing experience will result in the decrease in the probability of the marketers to sale at semi-urban and 

urban market respectively by 2.28% and 2.05% probability levels. Market price influence the cowpea marketers to sale at 

semi-urban and urban markets positively and was statistically significant at (P<0.01). The marginal effect 7.39 and 5.24 of 

the market price implies that a unit increase in the price of cowpea in these markets will result in the increase in the 

probability or likelihood of the marketers to sale their cowpea at semi-urban and urban market price by 7.39% and 5.24% 

respectively. Price is a determining factor for profit making in marketing when the price is favorable marketers may decide 

to carry their products to the market. This is in line with the findings of Ddungu et al. (2015) who posited that prices of the 

agricultural commodities found in different markets locations are majorly influenced by the nature of its seasonality in 

production, fluctuations in the production output and the general economic environment within a country. This king of price 

variability becomes a common phenomenon in agricultural outputs due to stochastic nature of the products.  

Cost of transportation influences the marketers to sale at semi-urban and urban markets positively and was 

statistically significant at (P<0.01). The marginal effect of the cost of transportation 3.04 and 2.70 implying that a unit 

change in the cost of transportation will results in the increase in the probability of the marketers to sale at semi-urban and 

urban market. This is contrary to the apriori expectation but this could be as a result of the better price offered by the markets 



Anthony et al., American International Journal of Agricultural Studies 7(1) (2023), 20-31 

  

29 
 

that could cover all the expenses involved. If the semi-urban and urban market offers better price, marketers will not hesitate 

to carry their goods to the market because of the increase in transportation fair. The diagnostic statistics revealed that the 

LR Chi square value was 135.21, the log likelihood value was -60.035 and statistically significant at P<0.01 with Pseudo 

R2
 value of 0.529. This shows that the model was strong and correctly specified.   

 

Table 5. Maximum Likelihood Estimates of the Multinomial Logit Model for Factors Influencing the Choice of Rural, Semi-

Urban and Urban Market  

 
Variable Semi- Urban  Market              Urban Market 

 Coefficient Standard 

Error 

Marginal 

Effect 

Coefficients Standard 

Err0r 

Marginal 

 Effect 

Sex -0.412    1.052     0.000    0.412    1.052      0.000    

Age 0.115*    0.044 -1.79e    -0.115*    0.044     -1.67e   

Marital Status 0.775    0.734      -0.000    -0.775    0.734 -0.000    

Household Size -0.676*    0.257     2.90e    0.675*    0.257      2.19e    

Education Level 1.214*    0.429      -8.24e -1.213*    0.429     -6.96e    

Market Experience 0.212**    0.116      -2.28e    -0.212**    0.117     -2.05e     

Market Price -0.000*    0.001     7.39e    0.000*    0.000      5.24e    

Distance to Market 0.005    0.011      1.38e    -0.005#    0.010     1.93e    

Cost of Transportation -0.003*    0.002 3.04e    0.003*    0.001      2.70e    

Incurable Cost -0.001#    0.000 5.94e    0.000    0.000#      5.50e 

Constant -1.329     2.737      1.329762     2.737       

LR chi2(20)         135.21      

Prob> chi2          0.0000      

Log likelihood  -60.035                             

Pseudo R2            0.529      

* Significant at P<0.01 ** Significant at P<0.05 *** Significant at P<0.1 

Source: Field Survey (2021) 

 

Constraints Being Encountered in the Marketing of Cowpea in the Study area 

Table 6 presents the results of the analysis of the constraints encountered in the course of marketing cowpea by the operators 

in the study area. The results show that majority 51.8% of the cowpea marketers opined that damages to cowpea caused by 

rodents was severe while 23% and 21.2% said the damage caused by rodents was moderately severe and least severe 

respectively. The mea value of 2.66 from a 5 point Likert scale with standard deviation of 0.888 was statistically significant. 

Also 20.1% and 41.0% of the sampled cowpea marketers agree that inadequate security was the most severe and more 

severe constraints faced by marketers in the study area with mean value of 3.58 on a 5 point Likert scale of measurement 

and was statistically highly significant. Tabl4 also depicts that 66.9%, of the sampled cowpea marketers were facing a most 

severe challenge of lack of fund to carry out their marketing activities, funds is the most important and necessary ingredient 

for conducting any business the mean value of lack of fund on a five point Likert scale of measurement was 4.19 with 

standard deviation of 1.02 and was highly and statistically significant constraint encountered by the market operators in the 

study area, this is consistent with Katanga et al. (2016) who opine that capital increases the performance of marketers . The 

results also revealed majority 69.8% of the respondents expressed their concern that bad roads are the most severe constraints 

hindering the success of marketing operation in the study area, the mean value of bad roads on five 5 point Likert scale was 

4.38 with standard deviation of 1.03 this implies that bad roads are the most highly significant constraint encountered by 

the market operators in the study area. 17.3% and 66.2% of the sampled cowpea marketers opined that electricity supply 

was more severe and severe constraints encountered by the marketers respectively and was statistically significant with 

mean value of 3.5 on five 5 point Likert scale and a standard deviation of 0.73. More so the study also observed that 24.5% 

and 55.5% of the sampled cowpea marketers identified rainfall as the most severe and severe constraint in cowpea marketing 

respectively, the mean value of rainfall on the scale of measurement was 3.06 with the standard deviation of 1.02 and was 

statistically significant. The other significant constraint encountered by the cowpea markers was high price of the 

commodity, 23.7% and 45.3% of the sampled cowpea marketers opined that high price of the cowpea was another major 

constraint encountered in the course of marketing cowpea in the study area with mean value of 3.52 and standard deviation 

of 1.02 and was statistically significant. High price could reduce the profit level that could be gain by marketers when all 

incurred costs are added together. This finding is consistent with the findings of Kaka et al. (2020) and Ali et al. (2019).  

 

Table 6. Results of the Analysis of Constraints Encountered by the Cowpea Marketers in the Study area 

 
Constraints Most Severe More Severe Severe Moderately 

Severe 
Least Severe  

Mean 
 
Std Dev 

 Freq           % Freq       % Freq   % Freq     % Freq      %   

Loss 4 2.9   9 6.5 56 40.3 70 50.4 1.647 0.842 

Rodents 2 1.4 16 11.5 72 51.8 32 23.0 17 21.2 2.669* 0.888 

Inadequate 

Security 

28  20.1 57 41.0 28 20.1 20 14.4 6 4.3 3.583 1.096 

Market 

leadership 

11 7.9 26 18.7 36 25.9 11 7.9 55 39.6 2.475 1.379 

Customers   35  24 17.3 49 35.3 27 19.4 2.568 1.149 

Weevil 10 7.2 5 3.6 49 35.3 56 40.3 19 13.7 2.504 1.017 

Lack of fund 93 66.9 11 7.9 11 7.9 17 12.2 7 5.0 4.194 1.017 



Anthony et al., American International Journal of Agricultural Studies 7(1) (2023), 20-31 

  

30 
 

Too much 

Charges 

4 2.9 4 2.9 28 20.1 71 51.1 32 23.0 2.115 0.893 

Poor Storage 

Facilities 

  17 12.2 9 6.5 58 41.7 55 39.6 1.914 0.974 

Bad roads 97 69.8 12 8.6 16 11.5 14 10.1   4.381 1.038 

Lack of 

electricity 

4 2.9 24 17.3 92 66.2 14 10.1 5 3.6 3.511 0.7300 

Rainfall 34 24.5 18 12.9 77 55.4 5 3.6 5 3.6 3.0576 1.017 

High price 33 23.7 25 18.0 63 45.3 17 12.2 1 .7 3.5180 1.009 

Source: Field Survey (2021) 

 

CONCLUSIONS 
Based on the findings from this research the study therefore concludes that most of the marketers operating in all markets 

were young marketers, cowpea marketing in the study area is profitable but the marketers were not efficient in allocating 

their resources for achieving optimum profit, comparatively  cowpea marketing is more profitable at rural market than semi-

urban and urban market, the factors influencing the choice of market type either rural market, semi-urban market or urban 

market includes age, household size, education marketing experience, market price, and cost of transportation to the market. 

The following constraints were encountered by the cowpea marketers in the study area, rodents, inadequate security, market 

leadership, customers, and bad roads, lack of electricity, rainfall, and high cost of cowpea. 

Based on the results of the findings emanating from this study the following recommendations are made 

 Extension agents should be made available to train and in lighten the cowpea marketers about the cowpea marketing 

in order to make gain and more profit from their enterprises, 

 Storage facilities should be provided in the markets at all levels so that marketers would store their products safely 

in order to sell it with a good price in the future, 

 Credit facilities should be provided to the marketers to increase their capacity either through government or 

nongovernmental organizations or microfinance banks or institutions, 

 Good roads and other infrastructural facilities should be made available specially to link the rural markets in the 

rural areas and easy transportation to the city, 

 Security personnel should be provided to secure the markets at all levels.   

 

 
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, L.A., E.S.E., F.O.A., A.K.C. and J.S.A.; Methodology, L.A. and F.O.A.; Software, L.A.; Validation, J.S.A., 
A.K.C. and J.S.A.; Formal Analysis, L.A., E.S.E., F.O.A., A.K.C. and J.S.A.; Investigation, J.S.A., F.O.A; Resources, E.S.E., F.O.A.; A.K.C.; Data 

Curation, L.A.; Writing – Original Draft Preparation, L.A., E.S.E., F.O.A., A.K.C. and J.S.A; Writing – Review & Editing, L.A., E.S.E., F.O.A., A.K.C. 

and J.S.A.; Visualization, J.S.A.; Supervision, L.A., E.S.E.; Project Administration, L.A. and J.S.A.; Funding Acquisition, L.A., E.S.E., F.O.A., A.K.C. 
and J.S.A.. Authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. 

Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, due to that the research does not deal with vulnerable 
groups or sensitive issues. 

Funding: The authors received no direct funding for this research. 

Acknowledgments: Not applicable.  

Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. 

Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available 

due to restrictions. 

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

 

REFERENCES 

Abah, D., & Tor, I. E. (2012). Cost and Returns of Cowpea Enterprise in Lafia Local Government of Nasarawa State, 

Nigeria. Production Agriculture and Technology, 8(2), 59-67. 

Akpan, S. B., Udoh, E. J., & Udo, U. J. (2014). Monthly price analysis of cowpea (beans) and maize in Akwa Ibom State, 

Southern Nigeria. International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC), 2(1128-2016-92039), 

65-86. 

Alabi, O. Y., Aziza, E., & Omoloye, A. A. (2012). Preliminary evaluation of selected cowpea varieties for resistance to 

cowpea aphid, Aphis craccivora. Nigerian Journal of Ecology, 12, 45-55. 

Alabi, O. O., Oladele, A. O., & Maharazu, I. (2020). Profitability Analysis and Marketing Efficiency of Soyabean (Glycine 

max) Value Chain among Actors in Abuja, Nigeria. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, 36(4), 1010-1019. 

Ali, O., Zacharias, T. N., & Tyodzua, A. (2019). Socio-economic and Market Analysis of Gari in Benue State Nigeria. 

 Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Science, 7(9), 25-33. 

Coker, A.A.A., Ibrahim, F. D., Ibeziako, U. N. (2018). Effect of Household Demographics on the Technical 

 Efficiency of Cowpea Farmers: Evidence from Stochastic Frontier Analysis in Nigeria. Russian Journal 

of Agricultural and Socio-Economic Sciences, 91(7), 366-375. https://doi.org/10.18551/rjoas.2018-01.23 

Ddungu, S. P., Ekere, W., Bisikwa, J., Kawooya, R., Kalule, D. O., & Biruma, M. (2015). Marketing and market integration 

of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp) in Uganda. Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics, 7(1), 

1-11. https://doi.org/10.5897/JDAE2014.0577 

Gaya, H. I. M., Tahir, A. D., Danladi, H., & Tanimu, B. (2020). Analysis of Structure and Performance of Cowpea 

Marketing in Maiduguri Metropolitan Council and Jere LGA of Borno State, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural 

Economics, Environment and Social Sciences, 6(2), 81-88. Retrieved from 

https://doi.org/10.18551/rjoas.2018-01.23


Anthony et al., American International Journal of Agricultural Studies 7(1) (2023), 20-31 

  

31 
 

http://jaeess.com.ng/index.php/jaeess/article/view/68 

Girei, A. A., Dire, B., Salihu, M., & Iliya, M. M. (2013). Assessment of problems affecting the structure, conduct and 

performance of cowpea marketing in Yola North and Yola South Local Government Areas in Adamawa State, 

Nigeria. British Journal of Marketing Studies, 1(4), 41-50. 

International Monetary Fund (IMF). (2010). Supporting A Balanced Global Recovery. 

Katanga, Y. N., Hussain, I., Wudil, A. H., & Haruna, U. (2016). Analysis of Cowpea Marketing Channel in Kiyawa Local 

Government Area of Jigawa State, Nigeria. International Journal of Agricultural Policy and research, 4(9), 157-

201. 

Kaka, Y., Sahabi, H., Auwal, A. G., & Umar, H. S. (2020). Analysis of Cowpea Marketing and Price Trends in Selected 

Markets of Argungu Local Government Area, Kebbi State, Nigeria. Equity Journal of Science and Technology, 

7(2), 125-125. 

Mohammed, U. S. & Mohammed, F. K. (2014). Profitability analysis of cowpea production in rural areas of Zaria  local 

government area of Kaduna state, Nigeria. International Journal of Development and Sustainability, 3(9), 1919-

1926. 

NARELS. (2020). National Agricultural Extension and Research Liaison Services.  

National Population Commission (NPC). (2006). Nigeria National Census: Population Distribution by Sex, State, LGAs 

and Senatorial District: 2006 Census Priority Tables (Vol. 3).  Retrieved from 

http://www.population.gov.ng/index.php/publication/140-popn-distri-by-sex-state-jgas-and-senatorial-distr-2006 

Olukosi, J. O., & Erhabor, P. O. (2005). Introduction to Farm Management Economics: Principles and Applications. 

 Agitab Publishers Limited, Zaria, Kaduna, Nigeria, pp77 – 83.  

Onyemauwa, C. S. (2010). Marketing margin and efficiency of watermelon marketing in Niger Delta Area of Nigeria. 

Agricultural Tropical Et Sub-Tropical, 43, 196-201. 

Polaski, S. (2008). Rising food prices, poverty, and the Doha round. Washington, DC: Carnegie endowment for 

international Peace. Principles and Application. Living Book Series. Abuja: G.M Publications; 2013 

Premjit, S. (2013). Agricultural Marketing Management. Gene-TECH Books. New Delhi, India. Pp 128 
 

 

Publisher’s Note: ACSE stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 

 
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee ACSE, USA. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons 

Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 

American International Journal of Agricultural Studies (P-ISSN 2641-4155 E-ISSN 2641-418X) by ACSE is licensed under a Creative Commons 

Attribution 4.0 International License. 

http://www.population.gov.ng/index.php/publication/140-popn-distri-by-sex-state-jgas-and-senatorial-distr-
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
http://ssbfnet.com/ojs/index.php/ijrbs
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

