Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, December, 2018; Vol. 14(4):547-558 Copyright © Faculty of Engineering, University of Maiduguri, Maiduguri, Nigeria. Print ISSN: 1596-2490, Electronic ISSN: 2545-5818, www.azojete.com.ng 547 ASSESSMENT OF FUFU PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES IN OGUN STATE, NIGERIA O. K. Owolarafe1, B. O. Adetifa2*, A. C. Oyekanmi2, T. G. Lemikan2 and T. M. Samuel2 (1 Department of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Technology, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, P.M.B 13, Osun State, Nigeria. 2 Department of Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, College of Engineering and Environmental Studies, Olabisi Onabanjo University, 112104, Ibogun, Ifo, Ogun State, Nigeria) *Corresponding Author’s Email address: olusola.adetifa@oouagoiwoye.edu.ng Abstract The quality of fufu has been known to vary from one location to another. The processing technique may be responsible for this variation in quality. A study was carried out to investigate the different processing technologies adopted for production of fufu from cassava at different processing centres in Abeokuta and Ilaro, Ogun State. Hundred fufu processing centres were randomly selected, while data was collected using structured questionnaire, sensory analysis and physical observation. Information about the ownership, operator, enterprise, source of water supply, unit operations alongside their equipment and the waste disposal methods were gathered. Results showed that most fufu processing centres were owned by individuals. Most of the unit operations were carried out manually usually by women with low education level. Plastic drums and concrete pots were commonly used for soaking cassava for 3-5 days. Cassava mash is sun-dried for an average of 2.79±1.1 days and packaged into nylon or jute bags. Cassava peel and chaff are often reused while the wastewater is either drained into pits or left unattended to. Delay in processing cassava tubers, increase in the length of soaking, ineffective dewatering method, unhygienic source of water for fufu processing, etc. were some of the factors observed to affect the physical quality of fufu. Statistical analysis shows that the categories in most of those unit operations do not have equal probabilities of occurrence in the population. It is therefore imperative to develop appropriate technologies affordable by the small scale processors for the people in the area. Keywords: Cassava mash, decanting, soaking, dewatering, cassava waste disposal 1. Introduction Cassava is an important food crop produced in Nigeria in large quantity. The country is the leading producer of cassava in the World with an annual production of about 45 million tonnes (Asante-Pok, 2013). Owing to the large production, the crop is processed into many food items such as fufu, gari, lafun etc. Fufu (also called utara akpu) is the meal of soaked fermented cassava roots which is widely consumed in Nigeria (Iwuoha and Eke, 1996). It is one of the major food forms of cassava fermentation, which is reconstituted by stirring in boiling water to form dough and eaten with flavoured sauces. In some areas, low cyanide cassava roots can be boiled or steamed and pounded into fufu (Hahn, 1988). Fufu contains 6.50, 1.68, 1.32, 1.84, 1.42 and 87.24% moisture, protein, fat, ash, crude fibre and carbohydrate, respectively (Bamidele et al., 2015). The unit operations involved in the production of fufu using the traditional method are as follows: The Cassava tubers are peeled, washed, cut into thick chunks and steeped in water in earthenware pots or in a slow-flowing stream for 4-5 days to ferment, soften and produce a characteristic of retted cassava meal. The tubers are disintegrated in clean water, sieved and allowed to settle for decantation of water; the sediment is the fufu (raw) (Iwuoha and Eke, 1996; Uzogara et al., 1990). Umeh and Odibo (2014) identified two modified methods used in fufu production. These include peeling the cassava tubers, cutting them into smaller cubes of about 2-4 cm before soaking, or grating the tubers into a mash, bagging the mash and pressing out some liquid before soaking the bag in water. Similarly, Omodamiro et al. (2012) carried out the production of fufu from yellow cassava roots using the odourless flour technique. mailto:olusola.adetifa@oouagoiwoye.edu.ng http://www.azojete.com.ng Owolarafe et al.: Assessment of Fufu Production Technologies in Ogun State, Nigeria. AZOJETE, 14(4):547- 558. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818, www.azojete.com.ng 548 One potential problem in processed fufu is the flavour of the product, which may be undesirable to many people. Another major problem with fufu production is that the quality of the product varies from one processor to the other and from one processing batch to the other by same processor. Factors that could be responsible for the variability of quality of fufu include; the size to which the roots are cut prior to soaking (Okafor et al., 1984), variety differences in dry matter content and the quality of roots or water used for soaking. The fermentation process of fufu production is initiated as a result of chance inoculation by microorganisms from the environment. Although convenient, there are concerns about the reliability of this process, the control of which is the basis of all technological measures that are used to obtain product at a defined quality. The presence of unspecified microorganisms complicates the control of the fermentation process and leads to the production of objectionable odours. Such problems have led to the development of several other processing techniques suitable for odourless fufu (Okpokiri et al., 1984; Ezeronye, 2003). Okolie et al. (1992) proposed a modification of the microbiological process in order to upgrade the cassava product but in practice is yet to receive great attention. According to Oyewole and Sanni (1995), cassava processors confirmed that shorter fermentation periods (2-3 days) are required during the dry (hot) season while longer fermentation periods (3-5 days) are required during the rainy (cold) season for proper retting of cassava for fufu production. Some processors expose fermenting roots to direct sunlight as a means of enhancing the fermentation process. Achi and Akomas (2006) carried out a comparative assessment of fermentation techniques in processing of Fufu. Two major techniques were identified. In one process, fufu was produced by steeping cassava tubers for 48 hours followed by grating and fermenting for another 48 hours while the other technique involved grating cassava tubers and dewatering/fermentation for 24 hours before re-steeping for another 48 hours (Achi and Akomas, 2006). they further observed that though there was no difference in colour or texture due to the processing method, the fermentation of grated cassava produced a more acceptable product. Previous research has shown that there are differences in processing methods utilized and level of quality of fufu produced in Ogun State, but this is insufficient. Some specifics of the unit operations are not available in literature. Some of this specifics include; duration of operation, equipment used for operation, tasks carried out before and after an operation, etc. The variation in these specifics is capable of leading to variation in the quality of fufu from one location to another. This work is therefore aimed at investigating and assessing the different processing technologies adopted for production of fufu from cassava at different processing centres in Abeokuta and Ilaro, Ogun State. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1 Study area, sampling technique and sample size Ogun State was selected as the study area because of the predominant fufu processing activities going on within the state. The state captures a variety of situations in terms of access to urban and rural markets, importance of cassava processing activities, prominence of fufu processing as a source of livelihood, and type of fufu produced. Ogun State has been divided into four Agricultural Zones, i.e. Ilaro, Ijebu-Ode, Ikenne and Abeokuta by Ogun State Agricultural Development Programme (OGADEP) (Adewuyi et al., 2009). For this study, two of the agricultural zones were selected i.e. Ilaro and Abeokuta because they are predominantly fufu production area (Oyewole and Sanni, 1995; Adebayo et al., 2003). Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, December, 2018; Vol. 14(4): 547-558. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818; www.azojete.com.ng 549 Fufu processing communities were selected using systematic sampling method from the agricultural zones. Twelve fufu processing communities were selected in Ilaro zone (i.e. Oja-Adan, Ado-Odo, Oke-Odan, Ipokia, Ihumbo, Igbesa, Idolehin, Sawonje, Aton, Agbara, Ibese and Isaga), while thirteen fufu processing communities were selected in Abeokuta zone (i.e. Odeda, Ifo, Ibogun Osungboye, Ibogun Akinside, Ibogun Egbeda, Ibogun Fashina, Imala, Arigbajo, Osiele, Itori, Olugbo, Wasimi and Ajegunle). Within each of the processing communities, four fufu processing centres were randomly selected; hence, 100 fufu processing centres were investigated. The major difference in the sample populations is the perceived difference in fufu production technologies and the quality. 2.2 Data collection and analysis The methods used to collect data from each specified location include interview, using structured questionnaire, sensory analysis and physical observation. The questionnaire used was divided into two major parts as follows i.e. fufu processing method and operator’s perception of fufu industry. The section on processing method focused on collecting comprehensive information on the processing centre. The information gathered include, the ownership status of the centre, number of employee, educational level of operator, age of the enterprise, predominant sex, and source of water supply. The amount of raw materials used was also elicited. The unit operations involved were investigated to determine the method and equipment in use. The unit operations investigated include; peeling, washing, soaking, water replacement, decanting of effluence/wastewater, pulverization/pulping/mashing, dewatering the mash, drying dewatered mash, cooking, packaging and sales. Aside the unit operations, other issues investigated include; waste generated and uses, estimate of fufu processing waste/by product and general cleanliness of processing centre. The section on operator’s perception of fufu industry was used in gathering information on the problems confronting fufu processing centres and suggested solution. Physical observation was used to note the general outlook of the processing sites and activities of the processors A preliminary sensory analysis was carried out which involved the collection and evaluation of samples of fufu sold at the markets around six different fufu processing centres. The samples were accessed in terms of colour, odour, texture and taste. The data obtained was statistically analysed using both descriptive and inferential statistics appropriately. The data collected from the questionnaire were presented and analysed using graphs and other descriptive statistical tools to enhance proper interpretation. One sample Chi- Square test, Binomial test and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test were used to test the null hypothesis of equal probabilities. It was also used to make generalisation from a sample to a population. These were done using SPSS 20 software by IBM and Microsoft Excel, 2010. 3. Results and Discussion 3.1 Fufu processing enterprise This study investigated the ownership of fufu processing enterprises across the selected Agricultural Zones. It was observed that 83% of these enterprises were owned by individuals. Also, 43% of the individual processing centres have being existing for more than 5 years, 16% for 5 years; while, 12% have existed for less than 5 years (figure 1). Figure 1 also shows that 40% of the enterprises were owned by group of processors; 20%, 15% and 4% of these enterprises have existed for more than 5 years, approximately 5 years and less than 5 years, respectively. It was also estimated that 36.4% of the enterprise owned by Government have existed for more than 5 years, 27.3% for 5 years and 36.4% for less than 5 years. Statistical analysis using one sample chi- Owolarafe et al.: Assessment of Fufu Production Technologies in Ogun State, Nigeria. AZOJETE, 14(4):547- 558. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818, www.azojete.com.ng 550 square test revealed a significant difference in the proportions of individual, government and group ownership. This shows clearly that cassava processing into fufu is dominated by individuals. This result corroborates with that of Okorji et al. (2003) who observed that cassava processing centres in the rural communities of Ahiazu, Ikeduru, Mbaitoli, Owerri and Ohaji Egbema in Imo State, Nigeria were completely owned by individuals; but on the other hand, Adebayo (2009) ascribed the ownership of cassava processing centres to households. Figure 1: Fufu production Enterprise and Employees 3.2 Fufu Production Employees In the data obtained, it was observed that higher percentage of processing centres employs 3-6 employers this result is presented in figure 1. This is similar to the report of Adebayo (2009) that the households involved in cassava processing in south-west Nigeria has about 3-6 persons. In Ilaro zone, most fufu processors employ 3-4 workers, while 5-6 workers are mostly found in Abeokuta zone. All these categories are significantly different in terms of the probability of occurrence (from one sample chi-square test). It was also discovered that primary 6 was the highest educational level of fufu processors – 35% of females and 5% of males (Figure 1). This implies that female with low educational level dominate fufu processing centres. This low literacy level hinders the adoption of new fufu processing techniques, as an upshot, the development of the centres and the improvement in processing method suffers a great set back. This study confirms the dominance of women in fufu processing or any other cassava production process (Hahn, 1988; Adebayo, 2009; Ferrar, 1992; Igbeka, 1995, Davies et al., 2008; Samuel et al., 2010; Nsoanya and Nenna, 2011; Adetifa and Samuel, 2012). 3.3 Source of power supply The field study showed that 77% of the processing centres do not have any power source, while, 10% use the national grid supply, and 13% used generators for processing cassava into fufu. Based on the result of the one sample chi-square test, these three categories of power source do not have equal probabilities of occurrence. It can therefore be concluded that, most fufu processing centres do not have access to electricity, which means that, fufu processing in those areas are not mechanised. This could lead to drudgery which will affect the profit obtained from the product. This result shows that most of the operations carried out at the fufu processing centres are manual. This confirms that manual energy use is higher than electrical energy use in most cassava processing centres (Jekayinfa and Olajide, 2007). Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, December, 2018; Vol. 14(4): 547-558. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818; www.azojete.com.ng 551 3.4 Procurement of raw materials This research work revealed that 75% of the cassava tubers used in processing fufu was bought from the market, while 25% were self-cultivated. Hence, a good number of the processing centres buy their cassava from the market, some of these centres buy cassava directly from the farm, and later convey to the processing centres by a motor cyclist. Ani et al. (2013) also observed that most of the cassava tubers used in cassava processing is purchased off farm in Enugu state, Nigeria. 3.5 Operator’s perception of fufu production technologies Women processors described fufu processing as a flexible activity that can be taken up easily with little investment; but, a good number of processors interviewed complained of the difficulties and cost of procuring large amount of fresh cassava tubers; lack of mechanised fufu processing technologies; and the inability to store fufu for reasonable period of time due to product perishability. In some processing centres at Ilaro, some women were seen mashing soaked cassava tubers with their bare foot. They complained of how ineffective and time consuming it is to make use of hands to mash soaked cassava especially when handling large volume of soaked cassava. According to Ferrar (1992), the effect of exposure to cyanide (which may still be present in the soaked cassava tubers) include spastic paralysis and goitre which is suffered by the women who process the cassava. Furthermore, lack of good source of water affect the quality of fufu produced in Ado- Odo, Itori and Igbesa. The streams or rivers which are the source of water for fufu processing also have cassava waste water channelled into it. In a way, the water gets polluted and becomes unhygienic for consumption. This goes a long way in affecting the taste, colour and odour of ready-to-eat fufu. Finally, the need for provision of mechanical devices to reduce drudgery involved in fufu processing was emphasized in all the processing centres visited as identified by Dipeolu et al. (2001). 3.6 Unit Operations It was observed that the processing operations varied across the two Agricultural zones and within different locations in each zone. These variations affected the methods and materials used. Figure 2 shows the prevalence level of different methods adopted in each unit operation. Owolarafe et al.: Assessment of Fufu Production Technologies in Ogun State, Nigeria. AZOJETE, 14(4):547- 558. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818, www.azojete.com.ng 552 Figure 2: Unit operations for fufu production 1. Peeling and washing: Figure 2 shows that 65% of the cassava processors commence manual peeling of the cassava a day after harvesting, 18% after 2 days, and 2% after 4-5 days. On the other hand, 9% of the cassava processors commence mechanical peeling method a day after harvesting, 3% after 2 days, 1.5% after 3 days and 1% after 4-5 days. This implies that majority of the cassava processors adopt manual means of peeling cassava. Also Figure 2, 2% of the cassava processors wash their cassava mechanically a day after peeling, 1% wash in less than 5 hr after peeling, while 9% wash immediately using the mechanical method. Conversely, 3% of the cassava processors wash their cassava manually a day after peeling, 27% wash their cassava less than 5 hours, while 53% wash immediately. Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, December, 2018; Vol. 14(4): 547-558. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818; www.azojete.com.ng 553 Generally, the method of peeling and washing were significantly different in terms of the probability of occurrence (from one sample binomial test). This therefore confirms the fact that most of the cassava processors prefer using manual means of washing their cassava. The use of large vessels or moving water can be used in washing peeled cassava (Howeler, 1990). Table 1 shows that borehole, river and wells are the major sources of water used. This water sources are mostly available within the processing centres and at least 100 m from the processing centres. Table 1: Source of water and distance from the main source 2. Soaking: It was confirmed from this research that different processors adopt various method to facilitate cassava soaking, although higher percentage of processors adopt concrete pot method (Figure 2). Based on the one sample chi-square test carried out, these soaking methods have significantly different probabilities of usage. Figure 2 shows that most of the processors soak the cassava immediately after peeling. Figure 2 also shows soaking for 3-5 days is predominant in the study area which is the best for cyanogen removal (Tivana, 2012). Montagnac et al. (2008) reported that soaking cassava for three days before sun drying ensures 97.8-98.7% cyanogen removal although Amsalu and Esubalew (2011) observed that soaking for 1 day is sufficient before sun drying. The percentage of cyanogen removed can be increased by increasing the soaking time; but, soaking for longer periods increase nutrient loss, fungi, mould spores and undesirable bacteria in the final product (Montagnac et al., 2008). 3. Water replacement: Water replacement is one of the major factors that determine the quality of fufu produced. Around 51% of the fufu processing centres prefer replacement of water during soaking, while 41% of the fufu processing centres do not replace water during soaking. The frequency of water replacement (number of times soaking water was replaced) amongst the fufu processing centres during the soaking period is presented in figure 2. The prominent method of soaking in Abeokuta is to replace the water once within three days interval. In Ilaro, soaking water is replaced either once or twice within two days interval. Periodical change of soaking water improves the taste, colour and texture of fufu (Akingbala et al., 1991). 4. Decanting and mashing: Majority (around 85%) of the cassava processors used manual decanting method, 12% of the cassava processors used mechanical decanting method, while 3% had no response regarding the decanting method used which stipulates that most of the fufu processors are locally built or constructed in large volumes for more productivity rate. Figure 2 shows the equipment used by processors for decanting and mashing process of fufu production in each agricultural zone. Generally, 60% of the processors use bowl, while 40% use tilting containers for decanting. Cassava mashing by hand was observed to be the dominant method of mashing in Abeokuta agricultural zone (Figure 2). Mashing with hand was possible due to the softening of the tubers after soaking. Mashing by hand was the only method identified by Oyewole and Isah (2012). The use of mortar and pestle and hammer mill for mashing is prominent in Ilaro agricultural zone, although mashing with the legs was also identified. Statistical analysis using one sample chi-square test shows that there is significant difference between the methods used in decanting and mashing within the study area. Source of water Distance < 100 m ≥ 100 m Within Processing Centre Borehole 12% 1% 21% River 11% 5% 17% Well 6% 4% 23% Owolarafe et al.: Assessment of Fufu Production Technologies in Ogun State, Nigeria. AZOJETE, 14(4):547- 558. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818, www.azojete.com.ng 554 5. Dewatering: Manual dewatering was observed as the dominant method (77.5%) compared to using mechanical equipment (22.5%). Manual dewatering is done majorly by pressing with wood (46%) followed by pressing with stone (34%). Hanging the mash on plank (20%) is not a prominent manual dewatering method in the areas under study. Mechanical dewatering is done majorly with the use of a single screw press and hydraulic press. The result of the one sample chi- square test shows that these methods of dewatering differ significantly within the study area. From the processors using hydraulic press for dewatering, 40% of the cassava processors use 10 tons as the maximum hydraulic jack capacity while 59% use 15 tons. Usually, pressing time depends on the efficiency of the press and the moisture content of the mash (Oti et al., 2010). 6. Drying, Cooling, Re-sieving and Packaging: Sun drying is the popular method of drying fufu mash in Ilaro and Abeokuta agricultural zones. This method of drying fufu has been reported to have no appreciable difference in terms of yield, proximate composition and acidity compared to using a rotary or cabinet drier, although it falls short in pasting properties (Sanni and Akingbala, 2000). From figure 3, the mean sun drying days is 2.79±1.1 days. It was observed that 13% of the cassava processors sun dry wet fufu paste for 1 day, 29% sun dry for 2 days, 27% sun dry their wet fufu paste from 3-4 days, while 4% sun dry their wet fufu paste for 5 days. Kolmogorov- Smirnov test revealed that there is no significant difference between the sun drying days adopted by fufu processors in the study area. Figure 3: Sun drying days The quantity of cassava mash dried in each agricultural zone is usually around 4 bags. Statistical analysis reveals that there is a positive but low correlation between the quantity dried and the sun drying days. This correlation was found to be significant at 72%. In addition, analysis using one sample chi-square test revealed that there is no significant difference between the quantities dried by fufu processors in the study area. In Abeokuta zone, 94.2% do not cool after drying the cassava mash before packaging and 63.5% do not re-sieve the cassava mash; while in Ilaro zone, 35% do not cool 70.8% do not re-sieve. This may also be responsible for the difference in the quality of fufu within these zones. A study to investigate the effect of cooling and re-seiving operations on the quality of fufu is therefore required. The prevalence of different packaging materials used for wet fufu mash is presented in figure 2. It reveals that packaging materials made of nylon and jute are common in the study area for packing Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, December, 2018; Vol. 14(4): 547-558. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818; www.azojete.com.ng 555 the wet fufu. Plastic and cellophane are other materials used. Hahn (1988) reported that wet cassava pulp of about 0.5-1.0 kg is packed in a plastic or polypropylene bag. The packaging materials have significantly different probabilities of occurrence within the study location (using one sample chi-square test). 3.7 Sales of finished product It was observed that 44.4% of consumers placed advance order for finished products. It was further observed that certain factors affect the sales of finished products. The study revealed that in Abeokuta zone; 5% of cassava processors have insufficient cassava, 7% have insufficient equipment and 10% have low work rate; while in Ilaro zone; 4% have insufficient cassava, 1% have insufficient equipment and 4% have low work. Adebayo et al. (2003) identified similar factors like availability and price of cassava and the price of fuel as external contextual factors affecting the profitability of wet paste fufu. Dipeolu et al. (2001) identified poor access to finance as one of the constraints affecting the marketability of fufu. 3.8 Waste Disposal Method Table 2 shows the various methods adopted in the disposal of waste. Cassava peel, cassava chaff and wastewater were identified as the major types of waste generated during fufu processing. It was observed that the major method for disposing cassava peel is by reusing it. It is usually dried and sold to livestock farmers. In Ilaro zone, most of the cassava peels are buried, dumped in dump sites or unattended to. The disposal method for cassava chaff is similar to that of cassava peel. In Abeokuta zone, wastewater is usually drained into pit, while in Ilaro zone; it is usually left unattended to. Based on the result of the one sample chi-square test, these cassava waste disposal methods all have different probability of being used. The potential in cassava wastewater is usually underutilized in the study area. This result is similar to report of Coker and Achi (2015) who observed that in Ibadan, 70-75% of cassava peels, bagasse and waste effluents were discharged indiscriminately into nearby bushes and water bodies. Cassava waste transformation offers the possibility of creating marketable value-added products (Ubalua, 2007). Table 2:Waste disposal method in each agricultural zone Zone Cassava Peel Disposal (%) Cassava Chaff Disposal (%) Wastewater Disposal (%) B R DU U O B R DU U O R D U O Abeokuta 8 73 15 2 2 6 65 12 15 2 2 58 30 10 Ilaro 13 47 28 10 2 17 36 32 13 2 15 30 53 2 Key: B-Bury, R-Reuse, Du-Dumped, D-Drain into pit, U-Unattended, O-Others 3.9 Preliminary Sensory Analysis Fufu is considered by consumer to be of good quality when it has a smooth texture, characteristic aroma, and is creamy white, grey or yellow in colour. The quality of fufu was observed to depend on the technologies adopted, method of processing and material used for processing. Fufu produced in wet form with moisture content of 40%-50% had a repulsive smell. This smell was caused by; delay in processing cassava tubers, increase in the soaking time, ineffective dewatering method and source of water. The colour variation in fufu production was due to inappropriate dewatering method, low water replacement frequency, delay in processing and soaking and the water used for soaking. A well processed fufu should also have a smooth and fine texture, but the use of over matured tubers resulted to a rough texture. Some of the factors observed to affect the taste of fufu are; unsuitable dewatering and mashing method increase in soaking time, delay in cassava tuber processing and the improper management Owolarafe et al.: Assessment of Fufu Production Technologies in Ogun State, Nigeria. AZOJETE, 14(4):547- 558. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818, www.azojete.com.ng 556 of cassava peel, chaff and waste water. According to Uyo et al. (2009), the taste, colour and texture of cooked fufu are not affected by the fermentation technique. Oyewole and Ogundele (2001) reported similar results. 4. Conclusion This paper presented the assessment of various fufu processing techniques across two selected agricultural zones in Ogun State (Ilaro and Abeokuta). It has also being able to identify the quality variation of fufu due the various processing techniques adopted. It revealed that higher percentages of fufu processing centres were owned by individuals, who adopt majorly manual method in fufu processing, thereby increasing drudgery and yielding low income. The cassava tubers used for fufu were mostly purchased off-farm; peeled and washed manually a day after harvest; soaked for either 3-5 days; and mashed manually either by hand or with the use of mortar and pestle. Inadequate financing and insufficient education were observed as some of the factors affecting the development of fufu processing centres and the adoption of new technologies. It is therefore important that all concerned agencies and parastatals create policies to make funds easily accessible to rural farmers, educate farmers on the new technologies available, subsidise the purchase of processing equipment and provide technical assistance. References Achi, OK. and Akomas, NS. 2006. Comparative assessment of fermentation techniques in the processing of fufu, a traditional fermented cassava product. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 5 (3): 224-229. Adebayo, K., 2009. Dynamics of technology adoption in rural-based cassava processing enterprises in South-West Nigeria. International Journal of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, 2(1): 15-25. Adebayo, K., White, JL., Morris, MJ., Dipeolu, AO., Ayinde, IA., Wandschneider, TS., Sanni, LO., Oyewole, OB., Tomlins, A. and Westby, A. 2003. Innovativeness and stakeholdership in the fufu processing systems in southwest Nigeria. ASSET Series A, 3(4): 15-27. Adetifa, BO. and Samuel, TM. 2012. Characterisation of gari frying stations in Ifo Local Government, Ogun State, Nigeria. Journal of Research in National Development, 10 (3): 34-46. Adewuyi, SA., Adebayo, AO., Aderinboye, RY. and Bada, BS. 2009. Report of diagnostic survey of agricultural problems in Ogun state. Institute of Food Security, Environmental Resources and Agricultural Research, University of Agriculture Abeokuta. Retrieved on August 15, 2017 from UNAAB Website: www.unaab.edu.ng/attachments/OgunReport3.pdf Akingbala, JO., Oguntimein, GB. and Abass, AB. 1991. Effect of processing methods on quality and acceptability of fufu from low cyanide cassava. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 51(1): 151-154. Amsalu, N. and Esubalew, G. 2011. Soaking and drying cassava roots reduced cynogenic potential of thee cassava varieties at Jimma, Southwest Ethopia. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 7(4): 439-443. Ani, SO., Agbugba, IK. and Baiyegunhi, LJS. 2013. Processing and marketing of selected cassava products in south-east Nigeria. Journal of Economics, 4(2): 105-111. Asante-Pok, A., 2013. Analysis of incentives and disincentives for cassava in Nigeria. Technical notes series, MAFAP, FAO, Rome. http://www.unaab.edu.ng/attachments/OgunReport3.pdf Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, December, 2018; Vol. 14(4): 547-558. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818; www.azojete.com.ng 557 Bamidele, OP., Fasogbon, MB., Oladiran, DA. and Akande, EO. 2015. Nutritional composition of fufu analog flour produced from Cassava root (Manihot esculenta) and Cocoyam (Colocasia esculenta) tuber. Food Science and Nutrition 3(6): 597–603. Coker, AO. and Achi, CG. 2015. Utilization of cassava processing waste in Ibadan as a viable and sustainable strategy for meeting cassava processing energy needs: case study from Ibadan city, Nigeria. Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management, 41(4): 628-639. Davies, RM., Olatunji, MO. and Burubai, W. 2008. A Survey of Cassava Processing Machinery in Oyo State. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 4 (3): 337-340. Dipeolu, AO., Adebayo, K., Ayinde, IA., Oyewole, O., Sanni, IO., Pearce, DM., Wandschneider, TS., White, JL. and Westby, A 2001. Fufu marketing systems in southwest Nigeria. NRI report R2626, Retrieved on August 15, 2017 from FAO Website: http://www.fao.org/docs/eims/upload/agrotech/1968/R7495_1.pdf. Ezeronye, OU. 2003. Fermentation kinetics and removal of off-odour in cassava fufu. Nigerian Journal of Experimental and Applied Biology, 4: 1-4. Ferrar, P. 1992. Food laced with cyanide. Partners in research for development, 5: 29-33. Hahn, SK. 1988. An overview of traditional cassava processing and utilization in Africa. In: IITA/ILCA/University of Ibadan workshop on the potential utilization of cassava as livestock feed in Africa, Ibadan, 14-18 November, 1988. FAO. Howeler, RH. 1990. Cassava breeding, Agronomy and utilization research in Asia. In: Third Regional Workshop, Malang. 22nd – 27th October, 1990. Igbeka, JC. 1995. Recent developments in cassava frying operation and equipment used for gari production in Nigeria. Transformation Alimentaire du Manioc. (TT. Agbor Egbe, A. Brauman, D. Griffon, S. Treche (éds.)), Paris, ORSTOM: 581 – 593. Iwuoha, CI. and Eke, OS. 1996. Nigerian indigenous fermented foods: their traditional process operation, inherent problems, improvements and current status. Food Research International 29(5- 6): 527-540. Jekayinfa, SO. and Olajide, JO. 2007. Analysis of energy usage in the production of three selected cassava-based foods in Nigeria. Journal of Food Engineering 82: 217-226. Montagnac, JA., Davis, CR. and Tanumihardjo, SA. 2008. Processing techniques to reduce toxicity and antinutrients of cassava for use as a staple food. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 8: 17-27. Nsoanya, LN. and Nenna, MG. 2011. Adoption of Improved Cassava Production Technologies in Anambra-East local Government Area of Anambra State Nigeria. Journal of Research in National Development, 9(2): 36-43. Okafor, N., Ijioma, B. and Oyolu, C. 1984. Studies on the microbiology of cassava retting for fufu production. Journal of Applied Bacteriology, 56: 1-13. Okolie, NP., Ibeh, IN. and Ugochukwu, EN. 1992. Production of improved cassava fufu “akpu” through controlled fermentation. Food Chemistry, 44:137-139. http://www.fao.org/docs/eims/upload/agrotech/1968/R7495_1.pdf Owolarafe et al.: Assessment of Fufu Production Technologies in Ogun State, Nigeria. AZOJETE, 14(4):547- 558. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818, www.azojete.com.ng 558 Okorji, EC., Eze, CC.and Eze, VC. 2003. Efficiency of cassava processing techniques among rural women in Owerri, Imo State, Nigeria. Journal of Agriculture and Social Research, 3(2): 84 – 96. Okpokiri, AO., Ijioma, BC., Alozie, SO. and Ejiofor, MAN. 1984. Production of improved cassava fufu. Nigerian Food Journal, 2: 145-148. Omodamiro, RM., Oti, E., Etudaiye, HA., Egesi, C., Olasanmi, B. and Ukpabi, UJ. 2012. Production of fufu from yellow cassava roots using the odourless flour technique and the traditional method: Evaluation of carotenoids retention in the fufu. Advances in Applied Science Research, 3(5): 2566-2572. Oti, E., Onadipe, O., Sébastienne, D., Egounlety, M., Detouc, N., Gregory, AK. and Loueke, GM. 2010. Processing cassava into gari and high quality cassava flour in West Africa. USAID/CORAF/SONGHAI Training manual, Retrieved on August 30, 2017 from CORAF Website: http://www.coraf.org/database/publication/publication/cassavatrainingmanual.pdf. Oyewole, OA. and Isah, P. 2012. Locally fermented foods in Nigeria and their significance to national economy: a review. Journal of Recent Advances in Agriculture, 1(4): 92-102. Oyewole, OB. and Ogundele SI. 2001. Effect of fermentation on the functional characteristics of fermented cassava ‘fufu’. The Journal of food Technology in Africa, 6(2): 38-40. Oyewole, OB. and Sanni, LO. 1995. Constraints in traditional cassava processing - the case of 'fufu' production - Transformation Alimentaire du Manioc. (T. Agbor Egbe, A. Brauman, D. Griffon, S. Triche (éds)) Paris, ORSTOM: 523 – 529. Samuel, TM., Igbeka, JC. and Kolawole, OP. 2010. A Survey of Improved Gari frying Methods. International Journal of Food Engineering, 6(2): 1-12. DOI: 10.2202/1556-3758.1473. Sanni, LO. and Akingbala, JO. 2000. Effect of drying methods on physiochemical and sensory qualities of fufu. Drying Technology, 8(1-2): 421-431. Tivana, LD. 2012. Cassava processing: Safety and protein fortification. Media-Tryck, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. Ubalua, AO. 2007. Cassava wastes: treatment options and value addition alternatives. African Journal of Biotechnology, 6(18): 2065-2073. Umeh, SO. and Odibo, FJC. 2014. Amylase activity as affected by different retting methods of cassava tubers. International Journal of Agricultural Policy and Research, 2(7): 267-272. Uyo, EA., Ntui, VO. and Udoma, NN. 2009. Effect of local cassava fermentation methods on some physiochemical and sensory properties of fufu. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 8(8): 1123- 1125. Uzogara, SG., Agu, LN. and Uzogara, EO. 1990. A review of traditional fermented foods, condiments and beverages in Nigeria: Their benefits and possible problems. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 24: 267-288. http://www.coraf.org/database/publication/publication/cassavatrainingmanual.pdf