Search for:
Map: showing how much each country spends on food

Map: showing how much each country spends on food &-8211; this Article or News was published on this date:2019-05-16 07:29:49 kindly share it with friends if you find it helpful

 

The average American spends just 6.6% of his or her household budget on food consumed at home. (If you include eating out, that rises to around 11 percent.)

In Pakistan, by contrast, the average person spends 47.7% of his or her household budget on food consumed at home.

Note that the map above is based on data for food consumed at home

Below is a chart showing numbers for a handful of select countries. Note that this doesn&-8217;t include spending on subsidies and the like — it&-8217;s just a measure of the fraction of household expenditures devoted to food consumed at home:

 

There are a few notable points here:

1) Richer countries spend a smaller fraction of their income on food. This makes intuitive sense. There&-8217;s an upper limit on how much food a person can physically eat. So as countries get richer, they start spending more of their money on other things — like health care, or entertainment, or alcohol. South Koreans spent one-third of their budget on food in 1975; today that&-8217;s down to just 12 percent.

That said, this relationship doesn&-8217;t always hold. It depends, at least in part, on what kind of food people favor, patterns of eating out, and the specific food prices and subsidy schemes in their country. Note that India spends a smaller fraction of its budget on food consumed at home than Russia, which is much richer. Likewise, South Korea spends a smaller share of its budget on food than wealthier Japan does.

2) Americans spend less than Europeans on food. The fact that Americans spend a smaller portion of their budgets on food than Europeans do is partly a consequence of the fact that Americans are richer. But Americans spend less on an absolute level, too.

The average American spends $2,273 per year on food consumed at home, the USDA notes. The average German spends $2,481 per year. The average French person spends $3,037 per year. The average Norwegian spends a whopping $4,485 per year on food.

The USDA doesn&-8217;t explain the variation. Some of it likely has to do with different tax systems in Europe as well as differences in eating out. But there are also dozens of forces making food in the United States so cheap — from farm subsidies to advancements in industrial agriculture that have pushed down the price of food. (Over the years, the prices of meat, poultry, sweets, fats, and oils in the United States have fallen, although the price of fresh produce has risen.)

There are fierce debates about the downsides of industrial agriculture — as well as the desirability of subsidizing agriculture. But one thing this system has done fairly well is keep the sticker price of food at the grocery store down.

3) High spending on food and malnutrition seem to go hand in hand. This is another perhaps obvious point, but worth highlighting. Poorer countries that have to spend a much larger share of their budget on food also end up with much higher malnutrition rates.

 Here&-8217;s an older map from Washington State University making this point (click to enlarge, although note the date is from 2008):

Washington State University

 

References  

Material sourced from http://www.vox.com

REDUCING TOMATO WASTAGE IN NIGERIA

REDUCING TOMATO WASTAGE IN NIGERIA &-8211; this Article or News was published on this date:2019-05-16 07:29:48 kindly share it with friends if you find it helpful

FACTS AND FIGURES OF THE AGRO INDUSTRY

FACTS AND FIGURES OF THE AGRO INDUSTRY &-8211; this Article or News was published on this date:2019-05-16 07:29:48 kindly share it with friends if you find it helpful

OPPORTUNITY FOR AGRICULTURE IN NIGERIA

 

Agriculture remains the dominant sector in the rural areas of Nigeria providing employment for about 60% of the work force.The diversity of climatic conditions, the richness of soil types and water sources, and the high population density provide great potential for crop, animal, fish, and tree production. In the 1960s and up to the early 1970s, Nigeria’s agriculture flourished with the country being one of the world’s highest producers of palm oil, cocoa, and groundnut. Overtime, agriculture has declined in importance.

However, through the platform of the Agricultural Transformation Agenda, the current government is taking giant steps towards an active sustainable revitalization of the agricultural sector with a view to curb the looming food insecurity, unemployment, and economic issues. It intends to achieve these by encouraging private sector participation, absorb labor through the intensification of agro processing operations and by taking advantage of the foreign earnings that could accrue from the exportation of agricultural products.

A plethora of research work has been carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, IITA, FAO, CBN, and other bodies showing the trend of the agro industry and its embedded prospects, some of which are presented here.

The analysis below indicates that over the years, there have been increasing demands on the international market for our agricultural commodities. In 2010, out of the total value of non-oil exports, the agricultural sector had a whopping 75% contribution in value. Due to the rising trend, it is expected to increase subsequently, presenting a huge opportunity for investment.

 

Fig. 1 Courtesy – Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD)

 

There is gross under-utilization of the resources and factors of production in the Nigerian agro sector with both effectiveness and efficiency below par. The typical Nigerian agricultural sector is described as an “effective non-efficient” industry. Effectiveness talks about the ability of an input to be transformed to an output while efficiency takes it a step further to measure how well the input is converted to output in terms of productivity.

 

 

Fig. 2 Courtesy – Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

 

BREAKING THE BANE OF IMPORTATION

One of the setbacks the oil and gas industry faces is the lack of adequate refining facilities in the country prompting the producers to export our crude oil for refining. The refined products come back to us as “breadcrumbs” with lesser monetary value than would have been if we had refined within the shores of the country. The agro sector is having its share of this malady with it’s over dependence on importation of commodities that are capable of being grown and processed in the country. This has a ripple effect of creating unemployment, reducing house-hold income, impairing affordable domestic food supply, and making the contribution of the agro sector to the economy come in trickles.

The Agricultural Transformation Agenda might be a light at the end of the tunnel as it seeks to ameliorate the current situation in the industry with a view to foster economic development and sustainability by reducing to the barest minimum our dependence on importation.

 

 

Fig.3 Courtesy: Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

 

In view of this, a huge investment window has been opened for private sector participation in achieving this unified goal. A classification of Nigeria into zones reveals that we can utilize the inherent comparative advantage.A zone has a comparative advantage at producing something if it can produce it at lower cost than any other place. The figure below is a mini-classification of some agricultural produce matched against zones of best yields.

 

 

Fig 4 courtesy: Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

 

Nigeria is world’s highest importer of wheat. At the current growth rate Nigeia will be importing 17 million MT by 2020, the equivalent of the entire exports of the 3rd largest exporter, Canada. In addition to wheat and sugar, cassava can also be a substitute for corn starch currently imported to Nigeria in significant quantities.

Nigeria is also one of the world’s top importers of rice, importing over 2MT of milled rice per year. Rice export trade is very thin and prices are highly volatile with the Thai government positioned to significantly increase price by 50%. The unfortunate aspect here is that rice grows all across Nigeria, which will foster self sufficiency and positively impact all geo-political zones. Our major problem is a lack of proper milling facility and capacity for quality rice. Another area of concern is that a country like Nigeria endowed with vast water-bodies, manpower  and skill still imports fish at an average of N97bn per annum. (See fig. 5)

With these facts, it becomes imperative that the revitalisation of the agro sector should not be left to the government alone. It calls for a concerted effort from private sector to take advantage of the emerging potential and opportunity to create value and inturn enrich their coffers.

 

 

Fig. 5 courtesy: Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

 

FINANCING FOR AGRICULTURE

It is no news that finance is one of the obvious limiting factor deterring the acceleration and development of the agro industry, and a major contributor to the enduring subsistence level of agriculture among peasant farmers. Due to lack of sufficient information, most investors do not have a grasp of the economic potential and profitability of the agricultural sector to enable them make informed investment decisions.A look into Nigeria’s capital market indicates that agricultural stocks compete favorably with those from other sectors.

An economic analysis was carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture to determine the rate of return on capital that could ensue from the processing of some agricultural produce with a given start-up capital and payback period (See fig. 6 below)

 

Fig 6. Courtesy: Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

 

 

Fig 7 courtesy: Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

 

GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES TO SUPPORT INVESTORS IN AGRICULTURE

The government is increasingly showing her relentless effort in revitalizing the agro sector and encouraging investors to participate in the process by giving some incentives that are not obtainable in other sectors. These include:

1.      Zero percent duty on agricultural machinery and equipment imports.

2.      Removal of restrictions on areas of investment and maximum equity ownership in investment by foreign investors.

3.      No currency exchange controls- free transfer of capital, profits and dividends.

4.      Constitutional guarantees against nationalization/expropriation.

5.      Pioneer tax holiday for agricultural investments.

6.      Infrastructure support, with special focus on staple crop processing zones, for power, water and electricity.

If administered/implemented properly these incentives can help revive the sector for both existing farmers and intending investors. To show the importance of the Sector, there are a number of foreign donor agencies who are willing to assist in funding the nation’s Agricultural Transformation Agenda. Some of them are represented below;

 

 

 

Disclaimer

All data and information provided on this site is for informational purposes only. www.webforums.club makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, correctness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis.

UNLOCKING INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN AGRICULTURE IN THE NIGER DELTA

UNLOCKING INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN AGRICULTURE IN THE NIGER DELTA &-8211; this Article or News was published on this date:2019-05-16 07:29:33 kindly share it with friends if you find it helpful

This is a placeholder. Remove this element to add top adverts or real content

The Niger Delta Development Forum (NDDF) is a unique advocacy platform that informs and influences promotion of non-oil pro-poor policies, programs and interventions as well as leverage and advice on how resources from the public, private and development organizations can be effectively and efficiently utilized to promote inclusive and equitable economic growth.

The forum convenes government officials, policy makers, civil society representatives, academics, the private sector, business leaders, entrepreneurs and other interested observers to engage in an open, constructive and interactive policy dialogue, and roundtable discussions on critical development issues. NDDF’s philosophy is hinged on policy analysis, dialogue,

partnerships, use of evidence and a strong commitment to influence duty bearers who have the power and authority to make desired changes.

The NDDF 2014 in Calabar is the forth iteration, following the initial ones in Port Harcourt, 2012, Benin City in 2013 and Washington DC in October 2014.

 

The objectives of the NDDF 2014 were to:

1. Identify investments opportunities in selected local agricultural value chains in each state of the Niger Delta

2. Attract private sector investors to invest in local agricultural value chains that presents income and employment generation opportunities

3. Proffer practical recommendations and action points that can improve investment climate and opportunities in agriculture in the Niger Delta

4. Identify specific niches and opportunities to attract more women and youth profitably in agriculture.

 

Four specific sub-themes provided the framework that guided the entire discussions that happened both in the plenary and panel sessions.

The sub-themes were:

1. Investment opportunities in local agricultural commodity value chain

2. Impacts of conflicts and insecurity on investments in Agriculture

3. Opportunities for Women and Youth in Agriculture

4. Government perspectives on Agricultural investments

A total of 724 participants (comprising 235 females and 471 males) attended from the nine states in the Niger Delta over the 2 day period. With participants from all the targeted groups, including investors from the United States, the forum laid a good foundation for new partnerships, shared learning and collection by all the various stakeholders that participated.

Having a large number of actual farmers in attendance brought out the realities of investing in the discussions.

 

Highlight of the report include:

  1. Investments opportunities in Local Agricultural Commodity Value Chains
    Delivered by Kayode Faleti, Senior Program Manager, Southern Regional Office, USAID/MARKETS II Project

  2. Investment Opportunities in the Aquaculture Value Chain
    Lead Presenter: Dr. (Mrs.) Onome A Davies, Senior Lecturer, Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Environment, Rivers State University of Science and Technology, Port Harcourt

  3. Investment opportunities in the Cassava Value Chain
    Lead Presenter: Ogo Ibok, CEO SENSE Agric Limited Lagos

  4. Investment Opportunities in the Cocoa Value Chai
    Lead presenter: Dr Peter Aikpokpodion Senior Special Assistant on Cocoa to the Honorable Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Abuja

  5. Investment Opportunities in the Poultry Value Chain
    Lead Presenter: Mr. Akpolu Ebitari Sylvanus, Senior Manager, Okunwan Nigeria Limited. Yenagoa.

  6. Investment Opportunities in Rice Value Chain
    Lead Presenter: Professor Geraldine Ugwuonah, University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus

  7. Investment Opportunities in Palm Oil Value Chain
    Lead Presenter: Dr Ikuenobe, NIFOR, Benin City

  8. Accelerating and Increasing Opportunities for Women in Agribusiness
    Lead presenter: Chief Bassey Archibong, Director Household Economy, USAID/MARKETS II Project

  9. The Current State of Agricultural Investment in the Niger Delta and its
    Effect on Conflict Dynamics in the Niger Delta. Lead Presenter: Dr Achimota

  10. Using Investments in Agriculture to mitigate Conflicts and address Human Security Issues in the Niger Delta.
    Lead Paper Presenter: Dr Adaba Ibim: University of Port Harcourt

 

For the full detail report including recomendation on the varous investment, click here

Download the report here

Courtesy of NDDF (www.nddforum.org)

EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF PACKAGES FOR HANDLING AND TRANSPORTATION OF VEGETABLES

EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF PACKAGES FOR HANDLING AND TRANSPORTATION OF VEGETABLES &-8211; this Article or News was published on this date:2019-05-16 07:29:33 kindly share it with friends if you find it helpful

This is a placeholder. Remove this element to add top adverts or real content

 

This is an article that provides you with information on the different types of packaging that are often used and its evaluation. It also reveals the different forms of losses in fruit and vegetable production. The cost benefit analysis of the packaging forms and the constraint of introducing new packaging methods were herby analyzed.

Authors: K.G.L.R. Jayathunge, W.M.C.B. Wasala, H.M.A.P. Rathnayake, C.R. Gunawardane, H.C. Samarakoon, M.D. Fernando and K.B. Palipane ABSTRACT

 

BACKGROUND

Fresh fruits and vegetables are termed perishable commodities because they have an inherent tendency for spoilage due to physiological reasons. Postharvest losses of these crops may occur at any point between harvest and consumption in the marketing process. In developing counties, where there is a profound lack of infrastructural and marketing facilities, postharvest losses of fresh produce vary between 25-50% of the total production, depending on the commodity. In Sri Lanka, it has been estimated that the Colombo Municipal Council discards 11 MT of fruits and vegetables as garbage from the Manning market (major wholesale market in Colombo) per day.

Moreover, approximately 270000 MT of fruits and vegetables (Pineapple) are lost during the postharvest operations and the value of this is approximately Rs. 9000 million. Improper post harvest handling, improper packaging and transportation, diseases and inadequate storage facilities are some of the major reasons for such high postharvest losses. Losses of this magnitude represent a significant food loss and a considerable economic loss to the country.

Furthermore, farmer gets low price for his commodities and consumer gets low quality products. In Sri Lanka fresh fruits and vegetables are packed mainly in Poly-sacks for transportation and this practice leads to serious losses. Of the total postharvest loss occurring in fresh produce, the loss during handling and transportation alone amounts to approximately 20%. The use of rigid containers such as plastic crates, wooden boxes and fiber board boxes will minimize the serious damage occurring in fresh fruits and vegetables during handling and transportation.

Hence, a study was undertaken to identify suitable packages, both from an economical and technical point of view, for handling and transportation of fresh commodities in Sri Lanka.

Ten types of packages, selected from those available in the market and also those developed by various institutions were used for evaluation. The types of packages selected were: nestable plastic crate (large and small size), collapsible plastic crate (large and small), steel collapsible crate, wooden box designed by ITI, wooden boxes designed by IPHT, fiber board box and wax coated fiberboard box. The evaluation study was conducted by transporting the fresh produce from farmer’s field to Keppetipola Economic Center and then to Manning market, Colonbo. The nestable plastic crate of dimensions 52.5&-215;35.0x30.0 cm was identified as the most suitable package for handling and transportation of tomatoes and the nestable plastic crate of dimensions 60.0&-215;42.5&-215;30.0 cm was identified as the most suitable package for other vegetables such as beans, cabbage, brinjals and curry chilies.3

 

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Fresh fruits and vegetables are termed perishable commodities because they have an inherent tendency for spoilage for physiological reasons. Postharvest losses can occur at any point between harvest and consumption in the marketing process. In developing countries, where there is a profound lack of infrastructural and marketing facilities, post harvest losses of fresh produce vary between 25-50 % of the total production, depending on the commodity.

In Sri Lanka, it has been estimated that eleven tons of fruits and vegetables are discarded as garbage from the Manning Market per day by the Colombo municipal. Moreover, approximately 270000 tons of fruits and vegetables are lost during postharvest operations and the value of this loss is approximately Rs. Million 9000 (IPHT Technical Note, 2001). Poor post harvest handling during storage, improper packaging and transportation, diseases and inadequate storage facilities are some of major reasons for such high post harvest losses. Losses of this magnitude represent a significant food loss and a considerable economic loss to the country. Furthermore, farmer gets low price for his commodities and consumer gets low quality products.

In Sri Lanka fresh fruits and vegetables are packed mainly in poly-sacks for transportation and this practice leads to serious losses. Of the total post harvest loss occurring in fresh produce, the loss during handling and transportation alone amounts to approximately 20%. The use of rigid containers such as plastic crates, wooden boxes and fiberboard boxes can minimize the serious damage occurring in fruits and vegetables during handling and transportation (Anon, 1986). Hence, it is important to introduce suitable packages for handling and transportation of fresh fruits and vegetables in Sri Lanka. This study was undertaken to identify suitable packages, both from a technical and economic point of view, for handling and transportation of fresh commodities in Sri Lanka. 4

 

2.0 OBJECTIVES

1. To identify and evaluate characteristics and properties of different types of rigid containers available in Sri Lanka that suitable for handling and transportation of fresh vegetables.

2. To assess and compare the post harvest losses of fruits and vegetables, occurring in the chain when packed in existing (polysacks and traditional boxes) and introducing packages.

3. To select the most suitable package type for each commodity by considering the cost benefit analysis.

4. To study the constraints when introducing new packages instead of existing method.

 

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Among rigid containers evaluated in the study, namely nestable plastic crate, collapsible plastic crate, collapsible steel crate, wooden box, fiberboard box and wax coated fiberboard box, the nestable plastic crate is the most suitable package type for handling and transportation of vegetables, both in terms of technical and economic feasibility.

The durability of the collapsible plastic crate is less than that of the nestable plastic crate and also, the damage to the commodity in the former package is high as compared to the latter. The collapsible steel crate is difficult to handle due to presence of sharp edges, which could cause injury to handlers. The durability of the steel crate is also low as compared to plastic crates. The damage to produce in wooden boxes is high, due to presence of sharp edges.

Further, the cost of transportation in these boxes is high as compared to nestable and collapsible crates because they occupy a large truck space on return of empty crates to the point of production. The durability of fiber board and wax coated fiber board boxes is the lowest among the different rigid containers tested. Also, the loss of produce in these types of crates is appreciably high in comparison to the other rigid crate types. When the most suitable rigid package, namely the nestable plastic crate is compared with conventional methods of packaging namely poly sacks and traditional wooden boxes, the latter for tomatoes, the loss occurring in the commodity in conventional methods is 22-30%. This loss could be reduced, on an average, to 5.8% when nestable plastic crates are used. Even though there is a decrease in capacity by 50% when vegetables are transported in nestable plastic crates instead of polysacks, the reduction in commodity losses compensates more than adequately for this reduction in capacity. This is reflected in 46 the increase in net income of the farmer and trader by Rs 2500 and 5000 respectively per tuck load of vegetables as compared to transportation in polysacks.

 

6.0 SUGGESTIONS

1. Effective awareness programme for advantage of using containers, proper handling of containers must be conducted for farmers, handlers, collectors, retailers etc.

2. Floor area at economic centers must be increased in order to facilitate storage of empty and filled containers.

3. Lorry parking area in the economic centers should be increased in order to provide parking facilities for increased number of lorries.

4. Infrastructural facilities (especially roads) must be developed.

5. To prevent stolen of commodities from rigid containers, proper cover or net should be introduced.

6. Suitable rigid containers should be distributed in free of charge or at subsidized rate among farmers, collectors, buyers etc.

7. Proper chain should be built up to recycle damaged containers.

 

For read the full document  http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/datastore/234-2142.pdf