The economics of drying cassava chips for use of
cassava as a filler crop in multi-feed plants
Andrew Westby
Topics
•Issues in cassava drying to produce a feedstock for bio-ethanol production•Economics of cassava drying in Africa•Lessons from implementing a cassava value chain project based on cassava
African perspective using data from the Cassava: Adding Value for Africa project.
Why cassava chips as a feedstock?
• Cassava is 70% water, dried chips are more efficient in terms of transport costs;• Sun-drying is less expensive than drying with fossil fuels, lower CO2 footprint• Dried chips can be stored, more flexible utilisation
Quality issues for production of bioethanol
• Food safety requirements;
• Quality issues;
• Peeling;
• Economics (based on C:AVA project)
Food safety issues
Cyanogenic compounds• Greater cellular damage, greater loss of cyangogens.• For human consumption (HQCF) use grating• Probably not an issue for bioethanol – use chippingMicrobiological food safety• For human food – raised platforms• For bioethanol – concrete drying floors
Quality issues for chips
• Avoid spoilage during drying – loss of carbohydrate• Impact of physiological deterioration before drying on fermentation qualities of cassava chips unknown.• Properly dried chips (<14% moisture content) should store for > one year as long as kept dry and insects controlled. • Has been report of 5% loss in starch extraction after 8 months at 30°C (DOI: 10.1002/star.200300247)• No information on storage of sugary cassava
To peel or not?
• Economically labour peeling represents 10% of cost of producing dried cassava.• Physical losses. Sauer et al. of IITA in Congo with 4 varieties of cassava.
• Tops and tips 4-14%• Peeling 15-19%
• Major benefit of not peeling is in terms of reduced losses (if physical losses =20% then saving = 25+%)• Unpeeled product differentiates it from chips/flour for human consumption
HQCF value chain development
Value chain development for cassava
Village Processing Units
Bakeries – replacing wheat with HQCF
Farmers/Farmer Processors
Grow cassava and sell semi-processed product to intermediary
Intermediaries (private sector)
Semi-processed product
HQCF
Roots Grated roots
Value chain
Food/non-food processing industry using HQCF
BenefitsRural areas- Increased farmer incomes
- Employment
Intermediaries- Business opportunity - Employment
End-users:- Increased profitability- Lower consumer prices
Nationally- Reduced imports
Main inputs
- Business development services- Financial services- Technical support in processing- Ensure quality
-Technical support in adopting HQCF-Financial services
- Support farmer organisations- Increase cassava productivity- Support Village Processing Units- Ensure quality
Service providers capacity strengthening
Value chain development for cassava
Value chain development for cassava
Value chain development for cassava
Production costs and margins - Sun drying versus flash drying
Sun drying Flash drying
Nigeria Ghana Nigeria Ghana
Production costs wet mash ($/t FCR) 68 53 68 53
Sun-drying ($/t FCR)Labour costsOther variable costsTotal variable costsCapital costs
42
7515
42
6015
Flash-drying ($/t FCR)Profit on wet mashLabour costsFuel costsOther variable costsTotal variable costsCapital costs
167
2352
14512
163
2334
12413
Options for producing cassava feedstock for ethanol conversion
ROOTS
PeelPeel
GrateGrate
Sun dry and mill
Sun dry and mill
HQCF
SCENARIO 1SCENARIO 1
Flash dry and millFlash dry and mill
HQCF
ROOTS
(Peel)Grate/mill
Conversion to Ethanol
Sun dry and mill
SCENARIO 2SCENARIO 2
Taking knowledge on key costs and modelling to ethanol scenario
Value chain development for ethanol
FCR = fresh cassava roots
Country Nigeria Ghana Tanzania Uganda Malawi
Yield (t/ha) 15 18 12 10 15
Production costs ($ per t FCR) 26.0 26.0 28.0 27.1 17.6
Farm gate cassava (($ / t FCR) 50.0 35.0 33.3 51.3 45.0
Farmers margin ($ / t FCR) 24.0 9.0 5.3 24.2 27.4
labour cost for peeling ($ / t FCR) 6.7 7.4 22.0 6.9 4.2
Cost of chipping (50% cost of grating) ($ / t FCR) 5.9 5.5 3.8 2.5 2.5
Labour costs sun drying ($ / t wet product) 8.00 7.14 4.40 2.06 2.00
Other costs sun drying ($ / t wet product) 4 4 3 3 3
Projected costs of cassava chips without farmers margin
Projected costs of cassava chips with farmers margin
Alternative uses of cassava
Observations
• Does not include transport/capital depreciation costs• In terms of production costs in $ terms the production costs for cassava were similar across 5 countries, lowest in Malawi • In terms of farmers margins - great differences, highest in Nigeria, Uganda and Malawi (reflection of shortages in some countries at the time of collecting the data 2009/2010)• Production costs/farmers margin are a very high % of total costs. Improvements in productivity are likely to have a major impact on profitability and competiveness • Not peeling makes a >30% saving in cost of production - assuming a 20% peeling loss. • Major issue will be competiveness of cassava against other feed stocks
Alternative uses of cassava
• There are alternative uses of cassava• Fresh cassava (good prices near urban areas)• Traditonal processed products (good returns, with
added value at household/village level)• New/commercial uses (HQCF, glucose, starch,
livestock feed etc)
• Cassava for biofuel will have to compete with these uses – it will depend on the price that biofuel companies are willing to pay against other competive feed stocks.
Alternative uses of cassava
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Net
pro
fits
(G
HC
) p
er
ha
Grits Agbelima Gari C. Roots
Cassava value added products
Net profits made by farmers who process cassava roots produced from from 1 ha of land
rent land, hire labour own land, hire labour
rent land, own labour own land, own labour
Source: Jonathan Anaglo, PhD Thesis, University of Greenwich
Competitiveness of cassava chips
• Key issue is the ability of cassava to compete as feedstock for bioethanol.
• Just for comparion cassava chip export price to China from Thailand is of the region of USD 168/per tonne in November 2009 (Food Outlook).
• Price of kokonte (dried cassava chips from peeled cassava) sold for plywood glue extender use ($300/t)
• Africa will find it hard to compete internationally. Main markets likely to be local.
• If potential market is large then will need continues efforts to improve cassava productivity
Some value chain lessons from C:AVA (HQCF)
- Selection of appropriate, cost effective technology to specific situations.
- Use of specific strategies to benefit women e.g. Working with women’s groups, training service providers, is proving beneficial.
- Awareness of needs of poorest in terms of access to resources (e.g. access to transport) and improved varieties and agronomic support.
- Often not a one model fits all solution.- More processing done at small-holder level, the
greater the financial returns to them.- Profitability of HQCF is location specific
Some value chain lessons from C:AVA
- Selection of appropriate, cost effective technology to specific situations.
- Use of specific strategies to benefit women e.g. Working with women’s groups, training service providers, is proving beneficial.
- Awareness of needs of poorest in terms of access to resources (e.g. access to transport) and improved varieties and agronomic support.
- Often not a one model fits all solution.- More processing done at small-holder level, the
greater the financial returns to them.- Profitability of HQCF is location specific
Success factors for small-holder inclusion in markets
• Farmers who are trained, organized, and empowered to deliver the quantity and quality of produce required in a consistent and cost-efficient way;
• A receptive business sector; • A public sector with a conducive
business environment including infrastructure, contract enforcement mechanisms and financial intermediation; and
• Partnership facilitation which can be done by a third party (e.g. NGO) or a value chain champion.
Peppelenbos (2008)
Conclusions • Sun-drying best option • Location with/near farmers saves transport costs and any
potential problems with physiological deterioration.• Use of unpeeled cassava, saves labour, reduced losses,
differentiates product in market, if acceptable.• Systems based on chipping and drying involve low capital
investment and provide additional small-holder incomes than just selling roots.
• Concern about competition with other feedstocks• Concern about competition for cassava for other end
users, especially where biofuel use in lower end of value spectrum.
• Issues surrounding how to maximise benefits for small-holder farmers/processors worth careful investigation.
Value chain development for cassava
THANK YOU
Project team
Andrew Westby, Kolawole Adebayo, Louise Abayomi, Adebayo Abass, Francis Alacho, Victor Antwi, Aurelie Bechoff, Nanam Dziedzoave, Lora Forsythe, Richard Gibson, Andrew Graffham, Paul Ilona, Vincent Kaitano, Michael Kirya, Ulrich Kleih, Richard Lamboll, Grace Mahende, Adrienne Martin, Shija Msikula, Gideon Onumah, Helena Posthumus, Vito Sandifolo, Lateef Sanni, Andrew Sergeant, Bernard Siwoku; John Orchard; Patricia Harvey