Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
University of Nigeria Research Publications
UGWU, Godwin Onyeka
Aut
hor
PG /MBA/99/30734
Title
An Appraisal of Factors Affecting the Choice of Broiler Starter Feeds for Table Birds by Poultry
Farmers in Enugu Metropolis
Facu
lty
Business Administration
Dep
artm
ent
Marketing
Dat
e April, 2001
Sign
atur
e
CERTIFICATION
UGWU, GODWLN ONYEKA, a Post Graduate student in the
Department of Marketing with Registration Number PG/ MBN 99/ 30734,
has satishctorily completed the requirement of research for the degree of
master of Business Administration in Marketing.
.................................... .................................. MRS D. A NNOLIM DR (MRS) J.O. NNABUKO PROJECT SUPERVISOR HEAD OF DEPARTMENT
DEDICATION
Dedicated to my wife and children and to Almighty God who gave
Inc 111e grace to do the work.
ABSTRACT
Poultry farmers are faced with several offerings or brands of broiler
starlcr feeds in their purchase of feeds for table birds. Hence, this research
study was focused on analyzing the factors that are likely to affect the
choice of broiler starter feeds for table birds by poultry farmers in Enugu a. . .
This study tried to reduce the large number of attributes that
characterize manufacturers of feed, dealers in feed, and broiler startcr feeds
i n t ~ individual number of significant characteristics using factor analytical
techniques. Thc survey also analysed the importance/perforrnance
characteristics of ~nanufacturer, dealer and feed attributes using
importance/perfornlance analytical methods.
To find solutions to the questions raised in the survey, a structured
qucstionnaire was designed and administered to 180 poultry farmers of table
birds in Enugu metropolis.
The following hypotheses were tested in this study.
( 4 Poultry fanners' choice of broiler starter feeds is not
driven by a significant number of rnanufwturer
attributes,
Poultry farmers' choice of broiler starter feeds is not
driven by a "significantly number of dealer
characteristics,
The choice of broiler starter feeds by poultry farmers is
not significantly explainable using a number of f e d
cl~aracteristics.
There is no significant difference among feed
characteristics that influence farmers' choice of broiler
starter feeds when these characteristics are compared
across different brands of feeds.
I-Iypotheses T, TI and 111 were tested using associative models of
regression and correlation analysis. While hypotheses IV were tested by
analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Ihving thoroughly analysed the completed questionnaire, the
following major findings were revealed:
(9
(ii)
. - . .
(i i i)
Poultry fanners' choice of broiler starter feeds is driven by a
significant number of manufacturer, dealer and feed
characteristics.
There is significant difference among feed characteristics that
influence fanner' choice of broiler starter feeds when these
attributes are compared across different brands of feeds. I
Guinea and Top feeds are the most regularly used brands of broiler
starter feeds by poultry farmers in Enugu n~etropolis, up for 86.7
percent.
The large number of attributes that are perceived to characterize
manufacturers, dealers, and broiler starter feeds could be reduced
to a significant number of more manageable hctors.
Manufacturers of and dealers in broiler starter feeds are generally
performing well in three attributes of reliability and honesty,
company image band product image.
All brands of broiler starter feeds studied are performing well i n
the following nine characteristics: bone development, smell of
feed, feed serving convenience, quantity of feed used per bird,
health of birds, likeness for feed, protein content, product image,
and quality of ingredients.
The factors that underlie poultry farmers' perception of
manufacturers, dealers, and broiler starter feeds do not vary across
different segments (small and big) of poultiy hi-mers in Enugu
metropolis. ,/
is recommended that the findings constitute invaluable tools in
strategic marketing. Manufacturers and dealers should devise strategies that
will improve their high priority attributes fbr better competitive positionil~g
in the broiler starter market.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am imincnsely grateful to Mrs. D.A Nnoliin, Dean faculty of
Business Administration and my project supervisor for her invaluable
assistance and motivation in the course of this study.
My profound gratitude also goes to Dr Edward Godslnark Ugwu (JP)
for his unquantifiable assistance in the course of this study. May God bless
all of you. My deep appreciation also goes to all the academic staff,
particularly lnessrs C.B Achison, Chukwudi Nwuzuigbo, Prof. Ike Nwosu
and non-academic staff of the Department of Marketing University of
Nigeria Enugu campus like Sister Ngozi, Mr. Hygenius and the
Ecpartmental Secretary.
My thanks goes to my Mum, wife and children for their support and
- Endurance during the period of study. I send my coinpliments to all others
who may have contributed to this project.
Above all, I ain grateful to the Almighty God for his mercies.
UGWU, G . 0
vii
TABLE. OF CONTENT
Title page:. ................................................................
Certillcation : ...............................................................
Dedication :. .................................................................
.............................................................. Abstiact :...
Acltriowledgeni :.it : ...................................................
'Table of content : ......................................................
List of tables r .A figures: ...............................................
CHAPTER 3NE
1.1 Introduction.. ....................................................
I
. . 11
... 11 1
iv
vii
... V l l l
xi i
1
1.1.1 Brief histosy of the poultry industry and poultry feed production in
.................................................................. Nigeria 3
Statement of the problem.. ........................................... 6
Statement of objectives.. ........................................... 7
Research question. ..................................................... 9
Hypotheses formulation.. ............................................. 10
Significancc of study.. ................................................ 1 1
Limitations of the study.. ............................................ 12 I
CEraPTEK TWO: THEORETICAL ANALYSIS AND REVIEW OF
LITERATURE
2.1 Theoretical framework.. ........................................... 15
2.1 .! Illdustrial b u y i ~ g behaviour: an overview.. .................... 17
2.1.2 General models of organizational buying ....................... 20
2.1.3 Influences on industrial buying behaviour ..................... .. 31
. . 2.2 Einpiricalreview .................................................... 22
CHAPTER TI-IREE: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
. 3.1 Scope of study .......................................................... 54
3.2 Sources of data .......................................................... 55
3.2.1 Primary data sources .................................................... 55
3.2.2 Secondary data sources ................................................. 55
Research approach ...................................................... 56
Research instrument ................................................... 56
Determination of sample size for poult~y farmers on table birds 58
....................................................... Sample technique 58
Method of investigation and questionnaire distribution ......... 58
Method of data analysis ................................................ 59
CHAPTER FOUR: PIIESENTATION. ANALYSIS AND
INTEIIPIIETATION OF DATA
.............................. Allocation and return of questionnaire 61
Presentation and analysis of questionnaire ............................. 63 I
................................................... Analysis of farmer size 63
Analysis of feed brand choice .......................................... 63
........................... Analvsing research auestions i. . ii. and iii 64
Reduction of ~nanufacturer descriptive characteristics using factor
analysis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Reduction of Dealer descriptive characteristics using factor
analysis: ........................................................ 67
Rcduction of feed descriptive characteristics using factor
analysis .......................................................... 6-8
4.2.4 Analysing research question iv, v, and vi.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Importance/perfornance analysis of manufacturer
. . cl~aracter~st~cs.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
1111portance/perfor1na1lce analysis of dealer characteristics.. . 74
Importance/perfor~nance analysis of the aggregate of all feed
brand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Importance/perforinance analysis for Guinea Feed brand.. .
Iinportancelperfor~nance analysis for Top Feed brand.. .
4.3 SLr~Lislical tcsting of l~ypoll~cscs.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . , , , . . .
4.3.1 Testing hypotheses i, ii, and iii.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4,3.1.1 Testing hypothcscs i.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
1..3.l.2 Testing hypotheses ii. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.1.3 Testing hypotheses iii.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.2 Testing hypotheses iv.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS,
tilECBNiMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION ...... 13 1
5.1 Summary of Findings.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1
5.2 Rccornmendations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . , 1 1 5
5 3 Suggestions for further Research.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 18
APPENDICES ................................................ 126 . - .
LIST OF TH'ALdLES AND FIGURE
TABLES
PAGES
Examples of task and non-task variables.. ......................... 2 1
Seventeen choice criteria of general importance to organizational
. . buying decision.. ....................................................... .33
Allocation and return of questionnaire.. ........................... ..62
Farmer size.. ............................................................ .63
Feed brand choice.. .................................................. 63
Adjusted feed brand choice. .......................................... 64
Factor a~alyt ic solution (with varimax rotation) for manufacturer
descriptive characteristics.. ......................................... 66
Factor analytic solution (with varinlax rotation) for dealer descriptive
Factor analytic solutioil (with varimax rotation) for feed descriptive
. . characteristics.. ............................................ 69
I~~~portancc/pcrformnncc Anaiysis of ~nanufacturer characteristics
Importance/peri'or~nai~ce Analysis of dealer characteristics.. .... 75
I i~~portance/perf~r i~~ance Analysis of thc aggregate of all feed
brand:. ................................. .:.. ........................ 7G
Iinpoi.tance/perfor~~~ance means of Guinea Feed brand.. ........ 78
sii
4.12 Irnportance/pc~-fot'n~ai~ce means of Top Feed brand ............ 80
!mportc?i~ce/pcrfor~~~a~~cc means of "others" brand .............
4.14 Testing hypotl~eses i using significant manufacturer descriptive
attributes ......... .. ............................................... 87
4.15 Testing hypotheses i using significant manufacturer performance
- 1 attr~outes ............................................................ 88
. . 4.16 Testing hypotheses 11 using significant dealer descriptive
attributes ............................................................ 90
.. 4.17 Testing hypotheses 11 using significant dealer performance
attributes ................................................................. 90
4.18 .Testing hypotheses iii using feed descriptive attributes: .......... 92
4.19 Testing hypotheses iii using feed performance attributes: ........ 93
4.20 ANOVA summary . Question 8C in questionnaire ............... 99
............... . 4.21 ANOVA suinmary Question 8D in questionnaire 99
4.22 ANOVA suininary . Question 8E in questionnaire ................ 99 1 i
. . . 4.23 ANOVA snnmary - Question 8L in questionnaire ................ 100
4 . 24 ANOVA summary . Question.8N in questionnaire ................. 100
4.25 ANOVA sunmary . Question 8 s in questionnaire ............... 1 0 0
4.26 SCHEFFE con~parisons - Question 8C ............................. -101
4.27 SCMBFFE co~nparisons - Question 8D .............................. 101
4.28 SCMEFFE comparisons - Qusestion 8E .............................. 101
4.29 SCI~I7<FFE comparisons - Question 8L .............................. 102
4.30 SCIiEFFE comparisons - Question 8N.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'.. ,1012
4.3 1 SCHEFFE comparisons - Question 8s.. . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,102
4.32 Comparison of means and overlap analysis-broiler starter feed
4.33 ANOVA summary-Question 1 OA.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 05
4.34 ANOVA summary-Question 10 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . , . . . 1 05
: '
4.3 5 ANOVA summary-Question 1 OQ.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . 1 05
4.36 ANOVA summary-Question 1 OR.. . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
4.37 ANOVA summary-Question IOU.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. , . 106
4.3 8 SCHEFFE comparisons ~ues t ion 10A.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
. .
4.39 SCHJ3FFE comparisons Question 101.. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 106
4.40 SCHEFFE comparisons Question 10Q. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
4.4 1 SCHEFFE comparisons Question 1 OR. . . . . . , . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
4.42 SCHEFFE comparisons Question IOU.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 187
4.43 Comparison of means and overlap Analysis-Broiler starter feed
4 performance.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .: , 108
. .-
FIGURE
The Webster and wind model of organization buying behaviour.. .23 I
The sheth model of industrial buying behaviour.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..27
Choffray and Lilien industrial market response model.. . . . . . . . . . . . , . 30
Schematic view of agricultural machinery dealer role.. . . . . . :. . . . . . . . 40
Pie chart of adjusted feed brand choice.. . . . . .',. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,.64 , . .
xiv
Importance/per formance
characteristics.. ................
Importance/performance Ana
Analysis of manufacturer
,lysis of dealer characteristics.. ....... 75
Importance/performance Analysis of the aggregate of "all feed . -
brands". ...................................................................... 77
Importance/performance Analysis of feed characteristics for Guinea
Feed brand.. ....................................................... 79
Importance/performance Analysis of feed characteristics for Top
Feed.. ........................................................................ 8 1
Importance/performance Analysis of feed characteristics for "others"
............................................................. brand. 83
APPENDICES
Appendix i:
Appendix ii:
Appendix iii:
Appe~idix iv:
Summary of importance of product/dealer/service factors-
in studies of farmers' buying
behaviour.. ................................................ .I26
Pre-questionnaire letter to farmers: study on poultry
farmers' choice of broiler starter feeds in Enugu
metropolis.. ................................................ ,129 I
Letter of introduction of interviews to farmers on day of
...... questionnaire administration: Quytionnaire.. 13 1
Questionnaire: Study on Poultry Farmers' c,hoiice of
Broiler Starter Feed in Enugu Metropolis.. ............. 132
Appendix v: Factor Analytic output for manufacturer descriptive
Appendix vi: Factor Analytic output for dealer descriptive
Appendix vii: Factor Analytic output for feed descriptive
characteristics.. ........................................ 143
Appendix viii: Summary of findings in spatial represent.ation and
analysis of manufacturer's performance relallive to the
importance attached by poultry farmers to the --
variables.. ................................................... 144
Appendix ix: Summary of findings in spatial representation and
analysis of performance of feed attributes relative to the
importance attached to poultry farmers to the -
variables.. ................................................ 145
Appendix x: Summary of findings in spatial representation and
. analysis of performance of feed attributes relative to the
importance attached by poultry farmers to the
9 1 variables.. ................................................. 146
Appendix xi: Summary of findings in spatial representation and
analysis of Guinea feed brand performance relative to d
the importance attached by poultry farrners to the
variables.. ........................................ 1 147
xvi
Appendix xii: Summary of findings in spatial representation and . - .
analysis of Top feed brand performance relative to the
importance attached by poultry farmers to the
variables.. .................................................. 148
Appendix xiv: Two-tail probabilities of manufacturers descriptive
. . characteristics.. ............................................... 149
.-
Appendix xv: Two-tail probabilities of manufacturers perfbrmance
. . characteristics.. ........................................ 150
Appendix xvi: Two-tail probabilities of dealer descriptive I I
i . . characteristics.. 15 1 i .............................................
-
Appendix xvii: Two-tail probabilities of dealer performance
. a ............................................. characteristics.. 153
Appendix xix: Two-tail probabilities of feed performance
. . ............................................. character~stics.. 1 54
xvii
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION:
A discussion of marketing is expected to contain the relationship
which marketing bears with meeting the needs and choices of consumers'
orland industrial users of goods and services. M.J. Baker (1985) says that
need is something fundamental to the maintenance of life such as food,
drink, shelter, and clothing; that a need may be satisfied by any one of a
large number of alternatives, and the availability of alternative means of
satisfjhg a need constitutes choice, provision of which is central to the
practice of marketing'.
Marketing has been defined in several ways by different wr:iters. But
two definitions, one by a renowned author and another by an acclaimed -
marketing institute, will suffice here. Philip Kotler (1 988) defines marketing
as a social' and managerial process by which individuals and groups obtain
what they need and want through creating and exchanging products and
value with others2. While the Chattered Institute of Marketing of Britain
defines marketing as the management process responsible for identifying,
anticipating, an satisfying customer's requirements profitably 3. &
Marketing involves products, which could be tangible goods, '
services, ideas and people. William J. Stanton (19813 states that industrial
goods are differentiated from consumer gmds based on their ultimate use
and defines industrial goods as those intended for use in making other
-i
products, or for rendering a service in the operation of a busin,ess or
institutional enterprises4. He further classified products as follows:
a. Raw materials
b. Manufacturing materials and parts
c. Installations
d. Accessory equipment and
e. Operating supplies
they become an actual part of the finished product and should have been
processed to some extent. Poultry feeds consist of the following types of
mash: chick mash, grower mash, layer mash, breeder mash, cockerel mash, --
broiler starter mash, and broiler finisher mash.
Poultry feed or mash is a mixture of feedstuffs, blended or processed in a
form, which is acceptable to bids5. Broiler starter mash is poultry feed
produced by feed manufacturers for table birds of ages of day one (at day- -
old) to day thirty-five (fifth-week). Table birds, also called broiler, are
chickens kept and reared because of their efficient ability to convert,feeds
fed to them into good quality poultry meat; they mature for consumption in
8 to 9 wecks. I
Poultry farmers buy feeds either directly from feed manufacturers or
from middlemen called feed dealers. As a result, several factors may
influence the buying decision of poultry farmers. Today, industrial n
marketers are finding tl1:rt merely offering products is not enough. Today, . -
industrial marketers are finding that merely offering products is not enough,
even with items that are sold primarily on a low-price basis. So a diffenmtial
advantage is needed. Still there is a chronic need for costs to be traded off ,F
against effectiveness in the service offering. W.B. Wanger (1987) is of the
opinion that this trade off analysis requires a sequential approach. that
incorporates awareness that customer needs, service costs, and system
(customer service) effectiveness are definable, measurable, and capable of
being analysed6. For example, T. Levitt (1986) states that it customer) is a
requisite of getting and holding business, just like the generic product il:self7.
1.1.1 BRIEF HISTORY OF THE POULTRY INDUSTRY AND
POULTRY PRODUCTION IN NIGERIA
Modern poultry farms in Nigeria today arose from the V ~ S ~ O U S
initiatives of the Ministries of Agriculture especially in the former Western
Region from the 1960s upwards to promote animal husbandryR. Since 1960,
the poultry industry in Nigeria has continued to undergo significant
transformation from a backyard, peasant and primitive household-oriented
husbandry of breeds of semi-wild chickens, to the cash-oriented, modern
and large scale poultry, which are, found in our countryside and urban 1
centers today. Poultry keeping has become a business in Nigeria.. The
projected population of commercial poultry in Nigeria was put at over 21
million in 19919, with even a greater number of free roaming chickens, and
chicks raised in the backyard of some rural houses.
By 1960, all coininercial poultry feeds were imported. But the greater
importance attached to the poultry industry after independence necessitated
the encouragement of local feed production in Nigeria. Consequently in
1962, Pfizer Feeds Limited started the first commercial production of
poultiy feed in Lagos. Her brand of feed is "Livestock Feed". Pfizer Feeds
Limited started to establish franchise milling with big poultry farmers
around the country when it was discovered that it had become quite diffic1~1t.--
to service all poultry farmers in Nigeria from Lagos and even meet tlwir
demand for feed. This franchise arrangement could not do well.
In the late 1970s,two other feed manufacturing firms sprang up to f i l l
the gap in the feed milling industry. These are Top Feeds Limited
(producers of Top Feed brand), established in 1978 and located at- Sapele,
and SEEPC (Nig) Ltd (producers of Sanders Feed brand) established in
1979 and located in Lagos. Furthermore, in 1986, Bendel Feed and Flour
Mill Ltd (producers of Guinea Feed brand, a pelleted or crumbled brand)
was established at Ewu, Edo State.
Following the' ban on importation of frozen chicken in 1970s by the
Federal Governinent of Nigeria, the demand for poultry feed furt11t:r I
increased due to increase in local production of table birds. As a result of
ihis, the feed milling companies saw the need to open up feed production -
plants at different locations in the country. Livestpck Feed limited opened
other plants at Kaduna, Benin and Aba. SEEPC (Nig) Ltd opened plants s ~ t
Denin, Awe, Kadun and Aba and depot at Enugu; while Top Feeds Ltd
appointed sole distributors all over the country. Bendel Feed and Flour Mill
Ltd then opened up company depots all over the country, Enugu inclusive to
serve ever-increasing demand for feed by Nigeria poultry farmers.
Apart from these four National Feed Manufacturing Firms, a good
number of local feed producers have sprung up since the mid 1980s. The
lbllowing local brands of feeds are produced in Enugu metropolis and
offered to poultry farmers; Cevans, Unique, Peco, Ano and lest Feeds.
However, none of them has been regular in feed production; they all have
raw materials procurenlent problems due to high price and non-availability.
Some poultry farmers also produce their own feeds. However, table bird
farmers have not been known to con~pound their feeds in Enugu metropolis. .
Feed dealers located in several streets and markets in Enugu metropolis
carry ali national and local brands. Most of these dealers offer day old
chicks, poultry drugs and vaccines, together with poultry feed in the same
store. Some other dealers provide veterinary services, credit facilities and
delivery services. .-
The b u r national feed producers employ sales representatives who I
service both dealers and poultry farmers. Some of these manufacturers
engage in occasional advertising and se~ninars/workshops for farmers. In
addition, livestock feeds Ltd. Top Feed Ltd and SEEPC (Nig) Ltd either ...
hatch chicks, or import poultry drugs; Bendel Feed and Flour Mill Ltd do
none of these.
For these reasons, the researcher wants to identify, describe and
analyse if and what characteristics of feed manufacturers, feed dealers and
other factors affect poultry farmers in their purchase of Broiler sfarter feed
in the Enugu metropolis.
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM:
Several manufacturers and dealers are involved in the production,
distribution and sale of broiler starter feeds poultry farmers in Enugu
metropolis. Hence farmers are faced with several offerings or brands of
broiler starter feeds to choose from.
In choosing brands of broiler starter feeds for their table birds, it is
thought that these poultry farmers take into consideration factors such as:
i) 'Feed Manufacturer Characteristics;
ii) Feed Dealer Characteristics; and
iii) Feed Characteristics
Thereforeean analysis of the contribution of these factors in the choice
process of poultry farmers in Enugu metropolis in the purchase: of broiler
starter feeds wohd be of interest to manufacturers of and dealers in poultry
feeds in presentmg and marketing broiler starter feed alternative:; to poultry
farmers in Enugu metropolis.
1.3 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES:
Apart from product quality and pricing, many buyers perceive
customer service as a prerequisite for doing business with a given supplier.
And customer service is an integral part of industrial marketing strategy.
In view of the role which manufacturers, dealers and feed
characteristics are thought to play in the choice of broiler starter feed by
poultry fidrmers in Enugu metropolis, the objectives of this study will focus
on these characteristics as they affect the choice of broiler starter feeds by
poultry farmers in Enugu metropolis.
The objectives of this study therefore are:
0
i i)
iii)
iv)
To delineate factors based on manufacturer characteristics, that
underlie Enugu metropolis poultry farmers' perception of
lnanufac turers of broiler starter feeds;
TO determine if the factors that underlie poultry farmers'
perception of manufacturers of broiler starter feeds are different
for different segments of poultry farmers in Enugu metropolis;
To determine how manufacturers of broiler starter feeds perform
relative to the perceived importance level of' mancii'acturer b
characteristics by poultry farmers in Enugu metropolis;
To determine manufacturer characteristics that affcct and
influence poultry farmers' choice of broiler starter feeds ill Enugu
v) To deterinine factors, based on dealer characteristics that underlie
poultry farmers' perception of dealers in broiler.starte:r feeds in
Enugu metropolis;
vi) To determine if the factors that underlie poultiy farmers'
perception of dealers in broiler starter feeds are different segments
of poultry farmers in Enugu metropolis;
-- vii) To determine how dealers in feeds perform relative to the
perceived importance levels of dealer characteristics by poultry
farmers in Enugu metropolis;
viii) To determine characteristics of dealers in feed that influence
poult~y farmers' choice of broiler starter feeds in Enugu
metropolis;
ix) To determine factors, based on feed characteristics that underlie
poultry framers' perception of broiler starter feeds in Enugu ,
metropolis;
x) To determine if the factors that underlie poultry farmers'
perception of broiler starter feeds vary across different segments
of poultry farmers in Enugu metropolis; .- L . -
xi) To determine how different brands of broiler starter feeds perform
relative to the perceived importance levels of feed characteristics
by poult~y farmers in Enugu metropolis;
xii) To determine characteristics of feeds that drive poultry farmer's
choice of broiler starter feeds in Enugu metropolis;
xiii) To compare different brands of broiler starter feeds on those feed
characteristics that influenceldrive poultry fanners' choice of
broiler starter feeds in Enugu metropolis; and
xiv) To make recom~nendations on how the finding from this study can --
be used in the strategic marketing and sales of broiler starter feeds
to poultry farmers' in Enugu metropolis.
1.4 RESEARCHER QUESTIONS:
Keeping in view the objective of this study, the following questions -
will be addressed in the course of this work;
i) Can that large number of attributes/dimensions that are perceived
to characterize manufacturers of broiler starter feed be reduced
into a smaller number of more manageable dimensions called
factors?
ii) Is it possible to reduce the large number of attributesldinlensions
that are perceived to characterize dealers in broiler starter feeds
into a smallcr ilu~nber of more interpretable dimensions called . .-
t
factors?
iii) Is it possible to reduce the many attributesldiinensions that are
perccived to characterize broiler starter feeds into a lesser number
of delineable characteristics called factors?
iv) What is the level of performance of manufacturers of broiler
starter feeds relative to the importance attached by poultiry farmers
to the characteristics of these manufacturers?
v) Relative to the importance attached to dealer characteristics by . .. .
poultry farmers, what is the level of performance by these dealers
in broiler starter feeds?
vi) Given farmers' perceived levels of importance of feed
characteristics, how have different brands of broiler starter feeds
performed?
1.5 HYPOTHESES FOIWIULATION:
In this study the following hypotheses have been tested:
1. Ho: Poultry farmers' choice of broiler starter feeds is not
driven by a significant number of manufacturer attributes.
Ma: Poult~y farmers' choice of broiler starter feeds is
driven by a significant number of manufacturer
attributes.
2. Ho: Poultry farmers' choice of broiler starter feeds is not
driven by a significant number of dealer
characteristics.
Ha: Poultry farmers' choice of broiler starter feeds is
driven by a significant number of dealer
characteristics.
3. Ho: The choice of broiler starter feeds by poultry farmers
is not significantly explainable using a number of feed chasac:teristics,
Ha: The choice of broiler starter feeds by poult~y farmers
is significantly explainable using a number of fced
characteristics.
4. Ho: There is no significant difference among feed
characteristics that influence farmers' choice of
broiler starter feeds when these characteristics are
compared across different brands of feeds.
a : Thcre is significant difference among fecd
charactesistics that influence farmers' choice of
broiler starter feeds when these characteristics are
compared across different brands of feeds.
1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY:
The finding from this study considering the analytical techniques
uscd are of significance to manufacturers of poultry feeds and dealers in
fecds in the following ways in Enugu metropolis:
i) Supply marketing intelligence information to mailufacturers and .. 1
dealers in broiler starter feeds that would be used in influencing
Enugu metropolis poultry farmers' perception of manufacturers
of and dealers in feeds;
ii) Supply marketing intelligence information'to manufacturers of and
dealers in broiler starter feeds that would be useful in influencing
poultry farmers' choice ,of broiler starter feeds in Enugu
metropolis;
iii) Enable manufacturers of and dealers in feeds to identify areas of
high priority, low priority and possible overkill in terms of theis
performance relative to Enugu metropolis poultry farmers'
perception of the characteristics of these manufacturers and
dealers.
iv) Provide information based on feed characteristics that
manufacturers of feeds could use as additional input in the. --
manufacturing process;
v) Provide infornlation based on manufacturer, dealer, and feed
characteristics that would be of use in the strategic marketing and
sale of broiler starter feed to poultry farmers in Enugu metropolis.-
1.7 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY:
This study was not entirely free of limitation.
Certain situations arose where the researcher got faced with illiterate I
poultry farmers as respondents and it was not easy surmounting this kind of
obstacle because such respondents could not communicate in Enugu
language. However, this has not affected the authenticity' of the data
collected, because a group of ten graduates who understand and speak the
local language fluently were recruited to serve as iiiterviewers. There is
therefore, some element of insignificant bias in the research result.
END NOTES
M . . Baker; Marketing (4'" Edition) (Ilampshire, Macmillan
publishing Company, (1 985) p.47.
Philip Kotler Marketing, Management Analysis, planning,
Implementation and control ( 6lh Edition) ( New Delhi; prentice- Hall
publishing Company, 988) .p.3.
Quarterly Review of Marketing: published by the chartered Institute
of Marketing, Berkshire, 1990 Vol. 15. NO. 2. P.1
William J Stanton, Fundamentals of Marketing (61h Edition) ( --
London: MeGraw Iiill publishers, 198 1,132.
Festus C. Obioha, A guide to poultry production in the Triopics (IS'
Edition) (Enugu, Nigeria; Acena publishers, 1992) p.65.
W. B. Wagner, "Customer Service in Industrial Marketing: I-ledge -
against Competition", European Journal of Marketing, (1 987),
Vo1.2 1 ,No.7,p. 1 5.
Theodore Levitt "The Industrialisation of Service", Harvard Business b
Review, September - October, p.35.
Editorial in National poultry (Maiden Edition ) (published by the r
poultry Association of Nigeria 1996) p.9.
Festus C. Obioha, Op. Cit. I
CHAPTER TWO
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This literature review is divided into sections: Theoretical framework
and Empirical Review.
The theoretical framework is a survey of theoretical 1it.erature on
related topics. Enlpirical review will concentrate on empirical research
works relevant to the topic of the present study.
2.1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
A generally accepted view in the marketing literature is that when
customers are faced with a purchase decision, the evaluate and choose more
than the physical item. So it us now popular to conceptualize a "product" as
a package comprised of both tangible (generic1 objective and intangible
(augmented1 subjective) features and benefits. It is the customer service or --
product support activities which build the augmented product- frequently it
is argued that "these pre- and post-sale services are the mosl important
factors in winning the competitive battle for buyers' initial proclukt choice
and for repeat purchase patronage". Dennis C. Anderson (1987) stated that
there are large gaps in the research coverage on farm inputs purchase L
behaviour, including particular shortcomings in the 'area of problemlneed
recognition, search, behaviour, reasoning/evaluation/choice behaviour, trade
- offs among purchase criteria, and evoked sets.* In explaining this issue, - r
peter M. Chisnall (1989) elaborated that the augmented or extended product
15 . ,
concept is a particularly valuable one for industrial marketers; that a product
is more than just a simple transaction, as it provides not merely the physical
benefits inherent in its use but can be designed to give a cluster !of benefits
that are attractive to specific kinds of buyew3 He further emphasized that
the application of this concept can help suppliers oof basic commodity , ,... type
products to differentiate their market offerings and so win business through
a package deal as against trying to compete with a product that is virtually
identical to that sold by several other firms. More over, often relying solely
on sharp pricing to attract orders.
Philip Kotler (1 988) has distinguished three levels of product:
1. The core product:
. . 11. The formal product and
.,. 111. The augmented product4.
These categories correspond closely to those offered by Theodure Levitt
(1980) who added a fourth dimension:
1. The generic product;
. . 11. The expected product;
... 111.
iv.
I'he auginented product; and I
The potential product.5
Essentially, these two well- known writers are projecting the same
message: competing products may be physically identical but ont: can be
morc acceptable than the other because of some additional reason or
reasms, which motivate customers to buy.
Taking the various levels of a product further, the core product or
service refers to the basic or minimum benefits, which are the funtlamental
qualities of products, or services that are largely taken for granted and are
available fos many sources.
At the next level a product, is designed to offer additional benefits, --
such as branding (which helps to control risk in buying), convenient
packaging (which may protect a product from accidental damage or give it
pr-olongcd life) os distinctive styling (which may make a product
aesthetically more pleasing, or mentally designed to give better value in -
~isc). I-Ience, price competition is now being diluted by adding attractive
ncw benefits to appeal to certain market segments.
The augmented level of a product adds extra values, such as delivcry
installation services. Well-designed maintenance systems, first class
warranties and so on.
With respect to the above, this theoretical framework would include
an overview of industrial buying behaviour, general models of industrial
buying behaviour and influences on industrial buyingbehaviour.
2.1.1 INDUSTRIAL BUYING BEI-IAVIOUR: AN OVERVIEW
Available literature on buying virtually. lays exclusive empinasis on
consumers, not industrial buyers. Research findings and theoretical
17
discussions about consumer behaviour often have little relevance for the
industrial marketer 6 . This is due to several important differences between
the two purchase processes. Industrial buying takes place in the context of a
I'ormal organization iniluenced by budget, cost and profit consideration. In
addition, industrial buying usually involves many people in the decision
process with complex interactions among peo,ple and among individual and
organizational goals. For these reasons, J . 0 Onah and M.J 'Thomas (1993)
have identified the following major features of the industrial market:
a. Buyers are rationally motivated because the orgarlizational
environment in which purchasing decisions are made is likely to
result in more ratioml decision making than in many consumer goods
purchase environments;
Buyers are les susceptible to sales promotion because
organizational buyers take the initiative in the search for :products, --
calling information from potential suppliers;
The buyer's techno-econoinic needs must be because3 when
organizational buyers invite tenders, it is they who specify what
tllcy want whilc thc scllcrs rcspond by offering the right products I
at the right price;
Reciprocal arrangeinents between buyers and seller may exist;
Sellerlbuyer relationships can become stultified while inertia often
lxplains the shopping habits of consumers;
18
f. The market is readily identifiable; I i
g. Individual buyers and/or orders are important; I / I
1 11. The market for industrial products is derived from demand . I : :
because demand for industrial goods is deriver! from the demand I I ? I
for ultimate consumption goods.7
It is unrealistic, according to Peter M. Chisnall (1989), to approach i I
the study of buying behaviour - personal or organizational - without an
appreciation of the multiplicity of buying motivations.'
The products, and services bought by organizational buyers are related ...
to the objectives and needs of their organizations: thus, their buying
behaviour will be influenced by such constraints. In industrial transactions,
products and services will be acquired primarily because they will be
expected to contribute to the overall profitability of an enterprise. Te
constraints on buying behaivour, although not in most cases related to profit
generation, will reflect the objectives of these organizations 9 , Cyert and
March (1973) in their behavioural theory of the firm, identified four
classifications of buying determinants: individual, social (interpersonal), I
, - organizational (formal), and environinental 10. The "Task'' varial~les refer to
I . .
factors such as motivation,. personal values 0.r political, social and cultural
activities, which may intrude in certain buying decisions (the non-task
variables are generally described as soft data) ''. The influence of non-
economic factors is however, quite important. Thus, the organizational
buyer is exposed to the complex interplay of economic and non - economic
factors. Therefore, it is important to discuss these factors or influ.ences in C
details. This brings us to a discussion of general models of organizafional
GENERAL MODELS OF ORGANISATIONAL
BUYING i
buying.
2.1.2
According to Peter M. Chisnall (1975) a model "reprtesents a
theoretical construction of phenomenon which are thought tombe interrelated
and significant in influencing the outcome of a specific situational
In this case, the buying behaviour. So the purpose of a model is
to explain the relationships that exist between the inputs such as the various .
motivations, which influence purchase behaviour, and the outcomes or --
outputs (adoption or rejection of a specific product or service from a
particular supply source).
Researchers have proposed a number of general models of
organizational buying behaviour. Raymond L. Horton (1 984) emphasizes -
that "the uses, strengths, and weaknesses of such model are essentially the
sainc as those general models of the behaviour of individual consumers, and
that of necessity, models of organizational buying tend to be both more
complex and less precisely specified because, the behaviour of individuals
who make organizational buying decisions must be placed within a larger or
organizational on text."'^
For the purpose of this study, general models of organizational
buying will be discussed under the following four models, namely: task and
non task oriented models, the Webster and ~ i n d ~ ~ o d e l , the Sheth Model, . .-
and the Choffray and Lilien model.
TASK AND NON -TASK ORIENTED MODELS
Frederick E. Webster, Jr. and Wind Yoram (1972) noted that early
models of organizational buying tended to focus on either task variables or
non-task variables.I4 Table 2.1 illustrates the difference between these two
types of variables.
TABLE 2.1 EXAMPLES OF TASK AND NONTASK VARIABLES
Individual
Social
Organizational
Environmental
TASK NONTASK
Desire to obtain lowest price Personal values and needs .l Meetings to set specification
supplier preference
Informal, off-the-job interactions-- 1 Policy regarding local Methods of personnel evaluation I
prices
Anticipated changes in
Source: Frederick E. Webster Jr. and Yoram Wind, "A general model for
Political climate in anelection year
understanding organization buying behaviour." Journal of marketing, 36
(April 1972), p. 13.
Although task and non-task variables may conflict they may also be
mutusllly reinforcing. For instance, the non-task personal value of
achievement may cause the organizational buyer to perform the buying task
more effectively, like securing the lowest price. Wasley J. Johnston (198 1)
- f i has shown that most task models are essentially microeconomic models that ,
attempt to analyse organizational buying in terms of profit inaxi~mization.'~
Task models are typically based on highly simplified assumptions a d are
useful for predicting benaviour and for improviXg the decision-making .
process within the firm. However, task models generally fail to capture the
richness of organization buying behaviour.
Donald F. Cox (1967) has reiterated that "non-task oriented models
tend to explain organizational buying behaviour in terms of individual
differences, such as achievement motivation, interpersonal relationships,
and perceptions of risk to the individual making the deci~ion". '~ For
instance, Raymond A. Bauer (1960) suggested that "as the level' of
perceived risk to the individual decision maker increases, that person tends
to adopt specific strategies, such as becoming more loyal to well-ltnown and
highly credible sellers, to reduce the perceived riskv1'. .-
Webster and wind (1972) cofisequently affirmed that both task and
lion-task inodels appear to be very limited in their scope on oryrt~lizatialal I
buying behaviour and further argue that what is actually required is a more
comprehensive model that includes both task and non-task variables in the
context of a buyer organizational and environmental frarnework:.I8 Hence,
these authors developed the Webster and Wind comprehensive model which
.. -
(merke%
ng comm
unlcailonsf \
1. T
HE
OR
GA
NISA
TION
(OR
GA
NISA
SION
AL
DETER
MIN
AN
TS OF BUYING BEH
AVIOUR)
rn
111. The B
uylng C
onstraints and centre
Technology available
(Interperscnal determlnant
of Suylng Behavlour)
1 Task
I A
cttvRles lnteractlons S
entiments
I G
~U
D
processes
iv. Th
e lndivtdual partlclpanls M
otlvstlon. Cognltlve Structure, Personallf
auylng Oecision P
rocess I. lndlvlduel D
e rnaklng unit
maklng unit
SOU
RC
E:
Frsdertck E W
ebsler. Jr. and Ym
m W
lnd. 'A' general md
el lor undsrstandlng Organtsatlonal buylng' Journsl of M
srketlng, 38 (Ac:l: l972), f
THE WEBSTER AND WIND MODEL
Raymond L. Horton (1984) showed that the Webster and Wind model
recognizes four broad categories of variables that influence organizational
buying decision".20 The environmental variables recognise that -
organizational buying decisions are influenced by many outside forces, such
as government and trade unions, as well as suppliers of goods and services.
The second category of organizational variable, according to Webster
and Wind (1972) recognizes that "organizational factors cause individual i
decision makers to act differently than they would if they were functioning
alone or in a different ~r~aniza t ion" .~ '
The third category of variables defines what is generally referred to as
the buying center. The buying center consists of the subset of organizational
members who perform the roles of users, influencers, deciders, gatekeepers,
and buyers in the organizational decision-making process. As Wetxter and
Wind (1972) noted, "the marketer's problem is to define the focus of buying
center and to understand the structure of roles and authority within the
buying center"." The buying center is largely informal and will generally be
constituted by different organizational members for different types of I
decisions.
Raymond L. Horton (1984) has explained that the fourth, and final,
category of variables recognizes that "ultimate!y all organizational. buying
-- behaviour is performed by individuals and thus a full account of
organizational buying behaviour must consider individual factors, such as
inotivation and personality, as these individually different variables function
within the large context of organizational buying decisionsw2'.
The Webster and Wind model has a number of limitations. -1n
particular "the model is loosely constructed and offers no testable
propositions" 24, Wesley J. Johnston (1 98 1) has observed. This criticism,
however, could be made of most general models of individual or
organizational buying behaviour. Thus, the primary value of the Webster
and Wind model is that "it presents the major set of variables .... That
marketing personnel should identify in their attempt to understand
(organizational) buying behavio~r"~~.
THE SlIETlI MODEL
This model of organizational buying behaviour was devdoped by
Jagdish N. Sheth in 1 9 7 3 . " ~ ~ AS shown in figure 2.2 below, the sheth model
is essentially a complex stimulus response model that attempts to explain
every type of buying decision from simple to complex.
The main component of sheth model as described by Thomas V. b
Bonoma, Gerald Zaltman and Wesley J. Johnston (1977) is expectations of
buyers about suppliersand brands.27 These expectations are created on the
basis of four factors. These are:
a. Background of the individual
b. The nature and source of information the buyer has acquired
c. The perceptions the buyer has developed about the supplier and
the brand, and '1
d. The buyer's past experience with a supplier or brand. . .-
These expectations are further' influenced by product-specific factors,
organizational factors, and situation and environmental factors. The Sheth
model also emphasizes the conditions that tend to produce joint decision
making, the conflict that arises when group members have different goals
and different perceptions of the problem, and that conflict can be resolved in
a number of different ways which include problem solving, persuasion,
bargaining, and politicking.
Wesley J. Johnston (1981) explained that the uses and criticisms of
the Sheth model closely parallel those of the Webster and Wind He
continued that in comparison to the Webster and Wind model, the Sheth -
model attempts to specify the relationships among the variables that affect
organizational buying behaviour in addition to identifying those :influences
and he finally noted that the Sheth model enables one to begin to order the
mass of existing literature and colnplexity of industrial marketing. - I
THE CICOFFRAY AND LILIEN MODEL
Jean-Marie Choffray and Gray Id. Lilien (1987) have developed an
industrial market response model, that models the organizatiorlal decision-
making process in terms of responses to controllable marketing mix
variable.)' The fact is that the Webster and Wind and the Sheth models only
attempt to define the variables that affect 0rgan:zational buying decisions , -
and specify the relationships among these variables. Both the Webster and
Wind and the Sheth models provide no direct links to the controllable
marketing mix variables: product, price, promotion, and distribution. The
Choi'fray and Lilien model bridges this gap and the authors have also
outlined a measurement methodology for their model.
As shown in figure 2.3, the Choffiay and Lilien model is composed of
four sub models of:
a. Awareness,
b. Acceptance,
c. Individual evaluation and
d. Group decision processes.
Each sub model is developed in terms of the probability of a specific I
response to a specific brand (brand a) that is a member of a particular class
of products (denoted by A). - For instance, awareness is modejed in terms of probability the "brand
a" will be evoked as a relevant choice alternative. This probability is further
specified in terms of such controllable marketing variables as advertising,
technical service, and personal selling and external measures, such as
communication, consumption for each participant in the buying process aild
specific organizational constraints and requirements.
Wesley J. Johnston (1981) said that the Choffray and Lilien model can be
criticized on a number of grounds, such as the assumption that individuals
who occupy equivalent positioils (for example, production engineers) use - I .. ,.
the same product He however, noted that the Choffray and Lilien
model is an important development in the effort to construct valid models of
organizational buying behaviour.
The model offers operational definition to the concept of buying
center. Further more, the model is another example of rapidly developing
technologies for directly liking buyer behaviour concepts to managerial
decisions.
FIQUR 2.3: CHOFFRAY AND LILIEN INDUSTRIAL MARKET
RESPONSE MODEL CINTR
I
Communication Consump tioil for Each participant category I
Design characteristics _r Accep:llce lnodel
I 01-ganizational requirements
d.
Decision participants Individual evaluation perceplior~s evaluation criteria
and perceptions. I ,
Individual choice probabilities
1 P (a; A Feasible, evoked) I , i
Micro segment characteristics: Categories of Individuals Involved Interaction Process
Group decision model Assumptions.
Choice Pa (A:A)
SOURCE: Jean - Marle Choffray,and Gary 1 Liilen, "Asse>sing response to industrial marketing strategy" Journal of Marketing, 42 (April 1978) p. 23 33
An appreciation of the major influences on industrial buying behaviour in a
study such as this cannot be underestimated. In this regard, a brief
discussion of these influences has to be done.
2.1.3 INFLUENCES ON INDUSTRIAL BUYING BEHAVIOR:
Several factors affect the choice of poultry farmers in their purchase
of animal feeds. These interplay of factors consequently affect the industrial
buyers brand preference of industrial goods. It is worthy of note that
industrial buyers are more concerned with the functional characteristics of --
industrial products than the psychological rewards associated with consumer
product because they have well-defined preferences that guide their
purchase decisions. Stephen Skinner (1 990) categorically emphasized that
organization purchase decisions are rarely made by just one person. "- He
stated that in most cases, many people participate in the industrial purchase
decision process, and that these include the users, the buyers, the
influencers, the deciders and the gatekeeper.
To better understand the processes through which members of an -
organization transform organizational needs into specific buying decisions,
researchers have developed the concept of the buying center. Patrick J. I
Robinson et a1 (1962)' have echoed that the buying center is not a fixed . ..-
group of individuals but composed of all those who are formally
Charged with implementing the organization's purchasing The
affirmed that the composition of the buying center will be constantly
changing as a function of the type of purchase and many factors unique to
each buying decision. They further stated that although most organizations
~ m k e purchase decision through a buying center, one member of the buying
center may exert more influence tl~ari others in the final decision.
Since a group of individuals or a person buys for the organization, it
becomes reasonable to enumerate the influences on the organizational
buying behaviour because a successful marketing strategy for the
organizational buyers requires a clear understanding of the criteria by which
alternative choices are evaluated. It is important to point out that one major
distinction between organizational and consumer bu,ying is that
organizational requirements are much more frequently specified in terms of .
precise technical and performance specification. Hence, Stephen J. Skinner
(1990) has affirmed that. organizational customers consider a variety of
factors when they make purchasing decisions, and that these broadly consist
of quality level, services, and price.3b1n addition, William F. Schoell and
Joseph P. Guiltinan (1 992) have enumerated economic or rational factors
3 7 -- considered by industrial buyers in their purchasing decisions.
Schoell and Guiltinan further claboratcd in their resc:arch work that I
among the important purchasing decision criteria are dependability, product
quality, cost, vendor production capacity, after-sale service, vendor
reliability and integrity, reciprocity, and emotion factor:;. while Philip
Kotler and Gary Armstorng (1990) stated that influences on organization,
interpersonal, individualistic, and industrialist in nature.)' ,-
I ,
At a more general level, Donald R. Lehmann arid John 0'
Shaugl~nessy (1974) compiled a list of seventeen attribute:;, or choice
criteria, typically used to evaluate choice altel-natives by o~~ganizational -
buyers. '"these criteria are presented in table 2.2 below.
TABLE 2.2: SEVENTEEN CHOICE CRITERIA OF GENERAL
IMPORTANCE TO ORGANIZATIONAL BUYING DECISIONS
1.
. a
11.
. . . 111.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
. . . v111.
ix.
X.
xi.
xii.
, . . X111.
xiv.
Overall reputation of the supplier
Financing terms
Suppliers flexibility in adjusting to your company's need!;
Experience with the supplier in analogous situations
Technical service offered
Confidence in the salesmen
Convenience of placing the order
Data on reliability of the product
price .
Technical specification I
Ease of operation or use
preferences of principal user of the product
Training offered by the supplier.
Training time required
xv. Reliability If date promised
xvi. Ease of maintenance
xvii. Sales service expected after dare of purchase.
In that study involving 19 major American companies and 26 major
British companies, Lehmann and 0' Shaughnessy asked purchasing agents
to rate the importance of each of the 17 attributes for each of four types of
buying situations: routine order, procedural problem, performance problem,
and political problem products. The overall pattern of the importance ratings
suggest that fiequently organizational buyers are "buying" at supplier as
much or even than a specific product. They also noted that :reliability of
delivery is a consistently important attribute thus reflecting the unique
problems of organizations. And fusther obseived that organizational buyers
tend to be highly with all types of buying problems, even routine purchases, -
Recently, Donald R. Lehmailn and John O'saughr~essy (1 982)
reported another study of the relative importance of choice criteria: and
buying situations somewhat differently.40 They defined the following types
of criteria:
I. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA: I
These criteria evaluate the extent to which the product is likely to --
maximize performance in the application envisaged for
. . 1 1 . ECONOMIC CRITERIA:
These criteria evaluate the anticipated cost outlays associated with .-
buying, storing, using, and maintaining the product.
i i i . INTEGIUTIVE CRITERIA:
l'hese criteria evaluate the willingness of suppliers to cooperate and
go beyond minimal standards in providing services to integrate their -
efforts in accordance with the buyer's requirements
iv. ADAPTIVE CRITERIA:
These criteria evaluate the extent to which the buying firm may have
to adapt its plans to accommodate uncertainty about the capability of
the supplier to meet the buyer's requirenients for production and
delivery.
v. LEGALISTIC CRITERIA:
These criteria evaluate the impact on the buying decision of legalistic . -
or quasi-legalistic constraints (eg. government regulation, company policies
and practices, etc).
Next, they defined the following attributes on which products can be
dichotomized: standardization (standard vs. novel,) and dollar commitment I
(low vs. high) Two hundred and twenty purchasing agents were asked to
allocate 10 points to reflect the relative importance of the first four of the
five choice criteria for eight different combination o f t h e four product
attributes. Lehrnan and 0' Saughnessy, then, su~n~narized the data as
follows:
"In general, as products become less standard, economic factors,
decrease in important and performance criteria becomes more important.
I-Iowever, adaptive criteria are important for all product-attribute categories
except for simple standard products with standard applications. Integrative
criteria are generally less important. Additionally, this category shows the--
least variation over the various product attribute ~ a t e ~ o r i e s ' " ~ These notable
researchers also examined the impact of legal and policy constraints on both
the buying criteria and the buying decision itself. They concluded that"
. . ..The role of these constraints becomes more important as the producl: and
its applications become increasingly .unique and non-standard.
These constraints appear to have the greatest impact for complex
products that generate high dollar expenditure.42
Leh~nann and O'Shaughnessy's two studies of the relative importance
of different choice criteria across different types of organizational buying
situations are largely mutually supportive. The two studies provide many
important insights into how organizational, buyers eva.luate choice I
alternatives. And from such understanding the marketer can construct total
offering s that will be more attractive to potential organization customers.
It is also important at this point to discuss feedattributes that are
likely to affect poultry farmers choice in their purchase of broiler starter . . .
feed for table birds. Several writers and reseafchers have show that feed
factors such as quality in terms of protein, energy and other nutrients,
product form, absence of early decay and mould, perish, ability, less
susceptibility to weevil attack, efficiency of conversing to meat, presence of
medic ant, palatability or likeness by birds, packaging, price and so on, all '
affect poultry farmer's choice in their purchase of poultry feeds in general.
Peter Inloudu (1986) has recommended that about 50% of a feed
manufacturer's trade should involve direct selling to farmers, the remainder
being indirect - that is, through distributors; this is to ensure: that the feeds
reach the farmers as eady as possible and at competitive and reasonable
prices.43 He also reported that this takes care of the perishable nature of the . -
product because once compounded, the feeds of powdery nature should be
used within 4 to 6 weeks as longer storage results in losses of essential
ingredients like vitamins, amino acids, minerals and micro nutrients.
There is tremendous increase in the incorporation clf medicjnal of
feeds, because the health status of the poultry stock has become a matter of
vital interest to the feed industry. R. A. Obannezu et a1 (1985) have
described feed medication as the responsibility of feed inar~ufacturers, and I
reported that poultry farmers will not deliberately purchase feeds that do not
contain the essential mendicant, one of such being the coccidiostat for
prevention of coccid ios i~ .~~ The occurrence of disease in a poultiy flock is a
serious event and one that causes a lot of anxiety to a poultry farmer. The
prevention of disease, therefore, is a decisive factor to the succes.s or failure
c.f n poultiy enterprise.
Festus C. Obioha (1992) has 'reported that the form of a. feed is an
in:poi-tant consideration to the poultry fanner; as a feed of powdering
texture may be rejected by birds on account of producing a doughy
consistency in inoistcned feeds or inducing excessive dust losses in dry
~ :eds . / '~
46 Festus C. Obioha has shown that in feeding pclultry, it is --
worthwhile to remember that the amount: and quality of feed provided must
bc cnough to iinish both the maintenance requirements of the animal (which
cnsure that the animal stays alive) and the production requirement (which
cnsure that the animal stores up excess material o r ;growth and
i-eproduction). I-Ie, therefore emphasized that poultry feeds must be balanced
in the right proportions of crude protein, energy, minerals, vitamins, and
amino acids to achieve the expected results from the birds. He concluded
that since broilers or table birds are kept to grow fast and pruduce meat
primarily, their feeds must be highly convertible to meat and palatable to the
birds.
G.
feed we1
Williainson and W.J.A payne (1978) .;have reported. that poultry
I balanced in vitamins and minerals, particularly calcium and
phosphorus and vitamin D will aid bone formation in young broilers and
thus reduce incidence of rickets (deformities in the legs). 47
Therefore, that a number of feed attributes affect poultry farmers,
choice Of broiler starter feeds cannot be over emphasized
Having reviewed industrial buying behavior. General models of
organizational buying. And influences on industrial buying behavior, it has
become critical to specificaliy review enlpirical research works closely
related to the topic of this present study.
2.2 EMPIRICAL REVIEW
The intention of the researcher. is to review few of the research reports
on the choice of farmers by going through such project objectives ,and.-
reseqch finding.
The first closely .related research work for review is tha.t of Malcolm.
N. Kirk up and C. Dennis Anderson (987) on the role of the dealer in -
farmer, purchase decisions. 48 They stated that the success of industrial
producers, marketing efforts is highly dependent on intermediaries who
. provide p.oduct support or customers service to buyers. 49
FIGURE 2.4: SCHEMATIC VIEW OF AGRICULTURAL
MACHINERY DEALER ROLE
Service provided for manufacturers
Market coverage
SOURCE:
Conveniently located sales outlets
Malcolin 1-1. Kirk up, A study to invesiipate the need for . .-
DEALER
Direct marketing and sales supports to end-users '
a market intelligence unit to serve the needs of
Wide range of products
dealerships within the Agricultural machinery industry,
Stock holding
unpublished Masc. Thesis. Silsoce college, cornfield
Market
Pre- and post sales service
institute of rrechnology, 1983,p: 50
Trade - in and other financial
The objective of Kirk up and Anderson's study was 10 highlight a
number 01 studies and provide empirical support for the iinport.ance to buyer
behavior of the distributor and the customer service factors compared to
generic product support service in purchase decisions. They examined
studies related to farmer purchase decisions for Agricultural machinerv.
They made two particular contributions to the study of farmers, buying
behavior. The first is that they re-examined the evaluation criteria identified
in previous research studies; this service to highlight the importance of the
dealer and customer service in purchase decisions. The second is that they
suininarized findings of a number of unpublished research studies which
add particular support to this theme and went a step further to identify micro
or constituent elements of dealer services of most importance to farmers.
Kirk up and Anderson' findings concerning dealer1 service versus
product factors in product choice are.discussed below. Appendix, .-
1 page100) contains a summary of findings from seven surveys of farmers
in wllicl~ respondents were asked to rate or rank the importarice placed on h
each factor when making a product or dealer choice for major machinery -
items. The studies are grouped into three categories depending on the focus
o r evaluation or choice; productlbrand choice, dealer choice, and
components of dealer services.
.
li is clear from the findings of the studies (appendix I]) concerning
product choice (part A of appendix 1) that dealer factors are important
considerations in farmers' processes of evaluating and choosing major
~nachinery items. Over one third of the number of factors consider in
product choice are related to dealer cl~aracteristics or services including
getlcral services; pre-sales service, knowledge, quality, and friendliness of -
dealer representatives, repair -services: discounts and trade in deals offered
by the dealer; convenience of dealer location, and after sales service.
it would not be out of place to conclude that machine~y purchase are
as milch about dealer choice as they are about product (manufac:turer
/brand) choice. R. Bevan (1985) AND J. Mason (1985)'~, reported dealer
services as the most important criterion in farmers' product choices. 53 M.T.
Nordbo et-a1 (1357) ", D.W. Norvell (1980) 54 and Van Ti1bt:rg (1985) " found that dealer factors ranked a close second behind a prod~xe factor as
buying motives. G.R. Foxal (1979) reported dealer after-sales ,service as
56 fourth in impdrtance among six tractor buying criteria. ~t appears,
tl~crclbrc, that, to I:amlcn, a prooduct,is not just a product but m!:hc';a buntllc
or package cokprised of both generic product attributes and distributor
service attributes.
Part R of appendix 1 presents findings from two studies which
employed a measure for determining the order of importance of criteria'in
Fanners' choice of dealer. Not surprisingly, dealer characteristics and dealer
service components dominate the list of importance factors. For example S.
Eaton (1 984) found ready parts availability and competitive price offered by
dealers to be Fasmcrs' Chief concerns when choosing a machinery.dealer, 57
while D.W. Norvell (1980) found dealer service and reputatio~l of dealer at
thc top of his list. 5s
Part C of appendix 1 provides a more detailed look ~ , t the role of
dealer sesvices in Farmers' buying behaviour. Here R. Bevan (1985) took a
micro view of bot pre and post-sales service dimension. 59 He found that
ready part availability was the primary post -sales service attributes,
followed by provision of competent technical advice and replacement or
loan machinery. It would appear that financial incentive (discounts trade-in
allowances) offered at the time of the sale are important to Farmers'
machinery choices. Interestingly, access to technical information is again
important to Farmers' machinery choices. Interestingly, access to technical
information is again important to Farmers' pre-choice deliberations.
In summul.y, thereCor, appendix 1 provides empirical support for the
i1nportar:cc Af dealer in the distribution channel for Farm machinery.
Farmers' machinery buying of the dealer in the distribution channel for farm
macliinery. Farmers' machinery buying truly appears to be as much
choosing dealers as it is about choosing manufacturers and brands.
Poultry fariners in Enugu metropolis quit Kirk-up and Anderson's
study similar to the present work on the choice broiler starter feeds for table
birds. The reviewed study provides an excellent. insight into the role of
prcduct support attributes and dealers in gaining customer patronage. Bot
product farm 1nach;m-y and broiler starter feeds are industrial goods and are
mostly distributed through dealers. It is recognized that these dealer -
intermediaries carry out a vital role as link between inanufacturers/inillers
and farmers. To the manufacturer/ millers they provides market coverage,
direct marketing and sales support to end-use;s, stock holding, and market
information services, and to the Farmer thcy offer services of convenient
location, wide product range, pre and post sales services trade in and other
financial services (see figure 2.4). By providing these dual services the
dealer or distributor can be described as "indispensable" to blot manufacturer
1n:iller and Farmer.
Another research that falls in line with the present study in that of
John Kenechi Onyeke (1990). '' The objectives of his study are similar to
those of the presence study in some dealer or distributor attributes, but differ
in a nuinbey of areas. His research objectives were:
.-
i) To appraise the distribution strategies and the role of
middlemen in the distribution 0fV.S.S. livestock feeds.
i i)
iii)
iv)
To determine the level of' custonier acceptability-of V.S.S
livestock feeds brand in Ananlbra State.
To find out the general and specific probleins hindering
performance of the distribution function.
To recommend, based on the findings, possible ways of solving
identified.
Onyeke used survey approach on poultry far1ne;rs and feed
distributors using stratified random sampling method which involved
administration of 32 questionnaires on poultry Farmers in Abakaliki, Awka, .-
Eni~gu, Nsukka, and Onitsha that own above one hundred birds in their
poultry units and 30 questionnaires on feed distributor in the same zones.
Well, Onyeke's work and the present study used structured questionnaires
with some personal interview which enhanced the survey method both
researchers adopted. Onyeka's work hard two types of questionnaires
numbering 62 administered on distributors and Farmers while the present
study has on set of questionnaires numbering 180 administered on Farmers.
In contrasting the coverage of survey, Onyeka administered His I
questionnaire on farmers in Abakaliki, Nsukka, Enugu metropolis.
Furthermore, Onyeka's work was based on one brand of feed, V.S.S. feed in
relatim to other brands to all types of poultry feeds while the present study
is based on survey of all table bird farmers choosing one broiler starter
brand over other feed brands.
In addition, Onyeka used chi-square statistics and student -
distributions statistic while the present work used several analytical
techriiques in its analysis of data which include analysis of variance,
regression analysis and associative modeling, factor analysis, and analysis
of inlpoitance/perforinai~ce characteristics.
The finding of Onyeke stated that V.SS. Feeds brand ranlts high --
(second) after Peco ~ e e d in terins of farmers' awareness in the study area;
that poultry farmers are more disposed to radio, tra.de fairs, and
posters/stickers as advertisement vehicles; that the comparatively low prices
and high quality of V.S.S feed are major attractions to farmers; that most
fariners prefer to buy because of the support services rendered and that
proximity to sales outlet influences choice of brand. Judging from the fact
that price and quality of goods, actions of distributors and the support
scrviccs thcy scndcr, advcrtising, quality of goods, actions of distributors
and the suppoll services they render, advertising, and proximity of sales '
outlet to farmers all affect the choice of farmers in their purchase decision.
NOTES
I . Malcolm 1-1. Kirkup and Dennis C, Anderson, "Tlle rolc of the --
dealer in farmers' purchase decisions' European Jor~rnal of
marketing (1987), Vol. 21, No.9, p.21.
2. Dennis C. Anderson, The State of Knowledge of Farmers' Buying
13-ocesses for Major Farm Machinery, Paper Presented at. the
annual conference of the Agricultural Economi.cs Society,
Reading, England (April 1987), p.446.
3. Peter M. Chisnall, Strategic Industrial Marketing, 2nd Edition
(Lonodon; Prentice Wall Publishers, 1 989), p.53
4.. Philip Kotler, Marketing Management: Analysis, -.Planing,
~inplementstion and control, 6"' Edition (New Delhi: iPrentice-Hall
Publishers, 1988) P. 446. . .-
5 . Theodore Levitt, "Marketing Success Through Differentiation Of
~ n ~ t h i n g ! " , Havard Business Review, (Jan-IFeb. 1980), I? 24.
6. Frederick E. Webster, Jr. and Yoram Wind, "A General Model For L
Understanding Organizational Buying Behaviour" Journal'-' Of
Marketing (April 1972) Vol. 36, P. 20
7. 0 Onah and M. J. Thomas, Marketing Management.. lSt Edition
(Uruowulu -Obosi, Nigeria: Pacific Publishers, 1993), P:P. 43 - 46. - ..
8. Peter M. Chisnall, op. Cit., P.7.1
9. Loc. Cit.
Richard M. Cyert and James G. march, A Behavioral Theory of the
Firm (New Jersey: Prentic - Hall Publisher, 1973), P.96.
Peter M. Chisnall Op Cit. P. 72.
Petcr M. Chisnall, Marketing: A Behavioural Analysis (Lonbdon: .
McGsaw Hill Book Company Ltd, 1975), P.20.
Raymond L. I-Iorton, Buyer Behaviour: A Decision-Making
Approach Ohio: Charles E. Merill Publishing Company, 1894),
P.392.
Frederick E. Webster, Jr and Yoram Wind, Op. Cit. P. 13.
TiVesley J. Johnson, Patterns in Industrial Buying Behaviour (New
York: l'raeger 13ublishers, 198 1) P. 39. 1
Donab F. Cox. (ed.), Risk Taking and Information Handling in
Consumer Behaviour, (Boston: Division of Research!, Graduate
School of Bus. Admin., Havard Univ.; 1967) P.137.
Raymond A. Bauer, "Consumer Behaviour as Risk Taking" in
Proceeding of the American marketing Association, (R.S, Moancock,
ed.) Chicago: American Marketing Assoc., '1960) P.389.
Fredcrick E. Webstcr, Jr. and Yoram Wind, Op Cit. P. 12.
Ibid; P. 13.
Raymond L. I-lorton, Op. Cit. P. 395.
Frederick E. Webster, Jr. and Yoram Wind, Op. Cit. P. 14. --
Ibid; P. 17.
Raymond L. Horton, Op Cit., P. 395.
kvesley J. Johnston, Op Cit., Pi 21.
';rederrick E. Webster, Jr. and Yoram Wind, Organizational Buying
Eehaviour, (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice- Hall Publishers,
1972), P. 39.
Frederick E. Webster, Jr. and Yorarn Wind, Op Cit.,(April 1972), P.
Jagdish N. Sheth," A Model of Industrial Buyer Behaviour," Journal
of Marketing (October 1973 ), Vol. 37, P. 52 . .-
27. 'Thomas V. Bonoma, Gerald Zaltinan, and Wesley J. Johnston.
industrial Buying Behaviour, (Cambridge, Massachusetts; Marketing
Science Institute, 1977), P. 89.
-- 28. 'Wesley J. Johnston, Op Cit., P. 22 - 23.
29. Jadish N. Sheth, Op. Citp.5 1.
30. Jean-Marie Cheffray and Gary I,. Lilien, "Assessing 'esponse to
Industrial Marketing Strategy" Journal of Marketing. (,4pril 1978)
vo!. 42, pp. 20-30.
3 1. Wesley Johnson, Op. Cit. 23-24
32. Jean-Marie Choffray and Gary L. Lilien, op. Cit., P.23.
33. Stephen J. Sltinner, Marketing, (Boston: Hou.ghton Muffin, 1990)
p. 152.
34. Patrick J. Robinson, Charles W. Faxis, and Yorain Wind, Industrial
auying and Creative Marketing (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Tnc.,
William F. Schoell and Joseph P. Guiltinam, Marketing:
Contemporary Concepts and Practices, 41h Edition, Boston: Allyn and -
Bacon, 1992), pp. 498-500. .
Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong, Marketing: Armstrong,
Marketing: An Introduction, 2"d Edition, (Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall . . Inc., 1990), P. 408.
Donald R. Lehmann and John 0' Shaughnessy," Difference in
Attribute Importance for Different Indl.:strial Products," Journal of
marketing (April 1974). Vol. 3.8, pp. 36-37. . .-
Donald R. Lehmann and John 09Shaughnessy, "Decision Criteria
used in Buying Different Categories of Products, "Jcmrnal of
Purchasing and Materials Management (1 982), Vol.. 18, pp. 9- 1 1.
Ibid. .p 13.
Ibid. p 12.
Peter Imoudu, " Animal Feed Compounding Plant", Business Times,
R.A Obanezu, et al, Effects of Scarcity of Veterinary Drugs on the
sales of Finished Feeds, Unpublished Marketing paper, 198.5
44. Festus C. Obioha, A Guide to Poultry Production in the Tropics, 1''
Edition, (Enugu-Nigeria: Acena Publishers, 1992), p.68.
45. Ibdi,p.48
- 46. G. Williamson and W.J.A payne, An Introduction to Animal
Husbandry in the Tropics, 3rd Edition, (Longman Publishers! 1978) P.
47. Malcom H. Kirkup, and Dennis C. Anderson, op. Cit., pp 22-3 1 - e.
48. Ibid. P. 21
49. Malcolm H. Kirltup, A study to investigate the Need for a Market n
Intelligence Unity to Serve the Needs of Dealerships within the
Agricultural Machinery Industry, Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, Silsoe
Collage, Cranfield Institute of Technology, 1983, p. 1
50. R. Bevan, unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, Silsoe Collage Cranfield .
Institute of Technology, 1985.
5 1. J. Mason, Unpublished M.Sc Thesis, Silsoe Collage, Cranfield
Institute of Technology 1985. .
52. M.T Nordbo, L. Schaffner and S. Strangeland, "Decision Making
Processes in Farm Machinery Selection, "North Dakota Agricultural
College Bulletin, (June 1957), p.4 10
52
D.W. Norvell, Farmers' Buying Behaviour as Related to the
Purchasing of Farm Implements in Kansas, College of Bus. Admin.,
Van Tilberg, Professors of Agricultural Marketing of Agricultural --
University, Waganinen, Netherlands, (1 986).
G.R. Foxall "Industrial Buying Decisions during Recession; Farmers
Tractor Purchases, 1977-78'' Management Decisions, (1 979), Vol. 17.
S.Eaton, Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, Silsoe College, Cranfied Institute
of Technology, 1984.
D.W. Norvell, op.cit.
R. Bevan, op. Cit.
John Kelechi Onyeke, Appraisal of Anambra State V.S.S Livestock
Feeds Distribution Policy and Its ~ ~ ~ l i c a t i o n s , Unpublished . .- M.B.A.
Thesis, Department of Marketing, University of Nigeria, 1990.
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
INTRODUCTION This aspect of the study highlights the type and sources of data used.
Other important factors discussed include: the research procedure used, the
research instrument utilized the determination of sample sizes, techniques,
method of investigation, the distribution of questionnaires and method
employed in data analysis.
3.1 SCOPE OF STUDY
This study is spatially limited to Enugu metropolis bounded by Ozalla
to the East, Nkalagu to the south, Udi to the north, and Oghe to the west.
It was not possible to get a con~prehensive list of all the poultry
farmers in Enugu metropolis. This is because when the poultry association -
of Nigeria Enugu State Branch was contacted, the research could only be
furnished with a list of twenty (20) farmers in Enugu registered with the
Association. The ministry of Agriculture does not have up -- to date
information on the exact number of poultry farmers in Enugu. The Enugu
Chamber of Commerce, Industry Mines and Agriculture could not help,
Essentially, the bulk of information on the location of poultry farmers was
obtained from poultry feed and feed raw materials dealers, sellers of forzen n
chicken, sellers of live birds in the markets, and egg sellers, all in , Enugu -
metropolis.
3.2 SOURCES OF DATA
Data for this study were collected from two sources. These include
the primary sources of data and the secondary source of information.
3.2.1 IWMARY DATA SOURCES
All the primary data weie collected through questionnaire
administration. Oral interview was earlier used during the pilot survey and .-
many questions that feature in the final questionnaire were framed by use of
dues from these pilot interviews.
Oral interview was used during the pilot survey of thirty (30) farmers
chosen at random to serve as a guide to preparing the final questionnaires. -
The completed final questionnaire was used for hypothesis testing, drawing
of inference, recommendations, and conclusion.
3.2.2 SECONDARY DATA SOURCES
For secolldary data, textbooks on marketing. Poultry production and
management, and , Economics; unpublished articles and these: General
Agriculture and marketing Journals: and reports from related projects were
used. These secondary data sources were obtained from the -following ? 4
institutions and libraries: . - I
i. University of Nigeria, Nsukka and Enugu Campus Libraries
ii. Enugu State University of Science and Technology Library, Enugu.
iii. Nnaindi Azikiwe University Library, Awka
iv.
v.
vi.
3.3
River State University of Science and Technology library, Port
National Library, Enugu and Anambra State.
Poultiy Association of Nigeria. Enugu Branch.
RESEARCH APPROACH
The nature of this research work requires, causal approach which
beats on descriptive research. E;O Akuezuilo (1993) explains that
descriptive research (sometimes known as non-experimental research) seeks
to find out the
processes that
developing. 1
conditions or relationships that ekist, opinions that are held, . .-
are going on, effects that are evident, or trends that are
David J. Luck and Ronald S. Rutin (1987) stated that the most
preferred descriptive method is survey research. Survey research is used to
produce evidence of causation which assist the researcher to have a direct
but practical approach to the study.
3.4 RESEARCH INSTRUMENT
Structured questionnaire method was adopted in this study.
Questionnaire is a formalized schedule for collecting data from I
respondents and to obtain and record specified and relevant; information--
with tolerable accuracy and completeness ). A set of questionnaire was
constructed for the purpose of this study and administered to poultry farmers
of table birds in Enugu Metropolis.
A mix of open-ended questions or free response questions, multiple
choice and five to ten point scale were used in the questionnaire
design.
The questions have been designed for table bird farmers' to analyze
the factors that affect their choice of broiler starter feeds.
The five scale fell in itemized rating scale which is the most
frequently used rating scale in marketing research because of its simplicity
and adaptability to most measurement situations, for example, very
important, fairly important not important, not at all important. The ten point. .-
rating scale was designed to determine the overall like of farmers in their
regular choice of broiler start feed brands.
The application of different kinds of questions was to overcome the
shortcomings of one type of question. That is why, to avoid or minimize ..
bias, misrepresentation and misinterpretation, the research 'was very careful
in designing the question
All poultry farmers who rear birds for the table in Enugu metropolis
were survey. Data on these farmers and their location were obtained from
the poultry association of Nigeria, EnugdAnambra State Branches: dealers I
on poultiy feeds and feed raw materials: fowl sellers in Artisan, Ogbete,
Emene and New markets: sellers of eggs at Enugu Ngwo, Udi and 9Ih Mile
and Nsude: manufacturers of poultry feeds i f ? Enugu; and sellkrs of frozen
I - . ' . 'cken in Enugu.
3.5 DETERMINATION OF SMALL SIZE FOR POULTRY --
FARMERS ON TABLE BIRDS
A pilot survey was conducted in Enugu metropolis with particular
reference to poultry farmers by this researcher. From the information
gathered about poultry farmers in Enugu metropolis, there were one hundred
and eighty (180) table bird farmers as at the time. The research ignored
layer poultry farmers since that group is not the concern of this study. The
researcher decided to use all the 180 table bird farmers or the total
population because during the pilot survey it was discovered that all the 30
copies of the questionnaire administered at random showed that all
respondents admitted the influence of most if not all of the dealers and feed
characteristics in their choice of broiler starter feed brands.
Therefore, the sample size of 180 table bird farmers was used.
3.6 SAMPLING TECHNIQUE
The sample for 'this research covered the entire sample frames as
regards the 180 table bird farmers in Enugu metropolis.
3.7 METHOD OF INVESTlGATlON AND QUESTIONNAIRE
The method employed in carrying out investigation was done by the
help of questionnaire to acquire the primary data needed for this study.
Questionnaire for the table bird farmers were administered physically
and personally by ten (10) graduates trained for that purpose as interviewers
by the researcher. Each graduate administered the questionnaire to eighteen
(18) poultry farmers, these interviewers understand and speak the local
language (Igbo) fluently. This means that poultry farmers who are not
literate enough were assisted by them on the spot. For those firmers who
filled the questionnaire themselves they had an opportunity of seeking some
clarification from the interviewers who readout the questions.
The poultry farmers cooperated with the researcher because two pre- ,-t
questionnaire letters' were designed and sent to these farmers. One letter
informed the farmers of this project and intending visit by the interviewers
with the questionnaire. A second, an introductory letter was pr,epared and
handed over by the, interviewers with the questionnaire to the respective
farmers. There was good turnout in the each expected response because ,
appointment was booked well in advance with each farmer throu-gh the pre-
questionnaire letter. More so, the arrangement was made in such a way that
each farmer got contacted at the appointed time, and the questionnaire
completed before the interviewer moved to the next farmer.
3.8 METHOD OF DATA ANALYSIS
The data generated for this study was analysed using computer. -- I
Respondents were categorized according to responses and the percentages
for each response calcuIated. Thesc; have been used for conclusions and
recommendations.
The hypotheses were tested using techniques:
i. Analysis of variance
ii . Regression analysis and associative modeling
. . . 111 Factor analysis
iv Analysis of in~portance/performance characteristics.
NOTE:
1. E .0 Akuezuilo, Yesearch Methodology and Statistics,(Awka
.Nigerian: Nuel Centi (Nig.) Publishers, 1993), p.8
2. David J. Luck and Ronald S. Rutin, Marketing Research. (7th Edition).
(Englewood Clifits, New Jersey: Prentice -Hall Inc, 1987) P.56.
3. Kinner C. Thomas and James R. Taylor, Marketing Research: An
Applied Approach (4th Edition) New York: McGraw - Hill Inc. 1991),
P.366.
CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA I
INTRODUCTION: -
This chapter deals with the presentation and analysis of the various
data collected. All the data collected from 180 respondents were computer
analysed. The results obtained fi-om these computer analysed data in
conjunction with the seat of hypotheses earlier formulated will . be
interpreted in the appropriate sections.
However, it is auspicious that the theoretical bases of the four analysis be
explained so, each presentation of set of analyses the theoretical basis of the
analytical technique will first be explained.
4.1. ALLOCATlON AND RETURN OF QUESTIONhIAIRES .-
The allocation of questionnaires to poultry farmers and the returns
made are summarized in table 4.01
Table 4.0 1 :
Allocation .of questionnaires and returns
TABLE 4.01 :
ALLOCATION OF QUESTIONNAIRES AND RETURNS
ALLOCATION
Poultry fanners (Table 180 100%
birds only
Table 4.01 shows that all 180 questionnaires distributed. to table bird
farmers were properly completed and returned. This response was 100%.
This kind of perfect response was obtained for two reasons. One, farmers
were informed
farmer on the
in advance and appointments particularly sought of each
hour' and as much as two hours allotted to eacli farmer.
Second, eacli of the ten (10) graduates trained for the purpose of this study
attended to only eight (18) poultry farmers, at their appointed time, going
through the questionnaires together and allowing room for explanations.
4.2 PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF QUESTIONNAIRE , -.-
4.2.1 ANALYSIS OF FARMER SIZE
Tablc 4.02: Farmer size
CATEGO 1 NO. 0Fl NO. OF 1 PERCENTAGE
Big 1 > 200 Total
RY Small.
'Tale 4.02 above shows that 118 (65.6) of table bird farmers stock 200
or less birds and 62 (34.4%) stock above 200 birds in their farm.
TABL;E BIRDS <200
4.2.2. ANALYSIS OF FEED BRAND CHOICE
Table 4.03 Feed brand choice PEED BRAND I NO OF RESPONSES 1 PERCENTAGE
RESPONSES 118
Guina Top Pfizcr Sanders Unique Ow11
S 65.55556 -
Total 1 180 1 100% 1
Table 4.03 shows that two brands (Guinea and Top feeds) are
regulariy used by 156 table bird farmers representing together as much as
86.6%. As a result the remaining four brands namely, Plizer, Sanders, I
IJnique, and Own feeds have been collapsed into one brand category called
'Others' because of inadequate sample sizes in each of them. Therefore, an
adjus'ed feed brand choice table has been generated as follows:
Figure 4.1 pie chart of adjusted feed brand choice
TABLE 4.04 ADJUSTED FEED BRAND CIIOICE
4.2.3 Analysing Research questions i, ii and iii
FEEID BRAND Guina TOP Pfizer Total
Research question (i): --
Can that large number of attributes/dimensions that are perceived to
NO OF RESPONSES 71 85 4 180
characterize manufacturers of broiler starter feeds be reduced into a smaller
PERCENTAGE 39.44444 47.22222 13.33333 200%
number of more manageable dimensions called factors?
- Research qulestions (ii):
Is it possible to reduce the large number of attributes/di~nensions that
are perceived to characterize dealers in broiler starter feeds into a smaller
~~uiubcr of morc interpretable dimensions called factors?
Research question (ii i)
Is it possible to reduce the many attributes/diinensions that are
perceived to characterize broiler starter feeds into a lesser number of
delineable characteristics called factors? ,_ . -.
Research questions i, ii and iii in this study (as stated above) were
addressed using a quantitative analytical technique known as Factors . - .
Analysis. The aim of this analysis is to accoinplish some.contraction of the
data and as well as make the data more interpretable. Instead of describing
inanufacturers, dealers, and feeds by as twenty-one (2 1:) variables,
charactei-istics, or dimensions, factor analysis reduces the number of
dimensions to a smaller and inore manageable number that actc~ally capture
the underlying principle substance which dealers, .-
and
feeds can be more meaningfully characterized. This analysis wtis facilitated
by the use of a computer software that performed principle component
analyses on the manufacturer, dealer, and feed characteristic:^ data. The
resulting outputs are factor-loading matrices, which essentially are the key
to understanding the factor analytic solutions.
The method employed to factor analyze the characteristics data was based
on the following model:
Where j = 1,2 ..................... p variables The computer solution of this model transforms the sets of inter
related characteristics into smaller sets of unrelated linear combinations of
these characteristics. These sinaller sets of linear combination Swese chosen
so that each linear combination, called factors or componenls explains a
decr~asing proportion of the variance in the original variables subjects to the
condition that each linear combination is uncorrected to the other preceding
linear combinations.
The factor loading matrices delineate the factors but clnoosing the
number of factors is judgmental based on how much variance that can be
expiained by a chosen number of factors. Naming of the factors is facilitated
by the method of varimax rotation, which accomplishes orthogonality of the
factors and also returns comparable high positive factor loadings on some
variables. These high factor loading facilitate the art of naming or labeling
the factors as clusters of cornparatively high factor loadings -and are
suggestive of a factor label or name
4.2.3.1. Reduction of Manufacturer descriptive characteristics
using factor analysis
Table 4.05 below shows the factor analytic solution (with varilnax
rotation) for manufacturer characteristics derived from the factor analytic
output for manufacturer descriptive characteristics in appendix v.
Table 4.05: Factor Analytic Solution (with varimax rotation) for
manufacturer descriptive characteristics (Question :2 on
questionnaire) I
Variable Factor l F a c t o r la be1 loadings ,JIJarnes)
I 1
0.7472 1 I
0.9 196 , Location/Timely 0.8603 delivery factor 0.7905,
Varia ble/characteristics
Open/available at convenient tiii~es Conveniently located Near locatioii Timely deliver
Factor loading no.
1 1 =
4 1
Have lcnowledgeable salesmen Have friendly salesmen Provide information about product
2 2 2
0.763 1 0.8087 0.7264
The factor analytical solution in tables 4.05 above for manufacturer
descriptive characteristics shows that instead of describing feed
Salesmanship product information factor
Provide day-old chicks Provide druglveterinary service.
Credit facilities available Free delivery --
inailufacturers by as many as seventeen variables, a smaller and inore
manageable number of factors, in this case four, can be used to describe
manufacturers of feeds. The four factors are: Locatiordtimely delivery,
3 3
4 4
Salesinanship/product information, product ancillary services, and
creditlfree deliveiy. These four factors capture about 67% of the variance in
0.8 1 12 0.934 1
0.806 0.7850
the data for describing manufacturers.
Product ancillary services factor
Creditlfree delivery factor
4.2.3.2 lieduction of Dealer Descriptive Characteristics Using
Factor Analysis - , .
'Table 4.06 shows the factor analytic solution for dealer descriptive
characteristics ih 'variinax' rotation derived from the factor analytic output
for dealer descriptive characteristics in appendix VI.
Table 4.06 Factor Analytic solution (with variinax rotation) for dealer
descriptive characteristics (Question 5 on questionnaire)
Varia blelcharacteristics
Have knowledgeable salesmen have friendly salesmen having competitive prices provide price discounts
provide day-old chicks provide druglveterina~y services provide information about product
conveniently located near location freed delivery
Factor Factor loading 110. loadings 1 0.8678 1 0.88 16 1 0.7929 1 0.8081!
Salesinanshir price factor
0.9054 Product
0.9423 information . ancillary
0.7633 services factc
Locationltimt deliver factor
0.724.';
It cab be seen from table 4.06 that three factors, as against the initial
seventeen variables, are needed to describe feed dealers. These three a
factors-salesn~anshiplprice, product' infor~~ationlancillary services, and
locationlfree delivery-explain about 67% of the variance in the data for
describing feed dealers.
4.2.3.3: Reduction of Feed descriptive clmaracteristics using factor
Analysis
?‘able 4.07 is thc factor analytic solution for feed descriptive --
chnracteristics (with varimax rotation) derived from the fixtor analytic
output for feed descriptive characteristics in appendix VII.
Table 4.07: Factor Analytic solution (with varimax rotation) $or fked
descriptive characteristics
I-Iigh energy content ireputable prodilct image Contains quaiily ingredients Good pricelvaluc
Birds weighty at matxity r.cr ~ i ~ ~ c ~ e i l t l y procedsres weighty Produces healthy birds Zirds Xlteness for feed I-ligiyrotein content - -
Factor loading no. I 1 1 1
2
3 3 3 3 3
Factor loadings 0.7054 0.8462 .
0.8272 0.6567
0.6092
0.6 192 0.7328 0.7939 0.'/293 0.63 1 1
Factor label (Na rn cs) Product quali tylprice fkctor
Powdery factor
Health/weight factor
Ilere also in this section of descriptivs ijctor analytic sol~ition for
I;:ed charactzristics s11owi~ in table 4.07. It, is seen that just three fxtors
.- I ,,meIy, t;roduct quality/price, powdery and healthy/weighty birds can be
* - < - ;8..d ,,- te eI'fcctiveiy describe feeds. These three factors account for about
62Yo of ;he total variance in the data for characterising feeds.
.ssc:-rrch Qucs'lion iv Ii71;zt is thc lcvel ~f p~rf'oi-~~,~lncc of ixanufacturers of broiler starter
r i3:cds d a t i v e t~ the i;lip~rtsnce attzched by poultry farrners to the
f?clniive to the im?ortance attacl~ed Lo dc~ le r characteristics by
:-:~ult:y 5rc;ei-s, w h ~ i is the level of perfoi-maiicc by these dealers in broiler
r 1 : t 21-t .i !c,eas?
i<c.cecrrc!? guest ion vi: . . -
Given farmers' perceived levels el' importance of feed characteristics,
!low have diff'esmt: brailds of broikr starter feeds performed?
Xesearch questions iv, v, and vi above have been addressed using an
a~alytlcal tech~ique cailed importance-perforlllce analysis. Aiialysis of
!.he pcrLorinsnce 'n;veis of manufactuser, dealer, anci .Feed characteristics vis-
2i-,is the ievei: of importar~.ce attached to thsse characteristics by poultry
r'arxers, in Enugu metropolis, was done using a two-dimensiorlal and four-
quadrar~t gc~inetricai configuration. Aggregzk ;-neasures of performance for
each of the ctbove characteristics were plotted against their ccm-esponding
.- aggr-egslc h-qortame measures. PerCornlance was used as one axis (Y-axis)
w!iile ir~~postance was used as a second axis (X-axis). The intersection oftlie
two axes at t!leir inid-points resulted in a four-qurdrant space. 'The plotting
cf .the aggregate measures mentioned above gemrated different coordinates -
b e i c n ~ i i ~ ~ to each pair of performance-iinpcreance aggregate measures for
each characteristic.
? 7 ,
i i;c key to understanding this analysis is as follows:
C o d L i a t e s with 11ig!l impor tam zncr high perf'ormanc.e aggregate
::ieasurcs depict arcas in which t!le r~?a!~ufxturer, dealer, and Seed -
ihzracterisiics are doicg well and sho~!L r,ot be allowed to diminish;
Coordinates with high importarxi: and !ow performance aggregate
:i-::easures depict areas in which the 1-~ianul'acturer, dealer and feed
characteristics need to be improved upon. They should be considered
high priority areas by management;
(iii) Coordinates with low importance and high performance aggregate
measures depict areas of possible over kill. Management should de-
emphasis investment of production and marketing .resources in these
areas; and
(iv) Coordinates with low importance and low performance aggregate -
measures show, in fact, low priority areas.
4.2.4.1 :
Tale 4.08:
Variable no. Q3lQ4A Q31Q4B Q3lQ4C Q3lQ4D Q31Q4E Q31Q4F Q31Q4G Q3lQ41-I Q3lQ4I Q31Q4J Q3lQ4K Q3/Q4L Q3lQ4M Q3lQ4N Q3lQ40 Q31Q4P Q31Q4Q
Importance - Performance Analysis of Manufacturer
Characteristics (See questions 3 and 4 on questionnaire)
Importance - performance Means for Manufactur~er
Characteristics (Questions 3 and 4
Variable/characteristics names
Have knowledgeable salesmen Have friendly salesmen Competitive prices Price discounts Credit facilities Openlavailable at convenient times convenient location Near location Timely deliveiy Free 'delivery Reliability and honesty Consider old customers Company image Product image Provision of day old chicks Provision of drugslveterinary services Provision of information about product
Importance mean XI
4.2 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.9 4.4 4.4 4.2 4.2 3.1 4.3 3.5 3.9 - 4.5 3.7 3.5 4.0
l'erforma means YI
Figure 4.2: Importance/Performance Analysis of Manufacturer
Characteristics (Q3/Q4)
Figure 4.2, derived from table 4.08 above, is a spatial representation
and analysis of manufactures' performance relative to thle importance
attached by poultry farmers to the variables that were used to measure
5-
4
3 I
1 2
2
1
manufacturers' performance (see questions 3 and 4) at appendix iv). No
Performance
M N B A K
O c DIG F
J L H
0 E
i 4 5
P
areas of over kill or low priority were h u n d in 1igul-c 4..2. Ilowevcr, I
characteristics of high priority identified in figure 1 are F, H, E, 0, L, ID, J,
C, Q, D, 1, G. generally, from figure 2, manufacturers seem to be doing a
good job in the other characteristics. These are B, A, K, M, and N
represwting knowledgeable salesmen, reliability and honesty company
image and product image. Summary of the findings on figure 4.2 is outlined
in appendix viii.
4.2.4.2 ~mportance/Perfornznrzce Analysis of dealer chamcteristics
(see questions 6 and 7 on questionnaire)
Table 4.09: Importance-Performance means for dealer
Variable no.
characteristics (Questions 6 and 7)
Variablelcl~aracteristics names
Have knowledgeable salesmen Have friendly salesmen Competitive prices Price discounts Credi t facilities Open/avai lable at convenient times convenient location Near location Timely delivery Free delivery Reliability and honesty Consider old customers Company image Product image Provision of day old chicks Provision of drugslveterinary services Provision of information about product --
1rnportanF mean XZ - 3.7 3.8 4.3 3.9 4.1 4.3 4.3 3.9 4.3 3.9 4.5 3.8 4.0 4.3 3.5 3.9 4.1 -
Pcrforrl~ance means YZ
Figure 4.3: Importance/Performance Analysis of dealer characteristics
Figurc 4.3, derived from table 4.09, shows the analysis of dealers'
5-
4
3 r 1 2
2
1
performance in relation to the importance attached by poultry farmers to the
Perfornlance N K E I G
C
M D I1
o A B P E
x2
4 5 Importance
P
variables that were used to measure dealers' performance (See questions 6
and 7 at appendix iv). Areas of overkill and low priority were not identified I
in figure 4..3. Most of the seventeen parameters located in figure 4.3 point to ..-
areas of high priority except for available M, N and K representing
reliability and honesty, company i i~age, and product image (where dealers
seem to be doing a good job). Appendix ix shows summary of the analysis-
contained in figure 4.3
4.2.4.3: Importance/Performance Analysis of the Aggregate of all
Feed Brands (See Questions 9 and 10 Questionnaire)
Table 4.10 Importance/PerJormance means of the aggregate of "ali feed
brands" (Questions 9 and 10)
Variable no. Varia ble/characteristics names
Bone development Reduction of rickety bones Pelleted nature Powdery nature Smell Serving convenience Feed wastage Decaying Mould Weevil attack Weight of mature birds Quantity used per bird Health of birds Birds' likeness for feed Protein content Energy content Company image Product image Quality of ingredients Pricelvalue Attractiveness and durability of package
L
Importzmce mean Xj 4.8 4.2 3 .O 3.4 4.0 4.0 3.9 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.7 4.3 4.7 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.0 4.2 4.5 4.2 3.9
Performance means Y 3 4.3 3.9 2.9 3 .O 4.1 4.1 3.7 3.9 3.8 3.6 4.6 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.1 3.8 4.1 4.2 3.8 3.9
Figinre 4.4 I~~zportance/Pe$ormance Analysis of the aggregate of "all
@ed brands " (Q/P/QlO)
Performance L I F RP N I<
E . o S M A
u : : .f
Figure 4.4 derived from 4.10 depicts the analysis of the aggregate
perforinancc of' all feed brands relative to the importance attached by
poultry farmers to the variables that were used to measure the performance
of feeds (see questions 9 and 10 at appendix iv). No areas of ovei-kill or low
priority were identified in figure 4.4. Areas of high prio:rity involved
attributes U, B, 13, Q, G , I, T, J, D,.and C, while all brands seem to doing I
well in attributes E, R, P, I?, L, 0, S, M, A, N and K representing smell,
product image, energy content, serving convenience, quantity used per bird,
protein content, quality of ingredients,.heal:h or birds, bone development,
birds' Iilteness for feed, and weight of mature birds respectively. Summary
ofthe findings in the analysis figure 4.4 can be hund in appendix x.
4.2.4.4 Importance-Performance Analysis for Guinea Feed
Brand (See Questions 9 ~ j i d 10 on Questionnaire)
Table 4.11: Importance - Perforrnnnce Means of Guinea Feed Brand
(Question 9 and 10)
~Qent Q9/Q 1 OB Reduction of rickety bones
-
Varia blc no. Variable/characteristics nsmcs
Q9/Q 1 OC Q9/Q 1 OD Q9/Q 1 OE Q9/Q 1 OF Q9/Q 10G Q9/Q 1 OH Q9/Q 1 01 Q9/Q 1 OJ Q9/Q 1 OK ,39/Q 1 OL 39/Ql OM Q9/Q 1 ON Q9/Q 1 0 0 Q9/Q 1 OP Q9Q 1oQ Q9/Q 1 OR Q9/Q 10s Q9/Q 1 Or (29/QlOlJ
Pelleted nature Powdery natxe Smell Serving convenience Feed wastage Decaying Mould Weevil attack Weight of mature birds Quantity used per bird Health of birds Birds' likeness for feed Protein content Energy content Company image Product image Quality of ingredients Pri ce/value Attractiveness and durability ofpacltagc
I
. - h. :. lgure 4.5 : I~~~portalzce/Perfomzance Analysis of Feed Chnr.ucteristics
for Guinea Feed Dmnd (QY/Ql 0)
Perforinance 1'
l i L S A
Xlr Importance
Figure 4.5 derived from table 4.1 1, is an individual brand
perljnnance analysis for Guinea brand, relative to the importance attached
by pocky farmers to the variables that were used to measure feed brand
perforu~clnce (see 9 and 10) at appendix iv). There were no identifiable areas
of civcr kill or low priority in the andysis contait~ed in figure 4.5. 'l'he I
analysis in figure 4.5 for Guinea feed is summarized in appendix xi
:.?.4.5 Inlportat~ce/Perforn?a~ce Analysis for To;] Feed Brand (See
J?z~estions (and 10)
Table 4.12: linportanceIPerfor~nance means of Top Feed Brand (See
Variable no.
Questions (9 and 10)
Varia ble/characteristics names
Bone development Reduction of rickety bones Pelleted nature Powdery nature Smell Serving convenience Feed wastage Decaying Mould Weevil attack Weight of mature birds Quantity used per bird Health of birds Birds' likeness for feed Protein content Energy content Company image Product image Quality of ingredients Pricelvalue Attractiveness and durab ditv of package
Figure 4.6: hportarzce/Perfortnance Analysis of Feed
Chnracteristics for Top Feed Brand (Qg/QZ 0)
Figure 4.5 derived from table 4.12, is an individual brand
performance analysis for top brand, relative to the importance attached by..
pouitry farmers to the variables that were used to measure feed brand
perforinance (see questions 9 and 10) at appendix iv). No area of overkill or
low priority were identified in figure 4..6. The analysis in figure 4.6 is
summarized in appendix xii
Tab'ne 4.13: Ii~~portancelPerfor~nance means of "Others" brand (questions
9 and 10)
Variable no.
G9/QI@A Q9/Q 1 OB Q9/Q 1 OC Q9/Q 1 OD 29/Q 1 OE Q9/Q 1 OF Q9/Q 1 OG Q9/Q 1 OH Q9/Q i 01 Q9/Q 1 OJ Q9/Q 1 OK Q9/Q 1 OL Q9/Q 1 OM Q9/Q 1 ON Q9/Q 1 0 0 Q9/Ql OP CP/QlOQ Q9/Q 1 OR Q9IQlOS Q9/Q 1 OT Q9/QlOU
Varia blelcharacteris tics names
Bone development Reduction of rickety bones Pelleted nature Powc',ery nature Smell Serving convenience Feed wastage Decaying Mould Weevil attack Weight of mature birds Quantity used per bird Health of birds Birds' likeness for feed Protein content Energy content Company image Product image Quality of ingredients Pricdvalue Attractiveness and durability of package
Pmportance mean XG 4.8 4.1 2.5 3.8 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.8 4.4 4.8 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.1 4.3 4.6 4.5 3.8
Performance means Y6 4.2 3.7. 2.2 3 -5 4.0 4,O 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.3 4.3 4.0 .-
4.3 4.1 4.2 3.9 3.9 4.0 4.1 3 .$!
Figure 4.7: Il~iportal~ce/Perfor~nance Analysis of Feed Characteristics
for "0 thers" feed brand (Q9/Q 1 0)
Figure 4.7 derived from table 4.13, is also an individual brand
Performance
perfor~~~ance analysis for other brands, relative to the importan.ce attached
5-
4
3 I
2 1
2
I
by poultry farmers to the variables that were used to nieasu.rc brand
MK OA
' F N E RLS
u Q TP
o B D I 1-1
J 1 XG
4 5 Importance
P
pzrformance (see questions Q9 and Q10 at appendix iv). Only the attribute
(zittsibute C), representing pelleted nature, seemed to be of low priority in
lllc analysis in iigure 4.7. 'Therc were no aseas of over kill identified. I
Sulrmmary of the analysis in figure 4.7 is outlined in appendix xiii
.l C..
&. $3 STATISTICAL TESTING OF EUPOTHESES
Fozv (4) hypotheses were formulated for this study.
4.3.1 TESTING HYPOTHESIS 1, 11, AND HIP
in testing hypotheses I, ii, and iii, in this study, associative models
(iilvolving regression and correlation analyses) were used. These models
\w:,: use to ineesure the total contributions of manufacturer, dealer, and feed
ci~a;actr,ristics, respectively, towards explaining the overall like of choice of
broiler starter feeds by fariners in Enugu metropolis.
Associative models of the type:
YI = B o + B1X2 1 ................. + B p + en
Where i = 1 ................. n respondents p = 1, ..............., k
variables ei = error term introduced to test the hypothesis that B is not zero
\.flcic flittcd to the relevant data in this st-ldy. In the above models, farmers'
cvcrai! like of choice of broiler starter feeds was used as the dependent
w k b l e . Y. The n~anufacturer, dealer, and feed characteristics respectively,
were used as the independent variables, Xs.
The key to understanding the contribution of manufacturer, dealer and .
f'ixxi ci~aracteristics in explaining overall like of choice of broiler starlet. I
ibeis by these farmers is a measure known as R ~ , R~ is the dependent
varlzble, Y (in this case: farmers' overall like of choice of broiler starter
feeds) that is explained by the independent. variables (in this case:
mant;facturer, dealer and feed characteristics respectively). The two-tailed
pr~br!bi!ities contained in the probability co!umn in the computer output
alsc serve to indicate which of the independent variabies is a significant
driver or explanatory variable of the dependent variable.
In many research studies, two-tail probabilities (2TP) greater than
0.10 are usually not acceptable as they give rather low confidence levels of
less thm ninety percent (90%) of concluding that any of the independent
val-iables (manufacturer, dealer and feed characteristics) is a. significant
~dsivcT~ or explanatory variable of the dependent variable (farmers' over all
Iilte r,f choice of broiler starter feeds).
in order to ascei-tain which of manufacturer, dealer, feed
chaxcteristics is a signif'lcant 'driver' of farmers' overall like of choice of -
broiix starter feeds the stability or non-zero effects of the B-coefficients in
the xsociative models above were tested. This testing is equivalent to
testkg hypotheses I, ii, and iii in this study. The relevant hypotheses that
were iested are:
I-Ia: not all fiK = 0, for K = I, . . . .. P.
ft should be noted that in multivariate sssociative mode1.s involving
segrcsion analysis. Mu!ticollinearity (a phenomenon in which some of-the
independent variables are mutually, highly correlated) is often present. The
erSec~ of such inulticolliilearity is that it tends to mask the effect of some of
the independent --~riables on the dependent variable. The associative models
used iil this study are not without inulticollnearity as some of the variables
show strong correlation among them.
3 ' 1 4...3.; . L Testing Hypothesis i
Ho: Poultry fanners' choice of broiler starter feeds is riot driven by
a sigiiificant number of manufacturer attributes.
Ha: Poultry farmers choice of broiler starter feeds is driven by a
signiiicant number of manufacturer attributes.
Dependent variable = Question ID in appendix iv = farmers' overall
like of choice of broiler starter feed
hdependent variable = Question 2 in appendix iv = rnanufacturer
desc;lptive/perforn~ance attributes.
A - - X- n,, a x
Standard error,
k - - Statistics
- Y I - Poultry farmers' overall like of broiler starter feed
(Dependent variable)
yr A, = Descriptive attributes (Independent variable)
I:I associative modeling, the F-ration does the testing of quality of
variances whilc the T- value tests two-tailed probability tests, 2TP = the
tailed probability.
Thbie 4.14: 'Testing hypotheses i using the signiiicant rr~anufacturer
desc;;;,tivc attributes department variable (QiD): Farmers' overall like of
choice of broiler starter Seeds.
/ Variable no.
i
Q2 1
The probability (prob.) column is table 4.14 indicates that only four
descriptive variables (Q2A, Q2G, Q21, and 020 significantly drive farmer
over~l l like of choice of broiler starter feeds at. 5% significant level.
Time four variables together account for a little less than 27% of the
variability in farmers' overall like of cl~oice of broiler starter feeds as shown
by a2 i2 oT0.27 in appendix xiv.
Tnhic 4. ! 5: Tcsting llypothcsis i using significant mani~facturcr perforlnn~lcc
attrihlcs. I
Manufacturer descriptive attributes
- - Have knowledgeable salesmen Conveniently located Timely delivery Provide day-old chicks
T- value for test: 130: flk = 0 Ha: I?&= 0 2.50 4.76 2.07 2.52
2- probability
0.000 1 0.0396
1 7,7,- .: , '11 ,abIe 11s. Manufacturer attributes probability
Q4 Q Provision of product --
Appendix xv is the computer output of an associative model in which
thc i:~dependent variables, manufacture performance charactwistics, were
znaiyzcci to determine which of them are significant 'drivers' cverall like of
c!ioIse of broiler starter Seed. Table 4.15 indicates that only one variable,
pi.c\risioil of information about product (Q44), significantly drivers farmers'
ove;aI! like of choice of broiler starter Seeds at 5% significant level. This
va~lthle explains a little less than 15% of the variability in farmers' choice
of broiler starter feeds, as indicated by an R' or 0.15. This is a rather very
week expianation.
Decision Rule for Hypothesis i:
O< 2 ' 2 <O.O 1 / 0.01 2TP < 0.05
As a significant level of 5%
Reject I-To null hypothesis of 0.01< 2TFP < 0.05
'iVhile at a significant :eve1 of 1%
Reject 1 1 null hypothesis if O< 2TP < 0.0 1
Decision:
Since 2Ti' = 0.0 136, < 0.0001,0.0396,0.0 128, and 0.0004
T'hereforc e reject Ho
Considering both ~nanufacturei- descriptive and performance
charactesistics, the hypothesis that farmers clmice of broiler starter feeds is r
not driven by a nt~inber of significant manufacturer characteristics is
xjected. Thus the null hypothesis Ho is rejccted implying that farmers over
all Iike of choice of broiler starter feeds is criven by a number of significant
:r,a:;,dkAurer characteristics.
Ho: Poultry farmers' choice of broiler starter feeds is not driven by
a sig~ificant number of dealer characteristix.
Ma: Poultry farmers' choice of broiler <:tarter feeds is drivei by a
sigriliicant number of dealer characteristics.
D c p i d e ~ l t variable = Question 1 9 in appendix i-v = farmers'
overall like of choice of broiler starter
feeds
Independent variable = Questions 5 in appendix iv = Dealer
descriptive/performance attributes
Tablc +.! 6: Testing hypotheses ii using significant dealer descriptive
attributes:
/ Vtxiable no. ! Mamfacturer descriptive 1 attributes
/F_IQI Provision of information about
'Ynble 4.16 is derived from appendix xvi. Contains the computer
T- value for test: No: fik = 0 I-la: fie = 0
1.62
~i?a!y"lc ~ u t p n t of an associative model in w i k h the independeint variables, .
2- probability
dealel descriptive characteristics, were analyzed to determine which of them
signiCcantly derive the dependent variable, farmers Q5Q (provide
i!lfosixation about product, shows up as being a barely significant
cxplanztory variable of QlD, that is, the dependent variable (fanners'
clveral i like of choice of broiler starter feeds) at 10% significant level. The
varis,,ce in Questions ID explained by Questions 5Q is very low at less than .-
17% :.s shown by an R~ of 0.17
Tabic 4.17: Testing hypotheses ii using significant dealer performance
~+W;L-; ,rrf m. Id; , ; &t attribxtes: , ' "* ",h
- -
1 Iasiablc no. Manufxturcr I
descriptive attributes
Convenient location Q7 iVi Company image
Product image . -- Provision of day old cl~iclts
i-10: fjk = 0 probabi'li ty Ha: kt= 0 - -1.86 0.064 1 -1.80 0.073 1 2.97 0.003 5 2.56 1 0.01 14
r . -p 1- 1 .die 4.17 is derived from appe~dix xvii is computer analytical
output of XI associative model in which tlx indcpenderit variables, dealer . .
performa.ncc attributes, were analyzed to determine which of them
significantly drive the dependent variable, fa;-mers over~ll like of choice of
broiler starter i'eeds.
G ~ l y ibur pcrfor~xance variables (Q7G, Q7M, Q7N, and Q70)
sigi~i,?~~,tiy drive farmers' choice of broiler starter feccis at 10% significant
ievel. These four variables together explain slightiy less than 21% of the
variability in frarnes' choice of broiler starter- reeds.
Decisjczz criterion for hypfZ~es1~ ii:
At a significant level of 19% Reject Ho, null
!-Typothesis if 0.05 < 2TP < 0.0 1
k t a significant leve! of 5% Reject Ho, null hypothesis if 0.01< 27'1'
< 0.05
i;-i a significant level of 5% Reject Mo, null hypot!lesis if 0 2TP <0,0 1
Zecision: .
Eince, 2TP = 0.1071, 0.0641, 0.0'731, G.0035, and 0.01 14
. .. . 1 i~ercIure we rcjcc!.ed WO. I-Iencc, the hypothescs that fa-~mers' choice
cf broiler starter feeds is not driven by a number of significant dealer
desci-ip5ve and performance attributes is nc accepted. The inlplication of
this is tiiat farmer' overall like of choiceof broiler starter feeds is driven by
a ~mlnbzr of significant dealer cllaracteristics.
403.42 Testing hypothesis iii:
- 0 : 'fi~c choice of broiler starter Secds by poultry farmers is not
. P ~igl?::ii~!itly exp!ainable using a number of feed cl~aracteristic:~.
XL?: The choice of broiler starter feeds by poultry farmers is
. . ,' sign1::~~nily explaii~able using a number of feed characteristics.
Dcpcndc~t variable = Questions ID in appendix iv = farmers' overall
like of choice ofbsiler stai-ier feeds
!ndepsl:dent variable = Questions 8 in appcndix iv = feed
descriptive/performance attributes
Tabie 4.18: Testing hypotheses i i i using significant feed descriptive
attributes:
I Variable 110. 1 Manufacturer I
descriptive 1 T- value for test: 2- Tail probability
0.101 1 0.0885 0.1075 0.0278 0.0946
zttributes / Ho: Br = 0
?".ppc:ndi>; xviii contains the coi-nputer results of the analysis of an
Convenient pellets Fine powdered form ?leasant smell Efficiently produces weighty birds Birds likeness for the feed Contains quality ingredients
associstive 111odel in which feed descriptive characteristics were analyzed to
Z S C C C L ~ ~ ~ T which of them significant drives' overall like of choice of broiler
stcrtc;. feeds. l'able 4.18 (derived from appendix xviii shows that six
Ha: Bk- = 9 ! .65 1.71 I .G2 -2.22 1.68 1.75
112 .-iabies (@C, Q8D, Q8E, Q8L, Q~N, and Q8S) erncrged as the significant
e q ! a n i m y variables of QlD (fzr~nc!-s' ~verall like ~f choice of broiler
~ k i ~ t i ? ~ - p ~ : ~ d ~ ) .
',,iesc. six, variables explain a little less than 21% s f the total
vci-iaSIi;t-- in f'ai-~mxs' overall like of choice of broiler s'iaiier feeds.
- P 7
i able i:. 1 9: i esting hypotheses iii using significant feed
Vasiabic no. ManuFxturer 1 descriptive z-ttributes
I
-- 7- value for test: :-LO: ~3~ = 0 - - *--la: fj* = 9 A A
performance
probability
Iil appendix xix are contained the compliter analytical output of an , ,
associative nodel in which the independent variables, feed perforinance
charxtc;.istics, were analyzed to ascestain which of t h e i ~ significantly drive
fxrners' choice of broiler starter feeds. This analysis indicates in table 4.19
t h ~ t he-performance variable (QIOA, Q i 91, Q 1 OQ, Q 1 OR, and QIOU)
ofthe variability in farmers' overall like of choice of broiler starter feeds
... Division criterion for hypothesis ill:
At a significant level of 10%
Reject Ho, null hypothesis of 0.05 < 2TP < 0.10
At a significant level of 5% ,
Reject Ho, null hypothesis of 0.01 < 2TP < 0.05
Dccision: .-
Since 2TP = 0.10 1 1, 0.0885, 0.1075, 0.0278,0.0278, 0.0946, 0.0824,
0.0736,0.0713,0.012,0.0515, 0.0498.
We reject Ho, implying that the hypothesis that farmers' choice of
broiler starter feeds is not driven by a number of significant feed descriplive
and performance attributes is therefore, not accepted. So, farmers' over all
like of choice of broiler starter feeds is driven by a number of significant
feed characteristics.
4.3.2 Testing hypothesis iv - . , .
Null hypothesis (Ho): There is no significant difference among feed
cl~aracteristics that influence farmers' choice of broiler starter feeds when I
these characteristics are compared across different brands of feeds. ?
Alternative hypothesis (Ha): There is significant difference among
feed characteristics that influence farmers' choice of broiler starter feeds
when t lme characteristics are compared across different brands of feed.
Hence Ho: p~ = pN
Hypotheses iv in this study were tested using the analysis of variance
techni, .. These hypotheses, involves the comparison of the aggregate or
mean levels of significant feed characteristics that drive or influence the -
overall like of choice of broiler starter feeds by farmers in Enugu .
metropolis. This comparison of means was done across three feed brands
namely, Guinea, Top, and "Others". The brand category "others" included
the following brands: Pfizer, Sanders, Unique and Own. The collapsing of
these into one brand category is as a result of inadequate sample sizes in
each of them.
Analysis of variance
interpretable way of making
provides a more
each comparison
convenient and readily
across more than groups
(brands) instead of running a series of independent t- test. The two tall
probabilities in the probability column of the computer output indicate if
any of the m.eans has been found to be significantly different from the other.
Here, also, most research works would not consider two - tail probabilities
greater than 0.10 as significant enough to support a conclusion that a
significant difference has been found among the means Two-tail
probabilities greater than 0.10 give low confidence/levels or less than 90%
that the means are significantly different from each other.
The hypotheses that were tested in this analysis of variance are: L
Ho: All the pi, is are equal across brand
I-la: All least one pi, is different from the others across brands
Where p is the mean of significant variable i or characteristic i.
The formula used in the computer analysis of variance is:
Where pi
1
j
Xij
Where
= Mean of the jth treatment
number of attributes
takes value according to number of groups, brands
ith observation on the jth treatment or group
- - Guinea
= Top
- - "others"
= n l+n2+n3 = 180
= total number of observations on the jth
treatment.
The hypotheses are tested using t - test.
t = X-p b
Where X =me&, p = mean of jth treatment, 6= variable.
Whcrc the analysis of variance pointed to a significant difference
among the biand means, overlap analysis, using the scheffe inultiple
.r comparison technique, was done to group the brand means according to
. .-
different levels of comparability.
The scheef multiple comparison is an adoption of T-test with a
modification that we are comparing more than two groups simultaneously. ,.*
The F-Ratio tests the equality of variances while T- value tests the
hypothesis of equality of means.
Formulae for computer partitioning of sum of the squares and means .
squares total variation:
Where SST = Total variation or sum of squares total
xij = Scores of jth and ja treatments
x.. = Mean total
Between group variation:
Where SS,,
Xij
= Sum of squares between or between group 1
variation
= Sample size of jth treatments
= Mean of jth and jth treatments
Within group variation:
.?
Where SSw = Sum of squares 'within or within group
variation mean square total:
MST - - SST - - SST
d fr n- 1
Where MSR = Mean square total groups
d fr = Degree of freedom total =df, + (if,
Mean square between
Where MSB = Means square between group
d fu = Degree of freedom between groups
k = Number of roups
within:
- - ssw n-k
MS = Means square within group d f,, = Degree of freedom within groups
F- Ration computed as
4.3.2.1 Testing hypotheses iv using significant feed descriptive
characteristics
Table 4.20: ANOVA Summary Question 8C
1 Source I Sum of
Within Groups 322.213 1 Total 3044.448
Degree of I Mean :;idom, 1 squares
1361.1 17 1.82014
179
Table 4.2 1 : ANOVA Summary Question 8C
/ Source
Between Groups Within Groups Total
Prob.
<o.ooo 1
Degree of freedom 2 177 179
Table 4.22: ANOVA Sumnary Question 8E
Mean squares 628.7293 3.1551 1
/ Sourcc I Sum of
I Between Grouos squares y4.70 105 1 Within ~ r o u ~ d
Total
freedom 2
782.6092 857.3 102
squares 37.35053 8.44747 t-4 0.0006
Table 4.23: ANOVA Sulnma~y Question 8L
Source
Between Groups Within Groups Total
Sum of squares 0.87647 438.1201 43 8.0048
Degree of freedom 2 177 179
Mean squares 0.43734 2.47526-
Prob.
0.8394
Table 4.24: ANOVA Summary Question 8N
Table 4.25: ANOVA Summaiy Question 8s
Source
Bctween Groups Within Groups Total
I Mean
Sum of squares 2.48906 372.4887 374.9777
Degree of freedom 2 177 179
Source -
Between Groups Within Groups Total
squares 15.13831 2.84476
Mean squares 1.24453 2.10446
F-Ration Prob. ]mk Sum of squares 30.27663 503.5232 533.7998
Degree of freedom 2 177 179
Table 4.26 scheff comparisons questions 8c (from table 4.20)
Guinea Ques. 8c Top Question 8c 'others' Ques. 8c Guinea Ques. 8c 0 696.3884** 270.3534""
Top Ques. 8c 696.3884 0 2.43 14 .-
'Others Ques. 8c 270.3534 2.43 14 0
Note: ** P<0.01 * P<0.05
Table 4.27 scheff comparisons questions 8D (fiom table 4.21)
Guinea Ques. 8D Top Question 8D Guinea Ques. 8D 0 175.775**
Top Ques. 8D 175.775** 0
'Others Ques. 8D 88.7419 ** 0.1608
Note: * * P<0.01 * P<0.05
Table 4.28 scheff comparisons questions 8E (from table 4.22)
Coincn Qucs. 8 E Top Qacstion BE Guinea Ques. 8E 0 8.447**
L
Top Ques. 8E 8.447 0
'Others Ques. 8E 1.2025 0.8 125
Note: ** P<0.01 * PqO.05
'others' Ques. 8D 88.74194**
Table 4.29 scheff comparisons questions 8L (from table 4.23)
Guinea Ques. 8L Top ~ u k t i o n 8L 'others' Ques. I Guinea Ques. 8L 0 0.1746"" 0-.039 1 * *
Top Ques. 8L 0.1746 0 0.0079
'Others Ques. 8L 0.0391 0.0079 0
Note: ** P<0.01 * P<0.05
Table 4.30 scheff comparisons questions 8N (from table 4.24)
Guinea Ques. 8N Top Question 8N 'others' Ques. Guinea Ques. 8N 0 0.2745 0.1078
Top Ques. 8N 0.2745 0 0.4897
'Others Ques. 8N 0.1078 0.4897 0
* P<0.05 Note: ** P<0.0 1
Table 4.3 1 scheff comparisons questions 8 s (from table 4.25)
16 17 - 18
Guinca Qucs. 8s Top Question 8s 'others' Qucs. Guinea Ques. 8 s , 0 4.5099* 2.6389
Top Ques. 8 s 4.5099* 0 0.0332
'Others Ques. 8 s 2.6389 0.0332 0
Note: ** P<0.01 * P<0.05
- Table 4.132 Comparison of means and overlap analysis - Broiler
starter feed descriptive characteristics
Variable
Ques. 8C Convenient pellets
Ques 8D 'Others' 7.3 Fine powdered form ITop 7 . 1
Guinea "Others TOP
9.4 2.0 1.3
Pleasant smell 'Others' 7.7 .- / Too 17.0 '
Ques. 8E
Overlap letter -- A B C A B C A AB B A A A A A A A B B
Guinea Guinea
Ques. 8L Efficiently produces weighty birds Ques. 8N Birds likeness for the feeds
Ques. 8 s Contains quality ingredients
:Derived from
1.7 8.4
From table 4.3 6
Guinea 'Others' Top '
TOP Guinea 'Others' Guinea TOP 'Others
From table 4.27
8.5 8.4 8.3 8.6 8.5 8.3 8.9 8.1 8.0
From table 4.28
From table 4.29
From table 4.30
From table 4.3 1
NOTE: Means with letters are comparable at 5% significant level
except for question 8C where the significant level is 10% (of the twenty one
(21) variables used in describing feed characteristics (Quc:s.8), only six (6)
of them were found to be significant explanatory variables of farmers
overall like of choice of the broiler starter feeds. I
The mean values of these descriptive characteristics were then
compared across the brands (Guinea, Top and 'Others).
The anallisis of variance tables 4.20 to 4.25 contain the results of thl
subsequent test of hypothesis for equality of the means of these dkscriptiv
variables across the three brands. Only tables 4.23 and 4.25 do not show that
the mean values of these significant feed descriptive characteristics are
different across brands, as indicated by the high probability values contained
in the probability (prob.) columns of these tables. Subsequent specific
means comparisons and overlap analysis are contai-ned in tables 4:26 to 4.3 1
and their derivatives in table 4.32
Considering question 8C in respect of table 4.32 above, Guinea brand
with a mean of 9.4 is not comparable at 5% significarlce level, with the
other brand means in which is also comparable, at 5% significance level
with the other two brands' means in terms of fine powdered form (Ques.
8 9 ) in table 4.32. pleasant smell (Qies. 8E) in table 4.3;! is a characteristic
in which the Guinea brand stands in its own class with a high mean of 8.4'-
while the Top and 'others' brands overlap and are comparable. Even though
Guinea is comparable with the 'others brand, it is not comparable with the
Top brand with a low score of 7.0 on pleasant smell. Questions 8L and 8N
are characteristics in which all three brands are comparable. In terms of
Ques. 8S, quality ingredients in table 4.32, the Guinea brand again with a
high mean score of 8.9 is not comparable with the other two brands. - ,- L
4,3.2.2 Testing hypotheses iv using ,..significant feed performance
characteristics
~estions 10 a in appendix iv Degree of 1 Mean I F-ratio
Table 4.33 Anova summary - q Prob. Source
freedom s uares *.3865
Sum of squares
Between Groups Within Groups Total
Table 4.34 Anova summary - question 101 in appendix iv
Source I Sum of squares Degree of / freedom 1 F-ratio s uares 5.87292 1 1.7349 Between Groups
Within Groups Total
Table 4.35 Anova summary-question 1 OQ in appendix iv
Sum of squares I Degree of 1 Mean Prob.
0.0073
Source
Between Groups Within Groups Total ,
Table 4.36 Anova summary-question 10R in appendix iv
Source Sum of squares Degree of 1 Mean
Between Groups Within Groups Total
freedom 2 177 179
squares 1.09829 0.6094
Table 4.37 Anova summary-question IOU in appendix iv
Table 4.38 S~heffe Comparisons Questions 1 OA (from table 4.33)
Source
Between Groups Within Groups Total
1 2 3 Guinea Ques. IOA Top Ques. 10A 'others' Ques. 1OA
Guinea Ques. 10A 0 1.1821 .' 0.0003
Top Ques. 10A 1.1821 0
Sum of squares
2.60739 179.7205 180.3279
'Others' Ques. 1 OA 0.0003 0.5976 Note: * * p<0.01 * p<0.05
Table 4.29 Scheffe Con~parisons Questions 101 (from table 4..34)
Degree of freedoin 2 177 179
4 5 6 Guinea Ques. 10 1 Top Ques. 10 1 'others' Ques. 10 1
Guinea Ques. 10 1 0 10.9142** 4.2722"
Mean squares
Top Ques. 101 10.9142** 0 0.0348
'Others' Ques. 101 4.2722" 0.0348 0 Note: * * p<0.01 * p<0.05
'I'nblc 440 Schcfl'c Compnrisons Questions 109 (from table 4,35) .-
7 8 9 Guinea Ques. 10Q Top Ques. 10Q 'others' Ques. 1 OQ
Guinea Ques. 1 OQ 0 0.9437 5.0684**
Top Ques. 10Q 0.9437 0
'Others' C ~ e s . IOQ 5.0684 2.6372 Note: * * ,,<0.01 * p<0.05
Table 4.41 Scheffe Comparisons Questions 10A (from table 4.36)
10 11 ' 12 Guinea Ques. 1 OR Top Ques. 1 OR 'others' Ques. 1 OR
Guinea Ques. 1 OR 0 0.0138 1.6525
Top Qucs. 10R 0.0138 0
'Others' Ques. 1 OR 1.6525 1.5161 Note: * * p<0.01 * px0.05
Table 4.42 Scheffe Cornparisoils Questions lOU (from table 4.37)
13 14 1.5 Guinea Ques. 10U Top Ques. 10U - 'others' Ques. 10U
Guinea Ques. 10U 0 0.2734 0.5469
Top Ques. 10U 0.2734 0 1.2524
'Others' Ques. 1 OU 0.5469 1.2524 Note: * * p<0.01 * ~ ~ 0 . 0 5
Table 4.43 Comparison of means and overlap Analysis-Broiler starter
feed perforinance characteristics
Variable
Qucs. 101 Bone development
Qucs. 101 Mould
Ques. 1QQ Company image
Ques. 1OR Product image
Ques. 1OU Packaging
Feed Brand Top Guinea 'Others' Guinea 'Others' Top Guinea TOP 'Others'
Guinea Top 'Others' .Top Guinea 'Others'
-.-
Derived from
From Table 4.38
From Table 4.39
From Table 4.40
Grom Table 4.41
From Table 4.42
NOTE: Means
significance.
with same letters are comparable at 5% level of
Five (5) performance variables among the twenty one (21) used to
ineasure feed performance, were found to be significant explanatory
variables of farmers' choice of boiler feeds. The mean values of these
performance characteristics were then compared across the brands (Guinea, L
Top, and 'Others').
The analysis of variance table 4.33 to 4.37 contains the result of the
subsequent tests of hypotheses .for quality of the means of these
performance attributes across the brands. Only table 4.33, 4.36 and 4.37 do
not show that the means of these significant feed performance
characteristics are different across brands, as indicated by the probability
values in the tables.
Subsequent specific means comparisons and overlap analysis are
contained in table 4.43. The table shows that, in terms of mould, question
101, Guinea has a significantly higher level of performance than the other
two brands which are comparable in this performance characteristic. In
terms of company image, question IOQ, Guinea's performance is
comparable with that of Top whose performance is also comparable with the -
'others' brand. I-Iowever, Guinea's performance is signilicantly higher in
this characteristic (question iOQ) since the other two brands overlap in a
lower level of performance. In terms of the other remaining significant feed
performance characteristics (that is, questions 1 OA, 1 OR and IOU) no
significant difference was found in the mean performance of the brands.
Decision rule for 1r;yotheses iv:
At a significant level of 10%
Reject null hypothesis, FIo if . .-
At a significant level of 5%
Reject null hypothesis, FIo if
0.01< 2TP < 0.05
At a significant level of 1%
Reject null hypothesis, Ho if
0.01 <2TP < 0.01
Decision:
The null hypothesis, Ho, is rejected meaning an acceptance of the
alternate hypothesis, Ha meaning + p~ . This follows that there is, in
fact, significant difference among feed characteristic:; that influence --
farmers' choice of broiler starter feeds when these characteristics are
compared across different brands of feed.
CHAPTER FIVE
5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, RECOMMENDA,TIONS AND
CONCLUSION.
This chapter presents a summary of findings based on the hypotheses
tested. Other findings are equally highlighted. Recommendations arc
therefore, made following these findings before conclusion is finally drawn.
5.1 SUMMARY OF FlNDINGS
The major findings of this study as seen from the acceptancelrejection
of the tested hypotheses and analysis of data are suminarizeci as follows:
i) The study revealed that the four manufacturer descriptive variables,
lti~owledgeable salesmen, convenient location, timely delivery,
provision of day old chicks significantly drive farmers overall like of ,,
choice of broiler starter feeds.
ii) The survey also showed that one dealer descriptive attribute,
provision of information about product and four dealer perf&rnance
characteristics, convenient location, company image, product image,
and provision of day old chicks, significantly influence farmers
choice of broiler starter feeds. I
iii) It was found that the choice of broiler starter feeds by poultry farmers - :
is significantly explainable using six feed descriptive attributes,
convenient pellets, fine powdered form, pleasant smell, efficiently
produces weighty birds, birds lilteness ;br the feeds, contains quality
ingredients, and five feed performance variables, bone development,
mould, company image, product image, and packaging.
iv) It was also revealed that there is significant diffkrence among feed'
characteristics that influence farmers' choice of broiler starter feeds
when these attributes are compared across different brands of feeds.
This is because the study has shown that there is significant difference
among six feed descriptive characteristics, convenient pellets, fine
powdered form, pleasant smell, efficiently produces weighty birds,
birds likeness for feed, contains quality ingredients, and five
performance variables, bone development, mould, company image,
product image, and packaging influence farmers' choice of broiler
startcr feeds when these characteristics are compared across different
brands of feeds.
vj In addition, it was found that Guinea and Top brands of broiler starter t
feeds are regularly used by poultry farmers in Enugu metropolis,
Pfizer, Sanders, Unique and other feed brands of broiler starter only
account' for 13.3 per cent of feed brand choice. ,
vi j Factor analysis showed that the large numberbf attributes (seventeen)
that are perceived to characterize manufacturers of broiler starter
fceds could be reduced to four manageable factors viz:
- ~ocation~tiinely delivery
- Salesmanship/product information
- Product ancilla~y services, and
- Creditlfree delive~y
vii) The study revealed, through factor analysis, that it is possible ;o
reduce the large number of dimensions (seventeen) that are perceived
to characterize dealers 'in broiler starter feeds into three more
interpretable factors viz:
- Salesmanshiplprice factor
- Product informationlancillary services factor
- Locationlfree delivery factor
viii) It was also found that using factor analytical technique, it is possible
to reduce the many attributes (twenty-one) that are perceived to
characterize broiler starter feeds into delineable factors viz:
- Product qualitylprice factor
- Powdery factor
- Healthlweighty birds factors
ix) Using a two-dimensional and four quadrant geometric:d configuratior
of impor-tance~~erformance analysis, good performance levels o:
nlanufhcturers, of dealers in, and broiler starter feeds were revealec
for manufacturers, dealers and different broiler starter feed bran4
cl- sracteristics as follows:
- Manufacturers of broiler staster feeds seem to be doin
a good job in the areas of knowledgeable and friend1
salesmen, reliability and honesty, company image and - product image.
- Dealers in broiler starter feeds seem to be doing well in
the areas of reliability and honesty, company image and
product image:
- Guinea brand of broiler starter feeds seem to be doing l
well in bone development, reduction of rickety bones,
smell of feed, feed serving convenience, decay, mould, B
weevil attack, quantity of feed used per bird, health -of
birds, birds likeness for feed, protein content, energy
content, product image, and quality of ingredients;
- Top feed brand of broiler starter feeds are doing a good
job in the areas of bone development, smell of feed, feed
serving convenience, weight of mature birds, quantity of
feed used per bird, health of birds, birds likeness for
feed, protein content, energy content, product image,
quality of ingredients, and attractiveness and durability
of package. I
- 'Others' brand of broiler starter feeds (which include
Pfizer, Sanders, Unique, and own feed) seem to be doing
well in bone development, smell of feed, feed serving I
convc ience, weight of mature birds, quantity of feed
used per bird, health of birds, birds likeness for feed,
protein content, product image and quality of --
ingredients.
x) There were severally or collectively no areas of overkill, that is, low
importance but high performance criteria, for manufacturers, dealers
and feed brand characteristics. However, the investigation confirmed
that a low priority attribute, that is low importance-low performance
attribute, exists in 'others' brand, this characteristics is pelted nature
of broiler starter feeds.
xi) The factors that underline poultry farmers' perception of
manufacturers, dealers and broiler starter feeds do not vary across > ,
- , , i v ' I . .
different segments (small and high) of poultry farmers in Enugu
metropolis. e . -
5.2 RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings of this study, the following
rec~mmendations are made
(i) Strategic marking . :
T:le findings of this survey will be quite useful to top managers..of \
livestock feed manufacturing firms in their strategicplanning and decision-
making processes and supply of marketing intelligence information. As. we
have seen, high importance-high perfqrmance measures depict areas in
which manufacturers, dealers and feed characteristics * a a,re doing well and
C
such areas should not be allowed to diminish, so management must design
strategies to maintain their performance. Then, high importance but low
performance criteria reflect areas in which manufacturers, dealers and feed
characteristics needs to be improved upon and thus should be considered .
high priority areas by management. Obviously management m.ust devise .-. .
strategies aimed at improving performance on criteria considered to be of
high priority. Similarly, management has to de-emphasize investment of
productioil but marking resources in areas of possible. overltill where
attributes are of low importance but possess high performance track records
because continuous maintenance of such status quo would mean iheer waste
of scarce resources. Also, management may not bother to channel extra . resources to low priority attributes of low importance and performance
status because doing otherwise would be of no benefit to corporate concern.
The findings will be quite helpful to production in the area of product
improvement.
Finally, the findings of this research will go a long way in helping
management to make channel choice policies and distribution strategies
because Seed dealers have a veiy important role to play in feed distribution. I
In fact, poultry farmers are scattered every where in the cities and villages
and the easiest way for them to procure farm inputs is to reach the nearest
dealer in feed and ancillary farm services.
(ii) Brmd Choice Decision of Poultry Fmners r?
The findings of this study present an array of important manufacturer,
dealer and feed characteristics that affect the choice of poultry farmers in
their purchase of broiler starter feeds. These findings will serve as a guide,
therefore, to poultry farmers when making a choice of purchase of broiler
starter feed from a manufacturer or dealer. .
(i i i ) Dealer Outlet Positioning
This survey has revealed that poultry farmers prefer to patronise feed
sales outlets located near their farms and offer free delivery semices. In
addition, given a range of conveniently located sales outlets, poultry farmers
will likely choose to buy poultry feeds from dealers who provide
information/ancillary services like day old chicks and veterinary drugs and,
of course offer attractive feed prices with good salesmanship. What all these
imply is that dealer in poultry feeds position themselves along these criteria
to obtain profitable patronage. -
(iv) Customer service
Customer service is an integral part of industrial marketing strategy.
Poultry farmers will consider to buy feed from the manufacturer or dealer I
who offers the best quality feed at an attractive price, at a convenient
location with a good smile from the sales person ready to give prompt
answers to customer complaints. So, manufacturers and dealers of livestock
feeds should be able to fashion out good customer service units composed
of sales people with good customer orientation because the underlying
premise of marketing is customer satisfaction. -
5.3 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
Poultry feed types include:
- Chick mash
- Grower mash
- Layer mash
- Breeder mash
- Cockerel mash
- Broiler starter mash
- Broiler finisher mash
However, this. survey only studied broiler starter mash of:en used for
table birds in their first five weeks of life. It is, therefore, suggested that a
further study be carried out to investigate the choice of poultry farmersin
their purchase of other feed types especially layer mash that concerns egg
production in the poultry industry and broiler finisher mash that carries table
birds till they are slaughtered.
'l'his study was limited to Enugu metropolis. Therefore, a further I
study concerning appraisal of factors that are likely to affkct poultry --
farmers' choice of feed should be carried out in other cities and rural areas
of Nigeria.
CONCLUSION
This study has investigated and analyzed factars that affect the choice -
of broiler starter feeds for table birds by poultry farmers in Enugu , - ,
Metropolis.
The questions pertaining to this research have been answered the
hypotheses tested, and objectives of the study fulfilled.
The survey analyzed the importance/performance levels of
manufacturers, dealers and feed attributes and brought out areas of good - * .-- . .- * , ti , - , . ,7.Y * W F -m*, performance high and low priorities, and overkill. . -
j hr%fb#m~,
Poultry feeds have two main channels of distribution bemuse of their
industrial nature. The 'first is direct distribution to the bigger and more
regular poultry farmers, and the second is distribution through fi:ed dealers. -
Poultry farmers often expect pre and post-sales services hence feed
nlanufacturers, dealers and sales people should be know1edge:able about
poult~y feeds because of the low level of literacy among cur poultry
farmers. The study has recommended good customer service in poultry feed
marketing and overall use of the findings in strategic marketing :in the light
of top ~llanagement policy making. This is because the ultimate desire of all I
marketing effort is to discover and satisfy customer needs better leading to a
increased patronage and subsequent customer loyalty.
BIBLIOGRAI'HY
BOOKS
Akuezuilo, E . 0 Research Methodology and Statistics, (Nuel Centi (Nig.)
Publishers, 1993).
Assael, H., Co~lsumer Behaviour and Marketing Action, (Boston: Kent
Publishing Co, 1983).
Baker, M.J., Marketing, 4th ed. (Hampshire: Macmillan Publishing Co.,
1995)
Baker, M.J., et al, Marketing: Theory and Practice, (London: .Macmillan
Press, 1983). .-
Bonoma, T.V, Zaltman, G, and Johnson, W.J., Industrial Buying I3ehaviour.
(Cambridge: Marketing Science Institute, 1977).
Chisnall, P.M., Marketing: A behavioural Analysis (London: McGraw Hill
Books Co., 1975). -
Chisnall, P.M., Strategic Industrial Marketing, 2"d ed. (London: Prentice
Hall Publishers, 1989).
Cox, D.E. (ed), Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer
Bchaviour, (Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of B u ; ~ . Admin, - n
I
Havard Univ., 1 967).
Cravens, D.W., and Lamb, C.W. (Jr.), Strategic Marketing: Cases and
Applications (IIIinois: Richard D. Irwin Inc., 1983) ,?
Cyert, R.M., and March, J.G. A behavioural Theory of the Firin (New
Jersey: Prentice Hall Publishers, 1973). I,
Davies, A.H., The Practice of Marketing Research, 2"d ed.. (London:
Horton, R.L., Buyer Behaviour: A Decision-Marketing Approach, (Ohio:
Charles E. Merill Publishing Co., 1984).
Johnston, W.J., Patterns in Industrial Buying Behaviour, (New York: -.
Praeger Publishers, 198 1).
Kotler, P., Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation and
Control 61h ed. (New DeIhi: Prentice Hall publishing Co., 1988).
Kotler, P., and Annstrong, G., Marketing: An Introduction, 2"" ed. (New
Jersey: Prentice Hall' inc., 1990). --
Luck, D.J. and Rutin, R.S, Marketing Research, 7th ed. (Ncw Jersey:
Prentice Hall inc. 1987).
Obioha, F.C., A Guide to Poultry ~r'oduction in the Tropics 1" ed. (Enugu:
Acena Publishers 1992).
Onah, J.O., and ~ h o m a s M.J., Marketing Management, lSt ed. (Wruowulu-
Obosi: Pacific Publishers, 1993).
Robinson, P.J., 6axis C.W., and Wind Y., Industrial Buying and Creative
Marketing, (Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc., 1962).
- P.
Schoell, W.F., and Guiltinam, J.P., Marketing: Contemporary Concepts and
Practices, 4'h ed. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon,, 1992).
Sheth, J.N., and Garrett, D.e., Marketing Management: A Comprehensive
Reader, 1" cd. (Ohio: South-Western Publishing co., 1986).
Skinner, S.J., Marketing, (Boston: Houghton Mufflin, 1990)
Stanton, W.J., Fundamentals of Marketing, 6Ih ed. (London: Mc Graw Hill
i'ublishers, 198 1).
'Thomas K.C. and Taylor, J.R., Marketing Re~earch.~ An Applied ,4pproach, , .-
4"' ed. (New York: McGraw Hill inc., 199 1).
Webster, F.E. (Jr), and Wind, Y., Organisational Buying Behaviour, (New
Jersey: Prentice Hall Publishers, 1972).
Williamson, G., and Payne, W.J.A., An Introduction to Animal Husbandry
in the Tropics, 3rd ed. (London: Longman Publishers, 1978).
JOURNALS, MAGAZINES, ETC
Anderson, D.C., The State of Knowledge of Farmers' Buying Processes for
Major Farm Machinery", Paper presented at the annual conference of the
Agricultural Economics Society, Reading, England, (April 1987).
13auer R.A., "Consumer Behaviour as Risk Taking"' Proceedings of the
American Marketing Association, R.S. Hancock ed., Chicago, (1960)
13cvan, R. Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, Silsoe College Cranfield Institute of h
'I'echnology, (1 985).
Choffray, J. and Lilen, G.L., "Assessing Response to Industrial Marketing -
Strategy", Journal of marketing, (April 1978).
Eaton, S., unpublished M.Sc thesis, Silsoe College, Cranfield Institute of
Technology, (1 984).
Foxall, G.R. "Industrial Buying Decision During Recession: Farmers
Tractor Purchasz, 1977-75", Management Decisions, (1 979).
Imoudu, P. "Animal Feed Compounding Plant", Business Times, Daily
Times Nig. Plc, (14"' November, 1986).
Kirkup, M.Ii., "A Study to investigate the nced for a market intelligence
unit to serve the needs of dealerships with the agricultural machinery
industry", unpublished M.Sc. thesis, Silsoe college; Cranfield Institute of -
Technology, (1 983).
krikup, M.1-I., and Anderson, D.C., "The role of the dealer in farmers'
purchase decision", European Journal of Marketing, (1 987).
Lehniann, D.R., and O'Shaughnessy, J., "Difference in attribute importance
for different industrial products", Journal of Marketing, (April 1974).
Lelmann, D.R., and O'Shaughnessy, J., "Deckion criteria used in buying
different categories of products", Journal of Purchasing and IUaterials
management, ( 1 982).
Levitt, T., "Marketing success through differentiation of anything!", Havard I
Busniess Review, (JadFeb 1980).
Levitt, T., "The Industrialization of service", Havard Business Review,
(Sept./Oct. 1986).
Mason, J., unpublished M.Sc. thesis, Silsoe College, Cranfield Institute of
Technology, (1 985).
National Poultry, Publication of the Poultry Association of Nigeria, (1986).
Nordbo, M.T., Schaffner L., and Strangeland S., "Deciision making
processes in farm machinery selection", North Dakota Agricultural College
Bulletin, (June 1957).
Norvell, D.W., "Farmers' buying behaviour as related to the purchasing of - ;:
farm implements in kansas", College of business Admin., Kansas
Experiment Station Report (1 980).
Obanezu, R.A., et al, "Effects of Scarcity of Veterinary Drugs on the Sales . ..
of Finished Feeds", unpublished marketing paper, (1985).
Onyelte J.K., "Appraisal of Anambra State V.S.S. li\.estock feeds
distribution policy and its applications", unpublished M.B.A. thesis,
Department of Marketing University of Nigeria Nsukka, (1 990).
Qurterly Review of Marketing, published by the chartere.d Institute of
Marketing Berkshire, (March-April 1990).
Sheth, J.S., "A model of industrial buyer behaviour", Journal of Marketing,
I
Tilberg, V. Professor of Agricultural Marketing of Agricultural University,
Waganinen, Netherlands, (1 986). --
Wagner, W.B., "Customer Service in Industrial Marketing: Hedge Against
Competition", European Journal of Marketing, (1 972)
124
Webster, F.E. (Jr.), and Wind, Y., "A general model for understanding
organizational buying behaviour", Journal of Marketing, (April 11 972).
APPENDIX I
SUMMARY OF IMPORTANCE OF
PRODUCTIONlDEALER/SERVPCE FACTORS IN STU1)IES OF
FARMERS BUYING BENAVIOUR
**In the left hand column, the author, year, sample size, particular
decision context and operation definition of the measure employed are listed
for each study. Opposite each study, the findings for the ran.k order of
evaluation factors or purchase criteria are listed. Where necessar-y,
percentage data are converted to rank.
Study, sample and measure
A Product choices
Nordbo, Schaffner and Strangeland (1957)N=31 Reasons for selecting a particular Make/model of tractor or combine. Faxall (1976a; 1986b) N = 55, factors influencing most recent tractor decisions
Norvell (1980) N = 279 Importance of influences on farm implement purchases
Rank order of importance of purchase criteria
1. Make previously owned 2. Best 'deal' (best trade-~inldiscount). 1. Technical performance of product 2. Past experience with productlbrand - 3. Purchase price 4. Dealer after-sales service 5. Other farmers 6. Dealer's representatives 1. Past experience with brand 2. Dealer service 3. Product quality - 4. Spouse influence 5. Othcr family influcncc:
lves 6. Dealer's represent~t' 7. Trade-in allowances 8. Emergency repair service 9. Product availability 1 0. Warranty 1 1 .. Neighbours influence 12. Magazines and brochures 1 3. Government requirements
Mason (1985) N= 25 i. Reason for choosing one brand
over others in most recent tractor purchase . .
l i . Reason for not choosing a particular brand of tractor
Van Tilberg (1 986) N = 236 Importance of Factors when buying major farm Machineiy
Dcvan (1986) N = 100 Importance of general Criteria when Considering the purchase of a new tractor
B Dealer choice .
Norvell (1980) N= 207 Importance of dealer characteristics in choice of dealer
Eaton (1984) N = 174 Importance of factors in choice of machinery Dealer
14. Factory representatives 1. Dealer services 2. Good resale value of brand 3. Previous experience with brand
1. Previous bad experience: with brand (personally)
2. Previous bad experience with brand (by neighbours)
3. Dealer deficiencies (no local dealer; poor dealer; no on-farm demonstrations by dealer)
4. No complementary implements owned Brand
1. Product quality . - 2. Purchase price 3. Dealer services 4. Brand 5. Personal relationship with dealer 6. Proximity of dealer 1. Dealer's after-sale service 2. Purchase price 3. Reputation of manufacturer - 4. Technical performance of product 5. Proximity of dealer 6. Specification of product 7. Dealer's pre-sales service 8. Recommendations form third
parties
1. Dealer service 2. Reputation of dealer 3. Product quality and availability 4. Dcalcr honcsty 5. Trade-in allowance 6. Dealer atmosphere 1. Ready py-ts availability 2. Competitive price by dealers 3. Quality after-sales serdice 4. convenient location of dealer 5. Manufacturers' product reputation
and reliability . '
c Dealer service components Bevan (1 986) N = 100 Importance c;E dimensions of dealers after-sales service in choice of tractor dealer
Bevan (1 989) N = 1 00 Importance of dimensions of dealers' pre-sales service in choice of tractor
6 Good relationship with dealer staff 7. Advice from knowledgeable- dealer
staff 8. Delivery 9. Convenient opening hours 10. Availability of financial ser'vice
1. Ready parts availability 2. Technical competence of dealer staff 3. Availability of reli.able technical
advice 4. Availability of replacement or loan
tractor 5. Availability of an extended warranty
plan. 6. Interest shown by dealer staff in "
performance of tractor after-sale 7. Friendliness of dealer staff 8. Availability of machinery
maintenance programme - 9. Availability of tractor breakdown
insurance scheme 1. Discounts and trade-in 2. Tractor testing and trial facility 3. Technical advice from dealer's
representatives 4. Availability of reliable information
on products 5. Friendliness of dealer representatives ..
6. Preferential treatment for longstanding custorn~ers.
. -
SOURCE: adapted from Malcolm 1-1. Kirltup and C. Dermis Anderson,
study of the role of the Dealer Farmer's purchase
Decisions," European journal of Marketing, Vol. 2 1, No. 9,
1987, pp. 21-3 1
4. On a scale of 1 to 5, with "5" being very high performance "I" being
"very IGW performance", how would you rate the manufacturer of your
regular choice/brand of broiler starter feed on the following characteristici'
or factors? You may use a 5, 1 or any number in between. Circle one
nuinber only for each characteristic.
-
a . Have knowledgeable '
b. Wave friendly salesmen c. Competitive price d. Price discounts e. Credit faciiities f. Opedavaiiable at convenient time SJ. Co~lvenier~t location 0
11. Near location i. Tinlely deliveiy j. Free deiivery k. Reliability and honesty 1. Consider old customers in. Company image n. Product image o. Provision of day old chicks p. Provision of drugdveterinary
service q. Provision of information about
product.
Very performance 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 ' 5
5
5
High per. 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 >
4 '
4
4
Fairly per. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3
3
Low pc1r. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
. .
2
2
Very low per: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 . Ncxt, I would like to read out some characteristics that might be L
used to dcscribe dealers in broiler starter feeds in Enugu metropolis.
For eacli cl~aracteristic I read, please tell me how well you think it
describes dealers in broiler starter feeds in Enugu metropolis. If you think
the characteristic "describes dealers in broiler starter feeds in Enugu
metropolis completely", give it a . rating of 10. If the characteristic
"does not describe cieaIers in broiler starter feeds in Enugu metropolis at - .
all", give it a rating of 1. You may use any number from 10 1.0 1 based on
how well you feel the characteristic describes dealers in broiler starter feeds
in Enugu metropolis.
Have knowledgeable salesmen
Have friendly salesmen
Have competitive prices
Provide price discounts
Credit facilities
Open/available at convenient time
Convenient location
Near location
Timely delivery
Free delivery
Reliability and honesty
Consider old customer
Reputable Company image
Reputable product image
Provide of day old chicks
p. Provide of drugs/veterinary services .........................
q. Provide of information about product .........................
6. I would like to talk about the characteristics or factors- that are
important when you are buying broiler starter feed from a dealer in
Enugu metropolis. After each characteristic or factor that I read,
please indicate hofl important it is, using a "5" to indicate "very
66 >, important" and 1 to indicate "Not at all important". You may use
a 5 or 1 or any number in between. Circle one numbx only for each
characteristic or factor.
Very important
a . Have knowledgeable b. Have fricndly salesmen c. Competitive price d. Price discounts e. Credit facilities f. Open/available at convenient time g. Convenient location h. Near location i. Timely dclivery j. Free deiivery k. Reliability and honesty 1. Consider old customers m. Company image n. Product inlage o. Provision of day old chicks p. Provision of drugdveterinary
service q. Provision of information about
product.
Fairly im ortant 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 '-
3 3 3 3 3
3
3
Not imp. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2
2
Not at all important 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
7. On r; scale of 1 to 5, with "5" being very high per.for~na.nce "1" being
"vcry low performance", how would you rate the dealer in this your
regdar choicelbrand of broiler starter feed on ihe following
characteristics or factors? You may use a 5, 1 or any number in between.
Circlz one number only for each charactesistic.
a . Have knowledgeable b. Have friendly salesmen c. Competitive price d. Price discounts c. Credit facilities f. Openlavailable at convenient time g. Conveniei~i Iocation h. Near location i . Tiinely deliveiy j. Free delivery k. Reliability and honesty I. Considcr old customers m. Company image n. Product image o. Provision of day old chicks p. Provisioll of drugslveterinary
servicc q. Provision of information about
product.
Very performance 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
High per. --
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4
4
Fairly
P e r . . 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3
3
. .-
Low per. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2
2
Very low per. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
.-
1
1
8. Now, I would liltc to read out somc statements that might be used to
describe this your regular choicelbrand of broiler starter feed for table -
birc-ls. For each characteristic that I read, please tell me how well you
think it describes this your regular choice brand of broiler starter feed.
I f y m thiilk the characteristic
9. I would like to talk about the characteristics or factors that are important
when you are buying broiler starter feeds. Al'ter each characteristic or
factor that I read, please indicate how important it is using a "5" to
indicate "veiy important" and "1" to indicate "Not at all important". You
may use a 5, or 1 or any number in between. Circle one number only for
each characteristic or factor.
a . Have knowledgeable b. Have fiiendly salesmen c. Cciapetitive pricc d. Price discounts e. Credit facilities f: Opedavailable at convenient
t i m g. Ccnvenient location h. Neu- location i. T i ~ x l y delivery j. Frec delively k. Reliability and honesty 1. Consider old custo~ncrs 111. Coil:pany image n. Product image o. Provision of day old chicks p. Provision of drugslveterinary
seivice q. I'rwision of information about pi-sduct.
Very important ' 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5
5
Important
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4
4
Fairly impor~:ant 3 3 3 3 3 3
. .
3 3 3 3 3 2 -I
3 3 3
3
3
Not imp. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2
2
Not at all important 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1
10. 011 a scale of 1 to 5 , with "5" being "very high, performance", "1"
being "very low performance", how would you rate this your regular
ckoice/brand of broiler starter
Appndix v: Factor analytic output for manufacturer descriptive
I.19.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
i 1
12
13
14
i 5
16
17
Variable
No. - Q2A
characteristics (Question 2 on questionnaire)
Number/Factlor loading
I-Iavc Imowledgcable salesmen
I-Iavc friendly salesmen
Have ccimpetitive price
Provide price discounts
Credit facilities available
Open/available at convenicnt times
Conveniently located
Near located
Timely delivery
Free delivery
Reliable and honesty
Consider old customers
Reputable company image
Itcputable product image
Provide day old chicks
Provide drudveterinary serviccs
Provide infwnation about product
Variance
Appen:iix vi: Factor analytic output lor dealer descriptive characteristics
1.n. No.
(Question 5 on questionnaire)
NumherIFactor loading
I-lave knowledgeable salesmcn
Have rriendl y salesmen
Have conlpetitive price
Provide price discounts
Credit facilities available
Opcn/available at convcnicnt times
Conveniently located
Near located
Tiinel y delivery
Free deiivery
Reliable and honesty ,
Consider old customers
Reputable company image
Reputable product image
Provide day old chicks
Provide druglveterinary services
Provide inforination about product
Variance
Appeiadix vi:
1.D. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 1 I I2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 2 1
ri:
Factor analytic output for feed desci*iptive cl~aracteristics (Question 8 on q~lesionnaire)
Number/Pactor loading
Supports bone de~vlopmcnt Rcduces rickety bones Convenient pellets Fine powdered form Pleasant smell Conveniently served Little feed wastage Does not decay easily Not easily mouldy Withstands weevil attack Birds weighty at maiui-ity Efficiently produces weighty birds Produccs healthy birds Birds likencss for thc feed High protein contmt High energy conter~t Reputable company Reputable image Contains quality ingredients Good price/ value Attractiveness and durability of package
Variance
, .
: ! I
. . j 1
Appendix viii: Summary of findings in spatial representation and : i
I r analysis of manufacturers' performance relative to the : , I I
importance attached by poultry farmers' to the- . . I i ,
vaiiables. I I
I : --
I j , i i
Variable Variable/characteristics names , Over Low High Keep , up
no. kill priority priority the good
job .. i
.No No !
Q3/Q4A Have knowledgeable salesmen PJo Yes
Q3/Q4B Have friendly salesmen No No. No. Yes 1 !
Q3/Q4C Competitive price No No Yes -NO I , Q3/Q4D Price discounts No No 'Ces No I I
' I
No Q3/Q4E - Credit facilities : No No Yes !
Q3/Q4F Open/available at convenie'nt tme ' N o . No Yes , No I
I
Q3lQ4G Convenient location No No Yes No , I I i
Q3lQ4H Near location No No Yes No i I
431441 Timely delively No No. Yes . No I . i
No No Yes No 431445 Free delivery - 6 1
Q3lQ4K Reliability and honcsty No No No Yes
Q31Q4L Consider old customers No No Yes .. No i
Q3/Q4M Company image No No No ' Yes 1 I Q3IQ4N Product image No . No No Yes I
i
I 431440 Provision of day old chicks No No Yes . .- Nb . . !
i
Q3iQ4P Provision &drugs/veterinary services No No : Yes No I I
Q3/Q4Q Prbvision of information about product No ,No 'Yes No I
a i I ;
Appendix ix: Summary of findings in spatial representation and
Variable
no.
QGlQ7A
QGlQ7B
QGlQ7C
QGlQ7D
QGlQ7E
Q6lQ7F
QGlQ7G
QGlQ7H
QGlQ7I
QGlQ7J
QGlQ7K
QGlQ7L
QGlQ7M
QGlQ7N
QGlQ70
QGlQ7P
461474
analysis of dealers' performance relative to the
importance attached by poultry farmers to the
variables.
Variable/characteristics names
Have knowledgeable salesmen
Have friendly salesmen
Competitive price
Price discounts
Credit facilities
Open/available at convenient tme
Convenient location
Near location
Timely delivery
Free delivery
Reliability and honesty
Consider old customers
Company image
Product image
Provision of day old chicks
Provision of drugslveterinary services
Provision of information about product
Over
kill
L-0 w
priority
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
High
priority
Yes ,
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes - Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Keep up
the good
job
No
No
No
No
No
~o No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
- Appendix x: Summary of findings in spatial representation and
analysis of feed attributes performance relative to the
importance attached by poultry farmers to the
variables.
Variable
110.
Q91Q 1 OA'
Q9/Q 1 OB
Q9/Q 1 OC
Q91Q 1 OD
Q91Q 1 OE
Q9/Q 1 OF
Q91Q 1 OG
Q91Q 1 OH
Q9/Q 1 01
Q9IQ 1 OJ
Q91Q 1 OK
Q91Q 1 OL
Q9/Q 1 OM
Q91Q 1 ON
Q91Q 1 0 0
Q9/Q 1 OP
Q9/Q 1 OQ
Q91Q 1 OR
Q91Q 10s
Q9/Q 1 O'r
Q91Q 1 OU
Variable/cl~aracteristics names
Bone developnlent
Reduction of rickety bones
Pelleted nature
Powdery nature
Smell
Serving convenience
Feed wastage
Decaying
Mould
Weevil attack
Weight of mature birds
Quantity used per bird
Health of birds
Birds' likeness for feed
Protein content
Energy content
Company image
Product image
Quality of ingredients
l~ricdvaluc
Allractiveness and durability of package
Over
kill
No
No
NL No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Low
priority
High
priority
No .
Yes
Yes
yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Keep -up
the good
job
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
yes
No
No
Appendix xi: Summary of findings in spatial representation and
Variable
no.
Q91Q 1 OA
Q91Q 1 OB
Q91Q 1 OC
Q91Q 1 OD
Q91Q 10E
Q91Q 1 OF
Q91Q 10G
Q91Q 1 OH
Q91Q 1 01
Q91Q 1 OJ
Q91Q 1 OK
Q91Q 1 OL
Q91Q 1 OM
Q91Q 1 ON
Q91Q 100
Q91Q 10P
Q9/Q 1 OQ
Q91Q 1 OR
QSIQ 10s
QSIQ 1 OT
Q91Q 1 OU
analysis of Guinea feed brand performance relative
the importance attached by poultry farmers to the
variables.
Variablelcharacteristics names
Bone development
Reduction of rickety bones
Pelleted nature
Powdery nature
Sinell
Serving convenience
Feed wastage
Decaying
Mould
Weevil attack
Weight of mature birds
Quantity used per bird
Health of birds
Birds' likeness for feed
Protein content
Energy content
company image
Product image
Quality of ingrcdicnts
~~ricclvaluc
Attractiveness and durability of package
Over
kill
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
-- Low
priority
-- No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
High
priority
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Keep L
the goc
job ..
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No - -8
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Ycs
No
No
Appendix xii: Summary of findings in spatial representation and
Variable
no.
Q9/Q 1 OA
Q9IQ 1 OI3
Q91Q 1 OC
Q9/Q 1 OD
Q9/Q 1 OE
Q9/Q I OF
Q9/Q 1 OG
Q9/Q 101-1
Q91Q 101
Q9/Q 10 J
Q9/Q 1 OK
Q9/Q 1 OL
Q9IQ 1 OM
Q9/Q 1 ON Q9/Q 100
Q9/Q 1 OP
Q9/Q IoQ Q9/Q 1 OR
Q9/Q 10s
Q9/Q 1 OT Q91Q 1 OU
analysis of 'Others' brand performance relative to the
importance attached by poultry farmers to the
variables.
Variable/characteristics names
Bone development
Reduction of rickety boncs
Pelleted nature
Powdery nature
Smell
Serving convenience
Feed wastage
Decaying
Mould
Weevil attack
Weight of mature birds
Quantity used per bird
Health of birds Birds' likeness for feed
Protein content
Energy content Company image Product image Quality of ingredients Price/value
~ttracl&eness and durability of package
Over kill
Low priority
High priority
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No - No No
No Yes
Yes No No
Yes
Yes
Keep up the good
job
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes Yes
Yes No
No Yes Yes
No - -,
No
Appendix xiv: Two-tail probabilities of
characteristics:
Independent Variable
Iiavc knowlcdgcable salesmen (Q2A)
Have friendly salcsmen (Q2B)
I-Iavc coinpcti tive price (Q2C)
Provision price discounts (Q2D)
Credit facilities available (Q2E)
Opeidavailable at convenient times (Q2F)
Convenient location (Q2G)
Near location (Q2H)
Timely delivcry (Q2I)
Free deliveiy (425)
Reliability and honesty (Q2K)
Consider old customers (Q2L)
Reputable company image (Q2M)
Reputable product image (Q2N)
Provision of day old chicks (Q20)
Provision o r drugslveterinary services (Q2P)
Provision of information about product (Q2Q) - - - - - - - - -
Constant = 6.887454.
13 Coefficient
manufacturers descriptive
Standard
Error (B)
T-value
Ii0:Bk = 0
Ha: Bk* 0
2.495501
-(I4250 12
0.700462
1.087151
-0.302322
0.654599
-4.7613 19
0.980928
2.07445 1
0.941 183'
-1.1 14795
1.6 17002
-0.125454
1.193897
2.5 16377
-0.983 849
-0.993927
Multiple correlation summary Multiple R R2
Unadjusted 0.523 8 0.2744 Adjusted . 0.4452 0.1982 Std error of estimate - - 0.9004 Sample size - - 180
,.
Probabilit
Z-tail
0.0136
0.6714
0.4846
0.2786
0.7628
0.5137
<o.ooo 1
0.3281
0.0396
0.348
0.2666 0.1078
0.9003
0.2343
0.0128
0.3267
0.321 7
Appendix xv: Two-tail probabilities of mmufacturer performance
characteristics
Indenpent variable
Q4A Knowledgable salesmen
Q4B Friendly salesmen
Q4C Con~petitive prices
Q4D Price discounts
Q4B Credit facilities
Q4F Openlavail. At conv. times
Q4G Convenient location
Q4I-I Near location
Q41 Timely delivery
445 Free deliveiy
Q4K Reliability and honesty
Q4L Consider old customers
Q4M Company image
Q4N Product image
Q 4 0 Provision of day old chicks
Q4P Prov. of drugslvet. services
Q4Q Prov. of info. about prod.
13 Coefficient
Constant = 7.4 15672
Unadjusted Adjusted '
St8 error of estimate - - Sample size - -
- Std Error (B)
0.099002
0.13779
0.104964
0.082991 . -
0.076494
0.099667
0.024889
0.083567
0.023864
0.024402
0.127059
0.093039
0.131094
0.1 15571
0.04999
0.072228
0.067972
Multiple cor.relation sumniary Multiple R R~
prob
0.999 1
0.199
0.3037
0.4904
0.7069
0.8 102
0.1 139
0.7875
0.6 154
0.9636
0.426 1
0.9334
0.3436
0.292 1
0.366
0.126:
O.OOO$
Appe~idix xvi: Two-tail probabilities of dealer descriptive characteristics
Independent Variable
Have knowledgeable salesmen (Q5A)
Havc li.ici~dly salesmen (Q5B)
Have competitive price (Q5C)
Provision price discounts (Q5D)
Credit facilities available (Q5E)
Open/available at convenient times (Q5F)
Convenient location (Q5G)
Near location (Q5H)
Timely delive~y (Q5I)
Free delivcry (Q5J)
Reliability and honesty (Q5K)
Considcr old custonlers (Q5L)
Reputablc company image (Q5M)
Reputable product image (Q5N)
Provision of day old chicks (Q50)
Provision of drugs/veterinary services (Q5P)
Provision of information about product (Q5Q)
13
Coefficient
0.0622479
0.009942
-0.033788
0.055 173
-0.0 16399
-0.0 l058?
0.0 12468
0.0 10602
-0.013354
-0.0 17623
-0.069178
0.000248
-0.039586
0.09 1854
0.076583
-0.066276
0.086623
- Std error
0.055866 - 0.05895
0.057645
0.052684
0.040394
0.049888
0.068989
0.071 423
0.04323
0.03956
0.059096
0.059827
0.0553 13
0.065555
0.062565
0.067774
0.053457
Constant = 7.655932. Multiple correlation ,summary
Multiple R R~ Unadjusted 0.413 0.1706 Adjusted 0.289 0.0835
Std crror of estimate - - 0.9626 Samplc size - - 180
Prob.
0.265 1
0.8663
0.5586
0.2966
0.6853
0.8322
0.8568
0.8822
0.7578
0.6566
0.2435
0.9967
0.4752
0.'163 1
0.2227
0.3296
0.1071 '
. -
Appendix xvii: Two-tail probabilities of dealer performance
characteristics
Independent Variable
Knowledgeable salesmen (Q7A)
Friendly salesmen (478)
Competitive price (Q7C)
Price discounts (Q7D)
Credit facilities (Q7E)
Open/available at convenient times (Q7F)
Convenient location (Q7G) . .
Near location (Q7I-I)
~ i m c l ) delivery (751)
Free delivery (47.9
Reliability and honesty (Q7K)
Consider old customers (Q7L)
Company image (Q7M)
Product image (Q7N)
Provision of day old chicks (Q70)
Provision of drugslveterinary services (Q7P)
Provision of information about product (Q7Q)
Constant = 7001863.
Unadjusted Adjusted
I
J3 Coefficient
0.058623
0.0 1 1949
-0.007802
-0.055 149
0.0802 16 1
-0.104564
-0.252796
0.10727
0.161004
-0.08334
0.049088
0.107024
-0.269408
0.370434
0.2 1 1057
-0.10576 1
0.100875
Std error (B)
Multiple correlation summary Multiple R 0.4636 0.3641
Std error of estimate - - 0.9365 Sample size - - 180
Prob.
0.6 164
0.9279
0.937 1
0.543 8
0.3096
0.4884
0.0641
0.3 159
0.1412
0.3565
0.6 1 87
0.3205
0.073 1
0.0035
0.01 14
0.3262
0.3936
Appendix xviii: Two-tail probabilities of feed descriptive
characteristics
Independent Variable
Supports bone development (Q8A)
Reduces of rickety bones (Q8B)
Competitive pellets (Q8C)
Pine powdery form (Q8D)
Pleasant smell (Q8E)
Convenient scrved (Q8F)
Little feed wastage (Q8G)
Does no decay easily (Q8H)
Not easily mouldy (Q8I)
Withstands wcevil attack (Q8J)
Bird wcight of maturity (Q8K)
Efficiently produces weighty birds (Q8L)
Produces hcathly birds (Q8M)
Birds' likeness for the feed (Q8N)
High protcin content (Q8O)
High encrgy content (Q8P)
Reputable company image (Q8Q)
Reputable product image (Q8Ii)
Contains quality of ingredients (Q8S)
Good price/value (Q8T)
Unadjusted Adjusted
Stci error of estimate - -
Sample size - -
I3 Coefficient
0.005995
0.0171 17
0.0578 16
0.075235
0.1 O8S54
-0.009607
0.009485
-0.024897
-0.074729
0.000298
0.013169
-0.180387
0.0 15848
0.1445
0.09 1449
0.088 1 1
0.004 196
-0.1 lo88
0.149558
-0.042263
Std error (B) I T-value
Multjple correlation summary Multiple R ' R~ 0.4623 0.21 37 0.3388 0.1 148
Prob.
0.9425
0.7583
0.101 1
0.0885
0.1075
0.8584
0.8424
R* coefficient of simple determination
Appcl~dix xix: Two-tail probabilities of feed performance
characteristics
Iildepcndcnt Variable
Bonc dcvclopmcnt (Q 10A)
Reduction of rickety bones (Q 1 OB)
Competitive pellets (Q 1 OC)
Powdery form (Q 1 OD)
Sn~cll (Q 1 OE)
Serving convenience (Q 1 OF)
Feed wastage (Q 1 OG)
Decay (Q 1 OH)
Mouldy (Q 1 01)
Weevil attack (Q 1 OJ)
Wcight 0:' mature birds (Q 1 OK)
Quality used per bird (Q1 OL)
I-Ieathl birds (Q 1 OM)
Birds' likencss for the feed (QlON)
Protein content (Q 100)
Energy contcnt (Q 1 OP)
Company image (Q 1 OQ)
Product image (Q 1 OR)
Quality of ingredients (Q 10s)
Pricelvaluc (Q 1 OT)
Packaging (Q 1 OU)
13 Coefficient Std error (B)-
- 0.151364
0.109292
0.070584
0.080869
0.134969
0.162452
0.103039
0.186067
0.202241
0.12002
0.257021
0.17888
0.16216
0.152965
0.21 003
0.160123
0.148472
0.159906
0.158545
0.097232
0.097691 -
Prob.
0.0736
0.1957
0.4574
0.5047
0.1325
0.209
0.653
0.2862
0.07 13
0.835
0.295
0.2795
0.9671
0.6079
0.283
0.7334
0.012
0.15 1
0.609
0.5437
0.0498
Unadjusted Adjusted
Multiple correlation summary Multiple R R~ 0.44 1 2 0.1946 0.3055 0.093:3
Std error of estimate - 0.9575 Sample size - - 180
