The shea fruits contain about (50%) oil that is edible and used as cooking oil, cosmetics, and skin care, pharmaceutical and medicinal purposes. Also, being used as substitute for margarine and coaco butter in the food industries and it is considered as second most valuable oil crop to oil palm in Africa (Alander, 2004; Moore, 2008; Suleiman, 2008).

The shea oil or butter that is being traditionally or mechanically extracted from shea kernel are exported from Africa countries including Nigeria to France, Great Britain, the Netherland, Denmark, North America and Japan (Elias and Carne, 2007). In these countries, it is extensively processed into varieties of food products including chocolate which is becoming more acceptable in the cosmetic industries (Schreckerberg, 2004).

Nigeria is blessed with wild coverage of shea parkland, Niger State ranks first amongst  the shea nut producing States, followed by Kwara, Nassarawa, Zamfara, Kaduna, Kaduna, Sokoto, Jigawa, Kano, Plateau, Taraba, Benue, Adamawa, Bauchi, Edo, Yobe and Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja (Suleiman, 2008).

Despite the availability of shea nut, it is characterized by traditional or local method of processing which result in low productivity and quality of shea butter produced by the processors in Nigeria and particularly in Niger State, where large population of shea trees are found, and high quantity of nuts are collected. In order to improve the production capacity and quality of shea butter processed by the processors, the Federal Government of Nigeria in collaboration with German International Corporation (GIZ), other NGOs and government Organizations have developed and disseminated improved shea nut processing technologies to traditional shea nut processors in Niger State. In addition, GIZ is a pro-poor growth and employment creation (SEDIN) that tracks a three tiered approach established in order to improve pro-per growth and employment creation in micro, small and medium sized enterprises (MSME). (GIZ) have facilitated different interventions in the Shea sector, aimed to increase Shea butter production in the state and improve the income base of the processors as well as their social well-being.

The objectives of the study were to identify available GIZ shea nut processing technologies and examine the level of adoption of GIZ shea nut processing technologies in Niger State.

Area of study

The study was conducted in Niger State which is located in the North Central zone of Nigeria and has its capital in Minna. It lies between latitude 3°–10°N and longitude 3°–8°E. It is bordered by Kebbi and Zamfara States to the North-West  and to  the  South  by Kwara and Kogi States while Kaduna State and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) bordered the State to the East and South-East respectively. The State also shares a common international boundary with the Republic of Benin at Babanna in Borgu Local Government Area of Niger State. This gives way to common inter-border trade with the State. The State has a land mass of 76,363 Km² making it the largest State in Nigeria in terms of total land area and has twenty-five (25) local government areas. The State has the highest wild shea tree plantations in Nigeria with a substantial number of traditional rural processors of shea nut which cut across the agricultural zones of the State (Suleiman, 2008). It is divided by Niger State Agricultural Development Programme into three agricultural zones for better agricultural administrative activities, namely: zone, I, II, and III with headquarters at Minna, and the zones have their headquarters at Bida, Kuta, and Kontogora respectively (Figure 1).

In order to have a wide coverage and full representation, all the three Agricultural Development Programmes (ADP) zones were used for the study. A 3-stage sampling technique was adopted for the study. In the first stage, a purposive selection of 15 Local Government Areas (LGAs) of German International Corporation (GIZ) intervention site was made (GIZ, 2011, 2014) across the three zones. The purposive selection was carried out due the fact that there was high population density of shea trees and high participation of shea value chain particularly shea processing activities.  At the second stage, from the profile list of GIZ Shea groups comprising 2970 processors GIZ, 2011; 2014 profile lists, a proportionate random selection, based on 10%, of Shea nut processors were made across the selected LGAs giving a total sample of 297. Also, in the same LGAs, snow-balling technique was used to randomly select 297 Shea nut processors that were GIZ non-beneficiaries, thereby making a total sample size of 594 as indicated in Table 1.

Data collection and instrument for data

The data for the study was obtained from both primary and secondary sources. The primary data were collected through interview schedule. The secondary data were sourced from published and unpublished documents of agricultural journals, internet and past studies. Trained enumerators of the State Agricultural Development Programme office and extension agents were engaged in the study area to collect information from the respondents.

Analytical techniques

Descriptive such as frequency counts and percentages were used in this study

Model specification

The available GIZ Shea nut processing technologies was measured using 3 point-likert type scale against the list of GIZ shea nut processing technologies. Respondents were asked to respond to the GIZ shea nut processing technologies put in place and coded as Available (1) Not Available (0). The level of adoption of GIZ Shea nut processing technologies was measured as Adopted (1) and Not-Adopted (0)

Table 2  shows  the  GIZ  improved  method  of  shea  nut processing technologies while Table 3 shows the percentage distribution of the GIZ Shea nut processors. The data reveals that majority of the respondents accepted that the first component which is the processing equipment for storage of shea nut  were available to them, in the following steps picking and collection of dropped matured healthy and undamaged fruits or Shea nut (100.0%), de-pulping of Shea nut was done immediately to avoid fermentation process taking place (100.0%), per- boiling of Shea nut was done immediately after collection within 30 ≤ 45 min and draining after par-boiling using basket (100.0%), proper drying of Shea nut for 5 to 7 days or more until the nut were rattling inside the shells (99.3%), de-husking or cracking of Shea nut with due consideration to the damaging of the nut on clean platform and mats beneath it (100.0%) and drying of kernels to between 10 to ≤ 15% moisture content or until proper hardness of kernels are achieved (97.6%) and storage of kernels in jute bags or baskets in ware-houses with proper ventilation with barriers (94.9%). The reason could be adduced to very few farmers in some cases who claimed unavailability of some sub-components might be those that did not understand very well the concept at the period of training or forgot out rightly the concepts.

Table 4 and 5 shows the percentage distribution of the Shea nut processors by the adoption of improved Shea nut processing technologies. The data indicates that the sub-components of processing of shea kernel into shea butter,  the respondents (100.0%) indicates that the sub-components of actual processing of shea kernel into shea butter, were available except drying of kernels to between 6 to ≤ 10% moisture content or until proper hardness of the kernel are achieved, roasting of kernel with rotary drier without any oil addition for 30≤60 min  and boiling of kneaded kernel paste on recommended stove technologies where very few percentages of the respondents; 1.7, 3.0 and 1.7%% respectively indicated that they were not available. Also, as in the first components, the reason that could be adduced to a very few in some cases who claimed unavailability of some sub-components might be those that did not understand very well the concept at the period of training or forgot out-rightly the concepts. .The results is consonant with the findings of Ragasa and Mazunda (2018) that  if smallholder farmers or processors become better informed about their technical options or  for increasing yields, their productivity usually rises, leading to better working conditions on farms and higher food security.

Table 6 shows the percentage distribution  of the  Shea nut processors by the adoption of GIZ Shea nut processing technologies. The data indicates that for the first component of the GIZ processing technologies, that is, storage of shea nuts before processing was adopted by all the respondents (100%) components except in the two cases of drying of kernels to between 10 to ≤ 15% moisture content until hardness is achieved and storage of kernels in jute bags/basket in store/ware houses where  few   percentages   of  (1.3%)  and  (9.1%) respectively did not adopt. The reasons adduced for the non-adoption of these sub-components were inadequate concrete or cemented platform for drying and scarcity of jute bags in the markets. The results concur with the findings of Warner et al. (2008) that a major factor of competitiveness that plays a role in agricultural value chains is farmers’ having access to affordable physical infrastructure. Examples of such infrastructure is irrigation,  energy,  transportation,  pre   and  post-harvest storage, telecommunications, covered markets, agro processing and packaging facilities, as well as bulk storage (Warner et al., 2008).

Table 7 and 8 shows the percentage distribution of the GIZ Shea nut processors by the adoption of improved Shea nut processing technologies. The data reveals that the adoption of second components of GIZ processing technologies and depict that in five sub-components, all the respondents  (100.0%)  adopted  the technologies in seven sub-components, though not all but majority of the respondents adopted the technologies. In the seven sub- components in which few of the respondents that did not adopt it might be due to some factors adduced to inadequate  concrete   platform,   unavailability   of  some equipment/materials and inadequate knowledge of some concepts which they might have forgotten as taught under GIZ extension services.

From the findings, there was a high adoption of GIZ technologies both at the storage of shea nut with seven sub-components and actual processing of shea kernel into shea butter with twelve sub-components, though the beneficiaries complaint of being constrained by inadequate finance, poor market linkages/channels, inability to understand some complexities due to illiteracy, inadequate extension contact, poor processors’ groups for annexing opportunities and inadequate capacity building and follow up, among others. The adoption of this technology by the beneficiaries has however helped to enhance their productivity (quantity of shea nut processed, output and income) and livelihood condition better than before the intervention.

Re-introduction and inclusion of more shea nut processors in non-GIZ villages especially for the state as a whole is highly necessary to enjoy large number of processors in order to enhance the shea butter industry.

The authors have not declared any conflict of interests.