This study was designed to determine the role of cooperatives in the marketing of agricultural produce in a rural community. A structured interview schedule was used to collect data from a random sample of 115 respondents drawn from five of the eleven Council Wards in the Local Government Area. It was found that respondents’ socio-economic characteristics had no significant influence on farmers’ participation in cooperatives. The study showed further that cooperatives were able to regulate only a small proportion of the volume of produce farmers took to the market. However, three quarters (74.8%) of respondents believed that cooperatives determined prices of produce. Some of the constraints facing cooperatives identified included the large number of middlemen (75.5), inadequate storage (67.0%) and low literacy of members (67.8). It is concluded that cooperatives would better impact farmers if identified constraints are addressed by both governmental and non-governmental stakeholders.

1. The Role of Cooperatives in Marketing of Agricultural Produce in Ushongo Local Government Area, Benue State, Nigeria
WJSA
The Role of Cooperatives in Marketing of Agricultural Produce
in Ushongo Local Government Area, Benue State, Nigeria
*1Naswem, A.A., 2Soomiyol, V.M., 3Aande, A
1,2,3Department of Agricultural Extension and Communication, Federal University of Agriculture, Makurdi, Benue State,
Nigeria
This study was designed to determine the role of cooperatives in the marketing of agricultural
produce in a rural community. A structured interview schedule was used to collect data from a
random sample of 115 respondents drawn from five of the eleven Council Wards in the Local
Government Area. It was found that respondents’ socio-economic characteristics had no
significant influence on farmers’ participation in cooperatives. The study showed further that
cooperatives were able to regulate only a small proportion of the volume of produce farmers took
to the market. However, three quarters (74.8%) of respondents believed that cooperatives
determined prices of produce. Some of the constraints facing cooperatives identified included
the large number of middlemen (75.5), inadequate storage (67.0%) and low literacy of members
(67.8). It is concluded that cooperatives would better impact farmers if identified constraints are
addressed by both governmental and non-governmental stakeholders.
Keywords: Agricultural cooperatives, Market regulation, Price-taking, Participation, Roles of cooperatives
INTRODUCTION
Access to market for agricultural produce is a critical
consideration for every farmer especially the resource-
poor farmers. As much as 40 percent of agricultural
produce is wasted in Nigeria due to poor access to storage
facilities and markets. As most farmers do not have the
wherewithal to store and transport their products to the
market, they are compelled to rely on exploitative
middlemen for the marketing of their agricultural produce.
In the end, their losses are multiplied: whereas part of their
harvests is lost due to poor storage, what is left is also lost
through unfavorable prices imposed by middlemen
(Saddique, 2015; Oguoma, Nkwocha and Ibeawuchi,
2010). In the final analysis, the farmer’s income, nutritional
and food security and general welfare is negatively
impacted. Thus, being a farmer in Nigeria is associated
with being poor, and for most farmers the only exit from
poverty lies in belonging to a cooperative.
A cooperative is a group of people with common interests,
organized to promote the social welfare of its members. It
offers various social and economic solutions to most rural
problems. The synergized effect of group activities and
influence affords benefits that may not be individually
feasible for most of the rural poor (Mure et al. 2012). In a
similar vein, Akinwumi (1989) asserts that Cooperatives
are economic enterprises that are founded by and belong
entirely to the members. These enterprises are created in
order to render the best possible services at the lowest
possible cost to their members. Cooperatives stand over
two legs in order to be solid and sustained. Cooperative
action leads to the creation of people’s organizations that
bring together individuals with common problems and
aspirations who as individuals cannot meet certain goals
effectively, (Barham, 2006).
Cooperative societies are very popular in Nigeria. Onuoha
(2002) in his study of cooperative history in Nigeria stated
that there are traditional and modern cooperative
societies. The modern cooperative societies started in the
country as a result of the Nigerian cooperative society law
enacted in 1935 following the report submitted by C. F.
Strickland in 1934 to the then British colonial
administration on the possibility of introducing
cooperatives into Nigeria.
*Corresponding Author: Adolph A. Naswem,
Department of Agricultural Extension and Communication,
Federal University of Agriculture, Makurdi, Benue State,
Nigeria. E-mail: angolnaswem@gmail.com
Research Article
Vol. 3(1), pp. 045-049, July, 2019. © www.premierpublishers.org, ISSN: 0927-9601
World Journal of Sociology and Anthropology

2. The Role of Cooperatives in Marketing of Agricultural Produce in Ushongo Local Government Area, Benue State, Nigeria
Naswem et al. 046
According to Nweza (1997), the Nigerian government
introduced cooperatives in the wake of the world
depression of 1930 to solve its marketing and credit
problems. At the time, cocoa farmers were the victims of
exploitation of foreign middlemen that cheated in the area
of price and quality of their products. The then Nigerian
government sent Mr. G.F. Strictland, an Ex-Army Major to
India to undertake a three-month course in cooperatives
which he did and submitted his report in 1934 on the need
to introduce cooperatives. The government accepted the
reports and appointed Major E.F.G. Hang as Registrar and
sent him to India for a similar course.
Cooperative societies in Nigeria like their counterparts all
over the world are formed to meet people’s mutual needs.
Cooperatives are considered useful mechanisms to
manage risks for members in agriculture. Through
cooperatives, farmers could pool their limited resources
together to improve agricultural output and this will
enhance socio-economic activities in the rural areas
(Ebonyi and Jimoh, 2002).
As price-takers, however, farmers are faced with the
challenges of lack of ready markets to sell their produce.
In view of the proven utility of social capital in building the
capacity of vulnerable individuals to accomplish hitherto
unattainable objectives, the study was designed to
determine the role of cooperatives in the marketing of
agricultural produce in Ushongo Local Government Area
of Benue State. The specific objectives of this study are to:
i. determine the relationship between the socio-economic
characteristics of farmers and their participation in
cooperative activities,
ii. determine the extent to which cooperatives regulate the
volume of produce farmers take to market,
iii. determine the role of Cooperative Societies in
marketing Agricultural products,
iv. find out the challenges of Cooperative Societies in
marketing of agricultural produce in the study area,
METHODOLOGY
The study was conducted in Ushongo Local Government
Area of Benue State which is located between Latitude
7000 and 7020 North of the equator and Longitude with
headquarters in Lessel. The local government lies in the
Eastern part of Benue State and is bounded on the North
by Gboko and Buruku Local Governments Areas, in the
South by Vandeikya Local Government, in the East by
Kwande and in the West by Konshisha Local Government
Areas respectively. It has a Land mass of 1,228sq km and
a population of one hundred and eighty – eight thousand,
three hundred and forty-one (188,341) people (National
Population Commission (NPC)(2006).
Agriculture is the mainstay of the people’s economy.
Agricultural products produced in commercial quantities in
the area include fruits, grains and tubers. Citrus fruits and
mangoes are the principal products of Ushongo people.
Indeed, Ushongo Local Government is the singular largest
producer of citrus fruits in the whole of Benue State. There
are many cooperatives in the study area which include
group farming, farmers multipurpose, thrift and credit,
produce-marketing and consumer cooperatives.
Fig. 1: Map of Benue State showing Ushongo Local Government Area

3. The Role of Cooperatives in Marketing of Agricultural Produce in Ushongo Local Government Area, Benue State, Nigeria
World J Sociol. Anthropol. 047
The population for this study consisted small-scale farmers
in Ushongo Local Government Area. Of the 11 Council
Wards in the study area, 5 council wards were selected.
These included Lessel Township, Atirkyese, Mbakuha,
Mbagba and Mbaanyam. Two communities were selected
from each of these Council Wards and then 115
respondents were proportionately drawn from the
communities. Data were collected via a structured
questionnaire interview schedule designed to elicit
information from respondents in line with the objectives of
the study. Data collected were analyzed using descriptive
and inferential statistics.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Relationship between Socioeconomic Characteristics
of Respondents and Participation in Cooperative
Activities
Table 1 reveals that there was no significant relationship
between any of the socio-economic variables and
participation in cooperatives. On education, this result
contrasts with the findings of Bzugu et al. (2005) that
education level influenced participation in economic
activities including cooperatives. Ordinarily it is to be
expected that the more educated an individual, the greater
the propensity to join a cooperative (Awotide, Awoyemi
and Fashogbon, 2015). Table 1 also shows no significant
relationship between income of the respondents and
participation in cooperative activities. This shows that the
primary motivation for farmers to form and participate in
agricultural cooperatives is to increase their income.
Therefore, gross income is anticipated to have a negative
relationship with member’s participation in cooperatives.
Results in Table 1 shows that there is no significant
relationship between farm size of the respondents and
participation in cooperative activities.
So, it could be concluded that there was no relationship
between socio-economic factors of education, marital
status, occupation, income and farm size of the
respondents and their participation in cooperative activities
in terms of belonging to cooperatives, number of
cooperatives involved, years of experience in cooperatives
and frequency of attendance to cooperative. It would
appear that cooperation satisfied more than just the pursuit
of economic gains, but also a cultural need to associate in
a community spirit.
Table 1: Influence of Socio-economic Characteristics on Participation in Cooperatives
education Marital status occupation Income Farm size
Level of Participation
X2
Belonging to Cooperative 0.599 0.662 0.051 0.901 0.325
Number of Cooperatives involved 0.321 0.908 0.747 0.148 0.077
Years of Cooperative Experience 0.618 0.109 0.718 0.371 0.314
Frequency of Attendance at Cooperative meetings 0.918 0.182 0.583 0.180 0.277
Extent to which Cooperatives Regulate Volume of
Produce
Table 2 shows that the quantity of produce sold by farmers
ranges between 0kg – 8,000 kg with the mean of (309.59)
and standard deviation of (988.795). The quantity of
produce sold by individuals ranged between 100kg –
18,000kg with the mean (2588.70) and standard deviation
of 3025.325. This result shows that cooperatives regulate
20% of the total produce farmers take to the market.
Yihune (2008) reported similar results that all farmers offer
grains to the market in order to satisfy their financial
requirements but they are different in the amount they
offered to the market within a specified time element and
to whom they sell their produce. He found that the majority
(47 %) of members in cooperative annual sales reached
up to 500kg, and only 24 percent had their annual sales
above 1000 kg. This implies that cooperatives regulate a
relatively small proportion of the total volume of produce
farmer take to the market. Birchall (2005) postulated that
most farmers believe cooperatives no longer keep to their
values and principles and hence exploit farmers in
marketing their agricultural products.
Table 2: Distribution of Respondents according to extent
to which cooperative regulate volume of produce farmers
take to the market.
Minimum
(kg)
Maximum
(kg)
Mean Std.
Deviation
Quantity of
produce
Regulated by
Cooperative
0 8,000 309.57 988.795
Quantity of
produce
Regulated by
individuals
100 18,000 2,588.70 3,025.325
EXTENT (%) .000000 92.307692 8.43684120.100797
Valid N
(listwise)
Role of Cooperatives in market in produce
Table 3 shows the ways in which cooperative societies are
perceived to affect marketing of agricultural commodities.
A majority of the farmers believed that cooperatives
determined prices of agricultural produce (74.8%); this role
is viewed to be instrumental because it gives farmers
confidence in cooperative activities in regulating the prices

4. The Role of Cooperatives in Marketing of Agricultural Produce in Ushongo Local Government Area, Benue State, Nigeria
Naswem et al. 048
of agricultural produce. Similarly, provision of ready market
(72%) and provision of strong bargaining power (71.3%)
was also a major role played by cooperatives. This agrees
with the findings of Mande et al. (2014) who reported that
cooperatives undertake the system of pooling the produce
of the members to enhance the bargaining power through
unity of action.
Furthermore, cooperatives also play a key role to lessen
the burden of transportation (68.7%); this is because due
to the unavailability of good roads, farmers rely on
cooperatives to market their goods. Also, education of
members about production and marketing (68.7%) was
another role played by cooperatives. Hermida (2008)
reported that cooperatives provide functional education to
members in the areas of production, processing and
marketing of agricultural produce. Furthermore, the result
(67.8%) shows that cooperatives play a key role in creating
employment, and this finding agrees with Bhuyan (2007)
who asserts that cooperatives are specially seen as a
significant tool for the creation of jobs and for mobilization
of resources for income generation. Similarly, the
respondents also acknowledged that cooperatives
improve the quality of product (56.5%). This implies that
cooperatives monitor the quality of produce brought in
order to meet desired market standards. About (55.7%)
agree that cooperatives help members to purchase farm
supplies. This infers that cooperatives buy goods in bulk at
a lower cost and resell it to members at cheaper prices.
Similarly, provision of better marketing services (53%),
and provision of more accurate grading standard (52.2%)
is also the roles of cooperatives. However, there are low
percentages performed in relation to lower marketing cost
(45.2%), control of wastage of agricultural products
(45.1%) and provision of storage facilities (40.9%).
Table 3: Respondents’ perception of the role of
cooperatives in marketing of agricultural produce
Roles Frequency Percentage
(%)
High bargaining power 82 71.3
Lower marketing cost 52 45.2
Provision of ready market 83 72.2
Improvement on the quality of
products
65 56.6
Determination of prices of
agricultural produce
86 74.8
Provide more accurate
grading standard
60 52.2
Provide better marketing
services
61 53.0
Provision of storage facilities 47 40.9
Lessen burden of
transportation
79 68.7
Educate members about
production and marketing
79 68.7
Purchase of farm supplies 64 55.7
Control wastage 51 44.4
Create employment 78 67.8
* Multiple Responses
Challenges faced by Cooperatives in marketing of
Agricultural produce
The result in Table 4 shows that the major challenge of
cooperatives in the study area was the large number of
middlemen (75.5%) whose activities are exploitative to
farmers (Folarin, 2013; Rozdan, 2015).Other challenges
faced by cooperatives include lack of proper management
by leaders (73%).This suggests that most of the leaders in
cooperatives are corrupt and hence farmers see no need
of marketing their agricultural produce via cooperatives.
This confirms what has been reported that in Africa, farmer
cooperatives have often failed because of problems in
holding management accountable to the members (i.e.,
moral hazard), leading to inappropriate political activities
or financial irregularities in management (Akwabi-
Ameyaw, 1997; Omotosho, 2007). Similarly, most of the
respondents in the study area agreed that unavailability of
loans (71.3%) was also a challenge. This corresponds with
the study conducted in 2004 in cooperative produce
marketing societies in Oyo, Ogun and Ondo states of
Nigeria by Aweto, which reveals that 74% of cooperative
members join cooperative societies with the hope of
obtaining financial assistance and out of these, only 14%
benefitted from financial assistance of the society when
really in need of funds. Low level of education of members
(67.8%) was also a challenge which implies that
cooperatives are poorly funded. This agrees with what
Essien (2000) reported that because a large number of
farmers in rural areas are illiterate, they are economically
handicapped. This result is similar to the findings of
Ogunleye et al. (2015) and Adefila, J. and Madaki, J.
(2014) who found that management and leadership
problem (73.0%), limited membership/insufficient fund
(69.0%) and low level of education of members (62.0%)
were the major problems affecting cooperatives.
Furthermore, inadequacy of storage facilities (67.0%) and
lack of commitment (64.3%) is among the challenges
affecting cooperatives. Also, the problem of small and
scattered holdings (63.5%), bad notion concerning
cooperatives (53.0%), dishonesty among farmers (52.2%),
lack of transport facilities (52.2%) were also seen as major
challenges. The low percentages of lack of information
(49.6), poor handling, packaging and processing facilities
(47%) and government interference (43.5%) implies that
they are minor challenges affecting cooperatives in the
study area.
CONCLUSION
The study demonstrated the potentials of cooperatives to
move farmers from mere price-takers to a position of
significant control over the market. However, several
constraints have limited the impact of cooperatives on the
ability of cooperatives to facilitate competitive prices for
farmers. Cooperatives will fare better if these constraints
are addressed. For instance, the provision of transport and
storage infrastructure would reduce their operational
costs. Investments in literacy programs and other capacity
building efforts would also improve the quality of
leadership and enhance service delivery.

5. The Role of Cooperatives in Marketing of Agricultural Produce in Ushongo Local Government Area, Benue State, Nigeria
World J Sociol. Anthropol. 049
Table 4: Challenges of cooperatives in marketing of
Agricultural products
Challenges Frequency Percentage
(%)*
Large number of middlemen 87 75.5
Government interference 50 43.5
Inadequate of storage
facilities
77 67.0
Small and scattered holding 73 63.5
Dishonesty among farmers 60 52.2
Lack of transport facilities 61 53.0
Negative perceptions of
cooperatives
54 47.0
Lack of commitment and
participation among members
74 64.3
Lack of proper management
by leaders
84 73.0
Unavailability of loan 82 71.3
Low level of education of
members
78 67.8
Lack of information 57 49.6
Poor handling, packaging,
and processing facilities
54 47.0
Problem of communication 52 45.2
Field Survey, 2018
* Multiple Responses
REFERENCES
Adefila, J. and Madaki, J. (2014) Roles of Farmers’
Cooperatives in Agricultural Development in Sabuwa
Local Government Area of Katsina State, Nigeria.
Journal of Economics and Sustainable
Development.Vol.5 (12).
Akinwumi, J.A. (1989) “Cooperatives: The Answer to
Nigeria’s Producer Consumer Dilemma” Faculty series
2. Faculty of Agriculture, University of Nigeria Nsukka.
Akwabi-Ameyaw, K. (1997) Producer cooperative
resettlement projects in Zimbabwe: Lessons from a
failed agricultural development strategy. World
Development 25:437-456.
Awotide, B.A., Awoyemi, T.T. and Fashogbon, A. (2015)
Factors influencing small-holder farmer’s participation
in Cooperative Organization in Rural Nigeria. Journal of
Economic and Sustainable Development, 6(17) 87-96
Barham, J. (2006) “Collective Action Initiative to Improve
Marketing Performance. Lesson from farmer group in
Tanzania” presented at the CAPRI Research Workshop
on Collective Action and Market Access for small
holder, October 2-5, Cali Colombia
Birchall, J. (2005) Cooperative principles ten years on.
Review of International Cooperation, 98(2), 45–63
Bhuyan, S. (2007). “The People Factor in Cooperatives”;
An Analysis of Members, Canadian Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 55(3): 275-298.
Bzugu, P.M., Gwary, M.M and Y.L. Idrisa, (2005) Impact of
Extension Services on Rural Poverty Alleviation among
Farmers in Askira/Uba Local Government Area of
Borno Sate. Sahel Analyst, Faculty of Management
Sciences, University of Maiduguri. PP-96-103.Food
Policy, 26, 4.
Ebonyi, V. and Jimoh, O. B. (2002) Cooperative
Movements; A way out of Poverty. Lagos, Longman
Publishers.
Essien, U.D. (2000) Poverty Alleviation Programme. A
Positive Step Toward The Development of Human
Resources. Africa Journal of Business and Economic
Research.Vol.1 (19). Pp. 13-20.
Folarin G.S (2013) Discuss the Major problems
confronting agricultural marketing in Nigeria a way out.
Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension,
The Federal University of Technology, Akure.
Hermida, J. (2008) Agricultural Cooperative in Asia.
Retrieved, from http://asiadhrra.org/ wordpress/ 2008/
01/11agriccoops-in-Asia.
Mande, Samaila and Lawal Kamaldeen A.A,
(2014)Cooperative marketing societies and its
challenges for sustainable Economic Development in
Lagos, Nigeria. Journal of Research & Method in
Education.Vol.4 (6), p.24-31.
Mure, U.A., Oluwakemi, S.E., Sodiaya C.I., Oludare, A.
and Joel, T.O. (2012) Accelerating Rural Growth
Through Collective Action: Groups’ Activities and
Determinants of Participation in South Western Nigeria.
Journal of Rural Social Sciences 27(1).Pp 114
Nnanna, O.J, Englama, A. and Odoko, F.O Ed. (2004)
“Financial markets in Nigeria”. Abuja. Central Bank of
Nigeria (CBN) Publication. Pp 132-140.
NPC (2006)Preliminary 2006 Census Figures. Retrieved
19th November, 2017 from http:// www.population.gov.
ng/pop-figure.pdf
Ogunleye, A.A., Oluwafemi, Zacchaeus O.,Arowolo, K.O.,
Odegbile, O.S. (2015) Analysis of Socio-Economic
Factors Affecting Farmers Participation in Cooperative
Societies in Surulere Local Government Area of Oyo
State. Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science
(IOSR-JAVS). Volume 8, Issue 5 p.40-44
Oguoma, O.N., V.I. Nkwocha and I.I. Ibeawuchi (2010)
Implications of Middlemen in te Supply Chain of
agricultural Products. Journal of agriculture and Social
Research. 10(2) 77-83.
Omotosho, O. A. (2007) Cooperatives as a vehicle for
mobilizing resources for poor farmers in Nigeria. In:
General reading studies in Nigeria. University of Ilorin
Press, pp. 57-62.
Onouha, E (2002) A critique of the drafts of cooperative
policy for Nigeria. Nigeria Journal of Cooperative
Studies, 2 (1): 10-17.
Rozhan A.D. (2015) Cooperative Movement in the Supply
Chain of Agricultural Products: Way Forwards.
Agricultural cooperatives and farmers' organizations.
International Seminar on Improving Food Marketing
Efficiency – the Role of Agricultural Cooperatives
Siddique A.B. (2015) The Role of Cooperative Society for
Marketing Agriculture Products in Bangladesh. Global

6. The Role of Cooperatives in Marketing of Agricultural Produce in Ushongo Local Government Area, Benue State, Nigeria
Naswem et al. 050
Journal of Management and Business Research. Vol.
15 (5).
Yihune, K.A. (2008) Members’ Participation in the Awabel
Multi-Purpose Farmers Cooperatives Union and its
Affiliates, Amhara Region, Ethiopia, Thesis. Mekelle:
MU
Accepted 10 June 2019
Citation: Naswem AA, Soomiyol VM, Aande A (2019).
The Role of Cooperatives in Marketing of Agricultural
Produce in Ushongo Local Government Area, Benue
State, Nigeria. World Journal of Sociology and
Anthropology, 3(1): 045-050.
Copyright: © 2019: Naswem et al. This is an open-access
article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author and source are cited.