**5. Conclusion**

This study compares the costs and returns of peanut production in three agro-ecological zones of Benin. Findings demonstrate that AF is affected by pre-harvest and post-harvest factors. During the survey, most farmers stated that drying of peanut was done immediately after harvest. However, sorting was practiced only by few respondents. In many studies, sorting has been suggested as an efficient method to control AF development in peanut. In addition, another factor that needs to be highlighted is storage condition. Growth of storage fungi followed by AF production is also determined by storage structure and storage length. Plastic bags or other synthetic bags used mostly by farmers during storage promote increas‐ es in humidity, and hence, increase in AF levels. Since AF contamination in storage is de‐ pendent on the storage system, the solution would be to sort peanut during storage.

**Parameters Unit Risk function**

This study was funded by the Peanut Collaborative Research Program, USAID Grant No. LAG-G-00-96-90013-00, and supported by the University of Georgia, Auburn University and the University of the Republic of Benin. The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Ag‐

, Curtis M. Jolly1\*, Davo Simplice Vodouhe2

1 Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Alabama Experiment Station,

[1] Awuah, R. T., Fialor, S. C., Binns, A. D., Kagochi, J., & Jolly, C. M. (2009). Factors In‐ fluencing Market Participants Decision to Sort Groundnuts along the Marketing

and Pauline E. Jolly3

Aflatoxin and Peanut Production Risk and Net Incomes

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/51913

393

*Storage* Month RiskTriang (0, 2, 4)

*Pre-harvest cost* \$ RiskTriang (50, 52.5, 55)

*Harvest cost* \$ RiskTriang (1, 2, 3.5) *Drying costs* \$ RiskTriang (0, 1.58, 3) *Sorting cost* \$ RiskTriang (0, 3.15, 6.5) *Bagging cost* \$ RiskTriang (0.5, 1.4, 2.5) *Transportation cost* \$ RiskTriang (0.1, 0.5, 1.5)

riculture, Breeding and Fisheries of Benin for its support.

2 The University of the Republic of Benin, Republic of Benin

Chain in Ghana. *Peanut Science*, 36, 68-76.

3 University of Alabama, Birmingham, USA

**Acknowledgement**

**Author details**

**References**

Cynthia Bley N'Dede1

Auburn University, USA

Results from enterprise budgets show that AF reduces farmers' net returns. Sorting of pea‐ nut results in higher labor costs and smaller net returns than the costs and returns generated when farmers do not sort peanut. Net returns per hectare after sorting peanut were reduced to \$532.7 in Kandi, \$423.2 in Savalou, and \$261.03 in Abomey-Bohicon. Net returns were higher for Kandi which is the most productive region.

Results also demonstrate that AF increases with length of storage and lowers revenue from peanut production. After 6 months of storage, farmers' net revenues decrease due to lower peanut quality. It is evident that storage conditions have a significant impact on AF develop‐ ment. Moreover, in the risk analysis results, we note a significant relationship between net returns and price, and also a negative relationship between net returns and sorting when farmers sort peanut. This finding confirms that sorting causes economic losses to peanut producers who want to improve quality. Hence to compensate for their losses due to costs of sorting, producers have to increase price to cover at least their variable costs.

Although investigations in this study indicate that it is more profitable for farmers to sell peanut immediately after harvest than to store it, the solution would be to improve farming practices and management, storage conditions, increase price in order to improve peanut quality and minimize risk of losses from AF. Improvements of quality and higher prices are obtainable with government legislations, and consumer and producer education.
