Economic Feasibility Assessment of Establishing A Halal Slaughterhouse

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/367344911
Going local or global? An economic feasibility assessment of establishing a

halal slaughterhouse in the Gambia Going local or global? An economic
feasibility assessment of establis...
Technical Report · December 2022
CITATIONS READS
0 24
3 authors, including:
Joshua Aboah Sirak Bahta

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation International Livestock Research Institute
19 PUBLICATIONS 165 CITATIONS 27 PUBLICATIONS 176 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Joshua Aboah on 23 January 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Going local or global?
I L R I R E S E A R C H R E P O RT
ISBN: 92–9146–758–8
An economic feasibility
assessment of establishing
The International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) works to improve food and nutritional security and
reduce poverty in developing countries through research for efficient, safe and sustainable use of livestock.
a halal slaughterhouse
Co-hosted by Kenya and Ethiopia, it has regional or country offices and projects in East, South and
Southeast Asia as well as Central, East, Southern and West Africa. ilri.org in the Gambia
CGIAR is a global agricultural research partnership for a food-secure future. Its research is carried out
112
by 15 research centres in collaboration with hundreds of partner organizations. cgiar.org
An economic feasibility assessment of
establishing a halal slaughterhouse in the
Gambia
Joshua Aboah, Derek Chan and Sirak Bahta
International Livestock Research Institute
December 2022
©2022 International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)
ILRI thanks all donors and organizations which globally supports its work through their contributions to the CGIAR Trust Fund
This publication is copyrighted by the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). It is licensed for use under the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International Licence. To view this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0. Unless otherwise
noted, you are free to share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format), adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the
material) for any purpose, even commercially, under the following conditions:
ATTRIBUTION. The work must be attributed, but not in any way that suggests endorsement by ILRI or the author(s).
NOTICE:
For any reuse or distribution, the licence terms of this work must be made clear to others.
Any of the above conditions can be waived if permission is obtained from the copyright holder.
Nothing in this licence impairs or restricts the author’s moral rights.
Fair dealing and other rights are in no way affected by the above.
The parts used must not misrepresent the meaning of the publication.
ILRI would appreciate being sent a copy of any materials in which text, photos etc. have been used.
Editing, design and layout—ILRI Editorial and Publishing Services, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Cover photo: Collage of livestock from the Gambia drawn from ILRI Flickr (photo credit: ILRI/Joshua Aboah).
ISBN: 92–9146–758–8
Citation: Aboah, J., Chan, D. and Bahta, S. 2022. Going local or global? An economic feasibility assessment of establishing a halal slaughterhouse in the
Gambia. ILRI Research Report 112. Nairobi, Kenya. ILRI.
Patron: Professor Peter C. Doherty A. C, FAA, FRS

Animal scientist, Nobel Prize Laureate for Physiology or Medicine–1996
Box 30709, Nairobi 00100 Kenya ilri.org Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Phone +254 20 422 3000 better lives through livestock Phone +251 11 617 2000
Fax+254 20 422 3001 Fax +251 11 667 6923
Email ilri-kenya@cgiar.org ILRI is a CGIAR research centre Email ilri-ethiopia@cgiar.org
ILRI has offices in East Africa • South Asia • Southeast and East Asia • Southern Africa • West Africa
Contents
Tables iv
Figures v
Acknowledgements vi
Summary vii
1: Introduction 1
2: Status quo analysis of post-farm gate meat systems 2
2.1 Current domestic market analysis 2
2.2 Post-farm gate systems 5
2.3 Slaughterhouse risk assessment 8
3: Economic feasibility of a state-of-the art halal slaughterhouse in the Gambia 9
3.1 Slaughterhouse operation module 10
3.2 Economic feasibility module 12
3.3 Model validation 15
3.4 Feasibility of the Abuko abattoir operational model 16
3.5 Feasibility of a fully integrated operational model 19
4: Exploring the export market potential 22
4.1 Export market target 22
4.2 Competitive price setting analysis 23
4.3 Potential export markets for Halal beef from the Gambia 24
4.4 Bovine meat type for the potential export market 28
4.5 Competitive price and allowable value addition cost analyses 30
4.6 Allowable value addition cost for the potential export market 31
5: Discussion 37
5.1 Halal certification 37
5.2 Other differentiation opportunities 38
5.3 Source of livestock and land constraints 39
5.4 Clandestine slaughter 39
6: Conclusions and recommendations 40
References 42
Appendices 43
iv Going local or global? An economic feasibility assessment of establishing a halal slaughterhouse in the Gambia
Tables
Table 1: A summary of locations in the Gambia and stakeholders engaged in the KIIs 9
Table 2: Operational capacity targets–univariate sensitivity analysis 16
Table 3: Financial targets–univariate sensitivity analysis 17
Table 4: Summary statistics for identifying potential export market in North Africa 24
Table 5: Summary statistics for identifying potential export market in the Middle East 26
Table 6: Summary statistics for identifying potential export market in ECOWAS 27
Table 7: Price differential between the domestic purchase price and imported meat in the Gambiaa 31
Table 8: Allowable value addition cost for halal meat targeting a potential export market in North Africaa 31
Table 9: Allowable value addition cost for halal beef targeting the potential export market in the Middle East 32
Table 10: Allowable value addition cost for halal beef targeting the potential export market in ECOWAS 34
Table 11: A ranking of the most economically viable export market–baseline and optimistic cases 35
Table 12: A ranking of the most economically viable export market–pessimistic case 35
Going local or global? An economic feasibility assessment of establishing a halal slaughterhouse in the Gambia v
Figures
Figure 1: Domestic and imported beef consumption in tonnes per year (excluding offal), 2016–2020. 2
Figure 2: Domestic and imported cattle offal consumption in tonnes per year, 2016–2020. 3
Figure 3: Beef imports (fresh, frozen and offal) into the Gambia from 2016 to 2020. 3
Figure 4: Market share (%) of the Gambian beef import market by weight from 2016 to 2020. 4
Figure 5: Meat imports into the Gambia from 2016 to 2020. 5
Figure 6: Cattle and small ruminant production value chain. 6
Figure 7: Stock and flow diagram of the cattle slaughtering operation. 10
Figure 8: Stock and flow diagram of the small ruminant slaughtering operation. 11
Figure 9: The revenue and profitability sector. 13
Figure 10: The cost sector. 14
Figure 11: Operational extreme condition test. 15
Figure 12: Financial extreme condition test. 15
Figure 13: Operational capacity targets for economic viability–Abuko abattoir operational model. 17
Figure 14: Financial targets for economic viability–Abuko abattoir operational model. 18
Figure 15: Multivariate sensitivity analysis–Abuko abattoir operational model. 18
Figure 16: Feasibility of no slaughtering services under a fully integrated operational model. 19
Figure 17: Feasibility of slaughtering services under a fully integrated operational model. 20
Figure 18: Feasibility price threshold under a fully integrated operational model. 21
Figure 19: Proposed framework for determining potential halal export market. 22
Figure 20: Beef imports into Egypt from 2016 to 2020. 25
Figure 21: Type of bovine meat imported from OIC into the Middle East (by weight). 28
Figure 22: Type of bovine meat imported from OIC into ECOWAS (by weight). 29
Figure 23: Type of bovine meat imported from OIC into North Africa (by weight). 29
Figure 24: The minimum, mean, and maximum unit price for imported beef into the Gambia (2016 to 2020). 30
Figure 25: Unit price of beef imported into potential export markets in North Africa. 31
Figure 26: Unit price of beef imported into potential export markets in the Middle East. 32
Figure 27: Unit price of beef imported into potential export markets in ECOWAS. 33
vi Going local or global? An economic feasibility assessment of establishing a halal slaughterhouse in the Gambia
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by the Islamic Development Bank (IsDB) via the Small Ruminant Production Enhancement Project
(SRPEP) in the Gambia, led by Mamud Njie. We would like to thank Karl Rich for initializing the study, and Kanar Dizyee for
his contribution to framing the study design. We acknowledge all the producers, butchers and traders who participated
in the study along with representatives of key value chain associations government agencies along with the staff of the
Gambia Livestock Marketing Agency at the sites visited across the country. We particularly acknowledge Badara Loum,
who coordinated field activities and the workshop, along with Fatou Ndeye Gaye. This report has been subjected to the
standard peer review availed by the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). The authors accept full responsibility
for all content, opinions, errors, and omissions in the report.
The work was conducted as part of the CGIAR Initiative on Sustainable Animal Productivity and is supported by
contributors to the CGIAR Trust Fund. CGIAR is a global research partnership for a food-secure future dedicated to
transforming food, land, and water systems in a climate crisis.
Going local or global? An economic feasibility assessment of establishing a halal slaughterhouse in the Gambia vii
Summary
This study assesses whether current market conditions support the establishment of a state-of-the-art halal slaughterhouse
in the Gambia for domestic and export markets. It also sets out achievable, realistic targets for value addition and provides
guidance for addressing possible risks that can be associated with the halal meat-processing plant.
For this study, data were retrieved from UN Comtrade on imports and exports for countries in the Organisation for
Islamic Cooperation (OIC) from 2016 to 2020. Primary data were sourced from the 2016 Livestock Survey, 2015/2016
Integrated Household Survey (IHS), the Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database (FAOSTAT) and
a review of previous research completed by the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and researchers from other
organizations. These data were complemented with a one-week research trip in-country of post-farm gate systems and a
one-day workshop with key stakeholders to further discuss the feasibility of the new slaughterhouse.
An analysis of the domestic market was conducted, including post-farm gate systems, followed by a feasibility model
which includes major operating costs and revenues in different scenarios. Data were sourced from cattle and small
ruminant dealers, abattoir operators and supervisors, and other industrial actors. Additionally, the feasibility of exporting
products was analysed.
Considering that the Gambia is a net importer of meat and livestock, the exportation of meat is not recommended,
although select niche markets have been identified in this analysis, such as exporting offal to Egypt, and fresh or frozen
meat products to Kuwait, Niger, Qatar and Yemen. The general state of slaughterhouses in the country is poor, and the
domestic beef and small ruminant value chains are short, with the lack of refrigeration facilities resulting in slaughtering
taking place close to the place of consumption. Slaughter facilities only act as service providers and do not participate
in marketing activities. The addition of a slaughterhouse in the country could bring additional differentiation to the beef
value chain, including halal certification and improved hygiene. However, volumes processed and prices charged must
be significantly increased for establishing a state-of-the-art slaughterhouse to be an economically viable investment.
Going local or global? An economic feasibility assessment of establishing a halal slaughterhouse in the Gambia 1
1: Introduction
Beef is the primary meat produced in the Gambia, and monthly per capita red meat consumption is 5.1kg (Rich et al.
2020; Bahta et al. 2022). Domestic production covers most of the beef consumption in the country. In 2020, imports
accounted for an estimated 11.6% of domestic fresh and frozen beef consumption1, whereas nearly 95% of poultry was
imported. The beef value chain is characterized by smallholder producers selling to local traders who then aggregate
and sell the live animals in daily or weekly markets. There is little in terms of cold chains or sanitation control along the way
(Touray 2016).
This study assessed whether conditions support the establishment of a state-of-the-art halal slaughterhouse in the Gambia
for the domestic and export markets. In terms of domestic consumption, the analysis found price-driven behaviour,
and some imports compete with domestically produced beef in price. Generally, beef demand in the Gambia is price
sensitive, with prices determined by region; however, some evidence of price differentiation exists, with customers in the
West Coast and Banjul areas paying a premium for their beef.
As a member of the Organisation for Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the Gambia could potentially export beef to other OIC
countries. Also, the African Free Continental Trade Agreement presents an opportunity for intra-regional trade among
member countries on the African continent. Given the more stringent halal-related requirements for meat imports in
some Muslim-majority countries like Malaysia, the United Arab Emirates, and Pakistan (Ahmad et al., 2016), and the
high competition from leading halal meat exporting countries; an investment in a halal slaughterhouse that targets
neighbouring countries or countries within the same economic block is a potential strategy. Would a state-of-the-art halal
slaughterhouse be economically feasible and fit for the context?
This study also aimed to assess the domestic and export markets, set out achievable, realistic targets; and provide
guidance for addressing any possible risks associated with the halal slaughterhouse in the Gambia. It sought to answer
these questions: (a) what are the current domestic market conditions for meat in the Gambia? (b) in what condition are
post-farm gate systems? (c) what price ranges will enhance the competitiveness of halal meat from the Gambia? (d) where
the potential export market destinations for halal meat produced from the Gambia are?
The remaining sections of this study are as follows. Section 2 covers the domestic market analysis. The quantitative
economic feasibility assessment is presented in Section 3. The potential export market analysis is covered in Section 4,
the results are discussed in Section 5, and the conclusions and recommendations are presented in Section 6.
1
Note that domestic production in this case may not necessarily mean the animals were raised in the Gambia. Although exact figures are not available, an estimate based on stocks
and production would suggest an importation of 281,000 head of cattle in 2015, mostly from neighbouring Senegal (Rich et al. 2020).
2 Going local or global? An economic feasibility assessment of establishing a halal slaughterhouse in the Gambia
2: Status quo analysis of post-farm

gate meat systems
The current state of the domestic meat market in the Gambia was assessed by considering the in-country meat production
levels, the level of meat imports and the local consumption behaviour, and an assessment of market conditions in the
country. This assessment was informed by in-country data collection by the researchers, along with reviewing the baseline
report on the Small Ruminant Production Enhancement Programme (SRPEP), the Gambia Livestock Sector Analysis by ILRI,
and a review of primary source data from the 2016 Livestock Survey, the 2015/2016 Integrated Household Survey (IHS),
and FAOSTAT. Also, the current trading partners and meat exports and imports patterns from the Gambia were assessed
based on UN Comtrade data from 2016 to 2020.
2.1 Current domestic market analysis

Beef is the primary meat produced in the Gambia. Cattle meat production was estimated to be 3,633 tonnes from the
2016 Livestock Survey, while goat production was 1,154 tonnes, mutton was 539 tonnes, and the chicken was 375
tonnes (Rich et al., 2020). According to data retrieved from the UN Comtrade (2021) database, Gambia is a net beef
importer. Domestic beef production is increasingly supplemented with imports, with 486 tonnes of fresh/chilled or
frozen beef imported in 2016, ramping up to 1,139 tonnes imported in 2020 (Figure 1). Imports accounted for 11.6% of
domestic consumption in 2020.
Figure 1: Domestic and imported beef consumption in tonnes per year (excluding offal), 2016–2020.
(Data: FAOSTAT, UN Comtrade).

This trend is even more pronounced with cattle offal, where 42% of cattle offal was imported (Figure 2). There was only
one recorded instance of exporting offal in this timeframe, which was 12 tonnes exported to South Korea in 2016. Analysis
of the beef trade data from 2016 to 2020 shows that Gambia has 19 trading partners, including two OIC countries (Saudi
Arabia and Bangladesh), as presented in Figure 3. It is worth noting that the source countries for imports vary considerably
from year to year.
Figure 2: Domestic and imported cattle offal consumption in tonnes per year, 2016–2020.
(Data: FAOSTAT, UN Comtrade).
Figure 3: Beef imports (fresh, frozen and offal) into the Gambia from 2016 to 2020.
Data: UN Comtrade.
The market share of the trading partners in terms of the net weight of meat imported into the Gambia is shown in Figure
4. In the years 2016–2020, the top 10 Gambian meat import market shareholders in descending order of magnitude
were Poland (27%), USA (22%), the Netherlands (13%), France (9%), Ukraine (9%), India (7%), Canada (4%), Paraguay
(2%), United Kingdom (2%), and Lithuania (2%). There were two recorded instances of imports from OIC partners, from
Bangladesh in 2016, accounting for 0.01% of cattle meat imports by weight that year, and from Saudi Arabia in 2017,
accounting for 9.24% of cattle meat imports by weight that year.
Figure 4: Market share (%) of the Gambian beef import market by weight from 2016 to 2020.
1.08 0.13 0.63

0.08
1.73
2.10
3.78
26.51
0.62 0.30 0.00
1.69 0.69 0.62
7.20
8.77
9.11
21.87
13.10
Poland USA Netherlands France Ukraine

India Canada Paraguay United Kingdom Lithuania
Data: UN Comtrade.
Figure 5 shows the quantity of beef by type imported into the Gambia. The trend shows a steady rise in the importation
of frozen beef into the Gambia and an increasing preference for offal. Cumulatively, the recorded offal imports from 2016
to 2020 made up 47% of the total beef imports. The remaining imports were frozen beef and fresh or chilled beef at 37%
and 17%, respectively.
Figure 5: Meat imports into the Gambia from 2016 to 2020.
700,000.0
600,000.0
500,000.0
400,000.0
300,000.0
200,000.0
100,000.0
-
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
(100,000.0)
Meat of bovine animals; fresh or chilled (kg) Meat of bovine animals; frozen (kg)
Bovine offal, aggregate (kg)
Data: UN Comtrade.
2.2 Post-farm gate systems

Additional data were collected at selected study areas across the country for five days (16–20 May 2022), focusing
on post-farm gate systems across the country, notably on slaughterhouse operations, dealers, butchers, and retailers.
Moreover, a one-day stakeholder consultation workshop was conducted on 23 May 2022, with key beef and small
ruminant value chain actors, where the risks and impact of this potential slaughterhouse on livestock production and value
chain actors across the country were assessed.
Dealers (who purchase from livestock markets), slaughterhouse operators/supervisors, and butchers (who sell products
to the end consumers) were targeted for interviews. Interviews were conducted individually or in groups and were semi-
structured. The interviews focused on the operations of each actor, with questions on whom they buy from, whom they
sell to, the prices paid and charged, major costs of operation, how their job has changed since they have worked there,
and their outlook for the coming years.
2.2.1 Value chain analysis

Slaughterhouses are run uniformly across the country by the Gambia Livestock Marketing Agency (GLMA) as service
providers, and butchers bring their livestock to the centres and either slaughter it themselves or contract workers to
slaughter the animals. Although dealers were active in both terminal markets and regional markets, purchasing animals
from farmers directly, many butchers also purchased animals themselves directly from farmers. An illustration of the value
chain structure is shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Cattle and small ruminant production value chain.
(Adapted from Rich et al. 2020).
2.2.2 Livestock production and purchase

Many small ruminants are imported, either from nearby farms in Senegal, markets in Senegalese border towns, larger
ones further away (e.g. Dahra), or from Mali and Mauritania directly, with estimates near 80%. During the study period,
the closure of the Malian border to the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) countries had made
it more difficult to import cattle from Mali; however, trade was continuing. Although there were many active dealers
and dealers’ associations, many butchers also purchased livestock directly from farmers, acting very much like dealers.
Butchers cited tight margins and wanting more control of livestock quality as reasons they purchase livestock directly
from farmers. Many butchers and dealers purchased animals one at a time, though some more established dealers and
butchers may purchase multiple animals at a time and resell them to other butchers and dealers.
Reported quantities traded weekly ranged from 10 to 800 cattle and small ruminants per dealer or butcher. Prices ranged
from D 30,000 (USD 517) to D 60,000 (USD 1,034) for live cattle and D4,000 (USD 69) to D8,000 (USD 138) for small
ruminants as reported by butchers and dealers, with the highest values at Abuko reported by dealers. Sales typically
occur under cash-and-carry conditions unless relationships have been developed with the providers, where buying on
credit may become possible. Costs to transport cattle ranged from D 400 (USD 7) to D 600 (USD 10) from nearby regional
markets (either transported in a truck or herded), D 700 (USD 12) from Bansang to Abuko, for example, or D 1,000 (USD
17) from places in Senegal. Small ruminants were reported to be around D 4,000 (USD 69) (up from D3,000 (USD 52) last
year) in the regional markets and D 8,000 (USD 138) in the terminal markets. Butchers and dealers would prefer having
better access to credit to take on more animals at a time, raise them themselves, have them bred, or purchase their means
of transportation.
Animals are used primarily for meat consumption, with little to no market for other parts such as hides and the head. Some
traders can sell to Ghana or Senegal, but others do not sell them at all. Foreign exchange risk and the lack of access to
water and electricity at slaughter facilities were reported repeatedly as the largest issues by dealers. Foreign exchange
influences price fluctuation because animals from Senegal are purchased in CFA and sold in Dalasi (D) in the Gambia.
Additionally, increased livestock prices have put pressure on butchers, as the retail price for beef is fixed by the livestock
marketing board at a regional level. Also, young people are not venturing into this career line, which may put the supply
chain at risk.
2.2.3 Slaughter slab, slaughterhouse and abattoir operations, and

infrastructure
As observed by the researchers and mentioned by the slaughter slab/abattoir operators, the infrastructure and condition
of the facilities vary across the country. Some simple slabs are outdoor and some lack consistent access to water and
electricity (e.g. have a water pump, but electricity is not consistent). The cleanliness varied across the country, with some
operators reporting that their septic tanks are full and having trouble having someone come by to clear them (as many
administrative processes require approval from the central GLMA authority), and others mentioning that their cleaners are
inconsistent. The researchers also observed vultures present at one site and nearby another. Animals are typically brought
in the night before slaughter for observation, and if they do not show signs of illness, the slaughterhouse operators
approve their slaughter. Many slaughter facilities run in two shifts, once in the morning and once in the evening, with
cleaning scheduled in between.
Although the Abuko slaughterhouse was designed as a state-of-the-art facility with cold rooms and rails, many of these
facilities have fallen due to disrepair. The cold rooms have become slaughter halls due both to capacity issues, and a lack
of maintenance, and the rails have also fallen into disuse due to the preference of local butchers to do their slaughtering
on the floor. Although a weighing scale existed, dealers preferred not to use it as the negotiation price range could be
larger than that indicated by the scale, which has also since fallen into disrepair.
The regional slaughter facilities charge a fixed fee per animal (D 50 [USD 0.86] for cattle, D 25 [USD 0.43] for small
ruminants in the regional markets surveyed, while these fees are D 250 [USD 4.3] for cattle and D 100 [USD 1.7] for small
ruminants at Abuko) and charge a licensing fee for butchers (D 1,000 [USD 17.2] for one year). Additionally, livestock
markets charged dealers D 1,500 (USD 25.8) for a one-year license. The butchering activity is either done by the butchers,
an apprentice, or they contract out the task at D 100 (USD 1.7) per cattle. Reports from the slaughter slabs have from 15
to 35 registered butchers per slaughterhouse. Staff numbers range from 2 staff to run the operations, with 2 cleaners
contracted to 36 staff at Abuko (covering security, revenue, administration, and slaughter staff). Costs for cleaning range
from D 1,300 at the small slaughter slabs to D 30,000 (USD 517) at Abuko. Septic tank cleaning costs range from D 3,600
(USD 62) to D 4,500 (USD 78).
Electricity, boreholes, and offices are designed by the operators of the slaughter slab, and the operator of the Abuko
abattoir has seen an increased role for security both to keep track of animals and offer traceability. The current role of
the slaughterhouse is as a facility for butchers and private individuals to bring their animals and slaughter themselves.
When asked whether they see an increased role in purchasing livestock and selling carcasses themselves, slaughterhouse
operators and butchers said it was an opportunity that would increase profit opportunities for the slaughterhouse, and
butchers may see more stable prices.
2.2.4 Retail
Retail prices for processed beef range from D 250 (USD 4) to D 350 (USD 6)/kg for meat and bone (which is often also
mixed with offal) to D 300 (USD 5) to D 400 (USD 7) /kg for steak (meat only). Prices for the meat of sheep and goats are
not fixed and can vary. Outside of the Greater Banjul Area and the West Coast Region, there is no differentiation in quality
or other cuts available for beef, although some mutton and goat meat suppliers may grill their meat for value addition.
More varieties of beef are available in the Greater Banjul Area, including minced meat and pricier imported meat. Across
the country, prices are fixed locally by consultation, with industry representatives and local officials agreeing to price
changes. There is pressure from butchers to increase the price of meat given that the price of livestock, especially cattle,
has increased significantly in the past year.
2.3 Slaughterhouse risk assessment

The primary reason for building a new start-of-the-art slaughterhouse is an increased perceived quality stemming from the
operations. Experts who participated in the stakeholders’ workshop in Gambia expect consumers to demand increased
quality from their butchers as well, citing anecdotal evidence of consumers paying D 500 (USD 8.5)/kg at halal butchers
or the success of local poultry over cheaper imports, and the demand for quality to trickle backwards on the value chain to
suppliers. The Greater Banjul Area, and specifically Abuko was widely agreed upon as the best site for the slaughterhouse
as it has space, access to markets, the potential for export and a stable supply of electricity to run the slaughterhouse
operations.
The top three risks of the new slaughterhouse identified were: (i) limited future growth in beef production, as more land is
devoted to crops, which necessitates transhumance in the rainy season, often to Casamance, (ii) animal diseases, which
may lead to sick animals unfit for consumption, and (iii) droughts or floods, which affect the feed available for livestock and
thus livestock production. Other risks identified are:
• The cost of fuel affecting the cost of transportation (not considered in the top three as this remains a small cost as
compared to other costs).
• Exchange rate fluctuations, including daily/weekly fluctuations and depreciation versus the CFA, which is used in
Senegal and Mali–from where many of the cattle are sourced (not considered in the top three as this risk is continuous
and adaptable).
• Border closures, trade barriers and changes in regional trade agreements, especially with Mali, Mauritania or Senegal
(not considered in the top three as borders remain porous)
All three top risks have a direct impact on producers, and all lead to decreased production and quantity of livestock
supply. These will have reverberating effects through the value chain as meat supply quantity decreases, affecting
demand and sales. Land risks may lead to the migration of animals and increased conflict.
3: Economic feasibility of a state-of-

the art halal slaughterhouse in the
Gambia
A system dynamics (SD) modeling approach was used to assess the economic feasibility of establishing the state-of-the-
art halal slaughterhouse in the Gambia. The SD model conceptualization was based on a reconnaissance survey of the
main slaughter slabs and abattoirs in the Gambia and key informant interviews (KIIs) with stakeholders engaged in the
post-farm gate activities of the cattle and small ruminant value chains in the country. The stakeholders include slaughter
slab and abattoir supervisors, butchers, animal dealers, and representatives of the GLMA. A summary of the key informant
interview conducted is shown in Table 1. The SD model comprising two modules–slaughterhouse operation and
economic feasibility modules–was built in STELLA software ® with a daily timestep (because the slaughterhouse operates
daily) for 20 years. The primary variable interactions in each module are described in the ensuing subsections.
Table 1: A summary of locations in the Gambia and stakeholders engaged in the KIIs
Location Region GLMA (slaughterhouse) Dealers Butchers
Farafenni North Bank Region x x x

Wassu Central River Region x x
Sare Bojo Central River Region x x x
Basse Upper River Region x x
Bansang Central River Region x x
Bureng Lower River Region x
Soma Lower River Region x x
Brikama West Coast Region x x
Serrekunda Greater Banjul Area x
Abuko West Coast Region x x x
A caveat worth noting is that in its current structure, the SD model is not demand-driven and does not consider the
dynamics around the ability of the slaughterhouse to attract patronage. A future extension of the model can incorporate
detailed herd dynamics and marketing modules to unravel the feedback effects of these on slaughterhouse operations.
However, the current structure takes an optimistic view where the slaughterhouse operates at optimal levels. Thus, even
when the feedback dynamics from the herd dynamics and marketing modules are introduced, the variations in demand
will not push operational levels to exceed the current optimal operational capacity levels.
3.1 Slaughterhouse operation module

The slaughterhouse operation module captured the slaughtering activities for cattle and small ruminants in two different
sectors, as shown in Figures 7 and 8. Generally, the slaughterhouse operation mimics the current operating system where
the slaughterhouses only provide slaughtering services (for both cattle and small ruminants) to butchers and individual
households. Thus, the cattle and small ruminants slaughtered for butchers and individual households are the two inflows
into the stock of animals slaughtered daily.
Figure 7: Stock and flow diagram of the cattle slaughtering operation.
The first inflow was determined by the number of butchers (for cattle and small ruminants) that will be licensed to use the
slaughterhouse facility, the percentage of the licensed butchers that will patronize the slaughterhouse services daily,
and the average number of cattle slaughtered daily by a butcher when the slaughterhouse becomes operational. The
second inflow was determined by the number of households that will patronize the slaughterhouse services and the daily
average of animals slaughtered by individual households. The daily average number of animals slaughtered by butchers is
influenced by the occasion.
Figure 8: Stock and flow diagram of the small ruminant slaughtering operation.
The number of animals slaughtered was specified in the model to cater to religious occasions like Ramadan and Tabaski.
For the baseline, it was assumed that no animal (cattle or small ruminant) is slaughtered by individual households during
non-festive occasions, and one animal is slaughtered by each household during festive occasions 2. Cattle butchers
slaughter an average of one animal daily. A festive occasion purchase factor (i.e. 3/365) was specified to capture the
spike in the number of animals slaughtered during festive occasions. For small ruminants, an average of two animals are
slaughtered daily. The main outflow from the stock of animals slaughtered daily is the carcass of the slaughtered animals,
which feeds into the total meat (i.e. from cattle and small ruminants) supplied to the market using an average carcass
weight of 90 kg per carcass.
2 These have been averaged out in the current simulations in order to better display, though the peaks have been analysed as well to ensure it remains under the slaughterhouse
capacity.
3.2 Economic feasibility module

The economic feasibility module was also segmented into two sectors–(i) the revenue and profitability sector (in Figure
9) and (ii) the cost sector (in Figure 10). The total cost comprised investment (capital) and recurring operational (variable)
costs. The investment cost, which is a one-time cost expended in the investment year (year1) for the establishment of the
modern state-of-the-art halal slaughterhouse, consists of the cost of land, slaughterhouse building, a fully automated halal
slaughterhouse machinery line, solar-powered borehole, and furniture and fixtures.
Data on the capital (investment) cost items for year were obtained from industrial sources (online marketplace). For
instance, the cost of fully automated machinery for a halal slaughterhouse was sourced from www.alibaba.com. The
construction cost for the building facility was pegged at the square metre industrial construction cost for a standard
warehouse (see Buildings Guide 2022). The cost of a solar-powered borehole water delivery system with a yearly
average of 10,000 m3/day and a water storage tank with 5,000 litres was based on cost estimates sourced from Wagner
Solar Gambia (https://wagnersolargambia.com/). Details of the various parts of the fully automated machinery for the
halal slaughterhouse and their uses are presented in Appendix A.
The estimated recurring operational cost from the second year3 onwards (comprising cleaning detergents and materials,
personnel salaries, electricity, and an annual maintenance cost for the facility) was based on the current operational
costs at the Abuko abattoir. A staff strength of 36 is specified in the model to mimic the prevailing staff strength at the
Abuko abattoir (as the business-as-usual scenario). The maximum monthly salary on the salary scale for the workers in
the Agricultural and Food industry sector in the Gambia was used to estimate the total personnel salary allocation (see
https://www.paylab.com/gm/salaryinfo/agriculture-food-industry?lang=en).
An annual maintenance allocation cost was estimated using an assumed 10% of the total investment cost for the machinery
to be installed in the slaughterhouse. The sensitivity of the overall profitability to changing (increasing) recurring costs was
assessed in this study.
The prevailing operational system for all slaughterhouses and slaughter slabs across the Gambia was used to determine
the sources of revenue streams that include slaughtering fees (for the use of the facility), slaughtering services (performed
by in-house slaughterers), and annual license fees from butchers that will patronize the facility. In the model, revenues
are only earned from the second year (year2) after the investment had been made. This contingency was expressed in
equation 1.
IF (Time_to_start_operation<366) THEN 0 ELSE 1 ………………………………… (1)
The recurring (daily) revenue stream was estimated as the sum of the slaughtering fees paid by butchers for slaughtering
cattle and small ruminants. The slaughterhouse profitability over time was estimated using the inflow of total revenues and
outflow of the total cost.
The benefit-cost ratio (BCR) was estimated (in equation 2) to determine the investment worthiness for constructing a
modern state-of-the-art slaughterhouse in the Gambia.
BCR = Rt/Ct ………………………………. (2)
Where Rt is the total revenue at time t, the nominal cash flow was used; and Ct is the total cost at time t. Given that the
current Abuko abattoir facility, constructed about 50 years ago, is still functional (although much of the infrastructure
has fallen into disrepair), a 20-year period is considered. BCR greater than one implies that the investment can be
economically viable.
3 These have been averaged out in the current simulations in order to better display, though the peaks have been analysed as well to ensure it remains under the
slaughterhouse capacity.
Figure 9: The revenue and profitability sector.

Figure 10: The cost sector.

3.3 Model validation

The dimensional consistency test of the model was determined using the check unit function of the Stella Architect®
software to inspect the correctness of the model equations and the units of the parameters. The model was also subjected
to two extreme condition tests (operational and financial) to inspect the model’s conformance to the physical realities. The
extreme condition test related to the slaughterhouse operations was conducted by altering the proportion of butchers
and households that will patronize the services offered by the slaughterhouse facility.
Figure 11: Operational extreme condition test.
Slaughterhouse operations.Slaughtered Cattle Economic feasibility of slaughterhouse.Total slaughtering fees

200 70k
Dalasi
Cattle
100 35k
0 0
1 1826 3651 5475 7300 1 1826 3651 5475 7300
Days Days
Baseline Daily slaughter - 50 cattle & 100 small ruminants Baseline Daily slaughter - 50 cattle & 100 small ruminants
No cattle butchers and household patronage No cattle butchers and household patronage
Figure 11 shows that the number of cattle slaughtered declines when the slaughtering service is patronized by only
individual households. No cattle will be slaughtered when butchers and individual households do not patronize the
slaughtering services. The extreme condition test related to financial parameters considered a situation when there are
no fees for the slaughtering services. Figure 12 shows that although the number of slaughtered cattle will not be affected,
there will be no revenues from the slaughtering operations. Thus, the extreme condition test results show the conformity
of the model behaviour to physical realities.
Figure 12: Financial extreme condition test.
Slaughterhouse operations.Slaughtered Cattle Economic feasibility of slaughterhouse.Total slaughtering fees

200 70k
Dalasi
Cattle
100 35k
0 0
1 1826 3651 5475 7300 1 1826 3651 5475 7300
Days Days
Baseline Daily slaughter - 50 cattle & 100 small ruminants Baseline Daily slaughter - 50 cattle & 100 small ruminants
No slaughtering fees No slaughtering fees
3.4 Feasibility of the Abuko abattoir operational

model
The economic feasibility assessment of the modern state-of-the-art slaughterhouse was assessed using the Abuko
abattoir operational model as the baseline. The baseline benefit-cost ratio results indicate that with a daily operational
(slaughtering) capacity of 50 cattle and 100 small ruminants and a slaughtering (and flaring) fee of 250 Dalasi per cow and
125 Dalasi per small ruminant, the state-of-the-art slaughterhouse will not be economically feasible. Different sensitivity
analyses (univariate, bivariate, and multivariate) were performed to determine the various condition under which the
slaughterhouse will be economically feasible.
The results of the univariate sensitivity analysis involving operational capacity targets are shown in Table 2. Results indicate
that the slaughterhouse will be economically feasible under two operational capacity conditions:
i. when ³ 200 cattle and 100 small ruminants are slaughtered daily at the prevailing slaughtering fees and
operational expenses.
ii. when ³ 250 small ruminants and 50 cattle are slaughtered daily at the prevailing slaughtering fees and
operational expenses.
Given that butchers slaughter one (cow and small ruminant) daily during non-festive occasions under the Abuko
operational model, the results suggest that the state-of-the-art halal slaughterhouse will be an economically feasible
venture when more than 200 cattle butchers and 100 small ruminant butchers patronize the slaughtering services that
will be provided by the slaughterhouse. Graphical representations of the results of the univariate sensitivity analyses are
presented in Appendix B.
Table 2: Operational capacity targets–univariate sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity Variable altered Value Average benefit-cost Decision
analysis ratio
Univariate– Increasing daily cattle 100 to 150 cattle <1 Not economically feasible
operational slaughtering rate only
targets Increasing daily cattle 200 cattle >1 Economically feasible
slaughtering rate only
Increasing daily small ruminant 150 to 200 small <1 Not economically feasible
slaughtering rate only ruminants
Increasing daily small ruminant 250 small >1 Economically feasible
slaughtering rate only ruminants
Results of the financial target univariate sensitivity analysis shown in Table 3 indicate that the slaughterhouse will be
economically feasible under the following conditions:
i. When the slaughtering fee for cattle increases to 650 Dalasi while holding all prevailing factors (operational
capacity and slaughtering fees for small ruminants) remain constant.
ii. When the slaughtering fee for small ruminants increases to 275 Dalasi while all prevailing factors (operational
capacity and slaughtering fees for cattle) remain constant.
Table 3: Financial targets–univariate sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity Variable altered Value Average benefit- Decision
analysis cost ratio
Univariate– Increasing the slaughtering fee for D 350–600 <1 Not economically feasible
financial targets cattle
Increasing the slaughtering fee for D 650 >1 Economically feasible
cattle
Increasing the slaughtering fee for D 125–225 <1 Not economically feasible
small ruminants only
Increasing the slaughtering fee for D 275 >1 Economically feasible
small ruminants only
Figure 13: Operational capacity targets for economic viability–Abuko abattoir operational model.
Economic feasibility of slaughterhouse.Benefit Cost Ratio
2
Dimensionless
0
Baseline daily slaughter 50 cattles & 100 small ruminants Daily slaughter 100 cattles & 200 small ruminants Daily slaughter 100 cattles & 250 small ruminants
The bivariate sensitivity analysis results targeting operational capacity (see Figure 13) indicate that the state-of-the-art
slaughterhouse will be economically viable when 100 cattle and 200 small ruminants are slaughtered daily. For the
financial targets, establishing the slaughterhouse will be an economically viable investment when the slaughtering fees for
cattle and small ruminants increase to 450 Dalasi and 225 Dalasi, respectively, as shown in Figure 14.
Figure 14: Financial targets for economic viability–Abuko abattoir operational model.
2
Dimensionless
0
Baseline slaughtering fee 300D/cattle & 125D/small ruminant Slaughtering fee 400D/ cattle & 225D/ small ruminant
Slaughtering fee 350D/cattle & 175D/small ruminant Slaughtering fee 450 D/cattle & 225 D/small ruminant
Figure 15 shows the results of the multivariate sensitivity analysis. Under the prevailing Abuko abattoir operational model,
the state-of-the-art halal slaughterhouse will be economically viable when the following operational capacity and financial
targets are met simultaneously:
i. increasing the daily slaughtering rate of cattle and small ruminants to 100 and 150, respectively,
ii. increasing the slaughtering fees to 350 Dalasi per cattle and 175 Dalasi per small ruminant.
Figure 15: Multivariate sensitivity analysis–Abuko abattoir operational model.

2
Dimensionless
0
Baseline Daily slaughter 50 cattles & 100 small ruminants Daily slaughter 50 cattles @350D each & 150 small ruminants @ 175D each
Daily slaughter 100 cattles @350D each & 150 small ruminants @ 175D each Daily slaughter 100 cattles @350D each & 100 small ruminants @ 175D each
3.5 Feasibility of a fully integrated operational

model
The economic feasibility of a fully integrated operational model was explored. Under this operational model, the
slaughterhouse can either provide slaughtering services and sell carcasses simultaneously or source, slaughter and sell
only carcasses. Figure 16 shows that the slaughterhouse will not be economically feasible when no slaughtering services
are offered and only carcasses are sold, even with a daily slaughtering rate of 1,000 cattle and 1,000 small ruminants at the
prevailing selling price.
Figure 16: Feasibility of no slaughtering services under a fully integrated operational model.
1
Dimensionless
0.5
0
Baseline daily slaughter - 50 cattle & 100 small ruminants No slaughtering service - 500 cattle & 500 small ruminants No slaughtering service - 1000 cattle & 1000 small ruminants
Figure 17 indicates that establishing the slaughterhouse will not be an economically viable venture under the prevailing
retail prices even when 500 cattle and 500 small ruminants are slaughtered and sold by the slaughterhouse in addition to
the slaughtering services rendered to butchers.
Figure 17: Feasibility of slaughtering services under a fully integrated operational model.

1
Dimensionless
0.5
0
Baseline Abuko operational model (no in-house sales) Slaughtering service + 20 cattles & 30 small ruminants Slaughtering service + 200 cattles & 200 small ruminants
Slaughtering service + 10 cattles & 20 small ruminants Slaughtering service + 50 cattles & 50 small ruminants Slaughtering service + 500 cattles & 500 small ruminants
Figure 18 shows the plausible conditions under which a fully integrated operational model will be economically feasible.
These conditions include:
i. slaughtering services offered under the Abuko operational model are still provided under the fully integrated
operational model,
ii. at least 50 cattle and 100 small ruminants are sourced, slaughtered, and their carcass is sold daily by the
slaughterhouse to complement the revenues received from slaughtering services (50 cattle and 100 small
ruminants daily),
iii. carcasses are sold by the slaughterhouse at 450 Dalasi per kg for cattle and 250 Dalasi per kg for small
ruminants. The selling prices for the carcasses represent a 50% and 100% increase in the prevailing retail price
for cattle and small ruminants, respectively.
Figure 18: Feasibility price threshold under a fully integrated operational model.
2
Dimensionless
0
Baseline Abuko operational model (no in-house sales) Slaughtering service - 50 cattles @450D & 100 small ruminants @250D
Slaughtering service -50 cattles @400 D & 100 small ruminants @ 200D
4: Exploring the export market

potential
4.1 Export market target

The Segmentation → Targeting → Positioning (S→T→P) process of market targeting (shown in Figure 19) was adopted to
identify the potential export market destinations for halal meat from the Gambia. The analysis was based on UN Comtrade
data on imports and exports of the meat of bovine animals (fresh/chilled and frozen) and bovine offal from 2016 to 2020. A
predetermined geographical-based segmentation was adopted in the S→T→P process, focusing on OIC countries in Africa and
the Middle East, due to geographic proximity and to promote trade within the group.
The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), with a membership size of 57 states from four continents, offers a platform
for trade with Islamic countries. The OIC is regarded as the second largest international organization after the UN (OIC 2022).
For this study, the OIC was segmented into three blocks using a regional economic block segmentation: the Middle East, North
Africa, and ECOWAS subregional blocs.
Figure 19: Proposed framework for determining potential halal export market.
Of the entire membership of the OIC, there are 19 MENA (the Middle East and North Africa) countries; six are North
African countries, including Egypt, Sudan, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, and Libya. The remaining 13 Middle Eastern
countries that are members of the OIC include Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi
Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and Turkey. The OIC countries in the Economic Community of West African
States (ECOWAS)4 regional bloc include Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, the Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali,
Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Togo.
For the market targeting procedure, the average of the annual import-to-export ratio (IER), expressed as the average of
the total imports divided by the total exports (from 2016 to 2020), was used as the threshold of inclusion. An IER of one
(1) means the total imports are equal to the total exports, an IER of zero (0) means there are no imports, and an IER greater
than 1 means imports exceed exports. Therefore, OIC member states with an average IER of zero (0) are not potential
target markets because the countries do not import meat. Countries with IER greater than zero (0) or no export are
highlighted as potential export markets for halal meat from the Gambia.
For the market positioning, the average percentage of beef imports from OIC countries (% OIC imports) is used to select
a potential export market for halal meat from the Gambia. The % OIC imports are the proportion of total imports from all
OIC countries. Therefore, a % OIC import of zero means no beef was imported from OIC countries in a particular year.
OIC countries with a high percentage of imports from other OIC countries are potential export markets because there is
evidence of; (i) a need for beef imports to supplement local production in those countries; and (ii) trade with other OIC
countries.
4.2 Competitive price setting analysis

This study adopted a competition-based pricing strategy to determine a competitive price for halal meat from the
Gambia. This pricing strategy uses competitors’ prices as the primary data source to compute the appropriate price
(Hinterhuber and Liozu 2012). The gross profit (estimated in equation 3) earned from locally produced, slaughtered,
and marketed meat is compared with the price differential (estimated in equation 4) for importing and retailing meat
locally. For the estimation of the price differential (Price Diff (dom),) it was assumed that imported beef could be sold at the
prevailing domestic purchase (retail) price. Thus, when the Price Diff (dom) is greater than the Gross profit, then it is more
economically viable to import and retail in-country.
Gross profit = Domestic price (per kg)–Cost of cattle (per kg) (3)
Price Diff (dom) = Domestic price (per kg)–Price imported beef (per kg) (4)
For the potential export markets, the unit price of beef that the potential export market paid to potential competitors
(i.e. attainable/ landed price) and the prevailing purchase price for the domestic market were the bases for determining
the allowable value addition cost (AVA cost). The allowable value addition cost (AVA cost) for halal beef was estimated
(see equation 5) as the difference between the attainable price (per kg) and the prevailing purchase price of beef in the
Gambia. AVA cost shows the cost threshold that needs to be met to ensure that the operation of a halal slaughterhouse
(targeting the export market) at least breaks even.
AVA cost = Attainable (landed) price(export) (per kg)–Domestic purchase price (per kg) (5)
4 This includes currently suspended members.

4.3 Potential export markets for Halal beef from

the Gambia
Table 4 summarizes the metrics for identifying the potential export market for halal beef from the Gambia. The mean
import-export ratio (IER) for 2016 to 2020 is used as the criterion for targeting the potential export market. From Table
4, four North African countries that are members of the OIC (i.e. Egypt, Morocco, Sudan, and Tunisia) have IER greater
than 0. Thus, these countries’ beef imports exceed their exports; Libya has no export. These countries could therefore be
potential export markets. The average percentage of total beef imports from OIC countries is used for market positioning.
Among the North African countries in the OIC, Egypt, Libya and Sudan are the potential export markets for halal beef in
North Africa (Table 4). However, halal beef from the Gambia to Egypt will be faced with possible competition from four
OIC countries–Sudan, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates, and Uganda (as shown in Figure 20)–along with their non-OIC
partners. For Libya, there is potential competition from Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates. When targeting Sudan as a
potential export market, there would be potential competition from the United Arab Emirates and Egypt.
Table 4: Summary statistics for identifying potential export market in North Africa
Metric Egypt Sudan5 Morocco Algeria Tunisia Libya

Mean IER 339.12 0.0029 174.02 0 1611.20 No export
No. of trading partners 38.00 24.00 19.00 12.00 16.00 16.00
OIC trading partners 3.00 (Sudan, 2.00 (UAE & 2.00 (Oman & 0 2.00 (Libya & 2.00 (Tunisia &
Pakistan, UAE) ¥ Egypt) ¥ Guinea) * Qatar) * UAE) ¥
Mean % of OIC imports 0.98 4.50 0 0 0 0.64
¥
Import from these OIC countries; * Export meat to these OIC countries Data: UN Comtrade. Mean values were calculated using data from 2016
to 2020.
Table 4 shows the estimated metrics used as criteria for determining the potential export market destination for halal
beef from the Gambia in the Middle East. Using the mean percentage of beef imports for OIC countries as the market
positioning criterion, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Oman are potential export
markets in the Middle East. Among them, only Yemen and Qatar do not export beef, thus, making them likely importers of
beef from the Gambia.
However, based on the number of OIC trading partners, the results show that the Gambia would have to compete with at
least two and 14 other countries when Yemen and Qatar are selected as potential export markets, respectively. Yet, unlike
Qatar, which has, in the past traded with other African countries like Somalia and Sudan, as shown in Table 5, Yemen has
no beef trading history with African OIC countries. Although the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is a big exporter of bovine
meat to other OIC countries, the UAE also imports from other OIC countries (including Senegal). Therefore, the UAE is a
potential target market with a lot of potential competition from other OIC countries.
Within the ECOWAS subregion, all countries have imported from at least one OIC country (Table 6), except Burkina
Faso, which has not imported beef from any OIC country between 2016 to 2020. Niger stands out as the most likely
potential export market because 50% of imported bovine meat into Niger from 2016 to 2020 is from three OIC countries
comprising Nigeria, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates. Senegal has imported, on average, 38% of bovine meat
from seven OIC countries, including only one African country, Egypt. Therefore, the halal beef from the Gambia will
face potential competition from these countries. Nigeria and Sierra Leone are also potential export destinations. Result
estimates from Nigeria present a peculiar case; there were no bovine meat imports into Nigeria from 2017 to 2019.
5
Sudan reporting data for only 2016–2018. No data were reported from 2019 to 2020. However, imports from Sudan to other OIC countries have been captured by the
trading partner.
However, in 2020, 98% of the total bovine meat imported into Nigeria was only from three OIC countries. The Sankey
diagrams showing the import flows into potential export markets are shown in Appendix C.
Figure 20: Beef imports into Egypt from 2016 to 2020.
Data: UN Comtrade
26
Table 5: Summary statistics for identifying potential export market in the Middle East
Metric Iran Jordan Kuwait Lebanon Oman Palestine Qatar Saudi Arabia Turkey UAE Yemen
Mean IER 4417.11 23.35 74.56 505.64 42.40 640.73 No export 29.41 15.65 16.91 No export
No. of beef 22 37 56 36 43 18 43 67 147 107 6

trading
partners
OIC trading 5 (Pakistan, 4(Sudan, 15(Kazakhstan, 7 (Kuwait, 12 1 (Tunisia) ¥ 14 (Lebanon, 16 (Pakistan, 2 (Iraq & 24(Azerbaijan, 2 (Saudi Arabia
partners UAE, Turkey, Saudi Lebanon, Qatar, Iraq, (Lebanon, Pakistan, UAE, Egypt, Bangladesh) Indonesia, & Oman) ¥
¥
Oman, Arabia, Saudi Arabia, Oman, UAE, Pakistan, Sudan, Bangladesh, Kazakhstan,
Kazakhstan) ¥ UAE, Sudan, Egypt, Indonesia, Somalia, Jordan, Niger, Lebanon,
Lebanon) ¥ UAE, Turkey, Nigeria) * Sudan, Kuwait, Suriname, Oman, Pakistan,
Kyrgyzstan, UAE, Egypt, Oman, Sudan, Jordan, Senegal, Sudan,
Syria, Jordan, Jordan, UAE, Egypt, Kuwait, Turkey, Turkey, Egypt,
Bahrain, Saudi Azerbaijan, Nigeria, Bangladesh,
Bangladesh, Arabia, Turkey, Bahrain, Saudi Jordan,
Iran, Indonesia) Turkey, Malaysia, Arabia, Iran, Kyrgyzstan,
¥
Bahrain, Saudi Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Saudi
Malaysia, Arabia, Indonesia, Arabia, Iran,
Qatar) ¥ Somalia, Lebanon) ¥ Kuwait, Bahrain,
¥
Tunisia) Malaysia,
Afghanistan,
Uganda,
Morocco,
Somalia, Tunisia) ¥
Mean % of OIC 0.98 0.02 22.93 0 17.46 0.03 23.10 9.89 0.06 19.32 30.73
imports
¥ Import from these OIC countries * Export beef to these OIC countries.
No data for Bahrain, Iraq, Syria
Data: UN Comtrade
Going local or global? An economic feasibility assessment of establishing a halal slaughterhouse in the Gambia
Table 6: Summary statistics for identifying potential export market in ECOWAS
Metric Benin Burkina Faso Côte d’Ivoire Guinea Mali Niger Nigeria Senegal Sierra Leone Togo
Mean IER 8.42 4.25 1559.08 No export 4.64 16.71 5.28 251.47 2762.45 8.42
No. of trading 11 6 62 24 18 5 11 45 17 11
partners
OIC trading 1(Togo) ¥ 1(Côte 11(Lebanon, 2 (Lebanon & 1 (UAE) ¥ 3(Nigeria, 3(Egypt, 7 (Iran, Turkey, 4(Lebanon, UAE, 1(Benin) ¥
partners d’Ivoire) * Tunisia, Egypt, Indonesia) ¥ UAE & Turkey, & Pakistan, UAE, Saudi Arabia,
Mali, UAE, Turkey) ¥ UAE) ¥ Egypt, Saudi Djibouti) ¥
Pakistan, Arabia, Indonesia) ¥
Morocco, Iran,
Saudi Arabia,
Burkina Faso,
Turkey) ¥
Mean % of OIC 3.96 0 0.07 1.96 7.77 50.58 21.10 38.35 13.56 3.96
imports
¥
Imports beef from these OIC countries * Exports beef to these OIC countries
No data on the Gambia and Guinea Bissau. Guinea’s data is for only 2016.
Data: UN Comtrade
27
4.4 Bovine meat type for the potential export

market
Having identified potential export market destinations in the previous section, this section delves deeper into the type of
meat that is exportable to these potential markets. Figures 21, 22, and 23 highlights the different types of bovine meat
that are imported by the potential export markets in North Africa, the Middle East, and the ECOWAS, respectively. For
the potential export markets in North Africa, results show that from 2016 to 2020, the most imported bovine meat type
into Egypt was the bovine offal (75.98%). For Libya, most of the meat imports (97.7%) are frozen. All the potential export
markets in the Middle East except Kuwait imports bovine meat in the frozen form more than the fresh or chilled form,
except Turkey. For all potential export markets in the Middle East, imported bovine offal represents less than 15% of total
meat imports. Yemen has the highest import of bovine offal (i.e. 14.41% of total meat import), and Oman has the least
import of bovine offal (i.e. 1.14% of total meat import).
The potential export markets within the ECOWAS have varied imported quantities in terms of bovine meat type. While
Niger and Senegal have imported balanced amounts of frozen, fresh, or chilled bovine meat and offal, most of the bovine
meat imports into Sierra Leone (92.34%) and Nigeria (92.34%) were in the frozen form. Interestingly, 98.6% of bovine
beef imported from OIC countries into Cote d’Ivoire between 2016 to 2020 was offal. Guinea is another potential export
market for offal.
Figure 21: Type of bovine meat imported from OIC into the Middle East (by weight).
Data: UN Comtrade.
Figure 22: Type of bovine meat imported from OIC into ECOWAS (by weight).
Data: UN Comtrade
Figure 23: Type of bovine meat imported from OIC into North Africa (by weight).
Data: UN Comtrade
4.5 Competitive price and allowable value

addition cost analyses
As a point of comparison for the exports, the current purchase prices for beef domestically (obtained from field surveys)
for steak ranged from D250 to 350/kg6 depending on the region from the survey. The upper limit price of D350 /kg (USD
6.70/kg) using the prevailing exchange rates) is used for the price differential analysis.
An analysis of the maximum, mean, and minimum prices of imported beef into the Gambia from 2016 to 2020 is
presented in Figure 24. Generally, imported beef prices have not been consistent throughout the period under review. In
2016 and 2017, frozen beef had the highest unit price of USD 0.99 per kg and USD 1.68 per kg, respectively. However, in
2019, fresh (chilled) beef was imported at the highest unit price of USD 0.99 per kg. In 2020, imported frozen meat had
the highest unit price of USD 0.95 per kg.
Figure 24: The minimum, mean, and maximum unit price for imported beef into the Gambia (2016 to 2020).
Data: UN Comtrade
The unit price of frozen beef imported from the leading trading partner (i.e. Poland in 2016) was the minimum unit price of
USD 1.54 per kg. The highest unit price for imported frozen beef between 2016 to 2020 (i.e. USD 1.68 per kg) was from
Saudi Arabia. Comparatively, beef imported into Gambia from the OIC countries is among the second and first highest
unit prices for frozen beef and offal from 2016 to 2020.
Using the current retail purchase price for beef (USD 6.70 per kg) as a reference price, the estimated price differential
between the unit imported meat price (average) from 2016 to 2020 and the domestic purchase (retail) price is presented
in Table 7. The price differential (excluding import cost) for imported meat is higher than the gross profit for locally
produced cattle (the imported meat price is the landed price and would exclude local transportation and marketing
6
Prices for steak at various locations across the Gambia are as follows: Farafenni = D 250/kg; Sare Bojo, Wasu, Basang= D 300/kg; Soma= D 325/kg; Brikama,
Serrekunda, Abuko = D 350/kg
costs). Thus, assuming imported beef fetches the same price as domestically produced beef, Table 7 shows that the
importation of meat seems more viable than procuring and processing locally. This indicates that local processing should
target a niche market that pays a premium for locally produced and fresh meat rather than the market for processed or
frozen meat.
Table 7: Price differential between the domestic purchase price and imported meat in the Gambiaa
Price differential for domestic Beef (fresh chilled) Beef (frozen) Bovine Offal
markets (2016 to 2020) (USD /kg) (USD /kg) (USD /kg)
Minimum unit price (import) 3.73 3.73 3.72
Average unit price (import) 3.08 2.92 2.76
Maximum unit price (import) 3.55 3.56 3.63
a
Excludes variable costs covering freight, handling, taxes, etc. The domestic unit price for beef (USD 3.86) is based on authors’ estimates and
other data from UN Comtrade. The price differential is estimated as the difference between the domestic purchase price and the import price.
4.6 Allowable value addition cost for the

potential export market
Estimation of the allowable value addition cost for the potential export market is restricted to the import prices for beef in
the identified potential export market. The estimated unit price for the potential export market7 in Figure 25 is compared
with the existing domestic purchase price (i.e. USD 6.70 per kg) to determine the competitive price and allowable value
addition cost for the halal beef from the Gambia. In North Africa, the analysis was performed for Egypt and Libya. Based
on the estimated allowable value addition cost shown in Table 8, it is evident that the halal beef from the Gambia can be
competitive when it is exported in the fresh or chilled form to Egypt.
For frozen beef, a competitive price will target the average and maximum unit price; exporting halal offal to Egypt will not
be economically viable. Halal beef from the Gambia will be competitive when it is exported to Libya in the frozen form at
the maximum unit price. However, the export of halal offal into Libya will not be an economically viable venture.
Figure 25: Unit price of beef imported into potential export markets in North Africa.
7
Based on the most recent price of imported meat in Egypt (2020 data) and Libya (2018 data)
Table 8: Allowable value addition cost for halal meat targeting a potential export market in North Africaa
Egypt (2020) Libya (2018)
Beef (fresh Beef Beef (fresh

Allowable value chilled) Unit (frozen) Bovine Offal, chilled) Unit Beef(frozen) Bovine Offal,
addition cost (AVA price (USD Unit price Aggregate price (USD / Unit price Aggregate
cost) /kg) (USD /kg) (USD /kg) kg)+ (USD /kg) (USD /kg)
Min unit price -1.98 -2.86 -5.86 N/A -3.64 -5.59
Max unit price 1.64 -1.61 -3.96 N/A -1.79 -5.18
Average unit price 0.83 -1.73 -5.03 N/A -3.34 -5.51
AVA cost in ‘red’ means the prevailing unit purchase price in the domestic market (i.e. without halal certification processes) is higher than the
unit price in the potential export market. AVA cost in ‘black’ means the unit purchase price in the domestic market (without halal certification
processes) is lower than the unit price in the potential export market.
+ Libya does not import fresh or chilled beef
Table 9: Allowable value addition cost for halal beef targeting the potential export market in the Middle East
Qatar Kuwait Yemen Oman
Beef
Allowable Beef Beef (fresh
value (fresh or Beef Bovine Bovine (fresh or Beef Bovine or Beef Bovine
addition chilled) (frozen) Offal, Beef (fresh Offal, chilled) (frozen) Offal, chilled) (frozen) Offal,
cost (AVA (USD / (USD / (USD / or chilled) Beef (frozen) (USD / (USD / (USD / (USD / (USD / (USD / (USD /
cost) kg) kg) kg) (USD /kg) (USD /kg) kg) kg) kg) kg) kg) kg) kg)
Minimum -4.36 -5.57 -5.8 -1.07 -4.39 -5.95 -5.2 -5.8 -5.7 -4.02 -6.57 -5.59
Maximum 129.85 135.6 12.02 93.93 11.81 11.81 -1.7 -5.6 -5.7 38.18 4.04 5.29
Average 9.49 8.98 -3.25 0.51 -4.99 -4.99 -4.69 -5.73 -5.7 -1.85 -3.96 -4.73
AVA cost in ‘red’ means the prevailing unit purchase price in the domestic market (i.e. without halal certification processes) is higher than the
unit price in the potential export market. AVA cost in ‘black’ means the unit purchase price in the domestic market (without halal certification
processes) is lower than the unit price in the potential export market.
The average unit price for beef imported into the potential export markets in the Middle East is shown in Figure 26. The
allowable value addition cost for the halal beef targeting potential export markets in the Middle East (in Table 9) was
estimated based on the minimum, mean, and maximum unit price of imported beef in the targeted markets. From Table
9, it is evident that halal beef (fresh, frozen, or offal) targeting Qatar will be an economically viable venture only when the
extra cost of value-addition activities ranges between the prevailing mean and maximum unit prices in Qatar.
For the Kuwaiti market, a minimum allowable value-added cost of less than USD 1.77 per kg can assure a competitive
price when the halal beef is sold in fresh or chilled form. For frozen beef, the competitive price range is between the mean
(USD 4.2 per kg) and the maximum (USD 18.19 per kg) unit price. Thus, the allowable value-added cost should be less
than USD 14.33 or USD 0.34 for the maximum and average unit price of imported frozen beef in Kuwait. The competitive
price band for offal targeting the Kuwait market is only at the maximum unit price (USD 18.51 per kg), which represents an
allowable value-added cost of USD 14.65. Yemen will only be a suitable export market when halal beef is sold in the fresh
or chilled form at the maximum unit price of USD 5 per kg (i.e. allowable value-added cost of USD 1.14).
Figure 26: Unit price of beef imported into potential export markets in the Middle East.
Figure 27: Unit price of beef imported into potential export markets in ECOWAS.
The estimated AVA cost for halal beef targeting the OIC countries in the ECOWAS subregion is shown in Table 7. The unit
prices offered to the potential competitors in the potential export markets in ECOWAS are presented in Figure 27. Results
show that Niger and Mali are potential export markets that offer the opportunity of an economically viable prospect when
frozen beef is exported from the Gambia. Halal frozen beef will be competitive even when the minimum unit price is
targeted in Niger and Mali, and the value-added cost does not exceed USD 0.51 for Mali and USD 17.50 for Niger. For
fresh beef, Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea, and Niger are export markets in the ECOWAS regional bloc that offer an economically
viable potential. Halal fresh beef priced from the minimum to maximum unit price of imported fresh beef in these export
markets will be competitive. Niger offers the highest allowable value addition cost at USD 9.97 for fresh beef, followed by
Cote d’Ivoire at USD 4.80 and Guinea at USD 0.84.
4.6.1 Sensitivity analyses

Three sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine the effect of changes in the unit price in potential export markets
and the domestic purchase price on the allowable value-added cost. Case 1 (Optimistic case) considers a 5% increase
in the unit price of beef in the potential export market with no change in the purchase price in the Gambia. Case 2
(Pessimisticdomestic case) is a pessimistic case that considers a 5% increase in the unit purchase price in the Gambia with no
change in the unit price of beef in the potential export market. Case 3 (Pessimisticexport case) considers a 5% decrease in
the unit price of beef in the potential export market with no change in the purchase price in the Gambia.
A ranking of the potential export markets that present the most economically viable prospect is determined based on
the estimated allowable value addition cost (AVAcost). In all cases, Qatar, Niger, and Cote d’Ivoire are the 1st, 2nd, and
3rd potential export markets that offer an economically viable prospect for fresh meat, respectively. For frozen meat,
Niger, Qatar, and Egypt are the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd potential export markets that present an economically viable prospect,
respectively, for all cases. For offal, Mali, Qatar, and Nigeria have the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd most economically viable prospects
in the baseline; yet only Mali offers an economically viable prospect for the remaining cases. Details of the estimated (AVA
cost
) for the sensitivity analyses are presented in Appendix D. The rankings of the most economically viable export market
for halal meat from the Gambia for the sensitivity analyses are presented in Tables 10 and 11.
Table 10: Allowable value addition cost for halal beef targeting the potential export market in ECOWAS
0 Benin (2020) Cote d’Ivoire (2020) Guinea (2016) Mali (2019) Niger (2020) Nigeria (2020) Senegal (2020) Sierra Leone (2018) Togo
0 MC8 MF9 BO10 MC MF BO MC MF BO MC MF BO MC MF BO MC MF BO MC MF BO MC MF BO MC MF BO

Min unit
price - -6.18 -6.6 -5.77 -5.75 -6.13 -2.23 -6.27 -6.14 -6.12 -2.6 3.92 -3.92 13.64 -5.99 -3.42 -5.26 -3.41 -6.01 -6.08 -6.06 0 -6.59 -6.19 0 -6.18 -6.6
Max unit
price - 6.68 -6.08 6.94 10.09 13.11 -2.23 -0.64 3.66 -2.25 -2.24 6.47 6.47 13.64 2.88 -3.42 -5.26 -3.41 1.60 17.6 0.52 0 -5.29 -5.83 0 6.68 -6.08
Average
unit price -6.03 -6.46 1.55 -3.82 -5.9 -2.23 -5.42 -5.9 -3.28 -2.25 6.47 6.47 13.64 -5.61 -3.42 -5.26 -3.41 -5.75 -5.05 -5.75 0 -6.02 -6.03 0 -6.03 -6.46
AVA cost in ‘red’ means the prevailing unit purchase price in the domestic market (i.e. without halal certification processes) is higher than the unit price in the potential export market. AVA cost in ‘black’ means the unit
purchase price in the domestic market (without halal certification processes) is lower than the unit price in the potential export market.
8
MC stands for beef (fresh chilled) (USD /kg)
9
MF stands for beef (frozen) (USD /kg)
10
35
BO stands for bovine offal (USD /kg)

Table 11: A ranking of the most economically viable export market–baseline and optimistic cases
Most Baseline (AVA cost) Optimistic (AVA cost): a 5% increase in the unit price
economically of meat type in a potential export destination, keeping
viable export domestic purchase price constant
destination
Fresh Frozen Offal Fresh Frozen Offal
1st Qatar Niger Mali Qatar Niger Mali
2nd Niger Qatar Qatar Niger Qatar Qatar*
3rd Cote d’Ivoire Egypt Nigeria Cote d’Ivoire Egypt Nigeria*
4th Egypt Kuwait Oman* Egypt Kuwait Oman*
5th Kuwait Mali Kuwait* Kuwait Mali Kuwait*
6th Oman Libya Egypt* Oman Libya* Egypt*
7th Guinea Cote d’Ivoire Libya* Guinea Cote d’Ivoire* Libya*
8th Mali Oman* Niger* Mali* Oman* Niger*
9th Nigeria Senegal* Yemen* Nigeria* Senegal* Yemen*
10th Yemen* Nigeria* Senegal* Yemen* Nigeria* Senegal*
11th Senegal* Guinea* Cote d’Ivoire* Senegal* Guinea* Cote d’Ivoire*
12th Libya +
Yemen* Guinea* Libya+ Yemen* Guinea*
13th Benin +
Sierra Leone* Sierra Leone* Benin+ Sierra Leone* Sierra Leone*
14th Sierra Leone+ Benin* Benin* Sierra Leone+ Benin* Benin*
15th Togo+ Togo Togo* Togo+ Togo* Togo*
* Negative AVA cost
+ not a suitable market because the targeted country does not import the meat type.
Table 12: A ranking of the most economically viable export market–pessimistic case
Most Pessimistic (export) (AVA cost): 5% decrease in the unit

economically price of meat type in a potential export destination,
viable export keeping domestic purchase price constant
destination
Fresh Frozen Offal
1st Qatar Niger Mali
2nd Niger Qatar Qatar*
3rd Cote d’Ivoire Egypt Nigeria*
4th Egypt Kuwait Oman*
5th Kuwait Mali Kuwait*
6th Oman Libya* Egypt*
7th Guinea Cote d’Ivoire* Libya*
8th Mali* Oman* Niger*
9th Nigeria* Senegal* Yemen*
10th Yemen* Nigeria* Senegal*
11th Senegal* Guinea* Cote d’Ivoire*
12th Libya +
Yemen* Guinea*
13th Benin +
Sierra Leone* Sierra Leone*
14th Sierra Leone +
Benin* Benin*
15th Togo +
Togo* Togo*
* Negative AVA cost

+ not a suitable market because the targeted country does not import the meat type.
5: Discussion
Limited market linkages and integration of value chain activities are highlighted as one of the constraints of the Gambia’s
livestock sector, and the establishment of a halal slaughterhouse is noted as one way of strengthening the country’s
livestock sector (Rich et al. 2020). The current beef value chain is short and generally undifferentiated. Where would the
locally produced halal beef go, to the domestic or export market? Are there opportunities for differentiation? Given that
the Gambia is a net importer of beef and cattle, a potential export strategy will have the drawback of further reducing the
domestic supply of beef. The relatively high domestic prices consumers pay for locally produced cattle, coupled with
the cheap meat imports, suggest that a strategy that targets imported and retails imported meat is economically viable.
However, it weakens the value chain by not promoting the local production of cattle. This section discusses opportunities
for differentiation and challenges related to scaling up the value chain, namely halal certification, differentiation based on
species, and production constraints.
5.1 Halal certification

Halal meat from an OIC country could be a distinguishing factor both in the domestic market and abroad. Halal means
‘permissible’ (Sherwani et al. 2018) and translates as keeping away from impure items and following Islamic principles
throughout the value chain processes (Jaafar et al. 2021), and can connote quality, food safety and hygiene and good
animal welfare throughout the value chain (Azam and Abdullah 2020). The halal market is growing rapidly, driven by
an increasing Muslim population globally and their disposable incomes (Azman and Abdullah, 2020; Fuseini et al.
2017; Sanneh and Kartika 2021). Although 95% of the population in the Gambia are Muslims, there is no systemic halal
certification with regulatory bodies and inspectors (Sanneh and Kartika 2021), and a state-of-the-art halal slaughterhouse
can help introduce this concept along the value chain and gain higher prices for the meat produced domestically and
abroad. Although beef prices are fixed at a local level, there is anecdotal evidence that some in the Greater Banjul Area
are paying a premium for meats from halal butchers (D 500/kg rather than D 350–400/kg), and this could serve as a
differentiator and a catalyst for premium prices on meat.
Abroad, Muslim-majority countries are the default target for halal meats, though minority Muslim populations living in
other countries could potentially represent an underserved market. There is significant halal food demand growth in OIC
countries and non-OIC countries, such as France, the UK and recently, Germany (Sanneh and Kartika 2021). Currently, the
global halal industry is dominated by Malaysia and Indonesia as producers (Sanneh and Kartika 2021). However, there is
a global lack of uniformity in halal certification, leading to some unethical behaviour (Fuseini et al. 2017). The OIC seeks to
standardize halal certification for its members to strengthen the standards and promote trade across OIC members.
One example of the lack of uniformity concerns stunning and non-stunning slaughterhouses. No label highlights the
slaughtering method used. Fuseini et al. (2017) offer three suggested categorizations of the slaughtering process:
(i) stunned pre-slaughter, (ii) post-cut stunned, and (iii) unstunned. This categorization can become a crucial market
separator and has undergone increasing scrutiny. For instance, although most Muslims prefer animals slaughtered without
stunning, stunning remains a standard practice in many places in Europe (Fuseini et al. 2017). Hence, by following the
halal meat processing sanctioned by the OIC, where animals should not be stunned, an exporter differentiation can occur,
and products could appeal to most OIC countries. Given the differences in the prescription for slaughtering animals in
halal (stunned versus not stunned) coupled with the OIC’s intention to provide a standardized halal procedure for its
members, the OIC market is worth exploring. However, despite being a Muslim-majority country and a member of OIC,
Gambia imports less than 2% of total imports from OIC countries, and the analysis of OIC countries’ imports also shows
many imports from non-OIC partners. Therefore, the findings suggest that the local consumer market is more driven by
competitive prices. This finding highlights the lower price of meat as a condition required for the economic viability of the
halal slaughterhouse.
Analysis of halal meat exports to other OIC countries suggests the need for product specificity tailored to meet the
demands of the potential export markets. For North African OIC countries, although exporting offal to Egypt would
be more strategic than exporting meat, the attainable price for offal in Egypt does not ensure economic viability. The
export of frozen halal meat to Libya would be a feasible strategy. The export of frozen halal meat into Libya would
be economically viable when the halal meat from the Gambia is pegged at the minimum prevailing unit price from
competitors like Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates. The presence of key competitors like Sudan, Pakistan, and the
United Arab Emirates in Egypt is one risk factor that needs to be critically examined. Given the proximity of Egypt to the
Middle East, these competitors would generally have lower transaction costs (e.g. freight costs). Therefore, a holistic
assessment of the return on investment, including all fixed and variable costs, will help to determine the price floor that
can be competitive.
For the potential export markets in the Middle East (i.e. Qatar and Kuwait), only meat (either frozen or fresh) would be
demanded. When the expected unit price in these potential export markets is considered, the results show that the
export of offal to these countries will not be economically viable. Therefore, a more plausible strategy will be to focus on
meeting the rising demand for offal in the domestic market. Also, the increasing preference for offal, which has the lowest
unit price (compared to frozen and fresh or chilled meat), reinforces the notion that consumers will result in cheaper
substitutes.
Nevertheless, given the current lack of halal certification in the Gambia, it may be difficult to take advantage of this market
abroad. In addition to the creation of standards, small businesses and small-scale producers especially require resources
and support to certify (Fuseini et al. 2017). Thus, a slaughterhouse engaged in halal production that explores the export
market ought to consider the economic feasibility of the venture before embarking on such investment prospects.
5.2 Other differentiation opportunities

In addition to halal certification, currently, beef produced in the Gambia is not differentiated by species or type. The
N’Dama species, which is dominant in the Gambia, is prized for its tenderness and smaller size; however, there is little
effort currently in differentiating the meats (Rich et al. 2020). An additional opportunity for differentiation can be made
here, especially in competition with beef providers worldwide who differentiate based on species, country of origin, and
cut. Currently, the beef value chain is short, and there is little cold storage across nodes (Rich et al. 2020). This may be an
additional impediment, especially if the meat is destined for export. The investment would be necessary not only in the
slaughterhouse itself but also along the value chain.
The slaughterhouse, by having cold rooms, can introduce further cold chains, with cold transport and refrigeration
possible in butcher shops. This preservation of the cold chain could allow for longer preservation periods for meat, along
with higher perceived hygiene by consumers (and with it the potential for price differentiation). If export were to be
considered at a large scale, hygiene and sanitation certification would also be necessary, and this could serve as a good
starting point.
The poultry industry can also be an example of the beef and goat meat industry. With domestic poultry production
hovering around 5% in the latest figures available (Rich et al. 2020), the domestic poultry market has taken steps to
differentiate itself from imports, with the domestic market willing to pay higher prices for domestically produced poultry
based on perceived quality.
5.3 Source of livestock and land constraints

Although domestic production can currently cover about 90% of fresh and frozen beef needs, it is estimated that 80–90%
of cattle and small ruminants come from neighbouring Senegal or further afield from Mali or Mauritania. As most cattle
graze, increased competition with other land uses and increased animal populations resulting in soil degradation would
mean feed would likely be necessary if animal stocks are to be increased within the Gambia (Rich et al. 2020). As of
now, grazing is generally not possible during the rainy season in the Gambia, as most land is used for crops, and cattle
generally go to neighbouring areas such as Casamance for the season. Additionally, most farmers in the Gambia sell their
cattle in times of financial need (Rich et al. 2020), which is not a production-focused system. A shift towards intensive
livestock farming would be necessary if the production of livestock domestically were to be increased significantly.
5.4 Clandestine slaughter

Another factor not considered is the slaughtering of animals outside of sanctioned slaughterhouses. If conditions at the
slaughterhouse were to improve and prices remain attractive, some slaughter that is taking place in unsanctioned facilities
may be encouraged to move to the state-of-the-art facility, further helping to increase the demand for the slaughterhouse
facilities. Butchers and individuals may also be willing to pay for these improved facilities.
6: Conclusions and recommendations
This study assessed existing conditions to support the establishment of a state-of-the-art halal slaughterhouse in the
Gambia for the domestic and export markets. Key conclusions from the post-farm gate system analysis are as follows:
(a) The current beef and small ruminant value chains are short, with slaughter occurring close to the consumption
site and there is a lack of refrigeration facilities. The condition of slaughter facilities varies across the country.
(b) Slaughter facilities act as service providers and do not engage in marketing activities. Butchers and
individuals bring animals to slaughter and leave them with carcasses.
(c) The beef pricing is determined in consultation with area councils, with differentiation between meat, bone,
and steak (meat only). The pricing of goats is not fixed. There is limited differentiation in price in the Greater
Banjul Area, with some value-added items such as minced meat and pricier imported meat available. Also,
there is anecdotal evidence about halal slaughter and price premiums.
(d) The greatest risks related to the implementation of a state-of-the-art halal slaughterhouse identified were
a lack of sufficient supply of animals due to (i) the unavailability of land, limiting production, (ii) animal
diseases, and (iii) droughts or floods affecting feed resources. This qualitative analysis was based on a simple
ranking of the perceived risks by stakeholders. Future studies can explore a quantitative risk assessment
to affirm the qualitative rankings. An extension of the SD model to capture the herd dynamics and market
dynamics and the potential feedback on the slaughterhouse operation can be useful for the quantitative risk
assessment.
Key conclusions from the slaughterhouse operations analysis were:
(a) Given the estimated costs of constructing and operating the new slaughterhouse, current prices and
volumes are insufficient to cover the construction costs.
(b) Currently, the facility sees volumes of 50 cattle and 100 small ruminants per day, with slaughtering fees of
D250 per cattle and D125 per small ruminant. This will not be profitable for the slaughter facility. Increasing
either to 200 cattle (and 100 small ruminants), or 250 small ruminants (and 50 cattle) will make it profitable.
Increasing the cattle slaughter fee to D650 or a small ruminant slaughter fee to D275 would also allow
it to be profitable. A combination increase would mean increasing the slaughter rate of cattle and small
ruminants to 100 and 150, respectively while increasing the slaughtering fees to D350 per cattle and D175
per small ruminant.
The key conclusions drawn from the domestic and export analysis are as follows:
(a) The potential export markets prefer different types of meat. Hence, there is a need for product specificity
tailored to meet the demands of the potential export markets.
(b) In North Africa, Egypt and Libya are potential export markets for fresh and frozen meat. For the Middle East,
Qatar and Kuwait are potential export markets for frozen meat, and Niger is the potential export market
within the ECOWAS subregion. However, exports to these potential export markets faced stiff competition
from other OIC countries with relatively higher meat production and well-established halal practices.
(c) The increasing demand for offal domestically, coupled with the comparatively low prices offered on
potential export markets, means that offal can be reserved for the domestic market.
(d) The adoption of an export pathway would help strengthen the livestock sector in the Gambia if portions of
the proceeds can be used to procure feed supplements to boost productivity at the farm level.
The key recommendations drawn from these conclusions are as follows:
(a) If Gambian meat can fetch higher prices in foreign markets, reinvestment of the profits can help bolster
domestic production. As cattle in the Gambia are mostly raised on an extensive feeding system, and the quality
of this rangeland decreasing over time, and starvation is common in cattle, especially nearing the end of the
dry season (Touray 2016), supplementing with feed may be a better choice to expand cattle production. The
slaughterhouse could, for example, prefinance part of the production cost by paying producers partially in
cattle feed, which could help maintain or improve cattle weight and milk production, especially in the dry
season. A recent report recommended a feed system improvement, in addition to disease control and genetic
improvement, to increase the animals’ productivity (Rich et al. 2020).
(b) Increasing wages, particularly in urban areas, could also indicate a potential expanding niche market for
premium-paying customers for meats coming out of the slaughterhouse. Differentiation can occur along the lines
of halal certification or the implementation of a cold chain. This, along with promoting the dominant breed of
cattle, N’Dama, could help differentiate Gambian cattle domestically and internationally.
(c) With this increased differentiation and price premium, further support can be provided to producers to facilitate
access to credit to change their practices to receive halal certification and improve hygiene practices.
References
Ahmad, A., Rahman, O. and Khan, M.N. 2016. Consumer’s perception of website service quality: An empirical study.
Journal of Internet Commerce 15(2): 125–141. DOI:10.1080/15332861.2016.1144442.
Azam, M.S.E. and Abdullah, M.A. 2020. Global halal industry: realities and opportunities. International Journal of Islamic
Business Ethics 5(1): 47–59.
Bahta, S. , Nigussie K., Loum, B., Gaye, F., Wanyoike, F., Omondi, I., Baltenweck, I., and Mamud, N. 2022a. The Gambia
livestock sector analysis. ILRI Project Report. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI.
Fortune Business Insight. 2021, December 1. Halal food and beverages market. Fortune Business Insights. https://www.
fortunebusinessinsights.com/halal-food-and-beverages-market-106186
Fuseini, A., Wotton, S.B., Knowles, T.G. and Hadley, P. J. 2017. Halal meat fraud and safety issues in the UK: a review in the
context of the European Union. Food Ethics1(2): 127–142.
Hinterhuber, A., and Liozu, S. 2012. Is it time to rethink your pricing strategy. MIT Sloan Management Review 53(4): 69–77.
Jaafar, H. S., Abd Aziz, M. L., Ahmad, M. R. and Faisol, N. 2021. Creating Innovation in Achieving Sustainability: Halal-
Friendly Sustainable Port. Sustainability 13(23): 13339.
OIC (Organisation of Islamic Cooperation). 2022. History. (Available from: https://www.oic-oci.org/page/?p_id=52&p_
ref=26&lan=en).
Rich, K.M., Bahta, S.T., Wane, A., Wanyoike, F.N. and Baltenweck, I. 2020. Initial assessment report of the Gambian
livestock sector: A report to the Small Ruminant Production Enhancement Project (SRPEP) by the International Livestock
Research Institute in support of the Gambia’s livestock master plan. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI.
Sanneh, K. and Kartika, B. 2021. An overview of the halal industry in the Gambia with Islamic perspective: Challenges and
opportunities. Studies 1(2): 17–28.
Spencer, W., Eckert, J. and Jakus, P. 1986. Estimating live-weight and carcass weight in Gambian N’Dama cattle. Mixed
Farming Project, Technical report no. 8, March 1986.
Touray, O. 2016. Review of the livestock/meat and milk value chains and policy influencing them in the Gambia. FAO and
the Economic Community of West African States.
UN Comtrade. 2022. Data. UN Comtrade. (Available from: https://comtrade.un.org/data).
Appendices
Appendix A: Breakdown of investment (capital) cost
Amount
Description of capital cost Quantity Unit cost (USD) Units Unit cost (D) (USD ) Amount (D)
Land (10,000 square metres is 4 2 500,000.00 1,000,000.00
times 25m *20m )
Building of slaughterhouse (1,000 1,000 19 USD per 19,000.00
square metres) square ft 950,000.00
Halal slaughterhouse Line Bovine 1 88,500.00 USD per set 88,500.00 4,425,000.00
abattoir with beef meat Process of machine
cut butcher equipment
Borehole drilling 1 668,028.00 668,028.00
Office chair with mesh back 3 70.00 210.00 10,500.00
Bookshelf 3 tier with compartment 3 110.00 330.00 16,500.00

Computer desk executive 3 200.00 600.00
keyboard tray 30,000.00
Chair visitor shed base 6 70.00 420.00 21,000.00
Computers and printers 3 760.00 2,280.00 114,000.00

(HP I7 Notebook (12/512SSD)
14-DQ4045CL 11TH GEN)
Total 7,235,028.00
Exchange rate used is USD 1= D 50

Appendix B: Results of the univariate analysis

2
Dimensionless
0
1 1826 3651 5475 7300
Days
Baseline Daily salughter 50 cattle & 100 Small ruminants
Daily slaughter 100 cattle & 100 small ruminants

2
Dimensionless
0
1 1826 3651 5475 7300
Days
Baseline Daily salughter 50 cattle & 100 Small ruminants

2
Dimensionless
0
1 1826 3651 5475 7300
Days
Baseline slaughtering fee 300 Dalasi cattle & 125 Dalasi Small ruminants
Slaughtering fee 350 Dalasi cattle & 125 Dalasi small ruminants

2
Dimensionless
0
1 1826 3651 5475 7300
Days
Baseline -slaughtering fee for cattle @ 300 Dalasi & SR @125 Dalasi
Slaughtering fee for small ruminants @175 Dalasi
Slaughtering fee for small ruminants @ 225 Dalasi
Appendix C: Import flows into potential export markets in the

Middle East and ECOWAS
Appendix D: Estimated AVA cost for the cases examined for the
sensitivity analyses
I L R I R E S E A R C H R E P O RT
ISBN: 92–9146–758–8
An economic feasibility
assessment of establishing
The International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) works to improve food and nutritional security and
reduce poverty in developing countries through research for efficient, safe and sustainable use of livestock.
a halal slaughterhouse
Co-hosted by Kenya and Ethiopia, it has regional or country offices and projects in East, South and
Southeast Asia as well as Central, East, Southern and West Africa. ilri.org in the Gambia
CGIAR is a global agricultural research partnership for a food-secure future. Its research is carried out
112
by 15 research centres in collaboration with hundreds of partner organizations. cgiar.org
View publication stats

Economic Feasibility Assessment of Establishing A Halal Slaughterhouse

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Economic Feasibility Assessment of Establishing A Halal Slaughterhouse

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Going local or global? An economic feasibility assessment of establishing a

Technical Report · December 2022

Joshua Aboah Sirak Bahta

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Joshua Aboah, Derek Chan and Sirak Bahta

International Livestock Research Institute

Patron: Professor Peter C. Doherty A. C, FAA, FRS

2: Status quo analysis of post-farm

2.1 Current domestic market analysis

(Data: FAOSTAT, UN Comtrade).

(Data: FAOSTAT, UN Comtrade).

1.08 0.13 0.63

Poland USA Netherlands France Ukraine

Figure 5: Meat imports into the Gambia from 2016 to 2020.

2.2 Post-farm gate systems

2.2.1 Value chain analysis

Figure 6: Cattle and small ruminant production value chain.

(Adapted from Rich et al. 2020).

2.2.2 Livestock production and purchase

2.2.3 Slaughter slab, slaughterhouse and abattoir operations, and

2.3 Slaughterhouse risk assessment

3: Economic feasibility of a state-of-

Farafenni North Bank Region x x x

3.1 Slaughterhouse operation module

3.2 Economic feasibility module

IF (Time_to_start_operation<366) THEN 0 ELSE 1 ………………………………… (1)

BCR = Rt/Ct ………………………………. (2)

Figure 9: The revenue and profitability sector.

Figure 10: The cost sector.

3.3 Model validation

Slaughterhouse operations.Slaughtered Cattle Economic feasibility of slaughterhouse.Total slaughtering fees

Slaughterhouse operations.Slaughtered Cattle Economic feasibility of slaughterhouse.Total slaughtering fees

3.4 Feasibility of the Abuko abattoir operational

Table 2: Operational capacity targets–univariate sensitivity analysis

Table 3: Financial targets–univariate sensitivity analysis

Figure 15: Multivariate sensitivity analysis–Abuko abattoir operational model.

3.5 Feasibility of a fully integrated operational

Economic feasibility of slaughterhouse.Benefit Cost Ratio

4: Exploring the export market

4.1 Export market target

4.2 Competitive price setting analysis

4 This includes currently suspended members.

4.3 Potential export markets for Halal beef from

Metric Egypt Sudan5 Morocco Algeria Tunisia Libya

No. of beef 22 37 56 36 43 18 43 67 147 107 6

4.4 Bovine meat type for the potential export

4.5 Competitive price and allowable value

4.6 Allowable value addition cost for the

Egypt (2020) Libya (2018)

Beef (fresh Beef Beef (fresh

Qatar Kuwait Yemen Oman

4.6.1 Sensitivity analyses

0 MC8 MF9 BO10 MC MF BO MC MF BO MC MF BO MC MF BO MC MF BO MC MF BO MC MF BO MC MF BO

BO stands for bovine offal (USD /kg)

Most Pessimistic (export) (AVA cost): 5% decrease in the unit

* Negative AVA cost

5.1 Halal certification

5.2 Other differentiation opportunities

5.3 Source of livestock and land constraints

5.4 Clandestine slaughter

6: Conclusions and recommendations