Category Archives: Economic Project Material With Abstract

Economic Project Material With Abstract

THE IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT ON NIGERIA ECONOMIC GROWTH (1980-2010)

THE IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT ON NIGERIA ECONOMIC GROWTH (1980-2010)

 

Download our android mobile app for more materials

ORDER NOW

COMPLETE MATERIAL  COST  N2,500 Or $10.  FRESH  PROJECT MATERIAL  COST 50,000 NAIRA FOR UNDERGRADUATE, OTHERS 100,000 -200,000 NAIRA.

MAKE YOUR PAYMENT  INTO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING BANKS:
 GTBANK
Account Name : Host Link Global Services Ltd
ACCOUNT NUMBER: 0138924237
First Bank:
Account Name: Chi E-Concept Int’l
Account Name: 3059320631

Foreign Transaction For Dollars Payment :
Bank Name: GTBank
Branch Location: Enugu State,Nigeria.
Account Name: Chi E-Concept Int’l
 Account Number:  0117780667. 
Swift Code: GTBINGLA 
Dollar conversion rate for Naira is 175 per dollar. 

ATM CARD:  YOU CAN ALSO MAKE PAYMENT USING YOUR ATM CARD OR ONLINE TRANSFER. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR BANK SECURITY FOR GUIDE ON HOW TO TRANSFER MONEY TO OTHER BANKS USING YOUR ATM CARD. ATM CARD OR ONLINE BANK TRANSFER IS FASTER FOR QUICK DELIVERY TO YOUR EMAIL . OUR MARKETER WILL RESPOND TO YOU ANY TIME OF THE DAY. WE SUPPORT CBN CASHLESS SOCIETY. 

OR
PAY ONLINE USING YOUR ATM CARD. IT IS SECURED AND RELIABLE.

Enter Amount

form>DELIVERY PERIOD FOR BANK PAYMENT IS  LESS THAN 24 HOURS

CALL OUR  CUSTOMERS CARE  OKEKE CHIDI C ON :  08074466939,08063386834.

AFTER PAYMENT SEND YOUR PAYMENT DETAILS TO

08074466939 or 08063386834, YOUR PROJECT TITLE  YOU WANT US TO SEND TO YOU, AMOUNT PAID, DEPOSITOR NAME, UR EMAIL ADDRESS,PAYMENT DATE. YOU WILL RECEIVE YOUR MATERIAL IN LESS THAN 2 HOURS ONCE WILL CONFIRM YOUR PAYMENT.

WE HAVE SECURITY IN OUR BUSINESS.   

MONEY BACK GUARANTEE

 

ABSTRACT In recent decades, the main and potential contribution of agriculture to economic growth has been a subject of much controversy among development economists. As some contend that agricultural development is a pre-condition for industrialization, others strongly object it and argue for a different path. Taking advantage of ordinary least square method (OLS), the research carried out by means of secondary data and using the independent variables. Agricultural Development (AGD), Capital Formation (CFN) Inflation Rate (INF), and Interest Rate (INT) to re-examine the question of whether agriculture could serve as an engine of Economic growth in Nigeria. The result gotten from the empirical analysis shows that the productivity in agricultural sector has appreciably impacted positively on the economic growth in Nigeria.
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Title Page ………………………………………….. i Certification ……………………………………….. ii Dedication……………………………………………. iii Acknowledgements…………………………………… iv Abstract………………………………………………… vi Table of Contents…………………………………….. vii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background of the Study…………………….. 1 1.2 Statement of the Problem……………………… 6 1.3 Objectives of the Study………………………… 11 1.4 Statement of Hypothesis………………………. 11 1.5 Significance of the Study………………… ….. 11 1.6 Scope and Limitation………………………….. 13 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Theoretical Literature………………………….. 14 2.1.1 Agricultural Linkages and Economic Growth and Development…………………….. 18 2.1.2 Problems Associated with Agricultural Development……………………… 19 2.1.3 Impact of Food Importation………………….. 22 2.2. Empirical Literature……………………………. 24 2.2.1 Agriculture and Poverty Reduction……… 25
8
2.2.2 Agriculture and Nutrition…………………… 26 2.2.3 Limitation of Previous Studies…………….. 31 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH AND METHODOLOGY 3.1 Area of Study and Coverage……………….. 33 3.2 Model Specification ………………………….. 34 3.3 Data Sources …………………………………. 36 3.4 Method of Evaluation ………………………… 36 CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS 4.1 Presentation of Result ……………………… 40 4.1.1 Analysis of Results Based on Economic criteria …………………………… 41 4.1.2 Summary of the Aprior Signs…………….. 42 4.2 Analysis Based on Statistical Criteria (1st Order Test) ……………………… 42 4.2.1 Coefficient of multiple determinations (R2) 42 4.2.2 Test of Significance of the Parameter (t-test) 43 4.2.3 The f-statistics test…………………………….. 45 4.3 Econometrics Test or (2nd Order Test)…….. 46 4.3.1 Test for Autocorrelation ……………..……… 46
4.3.2 Heteroskedasticity Test…………………… 47
9
4.3.3 Normality Test……………………………… 48 4.3.4 Multi-Collinearity Test …………………… 49 CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION 5.1 Summary …………………………………. 50 5.2 Policy Recommendation………………… 50 5.3 Conclusion ……………………………… 53 Bibliography……………………………… 54 Appendix

 

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study Agriculture is the foundation and bedrock upon which the development of stable human community has depended on throughout the whole universe such as rural and urban communities. It is concerned with the husbandry of crops and animals for food and other purpose. The study of the history of economics provides us with ample evidence that can agricultural revolution is a fundamental pre-condition for economic development. The agricultural sector has the potentials to be the industrial and economic springboard from which a country’s development can take off. Indeed, more often than not, agricultural activities are usually concentrated in the less developed rural areas where there is a need for rural transformation, redistribution, poverty alleviation and socio-economic development.
12
The agricultural sector has the potentials to shape the landscape, provide environmental benefits such as conservation, guarantee sustainable management of renewable natural resources, preserve biodiversity and contribute to the viability of rural areas development. Through its spheres of activities at both the macro and micro levels, the agricultural sector is strategically positioned to have a high multiplies and linkage effect on any nation’s quest for socio-economic and industrial development. The growth of the agricultural sector in Nigeria was not smooth. Anyanwu (1967) held that during the colonial period between 1861 to 1960, attention was given to agricultural research and extension services. Among the activities that were done was the establishment of a research station in Lagos by Sir Claude Mc.Donald in 1893: Landmark of 10.4 km was acquired by the British Cotton Growing Association (BCGA) in 1899 for experimental purpose strictly for cotton and was named “Moor Plantation” in Ibadan. In 1912, the Department of
13
Agriculture was established in each of the then southern and Northern Nigeria, but the activities of the department were virtually suspended between 1912 and 1921 as a result of the First World War and its aftermath. The period between 1929 and 1945 was a difficult one for the agricultural sector of Nigeria. This was the period of great depression when the world princes on commodities fluctuated. This affected the agricultural sector negatively because the volume of agricultural product increased but the value did not increase proportionally.
The period 1945 to 1945 marked the period of expert boom, because counties were just recovering from the Second World War and these countries needed to develop. They depended on primary production for the beginning stage of industrialization. They needed to revitalize their industrial sector by demanding primary goods. Prices of primary products rose higher again because there were speculations that there would be a third world war due to the outbreak of the Korean War. However, after this
14
period, there came another period of price instability. This made the reliance on agriculture and its products to fall, leading to the establishment of a market board. This board bought these products from the local farmers and sold them overseas.
In spite of all the period, Nigeria made great revenue from agriculture. In the pre-independence era, the agricultural sector contributed most to the GDP of Nigeria. Helleiner (1966) said that in 1929, export production amounted to 57% of Nigeria’s revenue of which agriculture contributed about 80% of the export. On attainment of political independence in 1960, the trend was still very much the same, the Nigeria economy could reasonably be described as an agricultural economy, because agriculture served as the engine of growth of the overall economy (Ogen 2003). According to Alkali (1997) Nigeria was the world’s second largest producer of cocoa, largest exporter of palm oil during the period. And was also a leading exporter of other major commodities such as cotton,
15
groundnut, rubber and hides and skins. Between 1964 and 1965, agricultural output accounted for 55% of GDP and employed 70% of the adult workforce (Matton, 1981). In 1970, agricultural export crops like cocoa, groundnut, cotton, rubber, palm oil, palm kernel, etc. accounted for an average of between 65% and 75% of Nigerian foreign exchange earnings and provided the most important source of revenue for the federal as well as state government through expert products and sale taxes (Ekund are 1973). Despite the reliance of Nigerian peasant farmers on traditional tools and indigenous farming methods, these farmers produced 705 of Nigerian’s exports and 95% of its food needs (Lawal, 1997).
However, the 1967 to 1970 civil war in Nigeria coincided with the oil boom era, which resulted in extensive exploration and exportation of petroleum and its strong agriculture in favour of an unhealthy dependence on oil (United States Department of state, 2005). Ever since then, Nigeria has been witnessing extreme poverty
16
and insufficiency of basic food items. The agricultural sector contributions now accounts for less then 5% of Nigeria’s GDP (Olagbaju and Fashola, 1996). It is against this backdrop that we set out to research on the impact of agricultural development on Nigeria economic growth. As noted earlier, the neglect of the agricultural sector and the dependence of Nigeria on a mono-cultural crude oil based economy had not augured well for the well-being of the Nigerian economy. It becomes therefore imperative to study the impact of agricultural development on the Nigeria economic growth. 1.2 Statement of Problem The agricultural sector has suffered from years of poor management, inconsistent and poorly implemented government policies, government neglect and lack of basic infrastructure. Agriculture accounted for 30% of the GDP in 2010 (World Factbook, January 9, 2012).
Nigeria is no longer a major exporter of cocoa, groundnut, rubber and palm products. Coca production

FARMERS’ PERCEPTION OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EXTENSION SERVICES IN SOUTH WESTERN NIGERIA

FARMERS’ PERCEPTION OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EXTENSION SERVICES IN SOUTH WESTERN NIGERIA

Download our android mobile app for more materials

ORDER NOW

COMPLETE MATERIAL  COST  N2,500 Or $10.  FRESH  PROJECT MATERIAL  COST 50,000 NAIRA FOR UNDERGRADUATE, OTHERS 100,000 -200,000 NAIRA.

MAKE YOUR PAYMENT  INTO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING BANKS:
 GTBANK
Account Name : Host Link Global Services Ltd
ACCOUNT NUMBER: 0138924237
First Bank:
Account Name: Chi E-Concept Int’l
Account Name: 3059320631

Foreign Transaction For Dollars Payment :
Bank Name: GTBank
Branch Location: Enugu State,Nigeria.
Account Name: Chi E-Concept Int’l
 Account Number:  0117780667. 
Swift Code: GTBINGLA 
Dollar conversion rate for Naira is 175 per dollar. 

ATM CARD:  YOU CAN ALSO MAKE PAYMENT USING YOUR ATM CARD OR ONLINE TRANSFER. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR BANK SECURITY FOR GUIDE ON HOW TO TRANSFER MONEY TO OTHER BANKS USING YOUR ATM CARD. ATM CARD OR ONLINE BANK TRANSFER IS FASTER FOR QUICK DELIVERY TO YOUR EMAIL . OUR MARKETER WILL RESPOND TO YOU ANY TIME OF THE DAY. WE SUPPORT CBN CASHLESS SOCIETY. 

OR
PAY ONLINE USING YOUR ATM CARD. IT IS SECURED AND RELIABLE.

Enter Amount

form>DELIVERY PERIOD FOR BANK PAYMENT IS  LESS THAN 24 HOURS

CALL OUR  CUSTOMERS CARE  OKEKE CHIDI C ON :  08074466939,08063386834.

AFTER PAYMENT SEND YOUR PAYMENT DETAILS TO

08074466939 or 08063386834, YOUR PROJECT TITLE  YOU WANT US TO SEND TO YOU, AMOUNT PAID, DEPOSITOR NAME, UR EMAIL ADDRESS,PAYMENT DATE. YOU WILL RECEIVE YOUR MATERIAL IN LESS THAN 2 HOURS ONCE WILL CONFIRM YOUR PAYMENT.

WE HAVE SECURITY IN OUR BUSINESS.   

MONEY BACK GUARANTEE

 

 

ABSTRACT

 

The delivery of Agricultural Extension Services vis-à-vis their effectiveness has been of great concern in Nigeria. This study was therefore designed to analyze and compare both the public and private extension organizations with a view to highlighting their performances. The study identified the relationships between personal and demographic characteristics of beneficiaries of both the public and selected private extension organizations on their perception of extension as well as benefits derived from these organizations.

 

A three stage sampling technique was used for the study. The first stage was the random selection of three states namely: Ogun, Osun and Oyo

 

States from the six states in South Western Nigeria. The second stage was a random sampling of three extension organizations comprising of two private extension outfits namely Justice Development and Peace Movement Rural

 

Development Programme (JDPM –RUDEP) and Farmers’ Development

Union (FADU) out of the four existing private extension outfits in the region and public extension outfit in each of the sampled state. The third stage was a random selection of 30 respondents in each of the three selected organizations in the three states. A total of 270 respondents were sampled for the study. Data collected were analyzed with Spearman’s rank correlation analysis to establish the relationships between farmers’ selected personal characteristics and their attitude as well as benefits derived from the organizations. Kruskal Wallis test of difference was used to examine the degree of difference in benefit and attitude of respondents to extension programmes of public and private extension organizations.

Results indicated that in public extension, age was related to benefit (r=0.254, p<0.05) and attitude (r=0.180, p<0.10) of the beneficiaries. Significant relationship (r=0.279, p<0.10) was indicated between attitude and benefits derived by respondents. In JDPM-RUDEP, result showed that age

 

(r=0.254, p<0.05) was significantly related to attitude of beneficiaries towards the extension programmes of the organization. Also, in FADU organization, age (r=0.254, P<0.05) was significantly related to attitude while there is significant relationship (r=0.290, p<0.10) between attitude and benefit in the organization. Results of Kruskal Wallis test of difference ( 2 =0.709) indicates no significant different between farmers’ attitude towards the extension programmes of public and private extension organizations. However, there was a significant difference ( 2=12.074) in the benefit

 

derived by the respondents which include increased quantity of crops produced, farm income, skill acquisition and improved education in public and private extension organizations. Based on these results, it could be

 

 

 

 

3

 

inferred that age of respondents relate to benefits derived and attitude to extension programmes in public extension organization. In (JDPM-RUDEP), age and marital status were related to beneficiaries’ attitude to the extension programme. Strong relationship also exists between attitude and benefit in

 

FADU organization. Beneficiaries of private extension organizations (JDPM-RUDEP and FADU) achieved more levels of benefit from their extension programmes than in public extension organization.

 

The study had clearly shown that public extension services were deficient in their performances which have therefore led to private extension organizations’ involvement in extension services in order to disseminate their research findings and benefits to the rural people. Synthesis of public and private sectors efforts is therefore recommended in Nigeria. This is because government cannot completely hand-off her responsibilities in extension provision due to limited scope of coverage by private organizations especially in South Western Nigeria.

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study 1-3
1.2 Statement of the Problem 3-7
1.3 Objectives of the Study 8-9
1.4 Hypotheses of the Study 9-10
1.5 Significance of the Study 10-11
1.6 Limitation of the Study 11
1.7 Definition of Terms 11-15
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction 16
2.1 Concept of Agricultural Extension 16-22
2.2 Evolution of Extension Provision 22

 

 

 

10

 

2.3  History and Development of extension in Nigeria 22-35

 

  • The Unified Agricultural Extension services (UAES)

 

in Nigeria 35-36
2.5 Public sector Extension Delivery 36
2.6.1 Criticism of the Public Extension 37-8
2.5.2 Private Organization in Extension Provision 38-42

 

  • Extension Roles Agricultural Development

 

and Farm Business Management 42-53
2.7 The concept of participation 54-55
2.8 The Concept of Attitude 55-58
2.9 The concept of Achievement 58-61
2.10 Hybrid Sector – Alliance between Public and
Private Sector 61-71
THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
2.11 Theory of Community Development 72
2.12 Theory of Farmers’ Participation 72-74
2.13 System Theory 75
2.14 Diffusion of Innovation 76-77
2.15 Synthesis of Theory 78
2.16 Conceptual Explanation of Extension Delivery 78-84
2.17 Conceptual framework for the study 85
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Area of Study 86
3.1.1 Geographical Location 86

 

 

 

11

 

3.1.2 Climate and Vegetation 87
3.1.3 People and Occupation 87
3.2 Population of the Study 88
3.3 Sampling Procedure 89
3.4 Development of Instrument 90
3.5 Validity and Reliability of Research Instrument 91
3.5.1 Validity Test 91
3.5.2 Reliability Test 92
3.6 Measurement of Variables 93
3.6.1 Independent variables 93
3.6.2 Dependent Variable 97
3.7 Data Analysis 98

 

 

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

 

4.1  Introduction 102

 

  • Personal and Demographic Characteristics of

 

Farmers 102
4.2.1 Age of Respondents 103
4.2.2 Gender of Respondents 104
4.2.3 Marital Status of Respondents 105
4.2.4 Religion of Respondents 106
4.2.5 Level of Education 107
4.2.6 Cosmo politeness of the respondents 108
4.2.7 Sources of Agricultural Information 109

 

 

 

12

 

4.2.8 Farming Experience of the farmer 110
4.2.9 Size of Farm Holdings 113
4.2.10 Land Ownership Pattern 113
4.2.11 Farming System 114
4.3 Beneficiaries Participation in Extension Works 115
4.4 Reason for choice of organization s’ programme 117
4.5 Frequency of Extension Agent/Farmers Contacts 119
4.6 Performance Rating of Extension Personnel 120
4.7 Beneficiaries Attitude to the Extension Strategies 122
4.8 Achievement of Beneficiaries 125
4.9 Testing of Hypotheses 130
4.9.1 Hypothesis One 130
4.9.2 Hypothesis Two 135
4.9.3 Hypothesis Three 138
4.9.4 Hypothesis Four 141
4.9.5 Hypothesis Five 143
4.9.6 Hypothesis Six 144
4.9.7 Hypothesis Seven 145
CHAPTER   FIVE: SUMMARY,   CONCLUSION   AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary 148
5.2 Summary of Major Findings 151

 

  • Personal/Demographic Characteristics 151

 

5.2.2             Socio-economics characteristics                 152

 

 

 

13

 

5.2.3 Tested Hypotheses 155
5.3 Conclusions 156
5.4 Recommendations 158
5.5 Suggestions for further studies 159

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES

 

APPENDICES

 

  • Questionnaire

 

  • Emergence of Hybrid Sector

 

  • Authors Conceptual Framework

 

  • Organizations Frame of Operation

 

  • Correlation matrices

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14

 

LIST OF TABLES

 

Pages

 

Table 1                    Distribution J.D.P.M. – RUDEP

 

Beneficiaries

 

84

 

Table 2                    FADU Beneficiaries

 

85

 

Table 3                    Public Extension Benefit

 

85

 

Table 4                    Total sample size of Beneficiaries

 

According to the Organizations

 

in the three states of study

 

97

 

Table 5                    Distribution of beneficiaries

 

responded (Questionnaire returned)

 

98

 

Table 6                    Personal Characteristics (age, marital

 

status, Religion and family size and

 

Gender)

 

102

 

Table 6b                  Distribution of respondents by level

 

of Education, and Cosmopoliteness

 

Table 7                    Distribution of respondents by sources

 

of Agricultural Information, Years of

 

 

 

15

 

Family Experience and size of Farm

 

Holding

 

107

 

Table 8                    Distribution of respondents by pattern of

 

land acquisition and types of farming

 

system

 

109

 

Table 9                    Distribution of respondents’

 

participation Level

 

111

 

Table 10                  Distribution of respondents by reason

 

for choice of extension organization

 

113

 

Table 11                  Distribution of respondents by frequency

 

of extension agents/farmers contacts

 

116

 

Table 12                  Performance rating of Extension agents

 

117

 

Table 13                  Summary of Performance rating of

 

Extension Agents

 

117

 

Table 14                  Distribution of Respondents Based on

 

attitude to extension programmes

 

119

 

 

 

16

 

Table 15                  Distribution of respondents based

 

on achievement from organizations’

 

extension programme

 

122

 

Table 16                  Distribution of respondents

 

based on benefit/achievement category

 

123

 

Table 17                  Correlation matrix of relationship

 

between benefit and selected

 

personal  characteristic  in  public  extension

 

126

 

Table 18                  Correlation matrix of relationship

 

between benefit and selected

 

personal characteristic in JDPM-RUDEP

 

127

 

Table 19                  Correlation matrix of relationship

 

Between Personal characteristics and

 

benefit in FADU

 

128

 

Table 20                  Correlation matrix of relationship

 

between attitude and selected

 

personal characteristics in Public

 

130

 

Table 21                  Correlation matrix of relationship

 

 

 

17

 

between attitude and selected

 

personal                                                          characteristics   in   JDPM-RUDEP

 

 

131

 

Table 22                  Correlation matrix of relationship

 

between attitude and selected

 

personal characteristics in FADU

 

133

 

Table 23                  Krustal Wallis Ranking of beneficiaries

 

Attitude under public and private

 

extension organization

 

134

 

Table 24                  Krustal Wallis Ranking of beneficiaries

 

benefit under public and private

 

extension organizations

 

136

 

Table 25                  Summary of correlation between

 

attitude and benefit in public

 

and private organizations

 

138

 

Table 26                  Summary of correlation between attitude

 

and patronage of extension activities

 

in public and private organizations

 

141

 

 

 

 

 

 

18

 

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURES PAGE
1. Farinde’s Nodal Extension Delivery Model 74
2. Conseptual Framework for the study 80
  1. Map showing study location in South Western

 

Nigeria 81

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19

 

CHAPTER ONE

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

 

 

  • BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

 

The role of the public in agricultural extension is currently undergoing a process of change, renewal, and experimentation. It poses not capable to attend the entire demand for extension services by the world’s farmers. In the past, public sector extension was severely attacked for not being relevant, insufficient impact, ineffective, and sometimes, not pursuing programmes that foster equity (Williams and Qamar, 2003). A critical turning point occurred that affected the way information transfers, considered the purview of public sector Agricultural Extension, was conceived and practiced. Not only did the Public Extension System came under public scrutiny and political attack, but was confronted by heightened competitive interests from the private sectors. Public extension is described as the extension activities provided by government under the authority of Agricultural Development Programme (ADP) in all states of Nigeria to cater for the needs of farmers. Agricultural Extension is expected to foster a sustainable and dynamic approach to agricultural development and which has remained of great

 

 

 

 

 

20

 

concern to the government and priority for discourse in policy arena (Agwu, et al, 2008).

 

It is the realization of this fact that has made successive Nigerian governments, to make efforts towards raising the productivity level of rural people. The country has therefore, over the years, tried many Agricultural Extension Systems which include Agricultural Development Project (ADP).

 

Agricultural Development Project was initiated in 1975 at the pilot project level, the success of which resulted into many designs which prominently include the statewide project. The statewide ADPs are extension of the enclave projects to other Local Government Areas (LGA) covered by the initial ADPs. Presently, all the States in the country are implementing the statewide ADP.

 

Agricultural Development Programme (ADP) focuses on rural integrated development strategy for agricultural and rural development. The establishment of these statewide ADPs raised the hope of farmers in government genuine commitment to the eliminations of the social political and economic problems that kept them in cycle of poverty (Akinbode, 1989). The ADPs across the country adopted the Training and Visit System (T&V) in order to boost production, solve the prevailing extension problem, foster self-reliance, and sustain the agricultural sector. It is observed

 

 

 

 

 

21

 

that Training and Visit System used by many extension organizations (including ADP) has many weaknesses.

 

These include excessive cost of input delivery, bureaucratic inefficiencies that have aided the poor formulation and implementation of extension programmes, and the failure to address the peculiar needs of farmers.

 

Other problems are poor staff training, inadequate coordination with University and Research Centre, inadequate content of extension message, inconsistent government regulations, inadequate farmers’ involvement, national policy and sustainability.

 

All these have caused much bureaucratic inefficiencies in public extension. It is against this background that the study attempts to compare the agricultural extension delivery and benefits accrued to the participants in the public and selected private agricultural extension outfits in Nigeria.

 

 

  • STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

 

There is growing concern for provision of effective and sustainable agricultural extension services to majority of the resource poor farmers in whose hands the bulk of agricultural production is left. Resource poor farmers belong to a complex, diverse and risk prone (CDR) agriculture, which supports several million of people in Africa (Rivera et al, 2003)

 

 

22

 

The importance of agricultural extension system therefore, remains that of a service to enhance the ability of farm families to respond to old problems and meet new opportunities. Agricultural extension system is characterized by shape and character of the institution to which they belong. Rivera and Wheeler (1989) posited that extension is a component of the system operating with other agro-support system in the context of agricultural and technology development. They classified determinants that influence agricultural extension system and characteristic. These are sector difference, institutional structure, socio economic and political goals, and extension approach.

 

Agricultural Development Programmes (ADP) in Nigeria, especially in South West Nigeria, is an agricultural extension outfit designed to achieve, among others

 

  • Establishment of well organized extension programme through Training and Visit (T & V) System.

 

  • Strengthening the co-ordination, supervision and implementation capacity of the ADP.

 

  • Unification, Expansion and Improvement of the quality of services.

 

  • Introduction of effective media support to assist extension agents through the use of diary, radio, television, leaflet and wall blackboard.

 

 

 

23

 

  • Intensification of work with women and

 

  • Intensification of essential farmer/extension/research linkages.

 

Agricultural extension programmes are therefore under pressure to change, because of growing fiscal pressures and questions about effectiveness and efficiency of their service (Rivera et al, 2000). To remedy this problem of bureaucratic management, the public sector has been shifting its services to private sector, sometimes totally as in Nether

ECONOMICS OF CONTROL METHODS FOR WITCHWEED, STRIGA HERMONTHICA IN THE NORTHERN GUINEA SAVANNA OF NIGERIA

ECONOMICS OF CONTROL METHODS FOR WITCHWEED, STRIGA HERMONTHICA IN THE NORTHERN GUINEA SAVANNA OF NIGERIA

Download our android mobile app for more materials

ORDER NOW

COMPLETE MATERIAL  COST  N2,500 Or $10.  FRESH  PROJECT MATERIAL  COST 50,000 NAIRA FOR UNDERGRADUATE, OTHERS 100,000 -200,000 NAIRA.

MAKE YOUR PAYMENT  INTO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING BANKS:
 GTBANK
Account Name : Host Link Global Services Ltd
ACCOUNT NUMBER: 0138924237
First Bank:
Account Name: Chi E-Concept Int’l
Account Name: 3059320631

Foreign Transaction For Dollars Payment :
Bank Name: GTBank
Branch Location: Enugu State,Nigeria.
Account Name: Chi E-Concept Int’l
 Account Number:  0117780667. 
Swift Code: GTBINGLA 
Dollar conversion rate for Naira is 175 per dollar. 

ATM CARD:  YOU CAN ALSO MAKE PAYMENT USING YOUR ATM CARD OR ONLINE TRANSFER. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR BANK SECURITY FOR GUIDE ON HOW TO TRANSFER MONEY TO OTHER BANKS USING YOUR ATM CARD. ATM CARD OR ONLINE BANK TRANSFER IS FASTER FOR QUICK DELIVERY TO YOUR EMAIL . OUR MARKETER WILL RESPOND TO YOU ANY TIME OF THE DAY. WE SUPPORT CBN CASHLESS SOCIETY. 

OR
PAY ONLINE USING YOUR ATM CARD. IT IS SECURED AND RELIABLE.

Enter Amount

form>DELIVERY PERIOD FOR BANK PAYMENT IS  LESS THAN 24 HOURS

CALL OUR  CUSTOMERS CARE  OKEKE CHIDI C ON :  08074466939,08063386834.

AFTER PAYMENT SEND YOUR PAYMENT DETAILS TO

08074466939 or 08063386834, YOUR PROJECT TITLE  YOU WANT US TO SEND TO YOU, AMOUNT PAID, DEPOSITOR NAME, UR EMAIL ADDRESS,PAYMENT DATE. YOU WILL RECEIVE YOUR MATERIAL IN LESS THAN 2 HOURS ONCE WILL CONFIRM YOUR PAYMENT.

WE HAVE SECURITY IN OUR BUSINESS.   

MONEY BACK GUARANTEE

 

ABSTRACT

 

Witchweed, Striga hermonthica (Del.) Benth is a major threat to the realization of yield potentials of cereal crops especially maize. Yield losses due to Striga in the Northern Guinea savanna of Nigeria have also impacted negatively on the livelihood of over 60% of the farming population. Various control methods have been developed but the level of use or adoption by farmers has been constrained by inadequate information on the economic performance of these methods. This study was therefore designed to compare resource use levels, grain yield, effectiveness (Striga counts) and the economic performance of five Striga control methods. The methods were: the cultivation of a Striga tolerant maize variety (Acr 97 TZL COMP.1–W) followed by Striga tolerant maize variety in the second year (T1), cultivation of an improved soyabean variety (TGX 1448-2E)

 

followed by Striga tolerant maize variety in the second year (T2 ), cultivation of improved

 

soyabean variety followed by a local maize cultivar in year two (T3), cultivation of a local maize

 

cultivar with a high level of Nitrogen fertilization for two consecutive years (T4) and farmers

 

practice for Striga control (T5). The study also determined the optimum Striga control plan and the

 

impact of simulating the scarcity of improved maize and soyabean seed varieties, farm land and NPK fertilizer on the optimum plan. Data were obtained from an on-farm trial conducted on 12 farmers’ fields with uniform infestations of Striga hermonthica at Kugu and Dambo villages in the Northern Guinea savanna of Nigeria, during the 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 cropping seasons. The tools of analyses employed for the study included Analysis of Variance for a randomized complete block design, Partial Budgeting, Marginal Rate of Return, Benefiit-Cost Ratio, Dominance

 

2

 

Analysis, Linear Programming (LP) Model and five variant models of the basic LP model. A Pair Wise Matrix Ranking Technique was also used to identify the constraints to the use of the Striga control methods.

 

The results obtained revealed that the seed use levels for plots T1 and T2 were significantly lower

 

(p<0.01) than that of the other treatments plots. Furthermore there was no significant difference (p<0.01) between the fertilizer use levels for treatments plots T1, T2, T3 and T5 with the exception

 

of T4. Striga control was significantly higher (lower Striga counts) in T2 and T3 plots compared to

 

other treatments plots. This was followed by the Striga counts for T1  plots. However, Striga

 

control was significantly lower (higher Striga counts) in T5 plots compared to plots T1 and T4. The

 

maize grain yields were significantly higher (p<0.01) in treatments plots T1 and T2 compared to

 

other plots. Further analysis showed that T1 had a higher cumulative gross margin per hectare

 

(N76, 884.61) followed by T2 (N36, 287.00). The cost-benefit ratio was higher for T1  (2.27)

followed by T2 (1.58). The marginal rate of return was also higher for T1 (N885.00) followed by T2

(N8.90). These results and the dominance analysis clearly revealed the economic superiority of T1

and T2 over the other treatments.

 

The LP result suggests that cultivation of Striga tolerant maize variety followed by a Striga tolerant maize variety in the second year (T1) was the optimum Striga control method. The result

 

of variant model ‘A’ which simulated the scarcity of Striga tolerant maize variety suggests that improved soyabean variety followed by a local maize cultivar (T3) was the optimum Striga control

 

method. In the case of variant model ‘B’ which simulated the scarcity of improved soyabean

variety, treatment T1 re-emerged as the optimal control method. The optimal control method for

 

variant model ‘C’ which simulated the combined scarcity of both Striga tolerant maize and improved soyabean varieties was T5 (farmers practice). The result of variant model ‘D’ which

 

simulated land abandonment as a result of Striga infestation, revealed that treatment T1 was the

 

optimum Striga control method but with a 43% reduction in the amount of capital invested in maize production. The result of Variant model ‘E’ which simulated the scarcity of NPK fertilizer revealed that none of the treatments was competitive enough to be an optimal control method for

 

Striga. High costs of fertilizer and scarcity of improved maize and soyabean varieties were identified as the major constraints to the use of the Striga control methods by farmers. In conclusion, Striga infested maize fields can be put to profitable use with the continuous cultivation of Striga tolerant maize variety or improved soyabean variety followed by a Striga tolerant maize variety in the second year. The study suggests that policies that will ensure timely and sufficient supply of Striga tolerant maize and soyabean varieties, fertilizers and agricultural credit to farmers should be addressed by government in order to achieve a long run Striga control in the study area and the country at large.

 

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study 1
1.2 Economic importance of Striga 2
1.3 Statement of the Problem 5
1.4 Objectives of the Study 8
1.5 Justification for the Study 8
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Description and Occurrence of Striga 10
2.1.1 Seed Production and Germination Requirements 10
9

 

2.1.2 Seed Longetivity 10
2.1.3 Seed Dispersal 10
2.1.4 Striga Infestation 11

 

  • Empirical Studies on Striga Infestation, Control and Adoption of Control

 

Measures 13
2.2.1 Effects of Nitrogenous Fertilizers on Striga Infestation and Control 14
2.2.2 Effects of Hand Pulling on Striga Infestation and Control 15
2.2.3 Effects of Chemicals on Striga Infestation and Control 17
2.2.4 Empirical Studies on Integrated Striga Control Methods 21
2.2.5 Empirical studies on the adoption of Striga control methods 22
2.3 Definition of ‘New’ Technology and their Evaluation at the Farm Level 23
2.4 Methods of Evaluation 26
2.4.1 Partial Budgets 27
2.4.2 Gross Margin Analysis and Budgeting 28
2.4.3 Dominance Analysis 28
2.4.4 Marginal Rate of Return 29
2.4.5 Cost- Benefit Ratio 30
2.4.6 Linear Programming 30
2.5 Aids to Weed Management Decisions 35
2.6 Empirical Studies on the Economics of Weed Control 37

 

 

 

10

 

2.7 Review of Studies on the Use of Linear Programming 39
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Description of the Study Area 42
3.2 Selection of Participating Farmers and Data Collection 43
3.3 Analytical Techniques 45
3.4 Description of Activities and Constraints in the LP Model 51
3.4.1 Activities in the LP Model 51
3.4.2 Restrictions in the LP Model 52
3.5 Limitations of the Study 55
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Input-Output Levels of Alternative Striga Control Methods 57
4.1.1 Input-Output Levels of Alternative Striga Control Methods (2005) 57
4.1.2 Striga Counts for Alternative Striga Control Methods (2005) 59
4.1.3 Input-Output Levels for Alternative Striga Control Methods (2006) 60
4.1.4 Striga Counts for Alternative Striga Control Methods (2006) 61
4.2 Costs and Returns of Alternative Striga Control Methods 62
4.2.1 Partial Budgeting, Cost-Benefit Ratio, Marginal and Dominance Analyses 62
4.3 Results of the Linear Programming Analysis 67
4.3.1 The Optimum Striga Control Method of the Basic Model 71
4.3.2 Variant Model A: Optimum Striga Control Method when the buying

 

 

 

11

 

activity for Improved Maize Seed is excluded from the Basic model 74
4.3.3 Variant Model B: Optimum Striga Control Method when Buying Activity
for TGX 1448 is Eliminated from the Basic Model 77
4.3.4 Variant Model C: Optimum Striga Control Method when the Buying
Activities for ACR 97 and TGX 1448 are Eliminated from the Basic
Model 79
4.3.5 Variant Model D: Optimum Solution when there is a reduction in the
average Farm Size of the Basic Model 82
4.3.6 Variant Model E: Optimum Farm Plan when the Buying Activity for NPK
Fertilizer is Eliminated from the Basic Model. 84
4.4  Constraints to the Use of Striga Control Methods 86

 

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12

 

 

5.1 Summary of Major Findings 89

 

 

 

71

 

5.1 Summary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

71
5.2 Conclusions 90
5.3 Recommendations 91
5.4 Suggestions for Further Studies 92
REFERENCES 94
APPENDICES 108

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Lay Out of Farmer’s Fields 45
Table 2 Household Composition and Derived Labour 53

 

 

 

13

 

Table 3 Derivation of Household Consumption Unit 55
Table 4 Input-Output Levels and Striga Counts for Striga Control Methods
kg/25m2 (2005) 58
Table 5 Input-Output Levels and Striga Counts for Striga Control Methods
kg/25m2 (2006) 60
Table 6 Cummulative Partial Budgeting Analysis (2005/2006) 64
Table 7 Benefit-Cost Analysis for Striga Control Methods 65
Table 8 Marginal analysis for Striga Control Methods 65
Table 9 Dominance Analysis for Striga Control Methods 66
Table 10 The Basic Model of the Linear Programming Analysis 68
Table 11 Summary of the Optimal Farm Plan/ Existing Activity Level for the 72
Basic Model
Table 12 Resource Use Levels in the Optimum Plan of the Basic Model 74
Table 13 Summary of the Optimal Farm Plan/ Existing activity Level for Variant
Model A 75
Table 14Resource Use Levels in the Optimum Plan of Variant Model A 77
Table 15 Summary of the Optimal Farm Plan/ Existing activity Level for the
Variant Model B 78
Table 16 Resource Use Levels in the Optimum Plan of Variant Model B 79

 

 

 

Table 17 Summary of the Optimal Farm Plan/ Existing activity Level for the
Variant Model C 80

 

 

 

 

 

14

 

Table 18 Resource use Levels in the Optimum Plan of Variant Model C 81
Table 19 Summary of the Optimal Farm Plan/ Existing Activity Level for the
Variant Model D 83
Table 20 Resource Use Levels in the Optimum Plan of Variant Model D 84

 

Table 21 Summary of the Optimal Farm Plan/ Existing Activity Level for the Variant Model E 85

Table 22 Pair Wise Matrix Comparison of Constraints to the Use of Striga

 

Control Methods 86

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15

 

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Life Cycle of Striga hermonthica 13
Figure 2 A Shift in the Supply Curve brought about by Adoption of a New
Technology 25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16

 

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Log Book 108
Appendix 2 Genstat Output 114

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER ONE

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

  • Background to the Study

 

The control of weeds has always been one of the greatest resource-consuming operations in crop production. In addition to requiring effective control measures, weeds rob crop plants of nutrients and water, often serve as hosts to insects and other pests, and create problems in harvesting and processing. The use of herbicides has enabled farmers to control weeds with greater ease and to free crops from competition with weeds for nutrients, light and water at critical periods of their growth cycle (Abu-Hamdeh, 2003). There has however been a growing apprehension among ecologists/ environmentalists about the use of chemicals in general and herbicides, in particular, as it is feared that such use poses a serious

 

 

17

 

hazards to human health and that they pollute and poison soils and ground water (Stonehouse et al., 1996).

Striga is one of the very few flowering plants that are parasitic on other plants, dodder and mistletoe being other examples. Striga has been given the common name of “witchweed” because it attaches itself to the roots of the host plant thus depriving it (the host) of water and nutrients. Two species of Striga, Striga hermonthica and Striga asiatica attack sorghum, millet, and maize while another species, Striga gesneroides, is specific to cowpea (Ramaiah, et al., 1983). Depending upon the extent of infestation, reductions in grain yield of 30-60% are common. Practical control methods consist of a combination of crop rotation with non-hosts, weeding, and use of resistant varieties. It produces a large number of seeds which can remain dormant but viable for many years, therefore once Striga becomes established in a field, eradication is very difficult (Kim 1991; AATF 2006). De Groote et al. (2005) opined that Striga is a particular problem in areas with low moisture and where soil fertility is being eroded through increased population pressure, decreased use of fallow and minimal use of organic or inorganic fertilizer. Most importantly, it mostly affects the livelihoods of poor subsistence farmers in cereal-based agricultural systems in Africa (Weed Busters 2003).

 

 

 

 

18

 

1.2 Economic Importance of Striga

 

Striga species have taken root throughout the continents of Africa and Asia, imparting extensive damage to staple cereal crops. Mboob (1989) reported that an annual loss of between US$28 million and US$12.4 billion in crop revenue is caused by Striga in West Africa. Two thirds of the 73 million hectares of cropland planted to cereal crops in Africa is also said to be threatened by Striga species (Lagoke et al., 1991). A study by Sauerborn (1991) estimated that Striga, causes an annual grain yield loss of 4.1 million metric tonnes and infests 21 million hectares of cereal cropland in Africa. The greatest damage from Striga infestation occurs in the sahelian and savanna zones of Africa, where nearly 100 million inhabitants depend on maize, sorghum, millet, and cowpea as staple foods (Lagoke et al., 1991). Under artificial infestation at different levels, in Nigeria, yield loss for the tolerant varieties varied between 27% (at 2250 Striga seeds/hill) to 35% (at 4500 seeds/hill), for the susceptible varieties yield loss ranged from 43% (at 750 seeds/hill) to 74% (at 3750 seeds/hill) (Kim and Adetimirin 1997).

 

Studies in West Africa compared maize yields of susceptible and tolerant varieties in fields under natural Striga infestation with yields of the same varieties in non-infested fields (Kim et al., 2002). In the savannahs of Nigeria, yield reduction in the tolerant varieties of 31% was found, in the susceptible varieties 62% (1985 trials). Trials in Cameroon in the same year produced lower estimates: 21% for the tolerant

 

 

19

 

varieties, and 41% for the susceptible varieties. Estimated yield losses due to Striga from on-farm studies and conservative estimates are reported to be 40% of total maize production for all of Africa (US $7 billion), ranging from 20-95% in East Africa, 20-35% in Gambia, 10-90% with an average of 35% in Nigeria (US$5-6 million). Kroschel (1999) opined that Striga also causes indirect production losses when farmers change production strategies to respond to heavy infestations. For example, farms in Striga endemic areas have often been subjected to long fallow periods of up to 15 years. Some have been totally abandoned while in extreme cases human migrations out of heavily infested areas have occurred.

 

Similarly Siegfried (1994) reported that Striga infestation is also of concern to farmers because of its direct effects on the labour supply patterns of their households. When Striga attacks millet-cowpea, sorghum-cowpea or other crops for which women have direct responsibility for example, the Striga-specific weeding adds an additional burden to those of water collection, food preparation and other chores traditionally reserved for women in the West African sub region. Weed Busters (2003) also reported that Striga has impacted negatively on the livelihood of about 60% of the farming population as over 70% of the farmlands usually put to maize production in Northern Nigeria have also been abandoned or substituted with non host crops such as cowpea, soyabean and groundnut. The situation is more serious in the semi-arid regions where crops are already under moisture and nutrient

 

 

20

 

stress. Striga has also infested over 2.5 million hectares of land. This biological invasion is a leading cause of food insecurity and rural stagnation in Africa (AATF, 2006). Striga hermonthica the most important parasitic weed species on a world scale is thus an economically important constraint to cereal production in much of Africa (Mullen, 1999).

 

 

 

1.3 Statement of the Problem

 

Cereal crops, especially maize, are the most important food crops cultivated in Nigeria, with a high yield potential in the savannas (Lagoke et al., 1991) and is consumed by more than 70% of the population (IITA, 2004). Due to dwindling land resources, soil fertility problems and weed build up, the horizontal increase in crop output is becoming difficult day by day. In these circumstances, the only way to have more production is vertical increase i.e. in output per unit of land area (Khan et al., 2000). However, there are many constraints that i

Technical Efficiency and Factor Productivity in Upland and Lowland Rice Production Systems in Kwara State, Nigeria

Technical Efficiency and Factor Productivity in Upland and Lowland Rice Production Systems in Kwara State, Nigeria

Download our android mobile app for more materials

ORDER NOW

COMPLETE MATERIAL  COST  N2,500 Or $10.  FRESH  PROJECT MATERIAL  COST 50,000 NAIRA FOR UNDERGRADUATE, OTHERS 100,000 -200,000 NAIRA.

MAKE YOUR PAYMENT  INTO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING BANKS:
 GTBANK
Account Name : Host Link Global Services Ltd
ACCOUNT NUMBER: 0138924237
First Bank:
Account Name: Chi E-Concept Int’l
Account Name: 3059320631

Foreign Transaction For Dollars Payment :
Bank Name: GTBank
Branch Location: Enugu State,Nigeria.
Account Name: Chi E-Concept Int’l
 Account Number:  0117780667. 
Swift Code: GTBINGLA 
Dollar conversion rate for Naira is 175 per dollar. 

ATM CARD:  YOU CAN ALSO MAKE PAYMENT USING YOUR ATM CARD OR ONLINE TRANSFER. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR BANK SECURITY FOR GUIDE ON HOW TO TRANSFER MONEY TO OTHER BANKS USING YOUR ATM CARD. ATM CARD OR ONLINE BANK TRANSFER IS FASTER FOR QUICK DELIVERY TO YOUR EMAIL . OUR MARKETER WILL RESPOND TO YOU ANY TIME OF THE DAY. WE SUPPORT CBN CASHLESS SOCIETY. 

OR
PAY ONLINE USING YOUR ATM CARD. IT IS SECURED AND RELIABLE.

Enter Amount

form>DELIVERY PERIOD FOR BANK PAYMENT IS  LESS THAN 24 HOURS

CALL OUR  CUSTOMERS CARE  OKEKE CHIDI C ON :  08074466939,08063386834.

AFTER PAYMENT SEND YOUR PAYMENT DETAILS TO

08074466939 or 08063386834, YOUR PROJECT TITLE  YOU WANT US TO SEND TO YOU, AMOUNT PAID, DEPOSITOR NAME, UR EMAIL ADDRESS,PAYMENT DATE. YOU WILL RECEIVE YOUR MATERIAL IN LESS THAN 2 HOURS ONCE WILL CONFIRM YOUR PAYMENT.

WE HAVE SECURITY IN OUR BUSINESS.   

MONEY BACK GUARANTEE

 

ABSTRACT

 

The issue of low productivity of the Nigerian farm-firms is topical. This is more so for the rice commodity in Nigeria. Though over 1.3 million hectares of land is devoted annually to paddy rice cultivation, average yield of upland and lowland rice in Nigeria is 1.8 tonnes/ha compared to 3.0 tonnes/ha of upland and lowland rice and 7.0 tonnes/ha of irrigated rice in neighbouring West African countries. It is therefore necessary to identify ways of increasing rice output from existing hectarages. This study therefore compared the structure of costs and returns, technical efficiency and factor productivity, and constraints that confront upland and lowland rice farmers in Kwara State, Nigeria.

 

 

 

A three-stage random sampling procedure was used to collect primary data for the study. Pre-tests and data collection proper were carried out between April 2007 and May 2008.The first stage involved a selection of three major rice producing zones from the four Kwara State Agricultural Development (KWADP) zones. The second stage involved a random selection of ten villages (5 percent) from zone B, eight villages (17 percent) from zone C while four (10 percent) were selected from zone D. A total of twenty two major rice-producing villages were therefore selected, out of the two hundred and ninety nine rice-producing villages in the selected zones. The final stage involved the random selection of two hundred and sixty four (168 Lowland rice-producing households and 96 Upland rice-producing households) rice-producing households from the villages selected. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, partial farm budget, Cobb-Douglas stochastic frontier production function, OLS regression, Chow-test, Total Factor Productivity (TFP) and the Likert-type scale analyses.

 

 

The descriptive statistics analysis results showed that farming tools and equipment used by the rice farmers are generally of the crude types. Farm budget analysis of costs and returns analysis results indicated that lowland rice farms have higher returns to labour and management (RLM) of N53,326.0 per hectare while the RLM estimate for upland rice was N34,101.4 per hectare.

 

 

2

 

The Cobb-Douglas stochastic frontier production function indicated that the lowland rice production system is at a higher level of technical efficiency of 60.08 percent, while the upland farms average was 40.10 percent. Farmer’s farming experience, household size and type of rice variety planted were found to significantly (P< 0.05) affect technical efficiency of the lowland farms. Farmer’s farming experience and household size of the farmers were found to significantly affect (P< 0.05) technical efficiency of the upland farms. Chow-test comparison between the technical efficiency for the upland and lowland rice farms showed significant differences (P< 0.05) between the technical efficiency levels of the two rice farms. The analysis of factor productivity of rice farms indicated that lowland rice farms were operated at a higher total factor productivity (TFP) level of 4.3 on average. For upland rice farms, mean TFP estimate was 3.4. The Likert-type scale analysis of farmers’ constraints revealed inadequate funds as the main problems confronting both upland and lowland rice farmers. This is followed by expensive agro-chemicals, pest and diseases and inadequate labour supply respectively. Flood problem was reported only under the lowland rice production systems.

 

 

In conclusion, the lowland rice system has higher profitability, technical efficiency and TFP compared to the upland rice system. The study therefore suggests intensive efforts at expanding the present scope of lowland rice farming, given the estimated technical efficiency and productivity estimates for the production system. The use of improved tools and equipment in rice farming and processing should be encouraged as this would help to reduce the debris and stones that accompany the final consumable rice commodity. Farmers should also be availed the opportunities of being able to access loanable funds. Efforts should be geared towards organizing farmers into cooperatives, as this will enhance the delivery of agricultural extension services to farmers and also help mobilize rural resources for agriculture. Farm extension in terms of personnel, educational and the material needs of the farmers should also be strengthened.

1.0 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study 1
1.2 Rice Production in Nigeria: The Place of Upland and Lowland Rice Production Systems 6
1.3 Problem Statement 8
1.4 Objectives of the Study 10
1.5 Justification 11
1.6 Plan of Thesis 13
2.0 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

 

2.1 Literature Review 14
2.1.1 The Rice Production Scenario in Nigeria 14
2.1.2 Rice Processing in Nigeria 16
2.1.3 The Competitiveness of the Nigerian Local Rice 17
2.1.4 The Presidential Initiative on Rice Production, Processing and Export in Nigeria 19
2.2 Definition of Concepts 21
2.2.1 Productivity Concepts 21
2.2.2 Production Efficiency: Technical Efficiency, Allocative Efficiency and Economic
Efficiency 25
2.2.3 Productivity and Technical Efficiency 25

 

 

 

7

 

2.2.4 Empirical Applications of Stochastic Frontier Production Functions 32
2.2.5 Determinants of Technical Efficiency 36
2.2.6  Empirical Applications of the Total Factor Productivity (TFP) Analysis 38
2.2.7 Use of Productivity Measures 39
2.2.8 Determinants of Agricultural Productivity 41
2.3 Theoretical Conceptual Framework 44
2.3.1 Approaches to the Measurement of Productive Efficiency in Agriculture: the
Frontier Models 44
2.3.1.1 Parametric Frontiers 44
2.3.1.2 Non- Parametric Frontiers 49
2.3.2 Farm Productivity Analysis 52
2.3.3 Approaches to Farm Productivity Measurement 53.
2.3.3.1 The Index Number Approach 52
2.3.3.2 The Parametric Approach 53
2.3.4 Partial Productivity Measures 56
2.3.6 The chow test 57
3.0 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Study Area 60
3.2 Sampling Technique and Sample Size 65
3.3 Method of Data Collection 68
3.4 Analytical Techniques 68
3.4.1 Estimation of Technical Efficiency in Upland and Lowland Rice Production
Systems 69
3.4.1.2 Determinants of Efficiency 74

 

 

 

 

8

 

3.4.2 Technical Efficiency Comparison 75
3.4.3  Total Factor Productivity (TFP) Estimation 78
3.4.4 Determinants of Agricultural Productivity 78
3.4.5 Farm budget Analysis 82
3.4.6 Likert Scale Analysis 83
4.0 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Socio-economic Characteristics of Rice Farm Households 88
4.2 Production Resources of Rice Farmers 92
4.2.1 Land Resource 92
4.2.1.1 Mode of Land Acquisition. 92
4.2.1.2 Farm Size 93
4.2.2 Type of Non-family Labour Employed 94
4.3 Rice Seeds Variety Planted 94
4.4 Agro-Chemicals 95
4.4.1 Types of Agrochemicals Used 95
4.4.2 Sources of Agro-Chemicals 96
4.5 Amount of Loan 96
4.6 Tools and Equipments 97
4.6.1 Tools and Equipment Ownership 97
4.6.2 Sources of Tools and Equipments 98
4.7 Costs and Returns 98
4.8 Technical Efficiency Estimates 103
4.9.1 OLS Regression Estimates for Lowland TE Determinants 111
4.9.2 OLS Regression Estimates for the Upland Rice Farm TE Determinants 112
4.10 Chow Test Comparison between Lowland and Upland Rice Farms Technical
Efficiency 113

 

 

 

 

9

 

4.11.1 Total Factor Productivity TFP Estimates 116
4.11.2 Determinants of Total Factor Productivity 117
4.12 Estimates of the Partial Factor Productivity 121
4.13 Constraints to Rice Production 123
5.0 CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary of Findings 124
5.2 Conclusion 126
5.3 Recommendations 127

 

5.4 Suggestions for Further study 130
REFERENCES 132
APPENDIX
Survey Questionnaire 145

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

 

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Comparison between Nigeria and the rest of West Africa 3
Table 2; Features of Rice Production in Nigeria 11
Table 3: Trend in Rice Imports (‘000 tonnes) 14
Table 4: International (indicative) Prices for Rice by Grade and Quality 18
Table 5: International Prices Relative to Domestic Rice Prices in Nigeria from 1999-2001 18
Table 6: Kwara State Rice Production Area and Output: 1991-2006 62
Table 7: Sample Design Outlay for the Study 67
Table 8: Socio-economic Characteristics of Rice Farmers 88
Table 9: Mode of Farmland Acquisition by Respondents 92
Table 10: Farm Size Distribution of Respondents 93
Table 11: Types of Non Farming Labour Used by Respondents 94
Table 12: Rice Variety Planted by Respondents 95
Table 13: Distribution of Rice Farmers based on the Type of Agro-Chemical Used on
their Rice Farms 96
Table 14: Sources of Agrochemicals Used by Respondents 97
Table 15: Tools and Equipments Ownership Distribution of Respondents 97
Table 16: Summary of Costs and Return Structure to Rice Production (N /Ha) 99
Table 17: “t” test Comparison of Gross Margin and Returns to Farmers’ Labour
and Management between Lowland and Upland rice farmers 102
Table 18: Maximum Likelihood Estimates (MLE) of Cobb-Douglas Based Stochastic
Production Frontier for Lowland Farms 103
Table 19: Elasticity of Production and Returns to Scale for Lowland Farms 105
Table 20: Frequency Distribution of Technical Efficiency Indices of lowland Rice Farms 106
Table 21: Maximum Likelihood Estimates (MLE) of Cobb-Douglas based Stochastic
Production Frontier for Upland Farms 107
Table 22: Elasticity of Production and Returns to Scale for Upland Farms 109

 

 

 

 

11

 

Table 23: Frequency Distribution of Technical Efficiency Indices of Upland Rice Farms 110
Table 24: OLS Regression Estimates for Determinants of Technical Efficiency of
Lowland Farms 112
Table 25: OLS Regression Estimates for Determinants of Technical Efficiency of
Upland Farms 112
Table 26: Result of Chow Test Comparison between determinants of TE across upland
and Lowland Rice Farms 114
Table 27: Result of Chow Test Comparison between Lowland and Upland Rice Farms
Technical Efficiency Regressions 115
Table 28: Frequency Distribution of Total Factor Productivity TFP Indices of Rice Farms 116
Table 29: OLS Regression estimates for Determinants of Total Factor Productivity TFP
of Lowland Farm 119
Table 30: OLS Regression estimates for Determinants of Total Factor Productivity TFP
of Upland Farms 120
Table 31: Partial Factor Productivity Estimates of Rice Farmers. 121
Table 35: Likert Scale Ranking of Constraints to Rice Production 123

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12

 

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Production Frontiers and Technical Efficiency 27
Figure 2: Productivity, Technical Efficiency and Scale Economies 29
Figure 3: Productivity, Technically Efficient and Scale Economics 31
Figure 4: Stochastic Frontier Production Function 48
Figure 5: Map of Kwara State 64

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13

 

CHAPTER ONE

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

 

1.1  Background to the Study

 

Rice is an annual crop and the most important staple food crop in the tropical countries. Commercially, the crop is the most important cereal after wheat. It is widely consumed and there is hardly any country in the world where it is not utilized in one form or the other. In Nigeria, rice is one of the few food items whose consumption has no cultural, religious, ethnic or geographical boundary. It is available in five-star hotels in the big cities and towns, as well as in the “most local” of the eating places in the remotest villages throughout the country. It is highly priced and widely accepted for festivity. In some rural areas, it is so adored that it is eaten only on Sundays and sometimes on market days (Omofonmwan and Kadiri,2007).

 

 

Rice is one of the major staples, whose production if encouraged can provide the population with the nationally required food security minimum of 2400 calories per person per day (FAO, 2000). The crop is commonly consumed even as a food crop for household food security. The average Nigerian consumes about 24.8 kg of rice annually, representing 9 per cent of the total annual calories intake and 23 per cent of total annual cereal consumption. Since the mid-1980s, rice consumption has increased at an average annual rate of 11 per cent of which only 3 per cent can be explained by population growth. The remainder represents a shift in diet towards rice at the expense of the coarse grains (millet and sorghum) and wheat. Nigeria’s demand for rice is

 

 

14

 

roughly four million tonnes annually. Rice imports account for close to a third of Nigeria’s total rice supplies (GAIN Report, 2005).

 

 

Due to its increasing contribution to per capita calorie consumption of Nigerians, the demand for rice has been increasing at a much faster rate than domestic production and more than in any other African countries since mid 1970s (FAO, 2001). For instance, during the 1960s, Nigeria had the lowest per capita annual consumption of rice in the West African sub-region with an annual average of 3kg. Since then, Nigeria’s per capita consumption levels have grown significantly at 7.3 per cent per annum. Consequently, per capita consumption during the 1980s increased to an annual average of 18kg and reached 33kg in 2000-2005 (See Table 1).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15

 

Table 1: Comparison between Nigeria and the Rest of West Africa

 

Indicator
Yearly Averages 1961-1970 1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2005
Nigeria
Production (t) 264,100 533,200 1,758,132 3,111,700 3,833,400
Import (t) 1,187 205,907 390,489 471,254 17,084,000
Total Consumption (t) 138,353 468,413 1,324,916 2,260,779 5,087,000
Per Capita Consumption 2.76 7.08 15.83 22.38 33
(Kg per year) West Africa without Nigeria
Production (t) 1900746 2,735,414 4,285,379 6,810,660 2520,000
Import (t) 375,637 851,070 2,468,998 3,729,891 n.a
Total Consumption (t) 1,340,202 2,261,066 4,156,247 6,244,283 6550000
Per Capita Consumption 13.07 16.99 24.01 28.49 n.a
Kg per year

n.a = data is not available

 

Computed from West African Rice Development Association (WARDA) Data (2005) and FAOSTAT, (2007)

 

The 2005 national rice production of 4.50 million tonnes of paddy cultivated on an area of 2 million hectares implied a yield estimate of 2.25 metric tonnes per hectare. The total milled production of rice is 2.7 million tonnes which indicates a milling recovery rate of 60 per cent while total national demand of milled rice is estimated at 4.920 million tonnes per annum. There is therefore a deficit of 0.42million tonnes of rice (USDA.2007). Estimates indicate that rice imports represent more than 25 per cent of the nation’s agricultural imports and over 40 per cent of domestic consumption. Between 1999 and 2001, the value of rice imports rose steadily from

 

 

 

 

16

 

US $259 million to US $655 million. By 2002, the value had risen to US $756million (CBN, 2006).

 

 

Over the years, the cultivation and production of this highly priced and very important food crop is dwindling, the price

 

 

IMPACT OF NON-OIL EXPORT ON NIGERIAN ECONOMY (1986-2010)

IMPACT OF NON-OIL EXPORT ON NIGERIAN ECONOMY (1986-2010)

Download our android mobile app for more materials

ORDER NOW

COMPLETE MATERIAL  COST  N2,500 Or $10.  FRESH  PROJECT MATERIAL  COST 50,000 NAIRA FOR UNDERGRADUATE, OTHERS 100,000 -200,000 NAIRA.

MAKE YOUR PAYMENT  INTO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING BANKS:
 GTBANK
Account Name : Host Link Global Services Ltd
ACCOUNT NUMBER: 0138924237
First Bank:
Account Name: Chi E-Concept Int’l
Account Name: 3059320631

Foreign Transaction For Dollars Payment :
Bank Name: GTBank
Branch Location: Enugu State,Nigeria.
Account Name: Chi E-Concept Int’l
 Account Number:  0117780667. 
Swift Code: GTBINGLA 
Dollar conversion rate for Naira is 175 per dollar. 

ATM CARD:  YOU CAN ALSO MAKE PAYMENT USING YOUR ATM CARD OR ONLINE TRANSFER. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR BANK SECURITY FOR GUIDE ON HOW TO TRANSFER MONEY TO OTHER BANKS USING YOUR ATM CARD. ATM CARD OR ONLINE BANK TRANSFER IS FASTER FOR QUICK DELIVERY TO YOUR EMAIL . OUR MARKETER WILL RESPOND TO YOU ANY TIME OF THE DAY. WE SUPPORT CBN CASHLESS SOCIETY. 

OR
PAY ONLINE USING YOUR ATM CARD. IT IS SECURED AND RELIABLE.

Enter Amount

form>DELIVERY PERIOD FOR BANK PAYMENT IS  LESS THAN 24 HOURS

CALL OUR  CUSTOMERS CARE  OKEKE CHIDI C ON :  08074466939,08063386834.

AFTER PAYMENT SEND YOUR PAYMENT DETAILS TO

08074466939 or 08063386834, YOUR PROJECT TITLE  YOU WANT US TO SEND TO YOU, AMOUNT PAID, DEPOSITOR NAME, UR EMAIL ADDRESS,PAYMENT DATE. YOU WILL RECEIVE YOUR MATERIAL IN LESS THAN 2 HOURS ONCE WILL CONFIRM YOUR PAYMENT.

WE HAVE SECURITY IN OUR BUSINESS.   

MONEY BACK GUARANTEE

 

 

ABSTRACT
The study investigated the impact of non-oil exports on Nigerian economy during the period of 1986-2010. This study was carried out against the background of the crucial role non-oil export can play as an alternative source of revenue apart from crude oil exports. To achieve this objective, multiple regressions were used in analyzing the data. The empirical result shows that non-oil export is statistically significant to Nigeria economic growth. On the other hand, Government Expenditure (GEX) was not significant to Nigerian economy. Due to this, some recommendations were made which include encouraging financial institutions, improving in data collection and banking, efficient allocation and use of resources, and creating economic environment that will help boost the activity of non-oil export sector.
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page…………………………………………………………….…. i
Approval Page ………………………………………………………… ii
Dedication…………………..………………………………………….. iii
Acknowledgement…………………………………………………….. iv
Abstract…………………………………………………………………. v
Table of Contents……………………………………………………… vi
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study………………………………………… 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem………………………………………… 8
1.3 Objective of the Question………………………………………… 11
1.4 Statement of Hypothesis…………………………………………. 11
1.5 Significance of the Study………………………………………… 12
1.6 Scope and Limitations of the Study…………………………… 12
CHAPTER TWO
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Theoretical Literature……………………………………………. 14
2.1.1 The Agricultural Commodities and Products Exports…. 15
2.1.2 The Manufacturing and Craft Export Product…………… 16
2.1.3 The Solid Mineral Export Product………….……………….. 17
2.2 Empirical Literature……………………………………………… 18
2.3 Limitations of the Previous Studies…………….……………. 26
8
CHAPTER THREE
3. O RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Model Specification……………………………………………….. 27
3.2 Methods of Evaluation…………………………………………… 29
3.3 Model Justification……………………………………………….. 30
3.4 Sources of Data and Software Packages……………………. 31
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
4.1 Presentation of Result…………………………………………… 32
4.2 Result Interpretation……………………………………………. 32
4.2.1 Analysis of the Regression Coefficients…………………. 32
4.2.2 Evaluation Based on Economic Criteria……….……….. 33
4.2.3 Evaluation Based on Statistical Criteria……..………… 33
4.2.4 Evaluation Based on Econometric Criteria……………… 34
4.3 Evaluation of the Research Hypothesis……………………. 38
4.4 Policy Implication………………………………………………. 39
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
5.1 Summary of Findings…………………………………………… 40
5.2 Policy Recommendations….…………………………………… 40
5.3 Conclusion….…………………………………………………….. 43
Bibliography……………………………………………………………. 44
9
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
There are a number of reasons for a country to be concerned about its rate of economic growth. Economic growth is designed by both affluent and non-affluent economies. Economic growth is the desire for higher levels or real per capital income, real output which must grow faster than the production of the economy in question. Economists, policymakers, public and private sectors work ceaselessly forwards attaining economic growth by the use of development and growth models and policies. Among the policies used are trade policy (import and export policies, monetary policy, exchange rate policy, fiscal policy, market, etc). In this study, the non-oil exports and economic development in Nigeria will be examined.
Non-oil exports are the products which are produced within the country in the agricultural, mining, and querying and industrial sectors that are sent outside the country in order to generate revenue for the growth of the economy excluding oil product. These non-oil export products are coal, cotton, timber, groundnut, coca, beans, etc.
10
Today, as in the past, the growth of Nigeria economy remains partly dependent upon increasing productivity of the agricultural sector.
Helleiner, 2002 state that no matter how much development and structural transformation achieved, it will remain its relative dominance in the economy to many decades to come. Precisely, it is from agricultural exploits that the economy has received its principal stimulus to economic growth.
Agricultural sector can assist through the exportation of principal primary commodities which will increase the nation’s foreign earnings and which can be used to finance a variety of development projects. The growth of the agricultural sector can make a substantial contribution to the total revenue, as well as having some implications for intersectional terms of trade. Also in the area of capital formation, the savings generated in this sector can be mobilized in development purposes, while increase in rural income as a result of increasing agricultural activities can further stimulates the product of the modern sector.
11
The needs of the agricultural sector could indirectly influence the creating of additional infrastructures which are in dispensable to rapid economic development (Olaloku, 2001).
Another non-oil export to be developed on is industrial sector. It is the fastest growing sector in Nigerian economy. It comprises of many manufacturing and mining. Nigeria has manufacturing base prior to 1960 and shortly after.
The problem was due to lack of modern technological skills, managerial experience of complex organizations and financial back-up. The problem was further aggravated by the colonialists merchants convincing arguments on the goodness of comparative cost- advantage.
Nigerians were coaxed into concentrating their efforts in the production of primary agricultural products and exporting them to the metrological industries in Europe.
Our industrial sector took off after independent relied on satellite firms representing British interest. The bank sector, which is constellation of colonial bank braches and some companies that were able to invest in manufacturing were the multi-national that have access to funds, technology, and managerial expertise. This greatly hindered the progress of indigenous entrepreneurs. The
12
Nigerian manufacturing sector has been described by Ikediala (1983) as consisting of more assembling plants. He says that the implication of this is that the industries have very little background linage in the economy, since the bulk of the inputs is imported, thus the manufacturing sector depends or imported raw-materials of 42%. The capacity utilization of manufacturing industries has always been low in this country. The reasons as put by CBN (1998) are not unconnected with raw materials scarcity, consumers’ resistance due to high prices, and increase in cost of manpower. Others mentioned are equipment breakdown due to poor technology, lack of spare parts. Time lies between when inputs are ordered for and when they arrive, cash flow problem in industries becomes a permanent features.
The Nigeria civil war brought about the deterioration of the oil palm grooves and plantations were abandoned and little if any new planting was undertaken. As a result of that, the output of palm oil and palm kernel declined drastically. But according to Onwuka (1985), the problems of palm products are due to the stagnation in the production of this wild palm tress, which are of low-yield quality, and the difficulties experience in harvesting them. In addition, the old system of pricing which guarantees low
13
production prices for palm produce discourage substantial investment from being made for further production of this product. Also, the problem of marketing boards cannot be over-looked.
Marketing board is an institution set up by the government with the exclusive right to buy and sell certain agricultural products. They purchase some products locally export sales are made through the Nigerian.
Marketing company, which is jointly owned by the state, one of the marketing functions of the marketing board is to stabilize the prices or our cash crops and hence creates stability of income for formers and to accumulate funds for development purposes. But the operation has failed to provide incentives to farmers to increase their input. Also, the producers aid unnecessary tax and they took from the producers some money, which should have gone to them as income they this reduced the amount of capital available to the producers.
This criticism, according to Adenira (1991) made the federal Government to reform the marketing board some with a view to increase producers’ prices and income. He said that the essential
14
features of the new authority while producer taxation (export duty and produce sale tax) has been abolished. Another major boards with the responsibility of market specific products wherever they are produced in the country. These boards are likely to reduce administrative problem and be more economical compared with all oil – produce state market boards previously in existence.
The major fault of the successive government that are supposed to sustain this sector through the building of macro-economic structures and incentives diverted their attention away from agriculture. The result was sharp in