ABSTRACT
The study analyzed cropping systems, intensification and poverty status of smallholder arable crop farmers in Imo State, Nigeria. Specifically the study examined the socio-economic characteristics of the farmers, examined the rate of use of the cropping systems practiced, determined the extent of crop intensification of the farmers, analysed the poverty status of the arable crop farmers, analyzed the determinants of cropping systems, intensification, and poverty status of the farmers, examined the relationship between cropping systems, intensification and poverty status of the farmers and estimated the impact of intensification and cropping systems on poverty status of the farmers. Multi-stage, simple random techniques were employed to select 120 respondents. Primary data were collected with the use of a well-structured questionnaire through the aid of enumerators. Relevant descriptive and inferential statistics; multinomial logit regression, probit regression, Analysis of Variance and Ordinary least square regression models were used for the data analysis. The result showed that mean age of the farmers was 50.5 years, while males dominated farming activities in the area. Also the mean household size was 7 persons per household. The mean farm size was 1.11 hectares. Majority (96.7%) of the respondents in the study area acquired one form of formal education or the other. The finding also showed that the major cropping system was Crop rotation (
= 3.36). The field results on extent of agricultural intensification of the arable crop farmers revealed that the mean land use intensity index of farmers was 0.69, also the mean labour use intensity index was estimated at 24.14 mandays/ha while mean fertilizer use intensity index was 189kg/hectare. About 36.67 % of the arable crop farmers were considered being core poor; 32.50 % considered as being moderately poor while about 30.83 % of the arable crop farmers were considered to be non – poor. The Multinomial Logit Regression revealed that household size, income, age, farm size, experience and planting material were the main variables that significantly influenced cropping system in the area. Tobit regression estimate of the determinants of crop intensification showed a positive relationship existed between education, income, farm size, organic manure and bush burning and inverse relationship existed between household size and intensification among arable crop farmers. Furthermore, Coefficients of marital status, level of education, farm size, credit and land use intensity were the significant variables influencing the poverty status of the farmers. Analysis of Variance estimate revealed that crop intensification of the arable crop farmers is statistically significant. Ordinary Least Square used in estimating the effects of intensification and cropping systems on poverty status of the farmers revealed that there was a positive relationship between cropping system and poverty status in the area. The significant variables that influenced cropping systems, intensification, and poverty status of the farmers should be taken into consideration in policy issues. Also research efforts should be directed at obtaining improved planting materials/seeds and effective and efficient storage and processing technology to reduce/eliminate loss due to the high perishable nature of some arable crops. It also suggested that agricultural policy makers should make policies that will encourage the arable crop farmers to use formal insurance, cooperative societies and improved seeds/seedling that will consequently reduce poverty in the area.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page i
Declaration ii
Certification iii
Dedication iv
Acknowledgement v
Table of contents vi
List of Tables x
Abstract xii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background Information 1
1.2 Statement of the research
problem 5
1.3 Objectives of Study 7
1.4 Hypotheses of the Study 8
1.5 Justification for the Study 8
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE
REVIEW 10
2.1 Conceptual literature review 10
2.1.1 Cropping System 12
2.1.2 Crop Diversification
12
2.1.3 Resource Intensification in
Agriculture 13
2.1.4 Poverty
15
2.1.5 Smallholder Arable Crop Farming 16
2.1.5.1 Some Arable Crops Produced By Farmers 18
2.2 Theoretical Literature 22
2.3 Empirical Literature 29
2.4 Analytical
Literature 35
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 43
3.1 Study Area 43
3.2
Sampling procedure 44
3.3 Method of Data
Collection 45
3.4 Method of Data
Analysis And Model Specification 46
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION 54
4.1
Socio-Economic Characteristics of Respondents 54
4.2 Cropping
Systems Practiced By Smallholder Arable Crop Farmers 58
4.3 Extent of
Agricultural Intensification of The Arable Crop Farmers 59
4.4 Poverty Status of Arable Crop Farmers 60
4.5
Determinants of Cropping Systems, Intensification, and
Poverty Status Farmer 64
4.5.1
Determinants of Cropping Systems of The Farmers 64
4.5.2 Determinants of
Crop Intensification Among Arable Crop Farmers 67
4.5.3 Determinants of
Poverty Status of The Arable Crop Farmers 70
4.6
Relationship Between Cropping System, Intensification, Poverty Status of The Farmers 72
4.7 Effects of Intensification and Cropping System on Poverty
Status of The
Farmers 73
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
75
5.1 Summary 75
5.2 Conclusion 77
5.3 Recommendations 77
REFERENCES 80
.
LIST
OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Sampled autonomous communities and
villages 45
Table 4.1 Socio-economic Characteristics of the Arable Farmers 54
Table 4.2 Cropping systems practiced by smallholder arable crop farmers 58
Table 4.3: Agricultural
Intensification Indices 59
Table 4.4: Mean per capita
monthly expenditure of arable crop farmers 60
Table 4.5: Estimated
poverty line 61
Table 4.6: Poverty status
of the respondents 62
Table 4.7 Poverty
Incidence, Depth and Severity of the Respondents 63
Table 4.8: Results of the
MNL model on determinants of cropping systems 64
Table 4.9 Tobit Regression
Model Result on the determinants of crop intensification 68
Table 4.10: Estimated
determinants of poverty status of the arable crop farmer 70
Table 4.11: ANOVA estimate
on relationship between cropping system, intensification and poverty status of the farmers in the study
area 72
Table 4.12: Effects of
intensification and cropping systems on poverty status of the farmers. 73
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Nigeria is largely an agrarian
country despite its large oil earnings. Agriculture employs about 70% of the
total labour force, thus making it the most important sector in this respect
(Chauvin, et al., 2012). Agriculture
is characterized by small-scale production which is mainly subsistence, use of
simple crude tools and generally traditional farming methods. Despite these
characteristics, 80% of food in Nigeria is produced by these small-scale
farmers (Chauvin, et al., 2012).
Nigeria’s varied climate which ranges from
the tropical areas of the coast to the arid zone of the north affords her the
opportunity to cultivate nearly all the types of agricultural produce grown in
the tropics and semi-tropical parts of the world (Olayemi et al., 2012).
Agriculture in
Nigeria as in most other developing countries is dominated by small farm
producers (Oladeebo, 2004). Smallholder farmers constitute about 80% of the
farming population in Nigeria (Awoke and Okorji, 2004). These smallholder
farmers although individually looks insignificant but collectively form an
important foundation upon which the Nigerian agriculture rests. Several
constraints and barriers, which appear insurmountable, limit the overall
farming activities and if this is anything to go by, the destiny of a
developing economy heavily rests on the shoulder of the small producers.
Smallholder farmers are farmers whose production capacity falls between 0.1 and
4.99 hectares holding (Federal Office of Statistics, 1999)
Although
Nigeria has a huge agricultural endowment, hunger characterizes the majority of
the population. About 64.4% and 83.7% of the population live below the poverty
line of US$1.25 and US$2 per person per day, respectively (Aye 2013). Nigeria
faces a lot of challenges including that of attaining food security, which is
one of the millennium development goals (FAO 2003). Some of these challenges
are caused by natural resources (soil, water and climate), faulty micro
economies, agricultural policies, bad economy, etc. Due to these challenges,
smallholder farmers in Nigeria are poverty stricken. These challenges affect
individual farmers and put the household welfare of the farmers at danger or at
risk. Consequently, this risk encourages farmers to diversify into other
non-farm activities which are expected to supplement their income.
According to Rana and Rana (2011),
cropping systems, an important component of a farming system, represents a
cropping pattern used on a farm and their interaction with farm resources,
other farm enterprises and available technology, which determine their makeup.
It is defined as the order in which the crops are cultivated on a piece of land
over a fixed period or cropping system is the way in which different crops are
grown. In the cropping systems, sometimes a number of crops are grown together
or they are grown separately at short intervals in the same field.
Climate change, environmental
degradation and stagnating yields threaten crop production and world food
security. It is now recognized that the enormous gains in agricultural
production and productivity achieved through the green revolution were often
accompanied by negative effects on agriculture’s natural resource base, so
serious that they jeopardize its productive potential in the future. It is also
clear that current food production and distributions systems are failing to
feed the world. In most developing countries, there is little room for
expansion of arable land. The declining quality and increased competition for
the land and water resources available for crop production has major
implications for the future. Resource degradation reduces the effectiveness of
inputs, such as fertilizer and irrigation. Given the current and increasing
future challenges to our food supply and to the environment, sustainable
intensification of agricultural production is emerging as a major priority for
policymakers and international development partners. Environmental,
institutional and social principles should be taken into consideration (FAO,
2016).
Agricultural intensification provided
farmers with higher yield per hectare and growth in their gross income. It is a
formidable step towards reducing poverty and hunger in developing countries,
especially with rapid urbanization and population growth rates. This is based
on the fact that agricultural intensification has a positive and significant
impact on poverty reduction. Therefore, creation of awareness and persuading
rural farming households to practice more of intensified agriculture would lead
to increase in productivity and income with a multiplier effect on poverty
reduction (Iheke and Arikaibe, 2012).
According to Udoh et al.
(2011), the increasing demand for agricultural commodities generates from an
ever-increasing population. They explained that the existence of various
agricultural programmes and policies intended to boost arable crop production
are incentives for farmers to increase agricultural production and these have
prompted many arable crop farmers to intensify the frequency of cropping,
change combination of crops planted in attempts to maximize land use and reduce
risks and uncertainties in production.
However, continued increase in land
use intensity without corresponding plans to supplement the soil with
sustainable nutrients could be detrimental to the national agricultural
development goals of self-food sufficiency in the long run (Udoh et al.,
2011). Agricultural intensification could be sustainable only if land
management practices used by the farmers could compensate for nutrient loss and
environmental stress induced by improper use of land (Oladeebo and Adekilekun,
2013). Van Noordwijk (2005) suggested that the extent of the intensity of land
use could be an indicator of poverty level; at some stages, agricultural
intensification provides the financial resources to reduce poverty but, at
other times, environmental degradation becomes a determinant of poverty.
According to the most recent
estimates, in 2015, 10% of the World’s population are poor. They are said to
live on less than 1.90 US dollar per day (World Bank, 2015). Poverty is a
global phenomenon, which threatens the survival of mankind (Ukpong, 1999).
Majority of the poor people live in the rural area, where a large proportion of
the people are engaged in one form of farming or another. Hence, Haggblade
(2004) noted that significant poverty reduction will not be possible without
rapid agricultural growth. Nigeria is one of the poorest nations despite its
enormous resources. According to NBS (2011), in terms of absolute poverty
(defined in terms of the percentage of Nigerians with the minimal requirements
necessary to afford minimal standards of food, clothing, healthcare and
shelter), 54.7% of Nigerians were living in poverty in 2004 but this increased
to 60.9% (or 99,284,512 Nigerians) in 2010. The Human Development Report (2010)
ranked Nigeria as 142 out of 169 countries in terms of poverty.
Poverty has
been identified as a major limitation to economic growth and development
(Awotide et al., 2015). In relation
to income or consumption, a person is considered as poor if his income or
consumption is insufficient for him to enjoy a certain level of well-being or
more technically, the person’s income or consumption falls below an established
threshold which differs across countries (UNESCO, 2015). Nigeria’s national poverty profile has
generally been on the rise, poverty is especially
severe and more concentrated in the rural areas where the main occupation is
farming and 73.2 percent of the rural population are described poor and farming
population comprises predominantly of resource-poor peasants, cultivating an
average of about two hectares of land usually on scattered holdings with low
and declining productivity (Harmonised Nigeria Living Standard Statistics
(HNLSS) Report, 2016).
1.2 STATEMENT
OF RESEARCH PROBLEM
Nigeria is a
country where more than 36.55per cent of the workforce is engaged in
agriculture mainly on subsistence level (World Bank, 2017). It has a total land
mass of 923,766km2 and a projected population of more than 170
million. Like any other developing country, the population would continue to
increase over the years and the need for urbanization, industrialization and
expansion would generate some pressures on the available land (Osugiri et al.,
2012)
A lot of intervention projects and development programmes are
being promoted on the African continent to increase crop yields and production
and as a result increase smallholders’ income and reduce poverty and hunger,
but the series of risks that these farmers face still constitute prominent
obstacles to achieving the desired goal of improving the smallholders’
livelihoods. For example, in Nigeria, efforts to improve and sustain some
arable crops such as maize technologies have met with some success, as improved
maize varieties are now grown in most areas of Northern Nigeria and
inappreciable quantity across other agro ecological zones of Southern Nigeria.
The remarkable disjuncture between research efforts and technological diffusion
on the one hand and yield performance on the other indicates that technological
development has not been the main factor behind short-term yield trend. This
sluggish yield response has been blamed on some factors among which is limited
adoption of complementary inputs such as fertilizer and other soil fertility
related practices to accompany new seed varieties (IFPRI, 2001). These factors
have all played out in an environment characterized by frequent intense
conflicts, and weak institutional arrangements. Report on trend in arable crop (emphasis
on maize) production in Nigeria indicate that most of the problems militating
against the consistent expansion of the programme are being seriously addressed
(Iken and Amusa, 2004). Efforts in this regard include some viable agricultural
policy instruments. However, these instruments have not been able to adequately
cater for the unpredictable natural, social, economic and technical sources of
risks that still stare majority of the smallholders in the face (Olarinde,
2004).
The most pressing challenge of Nigerian
agriculture in the new millennium is how to meet the food need of an
ever-growing population in the reality of the myriads of social, cultural and
economic problems that negate sustainable land management (Akinbile, 1997;
Fakoya et al., 2007).
Smallholder farmers in Nigeria produce a substantial percentage of the food
consumed by Nigerians. These farmers are producing below their capacity because
of numerous challenges they experience. Different governments have had many
programmes to solve some of the constraints that militate against the farmers’
efficiency but they are yet to produce enough for Nigerian citizens to stop
food importation (Mgbenka and Mbaha, 2016).
Iheke (2006) observed that growth in
population combined with rapid urbanization has fuelled an increased demand for
agricultural goods that regional production is increasingly failing to meet. As
such, Haggblade (2004) asserted that significant poverty reduction will not be
possible without rapid agricultural growth. Therefore, agricultural
intensification becomes a veritable option which involves the efficient use of
production inputs, increased productivity which comes from the use of improved
varieties and breeds, efficient use of labour, and better farm management
(Dixon et al., 2001). According to Borlaug (2007), per hectare increase
in agricultural productivity will lead to a reduced demand for crop land,
potentially sparing these lands for other uses.
Oladeebo and
Adekilekun (2013) stated that food crop farmers would therefore need an upward
shift in technology in order to substantially increase output given their input
level. Labour use intensity, crop diversification and years of experience when
properly adjusted will help in efficiency of food crop production. From the
foregoing, given agricultural intensification leads to more efficient use of
production inputs thereby increasing productivity; it is pertinent to examine
its effect on poverty alleviation without further damage to the local and global
environment.
In the light
of the above, it is pertinent to find out the relationship between the cropping
systems, crop intensification and the poverty status of arable crop farmers in
Imo state in order to proffer solution to the problems above. This study
addressed the paramount issues with the following research questions:
i.
What are the
socio-economic factors of smallholder arable crop farmers in Imo state?
ii.
What are the cropping
systems practiced by the smallholder arable crop farmers in the area?
iii.
What are the poverty
levels or status of the smallholder arable crop farmers?
iv.
Do the farmers practice
agricultural intensification?
v.
How do agricultural
intensification affect the poverty status of the farmers?
vi.
How can poverty among
farmers be improved?
1.3 OBJECTIVES
OF THE STUDY
The broad
objective of this study is to examine the cropping systems, intensification and
poverty status of smallholder arable crop farmers in Imo State, Nigeria. The
specific objectives are to:
1.
examine the
socio-economic characteristics of smallholder arable crop farmers.
2.
examine the rate of use
of the cropping systems by smallholder arable crop farmers in the study area.
3.
determine the extent of
agricultural intensification of the farmers.
4.
estimate the poverty
status of the arable crop farmers
5.
Analyse the determinants
of cropping systems, intensification, and poverty status of the farmers.
6.
examine the relationship
between cropping system, intensification and poverty status of the farmers.
7.
estimate the effects of
intensification and cropping systems on poverty status of the farmers.
1.4 RESEARCH
HYPOTHESES
The following
hypotheses were tested:
1. Gender,
age in years, marital status, household size, education level, experience are
positively related to intensification and poverty status of the farmers in the
study area.
2. There
is no significant relationship between cropping system, intensification and
poverty status of the farmers.
3.
Intensification and
cropping systems have no significant impact on poverty status of the farmers.
1.5 JUSTIFICATION
FOR THE STUDY
This study is
designed to analyse the cropping systems, crop intensification, and poverty
status of arable crop farmers in Imo state, Nigeria. Some of the cropping
system practices aimed at tackling soil quality decline and degradation has
wide spread acknowledgement with low usage. Therefore, there is a need to
identify the cropping system practised by the smallholder farmers and their
determinants in order to address long term sustainability of Nigeria’s soil
resources.
Considering
the increase in Nigeria’s population and the need to provide the teeming
population with the basic food demand and recognizing the significance of crop
intensification in the improvement of the productivity of the arable crop
farmers and the economy of the country, there is need to strengthen the
knowledge of intensification among crop based farmers and other stakeholders in
Nigerian agriculture.
Poverty has
been a core characteristic of arable crop farming households in Nigeria, there
is a general view that arable crop farmers are poor and there has not been any
proffered solution to this despite many researches on poverty. This study will
bring to the limelight the determinants of poverty and its relationship with
crop intensification and cropping systems, which would contribute to the search
for solutions.
The findings
of this study will help to stimulate further research in the economic and
social aspects of cropping systems, resource intensification and poverty. This
study will also assist policy makers in the formulation of policies on soil
management programs in Nigeria; it will also help the government and other
stakeholders tackle poverty.
Login To Comment