2015Cambridge Business & EconomicsConferenceISBN : 9780974211428
Empowering Small-Scale Farmers through the Adoption of Soil Degradation Technologies:A Case Study Of Arable Crop Farmers In Imo State, Nigeria.
Nwaiwu Juan C, Onubuogu G. C and Chukwu A.O
Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development, Imo State University, Owerri, Nigeria. Corresponding author: juanhyginus
Tel:+234(0)8039511468; +234 (0)8023777010
ABSTRACT
The study examined factors that influenced the adoption of soil degradation technologies in Imo State Nigeria. Data for the study were collected from 342 Arable Crop farmers spread across the three Agricultural zones in the 27 local government areas of the State. Respondents were selected through multi-stage sampling technique, while the data were collected with the aid of structured questionnaire. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics such as frequency count, percentage and rank while logit regression analysis was used to establish relationship between variables. Results of the study showed that 74.99% of the respondents were below 51years of age; 52.51% attained at least junior secondary school level of education, 90.60% got information on soil degradation technologies from friends, while out of the seventeen technologies introduced to then on soil degradation only ten was said to be available by majority of the respondents and eight were adopted. Socio-economic characteristics such as age (0.047), household size (0.058), major occupation (-0.872), membership of co-operative (-1.456), farming experience 92.00) and farm size (4.297) had significant influence on the adoption of soil degradation technologies. The main constraints faced by the respondents in the adoption of soil degradation technologies included inadequate finance, high cost of necessary implements, lack of technical advice, inability to obtain specific inputs and lack of manpower to handle the technology. It was therefore recommended that government should make the procurement of soil degradation technology materials cheaper and accessible and teach farmers and technicians in rural areas on the best ways to use and install them.
Keywords: Technology, soil degradation, Arable crop farmers, Nigeria.
INTRODUCTION
Small-scale farming is the most dominant mode of agriculture in most developing countries, Nigeria inclusive. Approximately, 3 billion people live in rural areas of developing countries with over 2 billion of them involved in agriculture as small-scale farmers or farm workers (World Bank, 2007). Nagoyetes (2005) also observed that at least 75% of farms in majority of African and Asian countries are only two hectares or less in size.
It is for this reason that any attempt at transforming agriculture should aim at transforming the small scale farming. Small-scale farming is significant in many ways. In agriculture-based economics, such as in Nigeria, farming generates 34% of the Gross Domestic Products (GDPs) and 65% of employment (Jazairy et al, 1992), with the farm owners mainly self employed.
Small-scale farming therefore merits support for many reasons. For instance, Morton (2007) recognizes that the small scale farmers can be efficient than the large –scale farmers in utilizing production resources, especially purchased inputs and labour. Other researchers (Thirtle et al, 2005; de Janvryand Sadoulet, 2010) also reported that small-scale farming has great capacity to reduce poverty if the small-scale farmers are connected to market and extension services. According to them, for each percentage growth in agricultural yield, there is 0.6% to 1.2% reduction in poverty. This therefore implies that empowerment of small-scale farmers through provision of appropriate agricultural technologies can go a long way in reducing poverty and food security in farming community. These benefits result from the direct effects of agricultural improvement on the arable crop farmers themselves and from strong agricultural linkage with other sectors of the economy, promoted by agricultural extension.
Several constraints to soil and land resources are adversely affecting agricultural productivity in the state. Poor farming practices such as complete method of tillage, constant weeding, packing of debris after weeding, constant and excessive use of fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides, land clearance, overgrazing and over drafting, exposure of naked soil after harvesting by heavy equipment as well as natural processes coupled with population pressure are responsible for problems of soil degradation.
Soil degradation has further deepened the devastating effect of poverty, that is ravaging most rural areas in Imo State, Nigeria. According to Morilumo et al (2011) Soil erosion is the leading cause of damage to our soils. Today some arable crop farmers farming practices make soil erosion an ever increasing problem.
The government and the agricultural Development Programmes (ADPs) in collaboration with the research institutes in Nigeria came up with technologies on soil conservation but despite the technologies, the negative effects of soil degradation seem to increase due to poor or non-adoption of the technologies. There is doubt whether farmers are aware that the farming practices they employ causes soil degradation or perhaps farmers are not aware of the improved technologies on soil conservation. This study was therefore conducted mainly to examine the rate of adoption of soil degradation technologies by arable crop farmers in Imo State, Nigeria. The specific objectives of the study were to:
(i)Investigate the sources of information on soil degradation technologies;
(ii)identify the soil degradation technologies available.
(iii)ascertain the soil degradation technologies adopted by the arable crop farmers.
(iv)determine the constraints militating against the adoption of soil degradation technologies.
Materials and Methods
Study Area
This study was carried out in Imo State Nigeria. The state lies within the geographical coordinates of latitudes 40 451N and 70 151N and longitude 60501E and 70251E and covers a total land area of 5100 square kilometers ( Imo State has an estimated population of about 4.8 million people (NPC, 2010) The population density of Imo State is by far higher than the national average which is 166.0 person per square kilometer (National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), (2009) and this has been attributed to the increasing pressure on land, forests and other natural resources in the state (
Rainfall distribution is bimodal with peaks in July and September and a two week break in August. The rainy season begins in March and last till October or early November. Annual rainfall varies from 1990mm-3200mm. Temperatures are similar all over the state, with the hottest months being between January and March. The mean annual temperature is around 200C, while the annual relative humidity is 75 percent. (
Sampling Procedure
The population for this study comprises all the arable crop farmers. Multi-stage sampling techniques were used in selecting the respondents for the study. The first stage was the purposive selection of all the three agricultural zones in the state. The reason was to ensure proper representation of the state. The second stage was the purposive selection of the three blocks each from the three agricultural zones of the state. These blocks were those with the highest incidence of soil degradation problems in the state.
The third stage of the sampling involve the random sampling of two circles from each of the nine blocks already selected, giving a total of 18 circles. The forth stage was the random sampling of two sub-circles, each from the 18 selected circles to give a total of 36 sub-circles. Ten (10) arable crop farmers were randomly sampled from each of the 36 sub-circles giving a total of 360 arable crop farmers. However, only 342 questionnaires were properly completed and retrieved for data analysis.
Data collected were analyzed using descriptive statistics, (frequency distribution, percentage and mean) logit regression and likert type scale.
Result and Discussion
Socio-economic characteristics of respondents.
The results in Table 1 reveal that 54.00% of the respondents were within the active age group of 31-50 years. Only 25.00% of them were above 50 years of age with the mean age being 42 years. This age range has some advantage for the adoption of improved technologies as bemire et al… (2002); Sheik et al… (2003) found that the age of individuals affects their mental attitude towards new ideas and hence influence adoption in several ways. Consequently, the high proportion of young farmers in the study area spells bright future for adoption of improved agricultural technologies in the study area. The study also reveal that more than half (59.12%) of the respondents attained at least the junior secondary school level of education and above, while about 22% of the respondents had no formal education at all (Table 1). Education affects agricultural productivity by increasing the ability of farmers to produce more output from given resources. A vast majority of the respondents (80.70%) are members of social organization, this is good as information regarding environmental degradation can easily be diffused using the various organizations existing in the community.
The table (1) also reveals that 49.40% of the respondents have farming experience of 11-20 years, this shows that they could have over the years experienced a change in the farm productivity as a result of devastating effects of soil degradation. Infact, majority (74.90%) of the respondents have 0-1 hectares of farm land, this shows the increasing pressure on land as a result of urbanization as more people depend on the fewer portion of land for farming. Farmers who cultivate large farm holdings are more resource-endowed and therefore are more likely to adequately have the required resources for acquisition of farm inputs (Ajibefun, 2006). This puts them in an advantage position to adopt improved technologies compared with farmers who have small farm holdings.
Table 1
Distribution of Respondents Based on their Socio-economic Characteristics (n=342)
Socio-economicFrequencyPercentage
Variable
Age (in years)
≤ 20216.14
21-305816.96
31-409728.36
41-509427.48
51-605014.62
Above 60226.43
Educational Qualification
Tertiary education7220.00
Senior Secondary education 8022.22
Junior secondary education 3710.29
Primary education 6116.94
Adult education3008.33
No formal education 8022.22
Membership of social
organization.
Member27680.70
Non-member 6619.30
Farming experience
(No of years)
1-1013235.69
11-2016949.40
21-304111.98
Farm Size (ha)
0-125674.9
1-27722.5
3-451.4
5-641.2
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Respondents Sources of Information on Soil Degradation Technologies
Table 2 reveal that the main source of information on soildegradation technologies was through friends (90.60%), radio ranked second (53.20%). The radio is known to be an effective channel of communication through which rural population, largely non-literate who seldom has access to written forms of information can be reached (Ifeanyi-Obi-2003). Extension agents ranked third (41-2%) implying that extension delivery in terms of information on soil degradation technology can be said to be unsatisfactory. This was followed by television (38.9) fellow villagers (34.5%), newspaper (34.2%) and mobile phone (5.8%).
Table 2
Distribution of respondents based on their sources of information on soil degradation technologies
SourceFrequencyPercentage
Newspaper11734.2
Television13338.9
Extension agent14141.2
Through fellow villagers11834.5
Radio18253.2
Friends31090.6
Mobile Phones205.8
Source: Field survey, 2014*multiple responses recorded
Identification of Soil degradation technologies available
Entries in Table 3 shows that majority of the respondents agreed that the following technologies on soil degradation is available, they include, controlling flow of water by making it flow to where it is designed to be taken at a controlled velocity (99.4%), minimize grazing and cutting (91.2%), maintenance of borders in the field (88.9%), using a good cover of grass such as vertiver grass (88.3%), cover cropping (83.9%), minimization of clean cultivation (82.5%), minimize tillage (80.0%). Others include use of tinned implements rather than disc (70.7%), use of blade and chisel plow with steep points (87.7%), reduction of frequency of cultivation (82.25%), effective control of grazing (91.2%) and growing of hedges around cultivated field (56.7%). While Alley cropping construction of flood retarding structure, reducing amount ofrunoff by promoting infiltration, construction of drop structure, hydrological approach and chemical approach was said to be available by a very meager percentage in other words, they are not available to them.
The unavailability of some of these soil degradation technologies can be attributed as lapses on the side of the extension agents of the agricultural development programmes who at times are not effective at disseminating information or technologies to farmers.
Table 3: Distribution of Respondents based on Available Technologies.
Available TechnologyFrequencyPercentage
Provision of surface cover 22164.6
that intercepts the rain before
hitting the soil.
Reducing amount of runoff by
promoting infiltration. 12436.3
Controlling flow to water by
making it flow to where it is
desired to be taken at a
controlled velocity. 34099.4
Using a good cover grass
such as vertiver grass. 30288.3
Maintenance of borders in
the field.30488.9
Cover cropping22184.6
Alley Cropping226.46
Minimize tillage30188.0
Construction of drop structure 13038.0
Construction of
flood retardingstructure. 8524.9
Minimize grazing and cutting 31291.2
Use of tined implements rather
than disc24270.7
Use of blade and chisel plow
with steep points30087.7
Reduction of frequency of
cultivation28182.2
Hydrological approach such
as leaching and drainage 3911.4
Chemical approach such as
use of gypsum, sulphur and
acids9928.9
Biological approach 3411.40
Source: Field Survey, 2014.
Adoption of soil degradation technologies by respondents
results in Table 4 reveal that majority (98.9%) of the respondents adopted control of flow of water by making it flow to where it is desired to be taken at a controlled velocity, minimize grazing and cutting (73.1%) use of cover cropping (58.8%), use of vertiver (55.3%), use of tinned implements (58.2%). use of blade and chisel plow (82.2%), reduction of frequency of cultivation (65.5%), use of implements such as chisel (61.1%) and effective control of grazing (76.3%). The table further reveals that majority of the respondents did not adopt provision of surface cover, reducing amount of runoff by promoting infiltration, minimization or clean cultivation, alley cropping, construction of drop structure and flood retarding structure.
The preference of some of the technologies over others may have been influenced by some factors such as the cost of the technology, ease of application, comparative advantage among others. The use of grasses as erosion control measures has been reported to be cheap and simple to apply by the people (Odili, 2010). It could be also that these preferred technologies possessed attributes that were compatible to the local environment. For the methods that were not adopted by the people as shown in Table 4, the reason could be due to scarcity of materials, complexity of the technology or high cost of application. Alley cropping is regarded as an effective erosion control measure but is not practiced in farm in Nigeria, as this technology is very labour intensive and the benefits on soil fertility did not materialize as expected (Jimoh, 2011).
Table 4: Distribution of respondents based on Adoption of Soil Degradation Technologies
Available TechnologyFrequencyPercentage
Provision of surface cover 9226.9
that intercepts the rain before
hitting the soil.
Reducing amount of runoff by
promoting infiltration. 6619.3
Controlling flow to water by
making it flow to where it is
desired to be taken at a
controlled velocity. 33898.8
Using a good cover grass
such as vertiver grass 18955.3
Maintenance of borders in
the field32895.9
Cover cropping20158.8
Alley Cropping82.3
Minimize tillage17150.0
Construction of drop structure 4212.3
Construction of
floodretardingstructure. 31090.6
Minimize grazing and cutting 19958.2
Use of tined implements rather
than disc 28182.2
Use of blade and chisel plow
with steep points22465.5
Reduction of frequency of
cultivation195.6
Hydrological approach such
as leaching and drainage 92.6
Chemical approach such as
use of gypsum, sulphur and
acids236.7
Biological approach
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Analysis of the Relationships between respondents adoption and socio-economic factors
The study looked at the relationship between some socio-economic characteristics of the respondents and their level of adoption of soil degradation technologies. The value of the R2 was 0.824 (Table 5) which implies that about 82% of the variation in the adoption of soil degradation technology was accounted for by the joint action of the socio-economic variables (Independent variable) investigated in the study. seven explanatory variables, age (0.047), household size (2.116), level of education (0.038), farming experience (2.00), farm size (4.297), extension contact (0.215) and marital status (0.444) were positively related to adoption of soil degradation technology implying that these variables were important factors influencing the farmers adoption of soil degradation technologies.
This is in line with the findings of Ifeanyi Obi (2013), Onu (2011) and Onwuegbuchulam (1990) who also reported similar influence of age, farm size, level of education, marital status and household size on farmers adoption. Membership of cooperatives society, major occupation and gender were negatively related to adoption of soil degradation technology. The likelihood ratio (LR) was significant at 1% showing the overall significance of the model. Age, household size, major occupation, membership of cooperative, farm size and gender were statistically significant showing their major influences.
Table 5
Estimated Logit regression Model Relating some Socio-economic Variable to Adoption of Soil degradation Technology.
VariableCoefficientS.EWaldAntilog
Constant-1.497 1.1411.720
Age (X1)0.047 0.01312.818**1.048
Household Size (X2) 2.116 0.0584.076**8.29
Education (X3)0.038 0.0311.5011.058
Major occupation(X4) -0.872 0.2938.860**1.0378
Membership of
Corporative (X5)-1.456 0.5926.045**4.28
Farming experience(X6)2.00 0.0202.801**7.38
Farm size(X7) 4.297 0.2865.079**73.47
Extension Contact(X8)0.215 0.2071.0801.23
Gender (X9)-0.194 0.1282.301* 1.21
Marital Status (X10) 0.444 0.4361.0381.55
Cos & Snell R20.824
LR88.53**
Source: Computed from Field Survey Data, 2014.
Constraints/problems associated with respondents adoption of Soil Degradation Technologies
Table 6 shows the constraints/problems faced by the farmers in adopting soil degradation technologies. Using a discriminating index of ≥ 2.0 for acceptance and < 2.0 for rejection, the result (Table 6) indicates that inadequate finance, (mean= 2.34), high cost of necessary implement (Mean = 2.05), funding (2.32), measures being too expensive to implement (Mean = 2.57), no technical advice for proper use of the technology (mean = 2.04), inability to obtain specific input (mean – 2.35) and lack of proper manpower to handle the technology (mean= 2.20) were all accepted by the respondents as constraints to adoption.
The result indicates that there were many constraints militating against the adoption of soil degradation technologies in Imo State Nigeria. The problem of funding many have resulted from the dwindling governments budgetary allocation to soil degradation on one hand and poor management of the fund on the other hand. Also, the poor extension contact and supervision in the study area may be a result of general apathy towards extension service in Nigeria. Asiabaka (2010) observed that despite the obvious importance of extension services in technology transfer and national development, successive governments in Nigeria have not given the sector the attention it deserves .