Comparative Analysis of Resource Use Efficiency in Rice Production among Fadama iii And Non-fadama iii Beneficiary Rice Farmers in Niger State, Nigeria.
ABSTRACT
This study investigated resource use efficiency of Fadama III and non-Fadama III beneficiary rice farmers in Niger State, Nigeria. Primary data were collected using questionnaire/interview schedule administered to a sample of one hundred and twenty rice farmers, selected using multistage sampling technique. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, stochastic frontier production function, return to scale analysis, gross margin analysis, net farm income analysis and likert scale rating technique.
Maximum likelihood estimates of the Cobb-Douglas frontier function showed that coefficient of seeds (0.479), labour (0.445) and herbicides (0.093) had significant effects on output of Fadama III beneficiary rice farmers while fertilizer (0.069) is the input with significant effect on output of the non-beneficiary farmers. The estimated coefficients of the inefficiency model revealed that age, household size, educational level, extension contact and Fadama advisory services positively affected Fadama III rice farmers’ technical efficiency, but only age and educational level were significant.
On the other hand, age, household size and extension contact positively affected non-Fadama III rice farmers’ technical efficiency, but only extension contact was significant. An increasing return to scale of 1.432 and 1.168 were recorded for the Fadama III and non-Fadama III rice farmers, respectively. The technical efficiencies of the Fadama III rice farmers ranged from 0.411 – 1 with a mean value of 0.79 while that of the non Fadama III beneficiary rice farmers ranged from 0.435 – 0.989 with a mean value of 0.81 on the scale of 1.
This showed that technical efficiency can be increased by 21 and 19 percents to attain optimal level in the Fadama III and non Fadama III beneficiary rice farmers, respectively. Allocative efficiency analysis showed that all resource inputs were underutilized. Fadama III rice farmers made a gross margin of N69, 288.37, a net farm income of N67, 599.91 and a return on Naira Invested of 1.81 per ha while the non-Fadama III rice farmers made a gross margin of N30, 250.36, a net farm income of N28, 550.26 and a return on Naira invested of 1.12 per ha.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title page – – – – – – – – – ii
Certification – – – – – – – – – iii
Dedication – – – – – – – – – iv
Acknowledgement – – – – – – – – v
Table of Contents – – – – – – – – vi
List of Tables – – – – – – – – – ix
List of Figures- – – – – – – – – x
Abstract – – – – – – – – – xi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study – – – – – – 1
1.2 Problem Statement – – – – – – – 3
1.3 Objective of the Study – – – – – – 5
1.4 Hypotheses of the Study – – – – – – 6
1.5 Justification of the Study – – – – – – 6
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Definition and Development of Fadama farming – – – 8
2.2 Economic Importance of Fadama farming – – – – 9
2.3 Rice Production Systems – – – – – – 10
2.4 Inputs Used in Rice Production in Nigeria- – – – 12
2.5 Trends in Rice Production in Nigeria – – – – – 14
2.6 Efforts to Boost Rice Production in Nigeria- – – – 16
2.7 Developments in the Nigeria Rice Sector Policy – – 17
2.8 Profitability of Rice Production Nigeria – – – – 19
2.9 Efficiency of Rice Production in Nigeria – – – – 21
2.10 Community Driven Development Approach and Fadama Project 22
2.11 Theoretical Framework- – – – – – – 23
2.12 Analytical Framework- – – – – – – 29
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY OF STUDY
3.1 Study Area – – – – – – – – 32
3.2 Sampling Technique – – – – – – – 33
3.3 Method of Data Collection – – – – – – 33
3.4 Data Analysis – – – – – – – – 34
3.5 Model Specification – – – – – – – 34
3.5.1 Stochastic Frontier Production Function for Rice Farmers – – 34
3.5.2 Gross Margin, Net Farm Income and Return on Naira Invested – 36
3.5.3 Likert Scale Rating Technique- – – – – – 37
3.5.4 Hypotheses Testing- – – – – – – – 38
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Respondents – – – 39
4.1.1 Age of the Respondents – – – – – – 39
4.1.2 Gender of Respondents – – – – – – 40
4.1.3 Marital Status of Respondents- – – – – – 41
4.1.4 Household Size of Respondents- – – – – – 41
4.1.5 Farm Size of the Respondents- – – – – – 42
4.1.6 Farming Experience of Respondents- – – – – 43
4.1.7 Educational Qualification of Respondents- – – – – 44
4.1.8 Major Occupation of Respondents – – – – – 45
4.2.1 Technical Efficiency of Fadama III and non-Fadama III Rice Farmers 46
4.2.2 Diagnostic statistics- – – – – – – – 50
4.2.3 Frequency Distribution of Technical Efficiency of Respondents- – 51
4.2.4 Elasticity of Factor Inputs and Return to Scale – – – 53
4.3 Assessments of the Allocative Efficiencies of Rice Farmers – – 54
4.3.1 Allocative Efficiency of Fadama Rice Farmers- – – – 55
4.3.2 Allocative Efficiency of non-Fadama III Rice Farmers- – – 55
4.4. Costs and Returns of Fadama III and non-Fadama III Rice Farmers- 56
4.5 Constraints of Rice Farming in Niger State – – – 59
4.6 Test of Hypotheses- – – – – – – – 61
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Summary – – – – – – – – 64
5.2 Conclusion – – – – – – – – 66
5.3 Recommendations – – – – – – – 67
5.3.1 Project Implementers- – – – – – – – 67
5.3.2 Policy Implication for Policy Makers- – – – – 68
5.3.3 Possible Areas for Further Studies- – – – – 69
REFERENCES – – – – – – – – 71
APPENDICES – – – – – – – – 80
INTRODUCTION
The food sub-sector of Nigerian agriculture has a large array of staple crops, but rice has risen to a position of pre-eminence. At independence in 1960, rice was merely a festival food consumed mostly in affluent homes during the Christmas and other religious festivals (UNEP,2002). However, as shown in the report of Akpokoye, Lancon and Erenstein (2001), since the mid-1970s, rice consumption in Nigeria has risen tremendously, (+10.3% per annum) as a result of accelerating population growth rate and changing consumer preferences.
Urbanization appears to be the main cause of the shift in consumer preferences towards rice in Nigeria. Rice is easy to prepare compared to other traditional cereals, thereby reducing the chore of food preparation and fitting more easily the urban lifestyles of rich and poor alike. The poorest third of urban households obtain 33% of their cereal-based calories from rice, and rice purchases represent a major component of cash expenditures on cereals (World Bank 1991).
Ogundele and Okoruwa (2006) noted that in an apparent move to respond to the increased per capita consumption of rice in Nigeria, local production boomed, averaging 9.3% per annum. These increases have been traced to vast expansion of cropped rice area at an annual average of 7.9% and to a lesser extent to an increase in rice yield of 1.49% per annum. In spite of this, the production increase was not sufficient to match the consumption increase. Rice production, according to Onoja (2007), can be found in each of the geopolitical zones of the country.
These extend from the Northern to Southern zones with most rice grown in middle Belt (Niger, Benue, Kaduna, Kogi and Taraba States) and the Eastern states (Enugu, Cross River and Ebonyi States). Daramola (2005) observed that the middle belt of the country (where Niger state is located) has a comparative advantage in production over the other parts of the country. According to Singh et al (1997) rice production systems in Nigeria include upland rainfed, lowland rainfed, irrigated lowland and deep water and mangrove rice.
REFERENCES
Adama, D.M. (2008). “The Effects of Microfinance Services on the Technical
Efficiency of Cassava farmers in Kogi State, Nigeria”. Unpublished M.Sc
thesis. University of Nigeria, Nsukka.Adesina, A.A. and K.K. Djato (1997). “Relative Efficiency of Women as Farm
Managers: Profit Function Analysis in Coted’ Ivoire”. Journal of
SAgricultural Economics 16: 47-53.Agriculture Digest (2008). Nigeria and World Global Food Crisis. Abuja.
Aigner, D.J., Lovell, C.A.K. and Schmidt, P. (1977). Formulation and Estimation
of Stochastic Frontier Production Model. Journal of Econometrics 6:21-37
Formulation and Estimation of Stochastic Frontier Production Function Model.
Journal of Econometric 6: 21-37.Ajibefun, I.A., and A.G. Daramola (2003). “Efficiency of Micro-Enterprise in
Nigerian Economy” Research paper No. 134, AERC, Nairobi, Kenya.Ajibefun, I.A., and O.A. Abdulkadir (1999) “An Investigation of Technical
Efficiency of Farmers under the National Directorate of Employment in
Ondo State, Nigeria”. Applied Economics letter. 6: 111-14, Routledge,
London.Akpokodje, G., Lanson, F. and O. Erenstein (2001). “Nigerian rice Economy: State
of the Art” In The Nigerian rice Economy in a Competitive World:
Constraints, Opportunities and Strategic Choices. A study funded by
USAID and Implemented by WARDA, Bouke. Accessed on 22nd
February,2008 from
http://www.usaid.gov/ng/downloads/market/riceproductionsystemsinnigeria.
edf.Amaza, P.S. and A.K. Tashikalma (2005). Technical Efficiency of Groundnut
Production in Anambra State, Nigeria. J. Arid Agric,. 13:127-31.
StudentsandScholarship Team.