1
OFFIAH, EBERE OBIANUJU
PG/M.Sc/11/58366
SUSTAINABILITY OF MAIZE BASED
PRODUCTION SYSTEM IN ANAMBRA
STATE NIGERIA
FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL
ECONOMICS
Digitally Signed by: Content manager’s Name
Ebere Omeje
DN : CN = Webmaster’s name
O= University of Nigeria, Nsukka
OU = Innovation Centre
i
SUSTAINABILITY OF MAIZE BASED PRODUCTION SYSTEM
IN ANAMBRA STATE NIGERIA
BY
OFFIAH, EBERE OBIANUJU
PG/M.Sc/11/58366
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA
FEBRUARY, 2015
ii
SUSTAINABILITY OF MAIZE BASED PRODUCTION SYSTEM
IN ANAMBRA STATE NIGERIA
BY
OFFIAH, EBERE OBIANUJU
PG/M.Sc/11/58366
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA
FEBRUARY, 2015
iii
SUSTAINABILITY OF MAIZE-BASED PRODUCTION SYSTEM IN ANAMBRA
STATE NIGERIA
AN M.Sc THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL
ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA, IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF A DEGREE OF MASTER OF
SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
BY
OFFIAH, EBERE OBIANUJU
PG/M.Sc/11/58366
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA
FEBRUARY, 2015
CERTIFICATION
iv
Ms OFFIAH, EBERE OBIANUJU, a postgraduate student of the Department of
Agricultural Economics, University of Nigeria, Nsukka with Registration Number
PG/M.Sc/11/58366 has satisfactorily completed the requirements for course and
research work for the award of the degree of Master of Science (M.Sc) in
Agricultural Economics. The work embodied in this thesis is original and has not
been submitted in part or full for any other diploma or degree in this or any other
university.
……………………………………
Doctor A.A. Enete
(Supervisor)
Date……………….
……………………………………
……………………………
Professor S.A.N.D Chidebelu
Professor Jude Mbanasor
(Head of Department)
External Examiner
Date……………….
Date……………
DEDICATION
v
In a special way to God Almighty for his goodness and guidance, I revere and give
all the Glory; and to my angel Nwankwo Gabriela Gosife.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I appreciate our heavenly Trinity in a most special way, for the protection, knowledge,
strength and guidance bestowed upon me throughout the course of my M.Sc, without which I
would not have completed this work. I express my profound gratitude to the head of the
department Prof. S.A.N.D Chidebelu for his fatherly advices and ever listening ears.
I am highly indebted to my supervisor Dr. A.A Enete , who was more than just my
lecturer but also a friend for his aspiring guidance and constant supervision, invaluable and
constructive criticism, useful and necessary information even beyond the thesis, his strenuous
arguments which made the work to finally be of impeccable quality. I am most grateful sir. My
warm thanks go to my other lecturers Prof. E.C. Okorji, Prof. Achike, Prof. Eboh, Prof. Nweze,
Prof. Arene, Prof. Okoye, Dr. Agbo, Dr. Chwukwuone, Dr. Amechina, Dr. Okpupara, Mr.
Njepuome, Mrs Arua, Mrs Onyenekwu and others whose lectures and interactions contributed to
the success of this work. Also the special assistances of the administrative staffs, Mrs Romaine,
Mrs Ifeanyi and others will never be forgotten.
Special gratitude goes to my colleagues Mr. Okpala, Mr. Onyishi, Tonia and others for
their contributions and encouragements which made a significant positive impact to the work.
My deepest sense of gratitude to my wonderful parents Mr. and Mrs. D.N Offiah, words cannot
convey the magnitude of your tireless efforts in making sure that I acquired education, may God
bless and continue to keep you for me. Chief and Lolo Ken Igbo I lack words to appreciate your
efforts, both financially and morally, I don’t pray to pay you back because nothing can just be
enough, may oil never lack from that pot.
To Prof. Anibeze my mentor, for your immeasurable, truthful and illuminating views in
all areas of my academic pursuit ever since I encountered you, I will forever bless the day I met
you. To my other siblings Uchenna, Emeka, Nonso and Odinaka , you guys are the best. Mr. and
Mrs Ezeji, I thank God for giving me wonderful people like you. Ochendo, Anuty Monic, Anuty
Jane, Anuty Cee, Engr. Emma, Fr. Fide, Mr. Stanley and Mr. Inno, I will forever be grateful to
God for giving me this great family.
A warm thanks to the farmers and staff of ADP Anambra state that provided me with the
necessary information that guided this thesis, for your attention and time, God will reward you.
Finally but most especially, to my Sweetest desire Ben Nwankwo, Gossy baby and Oge,
for your prayers, sacrifices, kind supports, sleepless nights, cooperation, understanding and
encouragements even at tight schedules, I am pledging my endless love for you. Special thanks
also to all whose names were omitted; your efforts are still highly appreciated for your
contributions.
vii
ABSTRACT
The study analyzed the sustainability of maize production in Anambra state Nigeria. Primary
data were collected using structured questionnaires administered to one hundred and eighty
respondents, who were selected by purposive, and simple random sampling techniques. The data
were analyzed using descriptive statistics, ordinary least square, Likert type scale, sustainability
index, gross margin and exploratory factor analysis. The results showed that majority (67.2%) of
the respondents were male, with most (84.4%) of household size ranging from 1 to 5 and
majority (89.5%) between the ages of 31 and 50. About 63% were married and 54.4% attended
secondary school. Majority (77.8%) of the maize farmers make use of both hired and family
labor. More than half (53.9%) of the respondents rent land for production and most (79%) of the
farmers either bought seed from market or used previously harvested seeds. Majority (65.0%) of
the maize producers had annual income between N81,000 and N120,000, while most of them
(88%) had farming experience less than 10 years. The result of the existing practices that could
enhance maize sustainability showed that from the farmer’s perspective adequate fertilizer use
and pest and disease control were the most important practice for maize sustainability as they
recorded the highest mean score of 4.13 and 3.66 respectively, with the least been use of
irrigation (1.32). The net farm income showed an increased profit for the maize farms that
cultivated one hectare using hybrid maize and recommended fertilizer rate, although they
incurred more production cost (N140,517), they made a profit of N125,083, with return on
investment of N1.89. The result of the sustainability of maize production analyzed using
sustainability index showed a percentage of only 51%. The explanatory variables such as
planting hybrid maize, amount of fertilizer used, amount of pesticides used and number of ha
planted were the major determinants of profitability (p<0.01). In addition, seed rate, amount of
labor used, amount of herbicide & household size (p<0.05) and early planting & use of animal
manure (p<0.10) were also positively related to profit.The null hypothesis was rejected. Finally
constraints militating sustainability of maize production was analyzed using the exploratory
factor analysis, the result of the Varimax component matrix categorized the most important
constraint into 3 factors in the order: economic or cost factor, natural factors and social factors.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title page
i
Certification
ii
Dedication
iii
Acknowledgement
iv
Abstract
v
Table of content
vi
List of tables
viii
List of figures
ix
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
page
1.1 Background information
1
1.2 Problem statement
4
1.3
5
Objectives of the study
1.4 Justification for the study
6
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Overview of maize production in Nigeria
8
2.2
Demand and production of maize
10
2.3
Maize production trend
11
2.4
Types or varieties of maize
15
2.5
Importance and uses of maize
16
2.6
Maize sustainability
19
2.7
Different practices in maize production trend
24
2.8
Some practices that can enhance maize sustainability
26
2.9
Profitability of maize production
29
ix
2.10 Constraints militating maize sustainability in Nigeria31
2.11 Theoretical framework
37
2.12 Analytical framework
39
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
Study area
Sampling procedure
Data collection
Analytical technique
3.4.1
Likert type scale
3.4.2
Budgetary Techniques
3.4.3
Multiple regression model
3.4.4
Operational index
3.4.5
Exploratory factor analysis model
44
44
45
45
45
46
47
48
49
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
Socio Economic Characteristics of Maize Farmers
Existing practices that could enhance maize sustainability
Profitability of maize production in Anambra State
Determinants of profit in maize production
Evaluation of the sustainability of maize production
Constraints mitigating maize sustainability in the area
51
55
57
61
65
66
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Summary
Conclusion
Recommendation
Contribution to knowledge
69
72
72
73
References
74
Questionnaire
82
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table
page
2.3.1 Maize production trend in Nigeria
12
4.1 Socio Economic characteristics of farmers
48
4.2
Mean scores and decision of existing practices that could enhance maize
sustainability
54
4.3
Net farm income analysis of per hectare maize production using seed
purchased from market
56
4.4
Net farm income analysis of per hectare maize production using improved
seed and required fertilizer rate
57
4.5 Determinants of profit in maize production
59
4.6 Test of significance
63
4.7
Average scores and percentage contribution of the factors that could lead to
sustainability in the area.
64
4.8
Varimax rotated component matrix on the constraints faced by maize
producers in the area
66
xi
List of figures
2.1
Maize production trend in Anambra state and area cultivated over a period
of 11 years
15
1
CHAPTERONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background of the study
As a result of the interaction among human population, socio-cultural and economic
factors, as well as natural resource flows among countries, agricultural sustainability and proper
use of soil and water resources are main global issues of modern times. Sustainability of food
production is one of the paramount issues facing both developed and developing nations. It
hinges on providing food with available resource for the present generation without
compromising the provision for future generation. During the last decade, sustainability has
generated a lot of interest within the scientific community, in order to ensure food security and
alleviate poverty especially in the developing countries where population growth rate is high,
with natural resources and environmental depletion on the increase. Efforts have been made to
study possible ways of ensuring sustainability both in the economic, environmental and social
sectors of the nations of the world. Onyango (2010) opined that with increasing human
population against declining staple food crop yield trend, food insecurity is inevitable.
Amujoyegbe and Bamidele (2012), observed that as a result of the traditional farming
system, crop production expands into less fertile land; the poor productivity of this system and
the emergence of unsustainable farming pose the greatest threat to food security in the Nigerian
sub-region. Smallholder maize production is often characterized by low yields, which are often
significantly lower than the potential for the land; However, sustainable maize production is not
only a question of yields, but also of protection of the environmental resource base, social
welfare, and the livelihoods of farmers as well as adjacent rural and urban communities (Walker
and Schulze 2008). Sustainability of maize production is however the production of maize with
the available natural resources for this generation without compromising the future generation.
2
The study examined the three aspects to sustainable maize production, namely economic, social
and environmental sustainability.
Maize is a staple grain/cereal crop grown almost in all parts of the world. It is a high
yeilding cereal grown successfully under rainfed environment and requires less capital. It has
established itself as a very significant component of the farming system and determines the
cropping pattern of the predominantly peasant farmers (Ahmed, 1996).This grain crop is used as
human food, animal feed, as well as for industrial useage. It can be prepared in a variety of ways
for human consumption such that you can hardly see a person who doesn’t consume it in form
or typology. Maize can be boiled, roasted or fried while industrially it can be processed to
produce cornflakes, golden morn, quaker oat, custard, flour, beer and beverages, as well as
animal feed. Onuk, Ogara, Yahaya and Nannim (2010) noted that maize is one of the most
abundant food crops in Nigeria; about 80% is consumed by man and animals while 20% is
utilized in variety of industrial processes for production of starch, oil, high fructose, corn
sweetener, ethanol, cereal and alkaline, consisting of 71% starch, 9% protein and 4% oil on a
dry weight basis. On the same note, Gupta (2011) noted that maize has immense potential to
meet food requirement of human population because it has a great significance as human food,
animal feed and diversified uses in a large number of industrial products, also that the adoption
of improved and sustainable maize technologies holds the key to ensure both sustainability and
increased maize production.
Iken and Amusa (2004) reported that research on methods of cultivating maize was to a
large extent secondary since the designing of efficient farming system was given priority. They
noted that maize was used merely as a test crop for soil fertility to determine the influence of
green manures and various sequences of crops in the rotation. Most of this work was done at
Moor Plantation in Ibadan, Ogba near Benin City and Umudike near Umuahia. Maize has been
in the diet of Nigerians for centuries. It started as a subsistence crop and has gradually become
more important. Maize has now risen to a commercial crop on which many agro-based
3
industries depend on as raw materials. Abu, Raoul and Okpachu (2011) noted that up until the
late 1980’s, maize was regarded by the majority of people as a crop solely for home
consumption rather than for cash during the past three decades. Thus, the need for its
sustainability arose as a result of the variety of its uses. They opined that maize has become the
new cash crop for many farmers who now diversify their crop production because of the new
trend of market forces. This is as a result of the inability of farmers to produce enough maize in
order to satisfy the needs of growing urban population. However, Adebowale (2004) observed
that the demand for maize exceeds supply as a result of its additional uses as livestock feeds,
baking and brewing industries. DeGroote Hugo (2002) noted however that the several reasons
including continuous cropping, increased population pressure on arable land, degradation of
land as natural resource, low investment in soil fertility, inappropriate production, and episodes
of bad weather have led to decline in productivity of maize. Kukta (2011) cited that improved
maize cultivars are a key element among practices used for integrated pest management and
other approaches to agricultural sustainability. He pointed out that farmers interested in
sustainability do not doubt the potential and utility of hybrid maize cultivars.
Maize has come to possess a high economic importance in the world, as a result of the
numerous uses of this cereal. In the world, it is ranked number 3 after rice and wheat, but here in
Nigeria it is one of the most important cereal crop especially in south eastern Nigeria. High
demand for maize has made it less affordable for poor consumers, thus the need for its increased
productivity and sustainability can never be over emphasized. The expansion of arable land is
necessary but it is insufficient and barely significant approach. Bruinsma (2009), estimated that
only 12% of the future increase in arable land in developing countries can be achieved through
area expansion, without exacting unacceptably high environmental cost. Based on the research
by CIMMYT and IITA (2011), at the current rate of area expansion, maize will eat up ‘its share
of land’ in less than five years; henceforth, maize expansion will come at the cost of crop
diversity, forest, and erodible hill slopes. They pointed out that a significant portion of the
4
production increase is driven by government fertilizer subsidies rather than by farmers adopting
more sustainable and efficient practices. This has led to wasteful use of fertilizers leading to its
excessive usage and thus exposing the land to dangers of nutrient imbalance which will
eventually lead to low crop yield and crop failure. If fertilizers are not used more effectively and
government are no longer able to sustain fertilizer subsidies, the world will see food prices
escalating much more drastically in the nearest future. Thus leading to economic sustainability
failure.
1.2
Problem statement
Addressing the challenges facing maize productivity and sustainability is vital to the
futures of hundreds of millions of people. Ayeni (2010) noted that the continuous use of acid
forming fertilizer like sulphate of ammonia , urea and ammonium nitrate contribute significantly
to soil acidity. This will hinder environmental sustainability. The ecosystem vitality is of great
importance as producing bountifully today at the expense of impact on the environment
tomorrow conotes unsustainablity. This study seeks therefore to look at sustainable practices
that could enhance maize production other than just fertilizer subsidy that have come to be the
main way of increasing maize production.
Onuk, E.G, Ogara, I.M, Yahaya H. and Nannim N. (2010) noted that despite the
economic importance of maize to the teeming populace in Nigeria, it has not been produced to
meet food and industrial need of the country. This could perharps be attributed to low
productivity from maize farms or that farmers have not adopted improved technologies that
would make maize production profitable. However, a practice that is economically viable may
not be ecologically viable. This study not only examined the profitability but also ascertained
the environmental sustainability of maize production.
Many studies have been carried out on maize. Example is the study conducted by Oyewo
and Fabiyi, (2008). In their study of Productivity of Maize Farmers in Oyo State, they concluded
5
that there is a positive and significant relationshipbetween farm size, quality of seed used and
maize output. Also, Oladejo and Adetunji (2012), worked on Economic analysis of maize
production in Oyo State, Fawole and Oladele (2007), on Sustainable Food Crop Production
through Multiple Cropping Patterns among Farmers in South Western Nigeria, and Olorunsanya
and Akinyemi (2004), on Gross margin analysis of maize based cropping system in Oyo. All
these studies hinged on profitability or economic viablity without a look at sustainability as a
whole. They did not look at the impact of increased maize production on the environment and
quality of life of the community, which are the environmental and social sustainability
dimensions respectively. This study looked at all the dimensions of sustainability in maize
production, namely environmental, social and economic sustainability.
1.3
Objectives of the study
The broad objective of the study was to analyse the sustainability of maize production in
Anambra State. Specifically, this study
i.
described the socio-economic characteristics of the maize farmers in the area
ii.
examined from the farmers’ perspectives the existing practices that could enhance maize
sustainability
iii.
estimated the profitability of Maize production
iv.
determined the factors affecting the production of maize in the area
v.
evaluated sustainability of maize production in the area
vi.
identified constraints to sustainability of maize production
vii.
make recommendations based on findings.
1.4
Justification for the study
Ojo and Imoudu (2000) pointed out that the significant imbalance between food
production and the expanding population has resulted in ever increasing demand for agricultural
6
products. In order to meet the food requirements of the increased population and achieve food
security by 2015, agricultural production would need to increase by 6% per annum (Inocencio,
Sally, Merrey 2003).
Studies in maize production have shown an increasing gap between the need and
availability of the crop, efforts have been made however to establish the fact that there exists a
competing need for the grain crop but there has not been frantic solution on how to achieve and
ensure sustainability of the crop given the growing need.
Ugwumba C.O.A, Okoh R.N, Ike P.C, Nnabuife E.L.C, and Orji E.C (2010) opined that
the sustenance of increased productivity must emphasize on the development of strategies aimed
at maintaining improved yields without depleting natural resources or destabilizing the
environment. It was necessary therefore to know the potential of land under cultivation and
examine the practices that could enhance productivity without compromising the sustainability
of the ecosystem. It is the aim of every maize farmer to improve the living standard of his family
and the community he lives in. In order to fulfill this responsibility, there exists a variety of
decisions he has to make on available production and marketing alternatives. To achieve this, a
sound knowledge of the potentials of the crop both for today and tomorrow is a prerequisite.
Although the growing need of maize for both man and animal is increasing, very little studies
have been made in Anambra state. This study enabled us to find out those practices and helped
us to know if there are potentials for sustainable maize production so that government can make
some decisions in their policies to improve maize production and ensure adequate sustainability.
The purpose of this work was to envisage long term production of maize as well as provision of
quality well-being for farmers and local communities going by the ever increasing population in
anambra state against small land mass, and to maintain ecological integrity.
7
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES
•
Maize production in Nigeria
•
Demand for maize
•
Maize production trend
•
Types and varieties of maize
•
Importance of maize
•
Maize sustainability : Economic, Environmental and Social
•
Different practices in maize productionze production
•
Profitability of maize prodution
•
Constraints relegating maize production
•
Theoretical framework
•
Analytical framework
2.1 Overview of Maize Production in Nigeria
Corn (maize) belongs to the family of grasses (graminaeae) and botanically it is called
Zea mays.According to Lance and Garren (2002), the story of corn began in 1492 when
Columbus’s men discovered this new grain in Cuba, an American native. According to Fakorede
(2001), the mode of entry of maize into Nigeria is still an open question. Two most plausible
routes are:
•
Sea route: Brazil – Sao Tome along which floury varieties entered the coastal areas of
West Africa;
•
Nile valley – Lake Chad through which flint types were introduced.
8
Whatever the mode of entry, maize rapidly gained popularity as a major food item and a
trade commodity between the southern, eastern and northern parts of Nigeria. Maize can be
grown in all lands in Nigeria but it performs better in a well drained fertile loamy soil (IITA,
2012). During the December 2006 Abuja Summit on Food Security in Africa, African Heads of
State and Government identified maize, among other crops, as a strategic commodity for
achieving food security and poverty reduction and called on African countries, regional
economic communities (RECs), the African Union Commission (AUC) and the New
Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) to promote maize production on the continent
to achieve self-sufficiency by 2015 (AUC, 2006). Maize is high-yielding, easy to process,
readily digested and costs less than other cereals, and it is also a versatile crop, allowing it to
grow across a range of agro ecological zones (IITA, 2001). It is an important source of
carbohydrate and if eaten in the immature state, provides useful quantities of Vitamin A and C.
Maize thrives best in a warm climate and is now grown in most of the countries that have
suitable climatic conditions. According to Fakorede (2001), the golden seed (maize) has several
advantages over cassava. The crop cycle is relatively shorter thus making it the first crop to
harvest for food during the hunger period in Nigeria. He noted that maize is consumed in many
forms; processing and preparation of maize dishes are easier than those of cassava. Maize as
observed by IITA (2012), grows in a wider range of soil type than rice, almost every part of
Nigeria can grow maize on their soil. With the use of Hybrid Maize and mechanized system of
farming, yield of maize can reach up to 10.2 tonnes per hectare, with traditional African type of
cultivation, production is 2.1 tonnes per hectare which isn't too bad anyway.
2.2 Demand and Production of Maize:
In Nigeria, maize is a staple food of great socio-economic importance. The demand for
maize sometimes outstrips supply as a result of the various domestic uses (Akande, 1994). In
Nigeria, the demand for maize is increasing at a faster rate daily. This may be due to the fact that
9
grain is being used for feeding poultry and also serve as the main food for many household
(Ogunniyi, 2011). The total land area planted to maize in Nigeria is above 2.5 million hectares
with an estimated yield of about 1.4 metric tons per hectare (Ogundari, 2006).
Ironically, maize as a result of the various domestic uses shows that a domestic demand
of 3.5 million metric tonnes outstrips supply production of two million metric tons. However,
the unfolding performance of maize can be attributed to the fact that, bulk of the country’s farm,
over 90% is dependent on subsistence agriculture with rudimentary farm system, low
capitalization and low yield per hectare (Ogundari et al, 2006).
Additionally, other factors like price fluctuation, diseases and pests, poor storage
facilities have been associated with low maize production in the country (Ojo, 2003). Badmus
and Ariyo (2011) observered that in view of this, national and international bodies have
developed interest in promoting maize production for households’ food security and poverty
alleviation. Some of these efforts have been channeled through biological and agronomic
research into the development of high-yielding varieties along with best cultural practices.
Maize production is one of the cereal crops produced across the agro ecological zones in
Nigeria. They noted that it is on record that more than 60% of Nigeria's production of maize is
consumed by the industrial sector for production of flour, beer, malt drink, corn flakes, starch,
syrup, dextrose and animal feeds. In order to meet the local demand for the crop, government
placed a ban on the export of maize in Nigeria.Badmus et al (2011), in their study in maize
production in different parts of the country (Nigeria) noted that maize have shown an increasing
importance amidst growing utilization by food processing industries and livestock feed mills.
The crop has thus grown to be a local “cash crop” most especially in the Southwest part of
Nigeria where at least 30% of the cropland has been put to maize production under various
cropping system. Growing maize in farms of 1-2 ha can overcome hunger in the household and
the aggregate effect could double food production in Africa. According to IITA (2009),
worldwide production of maize is 785 million tons, with the largest producer, the United States,
10
producing 42%. Africa produces 6.5% and the largest African producer is Nigeria with nearly 8
million tons, followed by South Africa. Africa imports 28% of the required maize from
countries outside the continent. Also on the same note according to 2007 FAO estimates, 158
million hectares of maize are harvested worldwide. Africa harvests 29 million hectares, with
Nigeria, the largest producer in SSA, harvesting 3%, followed by Tanzania. As noted by Ogala
(2011), the Minister of Agriculture, Akin Adesina, has said part of his agric reforms would raise
Nigeria’s annual maize production from current 8 million tons to 20 million tons annually. He
concluded that the new efforts - Maize ‘Green Revolution’- would transform maize industry and
make farming more profitable. As a very important staple food for millions of Nigerians and
residents of West Africa, maize is one of the two major crops covering about 40% of the area
under agricultural production, and its production accounts for 43% of maize grown in West
Africa ( Phillip, 2001; Iken and Amusa, 2004; McCann, 2005).
2.3 Maize production trend
As noted by Fakorede (2001), for more than 20 years of maize improvement activities;
that is, from 1960 to 1984, land area under maize remained about 1 million ha. Similarly, total
production was around 1 million tons and yield per unit land area around 1 t/ha. Beginning from
1985, however, land area under maize increased sharply and by 1995, it was about 5.4 million
ha. Corresponding figures for total grain production were 1 million tons in 1960 and 7 million
tons in 1994. Grain yield is now about 1.3 t/ha. Growth rates for land area under maize and total
grain production were 0.55 million ha and 0.62 million tons per annum for the 1984-95 period.
There were linear increases with steep slopes for this period. This period coincides with the
period of release and active promotion of hybrid maize in the country and this is the period that
ushered into Nigeria an emerging green revolution. According to IITA (2009), Worldwide
consumption of maize is more than 116 million tons, with Africa consuming 30% and SSA
21%. However, Lesotho has the largest consumption per capita with 174 kg per year. Eastern
11
and Southern Africa uses 85% of its production as food, while Africa as a whole uses 95% of its
production, compared to other world regions that use most of its maize as animal feed.
Table 2.3.1 Maize production trend in Nigeria according to IITA research from year 2000
-2012
Market Year
Production
Unit of measure
Growth rate
2000
4000
(1000 MT)
-21.57%
2001
5000
(1000 MT)
25.00%
2002
5200
(1000 MT)
4.00%
2003
5500
(1000 MT)
5.77%
2004
6500
(1000 MT)
18.18%
2005
7000
(1000 MT)
7.69%
2006
7800
(1000 MT)
11.43%
2007
6500
(1000 MT)
-16.67%
2008
7970
(1000 MT)
22.62%
2009
8950
(1000 MT)
12.30%
2010
8800
(1000 MT)
-1.68%
2011
9250
(1000 MT)
5.11%
2012
9410
(1000 MT)
1.73%
Source: international institute of tropical agriculture 2012
As observed by Ado et al (2007), increase in area of cultivation and quality of maize
grain produced in Nigeria in recent years has become more or less stable. And Badmus et
12
al(2011), noted that maize production plays an important role in the Nigerian’s economy. Using
the past trends, it is imperative to assess scientifically accurate prediction of future production
potentials of this crop. He noted however that for 2006-07, a forecast of maize area was 9225.41
thousand ha with lower and upper limit of 8623.12 and 9827.7 thousand ha, respectively.
A maize area forecast for the year 2020 was 9229.74 thousand ha with lower and upper
limit of 7087.67 and 11371.81 thousand ha, respectively. Forecast of maize production showed
an increasing trend. For 2006-07, a maize production was about 9848.95 thousand tons with
lower and upper limit 9115.28 and 10582.64 thousand tons. The maize production forecast for
the year 2020 is about 9952.72. They concluded that increase in government funding to
agriculture, selection of high yielding varieties, increasing agricultural linkage between farmers
and research institutes are important factors needed to increase the yield and production of
maize in future. Ado et al (2007), opined that the savannah ecology can well be called the corn
belt of Nigeria, that availability of fertilizer at affordable price generally determines the increase
in land area under maize production in any particular year. Thus areas cultivated to maize
decrease as fertilizer subsidies are withdrawn. The trend for grain yields and production were
similar to those of land areas, although average annual increase in total production was much
higher than the annual increase in yields, the average maize grain yield increased from less than
one ton/ha in the last two decades to more than 1.7t/ha in 2006.
According to Agriculturaltransformationagenda (2011), maize production figures show
that the area planted to maize in Nigeria has increased from 438,000 ha in 1981 to 3,335,860 ha
in 2009 with associated increase in production from 720,000 tons to 7,338,840 tons during the
same period. Grain yield has also increased from 1.6 t/ha in 1981 to 2.0. t/ha in 2009. However,
the slow turnover of maize varieties and hybrids on farm coupled with limited availability of
good quality improved seed, fertilizer and other inputs have minimized the potential yield gains
recorded on farm in Nigeria.
13
As noted by Shaib et al (1997), the estimated average annual growth rate in maize
production over last five years was 5.46% which is about twice the projected 3.2% needed to
meet our demand. Ado et al (2007), however stated that despite the increase in production, the
demand for maize is higher even than the target set for self sufficiency. In order for Nigeria to
be self sufficient in maize, it must produce enough for consumption and have surplus for export.
To this end the Federal Government approved the doubling of maize production from 4.5m tons
to 9.0m metric tons by 2007. However, the doubling maize committee estimates a total of 11.3m
tons annually to meet the demands of human consumption(1mt), livestock industry(8mt),
industrial
use(2mt),
national
food
reserve(0.1mt)
and
export
to
neighboring
countries(0.2mt).(Anon. 2005a). Ado et al (2007), concluded that annual growth rates of maize
yields are not just as a result of increased area; it is certainly accompanied by clear element of
intensification. Thus realization of maize potential yields must combine appropriate variety, soil
and crop management practices.
Maize Production Trend in Anambra State.
Production is not only a question of what is produced against what was produced, rather
it also involves what means and what was given up to attain that. Thus, area of land cultivated
must be taken into consideration in order to measure the growth rate of maize in the study area.
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Area cultivated ’000 ha
Production in metric ton
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Market Year
Source: ADP Anambra State 2012
Figure 2.1Maize production trend in Anambra State and area cultivated over a period of
11 years
14
Maize production in Anambra state shows an increasing trend from the year1999
(56.5mt) to 2009 (84.3) with the area cultivated which in 1999 was 24.68 and by 2009 was
40.78, the area cultivated was increasing at an increasing rate but the corresponding production
increase was at a decreasing rate. According to their report maize production yield in kg/ha
showed an increased growth from 2.048 in 2009 to 2.189 in 2010 but also at a decreasing rate.
This, the ADP complained is the consequence of farmers not using recommended planting
material e.g. hybrid seed and fertilizer, rather they depend on seed from market or previous
harvest and animal fertilizer. That is to show that if farmers adopt appropriate technologies and
more sustainable approaches, the land under cultivation has the potential to translate into
profitable production.
2.4 Types or varieties of maize
According to IITA (2009), About 50 species of maize exist and consist of different
colors, textures and grain shapes and sizes. White, yellow and red are the most common types.
The white and yellow varieties are preferred by most people depending on the region.
Researchers using maize inbred lines from the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
(IITA, 2009) have developed two early maturing hybrid maize varieties that have been released
by the Malian government to boost maize production. Recommended Varieties of maize to
improve yield, for Early Season Planting:- Yellow Open Pollinated Varieties. Western Yellow
1: TZSR-Y-1 (Streak Resistant) DMR-LSRY (Downy Mildew & Streak Resistant). Yellow
Hybrids Varieties: 8425-8; 8329-15 White, Open Pollinated Varieties: TZPB (FARZ 27); TZB
(FARZ 34); TZSR-W-1; ZPBSR (Streak Resistant); DMR-LSRW (Downy Mildew & Streak
Resistant). DMR-LSRW (Downy Mildew & Streak Resistant). White Hybrids: 8321-18; 902219; (Striga Resistant). For Late Season :- Plant early maturing, streak or downy mildew resistant
varieties. Yellow Open Pollinated Varieties: TZESR-Y; DMR-ESRY (Downy Mildew and
15
Streak Resistant). White, Open Pollinated Varieties: TZESR-W; DMR-ESRW (Downy Mildew
and Streak Resistant) POPCORN: White Pop: Yellow composite.(IITA, 2012).
2.5 Importance and uses of maize
According to Agricultural transformation agenda (2011), maize plays a predominant role
in the farming systems and diets of millions of Nigerians.It is a very versatile crop since it is
used for domestic consumption in addition to its industrial use by flour mills, breweries,
confectioneries and animal feed manufacturers. Consequently, increasing maize yields and its
cultivation particularly in high production potential areas of the country can jumpstart a second
maize green revolution in the country.
As a result of competition for maize by both man and animal, there is the need to
increase the supply level of the grain. Studies in maize production in different parts of Nigeria
have shown an increasing importance of the crop amidst growing utilization by food processing
industries and livestock feed mills (Ogunsumi et al., 2005; Khawar et al, 2007; Abduhaman and
Kolawole, 2008). The crop has thus grown to be a local “Cash crop” most especially in the
southwest part of Nigeria where at least 30 percent of the cropland has been put to maize
production under various cropping systems (Ayeni, 1991; Degrande and Duguma, 2000).
Maize in Nigeria, like many other region is consumed as vegetable although it is a grain
crop. Fakorede (2001) citing van (Eijnatten, 1965) opined that the importance of maize as a food
crop in Nigeria became more widely recognized in 1950 when an epiphytotic of the American
rust (incited by Puccinia polysora Underw.) nearly wiped out the crop in West Africa. Maize is
produced in different parts of the continent under diverse climatic and ecological conditions.
Due to its increasing importance, maize has become a major staple and cash crop for
smallholder farmers (Manyong, Kling, Makinde, Ajala, and Menkir 2000). The grains are rich in
vitamins A, C and E, carbohydrates, and essential minerals, and contain 9% protein. They are
also rich in dietary fiber and calories which are a good source of energy (IITA, 2009). As noted
16
by Sowunmi and Akintola (2010), maize is a major ingredient in infant food brewery and
poultry feed industries and it is also fermented to produce hydrolyzed dextrins, sugars, and
syrup. Dowswell et al (1996), observed that maize has been put to a wide range of uses than any
other cereal: as human food, as a feed grain, a fodder crop, and for hundred of industrial
purposes because of its broad global distribution, its low price relative to other cereals, its
diverse grain types, and its wide range of biological and industrial properties. According to IITA
(2009), maize is the preferred animal feed in many regions as it gives a yellow color to poultry,
egg yolks and animal fat. Foods made out of maize is very nutritious as it is an important source
of carbohydrate, protein, iron, vitamin B, and minerals, and is known to digest very quickly.
Most Africans tend to consume maize mainly as a starchy base in a wide variety of porridges,
pastes, grits, and beer. The green freshly harvested maize cob is eaten either roasted or boiled
(IITA, 2012). As noted by IITA (2001), maize is a multipurpose crop because every part of its
plant has economic value. The grain, leaves, stalk, tassel and cob can all be used to produce a
large variety of food and non food products. In industrialized countries, maize is largely used as
livestock feed and as a raw material for industrial products, while in low-income countries, it is
mainly used for human consumption (IITA, 2001). Maize is fast becoming an industrial crop in
Nigeria; flour mills, feed mills, breweries, breakfast cereal and baby food industries, etc, all use
maize as a primary raw material. Another striking thing about this crop (maize grains) is that it
may be stored indefinitely if the storage conditions are right. According to IITA (2009), in
industrialized countries, maize is largely used as livestock feed and as a raw material for
industrial products, while in developing countries, it is mainly used for human consumption.
According to Khawar et al (2007), maize has a variety of uses. Its grain is a rich source
of starch, vitamins, proteins and minerals. The starch extracted from maize grain is used in
making confectionary and noodles. Corn syrup from maize contains high fructose and act as
sweetner and retains moisture when added to certain foods.
17
Africans consume maize as a starchy base in a wide variety of porridges, pastes, grits, and beer.
Green maize (fresh on the cob) is eaten parched, baked, roasted or boiled; playing an important
role in filling the hunger gap after the dry season ( IITA 2009). They noted however that Maize
is the most important cereal crop in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and an important staple food for
more than 1.2 billion people in SSA and Latin America. It accounts for 30−50% of low-income
household expenditures in Eastern and Southern Africa. A heavy reliance on maize in the diet,
however, can lead to malnutrition and vitamin deficiency diseases such as night blindness and
kwashiorkor. According to Agricultural transformation agenda (2011), some of the factors that
make maize an ideal target crop for intensification in high production potential areas of the
country include the following:
•
Its high yield potential
•
Diversified uses,
•
Ease of transportation, processing and marketing
•
The availability of dependable research products
According to Oladejo et al (2012), edible oil is extracted from the seeds, which is an all
purpose culinary oil. Levulinc acid, a chemical derived from maize, is used as ingredient in
antifreeze and is capable of replacing the toxic petroleum –based ingredients use. Plastic and
fabrics are made from corn stocks. Ethanol obtained from maize can be used as a biomass fuel.
Stigmas from female corn-flowers, known as corn silk, can be used as herbal supplements.
Maize straw is a cheap source of energy and can be used in home-heating furnaces. Maize can
be used as forage, feed for livestock and making silage after fermentation of corn stocks. Maize
is used extensively as the main source of calories in animal feeding and feed formulation. Maize
gives the highest conversion of dry substance to meat, milk and eggs compared with other cereal
grains. Maize is a valuable feed grain, because it is among the highest in net energy content and
lowest in protein and fiber content.
18
2.6 Maize sustainability
Sustainability as explained earlier has three (3) drivers of measurement which includes;
economic, social and environmental sustainability. The profitability of a venture explains if it is
economically sustainable or not, some factors like food self sufficiency, employment for the
vulnerable groups, access to resources and support services, ethical values and culture, and
farmers knowledge and awareness of resource conservation among other things constitutes the
social sustainability aspect. While the environmental sustainability deals with the disposal of the
waste products, effect of the chemicals used during production among others.
The sustainable development of a larger proportion of rural poor is linked to maize
production; being a staple and a crop. Maize is one of the important grains in Nigeria, not only
on the basis of the number of farmers that engaged in its cultivation, but also in its economic
value (Olaniyi and Adewale, 2012) and this points to the significant role of maize production to
sustainable development of rural economy, food security and poverty reduction especially in
areas of Nigeria (Oyakhilomen, Ugbabe and Zibah 2012 ).
USDA (2001), in an official Agriculture Network Information Center, has gone into the
roots of the word, “Sustain” which derives from the Latin, “Sustinere” (sus -, from below and
tenere, to hold), meaning to keep in existence or maintain. This implies long-term support or
performance. As it pertains to agriculture, the word “Sustainable” described farming that is
“capable of maintaining their productivity and usefulness indefinitely”. Such systems, according
to Duesterhaus (1990) must be resource conserving, socially supportive, commercially
competitive, and environmentally sound. Also according to Business for Social Responsibility,
businesses should be “achieving commercial success in ways that honor ethical values
andrespect people, communities, and the natural environment” and include “a comprehensiveset
of policies, practices and programs that are integrated into business operations, supplychains and
19
decision-making processes throughout the company.” All these can be summarized as economic,
social and environmental sustainability.
In the words of Bradley R (2009), sustainable
agricultural systems are those that make best economic use of available resources without
damaging the underlying assets. He pointed out that it has to do with a common thread which is
to build a viable business model capable of preserving and improving the assets managed in the
business, be they soils, water and human capital. According to Starik (2010), sustainability is
the ability to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs. In the words of Starik and Rands (1995) in Starik (2010),
sustainability is the characteristic of an entity, such as an economic or environmental system,
that is related to its ability to exist & flourish over an acceptably long period of time (without
impeding other species & ecosystems from doing the same).
According to Bradley (2009), the driving factors for sustainable agricultural production
includes (a) reduction in water allocation (b) banning of more agricultural chemicals (c) increase
consumer demand for eco-friendly production (d) nutrient management on and off farm (e) food
retailers and manufacturers looking for product differentiation (f) animal welfare concern , and
(g) climate change and government response to climate change. Chambers r. (1997) concluded
that sustainability is applying long term perspectives, in regard to human wellbeing and
ecological integrity, policy and action.
According to Jhingan (2010), sustainable development emphasizes the creation of
sustainable improvement in real income per capita, improvements in education, health and
general quality of life and improvement in quality of natural environment resources. He opined
that sustainability has many objectives besides increasing economic growth and meeting basic
needs, the aim of living standard includes a number of more specific goals such as, bettering
people’s health and education opportunities, giving everyone the chance to participate in public
life, helping to ensure a clean environment and promoting intergenerational equity. As noted by
IITA (2009), Sustainability indicators are derived from existing data sources that must closely
20
approximate the qualities people are interested in measuring. Environmental quality, for
instance, is typically described in terms of air and water quality, levels of greenhouse gas
emissions, and biodiversity. In the same instance, Kalbali E.,Kavard H., Salapom M., and
Soltanii S (2014) noted that sustainability of agriculture depends on the realization of resources
of comprehensive fundamental changes in agricultural structure, management and optimum
utilization of resources and facilities, and organizing and directing the well- considered activities
in the rural areas.
A full list of the Principles of Agroecology and Sustainability has been compiled by
Reijntjes C, Bertus H, Water-Bayer A(1992). Sustainable Farming must possess characteristics
that utilize majority of the principles:
•
Use of Renewable Resources of energy and materials that occur naturally and
can be recycled on farm.
•
Minimization of toxicity and environmental pollution.
•
Conservation of soil chemical and physical properties
•
Conservation of water and energy.
•
Conservation of genetic resources by saving seeds and maintaining local
landraces.
•
Conservation of capital by keeping bank debt to a minimum and reducing
expenditure.
•
Managing ecological relationships by integrating fauna and biota to minimize
the effects of pests, diseases and weeds while encouraging beneficial effects.
•
Recycling nutrients through residues and manures.
•
Minimizing disturbance of soil and total environment.
•
Adjusting to local environments by matching cropping patterns to the
productive potential and physical limitations of the farm landscape and adapting
plants and animals to the farm ecology instead of modifying the farm to meet the
needs of the crops and animals.
•
Diversifying by utilizing various landscapes and top sequences and integrating
the Biota.
21
•
Using sound economics by avoiding single commodity farming, using
alternative markets, processing to add value to products, avoiding dependence on
external subsidies, finding alternative incomes via off-farm activities.
•
Empowering the people to control their development process by encouraging
local partnerships, linking farmers with consumers and ensuring intergenerational
fairness.
•
Managing whole system by planning with a view to holistically consider all
determinants in a farming systems framework.
•
Maximizing long – term benefits socio-culturally, economically and in building
up of soil organic matter and general fertility.
•
Placing great value on health by considering the effects of all practices on man,
animals and plants.
“If you look at maize, it has the highest return on investment compared with other crops.
So if we are able to get it right in maize it will be great,” (Ajala 2011). Economic sustainability
here has to do with the profitability of maize production.
According to World business council for sustainable development, social responsibility
is the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic
development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as
the local community and society at large” (WBCSD, 2000). Ruggie (2009) reports that, although
companies often claim they respect human rights, few have systems in place enabling them to
demonstrate the claim with any degree of confidence.
Following the stand of the American Society of Agronomy, Sustainable Agriculture is
the one that, over the long term, (1) enhances environmental quality and the resource base on
which agriculture depends. (2) provides for the basic human food and fibers needs. (3) is
economically viable and (4) enhances the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole.
22
As noted by Jhingan (2010), the problem of a country depends on its stage of development,
economic structure, production techniques in use and its environmental policies. He observed
that less developed countries face the problem of inadequate sanitation and clean drinking water.
According to Agricultural Transformation Agenda (2011), a key goal of a second maize green
revolution will be to increase maize production to 20 million metric tons in Nigeria. This second
maize green revolution will focus on the:
1. Commercialization and deployment of high yielding, stress tolerant and nutrient efficient
maize hybrids and varieties.
2. Promotion of optimal fertilizer usage along with appropriate crop and resource
management practices targeted to maintain the soil base and enhance agricultural
productivity
3. Modification of policies which impede the growth of private sector input companies
including, seeds, fertilizer and other inputs, as well as the marketing of maize grain both
in-country and for export.
4. Identification and development of new uses for maize in order to drive demand for the
crop and create additional market.
Sustainability index (SI) is a quantitative value that measures the sustainability of an
agroecosystem. Each SI consists of several sustainability indicators which are biological,
physical, chemical and socio-economic variables affecting the structure and function of the
ecosystem. Sustainability indices reflect the viability of an egroecosystem quantitatively and are
useful tools for evaluating the quality and efficiency of the system as well as making suitable
decisions in its management (Koocheki 2003).
23
2.7 Different practices in maize production
Ado et al (2007), posited that sustainable maize production is attainable by adopting
improved production technologies, development of innovative methods of processed maize
utilization for the urban and village level consumption as well as provision of credits facilities to
small holder.
Some practices in maize production include:
Land preparation: Land preparation and cultivation for field crops are the field operations
which alter the soil structure. Therefore, the main objective of this operation in maize
production is to provide a suitable seedbed in which the crop can be planted, and will grow
satisfactorily. During dry season, irrigation is required every 4-7 days on the severity of the
drought and the type of soil in a maize farm.
Ploughing: Ploughing is the purposeful breaking up and turning over of the soil and cutting
furrows in preparation for sowing or planting. As noted by Elwel (1991), recent experience has
shown, however that annual ploughing leads to rapid degradation of soil fertility and structure
through loss of organic matter, giving higher input cost and increased runoff. To this effect land
for maize production should not be ploughed continually.
Weeding: This is the removal of unwanted plant. Any plant that is growing where it is not
needed is a weed. Weeding operation is done before planting and also at intervals of 2months
until the harvesting of the maize plant. Weeding can be done with cutlasses, hoes, and other
modern mechanized implements as well as with herbicides.
Irrigation: Irrigation is the artificial application of water to soil to achieve improved yield
associated with drought. Maize is a crop that thrives well in an area with an average rainfall.
Pesticides and herbicides: These are inorganic chemicals that are used to fight pests and weed
that attack the crop both in the farm and post harvest. According to Elwel (1991), evidence are
accumulating that existing levels of chemical use lead to the destruction of the on-farm and
wider ecology and endanger human health and life.
24
Fertilizer application: Fertilizer is any organic or inorganic material of natural or synthetic
origin that is added to the soil to enrich it with one or more nutrient to facilitate growth. Modern
agriculture depends upon chemical fertilizers to provide adequate nutrition for crops. Chemical
fertilizers have played an important role in sustaining the fertility of the land. Farmers therefore,
need to be able to fertilize the soil to meet the fertility needs of the crops that are grown. In order
to increase yield, chemical fertilizers will be important and essential.
Maize does well with pH of 5.5 - 5.7 while strongly acidic soil (pH 5.0) is unsuitable for
good yield. In southeast Nigeria soil acidity is a problem hindering proper agricultural
production since most of the crops grown are susceptible to dangerous effects of acidic soils
(Mbah, Nwite, Njoku and Nweke 2009). Ohiri and Ano (1989) attributed the acidic nature of the
soils in south east Nigeria to their parent material, leaching and degradation in soil physical
properties. To reduce or make the soil less acidic it is common practice to apply lime to
agricultural soils. However, the unavailability and high cost of lime materials led to the
invention and research into low cost, affordable and adoptable organic and inorganic material
like wood-ash (Igbokwe et al., 1981). Ojeniyi et al. (2001) found that yield of vegetable crops
and nutrient content were improved by woodash in Southeast Nigeria. Similarly, Odedina et al.
(2003) and Adetunji (1997) reported reduced acidity and increased cation availability in soils
amended with wood-ash. Omoti et al. (1991) indicated that there was great potential of reducing
fertilizer and lime bills in maize production of an acidic soil by replacing it with application of
wood-ash, since it helps to increase soil pH, available cations and yield.
2.8 Some practices that can enhance maize sustainability
Planting of resistant varieties
Ogala (2011) suggested that “For instance, high-yielding and disease-resistant varieties
that are adaptable to Nigeria’s various agroecological zones, and drought- and Striga-resistant
varieties that could address on-farm stresses, would be deployed to farmers,”. “Also early,
25
intermediate, and late-maturing varieties with yield up to thrice as much as traditional varieties
will help farmers tackle the negative effects of climate change,”.
Adequate use of fertilizers: the use of fertilizer at sowing provides the seedling with the major
nutrients required in the early stages of development. Nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) are
particularly important, and potassium (K) may also need to be applied before planting if the
levels are low. Two much application of fertilizer and in inadequate recommended quantity may
lead to crop failure and nutrient imbalance.
Planting time: early planting is encouraged for optimum yield and disease control measure.
Planting of maize in Nigeria especially in south-east is highly dependent on rainfall, thus maize
is planted in mid or late march as soon as rainfall returns, and it takes about 3 months to mature.
Planting of cover crops:
As observed by Sullivan (2003), one of the most useful sustainable-agricultural practices
employed in recent decades is the old but undervalued practice of cover cropping. A cover crop
is a planting of (typically) grass and/or forage legumes on a field between production seasons.
Such plantings reduce erosion, build soil, and, in the case of legumes, fix nitrogen for
subsequent crops. Cover crops are of exceptional value on otherwise bare winter soils, which
can erode badly during rains.
Adequate water supply (irrigation): water is very important from the development stage of
maize production till harvest for fresh cobs. In case of prolonged drought, irrigation option
should be used to supplement the needed or required amount of rainfall. According to Gerpacio
and Pingali (2007), most yield losses due to drought are caused by moisture stress during
flowering and grain-filling, and the rest by pre-flowering stress.
Mixed or intercropping: As noted by Segun-Olasanmi and Bamire (2010), maize-legume
intercropping is currently receiving global attention because of its prime importance in World
Agriculture. According to Sullivan (2003), intercropping offers farmers the opportunity to
engage nature’s principle of diversity on their farms. It is a system of cultivating a cereal as the
26
primary food crop, but on a legume base. In Nigeria, intercropping maize with legumes,
particularly cowpea, has gone a long way to improve the already limited fertility profile of many
farming plots (Agboola, Obigbesan and Fayemi, 1992).
Good storage system: post harvest losses should as much as possible be minimized especially
during storage. As noted by Daramola (1993), Storage pests are insects that attach maize grain
in storage, including the maize weevils, Sitophilus zeamais Moench, and more recently,
Prostephanus truncantus Horn. These pests and many others bore holes into and feed on the
grain, beginning from the embryo. Within a short time, the grains are turned to powder that has
no economic value. Whereas field-to-store and storage pests may be controlled effectively by
insecticides, host-plant resistance is the most effective means of controlling the field pests,
especially the borers.
Maize is very easy to harvest, it is usually harvested in south eastern nigeria as fresh
cobs and they spoil easily more than harvesting when the crop is left to dry in the farm usually
done by northerners. In order to minimize or avoid pest attack, good storage facilities are
needed. The facility must be moisture free and air tight.
Adequate pest and disease control : Availability, cost and knowledge of handling (especially
in the case of herbicides) are reasons farmers may not be able to use any of these methods for
effective weed control in their maize fields. One problem with use of herbicides is the short
persistence in the humid ecologies of Nigeria (or tropics in general) relative to the temperate
ecologies (Akinyemiju, 1993). Planting of disease resistant varieties is most sustainable than the
use of these toxic chemicals as it brings about environmental problems.
Conduction of extensive demonstrations of improved seed with fertilizer: Most often people
believe that seeing is believing. Participation is one crucial aspect of learning. According to
Fawole (2008) information dissemination to farmers in the rural areas is an integral part of the
clamor for adoption of innovations and agricultural development. The effectiveness of sources
27
and frequency of agricultural information availability then become of paramount importance; if
any meaningful development is to be achieved. One of the pre- requisites for information use is
its accessibility. Information may be physically accessible but may not be intellectually
accessible (Opara, 2010). Participation is a crucial issue as farmers will adopt innovation more
because they are made to be part of what is going on. Ogunwale (2005) asserted that contact
with extension agents under T and V system brings about remarkable increase in knowledge of
farmers about farm technologies and practices.
2.9 Profitability of maize production
Aye and Mungatana (2010), opined that increasing productivity is one of the major
solutions to effectively addressing the food shortage problems that has fuelled increases in food
prices all over the world. One way to increase the profitability of corn production is to reduce
input costs and build drought-hardiness through sustainable management practices (Sullivan
2003). According to CIMMYT and IITA (2011), it is estimated that by 2050, the demand for
maize in the developing world will double, and by 2025 maize will have become the crop with
the greatest production globally, particularly in the developing world. They opined that harvest
at the current levels of productivity growth will still fall short of demand and millions of farm
families will remain in poverty, unless vigorous measures are taken to stabilize food prices,
accelerate yield growth, increase income, form more productive sustainable and resilient maize
based system and give greater opportunities to women and young adults. The outcome will be
less affordable food for millions of maize consumers, continuing poverty and childhood
malnutrition, deforestation, soil degradation, reduced biodiversity, and accelerated depletion of
water and fertilizer reserves. Thus it is evident that there exist a problem globally, this study will
look at what is happening/obtainable in the study area because it is absolutly necessary to
identify what you have or are up against before one thinks of the ways to sustain it.
28
Fakorede (2001) observed that factors that determine crop yield potential and
profitability include crop characteristics (physiology, phenology, canopy architecture, genetics)
and ambient conditions (carbon dioxide, solar radiation, temperature). Attainable yields are
limited by the availability of water and nutrients while the levels of weeds, pests, diseases and
pollutants determine actual yield. Only the ambient conditions are beyond man’s control for
large-scale crop production. It is not possible to give herein a complete prescription for the
future direction of maize improvement in Nigeria. However, studies (Enete & Okon, 2010;
Fasoranti, 2008) have shown that farmer’s socio-economic factors such as level of education,
farm size and number of years of experience, technological and Institutional factors and gender
affect the net returns to farmers’ production activities, depending on their location. For instance,
Safa (2005) showed that education, family size and farm size significantly influenced the
profitability of farm products, while Ahmad et al. (2005) indicated that farmers’ access to
certified seed, better land preparation, recommended doses of fertilizer and access to credit are
the major influencing factors. The hybrid maize project has made an impact in Nigeria. The
yield advantages of hybrids appear to be sufficiently large to attract the attention of farmers.
Improved high yielding maize variety can express its full genetic potential only when offered
optimum management resources. This starts with the right choice of site through timely and
appropriate establishment, nutrition; disease and pest control to proper harvesting procedure and
produce disposal and/or storage (Iken and Amusa 2004).
According to Agricultural transformation agenda (2011) Favorable Support Policies that
can help maize production and productivity includes:
1. Total ban of maize importation
2. Policies formulated for the Growth Enhancement Support should be consistent for a
minimum of five years to allow for maturity and adequate time to assess the impact.
3. Commitment of Government to buy back the surplus grain
4. Stable and consistent support for the programme
29
5. Firm commitment of participating States through significant financial and other
contribution to the programme.
2.10 Constraints militating maize production in Nigeria
According to Ogala (2011), the minister of agriculture in Nigeria noted that maize is a
staple in Nigeria consumed by millions of Nigerians that according to some experts, its
productivity has been hindered by low adoption of improved seeds, poor seed quality, little or no
use of fertilizers, low investment in research funding, and poor extension services. Low
productivity in Agriculture has been observed to be a problem militating against increased and
sustainable farm income (Oyewo and Fabiyi 2008).Decline in soil fertility is often a result of
soil erosion due to intensified land use and rapid decline in fallow periods, coupled with the
extension of agriculture into marginal lands (Pingali and Pandey 2001).
Some of the factors
includes among the following:
Diseases and pests of maize:
According to Fakorede (2001), apart from P. polysora, several other diseases that
received research attention at the initial stages of maize improvement in Nigeria were leaf blight
, leaf and sheath rot, maize gray spot, adult maize stem rot, leaf scotch, also called leaf scald and
white blast .Breeding for disease resistance was the first step, and has continued to be part of
efforts, to improve maize in Nigeria. As noted by (Fajemisin, 1978; Oyekan, 1977; Fakorede et
al., 2001c), diseases such as leaf spots, brown spot, downy mildew, several virus diseases, and
the stalk, ear and storage rots have received attention during the last three decades .The efforts,
however, were complicated by several factors that made it difficult to achieve an impact in a
relatively short time. However Fakorede (2001), observed that First, the important diseases
changed with time. For example, streak virus disease that was relatively unimportant up to about
1970 became the most devastating disease nation-wide. Downy mildew that was unknown in the
early stages of maize breeding in Nigeria “came on stage” in the early 1970s.
30
Insect pests.
Daramola (1993) grouped insect pests of maize in Nigeria into three subheadings with
emphasis on the damage they cause and available technologies to contain them. These are the
field pests, the field-to-store pests, and the storage pests. Field pests are the insects that cause
economic damage to the maize crop at any growth stage in the field. The stem and ear borer
complex, armyworms, silkworms and leafhoppers belong to this group. Stem and ear borers are
members of the Family Lepidoptera and are the most widely distributed, most destructive and
the best known insect pests of maize in Nigeria (Schulthess and Ajala, 1999). Daramola,
(1993)noted that the borer complex consists of Sesamia calamistis Hampson, Eldana saccharina
(Walker) and Busseola fusca (Fuller) (Lep: Noctuidae) which are stem borers, and the ear borer
Mussidia nigrivenella Ragonot (Lep: Pyralidae). The borers have evolved with native grasses,
sedges, some other wild hosts and, in the case of M nigrivenella, various tree species. The borers
occur on maize plants during the two seasons, starting with B. fusca in the early season and later
by S. calamistis and E. saccharina. Consequently, the borer complex causes greater damage in
the late than early cropping season and in the forest and forest/savanna transition than the
savanna ecology.
Field-to-store pests are insects that infest maize in the field and continue their life cycle
postharvest even into the store.
Weeds: According to Fakorede (2001), Plants growing where they are not planted or needed are
weeds. It is estimated that weed control takes 50-60% of the total cost of maize production. If
weeds are not controlled in the early part of the growth cycle of maize, nearly 100% yield loss is
possible. Indeed, a weed-free period of about 40-45 days after planting is required for optimum
grain yield of maize (Lagoke, 1993; Carsky and Kling, 1997).
There are different types of weeds: annuals, perennials, monocots, dicots, shrubs, etc.
Some are more easily controlled than others. The ones that are more difficult to control are
called noxious weeds. Sedges and most grasses, such as spear grass, itch grass, Guinea grass,
31
elephant grass, etc are noxious weeds in maize farms. Also, any plant that has underground
reproductive parts will constitute a noxious weed. Noxious weeds cause substantial crop losses
and they are more expensive to control. Some weeds are parasitic on crop plants. An example in
Striga, commonly called witch weed.
The most troublesome species, Striga hermonthica (Del.) Benth (Scrophulariaceae),
occurs in the savanna; it is an obligate parasite of maize. There are several other species such as
S. asiatica (L.) Kuntze, S. aspera, S. gesnerioides (Wild) Vatke, and S. forbesii Benth that attack
other crop species or are less problematic on maize. Meanwhile, maize breeders have started
breeding for resistance to S. asiatica in the derived savanna of southwestern Nigeria
(Ogunbodede and Olakojo, 2001).
Weeds may be controlled by different methods, including tillage practices, manual
weeding, cultivation using animal or mechanical power, and use of chemicals called herbicides.
Recommended herbicides and other weed control methods for maize and maize-based crop
mixtures have been given for the different agro-ecologies of Nigeria (Lagoke, 1993;
Akinyemiju, 1993).
Biological conditions
Pests and diseases, including insects and weeds, multiply and grow with amazing
rapidity, as a result of favorable conditions created by the interaction of sunlight, temperature
and humidity. These conditions, in addition to socio-economic factors, also reduce labor
productivity drastically.
Drought/moisture stress:
As noted by Gerpacio and Pingali (2007), maize is unusually susceptible to drought at
flowering, when it depresses yield potential by irreversibly limiting the number of kernels and
ears that develop; if stress is severe, yields may be reduced nearly to zero. At this stage in crop
development, it is too late for farmers to adjust management practices because fertilizers and/or
pesticides have already been applied, and the season is far too advanced to consider replanting
32
(Edmeades et al. 1994). Chi-Chung et al. (2004) submitted that precipitation and temperature
are found to have opposite effects on yield levels and variability of corn (maize). Furthermore,
they reasoned that more rainfall can cause yield levels to rise, while decreasing yield variance
and that temperature has a reverse effect on maize production.
However, Farmers may respond to drought at the seedling stage by replanting their crop,
and some yield may be salvaged when drought occurs at later crop stages, but drought at
flowering can be mitigated only by irrigation (Pingali and Pandey 2001).
Poor and inappropriate agronomic practices
According to Adenola and Akinwumi (1993), maize farmers in Nigeria use inadequate
and inappropriate agronomic practices such as poor land preparation, wrong clearing methods,
wrong timing of weeding, fertilizer application, wasteful harvesting procedure and poor postharvest handling.
According to Fakorede (2001), maize is produced in Nigeria mainly by subsistence
farmers. It should be noted here, however, that the cost of land preparation machinery makes it
far from the reach of most farmers in Nigeria. Establishment, on commercial basis, of
sustainable tractor hiring units by governments, cooperatives and private companies would
readily ease the problem. Until then, farmers may have to depend on their cutlasses and hoe.
Lack of high quality seed
Fakorede (2001), observed that traditionally, maize farmers in Nigeria save their own seed or
obtain seed from neighbors, friends and the open market for the next cropping season. Initially,
improved varieties reached farmers through the research station that developed the varieties.
Between 1966 and 1969, seed program were initiated in the different administrative regions of
the country (Joshua, 1993). The Ministry of Agriculture coordinated the seed programs in each
region. Thus, for much of the period of no improvement in maize production, there was no
organized seed production and distribution system for the country.
33
He noted however that in 1976, FDA started the FAO assisted seed production and certification
project that is now known as the National seed service (NSS). Established in Ibadan with
regional stations at Samaru, Ilorin, Umudike and Jos, the NSS is the custodian of all publicly
bred varieties. NSS also produces foundation and certified seeds. Unfortunately, it appears that
farmers have been so used to some specific channels for obtaining seed that very few patronize
the NSS and seed companies.
Poor extension services
For a long time, the Extension Division of the Ministry of Agriculture in each state was the
only body responsible for technology transfer from the research stations to the farmers.
Extension Agents were trained at several levels, including the schools of Agriculture for
Diplomas and universities for Degrees. Beginning from the mid 70s, special agricultural
programs aimed at rapid technology transfer were executed. The National Accelerated Food
Production Project (NAFPP) was the first of such projects. NAFPP involve on-farm adaptive
trails (OFAT) of new technologies that had reached advance stages of research. NAFPP later
became institutionalized as the National Rice/Maize Centre of the Federal Department of
Agriculture (FDA). OFATs of the Rice/Maize Centre are an important step in the varietal
release mechanism of Nigeria.
Other nation-wide technology transfer projects were Operation Feed the Nation (OFN) in the
late 70s and the Green Revolution of the early 80s. Each of these special projects supported
technology transfer for maize. The Technology Committee of the Green Revolution of Federal
Government funded the on-farm demonstration trials of hybrid maize for at least five years.
Other factors according to Frauq(2008) includes:
•
Negative attitude and obstacles from extension personnel
•
Lack of suitable land
•
Destruction of plants by cattle and other animals
34
•
Cobs stolen by thief
•
Destruction of plants by storm, drought and flood
•
Unavailability of seeds at time when require
•
High price of seeds
•
Unavailability of fertilizers at time when required
•
High price of fertilizers
•
Lack of irrigation facilities
•
Lack of technical knowledge
•
Low price of grains
•
Inefficient marketing system
According to Fakorede (2001) the solutions would be attained more by collaborative rather than
individual efforts of maize breeders and other scientists.
The steps to overcome some of the constraints
• Development of disease, insect pest and Striga resistant open-pollinating varieties (OPVs);
• Yield improvement of the open-pollinating varieties;
• Development of hybrid varieties;
• Production and distribution of high-quality seed of improved varieties;
• Improved agronomic practices;
• Post-harvest technology and utilization;
• Technology transfer and Training
2.11Theoretical framework
A theory is a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered
to explain phenomena (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1976). And according to Starik
(2010), a theory integrates propositions about the relation of variables to solve conceptual
35
problems. Good theories are clear, precise, reality-based, parsimonious, and logically integrated,
and theories can describe, predict, &/or prescribe.
The first theory to be considered in this study is the sustainability theory. Theories of
sustainability attempt to prioritize and integrate social responses to environmental and cultural
problems. The concept of sustainability thus raises a starkly basic question: can human activity
successfully maintain itself and its goals without exhausting the resources on which it depends?
According to the classic definition formulated by the economist Robert Solow, we should think
of sustainability as an investment problem, in which we must use returns from the use of natural
resources to create new opportunities of equal or greater value. Social spending on the poor or
on environmental protection, while perhaps justifiable on other grounds takes away from this
investment and so competes with a commitment to sustainability.
Agricultural crops require a pool of different mineral nutrients in different quantities for growth.
While these nutrients are present in most soils, some fractions are directly available to plant.
Moreover, with every harvest the soil is being further depleted further off its nutrients.
Ecological models propose to sustain biological diversity and ecological integrity. That is, rather
than focusing on opportunity or capital as the key unit of sustainability, they focus directly on
the health of the living world. However, Ikerd (1993) noted that the precise measurement of
sustainability is impossible as it is site-specific and a dynamic concept. What is regarded as
sustainable depends on the perspectives of the analysts. Although precise measurement of
sustainable agriculture is not possible, “when specific parameters or criteria are selected, it is
possible to say whether certain trends are steady, going up or going down” (Pretty 1995). Due to
variation in biophysical and socioeconomic conditions, indicators used in one country are not
necessarily applicable to other countries (Rasul and Thapa 2003). This study assessed how
farmers can judiciously utilize the available resources without compromising the future use.
The second theory that will be considered in this research work is the profitability theory or the
theory of input-output relationship for excess reciept associated with farm management. This
36
theory explains the best combination of inputs for maximum return in agricultural production
viz a viz maize production. The profitability of small holder farms’ has important implications
for development strategies adopted in most developing countries wnere the primary sector is still
domant. An improvement in the understanding of its profitability can greatly aid policy makers
in creating enhancing policies.
Budgetary technique was employed to calculate the profitability of maize. There exist several
definitions of budget from authoritative sources, but the common thread that cut across all the
definitions is the plan of activities linked with financial resources. It communicates to the
business or farm in monetary terms of what the farm intends to spend and how much revenue
they intend to generate over a given period. It is an accounting device used to plan and control
resources.it involvesthe understanding of how much money you earn and spend over a period of
time (Malgwi and Unegbu ,2012).
Rate of return on investment is a popular financial metric for evaluating the financial
consequences of individual investment gains directly with the magnitude and timing or cost. A
high rate of return means that gains compare favorably to costs.
Thus RETURN ON NVESTMENT is given by : TOTAL REVENUE / TOTAL COST
2.12 Analytical framework
In every analysis, the nature and purpose of study determine the type of analytical tool to be
employed. The analytical framework of this study included; budgetary technique (Net farm
income), Multiple Regression model, the Likert scale rating and the Factor analysis
Measurement of farmers’ profits
Relative profitability of different crops is essential for decision making of farmers about a
particular crop. For financial analysis of an enterprise, it is necessary to compute costs of inputs,
which need to be deducted from the value of output. Farmers make use of purchased as well as
home supplied inputs. Though the cost of home supplied inputs are difficult to calculate in
37
monetary terms those are calculated on the basis of opportunity cost principle (Faruq 2008).
Opportunity cost of an input is defined as an income that it is capable of earning from alternative
employment in or outside the farm.
Net farm income analysis
Net farm income is an important measure of the performance of the farm business.
Budgetary technique is a farm management method that estimates costs and returns of
alternative strategies and/or actions. It is an essential component of management control
systems, as it provides a system of planning, coordination and control for management.
This will be employed to estimate the farm income (revenue) and expenses (cost) as well as the
return on investment associated with maize production. The budgetary technique is given by:
GM = TR - TVC
π or NFI = GM - TFC
ROI = TR/TC
where:
GM = Gross margin
TR = Total Revenue
TC = Total Cost
TVC = Total Variable Cost
TFC = Total Fixed Cost
π = Profit
NFI = Net Farm Income
ROI = Return On Investment
38
Multiple regression analysis (ordinary least square)
According to Wooldridge (2005), multiple regression analysis is a type of analysis that is used
to describe estimation of/and inference in the multiple linear regression model. It is an
econometric method used to study relationship involving a dependent variable and many
independent variables. When the relationship is between one dependent and one independent, it
is called simple regression. Multiple regression techniques can be applied to a set of data set in
which the independent variables are correlated with one another and with the independent to
varying degrees (Barbara and Linda, 2013). Most regression models are multiple regression
models because few phenomenons can be explained by only one variable (Gujarati, 2004).
Explicitly, the regression is stated thus:
Y = β0+ β1X1+ β2X2+…………….+ βnXn+µ
Where:
Y = dependent variable
β0 = constant intercept
β1 – βn = parameter estimates (coefficients)
X1 –Xn = independent variable
µ = error term
Operational index
Operational index is a numerical scale used to compare variables with one another or with some
reference number. This index will be used to measure the social and ecological sustainability.
Hayati and Karami (1996) suggested an operational index to measuring agricultural
sustainability trend in farm level by subtracting the total score of parameters leading to nonsustainability from the total score of parameters leading to sustainability. The parameters
measured in that method are those factors that intervene in the crop production process and
could have positive effect in the process. Here sustainability is calculated as a function of
39
parameters like yield, crop rotation, growing legumes, applying organic fertilizers, green manure
and crop residue for nutrition, conservation tillage as well as application of agrochemicals
including nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers and pesticides. The measurement is summarized in
below equation:
n
n
S = f ∑xi, ∑yj
i=1
j=1
S = Trend of sustainability
X1 = Average of crop production per hectare
X2 = Execution of crop rotation
X3 = Usage of organic manures
X4 = Usage of green manures
X5 = Usage of crop stubble
X6 = Usage of conservational plough
X7 = Trend of change in water resources (at the farm)
X8 = Trend of change in soil resources (at the farm)
Y1 = Amount of pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides consumption in the farm
in one cultivational season
Y2 = Amount of nitrate fertilizer consumption per 1 t of crop production
Y3 = Amount of phosphate fertilizer consumption per 1 t of crop production
In fact, parameters of X1 till X8 could lead to more sustainability if they increase
and parameters of Y1 till Y3 could lead to unsustainability if they increase. Thus the below
equation is established:
n
S=
n
∑Xi - ∑Yj
i=1
j=1
40
In order to measure agricultural sustainability at the farm level, Saltiel et al(1994) presented an
index which is constituted of seven components. They arecultivation of sustainable crops,
conservational cultivation, crop rotation, diminishing of pesticides and herbicides usage, soil
mulching, and use of organic fertilizers.
Likert Type Scale
A psychometric response scale primarily used in questionnaires to obtain participant’s
preferences or degree of agreement with a statement or set of statements. Likert scales are a
non‐comparative scaling technique and are unidimensional (only measure a single trait) in
nature. Respondents are asked to indicate their level of agreement with a given statement by
way of an ordinal scale. Named after Dr. Rensis Likert, a sociologist at the University of
Michigan, who developed the technique. His original report entitled “A Technique for the
Measurement of Attitudes” was published in the Archives of Psychology in 1932. His goal was
to develop a means of measuring psychological attitudes in a “scientific” way. Specifically, he
sought a method that would produce attitude measures that could reasonably be interpreted as
measurements on a proper metric scale, in the same sense that we consider grams or degrees
Celsius true measurement scales (Ubersax, 2006).
Factor analysis
Factor analysis has a considerable utility in reducing numerous variables down to a few factors.
The variables that are correlated with one another but largely independent of other subsets of
variables combined into factors.
According to Barbara and Linda (2013), the specific goal of factor analysis is to summarize
patterns of correlation among observed variables, to reduce a large number of observed
variables to a smaller number of factors, to provide an operational definition for an underlying
41
process by using observed variables, or to test a theory about the nature of the underlying
process.
Exploratory factor analysis using principal component model with iteration and varimax rotation
will be employed to evaluate constraints militating maize production in the area. The model is
given by:
X = λf + e
Where:
X = the vector of n observable variables
F = the vector of m unobservable variables
λ = the loading matrix of the order nfm
e = the error vector of n
42
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Study Area
The study area is Anambra State of Nigeria. Anambra State was created in August 27th 1991. It
is located between latitude 5o401N and 6o481N and between longitude 6o351E and 7o301E.
Boundaries are formed by Delta State to the west, Imo State to the south, Enugu state to east and
Kogi State to north. (Anambra State Agricultural Development project 2007).
It has an estimated population of 4.18million and land area of approximately 5.0255qkm (NPC
2006). The State comprises 21 local government areas and four agricultural zones (AZ); Aguata
AZ, Anambra AZ, Awka AZ and Onitsha AZ.
The climate is typically equatorial with two main seasons, the dry and the rainy seasons. The
State experiences dry season from late October to early May and has at least six dry months in
the year. The soil types of the area are suitable for varieties of crop production. The vegetation is
rainforest and wooden savannah and grassland in the weather fringes. Maize production form
part of crop produced because of the vegetation and soil type.
The population for the study will consist of maize based farmers in the area.
3.2 SamplingProcedure
Three zones out of the four agricultural zones were selected for the study. Purposive sampling
was employed in selecting 180 farmers that were used for the study. First, three AZ were
selected from the four zones (Awka, Aguata and Onitsha). Stage two involved selection of two
local governments each from the three AZ making a total of six local governments. The third
stage involved random selection of three farming communities from each of the six LGA,
making a total of 18 farming communities.
Finally 10 farmers each who grow maize as a main crop were selected from the 18 farming
communities randomly to make a total of the needed 180 respondents for the study.
43
3.3 Data Collection.
Data for the study were obtained from primary and secondary sources. Primary sources were
gathered with the use of a structured questionnaire. Both qualitative and quantitative types of
data were collected using the questionnaires which were administered through the help of young
men and women from the area under my supervision. Secondary data for the study were
obtained from published materials from ADP (Agricultural Development Project), journals,
workshop papers and conference papers.
3.4 Analytical Techniques.
Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data generated. Descriptive
statistics such as frequency tables and distribution, percentages and means were used to achieve
objectives i. Five point Likert Scale was used to achieve objectives ii. Objective iii was achieved
using budgetary technique, ordinary least square (multiple regression) was employed to achieve
objective iv, objective v was achieved using operational index and finally objective vi realized
using exploratory factor analysis.
3.4.1 Likert type scale
The 5-point rating availed the farmers the opportunity to choose the best practice they think that
could enhance maize sustainability in the study area. The rating were in the order: Strongly
agreed (SA) = 5, agreed (A) = 4, neutral (N) =3, disagree (D) = 2 and strongly disagree (SD) =
1.
The mean score of the respondents based on the five-point scale was 5+4+3+2+1 = 15, 15÷5 =
3.00. Using the interval scale of 0.05, the upper limit cut-off point will be 3.00+0.05 = 3.05. The
lower limit was 3.00 – 0.05 = 2.95. Based on these, mean scores below 2.55 (i.e. MS< 2.95)
were regarded as not important. The mean scores between 3.05 considered important and mean
score greater than 3.05 (i.e. MS >3.05) were however considered as very important practices.
44
3.4.2 Budgetary Technique
Budgetary technique was used to achieve objective iv. This wasemployed to estimate the farm
income (revenue) and expenses (cost) as well as the return on investment associated with maize
production. The budgetary technique is given by:
GM = TR - TVC
π or NFI = GM - TFC
ROI = TR/TC
where:
GM = Gross margin
TR = Total Revenue from maize
TC = Total Cost incurred during production process
TVC = Total Variable Cost utilized
TFC = Total Fixed Cost used
π = Profit from cubs sold
NFI = Net Farm Income
ROI = Return On Investment
3.4.3 Multiple Linear Regression
The model used to determine objective v i.e. the factors affecting profitability is stated explicitly
follows:
1n Y = β0 + β1X1+ β2X2+ β3X3+ β4X4+ β5X5 + β6X6 + β7X7 + β8X8 + β9X9+ β10X10+ β11X11 +
β12X12 + β13X13+ β14X14+ β15X15+ β16X16+Ui
Where;
Y = output of maize (in kg)
45
X1 = Seed rate (Kg/ha)
X2 = Planting hybrid maize (yes = 1, otherwise = 0)
X3 = Amount of animal manure (Kg/ha)
X4 = Amount of fertilizer (Kg/ha)
X5 = Irrigation when rain is inadequate (yes = 1, otherwise = 0)
X6 = Early planting (yes =1, otherwise = 0)
X7 = Number of Labor (persons/ ha)
X8 = Amount of insecticides (Lit./ha)
X9 = Amount of herbicides (Lit./ha)
X10 = Crop rotation (yes = 1, otherwise =0)
X11 = mixed cropping (yes =1, otherwise =0)
X12 = Land (ha)
X13 = Good storage system (yes = 1, otherwise =0)
X14 = Age (years)
X15 = Farming experience (years)
X16 = Household size (number)
β0= constant factor and βi= estimates of the coefficients with (i= 1,2…13). μ=an error
term measuring variation in maize output unaccounted for by independent variable. 1n =
logarithm to base e subscripts
3.4.4 Operational index
The operational index was used to achieve objective vi which is the sustainability of maize
production is stated thus:
8
5
S = ∑Xi - ∑Yj
i=1
j=1
46
S = Trend of sustainability
X1 = crop yield
X2 = Execution of crop rotation
X3 = Usage of organic and/or green manures
X4 = Creation of local employment
X5 = Access to resources and support services
X6 = Provision of public local goods
X7 = Trend of change in water resources (at the farm)
X8 = Trend of change in soil resources (at the farm)
Y1 = Amount of pesticides consumption in the farm in one cultivation season
Y2 = Amount of herbicides consumption in the farm in one cultivation season
Y3 = Amount fungicides consumption in the farm in one cultivation season
Y4 = amount of nitrate fertilizer consumption per production
Y5 = Amount of phosphate fertilizer consumption per production
3.4.5 Exploratory factor analysis model
This model was used to achieve the constraints to improved maize production.
Y1 = a11x1 + a12x2 + *** + a1nxn
Y2 = a21x1 + a22x2 + *** + a2nxn
Y3 = a31x1 + a32x2 + *** + a3nxn
“
“
“
Yn = an1xn + an2x2 + *** + annxn
Where:
Y1,Y2,Y3,…,Yn = Observed constraints facing maize production
47
a1 – an = Factor of correlation coefficient
x1 – xn = unobserved underlying factor constraints
For this study, factors of 0.30 and above were highlighted in bold letters and used for the
analysis and otherwise ignored.
48
Chapter Four
4.0
Results and Discussion
The data collected were analyzed and presented into sections to cover all the objectives as well
as the null hypothesis. Firstly, the socio-economic characteristics of the maize producers namely
gender, household size, marital status, educational qualification, age, farming experience, annual
income, source of labor used, and source of planting material. Secondly, the existing practices
that could lead to maize sustainability were adequate fertilizer use, planting hybrid maize, early
planting, use of animal manure, planting cover crop and pest and disease control. This is
followed by the profitability of maize production in the area, as well as the sustainability of
maize was presented. Also, factors that affect or determine profitability of maize production and
constraints affecting sustainability were analyzed. Finally, the null hypothesis was tested using
the chow test (F-statistics).
49
4.1 Socio Economic Characteristics of the Maize Farmers.
The table below shows the socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents.
Table 4.1 Socio Economic Characteristics of Farmers.
Variable
Gender
Male
Female
Householdsize
1-5
6-10
Maritalstatus
Single
Married
Divorced
Widowed
Educationalqualification
No formal education
Primary education
Secondary education
Tertiary education
Age
21-30
31-40
41-50
>50
Typeoflaborused
Family
Hired
Both family and hired
Modeoflandacquisition
Inherited
Purchased
Rented
Sourceofplantingmaterial
ADP
Market
Previous harvest
Annualincome
<80,000
81,000-120,000
>160,000
Farmingexperience
<5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years
Frequency
Percentage (%)
121
59
67.2
32.8
152
28
84.4
15.6
29
114
11
26
16.1
63.3
6.1
14.4
12
58
98
12
6.7
32.2
54.4
6.7
1
66
95
18
0.6
36.7
52.8
10.0
5
35
140
2.8
19.4
77.8
65
18
97
36.1
10.0
53.9
37
89
54
20.6
49.4
30.0
39
117
24
21.7
65.0
13.3
79
80
21
43.9
44.4
11.7
Source: field survey 2014 (frequency total = 180 each and percentage total = 100)
4.1.1 Gender:
50
From the result, it was observed that 121 of the respondents were male and the remaining 59
female. This is in line with the observation made by Okeke(2014) that majority of the household
heads that engaged in maize production in Anambra State were male. This shows that majority
(67.2%) were male, and this could be attributed to the fact that men have more access to land.
4.1.2 Household Size:
The result showed that majority of the maize farmers had family size of between 1 and
5(84.4%). This implies that maize farmers in Anambra State may not have adequate labor
supply coming from the family thus forcing them to depend on hired labor for production. This
in line with the observation made by Mohammed A.B, Ayanlere A.F, Ibrahim U, and
Muhammad (2013) in Kogi State, that family size of maize producer ranged from 2-5, implying
small family size, which could have a negative effect on labor cost and profitability of maize
production. The consequence may be increased production cost as extra money would be
required to pay for hired labor.
4.1.3 Marital Status:
Majority 114 of the household heads were married (63.3%) with 29 (16.1%) single, 26 (14.4%)
widowed, while only 11(6.1%) were divorced. This result show that married people that dwell
more in rural areas engaged more in farming, while the young people reside in the city in search
of white collar jobs. It also shows that regardless of your marital status, maize production can be
practiced by just anybody.
4.1.4 Educational Qualification:
About 54.4% of the maize farmers attended secondary school, 32.2% attended primary school
while 6.7% of the respondents had tertiary education and the remaining 6.7% had no formal
education. This conforms to the observation by Oladejo et al (2012) that more than half of his
51
respondents in maize production in Oyo state were literates. This implies that majority of the
maize farmers can read and write and as such innovations can easily be adopted by them with
little effort. This will thus have a positive impact on the adoption of new techniques that would
ensure sustainability of maize production.
4.1.5 Age:
The result showed that 52.8% of the maize farmers fell between the ages of 41-50 years,
followed by 36.7% being between 31-40 years of age while 10.0% were greater than 50 years.
Only one of them was less than 30years. This is in accordance with the observation made by
Okeke (2012) that 90% of respondents in Anambra fell between ages 30-50. He concluded that
fresh maize production in the area is dominated by young people who are more energetic and
responsive individuals. This is also in line with FAO (2008) classification as economically
productive while the minority fell within the age group regarded as dependent group (children
and aged).
4.1.6 Type of Labor:
The result showed that only 2.8% of the respondents depended solely on family labor and 19.4%
on hired labor only, while majority 77.8% used both family and hired labor. This could be
attributed to the low household size of the farmers or that their children migrate to bigger cities
for education or in search of a better livelihood options.
4.1.7 Mode of Land Acquisition:
Land is one of the key determinant / factor of agricultural production. The study revealed that
majority of the maize farmers 53.9% farm on rented land, 36.1% inherited theirs while 10.0%
purchased land. This can be attributed to the high population density which could result in low
availability of land. In addition, there were incidents of erosion in the study area, which has
52
made fertile agricultural land too expensive to purchase, there by leaving the poor farmers no
option than to rent or lease.
4.1.8 Source of Planting Material:
The result showed that 49.4% and 30.0% of the respondents depended on market and previous
harvest respectively for the source of planting material, while only 20.6% go to ADP to seek
theirs. This could be the cause of low income and yield as it has been observed that hybrid
maize produce up to three times more than local breed. Report from ADP informed that hybrid
maize should not be stored by farmers after harvesting for next farming season as it reduces the
quality and quantity of yield. Also the stored yields are more susceptible to pest and disease
because of contamination from soil and storage medium.
4.1.9 Annual Income:
The research showed that majority 65.0% of the respondents had an annual income 81,000120,000, 21.7% had less than 80,000 and only about 13.3% of the maize respondents had more
than 160,000 annual incomes with standard deviation of 0.59. The gap is much across the
groups and this could be as a result of source of planting material or method of planting
operations adopted.
4.1.10 Farming Experience:
The experience of the household heads is very important in decision making, although it is
worthy of note that increase in years may only increase production or productivity to a certain
level after which it may be negative. The study showed that 44.4% of the respondents had
farming experience between 6 -10, 43.9% less than 5 years while only 11.7% had 11-15 years of
experience. That is to say that majority (88.3%) had less than 10 years experience in maize
farming. This could be that people are gradually moving back to agriculture as a source of
53
livelihood. If that be the case, the country’s GDP will increase by reducing importation of
various food items and increasing exportation.
4.2 Existing Practices that could Enhance Maize Sustainability
Farmers in the study area believe that there are factors or practices that could enhance maize
sustainability in Anambra State. Some of these practices were listed and famers were asked to
rate them in a 5-point likert type scale to show to what extent they agree or disagree to their
capacity to economic, social and environmental sustainability of maize production. Table below
shows the responses and the corresponding mean score.
Table 4.3.1 Mean scores and decision of the existing practices that could lead
to sustainability of maize production.
Existing practices
Early planting
Mean scores
3.20
Decision
Accept
Planting hybrid maize
3.66
Accept
Adequate fertilizer use
4.13
Accept
Use of animal manure
3.57
Accept
Practice crop rotation
2.83
Reject
Engage in mixed farming
2.16
Reject
Use of irrigation
1.32
Reject
Planting cover crop
3.51
Accept
Good storage system
1.65
Reject
Pest and disease control
3.84
Accept
Others
2.95
Accept
Source: fieldsurvey2014 (Decision rule: <2.95= reject and ≥ 2.95 accept)
54
From the table above, practices like early planting, planting hybrid maize, adequate fertilizer
use, use of animal manure, planting cover crop and disease control loaded above 2.95 and going
by the decision rule, they are very important practices toward sustainable maize production. The
practice of crop rotation, engaging in mixed farming, use of irrigation and good storage system
loaded less than 2.95 meaning they are less important practices as observed by the study, while
other practices such as erosion control, liming, etc loaded 2.95 which means they are important.
In the cases of crop rotation and mixed cropping, it could be because most of maize farmers do
not own land and there by farming on rented plots and as such only plant maize as a sole crop
during the period of maize production. Also use of irrigation was rejected, it could be because
these farmers only engage in wet season maize production and always wait till on set of rain to
start cultivation. Good storage system was rejected; this could be because the yield is barely
enough for the demand and as such doesn’t give room for storage. Thus, farmers sell off their
produce and retailers import from nearby states as the once produce within the state are not
enough.
Farmers are aware that early planting and planting of hybrid maize are very important practices
that could enhance sustainability of maize. Also use of fertilizer, animal manure, planting cover
crops and pest and disease control, are also very important practices. Adequate fertilizer use
(4.13) and planting hybrid maize (3.66) loaded highest, this is to show that farmers agree that
proper and adequate fertilizer use and hybrid maize in the right proportion is a prerequisite for
sustainable maize production. But these farmers complain that as result of the cost of hybrid
maize which requires adequate fertilizer use they relied on the cheaper seeds bought from the
market.
55
4.3 Profitability of Maize Production in Anambra State.
Even at subsistence level, maize farming may not only be for home consumption, rather the
farmers aim to sell part of the produce in order to purchase other items needed by the household.
In order to achieve that purpose, profit maximization is a prerequisite for engaging in maize
production. Efforts were made to determine the costs associated with maize production and the
revenue that accrued to the respondents. This work looked at 2 groups namely: per hectare net
revenue of farmers that made use of improved seed and recommended fertilizer and per hectare
net revenue of those that depended on previous harvest and market for source of planting
materials.
56
Table 4.3.1 Net Farm Income Analysis of per hectare maize production using
seed purchased from market.
Item
Variable cost
Quantity
Unit Cost(N)
Amount(N)
Seed rate
25kg
90
2,250
Fertilizer
2/50kgbag
5,800
11,600
Animal manure
4/50kgbag
1,000
4,000
Herbicide
1lit
2,000
2,000
Pesticide
3lits
3,200
9,600
Labor
14mandays
5,500
77,000
Total variable cost (TVC)
106,450
Fixed cost
Opportunity cost of land
20,000
Depreciation of wheel barrow
1,600
Depreciation of other implements
4,667
Total fixed cost(TFC)
26,267
Total cost (TC) = TFC+TVC
132,717
Revenue
Yield/100kg bag(TR)
70/100kgbag
2,800
196,000
Gross margin(GM) = TR-TVC
89,550
Net Farm Income = TR-TC
63,283
Return on investment (ROI)= TR/TC
1.48
Source: field survey 2014
57
Table 4.3.2 Net Farm Income Analysis of per hectare maize production using
improved seed and recommended fertilizer.
Item
Quantity
Unit Cost(N)
Amount(N)
Seed rate
21kg
150
3,150
Fertilizer
4/50kgbag
6,000
24,000
Animal manure
4/100kgbag
800
3,200
Herbicide
2lits
1,700
3,400
Pesticide
3lits
3,500
10,500
Labor
14mandays
5,000
70,000
Variable cost
Total variable cost (TVC)
114,250
Fixed cost
Opportunity cost of land
20,000
Depreciation of wheel barrow
1,600
Depreciation of other implements
4,667
Total fixed cost(TFC)
26,267
Total cost (TC) = TFC+TVC
140,517
Revenue
Yield/100kg bag (TR)
83/100kgbag
3,2000
265,600
Gross margin(GM) = TR-TVC
151,350
Net Farm Income = TR-TC
125,083
Return on investment (ROI)=TR/TC
1.89
Source: field survey 2014
The tables above show the profitability of maize production using farm budgetary techniques to
get the Net farm income as well as the return on investment. Though scores may vary a little
from one man to the other, table 4.4.1 shows the profit made by maize producers who cultivated
one hectare using seeds from previous harvest or bought from the market. From the gross
margin analysis it could be seen that they made a profit of N63,283 after investing N132,717.
This set of respondents could be said to be making profit, but the return on investment (ROI)
was only N1.48, implying that for every one naira invested, there was a return of 48 kobo. When
58
we compare this result with the one in table 4.4.2, which shows the average profit made by those
that cultivated hybrid maize sourced from ADP and using the recommended fertilizer rate,
though they invested more (N140,517) they made a profit of about N125,083. Looking at the
ROI (which is N1.89, meaning that for every one naira invested, there is a corresponding net
ROI of 89 kobo), one is right to assume that every other thing been equal, cultivation of hybrid
maize with the recommended fertilizer rate is a “sine qua non” for increased profit in the study
area. This is in concurrence with the observation made by Oladejo and Adetunji (2012), that
when local farmers make use of scientifically improved seeds, experienced hired labor, as well
as scientifically recommended quality and quantity of fertilizer in the process of production
activities, they obtain better yield compared to others. They concluded that they expend more on
production cost but the better yield obtained resulted in high revenue and consequently higher
returns compared with the other group. They therefore suggested that if farmers could have
access to these inputs at subsidized price, it will enhance profitability of maize production.
This means that there is a high prospect for maize production in the study area. One striking
observation about the profitability of maize production in the area was the significance of labor
cost in maize production. For the two tables, labor cost accounted for more than 50% of the total
production cost, thus any practice that would reduce the cost of labor will be a welcome
development as it will improve profitability. But viewed from social sustainability point, it could
be said that maize production provides local employment for the vulnerable group (women and
children), there by meeting one of the sustainability criteria.
59
4.4 Determinants of Output in Maize Production.
The research has shown that maize production in the study area is profitable, multiple regression
analysis shows the factors and to what extent they affect or influence the output of this venture.
Table 4.5 shows the table for parameter estimate.
Table 4.4 Determinants of output in maize production
Independent variables
Constant
Seed rate (kg)
Planting hybrid maize
(yes=1, no=0)
Amount of animal manure
(bags/50kgbag)
Amount of fertilizer used
(bags/50kgbag)
Amount of labor used
(mandays)
Early planting
(yes=1, no=0)
Amount of pesticides(liters)
Amount of herbicides(liters)
Crop rotation
(yes=1, no=0)
Mixed cropping
(yes=1, no=0)
Good storage system
(yes=1, no=0)
Number of hectares
(hectares)
Practice irrigation
(yes=1, no=0)
Age (years)
Farming experience(years)
Household size (number)
R2
Adj. R2
Standard error
F-ratio
Significance
Source: field survey 2014 N/B:
respectively.
Coefficients
t-values
9.718
0.362
0.341
Standard
error
5.182
0.888
0.807
0.371
0.506
0.732*
0.608
0.663
0.918***
0.753
0.320
2.352**
0.773
2.975
0.243*
0.656
1.043
-1.669
0.773
0.720
0.925
3.440***
2.837**
-1.798
0.966
0.862
1.121
-0.221
1.629
-0.135
39.092
6.519
5.997***
-0.175
0.780
-0.224
0.202
-0.916
0.576
0.571
0.862
2.576
0.354
-1.063
0.146**
1.875
0.408**
0.422***
0.743
0.717
4.918
29.408
(0.000)***
*,**, *** indicates statistical significant at 10%, 5% and 1%
60
Maize profit in naira was regressed against seed rate, planting hybrid maize, amount of animal
manure, fertilizer, labor, pesticides and herbicides used, early planting, crop rotation, mixed
cropping, good storage system, number of hectares and practice irrigation. Table 4.5 presents the
OLS result of the factors affecting profitability of maize in the study area. The R2 was 0.74,
implying that 74% of the variation in profitability of maize was explained by the independent
variables in the model. All the other variables were positive except for seed rate, amount of
animal manure used, crop rotation and good storage system.
The coefficient of X1 (seed rate) was positive and significant at 5% level. This is in line with the
“apriori” expectation and also conforms with Abu et al (2011) that seed rate is a significant
determinant of output.
The coefficient of X2 (planting hybrid maize) was positive and significant at 1% level, this met
the “apriori” expectation that increase in the use of hybrid maize will lead to increase in output
thereby increasing profit. Ogala(2011) noted that deploying hybrid maize to farmers will have a
positive impact on yield.
X3 which is amount of animal manure was positive and statistically significant at 10%,
indicating that increasing animal manure will increase yeild. This conforms with Mohiuddin et
al (2007) that amount of animal manure is positively related to yield at 10%.
Amount of fertilizer used (X4) was positive and statistically significant at 1% level, which is in
line with the “apriori” expectation indicating that a little increase in fertilizer will have a
corresponding increase of 0.608 in the yield of maize which is more profit and return on
investment. This conforms with Mohammed et al(2013) that fertilizer is positive and statistically
significant approach in maize output.
The estimated coefficient of X5 (amount of labor used) was positive and statistically significant
at 5% level which is in line with Mohuiddin et al (2007) that yeild will be increased by using
61
more human labor, meaning that increase in labor will amount to increased profit. This means
that increased labor use may be needed for timeliness in execution of work, which could
translate to increased productivity.
The coefficient of X6 (early planting) was positive and statistically significant at 5% level
indicating that by planting early (onset of rainy season), farmers will take advantage of rain to
reduce rate at which they irrigate their farms. Goodbody (1990) noted that early planting in
maize growing season had been observed to be the most important single factor for increased
grain yeild.
X7 and X8 (amount of pesticides and amount of herbicides respectively) were positive and
statistically significant at 1% and 5% levels respectively. The positive effects imply that
adequate application of required chemicals will hinder pest and weed growth thereby reducing
competition for nutrients by weeds, and destroying the insect pests.
The estimated coefficient of X9 (crop rotation) was negative and statisticallyinsignificant, this
does not conform with the expectation as crop rotation should help improve the nutrient by
replenishing lost nutrient. This could be because majority of the farmers only rent the land for
the period of maize production, after which they give it back to the owners.
Mixed cropping (X10) was positive and not statistically significant, farmers are aware that
planting cover crops alongside maize will help to protect the soil from the direct heat of the sun
there by retaining the moisture content of the soil. But it was not statistically significant which
may be because most of the farmers are just interested in maize and rent land just for its season.
The coefficient of X11 (good storage system) was negative and statistically not significant. This
is not in line with the expectation, but the negativity could be because the farmers do not even
have enough to sell to the consumers, thereby leaving no room for storage. In other words, the
excessive demand of maize do not allow for its storage.
62
X12 (number of hectares cultivated) was positive and statistically significant at 1% level. This
met with “apriori” expectation, indicating that increase in area of land cultivated will have a
positive impact in the net profit. This is in agreement with Mohammed et al (2013) and
Oluwatayo et al (2008) that farm size has a positive relationship with output at 1% level of
significance, the larger the farm size, the higher the yield obtained.
Coefficient of X13 (practice irrigation) was negative and statistically not significant, the
negative sign does not conform with the expectation, it could be because most farmers in the
area only cultivate maize during the rainy season and as such depend solely on rain for source of
water supply to the crop.
The coefficient of X14 (age) was positive but not significantly related to profit meaning that
increase in age may lead to increased profit.
X15 (farming experience) was negative and not statistically significant. This is not in line with
the apriori expectation , however Fasoranti (2007) suggested it could be because farmers with
long years of experience make used to obsolete methods of farming, traditional tools and species
of seed which do not encourage high output.
Finally, coefficient of X16 (household size) was positive and significant at 5% level. This is in
line with the expectation as they will serve as labor ,thus reducing production cost.
63
4.5 Evaluation of the Sustainability of Maize Production in Anambra State.
Sustainability of maize production was estimated using sustainability index, the factors that
could improve crop production (crop yield, crop rotation, use of organic manure, local
employment etc) were subtracted from the factors that could lead to un-sustainability (amount of
pesticide, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, nitrate fertilizer and phosphate fertilizer). Table 4.6
below shows the average scores gotten from the respondent on how they rate each practice in
proportion of ten.
Table 4.5 Average scores and percentage contribution of the factors that
could lead to sustainability in the study area
Variables
Average score
Percentage contribution
Crop yield
4.5
8.05
Execution of Crop rotation
3.6
6.37
Usage of organic manure
3.9
7.01
Provision of local employment
4.9
8.73
Usage of crop stubble
3.7
6.66
Conservation practice
3.4
6.08
Trend of change in water resources (at farm) 3.4
6.14
Trend of change in soil resources (at farm)
3.1
5.56
Sub-total
30.5
54.60
A: sustainable variables
B: unsustainable variables
Amount of pesticide consumed in the farm 6.3
11.28
in one cultivation season
Amount of herbicides consumed in the farm 3.9
6.90
in one cultivation season
Amount of fungicides used in the farm in 3.6
6.49
one cultivation season
Amount of nitrate fertilizer consumption per 5.4
9.64
64
production
Amount of phosphate fertilizer consumption 6.2
11.09
per production
Sub-total
25.4
45.40
Total
55.9
100.00
Source: field survey 2014.
The table above shows the mean score and percentage contribution of the sustainability
variables as obtained from the respondents in the proportion of 1 to 10. From the table, the
practices that could lead to sustainability loaded more than half (54.6%) while the other was
45%. The study went further to calculate the percentage sustainability of maize production using
the sustainability index (summation of factors that could lead to sustainability less summation of
factors that are unsustainable). The result of sustainability index is given below:
S = sustainable practices – unsustainable practices
= 30.5-25.4
= 5.1
.: =
ହ.ଵ
×
ଵ଴
ଵ଴଴
ଵ
S = 51%
From the result obtained (51.0%), maize production could be concluded to be somewhat
sustainable though it is only a bit above half. This could be because the farmers are not strictly
following the practices that could lead to sustainability.
4.6 Constraints Mitigating Sustainability of Maize Production in the Study Area
Maize production is affected by many factors; as such sustainability of maize in the study area is
threatened by these factors in varying degrees. Farmers believe that some factors are more
important than others and that if these problems are not critically and carefully tackled or
65
addressed, maize sustainability will never be achieved. Exploratory factor analysis was
employed to analyze the constraints and categorize them to be able to ascertain the type of
problem associated with maize production in the area. Table 4.7 shows the result of the factor
analysis.
Table 4.6.Varimax Rotated component matrix on the constraints faced by maize
producers.
Variable
Variable Names
code
Factor
1 Factor
2 Factor
(economic
(natural
(social
factors)
factors)
factors)
Vo.1
High cost of and unavailability of labor 0.802
0.114
0.168
Vo.2
High cost of fertilizer
0.796
-0.007
0.293
Vo.3
Price of quality seed
0.710
0.170
0.177
Vo.4
Inadequate capital
0.645
0.207
-0.233
Vo.5
Low cost of cobs
0.582
0.210
0.082
Vo.6
Erosion menace
0.245
0.643
0.156
Vo.7
Incidence of pest and disease
0.160
0.629
0.202
Vo.8
Destruction of crop by flood and storm
-0.017
0.625
-0.089
Vo.9
Destruction of cob by other animals
0.003
0.588
0.075
Vo.10
Access to suitable of land
-0.020
-0.207
0.892
Vo.11
Poor infrastructural development
0.092
0.230
0.641
Vo.12
Lack of agric extension agents
0.065
-0.082
0.221
Vo.13
Inadequate market for product
-0.100
0.126
-0.215
Note: Extraction method: principal component analysis, rotation method: oblimin with Kaiser
normalization, rotation converged in 25 iterations. Factor loading over .30 appear in bold.
Source: field survey 2014
3
66
The table above shows the result obtained from the factor analysis. Principal component
analysis with varimax rotation was conducted to assess the underlying factors militating maize
sustainability. After the rotation the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) obtained was 0.869% which
confirms that factor analysis is appropriate for the sample, and the Barteltt’s test of Sphericity
X2 (78) is 714.554 p<.01 which is above the limit of 0.5. Three factors, namely economic,
natural and social factors extracted. Variables that loaded less than 0.3 (regardless of the sign)
were not considered as important, this is in line with the criterion by Madukwe (2004), that
variables that load up to 0.30 at 10% overlapping matrix have high loading and could be used in
naming the factors. After rotation, the first factor accounted for 21.06% of the variance, the
second factor accounted for 19.67% while the third accounted for 15.22% of the variance and
cumulatively, the first three factors loaded 55.94% showing that more than half of the variance
is accounted for by the first three factor (high labor, fertilizer and quality seed cost) which fall
under economic factors. The first factor was named Economic factors, they includedVo.1- high
labor cost (0.802), Vo.2- high cost of fertilizer (0.796), Vo.3- high price of quality seed (0.710),
Vo.4- inadequate capital (0.645), Vo.5- low cost of cob (0.582), showed that financial constraint
(finance) is the key problem facing the maize producers in the study area. This is in agreement
with the observation made by Okeke(2012), that the major problem faced by fresh maize
farmers in Anambra State is lack of capital.
The second most important was natural factors which included Vo.6- erosion menace (0.643),
Vo.7- incidence of pest and diseases (0.629), Vo.8- destruction of cobs by flood, drought and
storms (0.625) and Vo.9- destruction of cobs by other animals (0.588). These variables fall
under factors that are caused by nature which the farmers have little or no solution to them. This
is in line with the observation made by Olalinde L.O, Manyoung V.M and Akintola, J.O (2007),
that majority of the farmers had their crops affected by drought, flood, wind & storm, and
67
diseases & pest, these they categorized as national risks , noting that the implication is that crop
yield could be low due to the negative effects of these natural occurrence.
Finally, the last factor was categorized as social factor which are Vo.10- lack or no access to
land (0.892) and Vo.11- poor infrastructure(0.642). This is grouped as social factor because as a
result of culture, women and some group do not have access to land and also infrastructure is a
social amenity.
From the study, it was observed that economic problems pose the greatest threat to maize
sustainability followed by natural or environmental factors and finally the social factors.
68
CHAPTERFIVE
5.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Summary
The study assessed the sustainability of maize production in Anambra state. The specific
objectives of the study were to: describe the socio economic characteristics of maize producers ,
describe maize production trend, examine from the farmers perspectives, the existing practices
that could enhance maize sustainability, estimate the profitability of maize, determine the factors
affecting profitability, evaluate sustainability and finally analyze the constraints to sustainability
of maize.
A purposive, multi stage and simple random sampling were employed in the selection of 180
maize farmers in Anambra state for the study. The data used for the study were obtained through
a structured questionnaire for the primary data while the secondary data was obtained from
Anambra State ADP in Awka. Descriptive and inferential statistics which includes frequency
and percentage tables, budgetary techniques, likert type scale, Ordinary Least Square (OLS)
model, sustainability index, and exploratory factor analysis were used for data analysis.
From the data analyzed, it was discovered that majority of the maize farmers were male (67.2%)
and only 32.8% female, with most of the household size (84.4%) ranging 1-5 and the remaining
15.6% between 6-10. Majority (89.5) were between the ages of 31-50 (which is regarded as the
active years). Only about16.1% was single, and others were either divorced (6.1%), widowed
(14.4%) or still married (63.3%). Not all the farmers had access to formal education, about 6.7%
had no formal education, while 32.2% had primary, 6.7% tertiary and majority (54.4%) attended
secondary school. Majority (77.8%) of the maize farmers make use of both hired and family
labor.
69
Most of the respondents (53.9%) rent land for production, 36.1% inherited the land and only
10.0 purchased lands as a result of high cost of land. Only a few of the farmers (20.6%) sourced
the planting material from ADP, while the other 79.4% either bought from market or used
previously harvested seeds. Majority (65.0%) of the maize producers had annual income
between N81,000- N120,000 and only 13.3% had up to N160,000 and above. Only 11.7% had
farming experience between 11-15 years and the other 88.3% had 10 years and below.
The result of the likert type scale on the existing practices that could enhance maize
sustainability showed that from the farmer’s perspective adequate fertilizer use was the most
important practice for maize sustainability as it recorded the highest mean score of 4.13. Other
practices that loaded high were pest and disease control (3.84) to reduce loss of crop by disease,
planting hybrid maize (3.66) for better and quality yeild , use of animal manure (3.57) to
increase soil fertility at a reduced cost, planting of cover crops (3.51) to reduce water lossfrom
the soil due to evaporation, early planting (3.20) to reduce incidence of pest and enjoy adequate
rain supply, and finally other practices loaded (2.95) which they named as erosion control, use
of lime, adequate pesticide use, use of machines to reduce labor cost etc. The study also noted
that other practices which included: practice of crop rotation, engage in mixed farming, good
storage system and use of irrigation where rejected.
The budgetary technique employed to analyze the profitability of maize and the return on
investment showed that for the maize farmers that cultivated one hectare using hybrid maize and
recommended fertilizer rate, although they incurred more production cost (N140,517), they had
a higher gross margin and profit (N151,350 and N125,083 respectively), with ROI of N1.89. and
for the respondents who cultivated one hectare with seeds purchased from market or from
previous harvest, though total production cost was less (N132,717), gross margin and profit
(N89,550 and N63,283 respectively) were affected badly and ROI was as low as N1.48.
The result of the OLS determinants of output in maize production showed that there was a great
impact of prediction variables on profit made by farmers. The result of the model revealed that
70
74% of the total variation in output was explained by the explanatory variable while the
remaining 14% was accounted for by the stochastic or random variables. The prediction
variables were significant at different alpha level of probabilities, implying that a change in any
of the variable will lead to a change in the level of output in maize production. Variables like
seed rate, planting hybrid maize, use of fertilizer, labor use, early planting and number of
hectares cultivated were statistically significant.
The result of the sustainability of maize production analyzed using sustainability index shows
that for all the variables that could lead to sustainability, crop yield, usage of organic manure
and provision of local employment loaded highest (8.05%, 7.01% and 8.73% respectively).
Implying that increase in these variables as well as other variables that loaded low will have a
positive effect thereby increasing sustainability. And for the factors that would lead to unsustainability, amount of pesticides consumed in the farm in one cultivation season (11.28%),
the amount of nitrate fertilizer consumption per production (9.64%) and amount of phosphate
fertilizer consumption per production (11.09%), loaded highest meaning that reduction in these
practicesalongside other non sustainable practices will have positive impact on sustainability .
Finally constraints militating sustainability of maize production was analyzed using the
exploratory factor analysis, the result of the Varimax component matrix categorized the most
important constraint into 3 factors namely; economic or cost factor, natural factors and social
factors.
5.2 Conclusion
A fundamental issue in sustainability of maize production is how a farmer manages/ combines
assets within his disposal to maximize profit while being mindful of his surrounding
environment. Economic sustainability of maize production among farmers who cultivate hybrid
maize with the recommended fertilizer rate made more profit and had more return on investment
than others.
71
There is an increasing trend in maize production and the positive growth is associated with
hybrid maize and use of recommended fertilizer, however it was noted that excess fertilizer and
other chemicals in the farm will not only affect the yield as a result of nutrient imbalance but
also in case of excess rain, there will be runoffs to nearby rivers or stream which will be a
serious hazard for the community thereby hindering the social and environmental aspect of
sustainability as it makes the water toxic for man and animals and also increased depletion of
nutrients in the soil.
5.3 Recommendation
Based on the findings, the following recommendations were made:
1. Investing in sustainability especially among small farmers should be given the highest
priority to ensure steady supply of food at a cheap price without hindering future
generation, by providing them with necessary assistance like provision of land.
2. To increase the profit and ensure high return on investment, subsidy should not stop at
fertilizer rather more on hybrid maize and extension agents assistance to be made readily
available and accessible so as to ensure adequate use of inputs in the right proportions.
3.
Farmers need to form groups to enhance access to subsidized inputs and extension
agents or even NGOs should dedicate themselves to educate and direct farmers so as to
boost their profit margin and policies put in place to improve farmers access to
information.
4. Crop scientist needs to work and provide hybrid maize that has the capacity to produce
more at a lower fertilizer requirement. Also efforts should be made to look out for
practice that can reduce labour cost as it constituted more than half of the production cost
5. Farmers should be encouraged to concentrate on factors that could lead to sustainability
and use less of the ones that are not sustainable.
72
6. Vigilante groups (especially nongovernmental) should be formed so as to curb theft of
curbs in the farm and destruction by nomads before harvest.
Contribution to knowledge
The study has revealed that more effort should be directed at sustainable means of production as
yield increase via area expansion is not a realistic approach anymore in Anambra State because
of scarcity of land and erosion problem. Also the study has shown that cultivation of maize is
very profitable when hybrid maize and recommended fertilizer is used. Maize production in
Anambra state is somewhat sustainable; as such much is still needed to be done to ensure its
sustainability. Finally during the course of the study, it was observed that very little study has
been done in maize production and non on sustainability, therefore, there is urgent need to
research on sustainability of all the crops so as not to hamper future generation of its abundance.
73
References
Abdulrahaman, A.A, & Kolawole, O.M., (2008). Traditional Preparations and Uses of Maize in
Nigeria .htm
Abu, G.A., Raoul, F.D., and Okpachu S.A., (2011). Evaluating the constraints & opportunities
of maize production in West region of Cameroon for sustainable development. J.of
sustain. Devept in Africa, 13(4)189-194
Adebowale, E.A., (2004). Tropical uses of maize. Institute of African research and training
Ibadan.
Adenola, O.A., & Akinwumi, J.A., (1993). Maize production constraints in Nigeria. (Fakorede
ed) Maize Improvement, Production and utilization in Nigeria published by the maize
association of Nigeria, pp. 223-232.
Adetunji, M.T., (1997). Organic residue management and nutrient cycling. Agro-ecosys. 47:
189-195.
Ado S.G, Usman I.S & Abdullahi U.S (2007) Recent development in maize research at
institute for agricultural research, Samaru, NigeriaAfrican Crop Science Society, African
Crop Science Conference Proceedings Vol. 8. pp. 1871-1874
African Union Commission, (2006): Resolution of the Abuja Food Security Summit. Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia
Agboola A.A., Obigbesan G.O & Fayemi A.A (1992). Effect of organic matter, lime and
phosphorous fertilizer on the yield of cowpea. FAO soil Bull 27(1)39-43
Agricultural Transformation Agenda (2011): We will grow Nigeria’s Agricultural sector.
Agricultural transformation Blueprint. Fed. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
development Abuja Nigeria
Ahmad, B., Hassan, S. and K. Bakhsh (2005) Factors affecting yield and profitability of carrots
in two districts of Punjab. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology 7(5): 794798
Ahmed B., (1996): Economic analysis of fertilizer used in maize production in maize production
in the Northern Guinea Savannah of Nigeria. Unpublished ph.D thesis, department of
Agric. Economics and Rural sociology Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria:Nigeria.
Ajala (2011): Nigeria to raise maize production by 12million tons annually. Dailytimes Nig
September 13 2011
Akande ,S.O (1994). Comparative cost and returns in maize production in Nigeria. NISER,
individual research project report Ibadan: NISER
Akinyemiju, O.A., (1993). Weed management in maize production in southern Nigeria pp 213217 in M.A.B. Fakorede, C. O. Alofe, and S.K. Kim (eds.) Maize improvement
production andutilization in Nigeria. Maize association of Nigeria.
Amujoyegbe B.J. and Bamidele (2012). Farming system Analysis of two Agro-Ecological zones
of southwestern Nigeria. Agricultural science research journal, vol.2(1)pp13-19
Anambra State Agricultural Development Project (ANADEP) (2007), project report.
Ayeni, A.O., (1991) “Maize Production in Nigeria: Problems and Prospects”. J. Food Agric.,
2:123-129
74
Aye, G.C., & Mungatana, E.D., (2010): Technological innovation and efficiency in the Nigerian
maize sector: parametric stochastic and non-parametric distance function approaches.
Contributed Paper presented at the Joint 3rd African Association of Agricultural
Economists (AAAE) and 48th Agricultural Economists Association of South Africa
(AEASA) Conference, Cape Town, South Africa, September 19-23, 2010.
Ayeni L.S., (2010). Integrated plant Nutrition Management: A Panacea for sustainable crop
production in Nigeria. Int. J. of soil science.
Badmus, M.A., & Ariyo, O.S., (2011): Forecasting Cultivated Areas and Production of Maize in
Nigerian using ARIMA Model. National Horticultural Research Institute,Jericho Idi
Ishin, Ibadan, Nigeria Asian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 3(3): 171-176
Barbara, G.T. and Linda S.F., (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics .6th edition Boston Pearson.
Bradley R. (2009). Integrated Farming System: The Past or the Future?. A report for Nuffield
Australia farming scholars.
Bruinsma . J (2009). The resource outlook to 2050: by how much do land, water use and crop
yields needs to increase by 2050. Paper presented at expert meeting on how to feed the
world in 2050 Rome: FAO of UN.
Carsky, R.J. and Kling, J.G, (1997). Realization of Maize yield potential on farmers’ fields
possibilities and problems pp 12-21 in B. Badu-Apraku, M.O. Akoroda, M. Ouedraogo,
and F.M. Quin (eds.) Contributing to food self-sufficiency: Maize research and
development in West andCentral Africa. Proceedings of a Regional Maize Workshop. 29
May - 2 June, 1995, IITA, Cotonou, Benin Republic.
Chi-Chung C., McCarl, B.A., & Schimmelpfennig, D., (2004). Yield Variability as Influenced
by Climate: A Statistical Investigation. Climatic Change, 66: 239-261, 204
CIMMYT & IITA, (2010). MAIZE – Global alliance for improving food security and the
livelihoods of the resource-poor in the developing world. Draft proposal submitted by
CIMMYT and IITA to the CGIAR Consortium Board. El Batan, Mexico. 91 pp.
Daramola, A.M., (1993). Insect pests of maize- damages and control in Nigeria Pp 171-179 in
M.A.B. Fakorede, C.O. Alofe and S.K. Kim (eds.) Maize improvement, production
andutilization in Nigeria, Maize Association of Nigeria Ibadan.
De Groote Hugo (2002). Maize yield losses fromstemborers in Kenya. Insect Sci. Appl., 22(2):
89-96.
Degrande, A., & Duguma, B., (2000): Adoption Potential of Rotational Hedge Row
Intercropping in Humid and Extension Network (103):1-7
Dowswell, C. R., Paliwal, R. L. & Cantrell, R. P. (1996): Maize in the ThirdWorld. Oxford:
Westview Press
Duesterhaus, R. (1990). In: “Sustainability promise”, J. Soil and Water Conservation, 45 (9): 4.
Edmeades, G., Lafitte. H.R., Bolanos, J., Chapman, S., Banziger, M., & Deustch, J. (1994).
Developing maize that tolerates drought or low nitrogen conditions. In G. Edmeades and
J. Deutsch (eds.). Stress Tolerance Breeding:Maize that Resists Insects, Drought, Low
Nitrogen, and Acid Soils. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT
Eijnatten , V. (1965). Towards the improvement of Maize in Nigeria. Ph.D Thesis, Wageningen,
the Netherlands.
75
Elwel, H.A., & Stockings M.A., (1991): a need for low input sustainable farming systems. The
Zimbabwe science news 25(4/6): 31-36
Enete, A. A. and Okon, U. E. (2010) Economics of Water leaf Production (Talinum triangulare)
in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. Field Actions Science Reports. 4(1)
Faruq H.M., (2008) Economic Efficiency And Constraints Of Maize Production In The
Northern Region Of Bangladesh. j. innov.dev.strategy. 2(1): 18-32
Fajemisin, J.M., (1978). An overview of the Maize Improvement Programme of the National
Cereals Research Institute. Pp7-11 O. A. Ojomo, J. M. Fajemisin and S.U. Reminson
(eds.) Prospects of hybrid maize production in Nigeria NCRI, Ibadan
Fakorede, M.A., (2001) RevolutionizingNigerianAgricultureWith The Golden Seed Obafemi
Awolowo University, Ile-Ife.
Fasoranti, O.O.,(2008). The Determinants of Agricultural Production and Profitability in Akoko
Land, Ondo-State,Nigeria.
Fawole, O.P., & Oladele, O.I., (2007) Sustainable Food Crop Production Through Multiple
Cropping Patterns among Farmers in South Western Nigeria. J. Hum. Ecol., 21(4): 245249
Fawole, O.P. (2008). Women’s contributions to household food security on oriire Local
Government area of Oyo State. Nigeria. A journal of social work Education vol 7 pp3436
FAO (2008). Food and Agricultural Organization Production year book.
Gerpacio, R.V., & Pingali, P.L, (2007). Tropical and Subtropical Maize in Asia:
ProductionSystems, Constraints, & Research Priorities. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT
Goodbody .S, (1990). Maize time planting: A review of recent work in Tanzania. In A.J Moshi
and J.K Ransom (eds), Maize Research in Tanzania: Proceedings of the first Tanzania
National Maize workshop. Dar. Es-Salaam: TARO
Gujarati D.N., & Porter, C.D., (2009). Basic Econometrics (5th edition). McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Gupta S (2011): Sustainability of Scientific maize Cultivation practices in Utter Pradesh, India.
J. of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare 1(4)14-18
Hayati D, Ranjbar, Z., & Karami E (2010) : Measuring Agricultural sustainability. E.Lichtfouse
(ed.), Biodiversity, Biofuels, Agroforestry and Conservation Agriculture, sustainable
Agriculture Reviews 5, Springer Science for business media: in A proposed scale to
measure sustainability at farm level in socio-economic studies. Paper presented at first
agricultural economic conference of Iran, Zabol, Iran, 5–7 April
Igbokwe, M.C., Njoku, B.O., Odurukwe, S.O., (1981). Liming effects on theresponse of maize
on an ultisol in Enugu Nigeria. Nig. J. Soil Sci. 11:120-130.
Iken, J.E., & Amusa, N.A.,(2004).Maize Research and Production in Nigeria. Afr. J.
Biotechnol., 3(6): 302–307
Ikerd, J., (1993). Two related but distinctly different concepts: organic farming and sustainable
agriculture. Small farm today 10(1)30-31
76
Inocencio, A., Sally, H. & Merrey, D.J. (2003). Innovative Approaches to Agricultural Water
Use for Improving Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa. International Water
Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, (1979). Annual Report Ibadan, Nigeria
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (2001), Annual Report on maize production
Ibadan, Oyo State
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (2009). Annual Report on Maize Production. IITA
Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria.
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) (2010). New maize varieties to boost grain
production in West and Central Africa. ScienceDaily. Retrieved June 15, 2013, from
http://www.sciencedaily.com
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) (2012), Hybrids-Maize-Farming-InNigeria-Time-To-Start-Your-Planting-For-This-Season.
http://www.naijafinder.com/threads/4870
Jhingan M.L.,(2010) : The Economics Of Development And Planning. Vrinda publications(P)
LTD.39th edition. p22iie
Joshua, A. (1993): Current status of seed industry development in Nigeria Pp 51-69 in M.A.B.
Fakorede, C.O. , Alofe & Kim S.K., (eds) Maize improvement production and utilization
in Nigeria. Maize Association of Nigeria, Ibadan.
Khawar, J., Zahid, A., & Muhammad F., (2007). Maize: Cereal with a Variety of Uses. DAWN–
Business.http://wwwdawn.com/2007/03/12/ebr5.htm
Koocheki A. (2003). Sustainable agriculture and the environment. Final report of the future of
food, Islamic Republic of Iran Academy of Science, Tehran
Kukta. F. (2011). Open-Pollinated VS Hybrid Maize Cultivars. Northern Plains Sustainable
Agriculture Society Farm Breeding Club. LaMoure USA.
Lagoke S.T.O,(1993): Weed problem and control in maize production in the nigerian savanna.
pg 189-211
Lance G. & Garren B. (2002): Origin, History, and Uses of Corn (Zea mays) Iowa State
University, Department of Agronomy. Revised January 2002.
Maduekwe M., (2004). Multivariate Analysis for Agricultural Extension Research in Olowu,
T.A (ed) Research methods in Agricultural extension Ilorin: Agricultural Extension
society of Nigeria pp 206-236.
Malgwi A.A., & Unegbu A.O., (2012).Budget in Nigeria public sector: Need for Balanced
scorecard perspective. International journal of Finance and Accounting.1(2)1-6.
Manyong, V.M., Kling, J.G., Makinde, K. O., Ajala, S. O., & Menkir, A., (2000). Impact of
IITA-improved germplasm on maize production in West and Central Africa. IITA,
Ibadan, Nigeria. 13pp.
Mbah, C.N., Nwite, J.N., Njoku, C., and Nweke, I.A., (2009),African Journal of Agricultural
Research. 5(7), pp. 580-583, 4 April, 2010. Available online at
http://www.academicjournals.org/AJAR
McCann, J. C (2005) “Maize and Grace: Africa’s encounter with a New World Crop, 15002000” Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England.
77
Mohammed A.B., Ayanlere A.F, Ibrahim U and Muhammad L (2013). Economic analysis of
maize production in Ogori/Magongo local government area of kogi state, Nigeria. J. of
Agric Econs and Devpt, 13(1)
Mohiuddin M., Karim M.R., Rashid M.A., & Huda M.S., (2007). Efficiency and sustainability
of maize cultivation in an area of Bangladesh. Int.j.sustain crop prod. 2(3) 44-52
Odedina, S.S., Odedina, J.N., Ayeni. S., Arowojolu, S.A., Adedeye, S.O., Ojeniyi,
S.O., (2003). Effect of types of ash on Soil fertility, nutrient availability and yield of tomotto
and pepper. Nig. J. Soil Sci. 13:66-67.
Okeke,U. (2014). Economics of fresh maize production in Anambra east local government area
of Anambra state, Nigeria. J. of science and multidisciplinary research, 6(1)22-33
Ogala (2011): Nigeria to raise maize production by 12 million tons annually: New reforms by
the Ministry of Agriculture. Daily times newspaper; September 13, 2011
Ogunbodede, B.A., & Olakojo, S.A., (2001). Development of Striga Ash Tolerant Hybrid Maize
(Zea Mays L.) Varieties. Tropical Agric Research and Extension 4(1).
Ogundari K. (2006). Determinants of profit efficiency among small scale rice farmers in
Nigeria. A profitfunction approach. Research Journal of Applied Sciences. 1(1-4): 116122.
Ogundari K.,S.O Ojo and I.A Ajibefun (2006). Economies of Scale And Cost Efficiency In
Small Scale Maize Production: Empirical Evidence In Nigeria. Journal of Social
Sciences 13(2): 131-136.
Ogunniyi L.T (2011). Determinants of Profit Efficiency Among Small Scale Maize Farmers In
Oyo State, Nigeria. ARPN Journal of Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6(1): 11-17.
Ogunwale, A.B. (2005). Implementation of the training and visit system ofextension service in
Oyo State Agricultural Development Programme (ADP) in Nigeria. International
Journal of Applied Agriculture and Apicultural Research, 2(1): 147 – 155.
Ogunsumi, L.O., Ewuola, S.O., & Daramola, A.G., (2005) “Socio-Economic Impact
Assessment of Maize Production Technology on Farmers’ Welfare in South West,
Nigeria.” J. Central Eur. Agric., 6 (1):15-26.
Ohiri, A.C., & Ano, A.O., (1989). Characterization and evaluation of some soilsof rainforest
zone of Nigeria. Proceedings of 17th annual Conferenceof Soil Sci. Society Nig. held at
Nsukka. pp. 56-60.
Ojeniyi, S.O., Oso, O.P., Arotolu, A.A., (2001). Response of Vegetables toWood ash fertilizer.
Proceedings of 35th Annual Conference of Agric.Society of Nig. pp. 39-43.
Ojo, S.O., & Imoudu, P.B., (2000). Efficiency Measurement of Palm Oil Marketing in Ekiti
State of Nigeria” African Journal of Business and Econ. Res., 1 (2):7-12
Ojo, S.O., (2003). Productivity and technical efficiency of poultry egg production in Nigeria,
Intl. J. Poul. Sci., 2(6): 459-464.
Oladejo, J.A., & Adetunji, M.O., ( 2012): Economic analysis of maize (zea mays) production in
Oyo state of Nigeria. Agricultural Science Research Journals Vol. 2(2) pp. 77-83
Olalinde, L.O., Manyongn, V.M., & Akintola , J.O., (2007). Attitude towards risk among maize
farmers in dry savanna zone of Nigeria: Some prospective policies for improving food
production. African J. of Agric Research 2(8)399-408
78
Olaniyi O.A & Adewale J.G (2012) Information on Maize Production among Rural Youth: A
Solution for Sustainable Food Security In Nigeria Ladoke Akintola University of
Technology, Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal)
Olorunsanya E.O., and Akinyemi O.O. (2004). Gross margin analysis of maize-based cropping
system in oyo state. Int. J.Agric.Rural devpt, 5(1)129-133
Oluwatayo, I.B., Sekumade A.B., and Adesoji S.A (2008). Resource use Efficiency of maize
farmers in rural Nigeria: Evidence from Ekiti State. World J. of agric science 4(1): 91-99
Omoti, U., Obatolu, C.R., Fagbenro, J.A., (1991): Complementary use of liming materials for
tree and rainforest crops. First National Organic fertilizer seminar Kaduna Nig. March
26-28FMA/NFC.
Onuk E. G., Ogara I. M, Yahaya, H., & Nannim N (2010) Economic Analysis of Maize
Production in Mangu Local Government Area of Plateau State, Nigeria. Journal of
production, agriculture and technology. 6(1):1-11
Onyango O.C., (2010) : Fertilizer options for sustainable maize production in the Trans-nzoia
district of Kenya. African J.of Agric Researchvol 5(11) 1203-1212
Opara, U. N. (2010). Personal and socio economic determinants of agriculturalinformation use
by farmers in the Agricultural Development Programme (ADP) zones of Imo state,
Nigeria.
Library
Philosophy
and
Practice.
Available:
http://unllib.unl.edu/LPP/opara.htm
Oyakhilomen O.,Ugbabe O.O., & Rekwot Z.G., (2012). Assessment of the growth of maize
production in the pre-sap, sap and post sap periods in Nigeria: Lessons for sustainable
Revival Economy. J. of sustain. Development in Africa 14(5)
Oyekan, P.O., (1977).Effect of planting date on the incident and severity of common fungal
diseases of maize in Western state, Nigeria. Nigerian J. Pl. Prot. 3: 11-15.
Oyekan, P.O., Olanya, O.M., Adenle, V., and Weber, G.K., (1990). Downy mildew of maize in
Nigeria: Epidemiology, distribution and importance. Paper presented at the Workshop on
downymildew disease of maize, ADP. Akure, 9 August 1990.
Oyewo, I. O. and Fabiyi, Y.L.,(2008), Productivity of Maize Farmers’ in Surulere LGA of Oyo
State, International Journal of Agricultural Economics & Rural Development - 1 (2):
2008. IJAERD, 2008
Pingali, P.L. & Pandey, S. (2001). Meeting world maize needs: Technological opportunities and
priorities for the public sector. In P.L. Pingali (ed.). CIMMYT 1999-2000 World
MaizeFacts and Trends. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT.
Philip, D., (2001). Evaluation of social gains from maize research in the Northern guinea
savannah of Nigeria. In impact, challenges and prospects of maize research and
development in West and Central Africa proceedings of a regional maize workshop,
IITA-Cotonou, Benin Republic.
Pretty, J.N., (1995). Regenerating agriculture: policies and practice for sustainability and self
reliance. Earthscan London.
Rasul, G. and Thapa, G.B., (2003) Susutainability analysis of ecological and conventional
agricultural system in Bangladesh. World dev 31(10)1721-1741
Reijntjes C., Bertus H., Water-Bayer A (1992). Farming for the future: an introduction to low
external input and sustainable agriculture, London: UK, Macmillian.
79
Ruggie, J (2009) Business and Human Rights: Towards Operationalizing the “Protect, Respect
and Remedy” Framework. Report to the Human Right Council.
Sadiq M.S., Yakasai M.T., Ahmad M.M., Lapkene T.Y., and Abubakar M., (2013). Profitability
and Production Efficiency of small-scale maize production in Nigeria. IOSR journal of
Applied physics 3(4)19-23
Saltiel, J., Baunder, J.W., and Palakorich, S. (1994). Adoption of sustainable agricultural
practices: diffusion, farm structure and profitability. Rural sociol 59(2): 333-347
Schulthess, F. and Ajala, S.O., (1999). Recent advances at IITA in the control of stermborers in
West and Central Africa pp 35-52
Segun-Olasanmi, A.O. & Bamire, A.S (2010). Analysis of Costs and Returns to Maize-Cowpea
Intercrop Production in Oyo state, Nigeria.Poster presented at the 48th Agricultural
Economists Association of South Africa (AEASA) Conference, Cape Town, South Africa,
September 19-23, 2010
Sowunmi, F.A., & Akintola, J.O., (2010) Effect of Climatic Variability on Maize Production in
Nigeria. Research Journal of Environmental and Earth Sciences 2(1): 19-30, 2010
Starik, M., (2010): Creating sustainability theory-considering “ theory s” pwd montreal
academy of management. George Washington university.
Starik ,M and Randa (1995): Ecological sustainable Organization. Academy of management.
George Washington University.
Sullivan, P. (2003) “Intercropping principles and production practices.” Agronomy Systems
Guide, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, 16p
Ubersax J.S., (2006): likert scales: Dispelling the confusion. Statistical methods of Rater
Agreement website. 2006. http://johnuebersax.com/stat/likert.htm. accessed may 10th
2014
Ugwumba C.O.A, Okoh R.N, Ike P.C, Nnabuife E.L.C & Orji E.C (2010) Integrated Farming
System and its Effect on Farm Cash Income in Awka South Agricultural Zone of
Anambra State, Nigeria. American-Eurasian J. Agric. & Environ. Sci., 8 (1): 01-06,
2010
United State Department of Agriculture (USDA). What is sustainable agriculture?
http://agriculturenetworkinformationcentre.com.
Verkuijl H., Mwangi W., Anandajayasekeram P., & Moshi A.j., (1998): Adoption of Maize
Production Technologies in Southern Tanzania Mexico, D.F. CIMMYT the united
republic of Tanzania and SACCAR
Walker, N.J, & Schulze, R.E., (2008):An Assessment of Sustainable Maize Production Under
Different Management And Climate Scenarios For Smallholder Agro-Ecosystems In
Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa. School of Bioresources Engineering and Environmental
Hydrology, University of KwaZulu-Natal
Webster’s New Collegate Dictionary (1996). Official dictionary of the wall street journal and
Associated press.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development .(2000). Corporate Social Responsibility:
Making Good Business Sense. Geneva
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our common future, The
Brundtland Report. Oxford University press, oxford, UK
80
Appendix
SECTION A
SOCIO_ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF MAIZE PRODUCERS
Please tick or fill the space provided accordingly
1.
2.
3.
4.
Community (optional)............................................................................
Gender (a)Male
(b)Female
Household size (a) 1-5
(b) 6-10
(c) 11 and above
Marital status (a) single
(b) married
(c) Divorced
(e)
widow/ widower
5. Educational qualification (a) No formal Education
(b) primary school
(c) secondary school
(d) Tertiary Education
(e) Others
specify...........................
6. Age (a)less than 20
(b) 21-30
(c) 31-40
(d) 41-50
(e)51
and above
7. Type of labour for production (a) family labour
(b) hired labour
(c)
both
8. Mode of land acquisition? (a) inherited (b) purchased
(c) rented
(d) communal
9. Source of planting materials (a) ADP
(b) market
(c) previous
harvest
10. What is your annual income (a) less than 40,000
(b) 41,000-80,000
(c) 81,000-120,000
(d) 121,000-160,000
(e) above 160,000
11. How long have you been into maize production (a) less than 5 years
(b)
6-10 (c) 11-15
(d) 16-20
(e) above20
SECTION B
Existing practices that could enhance maize sustainability
1. Do you think that there are existing practices that could lead to
sustainability (a)yes
(b) No
2. Please critically look at these practices and rate the practices
81
Sustainable practices
Strongly
agreed
Agreed
Neutral
Disagreed Strongly
disagreed
Early planting
Planting of hybrid maize
Adequate Fertilizer use
Crop rotation
Mixed/intercropping
Irrigation
Planting cover crop
Good storage system
Adequate pest & disease
control
Use of animal manure
Others activities
SECTION C
PROFITABILITY: COST AND RETURN OF MAIZE PRODUCTION
1. Is maize production a profitable business? (a) very profitable
(b) not
very profitable
(c) not profitable
2. How many acres do you cultivate________________
3. What is the cost of renting land (opportunity cost)__________________
4. What is the output of fresh cobs in 100kg bag ________________
5. What is the output price of fresh cobs /100kg bag _____________
6. What is the cost of labour for farm operation________________
7. What quantity of labour do u use_______________________
8. What quantity of fertilizer do u use______________________
9. What is the cost of fertilizer_______________________
10. What quantity of animal manure do u use_______________
11. What is the cost of animal manure___________________
12. What is the unit price of seed for planting___________________
13. What quantity of seed do u cultivate _____________________
14. What is the unit price of herbicide used_____________________
15. What quantity of herbicide do u use_____________________
16. What is the unit price of pesticide used_____________________
17. What quantity of pesticide do u use________________________
18. What is the cost of other implements used______________
82
SECTION D
FACTORS AFFECTING SUSTAINABILITY OF MAIZE PRODUCTION
1. How do u rate maize sustainability? (a) very sustainable
(b)sustainable
(c) not sustainable
2. What is your seed rate per ha in kg___________
3. Do you think planting hybrid maize can help? (a) Yes
(b)
4. What quantity of animal manure do u use________________
5. What quantity of fertilizer do u use_____________________
6. What quantity of labour do u use_____________________
7. Engaging in early planting? Yes
No
8. Amount of herbicide used_________________
9. Amount of pesticide used_________________
10. Engage in crop rotation, Yes
, No
11. Engage in mixed cropping, Yes
, No
12. Usage of good storage system, Yes
, No
13. Quantity of land cultivated_____________
14. Practice of irrigation, Yes
, No
No
SECTION E
SUSTAINABILITY OF MAIZE PRODUCTION
Please assess and rate each of the below questions in percent for the past 5 years
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
What is the trend ofmaize production_____________________
How often you engage in crop rotation_________________
Your usage of organic manure________________________
Your usage of green manures______________________
Your usage of crop stubble ( small stalk remaining in the farm after harvesting
to act as mulch)___________________
6. Your usage of conservational practice ( e.g. cover crop)_________
7. Trend of change in water resources (at the farm)________________
8. Trend of change in soil resources (at the farm)__________________
9. Amount of pesticides, herbicides & fungicides consumption in the farm____
10. Amount of nitrate fertilizer consumption per 1t of crop production ______
11. Amount of phosphate fertilizer consumption per 1t of crop production ___
83
SECTION F
CONSTRAINTS RELEGATING MAIZE SUSTAINABILITY IN YOUR
LOCALITY
Please assess the constraints mentioned below and tick according to how it affects
your farming operation
Sustainable practices
Inadequate capital
High cost of labour
Inadequate market
lack of high quality seed
low price of grain
Lack of agricultural extension
services in the area
High price of fertilizers
Poor infrastructural facilities
destruction of plant by storm,
drought and flood
Destruction of plant by cattle
and other animals
Lack of suitable land
Incidence of pest and diseases
Very
atypical
Atypical
Typical
Very
typical