Journal of Education, Arts and Humanities
https://www.watchpub/jeah/index.htm
A Study of Status, Challenges and Prospects of Agricultural Mechanization in Osun
State, Nigeria
Wasiu Agunbiade LAMIDI1,2* and Lamidi Olawale AKANDE2*
*1Department. of Agricultural Education, Osun State College of Education, Ila-Orangun, Osun State
2Department. of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, Ejigbo Campus, Osun state University, Osogbo, Osun State.
Article Info:
Author(s):
History:
Corresponding Author:
Department. of Agricultural Education,
Osun State College of Education, IlaOrangun, Osun State
Article Type:
Full Length Research
Keywords:
Agricultural mechanization,
Capital, Infrastructural facilities,
Land tenure, Storage
This research reviewed status, challenges and prospects of agricultural mechanization in
Osun State of Nigeria. Personal observation, oral interview, past records and
questionnaire were used to collect data from various establishments visited in the nine
selected Local Government Areas (LGAs) in Osun State. Results identified shortage of
capital, land tenure, small farm holding and fragmented land, poor infrastructural
facilities, poor attitudes toward adoption of new innovation and non- availability of
storage means as problems. There was a range of 385.5% - 394.4% for settlers than nonsettlers in arable crops; 91% of non-settlers/local farmers belief that uses of farm inputs
have negative side-effect on crops and soil. 68% of the farms have functional implements
while 32% of the stations have non-functional implements, 52% of the respondents
partially mechanized their agricultural production. 62.5% of the stations visited have
maintenance, 53% of the respondents in these stations agreed diverting the money
earmarked for maintenance in their budget to other things. Infrastructural problem was
identified by 60 percent of the respondents. The deprivation in abundance amongst
farmers in the state and in their produce is partly due to inability to mechanize
agriculture to improve its efficiency, cost effectiveness, diversity and competitiveness.
Introduction
The people of Osun state are mostly farmers, producing
such food crops as yam, maize, cassava, beans and
cocoyam. The cash crops grown include cocoa, kolanut,
2
and palm produce. Its total area of land is 9,251 km
(3,572 sq mi). Farm mechanization has been seen as
the pivot to agricultural revolution in many parts of the
world and has contributed greatly to increased output of
food crops and other agricultural products to meet the
demands of the ever increasing world population
(Akande, 2009). Mechanization of agriculture has solved
food scarcity problems in many countries. Only about 3
percent of the American population is engaged in
farming, and one American farmer produces enough
food to feed thousands; a family can manage up to 1200
hectares of farmland (Snivastava et al, 2006).
The importance of agriculture in the Nigerian economy
cannot be overemphasized. It is a major occupation
providing employment for about 70 percent of the people
(Idrissa et al, 2008). Despite this, Nigeria is unable to
produce enough food and fiber to meet her demand.
This could be attributed among others, to the fact that
majority of Nigerian farmers are subsistence smallholder
farmers who cultivate between 1-2 hectares, which is
usually scattered over a wide area (Akande, 2006).
In U. S, in 1900, 38% of Americans were farmers, 100
years later, there were 3% farmers that produces 47% of
total world maize production for Americans and the world
because of sophisticated mechanization (National
Academy of Engineering, 2013). This is in contrast to
Nigeria where farmer is often described as the “hand–hoe
farmer” because nearly all of his farm operations are still
carried out manually using the inefficient hoe and cutlass
(Akande, 2006). It has been reported (Faborode, 2001)
that less than 2% of the agricultural production in Nigeria
is mechanized in the real sense, leaving 98% of the
production in the hands of traditional producers. The
effect of this dependence on hand tool technology is low
output and the technology cannot transform agriculture
(Akande, 2006). A number of mechanization inputs for
some processes like „gari‟, cassava flour and melon oil
have been developed by Research and Development
Centers (R&DCs) in Nigeria but are laying“in-situ” (Oriola,
2009; Ladele and Ayoola, 1997; Alatise, 1996). They have
not been extended to rural farmers. This paper highlights
the challenges of farm mechanization and gives
approaches needed to introduce simple mechanization
002
J. Edu. Arts. Hum.
technologies for boosting food production in Osun State.
Concept of Farm Mechanization
Farm mechanization has been defined as the process of
development and introduction of mechanized assistance
of all forms and at any level of technological
sophistication in agricultural production in order to
reduce human drudgery, improve timeliness and
efficiency of various farm operations, bring more land
under cultivation, preserve the quality of produce,
improve living condition and markedly advance the
economic growth of the rural sector (Anazodo, 1986;
Faborode, 2001; Akande, 2009 and Abubakar, 2010d).
Agricultural mechanization is also defined as a sector of
the economy that embraces the manufacture, distribution
and operation of all types of tools, implements, machines
and equipment for the agricultural land development,
farm crop production, crop harvesting and primary
processing (FAO, 1996). This simply means that farm
mechanization encompasses in its widest sense handtool technology, draught animal technology and
mechanical –power technology (Maharjan and Cheltri,
2006).
Challenges to agricultural mechanization in Osun
State
There are many constraints to successful farm
mechanization in Osun State and they include
fragmentation of farmlands or small landholdings due to
problems of land tenure system, poor capital base (IFPRI,
2010), scarcity of farm machinery and equipment,
insufficient farm inputs, poor infrastructural facilities, land
degradation, poor social and economic structures. The
constraints to mechanization as they apply to large scale
farms in Nigeria as a whole are (1) access to credit, (2)
non-setting up of manufacturing and repair services by
entrepreneurs, (3) no improved infrastructure, (4) nonaffordable and secure access to complementary inputs
(fuel, electricity, and larger consolidated plots of land), (5)
worst legal and regulatory capacity to protect the rights of
owners of machinery, and (6) lower efficiency and
capacity of public sector for implementing policy.
Resolving these constraints should be the policy
objectives of the government (IFPRI, 2010).
The fallow lands between villages, which are meant for
farming are limited. Consequently, many farmers have
small land holdings which are scattered in different
location in the village. Proceeds from these small land
holdings will not meet the expenses on machinery, and
other farm inputs. El.Hossary, (1988) confirmed that land
fragmentation with numerous canals and drainage ditches,
narrow access roads to individual farm plots; seriously
restrict the use of mechanized equipment. Olatide et al.,
(1980) stated that the small farmers‟ production
problemsare intensive labour needs (60 percent of total
production cost), poor technology, low operating capital,
fixed capital investment and poor management.
In many communities, land is inherited, an outright sale
is forbidden. Communal lands are not sold too. Investors
may not be able to buy enough land to start large scale
farms which can be mechanized. Because of this problem
of land tenure system, about 90% of the farmers are
peasants, operating at subsistence level. Most of them
have no capital to invest in farming. At harvests, they sell
their farm products and make use of the money
sometimes without plough-back into agriculture. During
the next planting season, they have no more money to
hire machinery and buy farm inputs. Many of them have
no collaterals for credit facilities.
Farmers in the rural areas are generally poor and
cannot as individuals afford for farm machinery to
mechanize their farms. At the same time, they do not like
to come together to form cooperatives and put their
resources to invest. Because of their individualistic
approach, they are unable to have access to credit
facilities from commercial houses or government. The
Punjab state experience (Mittal and Bhatia, 1988) has
shown the importance of cooperative societies in
agricultural revolution for these cooperatives had huge
successes in Agricultural production. Such experience
above had led some governments to want to help much
more in Agriculture, for instance, the sector goal of the
Rwanda Project 2009-2013 was to contribute to
increasing agricultural productivity in Rwanda through
mechanization promotion. The specific objective was to
ensure that subsistence and market-oriented producers
have access to the necessary and appropriate
equipment for modern farming techniques (Minagri
Library, 2009).
Since farming requires timeliness of operations, farmers
rush to plant within the first one month of the first rains.
Crops planted during this period perform well because
there is little or no leaching. In 2003, Osun State
government purchased more than 300 tractors (Osun
State Diary, 2005)) but with few farm tractor-attached
implements but with no trained personnel to
repair/maintain them. To make matter worse, hiring them
out for farmers, commercial or peasants then was difficult
as they were distributed to the Local Government
Councils, many processes of hiring were bureaucratically
bottlenecked. With no adequate care, their number has
reduced and could not be found on streets any longer.
Farm tractors and other equipment for land preparation
are scarce at this time such that many farmers resort to
manual labour to prepare their farmlands. Labour is costly
and many farmers cannot afford it. This brings about poor
performance by farmers. This was unlike what had
happened in Rwanda where thirteen (13) A1 technicians
completed a six months training on agricultural
mechanisation workshop; 20 technicians were trained in
tractor operation and repair in 2011. Also, 3 technicians
with A1 were sent to China for a training in Agriculture
mechanization, 4 engineers were sent for training in
Japan and one Engineer attended an MSc program in
agriculture mechanization in India, 136 farmers across
Lamidi and Akande
the country were also trained on Power tiller's operation,
maintenance and repair. More than 38 operators were
trained and currently employed in different jobs (Minagri
Library, 2009). Though a country, but with resources
capacity and population that are comparable to some
states in Nigeria. Mechanization is very low in Nigeria, its
rate is not yet known like Vietnam and Thailand, which
are both rice exporters and are the major sources of
Nigerian rice imports, both have a higher mechanization
rate at 0.7 hp/ha. South Korea has an even higher farm
mechanization rate of 4 hp/ha, while highly industrialized
Japan remains major rice producer with a mechanisation
rate of 7 hp/ha (Manila Bulletin, 2012).
Prospects of Farm Mechanization in Osun State
Although the challenges to farm mechanization in Osun
State are many, it is imperative that there should be food
security for the people. For this to be achieved, farm
mechanization is the answer. This becomes very
necessary because a lot of young farm labour are
migrating to cities especially Osogbo, the State capital, for
white colour-jobs in the phase of present industrialization,
leaving only the aged peasants on the farms and this
needs to be stopped. Even driving and repairing of farm
inputs are left to the hands of older people, thus a reason
why majority of 330 tractors bought by the state
government in 2003 have been down, majority of them
ended in (Osun People Forum, 2010).
The study was on the exploratory survey of the
present level of agricultural mechanization in Osun State
of Nigeria, its challenges and prospects.
Materials and Method
The study was conducted in 9 LGAs out of 30 LGAs in
Osun State representing 30%, with due consideration to
cost and time available for the research. Osun State is in
the south-western part of Nigeria, West Africa. It lies in
o
the rain forest zone of Nigeria on latitude 07 N north of
o
the equator and longitude 14 E east of the Greenwich
meridian, with a three political senatorial/administrative
districts namely central, west and east, each with 10
local government areas. Sampling was done based on
these three administrative districts with three local
governments from each. The local government areas
were Orolu, Ila, Boripe in Osun Central, Ola-Oluwa,
Isokan, Ejigbo in Osun West, Ife North, Obokun and
Atakumosa West in East whose major occupations are
farming. Though they were of different sizes, the choice
of these local governments was purposive representing
30% of the number of LGAs in the State. The selected
local government areas were clustered into villages for
the purpose of this study and the following agricultural
establishments (headquarters and zonal/local offices)
wherever situated were visited to collect relevant
information on the status, challenges and prospects of
003
agricultural mechanization in Osun State: State
Ministries of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Nigeria
Agricultural Land Development Agency (NALDA), Farm
Settlement Schemes, Agricultural Development Projects
(ADPs). The following methods were used to collect
information on the research; they are Personal
observations and Oral Interview, Past Records and
Structured Questionnaires.
The researchers personally observed the status,
challenges and prospects of agricultural mechanization
in each of the listed ministries, farm settlements and
local farmers in the selected local governments in Osun
State. Oral interview was also conducted along with
personal observations.
Relevant information was extracted from past records
of activities in each establishment. Such as maintenance
schedule, spare part inventory and utilization, work
request, time records, failure reports, machinery
efficiency records, annual operations and financial
reports, record of purchase of new or used machinery/
equipment and other relevant information. Farm inputs
as used here refer to seeds; fertilizer and the pesticides
(insecticides & herbicides). A farmer with a very poor
harvest is not happy and he will not have money to invest
again. In Osun State rainfall is very heavy, leading to
washing away of farmlands nutrients. The soil needs
amendments to restore its fertility. But fertilizer is not
always forthcoming. It is a very rare commodity and as
such farmers suffer because of poor productivity. High
yielding varieties may not be available always. Sometimes,
the seeds may not be viable and some may not be able to
resist diseases. Thirdly, the farmers need herbicides to
control weeds which grow luxuriantly on account of high
rainfall. Uses of herbicides to control weed cost far less
than using manual labour in weeding. Insecticides and
fungicides are needed to protect the crops because the
humid environment breads insects and diseases.
Infrastructural facilities considered include roads,
electricity and water. Rural roads in Osun State are very
bad especially during the rainy season because of severe
erosion. Many roads are rendered impassable. There
are many slippery hills with deep-seated clay which hinder
even the cyclists from passing. Such communities are cutoff from the rest of the state during the rainy season.
Farm inputs are not taken in and products are not
evacuated. Unfortunately; these are the areas with large
expanse of farmlands, very fertile and suitable for large
scale mechanized farms. Big-time farmers find it difficult to
invest there because of these bad roads.
Electricity is needed to process crops, because of
incessant power failure in Nigeria; farmers who are
capable of generating electricity on their own use electric
motors to run farm machinery, because they are cheaper
than using internal combustion engines which need
regular servicing and fueling as well as contributing to
environmental pollution. If rural farmers process their
crops and add value to them, they earn higher income
than when they sell them raw. Adequate supply of
electricity to the rural farming communities means more
004
J. Edu. Arts. Hum.
Table 1: Demographic characteristics of farm settlers and non-settlers
i
ii
iii
iv
Age
Frequency
%
Marital status
Frequency
%
Educational status
Frequency
%
Households size
Frequency
%
30-39
38
19.2
Single
46
23.2
Primary
77
38.8
1- 2
8
4.0
40-49
48
24.2
Married
138
69.7
Secondary
33
16.7
3-4
21
10.6
50-59
57
28.8
Divorced
6
3.0
Tertiary
13
6.6
6–8
121
61.1
60>
55
27.8
Widowed
8
4.1
No-formal education
75
37.9
9 – 12
48
24.3
Total
198
100
Total
198
100
Total
198
100
Total
198
100
Source: Field work, 2012
comfort to them and will help reduce migration of the
youths (who are needed more on the farms) to urban
centres.
Good water supply is an essential utility to the rural
farmers. Poor water supply is a health hazard. It brings
sickness and sometimes death. Consequently, the
productivity of the farmers is low and farm mechanization
cannot create any positive impact on the community. In
Osun State, non-mechanisation of agriculture have made
the job left for those who had no any other choice of job,
thus the farmers are not happy at what they are doing.
This is not only happening In Osun state of Nigeria, but
the whole country and even in all Africa as reported by
Oduori (2010) in Kenya. One would expect then that
agricultural mechanisation should render agricultural work
more attractive to the young and able-bodied, amongst
the rural population and thus help to stem the increasing
migration of such people from rural to urban areas.
Governments of these areas do not see all these as
problems so far there are imported foods in their „palaces‟
Primary data was collected through administration of
questionnaires. The questionnaires were structured. Two
types of questionnaire were designed to elicit information
from respondents. One of the questionnaires was
designed to collect specific technical information on
agricultural mechanization and the other one on general
and non-specific questions.
At the design stage, conscious efforts were made to
introduce questions, which later assisted in determining
inter-item consistency thereby enhancing the reliability of
the data collected. A panel of experts previewed the
questionnaire. The experts initially evaluated the
questionnaire and recommendations were made. The
recommendations were used in restructuring the
questionnaire after which it was pre-tested in a pilot
study. The result of the pilot study was reviewed for
adequacy of data in line with the objective of the study.
Corrections were made where necessary before the final
administration of the questionnaire. Persuasive tactics
were employed through personal contact to gain
confidence of respondents in order to ensure completion
and returns of the questionnaire. This encouraged
accurate and reliable responses.
The data collected for this study were analyzed using
simple percentage (%). During the research study, two
hundred and ten (210) questionnaires were administered.
Out of these questionnaires, 198 were collected back.
This is because of some circumstances which were
beyond the researchers‟ control. Some of the stations
visited failed to fill the questionnaire; some returned the
questionnaire without completing it. Table 1 shows the
demographic characteristics of farm settlers and nonsettlers in the study area.
Results and Discussion
Table 1 shows that literacy level was low among the
respondents (38.8% for primary schools and 37.9% for
no-formal education, totaling 76.7%), this may make
enlightenment programmes on improve agricultural
activities, sustainable use of natural resources difficult to
pass across to the respondents consequent upon their
low level of education. It also shows that large proportion
of the household (61.1%) had between 6-8 members in
the household. This is a moderate household size and
moderate house hold size prevents food crises situation.
Table 2 shows the results collected about the impact
of farm settlement schemes on agricultural production in
the study areas. It could be seen that majority of the
settlers cultivated large acre of land than the nonsettlers/ local farmers. This is because of their access to
equipment such as tractors, ridgers, planters etc, the
settlers were also given cultivable land by the
government in which they would be expected to pay
token amount of money yearly.
According to the
information gathered, the settlers have the opportunity of
cultivating the land for 100 years; in contrast many of the
non-settlers acquired land on lease. Though, most of
them cultivate land which machine cannot work on with
Lamidi and Akande
005
Table 2: Size of farm holding among settlers and non-settlers/ local farmers
Land Size/(Acres)
0-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
Total
Number of Settlers
08
14
25
35
18
100
Number of Non Settlers/ local
farmers
30
16
04
50
Source: Field work, 2012
Table 3: Average tonnes of crops produced/hectare
Type of crops
Cassava
Yam
Maize
Cassava
Yam
Maize
Cassava
Yam
Maize
Cassava
Yam
Maize
Cassava
Yam
Maize
Acre of land
0-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
TOTAL
Crops produced by settlers in tones
20
38
22
25
37
42
40
42
56
42
44
58
50
52
61
Cassava = 177
Yam = 213
Maize = 239
Crops produced by non-settlers in
tonnes
05
09
08
15
22
26
25
23
28
Cassava = 45
Yam = 54
Maize = 62
Source: Field work, 2012
land tenure problem, most settlers were also affected in
this vein.
Attempt was made to compare the quantity of three
major crops; cassava, yam and maize commonly planted
by both settlers and non-settlers/local farmers, so as to
examine the challenges and prospect of agricultural
mechanization. There were significant difference
between the quantity of agricultural product produce by
settlers and non-settlers, (393.3% more for settlers than
non-settlers for cassava; 394.4% more for settlers than
non-settlers for yam and 385.5% more for settlers than
non-settlers for maize), Table 3. This revealed the
problems encountered by non-settlers who hired/leased
land for their agricultural works, such problems like land
tenure systems and social and cultural values of the
areas. Their agricultural productions were affected in a
severe way, Table 3.
Also, it can be linked with the use of improve farm
inputs, planting of high yielding varieties crops among
the settlers while all these opportunities may not be
available in the case of non-settlers/local farmers.
The attitude of settlers and non-settlers/local farmers
toward the adoption of new innovation/farm input; such
as fertilizer, pesticides, fungicides and insecticide were
examined. Questions were asked based on the interest
of the farmers in using any of the above farm inputs to
their attitudes, Table 4 shows their responses. Settlers
were 1000% of non-settlers and used 250% of fertilizer,
600% more of pesticide than non-settlers, 820% more of
fungicide and 350% more of insecticide in the same year,
though settlers were more than non-settlers in all cases.
Majority of the settlers interviewed make use of the
identified agricultural inputs while only few number of the
non-settlers/local farmers make use of specific group of
farm inputs as categorized by the researcher, the reason
for this can be explained according to the information
006
J. Edu. Arts. Hum.
Table 4: Attitudes toward the adoption of new innovations/farm input
Farm inputs
Fertilizer
Pesticide
Fungicide
Insectide
Number of settlers
using each farm inputs
100
92
82
90
Quantity used,
hectare
75 kg
90 litres
100 litres
350 litres
Number of Non-settler
using each farm inputs
10
02
03
05
Quantity
Used/ hectare
30 bags
15 litres
10 litres
100 litres
Source: Field work, 2012
Table 5: Availability of technological and agricultural machinery and equipment
Determinants
Implement
Maintenance unit
Records of maintenance
Record of purchase
Spare parts
Delivering of spare parts ahead of crisis time.
Budget money for maintenance
Specialist for maintenance
Cost of maintenance
Mechanized agricultural practiced
Rating
Functional
Non-Functional
Availability
Non-availability
Available
Not available
Available
Not available
Available
Not available
Before crisis
After crisis
Diverted
No budget
Available
Not available
Adequate
Inadequate
Fully mechanized
Partially .mechanized
Non-mechanized
Percentage of respondents (%)
68
32
62.5
37.5
75
25
44
56
62
38
37.5
62.5
50
50
60
40
20
80
Nil
52
48
Source: Field work, 2012
collected by the researcher, 91% of the non-settlers/local
farmers belief that the uses of farm inputs have negative
side-effect on crops and the soil. For example, they
belief that fertilizer makesmaize to have some
undesirable taste, and pap made from fertilizer maize
have lesser lifespan, and also causes yam to get spoilt
quickly after harvesting if fertilizer is applied. Despite all
these, some of the non-settlers/local farmers complained
that they cannot even afford the cost of most of the farm
inputs. Yet, our government should be able to set target
like how it was done in 2012 in Philippines with plan to
increase their mechanization from medium-term of their
as at then farm mechanization level at 0.57 hp/ha to 0.8
hp/ha (Manila Bulletin, 2012). They should help farmers
to get over the cultural shocks such steps may bring.
Out of the 16 stations visited (Table 5) in the study
area, 68% of it has functional implements while 32% of
the stations have non-functional implements. Based on
this result, it could be seen that most of the stations have
not given adequate maintenance to their machineries
and the result shows a low maintenance culture and why
many tractors and implements are packed idle. This may
allow the farmers to result into subsistence agriculture
where crude hand tools are used for farming.
Again, 52% of the respondents partially mechanized
their agricultural production. 62.5% of the stations visited
have maintenance unit while 37.5% do not. This shows
that maintenance of agricultural machineries is not given
priority. Looking at the percentage of the stations having
maintenance unit, it is evident that proper maintenance
cannot be carried out. This usually shortens the useful
life of farm machineries. The money voted for
maintenance compare to the cost of the machine is
rather too small, Table 5. The amount voted cannot
Lamidi and Akande
007
Table 6: Prevailed problems encountered by farmers in different areas
Problems
Inadequate rainfall
Lack fertilizer
Inadequate money/capital
Bad road
Poor market price
Poor storage facilities
Lack equipment
Land tenure
Inadequate labour supply
Lack of portable water
Infrastructural problems
Frequency
27
62
115
46
44
100
56
53
58
58
60
Percentage
18.00
41.33
76.67
30.67
29.33
66.67
37.33
35.33
38.67
38.67
40.00
Source: Field work, 2012
enable farmer to carryout meaningful maintenance.
Many of the stations visited; 53% of the respondents,
under anonymities agreed diverting the money
earmarked for maintenance in their budget to other
things. They practice this because their machines were
still working. This buttresses their claims that they only
maintain whenever there is breakdown. Many of the
stations visited cannot boast of spare parts store not to
talk of having spare-parts for ready replacement of the
worn-out ones.
Table 6 reveals „prevailing problems‟ encountered by
the respondents in carrying out their farming activities in
their respective areas. The prevailing problem in the
study area was inadequate money/capital as identified
by 76.67% of respondents while about 41.33% of
respondents identified lack of fertilizers as the major
problems militating against their farming activities.
Infrastructural problem was identified by 60% of the
respondents. From the results it can be inferred that
inadequate capital and poor storage facilities are
identified as the prevailing problems in the study area.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The low rate of adoption and utilization of appropriate
mechanization technologies has remained one of the
major factors militating against agricultural production in
Nigeria. There exist in the country a number of improved
appropriate technologies that could be adopted by
farmers, processors, marketers, industrialists and other
actors. There is need for the agricultural engineers to key
in the new paradigm shift of value-chain approach where
they identify specific points of interventions that are
problem solving. Specialization and deeper efforts are
indeed expected from the agricultural engineers who are
to naturally lead in the mechanization of the Nigerians
agriculture.
Farmers should be encouraged to come together and
form farming-disposed cooperatives so as to attract
incentives for farming and to be able to provide needed
financial aids and farm inputs when and where necessary.
Such registered cooperative bodies will enjoy
government‟s protection in their businesses. The
cooperatives will be able to acquire farm equipment for
mechanized farm, which an individual would not be able
to achieve. Farm tractors and the accessories should be
readily available for farmers to hire at subsidized rates
and road constructions by governments are necessary.
There should also be awareness campaign for farmers to
imbibe the spirit of using findings from research institutes
buy innovations in farm mechanization for their farms.
Moreover, in Osun State and Nigeria in general, to
increase farmers‟ mechanization of farm some personnel
should be trained to repair tractors and other farm
implements, also there can be High schools or Colleges
like Technical Colleges where people can be prepared for
fixing and improving agricultural machines.
References
Abubakar SZ (2010d). Farm power Utilisation in
Agriculture. Invited presentation at National Workshop
on Tractors and farm Machinery Management for
sustainable Agricultural Production in Nigeria. Held at
NAERLS, ABU, Zaria Conf. Hall between 28th June to
2nd July 2010.
Akande LO (2006). “Empowerment of the Rural People
through Agricultural Mechanization”. Presented at the
2006 School Conference, School of Science, Osun
State College of Education, Ila-Orangun, 1st June.
Akande LO (2009). Effects of Agricultural Mechanization
on Environmental Management in Nigeria: An
Overview. J. Pure Sci. Sci. Edu., 4 (2): 101 – 118.
Alatise MO (1996). Research and Mechanization, key to
Better Agricultural Production. Department of
Agricultural Engineering, Federal University of
Technology Akure. A paper pub. in the Nigerian
Engineer official J.
008
J. Edu. Arts. Hum.
Anazodo UGN, Opara LU, Abimbola TO (1989).
Perspective plan for Agricultural Development in Nigeria
1989-2004. Agricultural Mechanization study report
submitted to FACU, Ibadan, Nigeria. April, 15.
El.Hossary O (1988). Mechanized Rice Production in
Small Holdings, the Egyptian Experience.
Proceedings of C. I. G. R. Inter-Sections Symposium /
Nigerian Society of Agricultural Engineers held at the
National Centre for Agricultural Mechanization, Ilorin,
Nigeria; Sept. 5-10, 1988.
Faborode MO (2001). Strategies for sustainable National
Agricultural Infrastructures Development. Paper
presented at the proceedings of National Engineering
conference and Annual General Meeting. Port
Harcourt, pp. 126-131.
Food and Agricultural Organization (1996). Declaration on World
Food Security. World Food Summit, November 13-17
(FAO) Rome.
Idrisa YL, Gwary MM, Shehu H ( 2008). Analysis of food
security status among farming households in Jere
local government of Borno State, Nigeria. J. Trop. Agri.
Food Environ. Ext. 7(3):199-205.
Ladele AA, Ayoola GB ( 1997). Food marketing and its
roles in food security in Nigeria; In: Shaib B, Adedipe
NO, Aliyu A, Jir MM (eds). Integrated Agricultural
Production in Nigeria, strategies and mechanisms for food
security. Proc. Natl. workshop on Nig. position at the
World Food summit, Abuja, Nig. p. 88
Maharjan KL, Cheltri AK (2006). Household food security
in rural areas of Nepal: relationship between socioeconomic characteristics and food security status.
Paper presented at the International Association of
Agricultural Economists Conference. Gold Coast
Australia, August 12-26.
Manila
Bulletin
Publishing
Corporation
(2012).
Mechanising Agriculture for Food Security, opinion of
Senator Manny B. Villar, July 10, 2012; mb.com.ph;
[email protected].
Minagri Library (2009). Rwanda Ministry of Agriculture
and Animal Resources. Project name: Agricultural
Mechanisation Programme. www.minagri.gov.rw
Mittal VK, Bhatia BS ( 1988). Low Cost Mechanization: Its
role in Green Revolution in India. Proceedings of C. I. G.
R Inter-Sections Symposium / Nigerian Society of
Agricultural Engineers held at the National Centre for
Agricultural Mechanization, Ilorin, Nigeria, Sept.5-10,
1988.
National Academy of Engineering (2013). Agricultural
Mechanisation in the World, Greatest Achievements.
www.greatachievements.org.
Oduori MF (2010). Case for Agricultural Mechanisation
and a home-grown
Agricultural
machinery
industry
in
Kenya.
www.kari.org/fileadmin /publications
Olatide OJ, Emeka A, Bello Osagie VE (1980). Nigerian
Small farmers: Problems and Prospects in Integrated
Rural Development. CARD. Univ. Ibadan, Nigeria.
pp.18-155.
Oriola EO (2009). Irrigation Agriculture. An option for
achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in
Nigeria. J. Geography and Regional Planning, 2 (7); 176181
Osun People Forum (2010) Voice of Osun People, News
Bulletin 2
Osun State Diary (2005). Osun State Information
Services. Osun State Official Diary of General
Information, Min. Infor. and Women Affairs, Osogbo,
Nigeria.
Srivastava AK, Carrol EG, Roger PR, Dennis RB (2006).
Engineering principles of Agricultural Machines, 2nd ed.
American Society of Agricultural and Biological
Engineers (ASABE), 2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph,
MI49085–9659 USA.
Takeshima
H,
Salau
S
(2010).
Agricultural
mechanization and the smallholder farmers in Nigeria.
Nigeria Strategy Support Programme. International
Food Policy Research Institute IFPRI (2010). Policy
Note
Number
22,
www.ifpri.org/
sites/default/files/publications/nssppn22_0.pdf