Scientia Agriculturae
www.pscipub.com/SA
E-ISSN: 2310-953X / P-ISSN: 2311-0228
DOI: 10.15192/PSCP.SA.2014.3.2.7075
Sci. Agri.
7 (2), 2014: 70-75
© PSCI Publications
Factors Affecting Maize Production In Oluyole Local
Government Area, Oyo State
Oyewo, I. O*1, Raufu.M.O2, A.A.A. Adesope1, Akanni.O.F1. Adio, A.B1.
1. Federal College of Forestry (FRIN) PMB 5087, Jericho, Ibadan
2. Ladoke Akintola University of Technology PMB 4000 Ogbomoso
*corresponding author email: [email protected]
Paper Information
ABSTRACT
Agriculture has been observed to be one of the major sources of income to
Received: 20 August, 2014
average Nigerian farmers, but there is a problem militating against increase
in productivity and sustainable farm practices. The research therefore
Accepted: 21 April, 2014
undertakes the factors affecting maize production among farmers in
Oluyole local government area of Oyo state using descriptive, frequency
Published: 5 July, 2014
table and, Ordinary Least Square model to estimate the determinant of the
impact of agricultural practices on the farmers output A multistage
sampling technique was used to select 99 farmers in the study area, it was
revealed that 58.6 percent of the farmers were male, and large percentage
(76.8%) of the respondent had one form of formal education, 51.5% makes
use of hiredlabour, the output analysis showed that 53.4% of the farmers
produce between 6-10 bags (50kg/bag) of maize. It also revealed that
extension visit (1.846) was positive and significant at 10% while labour
used (-1.588) was negative but significant at 10% level, bush burning, bush
fallowing, zero tillage, and herbicide assume negative signs. The major
farm practices problem identify by the farmers are extension visit and
transportation problem. The study therefore recommends that the extension
workers should intensify farmers enlightenment programme on farm land
management and bush burning should be discourage.
© 2014 PSCI Publisher All rights reserved.
Key words: Factors, Farm Practice, Ordinary Least Square, Maize, Oluyole Oyo State
Introduction
Background to the study
The Nigeria economy is supported by its agricultural sector, which is also a fundamental instrument for poverty
alleviation, food security and economic growth the sector continues to be undermined by land degradation, depletion of soil
organic matter, soil erosion, and lack of adequate plant nutrient supply. There is unfortunately, plenty of evidence that these
problems are getting worse in many part of the country, particularly in high land (penderet,al 2001).
Furthermore, climate change is anticipated to accelerate the land degradation in Nigeria which has a cumulative effect
of land degradation increasing population pressure and low agricultural productivity. Nigeria has become increasing dependent
on food aid in the part of densely populated highland, cereal yield, average less than 1metric ton per hectare, such low
agricultural productivity compounded by recurrent famine contributes to extreme poverty and food insecurity (Pender and
gebremedlin 2007) and (menode et,al 2011).
Over some years ago, the government of Nigeria and a consortium of donors have undertaken a massive programme
of natural resources conservation to reduce environmental degradation, poverty and increases agricultural productivity and
food security. The adoption and adaptation rate of sustainability land management practices is low. Nigerian farmers believe in
the ideology of other farmers for information and other practices neglecting the common sense of agricultural practices. In
some cases, giving up or reducing the use of technology has been reported (kassa 2003) the low technology adoption rate in the
face significant efforts to promote sustainable land management practices. Poor tension services system blanket promotion of
technology to very diverse environments, to down approach to technology promotion, late which delivery of inputs, low return
on investment, escalation of fertilizer price, lack of access to seasonal credit and production and consumption risk (Bongeret al
2003, Dercon and christianensen 2007)
Sci. Agri. 7 (2), 2014: 70-75
The extension system in Nigeria, extension officers is mainly financed and provided by the public sector, and have
emphasize, these development and distribution of standard package to farmers. The package include seeds, and commercial;
fertilizer, credit to buy inputs, soil and water conservation,livestock And training and demonstration plot intended to facilitate
adoption and use of the inputs additionally efforts promoting their sustainable land management practices, socio economic
cause of low soil productivity ( Pender et al 2006).
The rural credit market has also been subjected to extensive state intervention. To stimulate the uptake of agricultural
technology package all regional government in Nigeria initiated a 100 percent credit is guarantee scheme. In order to finance
the technology package credit is extended to farmers by the commercial bank in Nigeria though cooperate local government
officers and more recently micro finance institution.
Despite the sustainable development to end poverty that all rural development interventions should take into the
account the specification of each agro ecosystem and area, the extension officer’s approach offers recommendation that shows
little variation across different environment.
Sustainable Land Management (SLM) is defined (Dumanski and Smyth, 1994) as a system that combines technologies,
policies and activities aimed at integrating socioeconomic principles with environmental concerns so as to simultaneously
maintain or enhance production/services (productivity);reduce the level of production risk (security);protect the potential of
natural resources (protection);be economically viable (viability) andbe socially acceptable (acceptability).
A common philosophy among sustainable agriculture practitioners is that ‘healthy’ soil is a key component of sustainability;
that is a healthy soil will produce healthy crop plants that have optimum vigour and are less susceptible to pests. Sustainable
farmers maximize reliance on natural, renewable and on-farm inputs. Equally important are the environment, social and
economic impacts of a particular strategy. Converting to sustainable practices does not mean simple input substitution but
frequently, it implies the substitution of enhanced management and scientific knowledge for conventional inputs that harm the
environment on farms and in rural communities. Sustainable approaches are those that are the least toxic and least energy
intensive and yet maintained productivity and profitability (Freenstra. 1997).
Objective of the Study
The general objective is to examine the factor affecting maize production in Oluyole local government area of Oyo
state.
Specific objective
The specific objectives are to
examine the socio economic characteristics of the farmer in the study area.
examine the sustainable farming practices of the farmers in the study area.
determine the factors affectingmaize production in the study area.
There is no significant relationship between the farm practices of the farmers and the crop output in the study area.
Methodology
This study was carried out in Oluyole local government area of Oyo state. The studyarea is in the northern eastern
part of the state and it has an area of 629km2 and a population of 202,725 at the 2006 census (Nipost Retrieved20-10-2009).
The study area is situated within the tropical rainforest region and agricultural and other petty trading is the predominant
occupation in the study area. The climates in the study are tropical type with two distinct rainfall patterns. The rainy season
which marks the agricultural production season is normally between the month of April and October.
The study was carryout in five villages in oluyole local government area which are Abanla, Onipe, Idi Ayunre, Alomaja, and
Adebayo Alata, the major occupations of the people residing in the area arearablefarming, trading, marketing, and poultry
farming.
Five villages were purposely selected from the local government area because of their commitment to agricultural
practices and their concentration on farming in the area. A total number of hundred respondents were selected from the villages
in the local government but 99 of them were used for the analysis.
In order to achieve the objective of this study, data was collected with the use of structural questionnaire and personal
interview was used to draw out response from the respondent.The questionnaires were divided into five and twenty
respondents were systematically selected from each of the villages.
The regression equation is given as:
Y=f(x)
Y=b0+b1x1+b2x2+b3x3+……………….bnxn+U
Where:
Y= Output (kg)
X1=Extension visit (dummy)
71
Sci. Agri. 7 (2), 2014: 70-75
X2=Bushfallowing (dummy)
X3=Zerotillage (dummy)
X4=Fertilizer application (kg)
X5= Bushburning (dummy)
X6= Pesticide (dummy)
X7=Herbicide (dummy)
X8= Labour used (monthly)
X9= Farm size (hectare)
X10= Organisation (dummy)
U=Error term
The statistical tools used for the analysis of the data are descriptive analysis, and regression
analysis.Descriptive analysis includes compute of average and percentage in order to analyze the socio economic
characteristics of the farmers.
Result Analysis And Discussion
The table1 below shows the socio economic characteristics of the respondent in study area. From the result of trade
obtained, it was revealed that (58.6%) of the respondent in the study area were male which imply that farming activities were
dominated by male in the study area. This result also shows that 38.4% of the farmer falls between the age range of 31-40 of
age. This implies that the farmers in the study area fall within the active age of the farming activities. The result further shows
that majority of the farmers in the study area were married with a percentage of (67.7%) this imply that the farmer could have a
larger number of family which could be useful for the farm activities. It also revealed from the table that majority (65.6%) of
the respondent has the household size that falls between the ranges of 1-5 respectively. The table above shows the result of the
level of education of the respondent 76.7% of the respondent have one form of education in the study area.
Table 2 shows the farmer’s maintenance activities of their farmland using different farming practices in the study
area. It revealed that 75.8% of the respondentdoes not make use of bush fallowing while 24.2% were involve in bush burning
activities, 59.6% of the respondent makes use of Zero tillage while 50.5% of the respondentused fertilizer application, 80.8%
of the respondent does not make use of bush burning, 50.5% of the farmer make use of pesticides while 60.6% of the
respondentdoes not make use of herbicides. It also revealed that 45.5% of the respondentinvolve in minimum tillage while
54.5% of them involve in the commercial tillage, the table also shows that 53.4% of the farmers produce 6-10 bags of maize,
36.4% produces 1-5 bags while 10.1%of the farmer produce 11-20bags of maize in the study.
Merge information in table 3 to that of table 1 above.
The table 4below shows that the extension visit has a positive relationshipwith maize output and it’ssignificant at 1%
level; this shows that extension agent visiting the maize farmer in the study area had a positive effect on their level of
production.The table also reveals that the fertilizer application has a positive relationship and labour usedhas negative
relationship with outputand are both significant at 1% which shows thatthe fertilizer applicationon thefarmland increases maize
production in the study area and vice versa for labour use.The table further explains that, bush fallowing, zero tillage and use
of herbicide, bush burning has a negative butnot significant association with output; this implies that bush fallowing and bush
burning practices are not favourable to the maize farming in the study area.
R2 with the value of 0.517 which is 51.7%, this shows the level of variation from the farmer productivity; while the
48.3% could be explain by the error term which capture the unexplained variation in the model specification.
Summary, Conclusion And Recommendation
Summary
Most of the farmers in the study area 58.6% were male while 41.1% were female 38.8% of the farmers falls between
31-40 years of age, 67.7% were married, while 1.0% were single, 65.5% of the respondent has a household size between 1-5
family members,23.2% as no formal education, 76.8% of the respondent had one form of formal education.It was also
discovered that 51.5% of the respondent make use of hired labour while 48.5% make use of family labour, 43.5% of the
farmers had between 6-10acres of land while 5.0% had between 11-20 acres of land it was discovered that 44.4% of the
respondent has no access to credit while 55.6% has access to credit, 33.3% of the respondent got their source of credit through
loan acquisition,2.0% through gift,45.5% of the respondents practices minimum tillage while 54.5% practices commercial
tillage, 50.5% of the respondent does not belong to any organization while 49.5% belong to one or two organization.it was
discovered that 4.0% of the respondent claims to have red soil on their farm land,1.0% claimed to have grey soil,5.1% claimed
to have black soil and 76.8% claimed to have loamy soil on their farm land,63.3% of the respondenthas no awareness of the
extension worker while36.4% were fully aware of the extension workers.75.8% of the farmer does not make use of bush
fallowing as the method of maintaining their farmland while 24.2% make use of this method, 59.6 respondent make use of zero
tillage while 40.4% does not make use of the practices,50.5% of the respondent in the study area make use of fertilizer
72
Sci. Agri. 7 (2), 2014: 70-75
application while 49.5% does not make use of the practice in maintaining their farmland80.8% of the respondentdoes not make
use of bush burning while 19.2% make use of the method,50.5% of the farmer used pesticide while 49.5% does not make use
of it. 60.6% of the respondent does not make use of herbicide as the method of maintaining their farmland while 39.4% make
use of the herbicide in the study area.
Table 1. Socio-economic characteristics of maize farmers in oluyole local government
Variable
Gender
Male
Female
Total
Age
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
60 and above
Total
Marital status
Single
Married
Widow
Divorce
Widower
Total
Household size
1-5
6-10
11 and above
Total
Educational level
No formal education
Primary Education
Secondary education
Tertiary education
Total
Labour source
Hired labour
Family labour
Total
Access to credit
No
Yes
Total
Source of credit
Do not have
Loan (Ajo (daily contribution))
Banks
Friends
Family
Cooperative
Total
Organization
No
Yes
Total
Extension visit
No
Yes
Total
Farm size (Hectare or acres)
1—5
6—10
11—20
Total
Soil type
Red Soil
Gray Soil
Black Soil
Loamy Soil
Sandy Soil
Total
Frequency
Percentage
58
41
99
58.6
41.4
100.0
17
38
32
11
1
99
17.0
38.4
32.1
11.0
1.0
100.0
10
67
8
9
5
99
10.1
67.7
8.1
9.1
5.1
100.0
65
33
1
99
65.6
33.3
1.0
100.0
23
29
20
27
99
23.2
29.2
20.2
27.4
100.0
51
51.5
48
99
48.5
100.0
37
62
99
37.4
62.6
100.0
37
37.4
32
9
3
9
9
32.3
9.1
3.0
9.1
9.1
99
100.0
50
49
99
50.5
49.5
100.0
63
36
99
63.3
36.4
100.0
51
43
5
99
51.5
43.5
5.0
100.0
4
1
5
4.0
1.0
5.1
76
76.8
13
99
13.1
100.0
Source; field survey2013
73
Sci. Agri. 7 (2), 2014: 70-75
Table 2. Percentage distribution of sustainable farming practices of maize in oluyole local gorvernment
Variable
Bush fallowing
No
Yes
Total
Zero tillage
No
Yes
Total
Fertilizer application
No
Yes
Total
Bush burning
No
Yes
Total
Pesticide
No
Yes
Total
Herbicide
No
Yes
Total
Farm practices
Minimum tillage
Commercial tillage
Total
Farm Output (50 kg/ bag)
1-5
6-10
11-20
Total
Frequency
Percentage
75
24
99
75.8
24.2
100.0
40
59
99
40.4
59.6
100.0
49
50
99
49.5
50.5
100.0
80
19
99
80.8
19.2
100.0
60
50
99
49.5
50.5
100.0
60
39
99
60.6
39.4
100.0
45
54
99
45.5
54.5
100.0
36
53
10
99
36.4
53.4
10.1
100.0
Source; field survey 2013
Table 3. Determinant of the impact of agricultural practiceson maize output
VAVARIABLE
X1Extension visit
X2 Bush fallowing
X3Zero tillage
X4 Fertilizer application
X5 Bush burning
X6Pesticide
X7 Herbicide
X8 Labour used
X9 Farm distance
X10Organization
R
R2
COEFFICIENT
1.846
-0.459
-1.215
1.337
-0.915
0.282
-0.483
-1.588
0.085
1.572
0.719
0.517
STANDARD ERROR
0.769
0.629
0.558
0.554
0.700
0.572
0.604
0.709
0.182
0.745
TVALUE
2.402*
-0.729
-2.176
2.415*
-1.307
0.493
-0.800
-2.241*
0.468
2.110
Source; Field survey2013. Note * = 1% level of significant.
Conclusion
The use of bush burning in the study area as one of the ways of maintaining and sustaining their farm land in the
study area affect production output negatively due to the reduction of some nutrient needed for plant growth and also causes
environmental pollution and health hazard to the farmers in the study. Extension visit should further be encouraged in this
study because it plays a vital role in the level of sustaining agricultural productivity by enhancing farmers’ activities.
Recommendation
Base on the result of the study the following are therefore recommended;
74
Sci. Agri. 7 (2), 2014: 70-75
The extension workers should pay more attention to the rural farmers so as to enlighten them more on how to maintain their
farmland and impacting more skills and experience base on how to use modern farm implement and how to maintain the farm
produce so as to increase the level of crop production in the local government area of the state.
Furthermore farmers should involve themselves in a certain organization so as to enjoy or gain more benefit of mutual loans
among themselves.
In addition government should help the rural farmers in the provision of fertilizer, maintaining a good road,
and provision of social amenities in to the rural settlement so as to avoid the migration of rural dweller to urban area.
Refrences
Bukhari HSA, Tahri M, Javed MR, tanver A, Nadeem MA, Wasaya A, Rehaman JU.2009.Effect of different herbicide on weed growth and yield of spring
planted maize (zea mays l)park journal .life soco sci.7(2);168-174.
Di Falco S, Chavas JP.2007. on Crop Biodiversity,Risk Exposure and food Security in the Highland of Africa. AmericaJournal of Agricultural Economics 91
(3):599 – 611.
Doebley JF.2004. “The genetics of maize evolution” “Annual review of genetics38;37-59. Dio.10 1146/annual genetics 38.0729092425.PMD15568971.
Dumanski J, Smyth AJ.1994. The issues and challenges of sustainable land management. Proc. International Workshop on Sustainable Land Management for
the 21st Century. In Wood, R.C. and Dumanski, J. (eds). Vol. 2: Plenary Papers.Agricultural Institute of Canada, Ottawa. 381pp.
empirical evidence from Ethiopia environment and development economics 6(3);335-358.
Faltemeire L, Abdullahi A.2009.The impact of water conservation and intensification Technologies. Empirical Evidence for Rice Farmer in
Ghana.Agricultural Economics40 (4): 365-79.
Farahani.2010.Effect of planting density and pattern on physical growth indices in maize (zea mays) under nitrogenous fertilizer application , J Agric.Ext and
rural Dev.2(3);40-47.
Freenstra G.1997. What is sustainable agriculture? UC sustainable agriculture research and education program, university of California,
daviswww.sarep.ucdavis.edu/serach.html.
Garrison.2004.chapter 1.1corn,strange and marvelous; but is a definitive origin known’’ In smith,C,wanye, Runge,Betran,Javiercorn origin, History
Technologyand production.Wiley.pp.3-63 ISBN978-0-471-41184-0.
Gebremedlin B, Swinton SM.2008.Effect of stone tarrace on crop yields and farm profitability; Result of on farm Research in Tigray;
Heckman J, Hichimira J Smith, P. Todd.Characterizing Selection Bias using Experimental Data.Econometrica66(5): 1017 – 1098.
Kaliba ARM, Rebele T.200.) Impact of Adopting Soil Conservation Practices on Wheat yield in Lesotho. In Managing Nutrient Cycles to sustain soil fertility
insub – saharian Africa, edited by A.Bahono, Nairobi, Kenya.
Kassa B. 2003. Agricultural Extension in Ethiopia. The case of participatory Demonstration
and Training Extension System. Journal of social
Development in Africa 18 (i):49 – 83.
Kassle M, Holden ST. 2006. parametric and Non parametric Estimation of Soil Conservation Adoption Impact on yield.Paperpreparated for the internation
Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, Gold Coast Austraha, August 12 – 18, 2006.
Kasssle M, Zikhah P, Manjur K, Edward E. 2009. Adoption of sustainable Agricultural Practices.Evidence from a semi aridRegion.Natural Resources Forum
39: 189 98.
Leews .2008.Propensity score matching and variations on the balancing test unpublished paper, April4 2008 version. Melbourne institution of applied
economic and social research,Australia.https;//editorial express. Com/cgibin/conference/download.cgibd name= esam06 and paper id=217. Acces
may2010. Nipost retrieved 20th-10(2009 ) (Nigeria census 2006).
Ordish G, Hyams E.1996.The last of theincas;the rise and fall of an American empire.New york; Barnes and noble. P.26.ISBN 0-88029-595-3.S
Pender f place and sehive.2006. strategies for sustainable land management in the east African highlands.Washington, dc international food policy research
institution.
Piperno, Doleres R, Anthony J. Rener, Irene H, Jose I, Ruth D.2009. Starch grain and phytolith evidence for early ninth millennium BP, maize frocentral
Bakas River valley, mexico. Proceedings of the Natural Academy of science 06(13);5019-5024. Dio.10.1073/pnas.0812525106
PMC2664021.PMD19307570.
Rosenbaum PR.2002. Observational studies. New york springer
Scooness and keeleyj.2004.understanding policies processes in ethiopia. A response
journal of modern African studies 42(1);149-153.
Shiferaus B, T holden.2001.farm level Benefits to investments for mitigating land degration
Shively GE.1998 impact of contour Healedgrows on upland maize yield in the Philippines Agroforestry systems 39[1]:59-71
Sianesi B.2004 .An evaluation of the Swedish system of active labour income or
market programmes in 1990s. Review of Economic and Statistics 86:
133 – 55.
Smith J, Tod P.2005. Does matching overcomes landline’s critique of non experimental estimators.Journal of econometrics 125[1-2]305-355
Spielman D, Alimu D, kelemework D.2010. forthcoming policies to promote cereal intensification in Ethiopia; the search for appropriate public and
privaterole food policies.
Tadesse M, kassa B.2004. factors influencing adoption of soil conservation measures in southern Ethiopia; the case of gununoarea.journal of agriculture and
rural development in the tropics and substropic.
Tahir M, Javed MR, Tanver A, Nadeem MA, Wasaya A, Bukhari SAH, URehman J. 2009.Effect of different herbicide on weeds growth and yield ofspring
planted maize (zea mays). Pakj.Lifesocsci 7(2);168-174.
World Food Program.2005. Report on the cost Benefit Analysis and Impact Evaluation of Soil and Water Conservation and forestry measures. Managing
Environmental Resources to enable Transitions to more Sustainable Livelihoods (MERETproject Rome: WEP.
75