Category Archives: Economic project topics and material

Economic project topics and material

THE IMPACT OF INDUSTRIAL OUTPUT ON THE ECONOMY OF NIGERIA (1980-2010)

March 11, 2019 projecteasy

THE IMPACT OF INDUSTRIAL OUTPUT ON THE ECONOMY OF NIGERIA (1980-2010)

Click here to download our android mobile app to your phone for more materials and others

COMPLETE PROJECT MATERIAL COST 5000 NAIRA OR $10 ,

. A FRESH TOPIC NOT LISTED ON OUR WEBSITE COST 50,000 NAIRA ( UNDERGRADUATE) OR 100,000 FOR SECOND DEGREE STUDENTS. $500. PLUS FREE SUPPORT UNTIL YOU FINISH YOUR PROJECT WORK. CONTACT US TODAY, WE MAKE A DIFFERENT. DESIGN AND WRITING IS OUR SKILLED. DESIGN AND WRITING IS OUR SKILLED.

Note: our case study can be change to suit your desire location . we are here for your success.

ORDER NOW

MAKE YOUR PAYMENT INTO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING BANKS:

GTBANK
Account Name : Chi E-Concept Int’l
ACCOUNT NUMBER: 0115939447

First Bank:
Account Name: Chi E-Concept Int’l
Account Name: 3059320631

Foreign Transaction For Dollars Payment :
Bank Name: GTBank
Branch Location: Enugu State,Nigeria.
Account Name: Chi E-Concept Int’l
Account Number: 0117780667.
Swift Code: GTBINGLA
Dollar conversion rate for Naira is 175 per dollar.

ATM CARD: YOU CAN ALSO MAKE PAYMENT USING YOUR ATM CARD OR ONLINE TRANSFER. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR BANKER SECURITY GUIDE ON HOW TO TRANSFER MONEY TO OTHER BANKS USING YOUR ATM CARD. ATM CARD OR ONLINE BANK TRANSFER IS FASTER FOR QUICK DELIVERY TO YOUR EMAIL . OUR MARKETER WILL RESPOND TO YOU ANY TIME OF THE DAY. WE SUPPORT CBN CASHLESS SOCIETY.

OR
PAY ONLINE USING YOUR ATM CARD. IT IS SECURED AND RELIABLE.

form>DELIVERY PERIOD FOR BANK PAYMENT IS LESS THAN 2 HOURS

How to transfer from your bank account to All Nigeriabanks

1. Access Bank:
—-*901#

2. EcoBank:
—-*326#

3. Fidelity Bank:
—-*770#

4. FCMB:
—-*389*214#

5. First Bank
—-*894#

6. GTB:
—-*737#

7. Heritage Bank:
—-*322*030#

8. Keystone Bank:
—-*322*082#

9. Sky Bank:
—-*389*076*1#

10. Stanbic IBTC:
—-*909#

11. Sterling Bank:
—-*822#

12. UBA:
—-*389*033*1#

13. Unity Bank:
—-*322*215#

14. Zenith Bank:
—-*966#

15. Diamond Bank
—-*710*555#

To know your BVN, dial
—-*565*0#.

E.g for First bank… *894 *Amount *Acct. No. #

Please dail d code from d number u used to register d account from the bank

CALL OKEKE CHIDI C ON : 08074466939,08063386834.

AFTER PAYMENT SEND YOUR PAYMENT DETAILS TO

08074466939 or 08063386834, YOUR PROJECT TITLE YOU WANT US TO SEND TO YOU, AMOUNT PAID, DEPOSITOR NAME, UR EMAIL ADDRESS,PAYMENT DATE. YOU WILL RECEIVE YOUR MATERIAL IN LESS THAN 2 HOURS ONCE WILL CONFIRM YOUR PAYMENT.

WE HAVE SECURITY IN OUR BUSINESS.

MONEY BACK GUARANTEE

ABSTRACT
This research work is on the “Impact of Industrial Output on the Economy of Nigeria” between the period of thirty years (30) covered from 1980-2010. Impact of industrial output on the economy of Nigeria is a continuous discussion to every economy especially developing economics which will give rise to economic growth and development of a nation. Secondary data was used on PC Give 8.00 version package to regress the model with GDP as the dependent variable, and industrial output, savings, net foreign capital flow, and inflation as independent variables. The model explain that the influence of industrial output on economic growth is not statistically significant, though the sign obtained from its à priori expectation is positively related to GDP but does not hold strong enough. Savings has a positive relationship and also significant impact on the economy. Inflation has a negative relationship while net foreign capital flow is positively significant on the impact of economic growth. R-squared shows a 76% increase on the GDP. Based on the findings, it is therefore recommended that some policies is to be made in ways to improve the establishment of industries especially the manufacturing industries to encourage industrialisation of the Nigerian economy so as to contribute to the strengthening of economic growth in the nation’s economy. Tax incentives through subsidies and government expenditure relate to increase in output and positive impact on economic growth. Increase in savings will make money available for the economy through high interest rate and income adjustments from the monetary policy.

TABLE OF CONTENT
Title page – – – – – – – – – -i
Approval page – – – – – – – – – -ii
Dedication – – – – – – – – – -iii
Acknowledgement – – – – – – – – -iv
Abstract – – – – – – – – – – -vi
Table of content – – – – – – – – -vii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of study – – – – – – – -1
1.2 Statement of research problem – – – – – – -3
1.3 Objective of the study – – – – – – – -4
1.4 Statement of research hypothesis – – – – – -4
1.5 Significance of the study – – – – – – -5
1.6 Scope and limitation of the study – – – – – – 5
1.7 Methodology and sources of data – – – – – -5
1.8 Limitation of the study- – – – – – – – -6
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Theoretical literature – – – – – – – -7
2.1.1 Sources of industrial growth and industrial Policies in

Nigeria — – – – – – – – – -10
2.1.2 Characteristics of Nigeria industries – – – – -12
2.1.3 Manufacturing in Nigeria- – – – – – -13
2.1.4 The era of manufacturing in Nigeria – – – – -14
2.1.5 Structure and performance of Nigerian Manufacturing
Sector – – – – – – – – – -16
2.1.6 The roles of manufacturing industries in then Development
Of the Nigerian economy – – – – – – -21
2.1.7 Problems of industrial development in Nigeria – – – -25
2.2. Empirical review – – – – – – – – -28
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.0 Methodology – – – – – – – – -33
3.1 Model specification – – – – – – – -33
3.2 Model Estimation /procedure – – – – – – -35
3.3 Sources of Data- – – – – – – – -37
CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF
REGRESSION RESULT.
4.1 Presentation of result and analysis- – – – – -38
4.1.2 Interpretation of result – – – – – – – -39
4.2 Evaluation of result – – – – – – – -40
4.2.1 Evaluation based on economic a priori expectation- – -40

4.2.2 Evaluation based on statistical criteria – – – – -41
4.2.2.1 Statistical test of significant of parameter estimated
(T-statistics) – – – – – – – – -42
4.2.2.2 Adequacy of regression equation (F-Test) – – – -43
4.2.2.3 Goodness of fit test (R2) – – – – – – -44
4.2.3 Evaluation based on economic criteria – – – – -45
4.2.3.1 Test for auto-correlation – – – – – – -45
4.2.3.2 Test for Heteroscedasticity – – – – – – -46
4.2.3.3 Test for normality – – – – – – – -48
4.2.3.4 Test for multicollinearity – – – – – – -48
4.3 Evaluation research hypothesis – – – – – -50
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, POLICIES
RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION.
5.1 Summary of findings – – – – – – – -51
5.2 Policy recommendation – – – – – – – -52
5.3 Conclusion – – – – – – – – – -53
Bibliography – – – – – – – – -54
Journal – – – – – – – – – -56
Appendices

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background Of Study
The oil boom of the 1970s made Nigeria neglected its agricultural and light manufacturing bases in favour of an unhealthy dependence on crude oil. In 2000, oil and gas export accounted for more than 98% of export earning and about 83% of federal government revenue. New oil wealth, the concurrent decline of other economic model fuelled massive migration to the cities and led to increasingly wide spread poverty especially in rural areas. A collapse of basic infrastructures and social services since the early 1980s accompanied this trend, (CIA, 2010).
By 2000, Nigeria‟s per capita income had plunged to about one quarter of its mid 1970s high, below the level at independence. Along with the endemic malaise of Nigeria‟s non-oil sector, the economy continues to witness massive growth of „informal sector‟ economic activities estimated by some to be as high as 75% of the total economy. The U.S United State remains Nigeria‟s customer for crude oil accounting for 40% of the country‟s total oil export, Nigeria provides about 10% of overall U.S oil import and ranks as the fifth-largest source for U.S imported oil and ranked 44th worldwide and third in Africa in factor output. (Adeolu B Anyawale,

Nigeria economy is struggling to leverage the country‟s vast wealth in fossil fuels in other to displace the crushing poverty that affects about 57% of its population. Economics refers to the consistence of vast wealth in national resources and extreme poverty in developing countries like Nigeria as a „resource course‟. 80% of Nigeria‟s revenue flow to the government, 16% covers operational cast and the remaining 4% goes to investors. World Bank has estimated that as a result of corruption, 80% of energy revenues, benefit only 1% of the population (Econspapers, hosted by Swedish Business School Orebro University).
Generally, the manufacturing sector which plays a catalytic role in a modern economy has many dynamic benefits crucial for economic transformation is a leading sector in many aspects (Oguma, 1995) says it creates investment capital at a faster rate than any other sector of the economy. Available evidence showed that the share of manufacturing value in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was 3.2% in 1960. In 1977, its share of GDP increased to 5.4% and in 1992 grew to 13%. The share of the manufacturing in GDP fell to 6.2 in 1993, while overall manufacturing capacity utilization rate fluctuated downwards to 2.4% in 1998.
In 2003, the manufacturing sector accounted for 4% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Ojo, 1987:256). A country is industrialised when at least one-quarter of this Gross Domestic Product(GDP) is produced in its industrial output arises in the manufacturing section of industrial sectors, and when at
Impact Of Industrial Output On The Economy Of Nigeria (1988-2010)

least one length of its total population is employed in the industrial sectors of the economy. The manufacturing sector is to be dominant in terms of contribution to the Gross Domestic Product of any economy especially that of Nigeria (Auty, 1993).
1.2 Statement Of The Research Problem
The malfunctioning of industrial sector in a country is widely seen as a major handicap improving a country‟s economy and power pushing many governments to encourage or enforce industrialization (Wikipedia, free encyclopaedia). One of the problems bedevilling the Nigeria economy is that of output from its industrial sector of the economy. Admittedly, the decay in the manufacturing sector is the result of diverse factors that conspire to render many industries comatose (ill). The study is therefore necessary to enable a thorough investigation of the problems of the industrial sector especially that of manufacturing industries and various government agencies set up to provide credit facilities to the industrial sector to ensure continual growth of this sector for rapid economic development of this nation. In the light of this exposition, the research work is guided by the following question.

Economic project topics and material

THE IMPACT OF PUBLIC SPENDING ON POVERTY REDUCTION IN NIGERIA [1980-2011]

March 11, 2019 projecteasy

THE IMPACT OF PUBLIC SPENDING ON POVERTY REDUCTION IN NIGERIA [1980-2011]

Click here to download our android mobile app to your phone for more materials and others

COMPLETE PROJECT MATERIAL COST 5000 NAIRA OR $10 ,

Note: our case study can be change to suit your desire location . we are here for your success.

ORDER NOW

MAKE YOUR PAYMENT INTO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING BANKS:

GTBANK
Account Name : Chi E-Concept Int’l
ACCOUNT NUMBER: 0115939447

First Bank:
Account Name: Chi E-Concept Int’l
Account Name: 3059320631

OR
PAY ONLINE USING YOUR ATM CARD. IT IS SECURED AND RELIABLE.

form>DELIVERY PERIOD FOR BANK PAYMENT IS LESS THAN 2 HOURS

How to transfer from your bank account to All Nigeriabanks

1. Access Bank:
—-*901#

2. EcoBank:
—-*326#

3. Fidelity Bank:
—-*770#

4. FCMB:
—-*389*214#

5. First Bank
—-*894#

6. GTB:
—-*737#

7. Heritage Bank:
—-*322*030#

8. Keystone Bank:
—-*322*082#

9. Sky Bank:
—-*389*076*1#

10. Stanbic IBTC:
—-*909#

11. Sterling Bank:
—-*822#

12. UBA:
—-*389*033*1#

13. Unity Bank:
—-*322*215#

14. Zenith Bank:
—-*966#

15. Diamond Bank
—-*710*555#

To know your BVN, dial
—-*565*0#.

E.g for First bank… *894 *Amount *Acct. No. #

Please dail d code from d number u used to register d account from the bank

CALL OKEKE CHIDI C ON : 08074466939,08063386834.

AFTER PAYMENT SEND YOUR PAYMENT DETAILS TO

WE HAVE SECURITY IN OUR BUSINESS.

MONEY BACK GUARANTEE

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study – – – – – – – 1
1.2 Statement of the problem – – – – – – – 4
1.3 Research question – – – – – – – – 4
1.4 Objective of the study – – – – – – – 5
1.5 Research hypotheses – – – – – – – – 5
1.6 Significance of the study – – – – – – – 5
1.7 Scope and limitation of the study – – – – – – 6
CHAPTER TWO
2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW – – – – – – – 8
2.2.1 Theoretical literature – – – – – – – 10
2.2.2 Causes of Poverty – – – – – – – – 10
2.2.3 Poverty situation in Nigeria – – – – – – 11
2.2.4 The effects of poverty in Nigeria – – – – – 13
2.3 Empirical literature – – – – – – – – 15
2.3.1 Approaches to poverty alleviation in Nigeria – – – – 16
2.3.2 Poverty reduction strategies in Nigeria – – – – – 20
2.3.3 Causes of poverty reduction in Nigeria – – – – 25
2.3.4 Achievement of poverty reduction in Nigeria – – – 27
6
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY – – – – – 30
3.1 Methodology – – – – – – – – – 30
3.2 Model specification – – – – – – – – 30
3.3 Method of evaluation- – – – – – – – 32
3.3.1 Statistical Test – – – – – – – – 32
3.3.2 Econometric Criteria (Second-Order Test) – – – – 33
3.3.3 Economic A Priori Test – – – – – – – 34
3.4 Source of data – – – – – – – – 34
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULT PRESENTATION, INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Result presentation – – – – – – – – – 35
4.2 Result interpretation – – – – – – – – 36
4.2.1 Analysis of the Regression Coefficients – – – – 36
4.2.2 Analysis of the Evaluation Methods – – – – – 37
4.2.2.1 Evaluation Based on Economic Criteria – – – – 37
4.2.2.2 Evaluation Based on Statistical Criteria – – – – 38
4.2.2.3 Evaluation Based on Econometric Criteria – – – – 40
4.3 Hypothesis Testing – – – – – – – 43
Conclusion – – – – – – – – – 43
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary of Findings – – – – – – – 45
5.2 Recommendation – – – – – – – – 46
5.3 Conclusion – – – – – – – – – 48
References – – – – – – – – – 49
Journals – – – – – – – – – 50
Appendix I
7
ABSTRACT
This work was done to analyze the impact of public spending on poverty eradication in Nigeria from (1980-2011). In this research work, multiple regression analysis was used and five variables were used in the empirical analysis. They are government expenditure on agriculture and water resources (AGWR), health (HTH) education (EDU) transportation and communication (TRCM) and Housing and environment. The data used in this research was collected from secondary data obtained from National Bureau of Statistics (2008) (MBS), and CBN statistical bulletin. The major findings shows that government expenditure on health, education and transport and communication are insignificant and a unit increase of government expenditure in these sectors will reduce poverty level. While that of agriculture and water resources, and housing and environment are significant and a unit increase will increase poverty level. Recommendation were proffered based on the findings of this research. That the government at all level should ensure that its expenditure are channeled towards projects that will reduce poverty level in Nigeria.
CHAPTER ONE
8
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Public spending represents the annual expenditure by the federal government to achieve some macro-economic objectives which may include poverty reduction, increase in national productivity and macro-economic stability in the system.
Since the late 1980’s, an increase in public spending has become a major instrument in Nigeria. This was attributed to the following reasons as the major causes of an increase in government expenditure in Nigeria. First is the dominant role of public sector in major economic activities in Nigeria. This could be attributed to several factors among them are oil boom of the early 1970’s, the need for reconstruction of war affected areas after Nigerian civil war in 1970, the industrialization strategy adopted at that time by the federal government (import substitution strategy) and the need to raise gross domestic product (GDP).
On the other hand, the collapse of oil prices in and general mismanagement of the economy in 1980’s brought the issue of poverty eradication in Nigeria. Furthermore, the recent flood disaster in Nigeria has re-awakened the fight against poverty in Nigeria. In the mid 1980s, it was observed that the private sectors were declining in economic activities as measured by aggregate output, industrial production, non oil exports etc. were all showing
9
decreasing signs. Above all, there widespread evidence of massive poverty in the economy despite of the growing public expenditure and fiscal deficit in the economy (library of congress country studies 1980’s).
In 1986, all major socio-economic indicators were showing downwards which brought high rate of unemployment and decreased in purchasing power. Poverty was spending among Nigerians especially the low income earners and economic growth was downward sloping.
Poverty in Nigeria did not become an issue of great concern until after the oil boom when the international oil price crashed and there was an international economic slump. The continuous downward trend in the oil prices in the international market increased the poverty level in Nigeria. The over-dependency on oil revenue and inadequate efforts to mobilize funds from non oil sources led to a serious decline in government revenue. External reserve deteriorated, and cause huge accumulated trade arrears and thereby limiting government effort in provision of basic amenities and social facilities.
Thus the poverty level in Nigeria continues to be on the increased over the past few decades. The 1991 world development report (WDR) showed that Nigeria the most populous country in Africa has a significant number of her population categorized as poor people.
In recognition of the adverse effect of poverty in Nigeria, federal government set up Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) to reduce over
10
dependency on oil and to provide food to all Nigerians. This had been followed by the introduction of other policies such as national FADAMA programs. Furthermore, the federal government made poverty reduction the core objectives of its annual budget and also initiated various policies measures aimed at promoting people’s welfare and reducing poverty in the economy.
Poverty become an issue of global dimension with nations striving either to reduce or outright poverty in there economy. The complexity of the phenomenon and its impacts on national economics has attracted the attention of international organizations and agencies with government in different nations embarking on policies aimed at reducing poverty. Consequently, Nigerian fiscal policies especially as regard expenses in the areas that have positive impact on the well being of the poor, have progressively being on the increase over the years. Recently, the Imo State government took a bold step towards poverty reduction by introducing free education to all the indigenes of the state up to the tertiary level.
Finally, the extent to which government spending have impacted on the well being of the people prompted this study.
11
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
In Nigeria, poverty has been on the increase which can be attributed to inequality existing in the economy such as corruption, macro-economic instability and inconsistency in government policies. In an ordinary framework, poverty is concern with absolute, modulate or relatively standard of living or inability to attain a minimal standard of living. Poverty is found to be at the worst in the rural areas. Which is characterized by malnutrition lack of standard education, low life expectancy and sub-standard housing? In attempt to alleviate these problems, three actors are observed in the literature as being involved in any giving country. Namely; the three ties of government (federal, state and local government), international organizations and nongovernmental

Economic project topics and material

Technical Efficiency and Factor Productivity in Upland and Lowland Rice Production Systems in Kwara State, Nigeria

March 11, 2019 projecteasy Leave a comment

Technical Efficiency and Factor Productivity in Upland and Lowland Rice Production Systems in Kwara State, Nigeria

Click here to download our android mobile app to your phone for more materials and others

COMPLETE PROJECT MATERIAL COST 5000 NAIRA OR $10 ,

Note: our case study can be change to suit your desire location . we are here for your success.

ORDER NOW

MAKE YOUR PAYMENT INTO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING BANKS:

GTBANK
Account Name : Chi E-Concept Int’l
ACCOUNT NUMBER: 0115939447

First Bank:
Account Name: Chi E-Concept Int’l
Account Name: 3059320631

OR
PAY ONLINE USING YOUR ATM CARD. IT IS SECURED AND RELIABLE.

form>DELIVERY PERIOD FOR BANK PAYMENT IS LESS THAN 2 HOURS

How to transfer from your bank account to All Nigeriabanks

1. Access Bank:
—-*901#

2. EcoBank:
—-*326#

3. Fidelity Bank:
—-*770#

4. FCMB:
—-*389*214#

5. First Bank
—-*894#

6. GTB:
—-*737#

7. Heritage Bank:
—-*322*030#

8. Keystone Bank:
—-*322*082#

9. Sky Bank:
—-*389*076*1#

10. Stanbic IBTC:
—-*909#

11. Sterling Bank:
—-*822#

12. UBA:
—-*389*033*1#

13. Unity Bank:
—-*322*215#

14. Zenith Bank:
—-*966#

15. Diamond Bank
—-*710*555#

To know your BVN, dial
—-*565*0#.

E.g for First bank… *894 *Amount *Acct. No. #

Please dail d code from d number u used to register d account from the bank

CALL OKEKE CHIDI C ON : 08074466939,08063386834.

AFTER PAYMENT SEND YOUR PAYMENT DETAILS TO

WE HAVE SECURITY IN OUR BUSINESS.

MONEY BACK GUARANTEE

ABSTRACT

The issue of low productivity of the Nigerian farm-firms is topical. This is more so for the rice commodity in Nigeria. Though over 1.3 million hectares of land is devoted annually to paddy rice cultivation, average yield of upland and lowland rice in Nigeria is 1.8 tonnes/ha compared to 3.0 tonnes/ha of upland and lowland rice and 7.0 tonnes/ha of irrigated rice in neighbouring West African countries. It is therefore necessary to identify ways of increasing rice output from existing hectarages. This study therefore compared the structure of costs and returns, technical efficiency and factor productivity, and constraints that confront upland and lowland rice farmers in Kwara State, Nigeria.

A three-stage random sampling procedure was used to collect primary data for the study. Pre-tests and data collection proper were carried out between April 2007 and May 2008.The first stage involved a selection of three major rice producing zones from the four Kwara State Agricultural Development (KWADP) zones. The second stage involved a random selection of ten villages (5 percent) from zone B, eight villages (17 percent) from zone C while four (10 percent) were selected from zone D. A total of twenty two major rice-producing villages were therefore selected, out of the two hundred and ninety nine rice-producing villages in the selected zones. The final stage involved the random selection of two hundred and sixty four (168 Lowland rice-producing households and 96 Upland rice-producing households) rice-producing households from the villages selected. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, partial farm budget, Cobb-Douglas stochastic frontier production function, OLS regression, Chow-test, Total Factor Productivity (TFP) and the Likert-type scale analyses.

The descriptive statistics analysis results showed that farming tools and equipment used by the rice farmers are generally of the crude types. Farm budget analysis of costs and returns analysis results indicated that lowland rice farms have higher returns to labour and management (RLM) of N53,326.0 per hectare while the RLM estimate for upland rice was N34,101.4 per hectare.

The Cobb-Douglas stochastic frontier production function indicated that the lowland rice production system is at a higher level of technical efficiency of 60.08 percent, while the upland farms average was 40.10 percent. Farmer’s farming experience, household size and type of rice variety planted were found to significantly (P< 0.05) affect technical efficiency of the lowland farms. Farmer’s farming experience and household size of the farmers were found to significantly affect (P< 0.05) technical efficiency of the upland farms. Chow-test comparison between the technical efficiency for the upland and lowland rice farms showed significant differences (P< 0.05) between the technical efficiency levels of the two rice farms. The analysis of factor productivity of rice farms indicated that lowland rice farms were operated at a higher total factor productivity (TFP) level of 4.3 on average. For upland rice farms, mean TFP estimate was 3.4. The Likert-type scale analysis of farmers’ constraints revealed inadequate funds as the main problems confronting both upland and lowland rice farmers. This is followed by expensive agro-chemicals, pest and diseases and inadequate labour supply respectively. Flood problem was reported only under the lowland rice production systems.

In conclusion, the lowland rice system has higher profitability, technical efficiency and TFP compared to the upland rice system. The study therefore suggests intensive efforts at expanding the present scope of lowland rice farming, given the estimated technical efficiency and productivity estimates for the production system. The use of improved tools and equipment in rice farming and processing should be encouraged as this would help to reduce the debris and stones that accompany the final consumable rice commodity. Farmers should also be availed the opportunities of being able to access loanable funds. Efforts should be geared towards organizing farmers into cooperatives, as this will enhance the delivery of agricultural extension services to farmers and also help mobilize rural resources for agriculture. Farm extension in terms of personnel, educational and the material needs of the farmers should also be strengthened.

1.0	CHAPTER ONE:	INTRODUCTION
1.1	Background to the Study		1
1.2	Rice Production in Nigeria: The Place of Upland and Lowland Rice Production Systems		6
1.3	Problem Statement		8
1.4	Objectives of the Study		10
1.5	Justification		11
1.6	Plan of Thesis		13
2.0	CHAPTER TWO:	LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1	Literature Review	14
2.1.1	The Rice Production Scenario in Nigeria	14
2.1.2	Rice Processing in Nigeria	16
2.1.3 The Competitiveness of the Nigerian Local Rice		17
2.1.4 The Presidential Initiative on Rice Production, Processing and Export in Nigeria		19
2.2 Definition of Concepts		21
2.2.1 Productivity Concepts		21
2.2.2 Production Efficiency: Technical Efficiency, Allocative Efficiency and Economic
	Efficiency	25
2.2.3 Productivity and Technical Efficiency		25

2.2.4		Empirical Applications of Stochastic Frontier Production Functions		32
2.2.5		Determinants of Technical Efficiency		36
2.2.6 Empirical Applications of the Total Factor Productivity (TFP) Analysis				38
2.2.7 Use of Productivity Measures				39
2.2.8 Determinants of Agricultural Productivity				41
2.3		Theoretical Conceptual Framework		44
2.3.1 Approaches to the Measurement of Productive Efficiency in Agriculture: the
		Frontier Models		44
2.3.1.1 Parametric Frontiers				44
2.3.1.2 Non- Parametric Frontiers				49
2.3.2		Farm Productivity Analysis		52
2.3.3		Approaches to Farm Productivity Measurement		53.
2.3.3.1 The Index Number Approach				52
2.3.3.2 The Parametric Approach				53
2.3.4 Partial Productivity Measures				56
2.3.6 The chow test				57
3.0 CHAPTER THREE:			METHODOLOGY
3.1	Study Area			60
3.2	Sampling Technique and Sample Size			65
3.3		Method of Data Collection		68
3.4		Analytical Techniques		68
3.4.1 Estimation of Technical Efficiency in Upland and Lowland Rice Production
		Systems		69
3.4.1.2 Determinants of Efficiency				74

3.4.2 Technical Efficiency Comparison			75
3.4.3 Total Factor Productivity (TFP) Estimation			78
3.4.4 Determinants of Agricultural Productivity			78
3.4.5 Farm budget Analysis			82
3.4.6 Likert Scale Analysis			83
4.0 CHAPTER FOUR:		RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1	Socio-economic Characteristics of Rice Farm Households		88
4.2	Production Resources of Rice Farmers		92
4.2.1 Land Resource			92
4.2.1.1 Mode of Land Acquisition.			92
4.2.1.2 Farm Size			93
4.2.2 Type of Non-family Labour Employed			94
4.3	Rice Seeds Variety Planted		94
4.4	Agro-Chemicals		95
4.4.1 Types of Agrochemicals Used			95
4.4.2 Sources of Agro-Chemicals			96
4.5	Amount of Loan		96
4.6	Tools and Equipments		97
4.6.1 Tools and Equipment Ownership			97
4.6.2 Sources of Tools and Equipments			98
4.7	Costs and Returns		98
4.8	Technical Efficiency Estimates		103
4.9.1 OLS Regression Estimates for Lowland TE Determinants			111
4.9.2 OLS Regression Estimates for the Upland Rice Farm TE Determinants			112
4.10 Chow Test Comparison between Lowland and Upland Rice Farms Technical
	Efficiency		113

4.11.1 Total Factor Productivity TFP Estimates				116
4.11.2 Determinants of Total Factor Productivity				117
4.12		Estimates of the Partial Factor Productivity		121
4.13		Constraints to Rice Production		123
5.0		CHAPTER FIVE:	SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1	Summary of Findings			124
5.2	Conclusion			126
5.3		Recommendations		127

5.4 Suggestions for Further study	130
REFERENCES	132
APPENDIX
Survey Questionnaire	145

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Comparison between Nigeria and the rest of West Africa	3
Table 2; Features of Rice Production in Nigeria	11
Table 3: Trend in Rice Imports (‘000 tonnes)	14
Table 4: International (indicative) Prices for Rice by Grade and Quality	18
Table 5: International Prices Relative to Domestic Rice Prices in Nigeria from 1999-2001	18
Table 6: Kwara State Rice Production Area and Output: 1991-2006	62
Table 7: Sample Design Outlay for the Study	67
Table 8: Socio-economic Characteristics of Rice Farmers	88
Table 9: Mode of Farmland Acquisition by Respondents	92
Table 10: Farm Size Distribution of Respondents	93
Table 11: Types of Non Farming Labour Used by Respondents	94
Table 12: Rice Variety Planted by Respondents	95
Table 13: Distribution of Rice Farmers based on the Type of Agro-Chemical Used on
their Rice Farms	96
Table 14: Sources of Agrochemicals Used by Respondents	97
Table 15: Tools and Equipments Ownership Distribution of Respondents	97
Table 16: Summary of Costs and Return Structure to Rice Production (N /Ha)	99
Table 17: “t” test Comparison of Gross Margin and Returns to Farmers’ Labour
and Management between Lowland and Upland rice farmers	102
Table 18: Maximum Likelihood Estimates (MLE) of Cobb-Douglas Based Stochastic
Production Frontier for Lowland Farms	103
Table 19: Elasticity of Production and Returns to Scale for Lowland Farms	105
Table 20: Frequency Distribution of Technical Efficiency Indices of lowland Rice Farms	106
Table 21: Maximum Likelihood Estimates (MLE) of Cobb-Douglas based Stochastic
Production Frontier for Upland Farms	107
Table 22: Elasticity of Production and Returns to Scale for Upland Farms	109

Table 23: Frequency Distribution of Technical Efficiency Indices of Upland Rice Farms	110
Table 24: OLS Regression Estimates for Determinants of Technical Efficiency of
Lowland Farms	112
Table 25: OLS Regression Estimates for Determinants of Technical Efficiency of
Upland Farms	112
Table 26: Result of Chow Test Comparison between determinants of TE across upland
and Lowland Rice Farms	114
Table 27: Result of Chow Test Comparison between Lowland and Upland Rice Farms
Technical Efficiency Regressions	115
Table 28: Frequency Distribution of Total Factor Productivity TFP Indices of Rice Farms 116
Table 29: OLS Regression estimates for Determinants of Total Factor Productivity TFP
of Lowland Farm	119
Table 30: OLS Regression estimates for Determinants of Total Factor Productivity TFP
of Upland Farms	120
Table 31: Partial Factor Productivity Estimates of Rice Farmers.	121
Table 35: Likert Scale Ranking of Constraints to Rice Production	123

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Production Frontiers and Technical Efficiency	27
Figure 2: Productivity, Technical Efficiency and Scale Economies	29
Figure 3: Productivity, Technically Efficient and Scale Economics	31
Figure 4: Stochastic Frontier Production Function	48
Figure 5: Map of Kwara State	64

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study

Rice is an annual crop and the most important staple food crop in the tropical countries. Commercially, the crop is the most important cereal after wheat. It is widely consumed and there is hardly any country in the world where it is not utilized in one form or the other. In Nigeria, rice is one of the few food items whose consumption has no cultural, religious, ethnic or geographical boundary. It is available in five-star hotels in the big cities and towns, as well as in the “most local” of the eating places in the remotest villages throughout the country. It is highly priced and widely accepted for festivity. In some rural areas, it is so adored that it is eaten only on Sundays and sometimes on market days (Omofonmwan and Kadiri,2007).

Rice is one of the major staples, whose production if encouraged can provide the population with the nationally required food security minimum of 2400 calories per person per day (FAO, 2000). The crop is commonly consumed even as a food crop for household food security. The average Nigerian consumes about 24.8 kg of rice annually, representing 9 per cent of the total annual calories intake and 23 per cent of total annual cereal consumption. Since the mid-1980s, rice consumption has increased at an average annual rate of 11 per cent of which only 3 per cent can be explained by population growth. The remainder represents a shift in diet towards rice at the expense of the coarse grains (millet and sorghum) and wheat. Nigeria’s demand for rice is

roughly four million tonnes annually. Rice imports account for close to a third of Nigeria’s total rice supplies (GAIN Report, 2005).

Due to its increasing contribution to per capita calorie consumption of Nigerians, the demand for rice has been increasing at a much faster rate than domestic production and more than in any other African countries since mid 1970s (FAO, 2001). For instance, during the 1960s, Nigeria had the lowest per capita annual consumption of rice in the West African sub-region with an annual average of 3kg. Since then, Nigeria’s per capita consumption levels have grown significantly at 7.3 per cent per annum. Consequently, per capita consumption during the 1980s increased to an annual average of 18kg and reached 33kg in 2000-2005 (See Table 1).

Table 1: Comparison between Nigeria and the Rest of West Africa

					Indicator
Yearly Averages				1961-1970	1971-1980	1981-1990	1991-2000	2001-2005

					Nigeria
Production		(t)		264,100	533,200	1,758,132	3,111,700	3,833,400
Import	(t)			1,187	205,907	390,489	471,254	17,084,000
Total Consumption			(t)	138,353	468,413	1,324,916	2,260,779	5,087,000
Per Capita		Consumption		2.76	7.08	15.83	22.38	33
(Kg per year)				West Africa without Nigeria
				West Africa without Nigeria
Production		(t)		1900746	2,735,414	4,285,379	6,810,660	2520,000
Import	(t)			375,637	851,070	2,468,998	3,729,891	n.a
Total Consumption			(t)	1,340,202	2,261,066	4,156,247	6,244,283	6550000
Per Capita		Consumption		13.07	16.99	24.01	28.49	n.a
Kg per year

n.a = data is not available

Computed from West African Rice Development Association (WARDA) Data (2005) and FAOSTAT, (2007)

The 2005 national rice production of 4.50 million tonnes of paddy cultivated on an area of 2 million hectares implied a yield estimate of 2.25 metric tonnes per hectare. The total milled production of rice is 2.7 million tonnes which indicates a milling recovery rate of 60 per cent while total national demand of milled rice is estimated at 4.920 million tonnes per annum. There is therefore a deficit of 0.42million tonnes of rice (USDA.2007). Estimates indicate that rice imports represent more than 25 per cent of the nation’s agricultural imports and over 40 per cent of domestic consumption. Between 1999 and 2001, the value of rice imports rose steadily from

US $259 million to US $655 million. By 2002, the value had risen to US $756million (CBN, 2006).

Over the years, the cultivation and production of this highly priced and very important food crop is dwindling, the price

Economic project topics and material

ECONOMICS OF CONTROL METHODS FOR WITCHWEED, STRIGA HERMONTHICA IN THE NORTHERN GUINEA SAVANNA OF NIGERIA

March 11, 2019 projecteasy Leave a comment

**ECONOMICS OF CONTROL METHODS FOR WITCHWEED, STRIGA HERMONTHICA IN THE NORTHERN GUINEA SAVANNA OF NIGERIA**

Click here to download our android mobile app to your phone for more materials and others

COMPLETE PROJECT MATERIAL COST 5000 NAIRA OR $10 ,

Note: our case study can be change to suit your desire location . we are here for your success.

ORDER NOW

MAKE YOUR PAYMENT INTO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING BANKS:

GTBANK
Account Name : Chi E-Concept Int’l
ACCOUNT NUMBER: 0115939447

First Bank:
Account Name: Chi E-Concept Int’l
Account Name: 3059320631

OR
PAY ONLINE USING YOUR ATM CARD. IT IS SECURED AND RELIABLE.

form>DELIVERY PERIOD FOR BANK PAYMENT IS LESS THAN 2 HOURS

How to transfer from your bank account to All Nigeriabanks

1. Access Bank:
—-*901#

2. EcoBank:
—-*326#

3. Fidelity Bank:
—-*770#

4. FCMB:
—-*389*214#

5. First Bank
—-*894#

6. GTB:
—-*737#

7. Heritage Bank:
—-*322*030#

8. Keystone Bank:
—-*322*082#

9. Sky Bank:
—-*389*076*1#

10. Stanbic IBTC:
—-*909#

11. Sterling Bank:
—-*822#

12. UBA:
—-*389*033*1#

13. Unity Bank:
—-*322*215#

14. Zenith Bank:
—-*966#

15. Diamond Bank
—-*710*555#

To know your BVN, dial
—-*565*0#.

E.g for First bank… *894 *Amount *Acct. No. #

Please dail d code from d number u used to register d account from the bank

CALL OKEKE CHIDI C ON : 08074466939,08063386834.

AFTER PAYMENT SEND YOUR PAYMENT DETAILS TO

WE HAVE SECURITY IN OUR BUSINESS.

MONEY BACK GUARANTEE

ABSTRACT

Witchweed, Striga hermonthica (Del.) Benth is a major threat to the realization of yield potentials of cereal crops especially maize. Yield losses due to Striga in the Northern Guinea savanna of Nigeria have also impacted negatively on the livelihood of over 60% of the farming population. Various control methods have been developed but the level of use or adoption by farmers has been constrained by inadequate information on the economic performance of these methods. This study was therefore designed to compare resource use levels, grain yield, effectiveness (Striga counts) and the economic performance of five Striga control methods. The methods were: the cultivation of a Striga tolerant maize variety (Acr 97 TZL COMP.1–W) followed by Striga tolerant maize variety in the second year (T₁), cultivation of an improved soyabean variety (TGX 1448-2E)

followed by Striga tolerant maize variety in the second year (T₂ ), cultivation of improved

soyabean variety followed by a local maize cultivar in year two (T₃), cultivation of a local maize

cultivar with a high level of Nitrogen fertilization for two consecutive years (T₄) and farmers

practice for Striga control (T₅). The study also determined the optimum Striga control plan and the

impact of simulating the scarcity of improved maize and soyabean seed varieties, farm land and NPK fertilizer on the optimum plan. Data were obtained from an on-farm trial conducted on 12 farmers’ fields with uniform infestations of Striga hermonthica at Kugu and Dambo villages in the Northern Guinea savanna of Nigeria, during the 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 cropping seasons. The tools of analyses employed for the study included Analysis of Variance for a randomized complete block design, Partial Budgeting, Marginal Rate of Return, Benefiit-Cost Ratio, Dominance

Analysis, Linear Programming (LP) Model and five variant models of the basic LP model. A Pair Wise Matrix Ranking Technique was also used to identify the constraints to the use of the Striga control methods.

The results obtained revealed that the seed use levels for plots T₁ and T₂ were significantly lower

(p<0.01) than that of the other treatments plots. Furthermore there was no significant difference (p<0.01) between the fertilizer use levels for treatments plots T₁, T₂, T₃ and T₅ with the exception

of T₄. Striga control was significantly higher (lower Striga counts) in T₂ and T₃ plots compared to

other treatments plots. This was followed by the Striga counts for T₁ plots. However, Striga

control was significantly lower (higher Striga counts) in T₅ plots compared to plots T₁ and T₄. The

maize grain yields were significantly higher (p<0.01) in treatments plots T₁ and T₂ compared to

other plots. Further analysis showed that T₁ had a higher cumulative gross margin per hectare

(N76, 884.61) followed by T₂ (N36, 287.00). The cost-benefit ratio was higher for T₁ (2.27)

followed by T₂ (1.58). The marginal rate of return was also higher for T₁ (N885.00) followed by T₂

(N8.90). These results and the dominance analysis clearly revealed the economic superiority of T₁

and T₂ over the other treatments.

The LP result suggests that cultivation of Striga tolerant maize variety followed by a Striga tolerant maize variety in the second year (T₁) was the optimum Striga control method. The result

of variant model ‘A’ which simulated the scarcity of Striga tolerant maize variety suggests that improved soyabean variety followed by a local maize cultivar (T₃) was the optimum Striga control

method. In the case of variant model ‘B’ which simulated the scarcity of improved soyabean

variety, treatment T₁ re-emerged as the optimal control method. The optimal control method for

variant model ‘C’ which simulated the combined scarcity of both Striga tolerant maize and improved soyabean varieties was T₅ (farmers practice). The result of variant model ‘D’ which

simulated land abandonment as a result of Striga infestation, revealed that treatment T₁ was the

optimum Striga control method but with a 43% reduction in the amount of capital invested in maize production. The result of Variant model ‘E’ which simulated the scarcity of NPK fertilizer revealed that none of the treatments was competitive enough to be an optimal control method for

Striga. High costs of fertilizer and scarcity of improved maize and soyabean varieties were identified as the major constraints to the use of the Striga control methods by farmers. In conclusion, Striga infested maize fields can be put to profitable use with the continuous cultivation of Striga tolerant maize variety or improved soyabean variety followed by a Striga tolerant maize variety in the second year. The study suggests that policies that will ensure timely and sufficient supply of Striga tolerant maize and soyabean varieties, fertilizers and agricultural credit to farmers should be addressed by government in order to achieve a long run Striga control in the study area and the country at large.

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study		1
1.2	Economic importance of Striga	2
1.3	Statement of the Problem	5
1.4	Objectives of the Study	8
1.5	Justification for the Study	8
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1	Description and Occurrence of Striga	10
2.1.1 Seed Production and Germination Requirements		10
	9

2.1.2 Seed Longetivity	10
2.1.3 Seed Dispersal	10
2.1.4 Striga Infestation	11

Empirical Studies on Striga Infestation, Control and Adoption of Control

	Measures	13
2.2.1 Effects of Nitrogenous Fertilizers on Striga Infestation and Control		14
2.2.2 Effects of Hand Pulling on Striga Infestation and Control		15
2.2.3 Effects of Chemicals on Striga Infestation and Control		17
2.2.4 Empirical Studies on Integrated Striga Control Methods		21
2.2.5 Empirical studies on the adoption of Striga control methods		22
2.3	Definition of ‘New’ Technology and their Evaluation at the Farm Level	23
2.4	Methods of Evaluation	26
2.4.1	Partial Budgets	27
2.4.2	Gross Margin Analysis and Budgeting	28
2.4.3	Dominance Analysis	28
2.4.4	Marginal Rate of Return	29
2.4.5	Cost- Benefit Ratio	30
2.4.6	Linear Programming	30
2.5	Aids to Weed Management Decisions	35
2.6	Empirical Studies on the Economics of Weed Control	37

2.7	Review of Studies on the Use of Linear Programming	39
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1	Description of the Study Area	42
3.2	Selection of Participating Farmers and Data Collection	43
3.3	Analytical Techniques	45
3.4	Description of Activities and Constraints in the LP Model	51
3.4.1	Activities in the LP Model	51
3.4.2	Restrictions in the LP Model	52
3.5	Limitations of the Study	55
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1	Input-Output Levels of Alternative Striga Control Methods	57
4.1.1	Input-Output Levels of Alternative Striga Control Methods (2005)	57
4.1.2	Striga Counts for Alternative Striga Control Methods (2005)	59
4.1.3	Input-Output Levels for Alternative Striga Control Methods (2006)	60
4.1.4	Striga Counts for Alternative Striga Control Methods (2006)	61
4.2	Costs and Returns of Alternative Striga Control Methods	62
4.2.1	Partial Budgeting, Cost-Benefit Ratio, Marginal and Dominance Analyses 62
4.3	Results of the Linear Programming Analysis	67
4.3.1	The Optimum Striga Control Method of the Basic Model	71
4.3.2	Variant Model A: Optimum Striga Control Method when the buying

activity for Improved Maize Seed is excluded from the Basic model	74
4.3.3 Variant Model B: Optimum Striga Control Method when Buying Activity
for TGX 1448 is Eliminated from the Basic Model	77
4.3.4 Variant Model C: Optimum Striga Control Method when the Buying
Activities for ACR 97 and TGX 1448 are Eliminated from the Basic
Model	79
4.3.5 Variant Model D: Optimum Solution when there is a reduction in the
average Farm Size of the Basic Model	82
4.3.6 Variant Model E: Optimum Farm Plan when the Buying Activity for NPK
Fertilizer is Eliminated from the Basic Model.	84
4.4 Constraints to the Use of Striga Control Methods	86

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary of Major Findings

5.1 Summary

71
5.2	Conclusions	90
5.3	Recommendations	91
5.4	Suggestions for Further Studies	92
REFERENCES		94
APPENDICES		108

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Lay Out of Farmer’s Fields	45
Table 2 Household Composition and Derived Labour	53

Table 3 Derivation of Household Consumption Unit			55
Table 4 Input-Output Levels and Striga Counts for Striga Control Methods
		kg/25m² (2005)	58
Table 5 Input-Output Levels and Striga Counts for Striga Control Methods
	kg/25m² (2006)		60
Table 6	Cummulative Partial Budgeting Analysis (2005/2006)		64
Table 7	Benefit-Cost Analysis for Striga Control Methods		65
Table 8	Marginal analysis for Striga Control Methods		65
Table 9	Dominance Analysis for Striga Control Methods		66
Table 10 The Basic Model of the Linear Programming Analysis			68
Table 11 Summary of the Optimal Farm Plan/ Existing Activity Level for the			72
		Basic Model
Table 12		Resource Use Levels in the Optimum Plan of the Basic Model	74
Table 13		Summary of the Optimal Farm Plan/ Existing activity Level for Variant
		Model A	75
Table 14Resource Use Levels in the Optimum Plan of Variant Model A			77
Table 15		Summary of the Optimal Farm Plan/ Existing activity Level for the
		Variant Model B	78
Table 16		Resource Use Levels in the Optimum Plan of Variant Model B	79

Table 17 Summary of the Optimal Farm Plan/ Existing activity Level for the
Variant Model C	80

Table 18	Resource use Levels in the Optimum Plan of Variant Model C	81
Table 19	Summary of the Optimal Farm Plan/ Existing Activity Level for the
	Variant Model D	83
Table 20	Resource Use Levels in the Optimum Plan of Variant Model D	84

Table 21 Summary of the Optimal Farm Plan/ Existing Activity Level for the Variant Model E 85

Table 22 Pair Wise Matrix Comparison of Constraints to the Use of Striga

Control Methods

	LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1	Life Cycle of Striga hermonthica	13
Figure 2	A Shift in the Supply Curve brought about by Adoption of a New
Technology		25

		LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1	Log Book	108
Appendix 2	Genstat Output	114

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Background to the Study

The control of weeds has always been one of the greatest resource-consuming operations in crop production. In addition to requiring effective control measures, weeds rob crop plants of nutrients and water, often serve as hosts to insects and other pests, and create problems in harvesting and processing. The use of herbicides has enabled farmers to control weeds with greater ease and to free crops from competition with weeds for nutrients, light and water at critical periods of their growth cycle (Abu-Hamdeh, 2003). There has however been a growing apprehension among ecologists/ environmentalists about the use of chemicals in general and herbicides, in particular, as it is feared that such use poses a serious

hazards to human health and that they pollute and poison soils and ground water (Stonehouse et al., 1996).

Striga is one of the very few flowering plants that are parasitic on other plants, dodder and mistletoe being other examples. Striga has been given the common name of “witchweed” because it attaches itself to the roots of the host plant thus depriving it (the host) of water and nutrients. Two species of Striga, Striga hermonthica and Striga asiatica attack sorghum, millet, and maize while another species, Striga gesneroides, is specific to cowpea (Ramaiah, et al., 1983). Depending upon the extent of infestation, reductions in grain yield of 30-60% are common. Practical control methods consist of a combination of crop rotation with non-hosts, weeding, and use of resistant varieties. It produces a large number of seeds which can remain dormant but viable for many years, therefore once Striga becomes established in a field, eradication is very difficult (Kim 1991; AATF 2006). De Groote et al. (2005) opined that Striga is a particular problem in areas with low moisture and where soil fertility is being eroded through increased population pressure, decreased use of fallow and minimal use of organic or inorganic fertilizer. Most importantly, it mostly affects the livelihoods of poor subsistence farmers in cereal-based agricultural systems in Africa (Weed Busters 2003).

1.2 Economic Importance of Striga

Striga species have taken root throughout the continents of Africa and Asia, imparting extensive damage to staple cereal crops. Mboob (1989) reported that an annual loss of between US$28 million and US$12.4 billion in crop revenue is caused by Striga in West Africa. Two thirds of the 73 million hectares of cropland planted to cereal crops in Africa is also said to be threatened by Striga species (Lagoke et al., 1991). A study by Sauerborn (1991) estimated that Striga, causes an annual grain yield loss of 4.1 million metric tonnes and infests 21 million hectares of cereal cropland in Africa. The greatest damage from Striga infestation occurs in the sahelian and savanna zones of Africa, where nearly 100 million inhabitants depend on maize, sorghum, millet, and cowpea as staple foods (Lagoke et al., 1991). Under artificial infestation at different levels, in Nigeria, yield loss for the tolerant varieties varied between 27% (at 2250 Striga seeds/hill) to 35% (at 4500 seeds/hill), for the susceptible varieties yield loss ranged from 43% (at 750 seeds/hill) to 74% (at 3750 seeds/hill) (Kim and Adetimirin 1997).

Studies in West Africa compared maize yields of susceptible and tolerant varieties in fields under natural Striga infestation with yields of the same varieties in non-infested fields (Kim et al., 2002). In the savannahs of Nigeria, yield reduction in the tolerant varieties of 31% was found, in the susceptible varieties 62% (1985 trials). Trials in Cameroon in the same year produced lower estimates: 21% for the tolerant

varieties, and 41% for the susceptible varieties. Estimated yield losses due to Striga from on-farm studies and conservative estimates are reported to be 40% of total maize production for all of Africa (US $7 billion), ranging from 20-95% in East Africa, 20-35% in Gambia, 10-90% with an average of 35% in Nigeria (US$5-6 million). Kroschel (1999) opined that Striga also causes indirect production losses when farmers change production strategies to respond to heavy infestations. For example, farms in Striga endemic areas have often been subjected to long fallow periods of up to 15 years. Some have been totally abandoned while in extreme cases human migrations out of heavily infested areas have occurred.

Similarly Siegfried (1994) reported that Striga infestation is also of concern to farmers because of its direct effects on the labour supply patterns of their households. When Striga attacks millet-cowpea, sorghum-cowpea or other crops for which women have direct responsibility for example, the Striga-specific weeding adds an additional burden to those of water collection, food preparation and other chores traditionally reserved for women in the West African sub region. Weed Busters (2003) also reported that Striga has impacted negatively on the livelihood of about 60% of the farming population as over 70% of the farmlands usually put to maize production in Northern Nigeria have also been abandoned or substituted with non host crops such as cowpea, soyabean and groundnut. The situation is more serious in the semi-arid regions where crops are already under moisture and nutrient

stress. Striga has also infested over 2.5 million hectares of land. This biological invasion is a leading cause of food insecurity and rural stagnation in Africa (AATF, 2006). Striga hermonthica the most important parasitic weed species on a world scale is thus an economically important constraint to cereal production in much of Africa (Mullen, 1999).

1.3 Statement of the Problem

Cereal crops, especially maize, are the most important food crops cultivated in Nigeria, with a high yield potential in the savannas (Lagoke et al., 1991) and is consumed by more than 70% of the population (IITA, 2004). Due to dwindling land resources, soil fertility problems and weed build up, the horizontal increase in crop output is becoming difficult day by day. In these circumstances, the only way to have more production is vertical increase i.e. in output per unit of land area (Khan et al., 2000). However, there are many constraints that i

Economic project topics and material

FARMERS’ PERCEPTION OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EXTENSION SERVICES IN SOUTH WESTERN NIGERIA

March 11, 2019 projecteasy Leave a comment

FARMERS’ PERCEPTION OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EXTENSION SERVICES IN SOUTH WESTERN NIGERIA

Click here to download our android mobile app to your phone for more materials and others

COMPLETE PROJECT MATERIAL COST 5000 NAIRA OR $10 ,

Note: our case study can be change to suit your desire location . we are here for your success.

ORDER NOW

MAKE YOUR PAYMENT INTO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING BANKS:

GTBANK
Account Name : Chi E-Concept Int’l
ACCOUNT NUMBER: 0115939447

First Bank:
Account Name: Chi E-Concept Int’l
Account Name: 3059320631

OR
PAY ONLINE USING YOUR ATM CARD. IT IS SECURED AND RELIABLE.

form>DELIVERY PERIOD FOR BANK PAYMENT IS LESS THAN 2 HOURS

How to transfer from your bank account to All Nigeriabanks

1. Access Bank:
—-*901#

2. EcoBank:
—-*326#

3. Fidelity Bank:
—-*770#

4. FCMB:
—-*389*214#

5. First Bank
—-*894#

6. GTB:
—-*737#

7. Heritage Bank:
—-*322*030#

8. Keystone Bank:
—-*322*082#

9. Sky Bank:
—-*389*076*1#

10. Stanbic IBTC:
—-*909#

11. Sterling Bank:
—-*822#

12. UBA:
—-*389*033*1#

13. Unity Bank:
—-*322*215#

14. Zenith Bank:
—-*966#

15. Diamond Bank
—-*710*555#

To know your BVN, dial
—-*565*0#.

E.g for First bank… *894 *Amount *Acct. No. #

Please dail d code from d number u used to register d account from the bank

CALL OKEKE CHIDI C ON : 08074466939,08063386834.

AFTER PAYMENT SEND YOUR PAYMENT DETAILS TO

WE HAVE SECURITY IN OUR BUSINESS.

MONEY BACK GUARANTEE

ABSTRACT

The delivery of Agricultural Extension Services vis-à-vis their effectiveness has been of great concern in Nigeria. This study was therefore designed to analyze and compare both the public and private extension organizations with a view to highlighting their performances. The study identified the relationships between personal and demographic characteristics of beneficiaries of both the public and selected private extension organizations on their perception of extension as well as benefits derived from these organizations.

A three stage sampling technique was used for the study. The first stage was the random selection of three states namely: Ogun, Osun and Oyo

States from the six states in South Western Nigeria. The second stage was a random sampling of three extension organizations comprising of two private extension outfits namely Justice Development and Peace Movement Rural

Development Programme (JDPM –RUDEP) and Farmers’ Development

Union (FADU) out of the four existing private extension outfits in the region and public extension outfit in each of the sampled state. The third stage was a random selection of 30 respondents in each of the three selected organizations in the three states. A total of 270 respondents were sampled for the study. Data collected were analyzed with Spearman’s rank correlation analysis to establish the relationships between farmers’ selected personal characteristics and their attitude as well as benefits derived from the organizations. Kruskal Wallis test of difference was used to examine the degree of difference in benefit and attitude of respondents to extension programmes of public and private extension organizations.

Results indicated that in public extension, age was related to benefit (r=0.254, p<0.05) and attitude (r=0.180, p<0.10) of the beneficiaries. Significant relationship (r=0.279, p<0.10) was indicated between attitude and benefits derived by respondents. In JDPM-RUDEP, result showed that age

(r=0.254, p<0.05) was significantly related to attitude of beneficiaries towards the extension programmes of the organization. Also, in FADU organization, age (r=0.254, P<0.05) was significantly related to attitude while there is significant relationship (r=0.290, p<0.10) between attitude and benefit in the organization. Results of Kruskal Wallis test of difference ( ² =0.709) indicates no significant different between farmers’ attitude towards the extension programmes of public and private extension organizations. However, there was a significant difference ( ²=12.074) in the benefit

derived by the respondents which include increased quantity of crops produced, farm income, skill acquisition and improved education in public and private extension organizations. Based on these results, it could be

inferred that age of respondents relate to benefits derived and attitude to extension programmes in public extension organization. In (JDPM-RUDEP), age and marital status were related to beneficiaries’ attitude to the extension programme. Strong relationship also exists between attitude and benefit in

FADU organization. Beneficiaries of private extension organizations (JDPM-RUDEP and FADU) achieved more levels of benefit from their extension programmes than in public extension organization.

The study had clearly shown that public extension services were deficient in their performances which have therefore led to private extension organizations’ involvement in extension services in order to disseminate their research findings and benefits to the rural people. Synthesis of public and private sectors efforts is therefore recommended in Nigeria. This is because government cannot completely hand-off her responsibilities in extension provision due to limited scope of coverage by private organizations especially in South Western Nigeria.

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1	Background to the Study	1-3
1.2	Statement of the Problem	3-7
1.3	Objectives of the Study	8-9
1.4	Hypotheses of the Study	9-10
1.5	Significance of the Study	10-11
1.6	Limitation of the Study	11
1.7	Definition of Terms	11-15
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0	Introduction	16
2.1	Concept of Agricultural Extension	16-22
2.2	Evolution of Extension Provision	22

2.3 History and Development of extension in Nigeria

22-35

The Unified Agricultural Extension services (UAES)

	in Nigeria	35-36
2.5	Public sector Extension Delivery	36
2.6.1	Criticism of the Public Extension	37-8
2.5.2	Private Organization in Extension Provision	38-42

Extension Roles Agricultural Development

	and Farm Business Management		42-53
2.7	The concept of participation		54-55
2.8	The Concept of Attitude		55-58
2.9	The concept of Achievement		58-61
2.10	Hybrid Sector – Alliance between Public and
	Private Sector		61-71
THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
2.11	Theory of Community Development		72
2.12	Theory of Farmers’ Participation		72-74
2.13	System Theory		75
2.14	Diffusion of Innovation		76-77
2.15	Synthesis of Theory		78
2.16	Conceptual Explanation of Extension Delivery		78-84
2.17	Conceptual	framework for the study	85
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1	Area of Study		86
	3.1.1	Geographical Location	86

	3.1.2	Climate and Vegetation	87
	3.1.3	People and Occupation	87
3.2	Population of the Study		88
3.3	Sampling Procedure		89
3.4	Development of Instrument		90
3.5	Validity and Reliability of Research Instrument		91
	3.5.1	Validity Test	91
	3.5.2	Reliability Test	92
3.6	Measurement of Variables		93
	3.6.1	Independent variables	93
	3.6.2	Dependent Variable	97
3.7	Data Analysis		98

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction

102

Personal and Demographic Characteristics of

Farmers		102
4.2.1	Age of Respondents	103
4.2.2	Gender of Respondents	104
4.2.3	Marital Status of Respondents	105
4.2.4	Religion of Respondents	106
4.2.5	Level of Education	107
4.2.6	Cosmo politeness of the respondents	108
4.2.7	Sources of Agricultural Information	109

	4.2.8	Farming Experience of the farmer		110
	4.2.9	Size of Farm Holdings		113
	4.2.10	Land Ownership Pattern		113
	4.2.11	Farming System		114
4.3	Beneficiaries Participation in Extension Works			115
4.4	Reason for choice of organization s’ programme			117
4.5	Frequency of Extension Agent/Farmers Contacts			119
4.6	Performance Rating of Extension Personnel			120
4.7	Beneficiaries Attitude to the Extension Strategies			122
4.8	Achievement of Beneficiaries			125
4.9	Testing of Hypotheses			130
	4.9.1	Hypothesis One		130
	4.9.2	Hypothesis Two		135
	4.9.3	Hypothesis Three		138
	4.9.4	Hypothesis Four		141
	4.9.5	Hypothesis Five		143
	4.9.6	Hypothesis Six		144
	4.9.7	Hypothesis Seven		145
CHAPTER FIVE:			SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1	Summary			148
5.2	Summary of Major Findings			151

Personal/Demographic Characteristics 151

5.2.2 Socio-economics characteristics 152

	5.2.3	Tested Hypotheses	155
5.3	Conclusions		156
5.4	Recommendations		158
5.5	Suggestions for further studies		159

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

Questionnaire

Emergence of Hybrid Sector

Authors Conceptual Framework

Organizations Frame of Operation

Correlation matrices

LIST OF TABLES

Pages

Table 1 Distribution J.D.P.M. – RUDEP

Beneficiaries

Table 2 FADU Beneficiaries

Table 3 Public Extension Benefit

Table 4 Total sample size of Beneficiaries

According to the Organizations

in the three states of study

Table 5 Distribution of beneficiaries

responded (Questionnaire returned)

Table 6 Personal Characteristics (age, marital

status, Religion and family size and

Gender)

102

Table 6b Distribution of respondents by level

of Education, and Cosmopoliteness

Table 7 Distribution of respondents by sources

of Agricultural Information, Years of

Family Experience and size of Farm

Holding

107

Table 8 Distribution of respondents by pattern of

land acquisition and types of farming

system

109

Table 9 Distribution of respondents’

participation Level

111

Table 10 Distribution of respondents by reason

for choice of extension organization

113

Table 11 Distribution of respondents by frequency

of extension agents/farmers contacts

116

Table 12 Performance rating of Extension agents

117

Table 13 Summary of Performance rating of

Extension Agents

117

Table 14 Distribution of Respondents Based on

attitude to extension programmes

119

Table 15 Distribution of respondents based

on achievement from organizations’

extension programme

122

Table 16 Distribution of respondents

based on benefit/achievement category

123

Table 17 Correlation matrix of relationship

between benefit and selected

personal characteristic in public extension

126

Table 18 Correlation matrix of relationship

between benefit and selected

personal characteristic in JDPM-RUDEP

127

Table 19 Correlation matrix of relationship

Between Personal characteristics and

benefit in FADU

128

Table 20 Correlation matrix of relationship

between attitude and selected

personal characteristics in Public

130

Table 21 Correlation matrix of relationship

between attitude and selected

personal characteristics in JDPM-RUDEP

131

Table 22 Correlation matrix of relationship

between attitude and selected

personal characteristics in FADU

133

Table 23 Krustal Wallis Ranking of beneficiaries

Attitude under public and private

extension organization

134

Table 24 Krustal Wallis Ranking of beneficiaries

benefit under public and private

extension organizations

136

Table 25 Summary of correlation between

attitude and benefit in public

and private organizations

138

Table 26 Summary of correlation between attitude

and patronage of extension activities

in public and private organizations

141

	LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURES		PAGE
1.	Farinde’s Nodal Extension Delivery Model	74
2.	Conseptual Framework for the study	80

Map showing study location in South Western

Nigeria

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

The role of the public in agricultural extension is currently undergoing a process of change, renewal, and experimentation. It poses not capable to attend the entire demand for extension services by the world’s farmers. In the past, public sector extension was severely attacked for not being relevant, insufficient impact, ineffective, and sometimes, not pursuing programmes that foster equity (Williams and Qamar, 2003). A critical turning point occurred that affected the way information transfers, considered the purview of public sector Agricultural Extension, was conceived and practiced. Not only did the Public Extension System came under public scrutiny and political attack, but was confronted by heightened competitive interests from the private sectors. Public extension is described as the extension activities provided by government under the authority of Agricultural Development Programme (ADP) in all states of Nigeria to cater for the needs of farmers. Agricultural Extension is expected to foster a sustainable and dynamic approach to agricultural development and which has remained of great

concern to the government and priority for discourse in policy arena (Agwu, et al, 2008).

It is the realization of this fact that has made successive Nigerian governments, to make efforts towards raising the productivity level of rural people. The country has therefore, over the years, tried many Agricultural Extension Systems which include Agricultural Development Project (ADP).

Agricultural Development Project was initiated in 1975 at the pilot project level, the success of which resulted into many designs which prominently include the statewide project. The statewide ADPs are extension of the enclave projects to other Local Government Areas (LGA) covered by the initial ADPs. Presently, all the States in the country are implementing the statewide ADP.

Agricultural Development Programme (ADP) focuses on rural integrated development strategy for agricultural and rural development. The establishment of these statewide ADPs raised the hope of farmers in government genuine commitment to the eliminations of the social political and economic problems that kept them in cycle of poverty (Akinbode, 1989). The ADPs across the country adopted the Training and Visit System (T&V) in order to boost production, solve the prevailing extension problem, foster self-reliance, and sustain the agricultural sector. It is observed

that Training and Visit System used by many extension organizations (including ADP) has many weaknesses.

These include excessive cost of input delivery, bureaucratic inefficiencies that have aided the poor formulation and implementation of extension programmes, and the failure to address the peculiar needs of farmers.

Other problems are poor staff training, inadequate coordination with University and Research Centre, inadequate content of extension message, inconsistent government regulations, inadequate farmers’ involvement, national policy and sustainability.

All these have caused much bureaucratic inefficiencies in public extension. It is against this background that the study attempts to compare the agricultural extension delivery and benefits accrued to the participants in the public and selected private agricultural extension outfits in Nigeria.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

There is growing concern for provision of effective and sustainable agricultural extension services to majority of the resource poor farmers in whose hands the bulk of agricultural production is left. Resource poor farmers belong to a complex, diverse and risk prone (CDR) agriculture, which supports several million of people in Africa (Rivera et al, 2003)

The importance of agricultural extension system therefore, remains that of a service to enhance the ability of farm families to respond to old problems and meet new opportunities. Agricultural extension system is characterized by shape and character of the institution to which they belong. Rivera and Wheeler (1989) posited that extension is a component of the system operating with other agro-support system in the context of agricultural and technology development. They classified determinants that influence agricultural extension system and characteristic. These are sector difference, institutional structure, socio economic and political goals, and extension approach.

Agricultural Development Programmes (ADP) in Nigeria, especially in South West Nigeria, is an agricultural extension outfit designed to achieve, among others

Establishment of well organized extension programme through Training and Visit (T & V) System.

Strengthening the co-ordination, supervision and implementation capacity of the ADP.

Unification, Expansion and Improvement of the quality of services.

Introduction of effective media support to assist extension agents through the use of diary, radio, television, leaflet and wall blackboard.

Intensification of work with women and

Intensification of essential farmer/extension/research linkages.

Agricultural extension programmes are therefore under pressure to change, because of growing fiscal pressures and questions about effectiveness and efficiency of their service (Rivera et al, 2000). To remedy this problem of bureaucratic management, the public sector has been shifting its services to private sector, sometimes totally as in Nether

Easy Project Materials Website, Free Research Project Topics And Materials

Category Archives: Economic project topics and material

THE IMPACT OF INDUSTRIAL OUTPUT ON THE ECONOMY OF NIGERIA (1980-2010)

THE IMPACT OF INDUSTRIAL OUTPUT ON THE ECONOMY OF NIGERIA (1980-2010)

MONEY BACK GUARANTEE

THE IMPACT OF PUBLIC SPENDING ON POVERTY REDUCTION IN NIGERIA [1980-2011]

THE IMPACT OF PUBLIC SPENDING ON POVERTY REDUCTION IN NIGERIA [1980-2011]

MONEY BACK GUARANTEE

Technical Efficiency and Factor Productivity in Upland and Lowland Rice Production Systems in Kwara State, Nigeria

Technical Efficiency and Factor Productivity in Upland and Lowland Rice Production Systems in Kwara State, Nigeria

MONEY BACK GUARANTEE

ECONOMICS OF CONTROL METHODS FOR WITCHWEED, STRIGA HERMONTHICA IN THE NORTHERN GUINEA SAVANNA OF NIGERIA

**ECONOMICS OF CONTROL METHODS FOR WITCHWEED, STRIGA HERMONTHICA IN THE NORTHERN GUINEA SAVANNA OF NIGERIA**

MONEY BACK GUARANTEE

FARMERS’ PERCEPTION OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EXTENSION SERVICES IN SOUTH WESTERN NIGERIA

FARMERS’ PERCEPTION OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EXTENSION SERVICES IN SOUTH WESTERN NIGERIA

MONEY BACK GUARANTEE

all project topics and materials ,ASSISTING STUDENTS IN ACHIEVING EXCELLENT PROJECT WORK