Comparative Analysis of Productivity of Cassava Based Crop Mixture under Modern and Indigenous Technologies in Anambra State, Nigeria

الموضوعات :

Nwaiwu I. U ¹ , Obasi, P. C ² , Orebiyi, J. S ³ , Ibekwe U. C ⁴ , Korie O. C ⁵ , Henri-Ukoha, A ⁶ , Amaechi E. C. C ⁷ , Osuagwu C. O ⁸

1 - Department of Agricultural Economics, Federal University of Technology, P.M.B. 1526, Owerri, Imo State, Nigeria.
2 - Department of Agricultural Economics, Federal University of Technology, P.M.B. 1526, Owerri, Imo State, Nigeria.
3 - Department of Agricultural Economics, Federal University of Technology, P.M.B. 1526, Owerri, Imo State, Nigeria
4 - Department of Agricultural Economics, Federal University of Technology, P.M.B. 1526, Owerri, Imo State, Nigeria
5 - Department of Agricultural Economics, Federal University of Technology, P.M.B. 1526, Owerri, Imo State, Nigeria
6 - Department of Agricultural Economics, Federal University of Technology, P.M.B. 1526, Owerri, Imo State, Nigeria
7 - Department of Agricultural Management and Extension, Imo State Polytechnic Umuagwo P.M.B, 1472, Owerri, Nigeria
8 - Department of Agricultural Management and Extension, Imo State Polytechnic Umuagwo P.M.B, 1472, Owerri, Nigeria

تاريخ الإرسال : 14 الجمعة , ربيع الأول, 1437 تاريخ التأكيد : 14 الجمعة , ربيع الأول, 1437 تاريخ الإصدار : 08 الخميس , ربيع الثاني, 1433

الکلمات المفتاحية: Productivity, Technology, modern, Dissemination, Indigenous,

ملخص المقالة :

This study compared and analyzed indigenous and modern agricultural technologies used in cassava production in Anambra State. Multi-stage sampling technique was used in sample selection. A total of 160 farmers were purposively selected from the four Agricultural zones that made up the state based on the use of modern and indigenous technologies. Data were collected using structured questionnaire. Descriptive statistics and total factor productivity were used in analyzing the data. The result of the analysis showed that both categories of farmers are within the working class age bracket of 40 and 60 years. The modern technology users were found to be more educated, have larger farm holding and higher average income per hectare than their counterparts. Farmers that used indigenous technologies have larger household size than those that used modern technologies. The total factor productivity (TFP) ratios computed for modern and indigenous technology users are 1.493 and 0.758 respectively. Sequel to the fact that the Z-calculated was higher than the Z-tabulated, the null hypothesis was rejected. This implies that there was a statistically significant difference between the productivity of farmers that used modern technologies and those that used indigenous technologies. The F-ratio also tested confirmed the higher variance in TFP for the two categories of farmers which shows a higher significant difference in the mean values. It was therefore concluded that the use of modern technologies in cassava production should be encouraged because they ensure higher agricultural productivity among farmers. [Nwaiwu et al. Comparative Analysis of Productivity of Cassava Based Crop Mixture under Modern and Indigenous Technologies in Anambra State, Nigeria. International Journal of Agricultural Science, Research and Technology, 2012; 2(1):17-21].

المصادر:

1. Ahmed, R. (1981). Agricultural price policy under complex socio-economic and natural   constraint: Research report No: 27, International food policy research institute, Washington D.C Pp12-26.

2. Beets, W. C. (1996). Raising and sustaining productivity of small holed farming systems in the tropical AgBe publishing, Alkamaar Holland, pp31-78.

3. Bennett, R. D. (1978). Orientation to Work and Job/Work Design", Management Decision, 16(6): 338-349.

4. FGN. (2006). Report of the final 2006 Census Results Published as Official Population Figures of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Official Gazzette. Vol.96, No.2.

5. FAO. (2003). Technology Assessment and Transfer for Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development the Asia-pacific Region, a research management prospective. FAP, Roma, Italy.

6. Idachaba, F. S. (1987). Sustainability in Agriculture Development." Pp. 18-53 in T.J. Davis and I.A. Schirmer (eds.) Sustainability Issues in Agricultural Development. Washington, DC: World Bank.

7. Imade, U. O. (1982). Demanded of technological impact on management in Nigeria. Proceedings of the first National conference of the colleges of science and technology, Port-Harcourt Nigeria 29-31, Aug Pp 21-46.

8. Kormawa, P. M., Ezedinma, C. I., Makinde, K., Adekunle, A and Chianu, J. (2002). Need assessment study for market driven agricultural technology transfer and commercialization in Nigeria. Rural sector enhancement program. International institute for tropical agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria. 

9. NEPAD. (2002). An international Assessment on the role of Agricultural science and Technology in Reducing hunger and improving rural livelihood. Issues paper on Assessment on Agricultural science and technology. New Partnership for African Development, Nigeria.

10. Nwaiwu I. U (2007). Comparative Analysis of the Use of External and Internal Farm Inputs for Sustainable Cassava Production in Imo State, Nigeria” Unpublished MSc Thesis submitted to the Post Graduate School, Federal University of Technology, Oweri, Nigeria.

11. Obasi, P. C. (2000). The Determinants of food consumption and Agricultural productivity in Imo state Nigeria. Unpublished. Ph.D Thesis submitted to the Post graduate school Federal University of Technology, Oweri, Nigeria.

12. Olayide, S. O. (1980). Characteristics and significance of small farmers in Nigeria, Problems and Prospects. In Integrated Rural Development CARD, University of Ibadan.

13. Ogungbile A. O and Olukosi, J.O. (1991). An Overview of the Problems of the Resource for farmers in Nigeria Agriculture. In Olukosi et al (eds) Appropriate Agricultural Technologies for Resource Poor Farmers. Natural Farm Systems Network 1991 Pp 21-34.

14. Sarma, J.S and Kunchai, D. (1991). Trends and Prospects for Cassava in Developing World. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington D.C, USA Pp 39-52.