IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/jasjnl/v4y2012i4p233.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Socioeconomic Analysis of Rice Farmers and Effects of Group Formation on Rice Production in Ekiti and Ogun States of South-West Nigeria

Author

Listed:
  • C. A. Afolami
  • Abiodun Obayelu
  • M. U. Agbonlahor
  • O.A Lawal-Adebowale

Abstract

The study was conducted to determine the impact of farmers’ membership of cooperative societies on rice production. Against the backdrop that the promotion of membership of cooperative society among farmers would give them better access to agricultural inputs and consequently improve their income. Multistage sampling technique was employed to select a total of 310 rice farmers. Data collected were analyzed using descriptive statistics, budgetary technique and inferential statistics. The results revealed the mean age of the rice farmers as 48 years. Majority (92%) of the farmers produced upland rice, with a single harvest per year using mainly owned resources. Family labour was the most important source of farm labour in rice cultivation and about 60% of the members of the farm families participated in the family rice farm. The results further showed that 38.9% of rice farmers had primary education, 27.4% had secondary education, while 25.1% had no education. A total of 71% of the rice farmers were members of rice farmers’ cooperative societies, while 29% were not. The average farm size cultivated was 1.72ha and 1.64ha for cooperative and non-cooperative members respectively. The result also showed that there is no significant difference in the gross margin per hectare realized by farmers that were cooperative members (N90, 222) and the non cooperative members (N92, 986). The input-use structure showed that cooperative members were more intensive users of purchased inputs like fertilizer and pesticides valued at N124,555 per ha (about 41% of variable cost) compared to the non cooperative members valued at N57,647 per ha (about 22% of the variable cost). Almost all the groups were established to serve as receptacles for subsidized agricultural services and inputs rather than real producer organizations that seek to attract commercial providers of services and ensure efficient marketing of their farm outputs. Further revelation from the study is the fact that membership of cooperative society was found to be influenced by household size, access to extension services, number of rice farms owned, access of rice farmers to herbicide and quantity of rice output. The non-significant difference in the gross margin of cooperative and non-cooperative members despite the greater intensity of use of purchased inputs (fertilizer and pesticide) by cooperative members suggests the need for monitoring of rice farmers who are cooperators in order to ensure that the substantial inputs are rightly channeled.

Suggested Citation

  • C. A. Afolami & Abiodun Obayelu & M. U. Agbonlahor & O.A Lawal-Adebowale, 2012. "Socioeconomic Analysis of Rice Farmers and Effects of Group Formation on Rice Production in Ekiti and Ogun States of South-West Nigeria," Journal of Agricultural Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 4(4), pages 233-233, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:ibn:jasjnl:v:4:y:2012:i:4:p:233
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jas/article/download/10524/10193
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jas/article/view/10524
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Margarita Grazhdaninova & Zvi Lerman, 2005. "Allocative and Technical Efficiency of Corporate Farms in Russia," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 47(1), pages 200-213, March.
    2. M. Grazdaninova & Z. Lerman, 2005. "Estimating Allocative and Technical Efficiency of Corporate Farms," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, issue 6.
    3. M. Grazdaninova & Z. Lerman., 2005. "Estimating Allocative and Technical Efficiency of Corporate Farms," VOPROSY ECONOMIKI, N.P. Redaktsiya zhurnala "Voprosy Economiki", vol. 6.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kamel Helali & Maha Kalai, 2015. "Technical Efficiency Determinants Of The Tunisian Manufacturing Industry: Stochastic Production Frontiers Estimates On Panel Data," Journal of Economic Development, Chung-Ang Unviersity, Department of Economics, vol. 40(2), pages 105-130, June.
    2. Badunenko, Oleg & Fritsch, Michael & Stephan, Andreas, 2008. "Allocative efficiency measurement revisited--Do we really need input prices?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 1093-1109, September.
    3. Gardner, Bruce L. & Lerman, Zvi, 2006. "Agricultural Cooperative Enterprise in the Transition from Socialist Collective Farming," Journal of Rural Cooperation, Hebrew University, Center for Agricultural Economic Research, vol. 34(1), pages 1-18.
    4. Sarris, Alexander H. & Savastano, Sara & Christiaensen, Luc J.M., 2006. "The Role of Agriculture in Reducing Poverty in Tanzania: A Household Perspective from Rural Kilimanjaro and Ruvuma," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25573, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Hamsa, K.R. & Umesh, K.B., 2021. "Technical Efficiency in Finger Millet and Paddy Crop in Southern Karnataka: Application of Data Envelop Analysis and Stochastic Frontier Approach," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315862, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Zhu, Xueqin & Demeter, Robert Milan & Oude Lansink, Alfons G.J.M., 2008. "Competitiveness of dairy farms in three countries: the role of CAP subsidies," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44143, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:jasjnl:v:4:y:2012:i:4:p:233. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.