Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and the Social Sciences (JOAFSS), Vol.7, No.

1, 2009

RESOURCE PRODUCTIVITY AND EFFICIENCY AMONG

CASSAVA FARMERS IN RIVERS STATE, NIGERIA

BY

1
Anyanwu, S. O and 2Iyagba, A.G
1
Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension,
Rivers State University of Education, Port Harcourt, Nigeria.
2
Department of Crop Production, Rivers State University of Education, Port Harcourt, Nigeria.

E-mail for correspondence:[email protected]

ABSTRACT
In this study, resource productivity and efficiency of cassava farmers in Rivers State were determined.
Cross- sectional data generated from 200 cassava farmers randomly selected from ten out of the fifteen
upland Local Government Areas were used. Multiple regression analysis was used in analyzing the data.
Results of data analysis showed that farmland and capital inputs were more productive. The results further
showed that the farmers allocatively inefficient in the use resource inputs. It is therefore recommended that
policies and programmes geared towards making more lands available be put in place. Credit facilities
should also be extended to these cassava farmers to enable them purchase improved planting materials and
hire more farm hands.

Key words:Resource efficiency,productivity,cassava,farmers

INTRODUCTION
Based on climatic and agro-ecological conditions, Nigeria has potentials to
produce a wide variety of crops. The Northern part can adequately guarantee the
production of cereals such as sorghum, maize, millet, groundnut, cowpea and other crops
like cotton; the middle belt and the Southern part have capacity to produce root tubers
such as cassava, yams, cocoyam and other crops like maize and plantain. Cassava is an
important source of dietary carbohydrates, and provides food for over 60 million people
in Nigeria (Abdulahi, 2003).
A striking feature of many poor economies is that they devote large shares of their
resources to agricultural production, even though productivity levels in agriculture are
extremely low and technological innovations in agriculture have led to increased
productivity (Wilfrd, 2004). But productivity growth appears to be the main determinant
of income growth and poverty reduction in Rivers State (Anyanwu, 2009b). Perhaps that
explains why Fulginiti et al., (2003) asserted that productivity performance in the
agricultural sector is critical to improvement in overall economic wellbeing in Sub-
Saharan Africa.
Cassava contributed 14% of average daily dietary energy intake per person in
Nigeria, the fourth largest contributor after sorghum 22%, millet 19% and yam 15%
(FAO 1970). Ugwu et al (1990) reported that cassava supplies about 70% of the daily
caloric intake of over 50 million Nigerians in growing areas. Cassava’s adaptability to
reactively marginal soils, and erratic rainfall, its high productivity per unit of land and
labour, the certainty of obtaining some yield even under the most adverse conditions and
the possibility of maintaining continuity of supply throughout the year (Nweke 1994),
make this root crop a basic component of the farming system in many areas of Nigeria.

1
 Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and the Social Sciences (JOAFSS), Vol.7, No.1, 2009

Famine rarely occurs in areas where cassava is widely grown, since it provides a stable
food base to the food production system. This indicates that cassava has the potential for
eliminating food crisis and famine. It has been reported by FAO that Nigeria is currently
the world largest producer of cassava with an annual production of over 34 million tones
of tubers.
Over the years, the household consumption of cassava has been on the increase
due to the fact that cassava can be transformed into a number of products both for
domestic and industrial uses. Cassava can be used for the production of flour for
confectioneries, formulation of animal feeds, and the production of industrial starch,
industrial alcohol, adhesives and gum, etc. The increase in cassava production is matched
with increase in demand. As population grows, the demand for cassava as a staple food in
Nigeria grows. There is a positive correlation between rapid population growth and
market demand for cassava (Abdulahi, 2003). This means that the distribution of cassava
could be primarily a function of population density than of agro-ecological considerations.
It has been reported that high population density zone (95%) recorded increasing cassava
production relative to low population density zone (65%) (Abdulahi, 2003). But Nweke
et al., (1999) observed that cassava is more widely grown in the humid zone where it
occupies more than 60% of staple crop field area than in the sub-humid zone where it
occupies less than 20%. In the non humid zone, according to him, cassava occupies just
about 5%.
Rivers State falls under the humid agro-ecological zone in Nigeria. About 15 out
of the 23 local government areas in the State are major producers of Cassava. The soil
types in these areas favour the growth and development of cassava crop. Tamuno (2008)
observed that the loamy and alluvial soils which are very fertile accounted for why Rivers
State, is one of the major producers of root crops like yam, cocoyam, and cassava.
Regrettably, Nweke (1996), lamented that information about cassava growing conditions,
production systems and marketing are scanty.
In the Upland Local Government Areas, virtually every household produces cassava in
commercial quantity. Traditionally, cassava roots are processed into many different
products by a variety of methods, depending on locally available processing resources,
local customs, and preferences. The processing of cassava roots serves to improve the
quality of the product which in turn leads to an expanded market by attracting higher
income urban consumers. While the market for certain cassava products is largely limited
to low income groups, other forms of cassava have a significant market among medium
to high income groups. Available processing resources or market demand for cassava
products determines, to a large extent the type of cassava products processed in a village.
Traditional cassava processing techniques are flexible in terms of resource requirements.
While the procedures for making cassava pastes are mostly water-use intensive, the
techniques used for making cassava granules (garri) are mainly fuel-wood-use intensive.
Distribution of the main cassava products processed has definite climatic trends
(Anyanwu, 2009c); processors in each climate zone concentrate on making products
which reflect the resource endowments of that zone. The relative frequency of pastes as
principal cassava products made with water-use intensive techniques declines from the
humid zone to the non humid zone, where rainfall is limited. On the other hand the
relative frequency of chips/flour, which requires ample sunshine for drying, decreases
from the non humid zone where sunshine is more abundant, to the humid zone where

2
 Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and the Social Sciences (JOAFSS), Vol.7, No.1, 2009

sunshine is the most limiting factor [Nweke 1992]. In Rivers State, majority of the
smallholder farmers processed their cassava tubers into garri, fermented cassava or
tapioca. Cassava processing into garri appears to be more predominant followed by
fermented cassava (Akpu). The marketing of cassava and cassava products both in the
rural and urban economy of Rivers State does not constitute a problem to cassava
producers. This stems from the fact that buyers are readily available whether these
cassava products are displayed along the major roads (e.g. Omerelu to Elele road, Elele
Alimini to Rumuji road), or in the rural markets where buyers from the major cities flock
to make their purchases.
According to Berry (1993), cassava is an important source of cash income for
poor farmers as well as prosperous ones. Both rich and poor farmers often sell a higher
proportion of cassava and derive more cash income from cassava than from any other
crop or income activity. Even very poor farmers often sell a significant proportion of
their cassava crop. Sequel to the reduction of cassava production in the country, the
Federal Government of Nigeria and International Fund for Agricultural Development
(IFAD) jointly initiated the cassava multiplication programme (CMP) with the aim of
promoting cassava utilization as a commodity-based approach against food insecurity
(Adeniji and Jimoh, 2000). The IFAD assisted programme has the goal to increase
productivity of cassava through increased use of improved varieties, disease and pest
control, coupled with better agronomic practices and introduction of improved processing
methods. IFAD approved a loan of SDR 12.05m (approximately US$16.1) for cassava
multiplication project in 1986 and became effective in June 1987. The beneficiary states
are Akwa-Ibom, Anambra, Benue, former Bendel, Cross River, Imo, Kwara, Lagos,
Ogun, Ondo, Oyo, Plateau and Rivers States (BNARDA, 1990).
Nweke (1996) argued that the realization of maximum benefits from cassava
production in Nigeria is dependent on the availability of more detailed information about
cassava growing conditions, production systems and marketing. According to him, there
is very little accurate data on any of these issues, and even the production statistics that
are available are at best educated guesses. Previous studies (Mubana, 1978; Ojimba, 1999,
2006; Onuoha, 2004; Anyanwu, 2006, 2009a, b, c) conducted among smallholder farmers
in Rivers State were inadvertently skewed away from examination of resource
productivity and efficiency among cassava farmers in the smallholder farming systems of
Rivers State. The gap in knowledge is what the current study seeks to fill.

METHODOLOGY
Multistage sampling technique was used in the data collection. There are 23 Local
Government Areas (LGAs) in Rivers State. Fifteen of these LGAs were purposively
selected for the study because they constitute the upland ( Abua/Odual, Ahoada East,
Ahoada west, Emohua, Eleme, Etche, Omuma, Gokana, Ikwerre, Khana, Obio/Akpor,
Ogba/Egbema,/Ndoni, Oyigbo, Port Harcourt and Tai)) while 8 are Riverine. The
predominance of land or rivers/creeks guided this division (see NDDC, 2006). From
these fifteen upland LGAs, ten were randomly selected. The LGAs selected included
Emohua, Etche, Ahoada East, Ahoada West, Ikwerre, Obio/Akpor, Eleme, Oyigbo,
Omuma, and Gokana. From the list of communities that make up these 10 LGAs, one
community was randomly selected. This gave a total of ten communities. From the list of
smallholder farmers collected through the assistance of the extension agent, 20 cassava

3
 Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and the Social Sciences (JOAFSS), Vol.7, No.1, 2009

farmers were randomly selected. This gave a total sample size of 200 cassava farmers.
Using well structured questionnaires and interview schedule, relevant data were sought
from the respondents. The interview schedule enabled the researchers to extract relevant
data from all the respondents and ensued that none of the questionnaires was lost.

Data Analysis
Productivity of Resources
In order to compare input productivities across goods or to aggregate over goods,
productivities are commonly valued at the output price. For example the marginal
product of land, multiplied by the price of the good produced is the “marginal value
product of land “or land MVP. Calculations of marginal productivities require estimation
of production functions. The production functions shows output as a function of variable
inputs (labour, manure, fertilizer) and quasi fixed and fixed inputs (tools, equipment, land)
and conditioning factors such as rainfall and soil quality. Input use and agricultural
productivity are two mutually influencing factors determining agricultural output.
Increase in total factor productivity of the agricultural production show to what extent
agriculture is contributing to the over all economic growth of a specific country (Wilfred,
2004).
The marginal value product (MVP) of each resource was computed in order to determine
the productivity of resources among cassava farmers in Rivers State. The MVP is the
marginal physical product (MPP) multiplied by the product price. The MPP of a variable
factor input is the partial derivative of the production function with respect to that factor.
It may also be defined as the slope of the total product curve. The MPP may be positive,
zero, or negative. The implicit form of the production function estimated is:
Q = f(X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, U) …………………………….eqn (1)
Where
Q = Value of output in (Naira)
X1 = Farm size (hectare)
X2 = Labour input (man days)
X3 = Value of planting materials (Naira)
X4 = Capital input (depreciation & interest charges) (Naira)
X5 = Expenditure on fertilizer (Naira)
U = Error term.
Four functional forms of the model were fitted to the data, and based on the sign and size
of the coefficient of the estimated parameters, the magnitude of the coefficient of
multiple determination (R2), the double log model was chosen as the lead equation.
Allocative Efficiency
Allocative efficiency denotes the ability of farm firms to equate the marginal value
product of a factor to its unit price. Mathematically, a farm is allocatively efficient if
MVPxi = Pxi or MVPxi / Pxi = 1 ……………………eqn. (2)
Where
MVPxi (i= 1, 2 …6) = marginal value product of the ith factor
Pxi (i= 1, 2 …6) = the unit price or marginal factor cost (MFC) of the ith factor.
In order to examine the allocative efficiency of cassava farmers, the production function
estimated in equation (1) was used.

4
 Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and the Social Sciences (JOAFSS), Vol.7, No.1, 2009

To determine the allocative efficiency of the cassava farmers, an index of allocative

efficiency, W, is derived;
MVPxi /Pxi = Pyfi /Pxi = Wi …………………………eqn. (3)
Where
MVPxi (i= 1, 2 …6) = the marginal value product of the ith input
Wi = allocative efficiency index
Py = unit output price
Fi = dy / dx = marginal physical product of the ith input
i= the particular input, (other terms are as previously defined).
In this study the dependent variable; (the gross farm output) was measured in naira terms.
Also the variable factors of production; except land and labour were measured in naira
terms. Thus the marginal product (MP) is in monetary terms and the output price (Py)
becomes irrelevant (Bagi, 1981; Onyenweaku et-al 1996, 1991, Anyanwu, 1993, 2003,
2005; Ohajianya et-al 2004; Nwaru, 2003). Accordingly the marginal value products will
be directly equal to the allocative efficiency indices for all factors except land, and labour.
The price of capital input will be taken as one naira plus the relevant interest charge
(Adesimi, 1982; Anyanwu, 1993; 2003, 2005).This is because the marginal value
products are already deflated by the unit factor prices, since the values of the factors are
the products of the quantity employed and the unit factor prices. Thus for X3, X4 and X5
that are measured in naira terms
Wij = Pyfi = MVPxi …………………………………eqn. (4)
Variables remain as previously defined.
Optimal allocative efficiency for a particular farm is confirmed with respect to a given
input if Wi = 1.
If Wi > 1, the resource is under utilized. Efficiency could therefore be increased by an
increased use of that particular input. However if Wij < 1, the resource is over utilized
hence a reduced use of that input is desirable to increase efficiency. To show the extent to
which a particular factor of production should be increased or withdrawn from current
use to achieve the objective of profit maximization, the formular below was used;
Kij = (1- Wi) 100 ……………………………………..eqn. (5)
Where Ki is the required percentage change in allocative efficiency and Wi is as defined
before.
If equation (5) is evaluated, a negative percentage implies that an increased employment
of the factor is required. A positive percentage implies that a withdrawal of some of the
factors from current use is required. If Ki equals zero, then optimal allocative efficiency
has been achieved.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In the double log model, farm size, is statistically significant at 5 percent level of
probability and also it is positively related to the gross income of cassava farmers. This
implies that increase in farm size will lead to increase in the gross output of cassava in
Rivers State. This result agrees with Anyanwu,(2009b), in Rivers State, and Obasi (2005)
in Imo State, Reardon et al., (1997) in Burkina Faso and Senegal. The result also showed
that labour input, and capital input are significant at 5% and possess the expected positive
signs. The implication is that, increase in labour and capital inputs will lead to increase in
cassava output in Rivers State, all things being equal. Farm level credit, when extended

5
 Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and the Social Sciences (JOAFSS), Vol.7, No.1, 2009

properly, according to Desai and Mellor (1993), not only for crop farming but also for
dairying and other directly related farm level economic activities, encourage diversified
agriculture which stabilizes and perhaps increases resource productivity, agricultural
production, value added and net incomes of farmers generally. Nwagbo (1989), studied
the impact of institutional credit on agriculture in Funtua , Katsina State, and argued that
credit, if well applied, should increase size of farm operations, productivity and therefore
income, facilitate adoption of innovations in farming, encourage capital formation,
improve marketing efficiency and smoothen farmers’ consumption. Expenditure on
planting materials on the other hand is statistically significant at 10% and possesses the
expected positive sign. This means that increase on expenditure on planting materials will
lead to increase in cassava output in Rivers State. This is to be expected as improved and
high yielding varieties of planting materials are necessarily expensive. Reardon et-al
(1997) argued that the productivity – enhancing potential of planting materials is
dependent not only on the development of appropriate varieties but also on programs that
multiply and market the planting materials in such a manner that ensures quality,
availability and affordability. This result is in agreement with Obasi (2005) that farm size,
labour, and planting materials are among the significant determinants of agricultural
productivity in Imo state. Expenditure on fertilizer however, is statistically non
significant at the chosen level of probability and also inversely related to the gross
income of cassava farmers. For fertilizer to respond positively, the appropriate quantity
must be applied. More so, the realignment of the naira exchange rate which resulted in
the depreciation of the naira has increased the prices of imported agricultural inputs such
as fertilizer (CBN, 2003), thus making this productivity enhancing input expensive and
beyond the reach of the average smallholder farmer.

Table 1: Estimated Production function of Cassava Farmers in Rivers State.

Variables Linear Semi log Double log Exponential
Constant 62442.19 -380042 3.898 4.967
(5.062)** (-3.746)** (21.12)** (196.65)**
Farm size 26885.64 47538.89 0.103 0.0499
(Ha) (6.79)** (6.49)** (7.70)** (6.16)**
Labour input 1725.61 106726.8 0.232 0.00365
(mandays) (6.60)** (5.33)** (6.38)** (6.82)**
Planting 1.54 11333.75 0.0651 0.0000039
materials (N) (5.46)** (0.595) (1.88)* (6.69)**
Capital input 4.95 128562.1 0.25 0.000010
(3.30)** (6.41)** (6.81)** (3.36)**
Fertilizer input -0.078 -12241.2 -0.018 -0.00000007
(N) (-1.33) (-1.91)** (-1.53) (-0.61)
2
R 0.710 0.735 0.801 0.724
F-ratio 94.833 107.478 156.572 102.017
* = Significant at 10%
** = Significant at 5%
Source: Survey data, 2008.

Productivity of Resources

6
 Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and the Social Sciences (JOAFSS), Vol.7, No.1, 2009

Table 2 contains the geometric means of inputs and outputs of cassava farmers in Rivers
State. This means are taken together with the coefficients from the lead equation in Table
1 for the computation of marginal value products (MVP). The MVP of cassava farmers in
Rivers State given the lead equation as double log is
MVPxi = bi (Ȳ/ X) ……………………………… eqn. (3)
Where bi = regression coefficients
Ȳ = geometric mean of output
Xi = geometric mean of the particular input
Table 2 shows that if farm size is increased by one hectare, gross farm income of cassava
farmers in Rivers State will increase by N15107.3 Similarly an increase of one man day
of labour will increase the gross farm income of cassava farmers by N0.153. Furthermore
an increase of one Naira expenditure on planting materials among cassava farmers will
increase the gross income by N0.437. The results also indicated that, an increase in
capital input by one naira will increase the gross income of cassava farmers by N13.84,
while an increase in expenditure on fertilizer use will reduce the gross income of cassava
farmers by N0.17, though fertilizer use was statistically non significant. From the
foregoing, it appears that resources of land and capital were more productive or more
responsive while labour input was the least productive.
Table 2 shows that resources of farm land, and capital should be increased by 537% and
1284% respectively while labour input, expenditure on planting materials and fertilizer
should be reduced by 99.99%, 563% and 98.29% respectively, if profit maximization if
the over riding objective.

Table 2: Allocative Efficiency Indices for Farm Credit and Non Farm Credit Users in
Rivers State
Inputs Production Elasticities
Farm Land 0.103
Labour 0.232
Planting materials 0.0651
Capital input 0.25
Expenditure on fertilizer -0.018
Returns to scale 0.632
Geometric mean of inputs and outputs
Farmland (ha) 1.7402
Labour (man days) 38.6380
Expenditure on planting materials 37990
Capital input (Depreciation &
Interest charges 4611
Expenditure on fertilizer 26826
Farm output 255240
Marginal Value Product

Farm land 15107.30

Labour input 0.153
Expenditure on planting materials 0.437
Capital input 13.84

7
 Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and the Social Sciences (JOAFSS), Vol.7, No.1, 2009

Expenditure on fertilizer -0.171

Marginal Factor Cost
Farm land 2370
Labour 1460.5
Expenditure on planting materials (N) 1
Interest Rate 1.19
Allocative Efficiency Indices
Farm land 6.37
Labour 0.000105
Expenditure on planting materials 0.437
Capital input 13.84
Expenditure on fertilizer -.0171
Percentage Changes in Allocative Efficiency
Farm land -537
Labour input 99.99
Expenditure on planting materials 563
Capital input -1284
Expenditure on fertilizer 0.9829 .
Source: Survey data, 2008.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Resource productivity and efficiency of cassava farmers in Rivers State were examined.
Data used were generated from 200 smallholder cassava farmers randomly selected from
ten communities in ten Local Government Areas of Rivers State. Multiple regression
analysis was used in analyzing the data. Results of data analysis showed that farm land,
labour input and expenditure on planting materials and capital inputs were the statistically
significant determinants of the gross income of cassava farmers in Rivers State. On the
other hand, fertilizer use was statistically non significant at 5 or 10 percent level of
probability. The results further showed that resources of land and capital inputs were
more productive than labour and expenditure on planting materials. The cassava farmers
were allocatively inefficient in the use resource inputs of land, labour, planting materials,
capital inputs, and inorganic fertilizer. While they underutilized land and capital inputs,
they over utilized labour and planting materials in the production process.
Furthermore, results of data analysis showed that the farmers need to increase the
use of farmland and capital inputs by as much as 537% and 1284% respectively, while
reducing the use of labour inputs and expenditure on planting materials by 99.99% and
563% respectively, in order to achieve maximum allocative efficiency. The result of
returns to scale showed that the cassava farmers were operating in the region of
decreasing returns to scale. Hence a reduction in the current level of resource
employment is a prerequisite for profit maximization. Appropriate policies should be put
in place by the government to make more lands available to the smallholder farmers to
increase their productivity. This could be achieved through the amendment of the existing
land laws or enactment of new laws. To enable the farmers have easy access to hired
labour and improved planting materials, credit facilities should be made available to them.

8
 Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and the Social Sciences (JOAFSS), Vol.7, No.1, 2009

REFERENCES
Abdulahi. A. (2003) “Employment Creation and Opportunities in the Agro-Allied Sub-
Sector: The Case of Cassava Production” Bullion Publication of the Central Bank
of Nigeria, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 1-10.
Adeniji, A. A. (2000). National Seed Series, Cassava Multiplication Project, Paper
presented on Root and Tuber Development in Nigeria.
Adesimi, A. A. (1982) “Resource Use productivity and Efficiency in Maize Production
in the Farm Settlement of Western Nigeria” Ife Journal of Agric. Vol. 4, No. 1&2
Anyanwu, S. O. (2009a) “Gender and Resource Productivity among Small Scale Food
Crop Farmers in Rivers State, Nlgeria” Global Approaches to Extension Practice.
Vol 5, No.1, pp. 107-114
Anyanwu, S. O. (2009b) “Determinants of Aggregate Agricultural Productivity
among Smallholder Farmers in Rivers State, Nigeria” Journal of Vocational
Education and Technology. In Press.
Anyanwu, S. O. (2009c) “Cassava Production and Commercialization Humid and Sub-
Humid Ecological Zones of Nigeria. Interdisciplinary journal of Research
Initiators, In Press.
Anyanwu, S. O. (2006) “A Comparative Cost Analysis of Yam and CassavaProduction
in Emohua L.G.A.: A Case Study of Ndele Community” Interdisciplinary journal
of Research Initiators, Vol 2, No. 2, pp. 15-26.
Anyanwu, S. O. (1993) Resource Productivity and Efficiency in Compound and Non
Compound Farms in Imo State. Unpublished M.Sc Thesis. Federal University of
Technology Owerri, Imo State.
Anyanwu, S.O (2003) Window into the Pattern of Resource Allocation in the Compound
and Non Compound Farms in Imo State. Journal of Vocational Education and
Technology. Vol.1. No. 1 pp57-66.
Anyanwu, S.O. (2005) Relative Profitability of Compound and Non Compound Farms in
Imo State , Nigeria. Journal of Agriculture and Social Research. Vol.5, No.1 pp
101 – 106
Baggi, F.S. (1981) “Economics of Irrigation in Crop Production in Haryan” Indian
Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 81(6) pp15 -26.
Benue State Agricultural and Rural Development Authority (1990) Baseline Survey
of Root and Tuber Crops Production, Processing and Storage of by-Products in
Benue State, Makurdi.
Berry, S.S [1993] ‘Socio- economic Aspects of Cassava Cultivation and use in Africa:
Implications for The Development of Appropriate Technology. COSCA
Working Paper No. 8. Collaborative Study of Cassava in Africa. IITA Ibadan
Central Bank of Nigeria (2003) Contemporary Economic Policy Issues in Nigeria. In
Nnanna, O.J., Alade, S.O and Odoko, F. O. (eds). Kas Arts Services, Nigeria.
Desai, B. M. and J. W. Mellor (1993) “Institutional Finance for Agricultural
Development: An Analytical Survey of Critical Issues (Food Policy Review 1)
Washington International Food Policy Research Institute.
F.A.0. [ Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations ]. (1970). “Food
Balance Sheet 1964-66 averages. F.A.O Rome Italy.

9
 Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and the Social Sciences (JOAFSS), Vol.7, No.1, 2009

Fulginiti, L. E.; R.K. Perrin; B. Yu (2003) “Institutions and Agricultural Africa” Paper
Presented at the 25th Annual Conference of Association of Agricultural
Economists, August 16th – 23rd , 2003, Durban, South Africa.
Mubana, E. C. (1978) An Economic Analysis of the Impact of Crude Petroleum
Exploration and Production on Traditional Agriculture in Rivers State of Nigeria.
An Unpublished M. Phil. Dissertation, Department of Agricultural Economics,
University of Ibadan, Ibadan.
Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) (2006) Niger Delta Regional
Development Master Plan, NDDC, 167 Aba Rd, PH, Nigeria. pp 97).
Nwagbo, E. C. (1989) “Impact of institutional credit on agriculture in Funtua Local
Government Area of Katsina State, Nigeria” Samaru Journal of Agricultural
Research, Vol6 pp. 75-86.
Nwaru, J.C. (2003) “Gender and Relative Production Efficiency in Food Crop Farming
in Abia State of Nigeria” The Nigerian Agricultural Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 1-
10.
Nweke,F.I., E.C. Okorji, J.E. Njoku and D.J. King (1992) “ Elasticities of Demand
for Major Food Items in a Root and tuber- based food system. RCMD.
Monograph series No.11. Resource and Crop Management Division, IITA, Ibadan
Nigeria
Nweke, F.I., (1994) “Processing Potentials for Cassava Production growth in Africa.
COSCA Working paper No. 11. Collaborative Study of Cassava in Africa, IITA,
Ibadan.
Nweke, F.I.(1996) “Cassava: A Cash Crop in Africa” COSCA Working paper No. 14.
Collaborative Study of Cassava in Africa, IITA, Ibadan.
Nweke, F. I., B. O. Ugwu, A.G.O. Dixon ,C.L.A. Asadu, and O. Ojobo (1999)”
Cassava Production in Nigeria; A Function of Farmer Access to Markets and to
Improved Production and Processing Technologies” COSCA Working
paper No. 20. Collaborative Study of Cassava in Africa, IITA, Ibadan.
Obasi, P.C (2005) “Application of Trans-log Function to Productivity Estimation in Imo
State.” Nigerian Int. Journal of Agric. And Rural Development. SAAT, FUTO
Owerri, Vol.6, pp26-33.
Ohajianya, D.O. and D.O.Onu (2004) “Economics of Fertilizer Use in Vegetable
Production in Nigeria” Trop. Agric. (Trinidad) Vol. 81. No. 4, pp 253-258.
Ojimba, T.P. (2006) “Crop Farmers’ Socio – demographic Characteristics in crude Oil
Polluted and Non Polluted Farmlands in Rivers State, Nigeria” Journ. Of Voc.
Educat. And Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp87- 97.
Ojimba, T. P. (1999) “The Effects of Women’s Right to Land, Credit and Training on
Agricultural Development in Rivers State, Nigeria” Journal of Pedagogy and
Development 6(1), 118-125.
Onuoha, K. M. (2004) “Oil Exploration and Production in Nigeria, Recent Development
and Challenges ahead, The PostGraduate School, University of Ibadan, Ibadan.
Onyenweaku, C.E., P.C. Obasi and S.O Anyanwu (1996) “Production Relationships
among Compound and Non Compound Farms in Imo State, Nigeria. Journal of
Applied Science in Southern Africa Vol. 2. No. 1 Pp. 31-36

10
 Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and the Social Sciences (JOAFSS), Vol.7, No.1, 2009

Onyenweaku, C.E. and Fabiyi, Y.L. (1991) “Relative Efficiency of Cooperative and
Individual Farmers in Food Production in Imo State, Nigeria, AMSE Transactions,
Vol. 8 (4) Pp. 23-32
Reardon, T. V. E. Kelly; T. Crawford, K. Savadogo And D. Clay (1997)
“Determinants of Farm Productivity in Africa: A Synthesis of four Case Studies.
Technical Paper No. 75, SD Publication Services. Office of Sustainable
Development Bureau for Africa. U.S. Agency for International Development
USAID. Pp1-42.
Tamuno, T. T. (2008) “The Geographical Niger Delta” Paper presented at International
Conference on The Nigerian State, Oil Industry and The Niger Delta, on 11th-13th
March at The Niger Delta University, Yenegoa in Collaboration with Centre for
Applied Environmental Research, University of Missourri, USA
Ugwu, B.O. , O. Ajobo, and G. Orkuor [1990] “ Cassava Research, Production and
Utilization in Nigeria. Pages 11- 18 in Status of data on cassava in major
producing countries in Africa [ Cameroon, Cote d’ Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria,
Tanzania, Uganda and Zaire] . eds. By F.I. Nweke, J. Lynam, and C. Prudencio.
COSCA Working paper No. 3 . Collaborative Study of Cassava in Africa, IITA,
Ibadan.
Wilfrid, A.H. L. (2004). Agricultural Productivity Growth and Technology Progress in
Developing Countries: Case Study in China. Int. J. Agric. Rural Dev., S, Pp. 101-
109.

11