CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Cassava (Manihot spp) is one of the most important root and tuber crops grown in Nigeria and

most other countries of lowland and humid tropics. It is a preferred stable food that is highly

cherished by many people in Nigeria because of its attributes. It is within the reach of rural

people, tolerant to certain diseases, adapts to poor soil on which many other crops fail and is

relatively high yielding (IITA, 2004). Moreover, it is easily propagated by stem cuttings and

resist drought, making it a famine-reserve crop. It can be planted any time of the year, provided

there is enough moisture for stem cuttings to take root. Nigeria is the largest cassava producing

country in the world with an annual estimate of 39 million metric tonnes (CBN, 2003). Among

the starchy staples, cassava gives carbohydrate production which is about 40% higher than rice

and 25% more than maize. Cassava is the cheapest source of calories for both human nutrition

and animal feeding (Tolukari, 2004). Cassava is amenable to various processing forms (IITA,

2004).

The cassava transformation encompasses four stages which indicate specific importance: famine

– reserve, rural food staple, livestock and industrial materials, and urban food stable. Beyond this

cassava occupies prominent position in foreign exchange earning following the residential

Cassava Initiative of the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN, 2006). The status has been

changed and more values added to the produce. The various industrial uses of cassava and the

high demand internationally for the products have made cassava production and processing a

means of improving farmers’ income and exit route from the vicious cycle of rural poverty.

1
Cassava is considered by households in Nigeria as their most important food crop (Akoroda and

Teri, 2004). Also, households (96%) in western Nigeria consume meals from cassava daily

throughout the year and during the rainy season, but within the dry season, 54% of the

households eat cassava at least once a day significance (Akoroda and Teri, 2004). Cassava is the

most grown crop in the southern part of Nigeria, especially by the smallholder farmers. It plays a

vital role in the food security of the rural economy because of its capacity to yield under

marginal soil conditions, and its tolerance to drought. Rural and urban communities use cassava

mainly as food in both fresh and processed forms (IITA, 2004).

Cassava can be processed into several products which can easily and safely be consumed or

stored. These are boiled and roasted cassava, dried chips, flour, beer, glucose syrup, garri, fufu,

tapioca etc. Other parts of the cassava plant are also of domestic significance (Akoroda and Teri,

2004, IITA, 2004). For instance, the green leaves are used in preparing vegetable stews and the

stem is the major means of its propagation. Again, cassava has become a staple food for most

Nigerians (not only among rural people but also among the urban dwellers), possibly because of

the ease with which its major food product (Gari) can be prepared, and used as a source of food

(IITA, 2004). Cassava is important, not only as a food crop, but even more, as a source of

income for rural households (FAO, 2009). A large proportion is planted annually for sale. Apart

from generating income for a large number of households, it provides employment opportunities.

Cassava is mainly produced by smallholder farmers cultivating less than two hectares of land,

and plays a dominant role in the rural economy of the south agro- ecological zones, though is

increasingly gaining importance in other parts of Nigeria (FAO, 2009).

1.2 Statement of Research Problem

2
Cassava (Manihote sculenta Crantz) is a root tuber which is cultivated in rainforest and derived

in savannah zones of Nigeria. It is one of the most important staple food crops in Nigeria, and its

average consumption exceeds 300 kg per person annually in some areas of Africa (Omotayo et

al., 2016). It is an important staple that is grown in the tropics and consumed by almost every

household (Bassey et al., 2014). It easily adapts to different climatic and soil conditions, hence

its ability to grow and be available all year round, which gives it advantage over other tuber

crops like yam, cocoyam and potato. It is attractive to farmers because its products are generally

accepted by all classes of Nigerians (Itam et al., 2014). It is an important source of dietary

carbohydrate and provides food for over 60 million people in Nigeria (Adebowale et al., 2008).)

The roots are processed into garri, fufu, tapioca, chips and cassava flour for human consumption

(Sanni et al., 2008; Adebowale et al., 2008). The leaves are edible while the roots are also a good

source of ethanol and are rich in minerals, vitamins, starch and protein (Adegbola et al., 1978;

Ravindran, 1992). It is believed to be predominantly cultivated by small scale farmers with poor

resources (Ezebuiro et al., 2010). International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD),

(2013) reported that Africa is one the continents of the world where some 600 million people are

dependent on cassava for food.

A key to Nigeria’s economic growth is through investment and trade in the agriculture sector,

which contributed to 40 percent of the country’s GDP, and which is the largest employer of

labor. However, agricultural productivity of cassava is stagnant, improved technologies and

inputs are not accessible, and market linkages are weak, resulting in high post-harvest losses and

low production to cassava producing households. Cassava is still largely characterized by

production and direct sale of it’s out-puts in its raw form with weak market and very little

capacity for transformation of produce from its raw form to other value-added products. This

3
perhaps has been responsible for poor wealth creation by farmer’s resulting in low farm and

household incomes, access to good sales outlets affects household welfare outcomes through at

least two channels; first, it alleviates the capital restriction on agricultural household.

Expenditure input must be incurred during the planting and growth period of crops, while returns

are received only after the harvest several months later. Likewise, it removes the fear of where to

store the excess produce so far there is the assurance of demanding market (Adebowale et al.,

2008).

In many years of research which focused on improving cassava productivity have not affected

the much-needed impact on poverty. The research community has accepted that productivity

enhancing technologies alone without access to profitable markets cannot get poor farmers out of

poverty. Cassava dependent farmers in remote locations have no access to markets for their fresh

roots, traditionally processed cassava products are unkindly refused in more rewarding markets

because of their characteristic poor quality and safety. Though government at various levels have

been trying in various ways to encourage rural farmers to adopt the modern cassava production

technologies in order to increase the rural farmers’ productivity. The technologies are use of

hybrid cassava stake, use of insecticides, use of inorganic fertilizer, and use of tractor,

appropriate spacing, planting date and tillage practices, yet the influence of good market outlets

to cassava production cannot be overemphasized and need be central of focus. Despite the huge

market potentials of cassava and its products at national and international levels, and government

interventions, there seems to be little knowledge on the effect of cassava production on the

income of rural households in Ogbomoso agricultural zone. Thus, this study seeks to proffer

answers to the following research questions:

i. What are the socioeconomic characteristics of rural households in the study area?

4
ii. What are the factors determining cassava farmers income in the study area?

iii. What are the perceived effects of cassava production on the well-being of rural households in

the study area?

iv. What are the constraints associated with cassava production in the study area?

1.3 Objectives of the Study

The general objective of the study is to assess the effect of cassava production on the income of

rural household in Ogbomoso agricultural zones. The specific objectives are to:

i. describe the socio-economic characteristics of rural households in the study area.

ii. analyse the factors determining cassava farmer’s income in the study area

iii. determine the perceived effect of cassava production on the well-being of rural

households in the study area.

iv. identify constraints associated with cassava production in the study area

1.4 Justification of the Study

The significant role played by agriculture particularly cassava

production in the process of improving income and livelihood of rural household

economic growth and development cannot be over emphasized. However,

the myriads of problems confronting rural farmers that engaged in cassava

production to meet up with the rising level of local population and demand

need not to be underestimated. Most agricultural households in Ogbomoso

Agricultural Zones obtain only a part of their incomes from cassava

production. Earnings from non- cassava agricultural activities and off farm

activities constitute a substantial part of income. The household income in

this study is the income from cassava production of the farmers. Nigeria, like

5
most other African countries, has realized that viability in rural development

depends on sustained growth in rural income and standard of living primarily

from agriculture as observed by Ajayi (2012). Agricultural production, be it

crop, livestock, fishery and the like has been a dominant issue of discussion

in national economic development of this country. However, despite

government campaigns and slogans, farm production has not kept pace with

food demand (Ani, 2006). Most food crops produced in the country come

from the efforts of the small-scale resource poor farmers who depend largely

on traditional farming systems for their agricultural inputs. Therefore, the

study will be useful to researchers, policy makers in understanding the effects

of cassava production on the income and livelihood of rural household in the study area

1.5 Definition of Term

Income: revenue (monetary) received for goods or services, or from other

sources, as rents or investments.

6
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Theoretical Review

This study will be underpinned by the Theory of Sustainable Livelihood (TSL) developed by

Chambers and Conway in 1992 which is a multidimensional, integrated and rational approach

that fits best on the analysis of improved livelihood for poor smallholder farmers such as cassava

producers. The TSL provides the key components necessary for analyzing livelihoods of

individuals and groups of farmers in terms of capital assets, human assets, livelihood strategies

and livelihood outcomes as the key elements for assessing the contribution of policy intervention

in the production and marketing process. According to TSL, farmers’ livelihood is embedded in

various factors including natural/environmental (land), physical (means of production), human

(knowledge, skills and availability of labour), social (access to important institutions such as

market) and financial resources. To operationalize the variables under this study to suit the

variables in TSL, natural capital was made equivalent to land size, human capital equivalent to

extension services, social capital equivalent to market access and financial resource equivalent to

7
capital invested, price of cassava in the market and transport costs associated in the transaction

(El-Sharkawy, 2003).

In this view, it was thought important to understand how the households’ livelihood

outcome is the precursor of factors that smallholder farmers utilize the livelihood capabilities and

assets to achieve the desired livelihood outcomes in terms of increased household income and

assets ownership. In the focus of this study, land owned by cassava farmers, capital invested,

extension services extended to cassava farmers, price of cassava in the market, market access and

transport costs incurred by cassava smallholder farmers are valuable drivers that give famers’

ability to exploit cassava production opportunities in the sector and consequently improve their

livelihood. The TSL is the relevant theory and it has been used in similar previous studies

(McLeod, 2001; Lowe and Schilderman, 2001). In this context of the study therefore, if such

assets and capabilities are rationally used there is a likelihood of cassava smallholder farmers to

improve both food security and livelihood in Dodoma region.

It is impossible to overstate how important cassava is as a crop for food security and economic

growth. It can be said that cassava is a significant root crop in the tropics. For a population of

over 500 million people, its starchy roots provide a good source of meal carbohydrates. It is well

known that among staple crops, it produces the most carbs (ARC, Citation2011). The Food and

Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) places cassava behind rice, maize, and

wheat as the fourth-ranked most important food crop in developing nations, over 70 million

Nigerians depend heavily on cassava for their nutrition (FAO, 2003). Compared to other staple

crops, the starchy roots of cassava produce more food energy per unit of land. Dry cassava roots

have a higher concentration of carbohydrates than maize or any other cereal.

8
Cassava roots and products are in high demand and expanding swiftly. The subpopulation

region’s population is growing geometrically; nevertheless, the amount of food produced at the

moment is hardly enough to meet their needs (Poverty, Oxford, and Human Development

Initiative, 2017; and FAO, 2018). According to Moyo (2016), sub-Saharan Africa’s (SSA) ability

to produce food sustainably has continually been hampered by inadequate management of

agricultural areas. According to Mgbenka et al., (2016); and Moyo (2016), the developing agro-

allied businesses and industries that depend on cassava as a vital component, however, are

raising worries that cassava products for Nigerian families could become much less accessible.

Because of the need for food security as well as the growing demand for cassava as a food crop,

cassava is becoming more important among the crops farmed in Nigeria (FAO, 2018).

In Nigeria, the traditional way of processing predominates, according to Nwokoro and Aletor

(2007). Because traditional processing is labour intensive and economical, women predominately

perform it and it is viewed as unsuitable for women (Odebode, 2003). It is also physically

demanding and link to poor productivity. According to Food and Agricultural Organization

(2008), Nigeria was the largest producer of cassava but the smallest exporter of root vegetables.

This was ascribed to the fact that many people lacked understanding regarding how to prepare

cassava for export (FAO, 2008).

According to the literature, availability of appropriate cassava processing machines and

equipment has the tendency to make tremendous impact in increasing the output of processed

cassava product as cassava proessing especially in Kogi and Kwara states is characterized by

traditional method of processing, which is inefficient, time consuming, laborious and

compromised quality (Okorji et al., 2003). Lack of improved technologies decreased the

outcome of rural processors which limits the production capacity of cassava products, adoption

9
of improved technologies may have sustancial economic effects, including enhancement of the

most wearisome aspect of extraction, reduction of the time and labour input required at

production, increased the quality of life, income and food security of women cassava processors

household.

2.1.1 The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)

The importance of the Unified theory of technology (UTAUT), which the study uses in the

adoption of cassava processors cannot be overstated. This model of technology acceptance as

created by Venkatesh, Morris, Davis and Davis in “User acceptance of information technology

acceptance of information technology towards a unified vision” (2003). This theory expresses

users’ both the initial intentions to use an information system and the actual utilization.

According to the theory, there are main four construct:

1. Performance expectation

2. Effort expectation

3. Social influence

4. Facilitating circumstances.

The first three are categorized as direct determinant of user behavior, and the fourth is

categorized in the same way. The four main dimensions’ effects on usage intention and behavior

are said to be moderated by gender, age, experience among adopters’ socio-economic factors and

voluntariness of use. One of the most important concerns is: what are the users’ attitudes about

accepting technology? Many educational institutions including universities, research institutes,

and other tertiary institutions, have adopted and implemented this theory to address this issue.

Regardless of the level of infrastructure and support services offered, it is important to consider

whether teachers and trainers in the case of cassava processing technologies to modify the

10
livelihood assets of cassava processors through the adoption of improved cassava processing

technologies (FAO, 201).

Several theories under pin the concept of income and livelihood of the farmers. These include the

Agricultural Household Model (AHM), Boserupian model and random utility model (RUM).

These theories include the elements of the choice process which are; households first determine

the available alternatives, it then assesses the attributes of each choice, and finally uses a

decision rule of maximizing utility to select a livelihood activity from the available activities

(Ben-Akiva & Lerman, 1985).

Some households may first-rate a specific activity going through the process but by peer review/

choice and sometimes out of habit (Koppelman & Bhat, 2006).

According to Boserup (1965), increase in human population would lead to the adoption of

intensive systems of agriculture, increase of total agricultural output through innovations such as

use of fertilizers and mechanization. Continued population pressures on natural resources,

increases competition for natural resources hence livelihood diversification activities become a

strategyto ensure survival. Household well-being and rural non-farm diversification choices are

generally motivated by household resources such as health, education and composition of

household age (Boserup, 1965). The shortcomings of Boserup theory are that it does not take

migration of households and depending on remittances as a livelihood. It also does not work in

many situations because increased agricultural intensification does not necessarily require more

work and really works where labour is necessary and insufficient.

AHM describes households as being both consumers and producers of the outputs in subsistence

economies (Singh et al., 1986). The households therefore, allocate their labour between

diversified livelihood activities comprising of on-farm and non-farm activities. The decisions as

11
to the amount of labour to allocate to each of these activities are made jointly within the family.

In its basic form, households participate in on and off-farm labour markets because they want to

maximize their utilities. This model views household decision to diversify livelihoods as a

function of the incentives and capacity variables (Singh et al., 1986). Coral and Reardon (2001),

define the incentives of livelihood diversification as the return that would either “pull” or “push”

the households into the activity. One of the incentives includes higher profits the choose derives

from the activity. The capacity variables are expressed as the vector of household’s

characteristics that enable them to respond to the incentives (Reardon, 2001). They influence the

gap between household head’s competence in decoding relationships between behaviour and the

environmental difficulty of the decision problem to be solved (Heiner, 1983).

In RUM, households are assumed to maximize utility by selecting an alternative from a set of

obtainable alternatives that capitalize on individual utility (Kennedy, 2003). This rule implies an

underlying utility function that contains the attribute of alternatives and individual characteristics

that describes an individual’s utility valuation for each alternative (Pryanishnikov & Zigova,

2003). The utility function states that an Individual chooses an alternative which has a utility

greater than all utilities in the individual’schoice set (Pryanishnikov & Zigova, 2003). In the

current study, this theory was chosen as household choice of livelihood diversification activities

was assumed to be driven by utility maximization depending on the choice attributes that appeal

to each household.

2.1.2 Trend of Cassava Production in Nigeria

Cassava products are increasingly becoming popular in Nigerian food and agricultural markets.

Thus, it provides a strong incentive for more economic agents to be involved in the cassava

market. According to FAO (2018), cassava is a choice crop for rural development, poverty

12
alleviation, economic growth and ultimately, food security. It is in view of the above that critical

stakeholders have continued to contribute immensely to shaping the development of cassava sub-

sector in Nigeria. Eke-Okoro and Njoku (2012) captured the phases in efforts to improve cassava

production in Nigeria as the emergent stage that spread from 1940 to 1953; a primitive stage that

stretched from 1970 to 1990 and the anticipatory stage that spanned from 1995 to date. Other

phases of cassava development are also found in the literature.

2.1.3 Cassava Production and its Associated Challenges in Nigeria.

One major factor that has pronounced effect on the yield performance is the slow transition from

dis-adoption of local cassava variety to adoption of improved variety. International Institute of

Tropical Agriculture (IITA) has released some improved varieties for cassava farmers to adopt

but for various agronomic reasons in addition to poor awareness and accessibility to improved

cassava varieties often hinder the transition from dis-adoption of local cassava variety to

adoption of improved variety. Elaborate investigation was carried out by Bentley et al., (2017)

and evidence showed that farmers prefer early maturing and large root tubers.

Over the years, the strategy adopted in the formal seed production and distribution has been

largely constrained by limited resources and capacity to multiply and distribute the planting

material of improved varieties to farmers. On the other hand, the ineffectiveness of the informal

sector (friends, relations, and neighbors) in carrying out their distribution has not yielded the

desired results. Bentley et al., (2017) proposed that with strategic support, funding, and adequate

oversight of the sector the situation could be remedied.

Weed is another factor that has constrained the poor cassava yield performance in Nigeria.

According to Anikwe and Ikenganyia (2018), inadequately managed weeds are capable of

reducing yield performance by 50% - 80%. Farmers are always encouraged to keep weeds out of

13
cassava farm particularly during the canopy formation or tuberization with a view to achieving

optimum yield.

Agricultural land in Nigeria is fast declining in quantity and quality. Since it is consistently under

threat from the increasing demand for expanded infrastructure to cater for the rapidly growing

population, relying on improved cassava production through expansion of cultivated area is

definitely not sustainable. Nigeria, being an oil-dependent economy, has gone through some

unfavorable cycles in the recent time as a result of instability in oil prices It is expected that

government, in attempt to diversify the economy, is also be making efforts to encourage the

development of cassava sub- sector. Global cassava market is an emerging market in the world

and the future looks economically promising with a view to accrue some foreign earnings.

Although the current statistics show that despite a huge cassava production in Nigeria, the value

of exports is still significantly low (FAO, 2018). It simply indicates that despite huge level of

cassava production; supply of cassava and its derivatives is not significantly meeting domestic

demand in Nigeria. This makes it appealing to policymakers. It is therefore not surprising that

cassava producers are part of the beneficiaries of Anchor Borrowers Programme (ABP) launched

by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) in 2015 to encourage the supply of products to the

processing sector. However, recent statistics showed that the implementation of ABP made rice

more lucrative to cultivate than cassava. This is expected to have some effects on the cassava

output and even its yield.

Similarly, the CBN also reviewed the Commercial Agricultural Credit Scheme (CACS) in 2018

with a view to increasing access to credit for farmers. However, experts have argued that these

efforts should not replace the quest to develop high yield performing cassava.

14
Cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) was introduced into Central Africa from South America in

the sixteenth century by the early Portuguese explorers (Juma, 2015). It was probably the

emancipated slaves who introduced the cassava crop into southern Nigeria, as they returned to

the country from South America via the islands of Sao Tome and Fernando Po. At that time there

were Portuguese colonies off Nigeria's shores (Ekandem, 2012). Cassava is the third-largest

source of carbohydrates in food in the tropics, after rice and maize making it an important staple;

more than 500 million people depend on it. It offers the advantage of being exceptionally

drought-tolerant, and able to grow productively on poor soil. Cassava grows well within 30° of

the equator, where it can be produced at up to 2,000 m (7,000 ft) above sea level, and with 50 to

5,000 mm (2 to 200 in) of rain per year. These environmental tolerances suit it to conditions

across much of South America and Africa (Juma, 2015).

Cassava yields a large amount of food energy per unit area of land per day – 1,000,000 kJ/ha

(250,000 kcal/ha), as compared with 650,000 kJ/ha (156,000 kcal/ha) for rice, 460,000 kJ/ha

(110,000 kcal/ha) for wheat and 840,000 kJ/ha (200,000 kcal/ha) for maize (Daniels et al., 2011).

Cassava, yams (Dioscorea spp.), and sweet potatoes (Ipomoea batatas) are important sources of

food in the tropics (El-Sharkawy, 2003). The cassava plant gives the third-highest yield of

carbohydrates per cultivated area among crop plants, after sugarcane and sugar beets. Cassava

plays a particularly important role in agriculture in developing countries, especially in sub-

Saharan Africa, because it does well on poor soils and with low rainfall, and because it is a

perennial that can be harvested as required. Its wide harvesting window allows it to act as a

famine reserve and is invaluable in managing labor schedules (Daniels et al., 2011).

Table 2.1 Percentage Distribution of Food Crop Cash Income of Households Producing

Major Crops

15
 Food Crops Cassava Yam Sweet potato Plantain Maize Rice

N % N % N % N % N % N %

Cassava 329 21 269 23 90 14 176 26 315 19 124 14

Yam 269 15 276 18 75 14 168 16 266 13 93 13

Sweet potato 90 1 75 1 95 1 43 1 94 0 59 0

Plantain 176 1 43 2 43 1 181 3 175 1 47 0

Maize 315 14 94 13 94 8 175 15 343 13 139 II

Rice 124 12 59 12 59 10 47 9 139 15 143 24

Others - 34 - 31 - 52 - 30 39 38

Total - 100 - 100 - 100 - 100 - 100 - 100

Source: Nweke et al., 1997, N —Number of producers, others include millts, sorghum, beans

and peas

2.1.4 Cassava Production and Increasing Demand in Nigeria

The demand for cassava roots and products is high and fast rising. However, the current food

production is far from being able to meet the food needs of the geometrically growing population

in the sub-region (Poverty, Oxford and Human Development Initiative, 2017; and FAO, 2018).

Nigeria currently holds the record of the largest producer of cassava in the world, but the trend in

yield performance (production per hectare) remains low. This low yield may be linked to

ineffective agronomic practices and inefficient management of production resources. This line of

argument has been robustly debated in the literature (Tadele and Assefa, 2012; and Fakayode

et al., 2008). According to Moyo (2016), poor management of agricultural lands has consistently

affected sustainable production of food in sub-Saharan Africa [SSA]. This has largely

16
contributed to poor performance of the agricultural sector in terms of efficient use of productive

(Denning et al., 2009; and Tadele and Assefa, 2012) despite the fact that more than 60% of

Nigerian population is in agriculture (Mgbenka et al., 2016). However, there are increasing

concerns that sustaining the availability of cassava products to Nigerian households may be

significantly affected by the increasing demand by the expanding agro-allied firms/industries

which are using cassava as critical input. In view of this, Juma (2015) advocated innovative

approach to agriculture and food (cassava) production. This is a way to avoid waste of

productive resources i.e land and protect the environment while exploring the soil for sufficient

food production with a view to ultimately achieving zero hunger.

The increasing importance of cassava (Manihot esculenta) among crops grown in Nigeria is not

only connected to its increasing demand as food but also as food security (FAO, 2018). Cassava

products are dietary staple food in Nigeria and other countries in SSA. Nigeria is populated with

about 200 million people, and 7 in every 10 Nigerians consume, at least, a product of cassava

once in a day (Njoku and Muoneke, 2008). These products include: cassava flakes (gari), cassava

flour (pupuru and lafun), cassava paste (fufu) which are derived from cassava roots. It is a widely

acceptable energy food source to over 600 million consumers of cassava across the globe

(Hershey et al., 2001; and FAO, 2015). Its relatively higher energy yield per hectare [71

tonnes/ha] (El-Sharkawy, 2003). This could have endeared it directly to farmers and indirectly to

consumers. These cassava products (paste & flakes) are prepared using hot water to make it into

solid food that can be eaten with soup source (e.g vegetables, draw soup etc). Besides the rich

carbohydrate content of the root, the leaves are also good soup ingredients and it is frequently

consumed by people living in the southwest and southeastern parts of Nigeria. Cassava has been

found to contain calcium, vitamins B and C, and other essential minerals (Montagnac et al.,

17
2009). Evidence from recent research break-through has shown a blend of some cassava varieties

fortified with missing micronutrients [e.g vitamin A] (Okwulehie et al., 2014; and Howe et al.,

2009). The deployment of clear-cut technologies in producing different varieties and processing

of cassava products has indescribably increased the satisfaction attributes of cassava. In view of

these, cassava products which used to be associated with the poor have become more acceptable

to more consumers across income groups. The implication of this therefore is, if supply of

cassava does not grow at the same rate as demand, the cassava market equilibrium will be

altered, and in response, prices of cassava products will always fluctuate accordingly.

Major cassava producing states in Nigeria are Benue, Kogi, Cross River, Ondo, Imo, Akwa

Ibom, and Rivers states (Daniels et al., 2011). Experts have argued that the cassava production is

one of the well-developed agricultural crops in Nigeria because of its relatively well established

and processing techniques. Cassava can be processed into varieties of products – e.g food and

starch for industrial use. According to International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA),

cultivating cassava comes with a lot of convenience. Some of which include: its ability to do

well in poor soils, its labour requirements are low, it can be inter-cropped with other crops, it

matures within a period of 6 months–3 years after planting. According to Hauser et al., (2014),

the most preferred precipitation for cassava plant is an annual rainfall of 1000 mm or more. It

thus implies that an average of 50mm rainfall per month spreading over a period of 6 months can

sufficiently meet the water need of cassava plant. The plant does not tolerate extremely stony or

sandy, clayey, salt affected, waterlogged and shallow soils but performs excellently well on well-

drained soils rich in aluminium and manganese. Notwithstanding, cassava is highly tolerant to

erratic weather condition including a range of rainfall (El-Sharkawy, 2003).

18
Evidence across States in Nigeria shows that government investments and intervention to

enhance cassava production have resulted to increased output and also stimulated the rural

economy. Local processing of cassava has created jobs for many rural women and the local

fabricators and thus, has significantly stimulated the rural economy in SSA. Similarly, it has also

influenced the agricultural input supply market. Therefore, it contributes to capital formation and

securing markets for the agro-industry in Nigeria. However, whether or not, the present cassava

production (supply) can meet the increasing demand for cassava as food and industrial use

remains a serious concern. Cassava, the cheapest and most accessible food for the poor, looks set

to be pulled away by the cassava allied-industry if nothing is done to sustain or increase per

capita production in Nigeria.

2.1.5 Problems Affecting Cassava Production in Nigeria

Constraints in cassava production include a wide range of technical, institutional and

socioeconomic factors. These include pests and diseases, agronomic problems, land degradation,

shortage of planting materials, food policy changes, and access to markets, limited processing

options and inefficient / ineffective extension delivery systems.

2.1.5.1 Pests and diseases

Cassava is plagued by various diseases and insect pests. Pests and diseases including the ACMD,

CBB, the mealybug (which has been greatly controlled), green spider mite (GSM) and the large

grain borer which attacks dry chips of cassava in storage. In the 1997 season, the various

diseases and pest considered to be most important in seven cassava-producing states were:

mosaic disease, bacterial blight, leaf rollers, termites, anthracnose, root rot, mealybugs, spider

mites, white flies, rodents and stem girdlers. In different areas of the cassava production zone,

one or more pests and/or diseases are important (Eke-Okoro and Njoku, 2012).

19
White ants (termites) destroy stems that are planted before they sprout. Some areas appear to be

very prone to this problem. A higher plant population (12–13 000 plants/ha) is used to

compensate for those that would be lost. Various chemical control measures are recommended,

but the need for safe use and high costs restricts their use among many small farmers who grow

cassava in mixtures. Also, the menace of rodents is a regular occurrence in the field.

2.1.5.2 Agronomic problems

Biotic constraints

 Use of low yielding varieties. The varieties in use by farmers often yield less than 10

tonnes/ha when there are new varieties that can give root yields of over 30–35 tonnes/ha.

The local varieties are very susceptible to diseases and pests of cassava although

consumers and processors still prefer them for specific uses and characteristics.

 Livestock damage of cassava farms has been widely reported. Thus, the community

arrangements to protect farms are made to include as many crops as possible.

Abiotic constraints

 Low soil fertility affects many cassava-growing areas because the fallow periods are

shorter as the pressure on arable land near homesteads is increasing. At the fresh tuberous

root yield of 30 tonnes/ha (which is feasible under good field practice), the amount of

major nutrients removed from the soil at harvest amounts to 164 kg of nitrogen, 31 kg of

phosphorus, 200 kg of potassium, 80 kg of calcium and 31 kg of magnesium. Also

20
 needed are about 7 kg of a combination of several important microelements, e.g. iron (3.6

kg), manganese (1.4 kg), boron (0.5 kg) and copper (0.2kg) (Asher et al., 2020).

 As the direct use of soil amendments in cassava cultivation is low, the yield potentials of

the various varieties of the planted cassava crop are not often attained. The use of organic

manure could improve soil properties, but this technical fact seems not to be

economically feasible under the circumstances ofmost cassava farmers.

2.1.5.3 Land degradation

The principal causes of land degradation include soil erosion, deforestation and soil spillage.

Erosion is a general problem all over the country, especially in the southeastern zone.

Desertification resulting from deforestation is peculiar to central, northeastern and northwestern

zones, while oil spillage occurs essentially in the oil-producing zones. Each of these processes

tends to reduce the productive potential of land and to impair the sustainability of soil fertility

(Eke-Okoro and Njoku, 2012).

2.1.5.4 Shortage of planting materials

The cultivars released for cultivation in Nigeria have not all been extended to farmers. Although

17 have been released (Table 4) only about five of them have been made available to farmers.

Out of these five, two varieties; TMS 30572 and 4(2)1425, continue to dominate. This seems to

be related to the higher availability of the stems from distribution agencies of government and

other partners. Many released varieties are yet to be multiplied on a large-scale and made

available. Shortage of planting materials is also compounded by farmers' inability to preserve

planting materials (Eke-Okoro and Njoku, 2012).

2.1.5.5 Food policy changes

21
In terms of food security and food production incentives there has been no policy consistency.

Initially, the availability of oil revenue made it possible for the Government to respond, to food

shortages with large-scale importation. The petroleum income also raised a demand for food as

well as encouraging rural-urban migration which resulted in farm labour shortage.

The dramatic increases in prices of most tradable agricultural exports that accompanied the

devaluation of the naira and the liberalization of exports were not applicable to cassava and

cassava products to any significant extent because as a non-tradable staple food product, prices

were not directly influenced by world market developments.

The main source of price increases for cassava products on account of SAP and market

liberalization policies was indirect, through increases in the prices of substitute products such as

rice, wheat and maize. The ban placed on the importation of these tradable products raised the

domestic prices, hence reducing their demand, with the result that consumers switched over to

the consumption of cassava and cassava products. This culminated in price increases. However,

the increases were short-lived because of inconsistent government policies (Eke-Okoro and

Njoku, 2012).

There is, thus, evidence of a lack of synergy between macroeconomic and sectorial policies; the

macroeconomic policies have not been able to secure macroeconomic stability, an external

balance or a diversified economic base. Consequently, there is a serious inconsistency giving

conflicting signals to the farmers. Poor access also makes movement of goods and people

difficult. This is more so during the rainy season when many parts of the rural area are

inaccessible. The roads linking the major towns are usually quite good. Though the farmer

market access food network is better in Nigeria than in other countries studied by COSCA

(Nweke et al., 1992) the rural feeder road networks are poorly developed and absent in some

22
places. This has significant implications for marketing, cost of inputs, access to health facilities

and other social services and may therefore have adverse effects on production and rural

standards of living.

2.1.5.6 Contribution of Cassava to Household Food-Security

The average Nigerian meets about 95 percent of the minimum energy requirementsmainly from

cereals and roots and tubers, followed by grain legumes. Cereals constitutethe highest group of

foods produced and consumed in the northern zones of the countrywhile roots and tubers

constitute the highest group in the south and central zones. Grainlegumes feature more

prominently in the food production system in the north and areprominent in both northern and

southern food baskets.

Cassava food products are the most important staples of rural and urban households insouthern

Nigeria. Current estimates show that the dietary calorie equivalent of per capitaconsumption of

cassava in the country amounts to about 238 kcal (Cock, 1985). This isderived from the

consumption of gari (toasted granules), chips/flour, fermented pastesand/or fresh roots, the

principal cassava food forms.

In the south, cassava followed by yam is the staple food. Yam consumption in most of thesouth

is seasonal, being highest in the months of November to January, the period ofharvest.

Thereafter, cassava products and other supplementary foods take over.

In the Middle Belt yam is the preferred staple in most of the zone followed by cassava.These

crops are grown primarily for food and consumed as such but substantialproportions are sold.

About 60 percent of yam is consumed while about 40 percent maybe sold while 40 percent of

cassava is consumed and the rest (60 percent) sold. Duringthe growing season or hungry period,

as much as 50 percent of food intake is fromcassava along with grains, as less yam is available.

23
The importance of minor tubers(cocoyam and sweet potato) in the daily diet is far less than that

of yam and cassava products (Mgbenka et al.,2016).

In all locations, cassava has become a very popular crop and is fast replacing yam and other

traditional staples of the area, gaining ground increasingly as an insurance crop against hunger.

As shown earlier, cassava is also a major cash crop. A large proportion of cassava, probably

larger than from most other staples, is planted purposely for sale. In comparison with other

staples, cassava generates income for the largest number of households. Planting of high yielding

varieties has resulted in higher cash income, especially in areas with access to improved

technology and market in Benue Imo and Ogun RRAs suggest that income from the marketing of

cassava produce generates up to34 percent of the total household farm income in Imo and Ogun

States and 20 percent in Benue State. Considerable income is also generated from cassava

processing. As women are largely responsible for growing and processing cassava, it provides

them with anincome-earning opportunity, enabling them to purchase commodities which can

contribute to household food security.

2.2 Empirical Review

Mukaila et al., (2022) worked on effect of vegetable production on income and livelihood of

rural households in Nigeria. The data collected from 400 vegetable farming households were

analyzed using descriptive statistics and multiple regression. The results revealed that vegetable

farming is a female dominated venture (89.4% females). The regression results revealed that

vegetable output had a positive and significant effect on rural households’ income. Other factors

that influenced farmers’ income were household size, access to credit and farm size.

Furthermore, vegetable production had positive effects on rural households’ livelihood by

providing employment, income, basic needs, food, paying for school fees, improving their

24
nutritional status and standard of living. Pests and diseases, poor storage facilities, post-harvest

loss, inadequate credit facilities, high cost of inputs, poor knowledge of irrigation, poor

transportation and poor extension services were the severe constraints faced in vegetable

production. Ayeni et al., (2023) worked on the effects of rabbit production on income and

livelihood of rural households in Nigeria. The result obtained were analyzed using multiple

regression and descriptive statistics. The findings demonstrated that rabbit farming is a male-

dominated enterprise (male 77.5%). According to the regression analysis, the income of rural

households was positively and significantly impacted by the income from rabbits. Farmers’ ages,

interactions with extension agents, credit they accessed, and assets were further determinants of

their income. Additionally, rabbit production improved the level of living of rural households.

Access to forage, the prevalence of diseases, scarcity of veterinary, and the high cost of

medication, were the severe constraints faced in rabbit production.

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

3.1. Study Area

The research was conducted in Ogbomoso agricultural zone. Ogbomoso is a city in Oyo

State, South-Western Nigeria. Ogbomoso is located within latitudes 8° 2' 35.20" N and 8° 14'

34.25" N and longitudes 4° 10' 52.92" E and 4° 19' 40.59" E. Ogbomoso is located within a

derived Savannah region, it is 104 km North East of Ibadan, 58 km North West of Osogbo, 57

km South West of Ilorin and 53 km North East of Oyo (Fig. 1). It has tropical savanna climate

with two distinctive seasons (wet and dry). Ogbomoso Agricultural Development zone of Oyo is

one of the four Agricultural Development zones in Oyo State Nigeria.

25
 The zone comprises of five Local Government Areas (LGAs), and it is an agrarian area as

shown in Fig.1. Dominant crops cultivated in the zone include maize, cowpea, groundnut,

cassava, yam, potatoes and so on. Also, the zone is known for mango and cashew production and

livestock farming is also prominent in the area. The agricultural zone was chosen for this study

becausee of many agrarian communities that are into cassava production (Ewetola et al., 2017).

Fig.1 Map of the study area under Ogbomoso Agricultural Zone [adapted from Ewetola et al.,

(2017).

3.2 Sampling Procedure and Sample size

A multi Stage sampling was employed for this study. The first stage involved a random selection

of two (2) Local Government Area (LGA) out of the five Local Government Areas in Ogbomoso

agricultural zone. The second stage involved a random selection of four (4) villages from the

two LGAs giving a total of eight (8) villages. The third stage involved a random selection of

fifteen (15) cassava farmers. In all a total of 90 farmers were selected for the study.

3.3 Method of Data Collection

26
Primary data was used for this study. Data were collected with the aid of well-structured

questionnaire. The information was collected on farmer’s socio-economic characteristics such as

age, household size, educational status, amount of credit supports received, annual income

obtained, constraints affecting cassava production in the study area.

3.4 Analytical Techniques

The data obtained for this study were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics

(multiple regression analysis).

3.4.1 Descriptive statistics.

Descriptive statistics such as (mean, frequency and percentage distribution) was used to describe

the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents (objective 1) to determine the perceived

effect of cassava production on the livelihood of rural households in the study area (objective 3)

and to identify constraints associated with cassava production in the study area (Objective 4).

3.4.2 Multiple Regression Model

A multiple regression model is a statistical model that uses two or more independent variables to

predict the value of a dependent variable. In the context of this study, the model was used to

analyze the factors determining cassava farmer’s income in the study area (objective 2).

The regression equation is given by:

𝑌 = (𝑋1, 𝑋2, 𝑋3, 𝑋4, 𝑋5, 𝑋6, 𝑋7, 𝑋8+𝑒)

𝑌 = (b0+ b1𝑋1+ b2𝑋2 + b3𝑋3………………………………………+bn𝑋n)

Model Specification

Where:

Dependent Variable: Y= cassava farmer's income

27
Independent Variables:

X1 = Age of respondent (years)

X2= Marital status (Married=1, Otherwise=0)

X3 = Household size (Actual numbers)

X4 = Educational status (years)

X5 = Farming experience (years)

X6 = Access to extension agent (Yes=1, No=0)

X7 = Primary occupation (Farming=1, Otherwise=0)

X8 = Framers association (Yes=1, No=0)

X9 = Output (kg/ha)

e = error term

3.5 Measurement of Variables

The variables that were used in this study include dependent and independent variables.

3.5.1 Dependent Variable

The dependent variable is cassava farmer's income from the farm business enterprise

3.5.2 Independent Variables

The independent variables of the study include the socio-economic characteristics of the

respondents. It was measured as follows;

1. Age of respondent: This refers to the number of years of an individual attained from

birth. It is a continuous variable, and it was measured by asking the respondents to state

their actual age.

2. Marital status: This was considered by asking the respondents to indicate if they are

married, single, divorced. This was measured at the nominal level. Those who are

28
 married were classified as 1 and those who are not married who are single, divorced were

classified as 0.

3. Household size: This is the total number of people in the house which includes the

wife/wives, children and dependents that resides within the same house. it was measured

by asking the respondents to state the actual number of people living with them.

4. Educational status: It is an important variable that determines the farmer’s acceptance

of new technologies. Level of education will be measured by the number of years spent in

school.

5. Farming Experience: This was measured by asking the respondents to state their actual

years of experiences in farming.

6. Access to extension agent: This was measured by asking the respondents whether they

were visited or had contact with extension agent in the last production season. Those who

had contact with extension agent were classified as 1 and those who do not have contact

were classified as 0.

7. Primary occupation: Primary occupation of the respondents was considered by

classifying the respondents whose primary occupation is farming as 1 and those who

engaged in other occupation as the primary occupation as 0.

8. Farmers association: This was measured by asking the respondents whether they are

members of any farmers association or group, those who are members were classified as

1 and those who are not as 0.

9. Output: Output is the quantity harvested. It was measured by asking the respondents to

state the harvested produce from their farm in terms of the yield in kg per hectare.

29
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

This chapter deals with data analysis and discussion of result based on the objective of the study.

4.1 Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents

This section explained the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents such as gender,

marital status, age, household size, educational status, primary and secondary occupation,

farming experience, membership of farmer’s association / cooperative society.

4.1.1 Gender of the respondents

The result in Table 1 indicated that majority (80.0%) of the respondents were male while 20.0%

of the respondents were female. This result implies that cassava production in the study area was

dominated by mostly male farmers and this shows that the majority of the cassava farmers in the

study areas were male. The domination by male respondents among the farmers could also be as

a result of the tedious nature of cassava farming. This implies that cassava farming is mostly

done by male farmers who have and could have access to land resource and are thus instrumental

for cassava production than their female counterpart.

Table 4.1: Distribution of respondents according to their gender

Sex Frequency Percentage (%)

Male 22 24.4

30
 Female 68 75.6

Total 90 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2024

4.1.2 Age of the respondents

From Table 2 the result revealed that about 7.8% of the respondents were between 31- 40

years of age, 40.0% of the respondents were between 41 - 50 years of age, 45.6% of the

respondents were between 51– 60 years of age, while 6.7% were above 61years of age. The

average age of the farmers was 50 years, which shows that majority of the cassava producing

farmers were still in their active age. This result also revealed that this demographic trend may

have implications for succession planning and the future of farming in the cassava producing

communities in the study area.

Table 4.2: Distribution of respondents according to their age

Age Frequency Percentage (%)

31.00 - 40.00 7 7.8

41.00 - 50.00 36 40.0

51.00 - 60.00 41 45.6

61.00 + 6 6.7

Mean = 50 years

Total 90 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2024

31
4.1.3 Marital status of the respondents

Table 3 revealed that majority (75.6%) of the respondents were married, 7.8% were single, 5.6%

were divorced while 4.4% of the respondents were widowed while only 6.7% of the respondents

have separated from their spouses. This result indicated that majority of the respondents were

married. Marriage confers emotional stability on the respondents hence most of the respondents

could display high level of maturity.

Table 4.3: Distribution of respondents according to their marital status

Marital Status Frequency Percentage (%)

Single 7 7.8

Married 68 75.6

Divorced 5 5.6

Widowed 4 4.4

Separated 6 6.7

Total 90 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2024

32
4.1.4 Household size of the respondents

Table 4 shows the household size of the respondents, the household size of farmers most

especially in the rural setting may determine the family labour, costs of operating the cassava

business. The result in Table 4 revealed that majority (91.1%) of the respondents had between

four to six members as their household size, 4.4% of the respondents had seven members and

above, while only 4.4% of the respondents had 3 members and below in their household. The

mean household size was 5 household members. This implies that the majority of the cassava

farmers in the study area still have adequate household size, which guarantee the availability of

labour that in turn reduces expenses on hired labour, and which can influence income generation

of their farming household.

Table 4.4: Distribution of respondents according to their household size

Household size Frequency Percentage (%)

< = 3.00 4 4.4

4.00 - 6.00 82 91.1

7.00 + 4 4.4

Mean = 5

Total 90 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2024

33
4.1.5 Educational status of the respondents

Table 5 shows the distribution of the respondent according to their educational status.

Education is of paramount importance in rational decision taking, The result revealed that

majority (42.2%) of the respondent had up to Secondary School education, 28.9% of the

respondents had up to primary school education, while 1.1% of the respondents had up to tertiary

education. While 11.1% attended adult school, and 15.6% of the respondents attended but did not

complete primary school. This implies that most of the respondents had a considerable level of

education.

Table 4.5: Distribution of respondents according to their educational status

Educational Status Frequency Percentage (%)

Did not attend any school 1 1.1

Attended adult education school 10 11.1

Attended but did not complete primary school 14 15.6

Completed primary school 26 28.9

Attended but did not complete secondary school 0 0

Completed secondary school 38 42.2

Tertiary 1 1.1

Total 90 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2024

34
4.1.6 Primary occupation of the respondents

Table 6 shows the distribution of respondents according to their primary occupation. The

result indicated that majority (78.9%) of the respondents are primarily into cassava farming,

13.3% of the respondents are into trading, 3.3% of the respondents are into hunting while 4.4%

of the respondents are artisans and engaged in various artisanal jobs.

Table 4.6: Distribution of respondents according to their primary occupation

Primary occupation Frequency Percentage (%)

Farming 71 78.9

Trading 12 13.3

Hunting 3 3.3

Artisan 4 4.4

Total 90 100

Source: Field Survey, 2024

35
4.1.7 Secondary occupation of the respondents

The result in Table 7 indicates the secondary occupation of the respondents. About 21.1% are

into farming, 25.6% engaged into hunting as their secondary occupation, 11.1% engaged in

various artisanal jobs while 42.2% do not get involved in any secondary occupation.

Table 4.7: Distribution of respondents according to their secondary occupation

Secondary Occupation Frequency Percentage (%)

Farming 19 21.1

Hunting 23 25.6

Artisan 10 11.1

None 38 42.2

Total 90 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2024

36
4.1.8 Years of farming experience

Table 8 shows the years of farming experience of the respondents. About 51.1% of the

respondents had above sixteen years of experience in framing, 28.9% had between eleven and

fifteen years of experience in farming while 20.0% of the respondents had below or up to ten

years of experience.

Table 4.8: Distribution of respondents according to their years of experience in farming

Years of farming experience frequency Percentage (%)

≤10 18 20.0

11-15 26 28.9

Above 16 46 51.1

Total 90 100.0

Source: Field survey, 2024

37
4.1.9 Membership of an Association/Cooperative Society

Table 9 also shows the number of respondents that are members of an association. The result

showed that majority (70.0%) of the respondents are members of an association or cooperative

society while 30.0% are not members of an association or cooperative society. This indicates that

those who are members of an association or cooperative society are likely to get more

information and benefits from the association that might help in cassava production. This is in

accordance with the findings of (Zulaihatu, 2023) who reported that membership of an

association is expected to enhance information dissemination and efficient marketing of cassava.

Table 4.9: Distribution of respondents according to members of farmers association or

cooperative society

Farmers association Frequency Percentage (%)

Yes 63 70.0

No 27 30.0

Total 90 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2024

38
4.1.10 Access to credit

Table 10 shows the number of respondents who had access to credit and who do not have access

to credit. The result indicates that 81.1% had access to credit while 18.9 of the respondents do

not have access to credit.

Table 4.10: Distribution of respondents according to their access to credit

Access to credit Frequency Percentage (%)

Yes 73 81.1

No 17 18.9

Total 90 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2024

4.2 Factors Determine Cassava Farmers Income

39
 Table 11 shows the multiple regression results for the factors determine cassava farmers

income in the study area. The result of the Adjusted (R 2) of 0.56 implies that 56% of the

variation in the cassava farmers income was explained by the independent variable while the

remaining 44% was accounted for by the error term. The F-ratio value of (11.54) was significant

at 1%. Five variables out of Nine variables were found to be important in determine cassava

farmers income. The significant variables that determine cassava farmers income were Age,

Marital status, Farming experience, Primary occupation, farmers association.

The result in Table 11 shows that the coefficient of age was positive and statistically

significant at 1%. This implies that the income of cassava farmers increases the age of the

respondent increases. This might be because high sense of maturity is accrued to older farmers to

create more avenues to generate more income.

Primary occupation of the respondents was positive and statistically at 1%. This implies

that the income of the farmers increases if the respondents engaged in farming as their primary

occupation. Indicating that the more farmers engage in farming as their primary occupation the

higher their income. On the other hand, marital status was negative and statistically significant at

10%. This implies that the income of married cassava farmers decreases. This might be because

married cassava farmers would hence some sense of responsibility to cater for their family.

Farming experience was negative and statistically significant at 1%. This implies that

income of cassava farmers decreases as their years of experience in farming increases. Indicating

that as the number of years engaged in farming increases, the lesser their income. Probable

reason could also be related to age, that as they increase in age it will affect their strength in

farming even as the years of farming increases.

40
 Farmers association was negative and statistically significant at 5%. This implies that

being a member of the farmers’ association or cooperative society will decrease the income of

the cassava farmers.

Table 4.11 Regression result of factors determining cassava farmers income

Variables Coefficient Standard t-value

error
Output 265121.12 529928.75 0.50
Age 270711.97 44587.599 6.07***
Marital status -637278.96 323289.41 -1.97*
Household size -284184.64 236317.17 -1.20
Educational status -93197.291 56785.322 -1.64
Farming experience -213141.02 52601.958 -4.05***
Access to extension agent 219326.63 423053.42 0.52
Primary occupation 1586044.9 433103.58 3.66***
Farmers association -1096859 431344.75 -2.54**
Constant -5478499.4 1896806.3 -2.89***
Source: Field survey, 2024

41
4.3 Perceived effects of cassava production on the livelihood of farming households

The distribution of cassava farmers according to their perceived effects of cassava

production on the household’s livelihood was shown in Table 12. About 95.6% of the farmers

strongly disagree that cassava production is a source of employment to them and their

households, 52.2% of the farmers strongly disagree that cassava production is a source of daily

income to them. The majority 88.9% of the farmers strongly disagree that cassava production

helps them in meeting their basic needs of life, 55.6% of the respondents strongly disagree that

cassava that cassava production helps to improve food availability, improve nutrition among

them and also improve their standard of living while 56.7% of the farmers strongly disagree that

cassava production helps to increase savings with 57.8% strongly disagree that cassava

production helps the framers to pay their children school fees. The result indicates that cassava

production had a negative effect on the livelihood of rural farming household

42
Table 4.12 Distribution on the perceived effect of cassava farmers on their livelihood

Benefit SA% A% U% D% SD% Likert

mean
Employment 0 0 0 4.4 95.6 4.95
Provision of 1.1 28.9 1.1 16.7 52.2 3.90
daily
income
Meeting 0 5.6 1.1 40.4 88.9 4.76
basic needs
Improved 0 0 0 44.4 55.6 4.55
food
availability
Improved 0 0 0 44.4 55.6 4.55
nutrition
Payment of 0 0 0 42.2 57.8 4.57
children
school fees
Improved 0 0 0 44.4 55.6 4.55
standard of
living
Increase 0 0 0 43.3 56.7 4.56
savings
Source: Field survey,2024

SA: Strongly Agree

A: Agree

U: Undecide

SD: Strongly disagree

43
4.4 Constraints faced by cassava farmers

Table 13 shows the constraints faced by cassava farmers in the study area. The result revealed

that all (100%) of the farmers in the study area are faced with the constraints of high input cost,

pest and diseases, poor storage facilities, postharvest loss and inadequate storage. Majority

(96.7%) of the respondents are faced with climate change constraint, 98.9% of the respondents

are faced with the constraints of poor transportation, poor marketing and pricing, while 86.7%

and 56.7% of the farmers are faced with the constraints of limited access to credit and poor

extension service. The result implies that all the respondents were faced with one or more

constraints in cassava production.

Table 4.13: Constraints faced by cassava farmers

Constraints Frequency Percentage (%)

High cost of inputs 90 100.0
Pest and diseases 90 100.0
Poor storage facilities 90 100.0
Post harvest loss 90 100.0
Climate change 87 96.7
Poor transportation 89 98.9
Inadequate storage 90 100.0
Limited access to credit 78 86.7
Poor extension 51 56.7
Poor marketing and pricing 89 98.9
Source: Field survey, 2024

44
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary

This study examined the effect of cassava production on the income of rural

household in Ogbomoso Agricultural Zone, Oyo State. A multistage sampling procedure was

employed to select ninety (90) cassava farmers in the study area, information was elicited from

the respondents through a well-structured questionnaire which was designed in line with the

stated objectives of the research work. The data collected was analyzed using descriptive and

inferential statistics.

The specific objectives of the study were to;

i. describe the socio-economic characteristics of rural households in the study area.

ii analyze the factors determining cassava farmer’s income in the study area

iii determine the perceived effect of cassava production on the income of rural households in

the study area.

iv identify constraints associated with cassava production in the study area

The result of the descriptive statistics revealed that cassava farming in the study area was

dominated by majorly male cassava farmers while only 20.0% of the respondents were female.

The result shows that majority (45.6%) of the respondents are within the age bracket of 51-60

years with a mean age of 50 years indicating that majority of the cassava producing farmers are

still in their active age. This study also revealed that majority (91.1%) of the respondents had

between four to six numbers of people as their household size, with an average number of 5

people as the household members. This implies that the majority of the cassava farmers in the

study area still have adequate household size, which guarantee the availability of labour that in

45
turn reduces expenses on hired labour. Also, this study revealed that majority (51.1%) of the

respondents had more than sixteen years of farming and experience with a mean year of sixteen.

The result from this study showed that majority (70.0%) of the respondents are members of an

association or cooperative society while 30.0% are not members of an association or cooperative

society. This indicates that those who are members of an association or cooperative society are

likely to get more information. The multiple regression results revealed that age, marital status,

farming experience, primary occupation and farmers association were significant factors that

determine cassava farmers income. The result further shows that cassava farmers in the study

area are either faced with one or more constraints.

5.2 Conclusion

The study concluded that male marketers are more dominant in cassava production and

marketing than their female counterpart. The study further concluded that cassava farmers are

still in their active age with moderate household size and had vast experience in cassava

production. The result revealed that age, years of experience in farming, primary occupation and

farmers association significantly determine cassava farmers income. The major constraints faced

by cassava farmers includes High cost of input, Pest and diseases, Poor Storage Facilities, Post

Harvest Loss, Climate Change, Limited Access to Credit, Poor Transportation, Inadequate

Storage, Poor Extension Services, Poor Marketing and Pricing among many others in the study

area.

5.3 Recommendation

Based on the findings, the following recommendations were made:

1. Relevant farm inputs (including improved planting materials as well as fertilizer) should

be provided for farmers at the appropriate time and should also be subsidized.

46
2. More extension agents (EAS) should be employed in order to improve on the number

visits of the extension personnel.

REFERENCES

Abass A.B., Towo E., Mukuka I., Okechukwu R.U., Ranaivoson R., Tarawali G., Kanju E. IITA;

Ibadan, Nigeria: 2014. Growing cassava: a training manual from production to

postharvest.

Adeniji A.A., Ega L.A., Akoroda M.O., Adeniyi A.A., Ugwu B.O., de Balogun A. Department

of Agriculture Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources Nigeria. FAO;

2005. Cassava Development in Nigeria.

Adofu I, Shaibu SO, Yakubu S (2013) The economic impact of improved agricultural technology

on cassava productivity in Kogi State of Nigeria. International Journal of Food and

Agricultural Economics 1(1):63–74

Ahmed S.I., Joshi M.B. Analysis of instability and growth rate of cotton in three districts of

Marathwada. Int. J. Statistika Math. 2013;6(3):121–124.

Ajayi, A.R. (2002). Changes in behaviour and social status as perceived by participating farmers

in Agricultural Development Projects in Ondo and Enugu States, Nigeria. Agro-Science

Journal of Tropical Agriculture, food, Environment and Extension, 3(1):47-54.

Ajibefun Igbekele Amos. Nigeria’s Agricultural Policy, Productivity and Poverty: the Critical

Nexus. The Federal University of Technology; Akure: 2015. pp. pp1–6. Unpublished

Inaugural Lecture Series 69.

Akoroda M.O., Gebremeshel I., Oyinlola A.E. IITA; Ibadan, Nigeria: 1985. Impart of IITA

Cassava Varieties in Oyo State of Nigeria; p. 105.

47
Akoroda, M.O. and Teri, J.M. (2004). Food Security and Diversification in SADC Countries.

Approach “A case study of Western Nigeria Cassava. Farmers” Indian Journal of

Agricultural Economics 27 (2):56-66.

Ani, A.O. (2006). Effect of Desertification on cassava Production Potentials in the North Eastern

Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Research and Policies, 1(1):37-41.

Apata, T.G., Ogunyinka, A. I. and Apata, O.M. (2008). Effects Of Adoption Of Improved

Varieties Of Cassava Stem On Income In Cassava-Based Farm Holdings In Delta State,

Nigeria. Journal of Agriculture and Social Research (JASR) 8 (2): 137- 143.

Asher et al. 1980. Nutritional requirements of cassava. Australian Institute ofAgricultural

Research, Canberra, Australia.

Ayanwuyi, Israel (December 25, 2023). "Ogbomoso: Ajagungbade III to

Orumogege III Documentary". AIF YORUBA CULTURAL CENTRE. Retrieved

10-07-2024.

Ayoade, A.R. (2012). The adoption impact of improved cassava varieties on the social life of

rural farmers in Oriire Local Government Area of Oyo State. International Journal of

Humanities and Social Science, 3(12):279-286.

Boyal V.K., Pant D.C., Mehra J. Growth, ınstability and acreage response function in production

of cumin in Rajasthan. Bioscan. 2015;10(1):359–362.

Chernow, Barbara A; Vallasi, George A., eds. (1993). "Ogbomosho". Columbia

Encyclopedia (5th ed.). Columbia University Press. p. 1997. Retrieved 10-07-2024.

Cock J.H. Cassava: a basic energy source in the tropics. Science. 1982;218(4574):755–762.

48
Daniels A., Udah A., Elechi N., Oriuwa C., Tijani G., Sanni A. 2011. Report on Cassava Value

Chain Analysis in the Niger Delta. Foundation for Partnership Initiatives in the Niger

Delta (PIND), 1st Floor St. James Building, 167. Abuja (Nigeria)

Datt G, Ravallion M (1996) How Important to India’s Poor is the Sectoral composition of

Growth?World Bank Economic Review 10(1):1–26

Denning G., Kabambe P., Sanchez P., Malik A., Flor R., Harawa R., Nkhoma P., Zamba C.,

Banda C., Magombo C., Keating M., Wangila J., Sachs J. Input subsidies to improve

smallholder maize productivity in Malawi: toward an African green revolution. PLoS

Biol. 2009;7:2–10.

Denton F.T., Azogu I.I., Ukoll M.K. AIDU, Federal Department of Agriculture; Abuja, Nigeria:

2004. Cassava Based Recipes for House Hold Utilization and Income generation.

Deosthali V., Chandrahekkar Tice: regionwise growth trends in Maharashtra. Econ. Polit.

Wkly. 2004;39(3):240–242.

Devi Y.,L., Arivelarasan T., Kapngaihlian J. Pulses production in India: trend and decomposition

analysis. Econ. Aff. 2017;62(3):1–4.

Eke-Okoro O.N., Njoku D.N. A review of cassava development in Nigeria from 1940-

2010. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 2012;7(1):59–65.

El-Sharkawy M.A. Casssava biology and physiology. Plant Mol. Biol. 2003;53:621–641.

Ewetola E.A, Babarinde SA, Omirin T, Ojewole DO (2017) Farmers’perception ofthe usefulness

of vetiver grass for termite control on Ogbomoso Agricul-tural Zone Farmlands, South-

Western Nigeria. J King Saud Univ Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2017.01.002

Fakayode S.B., Babatunde R.O., Ajao R. Productivity analysis of cassava based production

systems in Guinea savannah. Am. Eurasian J. Sci. Res. 2008;3(1):33–39.

49
FAO (2009). Food and Agricultural Organization. Production year book for 2009. Food and

Agricultural Organization, Rome, Italy

FAO . 2018. Food Outlook - Biannual Report on Global Food Markets – November 2018. Rome;

p. 104.http://www.fao.org/3/ca2320en/CA2320EN.pdf License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.

FAO . Report on Regional Conference on Cassava in the Caribbean and Latin American, 10–12

February 2014. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; Rome: 2015.

Fresco, L.O. 1993. The dynamics of cassava in Africa: an outline of research issues.COSCA

Working Paper No 9. Collaborative Study of Cassava in Africa.International Institute of

Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria.

Hossain S, Alamgir M, Croach R (1992) Patterns and Determinants of Adoption of Farm

Practices: Some evidence fromBangladesh. Agricultural Systems 38(1):1–15

http://www.agricultureandfoodsecurity.com/content/3/1/17

IITA (2004). International Institute of Tropical Agriculture. Annual Report of IITA, Ibadan,

Nigeria, http://www.iita.org/cms/articlefiles/92- Project%20E%202004.pdf (last

consulted: 16 June 2009).

Juma C. Oxford University Press; 2015. The New Harvest: Agricultural Innovation in Africa.

Kakali M., Basu P. Measurement of growth trend: an econometric study of food grains

production in west. Bengladesh. J. Agric. Econ. 2006;3(3):44–55.

Martin A.and Ejike E. I. (2018). Ecophysiology and Production Principles of Cassava (Manihot

species) in Southeastern Nigeria, Cassava, Viduranga W a i s u n d a r a , I n t e c h O

p e n , D O I : 10.5772/intechopen.70828. pp.106-122

Mashenene et al., International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science 12(5) (2023),

411-420

50
Mercer E, Pattanayak SK (2003) Agroforestry adoption by smallholders. Forests in a market

economy. Forestry Sciences Series 72(1):283–299

Moyo S. 2016. Family Farming in Sub-saharan Africa: its Contribution to Agriculture, Food

Security and Rural Development (No. 150) Working Paper.

Nata JF, Mjelde JW, Boadu FO (2014) Household adoption of soil-improving practices and food

insecurity in Ghana. Agriculture & Food Security 3(1):17, Retrieved online November

12, 2014 at

Njoku D.N., Muoneke C.O. Effect of cowpea planting density on growth, yield and productivity

of component crops in cowpea/cassava intercropping system. Agro-

Science. 2008;7(2):106–113.

Nweke FL, Akorhe IA (2002) Adoption behavior of Farmers towards yam mini sets technology

in Imo State Nigeria. Apaper presented at the 25th annual conference of Agricultural

Science Society of Nigeria. Federal University of Technology Oweri, 5–6th September

1989. Pg 18–21

Nweke, F.I., Hahn, S.K. &Ugwu, B.O. 1994. Circumstances of rapid spread ofcultivation of

improved cassava varieties in Nigeria. Journal of Farming SystemsResearch and

Extension 4(3).

Nweke, F.I., Ugwu, B.O., Dixon, A.G.O., Asadu, C.L.A. &Ajobo, O. 1997. Cassavaproduction

in Nigeria: A function of farmer access to market and to improvedproduction and

processing technologies. COSCA Working Paper No. 21.Collaborative Study of cassava

in Africa, International Institute of TropicalAgriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria.

51
Nweke, Felix I. Ugwu, B.O., Asiedu, C.L. & Ay, P. 1992. Production Costs in the Yambased

Cropping Systems of Southeastern Nigeria. RCMP Research Monograph No.6. Resource

and Crop Management Programme, IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria.

Nwokoro S.O., Orheruata A.M., Ordiah P.I. Replacement of maize with cassava sievates in

cockerel starter diets: effect on performance and carcass characteristics. Trop. Anim.

Health Prod. 2002;34(2):163–167.

Ogbonna, M. C., Asumugha, G. N., Ayaegbulam, H.N. Okoye, B.C. Onwumere,

J and Akinpelu A. (2007) “Agricultural technology adoption, seed
access constraints and commercialization in Ethiopia”. Journal of
Development and Agricultural Economics 3(9):436–447

Onu M.O. and Madukwe M.C. (2002). Adoption Levels and Information Sources of “Brood and

Sell” Poultry Operators. Agro-Science. Journal of Tropical Agriculture, food,

Environment and Extension, 3(1): 63-67.

Pender J, Gebremedhin B (2006) Determinants of agricultural and land management practices

and impacts in crop production and household income in highlands of Tigray, Ethiopia.

Journal of Africa Economics 17(1):395–450

Pinnock, 1917, p. 43-44"Ogbomosho". Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

Retrieved2024-07-10.

"Ogbomosho Population 2024". worldpopulationreview.com. Retrieved 10-07-2024

Reporters, Emporium (2020-03-27). "Origin of Ogbomoso, Oyo state". Emporium

Reporters. Retrieved 10-07-2024.

Rogers, E.M. (2015).Diffusion of Innovation (4th edition). The free Press New York. 21 – 45.

Shideed K (1998) The Impact of New Technologies: A Methodology Development. ICARDA-

WARP, M/M Project

52
Stoorvogel, J.J. & Fresco, L.O. 2011. The identification of agro-ecological zones forcassava in

Africa with particular emphasis on soils. COSCA Working Paper No. 5.Collaborative

Study of Cassava in Africa, IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria Achive.

Ugwu, B.O. 1996. Increasing cassava production in Nigeria and prospects for sustaining the

trend, Outlook on Agriculture vol. 25 No. 3 179–185.

Umunakwe, P.C., Nwakwasi, R.N., Ani, A.O., Ejiogu- Okereke, E.N. and Nnadi, F.N. (2015).

Constraints to the Adoption of Improved CassavaVarieties among Rural Farmers in

ImoState, Nigeria. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology,

6(1): 56-63.

Xingliang M, Guanming S (2011) A Dynamic Adoption Model with Bayesian Learning: An

Application to U.S. SoybeanFarmers., Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the

Agricultural and Applied Economics Associations 2011 AAEA and NAREA Joint Annual

Meeting, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, July 24-26

53
 Appendix

LADOKE AKINTOLA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY OPEN AND DISTANCE

LEARNING CENTRE (LODLC), OGBOMOSO

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS QUESTIONNAIRE ON

EFFECT OF CASSAVA PRODUCTION ON THE INCOME OF RURAL HOUSEHOLDS

IN OGBOMOSO AGRICULTURAL ZONE

Dear respondent,

This questionnaire is designed to obtain information on Effect of Cassava Production on

The Income of Rural Households in Ogbomoso Agricultural Zone. Please, kindly fill this

questionnaire appropriately and give accurate information. The information is required

for research purpose and will be treated confidential.

Thanks

Name of Village

Local Government

SECTION A: SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENT

1. Age of the Respondent (Years).

A. 18 – 27 ( ). B. 28 – 37 ( )

54
C. 38 – 47 ( ) D. 48 and above ( )

2. Marital Status of the Respondent

A. Single ( ). B. Married ( ) C. Divorced ( ) Widowed ( ) (e) Separated ( )

3. Highest level of Education of the Respondent

(a) Did not attended any school [ ] (b) Attended adult education school ( )

(c) Attended but did not complete primary school [ ] (d) Completed ONLY primary

school ( )

(e) Attended but not completed secondary school ( ) (f) Attended and Completed

secondary school [ ] (g) Obtained Tertiary Education [ ]

4. Primary Occupation of the Respondent

A. Artisan ( ) B. Civil service ( )

C. Farming ( ) D. Unemployed ( ) E. Others (Specify) ( )

5. Family Size of the Respondent

A. 1 -3 ( ) B. 4 – 6 ( ) C. 7 – 9 ( ) D. Above 9 ( )

6. Farm Size of the Respondent______________________

7. Year (s) of Cassava farming experience of the Respondent

A. 1 -3 ( ) B. 4 – 6 ( ) C. 7 – 9 ( ) D. Above 9 ( )

8. Year (s) of Cassava Agri-Business experience of the Respondent

A. 1 -3 ( ) B. 4 – 6 ( ) C. 7 – 9 ( ) D. Above 9 ( )

9. Other Occupation as Secondary occupation of respondent (a) Farming [ ] (b) Trading [ ]

(c) Hunting [ ] (d) Artisan [ ] (e) others (specify) _________

10. Are you a member of any cassava farmer’s association or cooperative society?

(a) Yes [ ] (b) No [ ]

55
11. If yes, for how long have you been in the association or cooperative society?

A. 1 -3 ( ) B. 4 – 6 ( ) C. 7 – 9 ( ) D. Above 9 ( )

12. Did you have contact with extension officers in the last farming season?

(a) Yes [ ] (b) No [ ]

13. If yes, how many times did an extension agent visit you in the last processing

season__________________

14. Do you have access to credit facility in the last farming season? (a) Yes [ ] (b) No [ ]

(b). If yes, indicate from which source and the amount given.

(i). Cooperative bank N__________________

(ii). Commercial bank N__________________

(iii). Co-operative bank and thrift society N__________________

(iv). Family/Friends N__________________

(v). Agricultural Bank (E.g BOA) N__________________

(vi). Government N__________________

(vii). Others specify N__________________

(vii). No Credit Obtained N__________________

SECTION B: ANALYZE THE FACTORS DETERMINING CASSAVA FARMER’S

INCOME IN THE STUDY AREA

15. How do you sold your cassava harvested in the last farming season?

A. At the Farmgate ( ) B. By Farmer’s Association ( ) C. E – Sales/Online Marketing ( )

D. Middleman ( ) E. Middlemen/Market Association F. Others Specify ____________

16. Do you think gender is a determining factor in marketing cassava in your area?

A. Yes ( ) B. No ( )

56
17. Have you ever had problem(s) in marketing your cassava due to your educational

background?

A. Yes ( ) B. No ( )

18. Has payments of taxes and monies to associations before/After sales affected your

Income in the previous years?

A. Yes ( ) B. No ( )

19. How has payments of taxes and monies to associations before sales affected your sales?

A. High tariffs and taxations limits trade of harvested cassava put up for sales ( )

B. Association often obstructs sales until these payments are made and it affects the income

( )

C. Payments to Middlemen for sales are too high and affects the rate of income expected on

the sales ( )

D. Government and Government agencies also requests for higher tariffs on every sales at

the market ( )

E. I don’t pay any monies for sales of my produce ( )

F. Others (Specify)_________________

SECTION C: TO DETERMINE THE PERCEIVED EFFECT OF CASSAVA

PRODUCTION ON THE INCOME OF RURAL HOUSEHOLDS IN THE STUDY AREA.

20. How much do you make a profit on cassava production in the last harvest?

₦___________________________

21. Has Cassava Production helped in your consumption levels and food security asides

sales?

A. Yes ( ) B. No ( )

57
22. Which food products do you derived from cassava that has helped in your household

food security?

1._______________________________, 2. _______________________________

3._______________________________, 4. _______________________________

23. What is/are the other value-added innovations you produce to source income from

cassava?

Variables Response

Garri

Cassava fufu flour

High quality cassava flour

Cassava Chin Chin

Cassava Starch

Cassava Cake

Cassava Chips

Cassava Strip

Cassava Bread

Others (Specify)…

SECTION D: IDENTIFY CONSTRAINTS ASSOCIATED WITH CASSAVA

PRODUCTION IN THE STUDY AREA

24. What are the possible problems you used to encounter with cassava production in your

area?

1.____________________________________, 2. _____________________________________

58
3.____________________________________, 4. _____________________________________

5.____________________________________, 6. _____________________________________

7.____________________________________, 8. _____________________________________

59