Geospatial and socioeconomic traits encumbering tractorisation of farmland among crop farmers in Ogun State, Nigeria

• Autorzy: Lawal-Adebowale Okanlade A.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.2478/jwld- 2019-0067

Warianty tytułu

PL

Geoprzestrzenne i społeczno-ekonomiczne czynniki ograniczające mechanizację rolnictwa w stanie Ogun w Nigerii

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The objective of this study was to ascertain the socioeconomic and geospatial traits responsible for little or no usage of tractors for land clearing and cultivation by rural farmers in Ogun State, Nigeria. Data were obtained on the study objectives with use of interview guide, in-depth discussion and field observation a randomly selected 247 arable crop farmers. The obtained data were subjected to frequency count and binominal analysis of variance. Results showed factors such as farmers’ inability to afford tractor acquisition and/or hire tractors services (prop = 1.00, p < 0.05) as the major economic traits encumbering tractor usage for land preparation. The social traits included inadequate available of tractors to serve the farmers (prop = 0.76, p < 0.05), and farmers’ apprehension of possible destruction of soil structure and/or farm land (prop = 0.64, p < 0.05) as a result of tractor usage for land preparation. The geospatial traits were stump/tree distribution (prop = 0.97, p < 0.05) and land fragmentation (prop = 0.92, p < 0.05). It was thus concluded that both socioeconomic and farm geospatial traits interactively encumbered farm tractorisation in the study area. It was recommended that farmers should be supported technically and financially by stakeholders in agro-development so as to enable them to afford tractor usage for land cultivation.

PL

Celem badań było ustalenie społeczno-ekonomicznych i geoprzestrzennych powodów niewielkiego bądź zerowego wykorzystania ciągników w pracach polowych w stanie Ogun w Nigerii. Dane do badań pozyskiwano metodą wywiadu, dyskusji i obserwacji w terenie u losowo wybranych 247 rolników uprawiających ziemie orne. Uzyskane dane poddano obliczeniom częstości i analizie wariancji. Wyniki wskazują na niemożność nabycia ciągnika lub wynajęcia usług z użyciem ciągnika (prop = 1,00, p < 0,05) jako główną ekonomiczną przyczynę ograniczającą mechanizację prac polowych. Powody społeczne obejmowały niedostępność ciągników do obsługi rolnictwa (prop = 0,76, p < 0,05) oraz obawę rolników przed możliwym zniszczeniem struktury gleby (prop = 0,64, p < 0,05) w wyniku stosowania ciągników do pracy w polu. Do przyczyn geoprzestrzennych zaliczono rozmieszczenie pni/drzew (prop = 0,97, p < 0,05) i fragmentację pól uprawnych (prop = 0,92, p < 0,05). We wnioskach stwierdzono, że czynniki społeczno-ekonomiczne i przestrzenne, działając łącznie, ograniczają mechanizację prac polowych na badanym obszarze. Zaleca się wsparcie techniczne i finansowe rolników przez interesariuszy sektora rolniczego, aby umożliwić im wykorzystanie ciągników w uprawie ziemi.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

farm tractorisation; geospatial traits; socioeconomic traits; rural farmland; arable crop farmers; Ogun State

PL

mechanizacja gospodarstw rolnych; rolnicy; stan Ogun; uwarunkowania geoprzestrzenne; uwarunkowania społeczno-ekonomiczne; ziemie uprawne

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo ITP
• Czasopismo: Journal of Water and Land Development
• Rocznik: 2019
• Tom: no. 43
• Strony: 96--105
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 43 poz., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Lawal-Adebowale Okanlade A.

• Federal University of Agriculture, College of Agricultural Management and Rural Development, Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, Alabata Road, 110001, Abeokuta, Ogun State, Nigeria

Bibliografia

• ALABDAN B.A, YUSUF Y. 2013. Tractor hiring schemes in Nigeria: A case study of Federal Capital Territory (FCT). African Journal of Agricultural Research. Vol. 8. Iss. 47 p. 5962–5966.
• APANTAKU S.O., LAWAL-ADEBOWALE O.A., OMOTAYO A.M. 2004. Rainfall distribution pattern and its implications for seasonal farming calendar of agricultural extension services in Ogun State, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Science, Sciences, Environment and Technology. Ser. A. Vol. 4. Iss. 1 p. 177–187.
• BABBIE E. 2005. The basics of social research. 4th ed. Thomson. Wadsworth. ISBN 0534630367 pp. 519.
• BAILEY K.D. 1987. Methods of social research. 3rd ed. New York, N.Y. The Free Press. ISBN 0029014506 pp. 533.
• BARTHOLOMEW J.C. 1990. The time atlas of the world. London. Times Books. ISBN 0723003467 pp. 225.
• BARTLETT II J.E., KOTRLIK J.W., HIGGINS CH.C. 2001. Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal. Vol. 19. Iss. 1 p. 43–50.
• BISHOP-SAMBROOK C. 2003. Labour saving technologies and practices for farming and household activities in eastern and southern Africa: Labour constraints and the impact of HIV/AIDS on rural livelihoods in Bondo and Busia districts, western Kenya. Rome. FAO pp. 62.
• BRIAN S., JOSEF K. 2016. Farm power and mechanization for small farms in sub-Saharan Africa smallholders [online]. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome. [Access 21.09.2019]. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/aa0651e.pdfIs%20it%20the%20same%20paper
• BRUCE J.W. 1993. Do indigenous tenure systems constrain agricultural development? In: Land in African agrarian systems. Eds. T.J. Bassett, D.E. Crummey. Madison, WI. University of Wisconsin Press p. 35–56.
• CHISANGO F.F.T., OBI A. 2010. Efficiency effects Zimbabwe’s agricultural mechanization and fast track land reform programme: A stochastic frontier approach. [The joint 3rd African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE) and 48th Agricultural Economists Association of South Africa (AEASA) Conference]. [19–23.09.2010 Cape Town, South Africa] pp. 24.
• CLARKE L.J. 2000. Strategies for agricultural mechanization development: The roles of the private sector and the government. Rome, Italy. Agricultural Support Systems Division FAO pp. 14.
• CostOwl 2018. How much does a new tractor cost? [online]. [Access 25.05.2018]. Available at: http://www.costowl.com/b2b/industrial-equipment-new-tractors-cost.html
• Daily Monitor 2013. Lessons for Ugandan farmers in using mechanised agriculture [online]. [Access 8.08.2016]. Available at: https://www.monitor.co.ug/Magazines/Farming/Lessons-for-Ugandan-farmers-in-using-mechanisedagriculture/689860-1902044-4uiyasz/index.html
• DAUDA S.M., AGIDI G., SHOTUNDE M.A. 2010. Agricultural tractor ownership and off-season utilization in Ogun State, South Western Nigeria. African Journal of General Agriculture. Vol. 6. Iss. 3 p. 95–103.
• DOOLEY D. 1984. Social research methods. Englewood Cliffs. Prentice-Hall, Inc. ISBN 0138181217 pp. 430.
• EDWARDS W. 2015. Estimating farm machinery costs. Ag Decision Maker. File A3–29 [online]. Iowa State University Extension and Outreach pp. 11. [Access 25.05.2018]. Available at: https://store.extension.iastate.edu/Product/Estimating-Farm-Machinery-Costs-pdf
• EDWARDS W. 2017. Farm machinery selection. Ag Decision Maker. File A3–28 [online]. Iowa State University Extension and Outreach pp. 9. [Access 25.05.2018]. Available at: https://store. extension.iastate.edu/Product/Farm-Machinery-Selection-pdf
• ESSIET D. 2015. Tractors: Beyond farmers’ reach [online]. The Nation Online Newspaper. 10 July 2015. [Access 4.07.2016]. Available at: https://thenationonlineng.net/tractors-beyondfarmers-reach/
• FAO 1998. Motorized soil tillage in West Africa [online]. Rome. Food and Agriculture Organization. [Access 5.05.2017]. Available at: http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/ags/AGSE/TILPAP.htm
• FAO, UNIDO 2008. Agricultural mechanization in Africa … Time for action. Planning investment for enhanced agricultural productivity [online]. Report of an Expert Group Meeting January 2008, Vienna, Austria. Rome – Vienna. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, United Nations Industrial Development Organisation pp. 36 [Access 10.17.2019]. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/k2584e/k2584e.pdf
• FMARD 2011. Agricultural transformation agenda: We will grow Nigeria’s agricultural sector. Draft for discussion [online]. Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development pp. 89. [Access 25.05.2018]. Available at: http://unaab.edu.ng/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Agricultural%20Transformation%20Blue%20Print.pdf
• HANSON S. 2013. Adopting a scalable operating model tailored to African smallholders [online]. [Access 20.05.2019]. Available at: https://stephaniehanson.com/2013/05/31/adopting-ascalable-operating-model-tailored-to-african -smallholders/
• KHAN S.M. undated. Farm machinery and its role in development [online]. Pakistan Engineering Congress. Paper 144. [Access 25.05.2018]. Available at: https://pecongress.org.pk/images/upload/books/Paper144.pdf
• LAWAL-ADEBOWALE O.A. 2002. Assessment of rainfall distribution pattern and its implications for planning agricultural extension programme in Ogun State. M. Agric. Thesis. Abeokuta. University of Agriculture pp. 377.
• LAWAL-ADEBOWALE O.A. 2012. Cognition of agroclimate change: An essentiality for amenable farm enterprise production and responsive extension service delivery in Nigeria. Proceedings of Agricultural Extension Society of Nigeria (AESON) p. 260–271.
• LEŃ P. 2017. The size of the external patchwork of fields as an indicator of the need for land consolidation and exchange in the villages of the commune of Drzewica. Journal of Water and Land Development. Vol. 33 (IV–VI) p. 99–106. DOI 10.1515/jwld-2017-0024.
• MANUWA S.I. 1996. Management of agricultural tractors and implements in tropical setting in Nigeria. [17th annual conference of N.S.A.E]. [Akure, Nigeria. Federal University of Technology].
• MCCAULEY J.F. 2003. Plowing ahead: The effects of agricultural mechanization on land tenure in Burkina Faso [online]. Journal of Public and International Affairs. Vol. 14 pp. 27. [Access 10.05.2017]. Available at: https://jpia.princeton.edu/sites/jpia/files/2003-6.pdf
• MREMA G., SONI P., ROLLE R.S. 2014. A strategy for sustainable agricultural mechanization: Sustainable mechanization across agri-food chains in Asia and the Pacific Regions [online]. Bangkok. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. [Access 13.10.2017]. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4270e.pdf
• MUCHARA B. 2010. Implications of the fast track land reform programme on markets and market relationships for livestock, cotton and maize in Mwenezi District of Zimbabwe [online]. Working Paper 12. In: Livelihood after land reforms in Zimbabwe. Working Paper Series pp. 35. [Access 20.05.2019]. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283017912_Implication_of_Fast_Track_Land_Reform_on_markets_and_market_relationship_for_cattle_cotton_and_maize_in_Mwenezi_District_of_Zimbabwe
• NEJABAT M., NEGAHDARSABER M., GHAHARI G. 2017. Range of soil and climate characteristics appropriate for Pistacia atlantica forest development and rehabilitation (case study: Fars province, Iran). Journal of Water and Land Development. No. 32 (I–III) p. 71–78. DOI 10.1515/jwld-2017-0008.
• Ogun State Government 2017. Ogun State in brief. Fact file. [online]. [Access 21.09.2019]. Available at: http://ogunstate.gov. ng/ogun-state/
• PROKOPOWICZ J., JANKOWSKA-HUFLEJT H. 2011. Productive and economic factors affecting the development of mountain meadow organic farms in the years 2004–2009. Journal of Water and Land Development. No. 15 p. 115–126.
• RIJK A.G. undated. Agricultural mechanization strategy [online]. [Access 15.05.2018]. Available at: http://www.un-csam.org/publication/CIGR_APCAEM_Website.pdf
• SHARMA M., GROVER D.K. 1998. Determinants of demand for tractor – A comparative study of India and Punjab. Journal of Agricultural Development and Policy. No. 10 p. 11–21.
• SINGH J., SALARIA A., KAUL A. 2015. Impact of soil compaction on physical properties and root growth: A review. International Journal of Food, Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences. Vol. 5 Iss. 1 p. 23–32.
• SINGH S. 2009. Agricultural machinery in India: A study growth, marketing structure, and business strategies. CMA Publication No. 230. Centre for Management in Agriculture/India Institute of Management
• TAKESHIMA H., PRATT A.N., DIAO X. 2013. Mechanization and agricultural technology evolution, agricultural intensification in sub-Saharan Africa: Typology of agricultural mechanization in Nigeria. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 95. Iss. 5 p. 1230–1236. DOI 10.1093/ajae/aat045.
• TAKESHIMA H., SALAU S. 2010. Agricultural mechanization and smallholder farmers in Nigeria. Nigeria Strategy Support Program: Policy. No. 26. Abuja. International Food Policy Research Institute pp. 5.
• Vanguard 2013. Private sector key to agric mechanization in Nigeria – stakeholders. [online]. AgroNigeria. 6.08. 2013. [Access 2.08.2016]. Available at: http://www.vanguardngr.com/category/business
• WATSON J. 2001. How to determine a sample size: Tipsheet #60 [online]. University Park, PA: Penn State Cooperative Extension. [Access 17.03.2014]. Available at: http://www.extension.psu.edu/evaluation/pdf/TS60.pdf
• WHITWORTH T. 2014. Agricultural machinery hazards – Be aware of inherent risks [online] p. 16–18. Spring Edition. [Access 7.05.2017]. Available at: http://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/stnew/article/2004spr16.pdf
• WÓJCIK-LEŃ J., SOBOLEWSKA-MIKULSKA K. 2017. Issues related to marginal lands with reference to selected agricultural problematic areas. Journal of Water and Land Development. No. 35 p. 265–273. DOI 10.1515/jwld-2017-0093.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu w ramach umowy 509/P-DUN/2018 ze środków MNiSW przeznaczonych na działalność upowszechniającą naukę (2019).