International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology (IJEAB) Vol-3, Issue-2, Mar-Apr- 2018

http://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab/3.2.32 ISSN: 2456-1878

Socio-economic Determinants of Cassava

Production in Benue State, Nigeria.
Aboajah, F.N.1; Onjewu, S.S.2; Chia, J.I.3; Okeme, S.3
1
National Root Crops Research Institute, Umudike, Otobi Sub-Station, Otobi, Otukpo LGA. , Benue State
2
Raw Materials Research and Development Council, Abuja.
3
Department of Agricultural Extension and Communication, Federal University of Agriculture, Makurdi, Benue State, Nigeria.

Abstract— The study examined the determinants of I. INTRODUCTION

cassava production in Benue State Nigeria. A total of 180 Cassava is one of the important source of carbohydrate
farmers were selected across the state using multi-stage food in Nigerian. Nigerian is the largest producer of
sampling technique. Data, which comprised information cassava in the word with a total output currently put at
on the socio-economic characteristics and other about 34 million metric tones a year (FAO, 2002).
quantitative variables relevant to the study, were collected Presently, cassava is primarily product for food especially
using a well structured questionnaire and personal in the form of Garri, tapioca and fufu for human
interviews. The social- economic characteristics were consumption. But the crop can be processed into several
analyzed using descriptive statistics such as percentages secondary products for industrial market value (World
and frequencies; simple multiple regression technique was Bank survey, 1981). These products include chips, pellets,
used to analyze the production functions of cassava flour adhesives, alcohol and starch, which are vital raw
farmers. The results obtained revealed that R2 value was materials in the livestock feed, alcohol/ethanol, textile,
0.419 indicating that 41.9% of variation in cassava confectionary, wood, food and soft drinks industries. They
production was accounted for by the variables considered are also tradable in the international market.
in the study. Specifically, age of the farmers, occupation, In view of the serious challenges of feeding world
household size, farming experience, level of education of population of over 6.1billlion people, it has become
farmers, farms size and fertilizer input where all imperative to pay more attention to food production issues.
significant and are important variables that affected the About 215million (43%) sub-Saharan African population
production of cassava in the study area. Given the is chronically undernourished and unless strong action is
enormous potential of cassava production in the study taken this may increase to round 315million in the year,
area, it has become so imperative that youths be 2010 (World Food Programs, 1995). If food production is
encourage to participate effectively in cassava production, to keep pace with rapid population growth and demand for
seeing that majority of the farmers are aged and will retire food, a new and creative approach to agriculture
from active farming. This is to ensure food security. development must be developed.
Effective structure should be put in place for the input and It is important to emphasize that despite potential benefits
credit facilities provided by the government, this will stemming from the expansion of the agricultural sector
ensure that these facilities get to those who need it and through various government efforts, its overall
will in turn help the farmers expand their production. This productivity remain low and the poor performance of
study, although base in Benue State, may have agriculture is most clearly evidenced by the low standard
implications for other States with similar situation. This of living of these small-scale rural farmers (Dogon-daji,
will help the state meet self-sufficiency in food production 2006). Cassava offers a particularly significant potential
and so be able to feed her teeming population. for increasing food production and income in Nigeria.
Keywords— Socio-economic, Determinants, Cassava, Like other agricultural crops, cassava has a role to play in
Farmers, Benue State. the developing economies.
Estimates of industrial cassava use suggest that
approximately 16 percent of cassava root production was
utilized as an industrial raw material in 2001 in Nigeria,

www.ijeab.com Page | 550

International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology (IJEAB) Vol-3, Issue-2, Mar-Apr- 2018
http://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab/3.2.32 ISSN: 2456-1878
10 percent of which was used as chips in animal feed importance of cassava in the farming system of the
while 5 percent was processed into a syrup concentrate for sampled zones in the area. In each zone one Local
soft drink and about 1 percent was processed into high Government Area /was selected by simple random
quality cassava flour used in biscuits and confectionary, sampling technique from the list of all Local Government
dextrin per-gelled starch for adhesive, starch and Areas in the area. Then in each Local Government Area, 6
hydrolysates for pharmaceutical, and seasoning s ( communities were similarly selected by random sampling
kormawa and Akoroda, 2003 ). This estimate leaves 84 technique, and in each community, 10 cassava farmers
percent or 28.9million tones of production for food were equally selected through the same sampling
consumption, a portion of this of course being lost in post technique. 60 Respondents were obtained from each
harvest and waste. But, the methods used in achieving agricultural zone making up a sample size of 180
these are almost tedious which may lead to inefficiency respondents for the entire study area, Using structured
use of resources and perhaps low quality and quantity of questionnaires, relevant data on house hold cassava
product. This implies that for the product from cassava to production were collected from the respondents. Data were
complete favorable in the international market, there is analyzed with both descriptive and simple multiple
need to go beyond tedious method of producing which regression statistics.
perhaps seem inefficiency (Ogbonna, et al, 2007). The Model Specification
method used by small and medium scale cassava Categorical variables such as marital status and type of
processing in Imo state seem to be tedious, may lead to organization farmers belong was dummy coded in order to
inefficiency use of technologically input and low product. transform them into dischotomous variables. Other
An efficient processing technique in food could lead to variables such as sex, age, level of education, farm size
increase in the quality and quantity of food available for was entered into multiple regression equation.
consumption (Nelson and Donald, 1980, Ogbonna and Model is specified as follows;
Ezedinma, 2005). According to IFC, (2003) the small and Y = α + β1 X1+β2 X2+β3 X3.. + β14 X14+ U
medium processing technologies is enormous. Traditional Where:
cassava processing has a number of undesirable attributes. Y = Quantity of cassava produced.
It is time consuming, provides low yields and lacks A = Constant term
storages capacities. Many described it as drudgery. Mass β1 = β14 regression coefficients.
production of cassava is possible because it tolerates wide X1 = sex (male = 1, female = 2)
range of soil and climatic conditions. Cassava is highly X2 = age (years)
tolerate to acid soils and need no additional fertilizer X3 = marital status: Single, married, widowed or
especially phosphoric fertilizer because the roots of divorced
cassava form symbiotic association fungus in the soil X4 = level of education (level of education
helping cassava plants to absorb phosphorus and attainment)
micronutrients from the soil (Howeler et al., 1990). Pander X5 = farming experience (years)
et al. (2000) on the other hand emphasized that cassava X6 = fertilizer use (money spent in procuring
requires fertilization especially nitrogen, phosphorus and fertilizer)
potassium; and that; cassava requires more nitrogen than X7 = farm size (in hectares)
phosphorus. Ezumah, and Okigbo (1980) suggested that X8 = on-farm income (Naira)
farming systems such as intercropping grain legumes with X9 = off-farm income (Naira)
cowpea, alley cropping, green maturing and animal dung X10 = household size (actual number of people
would increase cassava yield than the mineral fertilizer. living in the household)
X11 = Major occupation
II. METHODOLOGY X12 = membership of organization belong to (yes = 1, no
The survey was conducted in Katsina-Ala (zone A), =2)
Makurdi (zone B) and Otukpo (zone C) of Benue State, in X13 = planting materials (money spent in
2016 to examine factors determining cassava production in procuring planting materials)
the study area. The three agricultural zones in the area X14 = labour input (number of persons used in
study were purposively selected based on strategic cassava production)

www.ijeab.com Page | 551

International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology (IJEAB) Vol-3, Issue-2, Mar-Apr- 2018
http://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab/3.2.32 ISSN: 2456-1878
U = error term Table 1 indicates that 42.8% of the respondents had a
Socio-economic Characteristics of the household size of 6-10 persons, followed by 11-15
Respondents (28.6%), 16-20 (10.1%), above 20 (8.5%), 1-5 (7.8%),
Sex respectively. This implies that respondents have access to
Table 1 indicates that majority (70.6%) of family labour which will positively increase agricultural
participants in the scheme were male while 29.4% of the production. This implies that the respondents had a large
respondents were female. The predominance of male in household size. Banmeke and Ajayi (2008) noted that
farming operation may be attributed to the tedious nature large household size serves as an important source of farm
and hard work involved in various farm enterprises. labour and a strong base to adopt improved technologies
Similar finding has been reported by Abdullahi (2012) so as to be able to improve productivity in order to meet
which states that 84% of the farmers in Paiko Local up with economic needs of the family. Benue State had
Government Area of Niger State were male. mean household size of (M=18 persons).
Age Major Occupation
The study further revealed that most respondents Table 1 reveals that 98.9% of the respondents had farming
(30.0%) belonged to the age bracket of 51-60 years, as a major occupation while 1.1% of the respondents were
followed by 41-50 (25.6%), above 60 years (20. %), 31- involved in farming and trading. This implies that quite a
40 (18.3%), 21-30 (6.1%) respectively. The mean age of number were practicing farmers.
the respondents was 48.3 years. This implies that most of Faming Experience
the farmers in the study areas were very active to carry out The study further revealed that 35% of the respondents
agricultural activities. Age is considered to be an had between 6 and10 years of farming experience,
important characteristic in decision process of an followed by those who were above 20 years, (21.1%), 11
innovation (Agbamu, 2006). and 15 years (16.7%), 16 and 20 (14.4%) and 1 and 5
Marital Status (12.8%) of farming experience respectively. The mean
Majorities (90.6%) of the respondents were farming experience was 13.1 years. This implies that quite
married, while (9.4%) were single (table 1). The a number of the respondents have been farming for a long
proportion of married persons that participated in activities time. According to Obinne (1991) farming experience
was high the predominance of married individuals agrees enhances productivity and has shown to encourage rapid
with a study carried out by Uddin (2014) which revealed adoption of farming innovation.
that 85.8% of the Edo state farmers were married. The Farm Size
predominance of married persons that participated in A greater percentage (55.6%) had a farm size of 3.4
activities implies that they are ready to improve their hectares, 35.5% had 1.2 hectares, 7.8% had 5-6 hectares
livelihood and that of their families, since marriage is and 1.1% had above 6 hectares. The mean farm size was
often associated with occupational stability and 3.5 hectares. This implies that the respondents are small
responsibility (Uddin, 2014). scale farmers. Benue State farmers had mean farm size of
Level of Education (M=3.5 ha) .
Majority (75.5%) of the respondents had formal Estimated Annual On-Farm Income
education, whereas, 24.6% had no formal education (table The distribution of respondents according to their income
1). Among those with formal education, primary education revealed that about 53.9% of the respondents had annual
accounted for 29.4%, 23.3% had secondary education income of between N20,000 – N100,000, while 41.1% had
while 22.8% had tertiary education. This implies that the N101,000 – N500,000 and 5% had N501,000–
respondents were literate and were more likely to utilize N1,000.000. The mean annual income was (N154,
information on agriculture for enhanced food production. 156.50).Farmers with low income will not be able to
Egbule (2013) stated that education plays an important purchase subsidized farm inputs provided by the
role in creating awareness in farming communities government. This implies that respondents with high farm
because educated people are capable of sourcing income are most likely to purchase government inputs.
information on agricultural innovation. Benue State This result agrees with Abolagba (1997) who noted that
farmers spent M=13.1 years acquiring formal education. farmers with high income level are in a better position to
Household Size

www.ijeab.com Page | 552

International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology (IJEAB) Vol-3, Issue-2, Mar-Apr- 2018
http://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab/3.2.32 ISSN: 2456-1878
afford better facilities. Benue State farmers had income of Distribution of respondents according to their annual off-
(N154, 156.50). farm income revealed that 53.5% had annual off-farm
Membership of Organizations income of between N20,000 – N50,000, followed
Distribution of the respondents according to their byN51,000 N100,000 (23.9%), N101,000 – N150,000
membership of organization revealed that 93.3% belonged (13.9%), N151,000 – N200,000 (5.6%) and N201,000 -
to organizations and the remaining 6.7% did not belong to N250,000 (3.3%), respectively. The mean off-farm income
any. Being a member of any organization could be an was N38, 127.50. This is in addition to the annual on-farm
avenue for accessing information on increased income which could assist the farmer in purchasing more
productivity. Asadu (2013) reported that membership of subsidized inputs to increase production.
any organization is of advantage to farmers since social Planting Materials
organization offers an effective channel for contact with Distribution of respondents according to the plant
large number of farmers, as well as opportunities for materials grown by farmers’ revealed that 72.2% of the
interactions. This enhances farmers uptake of new practice respondents got their materials from International Institute
for agricultural production, processing and storage of farm for Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan and National Roots Crops
produce. Research Institute Umudike, Abia State, Nigeria. While
Fertilizer use the remaining 27.8% got their planting materials from
The fertilizer used was procured from Federal and State local vendors.
government fertilizer programme. Because of the delay of Labour Use
the fertilizer getting to the farmers, the percentage usage Majority 78.9% of the respondents use family labour while
by farmers was less than 50 % in Benue State. the remaining 21.1% used hired labour.
Estimated Annual Off-Farm Income

Table.1: Distribution of Socio-economic Characteristics of the Respondents

Socio-economic Benue (n=180)
Characteristics Freq % Mean
Sex:
Male 127 70.6
Female 53 29.4

Age(years)
21 – 30 11 6.1
31 – 40 33 18.3
41 – 50 46 25.6
51 – 60 54 30.0
> 60 36 20 48.3

Marital Status
Single 17 9.4
Married 163 90.6
Widowed - -
Divorced - -

Level of Education
No formal education 44 24.4
Primary education 53 29.4
Secondary education 42 23.3
Tertiary education 41 22.8
Mean of years spent in 13.1

www.ijeab.com Page | 553

International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology (IJEAB) Vol-3, Issue-2, Mar-Apr- 2018
http://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab/3.2.32 ISSN: 2456-1878
Acquiring formal education

Household size
(number)
1–5
6 – 10 14 7.8
11 – 15 77 42.8
16 – 20 54 28.6
>20 19 10.1
16 8.5
Major occupation 18
Farming
Fishing 178 98.9
Farming/Trading - -
Hunting 2 1.1
- 0
Farming experience(years)
1–5
6 – 10
11 – 15 23 12.8
16 – 20 63 35.0
>20 30 16.7
26 14.4
38 21.1 13.1

Farm size (hectares)

1–2
3–4
5–6 64 35.5
>6 100 55.6
14 7.8
Estimated Annual On- 2 1.1 3.5
farm Income (Naira)
20,000 – 100,000
101,000 – 500,000
501,000 – 1,000,000 97 53.9
74 41.1
Fertilizer use 9 5.0
Fertilizer purchase from 154,156.50
Government
Not purchase from 118 65.5
Government
62 34.5
Membership of
Organizations
Yes
No
168 93.3

www.ijeab.com Page | 554

International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology (IJEAB) Vol-3, Issue-2, Mar-Apr- 2018
http://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab/3.2.32 ISSN: 2456-1878
Planting materials 12 6.7
IITA/NRCRI
Other vendors
130 72.2
Labour use 50 27.8
Family labour
Hired Labour
142 78.9
Estimated Annual Off- 38 21.1
farm Income (Naira)
20,000 – 50,000
51,000 – 100,000
101,000 – 150,000 96 53.5
151,000 – 200,000 43 23.9
201,000 – 250,000 25 13.9
10 5.6
6 3.3 38,127.5
Total 180 100
Source: Field Survey, 2016

Socio-economic Characteristics Influencing Rural .305; t = -6.779; p<.05) and fertilizer use (β = -.305; t = -
Farmers’ Production Level 1.065; p<0.05) were significant at predicting respondents’
Table 2 revealed that socio-economic characteristics of production level .
farmers had significant influence on farmers’ production Table 2 further revealed the extent of prediction of each of
level in the activities (F(9,350) = 28.089; p≤0.05). The result the socio-economic characteristics of farmers at different
showed that the variables jointly predicted farmers’ levels were ranks based on the t values. The rating is as
production level in activities (R = .419), and jointly shown: farming size (t = 6.779; p<.05) >age (t = 3.939;
accounted for 40.4% variance (adjusted R2 = 0.404) in p<.05)>level of education (t = 3.804; p<.05)> farming
predicting farmers’ production level when all the socio- experience (t = 2.694; p<.05) >household size (t = 2.507;
economic characteristics were taken together. This implies p<.05) >major occupation (t = 2.023; p<.05)> fertilizer use
that other characteristics not taken into consideration in (t = 1.065; p<0.05). Farm size was the socio-economic
this model may have accounted for the remaining 59.6% characteristics that mostly predicted farmers’ production
variance. level and was followed by age, level of education, farming
Table 2 revealed the relative contribution of socio- experience, household size, major occupation while the
economic characteristics to farmers’ production level in least predicted socio-economic characteristic was fertilizer
activities. The relative contributions of sex (β = -.078; t = - use.
1.677; p>0.05), marital status (β = .049; t = 1.058; Farm size mostly predicts farmers’ production level and
p>0.05), membership of organisations (β = .030; t = .723; this agrees with Giroh et al. (2007) who noted that 86.7%
p>0.05), on-farm income (β = .032; t = .743; p>0.05), off- of respondents cultivated between 1-3 hectares, this
farm income (β = .052; t = 1.220; p>0.05) planting implies that majority are small holder farmers. Farm sizes
materials (β = .007; t = .166; p>0.050 ) and labour input (β were found to be factors with significant influence on the
=0.0.80; t= 0.842; p> 0.05) were not significant at farmers’ production level. Indicating that farmers with
predicting respondents’ production level. larger farm holdings were more likely to be highly aware
The relative contributions of age (β = -.190; t = -3.939; of information than those with small farm size.
p<.05), level of education (β = -.202; t = -3.804; p<.05), Age was significant and age is considered to be an
household size (β = -.108; t = -2.507; p<.05), major important characteristic in decision process of an
occupation (β = .099; t = 2.023; p<.05), farming innovation (Agbamu, 2006). This further revealed that
experience (β = .117; t = 2.694; p<.05), farming size (β = -

www.ijeab.com Page | 555

International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology (IJEAB) Vol-3, Issue-2, Mar-Apr- 2018
http://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab/3.2.32 ISSN: 2456-1878
most of the farmers were strong and very active to carry agricultural food production. This agrees with Obinne
out agricultural activities. (1991), reported that increased farming experience
Level of education was significant which suggest that enhances productivity and has shown to encourage rapid
literate farmers are more likely to source for agricultural adoption of farming innovation.
related information for higher agricultural production than Household size was significant and this implies
the illiterate farmers. This agrees with Egbule (2013) that that respondents have access to family labour which will
literate respondents can enhance utilization of information positively increase agricultural production. This agrees
on agricultural food production and that education plays an with Banmeke and Ajayi (2008) noted that large
important role in creating awareness in farming household size serves as an important source of farm
communities because educated people are capable of labour supply and a strong base to adopt improved
sourcing information on agricultural innovations. technologies so as to be able to improve productivity in
Farming experience was significant and this implies that order to meet up economic needs of the family.
quite majority of the respondents’ have been into

Table.2: Multiple Regression Analysis on the Determinants of cassava production in Benue State, Nigeria
Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficient
Variables B Std Error Beta T
(Constant) 31.194 3.351 9.308
Sex -1.194 0.712 0.-078 -1.677
Age 0.-591 0.150 0.-190 -3.939*
Marital Status 1.212 1.146 0.-049 1.058
Level of Education -1.307 0.343 0.-202 -3.804*
Household size 0.-602 0.240 0.-108 -2.507*
Major occupation 6.789 3.357 0.099 2.023*
Farming experience 0.485 0.180 0.117 2.694*
Farm size -2.285 0.337 0.-305 -6.779*
Membership of organization 0.759 1.050 0.030 0.723
Fertilizer use -2.484 2.332 0.-144 -1.065*
On farm income 0.387 0.-521 0.032 0.743
Off farm income 0.334 0.273 0.052 1.220
Planting materials 0.086 0.517 0.007 0.166
Labour input 0.869 1.120 0.080 0.842
* denotes the level of significance at 0.05
A dependent variable production level of production activities, R Square = 0.419,
R square adjusted = 0.404, F value = 28.089; P<0.05.

III. CONCLUSION AND be encouraged to participate effectively in cassava

RECOMMENDATIONS production, seeing that majority of the farmers are aged
The result of the multiple regression analysis showed that and will retire from active farming. This is to ensure food
the linear functional form largely explained the variations security. Also an effective structure should be put in place
in the quantity of cassava produced in the study area. to enable the farmers benefit from the subsidy on fertilizer
In the regression analysis, the age of the farmers, the provided by the government, this will ensure that fertilizer
occupation, farming experience, level of education of get to those who need it and will in turn help the farmers
farmers, household size, farm size, fertilizer use in expand their production . Encouraging education among
production were significant. By implication these variables the farmers will also enhance the ability to adopt improved
were critical determinants of cassava production in Benue farming techniques and boast their production.
State. Given the enormous potentials cassava production This study, although based in Benue state may have
in the study area, it has become so imperative that youths implications for other states with similar situation.

www.ijeab.com Page | 556

International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology (IJEAB) Vol-3, Issue-2, Mar-Apr- 2018
http://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab/3.2.32 ISSN: 2456-1878
REFERENCES [10] Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2002
[1] Abolagba, E.O. (1997). Socio-economic Analysis of Development of the cassava processing industry and
the Acquisition and Utilization of Farming its future, pp:330-338
Information among Rubber Farmers in Delta State. [11] Giroh, D. Y., Ephraim, I. J., Fannap, D., Igbinnosun,
M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Agricultural F. O. and Ogwuche, P. (2007). A Qualitative
Economics and Extension Services, University of Analysis of Adoption of Natural Rubber Production
Benin, Pp 88 Technologies Among Farmers in Southern Nigeria.
[2] Abdullahi, A (2012) Comparative economic analysis Journal of sustainable Tropical Agriculture
of rice production by adopters and non-adopters of Research, vol. 21: 56-65.
improved varieties among farmers in Paiko Local [12] IFC (2003) Annual Review of Small Business
Government Area of Niger State Nigeria. Journal of Activities. International Finance Corporation (IFC),
Basic and Applied Science, 20 (2) :146-151. Small and Medium Enterprise Development.
[3] Agbamu, J. U. (2006). Adoption and diffusion [13] Nelson, P. E. and Donald K. T. (1980). Fruit and
process for Agricultural Innovation Communication Vegetable Juice Processing Technology. Avi
in Nigeria. Department of Agricultural Economics Publishing Co Inc.,
and Extension, Delta State, Asaba, Nigeria, [14] Obinne, C. P. O (1991). Adoption of improved
Mathhouse Press Ltd. Victoria Island Lagos, 425pp. Cassava production technologies by small scale
[4] Asadu, A.N. (2013). Assessment of Urban farmers in Bendel State. Nigeria Journal of
Agriculture in South East Nigeria. APh.D Research Agriculture, Science and Technology.vol. 1(1)12 –
findings submitted to Department of Agricultural 15.
Extension. University of Nigeria, Nsukka. Pp 104 [15] Ogbonna, M. C., Asumugha, G. N., Ayaegbulam,
[5] Banmeke, T. and Ajayi, M. (2008). Farmers’ H.N. Okoye, B.C. Onwumere, J and Akinpelu A.
perception of the Agricultural Information Resource (2007)
Center at Ago Are Oyo State. International Journals [16] Resource Use Efficiency in Cassava Processing in
of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.1 Two selected of Abia State. Pakistan Journal Social
(1): 33-39 Science 49(6); 778-78; 2007
[6] Dagon-Daji, S. D. (2005) Economics of Dry Season [17] Okoye, B. C., Okorji, E . C. and Asumugha, G. N.
Onion Production and Marketing in Sokoto and (2004) Outlook on Production Economics of Paddy
Kebbi States.A ph. D thesis submitted to the Rice under Resource constraints in Ebonyi State,
Department of Agricultural Economics and Proc. of the 38th Annual conference of the
Extension Usman Dan Fodio University, Sokoto. Agricultural Society of Nigeria. (ASN), 17-21 Oct.
[7] Department of Economics and Socio-Affairs 2004, Lafia, Nasarawa State. Pp 337-342.
(DESA)(2000) “Multi critons of Agriculture: The [18] Uddin, I. (2014). Knowledge, Attitude and Practice
Case of Marketing Cooperation and juices producing of Herbicide use among Farmers in Edo State. An
companies” Institutional Journal of Agriculture M.Sc. Research Project Submitted to Department of
(1814):543-558. Agriculture Extension, University Of Nigeria,
[8] Egbule, C. (2013) Gender Vulnerability and Nsukka. Pp.74.
Adaptation Strategies to Climate Change Impacts on [19] World Food Programme (1995): World Bank Survey
Agriculture in Niger Delta region of Nigeria. A Ph.D. World Bank Survey (1981). Agricultural and the
Research findings submitted to Department of Environmental Perspective for Sustainable Rural
Agricultural Extension, University of Nigeria, Development Erhst Cutz (Ed) John Hopkins
Nsukka .Pp 103 University Press for the World Bank
[9] Ezedinma, .C. I., Okarter, C. Asumugha, G. Nweke
F. (2006).Trends in Farm Labour Productivity and
Implications for Cassava Industrialization in Nigeria.
Proc, of the 40th Conference of the Agricultural
Society of Nigeria held at the National Root Crops
Research Institute (NRCRI), Umudike, Abia State.
Oct. 16th-20th, pp.109-115.

www.ijeab.com Page | 557