|
Greener Journal of Agricultural Sciences Vol. 9(1), pp. 57-64, 2019 ISSN: 2276-7770 Copyright ©2019, the copyright of this article is
retained by the author(s) DOI Link: http://doi.org/10.15580/GJAS.2019.1.010919009 http://gjournals.org/GJAS |
|
Determinants
of farmers’ responses on Agrochemical Usage in Ikwerre
local Government Area of Rivers state, Nigeria
Unaeze, H.C.1 and Kamalu O.J.2
1.
Department of Agricultural economics and
extension, faculty of Agriculture, University of Port Harcourt, Rivers State,
Nigeria.
2.
Department of Crop and Soil science, faculty
of Agriculture, University of Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria.
|
ARTICLE INFO |
ABSTRACT |
|
Article
No.: 010919009 Type: Research DOI: 10.15580/GJAS.2019.1.010919009 |
This study examined
farmers’ responses on agrochemical usage in Ikwerre
local Government area of Rivers State, Nigeria. Multi-stage sampling
techniques were used in the selection of 49 respondents. The data obtained
were analyzed with percentages and probit regression model. The result obtained revealed
that the mean age of farmers was 34 years and their mean farming experience
was (10 years) while (77.6%) attested that the effects of agrochemical usage
on their farming activities were positive. The probit
regression result ascertained that years in schooling (-0.036338), income
status (-7.72E-06) and household size (-0.047561) were all statistically
negative to respondents probability of responding to agrochemical usage. It
was only years in farming (0.023442) and farm sizes (0.831243) that were statistically
positive to respondents’ probability of responding to agrochemical usage.
Lack of income to purchase agrochemicals coupled with minimal tillage due to
soil type were their major problems. Also it was observed that the soil
properties showed that the soils are inherently poor in fertility and
therefore needs liberal application of fertilizers. Therefore extension agents should create
awareness on the usage of fertilizers and agrochemicals input resources. Government
should also assist farmers by granting credits to them. |
|
Submitted: 09/01/2019 Accepted: 11/01/2019 |
|
|
*Corresponding
Author Unaeze,
H.C E-mail:
henry.unaeze@ uniport.edu.ng |
|
|
Keywords: |
|
|
|
|
BACKGROUND
INFORMATION
The challenge for developing countries agriculture
is enormous, particularly if it is not only to satisfy the growing demand/supply
gap for food, but also help reduce poverty,
malnutrition, and do it in an
environmentally sustainable farming. Sustainable farming is the farming system
that is closest to natural process, minimizes waste, does less damage to the
environment and yet it’s still profitable. When
farming system is sustainable, the product of the farm will be nutritious, and
not contaminated by substance that maybe unsafe for humans to consume. Also sustainable
farming systems are set in order to maximize advantage of the existing soil
nutrients, soil organisms, energy flow and water
cycles, (Eap.mcgill.ca, 1989). These systems are made to be responsive to our
environment and ecosystem. It is a known fact that the use of hazardous
pesticides i.e. organophosphates, synthetic compound fertilizers and additive
to farm animal feeds has been responsible for the prospective damage to the
environment, humans and animal health. (Than, 2013).
For example organophosphates is a common pesticide used and it was blamed for
killing 25 children in India (Than, 2013), while in Rivers State, Nigeria due to presence of oil
companies and other chemical companies, lots of waste in form of effluents are
generated, polluting rivers, water
bodies wetlands and environments. It is a known fact that Port Harcourt has the
highest Suspended Particulate Matter (SPM) load and contaminants in the whole
of the Niger-Delta, which can be associated with anthropogenic activities like
oil exploration, gas flaring, construction and other industrial activities. The
resultant deterioration in both the air and soil quality is big concerns to the
residents due to contamination of drinking and domestic water resulting to death
to the exposed population and farmers.
Farming is categorized by its ecological, responses and procedure aspects.
Though farmers’ behavioral and government’s policy
dimensions of agriculture has been rigorously analyzed in the past, while their
responses and ecological dimensions are largely neglected and remains unclear
despite the fact that these two factors are the pre-requisite for
sustainability. Therefore farmers’ responses on environmental impacts of
modern agrochemical technology becomes pertinent as their views
are supposed to contain goals including those achieved and those yet to
be achieved and, therefore, looked upon as a guiding concept of behavior or
decision-making process.(1) At this point, it becomes pertinent to state the
objectives of the study as follows:
1.
examine the socio-economic characteristics of
farmers in the study area
2.
determine farmers’ responses on the effects of agro chemical usage in the study area
3.
determine the effect
of farmers’ socio-economic characteristics on agro chemical usage in the study
area.
4.
assess the nutrient status of the soils and level of agrochemical
usage in the study area
5.
examine constraints encountered by farmers in
the study area
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study
was carried out in Ikwerre Local Government Area of
Rivers State. Ikwerre Local Government is one of the
twenty three Local Government Areas of Rivers State. It is located North-West
of Port Harcourt and lies between 4058’33’’North, 6053’21’’East
and has a population of 188,930 people (National population Census 2006).The
Local Government is made up of twelve communities namely; Rumuekpe,
Elele Alimini, Obelle, Omudioga, Elele, Egbeda, Rukpokwu, Aluu, Igwuruta, Eneka, Isiokpko. Ikwerre Local
Government Area lies on latitude 40 65 North and longitude 50 to
70 12 East. (National Population Census, 2006).
It has it’s headquarter at Isiokpo. The major
language is Ikwerre language. The major occupation of
the people is farming.
RESULT AND
DISCUSSIONS
Socio-Economic
Characteristics of Respondents in the Study Area
From table1 below, fifty-three percent (53%)
of the respondents are female while 47% are male signifying that female gender
dominates in the farming activities in the area. The age distribution of the
respondents divulged that most respondents’ fall within the age range of 25-54years
with mean age of 34years which shows that the respondents are in their active age.
Most of respondents are married and had spent 12 years in formal schooling. Also
71.4% of the respondents stated strongly that they have been in the farming
business for a period of 1-10 years, while majority (71.4%) cultivates on
0.05-0.09ha of land, while (66.7%) had income range of ₦200,000-₦400,000.
Table
1: Distribution of respondents according to their socio-economic
characteristics.
|
VARIABLES |
FREQUENCY |
MEAN |
PERCENTAGE |
|
|||
|
Male |
23 |
|
47.0 |
|
|||
|
Female |
26 |
|
53.0 |
|
|||
|
Total |
49 |
|
100 |
|
|||
|
Age |
|
||||||
|
0-14 |
3 |
34 years |
6.1 |
|
|||
|
15-24 |
17 |
34.7 |
|
||||
|
25-54 |
21 |
42.9 |
|
||||
|
55-64 |
6 |
12.2 |
|
||||
|
65 and
above |
2 |
4.1 |
|
||||
|
Total |
49 |
|
100 |
|
|||
|
Marital Status |
|
||||||
|
Single |
19 |
|
38.8 |
|
|||
|
Married
|
20 |
|
40.8 |
|
|||
|
Separated |
4 |
|
8.1 |
|
|||
|
Divorced |
2 |
|
4.1 |
|
|||
|
Widowed |
4 |
|
8.1 |
|
|||
|
Total |
49 |
|
100 |
|
|||
|
Level of Education |
|
||||||
|
0 |
3 |
|
6.1 |
|
|||
|
6 |
19 |
|
38.8 |
|
|||
|
12 |
21 |
|
42.9 |
|
|||
|
16 |
6 |
|
12.2 |
|
|||
|
Total |
49 |
|
100 |
|
|||
|
Years of Experience |
|
||||||
|
1-10 |
35 |
10 years |
71.4 |
|
|||
|
11-20 |
8 |
16.3 |
|
||||
|
21-30 |
4 |
8.2 |
|
||||
|
31-40 |
2 |
4.1 |
|
||||
|
Total |
49 |
|
100 |
|
|||
|
Farm size |
|||||||
|
0.05-0.09ha |
35 |
|
71.4 |
||||
|
0.10-0.11ha |
3 |
|
6.1 |
||||
|
>1ha |
11 |
|
22.4 |
||||
|
Total |
49 |
|
100 |
||||
|
Income Status ( |
|||||||
|
200,000 – 400,000 |
44 |
|
66.7 |
||||
|
500,000 – 700,000 |
3 |
|
5 |
||||
|
Above 1,000,000 |
2 |
|
3.3 |
||||
|
Total |
49 |
|
100 |
||||
Source:
Field Survey Data, 2018.
Farmers’
response on the effects of agro chemical usage in the study area
Looking at Table 2 below, majority (77.6%) of
farmers strongly attest that the effects of agrochemical usage on their farming
activities were positive. It was observed that their responses were based on
the facts that majority are subsistence farmers who do not always apply
agrochemical on their farming activities.
So the little they apply do not have detrimental effects on their
farming operations. Only 16.3% accepted that agrochemical usage has negative
effects. This was based on the fact that they are commercial producers, which
gave rise to continuous usage of agrochemicals on their farming operations.
These farmers cultivate mainly vegetables for commercial purposes. Those farmers
(6.1%) who emphasized average effects mildly apply agrochemicals on their
farming activities. They are mainly peasant farmers who produce for home
consumption.
Table
2: Distribution of Farmers’ Responses on the Effects of Agrochemical usage in the
Study Area.
|
Responses |
Frequency |
Percentage |
|
Positive |
38 |
77.6 |
|
Negative |
8 |
16.3 |
|
Average |
3 |
6.1 |
|
Total |
49 |
100 |
Source:
Field Survey, 2019
Effect
of farmers’ socio-economic characteristics on the responses of agro chemical
usage in the study area.
A priori is that coefficients of x(x>0)
from the probit regression results, years respondents
spent in schooling (-0.036338) was found to be
negatively correlated to the probability of their responding to the usage of
agrochemicals. The result is not counter intuitive since most of the
respondents level of education is low, making them, not to understand the
consequences of agrochemical usage in their farming operations. Income status
of respondents (-7.72E-06) are equally
negatively correlated to the probability of respondents responses to
agrochemical usage in their farming operations. This was based on the fact that
farmer’s level of investment to climate change adaptation and mitigation
strategies was low because of inadequate income. This supports the finding of Enete and Achike (2013) that
farmers are poor in adapting to climate change.
But on the issues that relates to their years in farming experience (0.023442) was positively related to their
probability of responding to agrochemical usage in their farming activities.
This result depicts that the more the number of years
farmers spent in farming with agrochemical usage, the more knowledgeable they
will be in understanding their effects. Household size (-0.047561) was found to be negatively related to the probability
of respondents’ responses to agrochemical usage in agricultural activities.
This result has shown that respondent’s average household size were low and it
buttresses the findings of Croppenstedt et al., (2003) who argued that households with larger pool
of labor are more likely to cultivate more areas of land as well as adapt more
to climate change. This has shown that households with large families are more
likely to adapt to climate change and respond more to agrochemical usage.
Finally, farm size (0.831243) was positively
correlated with the probability of responding to agrochemical usage in their
farming activities. This study has revealed that as farm size increases, the
higher the probability of responding to agrochemical usage in farming activities
in the study area.
Table
3: The result of probit analysis showing effects of farmers’ socio-economic characteristics
on the responses of agro chemical usage in the study area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Variable |
Coefficient |
Std. Error |
z-Statistic |
Prob. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C |
0.537080 |
0.932546 |
0.575928 |
0.5647 |
|
|
Years of schooling |
-0.036338 |
0.068693 |
-0.528993 |
0.5968 |
|
|
Income status |
-7.72E-06 |
8.96E-06 |
-0.861713 |
0.3888 |
|
|
Farming experience |
0.023442 |
0.017073 |
1.373034 |
0.1697 |
|
|
Household size |
-0.047561 |
0.099570 |
-0.477667 |
0.6329 |
|
|
Farm size |
0.831243 |
1.086766 |
0.764877 |
0.4443 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
McFadden
R-squared |
0.067561 |
Mean
dependent var |
0.755102 |
|
|
|
S.D.
dependent var |
0.434483 |
S.E. of
regression |
0.442442 |
|
|
|
Akaike info criterion |
1.283002 |
Sum
squared resid |
8.417458 |
|
|
|
Schwarz
criterion |
1.514653 |
Log
likelihood |
-25.43355 |
|
|
|
Hannan-Quinn criter. |
1.370890 |
Deviance |
50.86709 |
|
|
|
Restr. Deviance |
54.55270 |
Restr. log likelihood |
-27.27635 |
|
|
|
LR
statistic |
3.685609 |
Avg.
log likelihood |
-0.519052 |
|
|
|
Prob(LR statistic) |
0.595507 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obs with Dep=0 |
12 |
Total
obs |
49 |
|
|
|
Obs with Dep=1 |
37 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dependent
Variable: Y |
|
||||
|
Method:
ML - Binary Probit
(Newton-Raphson / Marquardt steps) |
|
||||
|
Date:
09/18/18 Time: 10:30 |
|
||||
|
Sample:
1 49 |
|
||||
|
Included
observations: 49 |
|
||||
|
Convergence
achieved after 4 iterations |
|
||||
|
Coefficient
covariance computed using observed Hessian |
|
||||
Assess the Nutrient
Status of the Soils and Level of Agrochemical Usage in the Study Area
The soils of the study area are generally
referred to as acidic sands with a pH range of 5.3 – 6.6 and a predominant
sandy texture. The soils have therefore
been described as generally low to moderate in fertility status. In the soils nitrates ranged from 0.52 to
10.65mg/kg in the rainy season and from 1.96 – 15.60mg/kg in the dry season. Total Nitrogen levels in the area
ranged from 0.06% to 0.24%. Available phosphorus, ranges from 4.17 to
24.56mg/kg. Sulphates
ranged from 4.08 to 19.52mg/kg. The low values in some stations could have been
caused by high nutrient mobilization. The generally low concentration has been
attributed to the types of clay minerals in these soils and the dominance of
oxides and hydroxides, which are known to fix phosphorus rendering it
unavailable. The average available phosphorus levels are lower than the 10mg/kg
reported for most ‘acid soils’ in south eastern Nigeria. The concentrations are
also below the critical 15mg/kg required by most soils (Adepetu
et al., 1979). The concentrations of exchangeable cations in the area as well as other members of the acid
sands are low. Cation
Exchange Capacity in the soils of the area ranged from 2.40 to 11.96mg/kg.
Several authors have reported CEC values less than 5mg/kg for these soils,
attributing the low concentration to both the predominantly sandy texture and
the year round high rainfall and extreme leaching of the soils (Kamalu et al., 2014). The ranges of the exchangeable cations were 0.11 to 8.48mg/kg, 0.10 to 2.05mg/kg, 0.55 to
2.20mg/kg and 0.14 to 0.98mg/kg respectively for Sodium, Potassium, Calcium and
Magnesium ions. The total exchangeable
acidity was between 0.44 and 2.56mg/kg.
Table
4: Properties of Selected Surface Soils in Ikwerre
local Government Area of Rivers State, Nigeria.
|
Sample Id. |
pH |
TOC |
Total
N |
Avail. P |
SO4 |
Ca |
Mg |
K |
Na |
TEA |
ECEC |
|
|
|
gkg-1 |
mg/kg |
Cmolkg-1 |
|||||||
|
SS 1 (0 – 15cm) |
6.0 |
11.0 |
0.45 |
17.1 |
10.2 |
0.34 |
0.27 |
0.71 |
0.78 |
1.16 |
3.26 |
|
(15 - 30 cm) |
5.5 |
7.00 |
0.31 |
7.3 |
7.01 |
0.42 |
0.39 |
0.80 |
0.79 |
1.72 |
4.12 |
|
SS 2 (0 – 15cm) |
5.4 |
11.20 |
0.44 |
10.3 |
17.3 |
0.36 |
0.41 |
0.82 |
0.89 |
0.83 |
3.31 |
|
(15 - 30 cm) |
5.3 |
7.50 |
0.36 |
6.5 |
14.5 |
0.35 |
0.42 |
1.43 |
1.41 |
0.95 |
4.56 |
|
SS 3 (0 – 15cm) |
5.4 |
15.00 |
0.39 |
10.3 |
18.1 |
0.37 |
0.40 |
1.40 |
1.32 |
0.99 |
4.48 |
|
(15 - 30 cm) |
5.3 |
8.00 |
0.35 |
7.0 |
11.5 |
0.40 |
0.43 |
1.44 |
1.11 |
0.73 |
4.11 |
|
SS 4 (0 – 15cm) |
5.4 |
17.30 |
0.40 |
14.2 |
21.3 |
0.38 |
0.26 |
0.81 |
1.23 |
2.60 |
5.28 |
|
(15 - 30 cm) |
5.3 |
9.00 |
0.36 |
12.3 |
17.3 |
0.41 |
0.28 |
0.75 |
1.45 |
2.23 |
5.12 |
|
SS 5 (0 – 15cm) |
5.4 |
19.00 |
0.39 |
11.5 |
24.5 |
0.34 |
0.35 |
0.79 |
1.35 |
2.29 |
5.12 |
|
(15 - 30 cm) |
5.3 |
7.20 |
0.35 |
7.1 |
18.4 |
0.41 |
0.39 |
1.42 |
1.51 |
0.86 |
4.59 |
|
SS 6 (0 – 15cm) |
5.7 |
11.00 |
0.43 |
17.0 |
19.8 |
0.36 |
0.36 |
1.28 |
1.28 |
2.00 |
5.28 |
|
(15 - 30 cm) |
5.3 |
11.00 |
0.40 |
14.3 |
14.3 |
0.35 |
0.43 |
1.11 |
0.91 |
0.95 |
3.75 |
|
SS 7 (0 – 15cm) |
6.4 |
11.10 |
0.45 |
16.3 |
23.5 |
0.38 |
0.29 |
1.36 |
0.78 |
1.72 |
4.53 |
|
(15 - 30 cm) |
5.3 |
7.40 |
0.37 |
11.4 |
14.8 |
0.43 |
0.40 |
1.37 |
1.57 |
1.64 |
5.41 |
|
SS 8 (0 – 15cm) |
6.5 |
11.20 |
0.40 |
10.4 |
21.8 |
0.51 |
0.43 |
1.25 |
1.42 |
1.77 |
5.38 |
|
(15 - 30 cm) |
5.3 |
8.10 |
0.35 |
7.7 |
13.4 |
0.99 |
0.90 |
1.31 |
1.24 |
2.37 |
6.81 |
|
SS 9 (0 – 15cm) |
6.0 |
11.40 |
0.42 |
13.9 |
24.2 |
0.80 |
0.89 |
1.40 |
1.51 |
2.11 |
6.71 |
|
(15 - 30 cm) |
5.3 |
7.50 |
0.39 |
10.5 |
19.5 |
0.53 |
0.26 |
0.92 |
1.48 |
2.03 |
5.22 |
|
SS 10
(0 – 15cm) |
5.9 |
11.10 |
0.41 |
15.7 |
17.8 |
0.97 |
0.93 |
1.22 |
1.44 |
2.14 |
6.70 |
|
(15 - 30 cm) |
5.2 |
9.10 |
0.40 |
11.2 |
12.5 |
0.40 |
0.42 |
1.38 |
1.39 |
1.65 |
5.24 |
|
SS 11 (0 – 15cm) |
6.6 |
11.50 |
0.44 |
18.1 |
19.9 |
0.63 |
0.38 |
1.28 |
1.47 |
2.35 |
6.11 |
|
(15 - 30 cm) |
5.4 |
9.30 |
0.36 |
12.5 |
14.5 |
0.38 |
0.40 |
1.45 |
1.67 |
1.48 |
5.38 |
|
SS 12 (0 – 15cm) |
5.4 |
11.10 |
0.40 |
10.3 |
18.1 |
0.60 |
0.68 |
0.84 |
1.23 |
1.18 |
4.53 |
|
(15 - 30 cm) |
5.3 |
7.40 |
0.36 |
7.0 |
11.5 |
0.65 |
0.79 |
0.81 |
1.21 |
1.95 |
5.41 |
|
SS 13 (0 – 15cm) |
5.7 |
11.20 |
0.39 |
14.2 |
21.3 |
0.68 |
0.71 |
1.63 |
1.49 |
1.14 |
5.65 |
|
(15 - 30 cm) |
5.3 |
8.10 |
0.35 |
12.3 |
17.3 |
0.79 |
0.82 |
1.40 |
1.51 |
1.26 |
5.78 |
|
SS 14 (0 – 15cm) |
6.4 |
11.40 |
0.43 |
11.5 |
24.5 |
0.91 |
0.78 |
1.42 |
1.63 |
2.47 |
7.21 |
|
(15 - 30 cm) |
5.3 |
7.50 |
0.40 |
7.1 |
18.4 |
0.83 |
0.66 |
1.46 |
1.55 |
2.21 |
6.71 |
|
SS 15 (0 – 15cm) |
6.5 |
11.10 |
0.45 |
17.0 |
19.8 |
0.65 |
0.58 |
1.25 |
1.51 |
1.24 |
5.23 |
|
(15 - 30 cm) |
5.3 |
9.10 |
0.38 |
14.3 |
14.3 |
0.77 |
0.85 |
1.61 |
1.77 |
1.70 |
6.70 |
Source: Field Survey, 2019
Farming by the rural respondents in Ikwerre local government area, is extremely extractive and
involves the use of very low inputs.
Soil resources continuously decline with successive harvests that do not
have commensurate import of nutrients into the system that are equivalent to
what is removed from the soil system. This has resulted in an imbalance in soil
fertility and low overall productivity of the soils. Agricultural production in the study area has
been on the decline over the years. This is due to high level of insecurity and
activities of oil exploration and oil spillages, which damages farm lands. Sustainable agricultural production in the
area would necessitate greater input beyond the limit of organic farming,
shifting cultivation and bush fallow that are practiced now. In this area,
rural farmer uses fertilizers very indiscriminately. To 49 randomly selected farmers, about 45
(> 91%) just applied any fertilizer that was readily available and cheap
irrespective of type and agreeability with soil properties. It is a common experience to see a farmer
applying urea to an acidic soil whose pH is below 5. Scientifically, such fertilizers are
counterproductive because they often enhance acidity and trigger off nutrient
imbalance in the soil. This behavior was as a result of their low level of
educational background, coupled with extremely low rate of application (less
than 40% of conventionally recommended rates). It is important to note that under
conventional background there is always an appropriate fertilizer rate for
different crops under specific soil condition and inherent fertility of the soil.
The common land preparation practices carried out by the respondents, for
example, insistence bush burning (inability to sustain the management of
agro-based wastes).This method of land preparation also exposes the land to
harsh impacts of the weather (with greater than eight months of heavy rains). Also
the top soil continuously loses both organic matter and the finer particles
through sheet erosion with the eventual dominance of the residual more sandy
soil with adoption of minimum tillage or zero tillage. It was observed that in
the study area, the most widely cultivated crop was cassava and the process of tuber
formation and development in cassava requires plowed land. Though the area is situated in the acid sands
that are dominantly sandy loam to loamy sand in texture and greater tuber
formation are known to occur under improved tillage. It was observed that most
of the respondents virtually plant cassava on the flat with minimal or near
zero tillage. This actually lowers
expected yield.
Constraints
Encountered By the Respondents in the Study Area
Table 5 has shown that majority (33.6%) of
the respondents complained that lack of income to purchase agrochemicals
coupled with minimal tillage due to soil type were their major problems. These
findings are in line with the findings of Enete, et al (2011) who asserted that incomes were
positively and highly significantly related with the adaptation practices. They
stated that technological adaptation may not only be labor intensive but also
material intensive that farmers with enough money can afford. In the same vein,
Enete and Achike (2008)
further observed that for farmers to purchase inputs in the right quantity and
adopt innovations, they should be sufficiently empowered financially. It was
only 6.7% who complained of the problem of dour and choking sensation as their
major constraint. Multiple responses were recorded.
Table
5: Distribution of respondents according to constraints encountered in the
study area.
|
Constraints |
Frequency |
Percentage |
|
Lack of education |
18 |
13.4 |
|
Ignorant of the product |
21 |
15.7 |
|
Lack of income & low farming
input, minimal tillage. |
45 |
33.6 |
|
Risk to health |
30 |
22.4 |
|
very low level( indiscriminate use
of fertilizers and other agro-chemicals) |
11 |
8.2 |
|
Problem of odour
and choking sensation. |
9 |
6.7 |
|
Total |
134 |
100 |
Source: Field Survey, 2019
Multiple responses recorded.
CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings
of this study, socio-economic factors influence the usage of agrochemical
technology in the study area. Also the indiscriminate usages of the input
resources are as a result of lack of awareness and poor educational background.
And this has resulted to soil nutrient depletion in the study site. Therefore
it is recommended that extension agents should create awareness on the usage of
the input resources. Government should also assist farmers by granting credits
to them.
REFERENCES
Adepetu
J. A.; Obi O. and Aduayi E. A. (1979). Changes in Soil Fertility under
Continuous Cultivation and Fertilization in South Western Nigeria. Nig. J. Agric. Sci. 1: 15 – 20.
Croppensted, A, Demeke, M & Meschi,
M, M. (2003).Technology Adoption in the presence of Constraints: The case of
fertilizer Demand in Ethioipa. Review of Development Economics, 7,
58-70.
Anselem, A. Enete, Ignatius, I., Madu, Josephat C., Mojekwu, Anthony N.,
Onyekuru, Elizabeth A., Onwubuya,
&Fideis Eze (2011).
Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of South-east
Nigeria. African Technology Policy
Studies Network Research paper (6).
Eap.mcgill.ca, (1989).An Introduction to
Sustainable Agriculture. Ecoogical Agriculture Projects Macdonald College of McGill University.EAP publication 16.
Enete, A.A. & A.I. Achike, (2008). Urban Agriculture and Urban Food
Insecurity/Poverty in Nigeria: the case of Ohafia Southeast Nigeria. Outlook on
Agriculture, 37(2): 131-134.
Kamalu, O. J., Ugwa, I. K. and Omenihu, A. A. (2014). Survey, Classification and Suitability
Evaluation of Akwete Soils for Rubber (Hevea brasiliensis)
Cultivation in Southeastern Nigeria. Acta Agronomica
Nigeriana Vol. 14 No. 1 and 2.
Kamalu O. J.; Titus
J. G. and Udensi, E. U. 2016. Preliminary Investigation of the
adaptation of some Kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L) Genotypes in the Coastal Plain Sand of Niger
Delta. Journal
of Agriculture and Ecology International. ISSN: 2394-1073.
Than, K. (2013).Organophosphates: A common
but deadly Pesticide. National Geographic accessed on
09/01/2019https://news.nationalgeographic.com
|
Cite this Article: Unaeze, HC; Kamalu, OJ (2019). Determinants of farmers’ responses on
Agrochemical Usage in Ikwerre local Government Area
of Rivers state, Nigeria. Greener Journal of Agricultural Sciences 9(1): 57-64,
http://doi.org/10.15580/GJAS.2019.1.010919009. |