Unintended consequences of arable crop technology within farming systems in oyo state nigeria

Data were collected from primary source. Questionnaire was be administered to the sampled farmers on the variables of the study, which include perception of farmers of the positive and negative consequences of agricultural technology, age, marital status, income, educational level and adoption of agricultural technology.

Descriptive and inferential statistics were used in the analysis of the data generated. Descriptive statistics involved the use of the frequency counts and percentages while inferential statistics involved the use of Chi Square and Pearson Product Moment Correlation (PPMC).

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

This chapter deals with presentation of the research results and discussion of these results. Demographic and non-demographic characteristics were analysed and interpreted.

This aspect of the study deals with some demographic characteristics of the respondents with respect to age, marital status, Educational level, Gender, Religion, social participation, Farm size, Output on crops types, Income, and Farmers contact with extension agent.

Table .1 shows the percentage age distribution of respondents. Farmers below the age of 30 years are 1.7%. This may be adding to the fact that young people prefer white-collar jobs. Between 30 – 40 shows (20%). This is due to the fact that most people of this age group are migrants (rural – urban migration) who had gone to large towns for greener pastures. Those who fall between 41 – 50 (44.1%) shows that old people are ones engaged in farming activities. This findings is in constant with the work of Ekong (1998), that population of old is the most predominant in farming communities in Nigeria. Respondent’s years above 50 is 29.9% and this shows that older people are involved in agriculture. About 3.3% of respondents show no response to age.

From the table 3.3% are single meaning that singles are rarely involved in farming activities. Also 82.5% are married, this may be adduced to the fact that married people are responsible and produce more due to family labour used in agricultural production. Divorced (2.5%) and Widowed (3.3% are very few since there may be neither/none people around them for assistance on the farm. And 3.3% shows the percentage of non-respondents.

Also from the table, most farmers have adult education (26.7%) while few people has primary school certificate (21.7%). There is a reflection of low literacy level in the people of the area since relatively few of the people had secondary education (19.2%), Grade II (11.7%), HND/BSc and NCE/OND (1.7%) . This may also be due to financial constraints and also because young people with these certificates are after white-collar jobs in different towns and cities. The table also shows the percentage of farmers with M.Sc. (13.3%). This may be due to the fact that few agricultural graduates with no job opportunities/employment went back to farm for sustainability of their livelihood. Conclusively, the table shows that educational level of farmers does not determine their level of perception of agricultural technology. Non-response is (4.2%). This may be due to lack of any basic education.

The table shows that females (74.22%) are more prominent in farming activities in the area and only (20.8%) of the farmers are male. The low percentage of male may be due to preference for white-collar jobs, rural-urban migration is common among male and also due to poor response of male. The high percentage of women may be due to their responsibility as the head of their household to provide food security. This negates the work of Olukemi (1995) that said farming is a male dominated profession. Non-response is 50%.

Table .2 shows that most farmers do not belong to farmers association (51.7%) and few of them are members (36.7%). This may be adduced to the fact that there is lack of co-operation among farmers to assist themselves as members carrying out of some activities. Non-response shows (11.7%) and this may be due to lack of involvement in any farmers association. Non-participation in farmers association be also be associated with ignorance, bad leadership and maginalization among the members.

The table also shows that (55.8%) farmers are not part of members of cooperative and members are (29.2%). This may be due to lack of payment of dues or due to embezzlement of funds generated by members by the leaders and it may also be because of financial constraints. About (15.0%) give no response and this may be adduced to the fact that they do not understand what co-operative organization is all about.

Also from the table, most farmers do not belong to religions organization (46.7%) and only (31.7%) farmers belong this organization. Farmers with no response shows (21.7%). This may be due to the fact that there is no significant relationship between their level of religious activities and their perception of consequences of agricultural technology.

There is high percentage of past executive members (45%) than non- members (15.8%). This is because the group they belong easily influences most farmers due information source since most of them had little or no contact with extent agents. Non-response shows (39.2%) and this may be due to low active performance in group activities or work.

The table shows that most farmers do not have contact with extension agent (66.7%). This may be adduced to the fact that the ratio of farmers to extension agent is about 1:10,000. Extension agents are not been employed in the ministry of agriculture (MANR) and the Agricultural development programmers (ADP’s) and that makes them to be unavailable to farmers to reach out or contact. The few percentage (24.2%) that has contact may be because of their involvement in co-operative society or farmer association or they are part of the executive members. About (9.2%) of respondents showed no response and this may be due to ignorance or lack of awareness that ex-agents exist.

The table shows that most farmers occasionally meet with extension agent and may be in a farmers association meeting, which is usually not frequent. About (32.5%) regularly meet with the extension agent because some of them and leaders in their various association or groups and also because of the literacy level and cosmopoliteness of some farmers. Those that have never meet with the extension agent may be because of distance to their farm settlement, lack of interest in group participation and also due to low level of education and they have a frequency percentage of (24.2%). About (9.2%) of farmers showed no response to the researcher and this may be due to lack of interest.

The table indicate that farmers occasionally had meeting with the extension agent and they had a percentage frequency of (31.7%) while those that regularly meets with extension agents has (30.8%) From the two percentages, one can adduce to the facts that frequency of meetings with farmers and extension agents is average and this reflects in the level of innovativeness they are in agricultural production. There is low frequency percentage of (23.3%) farmers who have never had meetings with extension agents compare to those that normally have meetings. Those that never had meetings get information through their friends, neighbours etc which they use in improving their level of production. The table also shows that (14.2%) do not respond and this may be adduced to the fact that the farmers are not aware or not interested.