Analysis of Rice Production Technologies’ Usage among Farmers in Kwara State, Nigeria.

No Thumbnail Available

Date

2020

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Federal University of Technology, Owerri, Imo State, Nigeria.

Abstract

This study assessed the rice production technology usage by farmers in Kwara State. A total of 210 rice farmers were selected for the study using multi-stage sampling procedure. Data were collected using structured interview schedule. Descriptive statistics and Pearson Product Moment correlation were used for data analysis. Results reveal that the average rice farm size was 3hectares and average rice farming experience was 22years. A considerable percentage had primary education (34.3%), earned annual income between 401,000-800,000naira and indicated extension visit was twice a year (36.2%). Majority (74.8%) have been introduced to farm technologies. The leading rice production technologies/practices used by farmers were the use of improved varieties (99.7%), optimum seed rate (98.6%), use of agro chemicals (97%), fertilizer application/inculcation (95.4%), proper spacing (94.8%), and timely planting (91.9%). Bird damage (mean=4.40), pest and diseases (mean=4.19) and poor government policy (mean=3.84) were the leading constraints to use of the improved practices. PPMC show that household size, farm size, farming experience and extension visit at p<0.05 were the factors that significantly influenced the use of rice production technologies/practices by rice farmers in the study area. It was recommended that government and concern extension organizations should ensure extension agents increase frequency of visit to rice farmers and ensure rice production technologies are made available and accessible to farmers.

Description

Keywords

rice farmers, technologies, constraints, usage.

Citation

Bolarin, O., Fatoye, O.R. & Komolafe, S.E. (2020): Analysis of Rice Production Technologies’ Usage among Farmers in Kwara State, Nigeria. International Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 23 (2); 5307-5312.

Collections