This study was carried out in Abia State, Nigeria in 2007, to compare the output, cost and returns of Adopters and Non-adopters of some selected farm technologies. Data was collected from the respondents (120) Adopters and (120) Non-adopters) using well structured questionnaire. The data was analyzed using descriptive statistics, students‘t’ test and profitability analysis. The results show that there were significant differences in farm size, expenditure, income and profit of adopters and non-adopters. The calculated‘t’s calculated were greater than‘t’ tabulated at P = 0.05. This implies that adopters of farm technologies had more output, made more expenditure and generated more income and profit than the non-adopters of the selected farm technologies. Therefore, farmers are advised to adopt innovations to increase output and generate more profit.Adoption, Evaluation and Technologies

Anyaegbunam, H.N

Ogbonna, M.C

Okoye, B.C

English

Research Papers in Economics

 
COMPARATIVE ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF ADOPTERS AND NON-ADOPTERS OF 
SOME SELECTED TECHNOLOGIES IN ABIA STATE 
 
*1H.N. Anyaegbunam, 
1M.C. Ogbonna and  
1B.C Okoye 
*1= Extension Services Programme, National Root Crops Research Institute, Umudike 
E-mail: helenkol8 @ yahoo.com; Phone: 08034684975 
 
Abstract 
This study was carried out in Abia State, Nigeria in 2007, to compare the output, cost and returns of 
Adopters and Non-adopters of some selected farm technologies. Data was collected from the respondents 
(120) Adopters and (120) Non-adopters) using well structured questionnaire. The data was analyzed using 
descriptive statistics, students‘t’ test and profitability analysis. The results show that there were significant 
differences in farm size, expenditure, income and profit of adopters and non-adopters. The calculated‘t’s 
calculated were greater than‘t’ tabulated at P = 0.05. This implies that adopters of farm technologies had 
more output, made more expenditure and generated more income and profit than the non-adopters of the 
selected farm technologies. Therefore, farmers are advised to adopt innovations to increase output and 
generate more profit. 
 
Introduction  
Under  the  combined  pressure  of  the  climatic 
disturbances and human activities, the ecosystem 
of  many  countries  in  Sub-Saharan  have 
undergone  intense  degradation  over  the  years. 
The  natural  resources  are  threatened  by 
deforestation  for  extensive  agriculture  (Amadji 
and  Adje,  2004).  Increase  in  population, 
urbanization and rampant poverty also contribute 
to  decline  in  food  production.  Prospects  for  a 
sustainable food security in the sub-region will 
remain uncertain if strategies are not developed 
to  increase  food  production  (Amegbero  et  al., 
2001). The benefits of improved technology are 
obvious  and  they  are  realized  by  individual 
farmers  as  well  as  the  nation  in  terms  of 
increased  farm  output,  high  income  and 
improved standard of living. This is dependent 
on  the  ability  of  the  government to  modernize 
agriculture through mechanization and adoption 
of improved and more efficient technologies by 
farmers  which include improved  seeds, breeds, 
agrochemicals  and  farm  implements  (Olayide, 
1980).  This  is  also  in  agreement  with  Sidlin 
(1975)  who  noted  the  supply  of  fertilizers, 
herbicides and pesticides which he called crucial 
inputs  were  necessary  to  accelerate  growth  in 
agriculture  and  that  these  inputs  must  reach 
farmers in the right quantities, in the right time 
and prices for them to be reasonably adopted by 
farmers.  Nwawuisi,  et  al  (2007)  show  that 
farmers decision to use particular crop cultivars 
were influenced by a number of reasons, some of 
which are socio-culturally based. Therefore, this 
study aimed at determining the farm size, output, 
cost and returns of adopters and non-adopters of 
some selected technologies, and determining the 
constraints to adoption of these technologies. 
 
Methodology 
Abia State was purposively chosen for the study 
because it is  one  of  the  major  food  producing 
states  in  Nigeria.  The  data  for  the  study  were 
collected  through  structured  questionnaire 
interview  schedule.  A  multistage  random 
sampling  was  used  to  select  240  respondents 
comprising  of  120  Adopters  and  120  non- 
adopters from the three agricultural zones of the 
state,  namely:  Aba,  Ohafia  and  Umuahia.  The 
analysis  was  done  using  descriptive  statistics 
such  as  percentages,  frequency  counts, 
profitability  analysis  and  the  student‘t’  test 
model.  The  model  is  expressed  implicitly  as 
follows: 
 
T =   X1_  -  X2                                         
        √ S1
2 + S2
2                  with n1 +n2 = 2 degrees of 
freedom
           
            n1 + n2 
Where  
T     = Students‘t’ statistic 
X1_ = mean values of 1
st population 
X2      = mean values of 2
nd population 
S1
2     = variance of 1
st population 
S2
2     = variance of 2
nd population 
n1    = number of observation (sample size of 1
st 
population) 
n2    = number of observations (sample size of 2
nd 
population) 
 
Results and Discussion 
Table 1 shows that the result of the t-test for a 
difference  between  means  of  farmers  sizes  of 
adopters and non-adopters was 0.7, ‘t’ = 6.3 was 
greater than tabulated ‘t’ value = 1.9 at P = 0.5. 
There was a significant difference in farm sizes  
of  adopters  and  non-adopters.  The  income 
generated  from  various  crops  by  adopters  and 
non-adopters  are  also  revealed  in  table  1.  The 
mean difference from improved cassava, maize 
and yam minisett technologies were N9, 316.67; 
N4,658.37 and N5, 099.67 per ha respectively. 
The ‘ts’ calculated 8.0, 7.0 and 4.18 were greater 
than tabulated‘t’ value = 1.9 at 0.05. This implies 
that there were significant differences in incomes 
generated by adopters and non-adopters from the 
various food crops. 
 
Table 2 shows the expenditure and total output 
of  adopters  and  non-adopters  of  modern 
technologies.  The  expenditure  involves  total 
money  spent  in  the  procurement  of  fertilizers, 
seeds, herbicides, use of tractors and farm inputs 
by  farmers  in  the  study  area.  The  mean 
difference in expenditures between adopters and 
non-adopters on fertilizers, herbicides and use of 
tractors  were  significant  (P=0.5)  since‘t’ 
calculated  in  each  case  were  greater  than 
tabulated‘t’.  The  mean  difference  in  output  of 
adopters  and  non-adopters  (3,  400t/ha)  was 
significant (P=0.5). It suggests that adopters of 
farm  technologies  spent  more  money  in 
procurement  of  farm  inputs  than  non-adopters. 
These inputs invariably influenced output. 
 
Table  3  shows  the  total  income  and  profit 
generated  by  adopters  and  non-adopters  of 
innovations.  The  total  expenditure  made  by 
adopters  were  N41,  841.00  and  N8,  057.16 
respectively.  Non-adopters  generated  a  total 
income  of  N22,  091.  00  and  made  a  total 
expenditure  of  N1,  212.50.  Adopters 
consequently made a profit of N33, 789.84 while 
non-adopters  profit  was  N20,  878.50.  The 
inference  is  that  adopters  of  innovations 
generated more profit than non-adopters. 
 
Summary and Conclusion 
The results of the study show that adopters of 
innovations  acquired  more  farm  land  had 
increased  output  than  non-adopters.  They  also 
incurred  more  expenditure,  generated  more 
income  and subsequently  had  more  profit  than 
non-adopters.  This  has  confirmed  the  earlier 
studies  by  Sidlin  (1975)  and  Olayide  (1980) 
which  stated  that  adoption  of  innovations 
resulted  to  increase  in  output  and  income  of 
small-scale  farmers.  Therefore,  farmers  are 
advised  to  intensify  efforts  in  the  use  of 
technologies  to  improve  the  income  of  their 
families. 
 
Table 1: Paired Treatment Means of the difference in Farm Sizes and Incomes of Adopters and Non-
adopters from various Crops. 
 
Category of Adopters and 
Non-adopters 
 
Mean  (x) 
difference 
 
Standard 
Deviation 
 
95% Confidence Interval of the difference  
   
Lower 
 
Upper 
 
t 
x1-x2  0.667ha  1.1601  0.4574  0.8768  6.299 
x3-x4  N9316.37  12754.293  7011.2318  11622.102  8.002 
x5-x6  N4658.33  7274.33  3343.4429  973.2237  7.015 
x7-x8  N5091.67  13355.51  2677.5570  505.7763  4.176 
x9-x10  N682.33  51382.70  4989.326  355.9931  0.239 
Source: Field Survey Data, 2007. 
Where:   
x1  = Adopters farm size 
x2 = Non-adopters farm size 
x3 = Adopters cassava income 
x4 = Non-Adopters cassava income 
x5 = Adopters maize income 
x6 = Non-adopters maize income 
x7 = Adopters yam minisett income 
x8 = Non-adopters yam minisett income 
x9 = Adopters rice income 
x10= Non-adopters rice income 
 
  
Table 2: Expenditure on fertilizers, herbicides and tractors by adopted and  on-adopters  and  total 
output from various crops 
 
Category of Adopters and 
Non-adopters 
Mean  (x) 
difference 
Standard 
Deviation 
95% Confidence Interval of the difference  
  Lower  Upper  t 
x11-x12  N5558.33  477.39  4749.0119  6367.6548  13.599 
x13-x14  N550.00  1611.93  258.63114  841.3686  3.738 
x15-x16  N733.33  1889.75  394.7470  1074.9196  4.251 
X17-x18  3400.00ha  7563.60  2032.8218  4767.1782  4.924 
Source: Field Survey Data, 2007. 
Where:   
x11  = Expenditure on fertilizer by adopters  
x12 = Expenditure on fertilizer by non-adopters  
x13 = Expenditure on herbicides by adopters 
x14 = Expenditure on herbicides by non-adopters 
x15 = Expenditure on tractors by adopters 
x16 = Expenditure on tractors by non-adopters 
x17 = Total output from various crops by adopters  
x18 = Total output from various crops by non-adopters  
 
Table 3: Total income and profit generated by adopters and non-adopters 
 
Variables 
 
Adopters 
 
Non-adopters  
Total Income  N  N 
Cassava  16, 050  6, 733 
Maize   10, 050  5, 616.67 
Yam  9, 750  4,658 
Rice  5, 766  5, 083.33 
Grand total (A)  41, 841.10  20, 878.50 
Total Expenditure     
Fertilizer  6, 642. 83  1, 087.50 
Herbicides  633.33  83. 33 
Tractors  775. 00  41. 67 
Grand total (B)  8, 051  1, 212.50 
Profit (A – B)  33, 789.84  20, 878.5 
 
References 
Amadji,  M.R.  and  I.  Adje  (2004).  Economic 
Profitability  of  Improved  Yam 
Production  Systems  for  Sustainable 
Agriculture  in  Central  Benin  (West 
Africa)  ‘In’  N.M.  Mahungu  and  V.M. 
Manyong  (eds).  Proceedings  of  the 
Ninth  Triennial  Symposium  jointly 
organized  by  ISTRC-AB  and  Kenya 
Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) 
held in Kenya. P. 33-34. 
Amegbero, N.K., V.M. Manyong, O. Coulibaly 
and R. Asiedu (2001). Factors affecting 
the  adoption  of  Agricultural 
technologies  within  yam  based 
production  system:  Prospects  for  the 
diffusion of improved yam varieties in 
Nigeria. 
Nwawuisi,  J.U.,  B.C.  Okoye  and  C.O.  Odaji. 
(2007). Adoption of Improved Cassava 
Varieties (TMS 30211 and TMS 3001) 
in  Ivo  L.G.A  of  Ebonyi  State.    Paper 
presented at the Proceedings of the 41
st 
Conference of the Agricultural Society 
of Nigeria, Samaru 2007  Pp 527 – 530 
Olayide, S.O.  (1980). Characteristics, problems 
and  significance  of  farmers.  ‘In’  S.O. 
Olayide,  J.A.  Eweka  and  V.E.  Bello-
osagie (eds): Problems and Prospects in 
Integrated  Rural  development,  Ibadan. 
Centre  for  Agricultural  and  Rural 
Development (CARD) P. 11-14. 
Sidling,  D.A.  (1975).  Some  social  economic 
implication  of  Green  Revolution  in 
India,  with  particular  refernce  to  the 
Punjab  state  Lodluana  –  Punjab 
Agricultural University, P. 15-18. 

Adoption of Improved Cassava Varieties (TMS 30211 and TMS 3001) in Ivo L.G.A of Ebonyi State. Paper presented at the

Economic Profitability of Improved Yam Production Systems for Sustainable Agriculture in Central Benin (West Africa) ‘In’

Factors affecting the adoption of Agricultural technologies within yam based production system: Prospects for the diffusion of improved yam varieties in

Some social economic implication of Green Revolution in India, with particular refernce to the Punjab state Lodluana – Punjab Agricultural University,

Comparative Economic Evaluation of Adopters and Non-Adopters of Some Selected Technologies in Abia State

Comparative Economic Evaluation of Adopters and Non-Adopters of Some Selected Technologies in Abia State

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics