IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ajaees/357589.html

Comparative Economic Analysis of Soil Fertility Management on Cassava Based Intercropping Systems in Oredo Local Government Area of Edo State, Nigeria

Author

Listed:
  • Uke, P. C.
  • Ochiaka, C. D.
  • Okechukwu, G. C.

Abstract

The study was carried out in Oredo Local Government Area of Edo State, Nigeria. The broad objective was to determine the comparative economic analysis of soil fertility management options on cassava based cropping/intercropping systems. Data were obtained from both primary and secondary sources, primarily data was obtained through questionnaire distributed to eighty (80) randomly sampled farmers from the study area. Economic analysis was carried out using statistical tools such as descriptive statistics which included frequency tables, percentages, means, pie charts, bar column chart etc. which was used to determine the cost and returns of both soil fertility management options. It was also necessary to test the hypothesis of the study which was tested using the Z-Test analysis due to the sample size. The result showed that higher profit was obtained from inorganic fertilizer by those farmers that made use of them in which they had a gross margin (profit) of N118, 400 when compared to those farmers that made use of organic fertilizer, having a gross margin of N60, 900. However, the result from the gross margin analysis as well as the hypothesis of the study shows that the farmers stand to gain more if they use either of the soil fertility management options on their farms. Also, considering the problem of scarcity and effect often associated with inorganic fertilizer, the choice of organic fertilizer is more likely to be accepted by the farmers. Possible recommendations were also made in the course of the study which includes, transformation of farming practices through technology that would stabilize yield and reduce unpredictable variations, farmers should be encouraged to use either of the soil fertility management options to increase their yield. Organic fertilizer should be made affordable to farmer and inorganic fertilizer should be made accessible.

Suggested Citation

  • Uke, P. C. & Ochiaka, C. D. & Okechukwu, G. C., 2019. "Comparative Economic Analysis of Soil Fertility Management on Cassava Based Intercropping Systems in Oredo Local Government Area of Edo State, Nigeria," Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology, Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology, vol. 30(3).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:ajaees:357589
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/357589/files/Uke3032018AJAEES41882.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Clayton, Helena, 2005. "Market incentives for biodiversity conservation in a saline-affected landscape: farmer response and feedback," 2005 Conference (49th), February 9-11, 2005, Coff's Harbour, Australia 137822, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Whitten, Stuart M. & Reeson, Andrew & Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2008. "Barriers to and Opportunities for Increasing Participation in Conservation Auctions," 2008 Conference (52nd), February 5-8, 2008, Canberra, Australia 5973, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. Mark Morrison & Eddie Oczkowski & Jenni Greig, 2011. "The primacy of human capital and social capital in influencing landholders’ participation in programmes designed to improve environmental outcomes," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(4), pages 560-578, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ajaees:357589. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journalajaees.com/index.php/AJAEES/index .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.