ECONOMICS OF SIZE IN IRRIGATED TOMATO (Lycopersicum esculentum Mill) PRODUCTION UNDER KANO RIVER IRRIGATION PROJECT (KRIP) PHASE I, KANO STATE, NIGERIA
Table Of Contents
<p> <b>TABLE OF CONTENTS </b></p><p><b>Content Page</b> </p><p><b>Title Page…………………………………………………………………........................................ i </b></p><p><b>Declaration ………………………………………………………………....…….........................… ii</b></p><p><b> Certification………………………………………………………………....................................... iii </b></p><p><b>Dedication…………………………………………………………………..…...........................…... iv</b></p><p><b> Acknowledgement…………………………………………………………. ..........................……... v </b></p><p><b>Table of Contents......................................................................................................................... vii </b></p><p><b>List of Tables………………………………………………………………. ….............................…... xi </b></p><p><b>List Figures..................................................................................................................................xii </b></p><p><b>List of Appendices……………………………………………………………............................…….xiii </b></p><p><b>Abstract………………………………………………………………………….............................…..xiv </b></p><p><b>
Chapter ONE
……………………………………………………….................................................1 </b></p><p>1.0 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………..........................................1 </p><p>1.1 Background to the Study…………………………………………………..................................…1 </p><p>1.2 Problem Statement…………………………………………………………....................................3 </p><p>1.3 Objectives of the Study…………………………………………………….................................….5 </p><p>1.4 Justification of the Study…………………………………………………..................................…..6 </p><p><b>
Chapter TWO
………………………………………………………………….....….............................8 </b></p><p>2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………….........................................................8 </p><p>2.1 Economic importance of tomato..................................................................................................8 </p><p>2.1.1 Tomato production in the study area…………..…………………...............................................9 </p><p>2.1.2 Irrigation and tomato production………………………………….................................................9 </p><p>2.1.3 Seasonality and price instability of tomato………………………………….................................11 </p><p>2.1.4 Farm size and productivity………………………………………….……...................................…11 </p><p>2.1.5 Patterns of farm size across countries and time……………………..................................….... 13 </p><p>2.1.6 Scale of production…………………………………………………………....................................13 </p><p>2.1.7 Concept of economics of size…………………………………….................................................14 </p><p>2.1.8 Economies of scale……………………………………………………….....…...............................15 </p><p>2.1.9 Concept of production efficiency in agricultural
production………………..................................17 </p><p>2.1.10 Factors that affects efficiency……………………………………................................................19 </p><p>2.1.11 Effects of exogenous variables in the
analysis of technical efficiency…..................................21 </p><p>2.1.12 Profitability analysis in crop production…………………………………................................….23 </p><p>2.2 Review of Analytical Tools……………………………………………….....…....................................24 </p><p>2.2.1 Descriptive statistics………………………………………………………....................................…24 </p><p>2.2.2 Budgeting techniques……………………………………………………....................................…..24 </p><p>2.2.3 Data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach to
efficiency measurement….................................27 </p><p>2.2.4 Regression analysis……………………………………………...……...….................................…...33 </p><p>2.3 Review of empirical studies……………………………………..…………...........................................33 </p><p>2.3.1 Descriptive statistics/Budgeting techniques…………………….....................................................33 </p><p>2.3.2 Data envelopment analysis (DEA)…………………………………………...................................…35 </p><p><b>
Chapter THREE
……………………………………………………….....................................................38 </b></p><p>3.0 METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………………..............................................38 </p><p>3.1 Description of the Study Area…………………………………….........................................................38 </p><p>3.2 Sampling Procedure and Sample Size…………………………………....................................………41 </p><p>3.2.1 Classification of the farm sizes……………………………………………....................................…...41 </p><p>3.3 Data Collection……………………………………………………...........................................................42</p><p>3.4 Analytical Techniques……………………………………………….............................................……….43 </p><p>3.4.1 Descriptive statistics………………………………………………….............................….................…43 </p><p>3.4.2 Budgeting techniques …………………………………………………...............................................….43 </p><p>3.4.3 A two-stage Data envelopment analysis………………………….......................................................46 </p><p>3.5 Measurement of Variables…………………………………………………......................................…...48 </p><p><b>
Chapter FOUR
………………………………………………………….…….......................................…...51</b> </p><p>4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION………………………………….........................................…..............51 </p><p>4.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Irrigated Tomato Farmers………….................................….51 </p><p>4.1.1 Age distribution ….………………………………………………………....................................…….51 </p><p>4.1.2 Educational level……………………………………………………………...................................….52 </p><p>4.1.3 Farming experience………………………………………………………….................................….53 </p><p>4.1.4 Extension service…………………………………………………………................................…….53 </p><p>4.1.5 Farm size……………………………………………………………………...............................…..54 </p><p>4.1.6 Sources of finance…………………………………………………..………...............................….55 </p><p>4.2 Level of Inputs and Outputs in Irrigated Tomato
Production Based on the Sizes of Production…55 </p><p>4.2.1 Land...........................................................................................................................................55 </p><p>4.2.2 Seed...........................................................................................................................................56 </p><p>4.2.3 Labour........................................................................................................................................56 </p><p>4.2.4 Fertilizer......................................................................................................................................57 </p><p>4.2.5 Pesticide.....................................................................................................................................57 </p><p>4.2.6 Tomato yield (supply level).......................................................................................................58 </p><p>4.3 Cost and returns analysis……………………...............................................................................60 </p><p>4.3.1 Gross returns...........................................................................................................................60 </p><p>4.3.2 Cost of production..................................................................................................................61 </p><p>4.3.3 Cost of seed..........................................................................................................................61 </p><p>4.3.4 Cost of fertilizer.....................................................................................................................61 </p><p>4.3.5 Labour costs........................................................................................................................61 </p><p>4.3.6 Pesticide costs....................................................................................................................61 </p><p>4.3.7 Cost of empty basket.........................................................................................................62 </p><p>4.3.8 Total variable cost.............................................................................................................62 </p><p>4.3.9 Total fixed costs...............................................................................................................62 </p><p>4.3.10 Gross Margin...............................................................................................................62 </p><p> 4.4 Estimate of Technical, Allocative and Economic Efficiencies
Based on the three Sizes </p><p>of Production in the Study Area.............................................................................................64 </p><p>4.4.1 Estimate of technical efficiency based on the sizes of
production in the study area…………………………………………….................................................................……...69 </p><p>4.4.2 Estimate of allocative efficiency based on the sizes of
production in the study area…………………………………………….................................................................………70 </p><p>4.4.3 Estimate of economic efficiency based on the sizes of
production in the study area…………………………………………………...............................................................….72 </p><p>4.4.4 Determinants of technical efficiency of irrigated
tomato producing farms…………………………………………………….......................................................…...73 </p><p>4.5 Constraints to Irrigated Tomato Production in the Study Area………………....................77 </p><p><b>
Chapter FIVE
…………………………………………………………………..........................80 </b></p><p>5.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS………..........................…..80 </p><p>5.1 Summary…………………………………………………………………….....................….80 </p><p>5.2 Conclusions…………………………………………………………………........................82 </p><p>5.3 Recommendations……………………………………………………….............................83 </p><p>5.4 Contribution to Knowledge…………………………………........... …………...................84 </p><p>REFERENCES……………………………………………….……………...................................86 </p>
Project Abstract
<p> <b>ABSTRACT </b></p><p>The broad objective of the study was to examine the economics of size in irrigated
tomato production under Kano river irrigation project (KRIP) phase I, Kano state,
Nigeria. Primary data were collected from 213 irrigated tomato farmers, using multistage sampling techniques in three local government areas covered by KRIP. Data were
collected during the 2014/2015 irrigation farming season using well-structured
questionnaire. Data collected were analysed using descriptive statistics, budgeting
techniques, two-stage data envelopment analysis (DEA) and regression models. The
result indicates that majority (53%) of the irrigated tomato farmers were in their active
years and approximately 57% had some form of formal education. Majority of the
farmers( 93%) had been in tomato production for 8 to 31 years and 71% of the
farmers had less than 1.0 hectare of farmland. Majority of farmers (78%) had no
contact with extension workers while 76% used personal savings for production. It
was found that only seed was over-utilised by medium and large scale farmers with
average usage of seed above recommended rate resulting to output far below the
potential yield of 40tonnes/ha. Irrigated tomato production was found to be profitable
with an estimated total cost of ₦89,935.60/ha, ₦115,171.80/ha and ₦135,575.80/ha for
small, medium and large farms respectively, and a gross margin of ₦135,040.90,
₦169,257.00 and ₦207,027.40 for small, medium and large farms respectively. The
irrigated tomato production was profitable among the three sizes of production but more
profitable in the large farms with the highest returns of 85 kobo for every ₦1 invested.
The study found that most of the farms irrespective of size of holding have some
technical inefficiency problems. The medium farmers, in terms of Constant Returns to
Scale (CRS) and Variable Returns to Scale (VRS), had the best measures of technical
efficiency 13.6% and 72.7% compared to 16.5% and 21.2% for small farms and 27.3%
and 45.5% for large farms. Though large farms have been found efficient, with higher
yields (6750kg/ha), it is the medium and large scale farms that emerged as farms with
price-efficiency in terms of higher unit profit (0.43) respectively. Findings further
revealed that none of the sampled irrigated tomato farmer reached the frontier threshold.
However, the average economic efficiency of the irrigated tomato farms was 67%. The
mean technical efficiency was 85%. This indicates that irrigated tomato farms were
economically inefficient. Also, factors such as age, household size, farming experience,
sources of finance, sex and cooperative society were responsible for 59% total variation
in technical efficiency among the three categories of irrigated tomato farms. Majority of
the irrigated tomato farmers complained of poor output price as the foremost constraint
faced. It was therefore recommended that farmers should form a production clusters
through the formation of producer groups or cooperatives with an advisory committee
trained in various aspects of marketing to have access to up-dated pricing information
and make it available to farmers on time this could improve their market intelligence
and controlled irrigated tomato production per season.
<br></p>
Project Overview
<p><b>1.0 INTRODUCTION </b></p><p><b>1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY </b></p><p>Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) is an important vegetable crop in many parts
of the world. It is one of the most important vegetables grown for its edible fruits in
virtually every part of Nigeria. It is also one of the most widely cultivated crops in the
world. It is an important source of vitamins and an important cash crop for small -
holder and medium scale commercial farmers (Shankara et. al., 2005). The tomato fruit
is an essential component of the diet of man and also an important industrial
commodity (Jaliya et. al., 2007). </p><p>Egypt is the leading producer in Africa with the production of 8.5 million metric
tonnes and Nigeria is the fourth in Africa and leads in West African sub region, with an
estimated output of 1.10 metric tonnes and average yield of 10 metric tonnes per
hectare. This is lower than average yield of 13.5 metric tonnes per hectare in tropical
Africa and world average of 22.0 metric tonnes per hectare (FAO, 2010; Anons, 2010).
The United States of America is the leading importer of fresh tomato (25% of the
world output). Due to lower yield and expansion in consumer population in Nigeria,
demand for tomato paste continues to grow, resulting in expanded import in to the
country. According to Global Trade Atlas (GTA), Nigeria became Italy‟s second
largest export market for tomato paste in 2003, with shipments value at $50 million
dollars (Ewulo et. al., 2008).
<br></p><p>
There is no general definition on “scale” of enterprise in scientific literature. Different
national and international institutions have their own definitions. The history of
industrial revolution in developed and developing countries have shown that small and
medium scale enterprises are the driving force of industrial development. The attentions
of the national governments all over the world have, therefore focused on funding and
supporting small and medium scale enterprise activities (Adamu, 2005). In Nigeria,
small scale, resource poor farmers, the majority of who are engaged in subsistence or
near subsistence farming produce the majority of aggregate agricultural output via
rudimentary farming systems (Oviasogie, 2005; Ajibolade, 2005). Farm holdings across
Nigeria are generally small with less than 5 hectares on average and are often inherited
rather than purchased (Adeyemo et. al., 2010). Irrigated agriculture has played a major
role in expanding the level of food production leading to the attainment of food self
sufficiency and the overall agricultural development in many developing countries
(Pierce, 1990; Ibabu et. al., 1996). In addition to reducing the uncertainty in yields of
rain-fed crops due to climatic variability, it has also contributed to general increase in
productivity of crops enabling the farmers to generate substantial income and to be
gainfully employed all year round (Frederick, 1992). Today it is essential to note that
Fadama farmers are responsible for supplying food to millions of people in Nigeria
(Muhammad et al. 2011). </p><p>The major issues limiting agricultural productivity in Nigeria include low yields due to
the use of low technology inputs, poor yielding seeds and livestock, lack of or poor
adoption of improved production technologies, poor infrastructure, poor access to
finance and poor marketing structures. Thus, to raise productivity and stimulate the
sector, these problems need to be mitigated through adequate research and provision of
technologies which would lead to competitive production (CBN, 2010). Increased
output and productivity are directly related to production efficiency which arises from
efficient input usage given the state of technology (Maurice, 2004). Increasing
agricultural productivity requires one or more of the following: an increase in output
with output increasing proportionately more than inputs; an increase in output while
inputs remain the same; a decrease in both output and input with input decreasing more;
or decreasing input while output remains the same (Adewuyi, 2002; Oni et. al., 2009).
Production of vegetables is profitable; nevertheless is labour intensive. Thus, it provides
income support especially to small farmers and employment opportunity for landless
labourers in rural areas.
<br></p><p>
<b>1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT </b></p><p>In development economics, on-going debate on farm size and productivity “inverse
relationship” (IR) exists. Before it was argued that small farm holdings were more
efficient. However, the “inverse relation” was challenged with time (Maqbool et al.
2012). </p><p>Nigeria in her quest to be among the world 20 largest economy by the year 2020 has to
fight poverty among its citizenry and empower them economically to collectively
improve the economy of the nation. Despite the rapid pace of urbanization taking place
in Nigeria, half of Nigerians (approximately 70 million individuals) still in rural areas;
most of them engaged in small-holder semi-subsistence agriculture (Lenis et. al., 2011).
Agriculture remains a crucial sector in the Nigerian economy, being a major source of
raw materials, food and foreign exchange; employing over 70% of the Nigerian labour
force and serving as a potential vehicle for diversifying the Nigerian economy.
<br></p><p>
However, there are no rigorous studies that explain productivity in this sector. Most
small-holder farmers produce significantly below their frontiers. As a result, they
produce less than optimal levels of output as revealed by studies (mostly land
productivity) while many farming enterprises are profitable, profit margins are generally
low (Lenis et. al., 2011).
Profit maximization and maximum yield are common objectives of business enterprises
and is grossly dependent on how best production resources are harnessed (Afolabi et.
al., 2013). </p><p>Profitability in tomato production depends on how effectively a farmer can
manage inputs costs in such a way that least cost is achieved without sacrificing
production efficiency. Research findings have shown that some of the works have been
done on small size farming with less or no comparison to medium and large sizes,
especially in the production of vegetables like tomato under irrigated condition. </p><p>In 1980s agricultural production had become more diversified into high value
commodities. Old cropping patterns had improved for example, from cereals to cash
crop, from crop to horticulture and livestock products, in which small farms again
started to gain comparative advantages over the large farms. Furthermore, big farms are
input (fertilizer, agro chemicals etc) intensive that led to the degradation of their natural
resource. Considering these externalities, large farms are no longer in lead in
productivity and efficiency as compared to small farms (Maqbool et. al., 2012).
Therefore, there is the need to assess the economics of size in irrigated tomato
production in term of small farm size, medium and large size to see which of the sizes
give higher productivity and more profit than the other in Kano River Irrigation Project
(KRIP). </p><p>Based on this background, the following research questions were addressed by
the study: </p><p>i) What are the socio-economic characteristics of farmers in the study area? </p><p>ii) What are the levels of inputs and outputs in irrigated tomato production based
on the sizes of production in the study area? </p><p>iii) What are the costs and returns associated with irrigated tomato production based
on the sizes of production? </p><p>iv) What are the technical, allocative and economic efficiencies in irrigated tomato
production based on sizes of production in the study area? </p><p>v) What are the constraints being faced by irrigated tomato producers in the study
area? </p><p><b>1.3 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY </b></p><p>The broad objective of the study in the study area was to examine the Economics of
Size in Irrigated Tomato Production under Kano River Irrigation Project (KRIP),
Nigeria. More specifically the study achieved the following objectives: </p><p>i) describe the socio-economic characteristics of farmers in the study area. </p><p>ii) describe the levels of inputs and outputs in irrigated tomato production based
on the sizes of production in the study area.</p><p> iii) determine the costs and returns in irrigated tomato production based on the
sizes of production in the study area. </p><p>
iv) estimate the technical, allocative and economic efficiencies based on the sizes
of production in the study area. </p><p>v). identify and describe the constraints to irrigated tomato production in the
study area. </p><p><b>1.4 JUSTIFICATION THE STUDY </b> </p><p>Africa is the only developing region where crop output and factor productivity growth
are lagging seriously behind population growth (Byiringiro, 1996). The inverse
relationship between size of land holding and agricultural productivity has taken an
important place in the literature of agricultural economics and agricultural development
in recent decades. For various reasons farmers face different productivities of inputs as
the size of their holding vary and thus, making their output/input ratios vary
systematically with the size of their farms. The debate persists because no fully agreed
upon consensus has yet emerged on what is the exact implication of the observed
relationship and because of the possible (and sensitive) policy implication that is
engenders (Bardhan, 1973; Barrett, 1994). For example, if it is due to a higher
efficiency of small farms (low opportunity cost of labour, decreasing returns to scale),
then addressing issues of land reform would be the straight forward implication.
However, if it is a consequence of imperfect factor markets (smaller farms confront
different factor prices from larger farms i.e smaller farms face a low opportunity cost of
labour and high prices of land and capital which is an inverse pattern for that of larger
farms) then attention should be directed toward the institutional framework and the
functioning of the rural economy.
<br></p><p>
In the face of the scarcity of farmland and constraints of extensive farming, the
significance of increasing productivity may not be taken too lightly. Higher agricultural
productivity will lead to quicker growth, rural jobs and resources for industrial progress
along with food supply to ever-increasing population. As a consequence, raising
agricultural productivity is an important policy goal for concerned governments and
development agencies.
<br></p>