CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Rice is one of the most widely consumed staple foods in Nigeria, and demand for it has grown faster than domestic supply. Bwala and John (2018) note that the current production capacity of Nigerian rice producers is inadequate to meet national consumption demand, that production is dominated by small-scale farmers using simple tools, and that low capital and poor yields per hectare are among the challenges they face. Successive governments have responded with tariff and research measures, including the development of improved varieties (Bwala & John, 2018).

Niger State is one of the leading rice-producing states in Nigeria (Michigan State University Food Security Policy Project [MSU], n.d.). Within the state, Katcha is one of the local government areas of the Bida Agricultural Zone in which rice is produced in relatively large quantities (Bwala & John, 2018). Edati Local Government Area, whose two parts are separated by the Kaduna River, is included in this study alongside Katcha so that rice farmers in two local government areas of the state can be compared. Rice production in the state has been the subject of several studies, including work on the technical efficiency of rain-fed lowland rice farmers (Binuyo et al., 2016) and on the profitability of paddy production in the Bida zone (Bwala & John, 2018).

Improving rice output on smallholder farms depends largely on farmers' access to information, improved varieties and good agronomic practices. Agricultural extension is the main public means of providing these. Evidence from Nigeria links extension to better rice outcomes. Bello et al. (2021) found that extension contact, together with education, farming experience, access to credit and access to improved seed, had a positive and significant influence on the adoption of improved rice varieties, and that adopters harvested about 452 kilograms more rice per hectare. Tsado et al. (2014) found among rice farmers in North Central Nigeria that training was positively associated with adoption and that participants in an intervention programme had significantly higher output and income than non-participants. More broadly, Aremu and Reynolds (2024) used Nigerian household survey data to show that receiving extension services was associated with higher household assets and lower food insecurity.

Yet the reach of extension is uneven. In the Bida Agricultural Zone, about 52.4% of rice farmers had no contact with an extension agent in the year studied, and only 59% planted improved rice varieties while 32.4% still planted local varieties (Bwala & John, 2018). In a separate study of crop farmers in Niger State, Ebenehi et al. (2018) reported that 74.21% of respondents had extension contact, and that meetings, method and result demonstrations and mass media were the services used to transfer technology. These different pictures suggest that extension coverage varies with the place, crop and period studied, and they make local evidence for particular rice-growing communities important.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Rice is profitable and in strong demand, but yields on smallholder farms remain modest, and a sizeable share of farmers still plant local varieties (Bwala & John, 2018). Improved varieties and practices are available from research institutes, and extension is meant to carry them to farmers. If farmers do not receive regular and useful extension services, the potential of these technologies is not realised and rice output stays low.

Extension coverage in Niger State appears to be patchy. About half of the rice farmers in the Bida zone reported no extension contact in a year (Bwala & John, 2018), and Orikpe and Orikpe (2013) note that the number of farmers per extension agent in Nigeria is very high and that agents rely largely on traditional methods of communication. In addition, Aremu and Reynolds (2024) observe that empirical estimates of the causal impact of extension services in Nigeria are few. For rice farmers in Katcha and Edati specifically, there is little documented evidence on how much extension they receive and whether it makes a difference to how much rice they produce.

This study was therefore designed to examine the effect of agricultural extension services on rice production among smallholder farmers in Katcha and Edati Local Government Areas of Niger State, so that gaps in service and their effects on output can be identified.

1.3 Objectives of the Study

The main objective of the study is to determine the effect of agricultural extension services on rice production among smallholder farmers in Katcha and Edati Local Government Areas, Niger State. The specific objectives are to:

(i) describe the socio-economic characteristics of the rice farmers in the study area;

(ii) identify the sources, methods and frequency of extension services accessed by the farmers;

(iii) determine the level of rice output and yield among the farmers;

(iv) determine the effect of extension services on rice output among the farmers; and

(v) identify the constraints to accessing extension services and to increasing rice production.

1.4 Research Questions

The study seeks answers to the following questions:

1. What are the socio-economic characteristics of the rice farmers in the study area?

2. What are the sources, methods and frequency of extension services accessed by the farmers?

3. What is the level of rice output and yield among the farmers?

4. What is the effect of extension services on rice output among the farmers?

5. What constraints limit access to extension services and increased rice production?

1.5 Research Hypotheses

The following null hypotheses will be tested at the 5% level of significance:

H0₁: Access to extension services (measured by frequency of extension contact) has no significant effect on rice output among the farmers.

H0₂: There is no significant difference in rice yield between farmers who have extension contact and those who have none.

H0₃: The socio-economic characteristics of the farmers (age, sex, level of education, farm size, farming experience and access to credit) have no significant relationship with rice output.

H0₄: There is no significant difference in rice output between farmers in Katcha and Edati Local Government Areas.

1.6 Significance of the Study

The findings will help rice farmers in Katcha and Edati by showing how extension services relate to the output they achieve, and which services are worth seeking out. Extension agencies in Niger State, and organisations that support rice value chains, will obtain evidence on the reach and effect of their services in two rice-producing local government areas, and on where coverage should be improved.

Policy makers at the state and federal levels will find local evidence for planning extension staffing and funding as part of efforts to raise domestic rice production and reduce the gap between supply and demand. The study will also add to the literature on extension and productivity in Nigeria, where causal evidence is limited (Aremu & Reynolds, 2024), and will be useful to students and researchers.

1.7 Scope and Delimitation of the Study

The study covers smallholder rice farmers in Katcha and Edati Local Government Areas of Niger State. It considers the sources, methods and frequency of extension services received, and rice output and yield in the most recent cropping season. It does not cover rice processing or marketing, farmers of other crops, or other local government areas. The study focuses on smallholders, defined here as farmers cultivating a small area of rice mainly with family labour.

1.8 Limitations of the Study

The study was limited by time and finance, which restricted the sample size and the number of villages visited. Most smallholders do not keep written farm records, so output and input figures depend on recall and may not be exact. Because rice output is affected by many factors besides extension, such as rainfall, flooding, input prices and soil, the study can only estimate the relationship between extension and output and cannot rule out all other influences. Bwala and John (2018), for example, report flooding among the constraints faced by rice farmers in the Bida zone. Findings from two local government areas should be applied to other areas with care. The researcher tried to limit these problems by using a structured questionnaire, by including control variables in the analysis, and by asking about a single recent season.

1.9 Operational Definition of Terms

Agricultural extension services: Activities through which extension agents and other sources provide information, training and advice to farmers, such as farm visits, demonstrations, group meetings and mass media programmes.

Extension contact: Any direct meeting between a farmer and an extension agent, counted in this study as the number of contacts in the last cropping season.

Rice production: The quantity of paddy rice harvested by a farmer in a cropping season, measured as output (kilograms or bags) and yield (kilograms per hectare).

Smallholder farmer: A farmer who cultivates a small area of land, mainly with family labour and limited capital.

Improved rice varieties: Rice varieties developed by research institutes for higher yield or better adaptation than local varieties.

REFERENCES

Aremu, T., & Reynolds, T. W. (2024). Welfare benefits associated with access to agricultural extension services in Nigeria. Food Security, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-023-01428-7

Bello, L. O., Baiyegunhi, L. J. S., & Danso-Abbeam, G. (2021). Productivity impact of improved rice varieties' adoption: Case of smallholder rice farmers in Nigeria. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 30(7), 750–766.

Binuyo, G., Abdulrahman, S., Yusuf, O., & Timothy, A. J. (2016). Technical efficiency of rain-fed lowland rice production in Niger State, Nigeria. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology, 9(4), 1–12.

Bwala, M. A., & John, A. U. (2018). Profitability analysis of paddy production: A case of agricultural zone 1, Niger State Nigeria. Journal of Bangladesh Agricultural University, 16(1), 88–92. https://doi.org/10.3329/jbau.v16i1.36486

Ebenehi, O., Ahmed, T. A., & Barnabas, T. M. (2018). Evaluation of extension services delivery for climate change adaptation by crop farmers in Niger State, Nigeria. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology, 27(1), 1–13.

Michigan State University Food Security Policy Project. (n.d.). Niger State policy note 9. Michigan State University. https://www.canr.msu.edu/fsp/countries/nigeria/Niger%20State%20Policy%20Note%209.pdf

Orikpe, E. A., & Orikpe, G. O. (2013). Information and communication technology and enhancement of agricultural extension services in the new millennium. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 3(4), 155. https://doi.org/10.5901/jesr.2013.v3n4p155

Tsado, J. H., Olaleye, R. S., Ajayi, O. J., Umar, I. S., & Ndatsu, A. J. (2014). Information and training sources used by rice farmers in North Central Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension, 18(2).