Volume 1, Issue 2, pp.

25-32; May 2012

Journal of Agriculture and Biodiversity Research

2012 Online Research Journals
Full Length Research
Available Online at http://www.onlineresearchjournals.org/JABR

Economic Impact of Agricultural Mechanization

Adoption: Evidence from Maize Farmers in Ondo State,
Nigeria.
Owombo PT*1, Akinola AA1, Ayodele OO1, Koledoye GF2
1

Department of Agricultural Economics, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile Ife, Nigeria.

Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile Ife, Nigeria.

Downloaded 10 April, 2012

Accepted 19 May, 2012

As part of the major effort to addressing productivity decline and drudgery involves in labour intensive
agriculture in Nigeria, a study on the economic impact of agricultural mechanization adoption has been
carried out in Ondo State, Nigeria. This study employed a multi stage sampling techniques to collect
information on the socio-economic characteristics, institutional factors and methods of carrying out
farming activities. The collected data were analysed using descriptive, budgetary and logistic
regression model. Analyses reveled that farmers in the area are middle-aged and are relatively
educated. 38.7% and 87.6% of the adopters and non-adopters agreed that mechanization destroys soil
quality. The gross margins for the adopters and non-adopters were N112, 423.37 and 74,727.87
respectively. The mean net revenue for adopters and non adopters were N110,190.81 and N 73,726.63
respectively. The profitability differentials were measured using the rate of return (ROR) and benefit
cost ration (BCR). The rates of return to investment were 2.8 and 2.5 for adopters and non-adopters
respectively, while the benefit cost ratios were 4.0 and 3.5 respectively for adopters and non adopters
respectively. The result of the logistic regression revealed that education, extension visit and machine
access were significant determinants of adoption of mechanization practices. There is therefore the
need to put appropriate policies that would create better access to these technology and equipments at
the right time and at minimum cost. This would improve their productivity which will in turn improve
their income and thus ensures a better livelihood. Farmers should be educated followed by the periodic
visit by the extension agents. These will together enhance mechanization adoption by farmers in the
study area.
Keywords: Agricultural mechanization, economic impact, logistic regression, rate of return, benefit cost ration,
maize farmers, Ondo State.

INTRODUCTION
Maize (Zea mays) is a major cereal crop being cultivated
in the rainforest and the derived. Savannah zones of
Nigeria [1]. The other major grains produced in addition
to maize are rice, sorghum, and millet [2]. Maize takes
the lead among the grains because of its ability to thrive
under different ecological condition and found the most
important among the farm families [2]. FAO [3] figures
reveal a consistent increase in production of these crops

*Corresponding Author: owombopaul@gmail.com

in Nigeria. Adekunle [4] also reported sustained increase

in their output. Maize as the most important staple food in
Nigeria accounts for about 43% of calorie intake [5].
Maize has consumption quantity of 53.20g/capital /day
[6]. The other major food crops aside the mentioned ones
in Nigeria are roots, tuber and other grains.
The area planted to maize in West and Central Africa
alone increased from 3.2 million in 1961 to 8.9 million in
2005 [6]. It stressed that this phenomenal expansion of
the land area devoted to maize resulted in increased in
production from 2.4 million metric tonnes in 1961 to 10.6
million metric tonnes in 2005. While the average yield of

26

J. Agric. Biodivers. Res.

maize in developed countries can be as high as 8.6

tonnes/ha. Production per hectare in developing country
like Nigeria is still very low (1.3 tonnes per ha). Maize is
used mainly as a staple human food, a feed for livestock,
as a raw material for many industrial products among
others. Comparing the increase in maize production per
hectare with the uncontrollable increase in the population
of Nigeria, it is still very clear that the production is not
enough to meet the demand of the growing population
[7]. Considering the great demand for maize, research
stations have developed means by which maize
production can be increased to meet up with the demand
for maize.
The demand supply gap in maize is still due to the use
of crude implements and employment of traditional
methods of farming, such as cutlass, hoe, bush burning,
manual ridging and harvesting among others. The
demand supply gap could also be attributed to some
constraints, which include; pests and diseases, mineral
deficiency, effect of weed among others. Nigerian
agriculture is still characterized by overwhelmingly small
holdings, higher population density and nearly two-third
of its population residing in the rural areas coupled with
chronic poverty, high illiteracy level, low or absence of
extension contact and above all unabated land
fragmentation due to the inheritance laws of the country.
Farm lands are rain fed, fertilizer use, agricultural
activities are manually carried out and improved seed
variety not adopted [8]. This calls for mechanization of
agricultural production operations.
According to Verma [9], Agricultural mechanization
implies the use of various power sources and improved
farm tools and equipment, with a view to reduce the
drudgery of the human beings and draught animals,
enhance the cropping intensity, precision and timelines of
efficiency of utilization of various crop inputs and reduce
the losses at different stages of crop production.
According to Olaoye and Rotimi [10], the level,
appropriate choice and subsequent proper use of
mechanized inputs into agriculture has a direct and
significant effect on achievable levels of land productivity,
labour productivity, the profitability of farming, the
sustainability, the environment and, on the quality of life
of people engaged in agriculture. Ajeigbe et al. [11] in
their study asserted that mechanization enhanced
productivity and income generating capacity of legumecereal cropping systems in Nigeria.
There are enormous studies Olaoye and Rotimi;
Ajeigbe et al., and Abubakar and Abubakar [10-12] on the
impact of agricultural mechanization on crops productivity
but rarely had study been conducted on the determinants
of mechanization adoption in Nigeria. Adoption however,
can be described as a decision to make full use of an
innovation or technology as the best course of action
available [13]. He stressed that the process requires a
great mental effort by the farmers before they could
decide, on whether to use the innovation or not. The

farmer is though not certain about the profitability of the

technology. Rogers [14] observed that prior to the
adoption of new technology by an individual farmer; he or
she will follow an adoption process like awareness,
interest evaluation, trial and adoption. According to him,
for an innovation to be acceptable to the farmers, it must
be economically profitable, socially acceptable and
technologically visible. The need for mechanization
adoption has drawn the attention of National Agricultural
Research of most countries to devote utmost interest and
resource to engineering research in operations to
minimize the drudgery, reduce labour intensities and
unsanitary and inherent unhygienic handling that are
involved in the traditional manual operations [15].
This paper therefore examines the socioeconomic
characteristics of the respondents; costs and returns to
adopters and non-adopters and factors determining
mechanization adoption among the respondents.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

Study Area
This study was carried out in Ondo East and Ondo South
Local government areas of Ondo State. Ondo State is
located in the Western part of Nigeria. Ondo State is
located in the western part of Nigeria. The state falls on
0
1
0
longitude 4 45 ` and 6 00 east of the Greenwich
0
1
meridian and latitude 4 45 ` north of the equator and has
eighteen (18) Local Government Areas (LGAs). The state
has three (3) administrative zones, namely, North (six
LGAs), Central (six LGAs) and South (six LGAs). The
selected Local Government areas are located in the
central administrative zone. The three zones have
relatively the same climatic conditions. Maize is grown
extensively in the study area.
Sampling Technique
Primary data were used for the study. A multistage
sampling technique was used for data collection. The first
stage involves the purposive selection of the two local
government areas. In the second stage, the local
government areas were clustered into villages. The third
stage involves the random selection of five villages in
each of the two local government areas. The fourth and
final stage involves the random selection of 20 farmers in
each village making a total of 200 respondents in all. The
village extension agents in the state were contacted to
reach the farmers on their fortnightly training meeting.
The data were collected using structured questionnaires.
Data collected include farmers demographic and
socioeconomic characteristics such as age, sex, farm
size, duration of fallow, labour use, off farm income,
method of land preparation, method of seed planting,
method of weed control, method of harvesting, method of

Owombo et al.

processing, mode of land acquisition, among others.

Secondary data were obtained from records of the local
government areas (LGAs) and Ondo state Agricultural
Development Project zonal office.
Analytical Technique
Data collected were analysed using descriptive, farm
budgetary and logistic regression model. The descriptive
statistics employed mean and percentage.
Farm budgetary Technique
According to Alimi and Manyong [16], a budget is the
quantitative expression of total farm plan summarizing
the income, cost and profit (a residue of total cost from
total revenue). Gross margin which is the difference
between total revenue and total variable cost was
analyzed. The total budgetary component is expressed
as:

27

adoption behaviour of respondents. Shakya and Flinn

[22] recommended probit model for functional forms with
limited dependent variables that are continuous between
0 and 1 and logit models for discrete dependent
variables. The logistic model, which is based on
cumulative logistic probability functions, was developed
to analyze the adoption characteristics of farmers to farm
mechanization because the responses recorded were
discrete. Adeogun et al. [17] revealed that the logistic
regression model which is based on cumulative logistic
probability functions is computationally easier to use than
other types of model and it also has the advantage of
predicting the probability of farmers adopting any
technology.
Logistic regression model
The logistic regression model assumes that the
underlying stimulus (Ii) is a random variable which
predicts the probability of agricultural mechanization
adoption:

The profit for each maize enterprise was calculated using

VC = rixi
GM = R - VC
BCR = R
TC
ROR =
TC

(i)
(ii)
(iii)

Where = net income/profit; R = gross revenue /income

VC = Variable cost/expenses; ri= prices of variable inputs
used
xi= quantities of variable inputs; FC = fixed cost
/expenses
GM = Gross margin
BCR= Benefit cost ratio
TC= total cost
ROR = Rate of return
The average revenue (income); costs and profits were
computed. Cost items expressed as a proportion of total
cost; rate of return, benefit-cost ratio were also computed
and compared.
Logistic Regression Model
Model for adoption behaviour
Several studies have investigated the influence of various
socio-economic, cultural, institutional and political factors
on the willingness of farmers to use new technologies
[8,17-21]. In most adoption studies, the dependent
variable takes value between 0 and 1 and the models
used were exponential functions while univariate and
multivariate logit and probit models including their
modified forms have been used extensively to study the

Conceptually, the behavioural model employed to

examine factors influencing mechanization adoption is
given by:

Where, Yi is the observed response for the i respondent,

Y =1 for adopter, Y = 0 for non-adopter). Ii is an
underlying stimulus index for the i observation (Generally,
there is a critical threshold {I *} for each respondent, if I <
I *, the farmer is observed to be non-adopter and if I > I *,
the farmer is observed to be adopter); g is the functional
relationship between the field observation (Y) and the
stimulus index (I) which determines the probability of the
mechanization adoption). I = 1, 2, .., m are observation
on variables for the adoption model; m is the sample size;
X is the j explanatory variables for the i observation and j
= 1, 2,3, .., n; bj is an unknown parameter, j = 0,1, 2,
.., n, where n is the total number of the explanatory
variables. The logistic model assumes that the underlying
stimulus index (Ii) is a random variable which predicts the
probability of mechanization adoption:

Therefore, for the i observation (individual farmer):

28

J. Agric. Biodivers. Res.

Table 1. Definition and measurement of variables.

Yi

Dependent Variable
Farmers adoption decision: 1 if adopted and 0, otherwise

which is a logistic model. The relative effect of individual

explanatory variable (X ij) on the probability of agricultural
mechanization adoption is measured by differentiating
with respect to X, i.e.

employing the quotient rule

The formula can be used in predicting changes in the

probability of adopting mechanization which can be
employed to estimate the changes in the number of
farmer adopting the technology. Adoption impact of a
technology can only be evaluated after introduction.
Adeogun et al. [17] in their study stated that, given a
policy change, comparison of the estimated number of
adopter before and after policy change provides a
measure of its impact. The adoption index measured by
the intensity of adoption where intensity of adoption is
defined as the proportion of maize production
operation(s) that is mechanized. This can be expressed
as:
No. of operation(s) mechanized
Rate of =
Adoption Total number of operations in maize production

adopter. The definitions and measurement of variables as

well as sample characteristics are presented in table 1.
The probability of mechanization adoption (DA) is
expressed as a function of socio-economic and
institutional factors. It is represented as follows:
DA = (X, X X) + gi
The attributes in equation 6 was specified in the empirical
model to include the following variables: age, educational
level, farm size, farming experience, extension visit,
access to credit, access to farm machines and
equipments, off farm income, membership of association,
and gi, the random disturbance. The variables definition
and measurement table is shown below.
Independent variables
Age (X1) Age of the farmer (year)
Education (X2) Farmers education level (years)
Farm size (X3) Farm size in (ha)
Experience (X4) Farming experience (year)
Extension (X5) Extension agent (1=yes, 0=otherwise)
Access to credit (X6)
Access to formal credit
(1=yes, 0=otherwise)
Access to farm machines (X7) Access to machines
(1=yes; 0= otherwise)
Off farm income (X8) Off-farm income (N)
Membership
of
Association(X9)
Membership
of
association
The general model of adoption is
Pi=
f
(B0+B1X1+B2X2+B3X3+B4X4+B5X5+B6X6+B7X7+B8X8+B9X9 )
Where,
Pi = adoption status measured as dummy (1= adopters,
0= non- adopters)
The Xs are defined in the table 1
A priori Expectation signs of the coefficients

Empirical model specification

The data in which the empirical model is dependent were
drawn from a sample of 200 farmers in the study area,
using a multi-stage sampling technique. Structured
questionnaire was used to collect information from the
respondents. The rate of adoption of the technology was
based on the proportion of the number of operation
mechanized to the total number of operations. The
dependent variable is dichotomous: farmers who had
used the technology or still using the technology were
categorized as adopter while those not using were non-

The multi-facet independent variables include farmers,

Farm and institutional factors hypothesized to influence
mechanization technology adoption. These variables are
Age of respondents(year), Farmers Education Level
(year), Farm Size (ha), Farming Experience (year),
Access to Extension Services (dummy), Access to Credit
(dummy), Access to Machines and Equipments (dummy),
Off Farm Income(N)and Membership of Association
(dummy)
The need for the inclusion of these variables was
based on a priori of technology adoption. Age may affect

Owombo et al.

technology adoption negatively or positively. Feder et al.

[23] found a negative relationship between age and
technology adoption. They found that the older the farmer
the less likely they adopt because they have confidence
in their long adopted practices.
Education level is hypothesized to have positive
relationship with technology adoption. Alene et al. [24] in
their study in Ethiopia reported that farmers with higher
level of education had a higher probability of adopting
improved technology.
Farm size is also hypothesized to have positive
relationship with technology adoption. Ayinde et al. [7]
found that farm size has positive relationship with
technology adoption.
Farming experience is hypothesized to have positive or
negative influence on technology adoption. Adeogun et
al. [17] reported a negative relationship farming
experience and technology adoption on the ground that
they have confidence in their long employed practices.
We hypothesized that extension services will have
positive relationship with adoption of mechanization
technology. Contact with extension agents is expected to
be positively related based on the innovation-diffusion
theory. Such contact would expose farmers to information
which can eventually stimulate adoption [21]. Years of
experience in fish culture are related to the ability of the
farmer to obtain process and use information relevant to
fish farming.
Access to credit is expected to be positively related to
innovation adoption. Access would boost farmers
readiness to adopt new technology. It is hypothesized
that the variable measured as dichotomous has a positive
influence on probability of adoption [25,26].
Access to machines and equipments is expected to be
positively related to mechanization adoption. Downey and
Erickson [27] reported that equipments and machines are
not readily available on the ground that the equipments
industries are Oligopolistic in nature. Off farm income is
hypothesized to positively influence adoption. It is the
capital that could be used either in production process or
exchanged for other assets. It is expected to positively
influence adoption [28,29].
Membership of association is hypothesized to have
positive or negative influence on adoption. Kassie et al.
[30] in their study revealed that membership of
organization positively influence the adoption of
conservation tillage.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Socio-economic characteristics
The analysis of the socio-economic characteristics of the
respondents (table 2) showed that the mean age of the
adopters was 42 years and for non-adopters was
51years. The average farm sizes were 2.1 and 0.6 for

29

adopters and non-adopters respectively. On the level of

education, the average numbers of years spent in school
were 14 and 8 respectively. This implies that the adopters
are more educated than the non-adopter. This could help
in technology adoption. The mean farming experience of
the adopters and non-adopters in years were 9 and 16
respectively. This implies that the non adopters are more
experienced in the enterprise than non adopters. They
(non adopters) may have confidence in their formal
traditional farming systems. About 71.1% of the adopters
responded they have access to extension services while
in case of the non adopters, 91% responded that they do
not have access to extension services. On equipments
and machines access, 34.3%, 56.7% and 9% of adopters
responded that they have very, moderate and no access
to equipments and machines respectively while 0%,
1.2%, and 98%, of the non-adopter responded that they
have very, moderate and no access to machines and
equipments. This implies that a vast majority of the
respondents do not have access to machines and
equipments even if the willingness to adopt is there. This
may be due to oligopolistic nature of equipment market
as said by [12]. However, about 38.7% of adopters
perceived that mechanization destroys soil quality while
61.3% of the same group perceived that mechanization
does not. On the other hand, 87.6% of the non adopters
perceived that mechanization destroys soil quality, while
12.4% perceived against. This may inhibit their adoption
behavior. The analysis also revealed that 72.1% of
adopters only mechanize land preparation, 19.4%
mechanize land preparation an planting, 0% mechanize
land preparation and harvesting, while 8.5 % mechanize
other operation such as processing (Shelling).
Budgetary analysis
Results of the budgetary analysis (table 3) revealed that
equipment hire constitute the major cost item for the
adopters while for the non-adopters it is cost of land
preparation. The result reveals that the average total
revenue for adopters was N149,544.67 while that of nonadopters was N 103,139.53. The average total variable
cost for adopters was found to be N 39,353.86 while that
of the non- adopters was N 28,411.66. The gross
margins were N 112, 423.37 and N 74, 727.87 for
adopters and non-adopters respectively. The result
reveals that mechanization adoption is more profitable
than traditional agriculture as the rate of returns and
benefit cost ratios were 2.8 and 2.5; 4.0 and 3.5 for
adopters and non-adopters respectively. This implies that
mechanization ensures greater return per unit of capital
invested. This conforms to Davies [15].
Logistic regression result
The results for the Logistic regression model shows that
extension visit, access to machines and equipments, age

30

J. Agric. Biodivers. Res.

Table2. Socio-economic characteristics of respondents.

Variables
Age (mean)
Farm size (mean)
Education level (mean)
Experience (mean)
Family size (mean)
Off-farm income (mean (N))
Extension access (%)
Yes
No
Access to farm machines (%)
Very accessible
Moderately accessible
Not accessible
Membership of Association (%)
Yes
No
Perception of Respondents (%)
Destroys soil quality
Does no destroy
Operation(s) Mechanized
Land preparation only
Land Prep and Planting
Land Prep and Harvesting
Others

Adopters
42
2.1
14
9
3
561,003

Non adopters
51
0.6
8
16
6
102,040

Pooled
46.5
3.25
11
12.5
4.5
331521.5

72.1
27.9

91
9

81.55
18.45

34.3
56.7
9

0
1.2
98.8

17.15
28.95
53.9

82.4
7.6

27.1
72.9

54.75
40.25

38.7
61.3

87.6
12.4

63.15
36.85

72.1
19.4
0
8.5

36.05
9.70
0
4.25

and education level were significant determinants of

mechanization adoption in the study area (table 4).
Extension visit was significant at 10%, access to machine
and equipments at 5%, education level at 5% and age
also at 10% respectively. The positive coefficients of
extension visit, access to machines and equipments and
education level conforms to a priori expectation
hypothesized above. This implies that the more the
number of extension visits to the farmers, the greater the
likelihood that the farmers will adopt mechanization of
agricultural operation; the more the respondents access
to machines and equipments, the greater the probability
that they would adopt mechanization of agricultural
operations; the more literate the farmers are, the more
readily the farmers will embrace new technology. Age
has inverse relationship with the adoption status, which
implies that the older the farmer the less the likelihood
that the farmers will adopt mechanization technology.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Farmers in the area were in their active ages, which

ranged from 42 years among the adopters to 51 years

among the non-adopters. The farmers were mainly
smallholder farmers. The average total revenue to
adopters was N149,544.67 while that of non- adopters
was N 103,139.53. The average total variable cost for
adopters was found to be N 39,353.86 while that of the
non- adopters was N 28,411.66. The gross margins were
N 112, 423.37 and N 74, 727.87 for adopters and nonadopters respectively. In spite of the high cost of
equipments and machineries in the study area, the
outcome of the study revealed a superiority of
mechanized farming operation over the traditional
(manually) operated farm. The logistic regression
revealed that extension visits, access to machine and
equipment, age and education were significant determinants
of mechanization adoption in the study area.
Appropriate policies that would create frequency of
extension contact, better access of farmers to
equipments and machineries at the right time and
minimum cost will improve their productivity which will in
turn improve their income and thus ensures a better
livelihood. Farmers should be educated followed by the
periodic visit by the extension agents. These will together

Owombo et al.

Table 3. Budgetary Analysis for Adopters and Non-Adopters.

No
1
2

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Cost Item
Total Revenue (N)
Variable cost (N)
Land clearing
Land preparation
Planting
Fertilizer
Harvesting
Seed
Equipments Hire
Total Variable Cost
Fixed Cost
Total Cost (3+4)
Net Revenue (1-5)
Gross Margin (1-3)
Rate of Return
Benefit-Cost Ratio

Adopters
128,608.87

Value (N)
Non- Adopters
103,139.53

Pool
160,874.2

4,311.62
11,255.80
3,211.29
2,937.20
4,702.32
3,001.16
7,702.33
37,121.3
2,232.56
39,353.86
110,190.81
112,423.37
2.8
4.0

4,567.74
8,720.23
4,212.29
2,225.80
4,535.48
2,744.68
1,406.44
28,411.66
1,000.94
29,412.6
73,726.63
74,727.87
2.5
3.5

5,339.68
9,988.0
3,711.29
3,081.5
5,618.9
3,229.92
9,554.39
40,616.69
1,616.75
42,233.44
118,640.61
55,957.63
2.65
3.75

Source: Result of Data Analysis

N =Nigerian Currency; $1 = 0.00658

Table 4. Result of Logistic Regression Model.

Variables
Constant
X1= Age
X2= Education level
X3= farm size
X4= Farming
experience
X5= Extension visit
X6 = Formal Credit
X7= Access to
machines
X8= Off farm income
X9 = Association
Diagnostic test for the Model
-2 Log likelihood
function
Chi- Squared
Significance Level

Coefficient
-2.708
-0.2103
0.1631*
0.3030
0.2111

T- ratio
-1.0890
0.4790
2.2390
0.5814
0.1710

S. E
1.2230
0.1800
0.0990
0.3001
0.1121

2.6230*
0.8824
0.7213**

2.6230
1.4310
0.9920

1.9860
0.4582
0.2540

-0.0165
4.0170

-0.2800
3.9660

0.0042
2.9001

46.608
32.887
.0000

Source: Result of Data Analysis

** Significant Variables
* =10%
*=5%

enhance mechanization adoption by farmers in the study

area.

31

32

J. Agric. Biodivers. Res.

REFERENCE
[1] Iken JE, Amusa NA. Maize research and production in Nigeria. Afri.
J. Biotechnol., 2004; 3(6): 302-307.

[17] Adeogun OA, Ajana AM, Ayinla OA, Yarhere MT, Adeogun MO.
Application of Logit Model in Adoption Decision: A Study of Hybrid
Clarias in Lagos State, Nigeria. Am-Eur. J. Agric. Environ. Sci., 2008;
4(4): 468-472.

[2] Adekunle OA, Nabinta RT. Indigenous Storage Structure Of Cereals,

By Women Farmers in Kaltungo Area of Gombe State, Nigeria. J. Rural
Econ. Develop. 2000; 14(1): 47-54.

[18] Adesina AA, Zinnah MM. Technology characteristics, farmers

perceptions and adoption decisions: A Tobit model application in Sierra
Leone. Agric. Econ., 1993; 9: 297-311.

[3] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

Rome, 1989.

[19] Akinola AA, Arega DA, Adeyemo R, Sanogo D, Olanrewaju AS,

Nwoke C, Nziguheba G, Diels J. Determinants of adoption and intensity
of use of balanced nutrient Management Systems Technologies in the
Northern Guinea Savanna of Nigeria. AAAE Conference Proceedings,
2007; pp. 111-118

[4] Adekunle OA. Threats on Small Farmers. The Herald Newspaper,

a. Ilorin, Kwara State, Nigeria. Friday, March 12, 2004; P. 19.
[5] Nweke FI, Akorha JAA. Determinants of adoption of New
Technology Among small holder and implementation for Administration
of transfer programmes. A Case Study of Rice Production of Plateau
State of Nigeria. Agric. Admin., 1983; 12: 17-19.
[6] FAOSTAT. www.fao.org Assessed December 10, 2007.
[7] Ayinde OE, Adewumi MO, Olatunji GB, Babalola OA. Determinants
of Adoption of Downy Mildew Resistant Maize by Small-Scale Farmers
in Kwara State, Nigeria. Global J. Sci. Frontier Res., 2010, 10(1): 32-35.

[20] Damisa MA, Igonoh E. An Evaluation of the Adoption of Integrated

Soil Fertilizer Management Practices among Women Farmers in Danja,
Nigeria. J. Agric. Edu. Extension 2007; 13(2): 107-116.
[21] Polson RA, Spencer DSC. The Technology Adoption Process in
Subsistence Agriculture: the Case of Cassava in South Western
Nigeria. Agric. Syst. 1992; 36: 65-77.
[22] Shakya PB, Flinn JC. Adoption of modern varieties and fertilizer
use on rice in the Eastern Tarai of Nepal. J. Agric. Econ., 1985; 36: 409419.

[8] Akinola AA, Alene AD, Adeyemo R, Sanogo D, Olanrewaju AS.

Impact of Balanced Nutrient Management Systems Technologies in the
Northern Guinea Savanna of Nigeria. J. Food Agric. Environ., 2009;
7(2): 496-504.

[23] Feder G, Just R, Zilberman D. (1985) Adoption of Agricultural

Innovations in Developing Countries. A survey. The University of
Chicago, 1985; pp. 255-299.

[9] Verma SR. Impact of Agricultural Mechanization on Production,

Productivity, Cropping Intensity Income Generation and Employment of
Labour. Status of farm mechanization in India, Punjab Agricultural
University, Ludhiana. 2008; 133-153.

[24] Alene AD, Poonyth D, Hasan RM. Determinants of Adoption and

Intensity of Use of Improved Rice Varieties in the Central highlands of
Ethiopia: A Tobit Analysis. Agrekon. South Afri. J. Agric. Econ., 2000;
39(4): 633-645

[10] Olaoye JO, Rotimi AO. Measurement of agricultural mechanization

index and analysis of agricultural productivity of farm settlements in
Southwest Nigeria. Agric. Eng. Int. J., 2010; 12(1): 125-134.

[25] Bekele W, Drake L. Soil Water Conservation Decision and Behavior

of Subsistence Farmers in the Eastern Highlands of Ethiopia a Case
Study of the Hunde-Lafto area. Elsevier Science Ltd. Ecol. Econ., 2003;
46(3): 437-451.

[11] Ajeigbe HA, Mohammed SG, Adeosun JO, Ihedioha D. Farmers

guide to increased productivity of improved legumecereal cropping
systems in the savannas of Nigeria. International Institute of Tropical
Agriculture (IITA), 2010. Ibadan, Nigeria. www.iita.org
[12] Abubakar SS, Abubakar SZ. Appropriate tillage equipment
utilization: the role of extension services. In: Tillage Res and Agricultural
Dev in Sub-Saharan Africa. Proc. of the Nig. Branch of ISTRO, 1997;
87-97.
[13] Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovation. 4th edn. New York: Free Press,
1995.
[14] Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovation New York Press, 1969, P. 13
[15] Davies RM. Mechanization of Fish Industry in Nigeria Status and
Potential for Self-Sufficiency in Fish Production. A Paper Presented at a
one-day Workshop on Intensive Fish Farming. 19th August, 2006, P.
10.
[16] Alimi T, Manyong VM. Partial Budget Analysis for on-farm
Research. IITA Guide no.65, Ile Ife, Nigeria, 2000.

[26] Oluoch-Kosura WA, Marenya PP, Nzuma MJ. Soil fertility

management in maize based production system in Kenya. Current
options and the future strategies, 2001, Paper 355.
[27] Downey WD, Erickson SP. Agribusiness Management, McGraw Hill
Book Company. (2nd Ed.), 1989.
[28] Negatu W, Parikh A. The impact of perception and other factors on
the adoption of agricultural technologies in the Moret and Jiru Woreda
(district) Ethiopia. Agric. Econ., 1999; 21: 219-229.
[29] Shiferaw B, Holden ST. Resource degradation and the adoption of
land conservation technologies in the Ethiopian highlands. A case study
in Andit Tid, North Shewa. Agric. Econ., 1998; 21: 241-256
[30] Kassie M, Zikhali P, Manjur K, Edwards S. Adoption of Organic
Farming Techniques: Evidence from a Semi-Arid Region of Ethiopia.
Discussion Paper Series January, 2009.