FOOD

1. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
• The study compared the adoption of agricultural technologies by
cooperative and non-cooperative women farmers in cassava
production in Imo state, Nigeria.
• Multi-stage random sampling technique was adopted in the selection
of 120 respondents (60 cooperative and 60 non-cooperative women
farmers) for the study.
• Data collected were analysed using descriptive statistics, regression
analysis, and t-test.

2. FINDINGS
Adoption of improved technologies in cassava production by cooperative and non-cooperative women farmers
Agricultural
Technologies
Awareness* Interested* Evaluating* Trial* Adopted*
Coop Non-Coop Coop Non-Coop Coop Non-Coop Coop Non-Coop Coop Non-Coop
High yielding
Cassava variety
58
(96.7%)
32 (53.3%) 16 (26.7%) 12 (20.0%) 11
(18.3%)
5
(8.3%)
2
(3.3%)
0
(0%)
54 (90.0%) 13 (21.7%)
Planting spacing 56 (93.3%) 12 (20.0%) 5 (8.3%) 3
(5.0%)
2
(3.3%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
52
(86.7%)
10
(16.7%)
Pesticide
application
60
(100%)
20
(33.3%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
58
(96.7%)
12
(20.0%)
Herbicide
application
60
(100%)
11
(18.3%)
0
(0%)
34
(56.7%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
59
(98.3%)
9
(15.0%)
Fertilizer
application
60
(100%)
11
(18.3%)
0
(0%)
34
(56.7%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
59
(98.3%)
9
(15.0%)
Irrigation 60
(100%)
44
(73.3%)
60
(100%)
34
(56.7%)
0
(100%)
0
(100%)
0
(100%)
0
(100%)
2
(3.3%)
0
(0%)

3. Output performance of cooperative and non-
cooperative women farmers
Items Cooperative Non-cooperative
Total output (Naira)
Average output (Naira)
%performance
t-test
12005000
200083.33
44.58
6.3436018***
6653500
110891.67
-80.43

4. Effects of socioeconomic characteristics of cooperative women cassava farmers on the output performance
Variables Linear Exponential Semi-log Double-log
Constant
Age
Farm size
Household size
Income
Education
Credit
Farming Experience
Extension Contact
R2
F-value
-37607.327
(-0.187)
-8500.310
(-2.487)**
52836.516
(8.243)***
108043.398
(6.620)***
0.968
(1.687)*
5926.544 (9.642)***
0.217
(4.648)***
2412.600
(3.141)***
32718.995
(1.805)*
0.541
7.500***
10.184
(11.973)***
-0.015
(-1.042)
-0.228
(-0.844)
0.319
(4.631)***
4.718E-006
(1.947)*
0.018
(0.712)
-9.093E-007
(-0.462)
0.014
(0.441)
-0.015
(-0.201)
0.403
4.308***
-609979.444
(-0.520)
-287149.956
(-1.878)*
-51735.084
(-0.831)
542311.867
(5.043)***
83900.974
(0.966)
46231.584
(0.854)
-4127.581
(-0.105)
19361.004
(0.302)
-67400.874
(-1.362)
0.397
4.199***
5.445
(1.215)
-0.664
(-1.137)
-0.236
(-0.991)
1.816 (4.418)***
0.544
(1.679)*
0.123
(0.596)
-0.086
(-0.572)
0.121
(0.493)
-0.050
(-0.263)
0.359
3.563***

5. Effects of socioeconomic characteristics of non-cooperative women cassava farmers on the output performance
Variables Linear Exponential Semi-log Double-log
Constant
Age
Farm size
Household size
Income
Education
Credit
Farming Experience
Extension Contact
R2
F-value
-363903.698
(-2.122)**
4719.744
(1.629)
29394.607
(9.802)***
49232.922
(4.906)***
-0.228
(-0.402)
4585.811
(0.876)
-0.087
(-0.361)
2166.127
(0.570)
-5593.739
(-0.498)
0.463
5.499***
8.316
(6.143)***
0.028
(1.217)
-0.434
(-1.831)*
0.305
(3.848)***
-6.852E-007
(-0.153)
-0.015
(-0.367)
-7.923E-007
(-0.415)
0.048
(1.601)
-0.019
(-0.212)
0.377
3.859***
-1095045.892
(-1.190)
234841.760
(1.790)*
-15850.798
(-0.518)
190895.059
(3.349)***
-19675.299
(-0.368)
46096.705
(0.856)
8828.370
(0.374)
18791.324
(0.550)
-20250.128
(-0.660)
0.316
2.939***
5.810
(0.852)
1.324
(1.362)
-0.239
(-1.052)
1.421 (3.365)***
-0.207
(-0.522)
-0.112
(-0.282)
-0.040
(-0.230)
0.377
(1.491)
-0.057
(-0.250)
0.301
2.741**

6. Constraints to Adoption of Improved Technologies in Cassava Production
Constraints Cooperative Non-
cooperative
Freq* %age Freq* %age
Inadequate knowledge of improved
technologies in cassava production
Lack of fund
Costly nature of the technologies
Lack of market access
Poor extension service delivery
Late delivery of required improved
inputs
Lack of access to improved
technologies
0
58
12
9
0
0
0
0.0
96.7
20.0
15.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12
54
33
2
48
47
49
20.0
90.0
55.0
3.3
80.0
78.3
81.7

7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
• The study concludes that cooperative women farmers in the area
produce more cassava output than non-cooperative women farmers
and earn more farm income than non-cooperative women farmers.
• Cooperative women farmers adopt more improved technologies in
cassava production than non-cooperative women farmers in the area.
• There is need to recognize and support the profitable role of women
farmer cooperatives if the goals of increased food production, poverty
alleviation, and sustainable development are to be achieved.