Farmers’ constraints in rice production in South-East Nigeria

Farmers’ Constraints In Rice Production In South-East Nigeria
Keywords:
Farmers, constraints, rice, production, South East Nigeria.
ABSTRACT:
The study was carried out in South East Nigeria to evaluate the
socioeconomic attributes of rice farmers and identify the major constraints facing the
rice enterprise in the area. The study relied mainly on primary data obtained by
questionnaire and interview administered on a total of 158 farmers across four states
that constitute the South East Agro-ecological area. Descriptive statistics was mainly
used to analyze the data collected. Findings show that farmers in rice production were
dominated by married, literate, male farmers. Major constraints to rice production
include poor extension contact, lack of finance, high cost of agrochemical, lack of
inorganic fertilizer, lack of processing facilities/ standard measure for rice, lack of
credit, and delay in supply of improved rice varieties. It was recommended that the
government should expose farmers to skills and knowledge required to overcome the
constraints in rice production through the development of extension
training/ teaching service, development of rural infrastructure, irrigation/storage/
processing facilities and credit supply at affordable interest rates.
114-123 | JRA | 2012 | Vol 1 | No 2
This article is governed by the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/2.0), which gives permission for unrestricted use, non-commercial, distribution and
reproduction in all medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
www.jagri.info
Journal of Research in
Agriculture
An International Scientific
Research Journal
Authors:
Emodi AI.
Institution:
Department of Agricultural
Economics and Extension
University of Port Harcourt,
Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
Corresponding author:
Emodi AI.
Email:
emodiz@yahoo.com.
Web Address:
http://www.jagri.info
documents/AG0026.pdf.
Dates:
Received: 23 Jul 2012 Accepted: 28 Aug 2012 Published: 02 Oct 2012
Article Citation:
Emodi AI.
Farmers’ Constraints In Rice Production In South-East Nigeria.
Journal of Research in Agriculture (2012) 1(2): 114-123
Original Research
Journal of Research in Agriculture
JournalofResearchinAgriculture An International Scientific Research Journal

INTRODUCTION
According to West Africa Rice Development
Agency (WARDA, 2004), rice has established itself as a
preferred staple in Nigeria. Among the major cereals,
rice is the primary staple of more than hundreds of
millions of people in developing countries (Heinrichs,
2009). Rice production seems to be concentrated in
selected geographic areas in Nigeria extending from the
northern to southern zones with most rice growth in the
eastern and middle belt of the country (United States
Department of Agriculture and Foreign Agricultural
Service, USDA/FAS, 2003). It is predominantly
produced by small holders and on average, rice
producing households produce 4.6 tons of paddies per
year from an annual crop area of 3.3 ha (Erenstein et al.,
2003). Rice producing households do not have easily
distinguished socio-economic features that differentiate
them from non-rice producers.
In Africa, a large proportion of the rice
production is in Nigeria and Madagascar, who produced
together over 50% of the rice produced in Sub Sahara
African (SSA) in 2004 (Adolph and Chancellor, 2006).
According to Erenstein et al., (2003), Nigeria has the
capacity to be self-sufficient in rice production as
virtually all ecologies in the country are suitable for rice
cultivation. However, the SSA region is experiencing
profound socio-economic and political problems which
are having influence on rice production capacity of the
region. These include unemployment, food insecurity
and disruptive conflicts. The high rate of population
growth, relative to desire for food security, presents
many challenges in rice production. According to Tran,
(1997) various factors contributing to constraints in rice
production, such as physical, biological, socio-economic,
and institutional constraints, can be effectively improved
through participatory research and government attention.
Pests and diseases can cause significant yield loss in rice
crops and successful control is crucial to farmers’ ability
to produce rice profitably. Pest and disease incidence
damage vary widely, so that knowledge of pest ecology
and dynamics is therefore necessary to allow farmers to
take appropriate action to manage their rice crops
effectively (Defoer et al., 2002). Developing rice
varieties that meet farmers’ quality requirements,
resistant to pests, diseases, and that can tolerate stresses
is a major challenge. New rice varieties are needed that
can perform well under constantly changing farming
systems and environments (drought-prone environments)
(Kaaria et al., 2004).
In recent past, investment in the support services
to Nigerian agriculture has been neglected with the result
that this sector has not realized its full potential to
contribute to the prosperity and economic development
of Nigeria (United States Agency for International
Development, USAID, 2003). Meanwhile, increasing
population pressure and the accompanying need to
intensify agricultural production is leading to the erosion
of the natural resources on which agriculture depends.
The sustainability of production is threatened by a
vicious cycle of declining soil fertility and increasing
problems of pests, diseases and weeds. Moreover, the
lack of knowledge on how to add value through proper
storage, processing and marketing impedes agricultural
growth. The chief concern as relate to rice production
today is increased pressure in water and land resources.
According to WARDA (2004), the key biophysical
constraints are the availability of water and nutrients; in
some lowland areas, lack of adequate drainage is also a
major problem. The scarcity of water is perhaps the
biggest challenge to increase rice production world wide.
In order to fulfil potential high-yielding, modern rice
varieties need good water management and an adequate
supply of nutrients, particularly nitrogen. Inappropriate
management of irrigation has contributed to
environmental problems, including water adoption, water
quality reduction, water logging and salinization
(Rosegrant et al, 2002).
115 Journal of Research in Agriculture (2012) 1(2): 114-123
Emodi, 2012

In Erenstein, et al., (2003) rice producers’ survey
revealed that rice is typically the main crop for rice
producing households in terms of area allocation and
income. Where rice production is established, it is
widespread within the village/region and appears
relatively stable with a long history. This reflects that
rice production is attractive in survey areas, despite the
relatively limited returns and substantial policy changes
over the last decades. This also suggests that rice
producers may lack alternatives-in terms of remunerative
opportunities to generate cash and/or to use their labour
and land resources productively. In particular this seems
to apply to lowland and remote areas. Still, it needs to be
reiterated that the survey only addresses current rice
producers. It thereby does not address those that have
stopped with rice production.
In most sites however, there have been
significant declines in irrigated rice yields over the last
decade. Actual yields are also much lower than potential
yields. Research and extension support for irrigated
rice-based systems in the Sahel and Sudan savannah
zones are highly inadequate. The scope of adaptive on-
farm research and development is very limited. Farmers
make little, if any, contribution to the debate on the
major constraints and priority research and extension
themes. Current mechanisms of extension support for
irrigated rice production are rigid and emphasize a top-to
-bottom extension process. In general, extension staff are
not adequately trained and lack access to relevant
training materials and other resources. Major constraints
identified in the study sites are: high input costs and
limited access to farm credit, use of inappropriate crop
and resource management practices, due to general lack
of knowledge of improved technologies, limited access
to improved varieties (duration and yield), and persistent
use of poor quality seed, lack of appropriate small farm
machinery for harvest and post-harvest operations,
inadequate research and extension support, especially in
the Sahel and Sudan Savannah zones and localized
problems of soil degradation.
Lancon et al., (2003) confirmed that cleanliness
of imported rice is the overwhelming factor explaining
the expansion of imported rice consumption in Nigeria at
the cost of local rice market development and in spite of
an increasing tariff barrier. Along the same lines, the
lower price of local rice remains the major incentive for
imported rice customers to also maintain their purchase
of Nigerian rice. Beyond, customers’ preferences, the
survey also indicates that local rice marketing suffered
from higher transaction costs in urban market induced by
a scattered and irregular supply of product. These
constraints tend to turn rice retailers away from the local
rice marketing chain in favour of the imported rice
channels which offers extended facilities for managing
their business (credit). The prevalence of constraints
related to rice transaction management indicates that if
quality is a key word for the Nigerian rice sub-sector
recovery this is necessary but not a sufficient condition.
The exploitation of the “organoleptic” potential of
Nigerian varieties would also require a reduction of
transaction costs which partly depend on the marketing
of a larger volume, and hence an upward trend in
production.
It should be stressed that the negative growth in
rice prices in more recent years is a reflection of
deliberate government policies geared towards securing
cheap food items for urban dwellers.
IRRI (2003) revealed that no single technology
can meet the needs of all farmers. Instead, a range of
modern farming options needs to be offered. Modern
communication tools, such as information technology,
can be used to deliver technical options to farmers. The
rural poor are better helped if key constraints are targeted
and options identified so that farmers can adopt
alternatives that enhance their lifestyles. The complexity
of their needs has to be distilled into viable choices that
are apparent, readily available, and sensitive to their
environments.
Journal of Research in Agriculture (2012) 1(2): 114-123 116
Emodi, 2012

According to a survey carried out by Longtau
(2003), rice production data in Nigeria is mostly based
on recycled information from ADPs rather than formal
research. He further stated that a true picture of the rice
enterprise in Nigeria is therefore hard to come by; the
ADP data are based on large-scale production. However,
on the ground, there are hardly any large-scale rice
farmers in Nigeria. Rice producers are smallholder
farmers who are left entirely on their own to keep the
sub-sector afloat against so many odds. The threat to
local rice production by imported cheap rice is real, but
farmers are consistent in their response that local rice
with good milling characteristics actually attracts better
prices. WARDA (2004) revealed that the overall
effectiveness of the rice innovation system,
complementarities in skills, knowledge and expertise
needs to be strived for. Despite this recognition, a better
understanding of forces shaping institutional
relationships will help in carving out future R&D
strategies for pro-poor development. Impact studies
revealed that the relatively low adoption rate of NERICA
is mainly due to farmers’ limited access to seed, which in
turn is due to weak national capacities and a range of
social, institutional and policy related factors.
Organizational models need to be developed and tested
to improve the formal and informal seed sector, and their
interactions. Given that few analyses exist on which
intervention strategies can be shaped, the documentation
of local and national rice seed systems in Africa deserves
urgent attention. Also, the role of marginalized youth and
women in the generation and dissemination of
technologies, especially in post-conflict countries, needs
to be studied and strengthened.
In spite of the myriads of problems identified
above which can jeopardize the potentials of filling the
rice demand and supply gap in Nigeria, it is worrying to
note that adequate research works are yet to be carried in
Nigeria to comprehensively uncover the dimensions of
these problems empirically so that evidence based
policies could be made in order to address the threats
against rice supply in the country. It is against this
background that this work was designed to brace up to
this research gap challenge. Moreover, the rural poor are
better helped if key constraints are targeted and options
identified so that farmers can adopt alternatives that
enhance their lifestyle. The complexity of their needs has
to be distilled into viable choices that are apparent,
readily available, and sensitive to their environments.
The study therefore is sought to ascertain farmers’
constraints in rice production in southeast Nigeria.
The broad objective of the study was to ascertain
farmers’ constraints in rice production in southeast
Nigeria. Specifically the objectives were to describe the
socio-economic characteristics of farmers in rice
production in southeast Nigeria and to identify the
constraints faced by farmers in rice production in
southeast Nigeria.
METHODOLOGY
The study was carried out in South East
agro-ecological zone of Nigeria. The study population
constituted all farmers in rice production in four states
(Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi and Enugu) of southeast
agro-ecological zone of Nigeria. The four states were
purposively selected because of the existence of
improved rice technology and its geographical spread.
The sample size for the study comprised of purposively
selected rice farmers in the study area as follows: Abia
(12), Anambra (30), Enugu (56), Ebonyi (72). The
choice was based on availability of rice farmers in the
area. The sampling gave a total sample size of one
hundred and seventy (170) farmers for the study.
Primary data were obtained through
questionnaire and interview schedules for literate and
illiterate respondents. Only hundred and fifty eight (158)
farmers that properly completed their questionnaire were
eventually used in the analysis. The socio-economic
characteristics of the respondents were measured by
Emodi, 2012

asking them to choose the one appropriate to them from
the listed options. To elicit information on the perception
of agronomic activities in rice production among
farmers, 16 items (land acquisition, land clearing, land
stumping, ridge/mound making, nursery preparation,
planting, pest and disease control, weeding, water
management, fertilizer agro-chemical application,
trapping rodents, making scarecrows, harvesting,
threshing/winnowing/drying, storage, marketing) were
listed on a three point rating scale of “High”=3,
“Moderate”=2 and “Low”=1. The cut off point was 2.00.
To assess the constraints that impede rice production
among farmers in the study area, six possible
constraining variables were rated by the farmers on a
three point rating scale as “Very Serious Constraints”=3,
“Serious Constraints”=2 and “Less Serious
Constraints”=1. The cut off point was 2.00.
Descriptive statistics, consisting of frequencies,
percentage and mean scores were used for analysis.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Socio- economic characteristics of farmers in the
study area
Table 1 shows that majority (59.5%) of the
Emodi, 2012
Socio economic characteristics Frequency (F) Farmers’ (%) (n=158) Mean(X )
Sex
Male 94 59.5
Female 64 40.5
Age (years)
20-29 years 28 17.7
30-39years 70 44.3 23years
40-49 years 33 20.9
50 years and above 27 17.3
Marital status
Married 139 88.0
Single 19 12.0
Educational level
No formal education 34 21.5
Completed primary School 43 27.2
Vocational technical school completed 9 5.5
Tertiary education(OND,NCE,HND,,B.Sc/B.A) 72 45.6
Household size
1-3 persons 53 33.5
4-6 persons 77 48.7 5 persons
7-9 persons 28 17.5
Farming experience(years)
21-30 33 20.9
31-40 94 59.5 35.5years
41-50 28 17.7
51-60 3 1.9
Source of information
ADPs 100 63.2
Market (input agency) 33 20.9
Mass media 8 5.1
Friends/Fellow farmers 17 10.8
Farm size(hectares)
1 36 23.1
2 94 59.2
3 28 17.7
Table 1: Percentage distribution of farmers’ by socio-economic characteristics

respondents were male, while about 40.5% were female.
This result implies that rice production in the study area
is dominated by men. This trend may be because the
production of rice is resource intensive which major of
women may not be able to afford. This agrees with
Adeola et al., (2008)’s findings, that rice production is
dominated by male farmers with only 5.0% female
farmers engaged in rice production.
Also, on the age of rice farmers, Table 1 shows
that about (44.0%) of the farmers were between the age
range of 30-39 years, 21.0% were within the age range
of 40-49 years, 17.7% were within 20-29 years, while
17.3% were within the age range of 50 years and above.
However the mean age was 23 years which implies that
rice farmers in the study area are within their active years
of farming, and are likely to enhance rice productivity.
These age categories were in line with those who were
referred to as economically active groups by Bekele
(2005). This also agrees with Adewale et al., (2007) who
reported that farmers within the age 15-64 years were
defined as economically productive population;
especially in rice production.
The marital profile of the farmers in Table 1
shows that 88.0% of them were married, while about
12.0% of them were single. The results indicated that
majority of the farmers were married. This confirms
Jibowo (1992) findings that vast majority of the rural
farmers consists of married people. According to
Echebiri and Mbanasor (2003), it was the practice among
farmers to marry and have a large number of children
who would constitute their farm workforce.
Table 1 shows that majority (51.3%) of farmers
completed tertiary education which enhances their access
to interact and generate new ideas to the changing
conditions in rice production. The average household
size was five persons with majority (49.0%) within 4-6
persons. Minimum of 17.5% had household size of 7-9
persons. The implication of this finding is that farm
labour would be readily distributed since relatively large
household size seems an obvious advantage in terms of
tasks in rice production.
On farming experience, the result showed that
majority (59.5%) of farmers had farming experience of
31-40 years, 20.9% of them had farming experience of
21-30 years, 17.7% of them had farming experience of
Emodi, 2012
Table 2: Mean distribution of constraints to rice
production as perceived by farmers
Constraints Mean (X )
Poor soil fertility 2.30
Lack of finance 2.78
Competition from weed 2.42
Disease/ infection problem 2.46
Land tenure problems 2.41
Poor storage facilities 2.44
Poor access to farm 2.44
High cost of agrochemical 2.73
Poor extension contact 3.00
Lack of inorganic fertilizer 2.72
High cost of transport 2.72
Lack of processing facilities/ standard measure for rice 2.77
Lack of tractor 2.61
High cost of hired labour 2.39
Lack of credit 2.95
Delay in supply of improved varieties 2.89
Cut off point = 2.00, very serious constraints=3, serious constraints=2,
less constraints=1

41-50 years, while 1.9% of them had farming experience
of 51 years and above. With a mean years of 35.5 years
of farming experience, it is obvious that farmers have
long years of experience in farming. According to
Obinne (1991), long years of farming put farmers in a
better position to make useful contributions on the issue
of improved rice technology.
A greater proportion (63.2%) of farmers ranked
the Agricultural Development Programmes (ADP) as
their most important source of information on improved
rice technologies, about 20.9% of farmers’ source of
information was from marketers (input agencies), about
10.8% of them received information on improved rice
technology from friends/fellow farmers, while minimum
of 5.1% sourced information from the mass media. This
finding supports the view of Emodi and Madukwe
(2008), that ADP is the channel through which
government policies on rice production were
implemented. Also result on Table 1 shows that majority
(59.2%) of farmers in the study area had farm size of 2
ha, while about 23.1% of them had farm size of 1 ha,
about 17.7% operated on farm size of 3ha. Relatively
small farm size could constitute a major constraint to
improved rice production (Agwu et al., 2008).
Constraints in the adoption of improved rice
technology as perceived by farmers
The data in Table 2 reveal the constraints in rice
production perceived by farmers. The findings show that
the farmers perceived all the constraints investigated as
major constraints in rice production. They include poor
soil fertility (X=2.30), lack of finance (X=2.78),
competition with weed (X=2.42), disease/ infection
problems (X=2.46), land tenure problems (X=2.45), poor
storage facilities (X=2.44), poor access to farm inputs
(X=2.44), high cost of agrochemical (X=2.73), poor
extension contact (X=3.00), lack of inorganic fertilizer
(X=2.72), high transport cost (X=2.34), lack of
processing facilities/ standard measure for rice (X=2.77),
lack of tractor (X=2.61), high cost of hired labour
(X=2.39), lack of credit (X=2.95) and delay in supply of
improved rice varieties (X=2.89).
Soil infertility and low use of chemical fertilizers
were the two major factors limiting growth in rice
production. Constraints in fertilizer use such as, high
import prices, extremely high marketing costs,
irregularity of supply due to very poor road
infrastructures, and the elimination of fertilizer subsidies
that is worsened by a lack of adequate credit facilities for
farmers (Daramola, 1989).
Post-harvest crop losses constituted a very major
constraint in rice production. Akande (2002), identified,
inadequate input supply, poor agronomic practices and
land tenure problems as constraints in rice production.
Pests and diseases can cause significant yield
loss in rice crops and successful control is crucial to
farmers’ ability to produce rice profitably. Pest and
disease incidence damage, vary widely according to
location and season so that knowledge of pest ecology
and dynamics is therefore necessary to allow farmers to
take appropriate action to manage their rice crops
effectively. According to Defoer et al., (2002), control of
diseases such as rice blast and sheath blight in
developing countries remains difficult to be achieved in
the Integrated Pest Management Unit (IPMU). It is also
anticipated that intensification of rice production will
lead to an increase in the significance of diseases,
particularly the fungal disease (rice blast), as production
constraints. Fungicide application is almost
non-existence in most of the African rice based farming
systems and therefore resistance in rice varieties is
considered to be the most effective way of combating the
disease.
Weeds seem to cause significant losses in all
rice-growing environments, although might be
particularly severe in rainfed and upland systems.
Developing rice varieties that meet farmers’ quality
requirements, resistant to pests, diseases, and that can
tolerate stresses is a major challenge.
Emodi, 2012

New rice varieties are needed that can perform
well under constantly changing farming systems and
environments (drought - prone environments), inefficient
and under resourced agricultural extension services and
an under developed private sector for seed multiplication
and sale are in many countries preventing farmers from
benefiting from improved varieties and associated
technologies such as soil and water management, control
of pests and diseases, and processing and marketing.
Adoption of improved germplasm and
technology options has also been hindered for many
years by the lack of coherent delivered messages through
extension services. This has been caused by a range of
factors, from lack of information reaching extension
agents to the wrong messages being delivered.
Therefore, strong linkages between farmers, extension
services and research are critical to speed up information
flows and diffusion of technologies (Kaaria et al., 2004).
CONCLUSION
Major constraints in rice production include poor
extension contact, lack of finance, high cost of
agrochemical, lack of inorganic fertilizer, lack of
processing facilities/ standard measure for rice, lack of
credit, and delay in supply of improved rice varieties.
Based on the major findings, the study
recommends that the government should expose farmers
to skills and knowledge required to overcome the
constraints in rice production through the development of
extension training/ teaching service, development of
rural infrastructure, irrigation/storage/processing
facilities and credit supply to rice farmers at affordable
interest rates.
REFERENCES
Adeola RG, Adebayo OO and Oyelere GO. 2008.
Effects of the federal government special rice
programme on rice yields and farmers income in Oyo
State. International Journal of Agricultural Economics
and Rural development (IJAERD) -1(1): IJAERD Press,
Nigeria. http://www.lautechaee-ed.com/journal/ijaerd1/
ijaerd%20-%20./%20edition.pdf (retrieved, 2nd
February
2009).
Adewale JG, Olaniyi OA and Adamou NA. 2007.
Farmers’ adoption of improved rice technology in
Niamey, Rive Droite Area, Niger Republic. World
Journal of Agricultural Sciences, vol 3(4), pp 530-535.
www.idosi.org/wjas3(4)/19.pdf (retrieved, 8th February
2009).
Adolph B and Chancellor T. 2006. Rice research in the
Department for International Development (DFID)
Renewable National Resources Research Strategy
( RNRRS) Programmes: Lessons learnt and Implications
for future research. National resources institute,
University of Greenwich, Central Avenue, Chatham
Maritime, Kent ME4 4TB, United Kingdom. http://
w w w . d fid . g o v. u k /. 4 d /p d f/ o ut p ut s/ R NR R S /
CPRicesyth.pdf ( retrieved, 28th August 2012).
Agwu AE, Ekwueme JN and Anyanwu AC. 2008.
Adoption of improved agricultural technologies
disseminated via radio farmer programme by farmers in
Enugu State, Nigeria. African Journal of Biotechnology,
vol. 7(9), pp. 1277-1286 . Available online at http://
www.academicjournals.org/AJB (retrieved, 20th january
2010)
Akande PT. 2002. An overview of the Nigerian rice
economy: The Nigerian Institutes of Social and
Economic Research (NISER), lbadan, Nigeria. jaqm.ro/
issues/volume-4,issue-2/pdfs/basorun.pdf (retrieved, 17th
january 2008)
Bekele lW. 2005. Analysis of farmers’ preferences for
development intervention programme: a case of
subsistence farmers from Eastern Ethiopian highland.
Proceeding of international conference on shared
growth in Africa, ISSER/Cornell University/ World
Emodi, 2012

Bank/DFID/USAID. In. Ogunlade, A.,Omokanye,C.G.
and Adeniji,A.A. (2007). An assessment of farmers
interest in University of IIorin poultry research result.
International journal of poultry science, vol 6(4), pp. 283
-288. http://www.unilorin.edu.nig/unilorin/publications/
ogunlade/pdf ( retrieved, 9th June 2008)
Defoer TM, Whoperreis CS, Tones MP, Lancon F
and Ernestein Ò. 2002. Challenges, innovation and
change: Towards rice-based food security in Sub-
Saharan Africa. Article presented at the 20th session of
international rice commission, Bangkok 23-25 July.
Daramola B. 1989. In. Akinwumi, A.A (1996). Factors
affecting the adoption of fertilizers by rice farmers in
Cote d’Ivoire. Nutrient cycling in agroecosystems,
Kluwer Academic Publication, Netherlands. 46:29-39.
h t t p : / / w w w . s p r i n g e r l i n k . c o m / c o n t e n t /
q501p236613u4u60/fulltext.pdf?page=1 ( retrieved, 19th
March 2007)
Echebiri RN and Mbanasor JA. 2003. Rural age
distribution and farm labour supply in food crop
production systems in Abia State, Nigeria. Tropical and
subtropical agroecosystems, vol 2(3), An International
Multidisciplinary Journal,Mexico,129-136.
Emodi AI and Madukwe MC. 2008. A review of
policies, acts and initiatives in rice innovation system in
Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension, 12(2):76-83
Erenstein O, Lancon F, Akande SO, Titilola SO,
Akpokodje G and Ogundele OO. 2003. Rice
production in Nigeria: A survey project report - The
Nigerian rice economy in a competitive world.
Constraints, opportunities and strategies choices. Abidjan
WARDA. http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADB852.pdf
( retrieved, 4th March 2007.
Food and Agriculture Organisation, FAO. 1995.
Rice :post harvest technology, Tokyo, Japan: Ministry of
agriculture, forestry and fisheries. 167-179.
Heinrichs EA. 2009. Management of rice pests. IPM
world textbook. IPMworld.umn.edu/chapters/
heinrich.htm/68583-0816.
International Rice Research Institute IRRI. 2003.
Cross-ecosystems research CE4 Rice-a way of life for
the next generation of rice farmers. Makati City 1271,
Philippines. http://www.irri.org/science/progsum/pdfs/
DGReport2000/CE4.pdf (retrieved, 5th June 2007)
Jibowo AI. 1992. Essential of rural sociology.
Abeokuta, Ogun State: Gbemisodigo Sodipo Press
Limited. Nigeria.
Kaaria S, Kirkby R, Delve R, Njuki J, Twinamasiko
E and Sanginga P. 2004. Enhancing innovation
processes synthesis paper. Integrated agricultural
research for development: achievements, lessons learnt
and best practice. www.pwgsc. gc.ca/rps/inac/content/.
(retrieved, 9th October 2009)
Lancon F, Erenstein O, Akande SO, Titilola SO,
Akpokodje G and Ogundele OO. 2003. Imported rice
retailing and purchasing in Nigeria: A survey project
report. The Nigerian rice economy in a competitive
world constraints, opportunities and strategic choices.
West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA),
Abidjan Cote d’Ivoire. 5-11.
Longtau S. 2003. Multi-agency partnerships in West
African agriculture: A review and description of rice
production systems in Nigeria. Eco-systems development
organisation. Jos, Plateau State, NIGERIA. pp. 47. In
Basorun, J.O. (2009). Analysis of the relationships of
factors affecting rice consumption in a targeted region in
Ekiti - State, Nigeria. Journal of Applied Science, 4(2).
Obinne CPO. 1991. Adoption of improved cassava
production technologies by small-scale farmers in
Bendel State. Journal of Agricultural Science and
Technology. 1(1), 12-15.
Emodi, 2012

Rosegrant M, Meijer S and Chine S. 2002.
International model for policy analysis of agricultural
commodities and trade (IMPACT): Model description.
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI),
Washington, D.C. USA.
Tran DV. 1997. World rice production: main issues and
technical possibilities .In: Proceedings of second
technical consultation of FAO/REU/RNE Inter-regional
Co-operative Research Network on Rice Under
Mediterranean Climate, 4-5 Sept.,Arles, France, Centre
International de hautes etudes agronomiques
Mëditerranëennes (CIHEAM), 24:2.
United States Department of Agriculture and Foreign
Agricultural Service USDAFAS. 2003. Nigeria product
brief rice. Gain report N13026. USDAFAS
United States Agency for International Development,
USAID. 2003. Growing cowpea in Nigeria. http://
www.cassavabiz.org/agro enterprise/ent.images/
cowpea_02pdf
West Africa Rice Development Association,
(WARDA, 2004). Annual report. 2002-2003. The Africa
Rice Center, Bouake’, Cote d’Ivoire, http://
www.warda.org. 13th
August 2007).
Emodi, 2012
Submit your articles online at www.jagri.info
Advantages
 Easy online submission
 Complete Peer review
 Affordable Charges
 Quick processing
 Extensive indexing
 Open Access and Quick spreading
 You retain your copyright
submit@jagri.info
www.jagri.info/Sumit.php.

Farmers’ constraints in rice production in South-East Nigeria

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to Farmers’ constraints in rice production in South-East Nigeria

Similar to Farmers’ constraints in rice production in South-East Nigeria (20)

More from researchagriculture

More from researchagriculture (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Farmers’ constraints in rice production in South-East Nigeria