Journal of Environment and Earth Science www.iiste.

org
ISSN 2224-3216 !a"er# ISSN 222$-%&4' (nline#
)ol.4* No.&* 2%14

'1
Effects of Soil Erosion on Technical Efficiency of Cassava
Farmers in Enugu State, Nigeria

+olarinwa*(. ,
1
+amire*-.S
2
-.erele* E.(
3
,areem* /.(
4
and -.inwole* /.(
$

1.Science 0e"artment* /egal 1ollege Sagamu (gun State Nigeria
2. 0e"artment of -gric- Economics* (2afemi -wolowo 3niversit4 Ile-ife (sun State

3.0e"artment of -gric- Economics* (la2isi (na2an5o 3niversit4*-go-iwo4e* Nigeria .
4.0e"artment of Economic* 1escent 3niversit4 -2eo.uta (gun State
$.0e"artment of -gricultural Economics* +a2coc. 3niversit4 Ilisha (gun State
1orres"onding author6 an5olaoluwavictor7gmail.com

Abstract
8his stud4 investigated the effects of soil erosion on technical efficienc4 of cassava farming in Enugu State*
Nigeria with a view to identif4ing the effects of erosion on cassava "roduction. - multistage sam"ling
"rocedure was used to select 2%% res"ondents for the stud4. !rimar4 data were collected on res"ondents9 socio-
economic characteristics such as age* gender* educational level* marital status* farm si:e* as well as on ;uantities
and "rices of in"uts and out"uts using a "re-tested ;uestionnaire. 8echnical efficienc4 8E# estimates showed
that most farmers o"erated 2elow the "roduction frontier* with a significant difference "< %.%$# 2etween the
mean 8E of eroded farms $6 = %.1&# "ercent and non-eroded >> = %.1># farms. ?arm si:e* la2our* cassava stem
cuttings* and fertili:er significantl4 "<%.%$# increased the level of 8E in non-eroded farms* while onl4 fertili:er
significantl4 affected the 8E in eroded farms. Significant "<%.%$# inefficienc4 factors on non-eroded farms were
education* age* household si:e* and e@tension contact* while education and age were significant "<%.%$# in
eroded farms. It was concluded that farmers in eroded farms were less technicall4 efficient in their use of
resources than farmers in non-eroded farms in Enugu State.
Keywords: Enugu state* Erosion* ma@imum li.elihood* stochastic frontier* technical efficienc4

! "ac#ground to the study
8he im"ortance of land as the "rimar4 means for rural livelihood and a main vehicle for accumulating* investing
and transferring wealth 2etween generations can not 2e overem"hasi:ed. Aand or soil* as defined 24 (seomeo2o
1&&2# is also a .e4 to household wealth and agricultural "roductivit4. Bowever* the sustaina2ilit4 of agricultural
"roduction s4stems is 2ecoming a ma5or concern of agricultural researchers and "olic4 ma.ers in 2oth develo"ed
and develo"ing countries due to the challenges of land degradation Cudelman* 1&'>D Idris* 2%%6#.
-ccording to +ar2ier 1&&># and Eswaran et al. 2%%1#* land degradation has adverse im"acts on the
environment* agricultural "roductivit4* food securit4 and the ;ualit4 of life. 8he "roductivit4 im"acts of land
degradation are due to a decline in land ;ualit4 in areas where degradation occurs e.g. erosion#* and this affects
the income generating "otentials of the land holders. 8he .e4 features of the "rocess of land degradation is the
failure of rural households to invest in long term land im"rovements on e@isting agricultural land* a2andonment
of this land in favour of migration to the forest and marginal lands and continual e@"ansion of agricultural
frontier through more forest and marginal land conversion.
+ar2ier 1&&>#D Eaiangwa et al. 2%%3# and I?!/I 2%%># have identified "o"ulation "ressure* increased
ur2ani:ation* climatic changes and industriali:ation as ma5or factors res"onsi2le for land degradation. 8hese long
term driving factors affect agricultural "roduction s4stems and the environment through desertification* over
gra:ing* as well as soil erosion with a conse;uent de"letion of soil nutrients. Soil erosion* is a natural
"henomenon which is as old as the earth itself* and it is the most visi2le and wide s"read form of land
degradation which affects man and its environment (mafra* 2%%3#. -"art from its negative im"act on cro"
out"ut* it reduces 2oth the agronomic efficienc4 of farm in"uts and the e@"ected net returns to farm investments.
In -frica alone "roductivit4 of some land has declined 24 $%F due to soil erosion and desertification while 4ield
reduction resulting from soil erosion range from 2 to 4%F with a mean loss of '.2F Eswaran et al., 2%%1#.
Southgate 1&&4# re"orted that soil erosion is a naturall4 occurring "rocess which "resentl4 ran.s as the most
im"ortant environmental degradation "ro2lem that affects the soil surface in develo"ing countries* "articularl4 in
the tro"ics.
In another dimension* +ar2ier 1&&># and Scherr 1&&&# argued that 24 the 4ear 2%2%* the increasing wave of
soil erosion ma4 "ose a serious threat to food "roduction in rural areas as well as ur2an livelihoods "articularl4
in "oor and densel4 "o"ulated areas of the develo"ing world including Nigeria. 8he4 further claimed that effects
of soil erosion on "roduction and "rofita2ilit4 largel4 de"ends on the e@tent s"read# and intensit4 of erosion*
the t4"e of cro" grown* and the agro-ecological location of the land area. 8he4 advocate for "olicies that would
encourage soil nutrient retention strategies if develo"ing countries are to sustaina2l4 meet the food needs of their
"o"ulation. -2egunde et al. 2%%6# stated that most of the earth9s natural resources are directl4 lin.ed to or
Journal of Environment and Earth Science www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-3216 !a"er# ISSN 222$-%&4' (nline#
)ol.4* No.&* 2%14

'2
found in the soil* 2oth animate and inanimate as well as three ;uarters of the world9s man-made develo"ment.
8hus* an4 threat to the soil is a threat to life. Significant in this regard is that since land soil# is the most
im"ortant "roduction in"ut* human 2eings lose their fundamental sources of livelihood when soil fertilit4
2ecomes de"leted 8itilola* 2%%1#.
8he "ro2lem is 2ecoming increasingl4 nota2le in that land resources are 2eing used 2e4ond their carr4ing
ca"acities* there24 rendering the land inca"a2le of su""orting "roduction under the current low level of
technolog4 use -E/AS* 1&&2#. 8he concern a2out the effects of soil erosion has led to increased "romotion of
soil conservation technologies in develo"ed countries 1lar.* 1&&6#. 8here is also need to ;uantif4 cro" 4ield
losses associated with soil erosion in order to restore cro" "roduction into economicall4 com"etitive levels on
eroded farmlands. 8his is "articularl4 im"ortant for cassava that is grown in areas nota2le for high incidence of
soil erosion in Nigeria. It is against this 2ac.ground that it has 2ecome necessar4 to assess the effects of soil
erosion on technical efficienc4 of cassava farmers as this will guide towards effective land management and
introduction of corrective measures against soil erosion menace in Nigeria.
!$ %ata collection methods
!rimar4 data was em"lo4ed for this stud4. 0ata was collected from cassava farmers using a set of "re-tested
structured ;uestionnaire. Information sought include res"ondents9 socio-economic characteristics such as age*
gender* educational level* marital status* farm si:e* as well as on ;uantities and "rices of in"uts and out"uts for
cassava "roduction in Enugu State. 0ata were collected in eroded and non-eroded farms in the State in order to
anal4se the effects of soil erosion.
!& The study area
8he stud4 was carried out in Enugu State located in the South Eastern "art of Nigeria. 1assava is a ver4
im"ortant sta"le food cultivate in Enugu state and Nigeria at large. 8here is o2vious low "roductivit4 of cassava
des"ite various efforts 24 research institutions to im"rove its "roduction. 8he low "roductivit4 of cassava
"roduction is caused 24 the effects of soil erosion and inefficienc4 in the allocation of farm resources Nair* et al.*
1&&'D Naiwu et al.* 2%1%#.
!' Sam(ling (rocedure
- multi-stage sam"ling "rocedure was used to select res"ondents. ?irst* Enugu State was stratified into three
2ased on the agricultural :ones into which the State is classified -0!* 2%%&)! 8he :ones are6 Gone - Enugu
North#* Gone + Enugu East# and Gone 1 Enugu Hest#. 8wo of the :ones - I +# are not affected 24 soil
erosion while Gone 1 is seriousl4 affected 24 soil erosion. Secondl4* 2ased on the num2er of Aocal Jovernment
-reas AJ-s# in each :one* "ro"ortionate random sam"ling was selected 33F and 4%F of the AJ-s in :ones -
and + res"ectivel4* while 66F of the AJ-s was selected from :one 1. 8hirdl4* one villageKcommunit4 that are
.nown for high cassava "roduction were selected in each AJ-. ?inall4* twent4 five cassava farmers were
selected from each village to give a total sam"le of 2%% res"ondents. Information sought include res"ondent9s
socio-economic characteristics such as age* educational level* marital status* farm si:e* as well as on ;uantities of
in"uts and out"uts for cassava "roduction in Enugu State. 0ata were collected in eroded and non-eroded farms in
the State in order to anal4se
the effects of soil erosion.
!* Em(irical model
8he 1o22-0ouglas frontier "roduction function was used in the stud4. 8he ma5or advantage of the stochastic
frontier "roduction function model is the introduction of distur2ance term re"resenting noise* measurement error
and e@ogenous factors 2e4ond the control of the "roduction unit in addition to the inefficienc4 com"onent. 8his
"ro"ert4 of the stochastic frontier model accounts for its a""ro"riateness for efficienc4 measurement in
agricultural "roduction owing to agriculture9s inherent characteristic Shehu and Eshelia* 1&&4#.
The model is s(ecified as:
InC
1
L M
%
NM
1
In@
1
N M
2
In@
2
N M
3
In@
3
N M
4
In@
4
N )i O P
i
. i#
Hhere*
C
i
L (ut"ut .g#
Q
1
L Si:e of cultivated farm land ha#.
Q
2
L Aa2our man da4s#
Q
3
L )alue of stem cutting N#
Q
4
L ?ertili:er and other agrochemicals N#
M
%
L Interce"t.
M
%
O M
4
L "arameters to 2e estimated
*

)
1
L /andom error which accounts for the random variations in value of cassava out"ut 24 factors which are
2e4ond the control of the farm such as disease out2rea.* weather* measurement errors and is assumed to 2e
inde"endentl4 and identicall4 distri2uted )
1

R%*
2
S inde"endent of 3
1
.
P
i
L Non O negative varia2le associated with technical inefficienc4 in "roduction and is assumed to 2e
inde"endentl4 and identicall4 distri2uted as half normal* 3
1
NK R%*
2
S#.
Journal of Environment and Earth Science www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-3216 !a"er# ISSN 222$-%&4' (nline#
)ol.4* No.&* 2%14

'3
In order to determine the factors that contri2uted directl4 to technical efficienc4* the following model was
estimated and 5ointl4 used with the stochastic frontier model 1oelli* 1&&6#.
8E L
%
N
1
:
1
N
2
:
2
N
3
:
3
N
4
:
4
N
$
:
$
N
6
:
6
N
>
:
>
N
'
:
'
N
&
:
&

Hhere6
8E L 8echnical efficienc4 of cassava farmer ii#
G
1
L Education level of the farmer 4ears#
G
2
L -ge of the farmer 4ears#
G
3
L Earital status Earried* otherwise L %#
G
4
L Eem2ershi" in farmers association 0umm46 4es* 1D otherwise* %#
G
$
L E@tension contact Ces* 1D No* %#
G
6
L -ccess to credit 0umm46 Ces* 1D No* %#
G
>
L Incidence of soil erosion Ces 1* No* %#
G
'
L Bousehold si:e No of "ersons#
G
&
L 3se of im"roved cassava variet4 Ces 1* No* %#* and

1 -

&
are "arameters to 2e estimated.
!* +esults and %iscussion
8he stochastic frontier and the inefficienc4 model were estimated simultaneousl4. 8a2le 1 "resents the estimated
"arameters for the "roduction function. -mong four "roduction varia2les considered in the estimation of
technical efficienc4 model of cassava farms eroded and non-eroded#. ?arm si:e* la2our* value of stem cutting
and fertili:er were found to 2e "ositive among eroded and non-eroded farms. 8he results are similar to the
findings of +ravo-3reta and Evenson 1&&4#D (n4enwea.ue et al., 2%%4# and (n4enwea.u and (ha5ia4a 2%%$#.
Bowever* farm si:e* la2our* value of stem cutting and fertili:er were found to 2e statisticall4 significant among
non-eroded farms while onl4 fertili:er is significant at 1 "ercent "ro2a2ilit4 level among eroded farms* this
indicates that if farmers on eroded land use more of fertili:er* it will serve as re"lacement for lost nutrient due to
the effects of soil erosion.
8he estimates of the overall variance TU# and gamma V# give ade;uate information on the efficienc4 of the
e@"lanator4 varia2les on farm out"ut. 8he overall model variance TU# for non-eroded farms is %.1>* gamma V# is
%.%& and the mean technical efficienc4 is >>F. 8his im"lies that the efficienc4 of the in"uts used is highD man4
of the res"ondents "roduced closer to their "roduction frontier where "rofit is ma@imi:ed and that technical
efficienc4 in cassava "roduction could 2e increased 24 23F through 2etter use of availa2le resource. -lso* the
overall model variance TU# of eroded farms is %.63* the gamma V# is %.%%2 and the mean technical efficienc4 is
$6F. 8his im"lies that the efficienc4 of in"ut used is low due to the effects of soil erosion and there is under
utili:ation of "roduction resources. Bence* the technical efficienc4 of cassava "roduction on eroded farms could
2e increased 24 46F through the 2etter use of availa2le resources* given the level of current state of technolog4.
8he estimated elasticities of mean out"ut with res"ect to farm si:e* la2our* value of stem cutting and fertili:er on
non-eroded farms were %.%2* %.3'* %.4' and %.%4. 8his means that for a 1% "ercent increase in farm si:e* la2our*
stem cutting and fertili:er cost* cassava out"ut on non-eroded farms will increase 24 %.2* 3.'* 4.' and %.4
res"ectivel4. +ut with a 1% "ercent increase in farm si:e* la2our* value of stem cutting and fertili:er cost* cassava
out"ut on eroded farms will increase 24 %.>2* %.4* %.2 and 1.14 res"ectivel4 8a2le 1#.
Table: Stochastic (roduction frontier estimate on eroded and non,eroded cassava farms

-roduction frontier (arameter Eroded coefficient Non,eroded coefficient

1onstant 1.1& 1.344# -2.44 -1.464#
?arm si:e

%.%> %.6'# %.%2 3.23#WWW

Aa2our %.%4% %.>%# %.3' $.&4#WWW

)alue of stem cutting %.%2 %.32># %.4' 6.1'#WWW

?ertili:er %.11 3.&'4# WWW %.%4 6.3%3#WWW
Sigma s;uared T
2
# %.63 6.%'%# W %.1> >.3$2#WW

Jamma V# %.%2 $.6# W %.%& $.4%#WW

Aog li.elihood function -11'.34 -4&.%66
A/ test 16.2>WW 1&WWW
Source: ?ield surve4* 2%12
WWWSignificant at 1F WW Significant at $F W Significant at 1%F
Journal of Environment and Earth Science www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-3216 !a"er# ISSN 222$-%&4' (nline#
)ol.4* No.&* 2%14

'4
Table $: Fre.uency distribution of technical efficiency among cassava farms
Efficiency +ange /0) Eroded /11) Non,eroded /11) t,value
1% O 2% - -
21 O 3% ' -
31 O 4% 1> -
41 O $% 1' 3
$1 O 6% 23 1'
61 O >% 11 23
>1 O '% 6 14
'1 O &% 11 13
&1 O 1%% 6 2&
Eean F#
Std 0evi.
$6.4'
%.1&
>>
%.1>
1.6$WWW

Einimum F# 24.>6 43.>3
Ea@imum F# && &&
Source6 ?ield surve4* 2%12
?igures in "arentheses are the corres"onding t-ratio values
WWW Significant at 1F* WW Significant at $F* Significant at 1%F
Table &: Estimated determinants of technical efficiency

-roduction frontier (arameter Eroded coefficient Non,eroded coefficient

1onstant %.11 %.132# %.%12.$$'# WWW
Education -%.22 -2.23# WWW -%.14' -3.6&#WWW
-ge of the farmer -1.&> -1.>1# WWW %.%14.%4'#WWW
Earital status %.13 1.33# -%.12 -%.'$#
-ssociation %.24 %.62# -%.%' -%.46#
E@tension contact -%.$$ -1.%6# %.36 3.324#WWW
-ccess to credit %.1> %.42&# -%.26 -1.23#
Incidence of soil erosion %.11 %.132# -
Bousehold si:e 4.4% %.&2# -%.%$ -1.'3#WW
Im"roved cassava variet4 %.>% 1.3&# -%.42 -%.'33#

Source: ?ield surve4* 2%12
WWWSignificant at 1F WW Significant at $F W Significant at 1%F
!2 Estimation of the technical efficiency
- crucial characteristic of the stochastic "roduction frontier model is its a2ilit4 to estimate individual farm
s"ecific technical efficiencies. 8a2le 2 shows the decile range of the efficienc4 in eroded and non-eroded farms.
8he result revealed that the highest efficienc4 range was recorded within the range of $%-6% 23F# and &%-1%%
2&F# on eroded and non-eroded farms res"ectivel4. !redicted technical efficiencies range 2etween 2$ "ercent
and && "ercent with the mean technical efficienc4 of $6 "ercent among eroded farmsD 44 "ercent and && "ercent
with mean technical efficienc4 of >>F on non-eroded farms. 8here was a decrease in technical efficienc4 among
farmers on eroded land.
8his means that* if the average farmer on eroded land was to achieve the technical efficienc4 level of his most
efficient counter "art* then the farmer could reali:e a 44 "ercent cost saving Ri.e.1-$6.4'K&&#@ 1%%S. -lso* for
farmers on non- eroded farms to achieve the technical efficienc4 level* then the farmers could reali:e a
22.>"ercent cost saving R i.e 1->6.$4K&&# @ 1%%. Bence* a2out 44F and 23F on eroded and non eroded farms
res"ectivel4 are lost to technical inefficienc4 in the "roduction s4stem. Bowever* variation in the "redicted
technical efficienc4K inefficienc4 among cassava farms can 2e e@"lained 24 the variation in the level of
education* farmers9 age* marital status* mem2ershi" of cassava "roduction association* e@tension contact* access
to credit* and incidence of soil erosion* household si:e and use of cassava variet4.
!3 %eterminant of technical inefficiency
8he estimated determinants of technical efficienc4 are summari:ed in 8a2le 3
8he inefficienc4 function shows that* the coefficients for the level of education* age of the farmers* e@tension
contact were negativel4 related to technical inefficienc4 while marital status* mem2ershi" of association* access
to credit* and incidence of soil erosion* household si:e* and im"roved cassava variet4 were "ositivel4 related to
technical inefficienc4 among eroded farms.
-mong non-eroded farmsD level of education* marital status* mem2ershi" of association* access to credit*
household si:e and im"roved variet4 were negativel4 related to technical inefficienc4 while age of the farmers
Journal of Environment and Earth Science www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-3216 !a"er# ISSN 222$-%&4' (nline#
)ol.4* No.&* 2%14

'$
and e@tension contact were "ositivel4 related to technical inefficienc4. It should 2e noted that a negative signs
of the "arameters in the inefficienc4 functions means that the associated varia2le have a "ositive effect on
technical efficienc4 while a "ositive significant varia2les indicate the reverse. ?or instance* the negative
coefficients of the level of education among eroded and non-eroded farms showed that cassava farmers with
greater 4ears of schooling were less inefficient. Erha2or and Emo.aro 2%%># re"orted that education is
negativel4 related to technical inefficienc4.
8he estimated coefficient of age with res"ect to eroded farms had negative sign and significant at 1% "ercent.
8his im"lies that increasing age would lead to low "roductivit4 as a result of ageing farmers who would 2e less
energetic to wor. on the farm 1hina.a et al.* 1&&$ and -n4aeg2unam et al. 2%%6#. -lso* the estimated
coefficient of age among non-eroded farms had "ositive sign and significant at 1 "ercent. 8his means that age
has "ositive effect on technical inefficienc4 of farmers* indicating that the older ones are less inefficient than the
4ounger ones. 8he finding su""orts -hi.a 2%%2#* who stated that age has "ositive effect on technical
inefficienc4 of farmersD he attri2uted this trend to the fact that older "eo"le are less willing to ado"t new ideas of
doing things.
In addition* the coefficient of e@tension contact among non-eroded farms had a "ositive sign and significant at 1
"ercent. 8his im"lies that e@tension contact would lead to decline in technical inefficienc4. 8his ma4 2e due to
the fact that e@tension agent advice them to change traditional s4stem of farming to modern s4stem which might
lead to the loss of interest in farming enter"rise. 8his finding agrees with ?eder et al. 2%%4#. -lthough
agricultural e@tension on farmers education "rogrammes are im"ortant to im"roving "roductivit4* the4 are 2eing
ham"ered 24 2ureaucratic inefficienc4 and some generic wea.nesses inherent in "u2lic o"erated and staff
intensive s4stem leading to their "oor "erformance.
Eore so* the coefficient of household si:e had a negative and significant at $ "ercent levels of "ro2a2ilit4. It
shows that as household increases technical inefficienc4 increases. 8his means that value of farm "roducts that
could 2e sold are consumed directl4 24 household. 8his agrees with Cusuf and Ealomo 2%%>#D (.i.e 2%%%#
who re"orted that famil4 si:e have negative influence on farmer9s technical inefficienc4.
8he result of t-ratio on non-eroded farms shows that all the varia2les are statisticall4 significant at one "ercent
level of significance while on eroded farms onl4 fertili:er is significant. Bence* these varia2les are im"ortant
determinants of technical efficienc4 of cassava "roduction in the stud4 area.

!4 Conclusion
8he stud4 showed the technical efficienc4 of cassava farmers in eroded and non-eroded farms of Enugu State.
8he mean efficiencies varied from $> and >> "ercent among eroded and non-eroded farms res"ectivel4. 8he
variation was due to the effects of soil erosion and the e@tra cost s"ent 24 farmers to control soil erosion
menace .8he result reveals that education and e@tension contact were negativel4 related to technical inefficienc4
while marital status* mem2ershi" of association* access to credit* incidence of soil erosion* household si:e and
im"roved cassava variet4 were "ositivel4 related to technical inefficienc4 among eroded and eroded farms.
8herefore* "olicies that will ena2le farmers to im"rove their level of education* e@tension contact* im"roved
cassava variet4* free access to credit facilities and "rovision of fertili:er at afforda2le "rice in right time should
2e im"lemented 24 various governments and agencies. -s these are im"ortant for increasing the farmers9
efficienc4 and income.

+EFE+ENCES
-2egunde* -.-.* S. -.-de4in.a* !. (. (lawunmi* and (luodo* (.(. 2%%6#6 -n assessment of the Socio-
Economic Im"acts of Soil Erosion in South Eastern Nigeria. Sha"ing the change* Eunich* Jerman4.
-E/AS 1&'&#. 8he !erformance of the 1ro""ing season in Nigeria. ?ield Evaluation /e"ort )ol.2 -gricultural
E@tension /esearch and Aiaison Service -hmadu +ello 3niversit4* Gaira.
-hi.a* J.E. 2%%2#. -griculture in I.a landD !overt4 and !ros"erit4 in "ers"ective. - !a"er !resented at the
third I.a ,anna -nnual Aecture.
+ar2ier* E. +. 1&&>#6 8he Economics of Soil Erosion and E@am"les. !a"er !resented at the ?ifth +iannual
Hor.sho" on Econom4 and Environment in Southeast -sia. 0e"artment of Environmental Economics
and Environmental Eanagement* 3niversit4 of Cor.* Beslington* 3,.
+ravo* 3 and !inheiro* -. 1&&3#. Efficienc4 -nal4sis of the 0evelo"ing 1ountr4 -griculture6 - review of
?rontier Aiterature. -gric. /esource . Econ./ev 22-''
1lar.* /. 1&&6#. Eethologies for the Economic -nal4sis of Soil Erosion and 1onservation (verseas
0evelo"ment Jrou"* 3niversit4 of East -nglia Norwich
1oelli* 8. J.1&&6#. - guide to ?rontier )ersion 4.1c6 - 1om"uter !rogramme for Stochastic ?rontier !roduction
and 1ost ?unction Estimation.Eimeo* 0e"artment of Econometrics* 3niversit4 of New England*
-midale
1hina.a* 1. 1.* 1hi.wendu* 0. ( and -sumugh* J. N.1&&$#. -do"tion and sustaina2ilit4 of im"roved
Journal of Environment and Earth Science www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-3216 !a"er# ISSN 222$-%&4' (nline#
)ol.4* No.&* 2%14

'6
1assava varieties among /esource "oor farmers in south-east :one of Nigeria XInY /oot cro"s and
!overt4 -lleviation International Societ4 for 8ro"ical cro"s* -frican +ranch* Ealawi. ! 333-336.
Erha2or* ! .(. and Ema.aro* 1. (. 2%%>#. /elative 8echnical Efficienc4 of 1assava ?armer in the of 8hree
-gro-Ecological Gones of Edo State * Nigeria. Journal of -""lied Sciences >1&#62'1'-2'23.
Eswaran * B. 1&&3#6Soil /esilience and Sustaina2le Aand Eanagement. Soil resilience and Sustaina2le Aand
3se* 21-31. Hallingford.
?eder* J.* Eurgai* / and Zui:on * J .+ 2%%4#. Sending ?armers 2ac. to School6 8he Im"act of the ?armer ?ield
Schools in Indonesia. -gric. Econ ""26646-64.
I?!/I* 2%%>#. 1ost Im"lications of -gricultural Aand 0egradation in Jhana. -n Econom4 wide* Eultimar.et
Eodel -ssessment.
Idris*N.E.2%%6#.-chieving Sustaina2le -griculture in Nigeria 6AandO3se !olic4 !ers"ective.?acult4 of
+uilt Environment* 3niversit4 8ec.nologi Eala4sia.
Eafimise2i 8.E 2%%'#. 0eterminants and 3se of ?arm Income from the 1assava Enter"rise in (ndo State*
Nigeria 0e"atment of -gricultural Economics and E@tension* 8he ?ederal 3niversit4 of
8echnolog4* -.ure *Nigeria. J. Bum .Ecol.*242#612$- 13%.
Nair* J.E.* Eohan.una* +.* !ro2ha.ar * E. and ,a2eerathumma* S. 1&&'#. /es"onses of 1assava to graded
doses of !hos"horus in -cid Aateritic Soil of Bigh and Aow. Status .J. /oot 1ro"s 142#.
Nwaiwu* I .3.* (ha5in4a* 0. ( .* I2e.we* 3 .1 .* -maechi* E. 1.* Emen4onnu* 1. - .* (n4emuwa.* 1.S.* Benr-
3.oha* - . and ,adiri* - .-2%1%#. 1om"arative -nal4sis of the -llocative Efficienc4 of 1assava
!roducers that use E@ternal and Internal In"uts in Imo State* Nigeria. 0e"artment of -gricultural
Economics * ?ederal 3niversit4 of 8echnolog4* (werri* Imo-State* Nigeria .
(.i.e* I 2%%%#. 1ro" Aivestoc. Interactions and Economic Efficienc4 of ?armers in the Savannah Gones of
Nigeria .3n"u2lished !h.0.8hesis * 3niversit4 of I2adan* I2adan Nigeria* ""61$$
(mafra* S. 2%%3#. Erosion* 1auses and EffectsY /idge 8own and 1ollege of -gricultural 8echnolog4*
(ntario Institute of !edeolog4..
(n4enwea.u. 1. E. and (ha5ian4a* 0. (. 2%%$#. 8he Efficienc4 of Swam" and 3"land /ice ?arms in South
Eastern Nigeria .J. Sust 8ro" -gric./es.* 14664->%.
(semeo2o* J. J. 1&&2#6 Im"act of Nigeria -gricultural !olicies on 1ro" !roduction and the Environment. 8he
Environmentalist* )olume 12* Num2er 2* 1%1-1%'.
Scherr* S. J. 1&&&#. Soil 0egradation 6- 8hreat to 0evelo"ing 1ountr4 ?ood Securit4 in 2%2%[ ?ood*
-griculture and Environmental 0iscussion !a"er No.2>* International ?ood !olic4 /esearch Institute*
Hashington* 0. 1.
Shehu* J. ? and Eshelia* S. I. 1&&6#. !roductivit4 and 8echnical Efficienc4 of Small-scale /ice ?armers in
-damawa State* 0e"artment of -gricultural Economics and E@tension* ?ederal 3niversit4 of
8echnolog4* Cola* Nigeria
Southgate* 0 1&&4#6 8ro"ical 0eforestation and 0evelo"ment in Aatin -merican. 8he causes of 8ro"ical
0eforestation ed. ,. +rown I 0.H. !earce# * "".134-14$Aondon631A !ress.
8itilola* 8.S. 2%%%#. Environment and Sustaina2le -gricultural 0evelo"ment in Nigeria.
Cusuf* S. -. and Ealomo* (. 2%%>#. 8echnical Efficienc4 of !oultr4 Egg !roduction in (gun State. - 0ata
Envelo"ment -nal4sis 0E-# -""roach.
The IISTE is a pioneer in the Open-Access hosting service and academic event
management. The aim of the firm is Accelerating Global Knowledge Sharing.

More information about the firm can be found on the homepage:
http://www.iiste.org

CALL FOR JOURNAL PAPERS
There are more than 30 peer-reviewed academic journals hosted under the hosting
platform.
Prospective authors of journals can find the submission instruction on the
following page: http://www.iiste.org/journals/ All the journals articles are available
online to the readers all over the world without financial, legal, or technical barriers
other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. Paper version
of the journals is also available upon request of readers and authors.

MORE RESOURCES
Book publication information: http://www.iiste.org/book/
Recent conferences: http://www.iiste.org/conference/
IISTE Knowledge Sharing Partners
EBSCO, Index Copernicus, Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, JournalTOCS, PKP Open
Archives Harvester, Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, Elektronische
Zeitschriftenbibliothek EZB, Open J-Gate, OCLC WorldCat, Universe Digtial
Library , NewJour, Google Scholar