CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction

The chapter comprises the following, presentation of Bio – data variable of

the farmers selected, answering research question and discussion of findings.

4.1 Presentation of Data and Analysis

Table 4.1: Gender of the Respondents

Items Frequency Percentage

Male 63 63

Female 37 37

Total 100 100

Source: field survey 2022

The table above indicate that majority of respondents were male with 63%

while female respondents have 37%. These results shows that males farmers are

predominantly higher in number the female counterparts and this can be

attributed to nature of farming activities which are mostly carried out by men at

field. This result also indicate that majority of the maize cooperative societies

were male and will be at upper hand on decision making and leadership of these

societies.

1
Table 4.2 Age of respondents

Ages Frequency Percentage

20-25 17 17

26-30 27 27

35-40 13 13

41 and above 43 43

Total 100 100

Source: field survey 2022

The table above shows that 43 respondents were between the age range of 41 and

above representing 43%, of the entire population under study, then 27% fall within

the age range of 26-30 years, 17 of the respondents were between the age ranges of

20-25 years and finally 13% are 35-4 year age range. This indicates that the

majority of the members (43%) were well experienced farmers and they will form

a large part in decision making of the societies.

2
Table 4.3: Educational Background of the respondents

Education Level Frequency Percentage

Primary 12 12

Secondary 43 43

NCE/ diploma 18 18

Degree/ masters 27 27

Others 0 0

Total 100 100

Source: field survey 2022

The above table shows that majority of the respondents obtained secondary school

education with 43% out of one hundred, 27% obtained degree/masters, 18 of the

respondents obtained NCE/diploma and finally 12 of the respondents obtained

primary school education with 12% respectively. The results indicate that the

majority of members have obtained at least secondary school certificate and above

hence it will help them in adoption of new innovations and finding solutions to

their farming challenges.

3
Table 4.4: Years of farming experience

Experiences Frequency Percentage

1-5 14 14

6-10 17 17

11-15 11 11

16-20 38 38

20 –above 20 20

Total 100 100

Source: field survey 2022

Table 4.4 above shows that majority of the respondent have the farming experience

of 16-20 years with 38%, 20 respondents have the experience of farming for over

20 years, 17 among the respondents also have the experience within 6-10 years, 14

of the respondents have the experience of 1-5 years and finally 11 of the

respondents have the experience within 11-15 years with 11% respectively. These

results shows that, the majority of the farmers in the cooperative societies are well

experienced with 16 to 20 and 20 – above years making total of 58% of the total

members.

4
Table 4.5: number of years as a member of maize cooperative society

Experiences Frequency Percentage

1-5 41 41

6-10 18 18

11-15 22 22

16-20 12 12

20 –above 7 7

Total 100 100

Source: field survey 2022

The above table indicated that majority of the respondents have been a registered

member in maize cooperative society within 1-5 years with 41% out of one

hundred, 22 of the respondents have been in maize cooperative societies within 11-

15 years, 18 among the respondents been a member between 6-10 years, 12 of the

respondents between 16-20 years and finally 7 of the respondents have been a

registered member for over 20 years with 7%. This result indicate that majority of

the members (41%) have joined the cooperative societies for not more than 5 years

which shows the increase in popularity of cooperative society among maize

farmers.

5
Table 4.6: number of hectares cultivated per year

Experiences Frequency Percentage

2-3 ha 22 14

3-5 ha 8 17

5-7 ha 13 11

7 ha and above 57 3

Total 100 100

Source: field survey 2022

Table 4.6 above indicated that 57 of the respondents cultivated over 7 ha and per

year with 57% out of one hundred, 22 of the respondents cultivated 2-3 number of

hectares per year, 13 of the respondents cultivated 5-7 number of hectares per year

with 13%.

6
 Table 4.7: Response on the activities of Maize Cooperative Societies in Kiyawa
LGA

Items Questions SA A D SD

6 Are you satisfy with activities of maize 63 21 11 5

cooperative societies in Kiyawa
7 Maize farmers cooperative societies 43 28 13 16
facilitate the interaction between small
holders farmers and partners in research,
agribusiness and other relevant institutions
8 Maize farmers cooperative societies help 58 29 8 5
farmers to develop their own technical
organizational and management skills and
practice
9 Kiyawa maize cooperative societies plays 67 21 8 4
important role towards improving
agricultural production
10 Maize farmers cooperative societies provide 11 8 37 44
farming equipment frequently in Kiyawa L.G
11 Maize cooperative societies help farmers 28 16 32 24
level of adoption of inputs and practices
recommended by the extension services in
Kiyawa
12 Do maize cooperative societies provide farms 0 7 81 12
inputs (e.g. fertilizer, insecticide etc)
13 If they did not provide inputs do they help in 2 6 77 15
purchasing them?
14 Maize cooperative societies functions 31 28 19 22
effectively in Kiyawa local government
Source: field survey 2022

7
The table above indicates that 84% of the respondents were satisfied with the

activities of maize cooperative societies in Kiyawa while 16% of the respondents

were not satisfied.

On item 7, maize cooperative societies facilitate the interaction between small

holder farmers and partners in research, agribusiness and other relevant

institutions, 71% of the respondents agree that maize farmers’ cooperative societies

facilitate the interaction between the small holders and partners in research, but

only 29% of the respondents out of one hundred percentage disagreed with the

statement.

On item 8, majority of the respondents (87%) agree that maize cooperative

societies help farmers to develop their own technical organizational and

management skills and practice but only 13% of the respondents disagreed with the

statement out of the one hundred percent accordingly.

On item 9, Maize cooperative society plays important role towards improving

agricultural production in Kiyawa, 88% of the respondents agreed with the

statement while 12% of the respondents disagreed.

Item 10 sought to find out if maize cooperative societies provide farming

equipment frequently in Kiyawa where majority of the members 77% disagreed

while 23% agreed with the statement

8
Item 11 try to find out if maize cooperative societies help in the level of adoption

of inputs and practices recommended by extension services where majority of the

members 56% disagreed while 44% agreed with the statement

Item 12, sought to find out if maize cooperative societies provide farms inputs (e.g.

fertilizer, insecticide etc.) where majority of the members 93% disagreed while 7%

agreed.

Item 13 try to find out if maize cooperative societies did not provide inputs do they

help in purchasing them where majority of the respondents 92% disagreed while

only 8% agreed with the statement.

Item 14 try to find out if Maize cooperative societies functions effectively in

Kiyawa local government where majority of the respondents 59% agreed while

41% disagreed with the statement.

The above findings have proves that Maize cooperative societies activities has

positive impact on its members and majority of the members are satisfied with the

activities of their cooperative.

9
 Table 4.8: Role of Maize Cooperative Societies on finances of its members
S/No Questionnaire Item SA A D SD

15 Maize cooperative societies provide credit 3 7 16 74

facilities to maize farmers

16 Maize cooperative societies did not help farmers 19 24 44 13

in getting access to credit facilities provided by

the government

17 Maize farmers utilize credit facilities supported 7 13 43 37

by government

18 Credit facilities to maize farmers household is 11 18 52 19

adequate

19 Lack of credit facilities have negative effects on 61 18 12 9

maize farmers in Kiyawa

Source: field survey 2022

On item 15, Maize cooperative societies provide credit facilities to maize farmers,

majority of the respondents 90% disagreed with the statement, while only 10%

agreed that maize cooperative societies provide credit facilities to their members.

Item 16 of the questionnaire sought to find answer whether maize cooperative

societies help their members in getting access to credit facilities provided by

10
government, majority of members 57% disagreed while 43% agreed with the

statement.

Item 17 It has also been observed that about 80% of the respondents disagree that

maize farmers utilize credit facilities supported by government, while 20

respondents (20%) agreed, this shows that maize farmers cooperative societies do

not utilize any facilities supported by government.

18 of the questionnaire enquire if credit facilities available to farmers household

are adequate where majority of the respondents 71% disagreed, only 29% agreed.

Item 19 sought to find the implication of lack of credit facilities on members of

maize cooperative societies in Kiyawa where 79% of the respondents agreed while

only 21% disagreed with the statement.

From the above findings it is clear that majority of the members did not get

credits either from their cooperative societies nor from government as their

societies failed to assist them to secure financial assistance from government hence

the credit facilities were not adequate the household.

11
 Table 4.8: Factors militating against the progress of Maize Cooperative
Societies in Kiyawa
S/No Questionnaire Item SA A D SD

20 People were not indulge into cooperative 55 28 13 4

societies

21 Government are not aware of maize cooperative 12 8 73 7

societies in Kiyawa local government

22 Maize cooperative societies used to receive 27 18 33 22

support from government

Source: field survey 2022

Item 20 sought to find out if there are many people (maize farmers) that did not

register with cooperative societies where majority of respondents 83% agreed that

a lot of maize farmers were not indulge in cooperative societies while 17% of the

respondents disagreed with the statement.

Item 21 tries to find out if governments are not aware of cooperative societies in

Kiyawa local government where majority of the respondents 80% disagreed while

only 20% agreed with the statement.

Item 22 enquire if maize cooperative societies used to receive support from

government where majority of the respondents 55% disagreed while 45% agreed.

12
From the above findings, Kiyawa maize cooperative societies should try and

sensitized farmers to join them by enlighten the farmers with possible benefits they

will get by been a member. Also they should serve as the voice or a linking bridge

between their members and government by working with government in the best

interest of their members’ welfare and development.

13
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction

This chapter comprises the introduction, summary, recommendations and

finally contribution to knowledge.

5.2 Summary

The research has thrown light on the role of maize cooperative societies in

agricultural development in Kiyawa Local Government Area, Jigawa State. The

aim of this study was find out the role of maize cooperative societies in agricultural

production.

A total number of two hundred (100) questionnaires were administered.

However, the data was analyzed using frequencies and percentage.

After the data was analysed it was observed that the number of male

respondents were higher than female among the respondents. Also, majority of the

respondents were at their active age (43- above).

It has also been observed that about 80% of the respondents disagree that

maize farmers utilize credit facilities supported by government, while few

respondents 20% agreed. this shows that only few maize farmers in the cooperative

societies utilize credit facilities supported by government.

14
 And the result shows that maize farmers’ cooperative societies facilitate the

interaction between small-holders farmers and partners in research agribusiness

and other relevant institutions. This correlates with (Akinwumi, 1989). “The

equal ownership of members of their cooperative members pays with their money

by cash payment or by loans undertaken by the cooperative to create the fixed

assets of the cooperatives. Therefore, the cooperative belong to them entirely,

equally and members own equal shares”

Moreover, it was also observed that majority of the respondents among the

sample respondents agreed that maize farmers cooperative societies help farmers to

develop their own technical organizational and management skills and practice.

5.3 Conclusion

The study concluded that maize cooperative societies help in having access

to credit facilities provided by the government in Kiyawa local government

The result of this study shows that majority of the respondents agreed that

maize cooperative societies help farmers to develop their own technical

organizational and management skills and practice. The finding also revealed that

sample respondents agreed maize cooperative societies functions effectively in

Kiyawa local government.

15
 Lastly, the finding concluded that few people were indulged into cooperative

societies.

5.4 Recommendations.

Based on the finding of this study, and their implications, the following

recommendations were made;

 There is need for government to provide enough and adequate credit

facilities to maize cooperative societies

 Government should try as much to improvise facilities to support members

of maize cooperative societies

 Cooperative societies should work hand in hand government towards

realization of agricultural production

 Maize farmers cooperative societies should try to increase the credit facilities

supported by government utilize to their members.

5.5. Suggestions for Further Study.

Based on the findings of this research, the following topics were suggested for

further research:

The study should be replicated in other social science discipline like economics,

and others

16
Another research should be conduct to find out the Role of Cooperative Societies

in Agricultural development.

17
References

Abubakar, H. (1999): “Maize as source of starch for food and pharmaceutical”: In

Valencia J. A., Falaki, A.M, Miko, S and Ado, S.G (eds.) Sustainable Maize
Production in Nigeria: The Challenge in the Coming Millennium.
Proceedings of the SG/2000/IAR/FMARD/ADPs, National Maize
Production Workshop 22nd to 24th July 1999 held at ABU Zaria. Pp 152 –
158.

Aderibigbe, S. O. (1973): “Sustaining Agricultural Production in a Deregulated

Economy”. Economic and Financial Review CBN, Lagos.

Ahmed B. (1985): “Scale Economies In Maize Production: A Case Study of

Daudawa Farms in Kaduna State”. Unpublished MSc thesis Dept. of Agric.
Economics and Rural sociology, A.B.U Zaria

Ajala, S. O. & Kling, J. G.(1999) “Fertility requirements of open – pollinated and

hybrid maize Genotype”. In Valencia J. A., Falaki, A.M, Miko, S and Ade,
S.G (eds). Sustainable Maize Production in Nigeria: The challenge in the
coming Millennium. Proceedings of the SG/2000/ IAR/FMARD/ADPs.
National Maize Production Workshop 22nd to 24th July 1999 held at ABU
Zaria. Pp 87.

Akinwumi, N. B. (1971): “Production efficiency on farms in Northern Nigeria”,

Unpublished Ph D. Thesis, Cornell University, U. S. A.

Ali, F. (2004): “We deserve a better deregulation” New Nigerian, Thursday, July 8,
2004 Perspective Pp. 17

Barnard, C. S and Nix J. C. (1976): Farm planning and control, Cambridge

University Press, UK. Bedassa, R. and Krishnamoorthy S. (1977): Raising

18
 and sustaining productivity of Small Holder Farming Systems in
theTtropics. Agbe Publishing, Singapore.

Beyene H. (1993): The Input Supply System and Technology Adoption Constraints
for Wheat Production in the Holetta red Soil Zone of Ethiopia. CBN (2003):
Annual Report and Statement of Accounts.

Chianu, C. K. (2000): Maize in the third World. West View Press, Inc. Pp. 268
CIMMYT . (1993): “Cereal Grain Policy Analysis in the National
Agricultural Research System of Eastern and Southern Africa”:
SADC/ICRISA Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Cornway, G. (1997): “The doubly green Revolution” in Chianu J. N. (2000)

Unpublished Ph. D Thesis, Dept. of Agric. Economics University of Ibadan.

Dlamini Sam M. (1993): Factors Associated with the Adoption of based fertilizers
among Swanhi Nation Land (SNL) farmers. 44

Edache, O. A. (1999): “Agric. Policy in Relation to sustainable maize production

in Nigeria”. In Valencia J. A., Falaki, A.M, Miko, S and Ade, S.G (eds).
Sustainable Maize Production in Nigeria: The challenge in the coming
Millennium, Proceedings of the SG/2000/IAR/FMARD/ADPs. National
Maize Production Workshop 22nd to 24th July 1999 held at ABU Zaria. Pp
24.

Esoghue, O. A. and Ekong, S. M. (1991): “Technology Transfer System for

Improve Management Lessons for Future”, In J. R. Andersen (ed)
Agricultural Technology Policy Issues A. B. International U.K.

Fajemisin, J. M. (1978): “Optimum Combination of Food crop Enterprises in

Nigeria”. Journal of Rural Economics and Development. 12 (1): 44 – 54.

19
FAO (1985): Changes in Shifting Cultivation in Africa: Seven Case Studies. FAO
Forestry paper 50/1 Rome, Italy in Chianu J. N. (2000).

Habibullah M. S. and Isma’il M. M., (1994): “Production Frontier and Technical

Efficiency: the Case for Bee Keeping Farms in Malaysia”. Bangladesh J.
Agric.Econs. XVIII, I and 2 (1994): Pp.31 – 34

Harvey, S. (1977): An Agricultural Atlas of the Northern States of Nigeria with

Explanatory Notes A. B. U. Press Samaru, Zaria, Nigeria.

I.I.T.A. (1991): “Sustainable Food Production in Sub Saharan African”. IITA’s

Contribution IITA. Ibadan.

Idachaba, F.S (1998): “Instability of National Agricultural Research System in

Sub-Saharan Africa: Lessons from Nigeria” ISNAR Research Report No.13.
The Netherlands in Chianu J. N. (2000) IFDC (2001): “Agric. Input
Marketing in Nigeria: An Assessment of Strategy for Development” A paper
series Pp.23.

Ingawa, S. A. (1999): “Socio-Economic Considerations in Maize Production in

Nigeria”. In Valencia J. A., Falaki, A.M, Miko, S and Ade, S.G (eds).
Sustainable Maize Production in Nigeria: the Challenge in the coming
Millennium Proceedings of the SG/2000/IAR/FMARD/ADPs. National
Maize Production Workshop 22nd to 24th July 1999 held at ABU Zaria.
Pp71

Kassam, M. (1977): Raising and Sustaining Productivity of Small – Holder

Farming System in the Tropics Singapore: Agbe Publishing.

Kupfuma, H. B. (1993): Fertilizer Use in the Semi-Arid Communal Area of

Zimbabwe.

20
Kyiogwom U.B. (1997): “The Impact of Improved Maize Technology On
Resource Use and Farm Income in the Northern Guinea Savannah of
Nigeria”. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Dept of Agric. Economics and Rural
Sociology, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.

Maikaba, M (2004): “On Deregulated Debate Over Deregulation” New Nigerian

Tuesday, July 20th 2004. Pp. 16. Makinde, O. K. (2000): Determinants of
Food Security in Bauchi Area of Northern Guinea Savannah of Nigeria: PhD
Thesis Faculty of Agric. and Forestry University of Ibadan.

Murithi F. M. & Shiluli M. C. (1993): Effects of the Liberalization of Fertilizer

Markets on the Distribution and Use of Fertilizer on Food Crop Production:
A study on Embu and Meru districts of Kenya, National Academy of
Sciences Washington DC.

Nagy, J.G. and Edun, O. (2002): “Assessment of Nigerian Government Fertilizer

Policy and Suggested Alternative Market Friendly Policies”: Damina Project
Papers.

Ogunfowora, O. Essang, S.M. and Olayide, S. O. (1986): “Resource Productivity

in Traditional Agriculture Ä Case Study of 4 Agricultural Divisions in
Kwara State Nigeria”. Journal of Rural Economics and Development 9 (2):
119 – 130, Department of Agricultural Economics University of Ibadan,
Nigeria.

Ogungbile A.O. and Olukosi, J.O. (1990): “An Overview of the Problems of the
resource poor farmers in Nigerian Agriculutre” Olukosi J.O. and Ogungbile
A.O. (eds) Appropriate Agric. Technologies for Resource Poor Farmers. The
Nigerian National Farming Systems Research Network, Zaria Pp.311

21
Oladunni O., (1991): “Farm Family and Hired Labour Productivities in Tobacco
Production”. (eds) Olukosi, J. O., Ogungbile, A. O. and Kalu, B.A.
Appropriate Agricultural Technologies for Resource – Poor Farmers.
National Farming systems Research Network.

Olayide D. O. & Heady E. (1982): Introduction to Agricultural Production

Economics, University of Ibadan Press, Ibadan, Nigeria.

Olayide, S.O. (1979): Nigerian Small Farmers: Problems and Prospects in

Integrated Rural Development (CARD) University of Ibadan.

Olukosi J. O, Ogungbile A. O., Kalu B. A. and Olagoke, M.A (1991): “Efficiency

of Resource Use in Rice Production Systems in Anambra State, Nigeria” in
Issues in African Rural Development. Winrock International, Arthington
(USA)

Tadesse, B. and Krishnamoorthy, S. (1997): “Technical Efficiency in Paddy Farms

of Tamil Nadu: an Analysis Based on Farm Size And Ecological Zone”.
Agricultural Economics 16 (1997) Pp. 185 – 192.

Zeeuwn, V. M. in Zobel, D. (1995): “Comment Controversies Around Resource

Use Efficiency in Agriculture: Shadow or Substance?” Agricultural system
50 (1996) Pp.415 – 424

22