CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics of Respondents

Table 2: Socio-economic characteristics of the Respondents (Quantitative)

Variables Frequency Percentage Min Max Mean SD

Age
(years)
25-35 14 23.33 25 75 45.98 12.025
36-46 19 31.67
47-57 14 23.33
58-68 9 15.0
69-78 4 6.67

Household
size
2-7 16 26.67 2 28 11.73 5.988
8-13 25 41.67
14-19 12 20.0
20-25 4 6.66
26-31 3 5.0

Farming
experience
3-12 27 45.0 3 50 18.35
13-22 15 25.0
23-32 9 15.0
33-42 7 11.67
43-52 2 3.33
Source: Field Survey 2024.

4.1.1 Age of the respondents

The result in table 2 show that the age of the respondents ranged between 25 and 75 years. The

mean age of the farmers was 45.98years, implying that the farmers were still in their active age

group. Age is very important in agricultural production and livelihood activities. The result

shows that majority (31.67%) of the farmers are within the age range of 36-46, farmers with the

age range of 25-35 constitute (23.33%), while farmers with the age range of 47-57 constitute
(23.33%), while farmers within the age range of 58-68 constitute (15%) , and farmers within the

age range of 69-78 constitute (6.67%) .

4.1.2 Household size of the respondents

The distribution of the respondents by household size as shown in table 2 above shows that those

with members 2-7 constituted 26.67%, while 41.67% had household size which ranged between

8-13 members, 20.0% for household with 14-19 members, 6.66% had household sizes that

ranges between 20-25, and 5.0% with household size of 26-31 members. Size of the household

may enhance labor availability that can be used for different activities under the smallholder rice

production.

4.1.3 Farming experience

Experience is the knowledge or mastery of an event or subject gained through involvement in or

exposure. The result above shows that majority (45.0%) of the farmers have years of experience

within the range of 3-12, farmers with 13-22 years of experience constitute (25.0%), while

farmers with 23-32 years of experience constitute (15.0%), while farmers with 33-42 years of

experience constitute (11.67%), and farmers with 43-52 years of experience constitute (3.33%).

Table 3: Socio-economic Characteristic of the respondents (Quantitative)

Variables Frequency Percentage Min Max Mean SD

Farm
income
72,000- 30 50.0 72000 2035000 7.23E5 515332.023
600,000
600,001- 19 31.67
1,128,001
1,128,002- 9 15.0
1,656,002
1,656,003- 2 3.33
2,184,003

Off-farm
income
10,000- 6 50.0 10,000 75,000 3.39E4 22793.374
23,000
23,001- 1 8.33
36,001
36,002- 1 8.33
49,002
49,003- 2 16.67
62,003
62,004- 2 16.67
75,004

Non-farm
income
10,000- 12 33.33 10,000 100,000 4.42E4 26727.312
28,000
28,001- 6 16.67
46,001
46,002- 10 27.78
64,002
64,003- 5 13.89
82,003
82,004- 3 8.33
100,004

Years of
variety
usage
2-10 46 76.67 2 35 10.30 7.572
11-19 5 8.33
20-28 5 8.33
29-37 4 6.67
Source: Field Survey 2024.

4.1.4 Annual farm income

Annual farm income of the farmers was also presented in table 3 above. The result shows that

majority of farmers (30) representing 50.0% of the sample falls within an annual farm income

range between NGN 72,000-600,000. 19 farmers representing 31.67% of the sample falls

between NGN 600,001-1,128,001. 9 farmers representing 15.0% of the sample falls within NGN
1,128,002-1,656,002. And 2 farmers representing 3.33% of the sample falls within 1,656,003-

2,184,003.

4.1.5 Annual off-farm income

The annual off-farm income of the farmers as shown in table 3 above, represent that majority of

the farmers (6) representing 50.0% of the sample falls within an annual off-farm income of

NGN10,000-23,000. 1 farmer representing 8.33% of the sample falls within the range of

NGN23, 001-36,001. 1 farmer representing 8.33% of the sample falls between NGN36,002-

49,002. 2 farmers representing 16.67% of the sample falls within NGN49,003-62,003. And 2

farmers representing 16.67% of the sample falls within NGN62.004-75,004.

Table 4: Socio-economic Characteristics of the Respondents (Qualitative)

Variables Frequency Percentage

Sex
Male 60 100

Marital status
Single 1 1.7
Married 59 98.3

Educational level
Primary 18 30.0
Secondary 23 38.3
Tertiary 8 13.3
Traditional/Qur’anic 11 18.3
Occupation
Civil servant 1 1.7
Crop farming 51 85.0
Business 8 13.3

Access to credit
Access 16 26.7
No access 44 73.3
Source: Field Survey 2024.
4.1.6 Sex

Table 4 above shows that all the respondents of the two categories of the respondents were male

(100%). This implies that men are the active force of farming in Tofa local government area of

Kano State.

4.1.7 Marital status

It can be seen clearly from table 4 above shows that 98.3% of the respondents were married and

1.7% of the respondent is single. This may not be contrary to tradition in typical Hausa/Fulani

community like Kano state where marriage is considered as a symbol of respect and can increase

household size.

4.1.8 Educational level of the respondent

Distribution of the farmers by educational level as shown in table 4 above indicates that 38.3%

had a Secondary education, 30.0% had a Primary education, 18.3% had a Traditional/Qur’anic

education, and 13.3% had a Tertiary education. This result shows that some of the respondents

had one form of formal education or the other.

4.2 Climate Resilient Practices among the Farmers

Table 5: climate resilient practices among the farmers

Variables Frequency percentage

Awareness to extension
services
Aware 59 98.3
Not aware 1 1.7

Awareness to climate
resilient practices
Aware 59 98.3
Not aware 1 1.7

Reasons for adopting

climate resilient practices
Drought 46 76.7
Pest/disease outbreak 13 21.7
Erosion 1 1.7

Climate resilient practices

adopted

Resilient seed
Practiced 46 76.7
Not practiced 14 23.3

Spacing
Practiced 58 96.7
Not practiced 2 3.3

Micro dosing
Practiced 37 61.7
Not practiced 23 38.3

Integrated soil fertility

management
Practiced 52 86.7
Not practiced 8 13.3

Integrated pest management

Practiced 51 85.0
Not practiced 9 15.0

Solar power irrigation

Practiced 3 5.0
Not practiced 57 95.0

Storing of rainwater
Practiced 19 31.7
Not practiced 41 68.3

Row planting
Practiced 54 90.0
Not practiced 6 10.0

Controlled drainage
Practiced 19 31.7
Not practiced 41 68.3

Adjusting of sowing date

Practiced 16 26.7
Not practiced 44 73.3

Direct seeded rice

Practiced 32 53.3
Not practiced 28 46.7

Multiple cropping
Practiced 55 91.7
Not practiced 5 8.3

Changes due to practices

adopted
Changes 57 95.0
No changes 3 5.0

Status of change
Positive 48 80.0
Negative 2 3.3
Don’t know 10 16.7

Change in yield due to

practices adopted
Changes 58 96.7
No changes 2 3.3

Level of changes
Very high 14 23.3
High 27 45.0
Average 17 28.3
Low 2 3.3

Type of rice variety used

Improved 44 73.3
Local 16 26.7

Source of seeds
Own 12 20.0
Neighbor 1 1.7
Market 43 71.7
Research institute 3 5.0
Others 1 1.7
Source: Field Survey 2024.
4.2.1 Awareness to climate resilient practices

As shown in table 5 above, the result indicates that 59 farmers representing 98.3% of the sample

are aware of climate resilient practices. While 1 farmer representing 1.7% of the sample is not

aware of climate resilient practices. This shows that 98.3% of the farmers one way or the other

are aware of the various climate resilient practices.

4.2.2 Reasons for adopting climate resilient practices

Table 5 above shows that 46 farmers representing 76.7% of the sample adopted climate resilient

practices as a result of drought. While 13 farmers representing 21.7% of the sample adopted

climate resilient practices due to pests and diseases. And 1 farmer representing 1.7% of the

sample adopted climate resilient practices as a result of erosion.

4.2.3 Spacing: as shown in the result above, majority of the farmers (58) representing 96.7% of

the sample are practicing spacing as a resilient practice that was adopted. While 2 farmers

representing 3.3% are not practicing it.

4.2.4 Row planting: table 5 above shows that 54 farmers representing 90.0% of the sample

adopted row planting as a resilient practice. While 6 farmers representing 10.0% of the sample

are not practicing row planting.

4.2.5 Multiple cropping: the result indicates that 55 farmers representing 91.7% of the sample

adopted multiple cropping as a form climate of climate resilient practices. While 5 farmers

representing 8.3% of the sample are not practicing multiple cropping.

4.2.6 Solar powered irrigation: in table 5 above, the result indicates that 3 farmers representing

5.0% of the sample are practicing solar powered irrigation as a form of climate resilient
practices. While majority of the farmers (57) are representing 95.0% of the sample are not

practicing solar powered irrigation as a form of climate resilient practices.

4.3 Challenges/problems Associated with Rice Production

Table 6: challenges/problems associated with rice production

Variables Frequency Percentage

Challenges
Access to finance
Challenged 46 76.7
Not challenged 14 23.4

Lack of funds
Challenged 45 75.0
Not challenged 15 25.0

Pests and diseases

Challenged 60 100

Low income
Challenged 48 80.0
Not challenged 12 20.0

Affordability
Challenged 9 15.0
Not challenged 51 85.0

Access to market
Challenged 4 6.7
Not challenged 56 93.3

Inadequate infrastructure
Challenged 36 60.0
Not challenged 24 40.0

Climate change
Challenged 58 96.7
Not challenged 2 3.3

Lack of technology
Challenged 37 61.7
Not challenged 23 38.3
Poor nutrient management
Challenged 39 65.0
Not challenged 21 35.0

Water management
Challenged 39 65.0
Not challenged 21 35.0
Source: Field survey 2024.

4.3.1 Pest and diseases: as indicated in table 6 above, the result shows that 100% of the

respondents are challenged by pests and diseases as a problem associated with rice production.

4.3.2 Climate change: in table 6 above, it shows that 58 farmers representing 96.7% of the

sample are challenged by climate change as a problem associated with rice production. While 2

farmers representing 3.3% of the sample are not challenged by climate change as a problem

associated with rice production.

4.3.3 Access to market: as shown in the tables 6 above, 4 farmers representing 6.7% of the

sample are challenged by access to market as a problem associated with rice production. While

majority of the farmers (56) representing 93.3% are not challenged by access to market as a

ssproblem associated with rice production.