Economic Analysis of Waterleaf Production and Marketing Efficiency in Akwa Ibom

State, Nigeria

Usanga, Udeme J., bNdaeyo, Nyaudo and Justine, Ekaette A.

a

a
Agricultural Extension and Management, Federal College of Agriculture, P. M. B. 7800, Ishiagu, Ebonyi State, Nigeria
b
Department of Crop Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Uyo, P. M. B. 1017, Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria

Corresponding author
GSM: 08107504273, e-mail:udusanga@yahoo.com

Abstract

Vegetable production in Nigeria plays an important role in food sufficiency, employment

generation and poverty reduction. This research is to investigate the production and
marketing efficiency of waterleaf at the farm level in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. Data were
obtained from 100 randomly-selected waterleaf producers and analyzed using descriptive
statistics, gross margin and regression analysis. The results revealed that majority of them were
female (79%), aged 41-46 years (40%), married (42%), moderately educated, SSCE (31%),
family size of 3-4 persons (27%), farming experience of 1-3 years (29%), owning about 1 - 2ha-
1
of farmland (46%). Also, 35% sourced capital form personal savings, 26% invest N2, 000 -
N5, 000 in waterleaf production, 73% depends on previous farm produce` for planting
materials, 51% did not belong to any cooperative group, 39% met with Agricultural Extension
officers once. The average revenue was N450, 000.00/ha-1, while total cost was N145, 050/ha-1
with labour (53.76%) being the highest. The total variable cost was 64.1%; while the fixed cost
was 35.9 %. The enterprise had an average net income of N304, 950.00/ha with an average
rate of return of 3.1. Marketing efficiency was higher in Channels-I (10.0) and II (4.50).
Channel-III (3.42) was found to be less efficient. The regression result of R 2 = 0.85 implies that
85% of the variability in output was explained by the combined effect of the independent
variables. Coefficient of education level and capital were positive and significant at 5% level,
household size was positive and significant at 1% level. Major constraints were: scarcity of
water during dry seasons, high cost of manure, lack of access to credit, bad road network, poor
marketing prices, and poor extension contacts. There is the need to encourage them to produce
on medium and scales so as to further increase their productivity and efficiency levels, which
may probably result in food sufficiency and in the crop’s exportation.

Keywords: Waterleaf, production, marketing, efficiency, smallholder farmers

1 Introduction

Fruits and vegetables are considered in dietary guidance to human health because of their high
concentrations of dietary fiber, vitamins and minerals; electrolytes; and more recently, phyto-
chemicals, especially antioxidants [1]. Various reviews have associated low intake of fruits and
vegetables with chronic diseases such as: cardiovascular diseases, blood pressure problems,
hypercholesterolemia, osteoporosis, cancers, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases,
respiratory problems as well as mental health [2; 3]. Despite an increasing focus on the health
benefits of fruits and vegetables, their consumption is below the recommended intake among
adults [4; 5]. Therefore, considering how nutritional related health problems have risen
drastically globally, it seems critical that formal research on vegetable production and efficient
marketing aiming to increase knowledge of waterleaf production be given priority in
agricultural production. This study provides an insight into the importance of waterleaf
production as well as the benefits of the crop in farmers’ profitability and welfare and progress
of improving on its production from small to medium and large scale enterprise.

Waterleaf (Talinum triangulare) belongs to the family, Portulaceae. It is a leafy vegetable just
like: amaranthus, celosia, lettuce, cabbage, bitter leaf, jews mallow and fluted pumpkin, which
the leaves and succulent young shoots are picked for consumption. It also belongs to a group of
vegetables with short growing period and harvested two or three times by topping or young leaf
removal. Talinum is an indigenous vegetable. Waterleaf (Talinum triangulare Jacq), originated
from tropical Africa [6]. It is an all -season vegetable that is extensively grown in many
countries in Asia, South America and West Africa. In Nigeria, it is widely cultivated and
consumed in the southern part, particularly in Akwa Ibom and Cross River States Africa [7].
The demand for waterleaf is high in these states, and it is therefore a major source of income for
farmers. Its high demand is attributed to its nutritional value and importance as a “softener”
when cooking the common fibrous leafy vegetables such as Afang (Gnetum africana), Atama
(Heinsia crinata), and Editan (Lasienthera bulchozianum). It is also cooked with green
amaranthus (Amaranthus curentus) and fluted pumpkin (Telfairia occidentalis). Waterleaf has a
colloidal property and this favours its use for preparation of popular soups known as Ukwoho
afang and edikang ikong in some parts of southern Nigeria [8].

It is considered medicinal in southern Nigeria as it is used as herb in the treatment of measles

and stomach upsets [9]. Also, it performs well as fodder for raising giant snails [10]. From a
nutritional viewpoint, waterleaf has been proven to be high in Crude-protein-22.1%; Ash-
33.98% and Crude-fibre-11.12%, clinically good for human consumption and also as green
forage for rabbit feeding management [11]. Its wide acceptance among various ethnic groups in
Nigeria has erned the crop several names such as: ‘mmong-mmong ikong’, (Ibibio/Efik), which
is consistent with its high water content. The crop is propagated mostly by stem cutting and
rarely by seed. It has a short maturity period of 35-45 days. The yield is higher when propagated
by stem cutting as compare to seed planting. The short maturity period of waterleaf is an added
advantage as compare to other vegetable. Hence, the turnover is rapid and farmers make quick
returns in a short period [9]. Apart from subsistence production, many farmers (predominantly
women) grow waterleaf, as a mean of income either directly in production or marketing, thus it
is an economic crop in Akwa Ibom State. Its production is basically small-scale using
traditional manual techniques. As in the case of other vegetable crops, the women grow, market
and store the crops as part of their contributions to the family income and food security.

It is widely acknowledged that the scope for agricultural production can be expanded and
sustained by peasant farmers within the limits of existing resource base and available
technology if farm productivity is raised by efficiency use of resources [12, 13]. This exposition
therefore forms the fundamental point why the concept of farm production and efficiency has
remained important economic study especially in developing agricultural economies (like
Nigeria), where resources are meager and opportunities for developing and adopting better
technologies are dwindling [14, 15]. Several studies pertaining to traditional agriculture are
modelled to investigate input mix and the resultant output level with particular reference to
input-output space with given technology. Issues of low marginal productivities, elasticities of
production and high yield gap are mostly evaluated in these studies. As such, policy options
nevertheless suggest progressive introduction of modern technology and new production
possibilities that would see the evolution of large farms [16]. These options however negate the
premise that farmers practicing traditional agriculture could be poor, but efficient in resource
use. Therefore, operating on frontier due to productivity growth may not necessarily be a
function of size provided that adequate technological innovations are involved. This could be
the case for waterleaf producers in Akwa Ibom State.

Farmers in Akwa Ibom State have little access to land and resultantly plant their crops on
smaller hectarage, thus the possibility for them to meet their food requirement either from
production or from cash income is reduced [17]. Mostly the agricultural crops grown by women
are termed 'minor crops' and these food crops are produced mainly for consumption especially
when the main household food stocks are low. Apart from land, farmers face other types of
constraints like: performing dual activities of maintaining their food production for family
consumption with obsolete tools. The economic reality has blurred the artificial distinction
between cash and subsistence economies as most have resorted into part-time jobs and petty
trading in order to make ends meet instead of concentrating in what they know.

Also, the rather low degree of technical inefficiency in the study area suggests that very little
marketable waterleaf output is sacrificed to resource waste. But the inability of any of the
waterleaf farmers to operate on the frontier could be attributed to certain factors ranging from
technical production constraint, socioeconomic and environmental factors. Specifically, scare
inputs may be allocated to various users on the basis of their marginal shadow values thereby
preventing the farmers from reaching the efficiency frontier. Evaluation of production activities
of resource poor farmers is imperative in the light of resource use and productivity growth.
Inefficient use of inputs can jeopardize food availability and security [17]. This study is
therefore aimed at measuring economics of waterleaf farmers and the determinants of
inefficiency effects at the farm level.

The increasing demand for waterleaf due to urbanization has therefore pushed farmers into
small and medium scale production of waterleaf in Akwa Ibom State and owing to the socio-
economic importance of this evolving enterprise in Akwa Ibom State, there is therefore the need
to the assess the economics of waterleaf production in the area so as to ascertain efficiency of
resource utilization and also determined factor(s) contributing to inefficient use of resources
among waterleaf producers in the study area. Then this begs for pertinent questions concerning
small-holder waterleaf such as: What are the socio-metric characteristics of waterleaf farmers in
the study area?, How do their socio-economic characteristics affect the production of waterleaf?
Is waterleaf production profitable? What are the available resources for waterleaf production in
the area? Are available resources used productively? How statistically significant are these
resources (inputs) to waterleaf output? If these inputs are available, are they efficiently utilized
by waterleaf producers? What are the constraints facing waterleaf producers? And how can
these constraints be minimized so that farmers can maximize their production?

Production and marketing of vegetables is a complex phenomenon due to their perishable

nature, seasonality and bulkiness and as such, vegetable production requires an efficient
production and marketing system. Therefore, this study is to provide necessary framework for
present waterleaf producers by critically examining their mode of production, marketing
efficiency and profitability, so as to improve on their profit margin. Waterleaf has the potential
of not only increasing the income and standard of living of the producers; but also contributing
to the nation’s GDP. However, its overall production inefficiency can seriously affect the
production and realization of its potential, especially in Akwa Ibom State, where there is
comparative advantage. The profitability of this agricultural enterprise could only be improved
upon if the current level of productive and marketing activities is known. Moreover, the absence
of good data about the operations of the smallholder waterleaf farmers may have prevented
prospective large-scale farmers from venturing into this business. Therefore, estimating the
farm level production and marketing efficiency can provide an understanding of the level of
technical and economic efficiencies, which can assist in policy formulation. This study
therefore, generates information that will serve as a database for both present and prospective
waterleaf producers on inputs that positively affect its production, marketing and profitability,
as well as assist policy makers in formulating efficiency-based policies with better production
plan. The study will contribute greatly to the existing body of knowledge on waterleaf
production with a view to improving its production and also serve as a baseline for further
research work. The findings can help in the establishment of daily local markets with small
processing units and motor able roads near the vegetable farms to minimize marketing loss.

The paper seeks to examine the economic analysis of waterleaf production in Akwa Ibom State
by describing the socio- economic characteristics of waterleaf farmers in the study area;
determining the effect of socio-economic characteristics of waterleaf farmers on profit levels;
determining the marketing efficiency of waterleaf production; and identifying the major
constrains of waterleaf production in the study area.

2. Material and methods

2.1 The Study Area

The study will be conducted in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. Akwa Ibom State of Nigeria named
after the Qua Iboe River, was created out of Cross River State on September 23, 1987. It is
located in the coastal South-Southern part of the country, lying between Latitudes 4° 32’ and 5°
33’ North of the Equator and Longitudes 7° 25’ and 8° 25’, East of the Greenwich Meridian.
The State has basically two distinct seasons: The rainy season, which lasts from May to
October, while the duration of the dry season is between November to April. Mean annual
rainfall over the area decreases gradually from about 4,050mm near the coastal area (the
southern part) to about 2,100mm in the north. Temperatures are uniformly high throughout the
year. The mean annual temperature is about 26.9°C. Relative humidity remains at an average of
70 to 80% throughout the year except for the short period of the dry season [18;19]. The climate
of the state allows for favourable cultivation and extraction of agricultural and forest products
such as: palm produce, rubber, cocoa, rice, cassava, yam, plantain, banana, maize, and timber.
There are basically two types of agriculture in Akwa lbom State. The first is the small-scale
peasant farming usually practiced on family basis, and which produces food crops such as
cassava, maize, rice, yam and cocoyam for family consumption with the surplus sold in the
local markets. The second type of farming is the estate farming system, which specializes in
growing cash crops such as rubber, cocoa, coconut and oil palm. The population of Akwa Ibom
State was estimated at about 3,902,051 with density of 330 persons per square kilometer [20].

2.2 Research procedures

Through the assistance of the Director of Extension Services, Akwa Ibom State Agricultural
Development Programme (AKADEP), two out of the three agricultural zones were selected for
the study. The list of waterleaf producers in 4 Local Government Areas were obtained from the
3 agricultural zones. In the second stage, 5 villages each were selected from the Local
Government Areas making a total of 20 villages. Five (5) waterleaf producers were randomly
selected from each of the villages to make a total of one hundred (100) respondents for the
study. A total of 100 structured questionnaires were developed, administered and used for the
analysis. Data for study utilized both primary and secondary data. Primary data were collected
on socio-economic characteristics, input use, output level, marketing channels and constraints to
waterleaf production, using well-structured questionnaire and interview schedule.
2.3 Statistical methods
Descriptive statistics such as: percentage and frequency distribution table were used to address
objectives I, III and V, respectively. Objective II was captured using the multiple regression
model, Four functional forms: Linear, double-log (Cobb Douglas), semi-log and Exponential
functions were fitted to the multiple regression model. Regression analysis measured the
influence of socio-economic characteristics on output of waterleaf. The following represents the
implicit form of the regression analysis:

Y = f (X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6,X7,X8,X9,X10, X11.… U)

where:

Y = Output of waterleaf (kg)

X1 = Age of farmers (years)
X2 = Gender (m, f)
X3 = Household Size (number)
X4 = Educational level (years of formal schooling)
X5 = Farming experience (years)
X6 = Planting materials (number)
X7 = Farm size (hectares)
X8 = Poultry Manure and organic wastes (kg)
X9 = Cost of Labour (man days/ha-1)
X10 = Extension Contact (number)
x11 = Cost of Capital (value of depreciated farm tools)
U = error term

Profitability
The costs and returns to waterleaf production were analyzed using the budgetary technique. The
economic viability of the waterleaf enterprise was estimated using gross margin and
profitability ratios:

where:

TVC = Total Variable Cost

TC = Total Cost
TR = Total Revenue
NI = Net Farm Income
TFC = Total Fixed Cost

3. Results

A total of 100 respondents were randomly selected for the analysis of waterleaf production in
Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. The socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents shows that
majority of the respondents were female (79%), aged between 41-46 years (40%), mostly
married (42%), highest level of education, SSCE (31%) with family size of 3-4 persons (27%),
farming experience of 1-3 years (29%) owning from 1 - 2 ha-1 of farmland (46%).
Also, 35% of the respondents source their capital form personal savings, 26% invest between
N2, 000 - N5, 000 as their capital for waterleaf production, 73% depends on Previous farm
products for their planting materials, 51% did not belong to any cooperative group, 39% were
visited by Agricultural Extension officers once in a planting season.

Major constraints to waterleaf production in the area includes: high cost of water during the dry
season (90%), scarcity of high cost of organic manure (85%), lack of access to credit
(75%), bad road network (72%), poor marketing prices for waterleaf (60%), scarcity of planting
materials (40%), pest and disease (15%), poor extension contacts (32%)

4. Discussion

Four functional forms were estimated: linear, semi-log, double-log and exponential functions to
assess the factors affecting the output of waterleaf in the study area. Table shows that the linear
function was chosen as the lead equation based on having the highest value of the coefficient of
multiple determination (R2), conformity with apriori expectations and having more significant
variable coefficients. This was due to the value of R 2 (0.85) at the significance level of the
explanatory variables and their signs. The coefficient of land size was negative and not
significant. The inverse relationship might be attributed to intense use of labour, thus
confirming with [21], who noted that small farms have a high labour to land ratio. The
coefficient of labour was positive and significant at 10% level. This shows the importance of
labour in small-scale farming and as an important factor of production because small farms
cannot be mechanized and if it is mechanized, it results in economic loss. This situation has
variously been attributed to small and scattered land holdings and lack of affordable equipment
for farm work in rural communities [10]. Elasticity of production suggests that if labour is
increased by 10%, output of waterleaf will be increased by 1.26%. The application of poultry
manure (the respondents do not use fertilizers because of high price) had a positive relationship
with the output of waterleaf and was significant at 1% level. Under intensive agriculture, as
applicable in this case, soil fertility maintenance is very crucial for the sustenance of production.
Frequency of harvest and the age of farmers were negative but not significant.

Educational level of waterleaf growers was positive and significant at 5% level. Educated
farmers may better understand and process information provided by different sources regarding
new farm technologies, thereby increasing their allocative and technical efficiency [22; 23].
Household size was positive and significant at 1% level. It is a fact that, family provides the
major source of labour for the farmers. Larger households could therefore mean more available
labour for intensive waterleaf production in the study area. The results compares favourably
with the findings of [24]. Planting materials had a positive relationship with output and was not
significant. The coefficient of capital was positive and significant at 5% level of probability.
Elasticity of production suggests that a 10% increase in capital will increase production of
waterleaf by 5.31%. This suggests that capital is very important in waterleaf production. This
result is in apparent contraction with the findings of [10; 25; 7], who reported that capital is not
important in small scale waterleaf production and confirms reports of [26]. R2 of 0.8631 in
waterleaf production in the study area implies that 86% of the variability in output was
explained by the combined effect of the independent variables included in the model.
4.1 Marketing channels of waterleaf: identified channels of vegetables in the study area
Channel Channel Type Frequency Percentage (%)
Producer→ Consumer I 53 53.0
Producer→ Retailer→ Consumer II 40 40.0
Producer→ Agent→ Retailer→ Consumer III 7 7.0
Total 100 100.0
Source: Field work, 2014

Table 4.1 above revealed that majority of the respondents in the study area belongs to Channel
I; they sell waterleaf directly to the consumers, while 40% belongs to Channel II and just 7%
belongs to Channel III. This is as a result of the perishable nature of the crop, as the vegetables
have to reach the consumers early so as to retain its market and nutritional value. Post-harvest
losses have an obvious negative contribution to their returns on investment.

4.2 Marketing efficiency of waterleaf in the identified channels

Crop: Waterleaf (Talinum triangulare)

Channel-I
Net price received by farmer (N /100kg) N 3, 000.00
Marketing cost (N/100kg) 250.00
Marketing loss (N /100kg) 50.00
Total margin (N /100kg) 0.00
Marketing efficiency 10.00

Channel-II
Net price received by farmer (N /100kg) N 4, 500.00
Marketing cost (N /100kg) 750.00
Marketing loss (N /100kg) 250.00
Total margin (N /100kg) 0.00
Marketing efficiency 4.50

Channel-III
Net price received by farmer (N /100kg) N 6, 500.00
Marketing cost (N /100kg) 1050.00
Marketing loss (N /100kg) 850.00
Total margin (N /100kg) 0.00
Marketing efficiency 3.42

Marketing efficiency and margins in different channels were estimated both with accounting for
marketing loss at each level as presented above. It is clear from the results that farm spoilage of
waterleaf had effect on the marketing margins and marketing efficiency. Farmer’s net returns
were higher when estimated without accounting for marketing loss. This indicated that their
returns on investment could be improved if proper measures are taken to prevent these crop
losses due to deterioration. Also, the total marketing margins were higher in Channel-III than in
Channel-II due to the existence of more intermediaries in the marketing channels. Marketing
efficiency was higher in Channels-I and II with respect to daily local market demand, indicating
the efficient functioning of these markets. Channel-I with marketing efficiency of 10.0 turned
out to be highly efficient, followed by Channel-II (4.50). Channel-III (3.42) was found to be
less efficient for marketing of waterleaf at the smallholder farmers’ level of production.
4.3 Average costs and returns in waterleaf production in the study area

Output = 15,000kg/ha @ N30/kg = N450, 000.00

Variable Cost
Planting material @ N20/kg x 1,500kg/ha-1 = N 30, 000.00
Insecticide = 10, 000.00
-1
Manure (Poultry) @ N200/20kg bag x 300kg /ha
(15bags x N200) = 3,000.00
Labour @ N750/manday = 50, 000.00
Total Variable Cost (TVC) N93, 000.00
Fixed Cost
Land (ha-1) rent Qty 0.7 @ N5, 000/ha-1 = N35, 000.00
Capital
Hoe = N2, 000.00
Cutlass = 1,500.00
Basket = 1,550.00
Pumping machine = 10,000.00
Watering can = 2,000.00
Total Fixed Cost (TFC) N52, 050.00
Total Cost (TC = TVC + TFC) (93,000 + 52050) N145, 050.00

Total Revenue (TR) = N450, 000.00

GM (TR - TVC) (450, 000 – 93, 000) = N357,000.00
NI = (GM - TFC) (357,000 – 52,050) = N304, 950.00

Table above shows the average costs and returns of waterleaf production in the study area. The
average revenue from waterleaf output was found to be N450, 000.00 per hectare. The total cost
incurred per ha was N145, 050.00. Labour (53.76%) was the highest item in the total cost of
production followed by planting materials (32.25%). The total variable cost was 64.1%; while
the fixed cost was (35.9 %). The enterprise had an average net income of N304, 950.00 per
farmer per hectare, in a production cycle.

4.4 Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) of waterleaf production and marketing

Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) = TR/TC

where:
TR = Total revenue
TC = Total Cost (i.e. TVC + TFC)

BCR = N450, 000.00

N145, 050.00

BCR = 3.10 = 3.1:1

Economic Implication:
For every N1 invested in small scale waterleaf production and marketing, the investor farmer
stands to gain N3.10k.
i. The results from this study indicate that waterleaf production is a profitable agricultural
enterprise in the study area with net farm income of N304, 950.00 per farmer, per hectare,
per production cycle and an average rate of return of 3.1.

ii. The results of regression model showed poultry manure, education level and extension visit
to be positively and significantly related with profitability of waterleaf farmers.

iii. The results of the determinants of marketing inefficiency in waterleaf production showed
labour, household size, capital to be significantly related with marketing inefficiency.

iv. The most important constraints to waterleaf production were: high cost of water during the
dry season (90%), scarcity of high cost of organic manure (85%), lack of access to credit (75%),
bad road network (72%), poor marketing prices for waterleaf (60%), scarcity of planting
materials (40%), pest and disease (15%), poor extension contacts (32%).

5 Conclusion
Based on the findings from the study, it can be concluded that the largest proportion of
waterleaf producers in the area operated on a small-scale and that waterleaf production was a
profitable venture across their scale of operation. The resources were inefficiency exploited.
Years of experience, access to credit, cost of labour and capital, cost of poultry manure,
membership of cooperative organization and extension contact were found to have positive
influence on production efficiency, marketing and profitability. The implication of the study
therefore is that the level of efficiency among waterleaf producers could be increased through
better utilization of available resources, given the current state of technology and marketing
margin and addressing those factors that are constraints to efficiency in production. The
identified major factors that enhance the output of waterleaf in the area were the application of
poultry manure, large households (cheap labour), level of education of the farmer, and source of
capital. These observations underscore the need for the provision of credit facilities and some
kind of adult education programme for the farmers by Agricultural Extension Agents. These
will respectively ensure that they apply the right quantity of purchased inputs (like: planting
materials, hired labour and capital) in their production process to improve their wellbeing.
Respondents are within the economically active labour force with a high level of education.
They made an average net farm income of N304, 950.00 per farmer, per hectare, per production
cycle. This is considered high because in production cycle, the Nigerian minimum wage of N7,
500 amounting to N90, 000 per annum for those under paid employment are receiving less than
the net farm income of a serious waterleaf farmer in a year. The BCR of 3.10 was realized,
meaning that for every N1 invested in waterleaf production, the farmer stands to gain N3.10k as
a profit and all of this establish the fact that waterleaf production in the area is profitable,
though labour intensive. Considering the economic potential of waterleaf production at an net
farm income of N304, 950.00 per farmer, per hectare, per production cycle and an
average rate of return of 3.1 and an average of 5.6% level of efficiency, there is the need for
government to address the problems (such as: lack of water near vegetable farms during dry
seasons, lack of credit facilities, lack of success roads to vegetable producing areas, among
others), observed in the study area in order to sustain the potential of this economic crop. In
view of the crop’s profitability with the farmers producing in small scale, there is the need to
encourage them to produce on medium and scales so as to further increase their production
and efficiency levels, which may probably result in food sufficiency and in the crop’s
exportation.
6. Recommendation

Based on the study’s findings, it is recommended that:

1. Rural roads infrastructure should be provided to enable waterleaf and vegetable farmers
have access to farm lands, which are scarce in the urban areas, where most of them rent
plats at exorbitant rates;
2. Daily local regulated markets should be established near the vegetable farms and the
government should come up with Adult literacy programmes to educate the farmers to
raise their efficiency in vegetable production, marketing and utilization.
3. Credit facilities should be provided to small scale farmers to enable them expand their
farm businesses and give room for other start-ups to come into the system while the
older farmers are approaching the medium scale category.

4. Government and NGOs should strengthen vegetable farmers’ cooperative societies to

help in improving the efficiency of vegetable production, marketing and utilization in
the Akwa Ibom State.
5. Government should put in place policies that will re-distribute land and facilitate
farmers’ access to credit, farm inputs like fertilizers and encourage livestock farming in
large scale to provide organic manure to farmers for vegetable production, consistently.
6. Agricultural Extension Agents should be employed, trained, facilitated with better
remuneration to enable them appreciate the need to serve in the rural areas and train
farmers in modern agricultural methods and technologies.
 4.5: Results of the multiple regression analysis for production function estimates
Coefficient/ Variables Linear (a) Semi-log Double-log Exponential

Intercept 2882.61 1 6.127256*** 3.6228524 -58076.12

(-2071.6626) (0.27175665) (1.622341) (21374.33)
Land size -3175.33726 -2.128457* 0.0466842 1305.77
(20646.65) (2.23750664) (0.123427) (1781.45)
b=0.054
Labour 16.0022201* 0.001461** 0.13239** 13678.71*
(6.045273) (0.00060207) (0.5837) (766.1254)
b=0.126
Poultry Manure 8.37709458*** 0.000601*** 0.54725812*** 665.582***
(4.008803) (0.00029943) (0.127446) (1635.9064)
b=0.172
Frequency -4304350021 -0.021650 0.1536272 -282.3087
(651.2745) (0.06292211) (0.079476) (1000.22276)
b=-0.050
Age -331822237 -0.003291 0.0725201 1864.045
(52.52073) (0.00593023) (0.206724) (2870.82509)
b=-0.207
Education Level 823.113232*** 0.05645*** 0.1377388*** 1775.928***
(83.9456) (0.00826131) (0.046323) (568.273292)
b=0.406
Household size 413.8335** 0.024343 0.07523372 2267.302*
(170.5389) (0.01466782) (0.098759) (1373.64032)
b=0.366
Planting material 0.05342430 6.98E-05 0.02731955 -447.4561
(0.852678) (7.3007E-05) (0.089965) (903.674432)
b=0.080
Capital 2.74527955** 0.000232 0.18873755 3434.68
(0.887056) (9.8854E-05) (0.177056) (262.2406)
b=0.567
Extension visit 8216.179 0.329 50728.734 0.038
(5.424)*** (2.093)** (1.799)* (1.284)
Farming -188.665
Experience (138.0278) -0.004413 -0.06588745 -2111.058**
b=-0.002 (0.01182761) (0.079145) (1063.546)

R2 0.858594 0.737462 0.82938861 0.832748

2
Adjusted R 0.84673256 0.714734 0.80330615 0.824062
Observations 100 100 100 100

Source: Field survey, 2014

N/B: figures in brackets are standard errors. *** = Significant at 1%, ** = significant at 5% and * = significant at 10%.
The bs are elasticity coefficients, {a} is the lead equation.
References

[1] Slavin, J. L. and Lloyd, B. (2012). Health Benefits of fruits and vegetables. Advanced
Nutrition, 3(4): 506–16.

[2] Adebawo, O., Salau, B.and Ezima, E. (2006). Fruits and vegetables moderate lipid
cardiovascular risk factor in hypertensive patients. Lipids Health Dis, 5: 14.

[3] Payne, M. E., Steck, S. E., George, R. R. and Steffens, D. C. (2012). Fruit, Vegetable,
and Antioxidant In-takes Are Lower in Older Adults with Depression. J Acad Nutr Diet,
112: 2022–2027.

[4] Schneider, M., Norman, R., Steyn, N. and Bradshaw, D. (2007). Estimating the burden
of disease attributable to low fruit and vegetable intake in South Africa in 2000. S Afr
Med J, 97 (8).

[5] Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (2010). State-Specific Trends in Fruit and
Vegetable Consumption among Adults-United States, 2000–2009, MMWR. 59 (35).

[6] Schippers, R.R. (2000). African Indigenous Vegetables – An overview of the cultivated
species, NRI/ACP, EU, Chatten, UK.

[7] Udoh, E.J. and Etim N.A. (2008). Measurement of Farm-Level Efficiency of waterleaf
(Talinun triangulare) Production Among City Farmers in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria.
Journal of sustainable development in agriculture and Environment. Vol. 3(2):47-54

[8] Ibeawuchi, I.I.; Nwufo, M.I.; Oti, N.N; Opara, C.C. and Eshett, E.T. (2007).
Productivity of Intercropped Green (Amaranthus cruentus)/ Waterleaf (Talinum
triangulare) with Poultry Manure Rates in Southeastern Nigeria. Journal of Plant
Sciences, 2(2): 222-227

[9] Udoh, E. J. (1993) Economics of waterleaf production in Calabar municipality, Cross

River State. B.Sc. project Dept of Agric Econ and Ext. University of Calabar, Nigeria.

[10] Umoh, G.S. (2006). “Resource Use Efficiency in Urban Farming”: An Application of
Stochastic Frontier Production Function. International Journal of Agriculture and
Biology. Vol. 8, No. 1, pp 37-44.

[11] Aduku, A.O. and Olukosi, J.O. (1990). Rabbit Management in the tropics. lving books
series, G.U. publication, Abuja, Nigeria.

[12] Ali M. (1996) Quantifying the socio-economic determinants of sustainable crop

production: An application of wheat cultivation in the Tarui of Nepal. Agric Econ.
1996;14:45-60.

[13] Udoh, E. J. (2000) Land management and resource - use efficiency among farmers in
south-eastern Nigeria. PhD Diss., Dept. Agric. Econ., University of Ibadan, Nigeria.

[14] Ali, M. and Chaudhry, M. A. (1990). Interregional Farm Efficiency in Pakistan’s

Punjabi. A frontier production function study. J. Agric. Econ. 41:62-73.
[15] Tadesse, B. and Krishnamoorthy, S. (1997). Technical efficiency in Paddy farms of
Tamil Nadu: an analysis based on farm size and ecological zone, Agric. Eco., 16: 185–
92

[16] Singh, A., (1992). Farm Size and agricultural productivity in Aligarh district. In:
Mohammed, N. (ed.), Anthropogenic Dimensions in Agricultural Concept Pub. New
Delhi

[17] Udoh, E. J. (1999) Commercial production of waterleaf among urban women: A case of
Calabar Municipality, Cross River State. In: Fabiyi Y. L., Idowu, E.O.,(eds.). Poverty
alleviation and food security in Nigeria. National Association of Agricultural Economist
Publication, Ibadan, Nigeria, pp 98 - 106.

[18] AGROMET, (2012) Climate data of Akwa Ibom State, Department of Geography and
Regional Planning, University of Uyo, Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria.

[19] Ekpenyong, Robert Etim (2013) An Assessment of the threats to Global Warming in
Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria In Greener Journal of Environmental Management and
Public Safety Vol. 2 (2), pp. 065-074, February.

[20] National Population Commission (NPC). (2006) 2006 Population and Housing Census
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. National Population Report, Abuja, Nigeria. Priority
Tables. (Volume I) www.population.gov.ng

[21] Thapa, S. (2007). The relationship between farm size and productivity: empirical
evidence from the Nepalese mid- hills. CIREM, Faculty of Economics, University of
Trento. Assessed on August 28th 2008 from http://mpra.ub.uni-muen.

[22] Panin, A. and B. Brummer (2000). Gender differentials in resources ownership and crop
productivity of smallholder farmers in Africa: A case study. Quarterly Journal of
International Agriculture 39(1): 93-107

[23] Adebayo, O.O. and Adeola, R.G. (2005). Socio-Economic factors Affecting poultry
farmers. In Ejigbo Local Government Area of Osun State. Journal of Human Ecology,
18(1) pp 39-41.

[24] Babatunde, R. O, O.A. Omotesho and O. S. Sholotan (2007). Socio-economic

Characteristics and Food Security Status of Farming Households in Kwara State, North-
Central Nigeria. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition 6(1): 49-58.

[25] Udoh, E.J. (2005). “Technical Inefficiency in Vegetable Farms of Humid Region: An
analysis of Dry season vegetable farming of urban women in South South zone, Nigeria.
Journal of Agric. Soc.Sci. Vol. 1 pp 80-85.

[26] Enete, A. A. and Okon, U. E. (2010) Economics of Waterleaf (Talinum triangulare)

Production in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria, Field Actions Science Reports [Online], Vol. 4
| 2010, Online since 22 March.