A LOGIT ANALYSIS OF FARMERS’ INTEREST IN SOIL FERTILITY

MANAGEMENT: THE CASE OF AGROFORESTRY PRACTICES

By

Damisa M. A1. and M. Yohanna2

Abstract

The inappropriate management of soil fertility is such a serious problem that by the

year 2010, Nigeria has been projected to have inadequate cultivable land to meet its

rising population. Agroforestry was therefore suggested to be a viable solution. The

promotion of agroforestry in Nigeria is however not widely imbibed by the farmers as

a soil management package. This is in spite of agroforestry being an age long system

and has potentials in tackling the issues of soil degradation and nutrient depletion.

This study was therefore conducted to determine the factors that influence the

farmers’ interest in agroforestry as a soil management practice and also predict the

rate at which the factors explain the variation in the farmers’ level of interest in the

technology. 200 farmers were randomly selected for the study and the data were

obtained through the administration of structured questionnaires to the farmers. The

cumulative logistic distribution function was employed as a tool of analysis and it was

found that education, output, perception and the level of involvement significantly

affected the interest of the farmers in agroforestry as a soil management practice.

Key Words: Logit, Farmers’ interest, Soil fertility management, Agroforestry

1
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Ahmadu Bello University, P. M.B.
1044, Zaria, Kaduna State, NIGERIA. E-mail: ask4princedamisa@yahoo.com. Tel:
+2348020658353, +2348036069849
2
Department of Geography, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.
INTRODUCTION

Soil degradation and nutrient depletion is a major problem in the Sub-Saharan Zone of

West Africa. This is mainly due to soil fragility associated with high population

pressure and limited arable land for subsistence requirements [1, 2]. In West Africa

decreasing soil fertility in highly populated and intensively cropped areas has been

observed for some decades [3]. The traditional practice of bush fallow after a few

years’ cropping to restore the fertility and productivity of the land is no longer

adequate owing to the rapid population growth and urbanization. Fallow periods are

shortened well below critical level such that the system can on longer sustain high

crop yield due to the decline in soil fertility. This process influences the sustainable

use of family resources. As high input technologies were not introduced by the

farmers, ‘low input’ or ‘no-input’ systems which are better adapted to the low

resource base of the farming families were proposed to overcome this situation [4, 5].

The inappropriate management of soil fertility is a serious problem that threatens the

sustainability of agriculture in the zone [6]. It has been estimated in Nigeria that by

the year 2010, cultivable land in the country will not be able to meet its rising

population even at intermediate levels of input [7] unless drastic measures are taken.

In arresting this situation, technology packages were developed to combat the

dwindling soil fertility. The focus of these technologies was however on the use of

inorganic fertilizers to maintain and/ or increase crop productivity. The use of these

inorganic fertilizers is however hampered by the huge quantity required to meet with

crop needs. Such huge quantity is not easily obtainable; even when and where it is

obtainable, the exorbitant price of transportation and handling is a major constraint

[8]. Thus the adoption of soil fertility management technologies is poor in these

2
ecological and socio-economic settings. Maintaining or increasing soil fertility

therefore involves high reinvestments.

In the light of this, the application of agroforestry could be a viable economic

strategy. Agroforestry systems, using the vegetative material of shrubs and trees as

mulch for food crops are promising alternatives to stabilize soil fertility and to

improve the yield potential in resource-poor farming systems. Agroforestry plays a

better role in increasing agricultural productivity by nutrient recycling, reducing soil

erosion and improving soil fertility and enhancing farm income compared with

conventional crop production [9]. Agroforestry has in addition promising potentials in

checkmating deforestation and boosting food, fodder and fuel wood production [10,

11].

The improvement of vegetative cover brought about by agroforestry practice

in the form of contour hedgerows has been found to be an effective measure of

reducing soil erosion [12]. In Rwanda and Jamaica, agroforestry have aided in

reducing run-off and soil erosion compared with conventional farmed plots resulting

in improvement in the soil fertility and maintenance with a positive effect on crop

production [13, 14]. Agroforestry has also been found to provide alternative to

conventional methods of soil conservation as well as providing fuel wood and fodder

to the rural people [11, 15, 16]. Furthermore, researches have shown that improved

agroforestry practices are more productive and profitable compared with conventional

practices in the long run [17, 18, 19].

Despite the promising potentials of agroforestry, its promotion in Nigeria has

only received little or no attention in the country’s agricultural and forestry

development plans. Even though an age long system, agroforestry technologies have

not been fully developed [20, 21] particularly in Northern Nigeria. The low attention

3
given to the technology by the farmers despite all the benefits of the technology is

against apriori expectations and economic reasoning and therefore needs to be

investigated.

One of the reasons given for poor technology adoption is the top down

approach to technology transfer from scientists through extension agents to farmers.

The approach is faulted in its perception of farmers as passive recipients of

technologies [22]. This perception has recently been changed with the introduction of

new concepts of research and development. Many studies have stressed the

importance of farmers’ involvement in technology development and transfer.

Inadequate information on the determinants of farmers’ level of interest in practicing

agroforestry technologies has often limited the chance to predict the level of

preference for agroforestry by farmers in the face of other measures of soil

management practices. In order to address farmers’ problems in respect of their

adoption of agroforestry, the determinants and their level of interest in the promising

technology have to be properly understood. In this regard, this study identified factors

determining level of interest of farmers to practice agroforestry and also predicted the

rate at which the factors explain the variation in farmers’ level of interest in

agroforestry using the logistic distribution of farmers’ response in relation to their

socio-economic characteristics.

METHODOLOGY

This study was conducted in Kazaure and Yankwashi Local Government

Areas of Jigawa State, Nigeria. A double stage random sampling technique was

employed in drawing sample for this study. Two villages were randomly selected in

each local government area. In each of the villages, 40 farmers were randomly

4
selected. Therefore, a total of 160 farmers were sampled for the study. Data were

collected during the 2003 cropping season by admission of structured questionnaire to

the sampled farmers. The information collected include age, farm size, educational

background, output, form of land ownership, experience and household size of the

farmer. The data were analysed using the binary logistic distribution regression

model.

Conceptual Framework and Model Specification

The conceptual framework to this study is based on the new approach to

consumer theory developed by Lancaster [23]. Adoption is assumed to be an activity

in which technologies (singly or in combination) are considered as inputs and output,

a collection of characteristics. Based on the Neo-Classical economic theory, the

farmer is able to compare two alternatives, and on his preference scale using a

preference indifference operator . If then, ≮ . This therefore implies

that if then the farmer either prefers to or is indifferent. Utility

rankings are therefore assumed to rank collections of technology indirectly through

the characteristics that they possess. A given agricultural technology embodies a

number of important characteristics that may influence the adoption decisions of the

farmer. Given the characteristics of the technology, the socio-economic and

demographic characteristics of the farmer may also influence his adoption of the

technology. Hence the farmer’s observed preference for a technology (such as

agroforestry) is a set of complex relationships between comparable technologies and

the farmer’s socio-economic and demographic characteristics.

A Logit distribution model was employed to model the agroforestry adoption

process. Assuming is the discounted benefit from production with agroforestry

5
and is the ‘utility index’ of adopting agroforestry for the i-th farmer; then is a

function of the socio-economic characteristics of the farmer and the perception that he

has on the agroforestry compared with other soil fertility technologies (such as

fertilizer). The farmer’s behaviour towards agroforestry is described by equations (1)

to (3).

= ……………………………………………………………..… ..(1)

If ………………………………………….…….......(2)

If ………………………………………….…….… .(3)

where is the vector of the socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the

farmer and his perceptions of agroforestry compared to fertilizer usage. is the

coefficient of . As the value of the independent variables change, the

magnitude of the index varies over a real number line. The larger the magnitude

of , the higher is the utility the i-th farmer receives from accepting to practice

agroforestry and thus the greater will be (the probability that the i-th farmer

adopts agroforestry). That is the discounted benefit accrued from production with

agroforestry practice will be greater than zero (3) and the observable outcome is that

the farmer is practicing agroforestry. If the utility index which measures the farmer’s

propensity to practice agroforestry should on the other hand lie between and negative

infinity zero (2), then the benefit obtained from production with agroforestry will be

negative or equal to zero and the outcome is that no agroforestry practice will be

observed.

The logical function employed to model the dependent variable is the Logit

distribution model. The Logistic regression is a statistical technique in which the

6
probability of a dichotomous outcome is related to a set of independent variables that

are hypothesized to influence the outcome. The Logit model characterising the

adoption of agroforestry by the farmers is specified as follows:

………………………………….(4)

………………………………….(5)

where

and are unknown parameters to be estimated.

…………………………………..(6)

where

……………………………………………….....(7)

Equation (7) is the distribution function of the logistic (logit) distribution, hence the

name Logit Model. The conditional probability involved is

If y = 1 …………………….....…(8)

If y = 0

1 If ith farmer has interest in agroforestry technologies

y=
0 If otherwise

7
Table 1: Description of Explanatory Variables Used in the Agroforestry Model

Variable Name Description

Age (X1) Respondent’s age (years)

Income (X2) Respondent’s income (N’000)

Experience (X3) Respondent’s years in farming (years)

Household Size (X4) Number of individuals in the household

Education (X5) Respondent’s years in school (years)

Output (X6) Revenue generated from the sale of crops and tree
produce (N’000)
Farm Size (X7) Size of respondent’s farm (ha)

Form of Land Tenancy (X8) Value 1 if the farmer is tenant operated, 0 otherwise

Perception (X9) Index for farmer’s perception toward agroforestry

Extension (X10) Index for extension

Migration (X11) Value 1 if a family member has migrated out for at

least 1 month, 0 otherwise
Livestock (X12) Number of livestock units
Co-operatives (X13) Value 1 if a member of any farmer co-operative, 0
otherwise
Involvement level (X14) Index for farmer’s level of involvement in
agroforestry practices

The X-variables involved in the logistic regression model are defined in Table 1 and

their summary statistics are presented in Table 2. Most of the variables are self

explanatory except for extension (X10) and perception (X9) towards agroforestry. The

index for extension is computed as follows:

Ex = NANT + NAMT + NVEWF + NFVEO ……………….…….(9)

Where

Ex = Extension index

NANT = Number of agroforestry nursery training

8
 NAMT = Number of agroforestry management training

NVEWF = Number of visits of Extension workers to the respondent’s farm

NFVEO = Number of respondent’s visit to extension office

The respondents’ perceptions to each statement of agroforestry were recorded as they

‘Agree’, ‘Disagree’, and ‘Do not know’. This was then converted to an index by

assigning numerical value 1, -1 and 0 for ‘Agree’, ‘Disagree’, and ‘Do not know’

responses respectively for positive statements. For negative statements, the numerical

value of -1, 1 and 0 were assigned for ‘Agree’, ‘Disagree’, and ‘Do not know’

responses respectively. The agroforestry perception index was then calculated as:

Pcept = PP + NP ………………………………………….…..(10)

where

Pcept = Agroforestry perception index

PP = Agroforestry positive perception index =

1. Has economic benefits

2. Reduces soil erosion
3. Improves soil fertility and productivity
4. Increases crop yields
5. Improves livestock productivity

NP = Agroforestry negative perception index =

1. Hinders tillage operations
2. Not needed because fodder, fuel wood and grasses are found abundant in the
forest.
3. Benefits realized from agroforestry are insignificant
4. Reduces area for crop production
5. Harbours birds, insects and pests, thereby causing a reduction in crop yield.

9
The level of involvement of the farmer in agroforestry was measured in terms of the

participation in workshops and other trainings on agroforestry as well as the number

of trees managed by the farmer within the past ten years. A farmer is assigned the

numerical value of the times he attended workshops, seminars or any form of

agroforestry training within the past 10 years, otherwise he scores 0. If within the past

ten years the farmer plants at least a tree, a numerical value of 1 is assigned; when no

tree at all is planted, a numerical value of 0 is assigned and if at least a tree is felled, a

numerical value of -1 is assigned. The index of the level of the farmer’s involvement

in agroforestry practices is therefore computed as:

LI=NAWT + IATM ……………………………………(11)

where

LI = The index of the level of involvement of the farmer in agroforestry

practices

NAWT = Number of agroforestry workshops and/ or training attended.

IATM = Index of agroforestry trees managed

The marginal probability of factors determining farmers’ interest in agroforestry

practices were derived from the Logit model.

………………………….(12)

where

= the derivative of the Logit distribution function

The elasticity of probability of farmers’ interest in agroforestry technologies was

estimated in order to determine the responsiveness of the probability with respect to j

10
the ith factor and this elasticity of probability of farmers’ interest in agroforestry is

defined as the ratio of the percentage change in probability to percentage change in

magnitude of factors influencing farmers’ interest in agroforestry technologies. It is

the marginal effect of on such that

……………………(13)

Table 2: Demographic and Socio-Economic Features of Sampled Farmers

Category Adopters Non –Adopters

Respondents (%) 68 32
Age (years) 42 46
Income Level (N’000) 41 46
Experience (Years) 37.89 36.65
Household Size 10 8
Education (years) 2.84 2.46
Output (N’000) 26.22 28.15
Farm Size (ha) 0.7 0.9
Land Owners (%) 40 27
Perception (% positive) 12 5
Extension 0.82 0.15
Migration 1.29 0.97
Livestock 4.41 4.51
Co-operative membership 1.69 1.23
Level of Involvement 1.12 -0.09

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The model classification table (Table 3) indicates the goodness of fit of the model.

100% of the farmers were correctly classified by the model. The model chi square was

58.657

11
Table 3: Summary of Statistics of the Logit Model Analysis

Overall Number of farmers predicted 100%

Model Chi Square 58.657

- 2 Log Likelihood 0.000

Cox and Snell R Square 0.712

Nagelkerke R Square 1.000

Table 3 shows estimate parameters measuring the goodness of fit of the estimated

Logistic model. The -2 Log Likelihood ratio test (-2LL) show that the estimated

model including a constant and the set of explanatory variable fit the data better

compared with the model containing the constant only. This implies a better

relationship between odds ratio (or the log of odds), probability of interest in the

adoption of agroforestry practice and the explanatory variable included in the model

collectively contribute significantly to the explanation of farmers’ interest in

agroforestry practice although some coefficients were not significant on individual

basis. The R2 values, Model Chi Square and overall percentage of correct predictions

also suggested that the estimated model has an excellent explanation power.

12
Table 4: Logit Model Estimates of Factors Determining Farmer’s Interest in
Agroforestry

Factor Coefficients T-Values Ex ( )

Age (X1) -1.596 (0.883) -1.807 0.203

Income (X2) -0.478 (0.299) -1.599 0.620

Experience (X3) 0.116 (0.0745) 1.557 1.123

Household Size (X4) 0.029 (0.018) 1.611 1.030

Education (X5) -1.389 (0.418)* -2.323 0.249

Output (X6) 1.230 (0.402)* 3.060 3.421

Farm Size (X7) 0.876 (0.557) 1.573 2.402

Form of Land Tenancy (X8) 1.012 (0.623) 1.624 2.572

Perception (X9) 1.479 (0.351)* 4.214 4.391

Extension (X10) 0.541 (0.339) 1.596 1.719

Migration (X11) 0.306 (0.198) 1.545 1.359

Livestock (X12) 1.131 (0.787) 1.437 3.100

Co-operatives (X13) 0.968 (0.611) 1.584 2.634

Involvement level (X14) 1.268 (0.298)* 4.255 2.911

Constant 2.568(0.886)* 2.898 13.045

Figures in parentheses are the standard errors

*Significant at P < 0.05

Table 4 reveals that the age and income of the farmers have negative influence on

the farmers’ interest in agroforestry practice. This might possibly be related to the fact

that older people are generally believed to be more risk averse towards a new

technology [24] and also farmers with high income would possibly prefer investing

their income on other methods of soil fertility management than investing totally on

agroforestry. However, both coefficients were not significant (P>0.10). The education

13
variable (X5) has a significant inverse relationship with the log of odds of the farmers’

interest to practice agroforestry. The value of the X 5 coefficient implies that if the

coefficient is increased by a unit ceteris paribus, then the odds of the farmer having

interest in practising agroforestry will reduce. This could be explained by the fact that

the well educated farmers are likely to out-migrate in search of better employment

opportunities.

The perception of the farmers on agroforestry has a strong influence on the

farmers’ interest in agroforestry. If the perception variable (X 9) is raised by a unit

value while holding other variable constant, the odds of the dependent variable taking

a value of 1 will rise by a factor of more than three and the probability of farmers

developing interest in agroforestry practice will rise to 0.97. This therefore implies

that farmers are very likely to adopt agroforestry if measures that will raise their

perception towards agroforestry are implemented. This is supported by the fact that

most of the farmers interviewed actually have negative perception about agroforestry

reducing crop yield (Table 2). Measures that will increase the farmer’s output will

hence raise the farmer’s interest in agroforestry. A unit increase in the output variable

(X6) will raise the probability of farmer’s interest to 0.81. Measures such as extension

services that make the farmer involved in agroforestry practices (X 14) have the

greatest significant effect on the farmer’s interest in agroforestry (P<0.001). This

therefore shows that farmers will tend to be attached to a technology they have

contributed to its development. Since their resources are taken into consideration in

both the process of technology development and extension, they feel that they have

‘something’ at stake which must not go bad. This helps to create a positive attitude to

both technology and the systems of research and extension. The extension variable

(X10) does not however contribute significantly to the farmers’ interest in agroforestry

14
practices even though it has a positive effect on the log of odds of the farmers’ interest

on agroforestry practice. This might be attributed to the farmers not receiving

necessary information and support for agroforestry as most of the extension workers

are not knowledgeable in agroforestry and are thus not able to deliver the technology

and practices suitable for farmers.

CONCLUSION

The high rate of farmers’ involvement in agroforestry practices is an indication

of the high interest the farmers have in agroforestry practices. It is however evident in

Table 3 that the farmers interest is influenced by their socio-economic and

demographic factors. Due to ignorance, the farmers lack the technical understanding

of applying agroforestry technologies in improving the fertility of the soil. Extension

services did not influence the farmers’ interest in agroforestry because of its

inefficiency in meeting the farmers’ demands. It should therefore be improved to help

in creating awareness in the farming community on the benefits of agroforestry in

promoting soil fertility. This will improve the farmers’ perception on the technology

and thus further increase their level of involvement in agroforestry practices. The

level of involvement of the farmers in agroforestry practices has the highest level

influence on the farmers’ interest to either participate in agroforestry or not. A high

level of farmer participation will help to create a positive attitude towards the

technology. Having participated fully in the technology development and execution,

farmers are more likely to understand the technology better. Adequate farmer

participation is therefore crucial if agroforestry technologies are to be suitable and

acceptable to the farmers as measures of improving the soil fertility.

15
REFERENCE
1. OUCHO, J. O. (1998). The Population Factor in Land Degradation in Africa
Working Paper Series, 28. Environment and Social Policy.

2. SOMDA, J., NIANOGO, A. J., NASSA, A., & SANOV, S. (2002). Soil Fertility
Management and Socio-Economic Factors in Crop-Livestock Systems in Burkina
Faso: A Case Study of Composting Technology. Ecological Economics, 43: 175-
183.

3. VAN DER POL, F., GOGAN, A. C. & DAGBENOMBAKIN, G. (1993).

L’Epuisement des Sols et sa Valeur Economique dans le Département du Mono,
Bénin, Assistance Technique, Royal Tropical Institute (KIT), Amsterdam,
CENAP, Cotonou. In Schlauderer R. (2000). Socio-Economic Conditions for the
Introduction of Agricultural Innovations in Farm Households in Southern Benin.
Adapted Farming in West Africa: Issues, Potentials and Perspectives. (Ed) Graef,
F., Lawrence, P. and Oppen Von M. Verlag Ulrich E. Grauer, Stuttgart, Germany,
pp 123-136

4. SUMBERG, J. E. & ATTA-KRAH, A. N. (1988). The Potential of Alley Farming

in Humid West Africa: A Re-Evaluation. Agroforestry Systems, 6: 163-168.

5. KANG, B. T., VERSTEEG, M. N., OSINAME, O., GICHURU, M. (1991).

Agroforestry in Africa’s Humid Tropics: Three Success Stories. Agroforestry –
Today, 3(2): 4-6.

6. ADEJOBI, A. & P. KOMAWA (2002): Determinants of Manure Use in Crop

Production in Northern Guinea Savanna Zone of Nigeria. Challenges to Organic
Farming and Sustainable Land Use in the Tropics and Sub-Tropics. Deutscher
Tropentag. Witzenhausen October 9 – 11, 2002.

7. HARRISON, P. (1990). Sustainable Growth in African Agriculture in the Long-

Term Perspective Study of Sub-Saharan Africa Economic and Sectoral Policy
Issues, the World Bank, Washington Dc.

8. YARO, D. R., IWAFOR, E. N. N., CHUDE V. O. & TARFA B. D. (1997). Use of

Organic Manure and Inorganic Fertilizer in Maize Production: a Field Evaluation
Strategy. Proceedings of a Regional Workshop 21-25 April, 1997, IITA-
COTONOU, Benin Republic, ed B. Badu-Apraku, M. A. B. Fakorode, M.
Owedrago and F. M. Quin, Pp 231-239.

9. KANG, B. T. & AKININIFESI F. K. (2000). Agroforestry as Alternative Land-

Use Production System for the Tropics. National Resource Forum, 2(4):137-151.

10. CAVENESS, F. A. &1 KURTZ W. B. (1993). ‘Agroforestry Adoption and Risk

perception by farmers in Senegal’. Agroforestry System, 2:11-25.

11. YOUNG, A. (1997). The Effectives of Contour Hedgerows for Soil and Water
Conservation. Agroforestry Forum, 8 (4):2-4.

16
12. FUJISAKA, S. (1997). Sense and Nonsense: Contour Hedgerows for Soil
Conservation. Agroforestry Forum, 8 (4): 8-10.

13. ROOSE, E. & NDAYIZIGIYE, F. (1997). Agroforestry, water and soil fertility
Managements to fight Erosion in Tropical Mountains of Rwanda. Soil technology
11:109-119.

14. MCDONALD, M.A., STEVEN P.A., HEALEY, J. R., & DAVIS PRASAD P. V.
(1997) Maintenance of Soil fertility on Steep Lands in the Blue Mountains of
Jamaica: the Role of Contour Hedgerows. Agroforestry Forum, 8(4): 21 – 24.

15. BENGE, M. D. (1987). Multipurpose Use of Contour Hedgerows in the Highland

Regions. World Animal Review, 65:31-39.

16. YOHANNA, M. (2004). Agroforestry Practices in Zaria Area of Kaduna State. An

unpublished undergraduate project work, Geography Department, Ahmadu Bello
University, Samaru-Zaria, Nigeria.

17. VONMAYDELL, H. J., (1991). Agroforestry for Tropical Rain Forests.

Agroforestry Sytems, 13: 259-267.

18. SANCHEZ, P. A., BURESH, R. J., & LEAKEY R. R. B. (1997). Trees, Soils and
Food Security. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series
B-Biologic 352 (1356): 949-960.

19. KURTZ, W. B., THURMAN, S. E., MONSON M. J. AND GARRETT H. E

(1991). The Use of Agroforestry to Control Erosion: Financial Aspects. Forestry
Chronicle, 67: 254-257.

20. MANDE, M. (2003). Agroforestry: A Tool for Accelerated Socio-Economic

Improvement of Rural Livelihood in Nigeria. Department of Forest Resource
Management, Faculty of Agriculture and forestry, University of Ibadan.

21. Merem, E. (2005). The Agroforesry System of West Africa: The Case of Nigeria.
AFTA Conference Proceedings, Pp 1-10.

22. WHYTE, W. F. (1981). Participatory Approaches to Agricultural Research and

Development: A State of the Art Paper. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

23. LANCASTER, K. J. (1966). New approach to Consumer Theory. Journal of

Policy Economics, 74: 132 – 157.

24. NEUPANE, R. P., SHARMA, K. R., THAPA, G. B. (2002). Adoption of

Agroforestry in the Hills of Nepal: A Logistic Regression Analysis. Agricultural
Systems, 72: 177 – 196.

17