Faman Journal, Vol. 24, No.

1, 2024

PRODUCTION EFFICIENCY OF MALE AND FEMALE HEADED ARABLE CROP

FARM HOUSEHOLDS IN ABIA STATE, NIGERIA

Onyebinama, I.C., Nwaru, J.C., Simonyan, J.B. and Onyebinama, U.A.U.

Department of Agricultural Economics, Michael Okpara University of Agriculture,

Umudike. P.M.B. 7267, Umuahia
Correspondent’s email: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
This study on the production efficiency of male and female headed arable crop farm households
was carried out in Abia State. Eighty households were sampled (40 male and 40 female headed
households). Data were collected through cost route using a structured questionnaire. Data were
analyzed using frequency distribution, means, percentages and stochastic production frontier
function. The results showed that labour (0.1330) and farm size (0.1965) were positively related
while farm tools (0.0381) were negatively related to the output of the female headed households.
For the male headed households, farm tools (0.2263) was negatively related while farm
size(0.0331) and planting materials (0.5954) were positively related to the output of the male
headed households. The female headed households were technically (mean of 0.96), economically
(mean of 0.83) and allocatively (mean of 0.89) more efficient than the male headed households
with technical, economic and allocative efficiency means of 0.70, 0.36 and 0.53 respectively. The
study concluded that the female headed households were technically, allocatively and
economically more efficient than the male headed households. The study recommended that the
extension service and private entrepreneurs should provide out of school training and skill
acquisition opportunities in farm management (with emphasis on resource use and allocation) for
farm households.
Key Words: Subsistence, production efficiency, households
INTRODUCTION
According to Collins Dictionary, 2021, Arable Crop Farming involves systematic use of land to
grow mainly annual crops such as grain crops, pulse crops, oil seed crops, forage crops, fibre crops,
root and tuber crops, Nwandu, (2022) reported that Arable crop farming can be on a large or a
small- scale, differentiated by the variation in the amount and type of labour utilized, capital
invested or size of land cultivated.
In Abia State, Nigeria, agricultural production is largely subsistence oriented, characterized by
numerous farmers cultivating several small, scattered and fragmented plots of land using simple
hand tools and implements such as hoes and machetes and based on traditional practices such as
bush burning. In subsistence agriculture, the household is the unit of decision making and the
head of the household is the decision taker, the entrepreneur and the manager of not only the farm
but also the other economic activities of the household. The household head also contributes to the
labour force on the farm. In Nigeria, the number of households engaged in agricultural production
is higher in rural areas (78%) and lower in urban areas (22%) (Gbemisola, et al., 2013). According
to FAO, (2022), 80% of the rural households are involved in agriculture while more than 40% of
the urban households are involved in agriculture. This suggests that most rural households are

30
 Faman Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2024

subsistence farm households, headed by either men or women. There are indications that 60% of
the male headed rural farm households are involved in agriculture compared to 40% of the female
headed rural farm households (Gbemisola et al., 2013). Over 70% of Nigerians are engaged in
agricultural production mainly at the subsistence level (FAO, 2024). These subsistence farm
households produce the bulk of the output of Nigerian agriculture. Most of these rural farm
households are resource poor as the rural areas of Nigeria face a myriad of constraints including
poverty and food insecurity (Ayinde, 2021). Consequently, land, labour, capital and managerial
resources are inefficiently allocated leading to a decrease in productivity and output (Okuneye,
2007). Efficient allocation and use of resources is a fundamental challenge in small holder
agriculture in Nigeria (Maurice et al., 2015).
The Worldometer (2022) estimate of Nigeria’s population in 2024 is about 229 million. About 113
million or 49.4% are women. It is estimated that about 52% of smallholder farmers are women
(Amaonwu, 2024). For the rural female headed households, about 70% are primarily engaged in
agriculture (Lateef et al., 2021) as smallholder farmers and food processors.
Given that agriculture is the primary economic activity in Nigeria involving men and women
(Gbemisola, et al., 2013) and the challenge of efficient allocation and use of resources, the
objective of this study is to determine if male headed rural farm households are allocatively,
technically and economically more efficient than female headed rural farm households in Abia
State.
METHODOLOGY
The study was carried out in Abia State, Nigeria. Abia State lies between Longitudes 7o 30I E of
the Greenwich Meridian and Latitudes 5o 25I N of the Equator with a projected population of about
4 million and with a total land area is 6,320 km2 (public finance database (PFD), 2024). The State
is located at an elevation of 125.79m above sea level and bounded by Anambra, Enugu and Ebonyi
states in the North and North East, Imo state in the West, Cross River and Akwa Ibom states in the
East and South East and Rivers State in the south. The Southern part of the state is riverine.
Abia State is in a humid zone with a humidity of 75.72% and has a tropical rainforest climate with
a yearly temperature range of 28.68oC. It has 264.44 rainy days annually and a precipitation of
274.44millimeters (Weather and Climate, 2024).
Two (2) Agricultural Zones were randomly selected from the three Agricultural Zones in Abia
State. These Zones were Ohafia and Umuahia Agricultural Zones. Two (2) LGAs were randomly
selected from each of the selected Agricultural zones. From the list of autonomous communities
in each LGA, one autonomous community was randomly selected giving a sample of four
autonomous communities. From each selected autonomous community, one village was randomly
selected. From each selected village, 10 female headed households were purposively selected.
Consequently, 10 male headed households were also purposively selected from each selected
village to give a sample size of 40 female headed households and 40 male headed households and
a total sample size of 80 arable crop farm households. Data were collected through cost route.
The Cobb-Douglas stochastic production frontier of the maximum likelihood estimate was used to
estimate the farm level technical and economic efficiencies. The Cobb-Douglas stochastic
production frontier used was adapted from Simonyan, et al., (2011) and Ndukwu, et al., (2010)
and is explicitly specified as follows;
lnYi = bo + b1lnX1 + b2lnX2 + b3lnX3 + b4lnX4+ b5lnX5 + b6lnX6 + Vi- Ui…1.0

31
 Faman Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2024

Where:
Yi = output (in grain equivalent) of the ith headed food crop household (male, female, both)
X1 = planting materials in kg
X2 = fertilizer in kg
X3 = agrochemicals in litres
X4 = farm size in ha
X5 = labour in mandays
X6 = depreciated value of farm tools in naira
bo = intercept
b1–b6 = estimated coefficients
Vi = symmetric error that accounts for random variations in output due to factors beyond the
control of the households.
Ui = a non negative random variable representing inefficiency.
Economic efficiency was estimated using the stochastic frontier cost function specified as follows:
In C1,2,3 = C0 + C1lnE1 + C2lnE2 + C3lnE3 + C4lnE4 + C5lnE5 + C6lnE6 +C7lnY7+ Vi +Ui …2.0

C1,2,3 = total cost of production for the male, female and whole households
E1 = Cost of planting materials in ₦/ kg
E2 = Cost of fertilizer in ₦/kg
E3 = Cost of agrochemicals ₦/litre
E4 = Rent on land in naira
E5 = Cost of labour in ₦/manday
E6 = Capital inputs (depreciated value of farm tools) in naira
Y7 = crop yield in grain equivalent
Co = intercept
C1–C7 = coefficients to be estimated
Vi = symetric error that accounts for random variations in output due to factors beyond the
control of the households.
Ui = a non negative random variable representing inefficiency.
According to Ogundari and Ojo, (2007) and Oladeebo, (2012), the farm specific technical
efficiency is defined in terms of the ratio of the observed output (Yi) of the farm to the
corresponding frontier potential output (Yi*) using the available technology. The equation is
outlined as;
𝑓 (𝑋𝑖,𝛽)exp (𝑉𝑖−𝑈𝑖)
TEi = = = exp (-Ui) … 3.0
𝑓 (𝑋𝑖,𝛽)exp (𝑉𝑖)

32
 Faman Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2024

Where:

𝑓 (𝑋𝑖, 𝛽)exp (𝑉𝑖 − 𝑈𝑖) = observed output of the farm

𝑓 (𝑋𝑖, 𝛽)exp (𝑉𝑖) = potential output from the frontier function

According to Ogundari and Ojo, (2007), the farm specific economic efficiency is defined as the
ratio of the minimum observed total production cost (C*) to the actual total production cost (C).
The equation is as follows;
𝐶𝑖
𝐸(𝑢𝑖=0,𝑌𝑖,𝑃𝑖)
EE = C*/C =
𝐶𝑖 =∑ (exp. (Ui)/ε) … 4.0
𝐸( ,𝑌𝑖,𝑃𝑖)
𝑢𝑖
Where C* = production cost and C= actual cost.
Thus, a measure of farm specific allocative efficiency is gotten from technical and economic
estimates as AE = EE/TE. TE, AE and EE take the value between 0 and 1.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Production Function of the Male and Female Headed Households
The result of the production function of the male and female headed households is presented in
Table 1.
Table 1: Estimated stochastic production frontier function for the male and female headed
households

Production factors Parameters Male Female

Intercept b0 9.6007 4.4565
(5.9213)*** (4.5155)***
Planting materials (X1) b1 0.5954 0.2968
(2.4151)** (0.5577)
Fertilizer (X2) b2 -0.0452 0.4155
(-0.4289) (0.5364)
Agrochemical (X3) b3 0.1536 0.3170
(0.7538) (0.6056)
Farm size (X4) b4 0.0331 0.1965
(3.5306)** (2.3496)*
Labour (X5) b5 -0.1148 0.1330
(-1.2089) (2.5827)**
Capital inputs(Value of Farm tools) (X6) b6 -0.2263 -0.0381
(-2.3922)* (-5.2536)***
Sigma- 0.0434 0.0736
squared δ2 (2.6152)** (2.2858)*
Gamma  0.7106 0.0179
(13.9326)*** (2.9179)**
Significant at ***=1%, **=5%,*=10%
The maximum likelihood estimates (MLE) of the parameters of the stochastic production frontier
were obtained using the Cobb-Douglas stochastic frontier and is presented in Table 1.

The results showed that the sigma-squared for the male and female headed household were
significant at 5% and 10% respectively. The gamma values were 0.71 and 0.02 at 1% and 5%

33
 Faman Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2024

significance for male and female headed households respectively. This indicated that 71% of the
variation in arable crop production for the male headed households was explained by the
independent variables while 2% of the variation in arable crop production for the female headed
households was explained by the independent variables. Planting materials, farm size, value of
farm tools were significant determinants of production for the male headed households while farm
size, labour and value of farm tools were significant determinants of production for the female
headed households.

Planting material was positively related to output for the male headed household. This implies that
the higher the level of use of planting materials, the higher the output of the male headed
household. This conforms to a priori expectation and also conforms to the findings of Nwandu,
(2022), who reported that planting material was positively related to productivity of - the male
farmers. The quantity of output is a direct function of the level of use of planting materials. The
scale of production is a function of the level use of inputs. This suggests that the higher the level
of use of planting material, the higher the scale of production. Ultimately the higher the scale of
production, the higher the output.

Farm size was positively related to the output of the male and female headed households. This
indicates that output increased as farm size increased. This conforms to a priori expectation and
is supported by the studies of Ibekwe et al., (2010); Ibekwe (2010); Osondu et al., (2015) and
Mafimisebi (2008). According to these reports, the larger the farm size the greater the output of
the households, all things being equal. A large farm size will probably confer scale economies on
the farm business and lead to a cost reduction and invariably an increase in output. Due to the
high population density in the study area, land is a critical constraint to agricultural production and
as such output will most likely increase as the farm size increased. The level of use of inputs (scale
of production) is a function of farm size. The scale of production will probably increase as farm
size increased. Given that output is a function of the scale of production, an increase in farm size
will therefore lead to an increase in output.

Labour use was positively related to output of the female headed household indicating that output
increased as labour use increased. Agricultural production in the study area is characteristically
labour intensive from land clearing to harvest. Women provide the labour for farm activities such
as planting, weeding, fertilizer application and harvesting for most of the crops on the farm.
Consequently, the output of the female headed household will increase as labour use increased. A
positive relationship between labour use and output was reported by Oladeebo and Fajuyigbe,
(2007); Simonyan et al., (2011) and Nwandu, (2022), that labour was positively related to the
productivity of the female farmers. .

The value of farm tools was negatively related to the output of the male and female headed
households. This inverse relationship indicated that output increased as the value of farm tools
decreased. This is contrary to a priori expectation. A decrease in the value of farm tools is a using-
up of the farm tools in production activities. As farm tools are used up (loose value or become less
useful) the marginal product will decrease and probably adversely affect total output.

Cost Function of the Male and Female Headed Households

The result of the cost function of the male and female headed households is presented in table 2.

34
 Faman Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2024

Table 2: Estimated stochastic cost function for the male and female headed households
Cost factors Parameters Male Female
Intercept c0 9.7080 7.1251
(9.6045)*** (7.4379)***
Cost of planting material (E1) c1 -0.2774 -0.4410
(-0.8024) (-4.8087)***
Cost of fertilizer (E2) c2 0.2207 0.04409
(1.3654) (0.4160)
Cost of agrochemical (E3) c3 -0.4961 -0.3193
(-1.2925) (-2.1434)*
Rent on land (E4) c4 -0.4120 -0.0096
(-2.4754)* (-4.5052)***
Cost of labour (E5) c5 -0.3217 -0.0577
(-2.9614)** (-1.2391)
Farm tools (E6) c6 -0.5226 -0.0102
(-1.8564)* (-0.2037)
Crop yield (Y7) c7 0.0003 0.0110
(0.1600) (0.1800)
Gamma  0.9999 0.9658
(9510)*** (17.5123)***
2
Sigma-square δ 1.5719 0.2145
(2.8145)** (6.5367)***
Significant at ***=1%, **=5%,*=10%
The gamma values in Table 2 showed that about 100% and 97% of the variation in the total cost
of production for the male and female headed households respectively was explained by the
independent variables in the model. The significant gamma values for the male headed households
(0.9999) and the female headed households (0.9658) are indicators of the presence of cost
inefficiency in arable crop production in the study area. This implies that about 100% and 97% of
the variation in the total production cost of the male headed and female headed households
respectively were due to differences in the cost inefficiencies of the respective households. Similar
result has been reported by Ogundari and Ojo (2007) in a study on the technical, allocative and
economic efficiency of cassava farmers in Osun State, Nigeria. These results suggest that in
general, the farmers were largely inefficient in producing a given level of output at minimum cost
and at a given level of technology. For the male headed households, rent on land, cost of labour
and the value of farm tools were the significant determinants of the farmers production cost. For
the female headed households, the cost of planting materials, cost of agrochemicals and rent on
land were the significant determinants of production cost. All the significant variables for the male
and female headed households were negatively related to production cost. These relationships
conform to a priori expectations. As the rent on land, cost of labour and the depreciated value of
farm tools for male headed households, cost of agrochemical, cost of planting materials and rent
on land for female headed households decreased, the cost of production increased. A decrease in
the cost of inputs will dispose the households to purchase and use more of the inputs whose costs
have decreased even beyond optimal levels. The use of more of the inputs whose costs have
decreased will lead to an increase in the total cost of production. The gamma values for the male
and female headed households were statistically significant at one percent for the male and female
headed households respectively.
35
 Faman Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2024

Frequency Distribution of the Technical Efficiency Levels of the Male and Female Headed
Households

The frequency distribution of respondents according to technical efficiency level is presented in

Table 3.

Table 3: Frequency distribution of the male and female headed households according to
technical efficiency indices

Male Female
Efficiency level Frequency % Frequency %
0.40-0.50 1 2.50 0 0.00
0.51-0.61 10 25.00 0 0.00
0.62-0.72 10 25.00 0 0.00
0.73-0.83 14 35.00 1 2.50
0.84-0.94 5 12.50 8 20.00
0.95-1.05 0 0.00 31 77.50
Total 40 100 40 100
Mean efficiency 0.7035 0.9607
Minimum efficiency 0.4548 0.8118
Maximum efficiency 0.9355 1.0000
Households Mean Mean Standard Z-test
difference error mean
Male headed 0.70 -0.25 0.02 -12.804***
Female headed 0.96
***= significant at 1%
The result of the technical efficiency level distribution of the male and female headed arable crop
households in Table 3 showed a minimum technical efficiency level of 0.4548 and a maximum
technical efficiency level of 0.9355 for the male headed households and a minimum technical
efficiency level of 0.8118 and a maximum technical efficiency level of 1.0000 for the female
headed households with a mean technical efficiency level of 0.7035 and 0.9607 for the male and
female headed households respectively. The difference between the mean technical efficiency of
both households was statistically significant. This means that the female headed arable crop
households were on the average technically more efficient than the male headed arable crop
households. This conforms to the findings of Nwaru, (2004), Oladeebo and Fajuyigbe, (2007) and
Simonyan, et al., (2011) who reported that female farmers had higher estimates of farm technical
efficiency levels than the male farmers.
For the male headed households to achieve the technical efficiency level of the female headed
households, the male headed households would have to realize a cost saving of 24.8%. Also, in
the result, the frequency distribution of technical efficiency level indicates that most of the male
headed households (about 53%) had a technical efficiency level of at most 0.72 while all female
headed households (100%) had a technical efficiency level of at least 0.73.

36
 Faman Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2024

Frequency Distribution of the Allocative Efficiency Levels of the Male and Female Headed
Households

The frequency distribution of respondents according to allocative efficiency level is presented in

Table 4.

Table 4: Frequency Distribution of the Male and Female Headed Households According to
Allocative Efficiency Indices
Male Female
Efficiency level Frequency % Frequency %
0.31-0.41 10 25.00 0 0.00
0.42-0.52 13 32.50 0 0.00
0.53-0.63 8 20.00 0 0.00
0.64-0.74 3 7.50 1 2.50
0.75-0.85 4 10.00 8 20.00
0.86-0.96 2 5.00 31 77.50
Total 40 100 40 100
Mean efficiency 0.531 0.894
Minimum efficiency 0.31 0.691
Maximum efficiency 0.91 0.977
Households Mean Mean Standard error Z-test
difference mean
Male headed 0.53 -0.36 0.029 -12.370***
Female headed 0.89

The result of the allocative efficiency distribution of the male and female headed households is
shown in Table 4. The result showed that the male headed households had a minimum allocative
efficiency of 0.31 and a maximum allocative efficiency of 0.91 with a mean allocative efficiency
of 0.53 while the female headed households had a minimum allocative efficiency of 0.69, a
maximum allocative efficiency of 0.97 with a mean allocative efficiency of 0.89. The mean
difference was statistically significant at 1%. These results indicated that the female headed
households were allocatively more efficient than the male headed households. This means that the
female headed households were able to allocate their resources in such a way as to maximize their
output. That is, the female headed households were able to combine their resources at minimum
cost to produce a given level of output. For the male headed households to be allocatively efficient
in using their resources like the female headed households, they need to obtain a cost saving of
42%. Also, the result showed that in relation to individual allocative efficiencies, most of the male
headed households (about 78%) had an efficiency level of at most 0.63 while all the female headed
households (100%) had an efficiency level of at least 0.64.
Frequency Distribution of the Economic Efficiency Levels of the Male and Female Headed
Households
Frequency distribution of respondents according to economic efficiency level is presented in Table
5.

37
 Faman Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2024

Table 5: Frequency distribution of the male and female headed households according to
economic efficiency indices
Male Female
Efficiency level Frequency % Frequency %
0.10-0.30 15 37.50 0 0.00
0.31-0.51 10 25.00 1 2.50
0.52-0.72 4 10.00 7 17.50
0.73-0.93 7 17.50 27 67.50
0.94-1.04 4 10.00 5 12.50
Total 40 100 40 100
Mean efficiency 0.3593 0.8277
Minimum efficiency 0.2145 0.4879
Maximum efficiency 0.9991 0.9598
Households Mean Mean Standard error Z-test
difference mean
Male headed 0.36 -0.47 0.05 -8.794***
Female headed 0.83
***=significant at 1%
The result of the economic efficiency distribution for the male and female headed arable crop
households showed that the male headed households had a minimum economic efficiency level of
0.2145 and a maximum economic efficiency level of 0.9991 with a mean economic efficiency
level of 0.3593 while the female headed households had a minimum economic efficiency level of
0.4879 and a maximum economic efficiency level of 0.9598 with a mean economic efficiency
level of 0.8277. The difference between the mean economic efficiency for both households was
statistically significant indicating that the female headed households were economically more
efficient than the male headed households. For the male headed households to be economically
efficient like their female counterparts, they will have to achieve a cost saving of 64%. In relation
to individual economic efficiencies, most of the male headed households (about 63%) had an
economic efficiency level of at most 0.51 while most of the female headed households (80%) had
an economic efficiency level of at least 0.73.

The result indicated that the female headed households were largely more efficient in producing a
given level of output at minimum cost and at a given level of technology than the male headed
households.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The study concluded that the female headed households were technically, allocatively and
economically more efficient than the male headed households. Household size and farm size were
significant and positive determinants while farming experience was a significant and negative
determinant of the output of female headed households. For male headed households, the age of
the household head was a negative and significant determinant while farm size and value of farm
tools were positive and significant determinants of output.

Arable crop production in the study area was characterized by cost inefficiencies. The extension
service should provide training and skill acquisition opportunities for farmers in resource use and

38
 Faman Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2024

allocation and especially for male headed households. Farmers need improved access to land. This
may require a review of the land tenure system in the study area.

REFERENCES

Amaonwu, U. (2024). Nigerian Women in Agriculture: A Catalyst for Food Security, Economic
Growth and Family Well-being. The Cable. www.thecable.ng
Aynide, I.A. (2021). Rural Infrastructure and the Challenge of Food Security in Nigeria. Central
Bank of Nigeria, Economic and Financial Review, 59(4).
Collins Dictionary, (2021). http://www.collinsdictionay.com. Retrieved June, 2021
F.A.O. (2022). Food and Agriculture Organization. Nigeria General Household Survey 2018-
2019.
F.A.O. (2024). Food and Agriculture Organization. Nigeria Agriculture at a Glance.
Gbemisola, O., Marku, G. and Utah, A. (2013). Gender Dimensions in Nigerian Agriculture.
A Policy Brief. Issue 6.
Ibekwe, U.C. (2010). Determinants of Income among Farm Households in Orlu Agricultural Zone
of Imo State, Nigeria. Report and Opinion, 2(8): 32-35.
Ibekwe, U.C.; C.C., Eze; C.S., Onyemauwa; A. Henri Ukoha; O.C., Korie andNwaiwu, I.U.
(2010). Determinants of Farm and Off-farm Income among Farm Households in SouthEast
Nigeria. Academia Arena, 2 (10): 58-61.
Lateef, O.B., Lloyd, J.S.B., Gideon, D.A and Abiodun, A.O. (2021). Gender Decomposition in
Smallholder Agricultural Performance in Rural Nigeria. Scientific African, 13.
Mafimisebi, T.E. (2008). Determinants and Uses of Farm Income from the Cassava Enterprise in
Ondo State Nigeria. Journal of Human Ecology, 24(2):125-130.
Maurice, D. C., Adamu, Y. and Joseph, M. (2015). Analysis of Cost Efficiency in Food Crop
Production among Small Scale Farmers in Adamawa State, Nigeria. Global Journal of
Agricultural Science, 14:17-25.
Ndukwu, P.C., Nwaru, J.C. and Okoye, B.C. (2010). Gender and Relative Economic Efficiency
in Sweet Potato Farms of Imo State, Nigeria. A Stochastic Frontier Approach. Nigeria
Agricultural Journal, 41(1):70-75.
Nwandu, P.I. (2022). Gender Analysis of Rural Small-Scale Arable Crop Farming in Delta State.
Nigeria. Nigeria Journal of Agriculture and Agricultural Technology. 2(2):12-20
Nwaru, J.C. (2004). Rural Credit Markets and Resource Use in Arable Crop Production in Imo
State, Nigeria. Ph.D Dissertation, Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike,
Nigeria.

39
 Faman Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2024

Ogundari, K. and Ojo, S. O. (2007). An Examination of Technical, Economic and Allocative

Efficiency of Small Farms: The Case Study of Cassava Farmers in Osun State of Nigeria.
Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 13:185-195.
Okuneye, D. A. (2007). Efficiency among Nigerian Household and Cooperative Group Farms. A
Comparative Analysis. Journal of Agriculture Economics, 35(2):253-275.
Oladeebo, J.O. (2012). Technical Efficiency and Rural Poverty among Farmers in Nigeria: A
Gender Perspective. Global Journal of Science Frontier Research Agriculture and
Veterinary Sciences, 12(8):1-8.
Oladeebo, J.O. and Fajuyigbe, A.A. (2007). Technical Efficiency of Men and Women Upland
Rice Farmers in Osun State, Nigeria. Journal of Human Ecology, 22(2):93-100.
Osondu, C.K., Obike, K.C. and Ogbonna, S.I. (2015) Savings, Income and Investment Patterns
and its Determinants among Smallholder Arable Crop Farmers in Umuahia Capital
Territory, Abia State Nigeria. European Journal of Business and Innovation Research,
3(1): 5151-70.
P.D.F., (2024). Public Finance Database. Nigerian Governors Forum.
Simonyan, J. B., Umoren, B. D. and Okoye, B.C. (2011). Gender differential in Technical
Efficiency among Maize Farmers in Essien Udim Local Government Area, Akwa Ibom,
Nigeria. International Journal of Economics and Management Sciences, 1(2):17-23.
Weather and Climate, (2024). The Global Historical Weather and Climate Data.
Weatherandclimate.com>nigeria>abia
Worldometer, (2022). World Population Prospects: The 2022 Revision. www.worldometer.info.

40