8/2/2019 nssppn22_0

1/5

The majority of Nigerias smallholder farmers are often too poor to employ modern tools, such astractors and plows, even with substantial government support. In this respect, an agriculturalmechanization policy would need effective targeting with regard to particular farming activities and

types of farmers for which different forms of mechanization efforts could be directed. Key knowledgegaps for such targeting in Nigeria include the important roles of farm power1 in comparison with otherimproved agricultural inputs, such as improved seeds and fertilizer, and the prospects for adoptingdifferent forms of mechanization, including the use of improved hand tools.

Background

Agricultural mechanization embraces the use oftools, implements, and machines for a wide rangeof farm operations from land preparation toplanting, harvesting, on-farm processing, storage,and marketing of products. Sources of farm powerinclude hand tools, draft animals, andmechanically-powered technologies (Rijk, 1999).

Agricultural mechanization often follows variousstages, starting from the use of mechanical powerfor power-intensive operations that require littlecontrol (such as milling, threshing, water pumping,or land preparation, followed by control-intensiveoperations (such as harvesting, weeding, andadapting farming systems and cropping patterns) toincreased use of mechanically poweredtechnologies, and finally to automation ofproduction.

Nigeria is still at the early stage of agriculturalmechanization; even the mechanization of powerintensive operations has been slow. A significantlyhigher proportion of farming area is still cultivatedby hand tools in Nigeria and West Africa comparedto other developing countries (Figure 1). The 2004National Living Standard Survey (NLSS) indicatesthat the use of farm animals is also low: only about5 percent of farming households in Nigeria arelikely to be using draft animals.

________________________1Power available for farming from all sources including manual

labor, tractor, draft animals and hand tools.

Figure 1: Percentage of area cultivated by different powersources in 1997-99 and 2030 (estimated) by regions

Source: Bishop-Sambrook (2001) based on FAO (2001), three-yearaverage 19971999 (West Africa); Durham (1980) (Nigeria); FAO(2003) (All others)Note: The current figure for the entire Nigerian region is believed to beclose to the figure of northern Nigeria around 1980. The use of draftanimals and tractors is less common in southern Nigeria, but theshares of these are assumed to have increased slightly since 1980.Due to rounding, not all percentages add up to 100 percent.

1525

10

20

15

30

25

40

25

35

45

65

50

54

85

70

86

15 25

15

20

15

35

25

40

20

30

30

25

32

21

11

22

6

70 50

75

60

70

35

50

20

55

35

25

10

17

25

4

8

9

(2030)Latin America / the Caribbean (97-99)

(2030)

Near East / North Africa (97-99)

(2030)

South Asia (97-99)

(2030)

East Asia (97-99)

(2030)

Developing countries (97-99)

(2030)

Sub-Sahara Africa (97-99)

Eastern Africa (97-99)

Southern Africa (97-99)

Central Africa (97-99)

West Africa (97-99)

Northern Nigeria (1980)

Hand tool Draft Animal Tractor

Agricultural Mechanization and the Smallholder Farmers in Nigeria

NIGERIA STRATEGY SUPPORT PROGRAM Policy Note No.

Hiroyuki Takeshima and Sheu Salau

8/2/2019 nssppn22_0

2/5

Owning and renting a plow is not common amongfarming households, and access to a tractor is evenrarer. Furthermore, the common practice of mixedcropping in Nigeria, where each crop is planted innarrow spaces, does not allow economies of scalefrom large-sized modern tools. Therefore, Nigeriaand the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) are

expected to continue to rely more on hand tools forthe foreseeable future for cultivation. The use ofhand tools for land cultivation is still predominant inNigeria because draft animals and tractors requireresources that many Nigerian farmers do not haveeasy access to (Table 1). The minimum land areaneeded to make the use of draft animals (5 ha) andtractors (50 ha) economically viable is too large for

an average Nigerian farm household with smallerand fragmented landholdings (which account for 80percent of total landholdings in Nigeria). For theseland constrained farmers, improved hand tools areoften used to increase per unit yield to reduceproduction costs. In contrast, tractors, draft animalsand plows (referred to as modern tools as these

are non-traditional tools for a majority of Nigerianfarmers) tend to be used by only a small number ofland abundant farmers to expand cultivable areaswith the same labor force. The need for agriculturalmechanization in Nigeria must therefore beassessed with a deeper understanding of thesmallholder farmers farming activities and whatvalues farm power generates for them.

Table 1: Different levels of agricultural mechanization and associated resource requirements and constraints (modified fromFAO (2006))

Hand tools Draft animals (intermediate tools) Tractors

Major

characteristics Costs for acquisition /

maintenance of toolsLow Medium High

Cultivated area per farmhousehold

a

Low (1 ha) Medium (5 ha) High (50 ha)

Potential constraints

Rising ruralwage

Aging offarmers

Animal diseases

Limited tradition of using draft animal power

High likelihood of theft

Lack of plots of suitable sizes

Lack of reasonable access to fie

Unsuitable shape of fields

Insufficient distances betweenfields

Required resources

Labor,manufacturersand suitable

goods Socioculturaltraditions ofusing thetechnology

Materials:suitable animals, feed/pasture,implements and spare parts, timber foryokes

Services: veterinary services,artisans/blacksmiths, extension services fortraining, harness makers , Socioculturaltraditions of using the technology

Skills: animal husbandry skills

Materials: appropriate tractors,machines and implements,fuel/lubricants, implements for

weeding and harvestingServices: repair and maintenancservices, supply of spare parts,financial services

Skills: trained operators

aInferred from the calculations in Durham (1980)

The Role of Farm Power in Nigeria

Farming activities generate value by using farmpower, such as labor, draft animals or mechanicalpower. Pre-harvesting farm activities generally include(1) obtaining space for cultivation, (2) improving soil

quality of the cultivated area, and (3) planting seed(Table 2). Harvesting and marketing activities can becategorized into (1) harvesting, (2) value-addition withthe physical transformation of products, and (3) value-addition without the physical transformation ofproducts (Table 2).

Nigerias farming land commonly consists of bush andgrass fallow. Farmers obtain space by chopping,slashing, and burning bush or grasses. After obtainingthe space, farmers improve the soil quality of the areaby either changing the form of soil (tillage andharrowing for grains, ridging for cassava, andmounding for yam) primarily with hoes, or changingthe material composition of soils such as addingfertilizer, manure, and/or water, and removing pestsand weeds.

8/2/2019 nssppn22_0

3/5

Table 2: Modern tools that may replace traditional tools in pre- and post-harvesting activities

Pre-harvesting OperationsTools

Traditional Modern

Obtain physical space for cultivationLand clearing

Chopping andde-stumping

Cutlass and machete

Land development

Hoe, spade, basket, and

wheelbarrow

Tractor & blades (cutting blad

piling blade, etc)

Improvesoilquality

By forms of soil Land preparation

Tillage Hoe Plow

Harrowing Hoe Harrow

Hilling, ridging,mound making

HoeTractor/animal attachmentridger

By adding/removingarious

components

Nutrient Soil amendmentHand broadcasting andcutlass

Motor knapsack sprayers

ater Irrigation Water can Irrigation pump

Pest Remove pest by chemicals Hand sprayer Motor knapsack sprayers

eed Weeding Hoe and cutlass Weeder

Plant seed, seed stickSeed andseed stick

SowingHand broadcasting andcutlass

Seed planter andCultivators

Harvesting and Post-harvesting

Harvesting Harvesting

Sickles, scythe, cutlass,

and lifter (cassava) Reaper and tractor

Value-additionwith physicaltransformation ofmaterials

Separate edibleparts from others

Threshing and, winnowing Thumping by draft animals Tractor and threshing machin

Dehulling Mortar, pestle Huller

Peeling Kitchen knives, water Peeling machine

Extraction (oil) Oil pressing machine

Preservation andstorage

Drying and storage Mats and racks Artificial drier

Attract demandfrom consumers

Milling, grating, grinding, andpounding

Traditional grater, mortar,and pestle

Grater andmilling machine

Various (soaking, boiling, roasting,pressing, steaming, fryingfermentation)

Sacks, fuel woods, ironpan, earthen pots, water,fryer, stones or tied woodenframes (pressing)

Hydraulic jack press (pressin

Value-addition

withoutphysicaltransformation ofmaterials

Attract demand

from consumers

Sorting, grading, packing,

assemblingHand sorting, grading Sorter and grader

Change of locations TransportationHead loading, pushcart andwheelbarrow

Draft animals and truck

Nigerian farmers often harvest crops with manuallabor using simple tools. After harvesting, the laboractivities involve the separation of edible parts fromother parts (such as threshing and winnowing for rice,dehulling for cowpea, and peeling of cassava andyam), preserving products (such as drying cassava),and further physical transformation of the products(milling, grinding, grating, and pounding) to increase

shelf life. Human labor is further used to add morevalue to the products without physical transformation,such as standardizing, sorting, grading, assembling,and transporting to buyers.

From the foregoing, it is clear that most smallholderfarm operations in Nigeria are accomplished throughthe use of hand tools. For smallholder farmers,modern toolseven if rented or shared among

usersare too costly. Many farmers prepare theirfarms at the same time of the year, thereby raisingrental fees for tools such as tractors. Sharing toolswith other farmers often brings in risks ofmismanagement and breakdown. Smallholder farmersare particularly averse to these types of risks.

Consequently, very few Nigerian farmers own, share,or rent modern agricultural machinery. Even Nigeriasrapid urbanization and the aging of farmers have notbeen accompanied with higher agricultural outputprices in rural areas or increased farm householdincome through remittances, and therefore have notincreased the effective demand for modern tools.

Agricultural mechanization policies that promotemodern tools are therefore not sufficient in Nigeria.While the general trends in Figure 1 indicate that the

8/2/2019 nssppn22_0

4/5

ultimate focus of mechanization in Nigeria in the longterm should be on promoting the use of tractors2, theattention to improved hand tools and draft animals isalso important in the short to medium term.Nigerianagricultural mechanization policy particularly needs tofocus more on identifying the potential of improvedhand tools in improving labor productivity for various

farming activities, from pre-harvesting and harvestingto marketing.

Key Knowledge Gaps on AgriculturalMechanization in Nigeria

The constraints to mechanization as they apply tolarge scale farms are well identified in the literature inNigeria. They are (1) access to credit, (2) setting up ofmanufacturing and repair services by entrepreneurs,(3) improved infrastructure, (4) affordable and secureaccess to complementary inputs (fuel, electricity, and

larger consolidated plots of land), (5) better legal andregulatory capacity to protect the rights of owners ofmachinery, and (6) higher efficiency and capacity ofpublic sector for implementing policy. Resolving theseconstraints should be the policy objectives of thegovernment.

On the other hand, relatively fewer studies have beenconducted on why and under what conditions Nigerianfarmers would demand more farm power rather thanmodern inputs like improved seeds, fertilizer or agro-chemicals. These viewpoints are important becauseagricultural mechanization may be viable only under

specific conditions particularly for resource-constrained smallholder farmers.

Knowledge Gaps and Needs of EmpiricalResearchThe preference for using mechanization for pre-harvesting activities relative to the use of othermodern inputs is limited. We know farmers facevarious constraints with pre-harvesting activities thatcan be lessened with the use of inputs such asimproved seed and fertilizer or mechanization. Forinstance, the need for more land space can be

reduced by the use of higher-yielding varieties ofseeds, while the need for improved soil quality can bemet with fertilizer and improved seeds that resistweeds, pests, or drought. If technologies areavailable, farmers have options to choose betweenusing more farm power and/or inputs. Empirical

2This is likely to lead to labor displacement but such laborwould need to move up the value chain (into processing).

research is therefore needed on the relativeaccessibility of farm power (labor, improved handtools/machinery) and other modern inputs and how itrelates to farmer characteristics. The tools needed forthe harvesting or post-harvesting stages are differentfrom those of the pre-harvesting stage. Most Nigeriansmallholder farmers grow many different crops in

order to mitigate production risks and guaranteeavailability of labor across seasons. Most pre-harvesting activities target the soil, and therefore, thesame tools could be used regardless of the crop. Forpost-harvest processing, however, farmers maydemand traditional tools or improved implements thatare adaptable for multiple crops, rather than moresophisticated tools usable only for certain crops.

Recent experience by the U. S. Agency forInternational Development-funded Maximizing

Agricultural Revenue and Key Enterprises in TargetedSites (MARKETS) project in promoting rice parboilershas shown that the use of processing machines formajor crops such as rice is encouraging. However,empirical research is needed in Nigeria on how theprofitability of different processing tools depends onfarm and farmers characteristics, and on the level ofsupport farmers need for adopting modern processingtools.

Lastly, agricultural mechanization is often assumed toraise labor productivity, while other inputs such asimproved seeds are assumed to improve landproductivity, indicating that agricultural mechanization

may benefit farmers more in areas where labor isrelatively scarcer than land. Empirical researchverifying such claims can help government target theregions within Nigeria where different types ofagricultural mechanization should be promoted moreintensely.

Other knowledge gaps particularly relevant to moderntools in Nigeria include the difference between theprice of available modern machines and farmerswillingness to pay for these tools. This research wouldassist in determining the necessary level of publicsupport for the increased adoption of modern

machines. In addition, information on the impact ofadoption of modern tools on smallholder farmers isunknown. For example, a production increase byadopters of modern tools may significantly lower cropprices at the market where smallholder farmers tradetheir crops, thereby reducing their incomes. Theproduction expansion may, however, also providehigher wages for these smallholder farmers,

8/2/2019 nssppn22_0

5/5

increasing their off-farm source of incomes. Moreempirical information is needed on whether suchoutcomes have been observed in Nigeria.

Other general knowledge gaps specific to improvedhand tools include how the improved traditional toolscan raise labor productivity and reduce laborrequirements and how this saved labor is used forother activities. Some empirical studies have shownhow traditional tools can be improved, such as bydeveloping longer, lighter hoes with different bladeangles (affecting scooping efficiency), and improvingtools based on studying the hands of male and femalefarmers. However, more empirical information isneeded on the impacts of such improvements on laborproductivity and how the level of impact might vary bythe agroecological and socioeconomic characteristicsof farmers.

Conclusion

The trend in other countries indicates that increases infarm size are key to expanded use of mechanization.Increasing farm size is, however, difficult for Nigeriansmallholder farmers because of existing land tenuresystems. Therefore, agricultural mechanization efforts

for smallholder farmers in Nigeria would need to takeinto consideration the following issues. First,smallholder farming in Nigeria still predominantlyrelies on manual labor equipped with traditional handtools. Second, smallholder farmers in Nigeria are stilltoo poor to purchase modern tools, and therefore,policies and projects are needed to increase the

affordability of modern tools as well as improve thehand tools currently in use. Third, smallholder farmersdemand for agricultural mechanization depends on itsrelative affordability compared to other modern inputssuch as improved seeds or fertilizer, which are alsoneeded to support productivity improvement.

The key knowledge gaps include the identification of(1) the types of agricultural mechanization appropriatefor different production environments and farmactivities for Nigerian smallholder farmers; (2) thelabor productivity impacts of improved traditional toolson smallholder farmers; and (3) the capacity offarmers in adopting modern tools. As evidence isgenerated to fill these knowledge gaps, themechanization policy should be reviewed and updatedto accommodate this new knowledge.

This Policy Note deals with topical issues of general interest and is intended to promote discussion; it has not been formally peer reviewed, but it hasbeen reviewed by at least one internal and/or external reviewer.

This publication was made possible through support provided by the Maximizing Agricultural Revenue and Key Enterprises in Targeted Sites(MARKETS) program, financed by the U.S. Agency for International Development and implemented by Chemonics under contract number 620-C-00-05-00077-00. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of IFPRI, Chemonics and/or theU.S. Agency for International Development.

Copyright 2010, International Food Policy Research Institute. All rights reserved. This material may be reproduced for personal and not-for-profit usewithout permission from but with acknowledgment to IFPRI. For other use, contact ifpri-copyright@cgiar.org.

For more information:

IFPRI-AbujaInternational Food Policy Research Institutec/o International Center for Soil Fertility and Agriculture DevelopmentNo.6/ Plot 1413 Ogbagi StreetOff Oro-Ago CrescentCadastral Zone 11, Garki, AbujaNigeriaE-mail: ifpri-nigeria@cgiar.orgwww.ifpri.org

www.ifpri.org