CONSUMER DEMAND AND PREFERENCE FOR MEAT CONSUMPTION AMONG URBAN HOUSEHOLDS IN ONDO STATE, NIGERIAEFFECT OF INCOME DIVERSIFICATION ON LIVELIHOODS OF SMALLHOLDER CASSAVA FARMERS IN ONDO STATE, NIGERIA

Abstract

Rural households in Nigeria are characterized by lower standard of living, small income and poverty. Hence, income diversification among rural households and smallholder farmers is a common phenomenon, whose effect demands continuous evaluation. The study examined the effect of income diversification on livelihoods of smallholder cassava farmers in Ondo State, Nigeria. Specifically, the study ascertained the socio-economic characteristics of the smallholder cassava farmers in the study area, identified the income diversification activities of the respondents, identified the factors that determines income diversification among the respondents, examined the effect of the income diversification on the physical capital, human capital, financial capital and social capital of the respondents, identified the extension activities among the smallholder cassava farmers and ascertained respondents’ perceived benefits of income diversification on rural farm-family households. A multistage sampling procedure was used in selecting one hundred and twenty (120) respondents for the study. Interview schedule was used in data collection. Data were analyzed with descriptive and inferential statistics. The result of the study revealed that the average age of the respondent is 46.4 years and that the majority (72.5%) of the of the respondents were male. It reveals that majority (61.7%) of the cassava smallholder farmer in Ondo State were married, that majority (84.2%) had accessed formal education and that the average years of farming experience in the study area was 17.6 years. About 78% of the respondents claimed that they possess a secondary occupation, 67.7% of the respondents belongs to one or more cooperative society, while only 33.3% of the respondents have access to credit facilities. The study also reveals that food crops marketing was the farm income diversification activities that majority (86.7%) of the farmers engage themselves in, while the highest form of non-farm diversification activities among the farmers were petty trading (35.0%). The study shows the pattern of income diversification in the study area as involvement in both non-farm income diversification and farm income diversification. The determinant factors of income diversification among the socio-economic characteristics were marital status (t= 3.265; p = .001), farming experience (t= 3.733; p = .000) and farm size of land cultivated (t= -2.893; p = .005). The major motivations to income diversification were the generation of sufficient income (95.8%), for the purpose of ameliorating food insecurity (90.0%) and shock absorption mechanism for crop failure (85.0%) and identification of a new market opportunity. The study shows a great and substantial effect (difference and numerical increase) in the number of assets possessed by the farmers after been involved in non-farm income activities, financial capital and human capital. There was a positive effect of income diversification on the social capital of the respondents though not as high compared to other parameters (capitals). Majority (93.3%) of the respondents have had contact with an extension agent before, while 58.9% of the respondents have contact with extension agents fortnightly. The highest ranked services that farmers enjoyed from extension agents were advisory services on cultivation practices (100.0%), technology transfer services (98.2%) and f acilitated access to improved planting materials (89.3%). The top-ranked perceived benefits of income diversification the enhancement of food security level of rural farm-families ( x̅ = 4.64) and profit maximization (x̅ = 4.21). there was significant association between educational level (χ 2 = 11.029; p = 0.026 ≤0.05), age (χ 2 = 10.536; p = 0.032 ≤0.05) of the respondents and the livelihood assets possessed by the farmers after diversification. There was there was significant difference (t= 14.464; p≤ 0.05) between the livelihood assets possessed by the farmers before and after income diversification. The study recommends that extension services should sensitize and promote income diversification strategies to the farmers since it has impact on their farm output, asset and subsequent standard of living.