Sky Journal of Agricultural Research Vol. 4(4), pp.

072 - 079, June, 2015

Available online http://www.skyjournals.org/SJAR
ISSN 2315-8751 2015 Sky Journals

Full Length Research Paper

Rural women involvement in crop production in

Malumfashi and Kaita local government areas of
Katsina State, Nigeria
Ikwuakam O. T.1* and Iyela A.2
1
Federal College of Education, Katsina, Kastina State, Nigeria.
2
Federal College of Education, Okene, Kogi State, Nigeria.
Accepted 20 May, 2015

It is obvious today that rural women, as men, throughout the world are engaged in a range of agricultural
production. However, lack of adequate information on rural women farmers levels of involvement in various
areas of agriculture in Nigeria and Katsina state in particular is a major concern. The study therefore examined
rural women farmers involvement in crop production (CP) in Malumfashi and Kaita Local Government Areas
(LGAs) of Katsina state. Systematic sampling technique was used to randomly select 60 rural women farmers
(RWF) from the list of registered RWF in each of the two LGAs resulting in 120 RWF. Interview schedule was
used to collect data on respondents socio-economic characteristics, extent of involvement, types of crops
produced and constraints to involvement in CP. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, Chi square,
PPMC and Students t - test. Age, years of experience and household size were 51.61 7.88, 11.65 5.24, 10.04
3.74 respectively. Most respondents were married in Malumfashi (93.3%) and Kaita (96.7). Majority (83.3%) in
Malumfashi had secondary school education while 83.3% in Kaita had Quaranic education. Most (60.0%) in
st
Malumfashi were Christians and 96.7% in Kaita were Muslims. Maize ranked 1 as crop produced Malumfashi ( x
= 1.98) and Kaita ( x = 1.83) on small farm size of 4.27 1.28. Weeding, packing/burning of rubbish and planting (
st
x = 1.97) ranked 1 among CP activities in Malumfashi while in Kaita, packing/burning of rubbish and planting (
st
x = 1.78) ranked 1 . Majority (93.3%) in Malumfashi were involved in CP than in Kaita (78.3%). Finance ( x = 1.82)
st
ranked 1 as constraint in Kaita while in Malumfashi finance, bad road, storage facility, processing and socio-
cultural factors ( x = 2.00) ranked 1 . Severity of constraints was high to all (100.0%) in Malumfashi than in Kaita
st

(56.7%) with low severity. Significant correlation exists between respondents household size (r = 0.305) and
involvement in CP. Also, significant difference (t = 2.189) exists in the levels of involvement with Malumfashi
having higher (( x = 11.98) than their counterparts in Kaita (( x = 11.75). Similarly, significant difference (t = 9.656)
exists in the levels of constraints faced by the respondents in the two LGAs with respondents in Malumfashi
having higher ( x = 31.05) than their counterparts in Kaita ( x = 24.11). It is therefore important that crop
production intervention packages in the state especially in the area of finance should be both gender and
location specific.

Key words: Women, crop production, involvement, constraints.

INTRODUCTION

The involvement of women in agriculture across the large segment of the small scale agriculture. This is in
globe is no more in doubt. They seem to have taken a addition to their traditional roles of providing care for the
home, children and aged in the society. Research
*Corresponding author. Email: E-mail: ikwuosca@yahoo.com. findings have confirmed womens active involvement in

agriculture in Africa. Boserup (1970) described Black
Africa as the region of female farming par excellence.
Abiola and Omabugan (2001) buttressed that rural
women contribute two-third of all the time that is put into
traditional agriculture in Africa. Ejembi et al. (2008) stated
that in addition to their role in agriculture, women are the
fetchers of water, hewers of firewood, responsible for
food and even rear livestock.
In Ethiopia, Frank (1999) reported that women do
almost half of the labour required for agricultural
production. An exciting scenario further exists in Kenya
where women are reportedly engaged in most phases of
production cycle in food production, cash crops and
livestock than their male counterparts (Deji et al., 2005).
In Nigeria, 70% of the population is living in the rural
areas (Olawoye, 1995) and their primary occupation is
farming. Another study of women has also revealed that
on an overall basis, 40% of the rural women surveyed in
Nigeria regarded farming as their major occupation. On
regional basis too, 89, 10 and 6% of those in the East,
West and South respectively regarded agriculture as their
main occupation (Lawanson, 2008).
FAO (2003) estimated that generally rural women are
responsible for 70% of food production, 100% of
processing, 60% of marketing, 50% of animal husbandry
and 50% of domestic food storage. Fatima (2005)
estimated that 80% of sub Saharan Africans food crops
such as millet, rice and maize and 90% of legumes are
produced by rural women farmers. Ezumah and Di
Domenico (1995) also found out that 95% of the Yoruba
women of the Southwestern Nigeria are engaged in farm
works, growing yams, maize, tobacco and cassava,
poultry and fish farming. They participate in bush
clearing, land preparation and weeding, harvesting,
processing and marketing of farm produce. The
participation of Igbo men in non-farm activities and
waged employment was also documented as causing an
increased workload for women in food crop production as
well as a breakdown of the gender division of labor in
agriculture (Ezumah & Di Domenico, 1995). Ezumah and
Di Domenico further stated that Igbo women now
undertake conventional male agricultural tasks in addition
to those in the female domain. From Akwa Ibom State,
Nigeria, Edet and Etim (2007) found that women
performed well in nine out of the twelve production
practices involved in fluted pumpkin. In Enugu state,
women were outstanding dominating in seven out of the
operations in cassava production (Ironkwe and
Asumugha, 2007). In Benue state, 98% were women
farmers planting various crops while about 93% rear
livestock, 86% keeping poultry and 56% into piggery
(Ayoola, 2005). Women in South-western Nigeria, of all
categories were found dominating in all the eight
operations (Babasanya, 2008). It is evident also that with
the recent economic development, growth and increased
literacy, farming techniques and skills, women play
Kwuakam and Iyela 73
advisory to their husbands on the adoption of new
farming techniques and skills, and even assist in effecting
the decisions (Adeyemi et al., 2012).
In spite of these acknowledged and applauded areas of
involvement, corresponding efforts have not been made
to include women farmers in most agricultural
development policies, practices, remuneration and
incentives (Adeyemi et al., 2012). Edet & Etim (2007)
attributed such unprofitable act to insufficient and in
proper documentation of womens numerous
contributions in agriculture. Studies have shown that
womens unequal rights to production resources and
obligations within the household as well as limited time
and financial resources pose a greater constraint to them
(Farinde, 2000).
Nevertheless, hence rural women involvement needs
and constraints in agriculture and crop production in
particular vary from place to place; efforts to unravel and
address them should be location specific. It is against this
background that examining rural women farmers
involvement in crop production in Kaita and Malumfashi
Local Government Areas (LGAs) of Katsina State is
germane. Specifically, the study intended to:
i.) Identify crop that rural women farmers produce in the
study area
ii.) Determine rural women farmers level of involvement
in crop production
iii.) Determine rural women farmers level of constraints in
crop production
METHODOLOGY
The study was carried out in Malumfashi and Kaita Local
Government Areas (LGAs) of Katsina State. The two
LGAs were purposively chosen because of their level of
involvement in crop production. All registered women
crop farmers in the two LGAs constituted the population
of the study. Malumfashi and Kaita are made up of 12
and 11 communities respectively. A multistage sampling
procedure was used to select the respondents for the
study. The first stage involved a random selection of 55%
of the communities in each of the LGAs to get a total of
12 communities of 6 communities each from Malumfashi
and Kaita. The second stage involved a systematic
sampling of 10 women from the list of registered women
crop farmers in each community to give a sample size of
120 respondents that was used in the study.
Respondents involvement in crop production was
measured on 4 point scale of always, occasionally,
rarely, never and was scored 3, 2, 1, and 0 respectively.
The mean involvement was obtained and used to
categorize respondents level of involvement into high
74 Sky. J. Agric. Res.
(>mean score) and low (<mean score). A structured
interview scheduled was used to collect data on
respondents socio-economic characteristics, crop
production activities, type of crop produced, level of
involvement and constraints. The data collected were
described using frequencies, percentages and mean
scores. Chi square analysis was used to determine level
of association between selected socio-economic
characteristics (marital status, level of education and
religion) of the respondents and their involvement in crop
production. Also, PPMC analysis was used to test the
level of correlation between respondents age, farm size,
farm experience, household size and their involvement in
crop production. Students-test was used to compare
respondents levels of involvement and severity of
constraints in crop production.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The result of analysis in Table 1 shows that most
respondents (48.3%) in Malumfashi and Kaita (43.3%)
were within the same age range of 41 - 50 years
indicating that the women are still energetic, economically
vibrant and can easily adopt innovation for improved
production. Akewata et al. (2014) found similar age range
about women in Song, Adamawa state. Most (93.3%) in
Malumfashi and (96.7%) in Kaita were married and this
explains their massive involvement in crop production as
a food security measure. Also (68.3%) in Malumfashi
possess secondary school education while (83.3%) in
Kaita had Quranic education implying that women in
Malumfashi may have better chance of enhanced
production. Education plays a formidable role in adoption
of new technologies (Onyenweaku and Nwaaru, 2005).
However, (98.3%) in Kaita were Muslims while 60.0%
were Christians in Malumfashi. This infers that women in
Malumfashi could engage in wide range of production
activities than those in Kaita with higher Muslim faithfuls.
Respondents in Malumfashi (96.7%) and Kaita (63.3%)
have mean farm size of 4 ha implying that they are small
scale farmers. Ironkwe et al. (2007) reported that most
women yam farmers in Abia State were small scale
farmers. More than half (60.0%) of the women in
Malumfashi have 11 - 15 years while (45.0%) in Kaita
have between 6 - 10 years of experience showing that
women in Malumfashi are more experienced. Own
savings were major source of finance in Malumfashi
(68.3%) and Kaita (61.7%). Majority (98.3%) in
Malumfashi and Kaita (100%) were not members of
cooperative society. Respondents (60.0%) in Malumfashi
have household size of between 1 4 people while
73.3% in Kaita above 16 people indicating large
household size and cheap labour in Kaita. Ironkwe et al.
(2008) found out that polygamous marriage thrives in
most Muslim dominated areas and has implication for
availability of cheap household labour.
The result in Table 2 shows that most respondents in
Malumfashi are always involved in land clearing (98.3%),
weeding (96.7%), packing and burning of (96.7%),
planting (96.7%) processing/storage (88.3%) and
marketing of farm produce (88.3%) while in Kaita, land
clearing (78.3%), packing/burning of rubbish (78.3%)
were carried out always. Also weeding (78.3%) and
marketing of produce (66.7%) were occasionally carried
out in Kaita. However, in both LGAs, weeding,
packing/burning of rubbish, planting (78.3%) and
st
processing ( x = 1.967) ranked 1 among crop production
activities respondents were involved. Land clearing ( x =
nd
1.893) and marketing of produce ( x = 1.783) ranked 2 .
In Kaita, packing/burning of rubbish ( x = 1.783) and
st
planting ( x = 1.783) ranked 1 . These were followed by
nd
processing ( x = 1.633) that ranked 2 while marketing of
rd
produce ( x = 1.233) ranked 3 . This means that women
in both LGAs are actively involved in weeding,
packing/burning of rubbish, planting, and processing and
marketing of produce. Edet and Etim (2007) reported that
women in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria performed well in
nine out of the twelve crop production practices while
Ironkwe and Asumugha, (2007) observed that women in
Enugu State have outstanding dominance in seven crop
production activities.
Majority (98.3%, 33.3%) as shown in Table 3 in
produced maize always in Malumfashi and Kaita
respectively. Occasionally, all (100%) produced
sorghum, okro, sesame and vegetable in Malumfashi
while 98.3, 98.3 and 100% occasionally produced
sorghum and okro respectively in Kaita. Maize ( x =
st
1.983) ranked 1 among crop produced by respondents
in Malumfashi followed by okro ( x = 1.6), millet ( x =
1.000), sorghum ( x = 1.000), sesame ( x = 1.000) and
x = 1.083). Millet ( x = 1.833), Okro ( x =
vegetable (
1.017), vegetable ( x = 1.017) and sesame ( x = 1.000)
st nd rd
ranked 1 , 2 and 3 respectively in Kaita LGA. Ayoola
(2005) indicated that women were involved in planting
such crops like groundnut, rice, yam, cassava and maize
in Benue state.
The result on Table 4 shows respondents level of
involvement. The result reveals that level of involvement
in both Malumfashi (93.3%) and Kaita (78.3%) was high.
However, women in Malumfashi are more involved in
crop production than their counterparts in Kaita. This may
be due to socio-cultural setting in the areas. Womens
role in agriculture is shaped by socio-cultural and
economic factors as in Northern Nigeria where women
Muslim Purdah are found mainly in the processing
 Kwuakam and Iyela 75

Table 1. Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents.

Variable Malumfashi Kaita Mean

F % F %
Age:
Less or equal 40 3 5.0 11 18.3 51.61 7.88
41-50 29 48.3 26 43.3
51-60 18 30.0 17 28.3
61-70 10 16.7 5 8.3
>70 0 0.00 1 1.7
Marital status:
Married 56 93.3 58 96.7
Single 4 6.7 2 3.3
Educational attainment:
No formal education 6 10.0 4 6.7
Quranic education 4 6.7 50 83.3
Primary education 5 8.3 2 3.3
Secondary education 41 68.3 4 6.7
Tertiary education 4 6.7 0 0.00
Religion
Christianity 36 60.0 1 1.7
Islam 24 40.0 59 98.3
Farm size in ha
4-6 1 1.7 19 31.7 4.27 1.28
1-3 58 96.7 38 63.3
7-9 0 0.00 3 5.0
>9 1 1.7 1 1.7
Experience:
1-5 3 5.0 9 15.0 11.65 5.24
6-10 10 16.7 27 45.0
11-15 36 60.0 14 23.3
16-20 5 8.3 8 13.3
25-30 6 10.0 0 0.00
>30 0 0.00 2 3.3
Source of finance:
Bank 0 0.00 0 0.00
Own saving 41 68.3 37 61.7
Government 1 1.7 0 0.00
NGO 2 3.3 1 1.7
Family 58 96.7 59 98.3
Membership to cooperative Society:
Yes 1 1.7 0 0.00
No 59 98.3 60 100
Household size
1-4 2 3.3 8 13.3 10.04 3.74
5-8 36 60.0 5 8.5
9-12 1 1.7 3 5.0
13-16 7 11.7 9 15.0
>16 5 8.5 44 73.3
Source: Field survey 2014.

activities (Banji et al., 2011). Damisa et al. (2007),
Lawanson (2008) also stated that womens involvement
in farming activities is as high as between 60% and 90%.
Table 5 shows respondents constraints to production.
The results reveal that processing (100%) and storage
facilities (100%), socio-cultural constraints (100%),
finance (100%), lack of agricultural information (96.7%),
cost of labour (91.7%), bad road (100%), pest/disease
(98.3%) lack of farm input (91.7%) were serious
constraints to respondents in Malumfashi while finance
(83.3%), bad road (76.7%), pests/diseases (73.3%)
storage facilities (68.3%), tediousness of crop production
(56.7%), were serious constraints in Kaita. The result
means that although constraints to production similar in
the two LGAs those in Malumfashi were more numerous.
However, finance, bad road, socio-cultural constraints,
 76 Sky. J. Agric. Res.

Table 2. Distribution of respondents on crop production activities involved.

Malumfashi Kaita
Variable Always Occasionally Not at Mean Rank Always Occasionally Not at Mean Rank
all all
F F F Mean Rank F F F Mean Rank
nd th
Land clearing 59(98.3) 1(1.7) 0.00 1.893 2 47(78.3) 22(36.7) 21(35.0) 1.083 5
st th
Weeding 58(96.7) 2(3.3) 0.00 1.967 1 13(21.7) 47(78.3) 0.00 1.217 4
st st
Packing/Burning 58(96.7) 2(3.3) 0.00 1.967 1 47(78.3) 13(21.7) 0.00 1.783 1
of rubbish
th th
Mounds/ridging 4(6.7) 56(93.3) 0.00 1.067 4 22(36.7) 21(35.0) 17(28.3) 1.083 5
st st
Planting 58(96.7) 2(3.3) 0.00 1.967 1 47(78.3) 13(21.7) 0.00 1.783 1
th th
Harvesting 4(6.7) 56(93.3) 0.00 1.067 4 22(36.7) 21(35.0) 17(28.3) 1.083 5
th nd
Processing 7(11.7) 53 (88.3) 0.00 1.117 5 38(63.3) 22(36.7) 0.00 1.633 2
rd rd
Marketing of 53(88.3) 1(1.7) 6(10.0) 1.783 3 17(28.3) 40(66.7) 3(5.0) 1.233 3
produce
Source: Field survey 2014. Figures in parentheses are in percentages.

Table 3. Distribution of respondents based on type of crops produced.

Malumfashi Kaita
Variable Always Occasionally Not at Always Occasionally Not at all
all
F F F Mean Rank F F F Mean Rank
th th
Sweet 0(0.00) 55(91.7) 5(8.3) 0.917 4 2(3.3) 32(53.3) 26(43.3) 0.060 6
potato
st th
Maize 59(98.3) 1(1.7) 0(0.00) 1.983 1 20(33.3) 8(13.3) 32(53.3) 0.080 5
nd st
Millet 6(10.0) 54(90.0) 0(0.00) 1.100 2 47(78.3) 13(21.7) 0(0.00) 1.833 1
nd th
Sorghum 0(0.00) 60(100.0) 0(0.00) 1.000 2 0(0.00) 59(98.3) 1(1.7) 0.098 4
nd nd
Okro 0(0.00) 60(100.0) 0(0.00) 1.000 2 1(1.7) 59(98.3) 0(0.00) 1.017 2
nd rd
Sesame 0(0.00) 60(100.0) 0(0.00) 1.000 2 0(0.00) 60(100.0) 0(0.00) 1.000 3
rd nd
Vegetable 5(8.3) 50(100.0) 0(0.00) 1.083 3 19(31.7) 23(38.3) 18(30.0) 1.017 2
th th
Rice 0(0.00) 1(1.7) 59(98.3) 0.017 5 0(0.00) 3(5.0) 3(5.0) 0.050 7
Source: Field survey 2014. Figures in parentheses are in percentages.

Table 4. Respondents level of involvement in crop production.

Level of involvement Score Malumfashi Kaita Mean SD Minimum Maximum

F % F % 11.9 0.596 9.00 13.00
Low <11.9 4 6.7 13 21.7
High 11.9 56 93.3 47 78.3

Source: Field survey 2014.

st Table 6 presents severity level of constraints to crop

processing and storage facilities ( x = 2.000) ranked 1
as constraints in Malumfashi. These were followed by production. The result shows that the level of severity of
pests/diseases ( x = 1.983), lack of agricultural information constraints was high to all farmers (100%) in Malumfashi
while it was low to majority (56.7%) in Kaita. This means
( x = 1.967) and tediousness of crop production ( x =
nd rd that though the respondents have almost similar
1.967) that ranked 2 and 3 respectively. In Kaita,
production constraints, their intensity differ a great deal in
st
finance ( x = 1.817) ranked 1 followed by bad road ( x = the two LGAs. However, the magnitude of the constraints
nd has not deterred women especially in Malumfashi from
1.183) and storage facilities ( x = 1.683) that ranked 2
rd getting involved in crop production. The result contradicts
and 3 respectively. Ityarvyar (2008) reported similar
the finding of Ironkwe et al. (2008) that women in Ohafia
constraints in his study on key issues in agriculture and
and Umuahia agricultural zones have similar crop
rural development in Nigeria.
production constraints.
 Kwuakam and Iyela 77

Table 5. Distribution of respondents based on crops production constraints.

Malumfashi Kaita
Variable Serious Mild Not a Serious Mild Not a
constraint constraint
F F F Mean Rank F F F Mean Rank
th th
Lack of farm input 55(91.7) 5(8.3) 0(0.00) 1.917 4 19(31.7) 25(41.7) 16(26.7) 1.050 14
st st
Finance 60(100.0) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 2.000 1 50(83.3) 9(15.0) 1(1.7) 1.817 1
th th
High labour cost 55(91.7) 5(8.3) 0(0.00) 1.917 4 20(33.3) 31(51.7) 9(15.0) 1.183 10
st nd
Bad road 60(100.0) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 2.000 1 46(76.7) 14(23.3) 0(0.00) 1767 2
rd th
Lack of Agric 58(96.7) 2(3.3) 0(0.00) 1.967 3 27(45.0) 33(55.0) 0(0.00) 1.450 5
information
th th
Religious restriction 13(21.7) 47(78.3) 0(0.00) 1.217 9 22(36.7) 38(63.3) 0(0.00) 1.367 8
th th
Access to market 8(13.3) 52(86.7) 0(0.00) 1.133 11 8(13.3) 46(76.7) 6(10.0) 1.033 15
th th
Land tenure system 52(86.7) 5(8.3) 3(5.0) 1.817 7 6(10.0) 53(88.3) 1(1.7) 1.083 13
th th
Gender bias 4(6.7) 9(15.0) 47(78.3) 0.028 12 15(25.0) 26(43.3) 47(78.3) 0.093 16
rd th
Tediousness of crop 59(98.3) 0(0.00) 1(1.7) 1.967 3 34(56.7) 18(15.0) 8(13.3) 1.433 6
production
th th
Collateral 46(76.7) 14(23.3) 0(0.00) 1.767 8 20(33.3) 38(63.3) 2(3.3) 1.300 9
th th
Scarcity of farm land 55(91.7) 5(8.3) 0(0.00) 1.917 4 9(15.0) 44(73.3) 7(11.7) 1.033 15
th th
Drought 54(90.0) 5(8.3) 1(1.7) 1.883 6 10(16.7) 50(83.3) 0(0.00) 1.167 11
th th
High cost of input 54(90.9) 6(10.0) 0(0.00) 1.900 5 11(18.3) 46(76.7) 3(5.0) 1.133 12
th th
Pilfering 11(18.3) 49(81.7) 0(0.00) 1.183 10 34(56.7) 16(26.7) 10(16.7) 1.400 7
nd th
Pest/diseases 59(98.3) 1(1.7) 0(0.00) 1.983 2 44(73.3) 0(0.00) 16(26.7 1.467 4
st rd
Storage facilities 60(100.0) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 2.000 1 41(68.3) 19(31.7) 0(0.00) 1.683 3
st th
Processing facility 60(100.0) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 2.000 1 26(43.3) 25(41.7) 9(15.0) 1.283 10
st th
Socio-cultural 60(100.0) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 2.000 1 16(26.7) 0(0.00) 44(73.3) 0.053 17
constraints
Source: Field survey 2014. Figures in parentheses are in percentages.

Table 6. Level of severity of constraints to involvement in crop production.

Severity of Score Malumfashi Kaita Mean SD Minimum Maximum

Constraints F % F % 11.9 0.596 9.00 13.00
Low <11.9 0 0.0 34 56.7
High 11.9 60 100.0 26 43.3
Source: Field survey 2014.

Hypothesis testing
Ho1: There is no significant relationship between
respondents socio-economic characteristics and their
level of involvement in crop production
Relationship between respondents socio-economic
characteristics and their level of involvement in crop
production
production in the area. The findings further shows that
significant correlation exists between household size (r =
0.305) and respondents involvement in crop production.
This means that household size was sufficient enough to
influence women farmers involvement in crop production.
The result also implies that the large the respondents
households size the likelihood of their desire to get
involvement in crop production perhaps to ensure
household food security.

The result in Table 7 shows that at 5% level of
significance, there are no significant relationships
2=
between women farmers marital status ( 0.032), level
2 = 2 =
of education ( 1.222) , religion ( 0.166) and their
level of involvement in crop production in the area. This
shows that marital status, education and religion do not
influenced women farmers involvement in crop
Ho2: There is no significant difference in the level
involvement in crop production between respondents in
Malumfashi and Kaita LGAs
The result in Table 8 compares the levels of
involvement in crop production among rural women crop
farmers in the two LGAs. The result reveals significant
difference in the levels of involvement in crop production
78 Sky. J. Agric. Res.

Table 7. Relationship between the socio-economic characteristics of women farmers and their involvement in
crop production.
2
Variable Df Remark Variable r-value p-value Remark
Marital status 0.032 1 NS Age 0.095 0.302 NS
Level of education 1.222 3 NS Farm size 0.059 0.520 NS
Religion 0.166 1 NS Farming experience 0.158 0.085 NS
Household size 0.305 0.001 S

Table 8. Difference in level of involvement between respondents in Malumfashi and Kaita.

LGA N Mean SD Mean difference T df P

Malumfashi 60 11.98 0.60 0.233 2.189 118 0.031
Kaita 60 11.75 0.57

Table 9. Differences between extents of constraint faced by respondents in Malumfashi

and Kaita.

LGA N Mean SD Mean difference T df P

Malumfashi 60 31.05 0.74 6.933 9.656 118 0.000
Kaita 60 24.11 5.51

in the two LGAs (t = 2.189). Respondents in Malumfashi
have a higher mean ( x = 11.98) than their counterparts in
Kaita ( x = 11.75) implying that women farmers in
Malumfashi are more involved in crop production than
their counterparts in Kaita. This may be due to religious
(Christianity) affiliation of respondents in Malumfashi
which does not restrict womens involvement in most
agricultural activities. Adekanye (1981) noted that socio-
economic activities of Hausa/Fulani women in farming
are more restricted because of the practice of keeping
women (in purdah) away from the sight of men strangers.
Similarly, Ironkwe et al. (2008) found out that significant
difference existed among farmers in Ohafia and Umuahia
agricultural zones of Abia state.
Ho3: There is no significant difference between the
extent of constraints faced by respondents in Malumfashi
and Kaita LGAs
Table 9 compares the levels of constraints faced by
respondents in both LGAs. The result indicates that
significant difference exists in the levels of constraints
faced by the respondents in both LGAs (t = 9.656).
Respondents in Malumfashi have higher ( x = 31.05) than
their counterparts in Kaita LGA ( x = 24.11) implying that
most respondents in Malumfashi are facing more
production constraints than their counterparts in Kaita.
Conclusion and recommendations
The study established that the fact that most women in
the study areas were actively involved in crop production.
Also household size played a collaborative role in
respondents level involvement in crop production. There
was also significant difference in the levels of
involvement and constraints in crop production by the
respondents in the both LGAs. No significant relationship
was established between women farmers marital status,
level of education, religion and their level of involvement
in crop production. However, the level involvement and
constraints in crop production was high in Malumfashi
than in Kaita. Finance was a common constraint to the
respondents. It is therefore suggested that crop
production intervention packages in the state should be
both gender and location specific. Government should
also provide formidable platform for timely and easy
access to credit facilities, construct rural linking roads and
create policy frame work that will enhance womens
access to land. This will facilitate women farmers
production activities and reduce food insecurity in the
state.
REFERENCES
Abiola RO, Omoabugan OB (2001). Women involvement in food crop
production in Nigeria, processing and marketing. Bullion publication
of the Central Bank of Nigeria. 25(3): 39 - 43
Adeyemi AA, Adekumi AO, Ajayi FO and Adisa BO (2012). Economic
analysis of women food crop farmers contributions to food security in
Southwestern, Nigeria: A stochastic frontier approach. Nig. J. Rural
Sociol., 13(2): 8
Akeweta J, Oyesola OB, Ndaghu A, Ademola AO (2014). Social capital
and poverty coping strategies of rural women in Song Local
Government Area of Adamawa State, Nigeria. Nig. J. Rural Ext. and
 Kwuakam and Iyela 79

Dev., 8: 1-8
Ayoola JB (2005). Effect of indigenous Land Tenure System on Women Nigeria. Proceedings of the seventeen annual congress of the Nigerian
Entrepreneur and Household Livelihood. Paper presented at 2nd Rural Sociological Association held between 19th 22nd August. 54-
Annual Conference of Nigeria Society of Indigenous Knowledge and 57
Development. Ironkwe AG, Asiedu R, Okon EM (2007). Roles and constraints of
Babasanya B (2008) Gender Relations in Cassava Post Harvest women farmers in yam production in Abia State, Nig. J. of Women in
Processing in Akoka, Ondo State: Implications for Agricultural Academics (JOWACS). 4(2): 40 49
Development. Proceedings of the first national conference of Society Ityarvyar, D (2008) Key gender Issues in Agriculture and rural
for gender in Agriculture. pp.224- 225. Development in Nigeria. 1st Proceeding of Society of Gender in
Boserup E (1970). Womens Role in Economic Development, London, Agriculture and Rural development 3-5
Earthscan Publications Ltd. Lawanson OI (2008). Female labour force participation in Nigeria:
Damisa MA, Samndi JR, Yohanna M (2007). Women Participation in Determinants and Trends, Oxford Business and Economic
Agricultural Production: A probit analysis. J. Appl. Sci., 7 (3): 412- Conference Program, Oxford, United Kingdom. June 22-24
414. Olawoye JE (1995). Rural Women role in agricultural product. A
Deji OF, Adereti FO, Ilori OA (2005). Factors associated with occuopation survey of women from six selected rural community in
accessibility of female headed households to selected agricultural Oyo State, Nig. J. of Rural Sociol., 2(1): 22 47.
production resources in Osun State, Nigeria. Nig. J. Rural Sociol., Onyenweaku CE, Nwaru JC (2005). Application of Stochastic frontier
5(1&2):33 production function to the measurement of technical efficiency in food
Edet GC, Etim NA (2007). Gender Role in Fluted pumpkin production in crop production in Imo State, Nigeria. Nig. Agric. J., 36: 1 12.
Akwa Ibom State 4th proceeding of Agricultural Society of Nigeria
603-604
Ejembi EP, Ejembi SA, Sona JT (2008). An Assessment of the
Agricultural Activities of Generations of Jukun Fisherfolk Women in
Makurdi Local Government Area of Benue State: A Case of Igbo
Women in Nigeria. World Development 10(23): 1731-1744
FAO (2003) Rural women and farming In Women and peoples
participation in sustainable development. FAO report, Rome, Italy 21-
23
Farinde TY (2000). Women empowerment and poverty alleviation.
World Development 20: 75 85.
Fatima D (2005). Communities on the margin of development real life
stories of gender energy and rural poverty. Nigeria: Monde
Publications.
Frank E (1999). Gender, Agricultural Development and Food Security in
Amhara, Ethiopia:The Contested Identity of Women Farmers in
Ethiopia, USAID/Ethiopia.
Ironkwe AG, Asiedu R, Chiaka EC, Ezebiro CN (2008). Comparative
Analysis of Womens Involvement in Crop production in Ohafia and
Umuahia Agricultural Zones of Abia State, Nigeria in Ladele A.A (ed)
Policy Advocacy Role in Agricultural and Rural Transformation in