*3

FAfA " ‘5, (a
m w, h

.
tuf' A”..'§ .
Mi: ”J‘u—r-

(D

S

u: “ :n
'“‘* ear ° V:

.I‘u ‘

 

.‘r: .
" Va‘.L
.:‘F ~
In‘..=r: are ‘
"a
RI.:F
‘Q-shre.‘b a:
o
xu‘:
2" .'
vc~u‘r‘c 1‘“f‘
d “v..,

 

 

ABSTRACT

THE MOST EFFICIENT PRODUCTION TECHNIQUES FOR
PROVIDING NUTRITION AND INCOME FROM THE
AGRICULTURAL SECTOR OF NIGERIA

BY

Hossein Yaghoobi-Rahmatabadi

The agricultural sector plays the most important
role in the course of economic development in the develop-
ing countries. It is a source of food for the p0pulation
and earns foreign exchange. The extent to which a country
should expand its export crops at the expense of food crops
is an important question. Moreover, in the process of
economic development technical changes will be introduced
and new varieties of crops developed. Therefore, policy-
makers are faced with the problem of giving priorities to
different projects and different crops.

This research considers the twin objectives of
earning income from the cash crops and obtaining nutrients
from the food crops and applies a mathematical programming
model to the agricultural sector of Nigeria. The model
provides Nigeria with adequate nutrition, while maxi-

mizing the income obtained from the remaining resources

.72.:1'. wsuld be L;
:e 235*. effici»;
;:::".':ir.g a give.
32:31 50111212:
22:3, a c0253.;-
22 :05: efficL-

2:: tie agrzc;

 

0’.” -
:.:v:lCES--:O.';

‘5‘“... . '
C (‘fir .
be'Vu:
0.! ‘ v. . .
“J. at . Lac,
2;:33.-‘|fi .
“‘ OISEV
fl' I
”A

 

Hossein Yaghoobi-Rahmatabadi.

vflaich would be used in the cash crop sector. To determine
‘the most efficient production techniques, various ways of
producing a given crop are introduced into the model. The
{optimal solution of the model gives us a production pat-
tern, a consumption pattern, and a trade pattern which are
the most efficient in maximizing the revenue obtainable
from the agricultural resources left over after feeding
the population.

The model examines the various production tech-
niques of crops in different stages. It first introduces
improved practices of crop production. These cultural
practices--now available to the Nigerian farmers--must
compete.with the traditional sole and mixed cropping.

Secondly, the model examines prospective varieties
--not available to the Nigerian farmers at the present
time--in order to explore the gains from further plant
breeding programs for major crops.

Thirdly, the model imposes maximum limits on the
supply of fertilizer and extension services. The supply
of these resources is assumed to be equal to the amounts
that could be provided in the short run.

The model seeks answers for several questions
important to Nigerian policy-makers. Among these are:

1. What nutritional and income consequences may

be expected from the kinds of technical
improvements now available?

F 7:
3| *5
59

‘n
a A

V '
N“ 'ne aco‘vfe
"‘.c ‘ n .
west e551:
‘E‘T‘I

‘~ when and

LEE-{la 3115.6 I

 

 

Hossein Yaghoobi-Rahmatabadi

2. Of various possible lines of research in
plant breeding, which ones promise the
greatest return?

3. Which alternative techniques or varieties of
crops are most advantageous in a specific
situation or area?

4. Can intercropping compete with the new cul-
tural practices?

5. If there is a limit on importation of
fertilizer, how should fertilizer be allo-
cated among crOps and between areas?

6. If there are limited extension services for
the application of the new techniques, which
crops or areas should be given priority?

The optimal solutions of the model provide answers

for the above mentioned questions. They also determine
the most efficient production techniques for providing

nutrition and income from the agricultural sector of

Nigeria under different assumptions.

l'
‘V
.

mun

A .0..-

«H;

 

THE MOST EFFICIENT PRODUCTION TECHNIQUES FOR
PROVIDING NUTRITION AND INCOME FROM THE

AGRICULTURAL SECTOR OF NIGERIA

BY

Hossein Yaghoobi-Rahmatabadi

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Economics

1971

‘ .-
:esearcn gr r. ..

.entral mama o

9

|~5:'.“ ‘ q.
”""“t“be 0" c

H ....
My“,

~..::Ctll“.g tr:

333'. 1969, an:

Tire, I 8X2:
§

r ‘ '
Asa." to t‘r‘e :
235‘;

 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was made possible by a faculty
research grant made by the Rockefeller Foundation to
Dr. Victor E. Smith and by the continuous support of the
Central Bank of Iran. In addition, the International
Institute of Tropical Agriculture, in Ibadan, provided
invaluable assistance in making arrangements for a data-
collecting trip which Dr. Smith and I made to Nigeria in
May, 1969, and in facilitating our work while we were
there. I express my gratitude to the Central Bank of
Iran, to the Rockefeller Foundation, to the International
Institute of TrOpical Agriculture, and to the many persons,
both in this country and in Nigeria, who provided us with
data and information. Neither the Central Bank of Iran,
the Rockefeller Foundation, nor the International Institute
of Tropical Agriculture has any responsibility for the
analysis or the findings of this study.

In the preparation of this thesis I am indebted to
more persons than I can name, but I would like to express
my gratitude to a few salient contributors without whose

assistance this research would not have been completed.

ii

,‘a~v act
:u“:' I

. . 5,. ‘
t‘rfl '"n 1 D U
pag'd‘j“ ‘
'0‘ t-
I “-2
". 7 ' A, .
. ’4‘“ ’lr'wn‘ '
vovoohb UVbnaluv.
. ‘
"‘I'\ ‘ .1 n.
":-V d-n ILSH.
Q

.‘n-a 5"..-
F'oa u¢S:J;D

IE

1
- I'T‘f‘ N b-
" .~ . I“
~"“'"u .HV'

1 - .
.2: max 1.-

 

u

‘ v
’tL
.

p .

D
.a.

r!
.5.

 

 

I am indebted to my thesis chairman, Professor
Victor E. Smith, who originally became interested in this
study, got me involved in it, and worked hard with me
through its various stages.

I wish to express my gratitude to Professors
Glenn Johnson, Carl Liedholm, and Carl Eicher for their
help in reading and criticizing the early versions of
this thesis.

I express my sincere gratitude to my family--my
beloved mother, my dear father, my sisters, and my brother
for their understanding, patience, and love.

The secretaries in the Department of Economics
gave me much help during my studies. Special thanks go
to Mrs. Ruth Monroe, Mrs. Jean Moeller, Mrs. Carolyn
Schmidt, Mrs. Karen Groce, and Diane Geiger. Our sweet
secretary, Mrs. Pam Japinga, took care of the adminis-
trative problems of my graduate program. I eXpress my
sincere gratitude to her.

Most of all I owe a deep debt of gratitude to Miss
Kathie L. Martin and Miss Anna R. Tepker whose moral sup—
port and inspiration made it possible for me to continue
my studies. To many others that helped me, I express my

gratitude.

iii

r\

 

.4
“an“

m‘“. “I.
in

~OF

o olfi
nevi

. -‘ P.\ V. r\ I.\

W. In I r“ C. C (I .m. f. «raw Ma.

S. r. t O O E I V. :M n. O
m I v . .3 C C; x . .
.r. u; u‘. E F A E S C S
v x “kw L;
S 3. MI.

I

a.

.. o u t

Wu. 9|.6 TI. 9.‘

\AM I o A

r... . .

«“4“
‘V

LIST OF

LIST OF

Chapter
I.

II.

III.

IV.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLES . . . . . '.

FIGURES. . . . . .

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES. . . .

Nutritionists . . .
Economists . . . .

Geographers and Agricultural

Economists. . . .
African Scholars . .

THE MODELS . . . . .

Smith Model . . .

Changes in the Smith Model . . .

Sources of Data. . .

A COMPARISON OF THE EFFICIENCY OF

DIFFERENT CROP PRODUCTION

Résumé of the Models .
Cropping Activities .
Food Crops . . . .
Cash Crops . . . .
Tree CrOps . . . .

THE EFFECTS OF IMPROVED CROPPING TECH-

TECHNIQUES

NIQUES UPON RESOURCE USE, ANIMAL
INDUSTRIES, AND PATTERN OF TRADE. .

Resource Use. . . .
Animal Activities . .
Patterns of Trade . .

iv

Page
vi

ix

com

10
l4

l7

17
24
36

40

41
42
50
65
69

74

74
80
84

'. nrb
a
“.‘UU
.

"7
‘lai

‘vv?

?
I...

....,
t
.O-80

BI

VP' v~ .
..

A gayUu-.

canvvvfl-

.,, ‘ .

u..r..v A»...

Q")(‘.\v~.
l 1 >1
Vu.-_“...

.8
:T‘
'11 (D

 

.
i .V
..'- :f‘f‘...’ V‘
“~IJn-t J N.
V“~M r '
‘a

Chapter Page

VI. THE MOST ECONOMICAL FOODS AND THE

OPPORTUNITY-COST VALUES OF THE NUTRIENTS . 100
The Most Economical Foods . . . . . 100
The Opportunity-Cost Values of the

Nutrients . . . . . . . . . . 105

VII. A MODEL WITH FERTILIZER AND EXTENSION

SERVICES LIMITED . . . . . . . . . 109

Model 7 . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Cropping Activities . . . . . . . llO

Resource Use. . . . . . . . . . 122

Animal Activities . . . . . . . . 127

Patterns of Trade . . . . . . . . 131

The Most Economical Foods . . . . . 136

VIII. SUMMARY BY AREAS . . . . . . . . . 141
The Most Efficient Techniques of CrOp

Production. . . . . . . . . . 141

Livestock Development. . . . . . . 159

Resource DevelOpment . . . . . . . 159

IX. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . 162

The Models and Major Findings . . . . 162

Modifying the Assumptions . . . . . 169

conCluSions O O O O O O O O O O 173

BIBLIOGMPHY. O O O O O O O O O O O O 178

APPENDIX C O O O O O O O O O O O O O 183

m, '. .' -
.EC..T..Cc

Pract;

\

Levels <

REUEQUE

Cf PE

r‘ .
“Va-Ct“

 

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. A Sketch of the Model . . . . . . . . 21
2. Technical Coefficients for Improved

Practices Currently Available (Production

Activities Introduced as Part of Model 5). 28
3. Technical Coefficients for Prospective

Varieties (Production Activities

Introduced as Part of Model 6) . . . . 33
4. Levels of Food Crop Activities . . . . . 44
5. Levels of Cash CrOp Activities . . . . . 48
6. Levels of Tree Crop Activities . . . . . 49
7. Quantities of Resources Available and Unused 75
8. Revenue Obtainable from an Additional Unit

of Resource. . . . . . . . . . . 78
9. Levels of Animal Industries . . . . . . 81

10. Additions to Revenue Possible if an Animal

Activity were Expanded . . . . . . . 83
11. Summary of Revenue Transactions. . . . . 87
12. Quantities of Foods Transported between

Areas I O O O O O I O O O O O O 97
13. Consumption Activities Significantly Con—

strained by Their Maximum or Minimum

Levels 0 O O O C O O O O I O O 102
14. Costs of Nutrient Elements in Average Daily

per Capita Allowance. . . . . . . . 106

15. Levels of Food Crop Activities: Model 5
with Fertilizer and Extension Services
Limited 0 O O I O O O I I O I O 111

vi

‘-

O».

\L')
o

A.

a.

(s. A)
L I l

r».-
a .

Leve is C

Wit; F

..
A HA 5

of Re:

 

 

Table Page

16. Levels of Cash CrOp Activities: Model 5
with Fertilizer and Extension Services
Limited I O C I O O I O O O O O 120

17. Levels of Tree CrOp Activities: Model 5
with Fertilizer and Extension Services

Limited I O O O O I O I O O O O 120
18. Quantities of Resources Available and

Unused: Model 5 with Fertilizer and

Extension Services Limited. . . . . . 124

19. Revenue Obtainable from an Additional Unit
of Resource: Model 5 with Fertilizer and
Extension Services Limited. . . . . . 126

20. Levels of Animal Industries: Model 5 with
Fertilizer and Extension Services Limited. 128

21. Additions to Revenue Possible if an Animal
Activity were Expanded: Model 5 with
Fertilizer and Extension Services Limited. 129

22. Summary of Revenue Transactions: Model 5
with Fertilizer and Extension Services
Limited 0 O O O I O O O O O O O 132

23. Quantities of Foods Transported between
Areas: Model 5 with Fertilizer and
Extension Services Limited. . . . . . 137

24. Consumption Activities Significantly Con—
strained by their Maximum or Minimum
Levels: Model 5 with Fertilizer and.
Extension Services Limited. . . . . . 139

25. Additions to Revenue Possible if a Food Crop
Activity were Expanded . . . . . . . 185

26. Additions to Revenue Possible if a Cash
Crop Activity were Expanded . . . . . 188

27. Additions to Revenue Possible if a Tree Crop
Activity were ExPanded . . . . . . . 189

28. Additions to Revenue Possible if a Food CrOp

Activity were Expanded: Model 5 with
Fertilizer and Extension Services Limited. 190

vii

Table Page

29. Additions to Revenue Possible if a Cash
Crop Activity were Expanded: Model 5
with Fertilizer and Extension Services
Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

30. Additions to Revenue Possible if a Tree
CrOp Activity were Expanded: Model 5
with Fertilizer and Extension Services
Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Map of Ecological Areas . . . . . . . 23

ix

 

P -
88.8 1.
u
H .
Id. -II.‘
J
u .
A... "I,
H
:35“ Mu
‘
inc.

h ,P~
u U...‘ y u

t ‘ --,
° C. at
I Lie

 

.
‘1
“
“A
in,‘
UN.
‘ ”tab:

CHAPTER I

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The importance of expansion of the agricultural
sector during the process of economic development has been
discussed by many. It has been argued that in the course
of economic development the agricultural sector is a
source of labor for the industrial sector, a source of
food for the population, earns foreign exchange, and is
a source of raw material for industry.1

The expansion of a crop for the purpose of feeding
the population does not improve the foreign exchange
position unless it is a substitute for food imports. On
the other hand, the production of export crops does not
improve the nutritional problem of a country unless more
economical foods are imported with the earnings. The ex—
tent to which a country should expand its cash crops at
the expense of food crops is a question to be studied

empirically.

 

1Bruce F. Johnston and John W. Mellor, “The Role
of Agriculture in Economic Development," American Economic
Review, LI, No. 4 (September, 1961), 571-81.

 

In Ni:

saved the ex}

 

5:35 crops w"-
r 1 ‘
:rate"or.< o.

:is: assrove

a- 1
Inna

1 I “V.
Lugs! DEIIC.

lv'F'r-y‘ ‘“C“
..‘:...* LU i.

a
(

 

. Q
“’An‘ulr“ .

“ II J
:“J‘WvH-AOH |

passmihty c

,

n \
'L“ [SCI-'5;
9" r

A"...
~ ‘
k"‘¢~:““. 1
? d ‘ I
I .
‘ H
“Sure“?
. G“.
U
6"
5‘ #

 

In Nigeria, policy makers traditionally have sup-
ported the expansion of cash crops while the expansion of
food crOps was "left to develop on its own within the
framework of the unaided market mechanism."2 Some econo-
mists approve of Nigeria's past agricultural policy. Carl
Eicher believes that Nigerian agricultural policy has

"rightly focused on expanding export rather than food crop

3

production." On the other hand some have mentioned the

possibility of a food shortage when a country expands her
cash crops too rapidly. Tolley and Gwyer believe that:

In [some] countries, factor endowments have been such
that any production for cash export entailed a reduction
in imports for domestic food production, so that the
expansion of cash export production was limited by
changes in agricultural productivity unless food was
imported. Large scale importation of food appears to
have been an accompaniment of expanding cash export
production in some countries such as Malaya, Indonesia
and Peru.4

 

2Godwin Okurume, "The Food Crop Economy in Nigerian
Agricultural Policy," CSNRD-3l (East Lansing, Mich.:
Michigan State University, February, 1969), p. 2. (Mimeo—
graphed.)

3Carl K. Eicher, "The Dynamics of Long Term Agri-
cultural Development in Nigeria," Journal of Farm Economics,
XLIX (December, 1967), 1150-70.

 

4George S. Tolley and George D. Gwyer, “Inter-
national Trade in Agricultural products in Relation to
Economic Development," Agricultural Development and
Economic Growth, ed. by Southworth and Johnston (Ithaca,
N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1967), p. 414.

 

""‘1 Victor E

fined
‘ " Q”-
::r :ne agrx.

L' I

a:a:tern o
:‘szn‘mn, and;
rezamng res;

u" ‘lrg‘nn J
:$: ogiauglajs .‘

. z ‘
CUP 313'.
tecnr.1ca.

I t};

 

There was no empirical research on this subject
until Victor Smith5 built a mathematical programming model
for the agricultural sector of Nigeria. He tried to find
a pattern of production to provide Nigeria with adequate
nutrition, while maximizing the income obtained from the
remaining resources, to be used in the cash crop sector.
His findings are that:

Nigerian agricultural revenue can be increased more
rapidly by eXpanding the production of many a food
crop (given the maximum limits on other crops and the
technical relationships embodied in this model) than
by expanding the production of crops that yield
revenue directly.

Is the past policy of expansion of export crops in
Nigeria--defended by Eicher, analyzed by Tolley and Gwyer
and empirically tested by Smith--app1icab1e to the future?
This question needs careful consideration.

It is implicit in Smith's work that everything
depends on the technical coefficients of the production
functions. In the course of economic develOpment techni—
cal changes (in the agricultural sector) will be intro-
duced, new varieties of crops will be developed, and new

cultural techniques will be practiced; therefore, the pro-

duction coefficients will change. Policy makers are faced

 

5Victor E. Smith, "Optimal Resource Allocation for
Income and Nutrition," a working paper for the Consortium
for the Study of Nigerian Rural Development, Working Paper
No. 11, June 1969, East Lansing, Michigan. (Mimeographed.)

61bid., p. 69.

,..'.' _ "V
1'Lfle pm».

I. '0‘

 

azi different

It is

.n b
...::::e from

‘ t
‘ROP. A a;
”MCEIC‘Q. '

10..

a
“‘s Cvfi.‘
"~J.

with the problem of giving priorities to different projects
and different crops.

It is obvious that the twin objectives of earning
income from the cash crops and obtaining nutrients from the
food crOps are interrelated. This research considers this
interrelationship and seeks answers to several questions
important to Nigerian policy-makers, if they intend to feed
the Nigerian pe0ple in the most economical way. Among
these are:

1. What are the principal nutritional deficiencies?

2. Which of these may be economic in origin, in the
sense that these nutrients are expensive to
produce?7

3. What nutritional and income consequences may
be expected from the kinds of technical improve-
ments now available?

4. Of various possible lines of research in plant
breeding, which ones promise the greatest
return?

5. Which potential crop varieties or techniques
of cultivation can improve the nutritional
situation most effectively in terms of the
resources used? Which can contribute the most
to expanding agricultural income?

In approaching question 5 I shall ask what changes

in crop production patterns would contribute the most to:

(a) meeting nutritional needs;

(b) providing revenue for Nigeria.

 

7 .
By expenSive to produce we mean use resources
that have high alternative values in income production.

 

I shall fur :1".

 

H
:1

. . .,
.3 a 81:21.3.2

.‘I
“P
.l.

V
I

R
‘:e P; A
V1. b

H
u.
(D
H
H
I

I shall consider:

new cultural practices (called recommended
practices),

new varieties of existing crops, and
potential varieties of existing crops.
I shall further ask:

In which areas shall specific crops be en-
couraged or discouraged?

In a similar way the following questions are studied:
Which alternative techniques or varieties of
crops are most advantageous in a specific

situation or area?

Can intercropping compete with the new cultural
practices?

What crops should be fertilized and how?

If there is a limit on importation of fertilizer,
how should fertilizer be allocated among crops
and between areas?

If there are limited extension services for the
application of the new techniques, which
crops or areas should be given priority?

To answer these questions I will apply and make

use of Smith's model. In Chapter III I shall explain that

model in detail.

in Each One .

"‘“m :tln“
.“.Vbc~l~‘

VA. .

V’E “

"' briefly

K‘;_
..‘.‘::ie:1t a;
Cf an 17.5.1},
131362, E:
3i Carson <

 

CHAPTER I I

REVIEWOF PREVIOUS STUDIES

This study utilizes information from different
disciplines in order to answer some of the questions a
developing country faces in the course of expanding her
agricultural sector. Apart from V. Smith's work,1 there
is no study of this kind. But there are related studies
in each one of the disciplines from which I have drawn
information. I shall refer to some of the related works

very briefly.

Nutritionists
Nutritionists have recommended daily per capita
nutrient allowances to meet the normal physiological needs
of an individual with a given size, sex, age, and weight.
In 1862, Edward Smith was first to recommend 4300 grams

of carbon and 200 grams of nitrogen as the daily minimum

 

lSmith, "Optimal Resource Allocation for Income
and Nutrition."

\

ed the

" u rf‘
00"“ ‘ve.

:
a

5, inc

Hal's?
Vultvb

 

. . ..v .
C . I t a
no 11 Md
5 Am d +» m
s w A
A 4L d g
A?» e an
1a .3 S .. .
Fe VI. my (\
.1. WV. .Vu
.aa Ow A?” we
A win PP. v.

Yr.
in

aqua
bJév
I

 

5
Q

fa:
U.

DOCS .

b

3-2
my

l ~0-
u.‘.;

‘p ‘

rat:

L
L.

“ya u .
av a
I .q s
«L
Es A.»
’\ ~\U
Av 2..
a. s ‘8.

allowance.2 Since then, G. Lusk,3 H. Lewis,4 and many
others, including scientific groups such as The British
Medical Association, The Canadian Council on Nutrition, and
The National Research Council of the United States, have
proposed daily nutrient allowances.5

At the same time other nutritionists have been
working on a low cost diet. Wilson, Fisher, and Fugua6
compared the percentage of a single nutrient from a cer-
tain group of foods with the cost percentage of this group
of foods. They concluded that the group of foods with the
highest ratio of nutrient to cost is the most economical
in providing the given nutrient. This method could be
applied to a single food instead of a group. But it is

not applicable to considering more than one nutrient.

 

21. Leitch, "The Evolution of Dietary Standards:
Historical Outline," Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews, XI

 

3G. Lusk, "The Fundamental Requirements of Energy
for Proper Nutrition," Journal of the American Medical
Association, LXX (1918), 821.

 

 

4H. Lewis, "Fifty Years of Study of the Role of
Protein in Nutrition,“ Jourggl of the American Dietetic
Association, XXVIII (1952T, 701.

 

5Cecilia A. Florencio, “The Efficiency of Food
Expenditure Among Working-Class Families in Colombia"
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Uni—
versity, 1967), p. 11.

6E. D. Wilson, K. H. Fisher, and M. E. Fuqua,
Principles of Nutrition (New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., 1959), Chapter 18.

 

Lies by usiné

ML

:‘gzrient. ..
zantained in
nutrient, anc

“‘"‘."Y‘ “A tr
o~~v.b .lve .
.

hswever , tne .

V
4

‘F‘rn n1“. .;
3.3..6 .,_,_r‘€

("A .' s .

rEtail pri Ce

.
".
§..

3:5 SEarc

 

 

Nutritionists such as J. G. Davis7 and J. G.
Armstrong8 tried to find economical foods for poor fami-
lies by using measures which consider more than one
nutrient. Their measures take into account the nutrients
contained in a food, the recommended allowance for each
nutrient, and the price of the food. They give equal
importance to calories, protein, and other nutrients.
However, they fail to give appropriate weights to the

scarce nutrients and nutritional deficiencies.

Economists

George Stigler9 was the first to calculate a low
cost diet that can meet physiological needs of an active
man. He disregards palatability, taste, and some cultural
considerations. He uses a list of 77 commodities for which
retail prices are reported by Bureau of Labor Statistics.
In his search for a minimum cost diet Stigler suggests
that: "One may exclude any commodity all of whose nutri-
tive values (per dollar expenditure) are less than those

. "10 , .
of some other commodity. Stlgler extended thlS

 

7J. G. Davis, “The Nutritional Index and Economic
Nutritional Index of Food,“ Dairy Industries, XXX, No. 4
(1965), 193-97.

8J. G. Armstrong, “An Economic-Nutritional Index
of Foods," Canadian Nutritional Notes, XXII, No. 3 (1966),
25-39.

9George Stigler, "The Cost of Subsistence,"
Journal of Farm Economics, XXVII (1945), 303-14.

loIbid., p. 310.

icai

i...” J

.
‘"e
‘3“
g"

-
5

area?
1
0;:

others-
L“
Vac

-‘ng
“av

I
.
«7
UL
.

 

o . .A u
t V u .. r“ a C
T. 0 1 m a .u
. a. s .3 My
c 1 m e .a s
x c M “1P. ”HE P "a

procedure by excluding a commodity if it was inferior in
its "important nutrients and only slightly superior in
others." He fully realizes that his method does not find
the exact minimum cost subject to linear conditions. But
(in the absence of the computer) Stigler's procedure is
practical, since solving the problem by means of linear
programming using a desk calculator would take many man-
days.

In 1964, V. Smith11

used a linear programming
model to determine a least-cost diet. He was interested
in solving the problem for those "whose nutritional
problems stem from poverty."

The Smith and Stigler studies are concerned with
the minimum cost of a diet when foods are already produced
and available on the market. They do not look at the
resources employed in producing these foods and the alter-
native uses of resources. These approaches could be use-
ful only in attempting to improve the nutritional intake
of certain individuals. For an entire country suffering
from malnutrition and hunger, these approaches are not
appropriate. In a poor country in which malnutrition is

a result of inadequate food rather than maldistribution,

these approaches fail to be helpful. If, for example,

 

11V. E. Smith, Electronic Computation of Human
Diets, Michigan State University Business Studies, Bureau
of Business and Economic Research, Graduate School of
Business Administration (East Lansing, Mich: Michigan
State University, 1964), p. 2.

:ere were a
ice lCW'COSt

: tie expert

‘ID

rage in 5:1

7 -‘ ;

I! O”. A”:
. P

60‘ “A "JLCUV

53:;e-ty as a
::e mmvid

,
A6-

.-.EIS mus t

he,
:9. .
‘ch 1F
1.
dquL
P335

 

 

 

10

there were an increase in the consumption of the foods in
the low-cost diet, either some would get a low-cost diet
at the expense of others or the production pattern must
change in such a way as to provide a low—cost diet for all.
In the former case, although the low-cost diet might be
helpful to individuals, it does not necessarily help the
society as a whole. When there is a shortage of food and
some individuals are given foods with high nutritive value,
others must get foods with lower nutritive values. In the
latter case, if we change the pattern of production to
provide a low-cost diet for everyone, the foods which are
low in cost will not remain the same, because as production
patterns change so do relative prices. With a change in
Irelative prices the selected foods will no longer consti-
tute a low cost diet.

When the problem of poverty and malnutrition stems
from inadequate resources, resources should be employed to

produce the highest amount of nutrition.

Geographers and Agricultural Economists
The relationship between the allocation of re-
sources and providing nutrients for the population has been
studied by some geographers, agricultural economists, and

other scientists utilizing interdisciplinary approaches.

Coop'
4.35 Of Worl'
Rey calcula

crops and co:

Finally they

Accc
1' these two
Euced must 1".
acre of land
if we want t

Inl

‘55 Comer:

 

 

 

11

Cooper and Spillman,12

(in response to the short-
ages of World War I) were the first to study this area.
They calculated the average yield per acre for different
crops and computed the edible portion of the average yield.
Finally they calculated the amount of protein and calories
in this edible portion.

According to the Cooper-Spillman method, if one
of these two nutrients were to be increased, the crop pro-
duced must have the highest amount of that nutrient per
acre of land. This method fails to be helpful, however,
if we want to increase two nutrients simultaneously.

In 1943, Christensen,l3

like Cooper and Spillman,
was concerned about the growing need for foodstuffs during
World War II. Due to the war situation there was a limit
to the use of resources, so he tried to develop a method of
allocating agricultural resources most efficiently. He
suggested that resources should be shifted toward the pro-
duction of food which would provide the nutrients in short
supply. He realized the limit to this transfer because of
consumption habits. To take habitual consumption into

account he allowed the production of a minimum quantity of

some foods which provide nutrients at a very high cost.

 

12M. C. Cooper and W. J. Spillman, Human Food from

an Acre of Staple_Farm Products, Farmers' Bulletin 877,
U.S. Department of Agriculture (Washington, D.C.: Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1917).

13R. P. Christensen, Using Resources to Meet Food
Needs, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agri-
cultural Economics (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office, 1943).

sizultaneou
In

ticeted the.

“out of :
#0
Variety of

21:26 the ef

 

 

 

 

12

He tried to determine the efficiency of resources
used to produce different foodstuffs and concluded that
certain field crops, vegetables, and fruits make "most
efficient use of land" while others make most efficient
use of labor. However, Christensen's measure cannot be
applied in assessing the efficiency of labor and land
simultaneously.

In 1958, Stampl4 suggested a method more SOphis-
ticated than the Cooper-Spillman method. He raised two
questions: (1) How much food is needed to feed an average
person? and (2) How much land is required to provide that
amount of food?

To answer these questions he assumed that given a
variety of foods, if the calorie requirement is met, then
all other nutrients will also be provided. He tried to
find the efficiency of land when used for several staple
foods.

Stamp concluded that 250 kg of the edible portion
of wheat is needed to provide enough calories for one man
for a year. He assumed that the non—edible portion is
10 per cent and the seed requirement is also 10 per cent,
concluding that 300 kg of wheat should be harvested to
feed one person one year. He further concluded that,
for countries with low productivity, this amount could

be obtained from one acre of land.

 

14L. D. Stamp, “The Measurement of Land Resources,"
Geographical Review, XLVIII (1958), 1-15.

7. -- ‘ ‘r
23.31.1080 -

zcre than c

He

F 1 '
2:3: and 1

 

 

 

13

Using the same computation for other crops, Stamp
concluded that the cultivation of rice can feed slightly
more than one person per acre, while the same amount of
land devoted to potatoes could feed three persons a year.

He also computed the amount of calories obtained
from land if it were devoted to the production of milk and
meat. For milk, two and one-half acres of land is required
to obtain enough calories for one person per year. For
meat, almost seven acres is needed.

Considering the world land shortage, Stamp sug-
gested that a world land use survey be carried out, and
that land use patterns be interpreted from the clima-
tological, ecological, and social anthropolOgical points
of view. He emphasized the need for planned "land use"
with international c00peration.

In 1961, Zobler15 used a model similar to Christen-
sen's in measuring the efficiency of land. Using his
model he compared land efficiency in Japan and the United
States. According to his calculations, land in Japan is
7.7 times more efficient than in the United States. But
the existence of abundant land in the United States makes
it possible there to provide all nutritional requirements
eXcept riboflavin, while in Japan only the ascorbic acid

requirement could be met.

 

 

. 15L. Zobler, "A New Measure of Food Production
Effleiency," Geographical Review, LI (1961), 459-569.

All
with finding
nutritional
x‘antries .

:as-t alloca'

of allocati
earnings fr
nutritional

:ists have

 

 

 

C
4am .
61’ 18
w
..e 5006
132-4....
diaglzln
C
Goa

14

All the above mentioned studies were concerned
with finding the most efficient way of meeting the
nutritional requirements for individuals or specific
countries. None considered a developing country which
must allocate part of its agricultural resources to cash
crops. Developing countries are faced with the problem
of allocating agricultural resources to obtain the highest
earnings from cash crops, as well as meeting their
nutritional requirements most efficiently. Some econo-
mists have touched on this problem and have tried to solve

it.

African Scholars

 

In 1956, Galletti, Baldwin, and Dina16 did a
sample study of Nigerian cocoa farmers. In their study
Galletti and his associates tried to measure the money
value efficiency and calorie efficiency of several crops.
They measured these efficiencies both in terms of per
acre of land and per hour of labor worked on the land.

Galletti, Baldwin, and Dina realized that a
farmer is not only faced with the question of maximizing
the food value of his production, but with the problem of
maximizing the money value of his crOp as well. As far as

food crOps are concerned, it is reasonable to assume that

 

16R. Galletti, K. D. S. Baldwin, and I. O. Dina,
Nigerian Cocoa Farmers: An Economic Survey of Yoruba

Cocoa Farming Families (London: Oxford University Press,
1956).

farmers are

:9: hour of '

farmer couli
insane from
Gal;

Lie geograp‘:
craps betwe.
Finally the;
Since t.

in calc.
differe.
Earner‘l
differ:-
the hid“
food v.5
Br;

“‘5 Dina t':
9:30;thng f
“at food ‘

33' One f0”

5‘.
sue fOOd n

 

 

15

farmers are "aiming at the highest return per acre and

17 But in case of pro-

per hour of work in food value."
ducing a cash crop like cocoa "the objective of the
farmer could be assumed to be to maximize his cash
income from the cocoa produced."18
Galletti and his colleagues tried to rationalize
the geographical specialization in the production of the
crops between different villages in their sample survey.
Finally they say:
Since the principal crOps have very different values
in calories per pound and pence per pound and very
different yield per acre and per hour of work, the
farmer's view of what it is best to grow will be
different according to whether he is developing at
the highest return per acre and per hour of work in
food value or the highest return in money value.l9
Bruce Johnston20 agreed with Galletti, Baldwin,
and Dina that farmers aim at the highest food value in
producing food cr0ps and at obtaining the highest return
in money value when producing cash crops. He realized
that food value efficiency should not be measured only

by one food element, the calorie. He stated: "obviously,

the food value of different staples also depends upon

—_

17Ibid., p. 332.

laIbid., p. 318.

lgIbid., p. 332.

20Bruce F. Johnston, The Staple Food Economies
Of Western Tropical Africa (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford
UniverSity Press, 1958).

 

their conte
nutrients . "

Jo?
and Dina' s
:cney value

16

their content of protein and other essential
nutrients."21

Johnston used the data from Galletti, Baldwin,
and Dina's study and reproduced a table of calorie and
money value efficiency for different crops. He pointed
out that money value efficiency ranks differently from
calorie efficiency.

Although it seems that Johnston had most of the
ingredients to build a rigorous model, he failed to do so.
It is reasonable to say that he did not see the usefulness
of linear programming models although he said:

While strictly speaking it is not possible, of course,
to maximize simultaneously yield per acre and return
per hour of work, in practice it seems reasonable to
suppose that many cultivators pay heed to both
objectives.

Smith made use of all the above mentioned disci-
plines and built a mathematical programming model for the
agricultural sector of Nigeria to find an optimal solution
for the consumption of food, the production of agricul-
tural produce, and the pattern of trade. Since this study

makes use of Smith's model, I will discuss it in the next

chapter in more detail.

 

ZlIbid., p. 133.

221bid., p. 133n.

r
.:e Rest. a-
‘
r—‘P,
Aco:

se:tor i s 1

 

 

 

CHAPTER III

THE MODELS

Smith Modell

 

The Restraints

 

The Smith model assumes that the agricultural
sector is responsible for feeding the Nigerian people.
The objective of the model is to maximize the revenue
obtainable from agricultural resources not used to pro-
vide food for Nigeria--after providing nutrients for the
total population of Nigeria. In providing food for the
people of Nigeria, market prices of food play no role in
the model. Foods are valued for their nutritional contri-
butions. The model allows the agricultural sector to
produce cash crOps for export, providing foreign exchange
to be spent for imported foods. In this case the revenue

is subtracted from payments.

1Victor E. Smith, “Optional Resource Allocation
for Income and Nutrition," A working paper for the Con-
sortium for the Study of Nigerian Rural Development,
Working Paper No. 11, June 1969. (Mimeographed.)

l7

In order

” i'ith's mat

[. .u

 

 

 

18

In order to explain the model more clearly I quote

 

V. Smith's mathematical statement of the model.2
Maximize: Z r. x. Revenue
j J 3
where (1) xj : o and Restraints
(2) a) Z ai. x i o l = 1 Foreign
j 3 3 Exchange
b) X a x. > b. i = 2 . . . , n Nutrition
j 13 j ? 1
c) 2 al x. :_b l = n + l . . .,
j 3 3 < 1 n + h Habit
d)Z J_x_>__o i=(n+h)+1...,
j J 3 (n + h) + c Commodity
e) Z i' x 1 b1 1 = (n + h + c) + l . . .,
j 3 3 (n + h + c) + f

Resource Use

f) 2 a.. x. > b. l = (n + h + c + f) + 1 . . .,
j 13 3 — 1 (n + h + c + f) + m
Maximum
Limit

Here rj is the revenue provided by one unit of activity
xj, aij is the quantity of attribute i possessed by one unit
of activity j, and bi is the quantitative level of the ith
constraint.

In the objective function, the revenue, rj, is positive
only if the jth activity represents a sale of produce not
used for food within Nigeria. If the jth activity requires

a net purchase from outside the Nigerian agricultural sector,

rj is negative. In all other cases it is zero.

—_.

21bid., p. 26.

 

eatinate.
to increase

trough v1

H)

I
n
l‘. .3
b

the consutz

 

up to a le'
Sumption '1;
Of kOla DU
;963 and t

533431 to e

.0 De er».
‘1"
”‘2 “if":

19

The Smith model allows the production of crops to
be expanded 20 per cent beyond the estimate of their 1963
levels. The acreage of arable land, with the exception of
Area V, is 9 1/2 per cent beyond the estimate of 1963
level. Arable land in Area V can expand by 332 thousand
acres beyond the estimate of 1963, but at the expense of
reducing yields on all land in the area. The population of
Nigeria is assumed to be 9 1/2 per cent beyond the 1963
estimate. The traditional animal industries are allowed
to increase in Area I by 20 per cent, and in Areas II
through VI by 9 1/2 per cent beyond the 1963 estimate.

Apart from the kola nut and alcoholic beverages,
the consumption of individual foods is allowed to eXpand
up to a level four times the estimate of per capita con—
sumption in a particular area in 1963. The consumption
of kola nuts must be at least as much as the estimate of
1963 and the consumption of alcoholic beverages is set
equal to estimate of 1963 levels.

The quantity of bush pasture in Area I is assumed
to be equal to the estimate of 1963 less the amount of
change in arable land from the 1963 estimate. In other
areas the quantities of bush pasture are not limiting

factors.

The Activities
The Smith model divides activities into the

following categories:

Cons:
use a
(whic
actix
other
(wnic
to a:
of a;
forei

 

20

Consumption activities (which provide nutrients and
use agricultural output), production activities
(which provide output and use resources), processing
activities (which convert agricultural output into
other forms for export or use), buying activities
(which transfer agricultural produce from one area
to another) and exporting activities (which dispose
of agricultural output in exchange for revenue and
foreign exchange).3

In the Smith model, importing activities are con-
solidated with consumption activities. This is why he
does not mention them as a separate category. A sketch

of the model is shown in Table l.

The Areas

 

Because of differences in production possibilities
and consumption habits, Smith divided Nigeria into six
ecological areas. Each area has its own restraints and
can provide the required nutrients either by production
of foods within the area, by buying from other areas, or
by importing from outside the country.

Smith's division of Nigeria into six areas is as
follows: the Dry Savanna in the North (Area I); the
intermediate Savanna (Area II); the Western Moist Forest
(Area III); the Central Moist Forest (Area IV); the
Eastern Moist Forest (Area V); and the Forest-Savanna

Mosaic (Area VI).

 

3Ibid., p. 33.

 

‘l J _
_
7
.II I. I I
u l I nl'll.
. . .—

 

‘I ’

X x it: X X r
tulll Io . II

.- .C . .~ _ Z

 

(III! I

: , _ ,. ~...
Ifdius “1. hi..- I
. ..,.w. {IAIN .

‘. |1l|nl 1:1 I In ‘1

.257». a ...o _,.»..<

l‘vti <

2:1

uhOQxMu

.:=m u

m .mmooopm

m .mosvoam no 3090 u o

.mssmcoo

o ”hoxu

 

X .

XI..X. XI.

_

XI,

x3

_
—
.
.
I
.
u
_
o

_ v L .3-..
xk . :.

.

_ ..

uwsaq

‘-
~

0x62 9

oohaomom “

IA

>uwuoeaoo .

ucowausz .

 

-J ‘ x K,

 

J
m
._
.
_
I
.
_
_
_

was“; .xm:
mandamox
>umuoeeoo

ucownuzz

 

 

XI

x. x:

x. x

.—...--.——.-——-—.

o—a‘o- ~-—.—...

enema

.xmz
ochaomom
zuwpoeeoo

ucowpusz

 

a“..-

 

 

X..-

X XI

X

X

..--— ,_.._____._..‘-.._ —-.L———~—_ -—-— ._-.

 

“3233

.xmz
ooLSOmom
>uwposeou_

pcowpusz.

 

III
EEIV

 

 

.XII

_——_.———. _—.—.-_.- -__.. ._ — -‘w a..—n"..- g.-.—

 

} ._ “a-.—b—u-o-CaG- — -

X... X X...

 

X

X X

peels

 

 

--... .. ..

m
.
.
I
a

 

IJ

w

 

_
_
_

xu-

x: x. x:

X X

I.‘ III: I.

.xoz
vogzomom
>uwpoeeoo
ucowpuzz

II

 

masaq

 

_ XllllJfi

.
.

l

uwcdzuxm

 

.xmx
ounzomwm
>waposeou r.

pcmapu=z_.

 

 

cwaouou
_1Ide4dunumllir

or -_._.i—

 

 

» *1

X

 

XIX”

 

.

x x xL x

. 'lu E2}f.nfi£ul§t1

m m a a? o o

xr x x- x

.m mM m o o. 0” u m m

XI

.ea:sua-

o_ o o

'1‘

X
.

xi

 

m mm

m 0 o o

nmvmvm

 

hi"-

 

 

 

 

 

HHH

M
a

HH

 

—

H

 

mfific... Cm

 

>wpo<

 

ammo: 0:» Mo nouoxm <

H mqm<h

oum«.:nu- ‘

 

lhé

areas Emit:

‘.
*"ercret...
-l.

zero level
that could
actiVity a
resources
usually ea

Case: if M;

fixed I‘eS

 

 

 

22

The map on the following page shows the ecological

areas Smith used.

Interpreting the Results

The optimal solution will have three groups of
production activities: the production activities at zero
level; the production activities at positive level (but
not maximum); and the production activities at the maximum
level allowed by the model. The production activity at
zero level will not earn enough to pay for the resources
that could be used for other activities. The production
activity at a positive level earns enough to pay for the
resources it uses. The activity at the maximum level
usually earns more than the resources it employs. In this
case, if we relax the maximum limit by one unit, the
unused resources (in case there are unused resources) or
the resources from marginal cases (in the event there are
no unused resources) will transfer to this activity (which
earns more than the cost of resources it employs) and the
revenue could be increased by this amount. If we continue
to relax the maximum.limit gradually, all the resources
used in activities with zero marginal contributions will
eventually be transferred. In this case resources will
become available only by contracting other activities.
Since the expanded activity should pay at least as much

for the resources as they earn in the contracted activity,

23

H $1...on

 

 

 

——-.———_-—~ -

— M._.—_._~ _

7' ._._.__—.-._- .

 

 

 

...I nhlu'lfllli . .410.

023: <¢¢<><meu¢2
5:3 3.: 2:3:
5:3 :3: .25.:
5:3. :6: 5:3.
:3»: 3223:»!

:24): :9

HuauHH

at: 130303 3 C.

s... 2:323. :33:
can- 323-3- 32.:-

Ilzahw 2. 3a: 333-:-

 

 

 

<_mwo_z

.IDODO.CI .

0410

”3‘0 k 3.83

I
l
I
l
I
\t
l
\
\

    
    

peace-<3 .
ego.

anyhm<u

183°C. 0

oxen. II

""""‘

      

Orenoo .

«uni-o

.o

...:o

 

 

 

 

bevond a C'.

 

activity w

TL".
technoloq:

early 1962

 

reflect an
Jeans Of E

the cultu

1

Are

24

beyond a certain point earnings from eXpanding any

activity will decline.

Changes in the Smith Model

The Smith model utilizes information about the
technology and the crops cultivated during the middle or
early 19603 in Nigeria. The data used in the model
reflect an agricultural sector with only the traditional
means of production; namely, labor and land.4 Most of
the cultural practices considered in the Smith model are
primitive, reflecting the agricultural sector of Nigeria
during the early 19603. In other words, the production
function applied in the model, with minor exceptions,5
uses only two common agricultural inputs. Capital as a
factor of production has been left out of the model.

The optimal solution of any linear programming
model may call for expanding some activities. If these
activities or their coefficients existed in the past but
do not now exist, recommendations would apply to the past
rather than the future. We can talk about what should
have been done in the past, but will not find guidelines

for the future.

 

4There are two kinds of labor in the model; labor

in May and June (the months of heaviest labor employment)
and labor during the rest of the year.

5There are some minor exceptions; Smith provided
for the use of fertilizer in the production of commercial
maize to be grown on a very limited acreage of land in
Areas III, V, and VI.

 

Th;
:iigerian a
some of th-
sccpe for
available

new varie‘.

in additi:

5311b mode

geries:
cultural E
able to t!

 

for the Cl
will be a
Study do

tural Me

with the

25

This study will consider future problems in the
Nigerian agricultural sector and will seek answers for
some of these problems. We will concentrate mainly on the
scope for application of new cultural practices (now
available to the Nigerian farmers), the introduction of
new varieties of crops, and the benefits of plant breeding
programs. The production coefficients used in this study,
in addition to the production coefficients used in the
Smith model, can be generally classified into two cate-
gories: (l) the production coefficients for the new
cultural practices and new varieties of crops now avail-
able to the farmers, and (2) the production coefficients
for the cultural practices and varieties of crops that
will be available in the future. The data used in this
study do not concern us with past problems. The old cul-
tural practices are kept in the model and must compete
with the new activities for resources and the capacities
(maximum limits) to produce a crop. Therefore, this
study realistically takes into account the fact that in
order to apply the new techniques they must be superior
to the old ones in terms of the objective function of the
model.

Application of the new techniques requires capital.
Charges relating to the use of capital are included in the

models.

I ‘l A
335.3011 Cu

.
R, .V‘

'3; 3‘ “la:

,
:"'"" TO";
UN u“ as u-

..
.‘Ifi y.
"tutuulug

d

c:

UL
Study! hf
inEE d:

L‘ - .F‘
Emu-

\- .

 

01'. 0035;:

raised,

 

Essentla
.-
‘35 1 ~

 

26

In most cases there are several sets of pro-
duction coefficients for each particular crop and several
models in which these activities must compete with each
other. Therefore, each separate model has sets of pro-
duction coefficients which could correspond to the exist-
ing situation at the present time or in the near future.

The classification of activities used in the
models for this study is the same as that used in the
Smith model, but there are some additional activities,
depending on the model.

Since this research is a continuation of Smith's
study, the sequence numbers of the models are preserved.
A brief description of these models follows: Model 1,
in which there are no maximum limits on consumption
activities; Model 2, in which there are maximum limits
on consumption activities; and Model 3, in which the out-
put levels for animal industries were lowered and the
estimates of the milk output of the nomadic herds were
raised. Changes in Model 4 were in a wide range of
activities and coefficients. For example the coef-
ficients of cropping activities, particularly in Areas
I and II, were changed. Further, the percentage of the
‘essential amino acids containing sulfur required to form
the fully utilizable protein was raised. Particularly,
among other changes, new production and consumption

activities were introduced into the model.

Si:
:‘escribe t.
Hciel 5:
of Crog '9:

Ti.
the f 0110}: -
activitie:
ole crogg
activities
Varieties
farmer, '
ficients .

the tomat

 

1° CL59135
c .
~CI tOTfl‘:

2..

“ea v

27

Since Model 4 is my benchmark model I shall

describe the changes that occurred from 5 to 7 inclusive.

Model 5: Improved Techniques
of Crop Production Included

 

The differences between Model 4 and Model 5 are
the following: (1) There are 69 additional production
activities (of which one is mixed cropping and 68 are
sole crOpping) in Model 5. The additional production
activities are the new cultural practices and the new
varieties of crops generally available to the Nigerian
farmer. These activities and their input-output coef-
ficients are shown in Table 2. (2) The introduction of
the tomato in Areas I and III, high lysine maize in
Areas III through VI, and yellow maize in Area IV provides
new agricultural products which did not exist in Model 4.
To dispose of these products two consumption activities
for tomatoes in Areas I and III, four consumption activi-
ties for high lysine maize in Areas III through VI, and
one consumption activity for yellow maize in Area VI were
also added to Model 4. (3) To try to keep new production
techniques out of Model 4, the production of commercial
:maize--the only new technique in Model 4--was allowed to
expand only to a very limited acreage.6 But in Model 5

the restriction on the maximum production of this crop was

 

6In Model 4 the production of commercial maize
‘fias allowed to expand in Area III up 11,000 acres, in
.Axea V up to 7,000 acres, and in Area VI up to 13,000 acres.

 

 

 

 

_ _
.
u
.
1
u
.
. 1
1.
l-.
‘ .
.
,. .
, l .
I
‘ I
' .'_
t I
'r
a:
.l ‘
, .

I um...

..
a
. . .
. n
.

 

 

 

28

 

.taos scotsau on” access voumu>taz madan mu

.uuu> a:o«>u»a 9;“ cu pasca~d .u~mc uwzuo one

.»s~w_wuhou was coraH new oasoxm wamcoaxa MHQ new .co.sswic»« .wcwxauaa movaauca
.ocos his mpcsoa Omda n“ has wo pfioux 95h
.uaez ocuuusu any ad museums m« ufiaz Logs) mo s>ammmu we once as now wcm couamwu on“

 

 

 

QDU‘U

.cofiua>«udau vcm page: you

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

em m~ n.qH mam.~ nm~u«uuaun povCUEEOuuu .uooza .n>wrwmu
~ M a omw m¢~ “fl ma ooo.~ suaatm> Wtaao
n H H NH" mad Hm mfi omo moufiuooua vupcwfifiouum
aaxmcom
o n m 0mm mo~ «m mm oom.a moufiuoaca vypcmeaooau .aawam
4 N N -~ mm ON om~.~ moocuoeud popcoEUOch .vccfia:
code
A A cm on Am - ooh avofiuuaua vzvciauocvu ..w_~wx
o m.m m.~ omN 0mm MN n“ cem.H moouuoacn kucyfiEOUoc .aumox
H” mawfl
m.om m.an mHM HRH mm AH cow moumuomta vuvcoesouv. .ctnaou
ooo.fi pose.” no «mm nae ooo.~ 3~ ooo.qo pouemacuv .CumEop
nah oo ooo.m~ mwofiuuasa uoucoastuou .cowco
o m. m m.m mm mm a” 05H." m;u_uoaca popcofiaoooh .uacvcaouo
on _ Oma umuuqu1> uy>o~afifi
. 1a: pce veau .vpxwx
m.mm a..: m or m... n. _ ooo.~ .322...» 392
w.wm m.yn m 41 AN 0 . saw nutzuo1ca vvp:uu5cc:m
. gram
_ _ manuou
_ fix ..: H S .... A. 5m; ._ 33%;: «2.2.53...» .2.»
, _ .
om awn qmn a on Hm coo.o~ ‘ wouduoaha voucwaaouwu .zmuha .oumuoa
rm f mH m.q~ mam.m anooagucca nopeofifiouUu .sooum .1y1xncu
o: no: 3 .2 T: _ “.3 oz; Edit: .325
m m H arm wcfi # mm ma ooo.~ sou.»w> Mumlu
w _ ~ ~ mfifi mm. b _m m~ QmH.~ _ moowuowsa wovcoaficwzx
, _ “ fi:£mcom
o l m m omM mcfl _m mw oom.q “ maowuuuna nov39553owu .Meejm
a _ m n “H" _ mm 3m owm.~ mttqunna nopcwasoomc .v:_Hup
A H _ alum
H _ H om em - ~H com ~ mooquuaum nevcvasouou .uomamx
c ¥ m.m m.~ 0mm ¢o~ mN n~ oo«.~ . muomuocpn voucwssoowu .oumcx
i
, W,aowfl
. I p
x . a. l. M x . a. «
Amundzrzcmc i Ammciizzzmsmlmmciszssz m AmmCIISizmv_lmmclzs.gac. Amuczaiizmv _ Amuaaoav . Amvaaoa. Amucaoav w Aaxuu-=~av m Amsqu-c¢uv
. , . . Autos ~
_ nfiuuunocu « mmq~0sm _ meanneuo uoom vo>ocalH Lawson . aucojad _ unusauona " uozuo " «can w x1: can . .
moncoaxm cacao . _ mo unou auuxm mo ouawusr we uuaraflam auonam odmcdm ” . mvcaonv >uw>fluu<
. _vcm umxmuam _ .r F .r . .
squow _ . vaam .H M v~o~ cowuoznoum
t _
Lr stewsuea can “so .»
. noncoauu . w~w m ‘ vmuuaauz yoga“

 

xIIIIIIIIIIIIIsuInnnullllrlnpnnrnnnulrlvnlr

«a “snot do seem as neasuoasca .

a_.u>q.o<

CowuuDVOhmv U~A6

1:
~« < A~ucuuuau not.uucum uu>OLQI~ ecu

 

nu:u«u«uuuou

~cu«:zuas

.N suauh

29

 

 

 

 

.numconxu porno was Mouuntu .u~00u com w

.muncanxo maowcaqaoumqa new a“ yuvciwsuu or“ uHQNMHqusew no. sea ruzu mo nuc_-«£a On w
.vmawioaanc: newn_ucn:v ..a~«~uuuuu you w

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

um ac m Om ooo mosqua> 392
UAOm
avalou
was OmH an oo~.n~ Asyuus> Jo: .En>
mN «H ooo.o~ nxuudua> 3e: .uouu«p .a>mmawu
n ow ooo.~ ouea .~ yawn: choumo3
5 oh OH ooa.~ zaps» .H asap: shadow:
. o ._
no“ smog an OH 005 d Hadocduwwwwx
MM avu<
n .4 u n .
mm wmm an ’ mm a l Qmo nou«u a»; 3.: cuszzx
\ o v u g . 1 F
no” anoa _ mm v cog _ myoauo.ua Jo: amoau
- o. n.o~ m.n coo.m mucuuuoc; 3v: .aHaQ Ha:
or O —.
n.r~ m.am nnA now no ooo.~m Luca .nuuquuoua vuv:uaaouvx
m.ma m.»a l mar new as cm cod.ns >irca .meuduunta vanc;aazaux
_ . DuoSOH
Nu . $5 m _ Gm 000 xuouum> sz
. . 32w
.. 01330.0
_ ,
a all sm_ am W som.Ni >u;wta> a»; .uw>
m . nw m“ , ooo.~# nursin=> 39c .sauuun .q>:vmeu
m J n on i oooU~ than .« voflfia chuomyz
n n On o~ # cod N Afluma .~ ouwz3 Cquvo3
J _ vuwtx
W [HM a~t<
m.oh n.0m ~H# Nfia an HA _ Ono mouusoaua vwv:a&fiouws .cSSU
l .
NH“ 00 i coo n~ mooiuoauq novcufisoueu .coazo
i
o m. m m.~ am an n“ _ coo." mauauuaua novc9360ovu .uch:::uo
_ .
m.~m m.mn n on . mg n i occ._ azudta> 392
m.na m.o- m an in r . o~q mau.uouun vyucrfifizosm
. uaom
_ aaa>ou
—
m.rm m.~m 7 aid as "N w 0m_.m aggravata uaucaaaouut .ae»
H. _ em smu «Nu «m in b ooo.o~ avoczumta execuauooou .zaau~ .o.aaam
. i
. 4 4 fi A a 4 4‘ ‘
.umcu-«:ov AuucuaafizaviAaucaddunuv J Ammc«-«ravmhumc«dfidznvn Amwcwuaurav ‘ Anucaoav M Amvcaoav “ Amvcaonv i Anaavucqsv m A¢>uvu=alv
. . H _ . a n m i Aouui
poem vo>ouaa~ . Lassen ascoaa< was; no: .
ammuwnusu amateum w acumnouo _ . . n . a servo 0:35 o >az can
numcoaxu tango . - _ mo uuou asuxu , “o aua«u:r no ouoznfinm cenzv a” saw i nvcaoav aua>suu<
can “upscau r .r L y
Anuow vuum _ newuuavou
nIIIIIIII weuqauua uq~ .20 u c m
noncoax “a. u . oh 3v kc H «y
u .

 

 

 

 

 

..u.ucouv

(jar)!!!

N u~aah

Jill/I!

30

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ON ~o~ m.o~ n.m coo.» condone“; >0: .aaoa ~.o
«mm on ON oo~.~ oouwuucun vo>onaaa .uxo- .coon
o m. m m.~ am an ma on“ noosuuuua vuvcoaflouou .uacucaouo
an me n 0m ooo suowuu> :oz
940m
soaaoo
«Ha end on oo~.«~ xuoauq> 30c .au>
mN ma ooo.oH nxuaatq> rec .suuuup .=>c-u-u
N A H N: N: AN ma 0: naoduoaun vow—conga: ...—:53an
02 an: o: 3 com.” 32:; :2. £32. .3;
a A on On am A“ One u3u«uuaua vav:aaEOoau .uudfiqz
u n onw bag on 000.~ aqua .a asugh Canvas:
s n or” cod On On oo«.~ nauas .a ands: chusaux
.oN—Qr
mm ¢9u<
mm arm on an «.0 Om¢ neUauosca )yc .uonnam
o~ gem m.od m.n _ ooo.m annasunua 1:: .uflva a”:
2 so a on _ ooo 33:; 3.4....
«don
_ 9.3.935
a: 02 ...m 08:: 33.; :2. .5;
mN ma OOn.AA nxuo«u3> Jun .uuuu«2 .e>qenou
can mod ONA co cow.n xuaauq> as: .uadaa .eu«x
n n own ea“ 09 ooa.~ cued .H snag: c.9923:
A A omm can 05 OH 00o.~ zfisau .d uuwpx cue.eo3
under
N cau<
on man 0“ M mm n.o _ Ono gouuuuquq an: .uonnsx
and “was . an n _ coo.“ nooauu-ua :0: .IOuou
o~ uoN n.oa m.n # ooo.a nonuuu-ua an: .Iaoa ”do
4 W 1 1
Auucufidwzuv Aawcw~a«;avmflawcHM~«zav " Anmcuadmznvflanmcdaflwnnv Anuc«-«cuv M Amvcdoav ” Amvcaonv Aavcsoav - Anxqvncdav fl Anhuuacqsv ‘
. Aouun
" uuqodaozo W unaccum Wand-noun wwom-MN>HHMHW fl uoznuwwmaxiuo-wmumuuaminuHMMMAHM““«m nozuo V wash a max * you xuu>uuu<
noncouuu cacao vac schnham . m . r) W. I ovcaoav _ no no:
«duck _ ovum _ . O . « ”Ohm
- k , penance: soudauuuum . vouuawuu nonqq pa a» .
noncoanu i .
(txxLu i

 

~.v.uaouV a manna

I‘ll-'I' F

 

3].

.ocax .ouauanufiew< .cQUnnH .nouuao-uu Hussy-z

 

 

 

so 39:5: 3% 9:3. 53:3 3.33022 “35 589:3: .m 323:. :3 2:. 3315:? .o :5:ch 33m 5333 .3395 :5; .8vo .< #5353 :v
. .cmvsna .nousq
.3383. 1:33. 23 33:313. as €235... 83m E32: .533 .u 35x 2: $58.32.,8 “23:53.: .8 .352 6.: 3335:? 320m .23. .3852 So
.Hnfl pad mma .mod mums; .nuqaa . uuuoa. sung nu um< o ouauaunca .naocxuqx c«moo any
.UHQv oz .cmw«2u«: .uon~< cn< .cavanu mo zuuauo>«c» .zucaonox anocouw m s as A A a m
a was "ecuOm new asauasacg cafluamuz van .cemdrufix “o acumuo>ucs .ucws .q swam .CMvan .suueenex Aeuauasuahm< no ocoauueaoa aouovom
I. 4. A U . 4 _ o I u . 1 J
. 0.4wwo «mmmwtm.cml;wwmnwwm toclthHMv no nmuw»wroaa.m co spouse fiends .m .02 human coduqauccca _1ucmauumawa :.aucuaa>9«zu< nu« was Ltuaoacx ascendau
hcnmlofi .=«.a..7 c“ “covuut>c~ fieuasasuzcm< ucp::t~>oo .mfiwez .u escrow Addy uduw< we “use.uuaoo Hepavom ecu no ceasaduumao uuozm <: .aHuaauvuo: .r .u .n Acv
.o:~x .coduwom ocax .20tauwox “atsadsoquw< yo ensuuumca .oHooum .z eauagux Aofiv .suaadm

.zuucemem unusu~3u«tu< we sysaduaCM .oucu«om accam *0 ucufluu‘aoo .couuo .2 .5 any
.canan~ .zuscomam
unusuaauuuw< no ucueutmaua anyone; .uouuot«o >u=noo mc«uu< .comuuenom shoe on .ouu no xudquu>uca .nficaunm .ua A~v

.o«~ «o xuansu>ac2 .cauOudnoco souom ”av .JHQEQm .suuuuuUd amu:u~:u«Hu< mo ounuuuocu .nzouva< vu>qo Aflv

 

umc«3b-0u snu aouu vo>duumu nouaeauno van c0«unfl»0uc« can: zauuqsaua pecan one who: qwawu quot on» .auav porno :9“: «consumaaou mo “Haney I an oven coop a>az acouuou«u«voa «so. oaazn nounsom

.momcuaxu segue van nouuauu .-90u you

.nwacumxo nsoechaouuul sou nu uuucduau» any uuuuadduuac can vtn u_;u no nuc«H~«2- an
.noaudosaucs muduuucaav .uuu«a«uuo« hem

.uou_~.uuou vac uono~ new unuuxo nonconxo “an uzn .coauamduuu .mcasata- covauucg
.ouua can amazon o-a a“ an: ac vfiei> 95H

.unua “casuau «cu cd assuage -« who: Lodz) mo .u>nauu~u uo onus :1 so. sue oeuawflv och
.co.ua>dufiau us: page: you

.uau» acouuzu onu madcap kum0>uac meson mu .uao> uaow>oua ozu nu voucafim .ufia: cacao ~59

CQUUC‘O“

 

3.. =58 N ~33.

relaxed.

(4) In ad:
me new p.
were allo‘
mapping.
can expam
crap (in :
(5) Thus,
than Mode.
new produ:
fiction p:

Compete w

Mcdel 6‘

 

.
“"h

 

32

relaxed. This crop was treated like other new techniques.
(4) In addition to the production of commercial maize, all
the new production practices and new varieties of crOps
were allowed to compete with both mixed cropping and sole
crOpping. Each particular crOp utilizing new techniques
can expand to the sum of the maximum limits of the same
crop (in sole and mixed cropping) in any specific area.

(5) Thus, Model 5 has 686 activities, 76 activities more
than Model 4. The model reflects a situation in which the
new production techniques as well as the traditional pro—

duction practices are available at the same time and most

compete with each other.

Model 6: Propsective Varieties
of Crops Included

Model 6 has 29 more production activities than
.Model 5. These are prospective activities using tech-
niques not available to the Nigerian farmers at the
present time. They could be available in the future as
research on plant breeding continues. These activities
amdtheir technical coefficients are shown in Table 3.

This model is designed to explore the possible
gains from further plant breeding programs in major crops,
aSSuming that the new techniques introduced in Model 5
are also available. This model is rather a long-run

model.

 

‘ L:
$1.8
TN.)
(.1 x: '4
bin
14
cu,

'~ 1‘- .33:
‘u
" ‘4 ..t
is . -.

r1" .. n
iu‘zuf Kr,-
bl K" ‘ . I
”It
5.1?
In. ‘ ~
\ ;
‘Ln.
‘4';- ,.
.1: f
(e . .
1' PJ.
it“ A
\ -
37 I
.'I
JI| '
.11,
‘3: 7
\ ‘
in
:42.
‘I.
(e ’V

 

 

 

 

33

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3. Technical Coefficients for Prospective Varieties (Production Activities Introduced aa Part of Model 6)
T
i Expenses
Labor Required Fertilizer Required
Yield Seed Total
Production V T Sprayer and Fertilizer
Activity (pounda Single Super-ISulphate oi'Extra Cost ofi (Minor Expenses
.::;) flay 5 June Other phosphate iMnmonia :lmprovcd Sccdl Dressing Storage Chemicals Elements)
(nan—days) (nan-days) (pounds) (pounds) 2 (shillings) l(shillingsij(shillings) (shillings) (shillings) (shillings)
Area 1 i
Maize 4500 18 27 580 840 i 7 5 3 15
Millet 3000 ll 19 150 250 I 3 l 6
Rice
Upland 2600 20 40 250 250 2 2 4
Sue-p 0000 25 70 350 700 6 6 l2
Sorghum 6000 21 19 250 500 2 2 4
Groundnut 1500 lb 39 120 2.5 3 .5 6
Bean. aoya 1500 20 32 224 0
Cotton 1200 ll 05 180 180 79.5 79.5
Area 11
80 840 7 S 3 15
Maine 6500 16 27 5
mm: 3000 ll 19 150 250 3 1 4
Rice
Upland 2400‘ 20 40 250 250 2 2 4
Sue-p £000 25 70 350 700 6 6 12
Sorghum 6500 21 19 250 500 2 2 A
Groundnut 1500 14 39 120 2.5 3 .5 6
Bean, aoya 2100 20 33 224 0
Cotton 1200 ll 65 180 180 79.5 79.5
Area 111
Maine
Early 6000 10 75 580 840 7 5 3 15
Late 3000 0 85 580 860 7 5 3 15
Area 1V
Maize
Early 4000 10 75 580 840 7 S 3 15
Late 3000 0 85 580 800 7 5 3 15
Area !
Kaine
Early 3600 10 75 580 840 7 5 3 15
Late 2800 0 85 580 800 7 5 3 15
lice. ova-p 6000 60 130 475 1050 6 6 12
Area _1
Maize
Early 6000 10 70 580 8&0 7 5 3 15
Late 3000 0 80 580 860 7 5 3 15
Billet 3000 11 19 150 250 3 1 6
Rice. ova-p 6000 60 130 £75 1050 6 6 12
“rain- 0000 19 25 250 500 2 2 I.
Groundnut 1200 lb 39 120 2.5 3 .5 6
§22£££= Theae data are based upon quantitative judgments made by Ray Olson (Department of Agronomy. Kansas State University), George Sprague

(Beltsville Plant Industry Station. Agricultural Research Vervicu, U.S. Department of Agriculture) and John HcKelvey (Deputy Director.
Agricultural Division, Rockefeller Foundation), in interviews with Glenn L. Johnson (Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan

State University).

Sane aodiiications have been made in the original estimates.

W‘s], 7:

of Ferti l
‘/
Services
’—

tation.
vices for

tecrmque

COStI thE

>_v

 

 

34

Model 7: Restriction of Supply
of Fertilizer and Extension
Services

In Model 5 there are no restraints on the
availability of extension services or fertilizer impor-
tation. Model 5 assumes there are enough extension ser-
vices for the implementation of the new production
techniques at the farm level. With regard to importing
fertilizer, in Model 5 there was no limit on the amount
of fertilizer that could be imported. As long as the
marginal contribution of fertilizer was greater than its
cost, the model allowed unlimited importation.

Model 7 puts maximum limits on importation of
single superphosphate, sulphate of ammonia, and supply of
extension services.7 The maximum amount of single super-
phosphate that could be imported is 60 thousand tons and
the limit for sulphate of ammonia is 30 thousand tons.
These figures are close to the amounts presently imported.
The estimate for their imports is 35 and 20 thousand tons
respectively.8

Regarding the restriction on extension services,

the problem was complicated because there were no data on

availability of the services or the requirement of each

 

7There is no limit on importation of muriate of
potash but in the optimal solution of Model 7 the level
of this activity is zero.

8I thank Mr. Colin Harkness (Institute of Agri-
cultural Research, Samaru) for these estimates.

vices 1i.

availabli

i

0‘?

aafi‘:y
“lit Oil
rough1§v ;
a'v'ailab lg
that Car:

zillion E

2'
“£5.91 *
fertillzE
K34

 

tech

 

35

particular crop. To solve this problem we assumed that
the new techniques of production require extension ser-
vices in the same proportion as they do land. The unit

of extension services is expressed in terms of the acreage
of land. Each unit of 1,000 for extension services could
be used to apply the new techniques to 1,000 acres of land.
There were no data on the amount of extension services
available, but from Model 5 we had information about the
quantity of extension services required when there is no
limit on their availability. Therefore we assumed that
roughly 25 per cent of the required extension services are
available. This limit is equal to the supply of services
that can apply the new techniques of production to 4.5
million acres of land.

Thus Model 7 has exactly the same activities as
Model 5, but there are additional restraints on importing
fertilizer and the availability of extension services.
Model 7 looks for the answer to the question when these
factors are limiting.

Model 7 is a short-run model and seeks answers to
present problems in Nigeria (with limited supply of
fertilizers and extension services).

These restraints (on the supply of fertilizer
and extension services) would restrict the expansion of

new techniques which make use of them as inputs.

p

nutrient ‘

are tne si

23:11:10.0.

 

 

H
ate
21% .9f
' l
.c “‘0‘:
“.finrr;
b
"w v-
L

 

36

Sources of Data

 

Data on the nutritional composition of foods,
nutrient allowances, food consumption, and nutrient intake
are the same as those used in Smith's study. Data on the
nutritional composition of foods were obtained from Platt's

Tables,9 Orr and Watt,10 and the FAO compilation, Amino

Acid Content of Foods.11

Mr. Ephraim O. Idusogie was
principally responsible for the data on nutrient allowances,
food consumption, and nutrient intake.

Data on technical coefficients of traditional cul-
tural practices, acreages, transportation costs, and the
amount of resources available are again the same as those
used in Smith's study. Mr. John Whitney obtained the data

mostly from the Rural Economic Survey12 but also made use

of information from many other sources.

 

9B. S. Platt, Tables of Representative Values of
Foods Commonly Used in Tropical Countries, Privy Council,
Medical Research Council Special Report Series No. 302
(London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office, 1962).

 

10M. L. Orr and B. K. Watt, Amino Acid Content of
Foods, Home Economics Research Report No. 4, U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Insti-
tute of Home Economics, Household Economics Research
Division (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,
December, 1957).

 

11Food and Agricultural Organization of the United
Nations, Amino Acid Content of Foods (Provisional), Food
Consumption and Planning Branch, Nutrition Division (Rome:
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations,
July 1963).

 

12 . . . . .
- Nigeria, Federal Office of Statistics, Rural
Egonomic Survey of Nigeria; Lagos, Farm Survey, I963/64,

 

C7

' ' h
an trip

been some

J5

 

 

 

37

Data on new techniques of production can be classi-
fied into two categories: (1) the data concerning the new
cultural practices now available to the Nigerian farmers,
and (2) the data for the prospective varieties of crops.

The first category of data (Table 2) was collected
on a trip to Nigeria in May, 1969. Although there have
been some modifications in the original estimates, most
of the data were obtained by interviews with the following
agriculturalists:

1. David Andrews, Institute of Agricultural

-Research, Samaru.

2. T. Fatunla, University of Ife.

3. J. H. Green, Department of Plant Science,
Institute of Agricultural Research, Samaru.

4. Colin Harkness, Institute of Agricultural
Research, Samaru.

5. Kenneth Kopf, United States, Agency for
International Development, Lagos.

6. Olatunde A. Ojomo, Plant Breeder, Western
State Ministry of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, Ibadan.

7. Peter Onosirosun, University of Ife.

8. Gary Robertson, Acting Deputy Director, Federal

Department of Agricultural Research, Ibadan.

RES/1966/l, February 28, 1966; Livestock quuiry, 1963,
64 and 1964/65, RES/l966/2, no date; Farm Survey, 1964/65,
RES/1966/5, no date.

 

 

Cl

1C

 

 

F. r .
. Lu
1 a it
PM. .1‘

«L .

,1 2 Au 2..
Y .i s a
wh.~ Ill. med ulcsu

38

9. William Steele, Institute of Agricultural
Research, Kano Station, Kano.
10. Henry Wiggin, Western State Ministry of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, Ibadan.
11. Richard Woodroofe, Chief Agricultural Officer,
Kano State Ministry of Agriculture, Kano.
In addition to the above mentioned persons, some
of the data were drawn from the following sources:
1. J. E. Y. Hardcastle, "A Description of the
Federal Department of Agricultural Research
and Its Achievements," Departmental Infor-
mation Paper No. 2, Federal Department of
Agricultural Research, Ibadan, p. 4.
2. Jerome C. Wells, Government Agricultural
Investment in Nigeria: 1962-1967, Final
Report on Project No. 25, Center for Research
on Economic Development, University of
Michigan and Nigerian Institute for Social
and Economic Research, University of Ibadan
(Ann Arbor, Mich.: n.d.), pp. 105-32, 151).
The second category of data (Table 3) was collected
by Glenn L. Johnson (Department of Agricultural Economics,
Michigan State University). These data are based upon
quantitative judgments made by the following agricultural-

ists:

There liav

data.

 

39

1. John McKelvey, Deputy Director, Agricultural
Division, Rockefeller Foundation.

2. Ray Olson, Department of Agronomy, Kansas
State University.

3. George Sprague, Beltsville Plant Industry
Station, Agricultural Research Service,
United States Department of Agriculture.

There have also been some modifications in this set of

data.

AC.

Evaluatio:

Qt;

‘tail

 

CHAPTER IV

A COMPARISON OF THE EFFICIENCY OF DIFFERENT

CROP PRODUCTION TECHNIQUES

This chapter will analyze and mark comparisons
between the production techniques for the various crops
in different models. The chapter has two objectives:
(1) to compare the efficiency of the production tech-
niques of a given crop, and (2) to determine the superior
crOps and the methods of producing these crOps. The
evaluation is based on the extent to which an activity can
compete with the rest of the activities of the model. The
extent to which a cropping technique must compete with the
rest of the activities depends on which model we refer to.
Each successive model has additional production techniques
which must compete with the old activities. To refresh
the reader's memory we will explain, very briefly, the

models and underlying techniques.l

 

1The models used in this study are explained in
detail in Chapter III.

40

J

“/3 6. 3'12

[1

exception
are the t:
consist of
319355 of 1.:

”F

..V

astivities

 

41

Résumé of the Models

Models mentioned in this chapter are Models 4, 5,
and 6. Model 4 is the benchmark model in which, with the
exception of commercial maize,2 the production activities
are the traditional cultural practices. These practices
consist of sole and mixed cropping, using the traditional
means of production; namely, labor and land.

Model 5 has all the production and consumption
activities of Model 4 plus a set of new production activi-
ties. These new production activities are either new cul-
tural practices, or new varieties of crOps (which give a
higher yield per acre of land) or combinations of both
(the new variety of crOp and the new method of production).
These cultural practices or varieties of crops (with the
exception of dwarf sorghum and a new variety of conea,
which will be available shortly) are presently available
to Nigerian farmers. Some of the new production activities
introduce foods that were not already in the traditional
Nigerian diet.3 To utilize these foods the appropriate
consumption activities have been introduced in the models.

To get Model 6 we added other production activities

to Model 5. These production activities use prospective

 

2In Model 4 a limited acreage of land, in Areas III,

V, and VI, is allowed to be used for the production of
commercial maize. These limits are 11,000 acres in Area
III, 7,000 acres in Area V, and 13,000 acres in Area VI.

For example high lysine corn is not now in the
diet of Nigerians.

  
  
 

varieties, r.
but which ma
new varietie.

designed to

The
traditional
activities-
Of their pl
Of any Par
activitie,E
lEVelS a1.

 

42

varieties, not presently available to Nigerian farmers,
but which may result from further research on developing
new varieties of high yielding crops. This model is

designed to examine the benefits of these activities.

Cropping Activities

The models used in this study allow the levels of
traditional cropping activities--sole and mixed cropping
activities--to expand up to 120 per cent of the estimate
of their production levels in 1963. Should the solution
of any particular model call for the expansion of these
activities to their limits, the expansion would be to the
levels allowed in this study--not necessarily the actual
levels of cropping activities at the present time.

The new production practices introduced into the
models are allowed to expand only up to the sum of the
maximum limits for sole plus mixed cultivation of the same
crop in each particular area. These new practices must
compete with traditional practices for the capacity (maxi-
mum limit) allowed for the production of a specific crop
in a particular area. In other words, all production
activities of all crops must compete for the available
"resources" in a particular area. But at the same time
the new production practices of a particular crop must
also compete with the old practices of the same crop for

the given "capacity" for that crop in each area.

The
:Lutions <

. The opt

(3‘

:he levels
be: hmark n
crops in mc
reason for
expense of
requires a
lation of 3;
resources w

creases, F?

i
thESe faCto
words' when
Shift to th
vide IEVenu

The

into thre e

C .
.ooc. (“Utri

S‘ ‘
‘Vell’ f0]:

.I;
HHCOme P)?”

as Well as

d‘ .

80th fOod -

 

 

 

LOT} 0:

 

43

The levels of cropping activities in the optimal
solutions of Models 5 and 6 are shown in Tables 4, 5, and
6. The optimal solutions of Models 5 and 6 are such that
the levels of many food crops either are less than the
benchmark model or go to zero, while the levels of cash
crops in most cases are above the benchmark model. The
reason for the expansion of cash crop activities at the
expense of food crop activities is obvious. The model
requires a certain amount of nutrients for the total popu-
lation of Nigeria. This requirement can be met with less
resources when the productivity of these resources in-
creases. The increase in productivity releases some of
these factors for the production of cash crops. In other
words, when the people are fed adequately the resources
shift to the production of cash crops which directly pro-
vide revenue.

The crops considered in this study can be divided
into three categories: (1) crops grown exclusively for
food (nutrient producing crops), (2) crops grown exclu-
sively for eXport or sale to the non-agricultural sector
(income producing crops), and (3) crOps grown for food
as well as for sale. In these models any increase in the
productivity of either food crops, or the crops used for
both food and sale will release resources for the eXpan-

Sion of cash crops. That is why, in general, the levels

44

 

 

.quuu ndcu

cu manadau>u was a“ Auu>auu¢ ash

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.n~ a“ a flavor new n!a«xdl ask u
.o.u ma a “one: yaw naiuxda och n
.- a“ a uopOt no“ ISlaudl och a
o.n nn nn o.n nn nn nn nn nn nn nn n- nn nn nn nn oc nn nn oe moo" nn nn nmm.o~ Auauuq> o>asuommoum
o a nu o.m nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn 0 cm nn ca o o nn nnm.o~ aau_uonta concuaaouox
mauunucun :02
In nn nn In nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn 0 o~ Cw Om ammw cmmm qwmm am~m vex“:
o o o o.w n- nn an nn nn nn nn nn nn nn .0 nn c o o~ ON 0 o mead menu oaom
moouuoaua flucouuuvmuh
soda“:
0 nn nn saw 0 In In w- o nn on an o nn 1: «mo nn nn nn nn nn nn an In wge~ .xgi«~e> o>auowqm0ug
NNN nn nn 5mm 0 no nn NNN o n: nn cm 0 nn nn one ¢.N nn nn one o In nn an mfiumo .zuuuuo> a>fiuooamoua
mng NNN II nwm mm mm In mwm o o nn cm axe sno an one nn nI nI In In an it In ouc~ .— yuan: Chogmo3
o BNN nn nmm o o nn -m an on nn an one an: nn 45b nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn mfitqo .~ agar: Chevron
nn In n: In nn nn In nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn on 3 mm nn one o o nn mm mou‘uownq oun:9250uo¢
o b on“ one o o no.“ seq 0 o nn we a o awH mqmfi nn nn nn nn nn nn nn In _e_unvcflou
mooquuaun :02
o o qu mm: o o nmq fine Nm NM on on o 0 ago one qu one ova qu wN mN aw m~ vex“:
o o o~ ca nn nn nn nn m.” r A m.~ m._ o o Hoe boo mm" o Gag om~ o m.o m.o m.a o~cm
mucuuoaua fiqcouuqvcuw
wags:
.mwmmm Mac.—
r»
o n o o m a o n a c m a o n a c m c
Illllllllllllllllnasawxn: .anaxxer IIIIIIIII azauxax aasdxax asaqxax asauxqz
flavor Munoz flavor -ooz -vot — —upox
. >ua>usu<
~> > >~ _~_ . -
no.4

 

 

no.._>uuu< ao~u noon mo nao>oq

 

.4 3%;

45

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nn nn In nn nn II nn In an In nn nn nn nn nn nu nn nn nn nn 0 o In o.w veuuwauuu
unuuuonua )uz
nn nn nn I. I nn nn nn nn nn -n nn nn nn nn nn nn .5 nn nn 2 . 2 2 2 20m
nouuuucum “accuuuvnup
9 9‘05:
0 nn ..n o.n n. I ..n nn I. -n nn nn nn ..n nn nn 0: nn nn “:2 o -n nn SS 33:5 2:32.85
n- I nn .. n- n- nn .. n- -n -n -- -n n- nn -n o 8.: -n 8.: o 2.: nn 82 but: :25
o o nn o.m In nn In nn no In In nn nn nn nn nn 0 o nn mfimm o o nn memo enouuuuua ovucuaaooux
coauuuaun Juz
nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn In no nn nn nn nn nn nn o~o~ mA- o~o~ omen come came oowo oomo vuxxx
o o o.m o.n nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn 0 o omm mam as omm NOON NOON o~cm
movauouun ~ecouu«vdha
aacuuom
Nm nn nn ~m an nn nn moA nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn 0 nn In an o nn nn ewe manquq> ~>quoomm0um
o 8 -.. B o o ..n m3 nn n- nn nn nn -n nn nn nn ..n nn .3 nn nn nn nn 33:; 1oz
nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn 0 o nn an o o nn owe moo«uoaua voocoaaooum
mouMuuQua 392
o o ~.q ~.q o o o.” o.“ o~ o~ cN c~ nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn vex“:
o 0 mn on o 0 Mod AOH o 0 ma ma n. In nn no «a «a an an o~q o~q owe ewq e~om
mouuuuaun Hacouufivsuw
ans?» .0o_m
nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn -n nn nn nn nn nn 0 nn nn n~ o nn nn oa~ xualua> u>auuoanoui
nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn In nn nn nn nn nn nn nn mN n~ an «N o o nn oqq mmoauoaha vsvcweaoovm
coauuuuua 302
In nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn 0 o mN mm o cod and oa~ -0m
coufiuuqua «acouudoauh
_ ocean: .ooqm
- F
o m s o m .V o m s H o a o n q o n o q
,sssaxax -Ilin Banana: till IIII,E=a«xaz.linnillliilllll anauxaz aaaxxcx aaauxq:
dove: Hove: ~ouox flavor detox «woo:
>uu>uuu<
~> > >~ H- - a
acu<
A.v.ucouV q whack

46

.h-oh vacuoo nu" cu a“ guru coho a we; was: uuzuo or“ van new» umpuu mu“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nu ma owoonus a>ammeu as“ u_s; “any vaasauq ad “a o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

II o o wo~ m¢~ ms nu mh mu 0 0n~ end II II II II II II voqu
II o o No no 0.“ o.n o.m o.n 0 mm n~ II II II II II II oaom
aouuuuqua Accouudvouh
In 0000
II II II II II II II II II II on on ma md a” ma can“:
II II II II II II II II II II NH - o.o o.o 0.0 0.0 uflom
n mauuuuuua auscuuavuuh
uuoam .Oueuom
II II II II II II In II II II In no 0 0 II ¢_ enouuuaun vuvcaaEOUQz
«mudguana 392
II II II II II II II II II II q.m a.m o o o ~.a can“:
II II II II II II II In In In ...m on ~.m ~.m ~.m To 38
_ muoauumun Aacoduivauh
_ 5:: .339.
.
In II II II II II II II II II II omna o nan II «no aeoauuaua noosefiBOUou
acouuuaua :92
II In II II II II II II II II on» oqm “an man man “an aux.z
II II II II II II II II In . II coo cam “Hm o ham “Hm o_om
mouwgoahm Hacowu‘vmuh
vzaouu .uuoam .n>mnnmw
93 I. m: 2 ...; II SN 0 I. Q: In In I- II II II 33:; 3oz
«young-um :03
o 0 ~40 o o mwm mum nm~ mmfi MMH «Ma 0 ago Ono II II II II II II vuqu
o o maN o 0 mm” mma o o qc~ era 0 ~_m man II II II II In In oaom
mouMuuaua Hacofiuuoauh
vuoou ..wuu«A .¢>exmmw
.TVIII'IIiTIIIIll'IIIIIIIIIY.-
q o m 4 m a a o w a
aseuxqz asaaxat, asauxaz , asauxax saluxdx .aaaauu:
move: «over "one:
xua>uuu<
>u HM“
nou<
33:53 s «32

47

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

....C_. .T: _: ..~;_._:>.. ulc .._ ...leb... ...;H II
36.; scar... ...: E .2: so: a .2. :3. 5:3: 2: 2:. t...) 7.: .3 E i .....F::. 3.12;; ...: :1; :4: vs.i_........ .l S a.
I..~ :v a. 73117 c...“ sit—:3 ....H v
....N r; q 7:33.}, be. £525): .1; a
.«H r,— q 745: you Eaeuxcs .1: a
1
II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II . II c 0 II o; 3.3::—
II II II II II II II II II II II II o; c.” In 0% II II II _ II II II II II 3:
. _ .a.......u.:.na «Yup—.3500;
II II II II II II II II II II II II o 0 II o.n II II II II II II II II saucy
m .29o_ut1~n pauciflBOQOd
_ . Bugaboo»: 302
m 0u=60H
II II II II II II II II II II In II II II II II 2 C II “ m: o2 a2 In 0mm $333.. vies-:53.
m amoubuotg 352
II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II o o Om~ " m- o 0 00m Own o~om
_
” 2;I_noata flecc.ulpet~
o o On 0a a o on so 0 c on s» c o o az~ II II II II ‘II II II II cox.x
o o cIO ¢.o II II II II II II II II II I- II II .II II II II .II II II II o—om
_
J _ rzuduuCua —1c:«u_wnuw
l
i ._ .....Imm
, .
9... 2. 3 .3 o o s: c: a c a: a: £ a; S ..m E E S w 3 TM a. 2 2 . 3::
o o n.“ a.“ o o m.“ m.~ c o m.m ~.m am am an nu ”m mm in i An an a“ ma o~ _ exam
I I
“ _ {Suutnfia _q..._.;:_.:.uh
“ 7...? a.."...m
II II II II II II II II .I II II II I II II .I II II II II .cAOm a II qizm >uahta> us>ttga_
>7; «:5 feta .rsywr.
o mmn II «rm o 0 II aw c 0 II 3.x 0 we. II mm 0 Own II oqnq “o 6 II caom >nalta> :02
II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II o 0 II echo .0 C II av3m m;._uaau; vté:zfiJo om
u our: .wwox
_ maovuunta Juz
II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II 3 o 0 :2: >5. «I... «5.1.
o o ,2 3.; o o a..» ...N II II II II II II II II 33 we.» when 9.: .o o o 03.“ _ a.....“
_ _ use“:
0 o o ¢.~ II II II II II II II II II II II II o o o ‘ CN _0 o o m— “ woo: .cfio:
_
. . aio.uocta ~s;o_ulveu~
_ ...»..«JNM
anw “an II «an n“ max II coda can con II mac nan Nun II non II II II w II II II II II \qsdto> 302
II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II o was II v n- ,0 a II no: mys_bqsha ouv:yaeo.ax
m .....J. away; 1......”
m
o 0 com wan o O NH: Nao o c «on awn we _.— mmw nm~ oo~ o aoN oou maaw do“ ~a~ “an pox.x
o o oq~ saw 0 o nfia nsn o 0 On an o 0 One an: ace 0 04¢ ace .0 and nna nna o_om
.
muuuauota “3:0«HHveuh
P _ 3.
_ _ H
w F Illjwlll IT
o n a o m s o n s o n s _ a n q _ o n I. _
Iflaaaxdx, Eaaunax asaaxdz II, flaaaxdx _Ena~xur lfllundt_
duvet duvet flavor deco: “soon i flqut
L r 33:2
5, > 3 H: 3 u
1au<
A.u.ucoov a edge»

48

.mouu quu

:« a~nwaus>s no: nu zuu>uuua use II

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indenu :meu an may: we macho voow one coon m»0m vac unconsono a
II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II It ad ad 0 dd o.o o.v OIQ OIe oHom
. mooauoaua acco«u«owt~
ouowAOH
II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II woo II II moo nae II II woe abyuHo> u>~uuaanota
II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II o woo II moo o 9.3 II m3 333th 33.563;
maufiuo1ta 302
mm No 0 Nm II II II II II II II II II II II II o o o can 0 o mew mew v;x_z
II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II o c 0 0mm 0 0 man mam o~om
abouuooua ~1co__“:1nw
mafia
II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II Cd II II ed cg II II CH xuwuua> u>ouyanouL
om“ mug II mod II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II mooabumu; vu>toa£_
mouqutka >92
c o cad mmq II II II II II II II II II II II II o o a CH o O" OH c~ ;~on
movauonca ~r::w._11t~
.IIII
auxom cows
3: II II m5 II II II II II II II II II II II II :3 II II a? 33 II II 2.3 33:; 323.75;
9 mo~ II mca II II II II II II II II II II II II 0 can II com o omoq II omoq moowuoeta wovcercoox
muoduuc.d 3oz
o o o HOH II II II II II II II II II II II II o 0 ohm sun 0 o oacn o_qm vex“:
o o o No II II II II II II II II II II II II o 0 CNN cNN o o mama mama o~om
amouuumua ~ecouuwoebp
auscoczouo
buxom .25.;
II .IIIII - I I4 IIIIIIlr
o m a o m a o m c o m e o n a o m e
6:5«xaz IIIIII. easuxtx II IIII easuxu: Basque: Essdxo: Ensuxaz
dove: flavor detox Hovox fiovoz ~ovox
infi>aue<
~> > >H -~ Ha
mou<

 

 

 

nofiua>uuu< menu caao mo mau>oq .m

o~boh

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

£0»: 35 a: «31:23 no: 3 3...:qu 2:. II
II II II I ma 3 II 3 ~04 «3 II «3 an 3 II «N I II II II II II II II 333.: a»:
II II II II o o o 3 o 0 can N: o o o «N II II II II II II II II 333-: 1.53:3:
:23.
II II II II II II II II II II II II man a: new 80 II II II II II II II II 33391 7.33235.
«cl: :3.
II II. II .II II II II «n 2 II Nm :2 22 In 22 II II II II II II II .323: .5:
II II II II II II II II c o S «a o 0 new 2: II II II II II II II 333:; 1.33:3:
acuoo
3o woo II «ca o0: moan o6: nuu mam II nun mean 3: II menu II II II II II II II mouzouua :02
o o 30 «on o o No: 8: e 0 «an 2... o o 32 32 II II II II II II II II sauna-.... 1323:...
. aim alum
nonuu gal-Ian
a n a ....inII: w n a o n a lit}: 0 n a 3.3.3: o n v .53.}. o m a
~03: .. : flavor nova: . flavor I I ~08: I : aovo: . a
33::
H> > a :u = u
~0h< I

 

 

33.—>3: ...—0.5 as: we :33 .o 3nd.»

50

of many cash crop activities expand at the expense of food

crops (see Tables 4 and 5).

Food Crops

 

Table 4 shows that the levels of some particular
food crops or specific cultural practices for a given crop
would go to zero in the solutions of Models 5 and 6.

These are the activities for which the yield or their
nutrient value (or both) is so low that they can not earn
enough to employ resources. The activities at positive
but not at maximum levels earn enough to pay for the re-
sources they employ. On the other hand, there are some
activities that remain at their maximum level in the
solutions of Models 5 and 6. These activities, generally,
earn more than the alternative cost of the resources they
use. Expansion of this set of activities would increase
the revenue obtainable from the agricultural sector.

To analyze the effects of new techniques of pro-
duction, we will examine each crop individually in

different models.

Model 5
Maize.--The new maize production practices intro-

duced in Model 5 are commercial maize in Area IV,4

 

4In Areas III, V, and VI limited acreages of com-

mercial maize were allowed to be produced in Model 4 (the
benchmark model). In Model 5 these limits were raised to
the sum of sole plus mixed cropping maize in these areas.

51

recommended practices in Areas I and II and Western White 1
(early and late crops) in Areas III through VI.

In the solution of this model, the levels of tra-
ditional practices of mixed crop activities in Areas I and
II are at their maxima (Table 4). Therefore, these activi-
ties can compete with the new practices of maize pro-
duction in produCing maize in these areas.

The solution level for recommended practices is
zero in Area I and 82 thousand acres in Area II.

The new variety of maize called Western White 1
(early and late crops) uses all the existing maximum limits
maize in Areas III and VI. In Area IV only the early crop
can expand to its maximum limit. In Area V the level of
the late crop is positive but not at its maximum.

As compared to the other activities of maize pro-
duction, commercial maize is not profitable and the levels
of commercial maize are zero in all areas where these
activities exist (III through VI).

Millet.--The new cultural practices of millet pro-
duction introduced in this model are recommended practices
in Areas I, II, and VI.

In the solution of this model, the traditional
mixed cropping activities are able to compete with the
recommended practices to produce millet in Areas I and II.
These activities expand to their maximum limits in these

areas (Table 4). Since the remaining capacity left over

52

from mixed cropping in Area II is used by the recommended
practices, and the sole cropping cannot use any of this
capacity, the recommended practices are superior to the
traditional sole cropping practices.

Bigg.--The new practices of rice production intro-
duced in this model are recommended practices of upland
and swamp rice in Areas I and II and the new variety of
swamp rice in Areas V and VI.

In the solution of this model, recommended practices
of upland rice can compete with the traditional sole crop-
ping only in Area II, but not in Area I, the principal
growing area for upland rice (Table 4). But the recom-
mended practices for swamp rice cannot compete with the
traditional sole cropping (neither in Area I nor in Area
II). The new variety of swamp rice is able to compete
with both sole and mixed crOpping practices in Area VI
and uses all the capacity of swamp rice allowed in this
area. In Area V no type of rice culture is in the
solution of the model.

Sorghum.--The new practices introduced in Model 5
are the recommended practices in Areas I, II, and VI and
dwarf variety in Areas I and II.

Table 4 shows that the solution level for recom-
mended practices is zero in all three areas. The pro-
duction of dwarf variety of sorghum is profitable to its

maximum limit in Area II, but in Area I the solution level

53

for this variety of sorghum is 1,700 thousand acres and
its expansion beyond this limit is not profitable. The
traditional mixed cropping practice is superior to the
sole cropping in Area II because it uses the remaining
capacity left over from dwarf variety in Area II. In
Area I, the mixed cropping practice is profitable to be
expanded to its maximum limit, while the sole crOpping
practice can be expanded to 330 thousand acres.

Wheat.--Irrigated wheat in Area I is the only new
wheat production activity introduced in Model 5.

The solution level for irrigated wheat is zero.
Given the technical coefficients of the model, this method
of wheat production is not profitable because of the high
cost of irrigation and other expenses, while the tra-
ditional sole cropping wheat-—with a lower yield and no
irrigation cost--can compete with all old and new activi-
ties of the model for resources. This activity is expanded
to its maximum limit.

Cassava.--The new practices introduced in this
model are the new variety of bitter cassava in Areas III
through VI and the recommended practices of sweet cassava
in Areas I and II.

Neither the traditional practices of producing
bitter cassava (sole and mixed cropping) nor the new
variety of the crop is profitable in Areas III, V, and VI.

The solution level for these activities is zero (see

2e

vm

 

54

Table 4). But in Area IV the traditional sole cropping
practice is at its maximum level while only 1,400 acres

of the total capacity available for this crop is allocated
to the new variety.

The mixed cropping practice of sweet cassava are
worth carrying on to their maximum levels in Areas I and
II, while the level of the traditional sole cropping is
zero in both areas. In the solution of Model 5, the
remaining capacity left over from mixed cropping of sweet
cassava in Area I is used by recommended practices. In
Area II part of remaining capacity left over from mixed
cropping is used by recommended practices and the rest
of the capacity is left unusued.

Irish Potato.--The new practices introduced in
this model are recommended practices in Areas I and II.

In Area I neither the mixed cropping practice nor
the recommended practices of potato production can compete
with the other production activities of the model for
employing the resources. The level of these activities
is zero in the Optimal solution of the model (see Table 4).
The level of sole cropping practice is positive but not
maximum in Area I. However, in area II the levels of
recommended practices and traditional sole cropping
practices are positive but not at their maximum while
the level of mixed crOpping practices is zero in this

area.

55

Sweet Potato.--No new practices of sweet potato

 

production were introduced in Model 5. The traditional
practices of sole and mixed cropping can compete with all
other new and old activities for resources. The solution
level for the traditional practices of this crOp is at the
maximum for both sole and mixed cropping in Areas I and
II, where this crop is produced (Table 4).

Cocoyam.--There are no new practices of cocoyam
production in this model. The traditional practices of
sole and mixed cropping must compete with the new and old
production activities of the other crops for resources.

The traditional practices of sole and mixed
cropping are able to compete with the old and new practices
of other crops only in Area IV, but not in Areas III and
V. The solution level for traditional practices of sole
and mixed crOpping is at the maximum in Area IV and zero
in Areas III and V (see Table 4).

X2m.--The new practices introduced in this model
are recommended practices in Areas I and II and the new
variety of yam in Areas III through VI.

In the solution of this model the recommended
practices can compete with the traditional practices of
sole and mixed crOpping in Area II. This activity
exhausts all the allowed capacity for the production of
yam in the area. But in Area I the traditional practices

are superior to the recommended practices. In this area

 

5""
.nv

nvfir
v. v:

bAév
.
n
.Yf

34. \

adv

In
‘I

56

the level of recommended practices is zero while the level
of mixed cropping is at its maximum and the level of sole
cropping is positive but not maximum.

The new yam variety is superior to traditional
practices in yam production. It can take over part of
the capacities for the production of yam in Areas III
through VI. But the traditional practices of yam pro-
duction, with the exception of mixed cropping in Area III
(with its solution level at 1,000 acres), cannot fill the
capacities allowed in the model (see Table 4).

Cowpea.--The new practices introduced in this
model could be divided into sole and mixed cropping
practices. There are two kinds of new sole cropping
practices: (1) recommended practices in Areas I and II,
and (2) the new variety of COWpea in Areas I through VI.

COWpea is an inferior crop compared to others
because, in the solution of the model, the level of most
techniques of producing this crop in different areas is
either zero or negligible as compared to the capacities
allowed (see Table 4). The solution level for recommended
practices and traditional sole cropping is zero in Areas I
and II. The level of the new variety of cowpea is also zero
in Areas I, IV, and V but positive (not maximum) in Areas

II, III, and VI.5

 

5The solution level in Area III is only 450

acres.

57

Regarding mixed cropping there is an improved
variety which produces both seed and hay for raising
sheep. This activity is available only in Area I. The
solution level for this activity is zero in Model 5.

Melon Seed.--No new cultural practices of melon

 

seed were introduced in Model 5. The traditional sole and
mixed cropping practices of the crOp must compete with all
other production activities of the model for resources.

Melon seed is a superior crop because the tra-
ditional mixed cropping practices in Area VI and both sole
and mixed cropping practices in Areas I, II, and III can
compete with all the old and new practices of other crops
for resources. The solution for these activities is at
their maximum levels (Table 4).

Q££§,--No new cultural practices of okra were
added to Model 5. There are traditional practices of sole
cropping in Area VI and traditional practices of mixed
cropping in Areas III through VI in the model. These
activities must compete with all other production activi-
ties of the model for resources.

In the solution of the model, these activities
cannot compete with old and new practices of other crops
for resources. The solution level for this crop is zero
in all areas (see Table 4).

Onion.--The new cultural practices of onion intro-
duced in this model are recommended practices in Areas I

and II.

58

The recommended practices of onion production are
superior to the traditional practices in both areas. The
recommended practices use up part of the allowed capacities
for onion production in both areas while the level of sole
cropping is zero in the solution of the model (Table 4).

Tomato.--The new cultural practices of tomato
added to this model are: (l) irrigated tomato in Area I,
and (2) recommended practices (early and late crops) in
Area III.

In the solution of the model the level of irri-
gated tomato in Area I is zero because of the high cost of
the implementation of this method (see Table 2). The
level of early crop of recommended practices in Area III
is zero while the level of late crop of recommended
practices--which has a higher yield per acre——is at its

maximum (see Table 4).

Model 6

Maize.--The new practices introduced in Model 6
are prOSpective varieties of maize. It is considered as
early crop in Areas I and II and as both early and late
crops in Areas III through VI.

The solution of the model shows that the pro-
spective variety of maize is not promising in most of the
areas. It cannot compete with other methods of maize
production in Areas I, III, IV, and V. Only the early

crop in Area VI, with its yield per acre higher than the

59

late crop, can expand up to its maximum limit, while in
Area II it can take only a small amount of the capacity--
2,400 acres--from the traditional sole and mixed cropping
(see Table 4).

Millet.--The new practices of millet production
added to Model 6 is the prospective variety of millet.

The solution of the model shows that in Areas II
and VI, where a limited acreage of land is allocated for
millet production, the prospective variety can compete
with other activities of millet production for the use of
the capacity. But in Area I, the principal area for
millet production, the prospective variety cannot compete
with the traditional mixed cropping for the full use of
the capacity. It uses only a part of the capacity left
over from mixed cropping. Mixed cropping still is
profitable and can expand up to its maximum limit in this
area (Table 4).

gigg.--The new practices of rice production intro-
duced in Model 6 are: (l) the prospective variety of
upland rice in Areas I and II, and (2) the prospective
variety of swamp rice in Areas I, II, V, and VI.

The solution of the model shows that the pro-
Spective variety of upland rice is not profitable in
either area. Its solution level is zero in both Areas I
and II (see Table 4).

With regard to swamp rice, the prospective variety

can compete with other activities of Area VI for the use

60

of resources. It can expand up to its maximum limit in
this area but in Area V the level of prospective variety
is positive but not maximum. The prospective variety of
swamp rice cannot compete with the other production
activities of the model for resources in either Area I
or Area II, therefore, they are not profitable in these
areas.

Sorghum.--The new practices introduced in this
model are for the prospective variety of sorghum in Areas
I, II, and IV.

The solution of the model shows that the pro-
spective variety of sorghum cannot compete with the tra-
ditional sole and mixed cropping for the use of capacity
in Area I, the principal growing area. The solution level
of prospective variety is zero in this area. Its level is
also zero in Area VI, where a small acreage of land--5,000
acres--is allowed to be used. Only in Area II part of
remaining capacity, left over from traditional mixed crop-
ping is allocated to the prOSpective variety (Table 4).

Wheat.--No new production activity of this crop
was introduced in Model 6. The traditional sole cropping
and irrigated wheat in Area I must compete with all old
and new activities of other crOps for resources in this
area.

In the solution of Model 6 the traditional sole
cropping can compete with all other old and new activi-

ties for resources. The solution level for this activity

61

is at its maximum (Table 4). But irrigated wheat is not
economical to be produced because of high cost of irri-
gation and other exPenses.

Cassava.-—No new practices for this crop were
introduced in this model. The production activities for
this crop are the same as for Model 5 and they must com-
pete with all new and old activities of other crops of
Model 5 for resources.

In the solution of the model, the traditional
mixed cropping of bitter cassava in Area IV can still
compete with the new activities of this area for resources.
The new variety of bitter cassava, which was at zero level
in Area VI in Model 5, becomes positive in this model and
its level in Area IV rises from 1,400 acres to 33,000
acres (see Table 4).

The traditional mixed crOpping practices of sweet
cassava can compete with old and new activities in Areas
I and II. The recommended practices of sweet cassava
become uneconomical to produce in this model. It is
replaced by sole crOpping in Area I and it goes to zero
in Area II.

Irish Potato.--No new production activities for

 

Irish potato were introduced in this model. The pro-
duction activities of this crop are the same as Model 5
and must compete with all other production activities of

Model 6 for resources.

62

The solution of this model shows that the tra-
ditional sole cropping is superior to recommended prac-
tices. The level of traditional cropping in Area I re—
mains positive--the same as Model 5. But in Area II it
expands at the expense of recommended practices. The
level of recommended practices in Area II, which was
37,000 acres in Model 5, goes to zero in Model 6 (see
Table 4).

Sweet Potato.--The production activities for this

 

crop in Model 6 are only the traditional sole and mixed
cropping practices. These activities must compete with
the new and old practices of other crops for resources.

The solution of all these models shows that this
is a profitable crop. It can compete with all other
activities of the models for resources. In all three
models (Models 4, 5, and 6) the level of both sole and
mixed cropping is at maximum (see Table 4).

Cocoyam.--There are no new practices for cocoyam
production in this model. The production practices of
this crop in Model 6 are the traditional sole and mixed
cropping. These activities must compete with the other
activities of Model 6 for resources.

The solution of the model shows that in Area III
only sole cropping is profitable to be produced at its
maximum limit while in Area IV the levels of both sole

and mixed cropping are at their maximum (Table 4). In

 

1’1

9;

f—c

(I)

f)

63

Area V neither sole cropping nor mixed cropping is
profitable to be produced in this model.

X3m.--No new activities for yam production were
added to Model 6. The traditional sole and mixed cropping
in Area I through VI, are recommended practices in Areas I
and II and the new variety of yam in Areas III through VI
must compete with all other production activities of the
model for resources.

The solution of the model shows that the level of
the new variety of yam contracts from Model 5 to 6 in Areas
III through VI, because other crops, which have advantages
over the new variety, use part of the resources. In Area
II both traditional sole and mixed cropping, which do not
need fertilizer, go to their maximum limit at the expense
of recommended practices. In Area I only the level of
sole cropping expands to its maximum (see Table 4).

CowEea.--No new practices in COWpea production
were added to Model 6. The production activities of this
crop are the same as in Model 5. These activities must
compete with the other production activities of this model
for resources.

In the solution of this model, with the exception
of mixed cropping, the level of the production activities
for cowPea is zero. Mixed cropping practices are pro—
fitable in this model. New practices of mixed cropping,
which apply an improved variety of COWpea for both seed

and hay, exhaust the total capacity allowed for the

 

'(3

'1
6.

Ci

V

.1:

LL
$4

r1
(D

64

production of COWpea in Area I. However, in Area II the
traditional mixed cropping of COWpea cannot expand to the
maximum limit (see Table 4).

Melon Seed.--The cultural practices of this crop

 

in Model 6 are the traditional sole and mixed cropping
practices. These practices must compete with the old and
new practices of other crops for resources.

The crop is superior in Areas I, II, and III be-
cause the traditional sole and mixed cropping can compete
with new practices of other crops for resources. The
solution levels for both sole and mixed cropping are at
maximum in these areas. In Area VI only mixed cropping
can expand to the maximum limit. But in Areas IV and V
the traditional practices cannot compete with other pro-
duction activities for resources (see Table 4).

Q§£§.--The production activities of this crop in
Model 6 are sole cropping in Area VI and mixed cropping in
Areas III through VI. They must compete with the other
production activities for resources.

The solution of the Models 5 and 6 shows that when
the new practices of other crops were introduced in these
models, the production of this crop no longer remains
profitable. The solution level for all activities of this
crop is zero in all areas in Models 5 and 6 (see Table 4).

Onion.--The traditional sole cropping and recom-

mended practices of onion are the production activities

65

of this crop in Model 6. These activities must compete
with other production activities of the model for re-
sources.

In the solution of this model the level of pro-
duction activities for onion remains the same as Model 5.
The solution level for traditional sole cropping is zero
and for recommended practices positive in both Areas I
and II (see Table 4).

Tomato.--No new additional activity in tomato
production was introduced in Model 6. The production
activities of this crop in Model 6 are: (l) irrigated
tomato in Area I, and (2) recommended practices (early
and late crops) in Area III.

Irrigated tomato production is not profitable
because of its high cost. The solution level for this
activity is zero. The solution for the early crop of
recommended practices in Area III is zero but the level
of late crop, which has a higher yield per acre, is at

its maximum (see Table 4).

Cash Crops

 

The cash crops in this study can be divided into
two categories: (1) crops that do not have food value
and are used merely for sale to the non-agricultural
sector or outside Nigeria, and (2) crops that could be

used for food purposes as well as for sale. Cotton and

66

tobacco constitute the first category and groundnuts and
soya beans form the second category.

The production of crops that do not have food value
(cotton and tobacco) will not appear in the solution of
any model unless there are free resources in that area
after meeting the nutritional requirement of the model.
Resources will not be shifted to the production of cash
crops unless the nutritional requirement is met, if those
resources have any use in producing the nutrients needed.

The production level of the crops that have both
nutritional and export value will exhaust the total
capacities allowed for these crops in most models. When
the nutritional requirement is not met in other ways,
these crOps will be used as food crops and when the re-
quirement is met they can be used as cash crops. Unless
the resources in a particular area are used by crops with
higher earnings or with higher value in the production of
nutrients, the production levels of these crops will be
at their maxima.

To analyze the production level of cash crops in

Models 5 and 6 each model is explained.

Model 5

Groundnuts.--The new cultural practices considered

 

in this model are the recommended practices in Areas I,

II, and VI.

67

The traditional sole and mixed cropping practices
were at maximum level in the solution of benchmark model
in Areas I and II. But these activities cannot compete
with the recommended practices for the use of capacity
in Model 5. The recommended practices of groundnuts will
exhaust the total allowed capacity for this crop in all
areas (see Table 6).

Soya Bean.--The new production activity of soya
bean introduced in Model 5 is the improved practices in
Area VI.

In the solution of the model the improved practices
can compete with the traditional sole cropping for the
capacity to produce soya bean in Area VI, the principal
area for soya bean. In Area I, where a limited acreage
for soya bean production is allowed, the traditional sole
cropping can compete with all new and old production
activities of other crops for the resources. The solution
level for this activity is at its maximum. In Area II
the traditional sole cropping is not profitable in this
model. The solution level for this activity is zero (see
Table 5) .

Cotton.--New production practices are introduced
in this model for cotton production in Areas I and II.

In the solution of the model the recommended
practices can compete with the traditional sole and mixed

cropping practices for the capacities allowed. The

68

recommended practices exhaust the total capacities allowed
for the production of this crop in both Areas I and II.
The traditional mixed cropping practices in Area VI are
able to compete with the other crops for the resources.
The level of this activity is at its maximum (see Table 5).
Tobacco.--The cultural practice in tobacco pro-
duction is sole cropping in Areas I and II. The method
of production, under the general guidance of Nigerian
Tobacco Company, is at a high level of technical compe-
tence. Production activities for this crop are promising.
In the solution of the model this crop can compete with
all other production activities for resources, and its

level is at maximum in both areas (Table 5).

Model 6

Groundnuts.-—The new production activities for

 

groundnuts added to Model 6 are for the prospective
varieties of groundnuts. These activities are promising
and they can take over the capacities allowed for pro-
duction from the recommended practices in all three areas
(I, II, and VI). The solution levels for the prospective
varieties are at the maxima in Areas I, II, and III (see
Table 5) .

Soya Bean.--The new production activities for

 

soya bean introduced in this model are production of the
prOSpective varieties of the crop in Areas I and II. The

prospective variety of soya bean is promising and

69

production is at the maximum in both areas. In Area VI
the improved practice of the crop can compete with the
production activities of other crops for resources. Its
solution level is at the maximum in this model (see
Table 5).

Cotton.—-The new production activities for cotton
introduced in Model 6 are in production of the prospective
varieties in Areas I and II. These prospective varieties
of cotton are promising. In the solution of this model
these activities exhaust the total capacities allowed for
the production of cotton in both areas. They can take over
the capacities from recommended practices of cotton pro-
duction. In Area VI, the mixed cropping practices of the
crOp can compete with all other production activities of
the model for resources. The solution level for this
activity is at the maximum (see Table 5).

Tobacco.--No new cultural practices were added to
this model. The current sole cropping of tobacco in Areas
I and II must compete with all other production activities
of the model for the resources available. These activities
are able to compete for resources in both areas. The
solution level for these activities are at the maximum

in Areas I and II (see Table 5).

Tree Crops

 

The tree crops considered in this study could be

divided into three categories: (I) the crops that do not

70

have nutritional value and are solely for export (cocoa
and rubber); (2) the crop that has only nutritional and
pleasure value (kola nut); and (3) the crop that could be
used for food purposes as well as for export (oil palm).

The production of crops that do not have food
value (cocoa and rubber) will not be in the solution of
any of the models unless there are free resources in that
area after meeting the nutritional requirements of the
model.

The production of the crop that has only nutri-
tional and pleasure value (kola nut) can be at maximum or
positive level but not at zero level because of the nature
of restraint on consumption of this crop. In the model
there is a minimum limit on the consumption of kola nut
which must be satisfied. In order to satisfy this re-
quirement, the production level should be positive and
at least as much as the requirement.

The production of the crOp that has both nutri-
tional value and export value (oil palm) will exhaust the
total capacities allowed for this crop in most areas and
models. When the nutritional requirement is not met in
other ways it will be used as a food, and when the require-
ment is met by other foods, it could be used as a cash
crop. Unless all resources in that area are used by crops
with a higher earning or with higher value in the pro-
duction of nutrients the production of this crop will

generally be at its maximum.

71

To describe the production of tree crops in Models

5 and 6 each of the crops will be discussed separately.

Model 5

Oil Palm.--The traditional practices of oil palm

 

production are available in Areas III through VI. In
Model 5 the new production practices of the crop were
introduced in these areas. These two sets of activities
must compete with each other for the use of capacities in
the areas.

The new practices of this crop are promising.
Solution of the model shows that these activities exhaust
the total capacities in all areas (see Table 6).

Cocoa.--Cocoa is produced only in Areas III and
IV. In these areas the new practices for cocoa pro-
duction must compete with the traditional practices for
the capacities.

The new practices of cocoa production are profit-
able and can take over the allowed capacity for this crop
in both areas (Table 6).

Kola Nuts.--No new production practices of this

 

crop were introduced in this model. The traditional
practices in kola nut production in Area III are the only
activities for this crop. The solution level for kola
nut production is 548 thousand acres (Table 6). It
cannot go below this level even if this activity does

not make an efficient use of resources because the minimum

72

restraint on consumption of kola nuts must be satisfied

in all three areas (I, II, and III) where the crop is
consumed. This amount of production is required to satisfy
the consumption restraint.

Rubber.--The traditional practices of rubber pro-
duction are available in Areas III, IV, and V. In Model 5
new production practices of rubber were introduced in
these areas.

The solution of the model shows that rubber pro-
duction becomes profitable in Areas III and VI due to the
introduction of new practices (Table 6). The traditional
production of rubber was not an efficient use of re-

sources in Model 4.

Model 6

Oil Palm.--No additional production practices for

 

oil palm were introduced in Model 6. The traditional and
new practices of oil palm production must compete with the
other production activities of the model.

The solution of the model shows that the new
practices for oil palm production are promising. They are
able to compete with all new and old production activities
of Model 6 for the resources. The level of these activi-
ties are at maximum in all areas (see Table 6).

Eggga.—-There are no additional production
practices for cocoa in Model 6. The same activities of

cocoa production (traditional and new practices) must

73

compete with other production activities of Model 6 for
resources.

The new production practices of the crop are
profitable in both areas. The solution levels for these
activities are at the maximum in both Areas III and IV
(see Table 6).

Kola Nuts.--The traditional cultural practices of

 

kola nuts in Area III are the only production activities
considered for this crop.

The solution level for kola nut production is
again at 548 thousand acres (see Table 6). The level of
this activity cannot be less than this figure even if this
crop is not economical to produce. The reason, again, is
that the minimum restraint on the consumption of kola nuts
must be satisfied in all three areas where this crop is
consumed.

Rubber.--The cultural practices for rubber con-
sidered in this model are the traditional and the new
practices in Areas III, IV, and V, as in Model 5.

The new practices in rubber production are
profitable in all areas. The solution levels for these
activities are at their maxima in all three areas (see

Table 6).

CHAPTER V

THE EFFECTS OF IMPROVED CROPPING TECHNIQUES
UPON RESOURCE USE, ANIMAL INDUSTRIES,

AND PATTERN OF TRADE

The introduction of new production methods with
different technical coefficients will affect resource use,
the levels of the animal industries, and trade patterns.
This chapter will examine the allocation of resources in
the different models and levels of resource use in differ-
ent areas. It will explain the solution level and the
desirability of eXpanding the animal industries. It will
also describe the optimal patterns of trade for the differ-

ent areas and models.

Resource Use

 

Table 7 shows that the available labor during May
and June will be used up in Areas III and V in all three
models. In Area VI, 1.5 per cent of the available labor
is unused in Model 4 (the benchmark model), but this un-
used labor will be used in Models 5 and 6. The intro—

duction of new practices in Models 5 and 6 will increase

74

75

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table ‘7- Quantities of Resources Available and Unused
Quantity Unused Percentage Unused
Resource Quantity
and Area Available Model . Model
4 5 6 4 5 6
1
Labor ig_May and June (1000 man—days)
I 449,000 173,000 175,000 201,400 38.5 39.0 44.9
11 181,150 77,200 66,000 78,400 42.6 36.4 43.3
III 84,290 0 0 0 O 0 0
IV 51,580 2,400 20,100 21,300 4.7 39.0 41.3
V 92,140 0 O O 0 O 0
VI 70,000 1,030 0 0 1.5 0 0
Labor during Rest g§_Year (1000 man—days)
I 1,795,800 1,250,000 1,276,000 1,173,200 69.6 71.1 65.3
II 797,200 520,000 560,000 487,800 65.2 70.2 61.2
III 404,100 145,000 0 2,600 35.9 0 .6
IV 247,500 79,600 140,500 144,500 32.2 56.8 58.4
V 442,400 212,000 63,200 64,200 47.9 14.3 14.5
VI 336,200 164,000 51,600 84,600 48.8 15.3 25.2
Land under Cultivation (1000 acres)
I 15,041 0 0 O O 0 0
11 6,534 0 0 0 0 O 0
III 5,188 238 0 0 4.6 O 0
IV 1,260 O O O O 0
V 3,390 0 0 0 O 0
VI 2,830 0 0 0 '0 0 O

 

 

 

 

d” .4. \

 

76

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7 (cont'd.)
Quantity Unused Percentage Unused
Resource Quantity
and Area Available Model Model
4 5 6 4 5 6
Additions £2_Land under Cultivation* (1000 acres)
V 322 321 0 O 99.7 0 0
Bush Pasture (1,000,000 acres)
I 784 0 0 0 O 0 0
II 847 823.9 823.9 823.9 97.3 97.3 97.3
III 2.64 1.91 1.91 1.91 72.3 72.3 72.3
IV 2.64 2.19 2.19 2.19 83.0 83.0 83.0
V 10.99 8.89 8.89 8.89 80.9 80.9 80.9
VI 99.55 91.97 91.97 91.97 92.4 92.4 92.4
Manure* (1000 metric tons)
I 3,000 0 1,411 1,411 0 47.0 47.0
11 1,500 . 3.1 729 729 .2 48.6 48.6
I

 

 

* This resource was introduced into the models only for the areas
listed.

77

the revenue obtainable from an additional unit of labor
during the months of May and June in Areas V and VI, but
it decreases the revenue obtainable from an additional
unit of this resource in Area III from 70 shillings to
2.4 shillings per man day (see Table 8).

Except for Model 5, and then only in Area III,
there is unused labor for the rest of the year in all areas
and all models. In Model 5 only Area III uses all the
labor available. However, in this case an additional
man day of labor can earn only .24 shillings.

Land is a scarce factor in all areas in Models 5
and 6. In the benchmark model (Model 4), only in one area
(Area III) is 4.6 per cent of the land unused. The intro-
duction of new production practices with different tech-
nical coefficients in Models 5 and 6 changes the importance
of the different resources, because the new production
activities generally have a higher yield per acre. The
importance of land as a scarce factor declines in Models 5
and 6. Table 8 shows that the revenue obtainable from an
additional acre of land, except in Area III, diminishes
as new production techniques are introduced. In Area III
the revenue obtainable from an additional acre of land
increases from zero in Model 4 to 99 shillings in Model 5
and then declines to 70 shillings in Model 6.

There is unused bush pasture in Areas II through
VI, but in Area I, 100 per cent of the available bush

pasture is used. In this area the revenue obtainable

78

.monm masu :« vuuwvgwcou uo: mu vuuaomwu are I:

.nuuuaouuu uzu mo macauwaam> unculxuwcauuonao use mum muaaw> amuse

.muunsomuu uu:uo Haw mo moauuuuwau unnumcoo new mu«u«>«uuu co«una=m=ou was acquuauona com: mufisafi aaswxma assauuu uncauavcou

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

amass .Hovoa can no mcofiufiv:0u ecu cu pumnbam .mm: on mun30mwu oauuoonm a mo awn: floccuufiuvm use wc«>mn Scum :«mw Hauucouom wsu mzocm wanna mask a
II In In I: In nu In In a: I: I: n: o o o o o <m.~a :ou mesa unacmz
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 mm. mm. ~<.q num>uwuuw Luna .ausummm
nu II It awn NMN 0 II I: I: I: u: I: II II on II I: II “noxiouuu Hoseauuvum.oanmum .vcmq
oma NNH nmm mo~ «on man emu emu own oh oo 0 ca mm ommH mm do sud unmauouum magnum .waaq
o o o o o o o o o o «N. o o o o o o o xuvncms nonuo .uObmq
hm.w no.m o HA.~H H~.mH mn.w o o o ma.~ Om.m mo.mo o o o o o o maniacs wash was an: :« .uondg
mmcfifiaacm

o n < o m a o w c o n q o n 4 o m . q

Have: fiuvoz Mono: auto: ammo: auto:

“as: wuusomum
H> > >H HHH HH H
mwu<

 

 

 

«uuusouom we

age: Mucouoevv< :6 scum umnmauwuno wsca>uz

.m wanna

79

from an additional acre of pasture decreases from 4.42
shillings per acre (in Model 4) to .82 shilling in Model 5
and .75 shilling (in Model 6).

In this study manure is used only for the pro-
duction of onions. Onion production in the benchmark
model exhausts the amount of manure allowed for in Area I.
An additional ton of manure would increase the income by
11.5 shillings. But with the introduction of new cul-
tural practices in Models 5 and 6, the production of onions
will not expand enough to use all available manure and an
additional ton of manure will not contribute to revenue
(see Table 8).

To conclude, labor during the months of May and June
is a scarce factor in Areas III, V, and VI in both Models
5 and 6. If Nigerians plan to use machinery to release
labor during this season, priority should be given to
these areas.

Labor during the rest of the year is scarce only
in Area III and Model 5. In all other areas and models
there is unused labor which could be used in sectors
other than agriculture.

Land is a scarce resource in all areas in both
Models 5 and 6. The possibility of increasing arable
land should be studied. Table 8 shows the revenue obtain-
able from an additional acre of land in different areas.

If land is more scarce in a particular area this revenue

80

will be higher. Therefore, this table is a useful guide

for giving priority for expanding the land available.

Animal Activities

 

With the exception of Area I, the models used in
this study allow the levels of animal activities to expand
to 109.5 per cent of the estimate of the output levels for
each particular area in 1963. In Area I the animal
activity levels are allowed to expand to 120 per cent of
the 1963 estimate. If it appears from the solution of any
particular model that further expansion of these activities
would be profitable, the expansion would be beyond the
levels allowed in this study--not necessarily the actual
levels of animal industries at the present time.

Table 9 shows the levels of the animal industries
in the Optimal solutions of the models and the maximum
limit allowed for the expansion of each particular activity.
Except for bush cattle in Area I, the levels of the tra-
ditional animal industries are at the maximum in all areas
and all models. The level of bush cattle in Area I cannot
go to its maximum limit because pasture land is a limiting
factor. The earnings per acre of pasture land in Area I
are more if pasture is allocated to the production of goats
and sheep than bush cattle. Therefore, the production
levels of goats and sheep are at their maxima, the level
of bush cattle cannot reach its maximum. The pasture land

left over from grazing goats and sheep can produce 870

81

.waua was“ :« canaqam>a uoc ma zufi>auow och it
.obnuasuwum< mo xuomacaz ozu Co coduuavona pomp onu an nauaswg a
.x12 mamJOU .o couuustNQ any an nouns“; a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . . ands“ Haaouwasou
o o o n o o o A II I: :I II o o o o a o o o m m It I: In In I: mxuuzu oco.ooH £25.22U
. . “pause ~a«uuaasau
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- o o o N a o o o o aw -- an»; ooo.~ .oc.am
. undone wouuxmz
II :I :I II II II n: I: In :I I: up 1| n. In I: -I It a: a: N c o o a 1: too: ooc.ooH .domcm
. . . . . . “cause snap
q.m q.m a.m c.m ¢.~ ¢.~ q.~ c.~ coo. bro. 000. are. cm. on. :m. cm. ¢.q e.q q e o c q.& q n q n c 0 un can; 000.00H .nvozm
. . . undone
w.~ m.H m.~ m.~ 0.x o.m a.w a.w mc.~ mc.m mc.~ mo.~ oo.~ ca.~ ca.~ co.~ :.- :._H o.- c._~ o.x~ o mm o wN 9 mm In use: oco.ooH mosou
. . unauao nauuquEcO
o o o ~.~ o o o o.o -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- m a o o c ”I -- -- -- -- -- any; cce.~ .._.zcu
uoagao :mon
ow mm 0N Q~ n.m m.n m.m m.n ~.~ a.” ~.H —.H ~.~ ~.~ ~.~ ~.~ can can can can oow obm cow NRC" I: pay: coo.H .ufloumo
o n a o n a o n e o n q o n a o m a
eaaaxsx nllluu It-tl.sseuxdx .azeuxwx cl Easuxmx sneaks: aaeuxax
15oz Loco: H 33: 38: 7:5: 32.: h
F “ac: >uw>quu<
> >~ _- ad H
cou<
muuuuadvcu aqauc< uo uqo>oq .o ogbah

82

thousand head of bush cattle. The model considers the
production of hay-fed sheep only in Area I. The level of
this activity is zero in Models 4 and 5 and positive in
Model 6. Neither the commercial pork nor the poultry pro-
duction activities can earn enough to employ resources in
any area. The levels of these activities are at zero in
all three models.

Table 10 shows the potential gain from the expansion
of each particular activity in different models. The poten-
tial gain from the expansion of the animal industries de-
clines as we go from Model 4 to 5 and 6. As new techniques
of production are introduced, nutrients become more abun-
dant and the importance of animal meat as a source of
nutrients declines.

To conclude: in Area I, where pasture land is a
scarce factor, we should economize by expanding the pro-
duction of sheep and goats. Their earnings per acre of
pasture are higher than for bush cattle in that area.

But in Areas II through VI where pasture land is abundant,
we should consider the revenue and the cost of raising
per head of cattle.1

With the exception of commercial cattle in Area II

and Model 6, modern animal activities--commercia1 pork

and commercial chicken--are not profitable. In Area II

 

1Only the potential revenue is shown in Table 10.

The cost of raising the various animals must also be con—
sidered but there are no available data in these models.

83

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 10. Additiona to Revenue Possible if an Animal Activity were Expanded.
Area
T
I 11 I 111 IV V VI
Activity Unit L
Model Hodel Model Model Model Model
4 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 6
Shillings
[£1 Unit 2i Activity
Cattle. bush head -- output 0 0 0 581 164 161 692 226 223 416 103 103 386 109 107 386 109 107
Cattle, commerciala head -- output -- - -- 0 0 0 -- -- -- —- -- - O O 0 O 0 0
Goats head -- Output 59 35 31 90 36 32 60 28 28 45 18 16 63 25 22 72 29 26
Sheep. bush head -- Output 87 46 40 109 41 36 59 27 27 67 25 21 61 23 20 70 27 23
Sheep. hay-fed head —- output b b b -- -- -- -- -- -- " " " " " " " " "-
Swine, co-aercial head -- output 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- -- " “ “ " “ ’° " ‘“ “
Chickene. connercial 100 ChiCR' -- -- -- -‘ O 0 O 0 O O -- -- -- b b b b b 6
input
[21 Acre-Year g: Pasture
Cattle. bush head -- output 0 0 0 19.4 5.5 5.4 28.8 9.4 9.3 33 3 8.3 8.3 16.1 4.5 4.5 2.8 .8 .8
Cattle, con-erciala head -- output -- -- -- 0 0 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0 O 0 0 0 0
Goats head - output 4.9 2.9 2.6 11.2 4.5 4.0 33.6 15.8 15.7 22 4 9.0 8.0 34.8 14.0 12.5 14.3 5.7 5.1
Sheep. bush head -- output 5.8 3.0 2.6 10.9 4.1 3.6 19.6 8.9 8.8 22.3 8.2 7.1 20.4 7.7 6.8 8.8 3.3 2.9
Sheep. hay-fed head -- output c c c -- -- - - -- -- -- -- -- - - -- -- -- -
Swine, co-Iercial head -- output c c c c e c -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Chickens, commercial ‘00 chicks -- -- -- -- c c c c c c -- -- —- c c c c c c
input

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ The entries show the gain possible if a single activity were to be expanded by a small amount. with no increases hithe

labor available. and with unchanged lilits on the other production and consu-ption activities.

°- The activity is not available in this area.

a The pasture for cot-ercial cattle makes use of arable land.

6 The Indel i-posea no direct limit on this activity.

c lot a pasture-using activity.

total quantities of land or

84

and Model 6 the level of commercial cattle eXpands to an
output of 3,500 head. The expansion of commercial cattle

(in Model 6) in Area II is profitable only to this limit.

Patterns of Trade

 

Shipping commodities from one place to another
place involves three categories: exporting, importing,
and buying. Exporting activities ship agricultural sur-
pluses abroad to earn revenue and foreign exchange. These
activities are either explicit or consolidated with con—
sumption, processing, or production activities. Explicit
export activities are for groundnut seed, groundnut cake,
cotton, cocoa, and rubber. Export activities for hides
and skins are consolidated with consumption. The eXport
or sale activities consolidated with production or pro-
cessing are for tobacco, palm kernel, and palm kernel Oil.

Import activities bring commodities into Nigeria.
They have a negative revenue effect, a part of which is
the foreign exchange required. These activities are
either explicit or consolidated with production or con-
sumption. The explicit import activities are for three
kinds of fertilizers: sulphate of ammonia, single super-
phosphate, and muriate of potash. Activities consolidated
with production activities are the importation of ferti-
lizers for the production of commercial maize, oil palm,

and cocoa. The import activities consolidated with

85

consumption are for sugar, European beer, wheat flour,
whole wheat, and salt codfish.

Buying activities transfer commodities from one
area to another. They have a negative revenue effect equal
to the transportation costs. With the exception of buying
activities for fertilizers--which ship fertilizers for
agricultural production--these activities ship produce to
areas where it will be consumed. The effect of the trans—
portation charges to these activities is that in the
solution of the model no commodity is transferred to any
area unless its nutrient value is at least as much as the
cost of transportation and production.

In the models discussed in this chapter there are
no maximum limits on either export, import, or buying
activities. The level of these activities in the optimal
solution of any model is limited directly by the amounts
of the commodities produced or consumed, and indirectly
by the maximum limits on consumption and production
activities. The solution levels of the export, import,
and buying activities determine the pattern of trade
between areas as well as for Nigeria as a whole.

Exports or Sales to the
Non-Agricultural Sector

 

Area I.--In the Optimal solution of Model 5 the
revenue producing activities for this area are the export

Of groundnuts and the sale of cotton and tobacco. A large

86

portion of the revenue (2,742 million shillings out of
3,028) comes from the export of groundnut seed (see section
A of Table 11). The revenue from export or sale of cotton
and tobacco are 282 and 3.6 million shillings respectively.

In the optimal solution Of Model 6, the revenue
producing activities are the same as in Model 5, but the
revenue Obtained from export of groundnut seed and sale of
cotton in Model 6 is higher than in Model 5. The prospec—
tive varieties of groundnuts and cotton, which have a
higher yield per acre of land, use the total capacities
allowed for the production of these crOps and yield larger
amounts of these export products. This, in turn, provides
a higher revenue for the area in Model 6.

Area II.--The revenue producing activities in
Model 5 are again the exportation of groundnuts and the
sale of cotton and tobacco. The principal revenue pro-
ducing activity in this area is cotton (in contrast to
Area I in which groundnut production is the principal
revenue producing activity). The total revenue for this
area is 500 million shillings of which 292 million shill-
ings come from the sale of cotton, 198 million shillings
from the export Of groundnut seed, and the remaining 10
million shillings from the sale of tobacco (see section A
of Table 11).

The revenue obtained from the export activities of

Area II will increase from 500 million shillings in

87

.uuoaxo new Ogom one mcdxm use data: flaw ass“ assume a: u

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

one who -w.o oo 04 no~ wan nag mama «0 ms mac n- on~ omNN ooo~ m.n on. mg m ceauuom "Hooch
"80.3 cm“ mn~ aces mama cacao.:u ..oom
onn No on. New Nn cues) .uewam
. . . . uoLeJLeouu
can n~o «no H 00 mo oaa we we won co ms mod MHN can can mm m m on ma .voto .cuum
o- on RNA Locum
co ac and NM we we «Nd ofioca
camp:
(Mmmwwruquua mmwwwmflm ovfiaoso Etc“ vOOm mm wouauavcoumm .m
acm.nH «no.q~ maa.~ mfiwfi m_~« mod nrxm munm mom mmcfi m~3~ co~ Heme cmmq moo mmo 00m mHmn mNOM mmm < acqocon "fiance
con sea NM moo men am also "3:261 sham
nmN mmN on wmm nmn o5 Lao gusto; amen
~oo.n Nmn.m xnm Now m~on ~oo~ ”Aw HAN mnmd mmma H—O e~ea vex
coo coo HNN new men so mac mmo Ana on on NA Hoctox ado;
mac wee mmfi on on own own “ma On On usnbax
qu.~ «qc.~ ~04 do “0 On Ommm cmm~ Nmm ezuou
bucnxm
¢_ 4H 6 CA 0— o.m o.m o.m cuoezou .eom
N» Na Na Na meow .cutm
cad aHH DXMO assaizcho
onm.n oqo.~ cm son can mix” qun on sat; .zacucso.o
“Locum
coo mmm ao~ 0.9 o.o Nwm ~o~ «an Nam com :ouoou Aflom
an an on m.o n.~ m.~ an ~m an o.m o.m o.n o.n no. no. ayonm
¢- aaa qua 0H o“ 0‘ on cm on a.“ o.~ o.n “.6 ~.q ~.q “coo
an NN as ea mm mm mm one. wmo. «A on on mmo. coon
wage»
a can «ova: uuoazm
Awmmmwmm dmv mmmwmufl mcav~oqr mco.ouochuH .<
aucdxacam sounds:
o n o o n 4 l o n q o n e o n a o n a o m e
dove: «over a Hove: auto: novox “ova: auto: A
i x .uu>.uu<
N> . > 1%) >~ -a _ a“ . a
donor . t t if
cau<
escauuoacauh oaco>ux uo >u9362m .- edge»

88

.3 an: we ant-v5.3 «328::- on.» 35;

.g eou< no u: oau< v2.5a nu tau-59:0 3o 0......

Joe. no u.— uiflfia o..- aaelfil 05 3.3 3.333 awe-«pl unu- uou au-au gingham-5: euon
€55.55 one etc: 5:! 3.3!.- uou 0v ”:5 CHE—«=3 no “can: SEE. 6.3 2;. a..-v =5

0
I: nae—«u uo Ivan—Sloan v.54- wuona hum-30- uovoa of :u augui u IUL< II $033903 Ivy-... caution of. v
u
a

 

~ a co no

N.—

Ha N.—

 

A: azv «queue»

 

on
an

A u
n 2 005

an

HN
c.—

on
so.

:1 .... .So
2 8?:
Iunflvgbuu

eases

32) :34 55-:

: an: no;

 

3 man: 1263.5

 

000

a o
n n

00
o o

 

a
a
O

4:

0

coin!

gen—3.6mm .30
3:53:65
36:: .335
9::

1.3::

a no: so»...

606m ~10 gun-Cough... a Inn-Hum .n

 

mac;

«3;

~w~ «J

on» an—

:N

won on

u cciuom Luau.—

 

no
z

any
on.

no
no

a.

to
on

n a

no no
mu nu

q n

o.— :

one . «no.

n:
«an

3.

3a

was
.2

135
la... :o
nauuue'oo .631:
you 5.3005333:

...-ova do 31...:

is cause-oneness- 433m

.3 2

 

33:“:

cu; uo hue—315

fi .23 «vacuum .0

 

 

«.13.

at;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on:

 

3:133

 

11.253 : Iain.

89

.__ eou< do mowuavcaon Aauasaouwoou on“ cars“:

.~> ooh< uO HLH ocu< cozoqo a“ cauocawauo duo aFH
ween bags. We mnuacuionu “sons v:yam xfieezuoo Locos orb c_ :Mneaca a note we voLMLEccsa mono; unease: exp
.oooc co co “graces ace onws«:m or“ Loco obaodth v_aefice goes one
.oamezuuaa who mocix Lodz: qucoam Soc on San .uo~H~_uuvw :0 “Coca muc:oec oz» o>wm coop use

.uuoaxo new ofiom one acaxm one not“: Lao bozo venues on

more; co_umuccax:ouu ouow

5.04.1179)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

new can one ma MN ma mo~ NAN oq~ o~ - am so an no” no no “Na so Ho .0 a sodouom "Hauoh
mam mm~ was ONE Hon eon a“ he as A~> soc<o Inbounam
o o o o o o codes:
0 o o moeoo
o o o o o o Loan
he am «A AA as an sfiaa not .aao
o mac. utxo
oo was so" ca and won an»
an MI «.60
ma as Ms o~ scum
a 0.4 ocuazh emu:
OA q ”.0 m.m euHLJ ~musq
95—wt
~> ou~< sec;
5 N.“ A> ao.<o Lauounzm
n N.“ s~na to» .~uo
> oou< scum
1-1-1-... ire -- -
to mN no no «N am _ m.~ ~.I~ x>_ u~.<. ”abousam
. n F
n
as o~ on so m~ an w.~ o.m as»
a . N o o.~ o.~ ~.o ..ao
>H oou< nope
as oo can n.m oN o~ no as ea as Alla aoc<o "aucuaam
as as as o~ o~ ON as as as mzaa anon
no as a~aa eat .Huo
a m.m 422;: “noon .ouuax
u—a eon< Benn
AuoacuucouV .a
o A o o n a o m a o a 4 o A a o m a o a 3
Zoo: 63: 3.5: a «not H 88. Love: Leno:
suu>uuu<
~> > >~ up“ “a a
deuce
ovu<

 

 

A.u.ucouv Ha wanew

90

Model 5 to 928 million shillings in Model 6 (see section
A of Table 11). This increase is due to the introduction
of prospective varieties of groundnuts and cotton, making
possible a higher revenue for the area.

Area III.--The revenue producing activities of

 

Model 5 are exports of hides and skins, cocoa, rubber,

and Oil palm products. Among these activities, exports

of cocoa and red palm Oil (by yielding 2,550 and 1,553
million shillings respectively) are the principal sources
of revenue. The revenue from palm kernel oil exports is
255 million shillings and from palm kernel cake exports

109 million shillings. The revenue from the export of
rubber for this area is 30 million shillings, and from the
export of hides and skins (beef, goat, and sheep together),
39 million shillings (section A of Table 11).

In the solution of Model 6, the revenue producing
activities, with the exception of revenue from export of
sheep skins, are the same as in Model 5. Revenue from
exporting sheep skins in Model 6 is higher than in Model 5
because of the increased consumption of mutton in Model 6.

Area IV.--In the solution of Model 5, the revenue
yielding activities are eXports of hides and skins, cocoa
rubber, palm kernel, and red palm Oil. Among these
activities cocoa exports yield the highest revenue (589
million shillings), and red palm Oil exports, yielding
271 million shillings, are second highest. Cocoa exports

yield 91 million shillings and the export of palm kernel

91

produces 59 million shillings (see section A of Table
11).

In the solution of Model 6, the revenue yielding
activities and total revenue from these activities are
exactly the same as in Model 5.

Area V.——In the solution of Model 5, the revenue
producing activities for Area V are exports of hides and
skins, rubber, palm kernel, and red palm oil. The total
revenue in this area is 3,773 million shillings of which
2,901 million shillings comes from red palm oil exports
and 658 million shillings from exporting of palm kernel.
Cocoa exports earn 59 million shillings and exports of
hides and skins (beef, goat, and sheep together) yield
155 million shillings (section A of Table 11).

In the Optimal solution of Model 6 the revenue
producing activities are the same as in Model 5. But the
export of red palm oil increases'from 2,091 million
shillings in Model 5 to 3,015 million shillings in Model 6.

Area VI.--In the solution of Model 5, the revenue
yielding activities are the export of hides and skins,
cotton, soya bean, palm kernel, and red palm oil. The
export of red palm oil and palm kernel with the revenue
of 862 and 243 million shillings respectively are the
principal export activities (see section A of Table 11).
Soya bean exports yield 82 million shillings and the
export of cotton produces 9 million shillings. Hide and

skin exports in this area earn 19 million shillings.

92

In the solution of Model 6 the export activities
are the same as in Model 5. With the exception Of sheep
skins, the revenue from these activities is the same in
both models. The revenue from exporting sheep skins in-
creases from 2.5 million shillings in Model 5 to 9.5
million shillings in Model 6 because of the increased

consumption of mutton.

Imports

Import activities can be divided into two cate-
gories: foods and fertilizers. With the exception Of
dried fresh-water fish, some of which comes from the non-
agricultural sector Of Nigeria, Section B Of Table 11
shows the expenditures on food items imported from abroad
and Section C of the same table shows the expenditures
on fertilizer imports.

In the solution of the benchmark model (Model 4),
some food items such as wheat, sugar, and European beer
are imported from abroad. But as we introduced the new
production techniques in Models 5 and 6, with the
exception of whole wheat in Area V, there is a general
import substitution in all areas and for all imported
food items (see section B of Table 11). In the solutions
Of Models 5 and 6 the expenditures on dried fresh-water
fish bought from the non-agricultural sector go tO zero

in Area II and decline in other areas.

93

The new production techniques generally require
fertilizers as an input, substantially increasing the
expenditures on fertilizer imports in Models 5 and 6
(see section C of Table 11). The largest fertilizer
expenditures are for Area I. For Areas I through IV the
expenditures in Model 5 are higher than in Model 6, but
for Areas V and VI the reverse is true. To examine
fertilizer expenditures the different areas will be
described separately.

Area I.--In the solution of Model 5 the total
amount of expenditures on fertilizers is 382 million
shillings. Of this amount, 168 million shillings is
spent on import of sulphate of ammonia and 214 million
shillings for single superphosphate.

In Model 6 the total expenditures for fertilizers
decline to 347 million shillings, of which 108 million
shillings is for sulphate of ammonia and 239 for single
superphosphate.

In this area there are no expenditures on muriate
Of potash in either Model 5 or 6 (see section C of Table
11).

Area II.--The total expenditures on fertilizers
in the solution of Model 5 is 312 million shillings. The
expenditure on sulphate of ammonia, with 184 million
shillings, ranks the highest among all types of ferti-

lizers imported for this area. The expenditures on single

94

superphosphate and muriate of potash are 127 and .7 million
shillings respectively (see section C of Table 11).

In the solution of Model 6 the expenditures on
sulphate of ammonia and single superphosphate decrease to
164 and 113 million shillings respectively. There are no
imports of muriate of potash for this area in Model 6.

Area III.--The total amount of expenditures on

 

fertilizers in Model 5 is 135 million shillings. The
application of new production practices to cocoa and Oil
palm requires fertilizers. The fertilizer expenditures
for these two crops are 93 and 25 million shillings re-
spectively. The expenditure on imports of sulphate of
ammonia is 17 million shillings, but single superphosphate
and muriate of potash expenditures are negligible (see
section C, Table 11).

The solution of Model 6 for this area differs from
the solution of Model 5 only in one figure--expenditures
on sulphate of ammonia, which decrease from 17 to 16
million shillings.

Area IV.--In the optimal solution of Model 5 the
expenditures on fertilizers are 18 million shillings, of
which 10 million shillings are spent for importing sul-
phate of ammonia and 4.5 and 3.6 million shillings,
respectively, on fertilizers for application in the new

production practices for Oil palm and cocoa.

95

In the solution of Model 6 expenditures on sulphate
of ammonia decline from 10 to 9.2 million shillings (see
section C Of Table 11).

Area V.--The total expenditure on fertilizers is
80 million shillings in Model 5. Of this amount, 28 and
4.8 million shillings are spent for importing sulphate of
ammonia and single superphosphate respectively. The
expenditures on fertilizers for application in the new
cultural practices for Oil palm are 48 million shillings
(see section C of Table 11).

In the solution of Model 6 the expenditures on
sulphate of ammonia and single superphosphate increase to
36 and 8.4 million shillings respectively, while the
expenditure on fertilizers for Oil palm is the same as
in Model 5.

Area VI.--The total expenditures on fertilizers
in Model 5 are 127 million shillings, of which 64 and 44
million shillings were spent on sulphate Of ammonia and
single superphosphate, respectively, and the remaining
19 million shillings on fertilizers for Oil palm.

In the solution of Model 6 the expenditures on
sulphate of ammonia and single superphosphate increase to
106 and 72 million shillings respectively (see section C

of Table 11).

96

Internal Trade

The payments for transportation each consuming
area makes to bring foods from the producing areas are
shown in section D of Table 11.

The quantities of food transported between differ-
ent areas are shown in Table 12. Among the foods traded
most frequently between areas are millet, sorghum, maize,
rice, groundnut, cowpea, kola nuts, and red palm Oil.

In the solution of Models 5 and 6, some areas are
less dependent than others for food. To examine this
aspect of the solution each area will be described
separately.

Area I.--This area is the most self sufficient of
them all concerning the number of food items bought from
other areas. In the solutions Of both Models 5 and 6,
Area I buys red palm Oil from Area II (which originated
in III or VI) and kola nuts from Area III (see Table 12).

Area II.--This area is dependent on Area I for
beef and goats (only in Model 6), on Area III for kola
nut (in both Models 5 and 6), and on Area VI for red palm
oil (see Table 12).

Area III.--Tab1e 12 shows that Area III is
dependent on Area I for beef. But it buys local white
maize (only in Model 6), sorghum, COWpeaS, melon seeds,
and cutton (only in Model 6) from Area II. Area III buys

yams from Area IV only in Model 5.

97

 

 

 

 

.H> emu< no HRH mou< so peaceawauo more a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ooa ooa ooa mm on on «HA «NH «NH mus: oNox
m3 RN 53 so. .20
On On wows: Hoooa .ouoox
MMM emu< scum
NN NN NN o.o NN NN NH :Ouoaz
Non mm« LoN o«H mm« o«H NH NH muooo
«HN «LN men «AN «HN mom ooom
Han on can Nam OHM odm osamo vow .Hao
mo no no no ooom :ONo:
m4: ooN «o 9: m3. muss—EJONU
Mam mflm o«~ NN. NN. o«N o«~ o«~ ooo ooo eoazou
«N «N ooozm
MN NH :mouH
Oomuom
on on ooN oHN oaN 0N NN NN ms nu Nu escmuom
«NH «NH oofim
~«m ~«m mam oma H«m Hem NoN duos: HooOH .oNLmz
. .iw.mMM¢ seem
HmN NNN om NN N« No «NH «NH NH scuba:
NN m«~ ««H RN and NN NH . nag NNN muooo
Non H«o oNn mo Nam non onm omN mNN goon
2: A 2 ma 8 2: 252505 .2c
oNN moN NH muscoCDOuo
NN N5 ouoza .ucoz3
can own oofim
no mod NoN oH an mma NN NN NN uONNN:
.NI mind So»..—
ovcoom MN chNHNNE mfl .Euoo MM ”Luau:
o m o o m « o m « o m « o m o o n « o m «
Hove: depot Hovoz Hove: Hovox Novoz Nope:
>oo>ouu<
H> > >H NHH H" a
NouoH
oou< ucH>Nooox
neou< :ooiuoa vouuoaeceuh ovoom oo coauaucooo .NN omboh

97

 

 

 

 

.H> oou< so HHH mou< cH neomchHuo mHza m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ooH ooH ooH mm mm mm «HH «HH «HH mus: mHox
RN RN 52 2: .So
on on OoHLJ HooOH .ONHoz
MMM mou< EOum
NN NN NN o.o NN NN NH sauna:
HoH mm« HoH o«H mm« o«H NH NH mooou
oHN oHN mom oHN «HN mom moon
:m 0:” Sn :n o: o: «.58 e2 .20
no no mo no ooo» coHoz
m«H mON co qu m«H mo::t::Ouo
mHm mHm o«H NN. NN. o«H o«H o«H ooo ooo codzoo
«N «N ooozm
MH MH :mHuH
Ouwuom
on ohm ooH oHN oHN oN NN «N NN on us sszwuom
«HH «HH . oon
H«m H«m Hem amH H«m Hem NoN ouHsa HouOH owHoz
. .WM oop< scum
HmN HNN om NH N« N« «NH «NH NH :Ooozz
NN m«H ««H NN mnH nN NH , NHH NHH muooo
Now H«o on mo NOo mow omH onH mNN ooom
moH Hm HH n.n oN ooH osccCJOum .HHo
mNN woN HH muscc::Ouo
NN Nu oHOLJ .uooz3
own ooo oon
no ooH NoN oH Hm moH NN NN Nu uoHHHz
N mou< scum
oucsom.mm.mcoHHHHs IN .auoo MM usuHoz
o m « o o « o n « o m « o n « o m « o m «
Hove: Hovoz Hove: Hovo: Honor Hove: Hovoz
>oH>Huu<
H> > >H HHH HH H
Hooch
wou< mcH>Hou-
oeou< coozuoo voouOQecduh ovoom mo eoHUHucoao .NH oHooh

98

.H> mou< no HHH mou< cH vouochHuo mHLH o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on «A an «n «a «A goods:
mod mod aumou
mHN mam wow wow mow mow owes
one one oo~ one ems oo~ some so» .Huo
o.s o.« muxo
oaaw moss «men oooN aces «osm as»
“mm amm ciao
BIN Nun «IN Nan mud“
and HHH acomxo emu:
own own m~n o- anon: “moon
onHo:
Ml.fiMMfl Soho
mod mes seas sou .Huo
M mou< scum
Ones Heed seam one” own ooo Hoe asms as»
no so “as no so NMH «Lao
. 1M nou< scum
o m s n o m o m s o m s o m s o m 4
Hana: none: Loco: Move: Move: Hove: Hose:
qu>Huu<
H> > >H ass as a
Hooch

 

oeu< wcH>Houox

 

 

A.u.ucooo No assay

99

Area IV.--This area is dependent only on two areas
for food. It buys mutton and goats (only in Model 5) from
Area I. It also buys rice (only in Model 6), cowPeas and
goats (only in Model 6) from Area II (see Table 12).

Area V.--This area is the most dependent as far
as the number of food items bought from other areas is
concerned. It is dependent on Areas I, II, IV, and VI.
Area V buys millet from Area I; maize (local white),
sorghum, COWpeas, groundnuts, and goats from Area II;
gari and yams from Area IV; and maize (local white in
Model 6 and high lysine in Model 5), rice, gari (only in
Model 6), yams, beef, goats (only in Model 5), and button
from Area VI (see Table 12).

Area VI.--This area is dependent on Areas I and
II for foods. It buys millet, goats, and mutton from
Area I and sorghum, groundnuts (only in Model 5), beef,

and mutton from Area II (see Table 12).

CHAPTER VI

THE MOST ECONOMICAL FOODS AND THE OPPORTUNITY-

COST VALUES OF THE NUTRIENTS

New production techniques change production
patterns. Consumption patterns, the most economical foods,
and the opportunity-cost values of nutrients change as the
result of a change in the production pattern. This chapter

will examine these aspects of the models.

The Most Economical Foods1

There are three categories of restraints on con-
sumption activities in this model. The first category
is on the consumption activities for kola nuts. The model
sets minimum limits on the kola nut consumption in certain
areas.2 In the Optimal solution of the model, if the
level of a consumption activity for kola nuts is greater

than this minimum limit, lowering the requirement for this

 

1There are many economical foods not mentioned
here. These are only the cases in which very large
quantities of foods are economical.

2The model requires that per capita consumption
of kola nuts be at least as much as the estimate of the
kola nut consumption in 1963.

100

101

activity does not involve a potential gain. But if the
level of this activity is at its minimum, contracting the
minimum restraint generally involves a potential gain.

The second category of restraints is on the con-
sumption of alcoholic beverages. The model requires the
per capita consumption of alcoholic beverages to be equal
to the estimate of 1963 levels. This restraint must be
fulfilled by one or more of the alcoholic beverages con-
sumed in a particular area. In the Optimal solution of
the model, if the consumption of alcoholic beverages is
uneconomical, this restraint works as a minimum limit.
In this case, since any one of the alcoholic beverages
consumed in a particular area can staisfy the require-
ment, the kind Of alcoholic beverage or beverages which
appears in the solution is the least uneconomical among
those allowed to be consumed in that area. But if the
consumption is economical this restraint works as a
maximum limit. In this case raising the limit would
involve a potential gain. Although the nature of the
restraint (an equality) is the same for all areas, it
works either as a maximum or a minimum limit, depending
whether the consumption activity at that level is eco-
nomical or uneconomical (see Table 13).

The third category of restraints is on the con—

sumption of the rest of the foods. There are maximum

102

Table 13. Consumption Activities Significantly Constrained“ by Their Maximum or Minimum Levels

 

Art ivitv

L“
O
n.
'0
p.
'1
O
(A.
G
h—l
I
0
Ci.
(‘5
,3

Model Model L Model

—1> 4 -.H

 

At Maximum Levels l

' l
Maize a b

Hillet !
Rive ‘
a
i
l

i
X
XXIV
I
X
XX”?

5 ‘rghun

”hr-Jt
”hole I
Flour ‘

Pot etc

1 rish n x x
Suva} t
Cum-rpea

 

3“ sin . soya
On 1 on x x x x x

 

01 1
‘3 rnundnut x 1 it
Red palm

 

 

 

 

 

CI'Vfiuncinut, seed 3
I
i
i
I
i
i

. r l
515“. dried. freshwater 1 ,
Hg-ef ( .
J
l

I
K

G” -‘| t meat (chevnn)
Hutton

51313

xxx:
)1
X

5*: a? r
>11 llet }
Guinea corn : v x
Eu rope-an

|

Sunar, white l ; x x 1 x
i
l

| At Minimum Levels

1

1

Beer :

9'11 1 let

(linincn cnrn i
European ! ' d I x

I

I

i

 

1%
...

Wino . palm
K(5 la nut

 

 

a . . L
. If the nuizum level were raised, or the minimum lowered. the revenue provided by the solution would increase.

a lnCludes both local white and yellow maize.

I“Cinder; both local white and high lysine maize.

c Includes only high lysine maize.

the Dini'mim limit is satisiied jointly by 1671 million kilograms oi Lumps-an beer plus 6 million kilograms of millet beer.

The 'llnimum limit is satisfied jointly by 1611 million kilogram of guinea corn (sorghum) beer plus 66 million kilograms of millet beer.

The Minimum linit is satisfied join:1y by 114 million kilogram of guinea corn beer plus 333 million kilograms of millet beer.

103

limits on consumption of these foods.3 In the optimal
solution of the model, if the levels of these consumption
activities are less than their limits, raising the limits
will not involve a potential gain. But if the levels are
at their maximum, these foods are economical and expanding
their consumption generally will involve a potential gain.

Given the technical coefficients of the models
used in this study, Table 13 shows the foods for which
the expansion or contraction of their consumption activi-
ties would involve a potential gain.

In Area I the most economical and the uneconomical
foods are the same in both Models 5 and 6. Consumption of
Irish potatoes and onions is economical at their maximum
levels but consumption of millet beer and kola nuts is
uneconomical at the levels required by the models (see
Table 13).

In Area II the solutions of both Models 5 and 6
have the same most economical and uneconomical foods. In
this area the consumption of onions is economical at its
maximum level but the consumption of kola nuts, guinea
corn beer, and millet beer is uneconomical at the minimum

level required by the models (see Table 13).

 

3These limits are generally four times as great
as the estimate of per capita consumption in a specific
area in 1963.

104

In Area III the most economical and the uneconomical
foods are again the same in Models 5 and 6. Consumption of
sorghum and COWpeaS is economical, but the consumption of
palm wine and kola nuts is uneconomical (see Table 13).

In Area IV the most economical and the uneconomical
foods are the same in both Models 5 and 6. The con-
sumption of COWpea, goat meat, and mutton is economical
and the consumption of palm wine is uneconomical (see
Table 13).

In Area V the solutions of Models 5 and 6 are
(iifferent for only one food. The consumption of rice is
aILits maximum limit in Model 6, but not in Model 5 (see
fPable 13). The expansion of rice consumption beyond its
Inaximum limit involves a potential gain in Model 6 but
riot in Model 5. Aside from rice, the other most economical
éand uneconomical foods are the same as in Models 5 and 6:
Inaize, millet, sorghum, COWpeas, groundnuts, beef, goat
Ineat, and mutton are the most economical foods and palm
Vvine is uneconomical in both models (see Table 13).

In Area VI the solutions of Models 5 and 6 differ
:in two items: the consumption of rice is at its maximum
Zlimit in Model 6 but not in Model 5. Its expansion beyond
tfllis limit will have a potential gain only in Model 6.
GUinea corn beer is an uneconomical food in Model 5 but
economical in Model 6. For the rest, the most economical
foods are the same: millet, sorghum, and soya bean are

economical foods in both models (see Table 13).

105

The Qpportunity-Cost Values
of the Nutriénts

 

The Optimal solutions of the models use production
patterns which provide the required quantities of nutrients
most economically. In these solutions many nutrients
exceed the required quantities. The cost of increasing
the intake of these nutrients by a small amount is zero.

On the other hand, in the solutions of the models
some nutrients are provided in the exact required quanti-
ties--those nutrients which are costly to provide. In-
creasing the intake of these nutrients would involve
lexpanding food crops at the expense of cash crops, thus
cflecreasing the revenue obtainable from the agricultural
sector.

The costly nutrients are shown in Table 14. Since
'the production coefficients and the availability of re-
.sources differ among areas, the cost of nutrients will be
different in each particular area. The total cost of the
average daily allowances for all nutrients decreases in
all areas, from Model 4 to Models 5 and 6. Only for
4calories is expansion costly in all areas and models. To
(axamine the cost of expanding the intake of nutrients they
VVill be described by areas.

In Area I, the total cost of the average daily

Eillowances for all nutrients in Model 6 is lower than in

106

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 14. Costs of Nutrient Elements in Average Daily per Capita Allowance.
Area
1 11 l 111 1V V VI
"Utr‘en' Mode1 Model l Model M6861 Model Hodcl
4 5 6 4 5 6 I 4 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 6
T
1 Eflilliflai
cum-16: .554 .142 .052 6.42 .258 .104 16.42 .086 .012 .870 .069 .069 .664 487 .487 6.42 .324 .344
protein“ I .014 E .373 .380 .321 .320 .202 .201 .243 .157
Calciumb .057b .064b .066b ' .012 .012 .028 .042
Iron : .105
Vitamin A .526 .039 .047 .008 .026 .040 : .035 .042 .038 .038 .012 .011
Riboflavin 7.14 9.68 .145 .145
Sul fur-containing I
Bmino ...—1114C 014 I .373 .380 .321 .320 .202 .201 .243 .140
Hathloninec i -017
'1
Total cost of average '
(1.111,, allm-amces for 1.14e .245" .165' 6.43 .298 .144 16 42 494 .434 '8.01 .428 .427 10.3 .846 .845 6.53 .607 .554

‘11 nutrientsd

X

 

1
i

4%...

 

 

 

 

.

the levels of production and consumption activities and the constant quantities of resources available.
(Saily per capita nutrient allowance used as a unit is the average for Nigeria as a whole.

‘ 'The unit in each area is the amount of fully utilizable protein required daily per person in that area.

‘3 'rhe unit for all areas is 388.7 mg. although in Area l the actual allowance is much lover—-nnly 330.0 mg.

C 11w unit is each area is the amount reQuired daily per person in that area.

d TWw costs of the sulfur-containing amino acids and methionine are excluded from the total.

‘Tost of protein.

“Those are the least Costs of expanding the intake of a single nutrient by one unit, in a single area. subject to all the limits on

Except when indicated, the

These costs are already included an the

e 77115 figure includes the same anount of calcium (388.7 mg) as in the other areas. although only 330.0 mg were actually required in

Area I.

107

Model 5. Calories are cheaper in Model 6 than in Model 5.
But in Model 6 calcium and vitamin A are more expensive
than in Model 5.

In Area II, in addition to calories and vitamin A,
fully utilizable protein is also costly in Model 5. Pro-
tein becomes costly in this model because the sulfur-
containing amino acids needed to form fully utilizable
protein are costly. But in Model 6, since the sulfur-
1containing amino acids are not costly, protein is not
costly .

In Area III, the costly nutrients are calories,
Igrotein, and vitamin A in both Models 5 and 6. Protein
is again costly in this area because of the cost of
sulfur-containing amino acids.

In Area IV, the costly nutrients are the same as
in Area III. Calories, protein, and vitamin A are costly
in both Models 5 and 6. In this area, the costs of daily
allowances of nutrients are almost the same in both Models
5 and 6.

In Area V, the costly nutrients are calories,
lprotein, calcium, and riboflavin. This area is the only
iirea in which riboflavin is costly in both Models 5 and 6.
TPhe cost of calories in this area is the highest among
E111 areas in Models 5 and 6.

In Area VI, the costly nutrients are calories,

I>rotein, calcium, and vitamin A. In Model 6 methionine,

108

required to form fully utilizable protein, becomes costly.
But the cost of the sulfur-containing amino acids and the
total cost of the average daily allowances for all

nutrients in Model 6 are lower than in Model 5.

CHAPTER VII

A MODEL WITH FERTILIZER AND EXTENSION

SERVICES LIMITED

Model 7

In the short run, the supplies of some resources
such as fertilizer and extension services are assumed to
Ibe limited. Model 7 is designed to consider these limi-
tations. We want to know, when these resources are
limited, how they should be allocated among crops and
between areas.

In this model the maximum limits for the impor-
tation of single superphosphate and sulphate of ammonia
are 60 and 30 thousand tons respectively.1 At the same
time the maximum limit on the supply of extension services
is assumed to be equal to the quantity of extension ser-
vices needed to apply the new techniques of production to
4.5 million acres of land.

The number of activities and the individual limits

can each particular activity are the same as in Model 5.

y

1There is no limit on the importation of muriate
<3f potash, but in the optimal solution of the model the
Ilevel of this activity is zero.

109

110

The maximum limits on resources other than fertilizers
and extension services are also the same as in Model 5.
The effects of limiting fertilizer and extension services
on the Optimal solution of the model will be described in

this chapter very briefly.

Cropping Activities

 

Table 15 shows that restrictions on the supply of
fertilizer and extension services change the solution of
the model in favor of traditional practices which do not
‘use these resources. As the result of these restrictions,
new crop practices must compete with each other for the
limited supply of fertilizer and extension services. In
addition, they must compete with the traditional practices
for the acreage available for each crop and with all other
production activities in a specific area for the other
resources. In the optimal solution of Model 7 the cul-
tural practices which appear at their maximum level are
those which have survived after competing in all three

stages.

good Crops

The levels of food crop activities in the optimal
ssolution of Model 7 are shown in Table 15. This table
sshows that, in many cases, because of the restrictions on
1:he supply of fertilizer and extension services, new

(Iultural practices cannot compete with traditional

111

Table 15. Luvuls of Food Crop Activities: Model 5 with Feriilizer and Extension Services Limited

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Area
.mwny . 1 - 11 1 111 5 11.1 1 v I V1
' I 1 ‘1 T i 1 i
1 Maximum 'Sulutinn ‘ Maximum Solution Maximum Liolutlon I Maximum. Solution I HaximumISolution Maximum ISolution
n J 1 1 % l
1 I I
I I 1000 acres
|
1 .
111:: 1 ‘ I
I 1 . I
"traditional practices 1 I I
601. i 9.3 9.3 1 190 140 I 691 0 I 1 8 1.8 -- -- 16 16
Hired I 26 28 I 440 L40 1 646 0 I 66 O 037 0 625 0
1 I i
1 ,
New prettices I I ' I
I :
(ftmrcml f -— -- 1 -- -- , 1349 o i 68 o ‘ 444 340 455 438
Retoanendvd practices I )7 0 I 630 0 -— -- -- -* -- -- -- -—
1 I I
Western Uhiic 1, early I -- -- I -- -- I 674 676 34 14 . 222 0 227 0
He’stern 101111- 1. late 1 -- -- 1 -- -- » 674 674 34 32 ' 222 o I 237 0
I 1 ' I I
M11 in ' I I I
I 1 I |
lradit.hmal practitea I I I
. 1 I I
171-1:- I 2309 1444 i 20 2 ‘ -- —- I —- —- -- -- 5
Hun-d . 8224 8224 1 20 20 ; -- -- I -- -- —- -- -- --
I
3?‘ {tractices I I
, I 1 I 1
141.. (mended practice! 1 10533 0 l 40 o 1 -- -- I -- -- I -- -- 5 0
I
1 I 1 1 I
R11c, upland . I
———— . I 1
ll’iditional practices I I I
s .11.. 140 140 25 25 1 -- -- I -- -- | -- -- -- --
T‘e“ r‘ractiu-s I I I
1 I I
“Film-fitted g-rartlcua I 14.0 0 I 25 0 1 -- -- I u -— "' “ " ‘-
I
311... sump I Z I
l I 1
lr;ndi t1vnal practices ' I
M04. I 426 426 l 74 74 , -- -- 1 13 13 101 0 78 0
Hi zed 1 -- -- -- -— I -- —- 26 26 7 0 6.1 0
I I
3"“ S'rattites I
8"Ctjlmrnded practices ' 626 0 76 0 -- -- -- -- -— -- -‘ -'
3‘?h' variotv I -- -- -- -- 1 -- -- -- -- 108 0 82 0
’ I
Surgnum I I
. I .
l radl tional pratllcts ‘ 1 I
I
I
54' 1 e I 2002 2002 889 889 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 5 0
”1 xud ; 6260 6:60 2629 2629 I -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
. I
3" Dtatticcs I I
. I
“4"» “arnded practices 1 8262 0 | 3518 0 . —- -- -- -- -- -- 5 0
““0 If “new . 3300 0 1400 0 g -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
1 I I
h’hfll I I
._._._ 1 .
I rad: . I 1 I I
tXOnal practices - I 1
I
5‘” v I 73 73 1 -- -- I -- —- I -- -- -- -- -— —-
3: z ‘ I I
039 F rac rice! I I I I
, 1 1 1 .
' "Kcted I 8 0 ‘1 -- -- ' -— —- I -— -- -- -- -- --
. I 1 1

 

 

112

Table 1) (cont 'd.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Y
I Area
I 7 ‘ 7. I 1
Activity I 1 1 11 111 I 111 1 v 1 v1
I i r 1 r if I 1 I 1
1 MaximumI Solution I Maximum; Solution Muximu: Solution Maximum I Solution ' Maximum1 Solution Max1mumISulution
4T r i i i A
1
Cassava, bitter, rootI I
Traditional practices I I
i D
Sole -- -- -- -- I 512 o 164 0 188 0 293 0
Mixed -- -- -- -- 6540 213 143 113 525 O 647 0
New practices I
1
New variety -- -- -- —- i 1153 1.1 297 41 713 o 940 633
Sassava. sweet. fresha
Traditional practices I
Sole I 317 317 940 940 I —- -- -- -- —— -— -- --
Hlxcd 317 317 8’40 6-‘00 1 -- -' -‘ -- "- " -' --
I
New practices I
1
Inca-ended practice: 63‘ 0 1780 0 I -- -- -- -- " " n '-
Potato. Irish
Traditional practice- I I
1 .
Sole 9.7 5.2 84 84 -- -- I -— -- -- -- I _- ——
"ixed | 4.2 o 8.4 8.4 I -- -- I -- -- -- -- -- --
I
I 1 I
"9" practices 1 ' '
I
Recouended practices I 1’9 0 93 0 I “ "' “ “ " '" " 7'
I
I
1
Potato. sweet 1 I
r | i
r.d1tional practices 1 1
Sole I b 6 12 2 I -- -- -- -_ -- ..- -- --
Hlxed 18 18 36 36 I -' " "' “ " " “ "
I
Cocoxfll; '
1.V'Ddltional practices
$01. -- -- -— -- I 25 25 5 5 62 o -- --
"I led -- -- -- -- I 136 136 75 75 2148 268 -- '-
1
3;.” I
|
Tr‘Iidttic'nal practices 1 I
I I I
5.. 1. I 455 455 449 449 ' 470 287 39 39 277 o 240 110
H1 and I 241 241 2b9 269 235 235 394 394 917 o 504 504
I
N0“ practices I
I I
1
R‘L't‘oum-ndi-d practices I 695 U 713 0 ‘ " " "" " " “ " --
Ne“ Variety I -- -- -- -- I 705 0 3432 0 1194 471 - 7'9; 129
C0 ea I
Traditional practices 1 I I
I I
8" 1e . seed I 15 0 I 20 0 I " " '- -' -" -- 1"" 0
Hlxed l I
Seed I 3020 o I 4325 3174 I -- -— -— -- 24 0 884 0
Seed and hay I 3030 0 I "' " ” ” " “ " " -- ..
I
N
e" practices I I
8010 _ coed I I
R“comendod practicesI 3074 0 I 43'3“) 0 1 n “ " “ "' ” "' "
"I New variity 1 3034 o 4346 0 1 2 o a 0 24 o 835 243
‘7‘"d, seed .1111 hay I
ll‘provcd variety I 3034 0 I -- u I " " -_ “ - "' “ _- ‘-

 

113

Table 15 (cont'd.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

: Area
: T , v
Achity 1 1 n 111 I IV 1 V v1
1 L A
! Haxlmulj Solution 3 Manama] Solution 1 Maximum 1 Solution .: Maximum 1 Solution HaxmflSolution maximum I Solut Lon
AL A
Hrlcm seed 1
Tradluonal practices
5.310 19 19 53 53 75 75 3.2 3.2 1.8 0 7.7 7.7
"fixed 39 )9 78 78 85 85 133 133 316 O 96 96
Hkra
Tr-ld l l iunul pram [cos
501.- -— -- -- -- -- -- -- -— .. -- 9.6 o
N i xcd -- -- -- -- 26!. 0 89 O 60 0 30 0
Oman
Traditional practices
5(110 350 0 175 0 -- -- -- -- -° -- “ ‘-
N“‘-' practices
Rfi'cu-m-nded practlces 350 0 175 0 -- -- “ “ "' " “' ”
Ira-1*."
NV" pnullu'fi
Kt‘Cmm-nda-d practices,
early -- -‘ -- -- 3 O -- -- -- -- -- --
krt'm-ndrd pract ices,
late -- -- -- -- 3 0 -- -- -- -- -- '-
I rrigah-d 1 o -- -- l -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-‘ Thr m'livny is not avaHablc in this area.
a The “gun-s are (or m acre of gamma of which half was. planlcd in the current year. The other half, planted in the prevxous year, is

being harvcutud during the currrnt your.

114

practices. To describe the effects of the restrictions on
the levels of food crops we will examine each crop
separately.

Maize.--The optimal solution shows that sole

<3ropping practices are profitable in Areas I, IV, and VI.
'Ihe solution levels for these activities are at the maxi—
mmnn (Table 15). Mixed cropping practices are at maximum
limits in Areas I and II. Among the new practices of pro-
<duction the early crop of Western White 1 can compete with
the rest of the activities in Areas III and IV, while the
late crop of this variety can go to its maximum limit only
in Area III.

Millet.--Table 15 shows that the level of sole and

Inixed cropping of millet is at the maximum in Area II. But
:in Area I, the principal area for millet production, the
llevel of sole crOpping is positive (but not maximum) while
1:he level of mixed cropping is at maximum in this area.
{the recommended practices of millet cannot compete with
1:he traditional practices in this model.

Bige.--Table 15 tells us that the traditional sole
c311'iopping practices of upland rice are superior to the
1T€3commended practices. The solution level for sole crop-
535.ng of upland rice is at the maximum in Areas I and II,
“Wklile the recommended practices for this kind of rice are
Eit: zero level in both areas.

The mixed cropping practices of swamp rice can

<2Cnnpete with other production activities in Area IV, while

115

the sole cropping activities are at their maximum level in
Areas I, II, and IV. The recommended practices and the new
'varieties of rice cannot compete with the other activities.
{The solution level for these activities is zero in all
.areas where these activities exist.

Sorghum.--The traditional practices of sole and
Inixed cropping are profitable in Areas I and II, principal
:sorghum growing areas. The solution levels for these
.activities are at their maximum in both areas (Table 15).
The recommended practices and dwarf variety of sorghum
are not profitable in this model. The solution level for
these activities is zero in Areas I, II, and VI.

Wheat.-—The production of sole cropping of wheat in
.Area I (the only wheat growing area) is profitable in this
:model. The solution level for this activity is at the
:maximum while the level of irrigated wheat is zero because
of the high cost of irrigation and other expenses (Table
15).

Cassava.——The new practices for cassava production
are the new variety of bitter cassava and recommended
IQractices for sweet cassava. In the solution of the model
‘the level of traditional practices of sole cropping of
k>itter cassava is at zero in Areas III through VI, but the
ILevel of mixed cropping practices is positive (but not

Inaximum) in Areas III and IV. The new variety of bitter
<=assava is at positive level in Areas III, IV, and VI

iilld at zero level in Area V (see Table 15).

116

The traditional practices of sweet cassava pro-
duction (sole and mixed cropping) can compete with recom-
Headed practices and exhaust the total capacity allowed

for the production of this crop in Areas I and II.

Irish Potato.——The recommended practices for Irish

 

lpotatoes cannot compete with the traditional practices
(sole and mixed crOpping) for the capacity allowed for
this crop in either area. In Area I the level of sole
cropping practices is positive and mixed cropping practices
is zero. In Area II the sole and mixed cropping practices

exhaust the total capacity allowed for this crop (see

Table 15).

Sweet Potato.--The traditional practices for this

 

crop can compete with all old and new activities of model
for resources. Table 15 shows that the levels of sole and
mixed cropping are at the maximum in both Areas I and II.
This crop is profitable even with traditional methods of
production.

Cocoyam.--Table 15 shows that the traditional sole
cropping practices for this crop can compete with other
lactivities of the model for the resources in Areas III and
ZEV. The levels of these activities are at the maximum in
kooth Areas III and IV. The levels of mixed cropping
£>ractices of this crop are at their maximum in Areas III,
IEV, and V, where this crop is grown.

Zam.--The new practices of yam production are the

irkecommended practices (in Areas I and II) and the new

117

variety of yam (in Areas III through VI). In the solution

of the model, the level of traditional practices of mixed

cropping in all areas (with the exception of Area V) is at
the maximum and the level of traditional practices of sole

cropping is at the maximum in Areas I, II, and IV, positive

in Areas III and VI, and zero in Area V. Among the new

practices, the level of the new variety of yam is positive

in Areas V and VI. The level of the other new activities

 

for yam is zero (see Table 15).
Cowpea.--The new practices of COWpea production are
sole crOpping of recommended practices (in Areas I and II),
'the new variety of COWpea (in Areas I through VI) and
Inixed crOpping of improved variety (in Area I). In the
solution of the model the level of traditional sole crop-
:Eaing practice in Area I and the new variety of cowPeas in
Area VI are positive and the level of the rest of the

aicztivities is zero.

Melon Seed.--No new practices of melon seed pro-

 

citlcztion were introduced in this model. The traditional

sole and mixed cropping practices of melon seeds must com-

Pete with the rest of activities for resources. Table 15

tells us that this crop is superior in most areas. Only

if! .Zxrea.V the solution level for sole and mixed cropping

13 Zero. In all other areas the level of sole and mixed

c:rc>E>P'ing of this crOp is at the maximum.
Okra.--There are no new practices of okra pro-

d - . . . . . .
L1c=tZJL<>n in thlS model. Neither the sole cropping aCth1tY

118

(in Area VI) nor the mixed cropping activities (Areas III
through VI) can compete with the rest of the production
activities for resources. The level of these activities
is zero in all areas where this crop is grown (see

Table 15).

Onion.--The only new practices of onion production
are the recommended practices in Areas I and II. In the
solution of this model neither the traditional practices
nor the new practices of onion production can compete with
the rest of the production activities for the resources
(Table 15).

Tomato.-—There are no traditional practices of
tomato production in this model. The new practices of
tomato production are the recommended practices (early and
late crops) in Area III and irrigated tomatoes in Area I.
Neither of these activities can compete with the rest of
the activities of the model for the resources. Their
level in the optimal solution of the model is zero (see

Table 15).

Cash Crops

Since the supply of fertilizer and extension ser-
vices are limited in Model 7, some of the new practices of
cash crops, which were at their maximum levels in Model 5,
<3annot compete with the traditional practices in this
Inodel. In other words, the traditional cultural practices

CDf cash crops were not profitable in Model 5, when

—""’ ~r7——~—-_---,E

119

fertilizer and extension services were not limited, but
they become profitable when these factors are limited.

To examine the effect of the restriction, each
cash crop will be described separately.

Groundnuts.-—The new practices of production of

 

groundnuts in this model are recommended practices of
groundnuts in Areas I, II, and VI. This activity can
compete with the traditional practices of groundnuts pro-
duction in Area II and its level in the solution of model
is at the maximum (Table 16). But in Area I the recom-
mended practices can take over part of the capacity from
sole cropping. The level of sole cropping and the recom—
mended practices are positive in Area II. In the solution
of the model, the level of groundnuts production is zero
in Area VI (both for traditional and new practices).

Soya Bean.--The new practices introduced in this

 

model are improved practices of soya bean production only
in Area VI. The level of this activity in the solution of
the model is positive but not maximum. The level of sole
cropping practices at at the maximum in Areas I and II and
zero in Area VI (Table 16).

Cotton.--The new practices of cotton production
introduced in this model are the recommended practices.
pVith the restrictions on the supplies of fertilizers and
Etxtension services, the recommended practices of cotton
Elroduction are not profitable. In the solution of the

ITlthel the levels of traditional sole and mixed cropping

. nm_ n 4 '-

1.22()

Table in. varln ni Ca~h Crop ACLIVities: fi-dcl 5 with Fertilizer and incnsion Services Limited

 

Area

 

Activity 1 ~ 11 111 [V V VI

 

“-4111

Ara—.fib—A
.— 0——A

+— -— -— 7.

 

 

. T T
Maximum ISulutinn I Maximum ISolution I Maximum L5olution MaxiMumI Solution Maximum ISolution Maximum ISolution
% .
I g I
I 1000 acre: .
I Q
Lruuflgnut 1 I I
Traditional practices I I i I
. ‘ l
| :
hole 154] 1533 ' 220 0 I -— -- I -— -- —- -- 67 0
Mixed . 1410 2430 I 370 0 . -- -- I -- -- -- -- 101 0
New practices I i I I
I i
l 1 1 I .
Recomrndcd practices I 4959 953 : 590 590 I -— -- g -- -- -- -- 168 o
. _ I
1.1. ......“ ’ I r I .
I ' I
Traditional practices I I 3 I I
Suh- 1 10 10 3 10 10 -- -- I -- -- I -- -- 185 o
I , j I .
Nev practices I . I I
ImerVcd practices i -- -- -- -- j -- -- -- -- l -- -- 185 19
Cotton I t I I
I .
Traditional practice: I I I I
I
Sole I 268 248 I 339 0 I -- -- -- -- I -- -- ‘- '-
nmu i 2.28 248 I 359 359 I -- -- -- -- I -- —- . 52 0
i ‘ ' . .
New pra\licv~ I I I
i i
- I
Recounvnded practices I 493 O 698 0 I -- -- ' -- -- -- -- -- --
I I
I
Ioblceg I .
lraditiunal practices I
. I
Sale A a 11 11 I -- -- —- -- -- -- —- --
. l
__ l A

 

 

 

 

-- The activity in not available in this area.

a Groundnut and soya bean are food crops as well as cash Lf0?fi-

Table 17. Levels oi Tree Crop Activities: Model 5 with Fertilizer and Extension Services Limited

 

Area

 

s7 *fi v

Activity 1 ' 11 III XV i V

#- A

V1

 

f-.

v v f

. T y I
. ~ . .. , . , r I ‘
! Maximum Ihulullon Haximum' solution Maximum Ibolution ' Maximum ISUIUtlon - Maximum lbolution ‘ HaXimum [Solution
1 ‘ 1

 

 

 

 

K L A A‘
. T T
I 1 ‘
‘ I I 1000 acres
; 1 I
‘21 2111-. I I .
I 1
Traditional practiccn -- -- I -- —- I 1265 o I 223 o 2ao9 0 96k 0
New practices I e- -- I -- -- ‘ 1205 1265 223 223 21.09 21.09 96:. 961.
Cocoa I
Tra<iitlonai practices I -- -- I -- -- 1325 0 52 0 -- -- -- --
‘ I
“W Practices I -- -- ‘ -- -- 1325 1325 I 52 52 -- -- -- --
Kola nyi I
Tr‘dltionn practices -- -- : -- -- I 60'! 5L8 -- -- -- -- —- --
1
Rubber
Trad1.tiunal practices I -- -- I -- -- 2. 0 L82 0 £8 0 -- --
N- i
“' prfictires , -- -- . -- -- 2:. 2:. 1.82 as: as 68 -- --
x I
\ ' L . i .

 

--r
"e activity in not available in this area.

121

are at the maximum in Area I. In Area II the level of sole
cropping is at zero and mixed cropping at the maximum.
The level of mixed cropping of cotton in Area VI (the only
practice available in this area) is zero (see Table 16).
Tobacco.--No new practices of tobacco production
were introduced in this model. The sole cropping practices
of tobacco production can compete with the rest of the pro-
duction activities for resources in both Areas I and II,

where this crop is grown.

Tree Crops

Our data concerning the fertilizer requirements
for implementing the new practices of oil palm and cocoa
production, give the amounts spent on fertilizer but do
not specify the kinds purchased. Fertilizer expenses are
charged to the production activities of these crops as
though these activities do not use the limited amount of
fertilizer imported for other crops, but import fertilizer
directly, whenever the activity can pay the expense. On
the other hand, there are no new practices for kola nut
production and the new rubber practices do not require
fertilizer. Therefore, the restrictions on fertilizer
supply imposed in this model do not affect the expansion
of the new practices of tree crops directly (see Table 17).

To analyze the solution of the model for tree crOps

each crop will be described separately.

 

122

Oil Palm.--Table 17 shows that the new practices of
oil palm production are superior to the traditional
practices in all areas where this crop is produced. The
solution levels for the new practices are at their maximum
in Areas III through VI.

Cocoa.--The new practices of cocoa production can
also compete with the traditional practices in Areas III

and IV, where the crop is grown. In the solution of the

‘Q...’ 1

model the new practices are at their maximum in both areas
(Table 17).

Kola Nuts.--The production level for kola nuts is

 

548 thousand acres in Area III, the only area where this
crop is grown (Table 17). Since the consumption level of
this crop is at its minimum level (in Areas I, II, and III,
where the crop is consumed) its production cannot go below
548 thousand acres even if it is uneconomical at that
level.

Rubber.~-The new practices of rubber production are
profitable expanded to their maximum limits in this model.
Table 17 shows that these activities can compete with the
traditional practices for the acreage available. The
levels of the new practices are at the maximum in Areas

III, IV, and V.

Resource Use

 

In the solution of the model some resources are

used totally and others only partially. Among all

x. 54...?” ...h‘

21

123

resources, land is 100 per cent used in all areas (I through
IV) while manure is left totally unused in Areas I and II
(see Table 18).

If a specific resource in a particular area is used
totally there is a potential gain from having an additional
unit of that resource. If a resource is not used then
there is no potential gain for its additional unit.

Table 18 shows that during May and June labor is
a scarce factor in Areas III, V, and VI. An additional
man-day of labor in May and June in Area III contributes
6.1 shillings to the revenue, while the same labor in
Areas V and VI contributes 15.6 and 11.7 shillings re-
spectively (Table 19).

There is no shortage of labor during the rest of the
year. The highest percentage of unused labor during the
rest of the year is in Area I where 71 per cent of the
labor is left unused. In Areas II and VI the percentage
of unused labor is 67 per cent and 64 per cent respectively.
Other areas also have substantial amounts of unused labor
during the rest of the year (see Table 18).

Land is the only factor which is scarce in all
areas. An additional acre of land in Area V, with 920
Shillings per acre per year, has the highest potential
gain.among all areas. In Area IV the potential gain from
ifll additional acre of land is 350 shillings per acre per

Yeétr. The potential gain from an additional acre of land

—-—’ yrs-n—g_~_:— - ...:
h

 

Table 18.

Quantities of Resources Available and Unused: Model 5
with Fertilizer and Extension Services Limited

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resource Quantity Quantity Percentage
and Area Available Unused Unused
Labor in_May and June (1000 man—days)
I 449,000 172,600 38.4
II 181,150 73,100 40.4
111 84,290 0 0
IV 51,580 19,400 37.6
V 92,140 0 0
VI 70,000 0 0
Labor during Rest g£_Year (1000 man—days)
I 1,795,800 1,266,100 70.5
II 797,200 531,700 66.7
III 404,100 24,000 5.9
IV 247,500 157,400 63.6
V 442,400 44,200 10.0
VI 336,200 90,500 26.9
Land under Cultivation (1000 acres)
I 15,041 0 0
II 6,534 O 0
111 5,188 0 0
IV 1,260 O O
V 3,390 O 0
VI 2,830 O 0

 

 

 

let‘-

125

Table 18 (cont'd.)

 

Resource Quantity Quantity Percentage
and Area Available Unused Unused

 

 

 

Additions £2 Land under Cultivation* (1000 acres)

 

V 322 258 8.0

Bush Pasture (1,000,000 acres)

 

I 784 0 0
II 847 824 97.3
III 2.64 1.9 72.0
IV 2.64 2.2 83.3
V 10.99 8.9 80.1
VI 99.55 92.0 92.4

 

Manure* (1000 metric tons)

 

1 3,000 3,000 100
11 1,500 1,500 ' 100

 

 

 

:1

D "J ..5 5.21 c.- K‘ZZJ .. r

 

* This resource was introduced into the model only for the areas
listed.

126

Table 19. Revenue Obtainable from an Additional Unit of Resource:
Model 5 with Fertilizer and Extension Services Limited*

 

 

 

Resource Unit Area

I II III IV V VI
Labor in May and June man-day 0 0 8.1 0 15.6 11.7
Labor, other man-day 0 0 0 0 0 0
Land, arable acre—year 177 325 235 349 917 179
Land, arable, additional acre-year -~ -- —- -- 0 --
Pasture, bush acre—year 1.4 0 0 0 0 O
Manure long ton 0 0 -- -- -- --

 

 

 

*This table shows the potential gain from having one more unit of a specific
resource to use, subject to the conditions of the model. Those conditions include
maximum limits upon production and consumption activities and constant quantities
of all other resources.

These values are the opportunity-cost valuations of the resources.

. T_ __ _. — .'- A-L.It

127

is 325 shillings for Area II, 235 for Area III, 179 for
Area VI, and 177 shillings for Area I (Table 19).

There is a potential gain from an additional acre
of bush pasture only in Area I (1.4 shillings per acre per
year). Pasture is abundant in all other areas.

Manure is used only in the production of onions.
Since in the optimal solution of the model the level of
onion production is at zero (in Areas I and II where the
crop is grown), manure is left unused by 100 per cent in

both areas.

Animal Activities

 

In the optimal solution of the model, except for
bush cattle in Area I, the levels of traditional animal
industries are at their maximum in all areas. The level
of bush cattle in Area I is below maximum. The commercial
production of pork and poultry, as well as the production
of hay-fed sheep, are at zero levels in areas where these
activities exist (see Table 20).

Table 21 shows that the potential gain from the
expansion of bush cattle is 314 shillings per head of
output for Area III, 225 shillings for Area II, 159
shillings for Area IV, and 150 shillings for Areas V and
VI. Among all areas, Area II has the highest potential
gain for the expansion of goats (44 shillings per head

output) and sheep (54 shillings per head output).

 

128

 

.uu:u~:ofiuw< mo muum«:«: ecu mo coHuusvoud comm mzu xn woods“; n
.zmn omasoo mo coauuavoua onu >9 voufiefiq a
.moum many CH wanmaww>m uoc ma mua>auom mLH II

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . page“ HedonwEEoo
o n o n I- -s o a A o m m u- -- -- meagre ooo.ooH .mcmxuaeu
. . usduso HmfioumEEou
II II II In tl II It II o N n o o mm It cum; ooo.~ .mcw3m
usauno .
-- -n n- -n u- -n -- -- u- u- o m -- sum; ooo.ooH nouusa; amonm
C O O O O O Hagan-no .
q.m c.m q a q a coo ooo cm on. c c c.q ¢.m o.w II vmoc 000.00H :msn awwnm
. . . . bamboo
w H m H m m o m wo.N mo.~ oo.~ om.~ Ha HH o.m~ m.m~ II coo; 000.00H muwoo
. II II It nI bamboo HmepoEEoo
O N H O o 0 HH II Umwc COO.H .mauuwu
. . bamboo .
mN mm m m m m H.H H.~ ~.a H.H cmm 0mm mow NnoH I: ooo; ooo.H swan mauumu
sewuzaomtfiEdaaxmz newnsfiom—EDEmez co«u3~0mglE:emez codusaom#536«xaz :ouuaaomflasswxmz coHusaom_E=Emez
L> > >H HHH NH H use: sua>auu<
mou<

 

 

 

vogue“; mova>uom ceamcwuxm can umuwfiwuuwm Lugs m Hovoz

"mouuumavcH Amefic< mo m~m>wg .ON oHnaH

129

Table 21. Additions to Revenue Possible if an Animal Activity were
Expanded: Model 5 with Fertilizer and Extension Services Limited

 

 

 

 

 

 

Area
Activity Unit
I II III IV V VI
Shillin 3
Per Unit 2: Activity
Cattle, bush head -- output 0 225 314 159 150 150
Cattle, . a head -- output -- 0 -- -- O 0
commerc1al .
Goats head -- output 40 44 40 23 32 36
Sheep, bush head -- output 53 54 36 32 30 34
Sheep, hay-fed head -- output b -- -- -- -- --
Sw1ne, . head -- output 0 O -- -- -- --
commerc1al
Chickens,. 100 chicks -- __ 0 0 __ b b
commerc1a1 input
Per Acre-Year oi Pasture
Cattle, bush head -- output 0 7.5 13.1 12.7 6.3 1.1
Cattle, . a head -- output -- 0 -— -— 0 0
commerc1al
Goats head -- output 3.3 5.4 22.3 11.4 17.7 7.3

 

 

 

130

Table 21 (cont'd.)

 

 

 

Area
Activity Unit
I II III IV V VI
Sheep, bush head -- output 3.6 5.4 11.9 10.7 10.0 4.3
Sheep, hay-fed head -- output c -- -- -- -- --
Sw1ne, . head -- output C c -- -— -- --
commerc1a1
32F!
Chickens, 100 chicks --
. . -- c c -- c c
commerc1a1 input
r

 

 

 

 

* The entries show the gains possible if a single activity were to be
expanded by a small amount, with no increases in the total quantities
of land or labor available, and with unchanged limits on the other
production and consumption activities.

-- The activity is not available in this area.
a. The pasture for commercial cattle makes use of arable land.

b The model imposes no direct limit on this activity.

<2 riot a pasture-using activity.

131

Patterns of Trade

The restrictions on fertilizer supply and extension
services change the patterns of trade. The revenue pro-
ducing activities are shown in section A of Table 22.

The export activities providing a large amount of
revenue are exports of groundnuts in Area I (which provides
552 million shillings), cocoa in Area III (which provides
2,550 million shillings), rubber in Area IV (which provides
589 million shillings), palm kernels in Area V (which pro-
vides 658 million shillings), and red palm oil in Areas III
and V (which provide 1,075 and 2,968 million shillings
respectively).

Import activities are divided into two categories:
food and fertilizer. In the Optimal solution of this
model, importing food items is restricted to whole wheat
for Areas V and VI, wheat flour for Area III, and sugar
for Area II (see section B of Table 22).

Importation of fertilizer consists of two specified
fertilizers2 (sulphate of ammonia for Areas V and VI and
single superphosphate for Areas I and II) and some un-
Specified fertilizers (for commercial maize oil palm and

cocoa for Areas III through VI, see section C of Table 22).

2The import level for muriate of potash is zero
:for all areas.

Table 22. Summary of Revenue Transactions:

132

Fertilizer and Extension Services Limited

Model 5 with

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Area
Activity Total
I II III IV V VI
Million shillings
A. Transactions Yielding Revenue (92_balance)
Export hides and skinsa
Beef l4 17 38 1.9 71
Goat 4.1 7.9 86 16 114
Sheep .63 5.0 31 2.5 39
Sell cotton 104 62 166
Export
Groundnut, seed 552 552
Groundnut cake 102 102
Sell tobacco 3.6 10 14
Export
Cocoa 2550 91 2,641
Rubber 29 589 59 677
Palm kernel 59 658 235 952
Red palm oil 1075 184 2968 626 4,853
Palm kernel oil 255 255
Palm kernel cake 109 109
Total: Section A 762 72 4037 953 3840 881 10,545

 

 

 

 

a We assume that all hides and skins are sold for export-

a.

133

Table 22 (cont'd.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Area
Activity Total
I II III IV V VI

B. Expenditures 22 Food from Outside Nigerian Agriculture
Wheat

Whole 124 32 156

Flour 39 39
Fish, dried, freshwater 47 680 49 55 81 912
Sugar, white 52 52
Total: Section B 47 52 719 49 179 113 1,159
C. Expenditures 22_Fertilizer
Sulphate of ammonia 14 4.2 18
Single superphosphate 23 14 1.2 38
Miscellaneous,b for

Nbize, commercial 36 47 83

Oil palm 25 4.5 48 19 97

Cocoa 93 3.6 97
TOtal: Section C 23 14 118 8.1 98 71 333

 

 

b Our data give the amounts spent on fertilizer, but do not specify

which kinds are purchased.

Table 22 (cont'd.)

 

 

Activity Pv Total
II III IV V VI

l-l

 

 

. c
D. Payments for Transportation

 

From Area I

 

Millet 23 10 33
Wheat, whole 12 12
Groundnuts 3.0 35 38
Oil, groundnut 18 7.7 26
d
Beef 0 0 0 0
Coats 0 O 0
Mutton 0 0 0
Subtotal (Area I) 30 0 3 23 53 109

 

From Area II

 

Sorghum ll 11
Cowpeas 4.6 5
Groundnuts e 26 26
Oil, red palm 12 12
Beef 0 0
Coats 0 0
Mutton 0 0
Subtotal (Area II) 12 4.6 37 54

_R

 

From Area III

 

 

 

 

Maize, high lysine 3.1 3
Cari 15 15
Melon seed 3.3 3
Kola nuts 49 2O 69
Yam 44 44
Subtotal (Area III) 49 35 50 134

 

 

c Zero transportation costs for meat animals indicate that the animals
are: brought in on foot.

d The nomadic herds identified as Area I cattle in this model actually
SPeInd about two-thirds of their time within the geographical boundaries of
ArEa II.

e The oil originated in either Area III or Area VI.

135

Table 22 (cont'd.)

 

 

Activity Total
I II III IV V VI

 

 

D. Payments for Transportation

 

From Area IV

 

Gari 3.1 3.1
Yam 106 106
Subtotal (Area IV) 109 109

 

From Area V

 

 

None
From Area VI
Maize .61 1
Yam 140 140
Cari 2.1 14 16
Cowpeas .014 0
Oil, red palm 84 84
Beefd O O
Coats 0 0
Mutton 0 0
Subtotal (Area VI) 86 155 241

 

Total: Section D 61 151 58 324 53 647

 

 

 

136

Buying activities move foods from production areas
to consumption locations. The levels of these activities
in the optimal solution of the model determine the internal
trade pattern (see Table 23).

Area I buys red palm oil from either Area III or
VI. Area II buys wheat (whole), groundnuts, and beef from
Area I; gari, kola nuts from II; and yams and red palm oil
from Area VI. Area III buys only beef from Area I. Area
IV buys groundnuts, beef, goat meat, and mutton from Area
I; yams from Area III. Area V buys millet from Area I;
sorghum, groundnuts, and goats from Area II; gari and yams
from Area IV; and maize, yams, gari, cowpeas, beef, goat
meat, and mutton from Area VI. Area VI buys millet, ground-
nuts, groundnut oil, goat meat, and mutton from Area I and

beef and mutton from Area II (see Table 23).

The Most Economical Foods

 

Table 24 shows the foods that are consumed at
maximum or minimum levels in the optimal solutions of the
model. The expansion of maximum limits or contraction of
minimum limits would involve a gain.

In Area I Irish potatoes and groundnut oil are
most economical, and the consumption of kola nuts and
millet beer is uneconomical. In Area II groundnut oil,
red palm oil, and sugar are most economical and the con-
sumption of beer (millet and guinea corn beer) and kola

nuts is uneconomical. In Area III no food expands to its

137

Table 23. Quantities of Foods Transported between Areas:
Model 5 with Fertilizer and Extension Services Limited

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a This originated in

 

Area 111 or Area VI.

 

Area
Activity Total
I II III IV V VI
Weight a£_farm, in_millions 9£_pounds
From Area I.
Millet 77 69 146
Wheat, whole 72 72
Groundnuts 11 268 279
Oil, groundnut 106 37 143
Beef 147 214 262 623
Goats 12 133 145
Mutton 174 47 221
From Area 11_
Sorghum 77 77
COWpeas 31 31
Groundnuts a 145 145
Oil, red palm 310 310
Beef 225 225
Goats 44 44
Mutton 22 22
From Area III
Maize, high lysine 44 44
Gari 73 73
Melon seed 47 47
Kola nuts 112 20 132
Yam 808 808

Table 23

138

(cont'd9

 

 

 

 

 

 

Area
Activity Total
II III IV V VI
From Area IV_
Gari 102 102
Yam 1759 1759
From Area V_
None
From Area VI_
Maize 20 20
Yam 4679 4679
Gari 18 550 568
Cowpeas .72 1
011, red palm 496 496
Beef 218 218
Goats 105 105
Mutton 74 74

 

 

 

139

Table 24- Consumption Activities Significantly Constrained* by their
Maximum or Minimum Levels: Model 5 with Fertilizer and Extension
Services Limited

 

 

 

 

 

Area
Activity
I II III IV V VI
A}; Maximum Levels
Maize a b
Millet x x
Sorghum x
Wheat
Whole x x x
Flour . x
Gari x
Potato, Irish x
Cowpea x
Groundnut, seed x x x
Bean, soya x
Oil
Groundnut x x x
Red palm x x
Beef x x
Goat meat (chevon) x x
Mutton x x
Sugar, white x
Wine, palm x
A£_Minimum Levels .
Beer
Millet x c x
Guinea corn c
Wine, palm x x
Kola nut x x x

 

 

*1

If the maximum level were raised, or the minimum lowered, the revenue
provided by the solution would increase.

a Includes both local white and high lysine maize.
b Includes both local white and yellow maize.

C The minimum limit is satisfied jointly by 1630 million kilograms of
guinea corn beer and 47 million kilograms of millet beer.

140

maximum limit but the consumption of palm wine and kola
nuts is uneconomical. In Area IV maize (local white and
high lysine maize), wheat (flour), groundnuts, beef, goat
meat, and mutton are most economical and the consumption
of palm wine is uneconomical. In Area V the consumption
of maize (local white and yellow maize), millet, sorghum,
wheat (whole), gari, COWpeas, groundnuts, beef, goat meat,
mutton, and palm wine is most economical and there is no
uneconomical food in this area. In Area VI millet, wheat
(whole), groundnuts, soya bean, groundnut oil, and red
palm oil are the most economical foods and the consumption

of millet beer is uneconomical.

CHAPTER VIII

SUMMARY BY AREAS

The Most Efficient Techniques of
Crop Production

 

 

This study integrates information from different
disciplines to answer some of the questions Nigeria faces
in the course of expanding her agricultural sector. The
objective of this research is to determine the most
efficient production techniques for producing nutrition
and income.

Because of the differences in production possi-
bilities and consumption habits, Nigeria is divided into
six ecological areas. Each area has its own resources and
can provide the required nutrients either by producing food
within the area, by buying from other areas or from out-
side the agricultural sector (as from fisheries), or by
importing from outside the country. Thus each area has
been treated as a separate model connected with the other
areas through buying activities. The resources of a
particular area can be used only in that area and cannot

be transferred to another area or areas.

141

142

Since each area produces different crops and has
different input-output coefficients, each area may have a
different scarce resource or resources in the optimal
solution of the model. Similarly, the values of the
scarce nutrients may be different in each area. Some of
the new techniques are superior in one area yet inferior in

another.

Model 5

In this model we introduce improved production
practices for different crops. These cultural practices
(with the exception of dwarf sorghum and the new variety
of COWpeas, which will be available shortly) are presently
available to Nigerian farmers. The new activities must
compete with traditional production practices for resources
and the capacity to produce a particular crop in a specific
area.

This model tests the efficiency of different tech-
niques of crOp production and tries to find the superior
crOps and the best methods of producing them. The test
crops, as well as the set of superior techniques for those
crops, differ from area to area. Therefore, each area
will be discussed separately. The policy-maker interested
in maximizing agricultural income without sacrificing
adequate nutrition will find Optimal production patterns

described for each area.

143

Area I.--The solution of the model shows that some
of the traditional sole and mixed cropping practices for
food crops use resources efficiently in this area. Sole
cropping practices for maize, upland and swamp rice, wheat,
sweet potatoes, and melon seeds can compete with the other
crops and production techniques for the available resources.
The traditional sole cropping of these crops appears at the
limits allowed in this study.

With regard to mixed cropping practices, the pro-
duction of maize, millet, sorghum, sweet cassava, sweet
potatoes, yams, and melon seeds can compete with the new
methods of production for resources. These activities are
profitable expanded to the limits considered in the study.

Among the new food crop production techniques, the
recommended practices for many food crops are not profitable
in this area. The recommended practices for sweet cassava
replace the traditional sole cropping but not the mixed
cropping practices. The recommended practices for onions
replace the traditional practices, and total acreage under
onion production decreases from 300,000 acres in Model 4
to 160,000 acres in Model 5. The recommended practices
for other food crops are not profitable in this area. The
new variety of dwarf sorghum is produced at a level of
167,000 acres; expansion beyond this level is not profit-
able. The two irrigated crOps, wheat and tomatoes, are
not profitable at any level because of the high cost of

irrigation and other expenses.

144

For cash crops, the traditional sole cropping of
soya beans is profitable at 10,000 acres (the limit allowed
in this study). The current method of tobacco production
(already at a high level of technical competence) is profit-
able applied to its maximum limit. Unlike food crops, the
recommended practices for cash crOps are efficient in using
resources. The recommended practices for groundnuts and
cotton should replace their traditional practices (both
sole and mixed cropping) in this area.

Area II.--The traditional sole cropping practices
for most food crOps are not profitable in this area. Only
the traditional sole cropping of swamp rice, sweet potatoes,
and melon seeds are profitable at the maximum limits allowed
in this study. Sole cropping of Irish potatoes is not
profitable beyond 55,000 acres in this model.

Mixed cropping of food crops is relatively more
profitable than traditional sole crOpping in Area II.

Mixed cropping of maize, millet, cassava, sweet potatoes,

and melon seeds is expanded to the maximum limits. Mixed

cropping of sorghum and COWpeaS is profitable at levels of
2100 and 470 thousand acres respectively. Mixed cropping

of other food crops is not profitable at any level.

The recommended practices for millet, upland rice,
and yams are efficient in using resources. These pro—
duction activities replace traditional practices at their
limits. The recommended practices for maize, sweet cassava,

and onions expand to 80, 310, and 160 thousand acres.

145

These activities utilize the unused acreage alloted to sole
cropping. The recommended practices for Irish potatoes
expand to 40,000 acres at the expense of both sole and
mixed cropping. Dwarf sorghum is produced at the limit
allowed in this study. The production of the new variety
of COWpeas is profitable to 720,000 acres.

Regarding cash crops, sole cropping of soya beans
with traditional methods is not profitable, but the current
method of tobacco production is. The recommended practices
for groundnuts and cotton replace the traditional sole and
mixed cropping practices.

Area III.--The traditional practices for sole and
mixed cropping of most food crops are inferior to the new
techniques of production in this area. Only the tra-
ditional practices for melon seeds (both sole and mixed
cropping) can compete for resources with the new tech-
niques.1 The traditional practices for other crops are
not profitable.

The new practices for tree crops are superior to
traditional practices in this area. The new practices
for oil palm, cocoa, and rubber replace traditional
practices at their limits.

Area IV.--The solution of this model shows that

some of the traditional practices of food crops can compete

 

1The mixed cropping of cassava is profitable only
up to 1000 acres.

146

with the new production techniques for resources in this
area. Sole cropping practices for maize and cocoyam are
profitable at their limits (2 and 5 thousand acres re-
spectively). Mixed cropping practices for swamp rice,
bitter cassava, and cocoyam are profitable expanded at
their limits are mixed cropping of maize expands to 32,000
acres.

Among the new methods of food crop production, the
new variety of maize, Western White 1 (early crop) expands
to its limit, while the new varieties of yam and cassava
expand to 350 and 1.4 thousand acres respectively.

For tree crops, all the new practices are superior
to traditional practices, including the new practices for
oil palm, cocoa, and rubber.

Area V.--The traditional practices for food crops
are not profitable in this area.

Among the new practices, the new variety of maize,
Western White 1 (late crOp) is profitable at the level of
80 thousand acres and the new variety of yam expands at
700 thousand acres.

The new practices for oil palm and rubber are
profitable, replacing traditional practices at their
limits.

Area VI.--Among the traditional practices for food
crops the traditional mixed cropping for melon seeds is

the only activity that can compete with the new activities

147

for resources. This production activity is profitably
carried on at its limit.

For the new practices of food crops, the new
variety of maize, Western White 1 (both early and late
crops) and the new variety of swamp rice are profitably
expanded to their maximum limits. The new varieties of
yams and cowpeas are profitably expanded to 570 and 330
thousand acres respectively.

As far as cash crops are concerned, mixed cropping
of cotton is the only traditional activity which is
profitably produced at its limit. The traditional prac-
tices for groundnut and soya bean are replaced by the
recommended and improved practices of these crops re-
spectively.

The new practices for oil palm--the only tree crop
in this area--replace traditional practices at the maximum

limit.

Conclusion

 

The solution of this model shows that some of the
new production techniques for food crops cannot compete
with all other production activities for resources as well
as do some of the traditional practices. However, the
new production techniques for cash crOps do replace tra-
ditional practices in all areas. The reason for and the

significance of these results will be explained in detail

H.4-

148

in Chapter IX. The assumption of absolute inelasticity of
the demand for nutrition and restricting the market for
food crOps to internal comsumption make some of the new
techniques for food crops unprofitable. Since there is

no outlet for the extra yield, additional food production
decreases the internal (shadow) food prices, making the
new techniques less profitable. With regard to the new
cash crop techniques, there is an outlet for their addi-
tional yields. So long as the earnings from the addi-
tional yields are greater than the additional costs of

the new techniques they are profitable.

Model 6

The new production activities included in this
model are the production of prospective varieties of the
various crOps. These production techniques are not
presently available to Nigerian farmers, but could be
available in the future as research on plant breeding
continues.

The model is designed to explore possible gains
from further plant breeding programs for the major crops.

These new activities must compete with the tra-
ditional and the improved practices for resources and for
the acreage the model allows for a given crop in a specific
area. A few of the prospective varieties are superior to

the traditional and improved techniques in a particular

149

area, but are inferior in other areas. To examine the
efficiency of various techniques we will discuss each area
separately.

Area I.--Traditional cropping practices for some
food crops can compete with the new practices (including
prosPective varieties) for the available resources. The
traditional sole crOpping practices for swamp rice, wheat,
sweet cassava, sweet potatoes, and melon seeds are profit-
able at their limits in Area I. Sole cropping of sorghum
and Irish potatoes is profitably expanded to 40 and 5
thousand acres, respectively. Among mixed cropping prac-
tices, the production of maize, millet, sorghum, sweet
cassava, sweet potatoes, and melon seeds is carried on at
the limits.

Among the new practices, the improved variety of
COWpeas cultivated as a mixed crop is profitable produced
to its limit. Recommended practices for onions occupy
160,000 acres of land. With the exception of millet, the
prospective varieties of food crops cannot pay for the
resources they employ. The prospective variety of millet
is profitable only at the level of 1000 thousand acres in
this area.

Regarding cash crops, the current method of
tobacco production is profitable carried to its maximum
limit. Unlike food crops, the prospective varieties of

cash crops are profitable. The prospective varieties of

150

groundnuts, soya beans, and cotton are superior to their
traditional and recommended practices. These activities
expand to their maximum limits.

Area II.--The traditional practices for some food
crops can compete with the new practices in this area.
Traditional sole cropping practices for swamp rice, Irish
potatoes, sweet potatoes, yams, and melon seeds are profit—
able applied to their maximum limits. Traditional sole
cropping of maize also expands almost to its limit. Mixed
cropping practices for maize, sorghum, sweet cassava, sweet
potatoes, yams, and melon seeds are carried on to their
limits. The traditional mixed cropping of COWpeaS is
profitable at a level of 4070 thousand acres, close to the
limit.

Among the new cultural practices, the recommended
practices for upland rice and the prospective varieties of
millet replace the traditional practices. The recommended
practices for onions expand to 80 thousand acres and the
levels of the prospective varieties of maize (early crop)
and sorghum can expand to 2 and 760 thousand acres re-
spectively.

For cash crops, the current method of tobacco pro-
duction is applied to its maximum limits. Unlike food
crops, the prospective varieties of cash crops are profit-
able. The prospective varieties of groundnuts, soys beans,

and cotton replace the traditional practices.

151

Area III.--Some of the traditional practices for

 

food crops can compete with the new practices for available
resources. The traditional sole cropping practices for
cocoyams and melon seeds are applied to their limits.

Mixed cropping of melon seeds is employed to its maximum
limit, while mixed cropping for yams is profitable to 45
thousand acres.

Among the new practices, the new variety of maize,
Western White 1 (both early and late crops) is profitable
as a replacement for traditional practices in this model.
The prospective variety of maize cannot compete with West-
ern White 1 in this area. The new variety of yams is
applied to 520 thousand acres. Recommended practices for
tomatoes (late crop) can compete with the other activities
for resources. This activity expands to its limit (3
thousand acres).

Concerning tree crops, the new practices are
superior to the traditional ones. The new practices for
oil palm, cocoa, and rubber replace traditional practices
at their limits.

Area IV.--The traditional sole cropping practices
for maize and cocoyams (on 2 and 5 thousand acres of land)
are the only sole cropping activities that can compete
with the other production activities for resources. Among
mixed cropping practices, the production of swamp rice,

bitter cassava, and cocoyams is carried on at the maximum

152

limits in this area. Mixed cropping of maize is profitable
to 30 thousand acres.

Among the new practices, the new variety of maize,
Western White 1 (early crop), is produced to its limit.
The new varieties of bitter cassava and yams are grown to
the extent of 30 and 310 thousand acres respectively. The
prospective maize is not promising in this area. It cannot
compete with the other activities for resources.

With regard to tree crOps, all new practices are
promising. The new practices for oil palm, cocoa, and
rubber replace the traditional practices at their limits.

Area V.--Traditional sole and mixed cropping of
the various crops cannot compete with the new practices
for resources in this area.

Regarding the new cultural practices, the pro-
duction of Western White 1 maize (late crop), and the new
variety of yams is carried on to 90 and 680 thousand acres
in this area. The prospective variety of swamp rice is
profitable to 34 thousand acres.

Concerning tree crops, new practices are superior
to the traditional ones. The new practices of oil palm
and rubber replace the traditional practices at their
limits.

Area VI.--Most of the traditional practices for
various food crops cannot compete with the new practices

in this area. Mixed cropping of melon seeds is the only

153

traditional method that can compete for resources with the
new production methods. This activity is carried on at
its maximum limit.

Among the new cultural practices, production of
the late crop of Western White 1 maize appears at the level
of 140 thousand acres. The new varieties of bitter cassava
and yams are produced at 580 and 410 thousand acre levels
respectively. The prospective varieties of maize (early
crop), millet and swamp rice are profitable produced to
their maximum limits.

With regard to cash crops, mixed cropping of cotton
is the only traditional activity profitable to its limit.
The prospective variety of groundnuts replaces its recom-
mended practices and the improved practices of soya beans
are profitable to their limit.

The new practices for oil palm (the only tree crop
in this area) replace the traditional practices to its

limit.

Conclusion

In the optimal solution of this model, only a few
of the prospective varieties of food crops can compete
for resources and the acreages allowed for each crop with
the traditional and improved techniques of crop pro-
duction. But the prospective varieties of cash crops are
promising. These production activities are superior in

all areas to the traditional and improved practices

154

presently available. The principal reason for this
difference between food and cash crops is that there is
an effective demand for additional quantities of export
crops but not for additional quantities of food. The
significance of these results will be discussed in

Chapter IX.

Model 7

Because the supplies of fertilizers and extension
services are severely limited in Nigeria, they must be
used for the production of crOps that contribute most to
the income or nutrition of the country. This model re-
stricts the supply of fertilizer and extension services
to find an optimal production pattern under these
conditions.

In Model 7 the maximum limits for the importation
of single superphosphate and sulphate of ammonia are
assumed to be 60 and 30 thousand long tons respectively.
The maximum limit on the supply of extension services is
assumed to be equal to the amount of services required to
bring about the application of the new production tech-
niques to 4.5 million acres of land.

The restriction on the fertilizer supply does not
affect the use of new practices for tree crops or “com-
mercial" maize. Because our data concerning the fertilizer
requirement for these production activities give the

amounts spent on fertilizer but do not specify what kinds

155

are purchased, the model uses only expense charges to
represent fertilizer use for these production activities.
It does not draw the quantities of fertilizer they use
from the limited amounts imported for other crops. It
is as though these few activities imported their own
fertilizer directly (when they could pay the expense),
rather than through the normal channels of the model.

The effects of these restrictions on the production
patterns will be discussed by areas.

Area I.--The traditional cropping practices of
many food crops are profitable in this model. Traditional
sole cropping for maize, upland and swamp rice, sorghum,
wheat, sweet cassava, sweet potatoes, yams, and melon seeds
is carried on to the limits. The traditional sole cropping
practices for millet and Irish potatoes are profitable to
1440 and 5 thousand acres. Mixed cropping of maize, millet,
sorghum, sweet cassava, sweet potatoes, yams, and melon
seeds is profitable to the limits.

The new practices for all food crops are at zero
level in this area because of the restriction on the supply
of fertilizer and extension services. These scarce re-
sources are applied exclusively to the production of the
recommended practices for groundnuts (a cash crop). This
activity uses only 960 thousand acres of the area set
aside for mixed cropping practices. The sole cropping

of groundnuts, soya beans, and cotton are carried on to

156

their limits. Mixed crOpping of cotton is also profitable
to its limit. The current method of tobacco production
is promising in this model.

Area II.--In this area, the traditional sole crop-
ping of millet, upland and swamp rice, sorghum, sweet
cassava, Irish potatoes, sweet potatoes, yams, and melon
seeds is profitable to the limits. But traditional sole
cropping of maize is profitable only to 140 thousand acres.
Mixed cropping practices for maize, millet, sorghum, sweet
cassava, Irish potatoes, sweet potatoes, yams, melon seeds
are profitable to their limits, and mixed cropping of
cowPeas is carried on to 3200 thousand acres.

The new practices for all food crops are at zero
level in this area because of the restrictions on the
supply of fertilizer and extension services. These scarce
resources are used again by the recommended practices for
groundnuts, replacing the traditional practices for ground-
nut production. Traditional sole cropping for soya beans
and mixed crOpping of cotton are profitable to the limits.
The current method of tobacco production is promising in
this area.

Area III.--The traditional sole cropping practices

 

for cocoyams and melon seeds are at their limits in this
area. But traditional sole cropping for yams is profitable
only at a level of 290 thousand acres. Mixed cropping

practices for cocoyams, yams, and melon seeds are carried

157

on at their limits, while mixed cropping of bitter cassava
is profitable only to 210 thousand acres.

Among the new practices in food crops, the new
variety of maize, Western White 1 (both early and late
crop) is profitable to its limit, while the new variety
of bitter cassava is profitable only to 1000 acres.

Among the tree crops, the new practices for all
tree crops appear at their limits in this area.

Area IV.--The traditional sole cropping practices
for maize, swamp rice, cocoyams, yams, and melon seeds
occur at their limits. Mixed cropping of swamp rice,
cocoyams, yams, and melon seeds is profitable to the
limits, while mixed cropping of cassava is profitable to
130 thousand acres.

Among the new practices for food crOps, the early
crop of Western White 1 maize is produced to its limit
and the late crop to 32 thousand acres (near its limit).
The new variety of bitter cassava is profitable only to
40 thousand acres.

Regarding tree crops, the new practices for oil
palm, cocoa, and rubber replace traditional practices at
their limits.

Area V.--No traditional sole cropping for any
food crop is profitable in this area. But mixed cropping

of cocoyams appears at its limit.

158

Among the new practices, the production of com-
mercial maize and the new variety of yams is profitable
only to 340 and 470 thousand acres respectively.

For tree crops, the new practices are superior to
traditional ones. These activities appear at their
limits.

Area VI.--Traditional sole cropping practices for
maize and melon seeds are profitable to their limits in
this area. Traditional sole cropping for yams is profit-
able only to 110 thousand acres.

Among the new practices, the production of com-
mercial maize and the new varieties of bitter cassava,
yams, and cowPeas are profitable to (in order) 440, 630,
130, and 240 thousand acres.

Regarding cash crops, only the improved practices
for soya beans are profitable (to 20 thousand acres).

The new practices for oil palm are superior to
traditional practices. This activity appears at its

limit.

Conclusion

 

Restrictions on the supply of fertilizer and
extension services change the solution of the model in
favor of the traditional practices which do not use these
resources. On the other hand the new practices for tree

crops and commercial maize, which import fertilizer

159

directly, are not restricted by limiting the fertilizer
supply. These production activities replace traditional
practices. The significance of these restrictions and
the results of this model will be discussed in more

detail in Chapter IX.

Livestock Development

 

Apart from bush cattle in Area I, the traditional
animal industries eXpand to their limits. In Area I there
is a shortage of pasture land and the earnings per acre
from bush cattle are less than from raising goats and
sheep. Therefore, goats and sheep expand to their limits
and the remaining bush pasture is allocated to raising
cattle. In Areas II through VI, where bush pasture is
abundant, the revenue and cost per head should be con-
sidered. Table 10 shows only the potential revenue per
head from expanding an activity. The cost of raising
different animals must also be considered, but we have no
data on that in these models. Neither commercial swine

nor commercial chickens are profitable.

Resource Development

 

During May and June labor is a scarce factor in
Areas III, V, and VI according to the production patterns
in Models 5, 6, and 7. The solutions to all three models
show that additional labor contributes more to revenue

if it is applied to Area V rather than the other areas

160

(III or VI). If Nigerians plan to use machinery to re-
lease labor during this season, priority should be given
(in order of importance) to Areas V, VI, and III. In
Areas I, II, and IV a substantial amount of labor will be
unused during these months. If the production patterns
of these models are carried out, the unused labor could
be transferred to the industrial sector.

There are substantial quantities of unused labor
during the rest of the year if these production patterns
are implemented. Only in Area III and in Model 5 is the
total available labor used, and even in this case the
contribution of additional labor is negligible. Area I,
with the highest, and Area II, with the second highest
percentage of unused labor, can release a substantial
quantity of labor for the industrial sector if the pro-
duction patterns of these models are carried out. Area IV
can also release more than 50 per cent of its available
labor force. This labor, however, is only available for
part of the year. 3

Land is the only factor which is scarce in all
areas and in all models. To expand the land available
would be highly beneficial. If the cost of expansion
is equal in all areas, priority should be given (in
order) to Areas V and IV, where a high percentage of
available land is in tree crop production. On the other
hand, since the expansion of tree crops is generally

profitable, the suitability of land for tree crop

161

production should be considered. In Area V, where
additional land is accompanied by a decrease in yields,
additional land is profitable in Models 5 and 6, but not
in Model 7.

Bush pasture is scarce only in Area I, where the
arable land eXpands by 9 1/2 per cent beyond the estimate
for 1963 at the expense of bush pasture. However, bush
pasture is abundant in other areas in all models. Research
introducing a new breed of animals resistant to tsetse flies
could make possible the use of abundant pasture in other
areas. Improvements in the existing pasture in Area I
can help solve the problem of insufficient pasture land

there.

CHAPTER IX
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Models and Major Findings

This study examines different production tech-
niques for crOps grown in Nigeria, and tries to determine
which techniques are most efficient as sources of income
and/or nutrition. It makes use of Victor Smith's mathe-
matical programming model,1 which maximizes the revenue
obtainable from the agricultural resources not used to
provide food for Nigeria, after providing nutrients for
a pOpulation of 61 million people.

Smith used a series of four models (Models 1, 2,
3, and 4) which concentrated on finding optimal production
patterns given the production techniques used in 1963.
This study continues his work with three models (Models 5,
6, and 7) but turns its attention to the consequences of

using new production techniques.

 

1Victor E. Smith, "Optimal Resource Allocation for
Income and Nutrition,“ a working paper for the Consortium
for the Study of Nigerian Rural Development, Working Paper
No. 11, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan,
July, 1969. (Mimeographed.)

162

163

Model 5

This model introduces improved practices for pro-
ducing both food and cash crops. These new techniques
(with the exception of dwarf sorghum and the new variety
of COWpeaS which will be available shortly) are now avail-
able to Nigerian farmers. All these new practices and
crop varieties must compete with sole and mixed crOpping
for acreage the model allows to given crops in specific
areas. Each crop that utilizes new techniques can expand
to the sum of the maximum limits of the same crop (in
both sole and mixed cropping) in each area.

In the optimal solution of this model the new
production practices for export crops--field crops as well
as tree crops-~make, generally, efficient use of resources.
Export crops yield a revenue of 14,000 million shillings
(£700 million) annually. At the same time the agricul-
tural sector pays 1050 million shillings (552.5 million)
for imported fertilizers and 470 million shillings (523.5
million) to buy fish and wheat from outside the agricul-
tural sector. After subtracting these figures from the
export crop revenue, the net revenue from the agricultural
sector is 12,500 million shillings (£625 million). How-
ever, the calculation of this revenue is based on the

values of export crops and fertilizer at the farm location.2

 

2 . . .

The revenues and costs conSidered in this study
are social revenues and social costs. Private revenues
and costs differ whenever the farmer receives a subsidy,

164

The foreign exchange earnings are based on f.o.b. prices
(for exports) and c.i.f. prices (for imports). Therefore
the net foreign exchange earning is higher (£755 million)
than the revenue from agriculture.

These are the possible benefits from the appli-
cation of improved techniques already available to the
production of food and cash crops. The improved tech-
niques for food crops, with high yields per acre, release
resources for cash crops. On the other hand the new
techniques for cash crops, with high yields per acre,
make these benefits possible for Nigerians.

Regarding food crops, a combination of new and
traditional techniques can provide a population of 61
million with adequate nutrition. Some of the new tech-
niques for food crOps are not profitable because of the
lack of effective demand and other underlying assumptions
of the model, which will be explained below. The most
efficient techniques for producing various crops in a

particular area were discussed in Chapter VIII.

Model 6
This model is designed to explore the possible

gains from further plant breeding programs for major

 

pays a tax on the sale of his product, or receives from
the marketing board less than his product is worth to
society at his point of sale. In general, the producer
of cash crops in Nigeria receives less than the social
value of his product.

165

crops, assuming that the improved production techniques
introduced in Model 5 are also available. The production
activities included in this model are prospective varieties
not available to Nigerian farmers at the present time--
varieties that could be available in the future as research
on plant breeding continues. Two of these prospective
varieties are export crOps (groundnuts and cotton); the
others are food crops. These prospective production tech-
niques must compete with traditional practices and the
improved production techniques presently available, for
resources and for the acreage the model allows for pro-
ducing a given crop in a specific area.

In the optimal solution of this model, the pro-
spective varieties introduced for the two export crops
(groundnuts and cotton) make efficient use of resources.
Both of these prospective production techniques replace
their recommended practices to the capacity limits imposed
by the model.

In the solution of the model, the eXport crops
yield a revenue of 15,500 million shillings (5775 million).
However the agricultural sector pays 1070 million shillings
(553.5 million) for the importation of fertilizers and
450 million shillings (522.5 million) for buying fish and
wheat from outside the agricultural sector. Subtracting
these figures from the revenue from export crops, the net
revenue from the agricultural sector is 14,000 million

shillings (5700 million). Revenue from the agricultural

166

sector is obtained by pricing the export crops and ferti-
lizers at the farm location. The foreign exchange earnings
are based on f.o.b. prices (for exports) and c.i.f. prices
(for imports). The net foreign exchange earnings are
16,800 million shillings (5840 million).

A comparison between the net revenue in Model 5
(5625) and the net revenue in Model 6 (5700) shows that
the net gain from introducing the prospective varieties
is 575 million annually. This gain could be increased
if the effective demand for food were increased or if
some of the food crops were exported. It would, of
course, be much larger than these figures if the model
did not impose artificial capacity limits on the various
export crops. If the expenses of research and extension
programs are less than the net gain, the breeding programs
are beneficial to Nigerians.

Only a few of the prospective varieties of food
crops replace the traditional and improved techniques
because of the lack of effective demand for food and the
arbitrary limits on cash crop expansion in the model.
These superior prospective varieties and other efficient

techniques are discussed in Chapter VIII.

Model 7
To this point we have assumed, in effect, that:

(l) the government has provided (at no cost to the farmer)

167

whatever extension services are needed to bring about the
adoption of the new techniques, and (2) fertilizers can
be imported at will, whenever farmers find it worthwhile
to use them. However, the extension services available
in Nigeria are limited and the quantities of fertilizer
imported are set by governmental decision. The model is
designed to find the most efficient production techniques
when the quantities of extension services and fertilizer
are limiting factors. The solution of this model will

be useful to those policy-makers who want to allocate
limited fertilizer and extension services among crOps

and between areas to provide the maximum benefit for
Nigeria.

In this model the maximum limits for the impor-
tation of single superphosphate and sulphate of ammonia
are assumed to be 60 and 30 thousand long tons respec-
tively. The maximum limit on the supply of extension
services is assumed to be equal to the amount of services
needed to apply the new techniques of production to 4.5
million acres of land. Activities and restraints other
than those involving fertilizer and extension services
are the same as in Model 5. It should be remembered that
the restriction on the supply of fertilizer does not
affect tree crops, because our data concerning fertilizer
requirements for new practices for tree crops give the

amounts spent on fertilizer but do not specify the kinds

168

to be used. Therefore, while the model can use expense
charges to the production of these crops for fertilizer.
use, it cannot Specify the physical quantities employed.
Consequently, these activities do not use the limited
fertilizer imported for field crOps, but are regarded as
importing fertilizer directly whenever the activity can
make profitable use of it.

With restrictions on the supply of fertilizer for
field crops and extension services, the revenue from
export crops is 10,500 million shillings (5525 million).
At the same time the expenditures for the importation of
fertilizer (including fertilizer for tree crOps) decline
from 1050 million shillings (552.5 million) in Model 5
to 330 million shillings (516.5 million) in Model 7. On
the other hand, the expenditures for food items increase
from 470 million shillings (523.5 million) in Model 5 to
1160 million shillings (558 million) in Model 7. Sub-
tracting these figures from the revenue derived from
export crops, the net revenue from the agricultural
sector is 9,000 million shillings (5450 million), com—
pared to 12,500 million shillings (5675 million) in Model
5. In Model 7 the net foreign exchange earning is 11,200
million shillings (5560 million), compared to 15,100
million shillings (5755 million) in Model 5. The differ-
ences between the gains obtainable in Model 5 and Model 7
result from the restrictions on fertilizer supply and

extension services.

169

The restraints on the fertilizer supply and exten-
sion services change the pattern of production. The most
efficient techniques for producing various crOps under

these conditions are discussed in Chapter VIII.

Modifying the Assumptions

 

In Chapter VIII we explained that, in the solution
of the models used in this study, all the new techniques
for export crops are superior to traditional practices.
Regarding food crops, some of the new production tech-
niques cannot compete with traditional methods. Such a
result may be puzzling. The crucial assumptions are
these: (1) an absolutely inelastic demand for nutrition,
(2) a given pOpulation, (3) fixed prices for fertilizers,
(4) food crOp outlets restricted to internal consumption,
and (5) maximum limits on acreage for each crOp. If any
one of these assumptions is violated, the result will be
different. For example, an increase in nutritional re-
quirements or an increase in the population of the country
would increase the internal (shadow) prices of foods. In
this study, some of the new techniques for food crOps do
not appear in the solution of the model because the food
value of the additional yield cannot pay the cost of the
additional resources (fertilizer or other costs) they
employ. But an increase in internal (shadow) prices

(caused by an increase in demand) would increase the

170

value Of the additional yield using new techniques. In
this case, some or all (depending on the amount demand
increased) Of the new techniques not now in the Optimal
solution would appear in the new solution Of the model.

Obviously any decrease in the cost Of inputs used
exclusively by the new techniques would bring some new
production techniques into the solution. But the results
will differ from those Of an increase in demand. As some
Of the new techniques enter the solution Of the model
(because Of a decrease in costs) they lower the Opportunity-
cost value Of the nutrients, because Of the decline in the
cost Of providing them. On the other hand, the decline in
the Opportunity-cost value Of nutrients makes the addi-
tional yield worth less than before, preventing other new
techniques from entering into the solution. In other
words, the appearance Of new techniques in the Optimal
solution Of the model is self-limiting so long as demand
is absolutely inelastic.

Another situation in which new techniques for
fOOd crOps could become profitable (the ones not profit-
able now) would be that in which fOOd crOps could be
exported. The introduction Of export activities for fOOd
crOps would prevent internal (shadow) prices from falling
below international prices. Under this condition there

would be an international demand as well as internal

171

demand for the additional yield from new techniques. New
techniques for fOOd crops that do not appear in the
solution Of the model because Of the lack Of effective
demand would be in the solution Of the model (provided
Nigeria has a comparative advantage in producing these
fOOds) when an international demand is created.

Raising capacity limits on the expansion Of export
crOps would also bring new techniques for fOOd crOps into
the solution Of the model. Tables 5 and 6 (Chapter IV)
show that the new techniques for cash crOps are applied
to their maximum limits. On the other hand, Tables 26
and 27 (Appendix) show that the shadow prices for further
expansion Of these production techniques are substantial.
Therefore, new techniques for export crOps can expand
profitably well beyond the limits imposed in the models.
If this were tO happen, additional new techniques for
food crOps would appear in the solution. The mechanism
is as follows.

In these solutions export crops expand by 20 per
cent above 1963 levels while the quantity Of land under
cultivation is allowed tO expand only 9.5 per cent.
Consequently the export crOps use some Of the land which
otherwise would have been left over for the fOOd crops.
As the remaining land left over from the cash crops

becomes more limited (scarce), those new techniques which

172

have the highest nutrient yields per acre Of land appear
in the solution Of the model. In the extreme case--if
the land left over from the export crOps becomes very
limited--only the production techniques with the highest
nutrient yields per acre Of land will appear in the
solution Of the model. If land is scarce, as it is in
these solutions, the model selects those activities which
have the highest nutrient value per acre (whether new
techniques or mixed cropping) in order tO meet the re-
quirements. For this reason mixed cropping in these
solutions is generally superior to traditional sole
crOpping.

Land is scarce in these solutions because the
Optimal solutions shift the 1963 pattern toward land
using activities so much that land becomes more limiting
(scarce) than the other factors. Since traditional mixed
cropping uses less land (the scarce factor) than tra-
ditional sole cropping for a given amount Of nutrients,3

it tends tO be superior tO traditional sole cropping.

 

3An acre Of mixed crop uses only .43 Of a sur-
face acre Of land in Area III, for instance. Yields per
surface acre do not usually decline in proportion tO the
decline in the land requirement.

173

Conclusions

 

In the solutions Of the models used in this study,
the new techniques for cash crops use resources very
efficiently. These production activities expand tO the
maximum limits allowed in the models in all areas. The
superiority Of the new practices for cash crOps justifies
the direction Of past research and promotional programs.
Efforts devoted tO increasing cash crop yields have been
greater than the efforts spent on increasing fOOd crop
yields. On the other hand, part Of the superiority Of
cash crops in this model is caused by the assumption Of
perfectly elastic international demands for these crops.

As for fOOd crOps, with a combination Of new and
traditional techniques Of production, Nigeria has the
capacity tO feed a population Of 61 million adequately
if the people in each area are willing tO eat foods most
economical for that area, and if incomes are distributed
so that everyone can buy the fOOd he needs. Some new
fOOd production techniques do not appear in the solution
because, in this model, once the goal Of adequate nutrition
has been attained, the demand for additional fOOd is zero.
In order tO make more new production techniques profit-
able, either the internal demand must increase or crOps
must be exported. If the demand does not increase the

price Of fOOd will decrease sharply as new techniques

174

are introduced. This in turn will make some new tech-
niques unprofitable.

Among the traditional crOps, mixed cropping is
generally superior tO sole cropping. Some Of the new
techniques supersede traditional sole cropping but not
mixed cropping because mixed cropping yields a higher
nutrient value per acre Of land and land is a scarce
factor in these solutions.

Concerning breeding programs, further research
for increasing the yields Of all cash crOps studied is
promising. These solutions also show that further re-
search devoted tO increasing the yields Of a number Of

fOOd crOps (such as maize, millet, sorghum, and rice)

is justified, even under the very restrictive conditions

Of the model. As population grows, as higher incomes

give rise tO greater effective demand for fOOd and as

cash crop acreages expand beyond the limits imposed in
the model, still more efficient techniques Of fOOd pro-
duction will be needed. Therefore research should not,
in fact, be limited tO such a restricted list Of crOps.
If research can bring the internal prices Of fOOd crOps

down to a level permitting their sale in world markets,

fOOd crop production on a much broader scale is justified.

Priority should be given tO those fOOd crOps that appear

most promising in these solutions.

175

The results Of this research are in agreement
with the recommendations Of the Consortium for the Study
Of Nigerian Rural Development (CSNRD):4

In the short run, we recommend that Nigeria (a)
concentrate on Opportunities not previously
exploited tO expand agricultural production

and export earnings by more fully meeting
international demands for her export commodities,
(b) distribute the resultant increase in income
widely over a large number Of rural people to
provide the means Of financing the expansion in
production, tO generate additional effective
domestic demand for both farm and nonfarm pro-
ducts and tO Obtain substantial increases in
welfare for her masses Of rural people.5

 

With respect to recommendation (a) our solutions
call for expanding the proportion Of export crop pro-
duction beyond the levels farmers were willing tO pro-
duce in 1963, given marketing board policies at that
time.

With respect tO recommendation (b) our solutions
reveal that where the demand for fOOd is limited (as by
our fixed and absolutely inelastic demand) there are
severe limits on the extent tO which improved techniques
in fOOd production are worth adopting. They show also

that even with limited demand, the most efficient patterns

 

4Glenn L. Johnson, 0. J. Scoville, G. K. Dike,
and C. K. Eicher, Strategies and Recommendations for
Nigerian Rural Development, 1969/1985, Consortium for
the Study Of Nigerian Rural Development (East Lansing,
Michigan: Michigan State University, July, 1969).

51bid., p. 1.

176

Of fOOd consumption require internal trade and the use
Of the developing market mechanism. Reliance upon
markets for a portion Of one's food supply is only
possible where money incomes are widely distributed
among the rural population, as CSNRD recommends.

If the increases in rural incomes brought about
by expanded export production are widely distributed,
demand for fOOd will increase making profitable a wider
use Of new techniques in fOOd production, more speciali-
zation within agriculture, and more internal trade.

The CSNRD recommendations continue:

In the long run, our strategy focuses on fOOd crOps
and begins with expanded research now, tO be

followed with production campaigns for fOOd crOps
starting 5 tO 10 years in the future. The Object

Of the research is tO increase yields and reduce per-
unit costs Of fOOd and feed crOps and livestock

tO permit Nigeria tO develop cheaper and better

fOOd, expanded livestock production and, possibly,
exports Of fOOd, feed and beef.6

 

Our solution shows that the maximum revenue from
agriculture consistent with adequate nutrition for all
Nigerians cannot be attained without taking advantage Of
certain improved techniques yet tO be developed by fOOd
crop research.

As population increases, incomes rise and the
acreage devoted tO eXport crOps expands, still further

improvements in the techniques Of fOOd crop production

 

6Ibid., p. 2.

177

will be needed. Research on fOOd crops must continue.
Should such research be sufficiently effective, export

markets might develop for some crOps now used only within

Nigeria.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allord, R. W. Principles Of Plant Breeding. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1960.

 

Armstrong, J. G. "An Economic—Nutritional Index Of
Foods." Canadian Nutritional Notes, XXII, NO. 3
(1966). 25-39.

 

Black, J. D., and Keifer, M. E. Future FOOd and Agri-
culture POligy. New York: McGraw-Hill BOOk
Company, Inc., 1948.

 

 

BOlhuis, G. G. "A Survey Of Some Attempts tO Breed
Cassava Varieties with a High Content Of Proteins
in Roots." Euphytica 2. Wageningan, 1953.

 

Brown, H. The Challenge Of Man's Future. New York:
Viking Press, 1954.

Christensen, R. P. Using Resources tO Meet FOOd Needs.
U.S. Department Of Agriculture, Bureau Of Agri-
cultural Economics. Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office, 1943.

. Efficient Use Of Land Resources in the United
States. Technical Bulletin 963, U.S. Department
Of Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office, 1948.

 

Cooper, M. C., and Spillman, W. J. Human FOOd from an
Acre Of Staple Farm Products. Farmer's Bulletin
877. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office, 1917.

 

Davis, J. G. "The Nutritional Index and the Economic
Nutritional Index Of Foods." Dairy Industries,
XXX, NO. 3 (1965), 193-97.

 

Eicher, C. K. "The Dynamics Of Long Term Agricultural
Development in Nigeria." Jourgal OftFarm
Economics, XLIX (December, 1967), 1150-70.

 

 

178

179

FlorenciO, C. A. "The Efficiency Of FOOd Expenditure Among

Working-Class Families in Colombia." Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University,
1967.

FOOd and Agricultural Organization Of the United Nations.
Amino Acid Content Of FOOds (Provisional). Food
Consumption and Planning Branch, Nutrition
Division. Rome: FOOd and Agricultural Organi-
zation Of the United Nations, July, 1963.

 

Galletti, R.; Baldwin, K. D. S.; and Dina, I. O.
Nigerian Cocoa Farmers. London: Oxford University
Press, 1956.

 

Irving, H. "Fertilizer Experiments with Yams in Eastern
Nigeria, 1947-1951." Trgpical Agriculture
(January, 1956).

 

Jennings, D. L. "Further Studies in Breeding Cassava for
Virus Resistance." East African Agricultural
Journal, Nairobi (April, 1957).

Johnston, B. F. The Staple FOOd Economies Of Western
Tropical Africa. Stanford, California: Stanford
University Press, 1958.

 

, and Mellor, J. W. "The ROle Of Agriculture in
Economic Development." American Economic Review,
LI, NO. 4 (September, l961)7757l-8l.

 

Jones, W. O. Manioc in Africa. Stanford, California:
Stanford University Press, 1959.

 

 

Lancaster, K. J. "A New Approach tO Consumer Theory."
Journal Of Political Economy, LXXIV (April, 1966),
132-57.

Langier, J. D. "An Economical Evaluation Of the Nutri-

tional Contribution Of FOOds." Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967.

Leitch, I. "The Evolution Of Dietary Standards: His-
torical Outline." Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews,
XI (1942), 509.

Lewis, H. "Fifty Years Of Study Of the ROle Of Protein in
Nutrition." Journal Of the American Dietetic
Association, XXVIII (1952), 701-10.

 

180

Lusk, G. "The Fundamental Requirement Of Energy for
Proper Nutrition." Journal Of the American
Medical Association, LXX (1918), 821-27.

 

 

Malthus, T. R. An Essay on Principles Of ngulation.
London: Oxford University Press, 1798. Repre-
sented by Macmillan and CO., London, 1926.

Mighell, R. L., and Christensen, R. P. “Measuring Maximum
Contributions tO FOOd Needs by Producing Areas."
Journal Of Farm Economics, XXVI (1944), 181-95.

 

National Research Council. FOOd and Nutrition Board.
Recommended Dietary Allowances. National Research
Council Publication NO. 589. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy Of Sciences, 1958.

 

Nicholls, L. Tropical Nutrition and Dietetics. Third
edition. London, 1951.

Nichols, R. F. W. "Breeding Cassava for Virus Resistance."
East African Agricultural Journal, Nairobi
(January, 1957).

Nigeria, Federal Office Of Statistics. Rural Economic
Survey Of Nigeria. Lagos, Farm Survey, 1963-64,
RES/1966/1. February 28, 1966, Livestock Enquigy,
1963/64 and 1964/65. RES/1966/2, no date, Farm
Survey, 1964/65, RES/1966/5, nO date.

 

 

 

 

Okurume, G. "The FOOd Crop Economy in Nigerian Agri-
cultural POlicy." Consortium for the Study Of
Nigerian Rural Development (CSNRD-31). East
Lansing, Michigan, Michigan State University,
February, 1969. (Mimeographed.)

Orr, M. L., and Watt, B. K. Amino Acid Content Of Foods.
Home Economic Research Report NO. 4. U.S. Depart-
ment Of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service,
Institute Of Home Economics, Household Economics
Research Division. Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office, December, 1957.

 

Platt, B. 5. Tables Of Repgesentative Values Of Foods
Commonly Used in Tropical Countries. Privy
Council, Medical Research Council Special Report
Series NO. 302. London: Her Majesty's Stationery
Office, 1962.

 

 

Poehlman, J. M. Breeding Field Crops. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1959.

 

181

Smith, V. E. “Measurement Of Product Attributes Recog-
nized by Consumers." Seminar on Consumer Preference
and Market Develgpment for Farm Products. CAEA
Report 5. Ames, Iowa: Center for Agricultural
and Economic Adjustment, College Of Agriculture,
Iowa State University Of Science and Technology,
1960.

 

. Electronic Computation Of Human Diets. Busi-
ness Studies, Bureau Of Business and Economic
Research. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan
State University, Graduate School Of Business
Administration, 1964.

 

. "Linear Programming Models for the Determi-
nation Of Palatable Human Diets.“ Journaiof
Farm Economics, XLI, NO. 2 (May, 1959), 272-83.

 

 

 

. "A Linear Programming Analysis Of Beef Cattle
Feeding." Quarterly Bulletin Of the Michigan
Agricultural Experiment Station. Michigan State
College, East Lansing, XXXVII, NO. 4 (1955),

 

 

 

 

536-49.
. "Optimal Resource Allocation for Income and
Nutrition." A Working Paper for Consortium for

the Study Of Nigerian Rural Development. Working
Paper NO. 11. Michigan State University, East
Lansing, Michigan, June, 1969. (Mimeographed.)

Stamp, L. D. "The Measurement Of Land Resources."
Geographical Review, XLVIII (1958), 1-15.

 

Stigler, G. J. "The Cost Of Subsistence." Journal Of
Farm Economics, XXVII (1945), 303-14.

 

 

Tolley, G. S., and Gwyer, G. D. "International Trade in
Agricultural Products in Relation tO Economic
Development." Agricultural Develgpment and
Economic Growth. Edited by Southworth and
Johnston. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University
Press, 1967.

 

 

U.S. Department Of Agriculture Marketing Service and
Agricultural Research Service. The Household
FOOd‘CQnsumption Survey Of 1955, Report NO. 1:
FOOd Consumption Of Households in the United
States. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office, 1956.

 

 

 

182

U.S. Department Of Agriculture Marketing Service and
Agricultural Research Service. Rgport NO. 2:
FOOd Consumption Of Households in the Northeast.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,
1956.

 

 

U.S. Interdepartmental Committee for Nutrition and
National Development. Northeast BrazilL Nutrition

 

Survey March-May, 1963. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Interdepartmental Committee for Nutrition and
National Development, May, 1965.

 

Wilson, E. D.; Fisher, K. H.; and Fuqua, M. E.
Principles Of Nutrition. New York: JOhn Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 1959.

 

Zobler, L. “A New Areal Measure Of FOOd Production
Efficiency." Geographical Review, LI (1961),
549-69.

 

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

SHADOW PRICES OF EXPANDING

VARIOUS CROPS

This appendix is tO provide information about the
shadow prices Of expanding different crOps and techniques.
In this study, the crop production is not allowed to expand
more than 20 per cent above the estimated levels for 1963.
Thus there are shadow prices for those activities which,
at their maximum levels, earn more than the resources they
employ can earn in other uses. These shadow prices show
the additions tO revenue possible if a single cropping
activity is expanded by a small amount when the total
quantities Of resources and the limits upon other activi-
ties remain unchanged. If the solutions Of the models are
carried out exactly, the shadow prices are useful for
selecting the most promising crop or technique. It is
possible for Nigeria tO adjust production patterns toward
the solutions Of the models, but it is unlikely that she
will implement them exactly. If Nigerians implement the
solutions Of the models exactly, the shadow prices are

highly important for decision-making. Otherwise, tO use

183

184

shadow prices as criteria involves risks. Shadow prices
for the fOOd production techniques Of Models 5 and 6 are
shown in Table 25. Tables 26 and 27 show the shadow
prices Of the production techniques for cash and tree
crOps in Models 5 and 6. Table 28 shows shadow prices
for the different techniques Of fOOd crOp production in
Model 7. The shadow prices Of cash and tree crOps in

Model 7 are shown in Tables 29 and 31 respectively.

Table 25.

Additions to Revenue Possible if a Food Crop Activity were

185

Expanded“

 

Activity

Area

 

11

[II

VI

 

Model

Model

".44 y

HOdE’l

___4,71_.

Model

 

”(”— +———-4

5

S

 

5

 

Maize
Traditional practices

Sole
Mixed

New practices

Commercial
Recommended practices

Western White 1, early
Western Hhite 1, late

Prospective variety,ear1y
Prospective variety, late

Millet
Traditional practices

Sole
Mixed

New practices

Recommended practices
Prospective variety

fligg. upland
Traditional practices
Sole
New practices

Recommended practices
Prospective variety

Rice, swamp
Traditional practices

Sole
Mixed

New practices
Recommended practices

New variety
Prospective variety

Sorghum
Traditional practices

Sole
Mixed

New practices
Recon-serviced pract ices

Dwarf variety
Prospective variety

 

 

 

64
139

3004

41
76

5.3
33

.062

23

CO

CO

2.0

000

 

 

384
1130

1176

2135

662
1218

34

48

CO

44

21

DO

U‘
00

63

12

000

 

. .__._ -...‘»—-

 

Shillings per acre per year

2354
2111

03

0
0

i
i
i
l
l
l
I
i
I

i
i
l
i
I

 

5847
2529

1069
1857

. The entries show the gain possible if one activity is expanded by one acre. with no increases

available, and with unchanged limits on the other production and consumption activities.

-- The activity is not available in this area.

-.-.-._4,

8.8 --
0 1245

CO

 

0 1343
87 1100

 

the total quantities of land or

00

CO

CO

 

 

3532
1597

2780
1031

630

O

O

labor

DO

231

OD

182

 

 

186

Table 25 (cont'd.)

 

Activity

Area

 

VI

 

Model

Model

Model

 

 

1h_e_at

Traditional practices
$010

New practices

Irrigated

Cassava. bitter, root.

Traditional practices

Sole
Mixed

Nev practices
New variety
Cassava, sweet, freshl
Traditional practices

5010
Mixed

New practices

Race-landed practices
Potato, Irish
Traditional practices

Sole
Mixed

New practices
Recoanended practices
Potato. sweet
Traditional practices

Sole
Mixed

Cocoyan
Traditional practices

Sole
Mixed

Yam
Traditional practices

Sole
Mixed

New practices

Reco-ended prsct ices
lee variety

 

 

335 93

30 O
69 5.6

OO
00

706 187
606 109

36 0
176 65

63

CO

128
76

O

 

 

725
815

1572
616

4259
3379

2098
2725

00

1A6
131

00

67
58

18
39

 

665
706

2570
631

923
2818

00

00

OO

00

OO

 

1528
1746

2801
2531

5355
3621

a The figures are for an acre of cassava of which half was planted in the current year.

is being harvested during the current year.

13
.037

DO

13
.037

00

O

 

636
91

CO

2689 0
2361 0

3675
3418

00

CO

CO

 

711
602

CO

6071
3702

00

The other half, planted in the previous year,

00

OO

 

 

 

187

Table 25 (cont'd.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Area
1 I n : 111 ‘ IV V VI
Activity ; L. I
Model i, Model I Model i Model Model Model
; I. s 6 | z. 5 6 l I. s 6 T t. 5 6 I. 5 6 z. 5 6
Cowpea
Traditional practices
Sole. seed 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- —- - -- -- -- -- - 0 0 0
Mixed
Seed 0 0 0 0 O 0 -- -- -— -— -- - 0 0 0 0 0 0
Seed and bay 0 0 0 -' -- -- '- -- -- ‘- -' -- “ - '- " " "
New practirex
Sole, seed
Recommvnded practices -~ 0 0 -- 0 0 -- -‘ -' -' '- ‘“ “ " " " " "
New variety -- 0 0 -- 0 0 -- 0 0 -- 0 0 -- 0 0 -- 0 0
Mixed. seed and hay ’-
lnproved variety -- 0 1.9 -- -- -- -- -- -- '- " " " " " " "
Helon seed
Traditional practices
Solo 72 lb 3.9 1060 29 63 1377 10 32 1304 0 0 625 0 0 1622 0 0
Mixed ill 30 lb 2024 95 93 920 34 Al . 1205 O 0 260 0 0 1&74 65 39
i
Okra l
Traditional practices
Sole -- —- -- , - -- -- -— -- —- -- - - -- —- - 137 0 0
Mixed -- - -- i -- -- -- 0 O O 101 O 0 143 O 0 99 0 0
Onion
Traditional practices
Sole O 0 0 O 0 0 -- - - .- ..- —. -_ .. .. ._ .. ..
Nev practices
Recomended practices -- 0 0 -- O 0 -- ..- —_ ...- -- .. .. .. .. .. .. -_
TomJto
New practices
Recon-ended practices, -_ __ __ __ __ -_ __ 0 O _- __ -- _- ._ .- .- -- __
early
Recon-ended practices. __ __ _- __ -_ -_ -_ .68 21 __ ‘_ -_ _. ._ _. -_ -- ..
late .
Irrigated -- 0 O -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- __ .. -- -_ --
i The entries show the gain possible if one activity is expanded by one acre, with no increases in the total quantities of land or labor

available. and with unchanged limits on the other production and consumption activities.
—- The activity in not available in this area.

a The figures are for an acre of cassava of which half vac planted in the current year. The other
is being harvested during the current year.

half, planted in the previous year,

“than"? ;“E.

t

”l

188

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 26. Additions to Revenue Possible if a Cash Crop Activity were Expanded.
Area
T T
I i ll { III IV V Vi
Ac t ivi ty T ,7
Model Model ' Model Model Model Model
A S 6 h 5 6 6 5 6 6 S 6 b 5 6 h 5 6
Shillings per acre per year
(..roundnuta
Traditional practices
Sole 139 0 0 1538 O O -- -- -. -- -- -- - -- -- 0 0 0
Mixed 92 O 0 lZSS 0 0 -- —- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0 0 0
New practices
Recommended practices -- 662 O -- 378 O -- -- -- -- -' -- -- -- -- -' 123 0
Prospective variety -- -- 636 -- -- 652 -- -- -~ “- -- -- -' '~ -- -- ’- 256
Bean, soyaa
Traditional practices
Sole 3.6 23 O 0 O O -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- 0 0 0
New practicea
imprOVed practices -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - - -' *‘ -‘ 85 96
Prospective variety -- -~ 92 -- —— 6.6 -- -- -— -- -— -— -¢ -— -- -- —- --
I
M
Traditional practices
Sale 71 0 0 O O 0 -- -- -— -- - -- -- _. -- -- -- --
Mixed 99 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0 26 30
New practices
Recommended practices —- 364 0 -- 175 0 -— -- -- -- —- -- -- -- -— -- -- --
Prospective variety -- -- S78 -- -- S73 -- ~— -- -- —- -- -- -- -- -~ —- --
Tubacco '
I
Traditional practices I
I
Sole 722 839 867 O 804 863 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- —- -- -- -- --
' The entries show the gain possible if one activity is expanded by one acre, with no increases in the total quantities of land or labor

available, and with unchanged limits on the other production and consumption activities.

-- The activity is not available in this area.

a Groundnut and sova bean are food crops as well as cash crops.

 

Il£39

wooeda us» usa

mouuaomou mo muuuwucmsc Houou ocu

 

 

.moum mwzu ca oanmawo>o uo: mu >ua>uuum one un

.vowcmzocs nausea nofiuq>fiuum cofiuossmoou can coauosvouo nocuo ecu coo:

sun: moon moo >5 >uw>auum oawoum m wcfiocmoxo scum wanwwmoo swam ocu 305m mufiuuoo one «

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nu nu uu Hem mmn uu ohm ohm nu whoa “moH nu uu nu un un nu nu mooduumua 3oz
nu nu un o o o o o o o o o nu nu uu uu un nu 8383a HmcoZSm:
mmmmmm
nu nu nu nu un nu nu nn nu o o NmNH nu un nu nu uu nu mmufiuumuo auscuuavmoe
mmm maox
nu nu uu nn un uu mmwa mNNH nu coed mooH nu nu nu nu uu nn nu mQUuuumaa 3oz
nu nu nu un nn nu o o m.~ o o o nu nn un nn nu nu mmufiuuwca Hmcowuanwop
mouou
omHH mNHH nu mom “No nu oaca quH un mama euca nu nu nu uu nu un nu moufiuomuo 302
o o came 0 o o o o emN o o asqq nu nu un nu u- un mmoouumta ”macauocmto
mwmm.mmm
MMWN.HNN whom www.mmmwwwflmw
e n q o n q o m c o m e o n q o m e
Hove: Hove: Hmoo: deco: Hmooz Hmooz
>ua>fiuu<
H> > >H HHH HH H
ouu<
«omvomoxm oum3 >ua>auo< nouo oouH a u“ manammom oscu>um cu mcoHuwov¢c .NN «Home

190

Table 28. Additions to Revenue Possible if a Food Crop Activity were
Expanded*: Model 5 with Fertilizer and Extension Services Limited

 

 

 

Area
Activity
I II III IV V VI
Shillings per acre per year
Maize
Traditional practices
Sole 64 0 O 151 —- 137
Mixed 139 179 0 0 0 0
New practices
Commercial -- -- 0 0 O 0
Recommended practices 0 0 -- -- -- --
Western White 1, early -- -- 233 259 0 0
Western White 1, late -- -- 7O 0 0 O
Millet
Traditional practices
Sole 0 65 -- -- -- 0
Mixed 93 220 -— -- -- -—‘
New practices
Recommended practices 0 O -- -- -- 0
Rice, upland
Traditional practices
Sole 47 151 -- -- -- --
New practices
Recommended practices 0 0 -- -- -- --

 

 

* The entries show the gain possible if one activity is expanded by one
acre, with no increases in the total quantities of land or labor
available, and with unchanged limits on the other production and con—

sumption activities.

 

-- The activity is not available in this area.

 

 

191

Table 28 (cont'd.)

 

Activity

Area

 

II

III

IV

VI

 

Rice, swamp
Traditional practices

Sole
Mixed

New practices

Recommended practices
New variety

Sorghum
Traditional practices

Sole
Mixed

New practices

Recommended practices
Dwarf variety

Wheat
Traditional practices
Sole
New practices

Irrigated

. a
Cassava, bitter, root

Traditional practices

Sole
Mixed

New practices

New variety

 

131

41
34

335

 

329

88
139

O

OO

0

a The figures are for an acre of cassava of which half was planted in
the current year. The other half, planted in the previous year, is
being harvested during the current year.

 

192

Table 28 (cont' d.)

 

 

 

 

Area
Activity
I II III IV V VI
Cassava, sweet, fresha
Traditional practices
Sole 24 21 -— -— __ -_
Mixed 65 93 -- -- —_ __
New practices
Recommended practices 0 O -- -- -- --
Potato, Irish
Traditional practices
Sole O 166 -- -- -- --
Mixed O 45 -- —— __ __
New practices
Recommended practices 0 O -— -- -- --
Potato, sweet
Traditional practices
Sole 465 701 -- -- -— --
Mixed 2 75 584 -- -- -- ——
Cocoyam
Traditional practices
Sole -- -- 170 536 0 --
Mixed -- -- 32 473 25 --
Yam
Traditional practices
Sole 18 269 O 293 O 0
Mixed 135 428 328 119 O 110
New practices
Recommended practices 0 0 -- -- -- --
New variety -- -- O 0 O 0

193

Table 28 (cont'd.)

 

 

 

 

Area
Activity
I II III IV V VI
Cowpea
Traditional practices
Sole, seed 0 0 -- -- -- 0
Mixed
Seed 0 0 __ .. 0 0
Seed and hay 0 -- -- -- -- --
New practices
Sole, seed
Recommended practices 0 0 -- -- -- —-
New variety 0 0 O O O 0
Mixed, seed and hay
Improved variety 0 -- -- -- -- --
Melon seed
Traditional practices
Sole 72 153 47 76 O 208
Mixed 111 374 98 191 O 223
Okra
Traditional practices
Sole -- -- -- -- -- 0
Mixed -- -- O 0 O 0
Onion
Traditional practices
Sole 0 O -- -- -- --
New practices
Recommended practices 0 0 -- -- -- --

 

A")
' n.‘

 

’,
V

194

Table 28 (cont'd.)

 

 

 

 

 

Area
Activity
I II III IV V VI
Tomato
New practices
Recommended practices, early -- -- O -- -- --
Recommended practices, late -- -— O -- -— --
Irrigated 0 -- -- -- -- --
* The entries show the gain possible if an activity is expanded by one
acre, with no increases in the total quantities of land or labor
available, and with unchanged limits on the other production and con-
sumption activities.
-- The activity is not available in this area.
a The figures are for an acre of cassava of which half was planted in

the current year. The other half, planted in the previous year,
being harvested during the current year.

is

mpg-P

rum-n4: iii-film
L.,—é

 

 

195

Table 29. Additions to Revenue Possible if a Cash Crop Activity were
Expanded*: Model 5 with Fertilizer and Extension Services Limited

 

Area

 

Activity
I II III IV V VI

 

Shillings per acre per_year

 

a
Groundnut
Traditional practices

Sole 47 O -- -- -- 0
Mixed 0 0 0

gang.- ‘w: 7
‘

New practices

Recommended practices 0 525 -- -- —- O

 

Egan, soyaa
Traditional practices
Sole 3.6 32 -- -- -- 0
New practices
Improved practices -- -- -- -- -- 0

Cotton

Traditional practices

Sole 71 o -- -- —- --
Mixed 99 39 -— -- -- 0

New practices

Recommended practices 0 0 -- —— __ __
Tobacco

Traditional practices

Sole 722 578 -- -- -- --

 

 

* The entries show the gain possible if one activity is expanded by one
acre, with no increases in the total quantities of land or labor
available, and with unchanged limits on the other production and con-
sumption activities.

-- The activity is not available in this area.

a Groundnut and soya bean are food crops as well as cash crops.

196

Table ‘33. Additions to Revenue Possible if a Tree Crop Activity were
Expanded*: Model 5 with Fertilizer and Extension Services Limited

 

 

 

 

Area
Activity
I II III IV V VI
Shillings per acre per year
91.2.2312
Traditional practices -- -- 0 0 0 0
New practices -- -- 1298 1356 343 1093
2222
Traditional practices -- -- 0 0 -- —-
New practices -- -- 1455 1212 -- --
$923.22.:
Traditional practices -- -- 0 -- -- --
Rubber
Traditional practices -- -- 0 0 0 ——
New practices -- -- 890 815 146 -—

 

 

* The entries show the gain possible if one activity is expanded by one

acre, with no increases in the total quantities of land or labor

available, and with unchanged limits on the other production and con-

sumption activities.

-- The activity is not available in this area.

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

mumywig09mm;mmwumwnu1