ENERGY USE AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF MELON (Colocynthis citrullus L.) PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES IN KWARA STATE NIGERIA

Transcription

1 ENERGY USE AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF MELON (Colocynthis citrullus L.) PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES IN KWARA STATE NIGERIA Oladimeji 1 *, Y. U., Abdulsalam, Z., Lawal 2, A. F., Suleiman, R. and Olarewaju 3, T. O. ABSTRACT 1 Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Ahmadu Bello University, P.M.B. 1044, Zaria, Nigeria. 2 Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension Service, Ibrahim Babangida University, Lapai, Nigeria. 3 Department of Agricultural Engineering, National Agricultural, Extension and Research Liaisons Services, Zaria, Nigeria. *Corresponding Author: yusuf.dimeji@yahoo.com; The study examined energy used and economic analysis of egusi melon production under two different technologies in Kwara State, Nigeria. Primary data through structured questionnaire and interview were administered to 160 respondents randomly selected, comprising 47 farmers in Group 1(semi-mechanised) and 113 farmers in Group 2 (traditional system). Results revealed that Group 1 farmers had higher income compared to per ha from traditional technology. The energy use efficiency, energy productivity and net energy of farmers in Group 1 were higher compared to traditional system. However, result shows that non-renewable energy (NRE) in both Group 1 (72.1%) and Group 2 (60.4%) were high compared to renewable energy (RE) of 27.9% and 39.6% respectively. The result revealed that egusi melon production in the study area was driven by indirect energy which constitutes the bulk of energy in the 2 sectors, 64.8% and 68.3% in semi-mechanised and traditional systems. Therefore, farmers should emphasize organic agriculture and intensify efforts in weed and pests control through integrated approach, to cut costs and over dependence on non-renewable energy source. Keywords: Egusi melon, net energy, crop productivity, net margin INTRODUCTION Vegetable production in Nigeria is mainly in the form of diverse species largely indigenous and/or exotic, grown either as subsidiaries in mixture with staple food crops or as sole crop, using traditional farming methods (Oladimeji and Abdulsalam, 2014; Yusuf et al., 2008). Though, vegetable growing are diverse, complex and management intensive, it raised the income of the farmers and reduced challenges of dry season unemployment. Along with fruits and nuts, vegetables and melons have long been recognized as vital components in the nutritional health and well-being of any nation due to their ability to boost immunity and promote healthy living in individuals (Mir and Gary, 2011; Ehigiator, et al., 2015). According to Ehigiator et al. (2015), fruits and vegetables are also important components of a healthy diet and, if consumed in sufficient amounts, could help to prevent major ailments including cardiovascular diseases and certain cancers. Oladimeji and Abdulsalam (2014) posited that vegetable growing could be spurred largely by the irrigation potential of a State, demand by both rural and urban households, health and diet concerns and storage facilities. Therefore, increases in vegetable consumption by the Nigerian populace are expected daily. It suffice to note that vegetable crop including melon in Nigeria has not enjoyed a high level of research, extension services and technological improvements such as the use of new hybrid seeds, chemical fertilizer, pesticide, machinery and equipment, irrigation system, storage and processing facilities. Egusi Melon (Colocynthis citrullus L.) is the most popular melon type in sub region of West Africa. It is an herbaceous annual vegetable with trailing hairy, ridge vine which bear tendrils and lobed leaves on long petioles that belong to the Cucurbitacesae family (Agba et al., 2009). The origin of the crop is Africa where it is cultivated in mixed cropping system with other crops like yams and cassava in peasant farms and traditional farming systems (Sadiq et al., 2013). The mainly harvested is the seed commonly consumed in Nigeria as a thickening for sauces and soups, also fried and eaten as snack (Agba et al., 2009). Egusi melon seed is a good source of oil, protein, minerals, vitamins, and energy in form of carbohydrates. The seed contained 4.6g carbohydrates, 0.6g proteins, 0.6g crude fibre, 33mg vitamin C, 17g calcium, 16mg phosphorus and 230 mg potassium per 100g edible seeds (Olaniyi, 2008). Valuable vegetable oil is extracted from the seed while the ground seed is used to prepare various delicacies (Yusuf et al., 2008). The agriculture, energy and production nexus are very close. Albeit, agriculture itself is source of bio-energy derived from biological materials such as wood, agricultural crop wastes and dung, however, energy is widely regarded as a propelling force behind production and indeed agriculture such as crop vegetable production. Even though, Agriculture still remains the largest sector of the Nigerian economy and employs two-thirds of the entire labour force; the production hurdles have significantly stifled the performance of the sector. For example, over the past 20 years, value-added per capita in agriculture has risen by less than 1.0% annually (FAO, 2013). It is NJAFE VOL. 12 No. 3,

2 estimated that Nigeria has lost USD 10 billion in annual export opportunity from groundnut, palm oil, cocoa and cotton alone due to continuous decline in the production of those commodities (FAO, 2013). Food production increases have not kept pace with population growth, resulting in rising food imports and declining levels of national food self-sufficiency (FMARD, 2008). One important factor responsible for low productivity is largely attributed to traditional farming characterised with small land holding, low energy usage and a weak agricultural extension system. It is imperative to note that an efficient use of energy in agricultural production is required to produce sustainable food (Bojaca and Schrevens, 2010). Given the sheer size of Nigerian cultivable land estimated at 61 million ha and about two-third of 160 million active labour force involved in agriculture, availability of modern farming technologies will ultimately enhance energy utilization and sustainable increases in food production and raw material for the agro-food industries not only for Nigeria but also for exports to other countries. Therefore, the post-2015 goals for sustainable agriculture and food production canvassed by United Nations among others encouraged farmers to use modern energy to take advantage of rising food prices to earn additional revenue. Yilmaz et al. (2005) observed that the energy ratios in agricultural production are closely related with production techniques, quantity of inputs used by producers and yield level of crops along with environmental factors such as soil and climate. Several studies including Oladimeji and Abdulsalam, (2014), Ibrahim and Ibrahim, (2012), Namdari, (2011), Banaeian and Namdari, (2011), Canakci et al. (2005), and Yilmax et al. (2005) demonstrated that energy input-output analysis in agricultural systems has been widely used to access the efficiency which leads to resource savings, efficiency gains and invariably generate higher income (poverty alleviation) and enhance food security. Most research studies on egusi melon production in Nigeria (Sadiq et al., 2013; Adeoye et al., 2011; Mohammed, 2011; Ugwumba, 2010 and Yusuf et al., 2008) emphasised either resource use and/or technical efficiencies. This paper focuses on achieving a sustainable food production through differential energy systems in egusi melon production. It specifically examined socioeconomic characteristics of melon farmers and estimated the energy input and output per unit area of melon production in Kwara State, Nigeria. The study also elucidated some solutions or suggestions for enhancement of productivity, profitability and sustainability of melon vegetable farming and for improvement of food security situation and reduction of poverty. MATERIALS AND METHODS Study area Kwara State is situated in North Central Nigeria with Ilorin as capital. It is located between latitude 7 45ʹ and 9 30ʹ N and longitude 2 30ʹ E and 6 25ʹ E with a land mass covering about 36,825 km 2. The study area falls within the southern limits of the tropical savannah zone of Nigeria with mean annual rainfall that ranges from 800 mm to 1500 mm, concentrated between the months of April and October with two peaks in July and September. The mean annual temperature ranges between 31.5 C and 35 C (Oladimeji and Abdulsalam (2013). The State has an estimated population of 2.4 million people (NPC, 2006), projected as 3.09 million in 2015 with farm families to be about 305,990 representing 3.2% annual growth rate and an average density of 95 persons km -2 with majority living in rural areas. Data collection and Sampling procedure The study was based on primary sources of the data gathered by field surveys on Egusi melon production in 2011/2012 farming season through questionnaire and interview. Specifically, it focused on socio-economic characteristics, data on input and output as well as constraints to Egusi melon production. Classification of melon farmers was based on level of farming technology. Group 1 consist of farmers who owned or rented machinery such as tractor and adopted modern management practices such as chemical fertilizers, herbicides, hybrid seeds, knapsack sprayers, irrigation equipment and received extension services (semi-mechanised). Group 2 was made up farmers that used mostly crude implements such as hoes and cutlasses hence refers to as non-owners of machinery or imbibed low level of farming technology, seldom receive extension contacts and low level inputs usage (traditional method). The sampling procedure was based on a multi stage household sampling survey conducted in four Local Government Areas (LGAs) including Edu, Ifelodun, Moro and Patigi. The LGAs were purposively selected being areas that are dominated by egusi melon cultivation and production. Two villages each were randomly selected from each of the 4 LGAs. Then, 20 farms were randomly selected from each of the villages to make a total of 160 farms. The total sample size in Group 1 was 47 farms and Group 2 equal 113 farms. The selected villages were Lafiagi, Zambufu, (Edu), Babalomo, Iyana Share/Share, (Ifelodun), Onipako, Bode saadu, (Moro), Duku-lade and Patigi (Patigi). The energy input output analysis used standard energy conversion of previous studies cited by Ibrahim and Ibrahim, 2012, Namdari, (2011), Banaeian and Namdari, (2011) that obtained energy equivalences of unit inputs (Mega Joule) by multiplying inputs with the coefficients of energy equivalent. Table 1 showed standard energy equivalents that were used for estimated inputs and output in egusi melon production. Although NJAFE VOL. 12 No. 3,

3 NIHORT (1986) in Ehigiator et al. (2015) reported that 50 kg N, 30 kg P and 30 kg K ha -1 were adequate for optimum seed yield of the egusi melon crop. The energy equivalent for fertilizer used was calculated using 10 kg N (urea); 10 kg of P (SSP) and 10 kg of K (MOP) from 50 kg bag which is the most widely adopted practices among the respondents in the study area. Energy use efficiency, energy productivity and specific energy for egusi melon crop production were also calculated on per hectare basis using the equations suggested in literature as follows: Energy use efficiency = Energy output (MJ ha 1 ) (1) Energy input (MJ ha 1 ) Energy productivity = Egusi melon output (kg ha 1 ) (2) Energy input (MJ ha 1 ) Specific energy = Energy input (MJ ha 1 ) (3) Egusi melon input (kg ha 1 ) Net energy = Energy output (MJ ha 1 ) Energy input (MJ ha 1 ) (4) For the purpose of this study, Net Farm Income (NFI) ha -1 and Gross Margin ha -1 were employed to investigate economic analysis of egusi melon production under Group 1 and 2 respectively. The two models were presented mathematically as: NFI = GFI TVC TFC (5) GM = GFI - TVC (6) Where: NFI = Net Farm Income (N ha -1 ); Gross Farm Income (N ha -1 ) = Yield (kg ha -1 ) X Sale price (N ha -1 ); TVC = Total Variable Cost (N ha -1 ) and TFC = Total Fixed Cost (N ha -1 ). Profitability ratios such as the profit margin (PM), gross ratio (GR) and rate of return on investment (ROI) were also computed as: PM(%) = GR(%) = ROI = net margin gross income total cost gross return gross income total cost 100 (7) 100 (8) Where: PM= profit margin; GR= gross ratio and ROI= return on investment. Depreciation values were estimated using a straight line method under the assumption that tractors and irrigation equipment were used for a period of 10 and 5 years respectively before being scrapped without salvage values. Table 1: Standard energy equivalents used for estimated inputs in egusi melon production Variables Unit Energy equiv. (MJ per unit) References 1. Inputs i Human labour h 1.96 Zangeneh et al., 2010; Bojaca and Schrevens, 2010 ii Machinery h 62.7 (Erdal et al., 2007; Esegun et al., 2007 iii Diesel fuel L Mohammadi et al., 2008; Zangeneh et al., 2010 iv Nitrogen fertilizers kg Alam et al., 2005; Mohammadi et al., 2008 v Phosphorus kg Esengun et al., 2007 vi Potassium kg 6.7 Esengun et al., 2007 v Farm Yard Manure kg 0.30 Cankci et al., 2005; Demirjan et al., 2006 vi Herbicides L Mohammadi et al., 2008; vii H2O for irrigation M Mohammadi et al., 2008; Esengun et al., 2007 viiiegusi Melon seeds kg Bande et al., Egusi Melon output kg Bande et al., 2013 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Socio-economic and production variables of melon farmers Summary statistics of the data reported in Table 2 revealed that Egusi melon farmers household heads in the study area are male dominated (92%) in semi-mechanised Group 1 and more than half (58%) in Group 2 and at average age of 42 and 57 years in Group 1 and 2 respectively. The mean household size was 7 (Group 1) and 8 (Group 2), mean farm size of 6.4 ha and 0.75 ha in Group 1 and 2 respectively and mean extension visits of 6 times per farm season in Group 1 and 0.6 in Group 2. The estimated mean years of schooling of sampled egusi melon farmers in Group 1 was about 11 years, skewed towards the formal education and above 2011 UNDP mean education index of 5 years for Nigeria (UNDP, 2012). However, the mean education index was 1.9 years in Group 2, below Nigeria s mean education index in The egusi melon production characteristics also in Table 2 indicate that farmers in Group 2 (92%) owned obsolete farming tools and implements, largely crude such as hoe and cutlass, 67% applied FYM, 85% had no knapsack sprayer and the bulk (75%) were rain dependant farmers. In addition, the bulk of farmers (89.4%) in Group 1 (9) NJAFE VOL. 12 No. 3,

4 owned or rented tractor, 92% acquired knapsack sprayers and about three-fifth (65%) practice dry season irrigation. Thus, the study revealed that the level of investment, area devoted to farming and lack of extension contacts connotes farming in Group 2 is still not developed and largely subsistence and rudimentary. The findings are comparable with studies of Yusuf et al. (2008), Adeoye et al. (2011), Muhammed (2011), Oladimeji and Abdulsalam (2014). Average costs and returns per ha of egusi melon production under different systems Table 3 showed differential averages costs and returns per ha of egusi melon production under semi-mechanised (Group 1) and traditional (Group 2) technologies in Kwara State, Nigeria. Table 2: Dominant indicators of socio-economic and production variables of melon farmers Variables Dominance indicators of variables Group 1 (semi-mechanised) mean Group 2 (traditional) mean Gender 92% were male - 58% were male - Age (yrs) 79% below 45 years 42 53% below 45 years 57 Education (yrs) 82% had > secondary educ % had no formal educ. 1.9 Household size 56% had h/h size of % had h/h size of Credit access ( ) 78% had access to credit % had no credit acc Co-operative (yrs) 84% were active members 13 92% were passive mem. 25 Extension services 92% had extension contact 6/yr 85% had no ext. cont. 0.6 Farm size (ha) 89% had > 5 ha farm % had < 5 ha farm 0.75 Hybrid seeds 69% sow hybrid seeds 76% sow harvested seed Machinery 89.4% use plough & harrow 92% use hoe/crude Labour (man-days) 83% depend on hired labour 55% use family labour Fertilizer (kg) All applied inorganic 67% applied FYM Agrochemicals 87% used herbicides 93% used manual hoeing Knapsack sprayer 92% acquired K. sprayer 85% had no K. sprayer Irrigation practices 65% acquired equipments 75% are rain fed farmers Source: Field survey, 2012; FYM denote farm yard manure; K. Knapsack Table 3: Differential average costs and returns per ha of egusi melon production Variables Group 1 Group 2 ha -1 USD ha -1 % ha -1 USD ha -1 % Revenue from ( ) Egusi melon (kgha -1 ) A. Gross return Variable cost ( ) Seed materials Fertilizer herbicides Labour energy (fuels)/repairs B. Total variable cost Fixed cost items Land charge/rent Machinery depreciation/rent C. Total Fixed Cost D. Total costs (B+D) E.Net margin/ha (A-D) Profit margin (E/A) Gross ratio (D/A) ROI (A/E) Source: Field survey, 2012; Note: ROI indicate Return on Investment; 156= USD1 The net margin method showed that egusi melon production was profitable in both Groups 1 and 2. The total expenditure for Group 1 amount to ($206.81) per ha while in Group 2 it was ($110.72). Despite this, results revealed that farmers realized more income of ($125.76) per ha from semimechanised melon farming (Group 1) compared to ($56.40) per ha net margin from crude technology (Group 2). It suffice to note that operation under crude technology (Group 2) was labour intensive as labour gulped about 61% of total variable cost while it captured only about 18% in mechanised melon farming. This result agrees with the finding of Namdari, (2011), Oladimeji and Abdulsalam, (2014) that reported significant net NJAFE VOL. 12 No. 3,

5 margin difference between semi-mechanised and traditional technologies in watermelon in Iran and vegetable production in Nigeria respectively. Profitability ratios also in Table 3 showed Group 1 farming profit margin, gross ratio and return on investment to be 0.38, 0.62 and 2.64 while that of Group 2 were found to be 0.34, 0.66 and 2.96 respectively. Results are comparable to Yilmaz et al. (2011) of open field melon (Cucumis melo L.) production in Turkey. Inputs and output energies in egusi production technologies The results of input and output energies in Egusi production technologies per ha presented in Table 4 revealed that Group 1 (semi-mechanised) had total energy input of MJ per ha while Group 2 (traditional) had only 2687 MJ per ha. To cultivate a hectare of egusi melon in the study area, Group 1 system used Total Energy Equivalent (TEE) of 45.5 MJ of labour, MJ of machinery, 600 MJ of herbicide, 255 MJ of FYM, MJ of nitrogen, MJ of phosphate, 67 MJ of potassium, MJ of diesel and MJ of seedling materials. On the other hand, Group 2 or traditional system used TEE of 97.8 MJ of labour, 216 MJ of herbicide, MJ of FYM, and equal amount of nitrogen, phosphate and potassium used as in semi-mechanised and MJ of seedling materials. In semi-mechanised system, human labour and diesel had minimum and maximum energy inputs of 45.5 MJ and MJ representing 1.1% and 28.2% respectively of total energy used per ha. This was expected as human labour was only used mostly for planting operations such as seed sowing and fertilizer application. On the contrary, diesel had highest energy input due to semi-mechanised nature as the fuel was needed to power the machinery for operations such as ploughing, harrowing and ridging and sometimes tractor is used to convey farm harvest and labourers. The results further revealed that labour still constitute the minimum energy (97.8 MJ) and chemical fertilizer, the maximum energy (848 MJ) in traditional system in the study area. It suffice to note that both semi-mechanised and traditional systems used hybrid seed material for planting and this reflected in their yield of egusi melon of 179 kg and 90 kg per ha respectively compared to studies of Oseni et al. (2008) and Mohammed, (2011) with egusi melon yield of 79 kg and 58 kg respectively. Table 4: Inputs and output energies in egusi production technologies Group 1: Semi-mechanized Group 2: Traditional Inputs/Output (units) Qty ha -1 TEE % Qty ha -1 TEE % Inputs Human labour (labour-hr) Machinery (hour) Herbicide (L) Farm Yard Manure (Kg) Nitrogen fertilizer (kg) Phosphate fertilizer (kg) Potassium fertilizer (kg) Diesel (L) Seed (kg) Total energy input (MJha -1 ) Output Egusi melon yield (kg ha -1 ) Source: Field survey, 2012; TEE denote Total Energy Equivalent Energy input output efficiency in egusi melon production The energy use efficiency, energy productivity, specific energy and net energy of egusi melon production in Kwara State, Nigeria are shown in Table 5. The result indicated that the energy use efficiency and energy productivity for semi-mechanised egusi melon production were 1.9 and 0.04 kg MJ -1, while that of traditional system were 1.5 and 0.03 kg MJ -1 respectively. The energy productivity implies that 0.04 kg of egusi melon was obtained per unit energy (MJ) in Group 1 which was marginally higher than 0.03 kg per MJ obtained in Group 2. The marginal difference could be largely due to high consumption of diesel by the automotive machines. The energy use efficiency ratio of semi-mechanised (1.9) indicates high energy use efficiency compared to the 1.5 of traditional system which was in line with a priori expectation and report of Namdari, (2011) and Yilmaz et al. (2005). The specific energy and net energy of Group 1 were 24 MJ kg -1 and 3796 MJ ha -1 and that of Group 2 were 29.9 MJ kg -1 and MJ ha -1 respectively. Thus, a specific energy of 24.2 for Group 1 or 29.9 for Group 2 means that either 24.2 or 29.9 MJ of energy is required to produce a unit of egusi melon. Total energy input in egusi melon production to energy types Table 6 shows that non-renewable energy (NRE) in both Group 1 (72.1%) and Group 2 (60.4%) were high compared to renewable energy (RE) of 27.9% and 39.6% respectively as a result of intensity of usage of NRE consumption resulted from chemical fertilizer, herbicide, diesel and machinery. This corroborates the studies of NJAFE VOL. 12 No. 3,

6 Namdari, (2011) that estimated NRE in watermelon to be about 79% and 81% in mechanised and non-mechanised technologies respectively. The result further revealed that direct energy (DE) in semi-mehanised sector (35.2%) was also higher than traditional sector (31.7%), but egusi melon production in the study area is driven by indirect energy which constituted the bulk of energy in the 2 sectors comprising 64.8% and 68.3% in semi-mechanised and traditional systems respectively. Table 5: Level of energy input output efficiency in egusi melon production Variables Unit Group 1 Group 2 Energy output MJ ha Energy input MJ ha Yield Kg ha Energy use efficiency Energy productivity Kg MJ Specific energy MJ kg Net energy MJ ha Source: Field survey, 2012 Table 6: Distribution of total energy input in egusi melon production to energy types Form of energy (MJ ha -1 ) Group 1(semi-mechanized) Group 2 (traditional) Amount of energy % Amount of energy % Renewable Non-renewable Direct Indirect Total energy input Source: Field survey, 2012; Note direct energy include: human labour, Farm yard manure, water and diesel fuel; indirect: seeds, chemical fertilizer, herbicides and machinery; renewable: human labour, farm yard manure, water and seed; non-renewable: diesel fuel, chemical fertilizer, herbicide and machinery CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The study examined differential energy use and economic analysis of egusi melon production between semimechanised and traditional technologies in Kwara State, Nigeria. The results revealed that the net farm income, energy used per ha, energy use efficiency and energy productivity among melon farmers was higher in semimechanised sector than traditional method. Therefore, melon farmers are encouraged to shift to semi-mechanised farming for high energy use and increase profitability. However, non-renewable energy (NRE) and direct energy was higher in semi-mechanise farming than in traditional method, therefore, egusi melon production in the study area is driven by indirect energy which constituted the bulk of energy in the 2 sectors. The results of this study also signify that there is need to critically found a way of increasing low energy productivity in both sectors. Therefore, traditional melon farmers should adopt more organic agriculture and local resources to maintain soil fertility and natural processes to manage pests and diseases. And semi-mechanised melon farmers should invest in sustainable mechanization which could be an impetus to achieving sustainable food security and improve living standard among egusi melon farming households, and possible transition of this sector from subsistence to commercial production to support inclusive economic and human development of new Sustainability Development Goals (SDGs). REFERENCE Adeoye, I. B. Olajide-Taiwo, F. B., Adebisi-Adelani, O., Usman, J. M. and Badmus, M. A Economic analysis of watermelon based production system in Oyo State, Nigeria. ARPN Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science, 6 (7): Agba, O. A., Adinya, I. B., Agbogo, E. A., Oniah, M. A., Tiku, V., Abam, P. and Lifu, M Responses of egusi melon (colocynthis citrollus L) to poultry manure in Obubra, Cross River, south-south Nigeria. Continental Journal of Agronomy, 3: Alam, M. S., Alam M. R. and Islam, K. K Energy flow in agriculture: Bangladesh. American Journal of Environment and Science, 1(3): Banaeian, N. and Namdari, M Effect of ownership on energy use efficiency in watermelon farms A data envelopment Analysis Approach, International Journal of Renewable Energy Research, 1(3): NJAFE VOL. 12 No. 3,

7 Bande, Y. M., Adam, N. M., Jamarei, B. O., Azmi, Y. and Zubair, U. B Egusi melon (Citrullus lanatus) crop Malaysian new oil/energy source: production, processing and prospects. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 7(13): Bojaca, C. R. and Schrevens, E Energy assessment of peri-urban horticulture and its uncertainty: case study for Bogota, Colombia. Energy, 35(5): Canakci, M., Topakci, M., Akinci, I. and Ozmerzi, A Energy use pattern of some field crops and vegetable production: case study for Antalya region, Turkey. Energy Conversion and Management, 46: Demirjan, V., Ekinci, K. K., Akbolat, D. H. M. and Ekinci, C Energy and economic analysis of sweet cherry production in Turkey: A case study from isparta province. Energy Conversion and Management, 47: Ehigiator, J. O., Ariyo, A. D. and Imasuen, E. E Soil fertility and nutritional studies on citrus, fruit and vegetable crops in Nigeria (1975 to 2005), Nigerian Journal of Agriculture, Food and Environment, 11(2): Erdal G., Esengun, K., Erdal, H. and Gunduz, O Energy use and economical analysis of sugar beet production in Tokat province of Turkey. Energy, 32: Esengun, K., Gunduz, O. and Erdal, G Input-output energy analysis in dry apricot production of Turkey. Energy Conversion and Management, 48: FMARD (Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development), Report Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), FAO Country Programming Framework (CPF) Federal Republic of Nigeria, Fiat Panis, Pp Ibrahim, H. Y. and Ibrahim, H. I Energy use analysis for rice production in Nasarawa State, Nigeria. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems, 15: Mir, A. and Gary, L Financial characteristics of vegetable and melon farms. Economic Research Service, USDA, 33pp. Mohammadi, A., Tabatabaeefar, A., Shahin S., Rafiee S. and Keyhani, A Energy use and economical analysis of potato production in Iran a case study: Ardabil province. Energy Conversion and Management, 49: Mohammed, B. T Socio-economic analysis of melon production in Ifelodun Local Government Area, Kwara State, Nigeria. Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics, 3(8): Namdari, M Energy use and cost analysis of watermelon production under different farming technologies in Iran. International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 1(6): National Population Commission (NPC), Population census of the federal republic of Nigeria. Analytical Report at the National Population Commission, Abuja, Nigeria. Oladimeji, Y. U. and Abdulsalam, Z An Economic analysis of dry season irrigated farming in asa river, Kwara State, Nigeria: implications for poverty reduction. Journalof Sustainable Development in Africa, 16(7): Olaniyi, J. O Growth and seed yield response of egusi melon to nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers application. American-Eurasian Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 2(3): Sadiq, M. S., Mohammed A. and Yusuf, T. L Economies of scale and cost efficiency in small scale egusi melon production in Bida local government area of Niger State, Nigeria. IOSR Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science, 2: (6) Ugwumba, C. O. A Allocative efficiency of egusi melon (colocynthis citrullus lanatus) production inputs in Owerri west local government area of Imo State, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Science, 1(2): United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (2012). Human Development Report. Oxford University Press, New York. Pp Yilmaz, I., Akcaoz, H. and Ozkan, B An analysis of energy use and input costs for cotton production in Turkey. Renewable Energy, 30: Yilmaz, H., Demircan, V. and Kurtluk, S An economic analysis of open-field melon (cucumis melo l.) production in Cankiri province of Turkey. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science, 17(4): Yusuf, O., Sanni, S. A., Ojuekaiye, E. O. and Ugbabe, O. O Profitability of egusi melon (citrullus lanatus thunb. mansf) production under sole and mixed cropping systems in Kogi State, Nigeria. ARPN Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science, 3(2): Zangeneh, M., Omid, M. and Akram, A A comparative study on energy use and cost analysis of potato production under different farming technologies in Hamadan province of Iran, Energy, 35: NJAFE VOL. 12 No. 3,