Effect Of The National Programme On Food Security On Food Production
[A CASE STUDY OF ANAMBRA STATE]

CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION
5.1    Introduction
This chapter is an attempt by the researcher to summarize the findings made in the course of this research work; draw conclusion and also make recommendations based on the findings.
5.2    Summary of Findings
After a thorough investigation and analysis of data generated from this research work in addition to personal interview, enquiry, discussions and observations made by the researcher, the following findings were made;
A farmer must be a member of a cooperative group before he is eligible to benefit from the NPFS. In order words, under the NPFS scheme farmers are encouraged to form and register themselves as cooperative groups. Despite this attempt, most of the farmers still prefer to carry out their activities individually. The factors that account for this and the problems associated with cooperative farming as shown in this research is mainly due to lack of cooperative spirit, other factors as identified are; the need to reap benefits alone, farmers are not so used to it, lack of members’ commitment, and the problem of how to measure each members contribution and apportion reward.
The research shows that the mean age of the farmers to be 46.27. The research also shows that only a few of the farmers have been farming for below 10 years, some have been farmers for close to 50years while a few of them have been farming for over 50years. Their mean farming experience measured in terms of their number of years of farming is 28.9years. The farmers comprise of more males than females, with the ratio of male to female of approximately 5 males to every 1 female. Though few of them have tertiary education, their average highest educational level is the primary education. A greater percentage is married.
It was found that the NPFS has enhanced farmers’ access to support services like extension, credit, nutrition and health education. NPFS was found to have increased production/output. The problems associated with the NPFS as identified by the research include: the NPFS loan/assistance is grossly inadequate and difficult to access; the loan gets to only a very limited number of famers; lack of adequate infrastructures (the researcher gathered that once it is May and it starts raining heavily, tractors no longer enter most farms, this is because of lack of adequate infrastructural facilities, the farmers then resort to hiring labour which is very costly); Channelling of fund to non-productive uses, example it was gathered that the NPFS recently issued nutrition almanacs to farmers, although nutrition education is part of the NPFS objective, the farmers
 
see it as secondary and as such a waste of fund. The researcher also found out that farmers have benefitted from the NPFS.
The interest rate of the NPFS loan is 8%; this rate was found to be relatively cheap compared with that of other means of credit available to farmers.
The research shows that there is a difference between average volume of output before NPFS and as beneficiaries, this was attributed to: the NPFS loan; improved farm input which the NPFS provides farmers link to getting; cultivation of more; famer filled school; extension services etc.
The regression result presented in appendix II shows that the NPFS has a significant effect on food production/ output. With the exception of supervision which has an insignificant but a positive effect on output, all other services provided by the NPFS significantly affect output.
Linkage to suppliers of output and farmer filled school (FFS) were found to be significant at 1% level of probability while extension services and credit were found to be significant at 5% level of probability. This means that an increase in the availability, adequacy and quality of these services will result to an increase in output.
Nevertheless, the research equally shows that output is not only dependent on the NPFS services. There are other variables which were found to be significant determinants of output among the NPFS beneficiaries. Farm size was found to be significant at 1% level of probability. Age and farming experience were found to be significant at 5% level. Marital status, sex and educational qualification are not significant determinants.