{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02445213379469435, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01837754709727028, 'mean_word_length': 5.140698772426818, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Determinants of Poverty among Groundnut Farming Households in Jigawa State, Nigeria

This research was undertaken to investigate the determinants of poverty among groundnut farming households in Jigawa State. Primary data were obtained through the use of well-structured questionnaire from a sample size of 227 groundnut farming households. The data were analyzed using Foster-Greer-Thorbecke's (FGT) Weighted Poverty Index and Tobit regression model. The results of the (FGT) Weighted Poverty Index showed that the poverty headcount, poverty gap and poverty severity of poor groundnut farming households were 42%, 46% and 77% respectively using an estimated poverty line of 46,320.53. The factors that significantly influenced the poverty intensity of groundnut farming households in the study area were found to be age of household head which was negative and significant at 10%, marital status of household head was negative and significant at 1%, education was negative and significant at 5% and membership of cooperative was negative and significant at 5% These factors significantly decreased poverty which was in line with apriori expectations while that of farming experience and extension contact were positive and significant at 1% and 5% respectively. Government should improve in the educational opportunities of the farmers which will lead to increased income, there is also need for regular sensitization and increased mobilization of groundnut farming households to join farmers’ cooperative group especially for those who do not belong to any group. Original Research Article Duniya and Rekwot; AJAEES, 4(3): 224-230, 2015; Article no.AJAEES.2015.023 225


INTRODUCTION
Poverty is becoming an increasing issue of concern to the world's human population. According to [1], the population of the poor in the world was about 1 billion in 1994, 1.3 billion in 1995, 1.74 billion in 1997, 2.04 billion in 2000, and 2.56 billion in 2002. This has continued to increase despite all developmental effort put in place by both the government and Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) to eradicate poverty [2]. The rising profile of poverty in Nigeria is assuming a worrisome dimension as Nigeria has at least half of its population living in abject poverty [3]. The scourge of poverty in Nigeria is an incontrovertible fact, which results in hunger, ignorance, malnutrition, disease, unemployment, poor access to credit facilities, and low life expectancy as well as a general level of human hopelessness [4].
Nigeria is richly endowed and the country's wealth potentials manifest in the forms of natural, geographical and socio-economic factors [5].
With this condition, Nigeria should rank among the richest countries of the world that should have no business with extreme poverty. On the contrary, the population of the country in poverty is given as 68.7 million as of 2004 [6]. Nigeria is one of the most resource-endowed nations in the world, but socio-economically, Nigerians are also among the poorest in the world [7]. Hence, there is a persisting paradox of a rich country inhabited by poor people, which has been the subject of great concern for many years, but more especially in the last decade [8].
The choice of groundnut farmers for this study lies in the fact that Nigeria is the largest groundnut producing country in West Africa accounting for 51% of the production in the region, the country produces 10% and 39% of the World and Africa's total production respectively, Prior to 1980s, groundnut production declined significantly due to rosette incidence and drought [9]. However, since 1984, production has been increasing at a growth rate estimated to 8% resulting both from area expansion (6%) and increased productivity of 2% [10]. Despite the existing empirical information on poverty in Nigeria, there still exists a gap documented on policy related to determinants of poverty among farmers with respect to groundnut farming households in Jigawa state. This makes it difficult to effectively set and implement sustainable anti-poverty policies among groundnut farming households. Hence, the study focused on the following objectives: to determine the poverty status of groundnut farming households; and to estimate the factors that influence the poverty intensity of groundnut farming households in the study area.

Study Area
The study was conducted in Jigawa State, Nigeria (between latitude 11°N and 13E and longitudes 8°N and 10°35'E). Major economic activity of the people in the area is farming, as about 80% of the population is engaged in farming.

Sampling
Multi-stage sampling technique was employed in selecting the groundnut farming households for this study. The first stage was a purposive selection of four Local Government Areas from the study area (one Local Government from each of the four ADP zones in the state) on the basis of being the prominent groundnut producing areas of the state. Secondly, eight villages were purposively selected (two villages from each of the four selected local government areas) on the basis of their high intensity of groundnut production activities. Thirdly, simple random sampling was employed in selecting 227 groundnut farming households for enumeration.

Data Collection
Primary data were obtained through the use of well-structured questionnaire administered to household heads. The data collected were on socio-economic characteristics such as age, farming experience, farm size, farm income, access to credit, number of extension contacts, membership of cooperation, level of education of household heads and the household size as well as data on household expenditure (food and non-food expenditure) for estimating the poverty status of the households.

Data Analysis
The data were analysed using the Foster-Greer-Thorbecke's (FGT) Weighted Poverty Index and the Tobit regression model.

The Foster, Greer and Thorbecke (FGT) Model Specification
The Foster, Greer and Thorbecke (FGT) measures of poverty [11] as used by [12,13,14,15] was used to determine the poverty status of the farmers. Poverty head count index, poverty gap index and squared poverty gap index will be computed to measure the incidence,
The independent variables specified as determinants of poverty are defined thus:

Descriptive Statistics of Variables
Descriptions of the variables employed in the model with their summary statistics are given in Table 1. The values of the standard deviations show how far or close the variations are from/to the mean. These values however are lower than the mean values. These imply that the variations with respect to each of the variable are close to the means. This is because the lower the standard deviation, the closer are the distributions to the mean.

Poverty Profile of Farming Households
The result of the poverty profile of groundnut farming households is presented in Table 2.
From the estimates of the FGT weighted class of poverty indices, the proportion of poor groundnut farming households was found to be 42% using an estimated poverty line of N46, 320.53 The poverty head count (poverty incidence) of groundnut farming households was 0.42.The depth of poverty (poverty gap index) of poor groundnut farming households was found to be 0.46, while the degree of inequality (poverty severity) among the poor farming households was 0.77.

Determinants of Household Poverty Status
The maximum likelihood estimates (MLE) of the Tobit regression results of factors influencing household poverty status among farming households is presented in Age of household heads was found to be negative and significant at 10% probability level with an odd ratio of 0.936 which indicates that a unit increase in age of household heads will decrease the intensity of poverty of groundnut farming households by a factor of 0.936. This implies that older household heads have a lower poverty intensity than the younger household heads. This is because the older the farmers the more experience they are which enhances their productivity, hence reducing their poverty status. This result is contrary to the findings of [17] which revealed a positive and significant relationship of farmers' age with peri-urban farming in Nigeria.
Farming experience was significant and positive in influencing the poverty status of groundnut farming households at 1% probability level. The coefficient of farming experience is 0.033, implying that poverty intensity of household will be increased by 0.033 as farming experience increases by one unit. This is attributable to the fact that as farming experience increases, the age of the household head also increases. This however, leads to a reduction in the farming operations with subsequent reduction in farming income and welfare. Findings are synonymous with [7,19].   Education was significant and negative in influencing the poverty intensity of groundnut farming households at 5% probability level. The coefficient of years of formal education is -0.033, this means that the poverty severity is decreased by 0.033 for individuals in families whose household heads have formal education. This may be attributed to the fact that highly educated household heads have the ability to adopt improved farming practices faster than the noneducated ones. This increases the productivity and incomes of the educated household heads with subsequent improvement in welfare amongst them. Similar findings were reported by [8,20].
Membership of cooperative was negative and significant at 5% .The coefficient of household membership of farmer association is -0.423. This means that household membership of farmer association would reduce poverty intensity by-0.423. This implies that the intensity of poverty was lower in a household whose head was a member of a cooperative society or any other farmers' association than in one whose head did not belong to such an organization. This might be as a result of various benefits accruable to members of cooperative societies, such as credit facilities, access to improved production inputs and access to information that could enhance their productive capacity. Similar findings were reported by [15,19].
Extension contact was found to be positive and significant at 5%. The coefficient of extension contact is 0.032. This means that the MHPCE is increased by 0.032 as extension contact increases by one unit. A plausible explanation for this is that the method of delivery of extension service to farmers may not be appropriate or the farmers are mis-informed during extension visits by extension agents who are not properly trained. Although this finding disagrees with [19,21] who found that availability of extension services improved farmers' productivity and profitability and hence reduced poverty, it can be attributed to the fact that the farmers' awareness are probably not translated into actual performance. Hence, the extension contact tends to be counterproductive.
The non-significance of farm size and credit in influencing the poverty intensity of groundnut farming households agrees with the findings of [21] who also found out that farm size and accessibility to credit were not significant in influencing the poverty level of yam farming households. Household size was not significant in influencing the poverty intensity of groundnut farming households and this is in line with the findings of [22] who established that livelihood assets among farming households in the rural areas was not significant in influencing their poverty level. Household income was not significant in influencing the poverty intensity of groundnut farming households and this study agrees with [20] who noted that there was no significant relationship between non-farm income and poverty intensity in the sudan savannah of Nigeria.

CONCLUSION
The results revealed that about 42 percent of the respondents were still below the poverty line. The poverty headcount, poverty gap, poverty severity of poor groundnut farming households were 42%, 46%, 77% respectively using an estimated poverty line of N46, 320.53. Based on the results, the most important factors that influenced poverty status in the study area were age of respondent, education and membership of cooperation which had significant effects in reducing the poverty intensity in the study area, while farming experience and extension contact were factors that significantly increase the intensity of poverty in the study area. Arising from the findings of this study, it is recommended that the government should enhance the educational status of the farmers through adult education which will lead to increased income from farming and improvement in their quality of life and hence, poverty reduction. There is also need for regular sensitization and increased mobilization of groundnut farming households to join farmers cooperative group especially for those who do not belong to any group because of the immense benefits accruable from participation in farmers association.