**3. Results and discussions**

**Table 1** shows the result for the level of awareness of organic farming practices among livestock farmers. The mean and percentages of the response were clearly shown.


#### **Table 1.**

*Distribution of livestock farmers by level of awareness of organic farming practice.*

**129**

**Table 2.**

*Organic Farming Practices among Livestock and Fish Farmers in Southern Nigeria*

of poor extension campaign in organic livestock practices.

**all**

(19.1)

31 (27.0)

65 (56.5)

44 (38.3)

63 (54.8)

31 (27.0)

(47.0)

(39.9)

(60.9)

(56.5)

(25.2)

43 (37.4)

*Distribution of fish farmers by level of awareness of organic farming practices.*

13 (11.3)

40 (34.8) 1 (0.9)

15 (13.0)

13 (11.3)

1 (0.9)

**Table 1** showed that farmers were adequately aware of allowing livestock access to fresh drinking water (*x*¯ = 3.02), adequate feeding (*x*¯ = 2.86), animal feeding of 100% organic (*x*¯ = 2.72) and accurate record keeping (*x*¯ = 2.57). The four practices above had mean scores above the discriminating index. The other practices were below the discriminating index of 2.50. The grand mean on the level of adoption for livestock farmers was 2.06. This shows that farmer's level of awareness of organic farming practices for livestock production is low. This is in-line with [24]. They implied that low awareness of organic agriculture was as a result of low coverage. Therefore, this study suggested that the low farmer's awareness could be as a result

**Table 2** shows the level of awareness of organic farming practices among fish farmers in the study area. The mean and percentages of the response were clearly

**Table 2** revealed that farmers were aware of such organic farming practices as eco-friendly design (*x*¯ = 2.91), high quality water source (*x*¯ = 2.90), pond

4 (3.5) 51 (44.3) 38

3 (2.6) 61 (53.0) 20

2 (1.7) 19 (16.5) 29

5 (4.3) 21 (18.3) 45

4 (3.5) 20 (17.4) 28

4 (3.5) 20 (17.4) 31

6 (5.2) 47 (40.9) 23

3 (2.6) 18 (15.7) 29

2 (1.7) 36 (31.3) 64

8 (7.0) 11 (9.6) 53

31 (27.0) 52

44 (38.3) 16

18 (15.7) 14

34 (29.6) 51

**Low Moderate High Mean Decision**

(33.0)

(17.4)

(25.2)

(39.1)

(24.3)

(45.2)

(27.0)

(20.0)

(13.9)

(12.2)

(25.2)

(55.7)

(44.3)

(46.1)

2.91 Aware

2.60 Aware

2.58 Aware

2.90 Aware

2.11 Not Aware

2.24 Not Aware

2.46 Not Aware

2.31 Not Aware

1.79 Not Aware

2.09 Not Aware

3.31 Aware

2.95 Aware

2.64 Aware

2.10 Not Aware

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85522*

**Organic Farming Practices Not at** 

Eco-friendly design 22

Manage without growth

Antibiotics is only used in clinical cases where no other treatment would

Cultivate without genetic

Site is far from polluting

High quality water source

Manage without synthetic appetizer and colouring

Pond protection from

Natural treatment (homeopathy)

*Source: Field survey, 2015*

predators

Organic fertilizer 54

Low stock density 10kg/m 39

Polyculture 70

Proper record keeping 65

Use of resistant species 29

Hormone

work

engineering.

substances

(stream, river)

shown.

### *Organic Farming Practices among Livestock and Fish Farmers in Southern Nigeria DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85522*

**Table 1** showed that farmers were adequately aware of allowing livestock access to fresh drinking water (*x*¯ = 3.02), adequate feeding (*x*¯ = 2.86), animal feeding of 100% organic (*x*¯ = 2.72) and accurate record keeping (*x*¯ = 2.57). The four practices above had mean scores above the discriminating index. The other practices were below the discriminating index of 2.50. The grand mean on the level of adoption for livestock farmers was 2.06. This shows that farmer's level of awareness of organic farming practices for livestock production is low. This is in-line with [24]. They implied that low awareness of organic agriculture was as a result of low coverage. Therefore, this study suggested that the low farmer's awareness could be as a result of poor extension campaign in organic livestock practices.

**Table 2** shows the level of awareness of organic farming practices among fish farmers in the study area. The mean and percentages of the response were clearly shown.

**Table 2** revealed that farmers were aware of such organic farming practices as eco-friendly design (*x*¯ = 2.91), high quality water source (*x*¯ = 2.90), pond


#### **Table 2.**

*Multifunctionality and Impacts of Organic and Conventional Agriculture*

**Not at all**

(33.3)

(44.4)

61 (61.6)

57 (57.6)

(57.6)

(55.6)

(52.5)

12 (12.1)

29 (29.3)

(59.6)

53 (53.6)

51 (51.5)

(16.2)

32 (32.3)

27 (27.3)

74 (74.7)

62 (62.6)

69 (69.7)

45 (45.5)

(33.3)

*Distribution of livestock farmers by level of awareness of organic farming practice.*

**Table 1** shows the result for the level of awareness of organic farming practices among livestock farmers. The mean and percentages of the response were clearly shown.

> 40 (40.4)

29 (29.3)

16 (16.2)

11 (11.1)

11 (11.1)

25 (25.3)

64 (64.6)

10 (10.1)

10 (10.1)

11 (11.1)

16 (16.2)

29 (29.3)

**Low Moderate High Mean Decision**

(12.1)

(1.0)

6 (6.1) 25 (25.3) 7 (7.1) 1.77 Not aware

(10.1)

(13.1)

(15.2)

(15.2)

(27.3)

(19.2)

(12.1)

(15.2)

(19.2)

(40.4)

(11.1)

(11.1)

(10.1)

(25.3)

15 (15.2) 8 (8.1) 1.79 Not aware

7 (7.1) 8 (8.1) 1.48 Not aware

8 (8.1) 6 (6.1) 1.50 Not aware

2.05 Not aware

1.82 Not aware

1.92 Not aware

1.81 Not aware

2.09 Not aware

2.07 Not aware

3.02 Aware

2.50 Aware

1.90 Not aware

1.96 Not aware

2.86 Aware

2.72 Aware

1.74 Not aware

1.74 Not aware

1.89 Not aware

2.57 Aware

14 (14.1) 12

25 (25.5) 1

13 (13.1) 13

40 (40.1) 19

20 (20.2) 15

0 (0.0) 19

51 (51.5) 11

15 (15.2) 11

15 (15.2) 10

1 (1.0) 40 (40.4) 25

2 (2.0) 30 (30.3) 10

3 (3.0) 29 (29.3) 15

3 (3.0) 29 (29.3) 15

1 (1.0) 59 (59.6) 27

2 (2.0) 26 (26.3) 12

3 (3.0) 24 (24.2) 40

**3. Results and discussions**

**Organic Farming Practices** 

Free movement of animals/ Provision of fresh air and natural day light

Protection against adverse weather condition

Access to fresh drinking water by livestock

Allowing livestock to express natural behaviour

Natural reproduction

Produce without genetic engineering , ionising radiation or sewage sludge

Animal feeding is 100%

Prompt treatment of sick

Manage animals without

Traditional/natural treatment of sick animals

Vaccinate only during disease outbreak

Manage without added growth hormones

Accurate record keeping 33

technique

organic

animals

antibiotics

Adequate land holding 33

Farm diversification 44

Resting areas 57

Clean and dry beddings 55

Enough space for exercise 52

Use of local breed 59

Adequate feeding 16

**for livestock**

**128**

**Table 1.**

*Distribution of fish farmers by level of awareness of organic farming practices.*

#### *Multifunctionality and Impacts of Organic and Conventional Agriculture*


#### **Table 3.**

*Distribution of livestock farmers by use of organic farming practices.*

protection from predators (*x*¯ = 3.36), use of resistant species (*x*¯ = 2.95, natural treatment (*x*¯ = 2.64), cultivation without genetic engineering (*x*¯ = 2.58) and management without growth hormones (*x*¯ = 2.60). Other practices were below mean score of (*x*¯ = 2.50). The grand mean was 2.49. This implies a moderate awareness level which could be as a result of organic fish farming practices being in line with the traditional method of fish farming.

**Table 3** shows the use of organic farming practices by livestock farmers in the study area.

According to **Table 3**, organic farming practices commonly used by livestock farmers includes fresh drinking water (76%), adequate feeding (73%), allowing livestock to express natural behavior (64%), prompt treatment of sick animals (61%), natural reproduction technique (58%), accurate record keeping (55%), animal feed is 100% organic (53%), free movement of animals/provision of fresh air and natural day light (51%) and use of local breed (50%). Out of 20 organic livestock practices, only 9 were above average and this is not up to 50% rating. This is not surprising since most livestock farmers are yet to be abreast with what organic livestock entails hence the low awareness level.

**Table 4** shows the result for the use of organic farming practices by fish farmers in the study area.

**131**

*Organic Farming Practices among Livestock and Fish Farmers in Southern Nigeria*

**Organic Farming Practices Use % Non** 

Eco-friendly design 91 79.1 24 20.9 Manage without growth Hormone 84 73.0 31 27.0

Cultivate without genetic engineering. 64 55.7 51 44.3 Site is far from polluting substances 87 75.7 28 24.3 High quality water source (stream, river) 63 54.8 52 45.2 Organic fertilizer 56 48.7 59 51.3 Low stock density 10k/m 35 30.4 80 69.6 Manage without synthetic appetizer and colouring 46 40.0 69 60.0 Poly-culture 59 51.3 56 48.7 Proper record keeping 53 46.1 62 53.9 Pond protection from predators 93 80.9 22 19.1 Use of resistant species 80 69.6 35 30.4 Natural treatment (homeopathy) 65 66.5 50 43.5

**use**

70 60.9 45 39.1

**%**

The use of organic farming practices among fish farmers varied slightly in percentages as shown in **Table 4**. However, the commonly used organic farming practices includes pond protection from predators (81%), eco-friendly design (79%), site protection far from polluting substances (76%), manage without growth hormones (73%), use of resistant varieties had (70%), natural treatment (67%), antibiotics is used in clinical cases where no other treatment would work (61%), cultivated without genetic engineering (56%), high quality water source (55%) and poly-culture (51%). The use of organic farming practices by fish farmers was relatively high compared to organic farming practices by livestock farmers. This could be attributed to the fact that most of the organic practices are in line

**Table 5** shows the result for the level of use of organic farming practices among

From **Table 5**, organic livestock production practices' in South-South Nigeria is low (grand mean = 1.93) as only 2 (10%) out of 20 outlined practices had mean score of 2.50 (discriminating index) and above. That is access to fresh drinking water (mean score = 2.77) and adequate feeding (mean score = 2.65). This result

**Table 6** shows the level of use of organic farming practices among fish farmers

The results from **Table 6** revealed that out of the fourteen (14) practices outlined, fish farmers regularly engaged in the use of three of such practices which are the use of eco-friendly design (*x*¯ = 2.56), site being far from polluting substances (*x*¯ = 2.57) and pond protection from predators (*x*¯ = 2.70). From the result, the others were considered not being used. The grand mean of 1.99 indicates that the level of use of organic farming practices by fish farmers in the study area is low.

This could be associated with some challenges or difficulties in carrying out such

practices and lack of awareness of the dangers associated with the conventional

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85522*

would work

**Table 4.**

Antibiotics is only used in clinical cases where no other treatment

with the traditional practices of the people.

*Distribution of fish farmers by use of organic farming practices.*

implied that the level of use is rare.

livestock farmers.

in the study area.


*Organic Farming Practices among Livestock and Fish Farmers in Southern Nigeria DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85522*

#### **Table 4.**

*Multifunctionality and Impacts of Organic and Conventional Agriculture*

Organic Farming Practices for livestock

Provision of fresh air and natural day light

Produce without genetic engineering , ionizing radiation or

*Distribution of livestock farmers by use of organic farming practices.*

Free movement of animals

sewage sludge

**Organic farming practices Use % Non** 

Adequate land holding 44 44.5 55 55.5 Farm diversification 39 39.4 60 60.5

Protection against adverse weather condition 29 29.9 70 70.1 Resting areas 25 25.3 74 74.7 Clean and dry beddings 41 41.4 58 58.6 Enough space for exercise 46 46.6 53 53.4 Access to Fresh drinking water 75 75.8 24 24.2 Allowing livestock to Express natural behaviour 63 63.6 36 36.4 Use of local breed 49 49.5 50 50.5 Natural reproduction technique 57 57.6 42 42.4

Adequate feeding 73 73.3 26 26.3 Animal feeding is 100% organic 52 52.5 47 47.5 Prompt treatment of sick animals 60 60.6 39 39.4 Manage animals without antibiotics 21 21.2 78 78.8 Traditional/natural treatment of sick animals 36 36.4 63 63.6 Vaccinate only during disease outbreak 23 23.2 76 76.8 Manage without added growth hormones 31 31.3 68 68.7 Accurate record keeping. 54 54.5 45 45.5

**use**

50 50.5 49 49.5

40 40.4 59 59.6

**%**

protection from predators (*x*¯ = 3.36), use of resistant species (*x*¯ = 2.95, natural treatment (*x*¯ = 2.64), cultivation without genetic engineering (*x*¯ = 2.58) and management without growth hormones (*x*¯ = 2.60). Other practices were below mean score of (*x*¯ = 2.50). The grand mean was 2.49. This implies a moderate awareness level which could be as a result of organic fish farming practices being in line with

**Table 3** shows the use of organic farming practices by livestock farmers in the

According to **Table 3**, organic farming practices commonly used by livestock farmers includes fresh drinking water (76%), adequate feeding (73%), allowing livestock to express natural behavior (64%), prompt treatment of sick animals (61%), natural reproduction technique (58%), accurate record keeping (55%), animal feed is 100% organic (53%), free movement of animals/provision of fresh air and natural day light (51%) and use of local breed (50%). Out of 20 organic livestock practices, only 9 were above average and this is not up to 50% rating. This is not surprising since most livestock farmers are yet to be abreast with what organic

**Table 4** shows the result for the use of organic farming practices by fish farmers

the traditional method of fish farming.

livestock entails hence the low awareness level.

**130**

in the study area.

study area.

**Table 3.**

*Distribution of fish farmers by use of organic farming practices.*

The use of organic farming practices among fish farmers varied slightly in percentages as shown in **Table 4**. However, the commonly used organic farming practices includes pond protection from predators (81%), eco-friendly design (79%), site protection far from polluting substances (76%), manage without growth hormones (73%), use of resistant varieties had (70%), natural treatment (67%), antibiotics is used in clinical cases where no other treatment would work (61%), cultivated without genetic engineering (56%), high quality water source (55%) and poly-culture (51%). The use of organic farming practices by fish farmers was relatively high compared to organic farming practices by livestock farmers. This could be attributed to the fact that most of the organic practices are in line with the traditional practices of the people.

**Table 5** shows the result for the level of use of organic farming practices among livestock farmers.

From **Table 5**, organic livestock production practices' in South-South Nigeria is low (grand mean = 1.93) as only 2 (10%) out of 20 outlined practices had mean score of 2.50 (discriminating index) and above. That is access to fresh drinking water (mean score = 2.77) and adequate feeding (mean score = 2.65). This result implied that the level of use is rare.

**Table 6** shows the level of use of organic farming practices among fish farmers in the study area.

The results from **Table 6** revealed that out of the fourteen (14) practices outlined, fish farmers regularly engaged in the use of three of such practices which are the use of eco-friendly design (*x*¯ = 2.56), site being far from polluting substances (*x*¯ = 2.57) and pond protection from predators (*x*¯ = 2.70). From the result, the others were considered not being used. The grand mean of 1.99 indicates that the level of use of organic farming practices by fish farmers in the study area is low.

This could be associated with some challenges or difficulties in carrying out such practices and lack of awareness of the dangers associated with the conventional


**133**

**4. Conclusion**

*Organic Farming Practices among Livestock and Fish Farmers in Southern Nigeria*

29 (25.2)

11 (9.6)

(20.9)

31 (27.0)

45 (39.1)

51 (44.3)

28 (24.3)

52 (45.2)

(51.3)

(69.6)

(48.7)

(53.9)

(30.4)

50 (43.5)

*Distribution of fish farmers by level of use of organic farming practices.*

22 (19.1)

69 (60.0)

**Never Rarely Regularly Very.** 

**regularly**

40 (34.8) 1 (0.9) 1.97 NU

43 (37.4) 2 (1.7) 1.89 NU

6 (5.2) 81 (70.4) 4 (3.5) 2.56 U

5 (4.3) 79 (68.7) 0 (0.0) 2 41 NU

7 (6.1) 38 (33.0) 19 (16.5) 2.21 NU

9 (7.8) 62 (53.9) 16 (13.9) 2.57 U

2 (1.7) 53 (46.1) 8 (7.0) 2.14 NU

2 (1.7) 29 (25.2) 4 (3.5) 1.62 NU

1 (0.9) 30 (26.1) 15 (13.0) 1.92 NU

7 (6.1) 50 (43.5) 2 (1.7) 1.98 NU

1 (0.9) 44 (38.3) 8 (7.0) 1.98 NU

1 (0.9) 81 (70.4) 11 (9.6) 2.70 U

3 (2.6) 69 (60.0) 8 (7.0) 2.43 NU

26 (22.6) 4 (3.5) 1.86 NU

**Mean Decision**

practices. This does not augur well for the quest for healthy living. There was a positive relationship between knowledge of agricultural practice and innovativeness of farmers [25]. Thus the need to improved awareness of such practices to farmers.

35 (30.4)

The study concludes that the level of awareness of farmers to organic farming practices is low. However, fish farmers are better aware of such practices than livestock farmers. The justification between these major differences in the level of awareness of organic practices in farming activities could reflect on the livelihood of the southern communities in Nigeria. It is known that the major occupation is fishing. Therefore, it is only normal to be better aware of existing and improved techniques to improve fish farming other than the livestock counterpart. The study recommends that in the campaign for increased awareness of organic agriculture, special attention should be taken to create awareness to farmers on how organic

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85522*

Eco-friendly design 24

**Organic Farming Practices**

Manage without growth

Antibiotics is only used in clinical cases where no other treatment would

Cultivate without genetic

Site is far from polluting

High quality water source

Manage without synthetic appetizer and colouring

Pond protection from

Natural treatment (homeopathy)

predators

**Table 6.**

Organic fertilizer 59

Low stock density 10k/m 80

Polyculture 56

Proper record keeping 62

Use of resistant species 35

hormone

work

engineering.

substances

(stream, river,

#### **Table 5.**

*Distribution of livestock farmers by level of use of organic practices.*


### *Organic Farming Practices among Livestock and Fish Farmers in Southern Nigeria DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85522*

#### **Table 6.**

*Multifunctionality and Impacts of Organic and Conventional Agriculture*

(55.5)

(60.5)

16 (16.2)

15 (15.2)

49 (49.5)

70 (70.1)

(74.7)

(58.6)

53 (53.4)

24 (24.2)

36 (36.4)

(50.5)

42 (42.4)

59 (59.6)

(26.3)

47 (47.5)

39 (39.4)

78 (78.8)

63 (63.6)

76 (76.8)

68 (68.7)

45 (45.5)

*Distribution of livestock farmers by level of use of organic practices.*

11 (11.1)

**Never Rarely Regularly Very** 

**regularly**

34 (34.3) 0 (0.00) 1.84 NU

9 (9.1) 25 (25.3) 10 (10.1) 1.89 NU

9 (9.1) 20 (20.2) 10 (10.1) 1.79 NU

1 (1.0) 28 (28.3) 0 (0.00) 1.57 NU

5 (5.1) 20 (20.2) 0 (0.00) 1.45 NU

1 (1.0) 39 (39.4) 1 (1.0) 1.83 NU

1 (1.0) 48 (48.5) 26 (26.3) 2.77 U

3 (3.0) 57 (57.6) 3 (3.0) 2.27 NU

1 (1.0) 37 (37.4) 11 (11.1) 2.09 NU

1 (1.0) 46 (46.5) 10 (10.1) 2.24 NU

4 (4.0) 32 (32.3) 4 (4.0) 1.81 NU

1 (1.0) 54 (54.5) 18 (18.2) 2.65 U

3 (3.0) 34 (34.3) 15 (15.2 2.17 NU

1 (1.0) 57 (57.6) 2 (2.0) 2.22 NU

3 (3.0) 17 (17.2) 1 (1.0) 1.40 NU

8 (8.1) 27 (27.3) 1 (1.0) 1.65 NU

2 (2.0) 29 (29.3) 0 (0.00) 1.60 NU

3 (3.0) 50 (50.5) 1 (1.0) 2.07 NU

11 (11.1) 1 (1.0) 1.36 NU

20 (20.2) 11 (11.1) 1.89 NU

**Mean Decision**

**Organic Farming Practices for livestock**

Free movement of animals/Provision of fresh air and natural

Protection against adverse weather condition

Enough space for exercise

Allowing livestock to Express natural behaviour

Natural reproduction

Produce without genetic engineering , ionizing radiation or sewage sludge

technique

organic

water

Access to fresh drinking

day light

Adequate land holding 55

Farm diversification 60

Resting areas 74

Clean and dry beddings 58

Use of local breed 50

Adequate feeding 26

Animal feeding is 100%

Prompt treatment of sick animals

Manage animals without antibiotics

Traditional/natural treatment of sick animals

Vaccinate only during disease outbreak

Manage without added growth hormones

Accurate record keeping

*Source: Field survey, 2015*

**132**

**Table 5.**

*Distribution of fish farmers by level of use of organic farming practices.*

practices. This does not augur well for the quest for healthy living. There was a positive relationship between knowledge of agricultural practice and innovativeness of farmers [25]. Thus the need to improved awareness of such practices to farmers.
