1 UDEMEZE JOSEPH PG/M.Sc/10/52356 ORYZA SATIVA (RICE) Department of Crop Science Faculty of Agriculture ORJI ANN N. Digitally Signed by: Content manager s Name DN : CN = Weabmaster s name O= University of Nigeria, Nsukka OU = Innovation Centre
2 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Rice (Oryza sativa) is a staple food in many countries of Africa and other parts of the world. This is the most important staple food for about half of the human race (Imolehim and Wada, 2000). Saka and Lawal (2009) classified rice as the most important food depended upon by over 50 percent of the World population for about 80 percent of their food need. Due to the growing importance of the crop, Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)(2001) estimated that annual rice production should be increased from 586 million metric tons in 2001 to meet the projected global demand of about 756 million metric tones by 2030. Research has shown that production and processing technologies have not been able to meet the increasing demand for rice ( FAO, 2001). In the West African sub region, Nigeria has experienced a well established growing demand for rice caused by rising per capita consumption and consequently the insufficient domestic production had to be complemented with enormous import both in quantity and value at various times (Saka and Lawal, 2009). According to United State Agency for International Development ( USAID) (2010), Nigeria s rice sub sector is dominated by weak and insufficient producer market linkage due to poor infrastructure and limited efficiency of distribution network which has resulted to low productivity and participation of farmers in the rice field. In order to reduce the rate of rice importation, Saka and Lawal (2009) were of the opinion that disseminating improved varieties and other modern inputs as a composite package to rice farmers is very important. Nwite,Igwe and Wakatsuki (2008) indicated that the adoption of technologies and improved management practices should lead to substantial yield increase in rice production. Adoption of an innovation within a social system takes place through its adoption by individuals or
3 groups. In view of this, Negash (2007) defined adoption as the integration of an innovation into farmers normal farming activities over an extended period of time.more so, adoption is not a permanent behavior, this implies that an individual may decide to discontinue the use of an innovation for a variety of personal, institutional, and social reasons,one of which might be the availability of another practice that is better in satisfying farmers need. However, this invariably underscores the important role technology stands to play in attaining the much needed growth in the rice sub sector. As a result of this, International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) (1996) opined that new rice varieties that combine higher yield potential with excellent grain quality, resistance to biotic and abiotic stress and input use efficiency are desperately needed to reduce the importation of foreign rice. Kebede (2001) indicated that growth in production can be gained through the use of technologies and allocative efficiencies of farmers in response to the changing techniques and production environment. Hence, adoption of technologies should lead to substantial yield increase. USAID (2010) asserted that Nigerian market recommends the following improved varieties based on the demonstrated evidence of high yield by research institutes and the outcome of project intervention in the previous years; lowland rain-fed and irrigated rice FARO 44 (sippi 692033) and, FARO 52 (WITA 4). Upland varieties are FARO- 46 (ITA 150) and FARO 55 (Nerica-1). FARO means Federal Agriculture Research Oryza. It originated from Taiwan and has national code as NGOs-9144. According to National Centre for Genetic Resources and.biotechnology (NCGRBC) (2009), FARO-44 was released and registered in the year 1990 and 1991.However,FARO-44 was developed by the following institutes: West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA), International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and National Cereal Research Institute (NCRI). FARO 44, (Sippi 692033) is an interspecific hybrid between the local African rice and Taiwan rice which brings new opportunities for farmers in Nigeria. FARO 44 variety has unique characteristics such as early maturity(110
4 120 days) earlier than traditional varieties, higher yield, tolerant to some stresses, resistant to blast, long grain etc (Dontsop, Diagne, Okoruwa and Ojehomon, 2011). Onimawo, Arukwe and Nzeagwu (2010) indicated that FARO 44 and 52 are medicinal for dietary management of diabetes due to their low glycemic indices when compared to other varieties. Therefore, to increase the competitiveness of Nigerian rice producers, FARO 44 (sippi) was introduced to farmers due to its early maturity and good quality grain therein. 1.2 Problem statement Statistics from the European Association of Agricultural Economics (EAAE), (2005) cited by USAID (2010) show that Nigeria is the largest rice importer in West Africa, with an average yearly import of 1.6 million metric tones since the year 2000. Total consumption stands at 4.4 million tons of milled rice while annual consumption per capital stands at 29kg and this has continued to rise at 1l% per annum; induced by income growth. Nigeria produces only about 2.8 million metric tons with a deficit of 1.6 million metric tons excluding the large quantity smuggled through the porous borders (USAID, 2010). In a bid to address these problems, research institutes (IITA and NCRI) introduced varieties that will produce higher yield in order to boost food security. Some improved high yielding rice varieties released for utilization in Nigeria are FARO 44 (Sippi), FARO 52 (WITA 4) FARO 57 (Tox 4004) FARO 51 (cisadane), FARO 35 and ITA (212) which are all lowland varieties.the others which include ; FARO- 55 (Nerica), FARO-56 (Nerica-2)and FARO 46 (ITA 150) are all upland varieties(usaid,2010) Once innovation had been introduced, the central objective is to encourage farmers to adopt. Suri (2006) observed that despite the efforts to increase returns, a significant number of households do not use these technologies. When a new farming practice is introduced in a community, not all people adopt at the same time, some farmers no matter what will continue their farming based entirely upon traditional agriculture (Ani,Undiadeye
5 and Ogunbameru, 2008). Mbanaso (2010) opined that technologies released by research institutes are not likely to be accepted by the farmers if they are not compatible with the farmers conditions. These conditions are accessibility to the technologies either in the form of availability of resources to purchase needed inputs or in the form of the relevance and appropriateness of the technologies to their needs, capabilities and environmental conditions. In recent time, it has been observed that there is a shift in variety selection among rice farmers in Anambra State. In view of the above it behooves this study to address the following questions; What are the levels of adoption of this variety? Which factors determine the adoption of FARO 44 rice variety? What are the major sources of information used by farmers with regard to FARO-44 technologies? What are the constraints militating against FARRO-44 adoption? 1.3 Purpose of the study The purpose of this study was to examine the adoption of FARO -44 (Sippi) rice production and processing technologies by farmers in Anambra state, Nigeria. The specific objectives of the study included to: 1. ascertain major sources of information with regard to FARO-44 technologies; 2 determine the level of adoption of FARO 44 rice production technologies 3 ascertain determinants of adoption of FARO-44 rice production technologies; and 4 identify the constraints to the adoption of FARO 44 rice production technologies in Anambra State. 1.4 Significance of the study The inextricable connection between technological change and adoption of innovation underlines the growth of agricultural productivity (Payne, Fenamdez and Daberknow, 2003). Agricultural research effort can only be successful when developed
6 technologies by research institutes are adopted by the end users to increase production. Therefore, an agricultural innovation that is unable to boost production on this ground shows ineffective research effort. Hence it is always important to determine the status of adoption of transferred technologies by target farmer groups. This will elicit information on the usefulness and relevance of the technologies as well as elucidate further modifications that are supposed to be made to increase adoption of the technologies. This study, therefore, seeks to give information that would help National Cereals Research Institute (NCRI) and other related research institutes, farmers and universities to promote FARO-44 technological packages on rice production that would be relevant to the needs and problems of farmers in Anambra State. The study will also furnish policy makers, development planners and workers with relevant data and insight for successful and sustainable policies and programmes for FARO 44 production technologies. It can also provide extension workers, development institutions and policy makers with valuable information that will assists in improving efficiency of communication. This study will contribute to improving the efficiency of agricultural research, technology transfer, input provision and policy formulation.findings of this study would also add to the existing body of knowledge. It is expected that this study will serve as a spring board to undertake detailed and comprehensive studies in other states. The study will also be significant to researchers who want to keep abreast with the current trend in the study of the adoption of FARO 44 rice variety.
7 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW Literature was reviewed under the following headings: 1. Rice varieties and production ecologies in Nigeria 2. Rice production and processing constraints in Nigeria 3. Determinants, constraints and theories of adoption 4. Nigerian rice trade policy (1980s-2009) 5. Rice production and consumption trends in Nigeria 6. Rice production in Anambra state 7. Technology package for FARO-44 rice variety 8. Conceptual framework 2.1 Rice varieties and production ecologies in Nigeria Improvement programme on Nigerian rice came into existence in the 1920s under the British Colonial administration with the establishment of the Federal Department of Agriculture at Moor Plantation Ibadan (Ukwungwu et al, 2009). In 1939, West Africa Commission recommended the establishment of rice research station to serve all the West African Countries. On the long run, Federal Rice Station at Bida in Niger State, now the Headquarters of National Cereals Research Institute, was established in 1953 (Imolehin and Wada 2000). The purpose of the station was to develop varieties with improved grain quality, uniform shape and sizes that will have minimum breakages during milling. Thirteen (13) improved rice varieties, comprising two upland, eight shallow swamps and three deep flooded rice were released to Nigerian farmers at the interval of 1954 1970. Table1 shows the approved rice varieties in Nigeria between 1955 and 1970.
8 Table 1: Approved rice varieties in Nigeria, 1955 1970 Cultiva: Old name New name Year of released Duration (days) Plant light cm Grain type Yield potential (tonne/ha) Reaction to blast Upland rice ecosystem FARO 3 Agbede 1958 95-120 99-100 M 1.5-2.5 S FARO 11 0S6 1966 115-120 103-110 M 1.5-3.5 S Rainfed lowland rice ecosystem FARO 1 BG 79 1955 135-174 108-120 M 2.0-4.0 S FARO 2 D114 1958 135-176 100-115 M 2.0-4.0 S FARO 5 makalioka 823 1960 135-154 111-115 M 2.0-4.0 S FARO 6 FCB 1961 176-198 150-160 M 2.0-3.0 MR FARO 7 Maliong 1962 160-217 150-160 M 2.0-3.5 MR FARO 8 Mass 2401 1963 155-160 110-115 M 2.5-4.5 S FARO 8 SINDANO 1963 115-162 125-130 M 2.5-4.0 S FARO 12 SLM 1969 145-160 135-140 M 2.5-4.5 MR 140/10 FARO 13 IR 8 1970 125-140 90-100 M 2.5-3.5 S Deep water rice ecosystem FARO 4 KAV 12 1959 189-220 145-150 M 2.0-3.5 R FARO 9 SIAM 29 1963 189-220 126-130 L 2.5-3.5 MR M = Medium grain, L = long grain, R = resistant, MR = moderately resistant, S = Susceptible. Source: Ayotade 1991 in Imolehin and Wada 2000. Between 1971 1984 Research Institutes released sixteen (16) more rice varieties (Table2) with the ability to resist pests and diseases, as well as the desired trait for nutrition and yield to Nigerian rice farmers.
9 Cultiva: Old name Table 2: Approved rice varieties in Nigeria 1971 1984. New name Year of released Duration (days) Plant cm hight Grain type Yield potential (tonne/ha) Reaction to blast Upland rice ecosystem FARO 25 FAROX 56/230 1976 115-120 105-110 M 1.5-3.0 MR Rainfed lowland and irrigated rice ecosystem FARO 15 FRRS-162-8 1974 145-160 120-130 M 3.0-5.5 MR FARO 16 FRRS-168-6 B- 1974 140-160 90-100 M 2.5-5.0 MR 111-2 FARO 17 FRRS-148-B- 1974 145-160 100-110 M 2.5-5.0 R 11-3 FARO 19 IR20 1974 135-140 90-100 M 2.5-5.0 MR FARO 20 BICOL)BPA- 1974 125-130 90-100 M 2.5-5.0 S 76 FARO 21 Tiachuing 1974 90-110 80-90 M 2.5-4.5 MR Natire-1 FARO 22 IR 627-1-31-3- 1974 145-150 90-110 C 2.5-5.0 MR 37 FARO 23 IRS-47-2 1974 145-150 90-100 M 2.5-5.0 MR FARO 26 TOS-78 1992 130-135 105-110 M 2.5-5.0 MR FARO 27 TOS-103 1982 110-115 90-100 M 2.5-3.5 MR FARO 28 FAROX- 1982 135-140 125-130 M 2.5-5.5 MR 188A2.5-5.5 FARO 29 BG90-2 1984 125-135 115-135 M 3.0-5.5 S Deep water rice ecosystem FARO 14 FRRS-43-111-1 1971 170-198 150-160 M 2.0-3.5 MR FARO 18 ITA 1974 165-175 125-135 M 2.5-4.0 R FARO 24 1974 135-115 135-145 L 2.5-4.0 S M = medium grain, MR = moderately resistant, C = short grain, L = long grain, R = resistant, S = susceptible. Source: Ayotade (1991) in Imolihin and Wada (2000). The sixteen (16) varieties recommended were made up of one upland rice, 12 lowland and three deep water ecology rice. Between 1985 1989, 14 additional high-yield, blast resistant varieties, including six upland and three lowland varieties were released. In 1990 more eleven (11) rice varieties consisting eight (8) upland and three shallow swamp varieties were released to Nigerian farmers. Table 3 and 4 show the recommended rice varieties in Nigeria from 1985 1989.
10 Moreso, in order to achieve the objective of people s demand on rice, fifty-one rice varieties have been bred from 1990-2000 to suit the various ecological zones of the countryrainfed uplands, flooded plains and irrigated plains. These varieties have properties that satisfy different consumer preferences in terms of grain type, swelling capacity, amylase content, protein and cooking time (Imolehin and Wada,2000).
11 Cultiva: Old name Table 3: Recommended rice varieties in Nigeria, 1985-1989 New Year of Duration Grain name released type Plant light cm (days) Upland rice ecosystem FARO 38 IRAT133 1986 100-105 100-110 Yield potential (tonne/ha) C 1.5-3.5 R Reaction to blast FARO 39 IRAT144 1986 100-105 95-105 C 1.5-3.5 R FARO 40 FAROX 1986 115-120 115- M 1.5-3.5 R 229 120 FARO 41 IRAT 170 1986 115-120 80-90 M 1.5-3.5 MR MR ART 12 1986 115-120 110-1.5-3.5 115 FARO 42 ITA 128 1986 115-120 110-1.5-3.5 MR 115 FARO 43 Irrigated rice ecosystem FARO 30 M 3.0-6.5 MR FAROX 228-2-1-1 1986 110-115 120-125 FARO 31 FAROX 228-3-1-1 1986 110-115 120-125 FARO 32 1986 110-115 110-120 FARO 33 FAROX 1986 110-115 120-228-4-1-1 115 FARO 34 FAROX 233-1-1-1 1986 105-115 115-120 FARO 35 1986 120-135 125-135 FARO 36 FAROX 1986 120-135 125-239-2-1-1 130 M 3.0-6.5 MR M 3.0-6.5 MR L 3.0-6.5 MR L 3.0-6.5 MR M 3.0-6.5 MR M 3.0-6.5 MR FARO 37 ITA-212 1986 125-140 127- L 3.0-6.0 MR 130 ITA 222 ITA 306 L = long grain, M = medium grain, C = short grain, R = resistant, MR = moderately resistant, Source: Ayolade (1991) in Imolihin and Wada (2000).
New name FARO4 4 FARO 45 FARO 46 FARO 47 FARO 48 FARO 49 FARO 50 FARO 51 Table 4: Recommended rice varieties in Nigeria, 1990 2000 Cultiv Ecolog Days of Plant Yield Grain Amylas a y maturit heigh range shape e name y t tones/h content SIPI 69203 3 ITA25 7 ITA15 0 ITA11 7 ITA30 1 ITA31 5 ITA23 0 Shallo w swamp 12 Resul Year t to of blast releas (cm) a e 110-120 95 4.0-6.0 Long 26.0 R 1992 Upland 100 100 2.0-3.0 Mediu m 17.4 R 1992 Upland 105 110 2.0-3.5 Mediu 22.5 R 1992 m Upland 115 105 2.0-4.0 Long 10.5 R 1992 Upland 128 100 2.5-4.0 Mediu m 16.4 R 1992 Upland 120 100 2.0-4.5 Mediu 16.2 R 1992 m Shallo 125 100 4.0-6.5 Mediu 28.0 R 1992 w m swamp Shallo 130 100 4.0-6.0 Long R 1997 w swamp Source: Imolehin 1991, in Imolehin 2000. In spite of the fifty-one rice varieties released for farmers in Nigeria, the National Cereals Research Institute (NCRI) in collaboration with National Seed Service (NSS) identified varieties preferred by farmers in Nigeria (Longtau 2003). Table 5 shows varietal preferences in 2000. Table 5 indicates that farmers in the different States have higher preference for FARO 44 and FARO 46, respectively. Therefore, the adoption of FARO 44 by different States in Nigeria is expected to be high compared to other rice varieties.
13 State Abia Adamawa Akwa- Ibom Table5: Varietals preference across Nigerian states in year 2000 FARO 44 X CISADANE FARO 15 FARO 27 ITA 212 ITI 301 FARO 46 ITA 315 Anambra X X Bauchi X X Bayelsa Benue X X X Borno Cross- River X X X FARO 43 Delta X Ebonyi X X Edo Ekiti X X Enugu X X FCT X X Gombe X X X Imo X Jigawa X X Kaduna X X X Kano X Katsina X Kebbi X X Kogi X X X Kwara X FARO 29 Lagos X Nasarawa X Niger X X FARO 48 Ondo X X Ogun X Osun X Oyo X Plateau X X River X Sokoto X Taraba X X Yobe X X Zamfara X X Source: Shobowale 2000 in Longtau (2003). ITA 306
14 Rice grows in all the agro ecological zones as diverse as the Sahel of Borno State and the coastal swamps of the southwest and south-south (Longtau 2003). According to Longtau (2003), six rice growing environments have been identified, they are upland, hydromorphic, rain fed lowland, irrigated lowland, deep inland water and mangrove swamp. According to Damola (2010), rice growing environment in Nigeria are usually classified into five rice ecosystems: rain-fed lowland which accounts for 47% of total rice production area, rain-fed upland (30%), irrigated lowland including large-scale irrigation schemes and small-scale irrigation schemes account for 16% of total rice area, deep water (5%) and mangrove swamp accounting for less than 1% of total rice area. Imolehin and Wada (2000) show the possible land area for rice production in Nigeria to be 4.6 million and 4.9 million hectare, and the areas includes five different ecologies such as; upland, inland or shallow swamp ecology, irrigated rice ecology, deep water or floating rice ecology and tidal(mangrove) swamp ecologies. These ecologies cannot be the same in terms of hydrology and water control. The type of rice plants that are grown are different for each ecology.plant bred for the irrigated land for instance cannot be grown in the uplands or flood plain and deep water environment (Pingali,Hossain andgerpacio, 1997). In all,rice ecologies are bred for a specific zone. Therefore, the modern FARO 44 high yielding varieties that outshined the other varieties were developed for the irrigated and the favourable rainfed lowlands. Upland ecology in the upland ecology, crops depend heavily on natural rain for their growth and development. About 55 to 60 percent of the cultivated rice land and 30 to 35 percent of total national rice production come from this ecology (Singh et al. 1997). Longatau (2003) opined that heavy rainfall can lead to soil erosion, leaching of plant nutrients and possible flooding. The risk of poor grain filling is high due to drought. In the year 2000, crop failure due to a sudden cessation of rains was noticeable in some states like Abeokuta, Ado-Ekiti, Abakaliki, Ogoja in the South right up to Yauri, Zamfara, Gombe,
15 Southern Borno and Yola. Rice yields in upland ecology are generally low and range from 0.8 to 2 tonnes/ha (International Rice Research Institute, 1991). Therefore, upland ecology accounts for 32 % of the total rice area in Nigeria (Singh et al, 1997). Twenty five percent of rice grown in Nigeria is under inland swamp rice production (Imolehin and Wada 2000). The production in this ecology is high and ranges from 2 to 8 tonnes/ha. This ecology contributes between 43 and 45 % of national rice production (Singh et al 1997). Irrigated rice ecology, is recently developed in Nigeria. Water is supplied from rivers, well, boreholes and other sources to supplement rainfall for full rice crop growth and development (Imolehim and Wada 2000). This ecology contributes 18 % of cultivated rice land, and yields range from 2 to 4 tonnes/ha. It also accounts for10 to 12 % of the national rice supply (Singh et al., 1997). The floating rice ecology constitutes 5 to 12 % of the national rice production area. The yields in this ecology are very low owing to the predominant use of unimproved rice (O.glaberrima Steud) which yields less than 1 tonne/ha. The ecology does, however, contribute 10 to 14 percent of the national rice output (Singh et al, 1997). The Niger mangrove swamp ecology lies between the coastaline and the fresh water swamps. It covers a potential 1 million ha of land that would be cultivated for rice, but at present less than 100 ha of this ecology is being developed (Imolehin and Wada 2000). The ecology accounts for less than 2 percent of the national rice production, and has low yields of only about 1 tonne/ha. The development of appropriate technology for expanding and increasing rice production in this ecology is the most urgent issue for attention (Singh et al 1997).
16 2.2 Rice production and processing constraints in Nigeria According to Damola (2010), rice production constraints include; lack of rice development policies, inadequate irrigation, low level of farming technologies, inadequate agricultural input supply system, delay in disseminating improved seeds, inadequate and weak agricultural extension, and poor accessibility to institutional credits, among others. However, processing constraints include; use of traditional methods of processing, low farmers awareness of quality control, poor parboiling techniques, use of obsolete milling machines, low milling efficiency due to frequent power failures, among others. According to Ismaila, Gana, Tswanya and Dogara (2010), factors militating against the level of rice production in Nigeria includes; climate factors (rainfall, temperature and and solar radiation), edaphic factors, migration, government policies, use of local varieties, predominance of weeds, pest and diseases. with regards to this, Ogunwole and Owonubi (1998) stated that water, solar radiation and temperature determine crop species, type of cultivars and management method that are suitable for cereal production in any area. As a result of the high solar radiation in the Savanna, air temperature are generally uniformly high with a slight drop in December and January. Temperature affect rice production by controlling the rate of physio-chemical reaction and that of evaporation of water from the crops and soil surfaces. More so, temperature affects the rate at which the products of photosynthesis are used for growth respiration and accumulation of food reserves. Alarima, Adamu, Masunaga and Wakatsuki (2011) enumerated land acquisition and tenure economics, information, communication and training technical and mechanical factors to be the production constraints in Nigeria. However, the problems were found to be interwoven and influence each other. As constraints of land tenure persist, farmers are bound to be confronted with production, inputs and technology constraints. Lack of adequate information was found to be related to economic, input and production constraints of the
17 farmers (Alarima et al, 2011). Therefore, addressing these problems will lead to increase in the rate of adoption of rice production technology and ultimately rice productivity in Nigeria. According to Ekeleme et al (2008) constraints to rice production are drought, poor soil fertility and pest attack. Drought is a major constraints to rice production because it requires a lot of water for optimum growth and yield. Rice requires about 1200mm to 1600mm of rainfall evenly distributed throughout its growing period. Pests, especially birds and striga attacks are the major constraints militating against rice production in Nigeria. In the light of above, the constraints to rice production are as follows: insufficient fund, poor service delivering by extension agents, poor soil fertility, government policies, cost of inputs, use of local varieties, poor policy implementation, infrastructural deficiencies, limited area under irrigation and low investment in agricultural research. Marketing is being attributed to be one of the key challenges to rice production in Nigeria (Lenis et al 2009). The major reason for this problem seems to be the low quality of the local rice produced by most small farmers, which most times face low market prices despite the production cost incurred. However when different rice varieties are brought and advertised to farmers without proper education about the appropriate input application and management strategy associated with the various crops farmers who are averse to risk taking, accept the different varieties, planting all of them on small sections of their already small plots of land without adequate training on the separation of the various varieties. Thus, during harvesting, rice varieties are often mixed, reducing the aesthetic value of the local rice compared with the consistence of imported rice and thus lowering the price received from rice millers, if they are even willing to buy it (Lenis et al 2009). Deterioration of quality at parboiling stage occurs when efforts are made to parboil different rice types which require different temperatures and duration of boiling. Another challenge facing rice production in Nigeria is the large presence of stone in local rice. Presence of stones in local rice can occure when farmers are using the process of drying
which involves laying the rice on the road to be sun dried. As a result of the lower quality attained by the process, market price of such rice tend to be very low and this may, however, 18 lead to future investments on imported rice. Poor extension service is another challenge facing rice production in Nigeria. 2.3 Determinants, constraints and theories of adoption 2.3.1 The concept of adoption The basic goal of agricultural development organizations is to influence farmers to adopt agricultural innovations (Agbamu, 2006). The transfer of innovation and knowledge from research unit to farmers will trigger development. Therefore, the basic role of agricultural extension agent in the transfer of technology is to assist farmers in putting the blue prints or ready made technologies into practice, despite the fact that they may not be appropriate (Agbamu 2006). According to Adekoya and Tologbonse (2011), adoption is regarded as a decision to make full use of an innovation or technology as the best course of action available. Adoption of an innovation is the decision made by an individual or group to use an innovation. Majority of farmers passed through several logical problem-solving processes known as adoption process when considering new technology. Agbamu (2006) opined that each farmer has characteristics that influence how he or she receive information, processes it and either uses or discards it. However since adoption involves decision making after communication between extension workers and farmers or after farmer to farmer communication, a good starting point of any discussion on adoption process is understanding the context in which farmers operate their farms and make daily decisions. Akubuilo,Orjioke and Egwu(2005) expressed adoption of innovations as a decision to make full use of a new idea as the best course of action available and involves a change in the orientation and behaviour of the farmer from the time he/she become aware of the innovation to its adoption. So the extent of adopting and using innovation by the farmers is complex
19 which involves a consequence of thoughts and actions. According to Ani (2007) adoption is a mental process which an individual passes through from the first time of hearing about a new idea to the complete and full incorporation of the idea into the total system of his behaviour. Adekoya and Tologbonse (2011) have shown that a farmer s decision about whether to adopt or not to adopt a recommended agricultural practice occurs over a period of time in stages rather than being instantaneous. Therefore, to adopt the innovations, farmers must become aware and undergo series of adoption stages. In view of the above, adoption is a decision of an individual or group to make full use of an innovation introduced into a social system as the best course of action available. Therefore, adoption is a mental decision process an individual or group encountered in the bid to make full use of an innovation as the best course of action available. For a farmer or farmers to be acclimatized with an innovation, different mental decision processes have to be taken into consideration. Based on this, Rogers and Karyn (1997) conceptualized a cumulative series of five stages in the process; from awareness (first knowledge of the new idea): to interest (gaining further knowledge about the innovation); to evaluation (gaining a favourable or unfavourable attitude towards the innovation) to small-scale trial and to an adoption or rejection decision. According to Oxford Advanced Learners dictionary 6 th edition, the concept diffusion is derived from the verb diffuse which means spreading over a wide area. Diffusion is a process of information exchange or flow between other units among a group of people (Adekoya and Tologbonse 2005). However, the quality and speed of flow depend on the topical nature of the information, model employed and management of the process by extension professionals. Agbamu (2006) defined diffusion as a process by which an innovation spreads from its source of development to its ultimate adopters. Diffusion process involves four essential elements the innovation, its communication from one individual or group to another, a
20 social system within which innovation spreads, and a time period over which the diffusion process occurs. With respect to this, diffusion process starts gradually with a few farmers who adopt a new technology for one or two years. Thereafter, the spread of diffusion increased as other farmers observe good performance of an agricultural innovation in on-farm trials and as interaction between innovators and other farmers and between change agents and farmers take place. After some years the speed of diffusion reaches a peak and then starts to decrease (Agbamu, 2006). The above concept presents clear pictures which can be used to understand and analyze the diffusion process and adoption. Diffusion and adoption are inextricably linked that discussing diffusion separately from adoption will create a vacuum in the mind of the clienteles. In the same way, diffusion and rejection are parallel just like adoption and diffusion aforesaid. Discussing diffusion without rejection will also impose gaps in the memory of the clientele. Therefore, in diffusion of an innovation/idea an innovator should be conscious of either accepting or rejecting his/her idea being communicated to the prospective users. Therefore, diffusion of an innovation is in the reams of probabilities of the potential users. In the light of the above, Adekoya and Tologbonse (2005) opined that process of diffusion is seen as a precursor to adoption but not necessarily always ending up with the adoption. Because of this, we can deduce that diffusion not necessarily ends up with adoption but it paves ways for adoption or rejection of an innovation therein. 2.3.2 Stages/steps in Adoption of Innovation The logical, problem-solving process through which farmers passed when assessing any new technology is called adoption process. However, adoption of a technology can be examined in the context of adoption by farmers or group of farmers within a geographical area. According to Adekoya and Tologbonse (2011), adoption process has five stages or steps that an individual goes through in adopting an innovation;
21 (a) Awareness stage This is a stage at which an individual becomes aware or hear about an innovation for the first time. The individual at this stage does not have enough information concerning both the benefits and cost of the innovation. (b) Interest stage This is when an individual pick up interest on an innovation and actively make more investigation about the technology. The investigation could be how it works as well as the potentialities associated with the products. (c) Evaluation Stage- This is when the individual weighs up the advantages and the disadvantages of using it by going through a mental evaluation by asking self questions such as is it worth it? Can I do it? Do I have enough resources? Will it be beneficial to me and my family? If the advantages outweigh the disadvantages especially with regard to the capital outlay against what else they might do with the same amount of money and the satisfaction they will get from these alternatives. Therefore, evaluation stage is terminated when an individual makes a decision to reject or accept the innovation. (d) Trial stage This involves testing an innovation on a small-scale to determine the relevance and usefulness of the innovation. (e) Adoption stage This is the final stage when the individual apply the innovation on a large scale and continue to use it in preference to old methods. With reference to the above, Adekoya and Tologbonse (2011) opined that the adoption process stated above does not always follow the sequence in practice and actively depends on the technology and the individual in question. On a practical note, a farmer may not alone decide to adopt an innovation as the adoption process model suggested. The decision to adopt is usually taken in situations where farmers are in groups with members influencing one another. This is also in addition to activities of extension agents pushing the innovation. Therefore, the process of adoption can be seen through the following perspective represented by the four basic stages.
22 1) Knowledge Awareness of the idea and perceived benefit of it. 2) Persuasion Convinced of the value of the innovation. At this stage, one s peers can have a great deal of influence. 3) Decision Judgment to adopt the innovation samples or trials at this phase can have a positive effect on the chances of the innovation being adopted. 4) Confirmation Engagement of positive activities which may lead to eventual acceptance. In reality, Adekoya and Tologbonse (2011) suggested that innovation decision process precedes these stages and even goes beyond them, this is where the human perspective comes in with all the complexities and uncertainty. 2.3.3 Determinants of adoption According to Agbamu (2006), various factors have been identified to influence the adoption of an innovation. Those factors could be broadly classified as follows: (a) age, family size, farm size, gender, economic status, educational level, social participation, leadership status, proximity to research station or university, contact with extension agents, cosmopoliteness, mass media exposure, knowledge of recommended practice and years of farming experience. (personal characteristics of farmers) (b) cost of innovation, complexity and technicality, compatibility with cultural norms and farming system, (c) psychological factors level of aspiration to socio-economic good, fear and anxiety, perceived risk and uncertainty/suspicion (d) situational constraints-insecure land tenure, lack of access to credit, lack of access to ready markets and inaccessibility to localities (hill places), inability to obtain specific inputs. Wabbi (2002) grouped the factors influencing technology adoption as fallows: a) Economic Factor farm size, cost of technology, level of expected benefits and offfarm hours. b) Social factors age of adopter, education and gender concerns.
23 c) Institutional Factors Information and extension contacts. According to Agbamu (2006) there is a negative relationship between size of cassava farm and adoption in a study of rural areas of Oyo and Ondo states. He was of the opinion that, to the farmers, the larger the cassava farm the less they are worried about farm innovation, since they are still in a good position to meet their family demands for cassava. Agbamu (2006) also stated that there is a positive relationship between farm size and adoption of soil management practices but this relationship was not significant. However, large commercial farmers in Ayamelum Local Government Area of Anambra State, Nigeria adopted high yielding rice varieties more rapidly than small holders. Wabbi (2002) was of the opinion that farmers operating larger farms tend to have greater financial resources and chances of receiving credit are higher than those of smaller farms. Therefore, with respect to farm size, technology adoption could be explained by measuring the proportion of total land areas suitable to the new technology. According to Adekoya and Tologbonse (2011), techniologies desired for adoption are those that are compatible, relatively advantageous, and accessible by farmers. Technologies will most likely be assimilated and utilized when the benefits can be quickly realized. Agbamu (2006) asserted that the relationship between formal education and adoption of technologies is inverse. He was of the view that formal education enables farmers to accept new farm technologies more readily to increase their income than those farmers without a formal education. However, educated farmers tend to be more flexible in their decision to adopt new ideas. Generally, education creates a favourable mental attitude for the acceptance of new ideas and practice. Therefore, formal education enables a farmer to obtain useful information from bulletins, newsletters and other sources (Agbamu, 2006). Age is seen as a major latent characteristic in adoption of technologies. It positively influences adoption of technologies. According to Agbamu (2006), some older farmers have rejected the use of fertilizers claiming that fertilizers change the taste and other properties of
24 their food crops. On the other hand, Agbamu (2006) also claimed that there is no association between age and adoption behaviour of farmers. Ozor and Madukwe (2005) reported that age, education and years of experience were significant in explaining 25% of the variation in adoption of improved rabbit technologies. On the other hand, experience has shown that adoption of technologies could be influenced by the following factors; governmental policy, seasonality, directors policy, culture and norms of a social system, speed and frequency of the innovation, stability and fluctuation of the innovation. 2.3.4 Constraints to adoption of technologies There are several constraints to the adoption of technologies by farmers. Here an attempt has been made to outline the major constraints to adoption. Guerin and Guerin (1994) identified the constraints as: the extent to which the farmers find the new technology complex and difficult to comprehend, how readily observable the outcomes of an adoption are; its financial cost, the farmers beliefs and options towards the technology, the farmer s level of motivation; the farmer s perception of the relevance of the new technology and the farmer s attitudes towards risk and change. According to Rolings and Pretty (1996) one major reason for non-adoption of technologies is because they are finalized before farmers get to see them. Technologies that are not compatible to a particular farmer s condition or need are usually rejected. On the other hand, Adhikarya (1996) opined that non-adoption of recommended technology is caused by non technological factors such as social, psychological, cultural and economic problems. However, farmers reject available technologies not because they are conservative or ignorant but because they rationally weigh the changes, incomes and risks associated with the given technologies under their natural and economic circumstance before they take any decision.
25 Feder, Just and Zilherman (1985), summarized the vast amount of empirical literature on adoption and showed that the constraints to the adoption of a new technology may arise from many sources such as lack of credit, inadequate farm size, unstable supply of complementary inputs, limited access to information, uncertainty and so on. In the same vain. Mbanaso (2010) asserted the major constraints to adoption of sweet potato as production/processing complexity problems, economic problems, poor technical information and pathological problems. He further indicated that adoption of sweet potato technologies was significantly influenced by household size, labour, land, health, age, marital status and access to credit. However, Schultz (1995) indicated that the probability of adopting a new technology will depend on the difference in profitability between the new and old technologies and the ability of the farmers to perceive the advantage and efficiently utilize the new technology. A study conducted by Asadu (2011) on adoption of gender specific innovation by women groups in Enugu North agricultural zone indicated those factors such as lack of capital, lack of incentives from government and high cost of adequate processing equipment to be the major constrains to the adoption of technologies. She also attributed age, education, household size, primary occupation, credit availability and income to significantly influence the adoption of improved cassava technologies by the women. Kebede, Gunjal and Coffin (1990) conducted a study on adoption of new technologies in Ethiopian agriculture in Tegulet-Bulga district, shoa province and found that education level of farmers had positive effect on the adoption of new technologies in Ethopian agriculture. Degnet and Belay (2001) underlined those factors such as age of the farmers, frequency of contact with extension workers, annual on-farm income level and farmers knowledge of fertilizer use and its application rate to significantly affect farmers adoption decision.
26 Tiamiyu, Akintola and Rahji (2009) indicated that technology adoption is affected significantly by farmers level of education, extension visits, credit use and level of rice commercialization. Saka and Lawal (2009) also indicated that frequency of extension contact, land area cultivated and yield rating of the improved rice variety were significantly determined the farmers decision to adopt improved rice varieties. However, Fashola, Oladele, Alabi, Tologbonse and Wakkatsuki (2007) found that membership of association, level of education were important contributors to adoption decision of farmers. This study also showed that frequency of extension contact and the attribute of the technology in terms of productivity significantly contributed to the adoption of improved varieties among farmers. Similarly a study by Omonona, Oni and Uwagboe (2005) on adoption of improved cassava varieties in Edo State Nigeria showed that sex, age, access to extension agents, access to inputs and crop yield were significant variables positively influencing adoption of improved cassava varieties. Therefore, it is pertinent to say that extension contact and basic attributes of improved varieties are significant motivating factors for adoption of improved varieties among crop farmers. Chilot (1994) showed that the adoption of improved wheat seed is positively and significantly influenced by the wealth status of the farmers, farmers contact with extension agents and availability of fertilizer on time. He also asserted that the distance to an extension office from a village influences the adoption of improved wheat seed negatively and significantly. He also said that the higher the incremental net benefit of the improved technology over the traditional practice, the higher the probability of adoption. However, the effect of the other factors like area cultivated, literacy, livestock ownership and farmers years of experience were found to be non significant. According to Negash (2007), participation in extension events and access to credit were important variables which had positively and significantly influenced adoption and intensity of improved haricot bean production package.
In view of the above, Rogers and Scott (1997), suggested that innovation with greater relative advantage, compatibility, triability, observability and less complexity will be adopted 27 more rapidly than other innovations. Therefore, the characteristics of an innovation as perceived by the members of a social system determine its rate of adoption. With respect to the above, constraints to adoption of innovations could be stated as the inappropriateness of the following: a) Communication channel Here, it is observed that mass media has direct, immediate and powerful effect on the mass audience, mass media channels are more effective in creating knowledge of innovations, whereas interpersonal channels are more effective in forming and changing attitude towards a new idea, and hence in influencing the decision to adopt or reject a new idea. b) Opinion leaders: - These have directly effected the tipping of an innovation. A powerful way for change agents to affect the diffusion of an innovation is to affect opinion leader attitude. Opinion leaders usually conform closely to the norms of their social system. They make use of unbiased and technically accurate sources of information, and they are better equipped than their followers, in terms of knowledge, insight and judgment to put innovations to practical use. Opinion leaders are usually cosmopolitan in their attitudes and they mix well with other people, are of relatively high social status and tend to be more innovative than their followers. Therefore, the personal influence of opinion leader is very important in the persuasion stage of the innovation-decision process. c) Homophily and heterophily: - Homophily is the degree to which pairs of individuals who communicate are similar. The similarities can be things like beliefs, education, socio-economic status etc. Heterophily is also the degree to which pairs of individuals who interact are different in certain attributes. Moreso, homophilous individuals engage in more effective communication because their similarities lead to
28 greater knowledge gain as well as attitude or behavioural change. However, most participants in the diffusion of innovations are heterophilous, meaning they speak different languages. But the problems is that diffusion requires a certain degree of heterophily, if two individuals are identical, no diffusion occurs because no new information can be exchanged. Therefore, an ideal situation would involve two individuals who are homophilous in every way, except in knowledge of the innovation. Thus, homophily and heterophily are one of the major constraints in the adoption of innovation. Other constraints are climatic factor, drought, poor soil fertility and pest attack. (a) Theories on Adoption The decision of farmers to adopt innovation is a complex process with a wide number of influencing factors. A key question in trying to determine the future of adoption with the technology environment is determining why an individual would adopt one technology while resisting another (Kathryn,2010). Therefore, in terms of this research, user acceptance is the willingness of farmers to use innovations. With respect to the above, interest is focused to identify the factors that influence the adoption of technologies by users who have some degree of choice. However, due to the wide ranging issues of why some farmers would accept or reject a technology it is unlikely that a single variable explanation could account for this decision (Dillon, 2004). Based on this, a number of theories have been developed to help understand and explain adoption process of end users. Adoption is not one step process, that means it takes time for adoption to be complete. Agricultural extension can be said to be effective and efficient when farmers adopt improved technologies ( Aphunu, 2011). Adoption is therefore similar to diffusion except that it deals with psychological process an individual goes through, rather than the physical process.
29 (b)diffusion Theory This theory is the brainchild of Everest Rogers who defined diffusion as the process by which an idea is communicated through certain channels over time among members of a social system (Rogers, 1995). This theory however, predicts that an innovation will initially be adopted by small group of innovative farmers and letter diffuse to other farmers within the social system (Stephenson 2003). The central objective of diffusion research is on the reams of adopting agricultural innovations such as herbicides, hybrid seeds, pesticides and, fertilizers and modern agricultural practices as to improve their standard of living. According to Surry (1997 in Aphunu, 2011), the most important fact to consider in discussing diffusion theory is that it is not well-defined uniform and comprehensive theory. A large number of theories from a wide variety of discipline each focusing on a different element of the innovation process, combine to create a meta-theory of diffusion.four of the most widely used theories of diffusion of innovation discussed by Rogers are innovation decision process, individual innovativeness, rate of adoption and perceived attribute of innovation (Surry 1997 in Aphunu 2011) Innovative decision process theory This theory suggests that prospective adopters of a technology progresses over time via five stages, from the first knowledge of an innovation to forming an attitude towards the innovation, to a decision to adopt or reject, to implementation of the new idea to confirmation of this decision (Wikipedia 2010). On the other way round, the theory proposes that the possible adopters of agricultural technology progresses with time in five stages, that is from the awareness stage to the final stage of adoption of the technology. Therefore, these are the earlier terminologies of the stages: awareness, interest, evaluation, trial and adoption. With respect to the above theory, it is clear that not all adopters of innovation pass through all the above stages prior to acceptance of an innovation. Agbamu (1998) confirm that rice farmers in Japan and Philippines pass through only three stages of awareness, trial