CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Agriculture remains the main source of livelihood for the majority of rural households in Nigeria, and most of these households farm on small plots with limited capital and simple tools. Among the food crops grown by these smallholders, cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) occupies a special place. Nigeria is the world's largest producer of cassava. Studies sponsored by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) put national output at about 34 million tonnes in 2002 (Phillips et al., 2004), and FAO data reported in a later fact-check placed output above 59 million tonnes in 2019 (Oyedeji, n.d.). The crop is a source of food, income and industrial raw material, and the bulk of it is produced by grassroots farmers (Umunakwe et al., 2015).

The full economic potential of cassava, however, cannot be realised unless farmers adopt improved production technologies on a large scale (Umunakwe et al., 2015). Improved cassava production practices include the use of high-yielding and disease-resistant varieties, proper land preparation, recommended planting methods, timely weeding, appropriate fertiliser use, and the management of pests and diseases such as cassava mosaic disease (Agwu et al., 2017; Nwaobiala, 2018). These practices originate from research institutes, but they only improve farm yields when farmers know about them, understand them and apply them.

Agricultural extension is the institutional link between research and the farmer. Anderson and Feder (2004) treat extension as a public investment whose performance varies widely from one system to another, and Davis (2008) reviews the many extension models that have been tried in sub-Saharan Africa. Nigerian studies suggest that extension matters for cassava adoption. Polson and Spencer (1991) found that the activities of extension agents were statistically significant in the adoption of an improved cassava variety among subsistence farmers in south-western Nigeria. Ejechi (2015) reported that extension contact was among the factors that influenced the adoption of recommended cassava technologies by male farmers in Nasarawa State, and Nwaobiala (2018) found that extension contact influenced the adoption of cassava agronomic practices and intercrop technologies in Abia and Imo States.

Adoption is not a single event. Rogers (2003) describes it as a process in which an individual passes through the stages of knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation and confirmation. Extension services can act at each of these stages, for example by creating awareness, by demonstrating the benefits of a practice, and by helping farmers to try it on their own farms.

One way in which the Nigerian research system has tried to bring technologies closer to farmers is the Adopted Village Scheme. It was introduced to the National Agricultural Research Institutes by the Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria in 2009, following the collapse of the National Agricultural Research Project, and the villages are located within about 20 kilometres of the institutes to serve as laboratories for showcasing technologies (Oduehie et al., 2018). The approach brings researchers and extension agents together in farmers' fields, and the commodities covered include maize, rice, cassava, yam and sorghum (Abubakar et al., 2022). Nwogi, in Niger State, is listed among the adopted villages of the National Agricultural Extension and Research Liaison Services (NAERLS) in an appraisal of that institute's communication strategies (Onagwa, 2016). Nwogi community in Katcha Local Government Area is therefore a suitable setting in which to examine how extension services relate to the adoption of improved cassava practices.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Considerable public effort has gone into developing improved cassava varieties and practices and into disseminating them through extension. Even so, adoption remains uneven. In Enugu State, for instance, farmers under a dedicated cassava enterprise project were still at the interest stage of adoption of cassava mosaic disease-resistant varieties (Agwu et al., 2017). In Imo State, Umunakwe et al. (2015) documented several constraints that limit the adoption of improved cassava varieties by rural farmers.

Access to extension is also limited. Orikpe and Orikpe (2013) observe that the ratio of extension agents to farmers in Nigeria is very high and that most agents still depend on traditional means of communication. In the Bida Agricultural Zone of Niger State, about 52.4% of the rice farmers sampled by Bwala and John (2018) had no contact with an extension agent throughout the year. That study concerned rice, but it suggests that a large share of farmers in the state may not be receiving regular extension support, and cassava farmers are likely to face a similar situation.

Much of the empirical evidence on extension and cassava technology adoption comes from southern and south-eastern Nigeria (for example Agwu et al., 2017; Nwaobiala, 2018; Umunakwe et al., 2015). Community-level evidence from adopted villages in Niger State, including Nwogi, appears scarce. It is therefore not clear how far the extension services reaching farmers in Nwogi have influenced their adoption of improved cassava practices, which practices they have adopted, and what prevents fuller adoption. This study was designed to answer these questions.

1.3 Objectives of the Study

The main objective of the study is to assess the effect of agricultural extension services on the adoption of improved cassava production practices among farmers in Nwogi community, Katcha Local Government Area, Niger State. The specific objectives are to:

(i) describe the socio-economic characteristics of cassava farmers in Nwogi community;

(ii) identify the sources and methods of extension services available to, and used by, the farmers;

(iii) determine the level of adoption of improved cassava production practices among the farmers;

(iv) determine the effect of extension services on the adoption of improved cassava production practices; and

(v) identify the constraints to accessing extension services and adopting improved cassava production practices.

1.4 Research Questions

The study seeks answers to the following questions:

1. What are the socio-economic characteristics of cassava farmers in Nwogi community?

2. What are the sources and methods of extension services available to, and used by, the farmers?

3. What is the level of adoption of improved cassava production practices among the farmers?

4. What is the effect of extension services on the adoption of improved cassava production practices?

5. What constraints limit access to extension services and the adoption of improved cassava production practices?

1.5 Research Hypotheses

The following null hypotheses will be tested at the 5% level of significance:

H0₁: The socio-economic characteristics of farmers (age, sex, level of education, farm size, farming experience and household size) have no significant effect on the adoption of improved cassava production practices.

H0₂: Access to extension services (measured by frequency of extension contact) has no significant effect on the adoption of improved cassava production practices.

H0₃: There is no significant difference in the level of adoption of improved cassava production practices between farmers with high and low extension contact.

1.6 Significance of the Study

The findings of this study will be useful to several groups. To the cassava farmers of Nwogi, the study will show which extension services are helping them and which practices they have yet to adopt, so that they can make better use of the services available.

To extension agents and organisations such as NAERLS and the state extension agency, the results will indicate which sources and methods of extension are working in an adopted village and where their efforts need to be strengthened, including how often farmers need to be reached.

To policy makers, the study will provide community-level evidence from Niger State for planning the funding, staffing and coverage of extension services, in a setting where the number of agents is small relative to the number of farmers (Orikpe & Orikpe, 2013). Finally, the study will add to the literature on extension and technology adoption and will serve as a reference for students and researchers, particularly those interested in the North Central zone of Nigeria.

1.7 Scope and Delimitation of the Study

Geographically, the study is limited to Nwogi community in Katcha Local Government Area of Niger State. In terms of content, it covers extension services (sources, frequency of contact and methods) and the adoption of improved cassava production practices, namely improved varieties, land preparation and planting, weed control, fertiliser use, and pest and disease management. The respondents are farmers who cultivate cassava in the community, and the data relate to the most recent cropping season. The study does not cover cassava processing or marketing, and it does not cover farmers of other crops.

1.8 Limitations of the Study

The study was limited by time and financial resources, which restricted the size of the sample and the number of visits that could be made to the community. Data on the level of adoption and on extension contact depend on the honesty and recall of the respondents, and some farmers may not remember exact details of past contact with extension agents. Because the study is a case study of one community, its findings may not be generalised to all cassava-producing areas of Nigeria without caution. The researcher tried to reduce these limitations by using a structured questionnaire, by explaining the questions in the local language where necessary, and by keeping the reference period short.

1.9 Operational Definition of Terms

Agricultural extension: The process of passing useful information and advice from research institutions and other sources to farmers, and helping them to apply it, so as to improve their production and livelihoods.

Extension services: The activities through which extension agents and other sources provide information, training and advice to farmers, such as farm visits, demonstrations, group meetings and mass media programmes.

Adoption: The decision by a farmer to use an improved practice regularly on his or her farm after learning about it and trying it (Rogers, 2003).

Improved cassava production practices: Recommended technologies for cassava production, including improved varieties, proper land preparation and planting, weed control, fertiliser use, and pest and disease management.

Smallholder farmer: A farmer who cultivates a small area of land, mainly with family labour and limited capital.

Adopted village: A farming community selected by a research institute, in this case NAERLS, in which improved technologies are demonstrated and passed on to farmers with the help of extension agents.

REFERENCES

Abubakar, M. I., Idrisa, Y. L., & Pur, J. T. (2022). Preference of extension delivery methods used in the adopted villages of the National Agricultural Extension and Research Liaison Services in Kaduna State, Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Rural Sociology, 22(1), 16–21.

Agwu, A. E., Njom, P. C., & Umeh, B. U. (2017). Farmers adoption scenarios for the control of cassava mosaic disease under the Cassava Enterprise Development Project in Enugu State, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension, 21(1).

Anderson, J. R., & Feder, G. (2004). Agricultural extension: Good intentions and hard realities. The World Bank Research Observer, 19(1), 41–60.

Bwala, M. A., & John, A. U. (2018). Profitability analysis of paddy production: A case of agricultural zone 1, Niger State Nigeria. Journal of Bangladesh Agricultural University, 16(1), 88–92. https://doi.org/10.3329/jbau.v16i1.36486

Davis, K. E. (2008). Extension in sub-Saharan Africa: Overview and assessment of past and current models, and future prospects. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 15(3), 15–28.

Ejechi, M. E. (2015). Determinants of adoption of cassava technologies by male farmers in Nasarawa State, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension, 19(1), 117–127.

Nwaobiala, C. U. (2018). Farmers' adoption of cassava agronomic practices and intercrop technologies in Abia and Imo States, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension, 22(2).

Oduehie, T. C., Shu'aibu, H., Adam, A. G., Muhammad, M. B., Ukonu, E. C., Yakubu, D. H., & Mamman, M. (2018). The effectiveness of the National Agricultural Extension and Research Liaison Services (NAERLS) Adopted Village Project on beneficiaries' income in Abia State, Nigeria. International Journal of Agriculture and Development Studies, 3(2).

Onagwa, G. I. (2016). Appraisal of the communication strategies of the National Agricultural Extension and Research Liaison Services, Zaria, Kaduna State [Postgraduate thesis, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria]. Kubanni Repository. https://kubanni.abu.edu.ng/handle/123456789/9871

Orikpe, E. A., & Orikpe, G. O. (2013). Information and communication technology and enhancement of agricultural extension services in the new millennium. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 3(4), 155. https://doi.org/10.5901/jesr.2013.v3n4p155

Oyedeji, N. (n.d.). FACTCHECK: Is Nigeria largest producer of cassava in the world? The ICIR. https://www.icirnigeria.org/factcheck-is-nigeria-largest-producer-of-cassava-in-the-world/

Phillips, T. P., Taylor, D. S., Sanni, L., & Akoroda, M. O. (2004). A cassava industrial revolution in Nigeria: The potential for a new industrial crop. International Fund for Agricultural Development & Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Polson, R. A., & Spencer, D. S. C. (1991). The technology adoption process in subsistence agriculture: The case of cassava in southwestern Nigeria. Agricultural Systems, 36(1), 65–78.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.

Umunakwe, P. C., Nwakwasi, R. N., Ani, A. O., Ejiogu-Okereke, E. N., & Nnadi, F. N. (2015). Constraints to the adoption of improved cassava varieties among rural farmers in Imo State, Nigeria. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology, 6(1), 56–63.