CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study

Agriculture is the main source of livelihood for most rural households in Ghana, and improvements in farm productivity depend heavily on farmers’ use of improved technologies such as improved seed, fertiliser, better planting methods and pest control. Agricultural extension agents (AEAs) are the frontline officers who bring these technologies to farmers, and one of their principal methods is the farm visit, in which the agent visits a farmer on the farm, observes the situation, gives advice and shows the recommended practice.

The farm visit has a long history in Ghana. Anang et al. (2020) explained that the Travel and Visit system, which was part of the unified extension system, was based on extension agents visiting farmers on their farms to provide training and information on modern technologies. The same authors noted that the number of visits is limited by the inadequate number of extension agents. Evidence from northern Ghana shows that visits matter for adoption. Adams and Jumpah (2021) found that the number of extension visits was one of the statistically significant factors determining technology adoption among 461 maize and cowpea farming households, and Danso-Abbeam et al. (2018) found that extension services affected farm productivity and income of smallholder maize farmers. Anang and Asante (2020), in a study of 300 farm households, reported that about 63 per cent had access to extension services, and that household income, off-farm income, household size and land area determined access.

The picture is not always straightforward. Access to extension and the frequency of visits are influenced by farm and farmer characteristics, and evidence from northern Ghana suggests that male farmers, and farmers with larger farms, are more likely to be visited. Even where visits occur, the quality of advice, the timing of the visit and the farmer’s own circumstances affect whether a technology is adopted. Ankuyi et al. (2026) found that maize farmers with access to extension services in the Offinso North Municipality adopted more regenerative practices than those without access, which supports the view that contact with agents matters.

Tinjase and Nabu are farming communities in the Nkwanta North District of the Oti Region. The Oti Region was created out of the former Volta Region and is still developing its extension and road infrastructure. Little is known about how often extension agents visit farmers in Tinjase and Nabu and whether those visits have led to the adoption of improved technologies. This study addresses that gap.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Farm visits are a key means of technology transfer, yet many farmers in rural Ghana report that they are rarely or never visited. The shortage of extension agents, limited logistics and poor road access reduce the number of visits, and agents are believed to concentrate on farmers who are easier to reach (Anang et al., 2020; Anang & Asante, 2020).

In Tinjase and Nabu there is little empirical information on how frequently agents visit farmers, what they do during visits, and whether visits lead to the adoption of improved technologies. As a result, it is difficult to say whether investing in more farm visits would raise adoption or whether other methods should be used. This study therefore examines the influence of extension agents’ farm visits on farmers’ adoption of improved farming technologies in Tinjase and Nabu, Nkwanta North District, Oti Region.

1.3 Objectives of the Study

The general objective of the study is to examine the influence of extension agents’ farm visits on farmers’ adoption of improved farming technologies in Tinjase and Nabu, Nkwanta North District, Oti Region. The specific objectives are to:

(1) describe the socio-economic characteristics of farmers in the study communities;

(2) determine the frequency of farm visits by extension agents to the farmers;

(3) identify the improved farming technologies promoted during farm visits;

(4) determine the level of adoption of the improved farming technologies;

(5) assess the influence of extension agents’ farm visits on the adoption of the technologies; and

(6) identify the challenges affecting farm visits and the adoption of improved technologies.

1.4 Research Questions

(1) What are the socio-economic characteristics of the farmers?

(2) How often do extension agents visit the farmers?

(3) What improved farming technologies are promoted during farm visits?

(4) What is the level of adoption of the improved technologies?

(5) What is the influence of farm visits on the adoption of the technologies?

(6) What challenges affect farm visits and adoption of improved technologies?

1.5 Research Hypotheses

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

H01: Extension agents’ farm visits have no significant influence on farmers’ adoption of improved farming technologies.

H02: There is no significant relationship between the frequency of farm visits and the number of improved technologies adopted by farmers.

1.6 Significance of the Study

The study will give the Nkwanta North District Agricultural Development Unit evidence on how far its farm visits influence adoption and how visits can be planned better. Farmers will benefit from recommendations to improve the reach and quality of visits. Policy makers and development partners can use the results in designing extension programmes that make the best use of limited agents. The study also adds to the literature on extension delivery in the Oti Region.

1.7 Delimitation of the Study

The study covers farmers in Tinjase and Nabu in the Nkwanta North District of the Oti Region. It focuses on extension agents’ farm visits as the independent variable and the adoption of improved farming technologies as the dependent variable. Other extension methods are considered only where needed to explain the results.

1.8 Limitations of the Study

The study is limited to two communities and its findings may not be generalised to the whole district or region. Farmers may find it hard to remember exactly how many times they were visited, and some may confuse extension agents with input dealers or project staff. Poor road conditions may make some respondents hard to reach. To reduce these problems, the researcher will use a clear definition of a farm visit, trained enumerators and a pre-tested questionnaire.

1.9 Definition of Terms

(1) Extension agent: A trained officer who provides advice and technical support to farmers on behalf of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture or another organisation.

(2) Farm visit: A visit by an extension agent to a farmer’s field or home to advise, demonstrate or follow up on farming practices.

(3) Improved farming technologies: New or improved inputs and practices, such as improved seed, fertiliser and better cultural practices, that raise productivity.

(4) Adoption: The decision by a farmer to use an improved technology and to continue using it.

1.10 Organisation of the Study

The study is organised into five chapters. Chapter One presents the introduction, comprising the background, statement of the problem, objectives, research questions, hypotheses, significance, delimitation, limitations and definition of terms. Chapter Two reviews relevant theoretical, conceptual and empirical literature. Chapter Three describes the research methodology, including the study area, research design, population, sampling procedure, data collection instruments and methods of data analysis. Chapter Four presents and discusses the results, while Chapter Five gives the summary of findings, conclusions and recommendations.

References

Adams, A., & Jumpah, E. T. (2021). Agricultural technologies adoption and smallholder farmers’ welfare: Evidence from Northern Ghana. Cogent Economics & Finance, 9(1), 2006905. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.2006905

Anang, B. T., & Asante, B. O. (2020). Farm household access to agricultural services in northern Ghana. Heliyon, 6(11).

Anang, B. T., Bäckman, S., & Sipiläinen, T. (2020). Adoption and income effects of agricultural extension in northern Ghana. Scientific African, 7, e00219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2019.e00219

Ankuyi, F., Ansah, R., Fobi, N., Opoku-Ware, L., Dwamena, H. A., Tham-Agyekum, E. K., & Twum, S. K. (2026). Regenerative agricultural practices among maize farmers in Ghana: Adoption levels, socio-demographic determinants, and extension service access. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2026.1923319

Danso-Abbeam, G., Ehiakpor, D. S., & Aidoo, R. (2018). Agricultural extension and its effects on farm productivity and income: Insight from Northern Ghana. Agriculture & Food Security, 7, Article 74. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-018-0225-x