CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Improved seeds, fertilisers, agronomic practices and pest control methods can raise farm output, but they benefit farmers only when farmers adopt them. In developing countries, the main institutional channel for taking such technologies from research to the farm is agricultural extension. Extension agents use several methods, including demonstrations, group meetings, mass media and, most directly, visits to individual farms and homes. The farm visit is a face-to-face method in which the agent meets the farmer on the farm, sees the actual problems, and gives advice that fits the farmer's situation.

Regular visits have a long history in extension design. The training and visit system, which organised extension around scheduled contact between agents and farmers, was promoted widely by the World Bank and studied in India by Feder and Slade (1986). Anderson et al. (2006) later reviewed its rise and fall, and Anderson and Feder (2004) examined the strengths and weaknesses of extension systems more generally. The lesson from this literature is that the frequency and quality of contact between agents and farmers cannot be taken for granted, and that the cost of maintaining regular visits is high.

Studies in Nigeria show that farmers value visits. In the adopted villages of the National Agricultural Extension and Research Liaison Services (NAERLS) in Kaduna State, farm and home visits were the extension method most preferred by farmers (81.4%), and 80% of respondents said they understood messages best when they were delivered face to face (Abubakar et al., 2022). In Oyo State, Ogunwande et al. (2018) found that farming households that had extension contact were technically more efficient than those without it. In Ondo State, Adebo and Ewuola (2006) reported that farmers were trained by extension agents through several channels, including farm and home visits, and that the timeliness and medium of training affected the level of adoption of improved practices. Obayelu et al. (2018) studied the adoption of improved maize technologies in Oyo State and concluded that more awareness of the technologies through extension agents and social networks was needed to raise adoption.

Okolo community in Ibarapa East Local Government Area is one of the villages listed as a NAERLS adopted village in Oyo State (Onagwa, 2016). The Adopted Village Scheme was introduced to the National Agricultural Research Institutes in 2009 so that villages near the institutes could serve as laboratories for showcasing improved technologies (Oduehie et al., 2018). In such a community, visits by extension agents are expected to be one of the main ways in which technologies reach farmers, which makes Okolo a suitable place to examine the influence of farm visits on adoption.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

If farm visits are to influence adoption, they must be regular, timely and relevant. In practice this is often not the case. Irregular visits by extension agents were the most serious problem reported by farmers in the NAERLS adopted villages of Kaduna State, cited by 89.5% of respondents (Abubakar et al., 2022). In the Bida Agricultural Zone of Niger State, about 52.4% of rice farmers had no contact with an extension agent during the year (Bwala & John, 2018). Orikpe and Orikpe (2013) note that the number of farmers per extension agent in Nigeria is very high, which makes frequent visits to every farmer difficult.

Many studies measure extension access broadly, as "extension contact", and do not separate the effect of farm visits from that of other channels such as radio, meetings and demonstrations. This makes it hard to know how much of the adoption of improved technologies can be attributed to visits themselves. Taye (2013) points out that tracing the causal link between extension inputs and their results is difficult, which is another reason for looking closely at one method in one setting.

For Okolo community, there is little documented evidence on how often farmers are visited, what the agents discuss during visits, and whether farmers who are visited more often adopt more of the technologies that are promoted. This study addresses that gap.

1.3 Objectives of the Study

The main objective of the study is to examine the influence of extension agents' farm visits on the adoption of improved farming technologies among smallholder farmers in Okolo community, Ibarapa East Local Government Area, Oyo State. The specific objectives are to:

(i) describe the socio-economic characteristics of smallholder farmers in Okolo community;

(ii) determine the frequency and regularity of extension agents' farm visits to the farmers;

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

(iv) determine the level of adoption of the improved farming technologies among the farmers;

(v) determine the relationship between the frequency of farm visits and the adoption of improved farming technologies; and

(vi) identify the constraints to farm visits and to the adoption of improved farming technologies.

1.4 Research Questions

The study seeks answers to the following questions:

1. What are the socio-economic characteristics of smallholder farmers in Okolo community?

2. How often and how regularly do extension agents visit the farmers on their farms?

3. Which improved farming technologies are promoted during farm visits?

4. What is the level of adoption of the improved farming technologies among the farmers?

5. Is there a relationship between the frequency of farm visits and the adoption of improved farming technologies?

6. What constraints limit farm visits and the adoption of improved farming technologies?

1.5 Research Hypotheses

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

H0₁: There is no significant relationship between the frequency of extension agents' farm visits and the adoption of improved farming technologies among the farmers.

H0₂: The socio-economic characteristics of the farmers (age, sex, level of education, farm size, farming experience and membership of farmers' groups) have no significant relationship with the adoption of improved farming technologies.

H0₃: There is no significant difference in the level of adoption of improved farming technologies between farmers who are visited regularly and those who are visited rarely or never.

1.6 Significance of the Study

The study will help farmers in Okolo by showing how the visits they receive relate to the technologies they adopt, and by identifying the kinds of visit that farmers find useful. It will also give extension agents and their organisations, including NAERLS and the state extension agency, information on how often visits are needed and how limited agent time can be used more effectively.

Policy makers and programme planners will find evidence to support decisions on how many agents to recruit, how to schedule their visits, and how to provide them with the transport and other means they need. Because agent numbers are small relative to farmer numbers (Orikpe & Orikpe, 2013), such evidence is valuable for deciding when visits should be complemented by other methods. The study will also add to the literature on extension delivery and technology adoption in south-western Nigeria and will be useful to students and researchers.

1.7 Scope and Delimitation of the Study

The study is limited to smallholder farmers in Okolo community, Ibarapa East Local Government Area of Oyo State. It focuses on one extension method, the farm visit, and on the adoption of improved farming technologies such as improved seed varieties, recommended planting practices, fertiliser use, weed control and pest management. It does not compare farm visits with other extension methods, although farmers' use of other sources of information will be recorded as a control. The data relate to the most recent farming season.

1.8 Limitations of the Study

The study was limited by time and finance, which restricted the sample size and the number of field visits. The number and timing of visits received are based on farmers' recall and may not be exact. Because farmers who adopt technologies may also be those who seek out extension agents, the study can show association but cannot on its own prove that visits cause adoption. As a case study of one community, its findings should be applied to other areas with care. The researcher tried to reduce these limitations by using a structured questionnaire, by asking about a short and clearly defined period, and by explaining the questions in Yoruba where necessary.

1.9 Operational Definition of Terms

Extension agent: A trained officer of a public or private extension organisation whose work is to pass agricultural information and advice to farmers.

Farm visit: A visit by an extension agent to a farmer's farm or home for the purpose of giving advice, solving a problem or demonstrating a practice.

Improved farming technologies: New or recommended inputs and practices from research, such as improved seed varieties, fertiliser use, recommended planting methods and pest control.

Adoption: The decision by a farmer to make regular use of an improved technology after learning about it and trying it (Rogers, 2003).

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

Adopted village: A community selected by a research institute, in this case NAERLS, where 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.

Adebo, G. M., & Ewuola, S. O. (2006). Effect of training on adoption of improved farm practices by farmers in Ondo State, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension, 9.

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

Anderson, J. R., Feder, G., & Ganguly, S. (2006). The rise and fall of training and visit extension: An Asian mini-drama with an African epilogue (Policy Research Working Paper No. 3928). The World Bank.

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

Feder, G., & Slade, R. (1986). The impact of agricultural extension: The training and visit system in India. The World Bank Research Observer, 1(2), 139–161.

Obayelu, A. E., Ogunmola, O. O., & Ajayi, D. O. (2018). Economic impact and determinants of adoption of improved maize production technologies package in Oyo State, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Sciences (Belgrade), 63(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).

Ogunwande, I. O., Odefadehan, O. O., & Akinrinola, O. O. (2018). Analysis of agricultural extension contact effects on rural farming households' productivity in Oyo State, Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Technology, 9(2), 1–11.

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

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

Taye, H. (2013). Evaluating the impact of agricultural extension programmes in sub-Saharan Africa: Challenges and prospects. African Evaluation Journal, 1(1), Article 19. https://doi.org/10.4102/aej.v1i1.19