OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION SUMMARY INTRODUCTION: Food insecurity, poverty & need for proper linkage and technology adoption model - REFILS METHODOLOGY: study.

RESEARCH-EXTENSION-FARMER-INPUT LINKAGE SYSTEM FOR BETTER COMMUNICATION AND UPTAKE

OF RESEARCH RESULTS IN RURAL AGRICULTURE

A PhD Research Case Study

Dr. Helen F. FABORODESupervisor

Dr. A. O. AJAYI

Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria

A Presentation at the INORMS 2014 CONFERENCE, WASHINGTON, D.C., USA

April 10-13, 2014.

OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION

SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION: Food insecurity, poverty & need for proper linkage and technology adoption model - REFILS

METHODOLOGY: study area & instruments

RESULTS : regression analysis CONCLUSIONS: Need to deepen linkages through feedback in communication.

EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of partnership interventions

SUMMARYImproving agricultural system’s productivity towards food security and poverty alleviation requires an assessment of existing interrelationships among researchers, extension agents, farmers and input providers.

Study, carried out in two agricultural zones of Ondo State, Nigeria. Structured interview schedule and questionnaires were used for data collection from farmers groups and agricultural extension units of the state Agricultural Development Projects (ADPs).

Study identified various indigenous, improved storage & preservation practices used by farmers as well as improved practices available in research stations and the university, extent of farmer’s visit to input service centers, communication methods used, linkage between extension agents and farmers and REFILS linkage index scores.

Only 23.0 per cent of farmers ever visited the farm input service centers, while only 5.8 percent ever sought advice on storage-related issues. Many improved practices were left at research stations without dissemination to farmers. Significantly, a strong level of linkage was observed to exist between extension agents and farmers, while on the contrary, strong researcher dominance (score of 20/20) was revealed in shared activities among the various actors of REFILS.

Results of regression analysis revealed that age (t = 2.073; p = 0.39 ), years of formal education ( t=2.808; p = 0.005) and contact with extension (t =0.883; p=0.02) were significantly related with effects of REFILS.

INTRODUCTIONThe importance of agriculture in the process of Africa and Nigeria’s economic development cannot be over-emphasized; -provision of employment opportunities for a larger percentage of the nation’s population.

- food for both rural and urban dwellers, export opportunity or foreign earnings and raw materials for agro-based industries.

In spite of the above, hunger and poverty continue to be a great challenge to Nigeria and Africa in general.

INTRODUCTION CONT’D

• A major feature of food insecurity in Nigeria is poor crop storage and preservation practices by farmers in spite of research into new technologies.

• Low dissemination and uptake of research results due to linkage gaps among farmers, extension, input providers and researchers.

• In order to address the problem of incessant low productivity in agricultural production, REFILS came into being.

INTRODUCTION CONT’D• The rationale for REFILS (Research-Extension-Farmer-

Input Linkage System) is to link the various components in the food chain, in order to create a two-way flow of information from research to farmers.

• The aim of this study therefore, was to examine holistically how the relationships among the major actors of REFILS can affect the utilization of improved crop storage and preservation technologies in such a way as to make the most critical impact on national food security.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY• The study area is Ondo State, Nigeria.

• Sampling: a total of 240 farmers; 60 extension agents, and

all researchers in cognate institutes and research centers.

• Instruments: structured interview schedule and questionnaire.

• Measurement of variables: Communication methods, REFILS linkage index scores, etc.

• Statistical analysis: descriptive and inferential statistics (regression analysis).

RESULTS • Farmers used improved storage and preservation

methods more often after contact with extension.

• Prominent methods of extension communication for REFILS in the study area – result & method demonstrations, radio, television and posters (Table 1).

• Farmers & input suppliers were NOT fully involved in

REFILS activities, while extension involvement was also below expectation whereas, ideally and conceptually, all REFILS components must participate in all REFILS activities.

…….RESULTS • Farmers & input suppliers were non-financial

contributors to REFILS activities since they regarded the activities as donor/government free gift, rather than strictly business.

• A high linkage index score was recorded, indicating a strong relationship between extension agents and farmers, as all 12 linkage-indicators but 1 substantially existed (Table 2).

• Only a few farmers were in contact with farm service centers (FSC), indicating a poor linkage and hence a dent on their effectiveness. Most FSCs lack inputs.

Results of Regression Analysis:

• Regression analysis (Table 3) reveal that age, years of formal education and level of contact with extension and farmers had a significant relationship with the effect of REFILS.

• This means that change in this variables would lead to corresponding variation in effect of REFILS activities on crop storage.

• It therefore implies that these variables should be given utmost consideration if REFILS is to achieve desired contribution to enhance communication and uptake of research results.

CONCLUSIONS

• There is sufficient evidence that interactions existed between extension and farmers, and that contact with extension enhanced the use of improved storage and preservation practices. However, not all REFILS activities were fully participatory and interactive as they were designed to be

• There was considerable researcher- dominance as important activities and decisions excluded farmers, input providers and sometimes extension agents.

• Significantly, most of the innovations and technologies generated by researchers were found to emanate from the research institutions, not through interaction with farmers to reflect their needs.

……CONCLUSIONS

This fact most probably accounted for why many innovations remained on the researchers’ shelves, without impacting on the farmers.

• Overall, it is clearly indicated from the results of the study that, there is a significant gap between policy and implementation of REFILS. Hence, for optimal impact, REFILS activities must be fully participatory and interactive for ALL stakeholders, both bottoms-up and top-down.

• The findings holds great promise for devising better strategies (of interaction) to enhance generation, development, up-take and acceptance of improved technologies and hence engender better crop storage practices by rural farmers for food security and poverty alleviation.

Table 1: Distribution of farmers by method of communication used by extension Freq. of Use

Methods Very often Used often Occasionally Not used

Mean Ranking

Result demonstrations 176(73.3) 57(23.8) 5(2.1) 2(0.8) 3.70 1st

Method demonstrations 180(75.0) 40(16.7) 17(7.1) 3(1.3) 3.65 2nd

Group meetings 168(70.0) 59(24.6) 11(9.6) 2(0.8) 3.64 3rd

Farmer to farmer 128(53.3) 95(39.6) 15(6.3) 2(0.8) 3.45 4th

Radio broadcast 78(32.5) 149(62.1) 13(5.4) 0(0.0) 3.27 5th

Television 73(30.4) 132(55.0) 32(13.3) 3(1.3) 3.15 6th

Agricultural shows 68(28.3) 49(20.4) 115(47.9) 8(3.3) 2.74 7th

Publications 67(28.3) 47(19.6) 117(48.8) 9(3.8) 2.72 8th

Posters 62(25.8) 34(14.2) 132(55.0) 12(5.0) 2.61 9th

Office Visits 75(31.3) 43(17.9) 70(29.2) 52(21.7) 2.59 10th

Special trainings 21(18.8) 65(27.1) 150(62.5) 4(1.7) 2.43 11th

Farm Visits 21(18.8) 65(27.1) 150(62.5) 4(1.7) 2.43 11th

Pictorial presentation 27(11.3) 39(16.3) 102(42.5) 72(30.0) 2.09 13th

Telephone 13(5.4) 31(12.9) 71(29.6) 125(52.1) 1.72 14th

Internet 1(0.4) 24(10.0) 19(7.9) 196(81.7) 1.29 15th

Source: computed from field survey

Table 2: Distribution of farmers according to parameters of linkage activities with Village

Extension Workers (VEW) S/No Parameters of Linkage Yes No

1) Regular farm visits by VEWS 240 Nil

2) Extension agents inform farmer about recommended practices 240 -

3) Extension worker take farmers problems to research. 240 -

4) Extension workers provide farmers information on where to source for inputs. 240 -

5) Extension workers provide farmers with available information on prices of inputs. 240 -

6) Extension workers meet with farmers to identify their problems. 240 -

7) Extension workers collaborate with farmers to solve identified problems. 240 -

8) Extension agents select contact farmers.

9) Farmers visit extension agents regularly in the office. 6 236

10) Extension agents motivate farmers to try recommended practices. 240 -

11) Extension agents assist farmers to establish on farmers’ field recommended practices.

60 180

12) Extension agents provide information to farmers where to source for loan. 80 180

Table 3: Summary of results of regression analysis(*significant at p<0.05; **significant at p<0.01)

Variable Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients

T - score Level of significance

B Standard error Beta

Constant 53.201 5.159 10.312 0.000

Age 0.140 0.680 0.174 2.073* 0.039

Family size 0.121 0.082 0.101 1.473 0.142

Years of formal education 1.054 0.375 0.225 2.808** 0.005

Farm size -3.62E0.005 0.000 -0.084 -1.245 0.214

Years of farming experience -0.351 0.551 -0.048 -0.638 0.524

Contact with extension 2.645 2.996 0.057 0.883* 0.020

Frequency of contact -0.021 0.057 -0.025 -0.365 0.716

Frequency of travel 0.402 0.520 0.050 0.773 0.440Source: computed from field survey,

HOW THE STUDY BENEFITTED FROM PARTNERSHIP INTERVENTIONS

• Enhancement of PhD research work.

• Provision of improved research environment in OAU.

• Mentoring support from the department helped to accomplish the completion of project.

• Fostering membership of DelPHE research group.

• Dissemination of major findings:• Attendance and presentation of papers at local and international

conferences – Nigerian Rural Sociological Association (NRSA), 2012 and GIMPA 2012 Conference, Accra, Ghana.

• Proposed Policy dialogue with agricultural stakeholders on major findings of the study in Ondo state, Nigeria where the study was conducted.