This study explored smallholder farmers’ perception on the uptake of agricultural innovations in Kuje area council of Abuja, FCT. The study was carried out in three communities in Kuje namely, Chukuku, Chibiri and Dafara. The study was guided basically by four objectives which were all analysed using descriptive statistics. The communities in which the study was carried out were sampled purposively and 80 smallholder farmers were in total selected from the three communities. Well structured questionnaires were used to collect primary data. However, assistance was given to a few farmers who weren’t literate enough to read the contents of the questionnaire. Findings from the study were presented in frequency and percentage distribution tables. Results from the study revealed that smallholder farmers had varying perceptions about agricultural innovations ranging from good, bad to indifferent. Most of the smallholder farmers in the study area believed that agricultural innovations are good, they however insisted that agricultural innovations were sometimes difficult to understand and also there were issues with poor follow up by the introducer of innovations (mostly agricultural extension agent). Based on this, it was recommended that: agricultural innovations should meet the needs of farmers and should be at their level of understanding. Also, introducers of agricultural innovations should endeavour to improve on their follow up activities to ensure ultimate uptake of innovation by farmers.
| Published in | International Journal of Agricultural Economics (Volume 6, Issue 6) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ijae.20210606.19 |
| Page(s) | 315-319 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Smallholders, Agricultural Innovations, Extension Agents, Knowledge
| [1] | Adrian, A. M., Norwood, S. H., and Mask, P. L. (2005). Producers’ perceptions and attitudes toward precision agriculture technologies. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. (48) 1, 256–271. |
| [2] | Areal, F. J., Riesgo, L., and Rodriguez-Cerezo, E. (2011). Attitudes of European farmers towards GM crop adoption. Plant Biotechnology Journal. (9), 945–957. |
| [3] | Bernard, J. C., Pesek, J. D., and Fan, C. (2004). Performance results and characteristics of adopters of genetically engineered soybeans in Delaware. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review. 33 (2), 282–292. |
| [4] | Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Hendricks, C., and Mishra, A. (2005). Technology adoption and off-farm household income: The case of herbicide-tolerant soybeans. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics. 37 (3), 549–563. |
| [5] | Franzel, S., Cooper, P., and Denning, G. L., (2001). Scaling up the benefits of agroforestry research: lessons learned and research challenges. Development in practice. 11 (4), 524–534. |
| [6] | Lapple, D., Renwick, A., and Thorne, F. (2015). Measuring and understanding the drivers of agricultural innovation: Evidence from Ireland. Food Policy Journal, 51 (21), 1–8. |
| [7] | Larson, J. A., Roberts, R. K., English, B. C., Larkin, S. L., Marra, M. C., and Martin, S. W., (2008). Factors affecting farmer adoption of remotely sensed imagery for precision management in cotton production. Precision Agriculture, 9 (4), 195–208. |
| [8] | Marra, M., Pannell, D. J., and Abadi, G. A., (2003). The economics of risk, uncertainty and learning in the adoption of new agricultural technologies: where are we on the learning curve? Agricultural systems. 75 (3), 215–234. |
| [9] | Mercer, D., 2004. Adoption of agroforestry innovations in the tropics: a review. Agroforestry systems. 61 (1), 311–328. |
| [10] | Ndjeunga, J. and Bantilan, C., (2005). Uptake of improved technologies in the semi-arid tropics of West Africa: why is agricultural transformation lagging behind? Journal of Agricultural and Development Economics. 2 (1), 85–102. |
| [11] | Pretty, J., Toulmin, C. and Williams, S., (2011). Sustainable intensification in African agriculture. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 9 (1), 5–24. |
| [12] | Qaim, M. (2009). The economics of genetically modified crops. Annual Review of Resource Economics. 1, 665–694. |
| [13] | Seline, S. M., Delia, C., Oluyede, C. A., Gudeta, W. S., and Maarten, N. (2014). The Role of Knowledge, attitude and perceptions in the uptake of agricultural and agroforestry innovations among smallholder farmers in sub-saharan Africa. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability. 13 (1) 40-45. |
| [14] | Toma, L., Barnes, A. P., Sutherland, L. A., Thomson, S., Burnett, F. and Mathews, K. (2018). Impact of information transfer on farmers’ uptake of innovative crop technologies: a structural equation model applied to survey data. The Journal of Technology Transfer. (43) 15, 864-881. |
| [15] | Walton, J. C., Lambert, D. M., Roberts, R. K., Larson, J. A., English, B. C., Larkin, S. L., et al. (2008). Adoption and abandonment of precision soil sampling in cotton production. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 33 (3), 428–448. |
APA Style
Aluko Kehinde Janet, Sennuga Samson Olayemi, Ezinne Merianchris Emeana. (2021). Exploring Smallholder Farmers’ Perception on the Uptake of Agricultural Innovations in Kuje Area Council, Abuja. International Journal of Agricultural Economics, 6(6), 315-319. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijae.20210606.19
ACS Style
Aluko Kehinde Janet; Sennuga Samson Olayemi; Ezinne Merianchris Emeana. Exploring Smallholder Farmers’ Perception on the Uptake of Agricultural Innovations in Kuje Area Council, Abuja. Int. J. Agric. Econ. 2021, 6(6), 315-319. doi: 10.11648/j.ijae.20210606.19
AMA Style
Aluko Kehinde Janet, Sennuga Samson Olayemi, Ezinne Merianchris Emeana. Exploring Smallholder Farmers’ Perception on the Uptake of Agricultural Innovations in Kuje Area Council, Abuja. Int J Agric Econ. 2021;6(6):315-319. doi: 10.11648/j.ijae.20210606.19
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ijae.20210606.19,
author = {Aluko Kehinde Janet and Sennuga Samson Olayemi and Ezinne Merianchris Emeana},
title = {Exploring Smallholder Farmers’ Perception on the Uptake of Agricultural Innovations in Kuje Area Council, Abuja},
journal = {International Journal of Agricultural Economics},
volume = {6},
number = {6},
pages = {315-319},
doi = {10.11648/j.ijae.20210606.19},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijae.20210606.19},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijae.20210606.19},
abstract = {This study explored smallholder farmers’ perception on the uptake of agricultural innovations in Kuje area council of Abuja, FCT. The study was carried out in three communities in Kuje namely, Chukuku, Chibiri and Dafara. The study was guided basically by four objectives which were all analysed using descriptive statistics. The communities in which the study was carried out were sampled purposively and 80 smallholder farmers were in total selected from the three communities. Well structured questionnaires were used to collect primary data. However, assistance was given to a few farmers who weren’t literate enough to read the contents of the questionnaire. Findings from the study were presented in frequency and percentage distribution tables. Results from the study revealed that smallholder farmers had varying perceptions about agricultural innovations ranging from good, bad to indifferent. Most of the smallholder farmers in the study area believed that agricultural innovations are good, they however insisted that agricultural innovations were sometimes difficult to understand and also there were issues with poor follow up by the introducer of innovations (mostly agricultural extension agent). Based on this, it was recommended that: agricultural innovations should meet the needs of farmers and should be at their level of understanding. Also, introducers of agricultural innovations should endeavour to improve on their follow up activities to ensure ultimate uptake of innovation by farmers.},
year = {2021}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Exploring Smallholder Farmers’ Perception on the Uptake of Agricultural Innovations in Kuje Area Council, Abuja AU - Aluko Kehinde Janet AU - Sennuga Samson Olayemi AU - Ezinne Merianchris Emeana Y1 - 2021/12/24 PY - 2021 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijae.20210606.19 DO - 10.11648/j.ijae.20210606.19 T2 - International Journal of Agricultural Economics JF - International Journal of Agricultural Economics JO - International Journal of Agricultural Economics SP - 315 EP - 319 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2575-3843 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijae.20210606.19 AB - This study explored smallholder farmers’ perception on the uptake of agricultural innovations in Kuje area council of Abuja, FCT. The study was carried out in three communities in Kuje namely, Chukuku, Chibiri and Dafara. The study was guided basically by four objectives which were all analysed using descriptive statistics. The communities in which the study was carried out were sampled purposively and 80 smallholder farmers were in total selected from the three communities. Well structured questionnaires were used to collect primary data. However, assistance was given to a few farmers who weren’t literate enough to read the contents of the questionnaire. Findings from the study were presented in frequency and percentage distribution tables. Results from the study revealed that smallholder farmers had varying perceptions about agricultural innovations ranging from good, bad to indifferent. Most of the smallholder farmers in the study area believed that agricultural innovations are good, they however insisted that agricultural innovations were sometimes difficult to understand and also there were issues with poor follow up by the introducer of innovations (mostly agricultural extension agent). Based on this, it was recommended that: agricultural innovations should meet the needs of farmers and should be at their level of understanding. Also, introducers of agricultural innovations should endeavour to improve on their follow up activities to ensure ultimate uptake of innovation by farmers. VL - 6 IS - 6 ER -
Information
Email: