Rice Genomics and Genetics 2015, Vol.7, No.1, 1-10
3
can lower the adoption status as a result of cost of
labour.
In terms of membership to association, there was no
statistical difference between membership to a group
and likelihood of adoption. This implies that probability
of adoption was more or less the same for both
adopters and non-adopters, (43.0%) of the farmers in
the population belong to an association while
(36.9%) and (6.0%) are adopters and non-adopters
respectively. About 78.5% of the population had
access to media, with 72.3% adopters and 6.0%
non-adopters, there exist a statistical difference
between adopters and non-adopters access to media
significant at 1% hence the adopters were able to
easily access information about the existing or
improved technologies than the non-adopters. The
proportion of the farmers surveyed that had access to
mobile phone was 46.3%, with 41.6% adopters and
4.7% non-adopters.
Also shown in table 1, about (34.2%) of the farmers
had possibility of obtaining credit with 32.9% being
adopters and 1.34% non-adopters. There is also a
significant difference in access to credit between the
adopting and the non-adopting households at 5%.
About 14.1% of the farmers in the population ever
attended agricultural training with 10.7% and 3.4%
being adopters and non-adopters respectively. On
the overall, about (12.1%) of the farmers in the
population ever attended rice farming training with
8.7% and 3.4% being adopters and non-adopters
respectively. Distribution of rice farming training
among adopters and non-adopters was statistically
significant at 5%.
1.2 Description of rice farmers farm characteristics
by adoption status
Table A3 shows farm characteristics of the respondents
by adoption status. Agricultural Development
Programme (ADP) categorization of farm size was
used in this study, less than 2 ha (small farm size),
2~5 ha (medium sized farm) and greater than 5 ha
(large farm size). The results revealed that average
farm size cultivated by the respondents during the
survey year was 3.0 ha; the most common farm size
cultivated among the rice farmers studied was
between 2~5 ha (49.0%) with 43.0% and 6.0%
adopters and non-adopters respectively, followed by
those that cropped less than 2 ha (34.2%) while
11.4% of the farmers cropped greater than 5 ha.
There was no statistical difference between farm size
and adoption status of the respondents. About 73.8%
of the farmers planted Improved NARS varieties
(sipi), 24.8% planted other improved varieties while
34.3% of the farmers planted traditional varieties.
NERICA variety was planted by only 0.67% of the
farmers. Distribution of rice farmers by varieties
cultivated and adoption status shows statistical
different at 1% for traditional, improved NARS and
Other Improved varieties.
Table 1 Description of rice farmers’ socio-economic characteristics by adoption status
Characteristic
Pooled data
(N=149)
Adopters
(N=130)
Non-adopters
(N=19)
P-value
Proportion of male farmers (%)
87.9
76.5
11.4
0.825
Proportion of female farmers (%)
12.1
10.7
1.3
Age (average)
50
50
54
0.190
Household size (average)
8
9
8
0.766
Proportion of farmers with agriculture as major activity (%)
86.6
76.5
10.1
0.300
% of no formal education
32.2
28.2
4.0
% of quranic education
6.0
5.4
0.7
% of primary education
20.8
16.8
4.0
0.385
% of secondary education
26.2
25.5
0.7
% of tertiary education
14.8
11.4
3.4
Proportion of farmers in association (%)
43.0
36.9
6.0
0.680
Proportion of farmers with access to media (%)
78.5
72.5
6.0
0.000*
Proportion of farmers with access to mobile phone (%)
46.3
41.6
4.7
0.379
Proportion of farmers with access to credit (%)
34.2
32.9
1.34
0.020**
Proportion of farmers that receive agricultural training (%)
14.1
10.7
3.4
0.103
Proportion of farmers that receive rice farming training (%)
12.1
8.72
3.4
0.042**
Note: Source: AfricaRice baseline field survey, 2013
