university of nigeria of the co-operative extension centre, university of agriculture, makurdi,...
TRANSCRIPT
University of Nigeria Research Publications
Aut
hor
UNONGO, Akua
PG/M.Sc/03/34339
Title
Evaluation of the Co-operative Extension Centre, University of Agriculture Makurdi
Benue State, Nigeria
Facu
lty
Education
Dep
artm
ent
Agricultural Extension
Dat
e December, 2006
Sign
atur
e
EVALUATION OF THE CO-OPERATIVE EXTENSION CENTRE, UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE,
MAKURDI, BENUE STATE, NIGERIA.
UNONGO, AKUA PG/MlSc/03/34339
A THESIS SUBMIlTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION, FACULTY OF
. AGRICULTURE, UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA, I N PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FOR THE AWARD OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE DEGREE (MrnSc) I N AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION (AGRICULTURAL
PLANNING AND EVALUATION)
DECEMBER, 2006.
CERTIFICATION C
Unongo, Akua a post graduate student in the Department of Agricultural
Extension and with the registration number PG/M,Sc/03/34339 did carry out the
work embodied in this thesis for the degree of Master of Science (MSc) in
Agricultural planning and Evaluation.
The report herein is original and has not been submitted in part or full for
' any other diploma or first degree in this University or any other University. We
accept it as conforming to the required standard.
Prof. A. R. Ajayi (Project Supervisor)
Prof. A. R. Ajayi (Head of Department)
External Examiner
. . . 111
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to my beloved wife, Mrs. S. Dooshima Akua and all
my children.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
grateful to Almighty God for his protection and mercy on me during
the programme. I am highly delighted to my mentor, project supervisor Prof. A.
R. Ajayi who inspired the spirit of hard work, sincerity and ensured that the work
is of desired standard. I also express my profound gratitude to Prof. E.M.
Igbokwe, Dr. (Mrs.) E. A. Onwubuya and all other members of academic and
non-academic staff in the Department of Agricultural Extension, University of
Nigeria, Nsukka for their immense contribution towards the success of my
programme. I am also grateful to the Dean College of Agricultural Economics,
Extension and Management Technology, University of Agriculture Makurdi Prof.
C.P.O. Obinne for his fatherly role to ensure the programme went through.
I express my appreciation to all the staff of CEC especially the Deputy
.Director Mr. 'D. Orkaa who provided enough information for making this research
a reality. Special thanks are owed the following: my beloved wife Dooshima
Akua, my children Aondofa Akua, Doofan Akua, my twins Ngutor Akua and Kator
Akua for their patience during the programme. Others are my father Jacob
. Unongo, my mother Mbakeren Unongo and all my brothers Iorlumun Unongo,
Terkaa Unongo, Terzungwe Unongo and Terver Unongo who contributed in
different ways to make this course a success.
Others not to be left out are my friend James Chimin and all the post-
graduate students in the Department especially Hon. Idoko Ocheme, Mrs. A. 0.
Saddiq, Miss. 0. Aneke who assisted me in different ways.
Finally, I am grateful to Miss Angela Achikpe for typing this work to the required
standard. May God re-double the efforts of all friends that contributed to the
success of this work but their names do not appear here.
UnongoAkua Dept. of Agric. Ext. University of Nigeria, Nsukka July, 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.3 Concept of change within agricultural and rural
2.4 Previous agricultural and rural development programmes and
2.4.2 River Basin Development Authority (RBDA)-------------------------
2.4.3 National Directorate of Employment (NDE) .........................
2.4.4 Directorate of Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI) ---
2.4.5 People's Bank of Nigeria (PBN) ........................................
2.4.6 Community Bank (CB)--------------------------------------------------
2.4.7 Family Economic Advancement Programme (FEAP) ---------------
i
i i ... Ill
iv
vi
X
xi
xii
1
2.4.8 National Agricultural Land Development Authority (NALDA) -----
2.4.9 Poverty Alleviation Programme (PAP) ................................
2.5 Innovation dissemination and adoption process -------------------
2.6 Perceived constraints to effective agricultural and rural
development projects and programmes-----------------------------
2.6.1 Institutional development pathway Vs frame
work problems-----------------------------------------------------------
2.6.2 Weak government funding policies and dwindling
international counterpart funding ....................................
2.6.3 Bureaucratic inertia of civil service ------------------------me---------
2.6.4 Government and political interference ...............................
2.6.5 Ideological and hierarchical commitment----------------------------
2.G.6 Lack of involvement of rural people in agricultural and
rural development programme .......................................
2.6.7 Lack of programmes evaluation .......................................
2.7 Theoretical framework ..................................................
2.8 Conceptual framework ..................................................
' CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ............................... 3.1 The Study Area ..........................................................
3.2 Study population and sampling procedure ..........................
3.3 Instrument for data collection .........................................
3.4 Measurement of variables ..............................................
3.5 Data analysis-------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ------------------- 4.1 Change in human and material resources strength of the
CEC, UAM .................................................................
4 1. I Human resource .........................................................
4.1.2 Material resources .......................................................
4.2 Crops and livestock production innovations-------------------------
4.2.1 Organic fertilizers ........................................................
4.2.2 Use of inorganic fertilizers .............................................
4.2.3 Insecticides utilization .................................................
4.2.4 Crops storage procedures ..............................................
4.2.5 Improved crop varieties - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m y - - -
4.2.6 Introduction of improved palm tree species ........................ 4.2..7 Livestock production innovations .....................................
4.3 Extension agents - farmers contact----- ---- - ........................ 4.4 Level of regularity of extension agents-farmers contact ----------
4.5 Farmers' perception of extent to which the CEC, UAM has achieved its specific extension task ...................................
4.5.3. General extension services .............................................
4.5.2 Home -economic extension services ----- - .......................... 4.6 Socio-economic impact of the CEC, UAM on the farm-
families in the catchments area ......................................
4.6.1 Membership of formal organizations .................................
4.6.2 Ease of paying children's school fees ------------------------.--------
4.6.3 Ease ~f participation in agricultural and rural community
development activities ..................................................
4.6.4 Possession of household items (beddings, furniture, electronics,
cooking utensils etc,).---------------------------------------------------
4.6.5 Nutritional standard ....................................................
4.6.6 Knowledge on improved innovations---------------------------------
4.6.7 Attitudes towards improved innovations-----------------------------
4.6.8 Level of annual income of farmers ...................................
4.6.9 Marketing strategies ...................................................
4.7 Farmers' and extension agents' perception of the constraints
militating against the effective performance of the CEC, UAM --
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATION .......................................
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Population and Sampling Procedure summary-------------------
Table 2: Human and material resources strength of the CEC, UAM-----
Table 3: Adoption levels of some crops and livestock production
innovations introduced by CEC ----------------------------..--------
Table 4: Percentage distribution of respondents according to their contact with CEC's extension agents .............................
Table 5: Percentage distribution of respondents according to their
number of contact with CEC's extension agents in a month --
Table 6: Perception of the respondents of the extent to which CEC has
achieved its specific extension tasks ...............................
Table 7: Percentage distribution of respondents according to their
perception on the socio-economic impact of the CEC -----------
Table 8: Farmers' and extension agents' perception on constraints to
effective performance of the CEC, UAM ..........................
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Conceptual framework for evaluating the Cooperative Extension
Centre (CEC) of University of Agriculture Makurdi (UAM)
Benue State, Nigeria------------------------------------------------ 24
Figure 2: Trend of change in staff strength of CEC from 1989 -2005 -- 33
Figure 3: Material resources of the CEC, UAM as at 1989 and after
1989 (1990 -2005)-------------------------------------------------- 34
Figure 4: Capacity of temporary building occupied by CEC, UAM-------- 35
xii
ABSTRACT The study was undertaken to evaluate the Cooperative Extension Centre
(CEC) of the University of Agriculture Makurdi (UAM), Benue State, Nigeria. Data for the study were collected from 150 respondents (128 respondents were farmers and 22 respondents were extension staff of the CEC, UAM) using a simple random sampling technique. This was done through the use of a set of structured interview schedule (for farmers) and copies of questionnaire (to extension staff of the CEC. Percentage, mean scores, bar chart and component bar chart were used in the data analysis. It was evident from the study that, the CEC, UAM operated that far with 22 staff and meager physical and material resources. The results of the study indicated that only the use of inorganic fertilizers (urea, NPK and SPP), improved crop varieties and crops storage procedures introduced by the centre were on adoption level on 5-points scale. The study also revealed that there was regular contact between extension agents and farmers in the study area (77.3%) and up to 40% of the farmers were visited four times in a month. The study further indicated that farmers perceived great level of achievement of CEC's extension task in the study area. There was improvement to some extent in the socio-economic life of the farmers such as membership of formal organizations, participation in agricultural/rural development acl:ivities, and knowledge on improved innovations etc using percentage. However, most constraints were found affecting the performance of the centre as perceived by both farmers and the extension staff such as high cost of improved innovations, lack of operational funds, poor access roads, lack of credit incentives, poor modern storage facilities etc. It was therefore [ecommended that enough budgetary allocation should be made by the University for the Centre to acquire enough training facilities in all aspects of farminglhome economic activities for enhanced output. Also, more staff should be employed in the centre to cope with it's manpower requirement. The centre should be moved to its permanent site to provide a more conducive working environment for the staff. The present 50-billion naira loan scheme announced by the Federal Government should be a reality, sustained and made a yearly
, affair to ease farmers of problem of farm operational costs for effective adoption of introduced improved innovations. The CEC should also facilitate generation of capitallcredit among farmers through groups formation and cooperative unions.
1
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background information
Most Nigerian universities have faculties of agriculture to address the issue of
low agricultural productivity, the inability of these faculties of agriculture to make
impact on the transformation of Nigeria agricultural development is largely due to the
fact that, the curricular and course contents of their academic programmes are
sometimes unsuitable to the future employment of the trainees. Many students
undergoing training in any of the faculties of agriculture at first degree level view it as a
stepping stone to post graduate instructions, leading to teaching and research
positions. They do not consider themselves becoming practical farmers that will be
managing their own farms after the training (Williams, 2002).
Another weakness of the faculties of agriculture is that, both the instructors and
the students sometimes lack practical exposure to actual farming experience. They have
therefore not had the opportunity to develop the skills needed to farm efficiently in
crops and livestock. Most faculties of agriculture in most Nigerian Universities operate
like "cultural island", completely cut off from the realities of the farming communities in
their catchment areas which they are meant to serve. Their research activities have had
little or no effect on the productivity of the farmers, but merely used for their teaching
purposes or for staff career advancement in the "publish or perish" syndrome (Williams,
2002).
According to Zubairu (1999) and Williams (2002), some academic departments in
the faculties of agriculture have evolved strictly on disciplinary lines without production
orientation. Some academic staff in the faculties of agriculture go through their
university career with little or no sustained practical orientation in agricultural extension.
This makes it difficult for graduates of agricultural discipline from such universities to
function effectively as agents of change.
Adams (1982) in Williams (2002) emphasized the importance of universities of
agriculture in agricultural and rural development of any country. Williams (2002),
Warren (2003) and Elliot (2004) viewed an agricultural university as an institution of
higher learning which integrates teaching, research and extension in agriculture to solve
the practical problems of the farming communities it is established to serve and to
teach farmers how to better utilize the resources at their disposal. The main thrust is its
research activities towards solving felt problems of the farmers and teaching the users
of the outcomes of such research activities.
Williams (2002) stated that agricultural universities allow a two-way flow of
information from the universities research system to farmers and vice-versa so that the
problems of farmers could be tackled more realistically. The agricultural universities also
train their students practically and the knowledge is always relevant to the problems
they will face on the job after graduation as agriculturists. He further stated that in the
..United States of America (USA), the Land Grant Colleges and the Universities came into
existence as a result of the Morril Act in 1862. The Hatch Act followed in 1887 for the
establishment of experimental stations attached to the LGUs for experiments in all
aspects of agriculture and home economics. The Smith Lever Act of 1914 led to the
establishment of Co-operative Extension Service (CES), Resident Teaching and
Extension (RTE) which made the LGUs unique organizations in the world and also has
been responsible for the rapid stride made in the development of agriculture in the
United State. of America today.
The problem facing India like Nigeria has been one of converting the traditional
agriculture into one based on modern science and technology. The idea of starting
Farm Universities (FU) as they were called earlier in India was contained in the report
of the University Education Commission (UEC) in 1950. The government of India
decided to set up specialized universities whose principal purposes were to provide
. integrated approaches to agricultural problems. The first agricultural university was
established in 1960 at Pantnagar in Uttar Pradesh where the large portion of land was
made available by government. The establishment of this university marked a
turning point in agricultural education (AE) in India with its modern outlook in
agriculture together with its rich diversity of courses (Williams, 2002; Warren, 2003).
The responsibility of Punjab Agricultural University (PAU) was to integrate research,
teaching and extension education, which greatly transformed Indian agriculture. Most of
the states in India have agricultural universities on their own which function in an
integrated coordinated manner, not only meant to be seat for higher learning alone but
provide educational services to those not resident on their campuses (Vijayaragavan,
2004; Williams, 2002).
The impact of agricultural universities in the United States of America and India
is tremendous as emphasized by Williams (2002). The agricultural universities make
their research findings available to extension agents who in turn link up the farmers for
the purpose of providing solutions to their farm and home problems. They also co- b
ordinate resident teaching and extension training activities, provide two-way flow of
ideas from the field level upward: (relaying farmers problems to the universities for
possible solutions) and from top downward (relaying the proffered solutions to the
farmers for use).
The use of universities of agriculture (UA) as the fulcrum of societal change in
Nigeria as noted by Adebayo and Ajayi (2002) had its foundation from the
establishment of the universities of agriculture at Abeokuta and Makurdi in 1988 and
later at Umudike in 1999. The reasons for the establishment of these universities as
observed by Williams (2002) were to: deliberately address agricultural knowledge
disseminations to farmers; correct the inherent weaknesses in the existing faculties of
agriculture in Nigerian universities. The University of Agriculture, Abeokuta was
established to cover the south-western ecological zone, which include: Oyo, Ogun,
Osun, Ondo, Ekiti and Lagos states. The University of Agriculture, Makurdi, was
establish to cover the middle belt ecological zone, which includes states like; Niger,
Kwara, Benue, Taraba, Kogi, Nassarawa and Federal capital Territory. The University
of Agriculture, Umudike, was established to take care of south eastern ecological zone,
which include states like: Anambra, Akwa-Ibom, Rivers, Ebonyi, Bayelsa, Enugu, Imo
and Cross River.
1.2 Problem statement
The University of Agriculture, Makurdi (UAM), was established in 1988 to cover
the middle belt agro-ecological zone of Nigeria. The mission and mandate of the
university were to focus on the provision of prompt solutions to farmers practical
problems in order to raise farm productivity and to accelerate drives towards national
food self-sufficiency. The university aimed at easy access to the fruits of scientific
agriculture by farmers. This means that the university should be capable of conducting
relevant research, which should be capable of solving farmers' problems as well as
making the technologies generated available to them at all times.
Thus, UAM was expected to impart on farmers, modern techniques of
agricultural production, processing, storage, marketing, home economics technologies
as well as improve the socio-economic and cultural practices to raise the standard of
living of farmers (CEC, 2000). The Co-operative Extension Centre (CEC) is one of the
key components of the UAM. It was establish in 1989 with the expectation of
complementing other programmes in the university and it is hoped to be a major actor
in the information dissemination network. It is also expected to maintain grassroots
presence with the farming communities, documenting their farming problems and
relaying these back to the researchers in the university for solutions which in turn could
be conveyed back to the farmers. The centre was expected to provide back-up services
and perform definite roles of educating the farmers and disseminating information to
them. The efforts of the centre are expected to facilitate the free flow of improved
technologies from the university to the farmers in the catchment area. Specifically, CEC
was established to:
i, bring the fruits of scientific agriculture to the door stepslfarm gates of agro-
industrial establishments in form, amount and time they are needed most
through effective linkages between the researchers and the end users;
ii. sensitize researchers to the pressing needs of farmers, agro-allied industrialists
and consumers with respect to production, processing, marketing and storage;
iii. move the country rapidly towards national food and fibre self-sufficiency through
dramatic increases in farm produce and reduction in post-harvest losses; and
iv. enhance farm incomes, living standards and reduction in rural poverty . The question now relates to the extent to which the CEC has achieved the above
high-lighted and predetermined objectives after 16 years of its establishment. To what
extent has each of these objectives been achieved? To provide an answer to this
question, this study was designed to evaluate the cooperative extension centre,
University of Agriculture, Makurdi, Benue State Nigeria.
Purpose of the study
The overall purpose of this study was to evaluate the CEC of the UAM, Benue
State, Nigeria. The specific objectives are:
assess changes in both human and material resources strength of the CEC, UAM
from 1989 to 2005;
determine the various innovations disseminated and their levels of adoption by
the participating farm-families in the catchment area;
determine the farmers' perception of the extent to which the CEC has achieved
the pre-determined specific extension tasks in the catchment communities;
determine the impact of the CEC, UAM, on the socio-economic life of the farm-
families in the catchment area; and
determine the farmers and extension agents perceived problems to effective
performance of the CEC, UAM.
Significance of study
Co-operative Extension Centre (CEC) is a component of the University of Agriculture,
Makurdi, which was established to address the extension policy priorities of the
university, by strengthening extension services to rural dwellers. The centre sources,
generates, adapts, packages and disseminates extension information for the
purpose of increasing food production, processing, marketing, storage and improve
standard of living of the rural dwellers.
This study will however, provide detail empirical information with regard to the
operation of CEC of the University of Agriculture, Makurdi. The findings of the study
will reveal effects, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of CEC. This will
help to modify, revise and re-direct programme inputs for present and future
programme recycling. The findings will also serve as an important material to the
University of Agriculture Makurdi, planners and administrators for future planning on
extension services delivery. Others to benefit from this research conducted are
Community Based Organizations (CBOs), Non- Governmental Organizations (NGOs)
and donor agencies wishing to invest in the centre for dissemination of extension
activities. The research findings will also serve as a reference material to other
researchers who may be willing to conduct similar research in future.
necessary, adjust policies, objectives, institutional /organizational arrangements and
resources used during the project implementation. Ex-post evaluation is an analysis
after project has been completed. The information collected during this stage helps
policy makers in future planning of programmes. Mckenna (2005) emphasized that the
basic distinction in evaluation types is that between formative and summative
evaluations. The former strengthens or improves the programme being evaluated, it
examines the delivery of the programme and the quality of its implementation. The
later on the other hand examines the outcomes of programmes or technology delivered.
It describes what happens to a programme, assesses the success of the programme,
estimates the relative cost associated with the programme.
The impact of any agricultural project on the socio economic activities of the
farm families in any project area could be assessed using one or several evaluation
models, which is a framework for guiding evaluation activities of a project. Several
evaluation models exist, among such as noted by Stufflebeam (2002) and this include:
(a) Reflective Evidence to Appraise Programme (REAP)
This is a simplified method usually employed for studying the effectiveness of
extension programmes. The model is concerned with gathering the information on the
effectiveness of extension work. It relies on the reflective evidence of programme
results, which programme participants estimate or reflect upon the amount of change
and pay off brought through a progamme (Mackenna, 2005) and (Ajayi, 1996). Some
general features of REAP model of measuring effectiveness of agricultural extension
programmes as noted by Ajayi (1996) and Stufflebeam (2002) include:
1. I t does not necessarily rely on the use of specific programme objectives stated
prior to programme implementation;
2. REAP model provides extension agents with set of steps in planing and
conducting a study of the effectiveness of any extension programme, with pre-
stated questions or items for use in interviewing the farmers;
3. The model uses reflective or retrospective evidence -evidence about what
participants believe to be the results of a programme;
4. It permits extension agents to select and engage in a modest and non-
threatening involvement in studying programme outcomes;
5. The model engages field staff, supervisors and lay leaders in the process of
collecting and using evidence of programme outcomes and
6 . It provides a "do it your self" method of evaluating extension programme impact.
(b) CIPP model: According to Stufflebeam (2002), CIPP evaluation model is a
comprehensive framework for guiding evaluations of programmes,, projects, personnel,
products, institutions and organizations. Corresponding to the letters in the acronym
CIPP, this model's core parts are context, input, process and product evaluation. Guba
(2005) stressed that, context evaluation deals with the evaluatior~ of the programme's
context, identification of target population and their felt needs, identifies opportunities
and problems in addressing needs, judges the responsiveness of goals, objectives to
asses needs. Input evaluation identifies and assess alternative strategies, schedules,
budgets, resources, needs and procedural designs needed to accomplish the objective
of a programme. On the other hand process evaluation monitors implementation by
recording and judging activities in relation to procedural design. It also provides
information for changing operational plans during implementation. Product evaluation
as viewed by Webster (2005), describes and judges outcomes relating them to
' programme's goals and objectives as well as to the needs of the target population.
Product evaluation interprets the worth and merits of the programmes final outcomes.
I t is useful for both formative and summative evaluation in area of impact assessment,
reporting, structuring of programme, implementation and recycling of programmes.
The need for evaluation in extension stems from the necessity to determine how
effective various extension programmes and methods used to implement them in a
given community (Gallup, 2005). According to IFAD (2004), evaluation is one of the
most important tools available to extension workers. They are unable to plan and
execute their work objectively unless they have certain facts about their work situation.
Extension evaluation diagnose the reasons for failure and provide guidelines on how to
improve strategies of programme execution as well as how to avoid failures. Evaluation
also help to determine the degree of behavioural changes taking place as a result of
extension programmes.
According to Feder (2005), evaluation helps the extension workers and
organizations to obtain valuable data and information on factual situation in the work
area, prior to, during and after implementation of extension programmes. Mathew
(2005) stated that good evaluation is essential in checking the cost-benefits and
effectiveness of extension programmes as well as deciding on modifications,
improvements, gaining financial support from governments, individuals, donor agencies
etc. Furthermore, Guba (2005) stressed that evaluation improves the image of
extension by giving concrete evidence of the achievements of extension to the general
public.
2.2 UAM, CEC and its Mandates
The CEC is organized within the UAM as a semi-autonomou!; body and it has
status similar to that of a college. The centre also has a policy board, chaired by the
Vice- chancellor, who gives directional vision to it. The approved activities are grouped
into programmes as below (CEC, 2000).
1 Grass root extension programme
2. Audio- visual programme
3. Training workshop programme
4. Women-In-Agriculture
5. Publication programme
The programmes as listed above are grouped under three divisions: Extension services
division, women in development division and development communication division. The
centre as noted by CEC(2000) draws on the expertise of the college in the UAM to
strengthen the output of the programmes. Administratively, the programmes are
headed by senior extension officer. The entire centre is headed by a director who is of
professional rank and assisted by a deputy director.
With this structure, the centre is expected to fulfil the extension service mandate
of the university through research. The mandates of CEC, UAM as stated by Adedzwa
(2002) include:
1 Identification of field problems needing research and communicating these back
to researchers for immediate solutions.
Embarks on training and visit system of agricultural extension as a means of
teaching farmers new crops, livestock, forestry and fisheries production
techniques.
Creates awareness among farmers on improved farm technologies useful for
agricultural practices.
Encourages farmers to adopt new techniques through the organisation,
establishment and conduct of small plot adoption techniques and demonstration
units in its catchment areas.
Interpreting, publishing and disseminating to the extension staff, farmers and
other agricultural workers research results in crops, animal husbandry, home
economics and rural sociology.
Serves as information centre for agro-allied industries, banks and other
organizations.
Provides advisory and consultancy services to farmers on pest, disease control,
livestock, crops, fisheries and forestry management.
Liaises with radio and television stations at both the state and federal level to
telecast some of the video tapes on improved agricultural technologies produced
by the centre.
Trains extension staff of the ministries, ADPs, research institutes and other
related agencies.
Improves extension and communication models, evaluate extension programmes
and translate research findings into usable forms for various agencies in UAM's
catchment areas.
Promotion of women participation in agricultural related issues and home-
economic extension activities.
Develop capacity to evaluate the efficacy of various communication channels
used in the transfer of technologies to farmers.
According to Adebayo and Ajayi (2002), similar efforts have being made to fulfil
extension mandates by the university of Agriculture, Abeokuta through establishment of
Agricultural Media Resources and Extension Centre (AMREC). The centre was also
charged with extension and rural development responsibilities. The establishment of
National Agricultural Extension Research and Liaison Services (NAERLS) at Ahmadu
Bello University Zaria as noted by NAERLS (2005) also promoted extension services
delivery in its catchment areas. Other faculties of agriculture in some Nigerian
Universities have developed pilot extension projects like the Badeku Rural Development
Project of University of Ibadan, Isoya Rural Development Project of Obafemi Awolowo
University Ile-Ife , Guided change project of Ahmadu Bello University Zaria, and the
Okpuje Rural Development Project of University of Nigeria Nsukka (Feder, 2005). All
these efforts were geared towards disseminating extension messages to farmers for
agricultural and rural development.
2.3 Concept of change within Agricultural and Rural Development
Programmes
According to Otite (1997), change means making something different from its
original form. The major characteristics of change in the context of agricultural and
rural development programmes as stated by Sanderson (2005) included: improved
income level, nutritional status, health standard, culture, knowledge, attitudes, skills,
aspirations and rate of innovation acceptance in the rural areas. Lackey (1998) defined
change within agricultural and rural development as a deliberate process, which human
potentials as well as material resources are optimized for the purpose of changing the '
socio-economic, cultural belief and value system in the rural community for better. I n a
similar opinion, FAO(2005) defined change within agricultural and rural development
context as a designed strategy through the introduction of programmes to improve the
economic, health facilities / status, socio-cultural values, improve rural infrastructural
facilities like roads; portable water; rural electricity and social amenities needed by rural
communities. Webster (2004) also stressed that change in the context of agricultural
and rural development entails strategic device, which employs the use of programmes
related to agriculture and rural development aimed at changing the economic,
nutritional level, health status, rural infrastructure and housing pattern for the
improvement of life style of the rural people.
Waldo (1999) stated that change in rural areas involves strategies to raise
agricultural productivity, educational standard and employment opportunities through
programme intervention. As noted by Sanderson (2004). a change in rural area result
from planned development strategies such as established industries, introduction of
agricultural and rural development programmes to transform the traditional sector. This
effect changes in agricultural productivity due to increased demand for agricultural
product by the industries. Also, provision of improved technologies and support services
such as credit facilities, rural road network and improved portable water through
various agricultural and rural development programmes bring changes in rural areas.
FAO(2004) identified integrated agricultural and rural development as strategy
for effecting change in the rural areas. The resultant changes are in the areas of health
facilities, supply of improved seeds, credit incentives, high farm productivity, marketing
and adoption of improved technologies. Other social amenities and physical
infrastructure also change along the direction. Arua (1998) stated that, change in
h.uman attitudes, behavioral patterns, economic level, shelter, educational level and
farming systems result from planned agricultural and rural development programmes.
Holmboe(2003) agreed that introduced agricultural and rural development projects and
programmes result to the change in mode of production, economic relations and
statuses of people in the rural society. Fadayomi (1988) in Ajayi (2002) stressed that
Nigeria, like most African countries, have realized that viability in rural changes primarily
depend on sustained growth in rural income and standard of living through agricultural
and rural development programmes embarked upon.
Asiabaka (2001) emphasized that, most nation of the world today give high
priority to agricultural and rural development programmes intended to advance
economic and social changes. He further stressed that, government of most countries
have accepted greater responsibilities and are using greater resources than ever before
to aid economic and social changes. Agricultural and rural development programmes
. are introduced by the government and non-governmental agencies to effect changes in
rural areas. Fenly (1999) noted that change resulting from agricultural and rural
development programmes vis-a-vis are: economic and social changes leading to
improved standard of living, educational attainment, improved method of production
and distribution.
Ducker (2005) opined that for meaningful economic and social changes to take
place in rural areas, there must be well articulated introduced agricultural and rural
development programmes. Through these projects and programmes, rural people gain
knowledge in the allocation of resources to various entrepreneurs, distribution of
income, denial of excessive consumption to permit wise investments. Following the
recognition of the significance of change, Gabriel (1997) upheld that, emphasis have
now been placed on agricultural and rural development programmes. Indicators of
changed noticed include, reduction in poverty level, reduced level of inequality, access
to public goods and services, improvement in socio - economic, cultural, physical
infrastructural facilities and technological advancement in the production patterns of the
rural dwellers. Adinde (2002) viewed change in rural areas as the resultant effort of
government through planned and directed agricultural and rural development
programmes. These programmes cause change in majority of the rural population by
enhancing their resources utilization tendency, technology use, increased farm
productivity and enhanced social status. Rural people are thus, exposed to proven
managerial skills, which they are able to purposefully mobilize the resources at their
disposal, rationally allocate these resources and effectively utilized them to ameliorate
their pre-selected goals.
2.4 Previous agricultural and rural development programmes and their
socio - economic Impact
According to UNESCO (2000), economic and social development is a complex
process involving many kinds of projects and programmes. OECD (2001) stated that
development programmes usually comprise of a wide variety of activities targeted to
achieve the desired objectives in rural areas over different periods. As noted by World
Bank (2001), measuring the impact of development programmes is of course very
important. UNDP (2001) observed that, many targeted development programmes
consist of single operation, while others, however, comprise of several operation, which
their achievement are also diverse. As pointed out by Amalu (1998), for years, widening
imbalance between levels of production and rate of human population growth in Nigeria
have received considerable attention by the introduction of agricultural and rural
development programmes.
A review of some of the past and present projects and programmes and their
strategies revealed that, no Nigerian government, be it military or civilian, has come
and gone without introducing and leaving behind one or more agricultural and rural
development programmes with exciting themes to raise agricultural productivity and
living standard of the rural poor. Narayan (2000) and World Bank (2002) stated that
policies have been formulated and executed over years to improve the condition of the
rural poor. FRN (2000) stressed that, at independent in 1960 to date, government have
been making efforts to improve agricultural and rural development by introducing
several projects and programmes. Some of the past and present projects and
programmes as well as their impact on rural people socially and economically will be
briefly reviewed for more understanding.
2.4.1 Nigerian Agricultural, Cooperative and Rural Development Bank
(NACRDB)
This bank started operations on March 6th, 1973 and was established by Decree
No 19 of November 1972. It is responsible for providing credit for the production,
processing and marketing of agricultural produce. Its target group included individual
farmers, cooperative organizations, and limited liability companies. Before it merger
with the peoples bank of Nigeria (PBN) in 2001 to form agricultural cooperative and
rural development Bank (NACRDB), it had achieve by extending credit to 318,000 to the
tune of about N5.8 billion (CBN, 2005).
2.4.2 River Basin Development Authority (RBDA)
This programme was established in accordance with the amended decree No. 87
of 1979 and No. 35 of 1987 (UNDP, 2001). The objective of the programme included
the comprehensive development of both surface and underground water resources for
multipurpose uses, with particular emphasis on the provision of irrigation infrastructure
and control of soil erosion and watershade management. They carry out construction,
operation and maintenance of dykes and dams, pouldlers, wells, borehole, irrigation
and drainage systems. The RBDAs achieve to some extent by creating impact in the
areas like water supply to rural dwellers, construction ar;d operation as well as
maintenance of infrastructural services such as roads and bridges. They identify all
water resource requirements in their areas of operation and take possible actions to
avail people of its use (World Bank, 2002).
2.4.3 National Directorate of Employment (NDE)
Decree No. 24 of October 19, 1986 established this directorate, which
commenced operation in January 1987 with primary objectives of promoting skills
acquisition, self - employment and labour intensive schemes. I t also collects and
maintain data bank on employment and vacancies in the country (OECD, 2001). World
Bank (1999) stated that, it has been involved with designing of employment
programmes such as school leavers apprentice scheme, entrepreneural training
programmes for graduates, labour based work programmes and resettlement of trained
beneficiaries.
According to Oyemomi (2002), the NDE had created impact by training more
than 2million unemployed Nigerians, provided business training for not less than
400,000 people, vocational training in up to 90 different trades, assistance to more than
40,000 unemployed people to set up their own business. The directorate has organized
labour - based groups through which 160, 000 people benefited.
2.4.4 Directorate of Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI)
DFRRI was established in 1986 as an enabling facility management organization
to coordinate, strengthen and streamline all rural development activities in the country
and accelerate the pace of integrated rural development. Though defunct, DFRRI left
legacies including rural feeder roads, portable water supply, sunk bore-holes and supply
of rural electricity (Idachaba, 2002).
2.4.5 Peoples Bank of Nigeria (PBN)
The PBN was established by Decree No. 22 of 1990, it commenced business and
was charged with the responsibility of extending credit to under privileged Nigerians
who could not ordinarily have access to such loans from the commercial bank (World
Bank, 2001).
According to Oyemomi (2002), before the bank was merged with NACB to become
NACRDB (Nigerian Agricultural Cooperative and Rural Development Bank), this bank
created impact in areas like group lending to cottage industry promoters, agricultural
producers, NGOs, CBOs and cooperatives. He also noted that it disbursed up to N 1.7
billion as in - house loan for over 1 million new businesses with a net saving of about 1
billion Naira. PBN also disbursed N0.9 billion as loans from funds provided for its
operations.
2.4.6 Community Banks (CB)
This was established by Decree No. 46. of 1992 by the National Boards for
Community Banks. The community banks are privately owned micro - credit banking
institutions promoted by Federal government to inculcate saving culture, disciplined
banking habit as well as encourage economic development at the grass root level
(World Bank, 2005). According to Oyemomi (2002), the CB has promoted rural banking.
It helped in mobilizing about N4.4 billion deposits for the community banks nation-wide
and granted N2.58 billion loans to beneficiaries.
2.4.7 Family Economic Advancement Programme (FEAP)
This programme was established by Decree No. 11 of August 1 2 ' ~ ~ 1997 and as
amended by Decree No. 47 of May 10"' 1999. This programme was established to
provide credit for agricultural production and processing, cottage and small-scale
industries, co-operative societies as well as to encourage the design and the
manufacture of machinery and equipment. Aiso, to establish enterprises and pilot
projects at village level as a means of providing employment opportunities (NPEC,2000
and Oyemomi, 2002). According to Ajakaiye (2003), before FEAP was wound up in
2000, it financed 20,382 projects, with a total credit of N3.33 billion disbursed to '
people, trained about 2000 loan beneficiaries in cooperatives laws as well as financial
management.
2.4.8 National Agricultural Land Development Authority (NALDA)
This started operation in 1993 but was established by Decree No. 92 of 1992. It
was set up to provide strategic public support for land development, promote and
support optimum utilization of rural resources, encourage and support economic-sized
farm holdings and promote consolidation of scattered, fragmented holdings and
encouraged the evolution of economic-sized rural settlements (Mohammed and Amuta,
2000). It was established to facilitate appropriate cost effective mechanization of
agriculture, instituted strategic land use planning schemes to deal with major land
allocation problems, the creation and location of forest and grazing reserves and other
areas with restricted use and re-location of population (Narayan, 2000).
NALDA create impact, it parceled out into economic- sized farm plots and
distributed thern to farmers. I t advised farmers on all aspects of land conservation,
degradation control, assisted them to form cooperative groups, provided them with
inputs on agricultural production, processing, storage and product marketing. I t
provided extension support services and technical information on soil types and
suitability for use to farmers (Oyemomi, 2002).
2.4.9 Poverty Alleviation Programme (PAP) year 2000
PAP year 2000 was introduced to urgently mop up from the labour market, in
the shortest time some 200,000 unemployed persons in the face of increasing restive
youth (NPC, 2000). The projects undertaken by participants of the programme were to
stimulate economic activities and improve the environment. I t was also to reduce the
social vices and stem rural urban drift in favour of agriculture. World Bank (2002) and
, Narayan (2004) stated that the programme was short lived due to criticisms from all
and sundry because of over centralization of powers, unsuitable monitoring logistics and
high level and low level corruption. That hindered the achievement of its objectives.
2.5 Innovation Dissemination and Adoption process
One of the most important means of accelerating agricultural and rural
development is the identification of appropriate innovations and strategies to
disseminate them to farmers (Odoma, 2005). Research carried out by Van den Ban
(1988) in Odoma (2005) clearly demonstrated the delay that often occur between the
time farmers first hear about favourable innovations and the time they adopt them. The
mental process an individual goes through leading to adoption of an idea is called
adoption process. I n a similar perspective, Wiggins (1997) recognized that an
individual's decision about adopting or rejecting an innovation is not usually an
instantaneous act, rather, i t is a process that occurs over a period of time and consists
of a series of actions and decisions. Akuneye (2001) viewed adoption process as a
mental decision-making process through which an adoption unit (an individual or group)
passes by first becoming aware of an innovation to making a decision to adopt or
reject it.
According to Nweke and Akorhe (1983) in Ononiwu (1998), social research
findings have delineated five stages in the adoption process as follows:
Awareness ---+ Interest-+ Evaluation----+ Trial-+ Adoption. They
further stated that, acceptance of new ideas is generally a complex process involving a
sequence of thought and practices. Quite often, the speed with which a new idea is
accepted or rejected is a function of past experiences in similar situations. Usually,
decisions are taken by adoption unit after contacts with others over time through
several channels. Erinle (2005) described the various stages of adoption process and
sources used for information dissemination to farmers as follows:
1. Awareness- At this stage, the adoption unit merely learns about the innovation,
but has little knowledge about it. The mass media channels of communication like
radio, television etc., are used to disseminate information at this stage.
2. Interest - At this stage, the adoption unit develops interest in the innovation,
gets more facts about it and considers its potentials and generally its merits over
existing practices in terms of possibilities of its use. Mass media channels and extension
agents are useful sources of information here.
3. Evaluation - The adoption unit at this stage mentally tries the innovation, weigh
its merits relative to his own situation, consider whether i t can handle i t and
knows how to use the innovation and decides whether the innovation has good merits
for trial. Friends and neighbours are the best sources of information channels at this
stage.
4. Trial - Here, the adoption unit tries the innovation on a limited scale and become
exposed to the merits and consequences due to its use. The extension agents are the
most useful channel of information dissemination at this stage.
5. Adoption - This is the last stage of adoption process during which the adoption
unit decides to use the innovation continuously, based on positive experiences at the
trial stage. The adoption unit may decide to reject the innovation based on the negative
experiences and attributes associated with it. The adoption unit when satisfied with the
innovation, then it legitimizes and spreads its use across the social strata.
According to Ezumah (2002), the sources of channels used to disseminate
information at each adoption stage is important, failure to apply the desired channels
lead to ineffective adoption of introduced innovations. Adetunji (2004) reiterated that,
for any technology developed by researchers, for it to positively impact on farmers, it
must be socially desirable, economically reliable, culturally compatible and also proven
channels for communication must be used to reach out farmers.
2.6 Perceived constraints to effective agricultural and rural development
projects and programmes
According to Amah (1998), surprisingly, up till date, despite all the laudable
projects and programmes introduced now and then by subsequent governments (from
pre-independence to date) with exciting themes and some recorded level of
achievement, the country is still striving to narrow the gap of agricultural and rural
development. Clearly, the persistent failure of effective agricultural and rural
development projects and programmes is due to the perceived constraints as below:
2.6.1 Institutional development pathway vs frame work problems
The strategy of agricultural and rural development in Nigeria, as in most African
countries goes through a pathway that ensures generation, development, adaptation
and evaluation of agricultural and rural development programmes (Butte1,2003).
Technical packages on farm and non-farm sector are introduced so that farmers can
adopt. The weakness of institutional pat way and framework constitute a problem to 'h effective agricultural and rural development and have predominantly taken a top-down
and a one way approach, the last person to be consulted is always the farmer. Their
technical knowledge and innovative abilities within their cultural and farming
environment are neglected. Anon (2004) viewed that, the perceived weak institutional
pathway leads to failure of most agricultural and rural development programmes.
2.6.2 Weak Government funding policies and dwindling international
counterpart funding
.Government funding policies in most developing countries are weak. In some
cases, where international counterpart funding is provided, it is dwindling in nature.
Projects and programmes are not effectively executed as planned (FACU, 2004). Gallen
(2005) stated that weakness in domestic funding policies and programme management
systems impede the performance of such programmes. Enough funds is not disbursed
by government: to implement the programmes. Moris (2005) emphasized that draw
down are experienced from international counterpart funding, sometimes, the money
for programmes are release late or get stucked in the International Bank for Rural
Development (IRBD).
2.6.3 Bureaucratic inertia of civil service
According to Amah (1998), by various age-long enactments establishing the
civil service, any civil service anywhere is an excellent instrument for control and
regulation - the purpose for which it was originally formed. He added that bureaucratic
procedures are not well designed for agricultural and rural development programmes
execution. Most civil servants attribute failure to others especially on the senior officers
or "them". According to Moris (2005), most senior officers neglect their supervisory
role, rather, submit to loyalty and sycophancy of their field servants to them. Some
bosses emphasized on their "percent" out of funds meant for programmes.
2.6.4 Government and political interference
Other most destabilizing factors in management of projects are the government
interference and apparent lack of political commitment tc projects and programmes.
Government interference in programmes management such as inputs procurement
procedures meant to execute the programmes negatively affect programmes. Direct
interference such as wrong procedures for selecting or filling key positions in
programme management team with wrong people who could not perform affect
programmes execution (Wiggins, 1997). Most programmes are sponsored by donor
agencies and thus, record collusal failure due to political interference by government,
which overbear on their implementation procedures (Shaner, 2004).
2.6.5 Ideological and hierarchical commitment
Schuring (2005) stressed that the ideological framework of agricultural and rural
development programmes is centred on an institution operating with high bureaucratic
procedures, vertical and horizontal hierarchies as the watch word. This requires that
administrative actions go through several steps before finally approved based on the
ideological hierarchical framework that exist. Shaner (2004) observed that, procured
goods, equipment are left wasted and certain actions are delayed due to a common say
"wait for order from the highest echelon". This renders most developmental
programmes useless.
2.6.6 Lack of involvement of rural people in agricultural and rural " development programmes
Planning and implementing programmes with the rural people present a broad
view of their needs and aspirations. It also provides the programmer with better
knowledge and information about the wishes, interest and people's misconceptions
about introduced programmes (Richard, 1999).
Olayide (2002) and Whyte (2005) observed that, most prograrnmes are descended
directly on rural people without their prior knowledge. Such programmes are likely to
. fail, this is common with developing countries which employ top-down approach in
introducing various projects.
2.6.7 Lack of programmes evaluation
Evaluation guides and directs future action, it is important that the merit or
worth of programmes be determined as accurately as possible through formal
evaluation, which is less subjected to effects of personal bias (Turtototianen, 2003).
Ajayi (1995) emphasized that, little attention is paid to programmes evaluation in
developing countries. Administrators attach less importance to programme evaluation,
rather prefer administrative duties and largely a d as consultants to programmes
beneficiaries. When evaluation is not given priority, well planned programmes easily
fail.
2.7 Theoretical framework
Baker (1999) Adedoyin and Adeokun (2004) viewed theory as a scientific
exercise aimed at creating generalization or valid assumptions for the purpose of either
testing some assumptions, hypotheses, establishing a model of relationship between
phenomena or explaining a fact. I n other words, a theory attempts to create by
deductions, phenomena arising from observations, the conditions, relationships,
circumstance or principles under which phenomena occur.
This study is based on Action-Logic theoretical model of evaluation. The model
assesses programme objectives in the light of beneficiaries, assesses the needs of the
target population and potentially useful assets as well as resources used to implement
the programme. It assesses the merits and worth of the programme, its implementation
strategies compared with alternative strategies used in similar programmes (Webster,
2004). The model is used to judge the extent to which the served individuals and
groups are consistent with the programme's intended benefits. Stakeholders make use
of the model to define the programme or technology, the target population and project
outcomes. It is an ongoing systematic evaluation process which extension stakeholders
use to plan, implement and evaluate extension programmes. I t could be applied on
individual scale and large scale. It could also be applied to a community, statewide and
countrywide programme of action to get information on the success or failures of the
programme objectives (UWEX, 2005).
Walter (1999) in Nor (2005) revealed that, for any successful programme
evaluation at any level, there are about five basic questions that are usually asked.
These fundamental questions are: (1) Social programme: what are the important
. problems this programme could address? Can the programme be improved? Is it worth
doing so? I f not, what is worth doing? (2) Knowledge use: how can I make sure that
my results get used quickly? Do I want to improve on the programme? Can my
evaluation results be useful in other ways? (3) valuing: is the programme a good one?
Of what criteria could its merits be judged? (4) Knowledge construction: how do one
know all that are involved in a programme? What is the confidence one has in a
programme? What causes the confidence? and (5) Evaluation practice: given limited
skills, time and resources, how can I narrow my options to do a feasible evaluation?
What questions do I asked? the above questions are answered based on analysis of the
outcome of programme evaluation.
The extension delivery services of CEC, university of agriculture Makurdi are
centered primarily on increasing agricultural activity and improved life conditions of the
people in its catchment area. This involves introducing appropriate / improved
technologies and home-economic practices to the target population to ensure speedy
transformation of traditional agriculture to modern type and improved family living
(CEC, 2000).
2.8 Conceptual framework
, The conceptual framework for evaluating the CEC, UAM, Benue State is based on
modified UWEX evaluation model. Block A represents the centre (CEC) as an outreach
arm of UAM. Big arrow pointing downwards from block A indicates some of the
identified problems by the centre, which solutions are being sought. The large circle C
represents objectives of CEC in its dispensation of extension services to people in its
catchment area. Block D indicates various human and material resources invested by
CEC to achieve its set objectives, while block E represents the expected achievements
of CEC as a result of its services to people. Block F indicates various innovations
dikemination by CEC to farmers, block G represents the expected impact of CEC on its
area of operation. Block H stands for the perceived constraints against effective
performance of CEC, while block I represents the expected outcornes of CEC and block
1 stands for evaluation, which involves data collection, analysis, interpretation and final
report writing.
CEC UAM b G 1 EXPECTED IMPACT OF CEC
increased awareness Increased production Self reliance Better housing Raised income Reduced poverp Improved nutritional level Increased adoption of technologies Increased living
VARIOUS I~WOVATIONS DISSEMINATED BY CEC CEC IDEKTIFIED
PROBLEMS Low farm' income Poor sandard of living High poverty level Low farm productivity Low
W P i AND MATEhlAL RESOURCES INVESTED BY CEC
Staff Research base Equipment invested Number of
vehicle used Research materials on ground Office accommodation e:c
EXPECTEDACHIEVM -ENT OF CEC
Social changes Economic changes Sustained culmral changes Change in the production pattern Change in the nutritional
Improved seeds Crop production technologies Livestock production technologies Storage technologies Processing technologies Food technologies Home makin3 etc. I
technologies -/ \
1 I EXPECTED O b V L T OF CEC Increased educational PERCEIVED C O N S W S OF EFFECTIVE
PERFORMANCE OF CEC Weak funding of CEC Bureaucratic inertia Political interference Poor training of mff
awareness Sustained adoption of innovations Improved training Improved standard of living Increzsed managerial skills etc
OBJECTIVES OF CEC Improve cropsJfibre production Sensitizeresearchers
8 Encourage tech?ology adoption Reduce poverry levei Promote economic g o w h of farmers etc
Inadequate vehicles Poor remuneration Lack of evaluation etc
I EVALUATION Focus: Data collection - Data analysis - Data interpretation and frnal Report writing
CHAPTER THREE 3.0 Methodology
3.1 Study area
The study was carried out in Benue State. The state was created in 1976 with
Makurdi as the State capital. The state is found in the middle belt region of Nigeria,
approximately between latitude 6.5' and 8.5'N and longitude 7.5' and 10.5 OE. The
State has a total land area of about 30,955 square kilometers and population of about
2,780,398 people (BNARDA, 1995). The State shares boundary with five states,
Nassarawa to the North, Taraba to the East, Enugu to the southwest, Cross River to
the southeast and Kogi to the southwest. The southeastern part of the State shares
boundary with the Republic of Cameroon. It is bordered to the north by 280km of
River Benue, the second largest river in Nigeria, which the State derived its name. The
State is also traversed by 202km of River Katsina Ala in the inland areas (Idache,
1992).
The predominant tribes in the State are the Tiv and Idoma. Other tribes found
in the State are the Igede, Etulo, Nyifon, Hausa, Igbo, Yoruba and Jukun (BNARDA,
1995). The State lies in the tropical climate with two distinct seasons, which are the
dry and w.et seasons. The wet season usually starts from April to October, with annual
rainfall varying from 1750mm - 1250mm. The dry season usually starts from mid-
November to March each year with the temperature of 32'~. The land mass is
predominantly flat in most areas and undulating in some areas especially at the South
Eastern part (Iloeje, 1984) in (Idache 1992). The state is found in the guinea Savanna
region of Nigeria, endowed with fertile soil, which supports the production of crops
like yams, cassava, guinea corn, millet, maize, rice, beniseed, groundnuts, sweet
potatoes, Soyabeans. Trees like oranges, mango, guava, cashew, palm trees etc., are
found grown all over the State. Livestock such as goats, sheep, pigs, chickens, cattle,
rabbits and ducks are raised on a small scale in the State.
3.2. Study population and sampling procedure.
The population for this study comprised farmers from 4 Local Government
Areas in Benue State that were covered by the CEC and all the staff of the centre. A
multi-stage sampling technique was used to sample the study population. I n the first
stage, 4 Local Government Areas (LGAs) which were: Makurdi, Tarkaa, Otukpo and
Ushongo were purposively selected out of 23 LGAs in the State because they were the
areas being covered by CEC. During the second stage, 4 communities out of 8
communities covered by CEC from each L.G.A. were selected through simple random
sampling technique, given a total of 16 communities. The communities selected
included: Makurdi LGA-Ugondo, Agan, Adaka and Tatyough; Tarka LGA-Mbamakem,
Mbajir, Wannune and Asukunya; Otukpo LGA - Ijami-Oglewu, Aukpa, Opu-Icho and
Otada; and Ushongo LGA - Laadi Ugee, Abwa, Lessel and Ikyobo communities.
I n the third stage, 8 respondents were selected from each of the 16
communities from the list of farm-families that registered with CEC through simple
--random sampling technique; making a total of 128 respondents (Tablel).
Furthermore, all the staff of CEC (22) were used. This brought the total respondents
Table I: Population and sampling procedure summary.
LGAs Communities P S
Makurdi Ugondo 30 8 Agan 40 8 Adaka 41 8 Tatyough 45 8
Tarka
Otukpo
Mbamakem Mbajir Asukunya Wannune
Ijami-Oglewu Aukpe upu-Icho Otada
Ushongo Laadi Ugee lkyobo Lessel Abwa 45 8
Total=4 16 594 128 -
P = Population; S = Sample.
3.3 Instrument for data collection
Data for this study was collected from the respondents through the use of
interview schedule (for the farmers) and questionnaire (for the CEC staff). Both the
interview schedule and the questionnaire were subjected to both face and content
validity through the help of the research project supervisor and other academic staff
in the Department of agricultural extension University of Nigeria, Nsukka. This helped
to avoid ambiguity of items for the interview schedule/questionnaire. The interview
schedule/ questionnaire were divided into five sections and each section contained
relevant questions on the objectives of the study. The data were collected by the
researcher and four trained assistants.
3.4 Measurement of variables
Objective 1: This objective aimed at assessing the change both in human and
material resources of the centre from 1989 to 2005. To achieve this, respondents
were asked to indicate (1) the staff strength of CEC from 1989 - 2005; (2) The trend
of changes in staff strength within the specified period; (3) the material resources of
.. CEC and (4) changes in the material resources of the centre. Secondary data and
personal communication were used to achieved these.
Objective 2: The objective was designed to determine the various innovations
disseminated and their various, level of adoption by participating farm families in the
catchment areas. The following variables were examined: (1) crop based technologies
introduced by CEC and their adoption level by farmers; (2) Livestock based
technologies introduced by CEC and their level of adoption by farmers and (3) how
regular were farmers trained to use the technologies introduced to them by CEC. The
farmers were asked to indicate their adoption level on a 5-point adoption scale. Their
response categories and corresponding weighted values were considered as follows:
Aware (AW) = 1; interest (IN) =2; Evaluation (EV) = 3; Trial (TR) = 4 and Adoption
(AD)=5. The adoption levels of the various innovations were calculated as follows: (1)
the total adoption scores per innovation; (2) the adoption mean
( X) scores per innovation by dividing the total adoption scores by the number of the
respondents involved and (3) the grand mean ( X ) adoption score by adding all the
mean adoption scores and then divided by number of innovations considered.
Objective 3: Objective three was designed to determine the extent to which
CEC had achieved specific extension tasks in its catchment communities. To achieve
this objective, the following variables were measured, level of achievement of
extension tasks in the university catchment area. This was achieved by using a four
point Likert-type scale in each case where respondents (farmers) were required to
indicate the extents of achievement of specific extension tasks of the centre by
choosing out of the alternatives: ( a) to a very great extent (TVGE) = 4 (b) to a great
extent (TGE) = 3 (c) to some extent (TSE) = 2 to a little extent (TLE) = 1. Values that
were assigned to these response alternatives were added to get 10, which was
divided by 4 to get a mean of 2.5. Therefore, variables with mean of 2.5 and above
were considered achieved and any one less than 2.5 was considered not achieved.
Objective 4: The objective sought to determine the impact of the CEC, on the
socio-economic life of the catchment farm-families. To achieve this, the socio-
economic life of farm families in the catchment area was measured in terms of what
the situation was before and after the intervention of CEC. The following variables
were examined; membership of formal organizations, development of income
generating activities/enterprises (such as, laundry soap making, food processing etc),
estimated annual income, household materials possessed and ease of paying
children's school fees etc.
Objective 5 : This objective was designed to determine the perceived problems
to the effective performance of CEC. To achieve this, the respondents, farmers /
extension agents, were considered. Farmers/extension agents were asked to indicate
the extent to which they believed that: the irregular extension agents-farmers
contact, incompatibility of the innovations introduced, cultural barriers to acceptance
of innovations, financial constraint for acquisition of introduced innovations, non-
availability of innovations introduced, incompetence on the side of extension workers
in handling the subject matter etc have affected the performance of CEC. This was
achieved by using a 4-point Likert scale to test the perception level of both farmers
and staff of CEC concerning its problems as an outreach centre as follows: (a) to a
great extent (TGE) = 4; (b) to a some extent (TSE) =3; (c) 1:o a little extent (TLE) =
2; (d) to a very little extent (TVLE) = 1. Values that were assigned to these response
alternatives were added to get 10, which was divided by 4 to get a mean of 2.5 as a
cut off point. Variables with mean of 2.5 and above were consider as constraints
while, any variable with less than 2.5 was not considered as a constraint to the
performance of the centre.
3.5 Data analysis
Objective 1 was analysed using bar chart and component bar chart. Objective
2 was analysed using mean and percentage. Objective 3 was analysed using mean
statistic. Objective 4 was analysed using percentage. Objective 5 was analysed using
mean statistic.
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents findings and discussions in the major
areas of the specific objectives.
4.1 Change in human and material resources strength of the
CEC, UAM
4.1.1 Human resource
Data in table 2 show that the centre started with only eight staff in
1989. The staff strength gradually increased over the years with little
fluctuation. The number increased from eight to fourteen from 1990 to
1993, then dropped to eleven from 1994 to 1997. From 1998 to 2001, it
increased from eleven to twenty and further increased from twenty to
twenty two from 2002 to 2005 as indicated in Figure 2. The little
fluctuation in the staff number from fourteen to eleven from 1994 to 1997
was due to the fact that some staff left the centre for greener pasture
. when the salary structure then was poor. On the other hand, the increase
from eleven to twenty staff from 1998 to 2001 was as a result of the fact
that some foreign experts from foreign donor agency, Department for
International Development (DFID) joined the services of the CEC when
UAM introduced the programme Improved Farmers Participation in
Research and Extension in Benue State (IFPREB) to promote and
strengthen the extension capacity of the centre to fulfill her extension
mandate better in its catchment communities (Adedzwa, 2002).
4.1.2 Material resources
According to Table 2, the physical facilities and equipment as at: 1989 included: one official car, two manual typewriters and one office
telephone. After 1989 (1990 - 2005), some of these facilities increased, while some remained the same as follows: three official cars, five motorcycles, one video camera, one coloured television, one black and white television, two radio sets, a set of wireless public address system, six manual typewriters. Others were seven computers, one video machine, a piece of office telephone, a desk top printer and one over- head projector as indicated in Figure 3.
The centre currently has no building of its own, it occupies one of the flats on the university campus comprising ten offices, five toilets, two conference halls, thirty chairs, twenty tables (as at 1989) and eighty chairs and forty five tables (after 1989) as evident in figure 4 below. The centre .also shares other facilities with various components of the UAM. For instance, it draws resource persons from various colleges and utilizes physical and communication facilities from other units of the university. The implication is that, this poor human and material resource positions of the centre pose a key question to the establishment of the centre as a central unit in achieving the extension mandate of the university.
Table 2: Human and material resources strength of CEC, UAM
Resources As at 1989 After 1989 (1990 - 2005) (No) (No)
a. Human resources: i. Staff strength 8
b. Material resources: i. Vehicle
Official car Motor cycles
c. Communication facilities: Video camera Coloured TV Black and white TV Radio Wireless public address system Manual typewriter Computer Video machine Office telephone Desk top printer Overhead projector
d. Site occupied: Status of the site Number of offices Number of toilets Number of conference halls Number of chairs
1 flat 10 5 2 30
1 flat 10 5 2 80
Number of tables 20 45
Sources: Field survey, 2006.
Fig 2: Trend of change in staff strength of CEC from 1989-2005 Source: Field survey, 2006
0 Materlal resources as at 1989
0 Materlal resources after 1989 (1 990-2005)
Facilities
Fig 3: Material resources of CEC, UAM as at 1989 and affer 1989 (1990-2006)
Source: Field S unrey. 2008.
@ Material resources as at 1989
Material recourses after 1989
Fig 4: Capacity of temporary building occupied by CEC, UAM
Source: Field survey, 2006
4.2 Crops and livestock production innovations
4.2.1 Organic fertilizers
Data in Table 3 show that the mean adoption score for organic
manure, compost manure, poultry droppings, goat manure and cowdung
were 2.0, 2.0, 2.0, 2.0 and 2.0, respectively. The grand mean adoption
score was 2.0, which implies that the adoption process of organic fertilizer
had reached the interest level on a 5 - points scale. The implication of
this finding is that generally, the adoption rate of organic fertilizers in the
catchment area of CEC was still very low.
4.2.2 Use of inorganic fertilizers
Data in Table 3 show that the mean adoption score for NPK was 5.0,
Urea was 5.0 and SSP was also 5.0. The grand mean adoption score for
the use of inorganic fertilizers by the respondents was 5.0 on a 5-points
adoption scale. The finding implies mass adoption and the sustained use
of inorganic fertilizers by the respondents. This is in agreement with study
conducted by Eremie, Okoli and Chheda (1999) which indicated that high
quantities of nitrogenous fertilizers (Urea and NPK) and SSP fertilizer were
used by the local farmers to produce cereal and leguminous crops.
4.2.3 Insecticide utilization
Data in Table 3 show that the mean adoption score for Karate was
3.0, while those of Apronstar, Furadan, Actellic 24Ec, Cymbush, Fernasan-
Dl Galex and Basagram were 2.0, 2.0, 2.0, 4.0, 3.0, 2.0 and 4.0
respectively. The grand mean adoption score of the respondents over
these four insecticides was found to be 3.0, out of a maximum of 5-points.
This implies that most of the farmers were at the evaluation level with
respect to the use of insecticides.
4.2.4 Crop storage procedures
Data in Table 3 further show that the mean adoption scores for
sorting of crops produce for storage, use of ventilated containers,
sundrying technique, use of treated clay pots, use of plastic containers,
storage in metal drums, use of silos, application of actellic dust, use of
treated barns, and required storage temperature were 5.0, 5.0, 5.0, 5.0,
5.0, 5.0, 2.0, 5.0, 5.0 and 5.0, respectively. The grand mean adoption
score was 5.0 on a 5-points adoption scale. This implies that the storage
procedures were adopted by nearly all the respondents in the study area.
Farmers adopt innovations, which are culturally compatible, socially
desirable and economically feasible as agreed by Warren (2003). He
further stated that innovations already in use, which require little
modifications are easily adopted in a short time by farmers.
4.2.5 Improved crop varieties
Data in table 3 reveal that the mean adoption score for use of
improved rice (ITA 150) was 5.0, the mean adoption score for cassava
. (TMS 30572) was found to be 5.0, while those of yam mini-set technology,
cowpea (ITA 2246 - 4 Ife brown, TVX 3236), maize 72P8 (FAZ27) 7XB
(FAZ234) and soyabeans (Samsoy 1.M 351, TGVX 536020) were 5.0, 2.0,
5.0 and 5.0, respectively. The grand mean adoption score was 5.0. This
implies that all the farmers in the study area have adopted most of the
improved crop varieties introduced by the centre.
4.2.6 Introduction of improved palm tree species
According to Table 3, the mean adoption score for Dura specie was
4.0 while the mean adoption scores for Tenera and Pisifera species were
each 2.0. The grand mean adoption score was 3.0 out of maximum of 5-
points on the adoption scale. This implies that farmers in the study area
were at evaluation level of the adoption process. Though, the mean
adoption score for Dura specie was found to be 4.0, this could be as a
result of more prevalence of the local variety (Dura specie) over the
improved variety due to low adoption of improve varieties by
farmers(Njoku and Ohajianya, 2000).
4.2.7 Livestock production innovations
Data in table 3 show that the mean adoption score for livestock
model housing, correct feeding ration, treatment of diarrhoea, treatment
of wounds, vaccination against PPR, training on pasture management,
treatment of scabies, and bathing of animals against ectoparasites were
found to be 2.0, 2.0, 4.0, 2.0, 2.0, 2.0, 2.0 and 2.0, respectively. The
grand mean adoption score was found to be 3.0 out of a maximum of 5-
points on adoption scale. This indicates that the farmers were at
evaluation level of adoption process with regards to the eight livestock
innovations introduced by the CEC, UAM. This was as a result of high cost,
and lack of extension information from the CEC in this aspect.
' I a l ) l r 3: A t l o p l i o ~ ~ I c v r l s of SOIIIF c r o p s a n d l i v r s l o r k p r o c l ~ l c l i o n i r l l l o v a l i o n s i n l r o t l ~ ~ r r t l I)g C:I<<: (!I= 128) ---
a) Organic k r l i l i r e r s : 01.gmic Msnurc C~III~DSI Mnlwre 1'1ndlly I ) I I I ~ ~ ) I I I ~ Gcml M n w r c Cnw d u ~ ~ l !
I)) I ~ l o r ~ a n i c kl- l i l i?rl-s: NPK I Jrc;~ SSP
c) 111wctici1Ics ~ ~ l i I i ' ; ~ l i ~ m : Knr;~le A~IIOIISI~II F11rada11 Aclelic 2 5 I k ' ~:).lllllllsIl Fw l l ~ l s : l l l - l ~ Cialcx . l l a s ; ~ p ~ n ~ i i
11) Slornge ( ~ r n r c ~ l ~ ~ r c s : SOlllllg ~ ~ ' C I I ~ J ~ S I'rt~tlllce l lcc o l ' v c ~ ~ l ~ l a l c d Co~ l l ;~ l l ~e l s SIIII c l r y i ~ ~ g ' l ' c c l ~ ~ ~ i i l ~ ~ c s Use ol ' t~calct l clay 1'01s IJsc of plnst~c CIIII~~IIIC~S S1~:1pc III l~icl;r l (IIIIIIII( Usc of silos IJqc o1~;lctclic IIIN Use oTIrcalctl b i~rns
R c q ~ ~ i r c d slwilgc 'rclllpcl:lllllc
c) IIIIIII~OVPII CI.IIJI v i ~ r j c l i cs : , Ihcc ( I T A 150)
('i~ssilvii (1 M S 30572) Yilw IIIIIIIWI l e c l ~ C o w l ~ c . ~ ( I 1'2210-1-lk H rowr~ l 'VX 3234) Maizc (72 I'R l.A% 27). 7x11 ( F A 7 234) S c ~ y a l ~ c i ~ ~ ~ s (S;IIIISO)~ I IM 3 5 I V W c3onzn)
0 l n l r o ~ l u r l i ~ r n o f ~IIIIII.IIV~I~ s~ icc ics o f plllll Ireis: l)ll~l s\~cc lc 'I c l i e~a specie I ' ~ s i f c ~ ; ~ spccic
a ) 1.ivcslnck ~ r ro t l~ l c l i n r r i ~ l l ~ova l i ons :
livcsrocl. ~ i l o t l c l llollslllg conccl I 'cc t l l~~g r n l i o ~ ~ ~YCS~II~CIII or I )ia~-~dicc;~ ' I ' r c i ~ l ~ l ~ c ~ ~ l ~ ' \ V O I I I I ~ S
\ ' ; l c c ~ ~ ~ : ~ l ~ o n ; ~ p a i ~ ~ s l I'PR I ' r c i ~ l ~ ~ ~ e ~ l l n f ScaOies I 3 ~ t l 1 i l t ~ a11i111;lls ngaillsl I:.clopr~slcs ~l ' l ' i l l l l l l lp 011 JIRSII I I 'C h 4 ~ t .
Adnption lcvcls Told hclnl~~ion Score Mcrn (X) C;I;IINI h4cn11 R) ,\\\' IN 1 3 ' 'TR !\O I ~ I s Adoptiol~ *c~uc ( I ) ( 2 ) 11) (4) ( 0 (Aclopl~w rcwr) (Adolrlnou score)
-
4.3 Extension agents-farmers contact
Data in Table 4 indicate that 77.3% of the respondents accepted
that they were regularly visitedltrained by the extension agents of the
CEC, UAM, while 22.7% declined being trained regularly. This implies that
majority of the farmers in the study area were effectively reached to
bridge the gap between traditional farming practices and modern farming
techniques. Those not effectively reached (22.7%) could be as a result of
shortage of extension agents faced by the centre to cover all areas as in
the plan.
Table 4: Percentage distribution of respondents according to their
contact with CEC's extension agents (n = 128)
Regular Extension Agents - farmers Contact (O/O)
Yes 77.3 N o 22.7 Total 100 Source: Field survey, 2006.
4.4 Level of regularity of extension agents-farmers contact
Data in Table 5 reveal that 40.0% of the respondents were visited
four times a month, 24.0% were visited three times a month, 13.0% were
visited twice a month and only 23.0% were visited once a month. This
implies that the frequency with which farmers were visitedltrained in the
study area is capable of spreading the improved innovations massively
across the social strata for effective adoption as noted by Wiggins (1997).
Table 5: Percentage distribution of respondents according to the
number of contact with CEC's extension agents in a month (n =
No. of visitsfmonth O/O
Four times 40 Three times 24 Twice 13 Once 23 Total 100
Source: Field survey, 2006.
4.5 Farmers' perception of the extent to which the CEC, UAM
has achieved its specific extension task
4.5.1 General extension services
Data in Table 6 show mean scores of respondents' perception of the
conduct of demonstration units (% = 3.77), CEC serving as an information
centre (% = 3.42) and identification of field problems (x = 3.21). The
finding reveals that the mean (x = 3.77) for conduct of demonstration
units by the centre in the study area was the highest. This may be as a
result of the intensive field demonstration activities conducted by the
centre in the study area as noted by Adedzwa (2002).
4.5.2 Home economic extension services
Data in Table 6 indicate that with regards to home-economic
extension services disseminated by the CEC, UAM, those perceived by the
respondents to have being achieved to a great extent included processing
of soyabeans into soymilk, (x = 3.85), production of laundary soap (x =
3.81), garri processing/grating techniques (x = 3.81), cassava processing
into different chips (x - 3.81), rice milling technology (x = 3.66). On the
other hand, the conduct of village-based health programme (x = 2.76),
processing of soyabeans into dadawa (% = 2.72) and home
decoration/tailoring (X = 2.71) were perceived as being achieved to some
extent. The favourable perception of the CEC by the farmers is a good
evidence to show that the centre actually made some impact on the farm-
families in the catchment area.
Table 6: Perception of the respondents of the extent to which CEC
has achieved its specific extension tasks (n = 128)
Extension task Farmers' perception score
a. General extension services:
Identification of field problems
Serve as information centre
Pest control techniques
Conduct of demonstration units
Diseases control
Animal production
Fishers production
. Agro-forestry 'management
b. Home economic extension services:
Production of laundry soap
Conduction of vill.-based health prog.
Home decoration/tailoring
Processing of soyabeans into soymilk
Processing of soyabeans into dadawa
Rice milling technology
Garri processing/grating techniques
Cassava processing into different chips
Oil palm processing techniques
Food preservation practices
Source: Field survey, 2006 .
4.6 Socio-economic impact of the CEC, UAM on the farm-
families in the catchment area
4.6.1 Membership of formal organizations
Data in Table 7 reveal that before 1989, the respondents
participated very low (90.6%), and moderately (9.4%) in formal
organizations, while after 1989, majority (80.5%) participated highly in the
activities of formal organizations. Those that participated moderately
accounted for 19.5%. The implication of the finding is that, generally, the
respondents have improved to a great extent on their engagement in
formal organizations due to persistent encouragement by the CEC to form
and maintain formal organizations in the study area.
4.6.2 Ease of paying children's school fees
Data in Table 7 indicate that 77.3% found it difficult to pay their
children's school fees, while 22.7% found it easy to pay their children's
school fees before 1989. After 1989, the trend changed, 28.9% found it
very easy to sponsor their children in schools, while 71.1% found it easy to
sponsor their children in schools. This implies that majority of the
respondents found it easier to sponsor their children in schools due to
improvement in their farming activities capable of increasing their yield
and income after contact with the CEC, UAM.
4.6.3 Ease of participation in agricultural and rural community
development activities
Data in Table 7 show that 75.8% of the respondents found it
difficult to participate in agricultural and rural community development,
while, 23.4% found it easy to participate in agricultural and rural
community development beforel989. After 1989, 76.6% participated very
highly in agricultural and rural community development, while 23.4%
found it easy to participate in agricultural and community development
functions after 1989 when they had contact with the CEC, UAM. This
implies high level of improvement in the agricultural and community
development in the study area.
4.6.4 Possession of household items (beddings, furniture,
electronics, cooking utensils etc.)
It is evident from Table 7 that 76.6% of the respondents had little
household items, while 23.4% fairly possessed household items before
1989. After 1989, 73.4% fairly possessed household items while only
26.6% possessed just little household items. This implies that the adopted
improved innovations introduced by the CEC, UAM helped to increase
farmers income level for easier acquisition of material wealth.
4.6.5 Nutritional standard
Data in Table 7 reveal that 85.9% of the respondents indicate that
they were feeding below normal nutritional standard, while 14.1% said
that their feeding was fairly of normal nutritional standard before 1989.
After 1989, 81.3% indicated that their feeding was fairly of normal
nutritional standard, while 18.8% revealed that they were still feeding
below normal nutritional standard. The implication of the findings is that
the majority of the respondents in the study area have fairly improved on
their nutritional standard due to the adoption of the improved home-
economic extension services disseminated to them by the centre.
4.6.6 Knowledge on improved innovations
Data in Table 7 indicate that 85.9% of the respondents had poor
knowledge of improved innovations while 14.1% had fair knowledge
before 1989. After 1989, 80.5% of the respondents had adequate
knowledge about improved innovations while only 19.5940 were found to
have fair knowledge. This implies that majority of the respondents have
had contact with the extension agents of the CEC, UAM after 1989, which
improved their knowledge about improved innovations. According to Anon
(2004), regular contact between the extension agents and farmers is
capable of creating awareness about improved innovations among
farmers.
4.6.7 Attitude towards improved innovations
Data in Table 7 further show that before 1989, 68.0% of the
respondents had positive attitudes towards improved innovations, while
32.0% had negative attitude towards improved innovations. After 1989,
26.6% of the respondents developed very positive attitudes towards
improved innovations, while 73.4% developed positive attitudes towards
improved innovations. This result indicates that the level of interaction
between the farmers and extension agents of the centre is in line with the
view of Agbamu (2006) who said that the constant interaction between
the personnel of agricultural research, extension agencies and farmers to a
large extent, improves the farmers attitudes towards improved
innovations.
4.6.8 Level of annual income of farmers
Data in Table 7 show that before 1989, 72.7% of the respondents
earned between #21,000 and #30.000, while 27.3% earned between
#11,000 and #20, 000 annually. After 1989, 78.1% of the respondents
earned between #51, 000 and #60, 000, while 21.g0/0 earned between
#41. 000 and #SO, 000 annually. The adoption of the improved crops are
home-econornic innovations introduced by the CEC, UAM to farmers after
1989 could be one of the reasons for their improved income.
4.6.9 Marketing strategies
It is evident from Table 7 that before 1989, 97.7% of the
respondents had fairly improved marketing strategies while 2.30%
possessed highly improved marketing strategies. After 1989, 71.1% of
them have acquired highly improved marketing strategies while 28.9% had
fairly improved marketing strategies. The implication of the finding is that,
.the respondents have to a large extent improved on their marketing
strategies after 1989 . Anon (2002) stressed that high level of adoption of
improved innovations increased farmers' productivity and thus, expose
them to a much wider market economic and varying price bargaining
strategies for improved knowledge in marketing their farm produce.
Table 7: Percentage distribution of respondents according to their perception on socio-economic impact of CEC (n = 128)
Farmers Socio-Economic Variable Before 1999 (No) ARer 1989 ('90 - '05)
("/.) (NO) .- (O4 - a. Membership of formal org.:
Hlgh partlclpatlon 103 80.5
Moderate participation 12 9.4 25 19.5
Low participation 116 90.6
b. Ease of paying school fees: Vely easy 37 28.9
Easy 29 22.7 9 1 71.1 Not easy 99 77.3
c. Ease of participation in AgricJrural development Activities:
Very high 98 76.6
Easy 30 23.4 30 23.4
Difficult 97 75.8
, d. Possession of household Items
(furniture, beddings, cooking
utensils etc.):
Adequate
Falrly adequate 30 23.4 94 73.4
Tc a llttle extent 98 76.6 34 26.6
e. Improvement in nutritional
status
Hlghly standard
Fairly adequate
Below standard
f. Knowledge on improved
innovations:
Adequate knowledge
Fair knowledge
Poor knowledge
g. Attitudes towards improved innovation
Very positive
Positive
Negative
h. Level of annual income:
1000 - 10,000
11,000 - 20.000
21,000 - 30,000
31,000 - 40, 000
41,000 - 50, 000
51, 000 - 60, 000
Marketing strategies:
Highly lmproved
Falrly Improved 125 97.7 37 28.9
Poor
Source: Field survey, 2006.
4.7 Farmers' and extension agents' perception of the
constraints mil i tat ing against the effective performance of
the CEC, UAM
Data in Table 8 show that the following factors with varying grand
mean (%) militate against the effective performance d the CEC, UAM:
poor access roads (% = 3.87), poor storage facilities (2 = 3.86), lack of
operational funds ( 2 = 3.79), lack of credit incentives (% = 3.78), high
cost of improved innovations (% = 3.76), non reward of superior
performance (x = 3.77), poor office accommodation (% = 3.68). Others
were large family size (% = 3.43)' insumcient manpower (% = 3.41)'
poor communication facilities (% = 3.36), poor evaluation of extension
programmes (x = 3.23), excess workload on the extension staff (% =
3.20), poor knowledge of innovations procurement channels (x = 3.15),
incompatibility of innovations (% = 3.07), unavailability of the introduced
improved, innovations ( 2 = 3.07) and high technicality of introduced
innovations (% = 3.05).
The implication of the findings is that the constraints facing the
centre are capable of reducing its expected performance. This is in
agreement with studies by Anon (2002), which he stated that one of the
constraints such as incompatibility of innovations with the belief, culture,
and farm practices of the farmers prevent its adoption. Also, Warren
(2003) viewed non-reward of superior performance of extension agents as
a constraint, which hinder them from being stimulated to become
innovative, creative, rather, they are discouraged from performing their
task as expected. Poor communication facilities on the other hand were
stressed by Adhikaraya (2005) as a great factor, which makes extension
agents in Africa and Asian countries to rely primarily on their inter-personal
communication skills that drastically limit their scope of coverage. Warren
(2003) further observed that poor evaluation of the extension programmes
to keep a constant check on every aspect of the programmes derail their
success.
Table 8: Farmers' and extension agents' perception on constraints
to effective performance of the CEC UAM (n=150) Extension staff' Grand Mean
farmers' oerce~tion perceotion Constraint
( X I ( X I ( X I Poor ext, agents - farmers contact 1.21 1.13 1.17 High cost of improved innovations 3.92 3.59 3.76 Inadequate improved seed varieties 2.21 1.21 1.71 Insufficient land for cultivation 1.13 1.08 1.11 Lack of operational funds 3.87 3.75 3.79
Difficulty in marketing produce 1.13 1.12 1.13
Poor access roads 3.81 3.92 3.87
No credit incentives 3.75 3.81 3.78
Poor modern storage facilities 3.90 3.81 3.86
High technicality of innovations 3.00 3.10 3.05
Language barrier. 1 .08 1.21 1.15
Incompatibility of innovations 3.00 3.14 3.07
Incompetency of extension agents 1.68
Large family size 3.85
Non-cooperation of dependants 1.08
Scarcity of introduced innovations 3.03
Poor access to inno. Proc. channels Incessant communal crises Insufficient manpower Lack of staff training Excess work load on staff Non-reward of superior performance Cultural/religious barriers Poor salary scale Poor communication facilities Poor office accommodation
Poor evaluation of extension prog, - - - -
Source: ~ield-survey, 2006.
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 SUMMARY
The overall purpose of the study was to evaluate the Cooperative
Extension Centre (CEC) of the University of Agriculture, Makurdi (UAM),
Benue State, Nigeria. The specific objectives were to: assess changes in
both human and material resources strength of the centre between 1989
to 2005; determine the various innovations disseminated and level of
adoption by the participating farm families in the catchment area;
determine the farmers' perception of the extent to which the CEC has
achieved the pre-determined specific extension task in the catchment
communities; determine the impact of the CEC, UAM, on the socio-
economic life of the farm-families in the catchement area and determine
the farmers' and extension agents' perceived problems of effective
performance of CEC, UAM.
The study was carried out in Benue state of Nigeria. The population
of the study was farmers and all the extension staff of the CEC, UAM.
Four Local Government Areas were purposively selected out of 23 Local
Government Areas in Benue state because they are the ones being
covered by the CEC. Four communities out of eight communities covered
by the CEC from each of the four Local Government Areas were selected
through simple random sampling technique. This gave a total of sixteen
communities covered. A total of one hundred and fifty (150) respondents
comprising one hundred and twenty eight (128) farmers and twenty two
(22) extension staff of CEC constituted the sample size for the study. A
set of structured interview schedule (for farmers) and copies of
questionnaire (for extension agents) were used as data collection
instrument. Percentage, mean scores, bar chart and component bar chart
statistics were used to analyze the data.
The findings of the study revealed that, the staff strength of the
centre (CEC) was 22 and there was a gradual increase in number of the
staff from 8 in (1989) to 22 after 1989. The centre was found to have
been operating with meager material resources and is still occupying a
temporary site. The results of the study also showed that among the
innovations introduced by the CEC, UAM, only the use of inorganic
fertilizers, improved crops varieties and improved storage procedures were
on adoption level with grand mean adoption score of 5.0. On the other
hand, introduction of improved palm tree species and livestock production
innovations were at evaluation level on the 5-points adoption scale with
grand mean score of 3.0. The use of organic fertilizers and insecticides use
among the farmers were found to be a t interest level of the 5-points
-adoption level with grand mean of 2.0.
The findings also showed that 77.3% of the farmers had regular
extension agents contact while only 22.7% of the farmers indicated that
they were not regularly visited by extension agents of the CEC, UAM. The
finding further revealed that 4O0/0, 24% 13% and 23% of the farmers ' were visited by the extension agents of the CEC four times, three times,
twice and once in a month, respectively. From the study, it was evident
that farmers perceived great level of achievement in areas like: processing
of so~abeans into soymilk (x = 3.85); garri processinglgrating techniques
(x = 3.81); production of laundry soap (z = 3.81); cassava processing
into different chips (x = 3.81); Others were conduct of demonstration
unit (x = 3.77); rice milling technology (k = 3.66); serving as
information centre (% = 3.42); identification of field problems (% = 3.21);
conduct of village based health programmes (% = 2.76); processing of
soyabeans into dadawa (x = 2.72) and home decoration/tailorling (% =
2.71).
Moreso, the centre made an appreciable socio-economic impact on
the farm families in its catchment area. The constraints identified as
affecting the performance of the centre as perceived by farmers and
extension agents included: high cost of improved innovations, lacks of
operational funds, poor access roads, lack of credit facilities, poor modern
communication facilities, high technicality of innovations use,
incompatibility of some innovations. Others were large family size, poor
modern storage facilities, scarcity of introduced improved innovations,
poor knowledge of innovation procurement channels, insufficient
manpower, excess work load on extension staff, non-reward of superior
performance, poor office accommodation and poor evaluation of extension
.programmes.
5.2 Conclusion
Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions were made:
1. Only the use of inorganic fertilizers (Urea, NPK, SSP), improved crop
varieties and crops storage procedures introduced by the CEC, UAM,
were fully adopted.
2. The level of the CEC, UAM extension agent - farmers contact was
found to be high in the study area.
3. There was high level of achievement in areas such as crops
production and home economic based activities conducted by the
CEC as perceived by farmers in the study area.
4. It was evident that the centre made an appreciable socio-economic
impact on the farm-families in the study area.
5. The major perceived constraints to effective performance of the
centre by both the farmers and extension agents were: lack of
operational funds, high cost of improved innovations, poor modern
storage facilities, incompatibility of innovations, insufficient
manpower, excess work load on extension agents, lack of modern
communication facilities, poor office accommodation. Others were
large family size, non-reward of superior performance, poor
evaluation of extension programmes, lack of credit facilities and high
technicality of improved innovations.
5.3 Recommendations
Based on the major findings of this qtudy, the following 6
recommendation were made:
1 Based on the fact that the area of operation of the CEC, UAM is
vast, 20 more extension staff should be employed to avoid
overloading the current number (22) to ensure the effectiveness
of extension task of the centre. This will ensure a ratio of 1:lOO
extension-farmers in the study area.
2. Enough budgetary allocation should be made for the centre to
meet up with its high operational cost and to acquire necessary
working logistics for effective training of farmers in the
catchment area
3. The centre should intensify efforts in the area of livestock
production, pay more attention to organic farming which is at low
level in the study area. Attention should also be paid to fisheries
and agro-forestry production as well as training of farmers on
pesticides and herbicides utilization to reduce yield losses and
human labour on the farm.
4. Government should intensify efforts on improving rural
infrastructure such as rural feeder roads, storage facilities etc., to
make life more meaningful for the rural dwellers Furthermore,
more credit incentives should be made available to farmers, the
50 billion naira loan pronounced by the Federal Government
should be a reality and be a sustained programme on yearly
basis to ease farmers of the problem of farm operational costs.
The CEC should also facilitate the generation of capitallcredit
among the farmers through groups formation and cooperative
unions.
5. The centre should partner greatly with media houses and create
avenues for local/foreign linkages to draw the attention of donor
agencies (NGOs,CBOs etc) both within and outside Nigeria
through the introduction of relevant/viable programmes, which
could attract sponsorship.
6. The permanent site for the centre should be as a matter of
urgency be completed by the UAM to accommodate the staff to
provide a more conducive working environment for the workers.
7. Regular evaluation of the extension programmes executed by the
centre should be done by individuals and UAM authority for
necessary adjustments of such programmes to ensure efficiency
and conformity with the centre's operational standardlplan.
Adedoyin, S.E and A.Adeokun (2004) Theory building in agricultural Extension. Agricultural Extension Society of Nigeria: 16 - 18.
Adedzwa, D.K. (2002) My Vision for the Future of CEC. Newsletter produced by the Publication Unit of the Cooperative Extension Centre, University of Agriculture Makurdi. Vol. 1 (1) September, (1-8):2.
Adetunji, M.O. (2004) Administrative Decision-Making Professional Leadership in Extension Youth Programmes, National Agricultural Extension Centre for Advanced Study, University of Wisconsin: 58.
Adhikaraya, R. (2003) Strategic Extension Campaign: Increase Cost Effectiveness and Farmers Participation in Applying Agricultural Technologies. Retrieved from htt~://www.fao.org/decre~/w5830elw583 de 00.thml.
Adinde, I. (2002) Rural development in Nigeria: The role of physical policy development in Nigeria. Rural Development Journal .Vol. 13 (6): 21-23.
Ag bam u, 3 .U . (2006) Essentials of Agricultural Communication in Nigeria. Malthouse Press Limited, Lagos, Nigeria: 203.
Ajakaiye, 0. (2003) Public Service and Challenges of Managing Poverty Eradication in Nigeria. A paper presented at the Retreat for Permanent Secretaries and Directors in the Federal Civil Service of the Federation at Nicon Hilton Hotel Abuja, 1 8 ~ ~ June: 1-4.
Ajayi, A.R. (1995) Training need of Village extension workers in Osun State agricultural development projects. Nigerian Journal of Agriculture and Teachers Education. Vol. 4 (2): 1- 10.
Ajayi, A.R. (1996) An Evaluation of the Socio-economic Impact of the Ondo State Ekiti-Akoko Agricultural Development Projec!: on the Rural Farmers. A Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Nigeria Nsukka: 5-22.
Ajayi, A.R (2002) Changes in behaviour and social status as perceived by participating farmers in agricultural development projects in Ondo and Enugu States Nigeria. Agro-science Journal of Tropical Ag~culture, Food, Environment and Extension. Vol. 3 (1): 47 - 54.
Akuneye, I.A. (2001) Achievement of the Agricultural Development Programme in Nigeria. A paper presented at Symposium at the ADP Agricultural show Kaduna on 28-3oth April: 26.
Ama lu, U .C . ( 1998) Agricultural Research and Extension Delivery Systems in Sub-saharan Afiica Calabar, University of Calabar Press: 200.
Anon, D.P. (2004) A decade of progress in Intergrated Rural Development: Focus on the ADPs in Nigeria. Rural Scope Vol. 5(2) Sept - Dec. a newsletter of the Federal Department of Rural Development: 8 - 16.
Arua, S.D. (1998) ResourcePoor Farmers participation in ' Research. A Synthesis of experiences from gth National Agricultural Resource Systems (NARIS). The Hague, Netherlands. ISNAR: 120 - 130.
Asiabaka, C.C. (2001) The role of ADPs in agricultural transformation of Nigeria: A paper presented at the National Conference at Abuja 8 - loth July: 18 - 21.
Baker, J.T. (1999) Evaluation of Extension Programmes in Rural Societies. Sage Publishers, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA: 207.
Benue State Agricultural and Rural Development Authority (BNARDA) (1995) A handbook on: The Impact of BNARDA On Agriculture and Rural Development 117 Benue State Makurdi, Aboki Publishers, Nigeria: 43.
Buttel, F.H. (2004) Beyond the Family Farm in Technology and Social Change in RuralArea. Westview Press, Boulder, Co. UK: 2005.
Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) (2005) Nigeria's Development Prospects: Poverty Assessment and Alleviation Study, Central Bank of Nigeria in collaboration with the World Bank. A workshop on Poverty Alleviation programme held at Abuja 9 - loth March: 40 - 43.
Cernia, M.M. and J.B. Tepping (1999) A System of Monitoring and Evaluating Agricultural Extension Projects. World Bank Staff Working paper No. 272. The World Bank 1818 H Street N.W. Washington D.C 20433 U.S.A: 19-29.
Cooperative Extension Centre (CEC) (2000) Hand book on Organisational Structure and functions of Co-operative Extension Centre, Universiity of Agriculture, Makurdi. Published by CEC, UAM, Makurdi: 10.
Ducker, P.F. (2005) Management, Task, Response Practices. Harper and Row Publishers, Inc. New York: 14-21.
Elliot, D.K. (2004) Monitoring of Punjab Extension and Agricultural Development Projects. Fifth Monitoring Survey; Agricultural Department, Punjab Lahore, Pakistan: 36-38.
Eremie, S.W., P.S.0 Okoli and H.R. Chheda (1999) An assessment of the design and analysis of on-farm trials in Nigeria's ADPs. In: H.J.W. Mutsaers and P. Walker (eds) On-farm Research in Theory and Practice: 10 1 - 120.
Erinle H.C. (2005) On-farm Technology Testing: For whom? What? And how? Agricultural System in Africa-Vol 1 (1): 10- 1 1.
Ezumah, I.D. (2002) Farmers' Participation Research. Newsletter of the National Farming Systems Research Network (NFSRN) No. 10: 04-05: 4-8.
Feder, S.W. (2005) Farming for the Future: An Introduction to Low-External Input and Sustainable Agriculture. London; Macmillan Press Ltd. U.K: 35-54.
Federal Agricultural Co-ordinating Unit (FACU) (2004) African Agriculture: The next 25 years. Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations, New York: 23-25.
Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN) (2000) Main Report by Technical Committee on the poverty Alleviation in Nigeria: 3-5.
Fenley, J.M. (1999) Programme planning in extension work. In: S.K.T. Williams, J.M. Fenly andE.C. Williams (eds.) A manual for Agricultural Extension Workers in Nigeria. Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo State Nigeria: 11-16.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2004) Report on the Agro-ecological Zones Projects, Methodology and Results for Africa, FAO, Rome: 12- 17.
Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) (2005) The strategies for making low inputsjsustainable agriculture more profitable. In: C. Francies (ed.) Sustainable Agriculture in temperate Zones. New York, John Wiley and Sons publishers: 1-4.
Gabriel, T. (1997) The Human Factor in Rural Development. Belhaven Press Ltd, London: 180.
Gallen, S.N. (2005) Designing and Managing Human Resource Systems. New Delhi; IBH Publishing Company: 6-8.
Gallup, O.D. (2005) Technical Considerations for sustainable agriculture. In: J.P Srivastava and H. Aldermann (eds.) Agriculture and Environmental Challenges, IBRD j World Bank: 1-5.
Guba, M.S. (2005) An Evaluation study on the impact of intensive agricultural extension system. In: D.R. Desai and M.R. Reddy (eds.) Studies on T and V Extension Education. Oxford Publishing Company, New Delhi, India: 135-138.
Holmboe, 0. (2003) Inter-Disciplinary Research on Rural Development, OIC paper No.6, American Council on Education: 3-8.
Idachaba, F.S. (2002) Agriculture and rural development under the Babangida administration . Journal of Agriculture, Science and Technology. Vol . 3 (2), A publication of the University of Agriculture Makurdi, Nigeria: 113-128.
Idache, E. (1992) Economics of Rice Production. A Case Study of Okpokwu Local Government Area of Benue state. B. Agric Project Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology ABU Zaria, Nigeria: 62.
International Funds for Agricultural Development (IFAD) (2004) Socio- economics Profile of Nigeria. FOS, Lagos: 2-6.
Lackey, A.S. (1998) Defining Development. Journal of Rural Development and Administration. Vol. 22(4) Autumn (Oct -Dec): 63-75.
Mathew M.S. (2005) Factors related to the effective administration of extension and rural development in Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural AdministraB0n.-Vol. 7 (1): 25-29.
Mckenna, O.A. (2005) Farmers Education and Farm Efficiency, Washington D.C International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, U.S.A: 4-13.
Mohammed, B.Y and C. Amuta (2000) A heritage of Reforms : Perpective and Interpretations. The Open Press Ltd. Zaria: 198.
Moris, 3. (2005) Extension Alternative in Tropical Africa. Agricultural Administration Unit Occasional Paper 7. Overseas Development Institute: 184.
Narayan, D. (2000) Voices of the Poor: Crying Out for Change. World Bank Publication Vol. 5 (3): 1-13.
Narayan, D. (2004) Voices of the Poor; From Many Lands, world Bank '
Publication New York Vol. 44 (37): 26-30.
National Agricultural Extension Research and Liaison Services (NAERLS) (2005) Annual Work Plan. Ahmadu Bello University Press, Samaru Zaria, Nigeria: 14-19.
National Planning Commission (NPC) (2000) Children's and Women's Right in Nigeria A Wake up Call Situation Assessment and Analyisis, National Planning Commission and UNICEF Abuja: 45.
National Poverty Eradication Council (NPEC) (2000) Nigeria Poverty Reduction Plan, 2001 to 2004. A Report of Inter-Ministerial Committee, Coordinated by the Economic Policy Coordinating Committee Abuja: 40 46.
Njoku, B.G. and S.A. Ohajanya (2002) The Economics of Oil Palm Production in the Tropics. Retrieved from http://www.sfwmd.gov/org/pld/hsm/html.
Nor, M.L. (2005) The Socio- economic Impact of Postharvest Innovations Transferred by The Women in Agriculture Sub-programme on Women - Farmers in Benue state. An M.Sc Research Proposal Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Nigeria Nsukka, Nigeria: 49.
Odoma M.O. (2005) An Evaluation of Extension Services of Kogi State Agricultural Development Projects: 1994 - 2003. A Pre -field Seminar Paper presented in the Department of Agricultural Extension and Communication, University of Agriculture Makurdi, Nigeria: 50.
Olayide, O.F. (2002) Reforming agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Extension. V01.1 (2): 50-56.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2001) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Guidelines on Poverty Reduction. Policy Statement by the DAC on Poverty Reduction, Paris. Retrieved from http;/www./fao. Org./docrep/w5830e/w583Oe04html.
Ononiwu B.O. (1998) Low input technologies from sustainable agricultural system.In: V.W. Ruttan and C.E Pray (eds.) Impact of Modern Technology on farmers. Boulder, Colorado; Westview Press: 34-39.
Otite, J.A. (1997) The Achievement of the Agricultural Development Programmes in Nigeria. Presented at Symposium on the ADP Agricultural Show Kaduna 28-3oth April, 1992: 26.
Oyemomi, E.O. (2002) An Assessment of Poverty Reduction Strategies in Nigeria (1983-2002). A Ph.D Dissertation submitted to the Department of Management Studies St. Clement University: 108.
Richards, 1. F. (1 999) Indigenous Agricultural revolution. West view Press Boulder Co: 34-38.
Sa bros ky, J .T. (2004) An Introduction to Extension Education. Oxford Publishing Company, New Delhi, India: 190.
Sanderson, D. (2004) Rural Sociologist and the Farmers. John Wiley and Sons Publishers, Inc., New York: 18.
Sanderson, D. (2005) Organized planning model. Journal of Agricultural Education: 47 1-473.
Schuring, T. (2005) Rationalizing donor support for NARs. In: E. Javier and U. Reborg (eds.) The Chan ing Dynamic of Global Agriculture. DESIZEL, 4 Feldafing, Germany 2-28' September: 4-10.
Shaner, W.W. (2004) The Intergration of Traditional and Emerging Technologies in the Development of more Efficient Farming Systems in Tropical Africa. Paper Presented at UN Conference, 11-16'~ Dec: 18-26.
Stufflebeam, D.L. (2002) Analysing agricultural technology system: some methodological tools. In: B.E Swanson (ed.) Report of the Global Consultation on Agricultural Extension. Rome, FA0 : 4 5 -58.
Turtototianen, T. (2003) Research-Extension Farmers Linkage System in Nigeria: Contributions of the World Bank. Paper presented at SPAAR regional Workshop Abuja, Nigeria, 5-6th Oct: 4-7.
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) (2000) Unified Agricultural Extension Services (UAES) World Bank's Expectations from the Agricultural Development Projects (ADPs) Mission Report: 8.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2001) Nigerian Human Development Programme (UNDP) Report 2000/2001 World Bank Washington: 3-9.
University of Wiscosin - Extension (UWEX) (2005) Programme Development and Evaluation.http://www.Uwex.edu/ces/pdande/prog dev./index. html.
Vijayaragavan, K. (2004) The Technology Application Gap: Overcoming Constraints of Small farm Development, FA0 research and Technology Paper, Rome FAO: 19-27.
Von Blankenburg, P. (2005) The T and V system in agricultural extension: a review of first experience. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture. Vol. 2 (1): 6-25.
Waldo, D. (1999) What is public administration? In: 3.M. Sharfritz and A.C. H yde (eds . ) Classics of Public Administration. Moore Publishing Company Inc., Oak Park, Illinois: 14-27.
Warren, P. (2003) The Context of Extension in Agricultural and Rural Development. Retrieved from http://www./fao.org./docrep /w583OeO4. html
Webster, B.C. (2004) Strenghtening agricultural research in sub-Saharan Africa: A proposed strategy. Draft Report. Washington D.C. World Bank: 1-3.
Whyte, W.F. (2005) The need for a new strategy: Paper Presented for the Farming Systems Research and Extension short course, Geines Ville, Florida, July 18 - 23rd: 14-18.
Wiggins. S. (1997) Agricultural Projects Management. Discussion paper. Department of Agricultural Economics and Management; University of Readings: 1-13.
.. Williams, S.K.T. (2002) Role of university of agriculture in the transformation of Nigerian agriculture. Journal of Agriculture, Science and Technology (JAST), Vol. 3(2): 103-112.
World Bank (1999) Indigenous Knowledge and Development: World Bank Discussion Paper, Washington, D.C. The World Bank: 14-18.
World Bank (2001) World Development 2000/2001 Report. Attacking Poverty. Oxford University, Inc., New York: 13-15.
World Bank (2002) Poverty Reduction and the World Bank Progress in operationalizing the WDR 2000/2001 World Bank Washington D.C: 1- 8.
World Bank (2005) Nigerian Consultations with the poor. Report of the Global Synthesis Workshop 22-23rd September, 2005: 23-35.
Zubairu, T.A. (1999) A Manual towards an Effective Project Monitoring System for Kebbi State Agricultural and Rural Development, Birnin Kebbi, Nigeria: 120.
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA
FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION
TOPIC: EVALUATION OF THE CO-OPERATIVE EXTENSION CENTRE,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE, MAKURDI, BENUE STATE, NIGERIA.
STRUCTURED INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR FARMERS.
INSTRUCTION: Please, tick, (4) or fill in the blank under each item.
SECTION B: INFORMATION ON VARIOUS INNOVATIONS DISSEMINATED BY CEC AND LEVEL OF ADOPTION BY FARMERS. 11. Response categories: (AW) = 1, Interest (IN) = 2, Evaluation (EV) = 3,
(TR) = 4, Adoption (AD) = 5.
INNOVATION
a. Crop/liuestock Production Innovations
i. Fertilizer / Organic Manure Application
Organic Manure: Compost manure Poultry droppings
Goat manure
Cow dung
Inorganic fertilizer:
NPK
Urea
Single Super Phosphate (SSP)
ii. Use of insecticide:
Karate
ADOPTION LEVEL
Trial
I
Apron star I
Furadan I
Actelic 25 Ec I
Cym bush
Fernasan - D
Basagram iv. Storage Procedures: Ways of sorting crop produce for storage. Use of well ventilated containers such as baskets, jute bags etc.
I
Sun drying techniques Use of clay pots I Use of dastic containers I Storage in drums (plastic/metal) Use of silos Use of actelic dust for storage Appropriate use of local barns Demonstration on required temperature for storage. v. Introduction of improved crop varieties etc Rice (ITA 150). Cassava (TMS 30572) Yam (Yam miniset technoloqy) Cowpea (IT2246-4 Ife brown, TVX 3236) Maize (72P8 (FAZ 27), 7XB (FAZ234) DMRSR-Y, DM RSRW, TZ 5R, W Soyabean: (samsoy 1.M 351, TGVX 536-021)) Palm tree: Dura specie Tenera s~ecie Pisifera specie b) Livestock production
innovations: Livestock model housing Correct feeding ration Treatment of diarrhea Treatment of wounds Vaccination against PPR Treatment of scabies
Bathing animals against ecto Parasites Training on pasture management
12a. Were you regularly trained on crops and livestock production in question 12
above?
12b. How regular per month? i. Once ( ) ii. Twice ( )
.. iii Three times iv Four times SECTION C:INFORMATION ON EXTENT OF FARMER'S PERCEIVED ACHIEVEMENT OF CEC's SPECIFIC EXTENSION TASKS. 13. What is your perception on the level of achievement of the following CECs
specific extension tasks?
Response categories: to a very great extent (TVGE) =4 to a great extent (TGE) = 3;
to some extent (TSE) = 2; to a little extent (TLE) = 1
Tasks performance bv CEC Level of achievement-
N G E TGE TSE TLE
(a) General Extension Services
i. Identification of field problems
ii. Serving as information centre
iii. Conduct of demonstration units
Provision of advisory / consultancy
services on:
iv. Pest control techniques
v. Diseases control
vi. Animal production
vii. Fisheries production
viii Agro forestry management
(b). Home economic extension services:
ix. Production of laundry soap
x. Conduct of village based health
programmes
xi. Home decoration/tailoring
Training and demonstration on:
xii. Processing of soyabeans into
soyamilk
xiiiProcessing of soyabeans into
dadawa
Training on use of food processing
Tools:
'xiv. Rice milling technology 0 > > 0 xv. Garri processing/grating
technology 0 > 0 0 xvi. Cassava processing into different
chips 0 > 0 0 . xvii. Oil palm processing technology 0 > > 0
xiii. Food preservation practices 0 0 > >
SECTION D: INFORMATION ON THE IMPACT OF CEC ON FARMERS IN THE
CATCHMENT AREAS.
12. What is your perception on impact of CEC on socio-economic life of farm families
in the catchment areas?
i. Membership of formal
Organization:
High participation
Moderate participation
Low participation
ii. Level of social
Interaction :
Highly interactive
Moderately improved
Low interaction
iii. Ease of paying children's
school fees:
Very easy
Easy
Not easy
iv. Ease of participation in
agricultural and community
development activities:
Very high
Easy
Difficult
v. Possession of household
Materials: (Beddings, furniture, cooking
Utensils etc)
Adequate
Fairly adequate
To a little extent
vi. Improvement in nutrition
status:
Before 1989 After 1989(89-'05)
Highly standard nutritional status (
Fairly standard nutritional status ( )
Below standard nutritional status (
vii. Knowledge on improved innovations.
Adequate knowledge ( )
Fair knowledge ( )
Poor knowledge ( 1 viii. Attitudes towards improved innovations:
Very positive ( 1 Positive (
Negative ( 1 ix. Level of annual income
1,000 - 10,000 (
11,000 - 20,000 (
21,000 - 30,000 (
31,000 - 40,000 (
41,000 - 50,000 (
51,000 - 60,000 (
x. Marketing strategies;
Highly improved (
Fairly improved (
Poor ( 1 SECTION E: FARMERS PERCEPTION ON PROBLEMS TO EFFECTIVE
PERFORMANCE OF CEC's EXTENSION SERVICES TO THEM.
13. Please indicate the extent to which the following problems prevent the effective
extension services of CEC, UAM.
To a great extent (TGE) = 4; to some extent (TSE) = 3; to a little extent (TLE) =
2; to a very little extent (TVLE) = 1.
I Problems I Extent of problems I
TGE 4
NLE
i) Poor extension-agent - farmers contact
ii) High Cost of improved innovations
iii) Inadequate improved seed varieties
iv) Insufficient land for cultivation
v) Lack of operational funds
vi) Difficulty in marketing produce
vii) Poor access roads for transporting
Farm produce.
viii) No credit incentives
ix) Poor modern storage facilities
x) High technicality of innovations
xi. Language barrier
Xii Incompatibility of innovations
xiii. Incompetence of extension agents
xiv. Large family size
xv. on-co-operation of dependants
xvi. Scarcity of introduced
innovations
xvii. Poor access to innovations
procurement channels
xviii. Incessant communal crises
xix. Insufficient manpower
xx. Lack of staff training
xxi. Excess work-load on Staff
xxii. Non-reward of superior performance
xxiii. Cultural / religious barriers
xxiv. Poor salary scale
I xxv Lack of communication facilities 1
xxvi Poor ofice accommodation 1, I xxvii Poor evaluation of extension programmes I
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA
FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION
TOPIC: EVALUATION OF THE CO-OPERATIVE EXTENSION CENTRE,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE, MAKURDI, BENUE STATE,
NIGERIA.
QUESTIONNAIRE TO EXTENSION STAFF OF CEC ON THE ABOVE TOPIC
INSTRUCTION: Tick (d ) or fill in answer in any space provided below each item
SECTION A: INFORMATION ON CHANGES IN BOTH THE
HUMAN AND MATERIAL RESOURCES STRENGTH OF CEC FROM 1989-
2005
1. Indicate the staff strength of CEC
I Staff strength of the CEC, UAM I Staff number I
2. What is the trend of change in staff strength of CEC, UAM ?
After 1989
I Year I
i
Change in staff number
3. Specify the strength of material resources of CEC as at 1989 - 2005.
Material resources As at 1989 1
After1989 (1989-2005)
(b).communication facilities
I
4. What is the nature of site occupied by CEC?
Temporary site ( )
Permanent site ( )
5. What is the capacity of the site occupied by CEC?
Number of offices
Number of toilets
Number of conference halls
SECTION E: INFORMATION ON PERCEIVED PROBLEMS TO EFFECTIVE
PERFORMANCE OF CEC, UAM.
6. Indicate the extent to which the following problems affect the effective
performance of CEC, UAM
To a great extent (TGE) = 4; to sorne extent (TSE) = 3; to little extent (TLE) = 2; to
a very little extent (WLE) = 1.
I Problems
I i) Poor ext. agents-farmers contact
I ii) High cost of improved innovations
I ifi) Inadequate imoroved seeds
iv) Insufficient land for cultivation
v) Lack of operational funds
vi) Difficulty in marketing produce
/ vii) Poor access roads for transporting
farm produce
viii) No credit incentives
,. . I@ Poor rndern storaae facll~tles
x) H@h technicality of innovations
M) l a n m e barr~er
. xii) Incompatibility of innovations
I xiii) Incompetence of extension agents
I xiv) Large family size
I xv) Non co-operation of de~endents
I xvi) Scarcity of introduced innovations
/ xvii) Poor access to innovations
I procurement channels
Extent of problems
xviii) Incessant communal crises
xix) Insufficient manpower
xx) Lack of staff traininq
xxi) Excess work-load on staff
xxii) Non-reward of superior performance I xxiii)Cultural/reliaious barriers 1-l.- xxiv)Poor salary scale
xxv) Lack of communication facilities
xxvi)Poor office accommodation I I I xxvii)Poor evaluation of extension
programmes