Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Research Article
Relationship between Farmers’ Participation in Technology
Development and Dissemination Processes; and Acceptability
of Improved Sugarcane Varieties in Kakamega County
1Caroline M. Thuo*, 2Justus M. Ombati, 3Agnes O. Nkurumwa
1Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization, Department of Technology Transfer, PO Box 388-00217,
Limuru, Kenya
2,3Department of Agricultural Education and Extension, Egerton University, PO Box 536-20115, Egerton, Kenya
Improved sugarcane varieties have been developed and promoted in Kenya, to enhance
sugarcane productivity. However, their acceptance by farmers is low. This paper investigates this
phenomenon in attempt to underpin contributing factors to low acceptance. It examines the
relationship between farmers’ participation in technology development and dissemination
processes; and acceptability of improved sugarcane varieties in Kakamega County. This study
used cross-sectional survey research design. Target population was 137,355 small-scale
sugarcane farmers from Kakamega County, from which a sample of 384 farmers was randomly
selected. Questionnaires were used to collect data, which was analyzed using descriptive and
inferential statistics. The study established limited participation of sugarcane farmers in the
development and dissemination of improved sugarcane varieties. Significant relationships were
established between farmers’ participation in the development and dissemination of improved
sugarcane varieties with their acceptability by farmers. The number of year’s farmers had
produced these varieties was found to be a strong indicator of their acceptability by farmers.
Research findings indicate need to avail necessary information about the improved varieties to
farmers by the extension service providers. Utilization of farmer Participatory Technology
Development and Dissemination approaches need to be enhanced in the development and
dissemination of improved sugarcane technologies.
Key words: Improved sugarcane varieties, Technology development, Dissemination, Acceptability, Farmers’ participation
INTRODUCTION
Sugarcane is an industrial crop used globally for sugar and Despite the benefits associated with the sugar industry in
bio energy (Zhao and Li, 2015). The large demand for Kenya, the sector is faced with various challenges, which
sugar is the primary driver of sugarcane production, which includes high cost of sugar production. Compared to other
accounts for 80 percent of sugar produced worldwide parts of the world, Kenya has the highest sugar production
(Murphy, 2017). Its’ production supports approximately 7.5 cost among the sugar producing member countries of the
percent of the world rural population (Mnisi and Dlamini, Common Market of Eastern and South Africa (COMESA)
2012). The sugar industry contributes significantly to the trading block. The high cost of production has made the
Kenya economy. According to Food and Agriculture Country’s sugar sector to be globally uncompetitive
Organization (2019), the Country produced 4,751,609 (Kamau and Snipes, 2013). Low sugarcane productivity at
tonnes of sugarcane under 67,708 hectares in 2017. The the farm level is another great challenge. Sugarcane yields
annual sugar production is approximately 600,000 metric
tonnes (AFFA, 2016). Sugarcane production is the main *Corresponding author: Caroline M. Thuo, Kenya
economic activity in Western, Nyanza parts of Rift Valley Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization,
and the Coastal region (AFFA, 2016). Approximately Department of Technology Transfer, PO Box 388-00217,
300,000 farmers are involved in its production and supply Limuru, Kenya. Email: cmthuo2007@yahoo.com Tel:
over 92 percent of sugarcane processed by the Kenya +254721233167; Co-Authors Email:
sugar mills (Lihasi, Onyango and Ochola, 2016). 2
jusmotush@yahoo.com Tel: +254722692765
3
aonkurumwa@yahoo.com Tel: +254721220363
Relationship between Farmers’ Participation in Technology Development and Dissemination Processes; and Acceptability of Improved Sugarcane Varieties in Kakamega County
Thuo et al. 251
have declined in the past decade with average tonnes farmers but majority of them have failed to accept them. A
cane per hectare (tch) dropping from 74 tch in 2004 to 61 report by Conroy and Sutherland (2014), indicates that one
tch in 2014 (Mwanga, Ong’ala and Orwa, 2017). This is of the main reasons why resource-poor farmers are slow
against the expected yields of approximately 100 tch or unable to take up improved technologies is because of
(KSB, 2014). These low yields have been attributed to their inappropriateness. Abukhzam and Lee (2010), also
widespread use of older, low quality sugar cane varieties adds that farmers may reject technologies because they
(Abura, Gikunda and Nato, 2013). This is demonstrated by are not compatible with their values, beliefs, perceived
their dominance. According to KSB (2014), the CO 421, needs and their past experiences. This creates the
CO 945 and CO 617 varieties occupying 39 percent, 23 concern whether low acceptance of the improved
percent and 17 percent of the total area under sugarcane sugarcane varieties in Kenya, is due to their
production in Kenya, respectively. The CO 421, CO 617 inappropriateness or lack of compatibility with the farmers’
and CO 945 varieties has been under production since needs. Production of improved technologies that are
1960, 1969 and 1990 respectively (KALRO, 2019). In appropriate and compatible with the farmers’ needs is
addition to the above-mentioned limitations, these therefore very critical for enhanced technology
varieties are prone to diseases particularly smut and acceptance. This makes it necessary to evaluate the
ratoon stunting disease; late maturing taking between 20- processes used to produce and disseminate these
24 months to mature; and have low sucrose content. improved technologies.
Consequently, farmers get low returns from sugarcane
production and are not able to sustain their livelihood Various approaches are used in agricultural technology
effectively. In addition, there is insufficient sugar development and dissemination. Conventional approach is
production, which has forced Kenya to import one of the commonly used approaches. It involves
approximately 240,000 metric tonnes of sugar annually to researchers and technical specialist to identify constraints,
bridge the gap in order to meet domestic consumption of possible solutions, and transfer the findings to farmers
840,000 metric tonnes (AFFA, 2016). Continued deficit in through extension staffs. Standardized package of
cane yields is likely to have further negative effect on the practices developed by scientists are the end product of
operations of sugar mills, and may even lead to closure of this approach (Pedzisa et al., 2010). Participatory
a number of them due to insufficiency in supply of the raw technology development (PTD) is another approach that
material. involves farmers in all stages of technology production and
dissemination. The goal is to develop appropriate
According to Barua (2016), one of the key reasons for technologies to meet farmers’ needs through continuous
lower agricultural productivity is lack of usage of yield- interaction between scientists and farmers. The starting
enhancing technologies such as improved varieties. This point is on what farmers are successfully doing on their
calls for the Kenyan sugar sector to embrace better farms, which is then improved using scientifically proven
production technologies available, to overcome these technologies. Improved technologies are developed in the
challenges it is experiencing. A total of 21 improved path of the old ones, which is key to the success of an
sugarcane varieties have been developed and released for innovation due to its compatibility (Deligiannaki et al.,
commercial production by the Sugar Research Institute 2011). This enables farmers to participate in the
(SRI) through its variety improvement programme since development of technologies that meet their perceived
2002 (KESREF, 2014). These varieties have superior needs, values, beliefs, and past experiences thus
qualities which includes high yielding both in sucrose and enhancing its acceptance (Abukhzam et al., 2010). It also
tonnage; early maturing and disease resistant e.g smut. provides farmers with adequate knowledge of technology
Sugarcane farmers are expected to produce these use and detailed technical information, which enhances
varieties because they have potential to enhance technology acceptance (Cavane, 2009; Rogers, 2003;
sugarcane productivity, resulting to increased farmers Morris et al., 1999).
income and Kenyan sugar sector becoming globally
competitive (KSB, 2014; Agrochart, 2014). However, their As literature indicates, user acceptance of improved
acceptance by farmers is low, accounting for technologies is a global challenge. This is likely to be
approximately 8 percent of the total distribution of contributed by production and dissemination processes
sugarcane varieties under production in Kenya (KSB, used on these technologies. Technology acceptance by
2014). Ndemo (March 28, 2018) has identified low the users has been viewed as the pivotal factor in
adoption of high yielding sugar cane varieties as one of determining the success or failure of a technology (Dillon
key factors that have contributed to the low sugarcane and Morris, 1996). This study highlighted the problem of
productivity in Kenya. There was need therefore, to low acceptance of improved sugarcane varieties by
investigate the underlying factors that hinder acceptance farmers, which is a significant impediment to their success
of these improved varieties by farmers in Kenya. in Kenya. The question why these varieties are not widely
accepted by farmers in Kenya, and in particular Kakamega
According to Smith and Ulu (2012), low acceptance of new County needs to be answered. It was necessary therefore,
technologies has been a great challenge worldwide. Many to examine the development and dissemination processes
improved agricultural technologies have been availed to of these improved sugarcane varieties in order to establish
Relationship between Farmers’ Participation in Technology Development and Dissemination Processes; and Acceptability of Improved Sugarcane Varieties in Kakamega County
Int. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 252
their appropriateness to farmers. Without knowledge on collected information on farmers’ participation in the
this, it will continue to be difficult to improve sugarcane development of the improved sugarcane varieties. Data on
production in the country. The study findings may help the research activities farmers were involved in and the
researchers and extension service providers in the roles played during the development of improved
development and dissemination of improved technologies sugarcane varieties was collected. Section (iv) collected
using efficient and effective processes that make them information on technology dissemination. Data on
more acceptable by farmers. The findings may also benefit availability of extension services among farmers; various
farmers by helping them realize roles they need to play in extension approaches farmers have participated in and
technology development and dissemination. Addition of their roles during the promotion of improved sugarcane
value to the existing literature on PTD & D in relation to the varieties was collected.
acceptance of improved technologies by farmers will also
be achieved. The researcher obtained a research permit from the
National Commission for Science, Technology and
Innovation (NACOSTI) to authorize the study. This was
MATERIALS AND METHODS followed by recruitment of two enumerators, to assist the
researcher in data collection. The farmers’ questionnaire
A cross-sectional survey research design was used. The was researcher administered questionnaire, written in
study was conducted in Kakamega County, Kenya. The English but was administered to farmers’ orally in Kiswahili
County occupies an area of 3,033.8 Km2 and is located 30 (local national language) as the researcher recorded the
Km North of the equator, within an altitude of 250-2000m responses in English. Therefore, the two enumerators
above sea level. It borders Bungoma County to the North were trained by the researcher to understand the items in
and North West, Uasin Gishu to the North East and East, the questionnaire properly as a guide for proper oral
Nandi to the South East, Vihiga to the South, Siaya to the translation into Kiswahili language during data collection.
South West and Busia to the West. This was done in order to control the quality of data
collected. A preliminary survey was carried out to identify
The study population comprised of 137,355 small scale the sugar stakeholders whom to work out logistics for a
sugarcane farmers from three sugar zones of Mumias, comprehensive data collection in the targeted area. Field
West Kenya and Butali in Kakamega County. A list of supervisors from Mumias, West Kenya and Butali Sugar
registered farmers from the three zones was used as a Companies assisted in locating the sugarcane farmers to
sampling frame. A sample size of 384 sugarcane farmers be included in the study sample. Then the researcher
was selected using the table for determining sample size embarked on data collection with assistance from the two
from the Research Advisors (2006). The table consist of trained enumerators.
population sizes with corresponding sample sizes, with
confidence intervals of 95 percent and 99 percent ; margin Collected data was analyzed using statistical package for
of error of 5 percent to 1 percent . It is recommended that social sciences (SPSS). Both descriptive and inferential
if the exact population size of the study is not listed, the statistics were used. Descriptive statistics were used to
next highest value of population size may be used from the summarize data generated from the research variables
table. Therefore, since the exact population size of using mean, mode, range, percentages and frequencies.
137,355 was not represented in the table, a population size The research variables included farmers’ characteristics,
of 250,000 was used as the next highest value. With a technology development and dissemination processes;
specific margin of error of 5 percent and 95 percent and acceptability of improved sugarcane varieties.
confidence interval, a sample size of 384 farmers was Variables from farmers’ characteristics included age,
used. Proportional sampling was used to determine the gender, education level, income sources, land sizes
number of farmers to be selected from each sugar zone. owned by farmers and experience in sugarcane
Then for each zone, random sampling was done using a production. These variables were summarized using
table of random numbers to select number of farmers to means, mode, frequencies and percentages. To
the sample. summarize data on technology development and
dissemination processes, mean, range, standard
Valid and reliable farmers’ questionnaire was used to deviation, frequencies and percentages were used.
collect data from small-scale sugarcane farmers’ and had Acceptability of the improved sugarcane varieties was
four sections. Section (i) was designed to collect data on determined by the size of land under improved varieties
the farmer characteristics. Data collected included age, and the number of years farmers had produced them. The
gender, level of education, income sources and size of higher the number of years the varieties were under
land. Information about the sugarcane varieties under production, the higher the acceptability level. The larger
production by farmers was collected in section (ii). Among the size of land under the improved sugarcane varieties,
the data collected in this section included types of the higher the acceptability level. Rating scales were used
sugarcane varieties under production in Kakamega to determine the acceptability levels by farmers. For the
County, size of land under the varieties and number of acceptability levels based on land sizes, rating scales of
years’ farmer had produced these varieties. Section (iii) 0.1-1.0 acres (very low acceptance); 1.1-2.0 acres (low
Relationship between Farmers’ Participation in Technology Development and Dissemination Processes; and Acceptability of Improved Sugarcane Varieties in Kakamega County
Thuo et al. 253
Relationship between Farmers’ Participation in Technology Development and Dissemination Processes; and Acceptability of Improved Sugarcane Varieties in Kakamega County
Int. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 254
main source of income. Only 15 percent had formal Table 1 presents the roles played by farmers in the
employment while 3.9 percent had businesses. Results research activities involving production of the improved
revealed that majority of sugarcane farmers are small land varieties.
holders with 35 percent having 0.1 - 2.0 acres; 25 percent
had 2.1- 4.0 acres; 17 percent had 4.1-6.0 and 8 percent Table 1: Farmers’ Role in Research Activities
had 6.1-8.0 acres. Only 15 percent of farmers owned Involving Production of Improved Sugarcane Varieties
between 8.1 to 10.0 acres. According to Aldosari et al., Farmers role in research Number Percent (%)
(2017), size of land holding plays an important role in the
None 311 81.0
adoption of modern agricultural practices among the
farming community. More land holdings mean more Group leader 3 0.8
potential to increase productivity and efficiency to adopt Farmer Research Group member 18 4.7
modern technologies. Research plot owner 13 3.4
Figure 3 shows how many years the sugarcane farmers Production of seedcane 39 10.1
have engaged in their production. Results show that 16 Total 384 100.0
percent of farmers had produced cane for 1 to 5 years; 35 Source: Research data, 2018
percent 6 to 10 years; 15 percent for 11 to 15 years; 4
percent for 16 to 20 years; 5 percent for 21 to 25 years; 4 These roles included farmers being research plot owners;
percent for 26 to 30 years while 21 percent for over 31 group leaders; farmer research group members; and
years. According to these results, most farmers have production of seedcane. Research plot owners were
cultivated cane for many years, giving them considerable farmers who donated land for use in research work for
experience in sugarcane production. experimentation, establishment of on-farm demonstrations
or for seed cane production. The leaders were in charge
of farmer groups. Farmer Research Groups were used for
research work and for production of certified seedcane,
which was sold to other farmers (KESREF, 2012).
Relationship between Farmers’ Participation in Technology Development and Dissemination Processes; and Acceptability of Improved Sugarcane Varieties in Kakamega County
Thuo et al. 255
Table 2: Extension Methods used to Advice Farmers and Source of Advisory Services
Source of advisory services
0 1 2 3 Total
Extension approaches used to offer Not applicable 105(30.1) 0(64.7) 0(10.0) 0(3.1) 105(105.0)
advisory services to farmers Farm visits 0(11.2) 26(24.0) 10(3.7) 4(1.1) 40(40.0)
Farmer Research Groups 0(4.2) 8(9.0) 7(1.4) 0(0.4) 15(15.0)
Field demonstrations 0(5.9) 17(12.6) 4(2.0) 0(0.6) 21(21.0)
Farmers meetings 0(41.3) 134(88.7) 7(13.8) 7(4.2) 148(148.0)
Farmers field days 0(7.3) 19(15.6) 7(2.4) 0(0.7) 26(26.0)
Seminars and workshops 0(5.6) 20(12.0) 0(1.9) 0(0.6) 20(20.0)
Exchange visits 0(0.3) 0(0.6) 1(0.1) 0(0.0) 1(1.0)
Office visit by farmer 0(2.2) 8(4.8) 0(0.7) 0(0.2) 8(8.0)
Total 108(108.0) 232(232.0) 36(36.0) 11(11.0) 384(384.0)
Key 0- None; 1- Sugar Company; 2- Sugar Research Institute; 3-Farmers’ Cooperative Societies
Source: Research data, 2018
Field days, and field demonstrations are farmer Training of other farmers in sugarcane production was
participatory approaches and their use was an indicator of done by expert farmers, who had gained expertise in
farmers’ participation in technology dissemination sugarcane production after being trained by other
processes across Kakamega County. These approaches extension agents. In addition, expert farmers had gained a
fasten the process of information exchange and adoption lot of knowledge and experience in the production of
(Kaihura, 2001). Through observation, farmers are able to improved sugarcane varieties through their participation in
see the performance of an improved technology in the field the establishment of variety demonstration plots. Hosting
thus overcoming the problem of uncertainity in technology of field days was done by sugarcane farmers or farmer
performance, which enhances acceptance by farmers. research group members, who had established either
Couros et al. (2003), Rogers (2003) and Morris et al. improved sugarcane variety demonstration plots or
(1999) indicate that uncertainty about an innovation seedcane bulking plots for these varieties. Formation of
performance due to its unfamiliarity and newness is a other FRGs was done by expert farmers through guidance
major obstacle in acceptance of improved technology. of extension personnel to expand existing FRG
Uncertainty often results in postponement of the farmers’ membership to other farmers. Each FRG was expected to
decision to adopt a technology until further evidence is establish improved variety demonstration plots for use in
gathered. training other farmers and to be used as field day sites.
These FRGs were also expected to multiply seedcane
Roles Played by Farmers in the Promotion of from their demonstration farms for sale. In addition,
Improved Sugarcane varieties in Kakamega County researchers in collaboration with sugar companies and
other sugarcane farmers established seedcane
The study revealed that 20 percent of the respondents
multiplication sites to supplement availability of certified
participated in dissemination processes within Kakamega
seedcane closer to farmers.
County, which indicated low involvement of farmers in this
process. These farmers played various roles as shown in
Relationship between Farmers’ Participation in
Table 3.
Technology Development Processes and
Table 3: Roles Played by Farmers in the Dissemination Acceptability of Improved Sugarcane Varieties
of Improved Sugarcane Varieties
Farmers roles Percent A Spearman’s correlation coefficient of 0.323 was
Number (%) obtained between farmers’ participation in technology
development processes and the acceptability of improved
None 308 80.4 sugarcane varieties. This indicated that a positive and
Training of other farmers 9 2.3 moderate linear relationship existed between the two
Hosting of field day 33 8.6 variables. Table 4 shows a crosstabulation between these
variables.
Formation of other farmer research
2 0.4
groups (FRGs)
Establishment of demonstration plots 15 3.9
Selling of improved seedcane 17 4.4
Total 384 100.0
Source: Research data, 2018
Relationship between Farmers’ Participation in Technology Development and Dissemination Processes; and Acceptability of Improved Sugarcane Varieties in Kakamega County
Int. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 256
Table 4: Farmers’ Role in the Development of Improved Sugarcane Varieties and Variety Acceptability based on
Years of Production Cross Tabulation
Farmers role in the development of improved sugarcane varieties
None 1 2 3 4 Total
Variety Very low acceptance 28 (16.5) 0 (1.2) 0 (2.1) 0 (1.1) 1 (8.1) 29(29.0)
acceptability Low acceptance 39(34.1) 2(2.6) 4(4.3) 1(2.3) 15(16.8) 60(60.0)
based on years
Acceptance 36(36.4) 4(2.7) 2(4.5) 1(2.4) 21(17.9) 64(64.0)
of production
High acceptance 15(30.1) 3(2.3) 10(3.8) 5(2.0) 20(14.8) 53(53.0)
Very high acceptance 2(2.8) 0(0.2) 0(0.4) 1(0.2) 2(1.4) 5(5.0)
Total 120(120.0) 9(9.0) 15(15.0) 8(8.0) 59(59.0) 211(211.0)
Chi-square = 39.075; Critical value =26.296; Df = 16;α = 0.05; r=0.323
Key: Figures in the brackets are the expected cell counts
1-Group leader; 2-Farmer research group member; 3-Research plot owners; 4-Seed cane production
Source: Research data, 2018
At 0.05 level of significance and 16 degrees of freedom, members of farmer research groups and research plot
the critical value determined from the chi-square table was owners. Gained experience and understanding about
26.296 and the calculated chi was 39.075. Since the these varieties, may have given these farmers confidence
calculated Chi of 39.075 was more than the critical chi of to produce them. Majority of farmers who did not play any
26.296, it was concluded that there was a significant role in the development of these varieties displayed very
relationship between farmers’ role in the development of low and low acceptance levels.
the improved sugarcane varieties and variety acceptability
based on years of production. The null hypothesis was When farmers’ participation in the development of the
therefore rejected. This meant that farmers’ participation in improved sugarcane varieties and variety acceptability
the development of improved sugarcane varieties is based on land sizes were correlated, a Spearman’s
associated with the acceptance of these varieties based correlation coefficient of 0.08 was obtained. This indicated
on number of years farmers have produced them. a very weak linear relationship existed between the two
Farmers’, who participated in seed cane production variables. Table 5 shows a crosstabulation between the
portrayed very high acceptance levels, followed by two variables.
Table 5: A Crosstabulation between Farmers’ Role in the Development of Improved Sugarcane Varieties and
Variety Acceptability based on Land under Production
Farmers role in the development of the improved sugarcane varieties
None 1 2 3 4 Total
Variety Very low acceptance 83(81.9) 7(6.1) 12(10.2) 5(5.5) 37(40.3) 144(144.0)
acceptability Low acceptance 12(19.3) 2(1.5) 3(2.4) 1(1.3) 16(9.5) 34(34.0)
based on land
Acceptance 16(11.9) 0(0.9) 0(1.5) 1(0.8) 4(5.9) 21(21.0)
sizes
High acceptance 2(2.3) 0(0.2) 0(0.3) 0(0.2) 2(1.1) 4(4.0)
Very high acceptance 7(4.6) 0(0.3) 0(0.6) 1(0.3) 0(2.2) 8(8.0)
Total 121(121.0) 9(9.0) 15(15.0) 8(8.0) 59(59.0) 211(211.0)
Chi-square = 20.561; Critical value =26.296; Df = 16; α = 0.05; r=0.08
Key: Figures in the brackets are the expected cell counts
1-Group leader; 2-Farmer research group member; 3-Research plot owners; 4-Production of seed cane.
Source: Research data, 2018
At 0.05 level of significance and 16 degrees of freedom, under which these varieties were produced could not be
the critical value determined from the chi-square table was used as an indicator of variety acceptability by farmers.
26.296 and the calculated chi was 20.561. Since the According to a report by Sugar Industry Task Force (2014),
calculated chi of 20.561 was less than the critical chi of sugarcane is grown by small-scale sugarcane farmers in
26.296, it was concluded that there was no significant Kakamega County, who have an average land holding of
relationship between farmers’ role in the development of 1.5 acres per family. This implies that farmers generally
improved sugarcane varieties and variety acceptability produce sugarcane under the small portions of land. The
based on land sizes under their production. The null study results show that majority of farmers produced
hypothesis was therefore accepted. Lack of association improved varieties on small portions of land between 0.1
between the two variables meant that the size of land to1.0 acres of land.
Relationship between Farmers’ Participation in Technology Development and Dissemination Processes; and Acceptability of Improved Sugarcane Varieties in Kakamega County
Thuo et al. 257
Relationship between Farmers’ Participation in sugarcane varieties and variety acceptability based on
Technology Dissemination Processes and years of production shows a Spearman’s correlation of
Acceptability of Improved Sugarcane Varieties 0.370. This indicates that a positive and moderate linear
relationship exist between the two variables. Table 6
A Spearman correlation coefficient between farmers’ shows a crosstabulation between these variables.
participation in the dissemination of the improved
Table 6: A Crosstabulation between Farmers’ Roles in the Dissemination of Improved Sugarcane Varieties and
their Acceptability based on Years of Production
Farmers roles in the dissemination of improved sugarcane varieties
None 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Variety Very low acceptance 24(17.6) 3(0.8) 2(4.9) 0(0.3) 0(1.8) 0(3.6) 29(29.0)
acceptability Low acceptance 39(36.4) 0 (1.7) 16(10.2) 0(6) 2(3.7) 3(7.4) 60(60.0)
based on years
Acceptance 47(38.8) 2(1.8) 5(10.9) 0(0.6) 3(3.9) 7(7.9) 64(64.0)
of production
High Acceptance 16(32.2) 1(1.5) 12(9.0) 2(0.5) 8(3.3) 14(6.5) 53(53.0)
Very high acceptance 2(3.0) 0(0.1) 1(0.9) 0(0.0) 0(0.3) 2(0.6) 5(5.0)
Total 128(128.0) 6(6.0) 36(36.0) 2(2.0) 13(13) 26(26.0) 211(211.0)
Chi-square = 61.251; Critical value =31.410; Df = 20; α = 0.05; r=0.370
Key: Figures in the brackets are expected cell counts
1-Training of other farmers; 2-Hosting of field day; 3- Formation of farmer research groups; 4-Establishment of
demonstration plots; 5-Selling of seedcane.
Source: Research data, 2018
At 0.05 level of significance and 20 degrees of freedom, varieties as noted among farmers, who participated in
the critical value determined from the chi-square table was selling of seedcane, hosting of field days and
31.410 and the calculated chi was 61.251. Since the establishment of demonstration plots.
calculated chi of 61.251 was more than the critical chi of
31.410, it was concluded that there was a significant When farmers’ roles in the dissemination of the improved
relationship between farmers’ roles in the dissemination of sugarcane varieties and variety acceptability based on
improved sugarcane varieties and the acceptability of the land sizes were correlated, a Spearman’s correlation
improved sugarcane varieties based on years of coefficient of 0.037 was obtained. This indicated that a
production. The null hypothesis was therefore rejected. positive and very weak relationship existed between the
Majority of farmers who participated in the dissemination two variables. Table 7 shows a crosstabulation between
of improved varieties portrayed high acceptance of these the two variables.
Table 7: A Crosstabulation between Farmers’ Roles in the Dissemination of Improved Sugarcane Varieties and
Variety Acceptability based on Land Sizes under their Production
Farmers roles in the dissemination of improved sugarcane varieties
None 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Variety Very low acceptance 92.0(87.4) 2 (4.1) 23(24.6) 1(1.4) 9(8.9) 17(17.7) 144(144.0)
acceptability Low acceptance 10(20.6) 3(1.0) 10(5.8) 1(0.3) 4(2.1) 6(4.2) 34(34.0)
based on land
Acceptance 17(12.7) 1(0.6) 2(3.6) 0(0.2) 0(1.3) 1(2.6) 21(21.0)
sizes
High acceptance 2(2.4) 0(0.1) 1(0.7) 0(0.0) 0(0.2) 1(0.5) 4(4.0)
Very high acceptance 7(4.9) 0(0.2) 0(1.4) 0(0.1) 0(0.5) 1(1.0) 8(8.0)
Total 128(128.0) 6(6.0) 36(36.0) 2(2.0) 13(13.0) 26(26.0) 211(211.0)
Chi-square = 27.396; Critical value =31.410; Df = 20; α = 0.05
Key: Figures in the brackets are the expected cell counts
1-Training of other farmers; 2-Hosting of field day;3- Formation of farmer research groups; 4-Participation in the
establishment of demonstration plots; 5-Selling of seedcane.
Source: Research data, 2018
At 0.05 level of significance and 20 degrees of freedom, the improved sugarcane varieties and variety acceptability
the critical value determined from the chi-square table was based on land sizes under their production. The null
31.410 and the calculated chi was 28.455. Since the hypothesis was therefore accepted. Lack of association
calculated Chi of 28.455 was less than the critical chi of between the two variables again meant that land size
31.410, it was concluded that there was no significant under which improved varieties were produced was not an
relationship between farmers’ role in the dissemination of indicator of variety acceptability by farmers.
Relationship between Farmers’ Participation in Technology Development and Dissemination Processes; and Acceptability of Improved Sugarcane Varieties in Kakamega County
Int. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 258
Relationship between Farmers’ Participation in Technology Development and Dissemination Processes; and Acceptability of Improved Sugarcane Varieties in Kakamega County
Thuo et al. 259
Murphy R (2017). Sugarcane: Production Systems, Uses Yang P, Tao Y and Wu Y (2008). Use of unified theory of
and Economic Importance. Nova Science Publishers, acceptance and use of technology to confer the
Inc. behavioral model of 3G mobile telecommunication
Mwanga D, Ong’ala J, Orwa G(2017). Modeling users. Journal of Statistics & Management Systems
Sugarcane Yields in the Kenya Sugar Industry: A 11(5919–949
SARIMA Model Forecasting Approach. International Zhao D and Li Y(2015). Climate change and sugarcane
Journal of Statistics and Applications, 7(6): 280-288. production: Potential impact and mitigation strategies.
DOI: 10.5923/j.statistics.20170706.02 International Journal of Agronomy,10.
Ndemo B (Wednesday, March 28, 2018). Sour facts that http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/547386
blight local sugar industry. Bussiness Daily
Pedzisa T, Minde I and Twomlow S (2010). Use of
participatory processes in wide-scale dissemination of
micro dosing and conservation agriculture in
Zimbabwe. Conference paper presented at the Joint
3rd African Association of Agricultural Economists Accepted 19 July 2018
(AAAE) and 48th Agricultural Economists Association
of South Africa (AEASA), Cape Town, South Africa, Citation: Thuo CM, Ombati JM, Nkurumwa AO (2019).
September 19-23, 2010. Relationship between Farmers’ Participation in
Rogers EM (2003). Diffusion of Innovations, Fifth Edition, Technology Development and Dissemination Processes;
Free Press, New York. and Acceptability of Improved Sugarcane Varieties in
Smith E S and Ulu C 2012. Technology Adoption with Kakamega County. International Journal of Agricultural
Uncertain Future Costs and Quality. Operation Education and Extension, 5(2): 250-259.
research, 60 (2), 262-
274.http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/opre.1110.1035
Sugar industry task force (2014, March). County
Government of Kakamega sugar industry task force
report. Copyright: © 2019 Thuo et al. This is an open-access
The Research Advisors (2006). http://research- article distributed under the terms of the Creative
advisors.com/ Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
Word Net 3.0 (2003-2012). Farlex clipart collection. use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
Princeton University, Farlex Inc. provided the original author and source are cited.
Relationship between Farmers’ Participation in Technology Development and Dissemination Processes; and Acceptability of Improved Sugarcane Varieties in Kakamega County