Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Social Networks, UDP and Rice Production in Niger State: A Case Study of Washe and Sheshi Villages in Niger State
Social Networks, UDP and Rice Production in Niger State: A Case Study of Washe and Sheshi Villages in Niger State
Social Networks, UDP and Rice Production in Niger State: A Case Study of Washe and Sheshi Villages in Niger State
Social Networks, UDP and Rice Production in Niger State: A Case Study of Washe and Sheshi Villages in Niger State
Social Networks, UDP and Rice Production in Niger State: A Case Study of Washe and Sheshi Villages in Niger State
Social Networks, UDP and Rice Production in Niger State: A Case Study of Washe and Sheshi Villages in Niger State
Social Networks, UDP and Rice Production in Niger State: A Case Study of Washe and Sheshi Villages in Niger State
Social Networks, UDP and Rice Production in Niger State: A Case Study of Washe and Sheshi Villages in Niger State
Social Networks, UDP and Rice Production in Niger State: A Case Study of Washe and Sheshi Villages in Niger State
Social Networks, UDP and Rice Production in Niger State: A Case Study of Washe and Sheshi Villages in Niger State
Social Networks, UDP and Rice Production in Niger State: A Case Study of Washe and Sheshi Villages in Niger State
Social Networks, UDP and Rice Production in Niger State: A Case Study of Washe and Sheshi Villages in Niger State
Social Networks, UDP and Rice Production in Niger State: A Case Study of Washe and Sheshi Villages in Niger State
Social Networks, UDP and Rice Production in Niger State: A Case Study of Washe and Sheshi Villages in Niger State
Social Networks, UDP and Rice Production in Niger State: A Case Study of Washe and Sheshi Villages in Niger State
Social Networks, UDP and Rice Production in Niger State: A Case Study of Washe and Sheshi Villages in Niger State
Social Networks, UDP and Rice Production in Niger State: A Case Study of Washe and Sheshi Villages in Niger State
Social Networks, UDP and Rice Production in Niger State: A Case Study of Washe and Sheshi Villages in Niger State
Social Networks, UDP and Rice Production in Niger State: A Case Study of Washe and Sheshi Villages in Niger State
Social Networks, UDP and Rice Production in Niger State: A Case Study of Washe and Sheshi Villages in Niger State
Social Networks, UDP and Rice Production in Niger State: A Case Study of Washe and Sheshi Villages in Niger State
Social Networks, UDP and Rice Production in Niger State: A Case Study of Washe and Sheshi Villages in Niger State
Social Networks, UDP and Rice Production in Niger State: A Case Study of Washe and Sheshi Villages in Niger State
Social Networks, UDP and Rice Production in Niger State: A Case Study of Washe and Sheshi Villages in Niger State
Social Networks, UDP and Rice Production in Niger State: A Case Study of Washe and Sheshi Villages in Niger State
Social Networks, UDP and Rice Production in Niger State: A Case Study of Washe and Sheshi Villages in Niger State
Social Networks, UDP and Rice Production in Niger State: A Case Study of Washe and Sheshi Villages in Niger State
Social Networks, UDP and Rice Production in Niger State: A Case Study of Washe and Sheshi Villages in Niger State
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Social Networks, UDP and Rice Production in Niger State: A Case Study of Washe and Sheshi Villages in Niger State

805

Published on

Slides from Guiding Investments in Sustainable Agricultural Intensification in Africa (GISAIA) project launch held in Abuja, Nigeria on 6/17/2013

Slides from Guiding Investments in Sustainable Agricultural Intensification in Africa (GISAIA) project launch held in Abuja, Nigeria on 6/17/2013

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
805
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTESocial Networks, UDP and RiceProduction: A Case Study ofWashe and Sheshi Villages inNiger State.Oluyemisi Kuku (IFPRI), Saweda Liverpool-Tasie (MSU),Akeem Ajibola (IFPRI)Guiding Sustainable Intensification in SubSaharan Africa (GISAIA); Nigeria LaunchAbuja, Nigeria – June 17, 2013
  • 2. Presentation Outline Introduction Urea Deep Placement Fieldwork and Data Results• UDP knowledge• Yield• Social networksThe village promoter Future steps
  • 3. Introduction The agricultural sector is crucial to the Nigerianeconomy• Largest employer• Food self sufficiency Agricultural productivity is low – working in agriculturalsector is hard and unrewarding• Agronomic factors (e.g seed quality)• Farm management poor production technologies outdated farming methods Many technological innovations that can dramaticallyincrease productivity• How to encourage adoption?
  • 4. Urea Deep Placement technology placement of 1-3 grams of urea supergranules orbriquettes at a 7-10 centimeters (cm) soil depthshortly after the paddy is transplanted. Importance of irrigation
  • 5. Fieldwork Initially visited Farmer field days inGombe and Niger and carried outqualitative interviews (JuneJuly,2012) Returned to Washe and Sheshivillages in Niger State in December2012 (post rainy season) at the end ofthe harvest season. Survey of 278 households
  • 6. Sample characteristics Sample almost evenly split between bothvillages Very similar demographics across both villagesin terms of• gender (83 percent male)• age (mean: 34)• religion (Moslem). Major occupations in the villages were farming,fishing and small business /commerce About 500 plot owners identified, with about880 plots .
  • 7. Education by gender0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Nonekoranic school/makarantalslamiyaLess than high schoolO levelsHigh schoolA levelsTraining collegeTech/professional/polytechnicUniversityFemale Male
  • 8. Number of plots by gender0501001502002503001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10male female
  • 9. Results: Knowledge of UDPSteps takenpercentageof USGusersObtain, clean and sort rice seed 71.282Establish a rice nursery for seedlings 64.103Cover nursery seeds 56.923Prepare the rice fields a. Harrow 52.051b. level, 50.256c. Irrigate 37.179Cultivate, add NPK fertilizer and pulverize the soil 41.026Transplant rice seedlingsfrom nurseriesa. When (21-28 days after nurseryestablishment) 58.205b. At 30-35 cm high 56.154Apply USGs intransplanted rice fields a. Spacing (4 rice hills) 60.256b. When (one week aftertransplanting) 54.103c. Insert at 5-7cm depth 57.692d. Conditions (wet soil either fromrain or irrigation) 66.154Keep field wet after USG application 68.462Harvest rice grains 72.051
  • 10. Results: Rice yields (kg per acre)Year No USG Use USG2011 1203 13342012 871 1,627USG users had double the output of non-USG users despite the floodingThat took place in 2012.
  • 11. Practices in use of USGSN Crop Unit N Depth(cm)Plant/tablet1 Rice Kg 157 3.3 4.692 Sorghum Kg 11 4.5 3.47613 Millet Kg 1 4 44 Ground nut Kg 1 10 25 Cowpea Kg 1 4 46 Yam Tubers 6 5.5 1.838 Maize kg 2 2.5 49 Guinea corn Kg 2 3 2.5Recommended depth is 7-10cm, and 4 plants per USG tablet.
  • 12. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTESocial networks and UDP adoption inNigerwww.leedsmetapps.co.uk
  • 13. Social networks and technology adoptionFarmer adopts if:The technology adoption decision
  • 14. Social networks and technologyadoption Information as an important factor Farmer updates expectations based oninformation about the new technology whichcould come from personal experience and/orthe experience of peer farmers. Farmers who are more connected toinformation via social networks potentiallyhave larger information sets from which toform their subjective expectations about atechnologies profitability
  • 15.  Social networks in rural villages are vitalchannels of communication, The means of diffusing messages canpotentially influence who receivesinformation and/or the confidence theyhave in the information to use itappropriately A training of extension agents mayincrease local capacity. However actualbehavior change achieved in the targetedaudience may vary according to thequantity and quality of links between theextension agents and farmers.
  • 16. Notore/IFDC approach to promoting theadoption of UDP in Niger: Work with ADP Use of Notore Sales agents working with ADP Farmer field days Demonstration plots Use of a village promoter• Local resident in the community• Part of the demonstration plot team• Also serves as a sales agent in the community
  • 17. Farmer has heard of the UDP technologyyesCount 249% 93.26%NoCount 18% 6.74%Farmer knows how to use the USG technologyyesCount 190% 76.61%NoCount 58% 23.39%Farmer has used the UDP technology (adoption)yesCount 182% 67.41%NoCount 88% 32.59%Awareness, Knowledge and use of UDP
  • 18. Who did you hear about UDP from?Total 189 100.00Other 1 0.53 100.00Village head 2 1.06 99.47ADP + Notore 60 31.75 98.41ADP 89 47.09 66.67Notore village promoters 22 11.64 19.58Fellow farmer 15 7.94 7.94use it? Freq. Percent Cum.5. Who taught you how to
  • 19. Network characteristics….Centrality Various measures of a person’sconnectedness; Degree, closeness andbetweenness Centrality as the number of nodes
  • 20. With our dataset… We develop centrality measures to capture theprominence/influence of individuals in thecommunity. We use the following:• How frequently is an individual/householdmentioned as the primary source of agriculturalinformation by other households in the community• How frequently is an individual/household mentionedas the most influential person in the community• How frequently is a person/household mentioned asthe person other community members would go to ifthey needed advice (generally)• How frequently is a person/household mentioned asthe person other community members would go to ifthey needed to borrow money
  • 21. Findings…VillagepromoterMost influentialpeople in thevillageSource of credit(borrowing)GeneralAdviceAgriculturalInformation
  • 22. Who is the village promoter? Age: 41 Highest education : polytechnic Primary work activity is farming, Secondary work activity is small business/commerce (i.e selling USG) An indigene of the village who has lived in thevillage all his life and farmed most of his life. He is also a member of a farmer organization andplays the role of president. He owns three plots, and grows rice on all ofthem He owns 2 motorcycles and 2 Tvs
  • 23. Other key players:• 32 years old, male• highest education: polytechnic,• owns a motorcycle and TV;• owns 1 plot & grows rice only• Lived all his life in the village• Used USG• 30 years old, male• highest education: JSS• own motorcycle and TV;• owns 4 plots & grows rice only• Lived all his life in the village• Used USG on all plotsSource of credit(borrowing)General AdviceSource of credit(borrowing)AgriculturalInformationGeneral Advice
  • 24. Lessons learned An Effective information dissemination strategywas used in these two villages• Farmers were saturated with information aboutUDP The mechanism included a unique blend of socialnetworks and commercial motivation to propagate a newtechnology. In Niger:• a model farmer, open to innovative practices, verypopular, very well respected and well liked.• Called a village meeting to propagate the technology.• Majority of respondents pointed to him as the source oftheir agricultural knowledge.• He appears to have credibility
  • 25. However… Cause and effect with regards to villagepromoter is unclear – it may be his role thatmakes him influential. This is a special case, a lot of resources wasdevoted to propagating this technology insuch a small geographic space, which led todeep diffusion. It is unlikely that this approach will bepractical more generally, so it is critical toidentify the most effective means ofinformation transmission in order topropagate the technology.
  • 26. 2011 2012RICE Non Users UDP users Non Users UDP usersyield for plots managed byfemales 1153.85 4259.13 1442.31 5627.98yield for plots managed bymales 2176.59 3338.38 2159.66 4062.52% difference between maleand female plots 0.89 -0.28 0.50 -0.39Also, although yields differ across UDPusers…
  • 27. Future Steps Larger evaluation of the technology in2013/2014 This will be based on a randomized controltrial This will be done by the Nigeria teamincluding University of Ibadan, Michigan StateUniversity, IFPRI, IFDC and Notore
  • 28. Thank you!

×