Communication Channels used in dissemination of soil fertility management practices in the Central Highlands of Kenya Kima...
Introduction <ul><li>Soil fertility  - Problem in the last 20 years; Remains a big problem to increased yields </li></ul><...
Research Questions <ul><li>Which information sources are utilized by farmers to improve soil fertility on their farms? </l...
Conceptual Framework 9 <ul><li>Stakeholders’ participation </li></ul><ul><li>Ministry of agriculture </li></ul><ul><li>Inp...
Research Methodology  <ul><li>Study Area;  Central Highlands of Kenya </li></ul><ul><li>Sampling Strategy </li></ul><ul><u...
<ul><li>RESULTS AND DISCUSSION </li></ul>
Information sources utilized by farmers to access ISFM information  in Mbeere South and Maara Sources of information Anima...
Availability versus reliability of information sources on ISFM N=240
Approaches Preferred by farmers in communication of ISFM practices in Maara and Mbeere South districts N=240
Communication methods preferred for the different ISFM practices by farmers in Maara and Mbeere South   N=240 Communicatio...
Communication Methods used by extension agents  to communicate on ISFM in Central Kenya
Accessible information source on ISFM by the extension agents in Central Kenya N=105 Source of information Animal manure C...
Factors  influencing  reliability of government extension agents as a source of ISFM information * Correlation is signific...
Social economic factors likely to influence the preference of field days in training of animal manure Independent Variable...
Conclusions <ul><li>Farmers perceived other farmers and radio as the most available sources of information </li></ul><ul><...
Conclusion cont--- <ul><li>Demonstration, farmer to farmer extension and workshops were ranked as the first three methods ...
Recommendations <ul><li>Involve farmers in dissemination of research findings </li></ul><ul><li>Tailor our communication c...
Further research  <ul><li>Further studies are recommended in these areas: </li></ul><ul><li>Assessment of the cost-effecti...
Questions for discussions <ul><li>To what extent do you as a researcher involve farmers in dissemination of research findi...
Acknowledgement <ul><li>Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in East and Central Africa (ASARECA) project o...
<ul><li>Thank you </li></ul>
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Kimaru-Muchai - Communication Channels used in dissemination of soil fertility management practices in the Central Highlands of Kenya

4,993 views

Published on

Presentation delivered at the CIALCA international conference 'Challenges and Opportunities to the agricultural intensification of the humid highland systems of sub-Saharan Africa'. Kigali, Rwanda, October 24-27 2011.

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
4,993
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2,824
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Comparison of availability and reliability of information sources on SFM practices as scored by farmers in Maara and Mbeere South districts in Central Kenya
  • Kimaru-Muchai - Communication Channels used in dissemination of soil fertility management practices in the Central Highlands of Kenya

    1. 1. Communication Channels used in dissemination of soil fertility management practices in the Central Highlands of Kenya Kimaru-Muchai S.W 1 ., Mucheru-Muna M 2 ., Mugwe J.M 3 ., .Mugendi D.N 2 and Mairura F.S 4 1Department of Environment studies in Community Development, Kenyatta University P.O Box 43844 Nairobi, 2Department of Environmental Science, Kenyatta University P.O Box 43844 Nairobi 3Department of Agricultural Resource Management, Kenyatta University P.O Box 43844 Nairobi 4Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility, P.O box 30677, Nairobi, Kenya
    2. 2. Introduction <ul><li>Soil fertility - Problem in the last 20 years; Remains a big problem to increased yields </li></ul><ul><li>Enormous research results generated – ISFM options, Legumes, Organics etc </li></ul><ul><li>Low adoption -Yield gap </li></ul><ul><li>Biggest challenge-Inadequate communication methods </li></ul><ul><li>Few studies focusing on communication channels for </li></ul><ul><li>delivering ISFM results to end users </li></ul><ul><li>Scanty information on how ISFM can be communicated </li></ul><ul><li>Consequently, there is need to establish reliable and preferred communication methods for ISFM by farmers </li></ul>
    3. 3. Research Questions <ul><li>Which information sources are utilized by farmers to improve soil fertility on their farms? </li></ul><ul><li>Do farmers have preference for communication methods? </li></ul><ul><li>What communication methods are used by extension agents to communicate information on ISFM? </li></ul><ul><li>Do socio-economic characteristics of farmers influence their preference of methods used to communicate information on ISFM? </li></ul>
    4. 4. Conceptual Framework 9 <ul><li>Stakeholders’ participation </li></ul><ul><li>Ministry of agriculture </li></ul><ul><li>Input suppliers </li></ul><ul><li>NGO’s </li></ul><ul><li>CBO’s </li></ul><ul><li>Policy maker s </li></ul>Researched soil fertility options Mineral fertilizer Green manure Crop rotation Communication pathways Face to face communication Electronic communication Publication Demonstration More improved technologies suited for farmers’ needs are generated - Increased agricultural production -Reduced poverty - Environmental benefits Adoption of soil fertility technologies Farmer 1 3 6 5 2 7 8 4
    5. 5. Research Methodology <ul><li>Study Area; Central Highlands of Kenya </li></ul><ul><li>Sampling Strategy </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Systematic random sampling technique -select 240 farmers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>105 extension officers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Research instruments - Interview schedules and questionnaires </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Data Management and analysis </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Used (SPSS)- Descriptive statistics such as frequencies, Percentages and mean </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Correlation- Karl Pearson’s coefficient and spearman correlation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Logistic regression model </li></ul></ul>
    6. 6. <ul><li>RESULTS AND DISCUSSION </li></ul>
    7. 7. Information sources utilized by farmers to access ISFM information in Mbeere South and Maara Sources of information Animal manure Green manure Inorganic fertilizers combined organic and inorganic fertilizers Erosion control measures Compost Government extension officer 50 (22.7) 20 (37.7) 65 (28.4) 78 (36.4) 43 (19.9) 9 (12.3) NGO extension officer 2 (0.9) 0 (0) 3 (1.3) 17 (7.9) 10 (4.6) 3 (4.1) Researchers 4 (1.8) 13 (24.5) 6 (2.6) 10 (4.7) 2 (0.9) 2 (2.7) Agro input dealers 1 (0.5) 1 (1.9) 23 (10) 5 (2.3) 2 (0.9) 1 (1.4) Radio 2 (0.9) 3 (5.7) 4 (1.7) 3 (1.4) 3 (1.4) 0 (0) Exhibitions 1 (0.5) 0 (0) 3 (1.3) 4 (1.9) 0 (0) 0 (0) Other farmers 61 (27.7) 4 (7.5) 99 (43.2) 68 (31.8) 106 (49.1) 28 (38.4) Own experience 99 (45) 12 (22.6) 26 (11.4) 29 (13.6) 50 (23.1) 30 (41.1) Total 220 (100) 53 (100) 229 (100) 214 (100) 216 (100) 73 (100)
    8. 8. Availability versus reliability of information sources on ISFM N=240
    9. 9. Approaches Preferred by farmers in communication of ISFM practices in Maara and Mbeere South districts N=240
    10. 10. Communication methods preferred for the different ISFM practices by farmers in Maara and Mbeere South   N=240 Communication methods used in teaching farmers Animal manure Green man Inorganic fert. Erosion cntrl Compost Man + InFert Mean Demonstration 3.1 2.9 3.2 2.9 3.0 3.4 3.1 Farmer to farmer extension 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.0 Workshops 2.3 2.2 2.5 2.5 1.9 2.5 2.3 Farmer field school 1.8 1.7 2.2 2.6 3.5 1.9 2.2 Field days 2.1 2.0 2.5 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.2 Teaching aids 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 Exchange visits 2.0 1.9 2.1 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.0
    11. 11. Communication Methods used by extension agents to communicate on ISFM in Central Kenya
    12. 12. Accessible information source on ISFM by the extension agents in Central Kenya N=105 Source of information Animal manure Compost Green manure Inorganic Fertilizer Combined organic and inorganic Fertilizer SEM Mean Research institution 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.6 Books 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.6 Workshops 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Radio/TV 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.1 Newsletters/brochure 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 Agro input dealers 1.9 1.9 1.8 2.8 2.4 1.9 2.1 NGO 1.9 2 1.9 1.9 2 2.1 2 Internet 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.6 Scientific conferences 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
    13. 13. Factors influencing reliability of government extension agents as a source of ISFM information * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)**Correlation is significant at the 0.01level (2-tailed) Socio-economic characteristics Reliability of government extension agents as a source of SFM information Green manure Inorganic fertilizers inorganics + organics Erosion control Animal manure Gender(1=Male, 2=female) -0.030 -0.190** -0.164** -0.120* -0.185** Age 0.018 0.024 0.067 -0.016 0.074 Educational level 0.017 0.027 0.062 0.051 0.023 Years of farming experience -0.075 -0.056 -0.014 -0.005 0.006 Non formal trainings 0.062 0.218** 0.190** 0.080 0.205** Number of the groups -0.054 0.049 0.127* 0.047 0.145** Total farm size -0.063 -0.106* -0.069 -0.012 -0.034 Number of times visited by agricultural officers 0.139* 0.242** 0.240** 0.091 0.286**
    14. 14. Social economic factors likely to influence the preference of field days in training of animal manure Independent Variable B Sig. Exp(B) Gender -0.965 0.006 0.381 Education level -0.488 0.032 0.614 Non formal training 0.678 0.004 1.970 Attitude extension workers -0.438 0.107 0.646 Membership of group 0.700 0.042 2.014 Farm size 1.035 0.001 2.815 No: times visited by an Agricultural officer 1.427 0.001 4.165 Constant -2.709 0.041 0.067
    15. 15. Conclusions <ul><li>Farmers perceived other farmers and radio as the most available sources of information </li></ul><ul><li>Farmers’ perception on reliability of government extension agents, agricultural researchers and NGO was higher than availability </li></ul>
    16. 16. Conclusion cont--- <ul><li>Demonstration, farmer to farmer extension and workshops were ranked as the first three methods preferred by the farmers, respectively </li></ul><ul><li>Socio-economic characteristics of farmers influence preference of communication methods for the different ISFM options </li></ul>
    17. 17. Recommendations <ul><li>Involve farmers in dissemination of research findings </li></ul><ul><li>Tailor our communication channels to the technology being promoted </li></ul><ul><li>Agricultural stakeholders should consider farmers' socio-economic factors in designing extension intervention strategies </li></ul>
    18. 18. Further research <ul><li>Further studies are recommended in these areas: </li></ul><ul><li>Assessment of the cost-effectiveness of communication methods used by researchers and extension agents </li></ul><ul><li>Competencies of extension agents and researchers in all the communication methods </li></ul>
    19. 19. Questions for discussions <ul><li>To what extent do you as a researcher involve farmers in dissemination of research findings? </li></ul><ul><li>Which extension methods are you familiar with and how competent are you? </li></ul><ul><li>In your research projects, when do you plan for dissemination of your research outputs and why? </li></ul>
    20. 20. Acknowledgement <ul><li>Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in East and Central Africa (ASARECA) project on Accelerated Uptake and Utilization of Soil Fertility Management Best Bets Practices in Eastern and Central Africa sub-region </li></ul><ul><li>Staff of Kamurugu Agricultural Development Initiative (KADI) </li></ul><ul><li>Ministry of Agriculture Staff and farmers in the Central Highlands of Kenya </li></ul>
    21. 21. <ul><li>Thank you </li></ul>

    ×