Relationship between Farmers’ Participation in Technology Development and Dissemination Processes; and Acceptability of Improved Sugarcane Varieties in Kakamega County

Relationship between Farmers’ Participation in Technology Development and Dissemination Processes; and Acceptability of Improved Sugarcane Varieties in Kakamega County
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
bio energy (Zhao and Li, 2015). The large demand for
sugar is the primary driver of sugarcane production, which
accounts for 80 percent of sugar produced worldwide
(Murphy, 2017). Its’ production supports approximately 7.5
percent of the world rural population (Mnisi and Dlamini,
2012). The sugar industry contributes significantly to the
Kenya economy. According to Food and Agriculture
Organization (2019), the Country produced 4,751,609
tonnes of sugarcane under 67,708 hectares in 2017. The
annual sugar production is approximately 600,000 metric
tonnes (AFFA, 2016). Sugarcane production is the main
economic activity in Western, Nyanza parts of Rift Valley
and the Coastal region (AFFA, 2016). Approximately
300,000 farmers are involved in its production and supply
over 92 percent of sugarcane processed by the Kenya
sugar mills (Lihasi, Onyango and Ochola, 2016).
Despite the benefits associated with the sugar industry in
Kenya, the sector is faced with various challenges, which
includes high cost of sugar production. Compared to other
parts of the world, Kenya has the highest sugar production
cost among the sugar producing member countries of the
Common Market of Eastern and South Africa (COMESA)
trading block. The high cost of production has made the
Country’s sugar sector to be globally uncompetitive
(Kamau and Snipes, 2013). Low sugarcane productivity at
the farm level is another great challenge. Sugarcane yields
*Corresponding author: Caroline M. Thuo, Kenya
Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization,
Department of Technology Transfer, PO Box 388-00217,
Limuru, Kenya. Email: cmthuo2007@yahoo.com Tel:
+254721233167; Co-Authors Email:
2
jusmotush@yahoo.com Tel: +254722692765
3
aonkurumwa@yahoo.com Tel: +254721220363
Research Article
Vol. 5(2), pp. 250-259, August, 2019. © www.premierpublishers.org. ISSN: 2167-0432
International Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension

Thuo et al. 251
have declined in the past decade with average tonnes
cane per hectare (tch) dropping from 74 tch in 2004 to 61
tch in 2014 (Mwanga, Ong’ala and Orwa, 2017). This is
against the expected yields of approximately 100 tch
(KSB, 2014). These low yields have been attributed to
widespread use of older, low quality sugar cane varieties
(Abura, Gikunda and Nato, 2013). This is demonstrated by
their dominance. According to KSB (2014), the CO 421,
CO 945 and CO 617 varieties occupying 39 percent, 23
percent and 17 percent of the total area under sugarcane
production in Kenya, respectively. The CO 421, CO 617
and CO 945 varieties has been under production since
1960, 1969 and 1990 respectively (KALRO, 2019). In
addition to the above-mentioned limitations, these
varieties are prone to diseases particularly smut and
ratoon stunting disease; late maturing taking between 20-
24 months to mature; and have low sucrose content.
Consequently, farmers get low returns from sugarcane
production and are not able to sustain their livelihood
effectively. In addition, there is insufficient sugar
production, which has forced Kenya to import
approximately 240,000 metric tonnes of sugar annually to
bridge the gap in order to meet domestic consumption of
840,000 metric tonnes (AFFA, 2016). Continued deficit in
cane yields is likely to have further negative effect on the
operations of sugar mills, and may even lead to closure of
a number of them due to insufficiency in supply of the raw
material.
According to Barua (2016), one of the key reasons for
lower agricultural productivity is lack of usage of yield-
enhancing technologies such as improved varieties. This
calls for the Kenyan sugar sector to embrace better
production technologies available, to overcome these
challenges it is experiencing. A total of 21 improved
sugarcane varieties have been developed and released for
commercial production by the Sugar Research Institute
(SRI) through its variety improvement programme since
2002 (KESREF, 2014). These varieties have superior
qualities which includes high yielding both in sucrose and
tonnage; early maturing and disease resistant e.g smut.
Sugarcane farmers are expected to produce these
varieties because they have potential to enhance
sugarcane productivity, resulting to increased farmers
income and Kenyan sugar sector becoming globally
competitive (KSB, 2014; Agrochart, 2014). However, their
acceptance by farmers is low, accounting for
approximately 8 percent of the total distribution of
sugarcane varieties under production in Kenya (KSB,
2014). Ndemo (March 28, 2018) has identified low
adoption of high yielding sugar cane varieties as one of
key factors that have contributed to the low sugarcane
productivity in Kenya. There was need therefore, to
investigate the underlying factors that hinder acceptance
of these improved varieties by farmers in Kenya.
According to Smith and Ulu (2012), low acceptance of new
technologies has been a great challenge worldwide. Many
improved agricultural technologies have been availed to
farmers but majority of them have failed to accept them. A
report by Conroy and Sutherland (2014), indicates that one
of the main reasons why resource-poor farmers are slow
or unable to take up improved technologies is because of
their inappropriateness. Abukhzam and Lee (2010), also
adds that farmers may reject technologies because they
are not compatible with their values, beliefs, perceived
needs and their past experiences. This creates the
concern whether low acceptance of the improved
sugarcane varieties in Kenya, is due to their
inappropriateness or lack of compatibility with the farmers’
needs. Production of improved technologies that are
appropriate and compatible with the farmers’ needs is
therefore very critical for enhanced technology
acceptance. This makes it necessary to evaluate the
processes used to produce and disseminate these
improved technologies.
Various approaches are used in agricultural technology
development and dissemination. Conventional approach is
one of the commonly used approaches. It involves
researchers and technical specialist to identify constraints,
possible solutions, and transfer the findings to farmers
through extension staffs. Standardized package of
practices developed by scientists are the end product of
this approach (Pedzisa et al., 2010). Participatory
technology development (PTD) is another approach that
involves farmers in all stages of technology production and
dissemination. The goal is to develop appropriate
technologies to meet farmers’ needs through continuous
interaction between scientists and farmers. The starting
point is on what farmers are successfully doing on their
farms, which is then improved using scientifically proven
technologies. Improved technologies are developed in the
path of the old ones, which is key to the success of an
innovation due to its compatibility (Deligiannaki et al.,
2011). This enables farmers to participate in the
development of technologies that meet their perceived
needs, values, beliefs, and past experiences thus
enhancing its acceptance (Abukhzam et al., 2010). It also
provides farmers with adequate knowledge of technology
use and detailed technical information, which enhances
technology acceptance (Cavane, 2009; Rogers, 2003;
Morris et al., 1999).
As literature indicates, user acceptance of improved
technologies is a global challenge. This is likely to be
contributed by production and dissemination processes
used on these technologies. Technology acceptance by
the users has been viewed as the pivotal factor in
determining the success or failure of a technology (Dillon
and Morris, 1996). This study highlighted the problem of
low acceptance of improved sugarcane varieties by
farmers, which is a significant impediment to their success
in Kenya. The question why these varieties are not widely
accepted by farmers in Kenya, and in particular Kakamega
County needs to be answered. It was necessary therefore,
to examine the development and dissemination processes
of these improved sugarcane varieties in order to establish

Int. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 252
their appropriateness to farmers. Without knowledge on
this, it will continue to be difficult to improve sugarcane
production in the country. The study findings may help
researchers and extension service providers in the
development and dissemination of improved technologies
using efficient and effective processes that make them
more acceptable by farmers. The findings may also benefit
farmers by helping them realize roles they need to play in
technology development and dissemination. Addition of
value to the existing literature on PTD & D in relation to the
acceptance of improved technologies by farmers will also
be achieved.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A cross-sectional survey research design was used. The
study was conducted in Kakamega County, Kenya. The
County occupies an area of 3,033.8 Km2 and is located 30
Km North of the equator, within an altitude of 250-2000m
above sea level. It borders Bungoma County to the North
and North West, Uasin Gishu to the North East and East,
Nandi to the South East, Vihiga to the South, Siaya to the
South West and Busia to the West.
The study population comprised of 137,355 small scale
sugarcane farmers from three sugar zones of Mumias,
West Kenya and Butali in Kakamega County. A list of
registered farmers from the three zones was used as a
sampling frame. A sample size of 384 sugarcane farmers
was selected using the table for determining sample size
from the Research Advisors (2006). The table consist of
population sizes with corresponding sample sizes, with
confidence intervals of 95 percent and 99 percent ; margin
of error of 5 percent to 1 percent . It is recommended that
if the exact population size of the study is not listed, the
next highest value of population size may be used from the
table. Therefore, since the exact population size of
137,355 was not represented in the table, a population size
of 250,000 was used as the next highest value. With a
specific margin of error of 5 percent and 95 percent
confidence interval, a sample size of 384 farmers was
used. Proportional sampling was used to determine the
number of farmers to be selected from each sugar zone.
Then for each zone, random sampling was done using a
table of random numbers to select number of farmers to
the sample.
Valid and reliable farmers’ questionnaire was used to
collect data from small-scale sugarcane farmers’ and had
four sections. Section (i) was designed to collect data on
the farmer characteristics. Data collected included age,
gender, level of education, income sources and size of
land. Information about the sugarcane varieties under
production by farmers was collected in section (ii). Among
the data collected in this section included types of
sugarcane varieties under production in Kakamega
County, size of land under the varieties and number of
years’ farmer had produced these varieties. Section (iii)
collected information on farmers’ participation in the
development of the improved sugarcane varieties. Data on
the research activities farmers were involved in and the
roles played during the development of improved
sugarcane varieties was collected. Section (iv) collected
information on technology dissemination. Data on
availability of extension services among farmers; various
extension approaches farmers have participated in and
their roles during the promotion of improved sugarcane
varieties was collected.
The researcher obtained a research permit from the
National Commission for Science, Technology and
Innovation (NACOSTI) to authorize the study. This was
followed by recruitment of two enumerators, to assist the
researcher in data collection. The farmers’ questionnaire
was researcher administered questionnaire, written in
English but was administered to farmers’ orally in Kiswahili
(local national language) as the researcher recorded the
responses in English. Therefore, the two enumerators
were trained by the researcher to understand the items in
the questionnaire properly as a guide for proper oral
translation into Kiswahili language during data collection.
This was done in order to control the quality of data
collected. A preliminary survey was carried out to identify
the sugar stakeholders whom to work out logistics for a
comprehensive data collection in the targeted area. Field
supervisors from Mumias, West Kenya and Butali Sugar
Companies assisted in locating the sugarcane farmers to
be included in the study sample. Then the researcher
embarked on data collection with assistance from the two
trained enumerators.
Collected data was analyzed using statistical package for
social sciences (SPSS). Both descriptive and inferential
statistics were used. Descriptive statistics were used to
summarize data generated from the research variables
using mean, mode, range, percentages and frequencies.
The research variables included farmers’ characteristics,
technology development and dissemination processes;
and acceptability of improved sugarcane varieties.
Variables from farmers’ characteristics included age,
gender, education level, income sources, land sizes
owned by farmers and experience in sugarcane
production. These variables were summarized using
means, mode, frequencies and percentages. To
summarize data on technology development and
dissemination processes, mean, range, standard
deviation, frequencies and percentages were used.
Acceptability of the improved sugarcane varieties was
determined by the size of land under improved varieties
and the number of years farmers had produced them. The
higher the number of years the varieties were under
production, the higher the acceptability level. The larger
the size of land under the improved sugarcane varieties,
the higher the acceptability level. Rating scales were used
to determine the acceptability levels by farmers. For the
acceptability levels based on land sizes, rating scales of
0.1-1.0 acres (very low acceptance); 1.1-2.0 acres (low

Thuo et al. 253
acceptance); 2.1-3.0 acres (acceptance); 3.1-4.0 acres
(high acceptance); and Over 4.1 acres (very high
acceptance) were used. For the acceptability levels based
on the number of years the varieties were under
production, rating scales of 0.1-2.0 years (very low
acceptance); 2.1-4.0 years (low acceptance); 4.1-6.0
years (acceptance); 6.1-8.0 years (high acceptance); and
Over 8.1 years (very high acceptance) were used. Cross
tabulations were done to establish the relationship
between the variables. For the hypotheses seeking
relationships, Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient
(r) was calculated to show the strength and direction of the
linear relationship between the independent and the
dependant variables. Hypothesis testing was done using
chi-square at 5% level of significance.
Outlined below are descriptions of terms used in the study.
Acceptability: refers to the extent to which sugarcane
farmers had engaged in production of improved sugarcane
varieties in their farms. It was expressed in terms of size of
land under improved sugarcane varieties and number of
years a farmer has produced improved sugarcane
varieties.
Improved technologies: refers to technological
advancement that improves, even if very slightly, whatever
process it applies to. For this study, it referred to the
improved sugarcane varieties.
Improved sugarcane varieties: refers to the sugarcane
types developed and released for production by the Sugar
Research Institute (SRI) since 2002 to 2014 (KESREF,
2014). They include six sugarcane varieties released in
2002 (KEN 82-808, KEN 82-216, KEN 82-219, KEN 83-
737, KEN 82- 401, KEN 82-247); four varieties released in
2007 (KEN 82-472, KEN 82-62, D84-84, EAK 73-335);
three varieties released in 2011 (KEN 82-601, KEN82-121,
KEN82-493 and eight varieties released in 2014 (KEN 98-
530, KEN 98-533, KEN 98-551, KEN 00-13, KEN00-3811,
KEN00-3548, KEN 98-367 and KEN00-5873).
Participatory technology development process: refers
to efficient farmer driven technology production
methodology with high level of decentralization and
continuous interaction between scientists and farmers
(Pedzisa et al., 2010). In this study, it referred to the
research approaches used in the production of improved
sugarcane varieties, whereby sugarcane farmers were
involved in the development processes.
Participatory technology dissemination processes:
refer to the approaches which involve active participation
of farmers in the technology dissemination processes
(Pedzisa et al., 2010) which included use of farmer
research groups; field demonstrations; and farmer field
days.
Small-scale farmers: refer to farmers with small parcel of
agricultural land. For this study, it referred to sugarcane
farmers with less than 10 acres of land.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Characteristics of Sugarcane Farmers in Kakamega
County
Research findings indicate that, Kakamega County
consists of 88 percent male and 12 percent female small-
scale sugarcane farmers. Male farmers greatly
outnumbered female farmers because according to the
Luhya community growing of sugarcane is associated with
men. Figure 1 shows ages of these farmers.
Figure 1. Age of sugarcane farmers in Kakamega County
Source: Research data, 2018
The findings indicate that majority of farmers belonged to
the age group of 41-50 years, followed by 51-60 years. The
youngest age group was 21-30 years while the oldest was
71-80 years. According to Aldosari et al. (2017), age plays
an important role in the dissemination, adoption and
diffusion of innovations and are believed to be positively
correlated with age. Figure 2 shows the education levels
of sugarcane farmers in Kakamega County.
Figure 2. Education levels of sugarcane farmers in
Kakamega County
According to the study results, majority of farmers had
received secondary education and above. Only 5 percent
of farmers had not received any formal education.
Educated people are expected to have more favorable
attitudes towards agricultural skills, knowledge and
information as compared to uneducated (Aldosari et al.,
2017). The findings further depicted that; 81 percent of
sugarcane farmers were fully engaged in farming as their

main source of income. Only 15 percent had formal
employment while 3.9 percent had businesses. Results
revealed that majority of sugarcane farmers are small land
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
had 6.1-8.0 acres. Only 15 percent of farmers owned
between 8.1 to 10.0 acres. According to Aldosari et al.,
(2017), size of land holding plays an important role in the
adoption of modern agricultural practices among the
farming community. More land holdings mean more
potential to increase productivity and efficiency to adopt
modern technologies.
Figure 3 shows how many years the sugarcane farmers
have engaged in their production. Results show that 16
percent of farmers had produced cane for 1 to 5 years; 35
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
percent for 26 to 30 years while 21 percent for over 31
years. According to these results, most farmers have
cultivated cane for many years, giving them considerable
experience in sugarcane production.
Figure 3. Number of years of sugarcane production
among farmers in Kakamega County
Participation of Farmers in Technology Development
Processes
Participation of farmers in on-farm experimentation and
seedcane production were considered in the study as
research processes in production of improved sugarcane
varieties. Low involvement of farmers in the development
of the improved varieties was observed. Findings depict
that only 19 percent of the respondents had participated in
these research activities. Among these farmers, 10
percent had been involved in seed cane production while
9 percent were involved in on-farm experimentation.
According to Pedzisa et al. (2010), low interaction between
scientists and farmers in the development of improved
technologies, denies farmers an opportunity to identify and
seek solutions to the problems they face. As a result,
technologies that are not appropriate and not compatible
with the farmers needs are produced. Young (2015),
Conroy et al. (2014) and Dillon and Morris (1996) add that
total involvement of the farmer as the intended user in
technology development enables greater acceptance of
technologies generated.
Table 1 presents the roles played by farmers in the
research activities involving production of the improved
varieties.
Table 1: Farmers’ Role in Research Activities
Involving Production of Improved Sugarcane Varieties
Farmers role in research Number Percent (%)
None 311 81.0
Group leader 3 0.8
Farmer Research Group member 18 4.7
Research plot owner 13 3.4
Production of seedcane 39 10.1
Total 384 100.0
These roles included farmers being research plot owners;
group leaders; farmer research group members; and
production of seedcane. Research plot owners were
farmers who donated land for use in research work for
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).
Participation of Farmers in Technology Dissemination
Processes
Findings indicate that 72 percent of small-scale sugarcane
farmers received advisory services on sugarcane farming
in Kakamega County. However, the frequency at which
these services were offered to farmers was very low, with
16 percent receiving the services at least once per month;
9 percent three times per year; 3 percent twice per year;
and 44 percent once per year This portrays
underutilization of the available advisory services. Table 2
shows various extension approaches used to reach out to
farmers. Results show that sugar companies, research
institute and farmer cooperative societies were the key
providers of advisory services. Farmers’ meetings were
the key extension approach used. Other methods used
include farm visits, field days, field demonstrations,
seminars and workshops. Extensive use of farmers’
meetings implies that majority of sugarcane farmers
across Kakamega county received their advisory services
through this approach, which is a conventional approach
whereby farmers receive information from extension
personnel. Farmers are informed on what they are
expected to do. Farmers’ meetings were mostly used by
sugar companies, together with field visits,
seminars/workshops and field demonstrations, though at a
lesser extent. Findings further show that the Research
Institute mainly uses field days, farmer research groups,
field visits and field demonstrations to educate farmers.

Thuo et al. 255
Table 2: Extension Methods used to Advice Farmers and Source of Advisory Services
Source of advisory services
Total0 1 2 3
Extension approaches used to offer
advisory services to farmers
Not applicable 105(30.1) 0(64.7) 0(10.0) 0(3.1) 105(105.0)
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
Field days, and field demonstrations are farmer
participatory approaches and their use was an indicator of
farmers’ participation in technology dissemination
processes across Kakamega County. These approaches
fasten the process of information exchange and adoption
(Kaihura, 2001). Through observation, farmers are able to
see the performance of an improved technology in the field
thus overcoming the problem of uncertainity in technology
performance, which enhances acceptance by farmers.
Couros et al. (2003), Rogers (2003) and Morris et al.
(1999) indicate that uncertainty about an innovation
performance due to its unfamiliarity and newness is a
major obstacle in acceptance of improved technology.
Uncertainty often results in postponement of the farmers’
decision to adopt a technology until further evidence is
gathered.
Roles Played by Farmers in the Promotion of
Improved Sugarcane varieties in Kakamega County
The study revealed that 20 percent of the respondents
participated in dissemination processes within Kakamega
County, which indicated low involvement of farmers in this
process. These farmers played various roles as shown in
Table 3.
Table 3: Roles Played by Farmers in the Dissemination
of Improved Sugarcane Varieties
Farmers roles
Number
Percent
(%)
None 308 80.4
Training of other farmers 9 2.3
Hosting of field day 33 8.6
Formation of other farmer research
groups (FRGs)
2 0.4
Establishment of demonstration plots 15 3.9
Selling of improved seedcane 17 4.4
Total 384 100.0
Training of other farmers in sugarcane production was
done by expert farmers, who had gained expertise in
sugarcane production after being trained by other
extension agents. In addition, expert farmers had gained a
lot of knowledge and experience in the production of
improved sugarcane varieties through their participation in
the establishment of variety demonstration plots. Hosting
of field days was done by sugarcane farmers or farmer
research group members, who had established either
improved sugarcane variety demonstration plots or
seedcane bulking plots for these varieties. Formation of
other FRGs was done by expert farmers through guidance
of extension personnel to expand existing FRG
membership to other farmers. Each FRG was expected to
establish improved variety demonstration plots for use in
training other farmers and to be used as field day sites.
These FRGs were also expected to multiply seedcane
from their demonstration farms for sale. In addition,
researchers in collaboration with sugar companies and
other sugarcane farmers established seedcane
multiplication sites to supplement availability of certified
seedcane closer to farmers.
Relationship between Farmers’ Participation in
Technology Development Processes and
Acceptability of Improved Sugarcane Varieties
A Spearman’s correlation coefficient of 0.323 was
obtained between farmers’ participation in technology
development processes and the acceptability of improved
sugarcane varieties. This indicated that a positive and
moderate linear relationship existed between the two
variables. Table 4 shows a crosstabulation between these
variables.

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
TotalNone 1 2 3 4
Variety
acceptability
based on years
of production
Very low acceptance 28 (16.5) 0 (1.2) 0 (2.1) 0 (1.1) 1 (8.1) 29(29.0)
Low acceptance 39(34.1) 2(2.6) 4(4.3) 1(2.3) 15(16.8) 60(60.0)
Acceptance 36(36.4) 4(2.7) 2(4.5) 1(2.4) 21(17.9) 64(64.0)
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
At 0.05 level of significance and 16 degrees of freedom,
the critical value determined from the chi-square table was
26.296 and the calculated chi was 39.075. Since the
calculated Chi of 39.075 was more than the critical chi of
26.296, it was concluded that there was a significant
relationship between farmers’ role in the development of
the improved sugarcane varieties and variety acceptability
based on years of production. The null hypothesis was
therefore rejected. This meant that farmers’ participation in
the development of improved sugarcane varieties is
associated with the acceptance of these varieties based
on number of years farmers have produced them.
Farmers’, who participated in seed cane production
portrayed very high acceptance levels, followed by
members of farmer research groups and research plot
owners. Gained experience and understanding about
these varieties, may have given these farmers confidence
to produce them. Majority of farmers who did not play any
role in the development of these varieties displayed very
low and low acceptance levels.
When farmers’ participation in the development of the
improved sugarcane varieties and variety acceptability
based on land sizes were correlated, a Spearman’s
correlation coefficient of 0.08 was obtained. This indicated
a very weak linear relationship existed between the two
variables. Table 5 shows a crosstabulation between the
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
TotalNone 1 2 3 4
Variety
acceptability
based on land
sizes
Very low acceptance 83(81.9) 7(6.1) 12(10.2) 5(5.5) 37(40.3) 144(144.0)
Low acceptance 12(19.3) 2(1.5) 3(2.4) 1(1.3) 16(9.5) 34(34.0)
Acceptance 16(11.9) 0(0.9) 0(1.5) 1(0.8) 4(5.9) 21(21.0)
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
1-Group leader; 2-Farmer research group member; 3-Research plot owners; 4-Production of seed cane.
calculated chi of 20.561 was less than the critical chi of
26.296, it was concluded that there was no significant
relationship between farmers’ role in the development of
improved sugarcane varieties and variety acceptability
based on land sizes under their production. The null
hypothesis was therefore accepted. Lack of association
between the two variables meant that the size of land
under which these varieties were produced could not be
used as an indicator of variety acceptability by farmers.
According to a report by Sugar Industry Task Force (2014),
sugarcane is grown by small-scale sugarcane farmers in
Kakamega County, who have an average land holding of
1.5 acres per family. This implies that farmers generally
produce sugarcane under the small portions of land. The
study results show that majority of farmers produced
improved varieties on small portions of land between 0.1
to1.0 acres of land.

Thuo et al. 257
Technology Dissemination Processes and
Acceptability of Improved Sugarcane Varieties
A Spearman correlation coefficient between farmers’
participation in the dissemination of the improved
sugarcane varieties and variety acceptability based on
years of production shows a Spearman’s correlation of
0.370. This indicates that a positive and moderate linear
relationship exist between the two variables. Table 6
shows a crosstabulation between these variables.
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
TotalNone 1 2 3 4 5
Variety
acceptability
based on years
of production
Very low acceptance 24(17.6) 3(0.8) 2(4.9) 0(0.3) 0(1.8) 0(3.6) 29(29.0)
Low acceptance 39(36.4) 0 (1.7) 16(10.2) 0(6) 2(3.7) 3(7.4) 60(60.0)
Acceptance 47(38.8) 2(1.8) 5(10.9) 0(0.6) 3(3.9) 7(7.9) 64(64.0)
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.
calculated chi of 61.251 was more than the critical chi of
31.410, it was concluded that there was a significant
relationship between farmers’ roles in the dissemination of
improved sugarcane varieties and the acceptability of the
improved sugarcane varieties based on years of
production. The null hypothesis was therefore rejected.
Majority of farmers who participated in the dissemination
of improved varieties portrayed high acceptance of these
varieties as noted among farmers, who participated in
selling of seedcane, hosting of field days and
establishment of demonstration plots.
When farmers’ roles in the dissemination of the improved
sugarcane varieties and variety acceptability based on
land sizes were correlated, a Spearman’s correlation
coefficient of 0.037 was obtained. This indicated that a
positive and very weak relationship existed between the
two variables. Table 7 shows a crosstabulation between
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
acceptability
based on land
sizes
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)
Low acceptance 10(20.6) 3(1.0) 10(5.8) 1(0.3) 4(2.1) 6(4.2) 34(34.0)
Acceptance 17(12.7) 1(0.6) 2(3.6) 0(0.2) 0(1.3) 1(2.6) 21(21.0)
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
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.
calculated Chi of 28.455 was less than the critical chi of
31.410, it was concluded that there was no significant
relationship between farmers’ role in the dissemination of
the improved sugarcane varieties and variety acceptability
based on land sizes under their production. The null
hypothesis was therefore accepted. Lack of association
between the two variables again meant that land size
under which improved varieties were produced was not an
indicator of variety acceptability by farmers.

CONCLUSION
Small-scale sugarcane farmers in Kakamega County
participated in the development and dissemination of the
improved sugarcane varieties, although at a limited level.
In the development process, only 19 percent of farmers
were involved in seed cane production and on-farm
experimentation. In the dissemination processes, 20
percent of farmers were involved in training of other
farmers, hosting of field days, formation of other FRGs,
establishment of demonstration farms and selling of
improved seedcane. The study established that majority of
sugarcane farmers lacked necessary technical information
and experience related to the production of improved
sugarcane varieties, which has been a hindrance to their
acceptability by most farmers. The study established
significant relationships between farmers’ participation in
the development and dissemination of improved
sugarcane varieties, with the acceptability of improved
sugarcane varieties based on the number of years’
farmers have produced them. The number of year’s
farmers have produced these varieties was a strong
indicator of variety acceptability by farmers in Kakamega
County.
Implication to Agricultural Extension
i. Provision of adequate technical information on the
production of improved sugarcane varieties to farmers
by the extension service providers is required.
ii. Utilization of participatory technology development and
dissemination approaches need to be enhanced in the
development of improved sugarcane technologies for
enhanced acceptance by farmers.
.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors are grateful to National Commission for
Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI) for
granting permission to undertake this research study. Our
gratitude is extended to Kenya Agricultural and Livestock
Research Organisation (KALRO) and Egerton University
for their support. Special thanks go to all who assisted
during data collection and the respondents who gave
valuable data without which the study would not have
happened.
REFERENCES
Abukhzam M, Lee A (2010). Workforce attitude on
technology adoption and Diffusion.The Built & Human
Environment Review. abukhzam@pgr.salford.ac.uk
and a.lee@salford.ac.uk
Abura GO, Gikunda RM and Nato NG(2013).Technical
knowledge and information gaps among smallholder
farmers in production of sugarcane in Kakamega
County, Kenya. IJASRT in EESs, 3(4), 199-207.
Agriculture Fisheries and Food Authority (2016). Sugar
Directorate.
Agrocharts (2014). Kenya sugar annual.
www.agrochart.com
Barua P (2016). Factors Affecting Technology Adoption
among Smallholder Maize Farmers in Tanzania.
Research Gate. Sustainable International
Development. https://www.researchgate.net
Cavane E (2009). Farmers’attitudes and adoption of
improved maize varieties and chemical fertilizers in
Mozambique. African Crop Science Conference
Proceedings, 9, 163-167.
Conroy C and Sutherland A (2014). Participatory
technology development with resource poor farmers:
Maximising impact through use of recommendations
domains. Agricultural Research & Extension Network.
Network paper No.133. UK.
Deligiannaki A and Ali M (2011). Cross-cultural influence
on diffusion and adoption of innovation: An exploratory
case study to investigate social-cultural barriers.
European, Mediterranean and Middle Eastern
Conference on Information Systems 2011, Athens,
Greece.
Dillon A and Morris M (1996). User acceptance of
information technology: Theories and models. In M.
Williams (ed). Annual Review of Information Science
and Technology, 31, 2-32.
Food and Agriculture Organization (2019).
FAO.Statistics@fao.org Jackson SL (2009). Research
Methods and Statistics: A Critical Thinking Approach 3rd
edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Kaihura FB (2001). Participatory Technology Development
and Dissemination: A methodology for PLEC-Tanzania.
PLEC Tanzania Progress Reports.
Kamau CN and Snipes K (2013). Kenya sugar annual
report Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research
Organization (2019). Kenya Agricultural and Livestock
Research Organization. Sugar Research Institute. E-
Repository. www.kalro.org/sugar
Kenya Sugar Board (2014). Cane Census 2013/14- 14/15
Report.
Kenya Sugar Research Foundation (2012). Kenya Sugar
Research Foundation. A framework for the production,
certification and distribution of seed cane in the Kenya
sugar industry. Kisumu, Kenya.
Kenya Sugar Research Foundation (2014, June). Newly
released varieties, KESREF digest 7 (4).
Lihasi LK, Onyango C and Ochola W (2016). Analysis of
Smallholder Sugarcane Farmers’ Livelihood Assets in
Relation to Food Security in Mumias Sub-County
Kenya. Journal of Economics and Sustainable
Development.Vol.7, No.20 www.iiste.org
Mnisi MS and Dlamini C S (2012). The concept of
sustainable sugarcane production: Global, African and
South African perceptions. African Journal of
Agricultural Research, 7 (31), 4337-4343.
http://www.academicjournals.org
Morris ML,Tripp R and Dankyi AA (1999). Adoption and
impacts of improved maize production technology: A
case study of Ghana grains development project.
Economics Program Paper 99-01. Mexico.

Thuo et al. 259
Murphy R (2017). Sugarcane: Production Systems, Uses
and Economic Importance. Nova Science Publishers,
Inc.
Mwanga D, Ong’ala J, Orwa G(2017). Modeling
Sugarcane Yields in the Kenya Sugar Industry: A
SARIMA Model Forecasting Approach. International
Journal of Statistics and Applications, 7(6): 280-288.
DOI: 10.5923/j.statistics.20170706.02
Ndemo B (Wednesday, March 28, 2018). Sour facts that
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
(AAAE) and 48th Agricultural Economists Association
of South Africa (AEASA), Cape Town, South Africa,
September 19-23, 2010.
Rogers EM (2003). Diffusion of Innovations, Fifth Edition,
Free Press, New York.
Smith E S and Ulu C 2012. Technology Adoption with
Uncertain Future Costs and Quality. Operation
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.
The Research Advisors (2006). http://research-
advisors.com/
Word Net 3.0 (2003-2012). Farlex clipart collection.
Princeton University, Farlex Inc.
Yang P, Tao Y and Wu Y (2008). Use of unified theory of
acceptance and use of technology to confer the
behavioral model of 3G mobile telecommunication
users. Journal of Statistics & Management Systems
11(5919–949
Zhao D and Li Y(2015). Climate change and sugarcane
production: Potential impact and mitigation strategies.
International Journal of Agronomy,10.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/547386
Accepted 19 July 2018
Citation: Thuo CM, Ombati JM, Nkurumwa AO (2019).
Technology Development and Dissemination Processes;
and Acceptability of Improved Sugarcane Varieties in
Kakamega County. International Journal of Agricultural
Education and Extension, 5(2): 250-259.
Copyright: © 2019 Thuo et al. This is an open-access
article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
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

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Similar to Relationship between Farmers’ Participation in Technology Development and Dissemination Processes; and Acceptability of Improved Sugarcane Varieties in Kakamega County

Similar to Relationship between Farmers’ Participation in Technology Development and Dissemination Processes; and Acceptability of Improved Sugarcane Varieties in Kakamega County (20)

More from Premier Publishers

More from Premier Publishers (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Relationship between Farmers’ Participation in Technology Development and Dissemination Processes; and Acceptability of Improved Sugarcane Varieties in Kakamega County