1. FARMERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SASAKAWA GLOBAL 2000 PROGRAMME APPROACH TO AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY DELIVERY IN NORTHERN MALAWI BY FRANCIS WAKISA CHILENGA MPhil. Thesis Seminar

25. Figure 1: A Conceptual Framework of the SG2000 Approach Effectiveness Farmer perception of the technology Extension Method Source: Author construct Effectiveness of the approach Level of Participation (in Planning, Implementn, Monitoring & Evaluation) Farmer’s socio-economic & demographic characteristics Level of technology adoption Level of satisfaction with technology

26. Figure 2: Location of Study Area

36. Table 1: Sex of respondent farmers 100.0 194 Total 45.4 88 Female 54.6 106 Male % Frequency Sex

37. Table 2: Age distribution of farmers Mean=44, SD=12.7, Range=57 4.1 8 70+ 100.0 194 Total 9.8 19 60-69 18.0 35 50-59 27.8 54 40-49 28.4 55 30-39 11.9 23 20-29 % frequency Age group

38. Table 3 : Educ. level of farmers Source: Field data (2007) 100.0 194 Total 100.0 5.2 10 No formal education 94.8 2.1 4 Tertiary education 92.8 11.3 22 Senior secondary education. 81.4 14.9 29 J secondary education 66.5 41.8 81 Completed primary 24.7 24.7 48 Some primary schooling Cum.% % freq Level of formal education

39. Table 4: Household size distribution of respondents Mean=6.6, SD=2.06, Range=10 100.0 194 Total 100.0 0.5 1 12+ 99.5 18.0 35 9-11 81.4 49.5 96 6-8 32.0 30.4 59 3-5 1.5 1.5 3 2 Cum.% % freq HH size

40. Table 5: Distribution of farm labour sources among farmers 100.0 194 Total 12.4 24 Both family & regular 50.0 97 Both family & casual 1.5 3 Regular 2.1 4 Casual only 34.0 66 Family only % Freq. Source of labour

41. Table 6: Distribution of landholding size Mean=2.39, SD=0.85 100.0 194 Total 11.9 23 5.0ha or more 27.8 54 3.0-4.99 ha 47.9 93 1.0-2.99 ha 12.4 24 Less than 1ha % Freq. Landholding size (ha)

42. Table 7: distribution of years of farming experience Mean=20.39, SD=11.32, Range=48 100.0 3.6 7 45-54 100.0 194 Total 96.4 9.8 19 35-44 86.6 17.5 34 25-34 69.1 37.1 72 15-24 32.0 26.3 51 5-14 5.7 5.7 11 <5 Cum.% % Freq. Yrs of farming

44. Table 9: major crops grown as reported by farmers 49.0 95 Soybeans 9.3 18 Sunflower 13.9 27 Millet 72.7 141 Cassava 11.3 22 Paprika 85.6 166 S/potatoes 64.9 126 Tobacco 70.6 137 P. Beans 92.8 180 G/nuts 100.0 194 Maize % Freq. Crop

45. Table 10: Utilisation of major crops grown Source: Field data (2007) Soybeans Sunflower Millet Cassava Paprika S/potatoes Tobacco P. Beans G/nuts Maize Crop 42.3 2.6 5.7 6.7 - 2.1 10.3 0.5 2.6 46.9 1.0 24.7 - 11.3 - 26.3 - 59.3 - 64.9 - 18.6 0.5 51.5 58.2 - 35.1 90.2 - 9.8 Both cash & home consumption (%) Cash (%) Home consumption (%)

47. Table 12: Sources of agric. extension services 3.6 7 Farmer-based organisations 43.3 84 NGO extension staff 32.5 63 Fellow farmers 100 194 Government extension staff Percent (%) Frequency Source

48. Table 13: Extension teaching methods as experienced by respondent-farmers Source: Field data (2007) 88.7 172 Field days 42.3 83 Group discussions 2.6 5 Farm magazines 20.6 40 Posters 23.2 45 Leaflets 24.7 48 Radio 19.1 37 Farm exhibits 94.8 184 Method demonstration 50.0 97 Results demonstration % Freq. Extension method

49. Table 14: Farmers’ perceptions of their level of participation in SG 2000 Prog . Overall mean=3.83, SD=0.84, Range=1.43 0.91 4.09 Joint evaluation 0.71 4.12 Joint monitoring 1.44 3.07 Organising farmers meetings 1.45 3.62 Group discussions 2.59 3.53 Organising field days 0.95 4.06 Attendance of meetings 0.72 4.50 Participation in planning project activities SD Mean Items

50. Table 15: Farmers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the MTP . Overall mean=4.69, SD=0.47, Range=0.18 0.58 4.63 Generate active farmer participation 0.55 4.69 Enhance farmers, interest in the demonstrated technologies 0.46 4.81 Able to obtain high yields 0.60 4.64 Provide technical information on maize production SD Mean Items

51. Table 16: Farmers’ level of satisfaction with the technologies disseminated Overall mean=4.56, SD=0.43, Range=0.7 0.44 4.75 Satisfaction with use of inorganic fertilizers 1.00 4.05 Satisfaction with use of herbicides/conservation farming 0.59 4.51 Satisfaction with fertilizer application method 0.51 4.74 Satisfaction with use improved varieties 0.53 4.74 Satisfaction with row spacing (75cm) 0.53 4.59 Satisfaction with plant spacing (25cm) SD Mean Items

52. Conservation farming in practice

53. Table 17: Farmers’ level of adoption of the technologies disseminated Overall mean=4.26, SD=0.45, Range=0.87 Adoption of use of herbicides/conservation farming Adoption of fertilizer application method Adoption of use of inorganic fertilizers Adoption of use improved varieties Adoption of row spacing (75cm) Adoption of plant spacing (25cm) Items 3.61 4.23 4.48 4.47 4.47 4.30 Mean 0.95 0.58 0.55 0.58 0.58 0.55 SD

54. Table 18: Constraints to technology adoption 2.6 5 Resistant to pests & diseases 1.5 3 Improved varieties not drought tolerant 0.5 1 Inadequate mkt facilities to absorb farm produce 43.8 85 High costs of seed Improved varieties 0.5 1 Intercropping potential ltd 46.9 91 High labour demand Row spacing 1.0 2 Intercropping potential ltd 64.4 125 High labour demand Plant spacing % Freq. Constraint Technology

55. Table 19: Constraints to technology adoption/… 27.8 54 High carry-over of pests and diseases 0.5 1 High infestation of termites 52.6 102 High costs of herbicides 10.3 20 High labour requirement in terms of spraying & residue incorporation Use of herbicides 69.6 135 High labour demand Fert. application method 49.5 96 High costs of fertiliser Use of inorganic fert. % Freq. constraint Technology

56. Table 20: An independent sample t-test analysis by sampled district P<0.05 .000 9.687 0.23 0.44 4.59 4.05 75 119 Rumphi Chitipa Level of adoption of the technologies .230 1.205 0.23 0.51 4.61 4.53 75 119 Rumphi Chitipa Level of satisfaction with the technologies .035 2.124 0.38 0.51 4.78 4.64 75 119 Rumphi Chitipa MTP effectiveness .000 16.932 0.48 0.55 4.65 3.32 75 119 Rumphi Chitipa Level of participation in the programme Sig. t (2-tailed) SD mean n district Sub-score

57. Table 21: an independent sample t-test analysis by sex of respondents P<0.05 Sig. t (2-tailed) SD mean n sex Sub-score .268 -1.110 0.48 0.43 4.22 4.29 88 106 F M Level of adoption of the technologies .002 -3.101 0.48 0.35 4.46 4.65 88 106 F M Level of satisfaction with the technologies .000 -3.842 0.54 0.36 4.55 4.81 88 106 F M MTP effectiveness .764 -0.301 0.73 0.92 3.81 3.85 88 106 F M Level of participation in the programme

58. Table 22: Summary of results of a step wise regression analysis .005 7.914 .033 .136 .145 0.094 Access to farm credit .000 23.517 .031 .104 .109 -0.135 Perception of MTP effectiveness .000 .157 1.555 Constant Sig. F Change Std error Adj. R-square R-square Beta Predictors

67. The End and Thank you for your attention!!!