Table 23: Reasons for farmers' adoption of Good Agronomic Practices (GAP

Table 23: Reasons for farmers’ adoption of Good Agronomic Practices (GAP)

Reasons Opinion Cassava Sorghum Rice

Labour saving

Higher yield

Agree Not sure Disagree Agree Not sure Disagree Soil moisture retention Agree Not sure

Soil erosion control

Disagree Agree Not sure Disagree Enhancement of soil fertility Agree Not sure Disagree Climate change adaptation Agree Not sure Disagree Figures in parentheses are percentages 46(76.7) 9(15.0) 5(8.3) 52(86.7) 8(13.3)

43(71.7) 17(28.3)

51(85.0) 8(13.3) 1(1.7) 47(78.3) 10(16.7) 3(5.0) 23(38.3) 36(60.0) 1(1.7) 51(63.8) 50(62.5) 9(11.3) 3(3.8) 20(25.0) 27(33.8) 80(100.0) 76(95.0)

- 2(2.5)

-

2(2.5) 49(61.3) 71(88.8) 30(37.5) 8(10.0) 1(1.3) 1(1.3) 59(73.8) 65(81.3) 19(23.8) 12(15.0) 2(2.5) 3(3.8) 65(81.3) 66(82.5) 14(17.5) 12(15.0) 1(1.3) 2(2.5) 40(50.0) 39(48.8) 31(38.8) 36(45.0) 9(11.3) 5(6.3)

5.2.8 Rate of Adoption of Technologies disseminated to farmers in the SCPZ There is need to constantly monitor the rate of adoption as the project progresses so as to know what review to undertake to facilitate good level of adoption that will result in the envisaged outcome conceptualized by the project from the onset. The rate of adoption of technologies under each crop has been captured by the study and they are as presented.

5.2.9 Rate of Adoption of technologies disseminated to cassava farmers From table 24, there were good levels of adoption of technologies disseminated to cassava farmers in the SCPZs across the country. Improved varieties and site selection witnessed about 97% and 97% respectively while land preparation was at about 98% level of adoption. On the other hand, plant spacing and weed management recorded 100% level of adoption while soil fertility management recorded 95% level of adoption. Moreover, stem conservation and record keeping recorded 60% level of adoption while the two that have the least records of adoption were yield assessment technique and harvesting techniques at about 47% and 48% respectively. There is therefore the need to redouble efforts on these low areas so as to maximize output by farmers under the programto achieve the desired outcome. It is also believed that good outcome will definitely spread to farmers within the communities and beyond.

Figure 5 presents rate of adoption of technology adoption by cassava farmers under the project. From the figure, it was very clear that except for harvesting market and yield assessment, all technologies disseminated to cassava farmers have 60% and above rate of adoption. It is an