Table 36c: Constraints militating against the adoption of Good Agronomic Practices among rice farmers

5.6.2 Constraints militating against the adoption of Good Agronomic Practices for rice production The envisaged constraints that could militate against the adoption of good agronomic practices introduced to rice farmers are presented in table 36c. From the table, we have 16 envisaged constraints and only one of them crossed the threshold of 3.0. From this, it means the constraint that has the capacity to hinder adoption of GAP is small number of large export companies to export rice from Nigeria to other countries. Looking at this constraint, one should rather not lose sleep over it since we are yet to attain ability to produce enough for local consumption talk less of exporting. Nigeria has the largest market for rice in Africa and we need to up our production in terms of quantity and quality to enable us meet national demand.

Table 36c: Constraints militating against the adoption of Good Agronomic Practices among rice farmers

Constraints Very severe Severe Mild severe Not severe

Not a problem Weighted score Insufficient awareness about safety 3(3.8) 9(11.3) 13(16.3) 18(22.5) 35(42.8) 2.0 Environmental and social problem 3(3.8) 20(25.0) 17(21.3) 17(21.3) 23(28.8) 2.5 Insufficient knowledge of impact of agricultural practices 3(3.8) 8(10.0) 15(18.8) 28(35.0) 28(35.0) 2.1 Lack of knowledge and low education 2(2.5) 20(25.0) 8(10.0) 25(31.3) 25(31.3) 2.3 Poor understanding of technology (GAP) requirements 2(2.5) 13(16.3) 9(11.3) 19(23.8) 37(46.3) 2.0 Poor record keeping 9(11.3) 23(28.8) 13(16.3) 15(18.8) 20(25.0) 2.8 Low motivation and incentives to implement GAP 9(11.3) 14(17.5) 19(23.8) 17(21.3) 16(20.0) 2.8 Unhygienic practices in production and food processing 8(10.0) 17(21.3) 15(18.8) 19(22.5) 22(27.5) 2.7 No direct links with market 7(8.8) 16(20.0) 16(20.0) 24(30.0) 17(21.3) 2.6 Small number of large export companies 13(16.3) 20(25.0) 18(22.5) 10(12.5) 18(22.5) 3.0 Insufficient organization of small growers in producers association 3(3.8) 23(28.8) 15(18.8) 14(17.5) 28(35.0) 2.6 Inappropriate use of pesticides 3(3.8) 15(18.8) 13(16.3) 27(33.8) 23(28.8) 2.4 Shortage of skill labour 6(7.5) 21(26.3) 17(21.3) 21(26.3) 10(12.5) 2.5 Poor understanding of the role of GAP 7(8.8) 10(12.5) 13(16.3) 21(26.3) 29(36.3) 2.1 Insufficient dialogue with stakeholders 7(8.8) 9(11.3) 11(13.8) 20(25.0) 33(41.3) 2.2 Insufficient outreach and lack of coordination in training - 9(11.3) 16(20.0) 16(20.0) 39(48.8) 1.9

Figures in parentheses are percentages

Note: weighted score less than 3.0 indicates not severe

5.7 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.7.1 Conclusion

The study revealed that substantial numbers of technologies were disseminated on each crop being promoted under ATASP-1 project and the adoption rate of these technologies were very high except with a few like mechanization, conservation of stem, record keeping, yields assessment that recorded low rate of adoption.

It was equally discovered that the effect of adoption on crop yields have been very substantial in terms of improvement in the yields of cassava, sorghum and rice and the yields difference before and after ATASP-1 project were significant at 1% level of probability. For cassava, it was 9.44tons before versus 16.26tons after, for sorghum, it was 1.191ton versus 2.45tons after while for rice, it was 3.2tons versus 5.38 tons after ATASP-1. These increases in yield were due to mainly to project effects. These yields increase has equally precipitated substantial increase in revenues and has thus changed the economic status of these farmers. There were noticeable increments in the activities of processors and fabricators as well as other stakeholders in these communities leading to overall improvement in their wellbeing.

Finally, the envisaged constraints were not really severe to warrant negative impact on adoption of technologies being promoted on each crop and as such it could be concluded that the project is on course in a bid to facilitate smooth adoption of technologies being disseminated on these crops. However, it was discovered that there were poor access to credit by these farmers and this could hamper progression in sustained adoption by these farmers and consequently impaired productivity of these crops.

5.7.2 Recommendations Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are made to strengthen and further improve the performance of the project as follows: i. Credit is a lubricant for the adoption of innovation. In view of the poor availability of credit to these farmers, it is recommended that farmers should be given better access to credit to stimulate adoption of disseminated technologies and consequently productivity of these farmers; ii. Participation of these farmers in innovation platform was very poor while participation in field day for cassava farmers was marginally good enough. There is need to strengthen these very important means of disseminating technologies to enhance better understanding of technologies by these farmers to facilitate better adoption across the SCPZs and the country in general; iii. Emphases should be laid on those technologies that have low adoption rate presently with a view to improving their adoption rate. These areas of low rate of adoption are mechanization, records keeping, harvesting for market, yield assessment. Improvement in these identified low areas of adoption will help farmers to be in better position for enhanced productivity; iv. There is need for continues training of farmers on the importance of these technologies as

well as techniques behind their utilization to help these farmer to continue to adopt them; v. There is need to encourage women the more to participate in the project as well as encourage them to take up farming as a business.

REFERENCES

African Agricultural Technology Foundation, AATF (2017).Cassava Mechanization and Agro-processing Project. Retrieved on 4/11/17 from https://www.aatfafrica.org/Cassava-Mechanizsation-Agro-Processing-Project

African Development Bank (2013). Agricultural Transformation Agenda Support Program – Phase 1 Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment. Retrieved on 10/3/2018 from https://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Environmental-andSocial-Assessments/Nigeria%20%20Agricultural%20Transformation%20Agenda%20Support%20Program%20%E2% 80%93%20Phase%201%20%28ATASP-1%29%20%20Executive%20SESA%20Summary.pdf

African Development Bank (AfDB), (2013). Agricultural Transformation Agenda Support Program Phase 1, Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment.

ATASP-1 (2017).ATASP-1 News, January – March, 2017. Retrieved on 11/3/2018 from http://www.iita.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ATASP-news_Jan-March-2017.pdf

FAO, (2004).United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.Retrieved from

Federal Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development, (2011). Agricultural Transformation Agenda: We Will Grow Nigeria's Agriculture Sector.

Federal Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development, (2016). Agriculture Promotion Policy 2016-2020, Area 11, FCT, Abuja.

Federal Ministry of Budget and National Planning, (2017).Economic Recovery and Growth Plan, FCT Abuja, Nigeria.

http://faostat.fao.org

Inter reseaux (2015). Staple Crop Production and Consumption: Nigeria on the Way to Food Self-sufficiency. Retrieved on 4/11/17 from http://www.interreseaux.org/publications/revue-grain-de-sel/51-special-issue-nigeria/article/staplecrop-production-and

Merem, E. C., Twumasi, Y., Wesley, J., Isokpehi, P., Shenge, M., Fageir, S., Crisler, M., Romorno, C., Hines, A., Hirse, G., Ochai, S., Leggett, S. &Nwagboso, E. (2017).Analyzing Rice Production Issues in the Niger State Area of Nigeria's Middle Belt.Food and Public Health 7(1): 7-22.