Crop Productivity, Yield and Technology Adoption Survey of ATASP-1 Small Holder Farmers in Nigeria

Page 78

The previous years' report indicates that there was strong positive impact made in managing the risks of specific environmental and climate variability and near-term climate change challenges through the technologies disseminated by ATASP-1, however, the sustainability of the technology adoption and adaptations requires continuous improvements. To address the above, ATASP-1 Program embarked on a proactive approach to building the capacity of the participants on adaptive and necessary technological systems, embedded in more robust food production and distribution techniques that are designed to be sustainable in the context of climate change. The technologies extended to the participants covered such farm management and postharvest operations like, pest and disease control, fertilizer application, threshing, cleaning, drying, storage, processing, harvesting, and packaging technologies. The adoption and the adaptation of technologies that have strong imperative for sustainability of improved quality of life for the farmers and other operators across the value chain depends largely on how the technology mitigates the climate and specific environmental variability risks. This section evaluated the effect of ATASP-1 technologies on the outputs and income of the participants. The ATASP-1 Program disseminated several Good Agronomic Practices to participating farmers in the production of 3 enterprise crops, Sorghum, Cassava and Rice across the SCPZs. The participating farmers gave responses based on the impact of the technologies extended to them before the adoption of the technologies and after the adoption of the technologies. The technologies disseminated includes farm management and postharvest operations knowledge and skills, pest and disease control, fertilizer application, threshing, cleaning, drying, storage, processing, harvesting, and packaging technologies. Table 33: Effects of Adoption of GAP on Corp Production Mean Production Non-Adopters Adopters RICE N Mean SORGHUM N Mean CASSAVA N Mean Source: June 2020 Field Data

Difference in Mean

Percentage Difference

30 2458.8333

29 4911.4007

2452.5674

99.7%

28 1464.0714

29 3482.8621

2018.7907

137.9%

96 1089.2917

96 1895.1563

805.8646

74.0%

Yield and Technology Adoption Survey

62


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook

Articles inside

Cassava Farmers

1min
page 96

Table 41: Adoption of Good Agronomic Practiced Technology on Cassava ATASP-1

3min
pages 91-92

Annexure 5: Fabricators FGD questionnaire

2min
pages 119-121

Table 42: Adoption of Good Agronomic Practiced Technology on Sorghum ATASP-1

3min
pages 93-94

Figure 21: Technologies practiced on sorghum

0
page 88

Table 35: Mean Processed Output Quantity Before and After ATASP-1 by Zone

2min
page 81

Figure 16: Mean crop production for non-adopters and adopters

1min
page 79

Table 28: Frequency of Practicing Rice Technologies

3min
pages 72-73

Table 27: Frequency of Practicing Sorghum Technologies

0
page 68

Table 30: Rate of Adoption of Cassava Technologies

2min
page 75

Table 33: Effects of Adoption of GAP on Corp Production

1min
page 78

Figure 11: frequency of practicing technologies on sorghum

3min
pages 69-70

Figure 9: Technologies disseminated on rice practiced

3min
pages 63-64

Table 9: Lead Farmers Average Years of Cropping Experience by Zone

1min
page 48

Figure 7: Technologies disseminated on cassava practiced

1min
page 59

Rationale

2min
page 19

2.6.2 AfricaRice

2min
page 30

1.9 Objectives of the Study

1min
page 23

2.6.3 ICRISAT

1min
page 31

3.6 Model Specification

4min
pages 35-37

2.1.2 Technologies disseminated to rice farmers are

1min
page 26
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.