No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The perception of scientists was assessed to determine how it affects their participation in agricultural biotechnology Research and Development. Six Universities were selected, comprising 2 Federal Universities, 2 State Universities, 1 University of Agriculture, 1 University of Technology. Nine Research Institutes were purposively selected to represent different research mandates. The total number of respondents for the study were 148. A structured questionnaire was used. Majority of the respondents (89.9%) were favorably disposed towards agricultural biotechnology. There is no significant relationship between sex (χ 2 =2.97, p > 0.05), marital status (χ 2 =2.495, p 0.05), and qualification (χ 2 =3.032, p > 0.05) and scientists perception about agricultural biotechnology. Religion significantly affects scientists perception (χ 2 =21.44, p>0.05). Scientists perception about agricultural biotechnology does not significantly affect participation (r=-.024, p <0.05). Efforts to build capacity for agricultural biotechnology Research and Development must leverage on the positive perception about the innovation among scientists in the National Agricultural Research System.

No abstract

The study examined the welfare status of rice farming household in Office du Niger, Segou region, Mali. Multi-stage sampling was used to select 137 rice technology adopters and 65 non-adopters in the study area. Frequency counts, percentages, PPPMC and t-test were used for data analysis. About 45.

No abstract

This study investigated the gender and generational involvement of community members on the sustainability likelihood of the Community and Social Development Project (CSDP) in Oyo and Ekiti states, Nigeria. A multistage sampling procedure was used to select 130 respondents (16 youth, 42 adult male, 34 adult female and 38 elders). Focus group discussion was used to collect data. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Respondents indicated their involvement in project phases: needs assessment (2:54, 6:5, 5:1), funding (2:23), decision making (12:4, 9:2, 7:2, 2:30), formulation of Community Development Plan (5:8, 3:3, 35:1), training (3:2, 6:6) and implementation (5:2, 2:25, 3:6, 9:3). None of the projects were insured (11:5, 2:26, 19:4), maintenance committee was set in place (8:32, 2:41), projects were relevant (19:7, 6:12, 20:10) and environmental impact assessment was carried out (7:8, 2:46, 3:13, 1:34). The facilitators of CSDP should monitor the activities of community members and ensure that the community members comply with the activities required for the implementation of the projects as stated in the CSDP implementation manual.