Logistic modelling of smallholder livestock farmers' adoption of tree-based fodder technology in Zimbabwe

Abstract

Based on field data collected from 131 small scale dairy farmers that were randomly selected from four agro-ecological zones, this study assessed the potential of adoption of fodder bank technology as a means for improving livestock production and income generation for smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe. Using a logit modelling approach, it also identified the drivers of adoption of the technology by analysing the influence of household characteristics and ecological factors on farmers' decision to adopt the technology. The model correctly predicted 75% of observed adoption and non-adoption by farmers. Results reveal that dairy herd size, land holding size, membership of dairy association and agro-ecological potential are the key factors influencing farmers' adoption of fodder bank. Age, sex, household size and educational level of farmers play lesser role. Male and female farmers were equally likely to take up and practice fodder bank if they are given equal access to information and incentives. The study recommends farmer-led extension approaches where farmers who possess certain key characteristics should constitute the initial group for disseminating information regarding the technology in rural communities. The results highlight the importance of access to dairy product markets as a driver for the adoption of fodder banks. It is recommended that forging a strategic partnership with the Dairy Development Programme (DDP) will offer high potential for enhancing the scaling up of the adoption and impact of fodder bank technology in the country.

Adoption and Impact of Conservation Agriculture on Smallholder Farmers’ Crop Productivity and Income in Luapula Province, Zambia

“…This means that older farmers are less likely to adopt CA than the younger ones. This is inconsistent with studies by Jera and Ajayi (2008) and Ng'ombe et al (2014) who found a positive correlation between age and CA adoption. Ownership of labour saving equipment such as rippers coupled with the prestige associated with owning such implements increased the likelihood of adopting CA.…”

“…Studies have also shown that over representation of men in programmes involving new innovations is linked with strong traditional and cultural practices that distinguish gender roles in agriculture mostly biased towards men (Nkala, 2012). Female headed households therefore may respond less favorably to new technology than male headed households because the traditional power structure and controls over household productive resources are less favorable to women (Jera & Ajayi, 2008). Female headed households are more likely to face a bigger constraint in terms of land and other resources.…”

“…Wealth enhances risk taking and the probability that a farmer will invest in new technology (Jera & Ajayi, 2008). It is expected that households with a large number of animals can easily convert some of the livestock in to the much needed cash to invest in new technologies.…”

“…Furthermore, the covariates considered in this study were based on the regularity with which a variable was cited in the literature. A number of past research have documented factors that affect farmers' decision to adopt various soil conservation technologies (Kuntanshula et al, 2002;Gladwin et al, 2002;Ajayi et al, 2003;Keil et al, 2005;Jera & Ajayi, 2008). Table 1 below indicates the covariates used in the probit model and their hypothesized relationships with the dependent variable are also defined.…”

Adoption of dairy farming technologies by small farm holders: practices and constraints

“…Understanding the factors affecting farmers' adoption of dairy technology is critical to success of development and implementation of policies and programmes in dairy industry development. Previous adoptionoriented research has examined the use and diffusion of dairy-related technologies (Metz et al 1995, Nicholson et al 1999Mohi and Bhatti 2006;Mekonnen et al 2009) and the factors affecting adoption on smallholder farms (Irungu et al 1998;Jera and Ajayi. 2008).…”