ADOPTION OF RAINFED PADDY PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES

AMONG SMALLHOLDER FARMERS IN THE CENTRAL DISTRICT,

ZANZIBAR

ADAM KHAMIS HAJI

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN RURAL

DEVELOPMENT OF SOKOINE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE,

MOROGORO, TANZANIA.

2014
 ii

ABSTRACT

This study intended to determine factors that affect the adoption of new technologies in

rainfed paddy production by smallholder farmers was conducted in Central District,

Zanzibar. Specifically the study aimed at identifying the existing types of rainfed paddy

technologies adopted, extent of adoption and the household socio-economic and farmer

characteristics associated with adoption of rainfed paddy technology by smallholder

farmers in the study area. A cross sectional research design was employed for data

collection and a total of 120 respondents who were engaged in rainfed paddy farming were

interviewed. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression

model. The study revealed that rainfed paddy production technologies that were extended

and adopted by smallholder farmers included row planting, fertilizer application, weed

control and improved varieties. Results of the descriptive analysis showed that the

adoption level of technologies was high. All respondents adopted top dressing fertilizer

application and 70.2% of them applied basal fertilizer. About 76.7% of the smallholder

farmers also adopted the use of herbicide. The results further indicated that majority of

the smallholder farmers adopted improved varieties and row planting in paddy production.

The results of logistic analysis showed that extension services, age, off farm income and

distance from residence to the market places are the factors that influence the decisions of

smallholder farmers to adopt technologies. Therefore, it is recommended that government

should continue providing efficient extension services to smallholder farmers in order to

sustain the adoption of rainfed paddy production technologies in Zanzibar.

 iii

DECLARATION

I, ADAM KHAMIS HAJI, do hereby declare to the Senate of Sokoine University of

Agriculture that this dissertation is my own original work done within the period of

registration and that it has neither been submitted nor is it being concurrently submitted

for a degree award in any other institution.

Adam Khamis Haji Date

(M. A. Rural Development Candidate)

The above declaration is confirmed

Prof. A. Z. Mattee Date

(Supervisor)
 iv

COPYRIGHT

No part of this dissertation may be reproduced, stored in any retrieval system or

transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written permission of the author or

Sokoine University of Agriculture in that behalf.

 v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank Irish Aid for the financial support to complete this dissertation. Special

thanks to Professor A.Z. Mattee for his commitment in supervision and guidance

throughout the whole research process and production of this dissertation.

I would also like to convey my thanks to the Principal Secretary of the Ministry of

Agriculture and Natural Resources, Zanzibar for granting me permission to pursue my MA

studies at Sokoine University of Agriculture.

I am also grateful to the administration of Central District, Zanzibar for allowing me to

carry out my research in the District. My sincere gratitude and appreciation also go to

DADO of Central District, Block Extension Officers and all farmers in Cheju rice valley

who facilitated the work of data collection.

Finally, I am deeply appreciative of the encouragement, support and friendship of my

fellow students.
 vi

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to my wife Faiza and my daughters, Firdaus, Farida and Fathiya,

who gave me peace and support during my studies.

 vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ ii

DECLARATION ............................................................................................................... iii

COPYRIGHT .....................................................................................................................iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ v

DEDICATION ....................................................................................................................vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. vii

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................xi

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xii

LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................................. xiii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .......................................................xiv

CHAPTER ONE ..................................................................................................................1

1.0 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1

1.1 Background Information .................................................................................................1

1.2 Problem Statement ..........................................................................................................3

1.3 Justification of the Study .................................................................................................4

1.4 Objective of the Study .....................................................................................................4

1.4.1 General objective ..................................................................................................4

1.4.2 Specific objectives ................................................................................................ 4

1.5 Research Questions and Hypothesis ...............................................................................5

1.5.1 Research questions ................................................................................................ 5

1.5.2 Hypothesis.............................................................................................................5

CHAPTER TWO.................................................................................................................6

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................. 6

2.1 Adoption Theory and Concept ........................................................................................6

 viii

2.2 Adoption of Agricultural Technology .............................................................................7

2.3 Measuring Adoption ........................................................................................................8

2.4 Determinants of Adoption of Technologies ....................................................................8

2.4.1 Age ........................................................................................................................9

2.4.2 Sex.......................................................................................................................10

2.4.3 Marital status .......................................................................................................10

2.4.4 Education level....................................................................................................10

2.4.5 Household size and farming experience ............................................................. 11

2.4.6 Farm size and off farm income ...........................................................................11

2.4.7 Credit and market distance..................................................................................12

2.4.8 Extension services ............................................................................................... 12

2.5 Paddy as a World Crop..................................................................................................13

2.6 Paddy Production in Africa ........................................................................................... 13

2.7 Paddy Production in Zanzibar .......................................................................................14

2.7.1 Paddy varieties ....................................................................................................15

2.7.2 Fertilizer application ........................................................................................... 15

2.7.3 Plant spacing .......................................................................................................15

2.7.4 Weed control .......................................................................................................16

2.8 Conceptual Framework of the Research .......................................................................16

CHAPTER THREE ..........................................................................................................19

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...............................................................................19

3.1 Description of the Study Area .......................................................................................19

3.1.1 Location ..............................................................................................................19

3.1.2 Demographic characteristics ...............................................................................19

3.1.3 Agro-ecological conditions .................................................................................19

3.1.4 Economic activities ............................................................................................. 20

 ix

3.2 Research Design ............................................................................................................22

3.3 Sampling Procedure and Sampling Size .......................................................................22

3.4 Data Collection Instruments .......................................................................................... 23

3.4.1 Primary data ........................................................................................................23

3.4.2 Secondary data ....................................................................................................24

3.5 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................24

3.5.1 Quantitative data analysis ...................................................................................24

3.5.2 The binary logistic regression model ..................................................................24

3.5.3 Qualitative data analysis .....................................................................................26

CHAPTER FOUR .............................................................................................................27

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION..................................................................................27

4.1 Socio-demographic Characteristics of Respondents .....................................................27

4.1.1 Sex and marital status .........................................................................................27

4.1.2 Age ......................................................................................................................28

4.1.3 Education level....................................................................................................29

4.1.4 Household size and farming experience ............................................................. 30

4.1.5 Household occupation and off farm income .......................................................31

4.1.6 Farm size and farm land characteristics .............................................................. 32

4.2 Adoption of Production Technologies in Rainfed Paddy Cultivation ........................... 34

4.3 Extent of Adoption of Rainfed Paddy Production Technologies ..................................37

4.3.1 Challenges in paddy production..........................................................................38

4.4 Major Factors Influencing Adoption of Technologies ..................................................40

4.4.1 Logistic model estimates for row planting.......................................................... 40

4.4.2 Logistic model estimates for fertilizer application .............................................41

4.4.3 Logistic model estimates for herbicide application ............................................42

4.4.4 Logistic model estimates for improved paddy varieties .....................................43

 x

CHAPTER FIVE ...............................................................................................................45

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................45

5.1 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................45

5.2 Recommendations .........................................................................................................45

5.2.1 Suggestions for further research .........................................................................46

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................47

APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................59
 xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Distribution of respondents by sex and marital status (n=120) ............................27

Table 2: Level of education of the respondents (n=120) ....................................................30

Table 3: Respondents’ household size and farming experience (n=120)............................31

Table 4: Respondents’ occupation and off farm income (n=120) .......................................32

Table 5: Respondents’ farm characteristics (n=120)..........................................................34

Table 6: Extension services and paddy technologies adopted by farmers (n=120) ............36

Table 7: Extent of adoption of recommended paddy production technologies (n=120) .....38

Table 8: Distribution of respondents based on adoption/production challenges.................39

Table 9: Logistic analysis for factors influencing adoption of row planting ......................41

Table 10: Logistic analysis for factors influencing adoption of fertilizer application ........42

Table 11: Logistic analysis for factors influencing adoption of herbicides ........................43

Table 12: Logistic analysis for factors influencing improved paddy varieties ...................44
 xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Conceptual framework for the research ...............................................................18

Figure 2: Map of Central District showing the study area ..................................................21

Figure 3: Distribution of respondents based on age (n=120) ..............................................29

 xiii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Household Questionnaire ...............................................................................59

Appendix 2: Interview Checklist for District Agriculture Development Officer and

Extension Officers ........................................................................................64

 xiv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AI Artificial Insemination

ASSP Agriculture Sector Services Program

BEO Block Extension Officer

CMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre

DADO District Agricultural Development Officer

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FGDs Focus Group Discussions

GOZ Government of Zanzibar

IPM Integrated Pest Management

KI Key Informant

MAFSC Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives

MALNR Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources

N Nitrogen

NERICA New Rice for Africa

OCGS Office of Chief Government Statistician

P Phosphorus

PADEP Participatory Agricultural Development and Empowerment Project

PHC Population and Housing Census

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences

SUA Sokoine University of Agriculture

TRA Theory of Reasoned Action

TSP Triple Super Phosphate

URT United Republic of Tanzania

USD United States Dollars

 1

CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Information

Most developing countries continue to depend on agriculture for economic growth,

poverty reduction, and food security (Mohamed, 2009). In Zanzibar particularly in rural

areas, agriculture remains to be an important economic activity to the majority and

remains the second largest driver of economic development after the services sector 1.

Nearly 70% of the population depends directly or indirectly on agriculture related

activities for their livelihood. The share of the agriculture sector in the economy decreased

from 24.0% in 2006 to 21.7% in 2010 (Zanzibar Economic Bulletin, 2011). Although

dominated by small scale subsistence farming, agriculture is by far the most important

source of food and employment in the isles.

According to the OCGS (2012), only a small proportion of crop land is irrigated. The

Zanzibar Irrigation Master Plan (2005) has identified 8 000 ha as suitable for irrigation

development in both Unguja and Pemba islands. The master plan states that paddy

occupies about 15 000 ha from the total cropland area of 122 600 ha including tree crops.

Out of 15 000 ha, irrigated area covers only 450 ha, and the rest is non-irrigated (7 550 ha

rainfed lowland and 7 000 ha upland).

Paddy has occupied a prominent position as a strategic crop for food security and

economic development. It is the main staple food which accounts for more than 50% of

staples consumed in Zanzibar. It is estimated that per capita annual rice consumption is

1
Services sector dominated mainly by tourism
 2

120 kg, and total annual rice requirement is estimated at 120 000 tons (Khatib and

Makame, 2010).

The attainment of an increase in paddy production is still a big challenge. Towards the

turn of the last century the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar took deliberate steps to

support local paddy production. Some of the efforts include subsidy for mechanization,

quality seeds, fertilizers and herbicides. Despite these efforts and strategies, there are still

many households that are experiencing food insecurity due to low paddy production. In

general, the paddy production trend has been low due to a variety of constraints including

weed infestation, improper soil and water management, plant diseases and pests,

inadequate use of fertilizers, inadequate research and extension services, and limited

availability of appropriate improved varieties (Khatib, 2009 cited by Kimaro et al., 2010).

The widespread use and adoption of new agricultural technologies in the form of improved

varieties, fertilizers, pesticides, agricultural machinery and method of cultivation like

proper spacing could significantly increase food production in developing countries

(Liberio, 2012). Also, Essa (2001) revealed that the adoption of a new agricultural

technology is a central feature of the transformation of farming systems in the process of

economic development. Farmers have an essential role to play in agriculture development.

They are the ones to decide on the use of agricultural inputs and adoption of improved

agricultural technologies. According to Umar et al. (2009), the adoption of improved

technologies can lead to increased productivity to smallholder farmers.

Low levels of skills with respect to the use of modern farming techniques and adoption of

new technologies is one of the challenges facing paddy production. According to Khatib

and Makame (2010), the adoption of improved paddy varieties, proper application of
 3

chemical fertilizers and associated agronomic technologies is still low in Zanzibar,

particularly in rainfed paddy production. Therefore, this study aims to ascertain factors

that influence adoption of rainfed paddy technologies among smallholder farmers in

Zanzibar.

1.2 Problem Statement

Rice is a staple food in Zanzibar and is grown mostly by smallholder farmers during the

long rainy season. This has attracted government efforts through Participatory Agricultural

Development and Empowerment Project (PADEP) and Agriculture Sector Services

Program (ASSP) to build capacity of different groups of farmers to adopt modern farming

techniques. Despite the assorted efforts, it is estimated by The Ministry of Agriculture,

Livestock and Natural Resources (MALNR) that the consumption rate to be 100 000

tons/year, however, nearly 80% of the consumed rice in Zanzibar is imported. The

existing trends revealed that domestic rice production is far below the potential, with a

productivity of only 1.2 ton/ha unlike the required productivity of 3.5 ton/ha (MALNR,

2009).

Several studies done in Zanzibar such as Khatib and Makame (2010); Mohamed (2009)

and ZIMP (2005) focused their attention to seed varieties development and their influence

on productivity; access to formal credit by smallholder farmers; and implication of

irrigated agriculture particularly on paddy production respectively. No doubt little

attention has been given to factors that lead to low rate of adoption of the rainfed paddy

production technologies in Central District, Zanzibar. In order to narrow this knowledge

gap the interest of this study is therefore, indicated. Though studies to determine factors

hindering the rate of adoption of new technologies in paddy production have already been

done in other parts of the world including Tanzania Mainland, the results cannot be
 4

extrapolated to smallholder farmers in Zanzibar since they have different farming and land

tenure systems that need detailed studies.

1.3 Justification of the Study

Findings in this study would be potential for updating the strategies in the Agricultural

Sector Policy of 2002 and Zanzibar Food Security and Nutrition Policy of 2008 which

seek to improve food production and establishing the national food reserve through

adoption and use of improved technologies in paddy production by smallholder farmers.

Moreover, this study will inform decision and policy makers of the strategies to improve

promotion and dissemination of technological interventions. In addition, findings of this

study will be beneficial to farmers about appropriate paddy production technologies to be

adopted. Also, findings of this study would augment a portion of knowledge to the

existing literature related to adoption of improved paddy production technologies.

1.4 Objective of the Study

1.4.1 General objective

To determine factors that affect adoption of new technologies in rainfed paddy production

among smallholder farmers in Central District of Zanzibar.

1.4.2 Specific objectives

The specific objectives of the study were:

i) To identify the types of rainfed paddy production technologies adopted by

smallholder farmers in the study area.

ii) To assess the extent of adoption of rainfed paddy production technologies to

smallholder farmers in the study area.

iii) To determine household socio-economic and farmer characteristics that affect

adoption of rainfed paddy production technologies by smallholder farmers in the

study area.
 5

1.5 Research Questions and Hypothesis

1.5.1 Research questions

i) What are the rainfed paddy production technologies that have been adopted?

ii) What is the level of the rainfed paddy production technologies that have been

adopted?

1.5.2 Hypothesis

H0: Household socio-economic and farmer characteristics do not significantly affect

adoption of rainfed paddy production technologies.

 6

CHAPTER TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Adoption Theory and Concept

This study was guided by the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) that focuses on

behavioural determinants of the individual instead of technological characteristics. Green

(2005) argued that the majority of contemporary technology adoption studies are rooted in

behavioural intention, which contends that a user’s choice to adopt a new technology is a

conscious undertaking that can be sufficiently explained and predicted by their

behavioural intention. The assumption of this theory is that individuals pass through five

stages on their way to adopting a new practice or behaviour (Rogers, 2003; Gregor and

Jones, 1999) as cited by Nyanga (2012). These stages are: (i) knowledge whereby a

person becomes aware of an innovation and has some idea of how it functions. In this step,

an individual learns about the existence of innovation and seeks information about the

innovation. “What?”, “how?,” and “why?” are the critical questions in the knowledge

phase; (ii) persuasion stage is when a person forms a favourable or unfavourable attitude

toward the innovation after he or she knows about the innovation; (iii) decision whereby a

person engages in activities that lead to a choice to adopt or reject the innovation; (iv)

implementation - person puts an innovation into use; and (v) confirmation in which a

person evaluates the results of an innovation-decision already made and the individual

looks for support for his or her decision.

Adoption is defined as a decision of full use of an innovation as the best course of action

available (Rogers, 2003). Feder et al. (1985) defined adoption as a mental process an

individual passes from first hearing about an innovation to final utilization. According to

Fisher and Norvell et al. (2000), diffusion differs from adoption in that it is the process by
 7

which new technologies are spread among users whereas adoption is said to be an

individual internal decision. According to Ray (2001), adoption process is the change that

occurs within individual with view to an innovation from the moment that they first

become aware of the innovation to the final decision to use it or not. As asserted by van

den Ban and Hawkins (1996), adoption is a mental process through which an individual

passes from first knowledge of an innovation to the decision to adopt or reject and to

confirmation of this decision.

Adoption is a decision-making process, in which smallholder farmers undergo a number of

mental stages before making a final decision to adopt an innovation (Dasgupta, 1989).

Farmers may adopt the new technology by passing the trial stage. In some cases,

particularly with environmental innovations, farmers may have awareness and knowledge

but because of other factors affecting the decision making process, adoption does not

occur (Ray, 2001). According to Augustine and Mulugeta (2005), the importance of

adoption study is: to quantify the number of technology users over time; to assess impacts

or determine extension requirements; to provide further insights into the effectiveness of

technology transfer and to assist in monitoring and feedback in technology generation.

2.2 Adoption of Agricultural Technology

Technological innovation is an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new or an

improvement over the existing one by the individual or members of a society (Rogers,

2003). It represents a slight modification or a significant departure from the existing idea

or practice. Most agricultural technologies manifest as mechanical innovations (tractors

and combines), biological innovations (new varieties), chemical innovations (fertilizers

and pesticides), agronomic innovations (new management practices), biotechnological

 8

innovations, and informational innovations. Farmers themselves may develop some new

practices, which are also considered as technology (Sunding and Zilberman, 2001).

2.3 Measuring Adoption

Depending on the technology being investigated, various parameters may be employed to

measure adoption. The rate of adoption is usually measured by the length of time required

for a certain percentage of members of a system to adopt an innovation. Extent of

adoption on the other hand is measured from the number of technologies being adopted

and the number of producers adopting them (Wabbi, 2002). The current study on factors

investigating the adoption of rainfed paddy technology among smallholder farmers in

Central District will estimate the extent of adoption by examining the farmers decision to

adopt or not to adopt and categorized respondents into two groups: Adopters and non-

adopters of rainfed paddy technologies.

2.4 Determinants of Adoption of Technologies

Several factors have been found associated with adoption of technologies. These include

Market forces such as availability of labour, technology resource requirements, farm size,

level of expected benefits, and level of effort required to implement the technology; Social

factors such as age of potential adopter, social status of farmers, education level and

gender-related aspects, household size, and farming experience; Management factors such

as membership to organizations, the capacity to borrow, and concerns about environmental

degradation and human health of farmers; Institutional/technology delivery mechanisms

such as information access, extension services, and prior participation in, and training in

pest control practices (Coffin, 1990 as cited by Wabbi, 2002).

 9

2.4.1 Age

Age is an important factor that influences the probability of adoption of new technologies.

This is because it is a primary latent characteristic in adoption decisions (Akudugu et al.,

2012). Farmers’ age may influence both the decision to adopt and extent of adoption of

agricultural technologies. According to Kalineza et al. (1999), farmers’ age can increase as

well as decrease the possibility of adoption of agricultural technologies. A farmer's age

may influence adoption in one of several ways (CIMMYT, 1993). It may be that older

farmers are more risk averse and less likely to be flexible than younger farmers and thus

could have a lesser likelihood of adopting new technologies. Nevertheless, it could also be

that older farmers have gained over time farming knowledge and experience and could be

better able in evaluating technology information than younger farmers, and hence could

have a higher probability of adopting the practice (Feder et al., 1985; Belknap and Saupe,

1988 cited by Mignouna et al., 2011).

It was noted that there is argument on the direction of the effect of age on adoption of

technologies. Age was found to positively influence adoption of imazapyr-resistant maize

(Mignouma et al., 2011), modern agricultural technologies (Akudugu et al., 2012) and

observation on best management practices among dairy farmers in Turkey (Boz et al.,

2011). In contrast, age has been found to be negatively correlated with adoption of

fertilizer in Kikusya village, Kyela District (Mwaseba et al., 2006) and reported by Tiwari

et al. (2008) in study of adoption of improved soil conservation technology in Nepal.

Therefore, age may positively or negatively affect adoption of agricultural technologies

depending on the individual farmer and technology involved.

 10

2.4.2 Sex

It was hypothesized that sex difference could be related to the adoption of agricultural

technologies. Women are responsible for most of the crop production activities such as

planting, weeding, harvesting and processing in Africa, but yet most agricultural

production technologies have been promoted for male farmers. It was reported that

women farmers are forgotten in technology adoption and transfer (CIMMYT, 1993).

Male farmers have more access and control over vital production resources such as land,

information, credit and labour than women (Njeri, 2007 cited by Mignouma et al., 2011).

2.4.3 Marital status

Marital status is another increasingly important variable that may impact on technology

adoption. Married couples tend to support each other in making decision, making them

more likely to accept the positive side of new and emerging technologies (Mlote et al.,

2013). Married heads of household are also expected to have more resources. This

variable is expected to be positively associated with the adoption of new technologies.

2.4.4 Education level

It was noted that education being the process at bringing desired change in the adoption of

the technology, Okunlola et al. (2011) reported that educational level is one of the strong

factors that influence adoption of new technology by farmers. Joseph (2008) reported that

formal schooling enhances the farmers’ ability to perceive, interpret and respond to new

events in the context of risk. A farmer with more education could be more likely to adopt

new technologies than less educated farmers (Adelsina et al., 2000 cited by Tiwari et al.,

2008).
 11

2.4.5 Household size and farming experience

Household size is a proxy for labour stock available, which will enhance the adoption of a

new technology that may need more care and may be more labour intensive (Doss, 2006

cited in Pandey et al., 2012). The number of adults who can work in the field is a clue of

the availability of labour required in paddy production. Therefore, household size is

hypothesized to positively influence adoption of rainfed paddy technologies. It is

expected that a larger household size could affect the decision of adopting of rainfed

paddy technologies. The number of years of farming experience could positively or

negatively affect the likelihood that a farmer would adopt agricultural production

technologies. Farmers who have been engaged in farming for many years are expected to

be more efficient at incorporating new technologies into production. However, long-time

farmers may actually be more reluctant to change from technologies they have used for

many years (Caswell et al., 2001).

2.4.6 Farm size and off farm income

Farm size may have both positive and negative effects on the adoption of new technology.

It is often assumed that larger-scale farmers will be more likely to adopt new technology

faster since they have more ability to try new technologies due to their higher risk-bearing

ability, better financial resources, and larger size of landholdings (Pandey et al., 2012).

On the other hand, it may have a negative effect since small farmers are likely to be

motivated in searching for new technology due to their subsistence pressure and they may

be willing to accept improved technologies in changing circumstances.

Off farm income is a variable that measures farmer’s ability to invest in new technology.

It was hypothesized that off farm income in the household encouraged adoption of new

technology (Tiwari et al., 2008). Off farm income provides revenue which can be used to
 12

finance crop activities. One strand of literature shows that households with off farm

income had significantly higher adoption intensity and expenditure on purchased inputs

such as improved seeds, fertilizers and herbicides relative to their counterparts without off

farm income (Diiro, 2013). For example off farm income significantly and positively

increased the probability of adopting IPM technologies in cowpea, sorghum and

groundnuts in Uganda (Kirinya et al., 2012).

2.4.7 Credit and market distance

Credit is an important factor that affects adoption of new technology (CIMMYT, 1993).

Farmers use credit to purchase farm inputs such as improved seeds, fertilizers and

herbicides to carry out production. It was noted that many farmers who do not adopt new

technology complain of lack of finance or credit as the limiting factor. Therefore, access

to credit in crop production would enhance adoption because credit would ease the

liquidity constraints required in rainfed paddy production. Market distance is considered a

proxy for famers’ access to input and output markets. It was assumed that households that

are far from the market are less likely to adopt improved rainfed paddy production

technologies due to their poor access to new improved varieties, fertilizers and herbicides.

2.4.8 Extension services

Most extension services are actively engaged in promoting new technologies with farmers

(CIMMYT, 1993). Access to agricultural extension services is imperative in influencing

the decision to adopt improved rainfed paddy production. It includes the number of

extension visit, the farmer had in the cropping season to capture the effect of expert

advisory services (Ephraim, 2005). Extension visits enable the farmer to get information

about new or improved technologies and which the extension workers encourage them to

adopt. Also Kalineza et al. (1999) reported that availability of advisory services through

extension is essential for a farmer to be aware of the new technologies as well as how to
 13

apply them. Atibioke et al. (2012) cited by Sanginga (1995) who found a positive and

significant relationship between extension contact and farmers adoption of technologies.

2.5 Paddy as a World Crop

Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is one of the most important cereal foods in the world. It provides

about 80% of energy intake of one billion Asians and one-third of the energy intake of one

billion persons in Africa and Latin America (CHANG, 1985 cited by Banwo, 2002). Over

decades paddy has occupied a prominent position as a strategic crop for food security and

economic development. FAO (2008) classified paddy as the most important food crop

depended upon by over 50% of the world population. Apart from being a food crop paddy

production provides employment opportunities for millions of people who work either

directly in paddy production or in related support services. With favourable growing

conditions and improved economic incentive, the global paddy cultivated area was

forecasted to rise by 1.5% to 158.6 million hectares in 2009 from 156.3 million hectares in

2008 and the yield to grow by 2.4% from 4.2 tons to 4.3 tons of paddy per hectares (FAO,

2008). Most of all paddy produced comes from India, China, Japan, Indonesia, Thailand,

Burma, and Bangladesh, with China and India producing almost half of the world

production. Asia accounts for 92% of the world total producers (Odogola, 2006).

2.6 Paddy Production in Africa

Rice is the staple food in many countries of Africa and constitutes a major part of the diet

(Saka et al., 2005). Over 75% of the African countries with a total population close to 800

million people are engaged in paddy production. It is the main staple food of the

population in Cape Verde, Comoros, Gambia, Guinea-Bisau, Liberia, Madagascar, Egypt,

Reunion, Senegal and Sierra Leone. It is also an important food of the population in Cote

d’Ivoire, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria and Tanzania. In addition, paddy has become an
 14

important food security sector in Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Ghana and Uganda.

Rice consumption in Africa is growing at 6% to 7% per year and that the African

continent is importing close to 10.0 million tons of rice annually, equivalent to one third of

the traded rice on the world market and costing USD 4.0 billion in foreign exchange in

2009 (Odogola, 2006).

As far as East Africa is concerned, paddy is becoming an important staple food and cash

crop. In 2005 the harvested area for lowland rice was about 460 000 hectares producing a

total of about 870 000 metric tons, (Kega and Maingu, 2006). Rice is an important cereal

crop grown in many regions in Tanzania, second to maize (Katambara et al., 2006). In

Tanzania annual milled rice production in the last ten years ranged between 530 000 and

851 000 tons, with estimated annual milled rice consumption per capital of 25 kg,

(MAFSC, 2009). In Tanzania paddy is grown by smallholder farmers which accounts

about 90% of the country’s estimated 548 000 ha of paddy (Kanyeka et al., 1995 cited by

Mwaseba et al., 2006).

2.7 Paddy Production in Zanzibar

Paddy is the main staple food in Zanzibar and is grown mostly during the long rainy

season and it accounts for more than 50% of staple consumed. It is estimated that annual

paddy consumption per capita is 120 kg and total annual rice requirement is estimated at

120 000 tons (Khatib and Makame, 2010). Paddy farming was long established in

Zanzibar from South East Asia more than 2000 years ago by Arab traders (Carpenter,

1978 ci ted by Meertens et al., 1999). Due to its importance and the fact that over 80% of

rice consumed is imported, the government is putting greater emphasis on paddy

production. In order to improve paddy production, adoption of paddy production

technology practices is crucial. The use of improved technologies in paddy crop remains a

major strategy for increasing agricultural productivity and promoting food security.
 15

2.7.1 Paddy varieties

Use of improved seed is the first and foremost way of realizing the yield potential of the

recommended technologies. Both traditional (local) and improved paddy varieties are

cultivated in Zanzibar. The traditional paddy varieties are of long duration of 6-7 months

and relatively low yielding (average 0.9 tons/acre). These varieties include Ringa,

Kibawa, Moshi, Afaa, Kijicho, Sindano, Majulufa, Kibeuwatwana, Uchuki, Makaniki and

Kia la ngawa. As regards to the improved varieties; Supa India, TXD 88, TXD 306 and

NERICA are commonly grown. The attributes that make the paddy varieties to be grown

are high yield, aroma, palatability and resistance to plant diseases (Ally, 2011).

2.7.2 Fertilizer application

The paddy crop has a relatively high demand for nutrients, particularly nitrogen (N) and

phosphorus (P). Over the years the use of fertilizers has played an important role in paddy

production and productivity. It provides nutrients (mainly N and P) in the soil to make it

fertile for the crop to grow well and to produce higher yields. Inorganic fertilizers such as

Urea and Triple Super Phosphate (TSP) are very widely used in paddy fields. The

recommended fertilizers at the study area were TSP (basal fertilizer) and Urea for top

dressing and both are recommended to be applied at the rate of 50 kg per acre.

2.7.3 Plant spacing

It is assumed that method of sowing has a significant effect on the productivity of a crop

(Singh and Chahal, 2009). Proper plant spacing enables the paddy farmers to have

appropriate plant population in their farms. Therefore, a farmer can avoid over and less

plant population which has negative effect on crop yield in a given plot of land (Baloch et

al., 2002 cited by Ally, 2011). Direct seeding through broadcasting and dibbling are
 16

commonly practiced in planting paddy under rainfed system. The recommended plant

spacing is 20 cm x 20 cm.

2.7.4 Weed control

Weeds are the most important biotic barrier in paddy production. Weed control is

important to reduce competition for water, soil nutrients, and light (Katinila et al., 1998).

Weed infestation in the study area has been reported to cause yield losses in rainfed paddy.

According to Rao (2000), weeds account for 45% of the total annual loss of agricultural

produce. Moreover, Singh and Chahal (2009) revealed that weed infestation in wheat can

cause yield losses of 20 – 40 percent in Punjab. Farmers used herbicides in combination

with hand weeding to control weed in the paddy field. Hand weeding is a traditional

practice which involves high labour input, therefore, farmers in the study area start to

manage weed in their field using herbicides (Basunil 2 lit/acre) followed by hand weeding

to uprooting any remaining weeds.

2.8 Conceptual Framework of the Research

The conceptual framework (Fig. 1) has been developed to show the relationship between

the important concepts and variables of this study. Adoption of technological innovations

in agriculture has attracted considerable attention among development economists and

agricultural extensionists (Oladele, 2005). Theory explains that both economic and non-

economic reasons are essential motives for shaping the smallholder farmers attitude

towards recommended the improved technologies and its final adoption (Oladele, 2005).

According to Oladele (2005), several parameters have been identified as influencing the

adoption behaviour of farmers from qualitative and quantitative models for the exploration

of the subject. Social scientists investigating farmers’ adoption behaviour have

 17

accumulated considerable evidence showing that demographic variables, technology

characteristics, information sources, knowledge, awareness, attitude, and group influence

affect adoption behaviour (Rogers, 2003; Oladele, 2005). In addition, literature suggests

that successful adoption depends on favourable convergence of technical, economic,

institutional and policy factors (Feder et al., 1985; Rogers, 2003). Also, Rao and Rao

(1996) as cited by Oladele (2005) found a positive and significant association between

age, farming experience, training received, socio-economic status, cropping intensity,

aspiration, economic motivation, innovativeness, information source and its utilization,

agent credibility and adoption.

 18

Economic factors
 Off farm activities
 Household income
 Size of land holding
 Labour availability
 Keeping livestock
 Value of productive assets

Farmer Socio-psychological Adoption of rainfed

characteristics factors paddy technologies
 Sex  Farmers attitude
 Age  Culture  Row planting
 Education  Farmers’ perception  Fertilizer application
 Farming experience  Nature of technology  Herbicide application
 Marital status (Availability, affordability,  Improved varieties
 Family size type and applicability)

Institutional factors
 Access to market
 Extension contacts/visits
 Credit availability/use

Figure 1: Conceptual framework for the research

 19

CHAPTER THREE

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Description of the Study Area

3.1.1 Location

This study was conducted in Central District. It is one of the two districts which form

Unguja South Region. The total area of the district (Fig. 2) is about 453 km2. It is

bordered by South District to the south, West District to the west, North B District to the

north and the Indian Ocean to the east.

3.1.2 Demographic characteristics

Central District is comprised of three constituencies, 11 wards and 40 Shehia (village

clusters). According to the 2010 census, Central District currently has a population of 76

346 of whom 38,538 are males and 37,808 are females, and average household size is 4.5.

3.1.3 Agro-ecological conditions

The district climate is characterized by the northern monsoon winds between the months

of December and February and the southeast monsoon winds between the months of

March and November. Central District is dominated by a bimodal rainfall pattern. There

is a long rainy season (Masika) which starts from March up to June with an average of

900-1000 mm precipitation during this season, followed by rather erratic short rains (Vuli)

which start from October through December with average of 400-500 mm of rainfall. In

the district temperature remains relatively stable throughout the year. The maximum mean

annual temperature (30oC) and the minimum mean annual temperature approximately

24oC. The geology of Central District is characterized by deeper and richer soils on the
 20

western side, but become shallow towards the eastern side dominated by coral rag

consisting of weathered rocks with pockets of fertile soils.

3.1.4 Economic activities

The major income sources of the residents include: business, office work, carpentry, arable

and pastoral farming, fishing, tourism and harvesting of forest products. The main food

crops grown in Central District include paddy, cassava, bananas, sweet potatoes, yams,

maize, seaweed and cloves. The reason for undertaking this study is that the district has

the potential to be the food basket of Unguja given the availability of arable land (1, 200

ha in Cheju valley), good climatic conditions, and availability of water and forest

resources.
 21

Study Shehia

Figure 2: Map of Central District showing the study area

 22

3.2 Research Design

A cross-sectional research design was adopted in the process of data collection. The

design has been adopted on the basis that it allows collection of data from different groups

of respondents at one point in time (De Vaus, 2002) as cited by Ruheza et al. (2012), and

can be used to determine the relationship between and among variables (Babbie, 1990).

3.3 Sampling Procedure and Sampling Size

Purposive sampling was used to select four Shehia (village clusters) namely, Jendele,

Cheju, Ndijani Mseweni and Ndijani Mwembepunda. Purposive selection of these Shehia

was based on the fact that they are located in Cheju valley, the largest valley in Zanzibar

which makes them potential for rainfed paddy production, furthermore multiple rainfed

paddy production interventions are allocated to the Cheju valley. A systematic random

sampling was used to obtain 120 respondents from the selected Shehia by using farmers’

register as a sampling frame, 30 cases were selected from each Shehia. The unit of

analysis was the household. According to Kothari (2004) and Wooldridge (2008), a

sample or sub-sample of 30 respondents is the minimum for studies in which statistical

data analysis is to be done. Also, the choice of this figure was based on the simple

formula of selecting sample as suggested by Fisher et al. (1991) for a population that

exceed 10 000 as shown below:

n = Z2 pq
d2

Where:

n = desired sample size when population is greater than 10 000

Z = standard normal deviation, set as 1.96 (or simply at 2.0) corresponding to 95%

confidence level

p = proportion in the target population estimated to have a particular characteristics

 23

q=1–p

d = degree of accuracy desired, set at 0.05

Hence sample size will be

n = Z2 pq = (22) (0.5 x 0.5)

d2 (0.05)2

n = 400 respondents

According to the formula the sample size for this study could have been 400 cases but due

to time limitation and funds 30% of the cases was selected to be involved in this study.

Bailey (1994) argued that a sample of 30 respondents is a bare minimum for a study in

which a statistical analysis is to be done.

3.4 Data Collection Instruments

3.4.1 Primary data

A structured questionnaire (Appendix 1) was used to collect primary data from

smallholder farmers. Other methods used for primary data collection were focus group

discussions (FGDs) and key informant (KI) interviews. Four FGDs were conducted

involving 10 participants for each Shehia, the selection of FGDs participants was based on

their experience and involvement in rainfed paddy production. Additionally, 10 key

informants including Block Extension Officers, the District Agricultural Development

Officer and Subject Matter Specialists on rice production were also purposively selected

based on their knowledge in paddy production. The questionnaire was made up of five

main parts. The first and second parts were designed to collect household characteristics.

The third part covered farming and socio-economic characteristics, while the fourth part

dealt with the extension services and technology adoption. The final part was designed to

capture information related to credit and market accessibility. The second instrument was
 24

the checklist which comprised both focus group discussion guides and key informant

guide (Appendix 2).

3.4.2 Secondary data

Secondary data were obtained from reports found in the Ministry of Agriculture and

Natural Resources in Zanzibar, Zanzibar Department of Agriculture and Central District

Agriculture Development Offices. Data collected included type of paddy technologies

transmitted to farmers, extension and other services provided to smallholder farmers, type

of credit provided to farmers and level of technologies adoption by smallholder farmers.

3.5 Data Analysis

3.5.1 Quantitative data analysis

Descriptive and inferential analysis was used to analyse quantitative data. The collected

primary data were verified, coded, and analysed using Statistical Package for Social

Science (SPSS) computer program, version 16, which yielded descriptive statistics such as

frequencies, percentages, means, range, minimum, maximum and cross-tabulations.

Inferential statistics (Binary logistic regression model) were applied to determine factors

influencing rainfed paddy technology adoption.

3.5.2 The binary logistic regression model

The decision to adopt or not adopt a particular new production technology is binary

decision that can be analysed using binary choice models (Kalineza et al., 1999;

CIMMYT, 1993). In determining household social economic and farmer characteristics

affecting the adoption of rainfed paddy production technology by smallholder farmers in

the study area, logistic model was employed. Logistic regression is useful for situations in

which one wants to be able to predict the presence or absence of a characteristic or

 25

outcome based on values of a set of predictor variables (Mohamed, 2009). It is similar to

a linear regression model but is suited to models where the dependent variable is

dichotomous. Logistic regression coefficients can be used to estimate odds ratios for each

of the independent variables in the model. The estimated model is expressed as follows:

Y = α+βo + β1x1 + β2x2 +….βn xn + ε

Y = α +β1 age + β2sex + β3 education+ β4 farm size + β5 credit access + β6 extension

services + β7 market accessibility + β8 household size + β9 farming experience + β10 off

farm activity+ β11 ….......βn xn + ε

Where;

Y = Chance of household which experience and not experience adoption technology

1 = If the household has adopting new technology

0 = If household has not ever adopted new technology

Age = Age of respondents measured in years

Sex = (1 = If the household head is male, otherwise 0)

Household size = Number of household member

Education = Level of education attained by household measured in years of schooling

Farm size = Size of the farm possessed by household measured in acres

Farming experience = Number of years in paddy farming activities

Off farm activity 1 = if household head engaged in other farming activities

0 = if otherwise

Credit access 1 = if household access credit

0 = if otherwise

Extension services 1 = if there is frequent contact with extension officers

0 = if otherwise

Market accessibility = distance from resident to the market place in km

α = Constant term ε = An error term. β1……… β11 are the coefficient for variables
 26

3.5.3 Qualitative data analysis

Qualitative data from focus group discussions and key informants interviews were

analysed using content analysis technique. The data were interpreted and organized into

different themes based on the conceptual description of ideas which was expressed by

respondents during discussions.

 27

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Socio-demographic Characteristics of Respondents

4.1.1 Sex and marital status

The sex of the respondents is important factor for adoption of new agricultural

technologies and practices in smallholder agriculture (Mohamed, 2009). Female farmers

are assumed to be less endowed with resources and consequently are disadvantaged when

it comes to the adoption of agricultural technologies. The results show that about 55% of

the respondents were female while 45% were male (Table 1). This implies that gender

distribution among farmers in rainfed paddy production is skewed slightly towards

females. The fact that more of respondents involved in this study were female was

attributed by men’s reluctance to participate in the study. Furthermore, rice production in

the study area is carried out by women compared to their counterparts. Males concentrate

on other activities such as fishing, lime and charcoal making or cultivation of cassava and

oranges.

Table 1: Distribution of respondents by sex and marital status (n=120)

Variable Category Frequency Percentage
Sex Male 54 45.0
Female 66 55.0
Marital status Single 13 10.8
Married 91 75.8
Divorced 13 10.8
Widowed 3 2.6

It is assumed that married couple are more likely to perform paddy farming and share

experience in adoption of agricultural technologies compared to single individuals.

 28

Antibioke et al. (2012) asserted that crop production value chain and use of technologies

are related to marital status. Hence marriage serves as a means of generating family

labour. Findings in Table 1 show that 75.8% of respondents were married, 10.8% of the

respondents were single, 10.8% were divorced and 2.6% were widowed. The results

imply that a proportion of the respondents were mature people with family responsibilities,

which could encourage them to adopt agricultural technologies so as to increase paddy

production.

4.1.2 Age

The mean age of respondents was 46 years; this means that there was a relatively high

proportion of middle age paddy farmers among the respondents. Figure 3 shows that the

largest proportion (40%) of the respondents was within the age range of 40-49 years,

followed by those of 50-59 years (22.5%), 30-39 years (16.7%), 60 years and above

(12.5%) and lastly 19-29 (8.3%). Age of the respondents is associated with the adoption

of new technology (Agbamu, 2006) cited by Okunlola et al. (2011). Age is often

considered to be an indicator of willingness to adopt agricultural technologies and

practices on the assumption that younger people are likely to adopt improved

technological practices than old people (Akubuilo, 1982 cited by Atibioke et al., 2012).

This indicates that the farmers were still in their active years, as more than three-quarters

of respondents (79.2%) were between 30 and 59 years, a situation that is likely to favour

the adoption of the rainfed paddy technologies.

 29

Figure 3: Distribution of respondents based on age (n=120)

4.1.3 Education level

It is assumed that literate farmers are better able to process information and search for

suitable agricultural technologies to improve their production. As reported by Getahun et

al. (2000) cited in Ayalew (2011), adoption is anticipated to correlate positively with

education. Table 2 shows that 53.3% of the respondents had primary education, 19.2% of

the farmers had no formal education, and very few (7.5%) had secondary education. This

implies that majority of the farmers were literate, as 80.8% of them had one form or other

of formal education. This means that high proportion of the respondents was in a better

position to be aware of, understand and adopt the rainfed paddy production technologies.
 30

Table 2: Level of education of the respondents (n=120)

Category Frequency Percentage
No formal education 23 19.2
Adult education 24 20.0
Primary education 64 53.3
Secondary education 9 7.5

4.1.4 Household size and farming experience

The study findings in Table 3 show that, the largest household had 12 members and

smallest household was having only one member. The mean household size was found to

be 5.5 members. This is slightly higher than the Zanzibar national average household size

of 4.5 members as revealed in the Population and Housing Census (URT, 2013). Results

also show that households that had between one and four people constituted 36.7%, five to

nine members constituted 53.3%, while those households with 10 persons or more

comprised 10.0% of the respondents. The relatively large household size could serve as a

source of farm labour (Alarima et al., 2011). These findings reveal that farmers had

relatively large-sized households that are advantageous to farming, since it will enable

farmers to use family labour for paddy production.

It was assumed that long farming experience is an advantage for increased farm

productivity since it encourages rapid adoption of farm innovations. Kisusu (2003)

recorded that the number of years working on the farm develop technical knowhow which

is useful in the adoption of new technologies. About 34.2% of the respondents have

farming experience of 11-20 years. The mean farming experience was 19.0 years. This

means that respondents had a reasonable experience in farming that will enhance

understanding and subsequent innovation of paddy production technology.

 31

Table 3: Respondents’ household size and farming experience (n=120)

Category Frequency Percentage
Household size (persons)
1-4 44 36.7
5-9 64 53.3
10-above 12 10.0
Farming experience (years)
1-10 42 35.0
11-20 41 34.2
21-30 17 14.2
31-40 10 8.3
41-above 10 8.3

4.1.5 Household occupation and off farm income

During the study, respondents were asked about the major off farm activities they

undertake to generate income besides farming. Table 4 shows that 39.2% of the

respondents were practicing farming as the only major occupation, 12.5% were engaged in

casual labour and civil service respectively. This means that the majority of the

respondents in the study area are farmers. It is assumed that involvement in off farm

income generating activities plays big role in ensuring adoption of agricultural

technologies. It was noted that the availability of off farm income can offset credit

constraints while enhancing the capacity to bear risk (Feder et al., 1985). Mwagile (2001)

cited in Mazengo (2011) argued that off farm activities complement farm productivity

through increasing the farmers’ capacity to procure agricultural inputs including improved

seeds, fertilisers and pesticides.

According to Diiro (2013), households with off farm income had significantly higher

adoption intensity and expenditure on purchased inputs relative to their counterparts

without off farm income. Also it was noted that off farm income significantly and
 32

positively increases the probability of adopting IPM technologies in cowpea, sorghum and

groundnuts in Uganda (Bonabana-Wabbi and Taylor, 2012) cited in Kirinya (2013). The

findings show that income generated from off farm activities was mostly used to purchase

food stuffs, paying medical services and purchasing farm inputs. Use of off farm income

for settling of debts was limited to a few households. This implies that farmers used a

substantial amount of money generated from off farm activities to purchase farm inputs,

therefore, contributed to adoption of agricultural technologies.

Table 4: Respondents’ occupation and off farm income (n=120)

Category Frequency Percentage
Occupation
Farming only 47 39.2
Fishing 1 0.8
Casual labour 15 12.5
Civil servant 15 12.5
Business 41 34.2
Livestock keeping 1 0.8
Use of income from off farm activities*
To buy food 61 83.6
To purchase farm inputs 39 53.4
To settle debts 8 11.0
To pay for medical services 60 82.2
*Multiple responses provided

4.1.6 Farm size and farm land characteristics

As shown in Table 5, all of the smallholder paddy farmers in the study area had access to

land. About 95% of the farmers indicated that they have borrowed land from government

with condition to grow paddy only and strictly not allowed to grow perennial crops. On

the other hand, 3.3% inherited the land and only two (1.7%) rented the land to work for

paddy farming. This implies that majority of the farmers depend on borrowed land from
 33

government for paddy production. Results as presented in Table 5 reveal that 78.3% of

the respondents experienced difficulties to acquire land for paddy production while 21.7%

reported that it was easier for them to get land for paddy cultivation. This implies that

majority of smallholder farmers in the study area experienced difficulties in acquiring land

for paddy cultivation.

Results in Table 5 show that 82.5% of the respondents were found to cultivate on 0.1 to 2

acres of land for paddy production, 15.0% worked on pieces of land ranging between 2.1

to 3.0 acres. While only three (2.5%) worked on more than three acre plots. Most of the

plots on which paddy is grown are small with the average farm size of 1.5 acres. This

means that most of the farmers in the study area were smallholder farmers and the paddy

on these plots is grown purely for subsistence. Empirical studies show that under

smallholder farming, farm size is regarded as an important factor related to adoption and

use of agricultural technologies (Mustapha et al., 2012). Furthermore, Chirwa (2005)

stated that farm size exerts a positive influence on adoption of technologies. In addition,

Abu et al. (2011) reported that small farm size could be a factor which prevents farmers

from adopting technologies because of the inappropriateness of modern technologies to

the economic realities of small-scale farmers.

Table 5 further shows that only 4.2% of the respondents received agricultural credit,

meaning that lack of access to credit facilities could hinder paddy farmers to purchase

farm inputs, hence decreasing the adoption of technology. A number of studies have

found that lack of credit does significantly impede adoption of high yielding varieties

(Uaiene, 2011). With respect to the distance taken to travel from residence to the nearest

market place, the findings show that farmers had to travel an average of 2.0 km with

standard deviation of 1.43 km. The minimum and the maximum distance that a farmer

had to travel to access market place were 0.5 km and 7.5 km, respectively.
 34

Table 5: Respondents’ farm characteristics (n=120)

Characteristics Frequency Percentage
Whether farmer has access to land
Yes 120 100
No 0 0
Farm size (acre)
0.1-2.0 99 82.5
2.1-3.0 18 15.0
3.1-4.0 1 0.8
4.1-5.0 2 1.7
Means of land acquisition
Rented 2 1.7
Inherited 4 3.3
Government 114 95.0
Easiness of accessing land for paddy production
Very easy 3 2.5
Easy 23 19.2
Difficult 82 68.3
Very difficult 12 10.0
Access to credit
Yes 5 4.2
No 115 95.8
Mean farm size owned = 1.5 acre, Range = 0.1 acre to 5 acre
Mean distance from home to the market place = 2.0 km, Minimum = 0.5 km, Maximum = 7.5 km

4.2 Adoption of Production Technologies in Rainfed Paddy Cultivation

About 79.2% of the respondents reported that government institution was the main source

of obtaining advisory services (Table 6). Furthermore, 93.3% of the respondents have had

contact with Block Extension Officers (BEO), whereas 6.7% had none. Research findings

also show that 33.3% of the respondents had contact with BEO once in a week, 30.0%

visited monthly followed by those visited twice in week.

 35

Table 6 also shows that about 80.4% of the visits, aimed at delivering advisory services to

farmers were conducted during the occurrence of plant pests and diseases, 64.3% during

provision of farm inputs (modern varieties, fertilizers and herbicides), 63.4% at sowing

and 36.6% during preparation of land for growing of paddy. This means that majority of

farmers had contact with BEO and hence expected to be conversant with appropriate

technologies in paddy farming. The main concern in agricultural research is to ensure

research products are adopted by farmers (Tenge et al., 2013). Subsequently, farmers are

expected to benefit from agricultural research findings by adopting technologies generated

by research institutions (Mwaseba et al., 2007). Successful delivery of agricultural

advisory services seemed to be imperative in increasing adoption of production

technologies.

Results in Table 6 show that four types of paddy production technologies were identified

to be disseminated to smallholder farmers for adoption in the study area. These were

fertilizer application, weed control, sowing method and use of improved varieties. Block

Extension Officers play a big role in promoting uptake and adoption of improved

production technologies (Wellard et al., 2012). Out of the total respondents, 88.3% had

received advisory services on fertilizer application, 86.5% on weed control, and 82.9% on

spacing. While about 60.4% of the respondents reported to receive advice on improved

varieties.

Following dissemination of paddy technologies by BEO, farmers in the study area were

observed to adopt improved varieties (BKN Supa and TXD 88), fertilizers (Urea and

TSP), herbicides (Basunil) and plant spacing (dibbling). In addition, during the Focus

Group Discussions most of the farmers said they were visited by Block Extension Officers

and given different advice on the use of improved paddy production technologies.
 36

However, when asked what type of technology they used to practice in their paddy field,

they pointed out that they use improved varieties, fertilizers (TSP and UREA), weeding

through the use of herbicides and then hand weeding. The technology of planting by

spacing was not used efficiently because it consumes a lot of time and difficult in

undertaking it as commented by most of discussants. Bangura (1983) cited by Alarima et

al. (2011) reported that farmers prefer to adopt technologies that required less time to use,

and are less labour-demanding.

Table 6: Extension services and paddy technologies adopted by farmers (n=120)

Variables Frequency Percentage
Contact with Block Extension
Yes 112 92.5
No 8 7.5
Frequency of visits
Never 8 6.7
Once in a week 40 33.3
Twice in a week 32 26.7
Monthly 36 30.0
Yearly 4 3.3
Block Extension Visits*
During land preparation 41 36.6
During sowing 71 63.4
During disease/pest occurrences 90 80.4
During harvesting 10 8.9
During farm inputs provision 72 64.3
Source of information
Government 103 85.8
Contact farmer 17 14.2
Types of rainfed paddy production technologies
farmers received from Block Extension Officers*
Method of paddy sowing 92 82.9
Paddy variety 67 60.4
Fertilizer application 98 88.3
Method of weed control 96 86.5
*Multiple responses provided
 37

4.3 Extent of Adoption of Rainfed Paddy Production Technologies

The study sought to assess the extent of rainfed paddy production technologies to

smallholder farmers in the study area. In this case the percentage of respondents practicing

new paddy production technologies were used. According to Rogers and Shoemaker

(1971) cited by Oladele (2005), adoption of technologies refers to the decision to apply

technology and to continue to use it. Table 7 shows that the extent of adoption of

fertilizer, improved varieties, plant spacing was high among smallholder farmers in the

study area. The results show that all respondents applied top dressing (application of

UREA fertilizers (average 50 kg/acre). Such findings are in line with those of Mkojera

(2011) who found all farmers interviewed, applied fertilizers in paddy at Mombo irrigation

scheme. Also, it was found that 70.2% of the interviewed applied basal fertilizer (50

kg/acre of TSP) in their paddy field. Majority of the respondents (76.7%) also adopted

herbicide and hand weeding; only hand weeding (19.2%) and only herbicides (4.2%).

It was also noticed that 74.2% of farmers adopted improved varieties only such as TXD 88

and BKN Supa, those who grow local and improved varieties (17.5%), 8.3% local

varieties only and 60.8% adopted row planting (20 cm x 20 cm). This is contrary to the

findings of the study by Mwaseba et al. (2006) which revealed that 60.4% of the

respondents planted local varieties. Many of the farmers adopted improved paddy

production technologies because fertilizers and improved paddy varieties were provided at

a subsidized price by the government.

 38

Table 7: Extent of adoption of recommended paddy production technologies (n=120)

Technology Frequency Percentage
Method of sowing
Row planting (dibbling) 73 60.8
Broadcasting 21 17.5
Both 26 21.7
Paddy variety
Local 10 8.3
Improved 89 74.2
Both 21 17.5
Fertilizer application*
Basal application 80 70.2
Top dressing application 114 100.0
Method of weed control
Herbicide use 5 4.2
Hand weeding 23 19.2
Both 92 76.7
*Multiple responses provided

4.3.1 Challenges in paddy production

The extensive adoption of improved production technology is normally enhanced through

favourable government policy, accessibility to agricultural credit, intensive extension

services and the availability of farm inputs, especially fertilizers and herbicides (Tran,

1997). Although the foregoing description shows that the overall adoption of paddy

production technologies is high, farmers’ efforts to increase paddy production are

confronted by a number of challenges. These include incidence of plant pests and

diseases, inadequate provision of tractor services for land preparation, timely availability

of agricultural inputs (fertilizers and herbicides), poor access to credit and unreliable

rainfall because of climate change (Table 8). Highest responses were inadequate provision

of tractor services and incidence of pests and plant diseases scoring 53.8%, followed by

untimely availability of agricultural inputs such as fertilizers, herbicides and improved

 39

varieties with 53.0%. Other challenges are poor access to credit to support paddy

production and unreliable rainfall which scored 21.4% and 17.9% respectively as indicated

in Table 8. This was supported by the information from FGDs and KI who also noted the

same challenges as one of the middle aged farmer in the study area raised his voice: “I am

worried if I will get enough harvest this year. Paddy is in flowering stage, I did not apply

fertilizer yet and I found there is nothing in Kilimo shop”. These results are in conformity

with findings obtained in Zanzibar Agricultural Transformation for Sustainable

Development (MALE, 2010).

Table 8: Distribution of respondents based on adoption/production challenges

Paddy production challenges Responses*
Number Percentage
Agricultural Input related constraints 62 53.0
Inadequate tractor services 63 53.8
Poor access to credit 25 21.4
Incidence of pest and plant diseases 63 53.8
Unreliable rainfall 21 17.9
*Multiple responses provided

The increase of paddy productivity could be attributed to the wide adoption of the

improved paddy production technologies and other recommended management practices.

It may also be due to the adoption of good policies such as credit, input supply, land

tenure, market research, and extension that are conducive for paddy production.

Smallholder farmers need adequate amounts of appropriate farms inputs at the right time

in order to obtain higher productivity in paddy cultivation. On the other hand, several

factors could affect paddy productivity. These factors include drought, pest outbreak,

weed infestation, low soil fertility and postharvest management. Hence, to obtain higher

productivity in paddy cultivation, it requires to have favourable paddy policies, using the
 40

recommended practices coupled with intensive crop management and monitoring of

production constraints facing the smallholder farmers.

4.4 Major Factors Influencing Adoption of Technologies

The binary logistic regression model was used to determine the socio economic and farmer

characteristics affecting the adoption of rainfed paddy production technologies. The

dependent variables were the adoption of individual components of the technology

package. Farmers in the study area were found using row planting, chemical fertilizers,

herbicides and improved varieties in their paddy field. The number and type of

independent variables differ with each dependent variable (adoption of individual paddy

production technologies). Also, number and type of independent variables were selected

on the basis of importance of relation to the dependent variables.

4.4.1 Logistic model estimates for row planting

Table 9 shows that two out of the six selected variables hypothesized to influence adoption

of planting spacing in the study area had significant coefficients at p<0.05. These are

extension services and age. Extension services has the highest influence on adoption of

plant spacing with logistic coefficient of 3.05, p-value = 0.00 and Wald-statistic = 10.28,

implying that contacts with Block Extension Officers has great impact on adoption of row

planting. As reported earlier, 92.5% of the respondents in the study area reported to have

contact with Block Extension Officers (Table 6) and among them 60.8% adopted row

planting technology (Table 7).

The results further show that age of the respondents had a coefficient of -0.07 at p-value =

0.02. The results indicate a negative but significant relationship between adoption of row

planting and age. This implies that older farmers have poor chances of applying row
 41

planting compared to younger farmers. This concurs with findings by Tiwari et al. (2008)

and Mwaseba et al. (2006) who found that the age of the household head is negatively

related to adoption of technology. In addition, this finding concurs with CIMMYT (1993)

that age has substantial influence on either use or non use of any new technology

introduced in a certain area. The variable marital status was found not significant,

implying that being married or single does not matter for adoption of row planting

technology.

Table 9: Logistic analysis for factors influencing adoption of row planting

Variables Coefficient S.E. Wald Sig.
Age (years) -0.07 0.03 5.81 0.02*
Sex 0.83 0.62 1.80 0.18
Education -0.58 0.79 0.54 0.46
Marital status 0.88 0.62 2.01 0.16
Farm size (acre) -0.41 0.59 0.49 0.48
Extension services 3.05 0.95 10.28 0.00**
Constant 1.79 1.60 1.26 0.26
-2 Log likelihood = 86.89, Cox & Snell R2 = 0.18, Nagelkerke R2 = 0.30
Hosmer and Lemeshow Test: Chi-square = 5.88, d.f = 8, Sig. = 0.66
Overall percentage of right prediction = 87.5%, Sample size = 120
Note ** = significant at p<0.01, * = significant at p<0.05

4.4.2 Logistic model estimates for fertilizer application

The results of logistic regression model are presented in Table 10. The model predicted

that there was statistically significant influence of off farm income on adoption of fertilizer

application at p-value = 0.03 and Wald-statistic = 4.82, implying that those smallholder

farmers with off farm income have higher flexibility to invest in new technology such as

to procure fertilizers than those who rely on farm income. Furthermore, the model results

indicated that the age of respondents is statistically significant at p-value = 0.04 and

positively related to the adoption of fertilizers in the study area. This implies that there is
 42

a greater likelihood of the older farmers to invest in fertilizer application as compared to

younger ones. This finding corroborates similar ones by Boz et al. (2011) who reported

that age of respondents was positively and statistically significantly associated with

adoption of dairy farming technologies in Eastern Mediterranean Region of Turkey.

Moreover, CIMMYT (1993) revealed that older farmers may have more experience,

resources, or authority that would allow them more possibility for trying a new

technology.

Table 10: Logistic analysis for factors influencing adoption of fertilizer application
Variables Coefficient S.E. Wald Sig.
Age (years) 0.07 0.03 4.33 0.04*
Off farm income 2.25 1.03 4.82 0.03*
Market distance (km) -0.46 0.30 2.41 0.12
Education 0.69 0.93 0.56 0.46
Marital status 0.53 0.86 0.38 0.54
Constant -0.96 1.90 0.25 0.61
-2 Log likelihood = 43.98, Cox & Snell R2 = 0.12, Nagelkerke R2 = 0.30
Hosmer and Lemeshow Test: Chi-square = 13.88, d.f = 8, Sig. = 0.09
Overall percentage of right prediction = 92.4%, Sample size = 120
Note * = significant at p<0.05

4.4.3 Logistic model estimates for herbicide application

The adoption of herbicide was influenced by the age of smallholder farmers and extension

services (Table 11). The analyses show that at p-value = 0.05 and logistic coefficient of –

0.16, farmers’ age is negatively related to the adoption of herbicide, suggesting that the

probability adopting the technology is lower among older farmers than younger ones. As

hypothesized, extension services had a significant effect on herbicide adoption. Extension

service is positively and significantly correlated to use of herbicide to manage weeds in

the paddy field. The model shows that extension services increased the probability of

adoption of herbicide by 2% in the study area. This is based on the fact that access to
 43

extension services enables farmers to get exposed and more conversant with the use of

herbicide. This result is in line with Kirinya et al. (2013) who reported that receipt of

extension services positively and significantly influences integrated pest management

technologies in Uganda.

Furthermore, Akil and Bryant (2011) asserted that access to extension services had a

greater influence on the adoption of Artificial Insemination in Zanzibar. It was noted that

extension service is one of the prerequisites for creating awareness and building the

necessary knowledge for farmers to use the new technology (Mignouna et al., 2011).

Other factors hypothesized to influence adoption did not have significant coefficients at p-

value = 0.05 probability level in explaining the adoption decision. They included marital

status, market distance, off farm income and farming experience.

Table 11: Logistic analysis for factors influencing adoption of herbicides

Variables Coefficient S.E. Wald Sig.
Age (years) -0.16 0.08 3.93 0.05*
Paddy farming experience 0.09 0.07 1.43 0.23
Extension services 4.73 2.10 5.08 0.02*
Marital status -19.40 5535.13 0.00 1.00
Off farm income -1.02 1.46 0.49 0.48
Market distance (km) -0.40 0.37 1.14 0.29
Constant 26.72 5535.13 0.00 1.00
-2 Log likelihood = 17.06, Cox & Snell R2 = 0.09, Nagelkerke R2 = 0.42
Hosmer and Lemeshow Test: Chi-square = 2.5, d.f = 8, Sig. = 0.96
Overall percentage of right prediction = 98.3%, Sample size = 120
Note * = significant at p<0.05

4.4.4 Logistic model estimates for improved paddy varieties

Extension services and distance from resident to the market place were significantly

associated with adoption of improved varieties in the study area at p<0.05. However, the

age and education level of the smallholder farmers were not associated with the level of
 44

adoption of improved varieties at p<0.05. Table 12 shows that the extension services had

a coefficient of 2.17 at p-value = 0.02. This means that provision of extension services to

the smallholder farmers encouraged the adoption of the improved varieties, this is

probably due to the fact that exposure to information reduces subjective uncertainty about

technology. This is consistent with the findings of Bisanda et al. (1998) who found that

the extension contact was significantly associated with the adoption of improved maize

varieties on the Southern Highlands of Tanzania.

Table 12: Logistic analysis for factors influencing improved paddy varieties
Variables Coefficient S.E. Wald Sig.
Extension services 2.17 0.89 5.91 0.02*
Market distance -0.45 0.21 4.36 0.04*
Age 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.93
Sex 0.24 0.73 0.11 0.74
Education 0.38 0.90 0.18 0.67
Constant 1.30 1.78 0.54 0.46
-2 Log likelihood = 53.31, Cox & Snell R2 = 0.08, Nagelkerke2 = 0.20
Hosmer and Lemeshow Test: Chi-square = 10.78, d.f = 8, Sig. = 0.21
Overall percentage of right prediction = 93.3%, Sample size = 120
Note * = significant at p<0.05

Results in Table 12 also indicate that market distance, which is a proxy for market

inaccessibility, is found to have a negative and significant relationship with the chance of

adoption of improved paddy varieties at p-value = 0.04. This implies that smallholder

farmers far away from market places are less likely to adopt improved paddy varieties than

those who are located near the market places. The possible explanation for this is that

smallholder farmers, who are far away from market places experienced poor access to

farm inputs and other technologies, hence limit adoption of technologies. Similar results

were reported by Ayalew (2011), as market distance increases, adoption decreased.

 45

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions

Descriptive statistical analysis results show that most of the paddy farmers in the study

area were literate, and middle aged, and having mean family size of 5.5 members.

Majority of the respondents had reasonable experience in paddy farming and worked on

small piece of land. However, majority of the respondents did not receive credit for paddy

production. This study has identified fertilizer application, method of weed control, row

planting and use of improved paddy varieties as the major rainfed paddy production

technologies disseminated and adopted by smallholder farmers in the study area. It can be

concluded that level of technologies was high unlike the findings of other relevant studies,

this study therefore, assumes that the higher adoption rate was attributed to the availability

of extension services in the study area. However, rainfed paddy production technologies

adoption had no significant impact on productivity due to other challenges affecting paddy

production such as untimely availability of farm inputs, unreliable rainfall and incidence

of pest and plant diseases.

The results of logistic regression analysis have revealed that farmer’s age, extension

services, off farm income and market distance have significantly influenced the chances of

farmers to adopt rainfed paddy production technologies. These results support the

hypothesis that farm household’s rainfed paddy technology adoption decisions depend on

their social-economic and farmer characteristics.

5.2 Recommendations

The following recommendations are suggested towards increasing and continued adoption

of rainfed paddy production technologies in the Central District:

 46

i) The extension services had a greater influence on the adoption of technology, therefore

in order to sustain the adoption of rainfed paddy production technologies, the Ministry

of Agriculture and Natural Resources should continue providing efficient and effective

extension services to smallholder farmers in the study area.

ii) To make the rainfed paddy production technologies adoption more successful and

sustainable, the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar should allow credit to be

offered without collateral to enable smallholder farmers to afford to buy farm inputs

(fertilizers, herbicides, improved paddy varieties and tractor services).

iii) For the continued adoption of technology by the smallholder paddy farmers, the

Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources needs to improve timely availability of

farm inputs to fit with the paddy crop cultivation activity calendar.

5.2.1 Suggestions for further research

i) Research is needed to provide technology options for intensive rainfed paddy farming

systems as concluded most of respondents in the study area own small farms. The

expected results of intensive paddy production technologies are deemed to be essential

for increasing paddy productivity in Zanzibar.

ii) This study revealed that the level of rainfed paddy production technologies adopted

was higher, however, it has not positively impacted on production level and

productivity therefore, there is a need for further studies which will analyse the

implication of paddy production technologies adoption on productivity.

 47

REFERENCES

Abu, I. A., Pur, J. T. and Ogunbameru, B. O. (2011). “Analysis of socio economic factors

influencing the adoption of rice technologies by farmers in Borno State, Nigeria”,

Adamawa State University Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 1(1): 40 - 45.

Akil, J. M. and Bryant, M. J. (2011). Small-scale dairy farming on Zanzibar Island –

Tanzania: An investigation into the factors associated with the adoption of selected

farm practices. Proceedings of the Second Annual Agricultural Research Review

Workshop. (Edited by Haji, H. M. et al.), 20 – 21 October 2010, Zanzibar,

Tanzania. 39 – 55pp.

Akudugu, M. A., Guo, E. and Dadzie, K. S. (2012). Adoption of modern agricultural

production technologies by farm households in Ghana: What factors influence their

decisions? Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare 2(3): 1 - 14.

Alarima, C. I., Adamu, C. O., Masunaga, T. and Wakatsuki, T. (2011). Constraints to

Sawah Rice Production System in Nigeria. Journal of Human Ecology, 36(2): 121

- 130.

Ally, M. D. (2011). Evaluation of the contribution of Farmer Field Schools in rice

production in the Kilombero District of Morogoro Region, Tanzania. Dissertation

for Award of MSc Degree at Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro,

Tanzania, 83pp.
 48

Atibioke, O. A., Ogunlade, I., Abiodun, A. A., Ogundele, B. A., Omodara, M. A. and Ade,

A. R. (2012). Effects of Farmers’ Demographic Factors on the Adoption of Grain

Storage Technologies. Journal of Research on Humanities and Social Sciences.

2(6): 56 – 63.

Augustine, L. and Mulugeta, M. (2005). Modeling agricultural technology adoption using

the software STATA, (CIMMYT), Training manual (1)

Ayalew, A. M. (2011). Factors affecting adoption of improved haricot bean varieties and

associated agronomic practices in Dale Woreda, SNNPRS. Thesis for Award of

MSc Degree at Hawassa University, Hawassa, Ethiopia, 109pp.

Babbie, E. R. (1990). Survey Research Methods. Wardsworth Publishing Co. California.

39pp.

Bailey, K. D. (1994). Methods of Social Research (Fourth Edition). The Free Press, New

York, 345pp.

Banwo, O. O. (2002). Management of major insect pests of rice in Tanzania. Plant

Protect. Sci., 38(3): 108 – 113.

Bisanda, S., Mwangi W., Verkuijl, H., Moshi, A.J. and Anandajayasekeram, P. (1998).

Adoption of Maize Production Technologies in the Southern Highlands of

Tanzania. Mexico, D.F.: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center

(CIMMYT), the United Republic of Tanzania, and the Southern Africa Centre for

Cooperation in Agricultural Research (SACCAR).

 49

Boz, T., Akbay, C., Bas, S., and Budak, D. B. (2011). Adoption of innovations and best

practices among dairy farmers in the Eastern Mediterranean Region of Turkey.

Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances 10(2): 251 – 261.

Caswell, M., Fuglie, K., Ingram, C., Jans, S. and Kascak, C. (2001). Adoption of

agricultural production practices: Lessons learned from the U.S. Department of

Agriculture Area Studies Project. Agricultural Economic Report No. 792.

Washington, DC, January 2001, 111pp.

CIMMYT (1993). The Adoption of Agricultural Technology: A Guide for Survey Design.

CIMMYT, Mexico, DF. 88pp.

Dasgupta, S. (1989). Diffusion of Agricultural Innovations in Village India, Department of

Sociology and Anthropology, University of Prince Edward Island, Canada. 206pp.

Diiro, G. M. (2013). Impact of off-farm income on agricultural technology adoption

intensity and productivity. Working Paper on Evident from Rural Farmers in

Uganda 15pp.

Ephraim, W. C. (2005). Adoption of fertiliser and hybrid seeds by smallholder maize

farmers in Southern Malawi, Journal of Development Southern Africa 22(1): 1 –

12.

Essa, J. A. (2001). Adoption of hybrid maize seed, fertilizer and machinery technologies

by communal farmers in Kwazulu-Natal. Dissertation for Award of MSc Degree

at University of Natal Pietermaritzburga, South Africa, 149pp.

 50

FAO (2008). Food Outlook November, 2008. [http://www.fao.org] site visited on

12/7/2014.

Feder, G., Just, R. E. and Zilberman, D. (1985). Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in

Developing Countries: A Survey, Economic Development and Cultural Change,

33(2), 255 – 298.

Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior – An

Introduction to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company,

USA. 578pp.

Fisher, D. K., Norvell, J., Sonka, S. and Nelson, M. J. (2000). Understanding technology

adoption through system dynamics modelling: Implication for agribusiness

management. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 3(3):

281-296pp.

GOZ (2002). Agricultural Sector Policy. Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources,

Environment and Cooperatives, Zanzibar. 81pp.

GOZ (2008). Zanzibar Food Security and Nutrition Policy. Ministry of Agriculture,

Livestock and Environment, Zanzibar. 58pp.

GOZ (2011). Zanzibar Economic Bulletin, 2011. 42pp.

 51

Green, I. F. R. (2005). The Emancipatory Potential of a New Information System and its

Effect on Technology Acceptance. Dissertation for Award of M.Com (Informatics)

at University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa, 95pp.

Joseph, B. (2008). Factors affecting adoption of improved meat goat (Boer) production in

rangelands of Sembabule district. Thesis for Award of MSc at Makerere University

Kampala, Uganda, 68pp.

Kalineza, H. M. M., Mdoe, N. S. Y. and Mlozi, M. R. S. (1999). Factors influencing

adoption of soil conservation technologies in Tanzania: a case study in Gairo.

Fourth Annual Conference of the Faculty of Agriculture, 76 - 82pp.

Katambara, Z., Frederick, C. K., Henry, F. M., Winfred, B. M., Fikiri, M., Reuben, P.,

Maugo, M. and Nyarubamba, A. (2013). Adopting the system of rice

intensification (SRI) in Tanzania. Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 4(8): 369 –

375.

Katinila, N., Verkuijl, H., Mwangi, W., Anandajayasekeram, P. and Moshi, A. J. (1998).

Adoption of Maize Production Technologies in Southern Tanzania, CIMMYT,

Mexico, DF. 20pp.

Kega, V. M and Maingu, A. R. (2007). Evaluation of New Rice for Africa (NERICA)

cultivars in Coastal lowlands of Kenya. 5pp.

Khatib, K. J. and Makame, S. M. (2010). Evaluation of rice mutant lines for improving

smallholder crop productivity in Zanzibar. Proceedings of the First Annual

 52

Agricultural Research Review Workshop. (Edited by Mnembuka, B. V et al.), 30 –

31 July 2009, Zanzibar, Tanzania. 29 – 39pp.

Kimaro, W. H., Mukandiwa, L. and Mario, E. Z. J. (Eds) (2010). Towards Improving

Agricultural Extension Service Delivery in the SADC Region. Proceedings of the

Workshop on Information Sharing among Extension Players in the SADC Region.

26 - 28 July 2010, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 122 - 128pp.

Kirinya, J., Taylor, D. B., Kyamanywa, S., Karungi, J., Erbaugh, J. M. and Bonabana-

Wabbi, J. (2013). Adoption of integrated pest management (IPM) technologies in

Uganda. International Journal of Advanced Research 1(6): 401-420.

[http://www.journalijar.com] site visited on 27/3/2014.

Kisusu, R. W. (2003). Adoption and impact of dairy and irrigated rice technologies on

poverty alleviation in Dodoma, Tanzania. Thesis for Award PhD at Sokoine

University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania, 204pp.

Kothari, C.R. (2004). Research Methodology. Methods and Techniques, (2nd Eds.) New

Age International Ltd, New Delhi. 401pp.

Liberio, J. (2012). Factors contributing to adoption of sunflower farming innovations in

Mlali Ward, Mvomero District. Dissertation for Degree Award of MSc at Sokoine

University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania, 91pp.

MALE (2010). Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Environment. Zanzibar

Agricultural Transformation for Sustainable Development, 2010-2020. 48pp.

 53

MALNR (2009). Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resource, Zanzibar

(2009). Zanzibar Agricultural Bulletin January-March, 2010.

Mazengo, R. (2011). Assessment of the effectiveness and sustainability of household food

insecurity coping strategies in Chamwino District, Dodoma Region. Dissertation

for Award of MSc Degree at Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro,

Tanzania 111pp.

Meertens, H. C. C., Ndege, L. J. and Lupeja, P. M. (1999). The cultivation of rainfed,

lowland rice in Sukumaland, Tanzania. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,

76(1): 31-45.

Mignouna, D. B., Manyong, V. M., Mutabazi, K. D. S. and Senkondo, E. M. (2011).

Determinants of adopting imazapyr-resistant maize for striga control in Western

Kenya: A double-hurdle approach. Journal of Development and Agricultural

Economics 3(11): 572-580 [http://www.academicjournals.org/JDAE] site visited

on 27/3/2014.

Mkojera, E. W. (2011). Economic analysis of farmers-managed irrigation schemes in

Tanzania: A case of Mombo, Kivulini and Lekitatu Irrigation Schemes.

Dissertation for Award of MSc Degree at Sokoine University of Agriculture,

Morogoro, Tanzania. 100pp.

Mlote, S. N., Mdoe, N. S. Y., Isinika, A. C. and Mtenga, L. A. (2013). Factors affecting

agro-pastoralist and pastoralists’ willingness to adopt beef cattle fattening in the

Lake Zone in Tanzania. Journal of Agricultural Science 5(10): 140 – 154.

 54

Mohamed, K. S. (2009). Access to formal credit and its linkage with agricultural

technologies adoption. Thesis for Award of PhD Degree at Sokoine University of

Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania, 186pp.

Mohamed, K. S. (2003). Access to formal-quasi-formal credit by smallholder farmers and

artisanal fishermen. A case of Zanzibar In: Researching Poverty in Tanzania:

Problem, Policies and Perspectives. (Edited by Kikula, I., Kipokola, J., Shivji, I.,

Semboja, J. and Tarimo, B.) Mkuki na Nyota Publishers, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

111 - 148pp.

Mustapha, S. B., Undiandeye, U. C., Sanusi, A. M. and Bakari, S. (2012), Analysis of

adoption of improved rice production technologies in Jeer local government area of

Borno state, Nigeria. International Journal of Development and Sustainability.

1(3): 1112 - 1120.

Mwaseba, D., Kaarhus, R., Johnsen, F. H., Mattee, A. Z. and Mvena, Z. S. K. (2007).

Assessing the impact of rice research on food security in the Kyela and Kilombero

Districts of Tanzania. Outlook on Agriculture 36(4): 23 – 236.

Mwaseba, D., Kaarhus, R., Johnsen, F. H., Mvena, Z. S. K., and Mattee, A. Z. (2006).

Beyond adoption/rejection of agricultural innovations. Outlook on Agriculture

35(4): 263 – 272.

 55

Nyanga, P. H. (2012). Factors influencing adoption and area under conservation

agriculture: A Mixed Methods Approach: Journal of Sustainable Development

1(2): 27 – 40.

OCGS (2012). National Sample Census of Agriculture 2007/2008 Vol.VII: Crop Sector-

Zanzibar Report.

Odogola, R. W. (2006). Final Survey report on the Status of Rice Production, Processing

and Marketing in Uganda. 77pp.

Okunlola, J. O., Oludare, A. O. and Akinwalere, B. O. (2011). Adoption of new

technologies by fish farmers in Akure, Ondo state, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural

Technology 7(6): 1539 - 1548.

Oladele, O. I. (2005). A Tobit analysis of propensity to discontinue adoption of

agricultural technology among farmers in South Western Nigeria, Journal Central

Agriculture 6 (3): 249 - 254.

Ouma, J., Murithi, F., Mwangi, W., Verkuijl, H., Gethi, M. and De Groote, H. (2002).

Adoption of Maize Seed and Fertilizer Technologies in Embu District, Kenya.

Mexico, D.F. CIMMYT. 25pp.

Pandey, S., Gauchan, D., Malabayabas, M., Bool-Emerick, M. and Hardy, B. (Eds)

(2012). Patterns of adoption of improved rice varieties and farm-level impacts in

stress-prone rainfed areas in South Asia. Los Baños (Philippines). International

Rice Research Institute. 318pp.

 56

Rao, P. P. and Rao V. G. K. (1996). Adoption of rice production technology by the tribal

farmers. J. of. Res.and Angrau 24(1-2): 21 - 25.

Rao, V. S. (2000). Principles of Weed Science. Science Publishers INC, USA. 555pp.

Ray, G. L. (2001). Extension Communication and Management (2nd Eds). Naya Prokash,

Calcutta. 65 – 72 pp.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th Eds.). New York: The Free Press.

576pp.

Ruheza, S., Tryphone, G. M., Mbwambo, J. S., Khamis, Z. K., Swella, G. and Mushobozy,

D. K. (2012). Studies on the influence of tree tenure on the adoption of

agroforestry practices in Uluguru Mountains, Tanzania. International Research

Journal of Agricultural Science and Soil Science, 2(5): 170 – 178.

Saka, J. O., Okoruwa, V. O., Lawal, B. O. and Ajijola, S. (2005). Adoption of improved

rice varieties among smallholder farmers in South-Western Nigeria. World Journal

of Agricultural Sciences 1(1): 42 - 49.

Schroeder, E. T. and Norman, D. (1997). Factors affecting adoption of improved maize

seed and fertilizer in North Tanzania. Indian J. Agri. Econ. 48(1): 1 - 12.
 57

Singh, M. and Chachal, S. S. (2009). A study on extent of adoption of Various

Recommended Technologies in Wheat Cultivation in Punjab. Agricultural

Economics Research Review 22: 349 - 354.

Sunding, D. and Zilberman, D. (2001). The Agricultural Innovation Process: Research and

Technology Adoption in a Changing Agricultural Sector, In Gardner B and

Rausser G (Eds) Handbook of Agricultural Economics, 1: 207 - 261.

Tenge, A., Ley, G., Hella, J. and Kinyau, M. (2013). Options to increase adoption of

lowland rice - legume technologies in Morogoro, Tanzania. Journal of Sustainable

Development. (6): 113 - 122.

Tiwari, K. R., Sitaula, B. K., Nyborg, I. L. P. and Paudel, G. S. (2008). Journal of

Environmental Management. 42: 210 – 222.

Tran, D .V. (1997). World rice production: main issues and technical possibilities. In:

Chataigner J. (Ed.). Activités de recherche sur le riz en climat méditerranéen.

Montpellier: CIHEAM, (Cahiers Options Méditerranéennes;) n. 24(2): 57 – 69.

Uaiene, R. N. (2011). Determinants of agricultural technology adoption in Mozambique.

[http://fsg.afre.msu.edu/mozambique/caadp/Uaiene_Adopcao_TecnologiasENG.pd

f] site visited on 4/6/2014.

Umar, S. I., Ndanitsa, M. A. and Olaleye, S. R. (2009). Adoption of improved rice

production technologies among youth farmers in Gbako Local Government Area,

Niger State. Journal of Agriculture Extension 13(1): 1 – 8.

 58

URT (2013). Population and Housing Census for United Republic of Tanzania. 264pp.

van den Ban, A. W. and Hawkins, H. S. (1996). Agricultural Extension. Blackwell Science

Ltd., Carlton, Victoria, Australia. 294pp.

Wabbi, J. (2002). Assessing factors affecting adoption of agricultural technologies. The

case of integrated pest management (IPM) in Kumi District, Eastern Uganda.

Thesis for Award of MSc Degree at State University, Virginia, 135pp.

Wellard, K., Rafanomezana, J., Nyirenda, M., Okotel, M. and Subbey, V. (2013). A

Review of Community Extension Approaches to Innovation for Improved

Livelihoods in Ghana, Uganda and Malawi. Journal of Agricultural Education and

Extension. [http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raee20] site visited on 27/3/2014.

Wooldridge, M. J. (2008). Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. Mass: MIT

Press. 865pp.

ZIMP (2005). Zanzibar Irrigation Master Plan Report - Irrigation Department of the

Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Environment. 33pp.

 59

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Household Questionnaire

ADOPTION OF RAINFED PADDY TECHNOLOGY AMONG SMALLHOLDER

FARMERS IN THE CENTRAL DISTRICT-ZANZIBAR

My name is HAJI ADAM, a Student from Sokoine University of Agriculture pursuing

Master of Arts in Rural Development; I’m doing research on adoption of rainfed paddy

technology among smallholder farmers in the Central District, Zanzibar. I’m interviewing

a sample of respondents and you are including in this study. Your input is very useful for

successful of this study. Please provide genuine responses so as to make this survey

achieve its desired end. Thank you for your cooperation

PART ONE

Questionnaire number…………….. Interview date……………………………………

Name of the district..............................................................................................................

Name of the Shehia……………………..............................................................................

PART TWO: HOUSEHOLD BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS

1.Name of the respondent :( Option)……………………………………………………

2.Age of the respondent………………………… (years).

3.Sex of the respondent: (Tick the appropriate)

1= Male ( ) 2=Female ( )

4.Number of year spent in formal school……………………………….(years).

5.Occupation: 1= Farmer ( ) 2 = Non farmer ( )

 60

6.Marital status :( Tick the appropriate)

1=Single ( ) 2=Married ( ) 3=Divorced/separated ( ) 4=Widowed ( )

7.Household family size

SN List of family members Sex 1=Male Age

2=Female
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

PART THREE: HOUSEHOLD, FARMING AND SOCIO ECONOMIC

CHARACTERISTICS

8.For how long (years) have you been engaged in paddy farming?…………………

9.Do you have off-farm activities apart from paddy farming? (Tick the appropriate)

1=Yes ( ) 2= No ( )

10.If yes, what type of activity are you engaged for? :( Please tick the appropriate)

1=Fishing ( ), 2=Casual labour ( ) 3= civil servant ( ), 4= business ( ), 5=

Others (specify)……………………………………………………………………………

11.For what purpose do you use the income from off-farm activities?

1= to buy food ( ) 2= to purchase farm inputs ( ) 3= to settle debts ( ) 4=to pay

for medical services ( ) 5=Others (specify)…………………………………………

12.How easy to get land for paddy production in the Shehia? (Tick one)

(a) Very easy (no conditions to get the land) ( )

(b) Easy (few conditions to get land) ( )

 61

(c) Difficult (strong conditions to get the land) ( )

(d) Very difficult (very strong conditions to get the land) ( )

13.Do you have access to land for paddy farming?

1=Yes ( ) 2= No ( )

14.How many acres of paddy field do you posses?.............................................................

15.How did you access land for paddy farming?

1= Purchased ( ) 2= Rented ( ) 3= Inherited ( ) 4= Lease ( ) 5= Others

(specify)……………………………………………………………………………

PART FOUR: EXTENSION SERVICES AND TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION

16.Do you get any advisory services from extension officers?

1=Yes ( ) 2=No ( )

17.From which source(s) do you get the extension advice?

1=Government system ( ) 2=Contact farmer ( ) 3= NGOs ( )

4=others (specify)………………………………………….

18.What types of services did you receive from extension officers?

1=Plant spacing ( ) 2= paddy variety ( ) 3= fertilizer application ( )

4=weed control ( ) 5= others (specify)…………………………………………

19.How frequently do the extension officers visit you?

1) Never ( ) 2= Once in a week ( ) 3= twice in a week ( ) 4= monthly ( ) 5=

yearly ( )

20.When do extension officers visit you?

1) During land preparation ( ) 2= During sowing ( ) 3= When disease/pest

occur ( )

4= during harvesting ( ) 5= During farm inputs provision ( )

21.Which method of sowing you use in paddy cultivation?

 62

1=row planting ( ), 2= broadcasting ( ), 3 = both ( )

22.Which paddy variety do you use?

1= Local variety ( ) 2 = Improved ( ) 3= Both ( )

23.Did you apply fertilizer in your paddy field? 1= Yes ( ) 2= No ( )

24.If answer in question 22 is yes, which type of fertilizer did you use?

1= TSP ( ), 2=urea ( ), 3= organic ( ) others

(specify)……………………………

25.Did you come across weed problem in paddy cultivation? 1= Yes ( ), 2= No ( )

26.If yes how, did you solve this problem?

1= using herbicide ( ) 2= hand weeding ( )

PART FIVE: CREDIT AND MARKET ACCESSIBILITY

27.Have you obtained credit for paddy production? 1) Yes ( ) 2= No ( )

28.If yes in question 24 what are the source of fund? (Tick appropriate)

1= Loan from bank ( ) 2=saving and credit association ( )

3= others source (specify)………………………………………………….

29.For what purpose did you use the credit? 1= for purchasing improved seeds ( )

2=for purchasing fertilizers ( ) 3=for purchasing herbicides ( )

4=others (specify)…………………………………………………………..

30.Is there any market availability for farm inputs?

1=Yes ( ) 2= No ( )

31.If yes in question 27 above, how many km from the market…………………………….

 63

32.Mention the most important challenges/constraints that you face in paddy production?

1…………………………………

2…………………………………

3………………………………….

4………………………………….

5…………………………………

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION

 64

Appendix 2: Interview Checklist for District Agriculture Development Officer and

Extension Officers

1. For how long (years) have you been providing advisory services to smallholder

farmers?

2. Do you have contacts with rainfed paddy smallholder farmers?

3. How frequently do you visit smallholder farmers in their paddy field?

4. When do you visit farmers during rainfed paddy cultivation activities?

5. What types of paddy technologies provided to smallholder farmers?

6. What variety of seeds do smallholder farmers use in paddy farming?

7. Which method do smallholder farmers use in sowing paddy?

8. Did smallholder farmers apply fertilizer in their paddy field?

9. What type of fertilizer do smallholder farmers use?

10. Which method of weed control in paddy farming practiced by smallholder

farmers?

11. At what level rainfed paddy technology adopted by smallholder farmers?

12. On your opinion, what do you think are the factors that influence the adoption of

rainfed paddy technologies by smallholder farmers?

13. What are technologies/recommendations being promoted through extension?

14. Which approach/methodology being used to promote these technologies?

15. What is the extent of farmers’ response to the extension efforts?

16. Which challenges do extension staffs face?

17. What kinds of problems are there with respect to availability of inputs and outputs

markets?

THANKS VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION