Saliu Olushola

Inaugural Lecture that started in The University of Oxford in England was established as a way for a newly appointed Professor to publicly present his past academic stewardship, current research and future plans to the university community and the general public. It began with the announcement of the first professorial chair in 1862 which made Professor Montagu to be the first occupant. Here in Nigeria the first Inaugural Lecture was presented by Professor Tekena N. Tamuno at the University of Ibadan in October 1973.

The practice has since become a global University tradition which has given me the privilege to present my research findings today titled: Breaking the Jinx of Agricultural Technology Adoption: the Three-Legged Approach.To me, the most important aspect of an inaugural lecture is for the recommendations to be considered and used by policy makers such that it will not be counted as a mere academic exercise or a singular aim of joining the prestigious league of inaugural lecturers. I therefore call on policy authorities to check a compendium of inaugural lectures in the Universities for policy adoption.

Alhamdulillah for sound health and for putting me in a position to present this lecture today. I pray that it will be useful and adopted by agricultural technology users across the globe.

Agricultural Extension and Technology Adoption.

Adedoyin (1995) defines Agricultural Extension as a comprehensive programme of services deliberately put in place for expanding, strengthening, and empowering the capacity of the present and prospective farmers, farm families, other rural economic operators (processors, marketers, rural agro-industrialists, farm managers, farm labourers, farmers associations and communities, entrepreneurial), managerial and communication skills that they need to succeed in farming and farm-related occupations.

As such a pool of agricultural and other related knowledge from different sectors (e.g. agro-industry, research organisations, universities) will be needed to effect the capacity building of the farmers. Knowledge creates initiatives and innovation that may snowball to inventions and agricultural technology development.

Agricultural technology is the application of scientific knowledge to upgrade tools and scale up solution to problem of service delivery for effective and efficient farm massive output and profitable economy. Agricultural technology promotes productivity, greater efficiency, sustainability, automation, pest control and cost savings. If the adoption of agricultural technology is properly planned, coupled with good national policy, it will help the society to overcome challenges such as complexity, high cost, lack of standardization, education, resistance, environmental issues, infrastructure, legal, ethical and social barriers.

For a successful agricultural technology adoption, certain competencies must be acquired. Economic competence demands the need to have good knowledge of economics otherwise known as Extension Economics, planning competence (Extension Planning and evaluation) administrative competence (extension Administration and organization), competence in farmers community network (extension and rural sociology), communication competence (Extension communication). All these competencies ensure acquisition of enough knowledge to promote Agricultural technology adoption. If whatever agricultural technology generated in Soil Science, Crop Science, Food Science, Animal Production, Forestry, Fisheries, Agricultural Engineering is not adopted, output will remain very low. For massive output of food through technology adoption therefore, agricultural extension becomes a pivot course to pursue. Consequently, I wish to advise, Vice Chancellor, Sir, that an Agricultural Extension and Technology Advancement Studies be established as a Department in the University. I also wish that every faculty of agriculture in all universities across the globe embrace the initiative.

If there is any need to embark on large scale output of food in quantity and quality, the time is now. Presently, about 800 million people in the developing world do not have enough food to eat with about 180 million of the population in Africa of which about 33 million are undernourished Nigerians (United Nation World Food Programme (UNWFP, 2025).

Challenges such as food insecurity, food safety, feeding the teeming population, increased labour shortage, environmental degradation can be overcome by using innovative technologies that will move food production from traditional approach to an exciting high-tech industry.

Agricultural extension relies on the potent agricultural technology adoption and efficient participatory approach using different stakeholders such as researchers, policy makers, extensionists, educators, agro-investors and farmers themselves to improve agricultural production and farm investment. With effective communication, collaboration and cooperation of all stakeholders, increase in farm output enough to feed the nation and profitable economy to sustain the nation is realizable.

Jinx of Agricultural Technology Adoption

The Vice Chancellor, Sir, as a researcher, I have sufficient understanding, that Nigeria is blessed with the most elaborate research and extension institutions in sub-Saharan Africa with over estimated population of 200 million people, 71 million hectares of arable land, and 17 commodity-based research institutes, three International Research Centers, over 66 faculties of agriculture in Nigerian Universities with extension mandates, and a special extension institute (Agricultural Extension Research Liaison Services [AERLS]) (Saliu et al., 2009). It will not be wrong to share the aprori expectations that if agricultural technologies churned out by the above-named institutes are appropriately adopted by the huge farming population, Nigeria should be self-sufficient in food production and even feed other nations, hence the need to discuss the “Whys and Wherefores”.

I studied technology adoption on several crops, livestock and plausible enabling environment germane for agricultural technology adoption to thrive and enhance farm output, income and sustainable growth of agro-processing industry. Oil palm technology adoption attracted my attention in the year 2005.

In 1830, when the Landers came down to the River Niger, they found Oil Palm as the most widely grown cash crop in Kogi East. By 1857 an oil mill was established at Gbobe close to the rich oil palm farm land. The oil mill flourished but today it is history. Investigation revealed that an improved variety (Tenera) introduced to the farmers was only adopted and sustained by 29%, 53% did not adopt at all while 18% adopted (figure 1) and later discontinued due to unavailability of back up support by extension workers. Pest attack by termite at young age (56%) (figure 3) was responsible for poor oil palm seedlings survival. Poor access to extension services was identified as the most serious constraints to the adoption of improved oil palm technology (figure 2). However, those who adopted the improved variety of oil palm had higher yield (Saliu et al., 2006).

Figure 1: Degree of Adoption

Source: Saliu et al. (2006)

Figure 2: Constraints to Adoption

Source: Saliu et al. (2006)

Figure 3: Pest Attack on Oil Palm Seedlings

Source: Saliu et al. (2006)

The use of inorganic fertilizer as a technology to improve the fertility of the soil for better output of maize was also studied. Maize is a staple food as well as industrial crop for flour mills, breakfast cereals, and baby food in Nigeria. We still import from Lebanon, Italy, Belgium and India. The inability to meet up with the local demand for maize could be partly traced to the poor nature of Nigerian soil. Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development FMARD (2002), revealed that 99.5 percent of the farmers in the savanna ecological zone of Nigeria depend on the use of inorganic fertilizer. The general rating of soil fertility in the savanna zone revealed that any soil in the zone should be considered “rich” for maize production if it contains greater than 0.2 percent nitrogen, greater than 20 mg/kg phosphorus and greater than 0.40 mg/kg of potassium

However, Saliu and Obasi (2011), posited that, only 0.7 percent of the farmers tested their soil before fertilizer application (table 1) which implies that more than 99.2% of the farmers applied fertilizer based on blanket recommendation without considering the specific soil nutrient deficiency.

Nevertheless, in a country like India, fertilizer companies and State governments engaged in soil testing of farming community free of charge before introducing fertilizer to them. Soil characteristics vary widely even within a small plot of land, let alone a whole ecological zone. The practice of applying fertilizer based on recommendation for wide ecological zone is therefore not correct and will not give optimum yield of maize. (Saliu and Obasi, 2011).

Table 1: Pattern of Fertilizer Use by Small Scale Maize Farmers (N-302)

Type of Knowledge Frequency Percentage

Number of times fertilizer applied

Non 55 18.2

Once 229 75.8

Twice 18 6.0

Total 302 100.00

Quantity of fertilizer per maize stand

No Measurement 164 54.30

1 – 5g 24 8.00

6 – 10g 22 7.28

11 – 15g 81 26.82

16 – 20g 10 3.30

21 – 25g 1 0.30

Total 302 100.00

Place of fertilizer storage

Ventilated store 27 9.0

Living room 158 52.3

Hut 100 33.1

No provision for such 17 5.6

Total 302 100.00

Means of fertilizer application

Bare hand 243 80.5

Hand glove 43 14.2

Precision machine 1 0.3

Spoon 15 5.0

Total 302 100.00

Method of determining inorganic fertilizer use

Soil testing 2 0.7*

No specific method 2 0.6

Observation of plant growing on farmland 298 98.7

Total 302 100.00

Type of inorganic fertilizer use

No fertilizer use 32 14.6

NPK 241 79.8

Urea 15 5.0

CAN 2 0.6

Total 302 100.00

Source: Saliu and Obasi, 2011

The poor soil situation has further been found to degenerate in Nigeria due to population explosion, indiscriminate felling of trees for timber, over exploitation of fire wood for fuel and charcoal, clearing of land for agricultural expansion, and industrial development. These activities have exposed the land to rapid soil organic matter decomposition, environmental degredation and accelerated wind and water erosion which has left large vast of Nigerian soil to be indeed less supportive for sustainable agricultural production. A renowned agroforestry expert (Ikojo, 2008), made us to understand that about 65 million hectares of intact forest cover of Nigeria in 1897 has reduced to 4 million hectares.

Reforestation through small scale village-based farmers’ participation now forms one of the strategies embarked upon by several agencies in Nigeria. Kogi Aforestation Project was therefore investigated. Government reforms designed to reduce widespread deforestation have to be complemented not only by large scale reforestation programs but by small scale village-based tree growing exercise through farmers’ participation to strengthen forest law enforcement.

Pretty (1994) asserts that participation can be differentiated into seven types, that is participation could be passive, information giving, consultative, material incentives, functional interactive and self-mobilization. Kogi Afforestation Project which received financial support from World Bank between 1978 and 1984 was put in place to advance sustainable afforestation in the State. The project established government afforestation plots, prepared nurseries for improved tree seedlings and sold to participating farmers.

Only 23.64 percent of the participating farmers planted between 201 to 400 trees while 54.54 percent planted less than 200 trees. Passive, consultative and material incentives were the forms of participation used in the Kogi Afforestation project and a major constraint was the farmers lack of knowledge. This resulted in low adoption.

The highest percentage of the respondents who adopted the improved tree seedling was 53.64 percent. About 46.26 percent adopted non woody forestry technology, while 41.82 percent adopted Processing and Harvesting technologies.

Afforestation technologies such as exotic trees, improved seedlings, agroforestry, fruit collection, pure stand species and indigenous trees received high adoption scores of 4.90, 4.74, 4.38, 4.47, 4.44 and 4.38 respectively (table 2) while technology such as clipping, seed scarification and pulping had low adoption scores (2.60). However, a X² value of 23.31 than tabulated of 9.49 at 0.05 significant level at 4 degrees of freedom gave a significant difference between technology adopted and income generated (table 3) (Saliu et al., 2010).

Adoption of selective exploitation and mixed stand were not significantly adopted. Mixed stand with crop will help to promote afforestation business adoption.

Table 2: Adoption scores for afforestation technologies.

Technology adopted Frequency Percentage Adoption

n=110 score

Improved seedling 59 53.6 4.74**

Direct seeding 37 33.6 4.08

Seeds scarification 14 12.7 2.94*

Selective extraction 28 25.5 3.72

Total felling 37 33.6 4.08

Clipping 10 9.09 2.61*

Prune collection 35 31.8 4.00

Leaves collection 38 34.5 4.12

Fruit collection 49 44.5 4.47**

Root and bark 23 20.9 3.48*

Saw milling 50 45.5 4.50

Pulping 28 16.4 3.22

Electric poles 45 40.1 4.35

Indigenous trees 46 41.8 4.38**

Exotic trees 64 58.2 4.90**

Pure stand species 48 43.6 4.44**

Mixed stand species 35 31.8 4.00

Regeneration 27 24.5 3.67

Agro forestry 46 41.8 4.38**

Footnote:

** high adoption score

*Low adoption score

Source: Saliu et al. (2010)

Table 3: Chi-Sqaure on cost and income generation from technologies adopted

S/N Technology adopted Category of income generated from Total

Technology adopted in Naira frequency

Fruit trees 13 16 5 34
Timber 10 18 30 58
Multipurpose 11 5 2 18

Total 34 39 37 110

Degree of freedom = R – 1(3 – 1) x (C – 1) (3 – 1) = 2 x 2 = 4

Source: Saliu et al. (2020)

Agroforestry system is a technology of global significance. It is a system where arable crops are planted alongside tree crops to complement soil nutrient supply and protect the environment and also act as a source of food, income and fuel for many rural farmers. The introduction of agroforestry technology in Nigeria has received a lot of enthusiasm and hope across many countries.

A Study of Agroforestry System adoption was carried out in the north central zone of Nigeria to ascertain the adoption level of agroforestry technology in the said zone. North Central of Nigeria has the largest land mass for the growth of both forest and cereal crops with a popular vegetation cover otherwise known as Guinea Savanna (Saliu et al., 2016).

A performance measuring scale revealed Mean scores of 4.22, 4.24, 4.39 confirmed the perception of farmers along the research statement: agroforestry systems protect our environment against wind and water erosion, planting drought resistant plants can serve as food for ruminant during drought, while indigenous knowledge about type of trees to adopt will help to make the right choice of trees respectively (table 4).

Table 4: Perception of Farmers on Agroforestry Practices

Research Items RESPONSES Mean

SA A U D SD Score

Agroforestry systems protect my environment 457 81 81 92 11 4.22**

Against wind/water erosion

The non adoptions of the system do not have 118 230 81 268 25 3.21

Any negative effect on my crops

Reduction in rainfall and high heat do not have 91 136 82 351 39 2.76*

Anything to do with adoption of Agroforestry

The fetching of charcoal for firewood will 162 311 119 26 23 3.44

Reduce plant cover

I encourage my family to plant both crops and 135 421 59 86 17 3.77

And trees every year

Government did not give me any opportunity to 108 148 98 256 107 2.83*

Contribute to the solution on adoption of agroforestry

Preservation of the ecosystem services can 146 447 208 13 13 4.39

Reduce disasters

Reducing grazing pressure on land by animals 372 207 108 23 12 4.22

Can reduce desert formation

Planting drought resistant plants can serve as 380 201 87 41 13 4.24**

Emergency food for ruminant during drought

Indigenous knowledge about type of trees to 407 225 65 7 7 4.39**

Adopt will assist me to make the correct choice of trees

Footnote:

** high mean score

*low mean score

Source: Source: Saliu et al. (2016a)

However, the trend of agroforestry adoption between 2008 and 2013 revealed a downward trend in both Kogi and Benue States (figure 4) which implies that some farmers discontinued the adoption of agroforestry within the years under consideration. The team of researchers therefore sought to know why the farmers discontinued adoption.

Figure 4: Trend of Agroforestry Adoption between 2008 and 2013 in Kogi and Benue State

Source: Source: Saliu et al. (2016a)

Finding reveals that some farmers discontinued the adoption of agroforestry technology because of limited size of land, (3.79), inadequate management knowledge practised (3.71), old age with no younger ones to take care (3.59) and lack of market for agroforestry produce at the peak of the production season (3.55) (table 5). This act could lead to post harvest losses. Examples of such are mangoes, cashew fruits and oranges.

Table 5: Farmers’ Reasons for Discontinuing Adoption of Agroforestry Practices

Research Item	Responses					Mean Score
Research Item	SA	A	U	D	SD	Mean Score
I discontinued the practice because I could not increase the planting on my limited individual land	168	271	250	28	5	3.79**
I stopped the adoption because the extended family land where I planted could not guarantee the sustainability	36	201	251	195	39	3.00
I planted agroforestry trees as shared cropping with another farmer who could not continue with the terms of sharing our crops	49	167	283	210	13	3.04
Inadequate knowledge of agroforestry management discouraged to continue adoption	160	249	264	40	9	3.71**
I am getting old and there are no young ones to take care, so I stopped adopting	74	341	298	35	14	3.59**
The rural women are not encouraged to help the male farmers’ adoption and management of agroforestry	58	224	338	82	19	3.30
Unavailability of good varieties of seedlings made me to stop adopting	50	93	431	93	53	2.98
Fruits from fruits trees produced are wasting because of lack of storage or processing facilities	70	190	420	27	15	3.38
Lack of market for agroforestry produce discouraged me to continuing adoption	169	147	332	64	13	3.55**

Footnote:

** high mean score for reasons advanced for discontinuation of adoption

Source: Saliu et al. (2016a)

In essence, the majority of the farmers were pleasantly disposed to the adoption of agroforestry systems but inadequate knowledge, poor storage, unattractive market and old age discouraged them from sustaining the adoption. Value addition through agro-processing would have reduced the post-harvest losses while weed control through adoption of agroforestry will become a problem if such farmers discontinued.

This is because the tree component of agro-forestry practice acts as shade to reduce the impact of weed on the farm. The growth of weed is therefore a constraint to optimization of output by farmers, especially the arable crop farmers. The Vice Chancellor, Sir, herbicide use has been found to be a technology that can safely be adopted to keep down the weeds and optimize profit.

Spear grass (Imperata cylindrica) has been known to require extra effort to control as weeds in some arable farms. The use of herbicide such as glyphosate to eliminate or reduce the impact of weed such as spear grass has been found to improve the output of farm produce (Avav and Okereke, 1997).

Logit regression and Z test were used to find out the adoption of glyphosate herbicide for the control of spear grass among yam farmers in the North Central Part of Nigeria (Ajanya et al., 2014). The appropriate knowledge of application of glyphosate by farmers and age were found (p<0.01 α p<0.05) to significantly influence the adoption of glyphosate by yam farmers (table 6), while Yam output by farmers who adopted glyphosate and those who did not adopt were not significantly different (table 7). Perhaps inadequate knowledge of the appropriate use of the herbicides could be responsible for the indifference in yam output.

Table 6: Result of the logit regression analysis of socio-economic factors influencing adoption of glyphosate herbicide

Variables	Coefficients	Std error	Z	P>[z]
Age	-.094	.0353428	2.66	0.008**
Education	.019	.046789	0.41	0.684
Household size	.092	.0756999	1.21	0.206
Farm size	.092	.0756651	1.22	0.223
Farm experience	.045	.030775	0.24	0.08*
Income	8.80	3.60e-06	0.24	0.80
Extension visit	.138	.082071	1.68	0.092*
Knowledge of application of glyphosate	3.27	.5606729	5.84	0.000**

LR Chiz (8) = 68.65

Pr = 0.0000

NB: P>(z) values* and ** denote 5 and 1 percent level of significance respectively

Source: Ajanya et al. (2014)

Table 7: Comparison of the yam output valued in Naira of participating and non-participating farmers of Glyphosate herbicide

Variables	Mean	Standard error of mean difference	Z-cal	Z-tal
Contact (sample A)	136628	20808.51	1.9348	1.960
Non-contact (sample B)	96366.67	20808.51

Source: Ajanya et al. (2014)

Weeds have been found to harbor pest and diseases. As such a farm that is suffering from low weed control may be a host for a number of diseases such as downy mildew, on grains or cassava mosaic on cassava leaves. Using resistant maize to downy mildew will reduce the impact of the disease.

Downy mildew is a disease that affects maize (Zea mays L.) and other plant crops. It is a fungal infection that appears on leaves and flowers. The said disease is caused by Peronosclerospora sorghi which often results in yield losses.

Yield losses caused by downy mildew disease on maize in Nigeria are about 93% (Thakhur and Mathur 2002). The disease causes stunted growth and the crazy top. If susceptible maize varieties are planted, the infected crop may not produce cobs resulting in 100% single plant yield loss.

The Vice Chancellor, Sir, adoption of downy mildew resistant maize technology in the Guinea Savanna agricultural zone was examined to determine the factors influencing the adoption of the said technology (Saliu et al., 2016b).

Logit regression revealed that access to credit facility and farming experience significantly influenced the adoption of downy mildew resistant maize variety at 5% and 1% level respectively (table 8).

Table 8: Result of the Logit Regression on the influence of Socio-Economic Characteristics of farmers on the adoption of Downy Mildew Resistant Maize Variety

Variables	Coefficients	Standard error	Significant level
Age	0.13578857	0.0898779	0.31
Education	.0.4668472	0.4861724	0.337
Household size	-0.076786	0.309946	0.558
Farm size	0.3722537	0.2921179	0.203
Farm experience	-0.1951315	0.0771128	0.011**
Access to credit	1.37161	510847	0.007*
Extension contact	0.4268377	0.419662	0.309

LR Chi² (7) = 60.60

Prob > Chi² = 0.0195

Pseudo R² = 0.6616

** 5% significant level

* 1% significant level

Source: Saliu et al. (2016b)

Table 9: Constraints of farmers on the adoption of Downy mildew resistant maize variety.

S/N	Constraint statement	VS (3)	S (2)	LS (1)	Total No. of Respondent	Total sum of Constraint score	Mean score
1.	High cost of tractor hiring	11	27	1	120	351	2.92**
2.	Inaccessibility to tractor	93	22	5	120	327	2.92**
3.	High cost of fertilizer	61	42	17	120	284	2.36
4.	Unavailability of Downy Mild Resistant Maize (DMRM) variety	60	40	20	120	280	2.33
5.	Inadequate knowledge of DMR variety practices	63	5	52	120	261	2.1
6.	High cost of DMRM herbicides	56	13	51	120	245	2.04
7.	Inadequate extension contact	55	14	51	120	244	2.03
8.	Inaccessibility to credit facility	58	51	11	120	287	2.39
9.	High cost of purchasing DMRM	0	27	93	120	147	1.22*
10.	Low profitability	2	9	109	120	133	1.10*

Footnote:

** serious constraints

* weak constraints

Source: Saliu et al. (2016b)

The main constraints to the adoption of downy mildew resistant maize variety was basically the availability and cost of hiring tractor to expand the size of their farms having received high maize output and income from the adopted variety (table 9).

Table 10: Mean score of Adoption stages of other technologies adopted along with Downy Mildew Resistant

Stages of Adoption
S/N	Technology	Awareness (1)	Interest (2)	Evaluation (3)	Trial (4)	Adoption (5)	Mean score
1.	Fertilizer	23	13	0	2	82	3.89*
2.	Herbicides	70	2	2	3	23	2.06
3.	Tractor hiring	76	43	0	0	1	1.39**
4.	Field pesticides	22	14	0	1	83	3.9*
5.	Post-field pesticides	43	15	0	1	61	3.1

Source: Saliu et al. (2016b)

The stages of adoption of farmers in the process of embracing the downy mildew resistant variety also supported the fact that tractor hiring (table 10) remained the main obstacle to expansion of downy mildew resistant maize farm. Rice (Oryza sativa) which is a major staple food in Nigeria and therefore in high demand has also received much attention in the area of improved technologies for effective and efficient rice production geared toward meeting the domestic need of the populace. However, Nigeria incurs about one billion dollars’ worth of imported rice annually to complement local production. Several factors have been associated with adoption behavior among rice farmers in Nigeria. These include factors such as personal, institutional, environmental and socio-economic factors (Matata et al., 2001). Ordered Probit regression was therefore used to analyze the Socio-economic determinants of improved rice technologies adoption in Kogi State Nigeria. Membership of Cooperative (1.029277 at 1% significance), source of fund (0.0100499 at 1% significance) and Source of labour (0.2746477 at 5% significance) (table 11) determined the adoption of rice technologies, while Marginal effect on farm size, household size and contact with extension agents favored the adoption of all the eight most important technologies (table 12) which could be used as a measure towards pleasant disposition to commercial rice farming (Saliu et al., 2016c).

Table 11: Regression result of the influence of Socio-economic characteristics on the adoption of improved rice technologies.

NB: figures in parentheses are z-value* and ** denote 5% and 1% significance respectively.

Source: Saliu et al., 2016c).

Table 12: Marginal effects of Socio-economic determinants on adoption of improved rice technologies at different levels from adoption of between 1-8 number of technologies adopted.

Source: Saliu et al., 2016c).

If we deploy technologies effectively and efficiently to maximize output of arable and cash crops, how do we add value to preserve the product and/ or promote the market value of our produce and products? Among the crops that one may need to add value to are: cassava, maize, rice, and so on.

The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) has a value chain development programme designed to support the Government of Nigeria with the intention to enhance productivity, promote agro-processing and increase access to markets.

Benue and Kogi States cassava farmers benefited from the IFAD intervention. A research carried out by a team of researchers to analyse the economics of Cassava production by IFAD Participants and non-Participants in Benue and Kogi States revealed a benefit ratio of 1:6.64 for the participants and 1:5.83 for non-participants (table 13). This implies that for every N1.00 invested, in cassava production, the participant got N6.64 while the non-participants got N5.83k.

It also followed that the Cassava Processors who participated in IFAD processing method of enhancing value addition had a benefit-cost ratio of 1:3.22 while non-participants had 1:2.03, (table 14) which implies that those who participated in IFAD Programme had more profit than non-participants (Odekina et al.,2024).

Table 13: Estimate of Cost and Returns to Cassava Production by Participants and Non-participant Cassava Producers

Participant Cassava Farmers			Non-Participant Cassava Farmers
Revenue and Cost Items	Value (N)	% Total Cost	Value (N)	% Total Cost
Cassava Product Consumed	129,585.50		129,328.90
Cassava tubers sold	779,822.40		625,144.60
Gross Return	909,407.90		754,473.60
Variable Costs
Stem Cutting bought	8,946.71	6.53	8,553.29	6.60
Land Clearing	15,694.08	11.46	13,050.00	10.08
Ploughing/Ridging	29,302.63	21.40	28,940.79	22.36
Planting	8,835.53	6.45	7,157.90	5.53
Weeding/Chemicals	9,925.66	7.25	8,938.82	6.90
Harvesting	9,805.26	7.16	9,739.47	7.52
Transportation	22,507.89	16.44	22,507.89	17.39
Others	11,438.16	8.36	8,623.68	6.66
Total Variable Cost	116,455.92	85.07	107,511.84	83.05
Fixed Cost
Rent	20,434.21	14.93	21,940.79	16.95
Total Fixed Cost	20,434.21	14.93	21,940.79	16.95
Gross Margin (TR – TVC)	792,952.00		646,961.76
Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)	N6.64k		N5.83k

Source: Odekina et al. 2024

Table 14: Estimate of Cost and Returns to Cassava Processing by Participants and Non-participant Cassava Processors

Revenue and Cost Items	Value (₦)	% Total Cost
Cassava Product Consumed	128,413.40		128,413.40
Cassava Product Sold	1,058,226.80		764,022.30
Gross Return	1,186,640.20		892,435.70
Cassava Tubers Bought	209,468.90	57.19	285,279.30	64.90
Transportation	25,192.09	6.87	24,430.17	5.56
Water/Energy/Others	27,429.40	7.48	26,639.11	6.06
Peeling	11,383.62	3.10	10,665.36	2.42
Grating	27,987.57	7.64	27,771.51	6.32
Pressing	22,634.46	6.18	22,483.80	5.11
Frying	31,783.05	8.68	31,918.99	7.26
Marketing Charges	5,451.98	1.49	5,385.48	1.22
Other Costs	4,935.03	1.35	4,944.13	1.12
Total Variable Cost	366,266.10		439,517.85
Gross Margin (TR – TVC)	820,374.10		452,917.85
Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)	3.23		2.03*

Source: Odekina et al. 2024

Table 15: Z-test statistical analysis

Variable	Obs	Mean	Std.Error	Std. Deviation
Participants	331	796482.2	17918.3	325995
Non-Participants	333	532400.9	12510.18	228289.3
Combined	664	664043.8	12052.48	310570.6
Difference	–	264081	21853.38	–

T-value = 12.0842 Pr = 0.0000

Source: Odekina et al. 2024

The Z-test statistical analysis (table 15) showed income differential among participants and non-participants cassava processors which indicated a significant difference in income of both at 1% level of significance. In essence IFAD interventions positively impacted on our cassava producers and processors. This will reduce waste and enhance market value of farmers involved.

It is therefore valid that additional knowledge provided coupled with access to inputs supplied by the IFAD positively influenced the output and income of the cassava processors among farmers who participated. In the quest for post-harvest needs by maize farmers in Kogi State, Nigeria Adejo et al. (2016), posited that 30.69% of the maize farmers sought information on storage and market prices from religious organizations while 67.72% sought information from neighbours and friends and 55.03% (table 16) sought from community-based organisations.

Table 16: Distribution of Respondents according to the Sources of postharvest information on maize (n = 189)

Source	Frequency	Percentage
Research institutes	2	1.06
Universities	2	1.06
ADP	102	53.97
NGOs	19	10.05
Colleges of education	1	0.53
Friends/neighbors	128	67.72*
Religious organizations	58	30.69*
Community meetings	104	55.03*

Source: Adejo et al. (2016)

Adoption of technologies and its effect on output and income did not have positive impacts on crops alone but also on livestock. Example of such technologies is the use of vaccine against Newcastle disease which claimed to be responsible for 70-80 % of annual death in village chickens. In a research carried out on adoption of vaccination against Newcastle Disease by rural Poultry women farmers in the north central zone of Nigeria. Saliu et al. (2009) posits that, despite the availability of live Newcastle vaccines such as intra-ocular BI Strain, Lasota and Komorov produced by National Veterinary Research Institute (NVRI) Vom to prevent, the occurrence of the disease, the level of awareness of the vaccination was about 70% (figure 5) while only 11.21% adopted the vaccination alone. About 34.80% adopted both the vaccination and ethnoveterinary treatment. However, socioeconomic factors did not significantly influence the adoption (table 17).

Figure 5: Awareness of farmers on the use of Newcastle disease vaccination

Source: Saliu et al. (2009)

Table 17: Influence of Women Poultry Farmers Socio-economic characteristics on adoption of Newcastle vaccination

Explanatory variables	Unstandardized coefficient	Std. error	Standardized coefficient	t-value	Sig.
(Constant)	1.091	0.613	0.059	1.780	0.078
Age x 1	6580E.02	0.043	0.149	1.521	0.131
Education x 2	-8.21E.03	0.071	-0.011	-0.116	0.908
No. of birds x 3	-8.39E.02	0.073	-0.115	-1.142	0.256
Family size x 4	-109	0.088	-0.125	-1.135	0.220
Farmer experience x 5	-4.46E.02	-0.033	-136.000	-1.338	0.184

Source: Saliu et al. (2009)

Another killer disease commonly known as Peste des Petits Ruminants (PPR) which had an economic loss of over N40 billion naira due to high mortality rate that can be as high as 55-90%. Potent Vaccine for preventing the disease has been produced by the National Veterinary Research Institute (NVRI). Ethnoveterinary herbs can also be used for the treatment of the said disease. It was however found out that the flock size and number of political titles held significantly influence the adoption of PPR vaccine (table 18).

Table 18: Influence of socio-economic variables in the population of PPR vaccines and ethnoveterinary herbs

Explanatory variables		Unstandardized Coefficients	Std. error	Standardized Coefficients	T	Sig
Sex	X1	-0.013	0.237	-0.009	-.056	0.958
Age	X2	0.161	0.179	0.179	0.899	0.373
Education	X3	0.089	0.114	0.131	0.782	0.438
Number of sheep	X4	0.304	0.130	0.427	2.337	0.024*
Number of goats	X5	-0.098	0.149	-0.098	-0.681	0.512
Family size	X6	0.038	0.227	0.026	0.166	0.369
Annual income	X7	0.048	0.161	0.056	0.297	0.768
Year of experience in livestock farming	X8	-0.114	0.114	-0.183	-0.998	0.321
Marital status	X9	-0.095	0.196	-0.069	-0.485	0.630
Number of social organization	X10	-0.189	-0.196	-0.145	-0.984	0.316
Number of political titles held	X11	0.159	0.092	0.338	1.733	0.090**
Constant		1.058	1.178		0.898	0.374
Sample size		102,000

* = 5% significant level

** = 1% significant level

Source: Saliu et al. (2008)

Table 19: Attitudinal disposition of farmers to the use of PPR vaccine/ethnoveterinary herb

S/No	Attitudinal statement	Strongly Agree	Agree	Undecided	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Total respondents	Total attitude score	Average Mean score
1	PPR Vaccine prevents PPR disease of sheep & goats	19	39	31	8	5	102	365	3.58*
2	Use PPR vaccines with ethnoveterinary herb	2	27	67	3	3	102	328	3.22
3	PPR Vaccine has less adverse effects	7	41	39	12	3	102	343	3.36
4	Ethnoveterinary herb is more effective than PPR vaccine	1	13	71	15	2	102	302	2.96
5	Ethnoveterinary herb is more readily available	1	11	75	14	1	102	300	2.94**
6	Ethnoveterinary herb is easier to administer than PPR vaccines	2	25	62	13	0	102	322	3.16

Source: Saliu et al. (2008)

The attitudinal disposition of farmers to the use of PPR vaccine and ethnoveterinary herb were also examine and it was found out by Saliu et al. (2008) that: A mean score of 3.5 sheep and goat farmers accepted the fact that the use of PPR vaccine alone can prevent PPR disease while a mean score of 3.22 agreed that a combination of the use of PPR vaccine with ethnoveterinary herb which prevail against PPR disease. Level of awareness of the efficiency of the PPR vaccine was 70%. The sheep and goat farmers are therefore pleasantly disposed to the use of the vaccine.

Other sheep and goat technologies such as Quality feed, Modern health technology and improved housing facilities among small holder sheep and goat farmers were examined and the adoption levels revealed that only 26.8 % adopted supplementary feeding, 6.7% adopted routine vaccination (table 20) while modern housing (intense keeping of sheep and goats) was not adopted by sheep and goat farmers (Olorunfemi et al., 2023). Cost of the technology, knowledge and Flock size could be responsible for poor adoption as discovered using probit regression model where extension contact and membership of sheep and goat cooperative societies substantially determined the adoption of the said technologies at 1% significant level. Flock size as a determinant for the adoption of recommended feed was at 1% significant level (table 21).

Table 20: Adoption of Improved Sheep and Goat Production Technologies

Technologies	Awareness	Interest	Evaluation	Trial	Adoption
Supplementary feeding	19 (15.8)	13 (10.8)	31 (25.8)	25 (20.8)	32 (26.8)*
Routine vaccination	22 (18.3)	31 (25.8)	29 (24.2)	30 (25.0)	08 (6.7)*
Housing of animals	48 (40.0)	22 (18.3)	19 (15.8)	31 (25.9)	0
Mineral supplementation	89 (74.2)	27 (22.5)	04 (3.3)	0	0
Cleaning of pen	07 (5.8)	29 (24.2)	51 (42.5)	33 (27.5)	10 (8.3)
Detection & isolation of sick animals	0	07 (5.8)	55 (45.8)	48 (40.0)	66 (55.0)**
De-thickening of animals	0	0	30 (25.0)	24 (20.0)	0
Hoof trimming	39 (32.5)	42 (35.0)	11 (9.2)	16 (13.3)	12 (10.0)

Source: Olorunfemi et al. (2023)

Table 21: Regression results on the determinants of adoption of improved sheep and goat production technologies

Variables	Sheep Coeff.	Sheep Std. Error	Sheep P>\|z\|	Goat Coeff.	Goat Std. Error	Goat P>\|z\|
X₁ Age	-0.0298	0.0188	0.114	-0.0243	0.0178	0.174
X₂ Gender	-0.4102	0.2514	0.103	-0.3627	0.2804	0.196
X₃ Marital status	0.0247	0.2363	0.917	0.1889	0.2165	0.383
X₄ Education	0.0174	0.0395	0.659	0.0524	0.0382	0.17
X₅ Household size	-0.0563	0.0734	0.443	-0.0393	0.0603	0.515
X₆ Farming exp.	-0.023	0.0239	0.336	-0.0075	0.0241	0.756
X₇ Herd size	0.0326	0.0385	0.398	0.0693	0.0381	0.069*
X₈ Credit access	0.2635	0.2499	0.292	0.263	0.2561	0.304
X₉ Ext. contact	1.0987	0.2207	0.000***	1.0218	0.2062	0.000***
X₁₀ Coope. Mem.	1.5972	0.5982	0.008***	1.3822	0.5845	0.018**
LR Chi²	45.93		0.0000***	56.74		0.0000***
Log likelihood	-140.704			-156.147
Pseudo R²	0.1403			0.1537

Note: ***, ** and * = significant at 1%, 5% and 10% respectively.

Source: Olorunfemi et al. (2023)

The adoption of improved feed for broiler production was also investigated and analyzed using linear regression adoption score and mean score (Saliu et al., 2013), flock size, farming experience, educational status and access to credit facility positively influenced revenue generated from broiler production (table 22). The adoption level of broiler starter and finisher kept on increasing on a yearly basis (table 23).

However, inadequate knowledge to formulate recommended feeds by the farmers (x. 2.80) and high cost of feed were the major constraints to the adoption of the improved recommended feeds for broiler production.

Table 22: Result of the Linear Regression on the Influence of Socio-Economic Variable on Broiler Farmers Revenue

Variables	Standard Coefficient (beta)	Significance (significant level)
Constant		.018
Adoption level of feed	.728	.000*
Education status	.011	.712
Farming experience	.020	.508
Extension contact	-.013	.660
Flock size	.329	.000*
Household size	-.036	.206
Credit	.021	.502

R² = 0.921

Adjusted R² – 0.915

* Coefficient significant at 1%

Source: Saliu et al. (2013)

Level of Adoption of Recommended Feeds for Broiler Production in the Study Area from 2007 – 2012

Table 23: Adoption score for six years on Recommended Feed

Years	Starter Feed	Grower Feed	Finisher Feed
2007	4.45	0	4.45
2008	5.13	2.35	5.13
2009	5.62	1.27	5.62
2010	5.80	1.27	5.80
2011	5.97	1.27	5.97
2012	6	1.55	6

Source: Saliu et al. (2013) (Adoption score vary from 0-10)

The Vice Chancellor, sir, having examined the adoption of improved technologies across various crops and livestock, I found it important to get the perception/attitude of our students being trained to embrace modern agriculture through the various technologies exposed to them within and outside the University having passed through Student Industrial Work Experience Scheme (SIWES).

In essence, Kogi State University Agricultural Students were investigated on their attitude towards agriculture/farming as a career before and after acquiring knowledge on agriculture. Saliu et al. (2016d) asserted that a mean score of (X: 2.30) showed that the majority of the students had negative attitude towards agriculture when they resumed school at 100 Level while at 500 Level a Mean score of X: 2.67 showed that they were willing to take agriculture/farming as a career due to agricultural education impacted by trained agricultural experts. Mean score X: 2.25 agreed that (SIWES) positively changed their perception/attitude to farming (table 24). Mean score of (X: 2.35) showed willingness to engage in practical agricultural enterprise if they have access to necessary agricultural inputs. A mean score of (X: 2.73) indicated interest in Poultry Production. Fish farming had mean score (2.49), cash crop farming had (2.19) mean score and arable had (2.12) however beekeeping with X: 1.33 had the least indication of interest by students (table 25).

Table 24: Students’ Attitude to farming during the five years Agricultural Training

S/No Research Item SA (3) PA (2) U (1) Total Respondent Total Frequency Mean Score 1 My attitude toward farming was negative when I resumed 100 LEVEL 82 31 37 150 345 2.30 2 My attitude has not changed after receiving training in agricuture 23 33 94 150 229 1.53 3 I now have a positive attitude towards 117 17 16 150 401 2.67 4 If supplied with necessary agricultural input I can now take farming as a career 102 24 24 150 318 2.12 5 SIWES programme made to have positive towards Agriculture 72 43 35 150 387 2.25 6 Agriculture can be made more profitable if wellfunded to reward labour 102 33 15 150 387 2.58 7 Lack of relevant knowledge turn me off in farming 41 57 52 150 289 1.88 8 Inadequate entrepreneurial education and training made me to have low interest in farming 43 44 63 150 280 1.87

Source: Saliu et al. (2016d)

Table 25: Distribution of Respondents by preference of perceived Agricultural Enterprises

S/No Agricultural Enterprise VW (3) W (2) NW (1) Total no of Respondent Total no of Frequency Mean score 1 Poultry farming 119 22 9 150 410 2.73** 2 Cattle farming 29 51 69 150 258 1.72 3 Piggery farming 23 25 102 150 221 1.47 4 Sheep and goat farming 53 64 33 150 320 2.13 5 Rabbit farming 49 65 36 150 318 2.09 6 Fish farming 97 30 23 150 373 2.49** 7 Snail farming 26 45 79 150 247 1.64 8 Cash crop farming 67 44 39 150 328 2.19 9 Arable crop farming 60 48 42 150 318 2.12 10 Horticulture 46 53 50 150 294 1.96* 11 Bee keeping 14 22 114 150 200 1.33*

Source: Saliu et al. (2016d) ** – high acceptance

* – low acceptance

Stakeholders Interventions to Agricultural Technology Adoption

Generally speaking, from the Agricultural Technology adoption studied, it is evidently clear that a lot of farmers are willing to adopt agricultural technologies while many are still unable because of constraints such as cost of inputs, access to inputs, inadequate knowledge of the use of technology and so on.

The willingness of farmers to adopt farm technologies must be due to a long-term efforts of several stakeholders trying to promote the adoption of agricultural technology across Nigeria. The deliberate attempt to influence agricultural technology adoption among farmers in Nigeria started far back in 1912 when colonial botanical garden was established at Oloke meji in Ogun State, Nigeria. This was followed with the establishment of regional ministries of agriculture in 1954, with provision of schemes such as farm settlement, National Accelerated Food Production Programme (NAFPP) in 1972, Operation Feed the Nation (OFN) in 1976, River Basin and Rural Development Authorities (RBRDA) in 1976, Green Revolution Programme of 1980 and the World Bank funded Agricultural Development Project (ADP) where we had pilot Projects established in Funtua (1974), Gusau (1974), Gombe (1974, and later flourished to Anyigba in 1977, Lafia 1977, Bida (1979), Ilorin (1980), Ekiti-Akoko (1981) and Oyo North (1982). It eventually became an Agricultural Development Projects in each State of the country and the Federal Capital, Abuja now has ADP as an outlet for agricultural technology adoption.

The common features of the agricultural interventions before the advent of ADP were marked with unpopular top to bottom approach, poor linkages with other agencies who could facilitate the flow of technical information, insufficient funds to support training and agricultural development, unnecessary rigidity, Idiosyncrasy and redtapism.

However, two prominent international experts of Agricultural Extension suggested that sustained high levels of agricultural production and income are not possible without an effective agricultural Extension Service supported by Agricultural Research that is relevant to farmers. This statement greatly influenced the perception, belief and commitment of donor and recipient nations throughout the world.

The World Bank, which has been the main donor in agricultural and rural development, therefore earmarked US dollar of 150 million annually to finance agricultural extension projects between 1990 and 1994 in 27 countries (Moise, 1994). The outcome of this support was high agricultural output but the huge amount required to support the programme could not be sustained. The most prominent argument against Public Agricultural Extension services is high and unsustainable public costs. External financial assistance for agricultural extension projects is as high as 80 percent while benefiting countries were responsible for an average of 18.5 percent. It is therefore obvious that financial capability to pursue extension activities without external funding is extremely difficult.

An alternative to public extension Services for agricultural endeavors in technology adoption is a private extension service. As practised by the Agricultural Development and Advisory Services (ADAS) in England that operates on a partial cost recovery basis of 50 percent of its income, in the Netherlands where half of its public extension services are transferred to the farmers associations or New Zealand’s Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries advisory services under user pay commercial criteria while the employees receive commission for consulting.

In Chile medium and large-scale farmers used to operate through a farmer’s group but now totally privately funded. In Africa, Zaire extension is partially funded by government.

In Nigeria, examples of the Private Commercial Organisations providing extension services for technology adoption includes: the Shell company (Shell Petroleum Extension Project), the British American Tobacco (BAT project), and AFCOT Niger Delta oil exploratory areas. Outfits such as BAT and AFCOT are commodity-targeted as out-growers schemes to ensure adequate raw materials for their companies. (Saliu and Age, 2009).

We have other non-profit NGOs such as the Development Education Centre (DEC) which provides extension support for women to organize themselves into grassroots level self-help associations in the South East Nigeria, the Women’s Advancement Network (WOAN) in the North West and the Farune Development Union (FADU), the Sasakawa-Global 2000 that works in close collaboration with the (ADPs) and uses its structure to effect its programs/activities (Arokoyo, 2003).

Activities of Farmers Organisations across the Globe:

Effective Agricultural Technology Transfer is enhanced when all the interested farmers are mobilized to participate in the adoption process. It is practically impossible for all farmers to actively participate in all the innovation transfer activities. An alternative to such is the formation of Farmers Organisations. Farmers Group otherwise called community-based resource-oriented entity (Ekong, 2003) usually pull together resources such as inputs for effective service delivery to improve the productivity of their enterprises. These activities become necessary to cope with the new trend of economic liberalization policy across the globe (Saliu and Age, 2008). Many developing countries are now at various stages in the process of economic liberalization, decentralization and privatization. Economic liberalization involves removal of price control on the farm produce while Privatization indicates a government withdrawal from economic activities such as input supply, marketing and even direct agricultural production. Decentralization is a means of transferring selected public responsibilities to regional, state or local level institutions by the national governments. (Neuchalttel-group, 1999).

This development is coming up at a period when many developing countries are less able to continue providing all the extension services expected of them due to financial constraints. Many developing countries have therefore put in place policies that promote decentralization, privatization and liberalization.

This Policy has stimulated Popular Participatory approach called Participation through organisation, in this case “Organisation of Farmers” into groups. For example, we have Uganda National Farmers’ Association that has established a demand driven cost-recovery extension system with over 90,000 farmers as members (Mundy and Sultan, 2001) where news on agricultural technologies can be obtained by members. Similar Farmers organisations now exist in Nigeria, Senegal, Burkina Faso, Niger, Togo and even across West Africa. The network now involves in drawing up and implementing the agricultural policy of West Africa Economic and Monetary Union.

The network would want to ensure the external Protection and internal liberalization of its produce in order to achieve better prices, protect food security and family farming. The vision of the network is founded on the promotion and defence of small-scale farming. In the past few years, African farmers organisations have joined forces with international movements such as via campesina, or international federation of agricultural products (IFAP) which groups small and medium scale farmers organisations worldwide.

In essence, three key players have been identified to be highly involved in agricultural technology adoption in developing countries and particularly in Nigeria; the public extension service providers rely on government fund to move agricultural production forward while the private extension service organizes their resources in a way to generate profit through the establishment of farms and processing of farm produce. The farmers organisations are a set of demand driven cost recovery unit made up of small and medium scale farmers who regroup for fund mobilization to facilitate input or promote service delivery to meet farmers needs and interest.

It is absolutely correct that the foundation of the Nigerian economy is agriculture. It is also noteworthy that the total agricultural land area stands at above 70.8 million hectares where several arable crops such as maize, rice, cassava and cash crops such as cocoa, cashew, oil palm can successfully be grown at both subsistence and commercial quantities.

The country is one of the leading producers of palm oil, cacao beans, sorghum, fruits, and nuts in the world contributing about 22.35 percent to the total Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Nigeria is supported with an elaborate extension system with over 17 agricultural research institutes, several faculties of agriculture, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture that serve as fountain of agricultural innovations for the public and private extension service providers.

However, climate change, land degradation, low technology, under exploitation of animal production, high cost and poor distribution of inputs, limited financing, high post-harvest losses and poor access to market remain a huge challenge to high contribution of agriculture to GDP and reduction in food import.

The not very impressive agricultural output is being experienced at a moment where several emerging technologies that can provide sustainable agricultural development are available. Emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence in agriculture which can be applied to precision agriculture, automation, soil and crop monitoring, temperature control and predictive analytics.

Drones in agriculture otherwise known as pilotless aircraft or flying robots designed to collect accurate information, monitoring of crop growth, control of pest and diseases. Digital agriculture meant to make more informed decisions and improved productivity making crop and livestock production more efficient and environmentally friendly.

Nanotechnology meant to uplift global economy by providing support and advances that should increase quality and quantity of yield. Smart agriculture involves using predictive analysis to make smart decisions as being practiced by farm smarter, APP 4 agrigrow, rural farmers hub in Nigeria. Sensor Technology that detects moisture and Nitrogen levels, give a real time understanding of current farm, forest of body of water condition.

The determinant of agricultural productivity, capacity, such as human capital, technology generation and natural resources are available in Nigeria. However the adoption or use of the technology is the jinx of the technology.

It is noted by FAO (2018) that with the increased population of Nigeria estimated to reach 400 million in 2050, enhanced agricultural productivity through adaptation of new technologies and innovations is necessary to ensure food nutrition and security.

Support from all partners to the efforts by the Federal and State governments is central for achieving this goal.

The Way Forward

To design a way out of our perpetual food insecurity and hunger, we need to provide answers to the following questions:

1. Can we rely on public agricultural extension services for sustainable food production?

2. Can extension and technology adoption be left in the hands of private extension service providers to effect the needed food security through agricultural transformation for massive agricultural output and sustainable economic growth?

3. Do we have fairly high ethical standard necessary to move Nigeria from the current self-centered, nepotistic and fraudulent manner of managing public resources toward the establishment of a virile nation that is reliable for business transaction throughout the globe?

4. Do we have an extension policy effected through legislative action that will ensure well-organized financially stable extension systems that have sustained effectiveness and good cumulative impact as we have in the Cooperative Extension Services in the United States or the Japanese Agricultural Promotion law?

5. Can there be a configuration of extension organisations between public and private extension services to pursue national development priorities that will attend to audience across the agro ecological zones of the country?

It is clear that agricultural development cannot be achieved without the adoption of modern agricultural technology to boost output, waste less time and reduce post-harvest losses yet add value to quality and quantity of the food produced.

It is not wise to continue with total reliance on public extension services, which is also costly, ineffective and full of corrupt practices. A developing country like Nigeria cannot also do away with Government support that will advance technology use by farmers.

The cost of agriculture technologies can also not be left in the hands of private extension service providers and agro-industrialists at the exclusion of the large majority of the small-scale farmers who contribute meaningfully to gross domestic product of the nation.

There is therefore need to factor in the contributions of the Government, the private extension service providers, agro industrialist and the farmers into a system that will ensure sustainable agricultural productivity and food security.

The problem of infrastructural facilities, reduction in corrupt practices, social inequality can best be addressed by the federal government who should put in place an agricultural extension policy that will give room for public private partnership where technology can be deployed through cost sharing approach to agro-industries that are willing to engage farmers organisations out-growers for the crops or livestock being processed for man use.

The Vice Chancellor, Sir, it has come to the knowledge of many individuals that when an enterprise that may need low cost or high-cost technology to effect profitable output, private investors perform better than public. Some examples that readily come to mind are Okomu oil Palm company plc, Presco oil, Psaltry international company limited (Cassava Procession Company in Iseyin Oyo State). A leading agro-allied Cassava processor in Africa producing Cassava based sorbitol. – run an outgrower and in-grower scheme of more than 3,500 farmers (since 2012) and 500 young agripreneurs with the aim of transforming small holder farmers into commercial farmers.

Okomu oil palm company established in 1976 before becoming a plc in 1990 with 62.90% owned by Socfinaf. SA (A Luxembourg- incorporated company) and 37.06% owned by a diversified spread of Nigerians international individuals and institutional stakeholders. The earning per share grew to N35.93 per share in 2024. Okumu oil palm company also actively engages in an outgrower scheme with local small-holder farmers now targeting to source 200,000 metric tonnes of Fresh Fruits Bunches (FFB) from small holder farmers between 2021 and 2030. The small holder farmers always benefit from suitable, cost effective agricultural technologies provided by these agroprocessors who will always want to maximise profit. The success story is almost the same with most of our private investors who are into agro business, agro processing in Nigeria. It is very rare to find public business outfit giving us the same promising profit as above.

The Three Legged Model

The three legged model of agricultural technology adoption that I am proposing, is an agriculturally indispensable tripod made up of three pillars that ensures sustainable food security (Fig. 6). The first of the three pillars is government support, the second is public/private agro processing industry while the third is the small holder farmers network. Each pillar removes critical barriers such as high cost, post-harvest losses and poor market access that farmers cannot overcome alone. Together they create a functional ecosystem from production to consumption.

Government provides policies, funding and infrastructure. The government also provides inputs such as improved seeds, fertilizers, funds research for climate-smart crop varieties, improved breeds of livestock and provide agricultural extension services to the Farmers.

However, this model advocates decentralisation by transferring selected responsibilities (purchase of high cost input like tractors and fertilizer) to the state and certain responsibilities to the agro-processing industries located in the state through cost sharing method and privatisation through partnership with national and international organisations to fully operate commercial agro-processing industry.

Agro-processing industries create steady markets for farm produce, reduce post harvest losses through storage and processing, add economic value to raw crops and livestock while stimulating continuous production demand. On the other hand, this model proposes that agro processors are to largely depend on small-scale farmers as out-growers for raw materials supply, the famers in turn are to benefit from direct input supply and training by qualified extension service providers for maximum output and optimization of input use, agricultural technology and income. Small-scale farmer organisations strengthen bargaining power for better prices, ease access to credit and shared machinery, train members on new farming technologies and aggregate produce for large-scale buyers.

The three pillars synergize for food security. Governments absorb policy risks, processors guarantee sales and groups share operational risk. Farmers adopt new tools faster when organised in groups. Sustainability becomes achievable through local production to stable processing, preventing food waste and ensuring steady market supply.

The three legged model also posits that the largely dominated traditional system of farming will gradually give way for commercial farming as the synergy between the government and agro industry get stronger.

Figure 6: The proposed Three-Legged Model for Agricultural Technology Adoption.

Recommendations

Establishment of National Agricultural Development and Technology Transformation Commission (NADTTC)

The Vice Chancellor, Sir, in 2022, the Federal Ministry of Agriculture (now renamed Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security in 2023) rolled out the National Agricultural Technology and Innovation Policy (NATIP, 2022) with the mission of “organising and managing the agricultural sector and facilitating agriculture for increased food security and employment along commodity value chains and agro-industrial development to earn foreign exchange and contribute to socio-economic development of the country.”

The implementation of NATIP is expected to unlock the country’s untapped potential through massive deployment of 21st century knowledge, technology and innovation in the agricultural sector using a ten-pillar approach. Among the critical pillars are: the establishment of agricultural development fund and revitalisation of extension service delivery. The agricultural development fund has been established as National Agricultural Development Fund (NADF) while the process of revitalising agricultural extension service is ongoing.

These two pillars if well managed, may positively influence the remaining eight pillars which may transform agriculture and ensure food security. If NADF is allowed to function, it may boost resources to research, upgrade extension, innovation, and value chain development. The NADF is meant to coordinate the generation of funds as well as facilitate project monitoring and evaluation. The fund is to build a multi-stakeholder approach for the supervision of the implementation of NADF activities.

The fund is expected to strengthen the research-extension-farmer linkage system and encourage private sector, farmer-to-farmer and commodity based advisors. It is expected that every sector of agriculture (cash crops, arable crops, agroforestry, pasture management, fisheries, livestock ranching and grazing) will receive a boost and general transformation of technology adoption.

The intention to have NADF in place is indeed long over due. However a renowned scholar in the field of Agricultural Economics (Idachaba, 2006) once asserted that good intentions are not enough. We had unduly centralised our technology adoption and extension delivery system for too long without commensurate result. We need to decentralise and possibly privatise certain agricultural services where the system of Public Private Partnership will be more viable, visible and ensure functional, effective, efficient and accountable service delivery.

If NADF is to perform all the functions stated in National Agricultural Technology and Innovation Policy, the impact of technology adoption and transformation should be felt in every agro-ecological zone of the country and as such a wider coverage will be necessary to accommodate funding of all relevant sectors to technology generation, functional research units to be conspicuously represented, technology advocacy to be well pronounced why monitoring and evaluation to be upgraded.

I therefore recommend that National Agricultural Development Fund (NADF) be expanded and renamed as National Agricultural Development and Technology Transformation Commission (NADTTC).

When the commission is in place, I propose that the three legged technology adoption model be applied to empower the commission in providing infrastructural facilities especially where mega agro processing industries or a cluster of agricultural industries are located across the agro-ecological zones of the country, promote privatization through Public-Private Partnership with individuals, state, the nation and international investors who may engage in cost sharing and profit sharing approach and ensure accountability.

I advocate for the encouragement of numerous agro-processing industries to spring up and engage small scale farmers to embark on out-grower scheme which will ensure sustainable supply of raw materials to the industry while the farmers receive input support, better income and training that will scale up the movement of traditional farming to commercial standard. We need to decentralise by leveraging on the workability of Public-Private Partnership. Modernisation of agriculture can make a strong headway in poverty reduction if only it goes with upgrading farming policies and technologies (Sadiku et al; 2024).

The Public-Private Partnership is already working. Just between 2023 and 2026, Nigeria has enjoyed Public-Private Partnership across twenty different agro-industrial investors from China, Brazil, Singapore, Saudi-Arabia, Germany, United States, Norway and Switzerland. When National Agricultural Development Technology Transformation Commission finally takes off, we shall witness more partnership and steadily move on the right path to agricultural transformation.

The Vice Chancellor, Sir, I am aware that in policy advocacy, one must have regular consultations, good relationship with policy authorities and policy stakeholders, brokering services in terms of policy articulation, formulation, verification, and implementation, monitoring and evaluation. However since this is a modification on the newly established fund, I strongly believe that the government of Nigeria will have a lot to benefit from the implementation of the above named commission. It will definitely generate multiple employment for thousands of youth, initiate entrepreneurial skill and innovation, provide fund for reinvestment and strengthen the economy of the nation.

Adopting the Three-Legged Model in Kogi State

Kogi State Government may key into the three legged model using the NADTTC structure to effect public- private partnership for agro processing industry, for instance a public-private giant Cashew Processing Factory can be sited in Kogi East, particularly in Anyigba where the raw material which is very high in quantity can be assessed through numerous out growers who will be supplied with the improved seed/seedlings, right technologies to propagate and nurse the seedlings to production level. An Oil Palm Processing industry can also be established in Ajaokuta/Itobe axis and Alujuafara in Gbede land with several thousands of small-scale farmers as out growers to supply bunches of palm fruits to the oil palm industries. Cassava flour/ethanol industry may be sited at Ayetoro-Gbede where small-scale processing farms like Gamut Garri, ethanol/sorbitol processing industry can partner with national and international organisations to make it a large-scale industry while small-scale farmers or a group of farmers can serve as out-growers. The said out-growers will be provided with the right improved variety of cassava, appropriate land clearing and pest control technology for effective and efficient raw material delivery to the industry. Feed mill and flour industries can also be sited in the same location while maize and sorghum out-growers can readily be made available. Mega Rice processing plant can be sited around Omi River and River Niger in Kotonkarfe, while small-scale farmers who must have formed groups and served with all needed agricultural inputs and technologies can perform the function of out-growers for the rice processing plant.

Acknowledgements

I deeply appreciate Allah the Supreme for giving me the privilege to come this far, I strongly hold the opinion that my highly disciplined and education loving parents – Late Chief Alhaji Idris Ologe Saliu and Mrs Balikisu Saliu contributed immensely to whatever I am today. I am glad to have a father who cherished human development and was willing to support me at all times, the role which Prince Olusola Akanmode (the Asiwaju of Ayetoro-Gbede) assumed shortly after the death of my father. I wish to show gratitude to my primary school teacher and headmaster (Mr. S. N. Naiye), who taught me to know that humility pays and hard work is an essential ingredient to success.

I wish to acknowledge my Chemistry teacher (Mr. Owolabi) and my Biology teacher (Mr. B. A. Sule) at Abdul Aziz Attah Memorial College Okene for the indept explanation at all times to carry along even the poorest student in the class. I show deep appreciation to Lions, 79 led by Chief Kayode Fagbemi, Hon. Abiodun Faleke, Barr. David Ayedogbon, Aroke Haruna and Emmanuel Ameh.

I acknowledge my B.Sc degree supervisor (Professor Anjuwon Akinwande) for exposing me to the fact that I had potential to excel in research. I also acknowledge my M.Sc. degree supervisor (Prof. Titus Jones Gegeola Ogunfiditimi) who advised me to go for any job that will engage in research. I express my gratitude to UI Agric, 86 led by Prof. Victor Adetimirin, the Vice Chancellor, Edo State University, Iyamo, Dr. Kayode Fashola and Remi Babs, the former Minister of Finance.

I am grateful to my PhD Supervisors (Prof. Egri. P. Ejembi, a Professor of Agricultural Communication, Professor Gbolagade Babalola Ayoola, a Professor of Agricultural Economics and Policy who was supervised by Professor Francis Suleiman Idachaba (So, by extension, I am a grand supervisee of Prof. F. S. Idachaba) and Prof. O. M. Obasi, a Professor of Farming Systems.

I wish to express my recognition and gratitude to my mentors in research and grant writing, Professor Tai Oluwagbemi. I deeply appreciate Professor A.A. Adebayo and Professor Julius Sunday Orebiyi who pressed home the process of my being considered for accelerated promotion from Lecturer I to Senior Lecturer having merited the special provision for such. To my team of researchers, Professor Tai Oluwagbemi, Professor Alao, Professor S. J. Ibitoye, Professor Charles Oyewole, Professor O. O. Ifatimehin, Professor M.K. Ibrahim and Professor Patrick Adejo, I say thank you.

I recognize my mentees, Dr. Suleiman Yakubu, Dr. Natala Jibril, Prof. Haruna Opaluwa, Dr. Tijani A. Ahmed, Dr. Oluyomi Moses, Dr Felix Oyibo, Mr. Dominic Egwuda and numerous others that time and space will not permit me to mention.

I sincerely appreciate my former Vice Chancellors, mentors in University administration: Professor Simon Okwute who made me Secretary to admission malpractice committee in the year 2001, Professor F. S. Idachaba who sponsored a Conference that I chaired at local organising Committee level in 2008, Professor Hassan Isah who appointed me as Head of Department between 2012 and 2014 and Director Centre for Pre-Degree and Diploma Studies (CPDS) between 2014-2016, Professor Muhammad Sanni Abdulkadir who retained me as Director CPDS and later appointed me as Director of Academic Planning and Development between 2016-2019 and my Vice-Chancellor Professor Marietu Ohunene Tenuche who appointed me as one year Acting Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Admin) in 2020 and later appointed me substantive till 2025. I must say I enjoyed her uncommon leadership style as she gave me the opportunity to learn so many aspects in administration (that is Security, work ethics, inclusivity, accreditation, environmental serenity and welfare).

I wish to profoundly appreciate my courageous, creative and forthright Vice Chancellor, Professor Salisu Ogbo Usman for his high standing sense of judgment and responsiveness. He has also graciously approved my being slated to present this lecture today. I wish to humbly recognize the intellectual contribution received from Professor Abdullahi Rufai (DVC Administration), Prof S. Abiodun Ige (DVC Academic) Mr Siyaka Audu (Registrar), Alhaji Hudu Abdulsalam (Bursar), Chairman and members of the PAAU Inaugural Lecture Committee.

I wish to appreciate the good working relationship that I enjoyed from the principal officers – Prof Daniel Friday Atidoga (former DVC Academic), Dr. Barr. Segun Yahaya Alilu (former Registrar), Dr. Mrs Amina Anuhi (former Bursar), Dr. Yemi Peters (The University Librarian), who worked with me when I was DVC Administration. I wish to also express my gratitude to Professor Johnson Juwon Orungun (former DVC Administration), Professor Paul Oja Egwemi (former DVC Academics) and all Deans and Directors, all Heads of Departments who went for accreditation between 2019 – 2025 and the registry staff who worked with me, especially Dr. Mrs. Hanna Agbaji, Mr. Niswif Friday Wumani and Mr. Victor Acheneje Sanni.

I appreciate my very hard working and loyal staff members of Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension and the ever willing to serve staff members of Faculty of Agriculture Prince Abubakar Audu University Anyigba. I dearly appreciate the contribution of my noble, humble and able Vice Chancellor of Federal University Lokoja in Person of Professor Gbenga Solomon Ibileye and members of staff of Faculty of Agriculture Federal University Lokoja where I currently serve as a sabbatical staff.

I wish to acknowledge the strong support that I have always benefitted from members of Ayetoro-Gbede Global Network (AGN) especially the pioneer chairman, Mr. Oladele Oyelola and my Committee members of Contact and Mobilization in particular, Professor Joash Ojo Amupitan, Professor Philip Ibinaye, Ambassador Eniola Bello, Barr. Segun Bello, Honourable Richard Akanmode, the Olu of Ayetoro – Gbede His Royal Majesty Oba Adewumi Sunday Ologe 1. the Oba in Council, the Imam of Ayetoro Gbede Muslim Community Alhaji Tajudeen Ajibola Ilyas and Aiyetoro Gbede Community in general.

I recognize my bosom friends, Professor Samson Oluwatoyin Aribido, Professor S. D. Musa, Professor M. S. Audu (who is the current Chairman of Governing Council of this University), Professor M. N. Suleiman, Professor Luqman Akinbile, Professor Abideen Abiodun Alarape and Professor Usman Olatunde (the current Chief Imam of University of Ibadan), Professor Bolorunduro Paul, Hon. Wemi Jones, Hon. Mukadam Asiru Asiwaju Idris, Hon. Richard Shua, Honourable Sunday Faleke, Professor M.B.S.Jibril and Professor Abubakar Salisu (Chief Imam of Prince Abubakar Audu University).

I acknowledge the inspirations received from the Seven Undergraduate Scholars who dressed like Professors, in a Carnival Train organized to mark the Independence Hall Anniversary of 1985/86 and today all the Seven Scholars are now professors including myself.

I wish to deeply appreciate the solid support from the Saliu family. It will be difficult to mention all names here but I wish to recognise Prof. Gabriel Shola Solomon of the Federal University of Agriculture now Joseph Sarwuan Tarka University Makurdi, Dr. Abdul Hakeem Tomi Saliu, Dr Moshood Omolade Saliu, Engineer Tunde Saliu, Prof Abdulrauf Adekunle Saliu, Engineer Mukaila Saliu among others.

Finally, I cannot successfully end this lecture without recourse to my crown jewel that her value cannot be estimated in person of Dr. Barr. Saudat Toyin Saliu, she has always been there for me, many thanks for your encouragement. I wish to also appreciate the gifts that Allah surrounded me with, Hadiyat Modupe Saliu of Microbiology Department, Alkauthar Irewole Saliu of Mass Communication Department and the young man of the house Mr. Abdulrahman Iremide Saliu of Physiology Department, University of Ibadan. I also recognise the support from my younger ones, Usman Saliu (Print Republic), Adebola Saliu, Abdulsalam Ayolo Yusuf and Rafiu Saliu. I say thank you all.

To Allah I return all admirations as mentioned in Surah Ar-Rahman Chapter 55vs 13

تُكَذِّبَانِ رَبِّكُمَا آلَاءِ فَبِأَيِّ

Which is it of the favour of my Lord will I deny?

.Being text of inaugural lecture by Prof. Saliu Olushola Jmiu at Prince Abubakar Audu University, Anyigba, Kogi State

References

Adedoyin, S.F. (1995). Non Governmental Organizations in Agricultural Development. The Experience of the Diocesan Agricultural Development Programme of the Catholic Diocese of Ijebu-Ode, Nigeria. Paper presented at the Second Annual National Conference of the Agricultural Extension Society of Nigeria (AESON) held at NAERLS/ABU Zaria, Nigeria, 26-28 September. P85

Adejo P.E., Okwu, J.O and S aliu O.J. (2016). Assessment of Postharvest Information Needs of Maize Farmers in Kogi State, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural and Food Information. 17(2&3): 1-14.

Ajanya S., Ohinne, C.P.O and Saliu O.J. (2014). An Analysis of the Adoption of Glyphosate Herbicide for the Control of Speargrass (Imperata cylindrica) by Yam Farmers in the Guinea Savannah Agricultural Zone of Nigeria. American Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 4(12): 1718–1730.

Arokoyo, T. (2003). ICTs for Agricultural Extension Transformation. ICT – Transforming Agricultural Extension? CTA’s observatory on ICTs 6^th consultative expert meeting, Wageningen p6.

Avav, T. and Okereke, O.U. (1997). Pre-village control of speargrass (Imperata cylindrical) with glyphosate for soyabean (Glycine mas) production. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 67(8): 295 – 297p.

Ekon, E.E. (2003). An introduction to rural sociology. Dove Educational Publisher. 2^nd Edition pp. 100-114.

Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (2002). Fertilizer use and management practices for crops in Nigeria. V.A. Aduayi, V.O. Chude, R.A. Adebusiyi and S.O. Olayiwola (eds). P.188.

Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD, 2022) National Agricultural Technology and Innovation Policy, 2022-2027 pp31-40.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, 2018). The state of food and agriculture in 2018. ISBN: 978-92-5-130568-3. Retrieved Nov. 2019.

Idachaba, F.S. (2006). Good intentions Are Not Enough, collected Essays of Government and Nigerian Agriculture. The 19 Agricultural Policy Process. Ibadan University Press Plc. 112 p.

Ikojo, H.A. (2008). Deforestation and its consequences for the Nigerian Environment. In Ezike, K.N.N; Osakwe, I.I, Ekwu, I.G, Utobo, E and C.N. Mbah (eds). Agricultural Development in Nigeria: Issues and Challenges. Proceedings of the 42^nd Annual Conference of the Agricultural Society of Nigeria (ASN) held at Faculty of Law Auditorium, CAS Campus, Ebonyi State University, Abakaliki, Nigeria. October 19 – 23. 387 – 389p.

Matata, J.B.W, Anandajayasekarani, A., Kirito, T.N; Wandera, E.O. and Dixan J. (2001). Farming Systems Approach to Technology Development and Transfer. FARMESA. Harare, Zimbabwe. 420p.

Moise, C.M. (1994). Funding Agricultural Extension in Africa, Agricultural Extension in Africa Vol. I. Proceeding of an International Workshop in Yaounde, Cameroun, published by Wageningen, The Netherland Technical Centre for Agriculture and Rural Development p5.

Mundy, P. and Sultan, J. (2001). Farmers Groups and markets; Uganda National Farmers Association, Giving farmers a voice. Information Revolution, how information and communication management is changing the lives of rural people. Technical Centre for Agriculture and Rural Cooperation. Cotonou CTA Publication. Pp. 150-155.

Neuchanttel Group (1999). Common Framework on Agricultural Extension. Neuchattel Group. Paris. www.odi-org.uk/rpeg/efen.pdf/ downloaded June 2007 p2.

Odekina, F.O., Saliu, O.J and Adah, O.C., Adejo, P.E and Adejo, S.O. (2024). A Comparative analysis of the economics of cassava production and processing by IFAD VCDP Participants and non-Participants in Benue and Kogi States, Nigeria. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews. 21(02): 692-704.

Olorunfemi, S.D, Saliu, O.J and Adejo, P.E. (2023). Determinants of Technology Adoption in Livestock Production: Empirical Evidence from Sheep and Goat Farming in Kogi State, Nigeria. Journal of Veterinary Sciences. 15(4): Pp01-006.

Pretty, J.N. (1994). Participator Types, Adapted from Adnan, S. Barette, A. Nurul-Alam, S.M. and Brustinow, A. (1992). Peoples’ Participation NGO’s and the flood Action Plan. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Research and Advisory Services. Pp61 – 68.

Sadiku, M.N.O, Ameobi, J.B; and Kotteti, M.M.C. (2024). Agricultural Around the World. Lambert Academic Publishing. Pp. 8 & 9.

Saliu, J.O., Ibrahim, M.K and Eniojukan E.O. (2016c). Socio-Economic Determinants of Improved Rice Technologies’ Adoption Among Small Scale Farmers in Kogi State, Nigeria. Facta Universitatis Series: Economics and Organisation 13(2): PP217-232.

Saliu, O.J and Obasi, M. O. (2011). Inorganic Fertilizer use for Sustainable Maize Production by Small Scale Farmers in Nigeria. Applied Tropical Agriculture 16(1&2) Pp75-84.

Saliu, O.J, Adejo, P.E and Usman, L.A. (2016b). Analysis of Adoption of Downy Mildew Resistant Maize Technology in Guinea Savannah Agricultural Zone of Nigeria. NSUK Journal of Science and Technology 6(1): Pp94-100. TETFUND Sponsored.

Saliu, O.J, Alao, J.S and Oluwagbemi, T. (2010). An Evaluation of Farmers’ Participation in Afforestation Programme in Kogi State, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Science and Education (2)(3) Pp248-252. Canadian Centre of Science and Education (CCSE).

Saliu, O.J, Audu, S.I. and Okolo, E.A. (2013). Analysis of the Adoption of Recommended Feeds for Broiler Production in Kogi State, Nigeria. International Journal of Agricultural and Rural Development (IJARD). 16(2). Pp 1509-1502.

Saliu, O.J, Onuche, U. and Abubakar, I.I. (2016d). Perception of Kogi State University Agricultural Students on Farming as a Career. International Journal of Sustainable Agricultural Research 3(4): 72-81.

Saliu, O.J. and Age, A.I. (2008). Modern Leadership Theories and Sustainable Farmers Organizations in a Liberalized Economy. Nigerian Journal of Rural Sociology. 8 (2) Pp 33-40.

Saliu, O.J. and Age, A.I. (2009). Privatisation of Agricultural Extension Services in Nigeria, Proposed Guidelines for Implementation. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa 11(2) Pp 160-176. Clarian University Penosy/Vania.

Saliu, O.J. and Ejembi E.P. (2017). Coordination and Cooperation between Agricultural Research Institute Farmers’ Organizations in Africa: Proposed Guidelines for implementation. A paper invited for a workshop with the theme: Institutional Support to Farmers’ Organizations through the Pan African Farmers Organizations (PAFO) and its Regional members, sponsored by African Union (AU-SAFGRAD), November 8-9, 2017, Ouagadougou, Burkinafaso.

Saliu, O.J., Audu, S.I. and Sanda, M.E, Aribido, S.O and Olaolu, M. (2008). Adoption of Vaccination and Ethnoveterinary Treatment for Pes Peti Ruminant (PPR) among Sheep and Goat farmers in Ijumu Local Government of Kogi State, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Journal 3(5): 421-428.

Saliu, O.J., Oluwagbemi. T and Ifatimahin, O.O. (2016a). Challenges of Agroforestry Systems’ Adoption by Farmers in the North Central Zone of Nigeria. International Journal of Agricultural Science Research and Technology in Extension and Education Systems (IJASRT in EES). Pp 5(3): 181-189.

Saliu, O.J., Ukwuteno, S.O. and Ekpa, D.O. (2006). Constraints in the Adoption of Improved Oil Palm technology Among Small Scale Farmers in Dekina Local Government Area of Kogi State. Journal of Scientific and Industrial Studies. 4(3): Pp29-32.

Saliu, O.J; Sanda, M.E and Audu, S.I. (2009). Adoption of Vaccination Against Newcastle Disease by Rural Poultry Women Farmers in the North Central Zone of Nigeria. International Journal of Poultry Science. 8(5): 500-503.

Thakhuv, R.P. and Mathur, K. (2002). Review Downey Mildew of India. Crop Protection. 21: Pp333 – 345.

United National World Food Programme (UNWFP) (2025). 2026 Global Outlook: Hunger and Hope; Innovative Solutions to address food insecurity. Rome retrieved November 20-2025. Doi:https//doi.org/10.71958/WFP131186.

Wike: I’ll Be Atiku, Obi’s Main Target If Tinubu Loses 2027 Polls 8 hours ago

Aliko Dangote: FG’s Reforms Driving Nigeria’s Economic Recovery, Restoring Investors’ Confidence 8 hours ago

Fidelity Bank Opens SME Hub, Offers Free Training to 1,000 Entrepreneurs in Kano 8 hours ago

Infantino Pledges FIFA Support for Nigeria’s Football Devt 1 day ago

Latest Headlines

Breaking the Jinx of Agricultural Technology Adoption: The Three-legged Approach

Kwankwasiyya Movement Backs Dumo Lulu-Briggs Ahead of 2027 Rivers Guber Poll

Okpebholo Indicts State Assembly over Constituency Projects

Aiyedatiwa Begins Payment of N3.82bn Gratuities to Retirees in Ondo

Breaking the Jinx of Agricultural Technology Adoption: The Three-legged Approach

Table 20: Adoption of Improved Sheep and Goat Production Technologies

Related Articles

Helpful Links

Contact Us