101 AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION ACTIVITIES

Rehmat Ullah et al

Int. J. Agric. Appl. Sci. Vol. 8, No.1, 2016

AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION ACTIVITIES; EMPERICAL EVIDENCE FROM DISTRICT LAKKI MARWAT, KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, PAKISTAN 1* 2 1 3 4 5 Rehmat Ullah , Kalim Ullah , Muhammad Zafar ullah Khan ,Iftikhar Ali , Fazal Yazdan Saleem and Yosuf Imran 1 Department of Agricultural Extension Education and Communication, The University of Agriculture, Peshawar, KPK, Pakistan 2 PCCC, Cotton Research Station, DeraIsmail Khan, Pakistan 3 Department of Soil and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan 4 Oil Seed Research Program, National Agriculture Research Centre Islamabad, Pakistan 5 P a k A ra b F ert i l i z er s, Pa ki st a n *Corresponding author’s email: [email protected] ABSTRACT Agricultural extension activities play a vital role in farmer’s motivation and utilization of improved agricultural technology. Therefore the present study was conducted to investigate the agricultural extension activities in district Lakki Marwat, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan during year 2014.In this connection the extension activities were evaluatedin various villages viz., (Sarai Naurang, DaloKhel, Lakki, Aba Khel, Tajori, Kot Kashmir, Shahbaz Khel, Tatter Khel, Dara Pezu, Mandra Khel, Sarai Gambella, TajaZai and Ghazni Khel) of the district Lakki Marwat through personal interview method from a sample of 120 respondents selected from these villages. Most of the respondents were literate (52.5%) andhas awareness of the recommended practices (65%) and knowledge about extension field workers (88.3%). 60% of the respondents have farming experience of 11-20 years and 75.8% cultivated their own land and have no tenancy. Similarly 97.5% of the ownership pattern was of individual type, still only 19.2% of the respondents have their income more than Rs. 40000/- per annum whereas the annual return of the remaining respondents was very low. About 78 (65%) respondents were aware of modern practices among which 49 (40.8%) were educated by extension workers. Although availability of the extension staff was satisfactory (60.8%) yet their visits to farmer’s fields was only 55%. 55.8 and 58.3% respondents were satisfied from result and method demonstration respectively. Unsatisfactory response was observed regarding farmer field day i.e. 79.2%.Similarly65% of farmers were satisfied by supply of inputs.The instant results suggests that most of the respondents were satisfied with proper working of extension workers and further improvement through better extension services, training and guidance are the need of farming community. Key words: Extension field staff, extension services, personal interview, Lakki Marwat. INTRODUCTION Agricultural Extension is an organization of introducing applicable Agricultural techniques and ideas to farmers for integratingthem into their farming practices(Abbas et al., 2008). The Extension organization therefore not prompt farmers to improve their lands and prepare a cropping pattern, but also inspirethem to use improved Agricultural implements and adopt the modern agricultural technology according to their social economic status (Safdar, 2005).The farmers must be aware of the modern and improved production technologies first in order of its proper utilization. The basic functional objective of effective extension worker is to educate the farmers in improving their land; prepare a disseminated back to farming community(Boone et al., 2006).Agricultural productivity can swiftlybe increased via appropriate application of modern techniques in agriculture(Farooq et al., 2007). It is therefore, essential that the farming community must be made familiar with the scientific knowledge

101

cropping plan and motivate them to utilize improved agricultural implements evolved through latest scientific research (Bajwa, 2004;Ashraf et al., 2009). Prominenceof agriculture extension sector cannot be denied in development of rural sector. It serves as a devicefor educating farming community about improved technologies and modern crop production practices along with judicious use of natural resources (Bleine, 2005). Agricultural extension works as two-way information exchange junction between farmers and research stations (Godwin and Aflakpui. 2007). It means that agricultural extension reports the field problems of farming community to research stations and outcome of research is and improved practices and techniques relating to agriculture. Government is trying to achieve this objective by disseminating the new techniques in the field of agriculture through agricultural extension services (Ziaullah, 2005; Ali et al., 2008). Field Assistant (FA)is the pivot of agriculture extension

Rehmat Ullah et al


activities. The total number of FAs reported by Agriculture Extension Department Lakki Marwat was 16.They are accomplishing his duties at union council level and is qualified diploma holder from Agriculture Training Institute (ATI). Theyare responsiblefor advising farmers regarding crop protection, improved seeds and to layout demonstration plotetc. The Field Assistantsare in return supervised by Agriculture Extension Officer (AEO) at Tehsil Level. Agricultural Extension Officer often provides consultation with farmers and agricultural businesses. In these consultations, they give talks, guidance and actual demonstration on the latest technologies related to agriculture and on how they can take advantage of such technologies. They also attend seminars and also work with other experts in agriculture to learn more or even develop new methods that could advance production. Administratively, the district is controlled by the District Director Agriculture (DDA). He is the incharge of the department at district level, and is responsible for the supervision of the activities of the Agricultural Extension Officers and Field Assistants working in the whole district. He supervises all the development projects, demonstration farms and nursery farms in his area (Memonet al., 2013). In District Lakki Marwat since long majority of crop production is stagnate, on the other hand the population is increasing with an alarming rate, which accounts for low per acre yield.The main causes of low production are unawareness of farming communities about seasonal need, practices and use of appropriate technology.As Agriculture Extension staff is mandated for awareness and transfer of technology, the Agriculture Extension Department of Lakki Marwat is immensely involved to make aware the farmers through various awareness methods i.e. Print Media, Demonstrations, individual contacts, group contact etc.and if this task is tackled timely and efficiently then the production can be increased and cost benefit ratio would be justified. The present study is thus aimed to evaluate the role of extension services in agricultural productivity and farmer’s perception about agricultural extension services. MATERIALS AND METHODS Universe of the study: To investigate the activities of Agriculture extension department the present study was conducted in District Lakki Marwat, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan during the year 2014. The district lies between 32˚-17′ and 32˚-53′ north

latitudes and 70˚- 23′ and 71˚- 16′ east longitude. Soil of Lakki Marwat is calcareous and coarse textured. Climate of the area is arid to semi-arid and sub-tropical continental. The maximum and minimum temperature in summer season ranges from 27-42 degree Celsius while in winter the temperature ranges from 4-20 degree Celsius (Haq, 2009). Selection of Villages: A list of villages was prepared with the help of Agriculture Extension Department and local farmers. A sample of 13 villages Viz. (Sarai Naurang, DaloKhel, Lakki, Aba Khel, Tajori, Kot Kashmir, Shahbaz Khel, Tatter Khel, Dara Pezu, Mandra Khel, Sarai Gambella, TajaZai and Ghazni Khel) was selected which was most focused localities of Agriculture Extension Services. Selection of Respondents: From the selected villages a list of farmers was prepared who were directly indulge in agricultural activities. Simple random sampling was employed for selection of respondents and sample of 120 respondents was obtained from the selected villages. Data Collection Data was collected by researchers through well-structured interview schedule(Acharya et al., 2005; and Tucker et al., 2005)from the sample respondents by survey method (Wickramasigh, 1997; Mirani et al., 2003; Siddiqui et al., 2005; Hassan et al., 2005 and Saghir et al., 2013) through personal interview technique.To check the validity and reliability, the interview schedule was pre-tested on 20 farmers other than sample and necessary modifications were made.

102

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Data Analysis: The collected data was analyzed by using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS v.20). Results were presented in terms of frequencies, percentages and central tendencies were calculated. Demographic Characteristics: Age is chief factor to influence one’s behaviour; itenhance the vision of an individual, make one’s mind mature through experience and enables to take rational decisions.The educated the person the more rapid will be his adoptability and responsiveness to any activity. Therefore age can be important factors affecting the adoption behaviour of respondents (Siddiqui et al., 2001;Khan and Akram, 2012; Iqbal and Nawab, 2013). Age was classified into four groups i.e. below 30 years, 31-40 years 41-50 years and above 50 years. Keeping in view the above fact,

Rehmat Ullah et al

the data were collected from different age groups and presented in table 4.1. The Table reveals that 5.8% of the respondents have age below 30 years, 18.3% were from age category of 31-40 years followed by 40-50 years (55%) and above 50 years (20.8% respondents). Thus it was observed that majority of the respondents were from 30-50 years of age representing energetic and healthy minded people to carry out farming activities. Our results are in close proximity with that of Khan and Akram (2012) and Oladosu and Okunade (2006) who reported that majority of respondent belong to age group of 36-55 years. Education can be defined as the process of developing knowledge, wisdom, and other desirable qualities of mind, character and general competency, especially by a source of formal instruction.Education is the only source of economic development and advancement of well develop country (Muro and Barchi, 2007).Education is the only instrument which could be held responsible for quick diffusion and adoption of any technology and educated person is expected to be more analytical and logical towards any external stimuli. From the present study it was observed that the majority of the respondents were literate i.e. 52.5% among which primary and matriculate were 28.3% and 19.2% respectively while middle and graduate were 4.2% and 0.8% respectively and the rest were illiterate i.e. 47.5%. Farmers concern for effectiveness and efficient use of their land is influenced by a variety of factors including personal views, family views, technology, profitability, complexity, public opinion, research, change agents, marketing and sum of all these as experience (Kotile and Martin, 1998; Gangasagare and Karanjkar, 2009). Experience is important factor to gain benefit from anything by its proper utilization. For this purpose data regarding farming experience of the sample farming community was collected which shows that majority of the farmers were have a farming experience between 11-20 years which was 60% of the total, followed by category of above 20 years farming experience i.e. 20.8% while that of below 10 years of farming experience was 19.2%. It shows that in study area greater portion of sample has an immense farming experience. The results are in conformity with that of Ajayi and Gun (2009) who reported that majority i.e. 84% of the respondents had upto 30 year farming experience. Farm size also influences farmers’ income level. Size of land holding refers to the piece of land cultivated by a farmer of


103

his family. Having more farm size encourage the farmers to follow technological development in those fields in order to increase productivity and efficiency by adopting the better ways of farming (Belay et al., 2012). Therefore, more land they have, the more extension services they demand. Table 4.1depicts that 40.8% of the respondents have a size of landing between 21-30 kanals followed by category of below 20 kanals and above 31 kanals i.e. 30% and 26% respectively.Tenancy also plays an important role in agricultural development of our country like many other less developed countries of the world. Modern farming requires capital, which tenant class usually lack and as a result owner cultivator usually take lead. Table 4.1shows that majority of the sample respondents were owner cultivator i.e. 75.8% where as 24.2% were owner cum tenant while there was no tenant in the study area. To cope with the present inflation flood high income level is necessary. Farmers should be aware with new agriculture technology so that they get more yields from less money and small land. In Lakki Marwat area the agriculture practices is done not on commercial basis but only for survival. After conducted the survey it was observed that most of the farmers have Rs 21,000 to 40,000 annual income from agriculture sector i.e. 44.2% of the total respondents while 36.7% of the respondents were have annual income of below Rs 20,000 where as 19.2% of the respondents have annual income of above Rs 40,000 from the agriculture produce. For the complete information about farmers land holding, it is important to know whether respondent have individual or joint land holding. Table 4.1 depicts that 97.5% of the respondents have their own land while only 2.5% of the respondents have joint land. Extension Services: Agriculture extension services are important policy tools in rural development. The extension activities have aimed to teach farmers informally; these are the ways to improve agricultural practices so that they can adopt new productivity and profit increasing technologies in their farming activities (Mulayim, 1995). Extension people are those who use available tools effectively to help farmers adopt and apply the new technologies as fast as possible (Ceylan, 1988). The data presented in Table 4.2 shows that 88.3% of the respondents knew extension worker of their area while 11.7% reported that they don’t know the extension worker of the area. The results are also in

Rehmat Ullah et al

conformity with those of Iqbal (2002) who stated that majority of the respondents were acquainted with extension field staff. It is believed that farmers are good judges of their problems and they know what is needed to improve their agriculture productivity. The first step toward adoption of new ideas by farmers is to provide information on sustainable practices. Continued reliance on traditional practices can results in damage to the credibility of change agents and detract from the ability of conventional farmers to adapt to sustainable farming practices. Working conditions of farmers are much more difficult than those working in other sectors. Production activities in agriculture depend on environmental factors such as frost, drought, precipitation, diseases, harmful insects and other factors such as changes in prices, family’s living standards and technology (Akram, et al. 2003). Table 4.2 shows that 65% of the respondents were aware of the recommended practices while 35% of the respondents were not aware of the recommended practices.These 65% of the respondents were further investigated about the source of awareness about the recommended practices and their responses were as; 40.8% of the respondents reported that they know about recommended practices (recommended seeds varities, seed rate and crop management throughout the crop life span) from extension worker, 20% of respondent learn about new practices from progressive farmers while 4.2% of the respondents learn from Neighbours/Friends/Relatives about recommended practices. The 40.8% of the respondents who have extension worker as a source of communicating recommended practices were further investigated about benefit from these recommended practices among which 27.5% reported that the recommendation were beneficial while 13.3% were not in favour of extension worker. It shows that the recommendations communicated were beneficial as majority were in favour. These respondents were also investigated about constraints in adopting recommended practices among which 12.5% reported small landholding as a major constraint while 20.8% of the respondents reported lack of irrigation as the major constraint in adopting recommended practices while 7.5% reported poor financial position as the major hurdle with standard error of 0.147 and standard deviation of 1.029. These factors are the sources of risk, uncertainty and instability in agricultural sector. One of the best ways


to alleviate these negative effects and increase in productivity is to increase the knowledge of farmers about technical and economic aspects of farming practices. Although productivity does very much depend on the irrigation water, landholding and financial position but managing these factors and adopting recommended practices results in better results. Farm home visit is one of the effective extension teaching methods commonly used in Pakistan. It plays a significant role in the dissemination of agricultural information among the farming community. From the survey it was observed that 45% of the respondents were satisfied from the farm home visits while 55% of the respondents were not satisfied from the farm home visits by extension staff with standard error of 0.46 and standard deviation of 0.5. Similar results was also observed by Khan and Akram, 2012 who also reported that great extent of farmers was not satisfied from farm/home visits. It was also observed that majority of the respondents were satisfied from result demonstration i.e. 55.8% where as 44.2% of the respondents were not satisfied from the result demonstration with standard error of 0.46 and standard deviation of 0.499. Similar was the case in the method demonstration 58.3% of the respondents were satisfied from the method demonstration while 41.7% of the respondents were not satisfied from method demonstration with standard error 0.045 of and standard deviation of 0.495. Unsatisfactory response was observed regarding farmer day i.e. 79.2% of the respondents were not satisfied from farmers day where as 20.8% of the respondents were satisfied from farmers day with standard error of 0.037 and standard deviation of 0.408. The most frequent methods observed in survey for transfer of technology was individual and group contact methods while quite often printed media is also used.Similar results was observed by Toheed et al., 2006. Fair response was observed regarding supply of input by agriculture extension department i.e. 65% of farmers were satisfied by supply of inputs while 35% of respondents were not satisfied with standard error of 0.044 and standard deviation of 0.479.

104

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS From the present study it is concluded that 50% of the respondents were satisfied with the extension activities in the area i.e. Extension office location, extension staff availability, farm home visit, result

Rehmat Ullah et al


demonstration and method demonstration whereasmaximum farmers were not satisfied with the organization of farmer’s field day. The dissatisfaction from the later attributes might be due to insufficient availability of facilities to Extension Workers (EWs) for their effective performance. By provision of transport facilities EW will be able to reach easily to the areas under their jurisdiction along with provision of latest communication, AudioVisual Aids for proper and timely communication of latest or required information. Moreover EWs should have to make regular contact with farmers to take them into confidence the farmers resulting in adoption of improved technologies. Similarly for

effective extension activities a strict policy must be implemented to monitor the performance of extension agents, and credit and financial support should be provided to the farmers and their procedures should be simplified, because in the study area most of the farmers are poor and not able to support high cost improved technologies.There must bemaximization of soil efficiency, minimization of farm inputs, improvement of quality of farm products and minimization of post-harvest losses through introduction of environment friendly and adoptable research based technological packages.

REFERENCES Abbas, M., T. T. Lodhi, A. Bashir, and M.A. Mehmood. 2008. Dissemination of wheat production technologies and interface of outreach efforts with farmers. J. Agric. Res. 46(1):99-108. Acharya, S., E. Yoshino, M. Jimba and S. Wakai. 2005. Empowering rural women through a community development approach in Nepal. Community Development Journal Advance Access publication,1-13. Ajayi, O. J. and E. E. Gunn. 2009. The role of Communication in dissemination of improved agricultural technology in Bosso local government area of Niger, Nigeria. J. Agri. Ext. 13 (1): 66-72. Akram, M., U. Pervaize and H. Ashraf. 2003. Main Factors Affecting Extension Activities: A Case Study Of Malakand Agency. Sarhad journal of agriculture, 19(1):163-168. Ali, H., I. Maimunah., S. Turiman., and S.A. Daud. 2008. Extension Workers as a leader to Farmers: Influence of Extension Leadership competencies and organizational commitment on Extension Workers’ Performance in Yemen 369. The Journal of international Social Research Volume 1/4. Ashraf, E. , S. Iqbal , S. Haider, S. U. Ansari, I. R. Noorka, A. B. M. Raza, Y. Iftikhar, Z. Hayat, F. A. Atif, S. Rauf, and H. B. Ahmed. 2009. Needs Assessment for Small and Medium Scale Farmers in Closing Vicinity of the University College of Agriculture, Sargodha, Punjab, Pakistan. Int. J. Agri. & Appl. Sci. 1(2):110-114.

Bajwa, R. 2004. Agriculture Extension and Role of Private Sector. National Rural SupportProgramme, Pakistan. Pp. 3-5 Belay, D., K. Yisehak and G.P.J. Janssens. 2012. SocioEconomic Factors Influencing Urban SmallScale Dairy Management Practices in Jimma Town, Ethopia. Libyan Agric. Res. Cen. J. Intl. 3(1): 7-12. Bleine T. W. 2005. Applied extension research in an era of devolution.J. Ext. 43 (2):152-160. Boone, D. A., H. N. Boone, C. Reed, J. M. Woloshuk and S. A. Gartin. 2006. Attitudes of agricultural professionals towards involvement of special needs youth in 4-H programme. Journal of Extension. 44 (6): 50-55. Ceylan, I.C. 1988. A Study on Watching Agricultural ProgramsInTv And Its Effects In Cubuk District, Ankara University Institute Of Applied Sciences, Master Thesis, Ankara. 26 27. Farooq, S., S. Muhammad, K. M. Chaudary and I. Ashraf. 2007. Role of Print Media in the Dissemination of Agricultural Informationamong Farmers. Pak. J. Agri. Sci., Vol. 44(2):378-380. Gangasagare, P.T. and L.M. Karanjkar. 2009. Status of Milk Production and Economic Profile of Dairy Farmers in the Marathwada Region of Maharashtra. Veterinary World. 2(8): 317320. Godwin, K. S., and M. Aflakpui. 2007. Present Outlook and Transformation in the Delivery of Agricultural Extension Services: Implications for Research- Extension-Farmer linkages. Outlook on Agriculture, 36(1): 24-27. 105

Rehmat Ullah et al


Haq, I. 2009. An Analysis of Paradigm Shift from Public Extension to Public Private Partnership Extension System in NWFP, Pakistan. Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Agriculture Faisalabad. Pp. xcviii Hassan, M. Z. Y., H. A. Majeed and I. U. Rehman. 2005. Correlation of Demographic Characteristics of the respondents with usefulness and effectiveness of technical trainings as organized by PRSP in district Muzaffargarh. The Indus Cottons, 2 (3): 219-231. Iqbal, M. 2002. Impact of Radio Programme ‘Ravi Tay Chana’ Broadcasted By Radio Station Faisalabad on Adoption of Agriculture Innovations. Msc (hon) thesis. Department rural sociology university of agriculture faislabad. 28-29. Iqbal, M. and K. Nawab. 2013. Farmers Field Schools and Bitter Gourd Productivity: An Empirical Analysis of District Charsadda, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa-Pakistan. Sarhad J. Agric. 29(4): 599-605. Khan, A. and M. Akram. 2012. Farmers perception of extension methods used by extension personnel for dissemination of new agricultural technologies in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Sarhad J. Agri., Vol. 28(3): 511-520. Memon, R. A., E. Bashir, H. U. R. Mian and A. R. Nasimullah. 2013. Extension Methods. National Book Foundation, Pakistan. Pp. 54-56. Mirani, Z., G. Leske; Z. H. Bhatti and S. A. Khan. 2003. Impact assessment of the on farm water management projects in Hyderabad district of Sindh Province, Pakistan. AIAEE. Proceedings of the 19th annual conference, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. 461-468. Mulayim, Z.G.1995. The cooperative system. Yetkin publications, Ankara, 86-87. Muro, P. D. and F. Burchi. 2007. Education for rural people and food security. A cross country analysis. Roma Tre/Department of Economics Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Oladosu, O. I. and E. O. Okunade. 2006. Perception of village extension agents in disseminating agricultural information in Oyo Agricultural Table 4.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics of Respondents Variable

Age of Respondents

Categories

Below 30 31-40 year 40-50 years

zone of Oyo-sate. J. Social Sci. 12(30: 187 191. Safdar, Z. 2005. Role of Extension Agent in the Diffusion of Onion and Tomato Crop. A case study of four selected villages of UC SakhkotMalakand Agency. M.Sc (Rons) thesis, Department of Agricultural Extension Education and Communication. NWFP Agricultural University Peshawar. Pp. 1-3 Saghir, A., K. M. Chaudhary, S. Muhammad and A.A. Maan. 2013. Role of ICTS inBridging the Gender Gap of Information Regarding Livestock Production Technologies. The Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 23(3). Pp. 929-933. Siddiqui, B. N., M. T. Shiekh, and S. Ali. 2001. Determination of extent of adoption of plant protection measure by apple growers in Quetta district. Pak. J. Bio. Sci., 4(6): 599 600. Siddiqui, B. N., N. H. Malik, M. Z. Y. Hassan and A. S. Khan. 2005. Level of awareness about World Trade Organization and its objectives in Balochistan–Pakistan. J. Agri. Soc. Sci., 1(2): 117–119 Toheed, E. L., M. Luqman and G. A. Khan. 2006. Percieved effectiveness of public sector extension under decentralized agricultural extension system in the Punjab, Pakistan. J. Agric. and Social Sci. 2 (3):195-200. Tucker, J.S., S. L. Wenzel, J. B.Straus, G. W. Ryan and D. Golinelli. 2005. Experience interpersonal violence perspectives of sexually active, substance-using women living in shelters and low income housing. Violence against women, 11(10):1319-1340. Wickramasingh, A. 1997. Anthropogenic factors and forest management in Sri Lanka. Applied Geography, 17 (2): 87-110. Ziaullah. 2005. Role of Extension Services in Enhancing Dates (phoenix dactylifera) Productivity in Two Union Councils of Bannu. Unpublished M.Sc. (Hons) thesis submitted to Department of Agriculture Extension Education and Communication, NWFP Agricultural University PeshawarPakistan. Pp. 2-7.

Frequency 7 22 66

106

Percentages 5.8 18.3 55

Standard Error

Standard deviation

.072

.789

Rehmat Ullah et al

Literacy status

Farming Experience Landholding Tenancy status Income per year Land ownership Pattern


above 50 Illiterate Primary Middle Matric Graduate below 10 11-20 year above 20 years Below 20 kanals 21-30 kanals Above 31 kanals owner cultivator Owner cum tenant Below 20,000 21,000-40,000 above 40,000 Individual Jointly

25 57 34 5 23 1 23 72 25 45 49 26 91 29 44 53 23 117 3

20.8 47.5 28.3 4.2 19.2 .8 19.2 60 20.8 37.5 40.8 21.7 75.8 24.2 36.7 44.2 19.2 97.5 2.5

.109

1.195

.058

.635

.069

.756

.039

.430

.067

.729

.014

.157

Table 4.2. Distribution of Respondents on the Basis of Extension Services Received Variable

Knowledge about extension Field workers Awareness about recommended Practices If yes then from which source Benefit from extension recommendations

Constraints in adopting recommended practices

Extension Staff availability in offices Farm/Home visits

Result demonstrations Method demonstrations Farmers Field day Supply of Inputs

Categories

Yes No Yes No From extension worker Progressive farmers Neighbors/friends/relatives Yes No Small landholding Lack of irrigation Poor financial position Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Frequency 106 14 78 42 49 24 5 33 16 15 25 9 73 47 54 66 67 53 70 50 25 95 78 42

Received for Publication on July 8, 2015

107

Percentage 88.3 11.7 65 35 40.8 20.0 4.2 27.5 13.3 12.5 20.8 7.5 60.8 39.2 45 55 55.8 44.2 58.3 41.7 20.8 79.2 65 35

Standard Error

.029

Standard Deviation

.322

.044

.479

.055

.608

.068

.474

.147

1.029

.045

.49

.046

.5

.046

.499

.045

.495

.037

.408

.044

.479