ABSTRACT
The study assessed farmers’ indigenous knowledge
creation, sharing and utilization for selected livelihood activities in
South-South, Nigeria. Specifically, the study sought to describe the
socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents, identify the types of
knowledge farmers create and share for their own use, ascertain the ways by
which farmers create, share and utilize knowledge, ascertain farmers’
perception towards knowledge creation, sharing, and utilization, assess the
level of farmers’ attitude to create, share and utilize knowledge, determine
the perceived factors that influence knowledge creation, sharing, and
utilization, evaluate the benefits derived by farmers in knowledge creation,
sharing and utilization, ascertain the environmental factors affecting
knowledge creation and examine constraints faced by farmers in creating,
sharing and utilizing knowledge. Multi-stage and random sampling techniques
were used to select 360 respondents. Data were collected using structured
questionnaire and were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics
such as frequency counts, percentages, mean, ANOVA and multiple regression. The
finding showed that farmers had a mean age of 41.2 years, 55.8% of the farmers
were females while 44.2% were males. The results also showed that storage
structures for crops and seeds varieties (71.1%) and food preservation and crop
protection (70.9%) were the major types of knowledge farmers created. Sharing
experience with other farmers (
=3.9) and giving examples for others to follow (=3.8) were the major ways farmers created knowledge. Farmers sharing
their experience with other farmers in a team discussion (
=3.9) and interpersonal relationship (=3.9) were the major ways farmers shared knowledge. Planting season
using indigenous knowledge (=3.5) and crop rotation/cultivate different varieties (=3.2) were the types of knowledge utilized. The farmers had positive
perception towards knowledge creation (= 3.1), knowledge sharing (=3.1) and knowledge utilization (=3.0) for livelihood activities. Farmers generally had unfavourable
attitude towards knowledge creation (= 2.58) and sharing (= 2.66) while they had favourable attitude towards knowledge utilization
(=3.48). Increased yield (= 3.0) and high income (= 2.9) were benefits farmers derived from knowledge creation, sharing
and utilization. The study further shows that wind (=2.0) and rain pattern (=2.0) were the major environmental factors affecting knowledge creation.
Poor market situation (=2.8) and poor power supply were the major constraints faced by farmers
in knowledge creation, sharing and utilization. The ANOVA result showed
significant difference in farmer’s level of knowledge creation, sharing and
utilization at 5% significance level. The ANOVA result revealed significant
difference in benefits derived by
farmers in the course of knowledge creation, sharing and utilization.
The multiple regression result showed that household size (2.629**) and farm income (2.361**)
significantly influenced knowledge creation at 5% significance level.
Infrastructure (2.423**) and farm income (2.105**) significantly
influenced the sharing of indigenous knowledge by farmers at 5% significance level. Residency status (2.373**) and infrastructure (2.629**) significantly influenced utilization of indigenous knowledge by farmers for selected livelihood activities. From the findings, it could be concluded that
farmers benefited from knowledge creation, sharing and utilization. Hence, it
recommends that farmers should share their indigenous knowledge via
interpersonal medium, demonstration, and observation and through traditional
communication channels.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
Title
Page i
Declaration ii
Certification iii
Dedication iv
Acknowledgements v
Table
of Contents vi
List
of Tables xi
List
of Figures xiii
Abstract xiv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background
of the Study 1
4.6 Problem Statement 3
1.3 Research Questions 7
1.4 Objectives of the Study 8
1.5 Hypotheses of the study 9
1.6 Justification
of the Study 9
1.7 Definition
of Terms 10
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 12
2.1 Knowledge
Creation (KC) 13
2.2 Sources of Indigenous Agricultural
Knowledge 13
2.3 Acquisition
of Agricultural Indigenous Knowledge 14
2.4 Sharing and Distribution
of AIK in the Local Communities 15
2.4.1 Folklore
activities 15
2.4.2 Apprenticeships 17
2.4.3 Initiation
rites during adolescent age 17
2.4.4 Farmer
groups 18
2.4.5 Cultural
influence in indigenous
knowledge (IK) sharing 19
2.5 Utilization of Indigenous Knowledge and
Technologies in the
Farming
Systems 20
2.6 Types
of IK’s Practiced by Farmers in Different Localities with
Different
Ways 21
2.6.1 Pest and disease management 22
2.7 Farmer’s Perception Towards Knowledge
Creation 23
2.8 Attitude
of Farmers Towards Indigenous Knowledge in Farming 24
2.9 Preservation of Agricultural Indigenous Knowledge 25
2.10 Indigenous Knowledge System in Agricultural
Research and Extension 26
2.11 The SECI Knowledge Creation Model in
Local Communities 28
2.11.1 Socialization 28
2.11.2 Externalization 31
2.11.3 Internalization 32
2.12 Challenges of Indigenous Knowledge System
and Agriculture 33
2.13 Rural
Livelihood in Nigeria 33
2.14 Theoretical
Framework 34
2.14.1 Participatory
development theory 35
2.14.2 Basic needs theory 35
2.14.3 The
bottom – top (client – oriented) theory 36
2.14.4 Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory of development 37
2.14.5 Theory
of traditional social structure 37
2.14.6 Communication theory 37
2.15 Conceptual Framework 38
CHAPTER
3: METHODOLOGY 42
3.1 Study Area 42
3.2 Population
of the Study 45
3.3 Sampling
and Sampling Procedure 45
3.4 Validity
of Instrument 47
3.5 Test
of Reliability of Instrument 48
3.6 Data
Collection 48
3.7 Measurement
of Variables 48
3.7.1 Socio-economic
characteristics of the respondents 48
3.7.2 Types
of knowledge farmers create and share for their own use
in
selected livelihood activities 49
3.7.3 Ways by which farmers create, share and
utilize knowledge for selected
activities 49
3.7.4 Ascertain farmers’ perception towards knowledge
creation, sharing, and
utilization
for selected livelihood activities 49
3.7.5 Assess the level of farmers’ attitude to
create knowledge, share and utilize
the created knowledge among
themselves in selected livelihood activities 49
3.7.6 Factors
that influence knowledge creation, sharing, and utilization by
farmers 50
3.7.7 Evaluate
the benefits derived by farmers in the course of knowledge
creation, sharing and
utilization 50
3.7.8 Identify
environmental factors affecting knowledge creation in the area
of study 50
3.7.9 Examine
constraints faced by farmers in creating, sharing and utilizing 51
3.8 Data
Analysis 51
3.8.1 Model
specification 51
3.8.1.1 Analysis of variance (ANOVA) 51
3.8.1.2 Multiple
regression models 53
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION 58
4.1 Socio-Economic
Characteristics of the Respondents 58
4.1.1 Age 58
4.1.2 Sex 59
4.1.3 Marital
status 61
4.1.4 Farm
size 63
4.1.5 Household
size 64
4.1.6 Mode
of farming involvement 66
4.1.7 Monthly estimated income 67
4.1.8 Educational
qualification 68
4.1.9 Farming
experience 70
4.2 Types of Knowledge Farmers Create and
Share for their Own Use
Among Selected Livelihood
Activities 73
4.2.1 Farmers
indigenous knowledge creation among selected livelihood
activities 77
4.3 Ways Farmers Create Knowledge among
Selected Livelihood
Activities
in South-South Nigeria 78
4.4 Ways Farmers Share Knowledge for Selected
Livelihood Activities
in South-South Nigeria 83
4.5 Ways Farmers Utilize Knowledge for
Selected Livelihood Activities
in
South-South Nigeria 86
4.6 Farmers Perception Towards Knowledge
Creation, Sharing and
Utilization for Selected
Livelihood Activities 91
4.7 Farmer’s Attitude to Knowledge Creation,
Sharing and Utilization for
Selected Livelihood Activities 94
4.7.1 Farmer’s
attitude to knowledge creation in among selected livelihood
activities 94
4.7.2 Farmer’s
attitude to knowledge sharing for selected livelihood activities 100
4.7.3 Farmer’s
attitude to knowledge utilization for selected livelihood
activities
104
4.8 Perceived Factors that Influence Knowledge Creation,
Sharing and
Utilization 108
4.8.1 Perceived factors influencing knowledge creation by
farmers 108
4.8.2 Perceived factors influencing knowledge sharing by
farmers 118
4.8.3 Perceived factors influencing knowledge utilization
by farmers 127
4.9 Benefits
Derived by Farmers in the Course of Knowledge Creation,
Sharing and Utilization 131
4.10 Environmental
Factors Affecting Knowledge Creation in the Area of
Study 134
4.11 Constraints Faced by Farmers in Creating,
Sharing and Utilizing
Knowledge
136
4.12 Test
of Hypotheses 139
4.12.1 Hypothesis 1 139
4.12.2 Hypothesis 2 141
4.12.3 Hypothesis 3 142
4.12.4 Hypothesis 4 150
4.12.5 Hypothesis 5 154
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION
AND RECOMMENDATIONS 161
5.1 Summary 161
5.2 Conclusion
164
5.3 Recommendations 166
References 168
Appendices 194
LIST OF
TABLES
3.1 A plan/procedure of sample size
selection 47
4.1 Distribution of respondents according
to their socio-economic
characteristics
72
4.2 Distribution
according to the types of knowledge farmers create and
share for their own use among selected livelihood
activities 76
4.2.1 Distribution
according to farmers knowledge create for their own use
in among selected livelihood activities 77
4.3.1 Mean
score responses on the ways farmers create knowledge 81
4.3.2 Mean
score responses on the ways farmers share knowledge 85
4.3.3 Mean
score responses on the ways farmers utilize knowledge 90
4.4 Mean
score responses on the farmer’s perception towards knowledge
creation, sharing and utilization for selected
livelihood activities 93
4.5.1 Mean responses of farmers on their attitude to knowledge
creation in
the study area 99
4.5.2: Mean responses of farmers on their attitude
to knowledge sharing in the
study area 104
4.5.3 Mean responses of farmers on their attitude to knowledge
utilization in
the study 107
4.6.1 Mean
score responses on the perceived factors that influence knowledge creation 117
4.6.2 Mean
score responses on the perceived factors that influence knowledge
sharing 126
4.6.3 Mean
score responses on the perceived factors that influence knowledge utilization 131
4.7 Mean
score responses on the benefits derived by farmers in the cause of knowledge
creation, sharing and utilization 134
4.8 Mean
score responses on the environmental factors faced by farmers
in creating knowledge 136
4.9 Mean
score responses on the constraints faced by farmers in creating,
sharing and utilization of knowledge 138
4.10 Analysis
of variance results showing difference in the mean ratings of the
respondents in Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa and
Delta States on farmer’s level of
knowledge creation, sharing and
utilization for selected livelihood
activities 141
4.11 Analysis
of variance results showing difference in the mean ratings of
the respondents in Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa
and Delta States on farmer’s
level of benefit got from knowledge
creation, sharing and utilization
for selected livelihood activities 142
4.12 Ordinary
least square (OLS) multiple regression result of the factors
influencing indigenous knowledge
creation by farmers in South-South
Nigeria 149
4.13 Ordinary
least square (OLS) multiple regression result of the factors
influencing sharing of indigenous
knowledge by farmers for selected
livelihood
activities in South-South Nigeria 154
4.14 Ordinary
least square (OLS) multiple regression result of the factors
influencing utilization of indigenous
knowledge created by farmers for
selected
livelihood activities in South-South Nigeria 160
LIST
OF FIGURES
2.1 The current bottom
– top theory 36
2.2 Conceptual
framework on assessing knowledge creation, sharing and
utilization for selected livelihood activities by
farmers in South-South,
Nigeria 41
3.1 Map of South-South
geopolitical zone in Nigeria 45
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Traditionally,
agrarian society began at the time when man planted his first seed and trained
his first animal. This bond between man and the soil has increased and
continued steadily till present day (Udoh, 2001). It is evident that over
60-70% of our population at present day relies on farming for livelihood (Udoh,
2001; Akpabio, 2005). Rural livelihood combines production systems based on the
nature, extent and quality of means of production available. Generally, almost
all rural means of livelihood are practiced with the aid of traditional agricultural
knowledge (Ekong, 2010).
Indigenous
knowledge (IK) is the local knowledge; knowledge that is unique to a given
culture or society, Indigenous knowledge contrast with the international
knowledge system generated by universities, research institutions and private
firms. It is the bases of local level decision making in agriculture, health
care, food preparation, education, natural resources management and a host of
other activities in rural communities. Nwosu (2010) states that promotion of
indigenous agricultural activities will lead to improved agricultural
productivity, higher income earnings and improved standard of living.
The
agricultural development strategy has been criticized for its inability to
provide solutions to other rural problems such as good roads, education, water,
health nutrition, sanitation as well as institutionally based and other
infrastructural needs. About 70% or more of the population of developing
countries live in rural areas where indigenous agricultural development and rural
farmers provide livelihood for people. According to Akpabio (2005), rural
dwellers provide bulk of the food which is consumed for good health. They also
provide industrial raw materials, food crops and employment for the family
(Agboola, Ikpi and Kormawa, 2005).
Africans
including Nigerians possess valuable knowledge of themselves, their
localities/communities and environment. They have very useful skills in
different fields of human endeavours. Both men and women have specialized
knowledge and skills in areas of agriculture, health, craft and engineering
(Obinne, 2012).
Africans
have remained knowledgeable innovators. They are frequently involved in local
innovations and discoveries such as soil management and conservation, water
harvesting, crop breeding and processing. Nwokeabia (2006) estimated that the
informal agricultural sector in Nigeria, mostly using indigenous methods and
techniques, has a worth of about 12 billion US dollars, providing income for about
81 million people (Obinne, 2012).
Indigenous knowledge’s (IK) are
forms of knowledge that have originated locally and naturally. According to
Ermine (1998), cited in Hammersmith (2007), IK is linked to the communities
that produce it. He observes: “Those natural communities are characterized by
complex kinship systems of relationships among people, animals, the earth, the
universe, etc from which knowing originates”. This knowledge (IK) is also known
by other names, and among them are what Nyota and Mapara (2008) refer to as
traditional knowledge, indigenous technical knowledge, rural knowledge as well
as ethno-science (or people’s science). According to studies, Indigenous
knowledge systems manifest themselves through different dimensions. Among these
are agriculture, medicine, security, botany, zoology, craft skills and
linguistics.
Several studies have shown that
since time immemorial, farmers in the developing world have depended on IK for
improved agricultural produce. The applicability of IK takes place during
different farming seasons and periods. According to Nyota and Mapara (2008),
this knowledge spans from clearing the land, tilling, selecting seed varieties
for planting, planting, harvesting and storage and identifying weather patterns
(Lwoga, Ngulube
and Stilwell, 2010a).
According to the World Bank (2009) and Food and Agricultural Organization (2009), farmers in many developing countries have
employed both the scientific and traditional (indigenous) methods of practicing
agriculture. The traditional forms of carrying out agriculture refer to as Agricultural
Indigenous Knowledge (AIK).
Rural communities in the developing
countries have an extensive base of widely available knowledge which is
indigenous knowledge (IK). This knowledge is unique to a given culture, and it
is predominantly unspecified and embedded in practices and experiences of the
local people (Sen and Khashmelmous, 2006). IK is the basis for agriculture,
health care, food preparation, education, natural resource management and other
various activities. It plays a very vital role in sustainable agriculture in
Sub-Saharan Africa because most farmers are smallholders, and thus they are
familiar with indigenous practices.
Some
50% of the people in the world live in rural areas, often under harsh
conditions and in poverty (World Bank, 2013). The need for knowledge of how to
improve living conditions is well documented (United Nations Development Programme,
2013). In response to this need, new knowledge of how to improve living
conditions in rural areas and elsewhere is continuously being developed by
researchers and practitioners around the world. People in rural areas, in
particular, would certainly benefit from being able to share relevant knowledge
with each other, as well as with stakeholders (e.g. researchers) and other
organizations (e.g. NGOs).
1.2 PROBLEM
STATEMENT
Despite the importance of the
agricultural sector for economic development, low agricultural growth has been
a major factor in Africa’s slow progress towards the reduction of poverty and
hunger (United Nations Development Programme 2003).
According
to Agbarevo (2005), the top-down method of agricultural technology which
ignores the ideas, priorities, interest as well as the innovation of farmers
results to low adoption and lack of sustainability of the developed technologies.
Consequently, there is constant low adoption of most technologies developed and
transferred to the farmers. Hence, there is need for a truly alternative method
that would move farmers into knowledge creation and full adoption of relevant
technologies for increased production. This would require the combination of
modern and indigenous knowledge system in the development of agricultural
interventions to increase farmers’ productivity in a sustainable manner (Nwachukwu,
Ifenkwe, Onumadu, Agbarevo, Apu, Odoemelam and Nwaobiala, 2015).
One
of the major problems of agricultural extension in Nigeria as in most of the
developing countries is generation and transfer of appropriate agricultural
technologies to farmers for adoption. Technologies that have been developed by
research and adjudged appropriate have in many cases been rejected by farmers
because such technologies were adjudged by farmers to be irrelevant in solving
their problems and meeting their production needs (Agbarevo, 2014).
Incorporation
of indigenous knowledge system of the farmers in the development of
technologies aimed at improving their conditions is another stage. The
indigenous communities play an important role in generating knowledge based on
understanding of their environment, devising mechanisms to conserve and sustain
their natural resources and establishing community-based organizations that
serve as a forum for identifying problems and dealing with them through
local-level experimentation, innovation and exchange of information with other
societies (Warren, 1992, cited in Nwachukwu et
al., 2015). Such mechanisms if properly handled and utilized during
technology development process could help to boost the qualities of
technologies being developed and thereby encourage the farmers to adopt and
sustain the usage to increase production. Learning from indigenous knowledge,
by investigating first what local community know and how, can improve
understanding of local conditions and provide a productive context for
activities designed to help the communities.
There is a wealth of Indigenous
Knowledge (IK) which is useful in livestock keeping, crop management, and food
processing and storage as well as soil and water management (Tabuti, 2003).
Unfortunately, Ngulube (2002) in his paper about the Review of indigenous
knowledge points out that this IK is becoming less visible and insignificant in
some communities because of the adoption of modern methods of farming.
Unfortunately, most of the
traditional knowledge is not documented. Wall (2006) observes that IK is
gradually disappearing in most African countries including Nigeria without any
tangible efforts to recognize or manage it. Transfer of IK from generation to
generation is mostly done through oral tradition or by demonstration. However,
IK is not equally shared in the communities due to issues related to power
relationships and cultural differences. This calls for urgent interventions in
the management of IK to salvage the situation surrounding it (Wall, 2006).
Indigenous
Knowledge IK is preserved in the memories of elders. Consequently Indigenous
knowledge is steadily fading away due to memory lapses and death of the elders.
According to Lwoga et al. (2010a),
this knowledge has been responsible for improving agricultural productivity and
ensuring food security for centuries. However, IK is gradually disappearing in
most African countries including Nigeria without any tangible efforts to
recognize or manage it (Lwoga et al., 2010a).
In agreement of that, Kumar (2010) attributes this to the fact that oral paths
are being blocked and people are no longer staying in homogenous community
blocks. The conviction here is that IK seems not to be appropriately documented
and disseminated and even the little that is in distribution is notably under
looked in favour of scientific methods.
The un-documented indigenous
knowledge also poses a threat to its sustained utilization. One of the
bottlenecks of utilization of AIK is access to relevant and usable indigenous knowledge
for the diverse stakeholders in the agricultural sector including farmers. The
need to bridge the gap is crucial. The problem is compounded because of
increasing population growth, land fragmentation as well as migration into the
urban places (Ebanyat, Ridder, Jager, Delve, Bekunda
and Giller, 2010). This
experience raises the question of ways in which they can be conserved. Unless ways are found to record and preserve IK in detail, some
communities risk losing major sources of AIK which is useful for the local
people and in food security.
Research gap
According to Waters-Bayer, Veldhuizen, Wongtschowski and
Wettasinha (2006), farmers in our local communities are key actors in terms of
creating agricultural innovations. The type of innovation that ultimately makes
the difference is what farmers decide to do. However, researchers tend to
under-value the indigenous knowledge of farmers, and scientists tend to see
rural farmers as receivers of technologies, instead of seeing them as people
who create, store and share innovations.
Literature on indigenous knowledge
agricultural practices in South-South Nigeria seems to be scanty compared to
other regions like South-East Nigeria based on established research works, some
of such research works include; “Promoting Indigenous Knowledge for the
Attainment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) for sustaining
agricultural development” conducted by Nwachukwu and Mbanaso (2012) in
South East Nigeria. Other researchers such as Oche (2018), Odoemelam (2015),
Ironkwe and Ekwe (2015), Emorole and Chiwen (2015), Nwakwasi (2013), Uwem, Ubong and Adautin (2013), Udeh (2013)
and Onioma (2013), have also conducted similar works in their various study
areas. These studies revealed significant impact of farmer’s indigenous
knowledge towards agricultural sustainability. Nevertheless little or no similar work on knowledge
creation, sharing and utilization has been done in South-South
Nigeria to determine the
extent to which selected livelihood activities by the
indigenous people can be
better achieved through the assessment of knowledge creation, sharing and
utilization.
Thus,
this vacuum necessitates the need to assess knowledge creation, sharing and utilization
for selected livelihood activities in South-South, Nigeria.
1.3
RESEARCH
QUESTIONS
The following research questions were used
to guide the study:
i)
What are the
socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents in the study area?
ii)
What are the types of knowledge
farmers create and share for their own use among the selected livelihood
activities?
iii)
What are the ways by
which farmers create, share and utilize knowledge for selected livelihood
activities?
iv)
What are farmers’
perception towards knowledge creation, sharing, and utilization for selected
livelihood activities?
v)
What are farmers’ attitude
to knowledge creation, sharing and utilization?
vi)
what are the perceived
factors that influence knowledge creation, sharing and utilization by farmers?
vii)
what are the benefits
derived by farmers in the course of knowledge creation sharing and utilization?
viii)
What are the
environmental factors affecting knowledge creation in the area of study? and
ix)
what are the constraints
faced by farmers in creating, sharing and utilizing knowledge in the area of
study?
1.4
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The
broad objective of the study was to assess farmers’ indigenous knowledge
creation, sharing and utilization for selected livelihood activities by farmers
in South-South, Nigeria
The specific objectives were to:
i)
describe the
socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents in the study area;
ii)
identify the types of
knowledge farmers create and share for their own use among selected livelihood
activities;
iii)
ascertain farmers’ perception
towards knowledge creation , sharing, and utilization for selected livelihood
activities;
iv)
assess the level of
farmers’ attitude to create knowledge, share and utilize the created knowledge
among themselves within selected livelihood activities;
v)
determine the perceived
factors that influence knowledge creation, sharing, and utilization by farmers;
vi)
evaluate the benefits
derived by farmers in the course of knowledge creation, sharing and
utilization;
vii)
ascertain the
environmental factors affecting knowledge creation in the area of study;
viii)
examine constraints faced
by farmers in creating, sharing and utilizing knowledge in the area of study.
1.5
HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY
The following
null hypotheses were formulated to guide the study:
HO1: There
is no significant difference between the mean ratings of the respondents in
Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa and Delta States on farmers’ level of knowledge creation,
sharing and utilization among selected livelihood activities.
HO2: There
is no significant difference between the mean ratings of the respondents in
Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa and Delta States on the benefits derived by farmers in the
course of knowledge creation, sharing and utilization.
HO3: Farmers indigenous
knowledge creation for selected livelihood activities is not significantly influenced
by the selected socio-economic and environmental factors in the study area.
HO4: Sharing of indigenous knowledge by farmers within selected
livelihood activities is not significantly influenced by participation, social
network, infrastructure, language, educational level, farm income and non-farm
income.
HO5: Utilization of indigenous knowledge created by farmers for selected
livelihood activities is not significantly influenced by gender, literacy
level, language, infrastructure, non-farm income, farm income, farming
experience, age, household size, residency, land tenure system, soil quality,
farm size and distance from house to land.
1.6 JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY
The study is significant to farmers as
they will be able to identify common problems faced by them in their effort to
create, and share agricultural knowledge and effective indigenous knowledge
management and sharing strategies for ultimate utilization.
The
research will advance Universities and Agricultural Institutes as they will
adopt bottom-top approach in their efforts to co-create Agricultural Knowledge.
It will also benefit extension organizations/NGO such as World Bank as they
will pass compactable innovations to the farmers which enhance
utilization/adoption process. The findings will also assist government at all
level in making reliable policy on Agricultural
Research-Extension-Farmers-Input-Linkage (REFILS) which will improve farmer’s
welfare and lastly, the study will add knowledge to the growing literature on
Agricultural Extension services generally and specifically, the Agricultural
Development Program in South-South and other regions in the country and the
world at large.
1.7
DEFINITION
OF TERMS
Agricultural development:
Agricultural development according to Nwachukwu (2008) is a multi-sectional
activity that support and promote positive change in the rural and urban areas.
Farmer:
A farmer is defined as a natural or legal person, or a group of natural or
legal persons, who undertakes agricultural activity, regardless of size or
income” (Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, 2016).
Indigenous knowledge:
Indigenous knowledge (IK) is a form of knowledge that has originated locally
and naturally, and is linked to the communities that produce it (Hammersmith, 2007).
Knowledge: Knowledge is defined as the integration of information, ideas,
experience, intuition, skills and lessons learned that creates added value for
a firm (Dana, Korot and Tovstiga, 2007).
Knowledge creation:
Knowledge creation is recognized as the process where new ideas, best practices
are generated (Morey, 2001).
Knowledge management:
Knowledge management (KM) is the process of gathering, managing and sharing
employees’ knowledge capital throughout the organisation (Bhojaraju, 2005).
Livelihood: A livelihood
is a means of making a living. It encompasses people’s capabilities, assets,
income and activities required to secure the necessities of life.
Rural farmers:
Those involved in farming and carrying out other related farming activities in
the villages.
Sharing: It
is a process by which sharing of knowledge take place among individuals and/or
groups in the organization, thereby promoting learning and creation of new
knowledge.
Sustaining: It is defined as an integrated system of plant and animal
production practices having a site-specific application that will last over the
long term.
Utilization:
Utilization relates to the use or converting into action the accessed
agricultural messages by the settler farm households to perform the
agricultural production activity.
Perception: The ability of farmers to see, hear, or become aware of agricultural
technology through the senses.
Login To Comment