Influence of extension methods and approaches on

adoption of agroforestry practices in Zambia

Gillian Kabwe, Hugh Bigsby, Ross Cullen

Presented at the World Congress of Agroforestry

10-14 February, 2014

Outline of presentation

Background Methods of data collection and analysis Key findings Conclusions

Background Agroforestry technologies have potential to

address smallholder farmer challenges(Sanchez, 1995; Cooper et al., 1996; Kang & Akinnifesi, 2000; Franzel et al.,

2001; Garrity, 2006; Race, 2009) Low land productivity Low crop yields inadequate fodder for domestic animal feed Insecure household energy Lack of cash to meet basic needs

Trialling has been found to low; those adopting often make this part of their operation

Trialling and adoption of agroforestry Agroforestry technologies (%)

Improved

fallow Biomass transfer Woodlots

Fodder banks

Indigenous fruits

a. Within the overall sample

Never trialled 55.2 78.6 96.9 96.1 95.6 Trialled 44.9 21.4 3.1 3.9 4.4 b. Within the group who

trialled a technology Adopted 73.6 89.2 91.7 80 82.4 Stopped 26.4 10.8 8.3 20 17.6 (n=174)* (n=83)* (n=12)* (n=15*) (n=17)*

Study methods

Multi-stage sampling for selecting farmers

Purposeful sampling of districts and agricultural camps

Eight (8) agricultural camps from four (4) districts:

Chadzombe and Kumadzi (Chadiza)

Feni and Kapita (Chipata)

Chilembwe and Mwanamphangwe (Katete)

Chataika and Mondola (Petauke)

Random sampling of households

388 farm families: 57 percent male and 43 percent females

Analysis of the data Adoption measurement at 2 levels

Trialing Adoption (continued use)

Statistical tools employed Descriptive statistics Chi-square tests of independence Logistic regression analysis ANOVA

Results

Information sources[93 percent of farmers (N = 388) were aware of agroforestry]

Training in agroforestry

Extension approaches (bars represents standard errors of the means according

to Bonferroni test, LSD = 0.1814)

Extension agents(bars represents standard errors of the means according to Bonferroni test, LSD = 0.1814)

0 1 2 3 4 5

Farmer researcher

Village headman

Researchers

Farmer trainer

Farmer group

Neighbours

Extended family

Camp officer

Own family

Ex

ten

sio

n a

ge

nts

Mean scores

Mean score ratings of extension approaches and agents by adopters of improved fallows and biomass transfers

To realize agroforestry benefits

More consistent extension effort Development of unified method Training of partners in agroforestry Appropriate programs and policies required