Determinants of Adoption of Improved Rice Varieties in Northern Sindh, Pakistan

doi:10.1016/j.rsci.2017.10.003

Abstract

Abstract:

Adoption of certified and improved high-yielding crop varieties is important avenue for increasing agricultural productivity and improving the living standard of the farmers in developing countries. The main objective of the current study was to examine factors affecting adoption of improved rice varieties by smallholder farmers in Northern Sindh, Pakistan. The random sampling technique was used to collect data from 220 smallholder rice farmers through the face to face interview. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and probit regression model. The empirical results showed that year of education (P ≤ 0.093), farming experience (P ≤ 0.043), soil quality (P ≤ 0.077), farm machinery ownership (P ≤ 0.000), access to market information (P ≤ 0.055) and contact with extension agents (P ≤ 0.006) had significantly positive influence on adoption of improved rice variety, while age (P ≤ 0.053) had significantly negative effect.

Key words: adoption, technology, improved variety, smallholder farmer

Ali Chandio Abbas, Yuansheng Jiang. Determinants of Adoption of Improved Rice Varieties in Northern Sindh, Pakistan[J]. Rice Science, 2018, 25(2): 103-110.

Figures/Tables 4

References 52

[1]	Abdulai A N.2016. Impact of conservation agriculture technology on household welfare in Zambia.Agric Econ, 47(6): 729-741.
[2]	Abedullah S K, Mushtaq K.2007. Analysis of technical efficiency of rice production in Punjab (Pakistan).Pak Econ Soc Rev, 45(2): 231-244.
[3]	Abubakar H N, Kolo I N, Yabagi A A, Garba Y.2016. Adoption of production technologies by lowland rice farmers in Lavun local government areas of Niger state, Nigeria.Int J Agric Ext, 4: 49-56.
[4]	Adedoyin A O, Shamsudin M N, Radam A, AbdLatif I.2016. Effect of improved high yielding rice variety on farmers productivity in Mada, Malaysia.Int J Agric Sic Vet Med, 4: 39-52.
[5]	Adesina A A, Baidu-Forson J.1995. Farmers' perceptions and adoption of new agricultural technology: Evidence from analysis in Burkina Faso and Guinea, West Africa.Agric Econ, 13: 1-9.
[6]	Aker J C.2011. Dial ‘A’ for agriculture: A review of information and communication technologies for agricultural extension in developing countries.Agric Econ, 42: 631-647.
[7]	Aldosari F, Al Shunaifi M S, Ullah M A, Muddassir M, Noor M A.2017. Farmers’ perceptions regarding the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa- Northern Pakistan. J Saudi Soc Agric Sci, .
[8]	Ali A, Khan M A.2013. Livestock ownership in ensuring rural household food security in Pakistan.J Anim Plant Sci, 23(1): 313-318.
[9]	Ali A, Erenstein O, Rahut D B.2014. Impact of direct rice-sowing technology on rice producers’ earnings: Empirical evidence from Pakistan.Dev Stud Res, 1: 244-254.
[10]	Ali J, Kumar S.2011. Information and communication technologies (ICTs) and farmers’ decision-making across the agricultural supply chain.Int J Inform Manag, 31(2): 149-159.
[11]	Asfaw S, Shiferaw B, Simtowe F.2010. Does technology adoption promote commercialization? Evidence from chickpea technologies in Ethiopia. CSAE 2010 conference on Economic Development in Africa, University of Oxford, UK.
[12]	Asfaw S, Kassie M, Simtowe F, Lipper L.2012a. Poverty reduction effects of agricultural technology adoption: A micro- evidence from rural Tanzania.J Dev Stud, 48: 1288-1305.
[13]	Asfaw S, Shiferaw B, Simtowe F, Lipper L.2012b. Impact of modern agricultural technologies on smallholder welfare: Evidence from Tanzania and Ethiopia.Food Policy, 37: 283-295.
[14]	Asmelash Y.2012. Farmers’ evaluation of upland rice varieties in Fogera district, South Gondar, Ethiopia.Asian J Agric Rural Dev, 2: 604.
[15]	Belay K.2001. Factors influencing adoption of high yielding maize varieties in southwestern Ethiopia: An application of logit analysis.Quant J Int Agric, 40(2): 149-167.
[16]	Bruce A K K, Donkoh S A, Ayamga M.2014. Improved rice variety adoption and its effects on farmers, output in Ghana.J Dev Agric Econ, 6(6): 242-248.
[17]	Buriro A, Khooharo A A, Ghulam T.2015. Technical efficiency of rice production Sindh, Pakistan: A statistical analysis.Sci Int, 27(6): 6225-6230.
[18]	Chandio A A.2016. Impact of formal credit on agricultural output: Evidence from Pakistan.Afr J Business Manag, 10(8): 162-168.
[19]	Chandio A A, Magsi H, Rehman A, Sahito J G M.2017. Types, sources and importance of agricultural credits in Pakistan.J Appl Environ Biol Sci, 7(3): 144-149.
[20]	Chang Y, Chatterjee S, Kim J.2014. Household finance and food insecurity.J Family Econ Issues, 35(4): 499-515.
[21]	Chekene M, Chancellor T.2015. Factors affecting the adoption of improved rice varieties in Borno State, Nigeria.J Agric Ext, 19(2): 21-33.
[22]	Dandedjrohoun L, Diagne A, Biaou G, Cho S N, Midingoyi S K.2012. Determinants of diffusion and adoption of improved technology for rice parboiling in Benin.Rev Agric Environ Stud, 93: 171-191.
[23]	Frongillo E A, Olson C M, Rauschenbach B S, Kendall A.1997. Nutritional consequences of food insecurity in a rural New York state County. Madison, USA: Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin.
[24]	Ghimire R, Huang W C, Shrestha R B.2015. Factors affecting adoption of improved rice varieties among rural farm households in Central Nepal.Rice Sci, 22(1): 35-43.
[25]	GOP.2011. Pakistan Economic Survey (2010-2011). Pakistan: the Ministry of Finance.
[26]	GOP.2017. Economic Survey of Pakistan 2016-2017. Agricultural Statistics of Pakistan. Pakistan: Islamabad: Ministry of Food Agriculture and Livestock Division.
[27]	Gundersen C, Gruber J.2001. The dynamic determinants of food insufficiency. In: Second Food Security Measurement and Research Conference: Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report. Washington D C, USA: United Sates Department of Agriculture: Economic Research Services: 11-12.
[28]	Hagos A, Zemedu L.2015. Determinants of improved rice varieties adoption in Fogera district of ethiopia.Sci Technol Arts Res J, 4(1): 221-228.
[29]	Hasnain M N, Hossain M E, Islam M K.2015. Technical efficiency of Boro rice production in Meherpur district of Bangladesh: A stochastic frontier approach.Am J Agric Forest, 3(2): 31-37.
[30]	Hossain M, Bose M L, Mustafi B A A.2006. Adoption and productivity impact of modern rice varieties in Bangladesh.Dev Econ, 44: 149-166.
[31]	Hussain A.2012. Impact of credit disbursement, area under cultivation, fertilizer consumption and water availability on rice production in Pakistan (1988-2010).Sarhad J Agric, 28: 95-101.
[32]	Kassie M, Ndiritu S W, Stage J.2014. What determines gender inequality in household food security in Kenya? Application of exogenous switching treatment regression.World Dev, 56: 153-171.
[33]	Khalid Bashir M, Mehmood Y.2010. Institutional credit and rice productivity: A case study of District Lahore, Pakistan.China Agric Econ Rev, 2: 412-419.
[34]	Kumar A, Singh R K P, Kumar A, Betne R, Singh K M.2016. Adoption of modern rice cultivation practices in Bihar, India: Micro-level evidences from village-level studies.Agric Res, 5(4): 433-439.
[35]	Langer W.2000. The Assessment of Fit in the Class of Logistic Regression Models: A Pathway Out of the Jungle of Pseudo-R2s. Halle: Institut f ür Soziologie.
[36]	Loopstra R, Tarasuk V.2013. Severity of household food insecurity is sensitive to change in household income and employment status among low-income families.J Nutr, 143: 1316-1323.
[37]	Mariano M J, Villano R, Fleming E.2012. Factors influencing farmers’ adoption of modern rice technologies and good management practices in the Philippines.Agric Syst, 110: 41-53.
[38]	Mengal A A, Mirani Z, Magsi H.2014. Historical overview of agricultural extension services in Pakistan.Macroth Rev, 3(8): 23-36.
[39]	Mirani Z, Leske G W, Labamo A.2002. Farmers’ Adoption of Recommended Technology for Rice in Larkana District of Sindh Province of Pakistan. Rome, Italy: FAO.
[40]	Mirani Z, Memon A.2011. Farmers’ assessment of the farm advisory services of public and private agricultrual extension in Hyderabad district, Sindh.Pak J Agric Res, 24: 56-64.
[41]	Mittal S, Mehar M.2016. Socio-economic factors affecting adoption of modern information and communication technology by farmers in India: Analysis using multivariate probit model.J Agric Educ Exten, 22: 199-212.
[42]	Muzari W, Gatsi W, Muvhunzi S.2012. The impacts of technology adoption on smallholder agricultural productivity in sub-Saharan Africa: A review.J Sust Dev, 5(8): 69.
[43]	Ogutu S O, Okello J J, Otieno D J.2014. Impact of information and communication technology-based market information services on smallholder farm input use and productivity: The case of Kenya.World Dev, 64: 311-321.
[44]	Okello J J, Zhou Y, Kwikiriza N, Ogutu S O, Barker I, Schulte- Geldermann E, Atieno E, Ahmed J T.2016. Determinants of the use of certified seed potato among smallholder farmers: The case of potato growers in central and eastern Kenya.Agriculture, 6(4): 55.
[45]	Ologbon O A C, Ikheloa E E, Akerele E O.2012. Adoption of ‘Ofada’ rice variety and technical efficiency of rice-based production systems in Ogun State, Nigeria.World J Agric Sci, 8(6): 624-631.
[46]	Owusu V, Abdulai A, Abdul-Rahman S.2011. Non-farm work and food security among farm households in Northern Ghana.Food Policy, 36(2): 108-118.
[47]	Ribar D, Hamrick K.2003. An Analysis of Poverty and Food Sufficiency Dynamics. Washington D C, USA: United Sates Department of Agriculture: Economic Research Services.
[48]	Singh P K, Varshney J G.2016. Adoption level and constraints in rice production technology.Ind Res J Exten Educ, 10(1): 91-94.
[49]	Tiamiyu S A, Akintola J O, Rahji M A Y.2009. Technology adoption and productivity difference among growers of new rice for Africa in Savanna zone of Nigeria.Tropicultura, 27(4): 193-197.
[50]	Wooldridge J M.2010. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. USA: MIT Press.
[51]	Zhang Y, Wang L, Duan Y Q.2016. Agricultural information dissemination using ICTs: A review and analysis of information dissemination models in China.Inform Proc Agric, 3(1): 17-29.
[52]	Zhou S D, Herzfeld T, Glauben T, Zhang Y H, Hu B C.2008. Factors affecting Chinese farmers’ decisions to adopt a water saving technology.Can J Agr Econol, 56(1): 51-61.

Code	Variable	Description	Min	Max	Mean	SD
x₁	Age (year)	Age of the rice grower	23	89	41	10.7
x₂	Education (year)	Education of the respondent	0	16	6.9	4.2
x₃	Household size	Number of total family members in the household	2	16	8.7	2.6
x₄	Experience (year)	Farming experience of the respondent	10	55	27.2	8.6
x₅	Landholding size	Landholding size in acres	0.5	93	14.2	13.3
x₆	Soil quality	Soil quality (1, if soil quality is good; 0, otherwise)	0	1	0.6	0.5
x₇	Farm machinery	Farm machinery ownership (1, if the household owns a tractor or tube well; 0, otherwise)	0	1	0.6	0.5
x₈	Distance (km)	Distance to input/output markets	2	25	12	5.5
x₉	Market information	Market information (1, if the household have access to market information; 0, otherwise)	0	1	0.6	0.8
x₁₀	Credit accessibility	Access to credit (1, if the household has access to credit; 0, otherwise)	0	1	0.6	0.5
x₁₁	Extension contact	Number of extension contacts with extension agent by household head in the last years	0	4	1.1	1.2

Code	Variable	Description	Min	Max	Mean	SD
x₁	Age (year)	Age of the rice grower	23	89	41	10.7
x₂	Education (year)	Education of the respondent	0	16	6.9	4.2
x₃	Household size	Number of total family members in the household	2	16	8.7	2.6
x₄	Experience (year)	Farming experience of the respondent	10	55	27.2	8.6
x₅	Landholding size	Landholding size in acres	0.5	93	14.2	13.3
x₆	Soil quality	Soil quality (1, if soil quality is good; 0, otherwise)	0	1	0.6	0.5
x₇	Farm machinery	Farm machinery ownership (1, if the household owns a tractor or tube well; 0, otherwise)	0	1	0.6	0.5
x₈	Distance (km)	Distance to input/output markets	2	25	12	5.5
x₉	Market information	Market information (1, if the household have access to market information; 0, otherwise)	0	1	0.6	0.8
x₁₀	Credit accessibility	Access to credit (1, if the household has access to credit; 0, otherwise)	0	1	0.6	0.5
x₁₁	Extension contact	Number of extension contacts with extension agent by household head in the last years	0	4	1.1	1.2

Variable	Non-adopter	Adopter	Difference	t-value
Age (year)	42	39.7	2.35	1.567
Year of education (year)	5.7	7.3	-1.57	-2.625***
Household size	8.6	9	-0.39	-1.008
Experience (year)	26.6	27	-0.39	-0.296
Landholding size	10.5	13.8	-3.27	-1.957**
Soil quality	0.5	0.6	-0.17	-1.975**
Farm machinery	0.4	0.8	-0.46	-6.243***
Distance (km)	12.5	11.6	0.87	0.845
Market information	0.4	0.7	-0.3	-2.354**
Credit accessibility	0.6	0.7	-0.13	-1.834*
Extension contact	0.8	1.4	-0.53	-3.309***

Variable	Non-adopter	Adopter	Difference	t-value
Age (year)	42	39.7	2.35	1.567
Year of education (year)	5.7	7.3	-1.57	-2.625***
Household size	8.6	9	-0.39	-1.008
Experience (year)	26.6	27	-0.39	-0.296
Landholding size	10.5	13.8	-3.27	-1.957**
Soil quality	0.5	0.6	-0.17	-1.975**
Farm machinery	0.4	0.8	-0.46	-6.243***
Distance (km)	12.5	11.6	0.87	0.845
Market information	0.4	0.7	-0.3	-2.354**
Credit accessibility	0.6	0.7	-0.13	-1.834*
Extension contact	0.8	1.4	-0.53	-3.309***

Variable	Coefficient	Standard error	z-value	P > \|z\|	95% of confidence interval
Age (year)	-0.02948**	0.01522	-1.94	0.053	(-0.05932, 0.00036)
Year of education (year)	0.03842*	0.02287	1.68	0.093	(-0.00641, 0.08325)
Household size	0.01044	0.03773	0.28	0.782	(-0.06351, 0.08440)
Experience (year)	0.03652**	0.01801	2.03	0.043	(0.00012, 0.07183)
Landholding size	0.00156	0.0074	0.21	0.833	(-0.01295, 0.01607)
Soil quality	0.34754*	0.19622	1.77	0.077	(-0.03704, 0.73213)
Farm machinery	0.95818***	0.19477	4.92	0	(0.05764, 1.33992)
Distance (km)	0.01413	0.01812	0.78	0.435	(-0.02138, 0.04964)
Market information	0.37762**	0.1964	1.92	0.055	(-0.00732, 0.76256)
Credit accessibility	0.07749	0.1952	0.4	0.691	(-0.30510, 0.46007)
Extension contact	0.24258***	0.08893	2.73	0.006	(0.06828, 0.41688)
Constant	-1.24992**	0.59725	-2.09	0.036	(-2.42052, -0.07933)