epubs.surrey.ac.ukepubs.surrey.ac.uk/846291/1/analysis of yam minisett... · web viewit is...

YMT adoption in Nigeria

Title: Analysis of Yam Minisett Technique adoption studies in Nigeria

Author

Stephen Morse (Corresponding author).

Centre for Environment and Sustainability (CES)

University of Surrey

Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH

UK

Tel: +44(0)1483 686079

Fax: +44(0)1483 686671

Email: [email protected]

Abstract

White yam (Dioscorea rotundata Poir.) is an important tuber crop grown throughout West Africa, the

Caribbean and Latin America. Propagation of the crop is primarily vegetative, through the use of

small whole tubers (seed yams) and cut pieces of tuber (setts) planted to produce the larger tubers

(ware yams) that households consume and sell. The Yam Minisett Technique (YMT), introduced in

Nigeria in the late 1970s, as a means of increasing the production of seed yams. Yam Minisett

Technique is different from many other agricultural technologies in that it requires farmers to do

something – cut their tubers into small pieces – which they feel based upon experience is potentially

damaging as it causes rot. Indeed, existing literature suggests that adoption of YMT tends to be low

and variable. However, to date there has been no systematic analysis of the existing literature on YMT

adoption designed to explore which factors are reported to be the most important and why. Hence the

objective of this paper is to analyze the YMT adoption studies published to date to explore which

factors are particularly important, and how this may help guide future research in YMT adoption.

Results suggest that uncertainty – risk and ambiguity aversion – as perceived by farmers is a key

consideration in YMT adoption and needs to be considered in future work.

Keywords: Dioscorea rotundata; seed yam; risk; uncertainty; white yam

1


Introduction

White yam (Dioscorea rotundata Poir.) is an important tuber crop grown throughout West Africa, the

Caribbean and Latin America. Propagation of the crop is primarily through vegetative means, through

small whole tubers (seed yams) and cut pieces of tuber (setts) planted to produce the larger tubers

(ware yams) that households consume and sell (Asumugha and Chinaka, 1992; Chikwendu et al.,

1995). However, vegetative propagation using tuber-based material can result in the passing of pests

and diseases within the tubers from one generation to the next. The other issue is that the use of setts,

while generally cheaper than using seed yams, is potentially problematic, as once the tubers have been

cut it provides an opening for infestation from soil-borne pests and diseases and the setts could rot

once planted. The ideal is to use seed yams as planting material, as whole tubers are generally less

susceptible to re-infestation, and any ware yam crop will comprise a variety of tuber sizes, some of

which will be suitable as seed yams. Farmers also use approaches such as ‘milking’ to produce some

seed yams as a by-product of the ware yam production process. However, the saving of smaller tubes

as a by-product of ware yam production to act as seed yams for the following season is problematic in

that not enough of them may be produced. Hence, researchers have long sought ways in which

farmers could increase their production of seed yams as a crop rather than being a by-product of ware

yam production (Morse and McNamara, 2016).

Specialist seed yam producers do exist, and they typically adopt a process whereby tubers of ware

yam size, cut into small setts, are planted to produce seed yams (Ibana et al., 2012). This is based on

the long-established fact that the size of yam tuber produced is positively related to the size of the sett

planted (Ikeorgu, 2001). Thus, small setts produce seed yam-sized tubers. But, as noted above, setts

are vulnerable to pest/disease attack and small setts may fail to sprout, thereby resulting in a

significant financial risk to the farmer, given the relatively high cost of yam tubers. Unsurprisingly,

researchers have long sought ways in which this process for seed yam production could be enhanced

to maximize yield and limit risk to farmers.

One such approach, the ‘Yam Minisett Technique’ (YMT), was developed in Nigeria during the late

1970s by the National Root Crops Research Institute (NRCRI) and the International Institute of

Tropical Agriculture (IITA) (Iwueke et al. 1983; Orkwor and Asiedu, 1998). The Yam Minisett

Technique uses ‘mother’ yams of 500 to 1000 g to generate minisetts by careful cutting. Minisett size

can vary from 10 g to 80 g, but the recommended weight promoted in Nigeria since the early 1980s

has been 25g (Kalu et al., 1989). One 500 g to 1000 g mother yam should yield about 20 to 40

minisetts of 25g. Minisett size is an important variable, as the larger the size the fewer the minisetts

that can be obtained from a mother yam; but at the same time, the larger the minisett, the larger the

2


seed yam tuber that is produced (Ikeorgu, 2001). The 25g recommendation was a compromise

between these competing requirements of maximizing the number of setts from a single tuber and the

need for a reasonable proportion of tubers of ‘seed yam’ size in the harvest (Kalu et al., 1989; George,

1990; Ikeorgu, 2001). Following cutting of mother tubers into minisetts, the recommendation was for

farmers to allow the cut surface to ‘cure’ (dry and harden) in a warm but humid location, after which

the setts were treated with a cocktail of insecticide and fungicide applied as a dust or a ‘dip’ to prevent

damage from pests and diseases (Okoli, 1986; Igwilo and Okoli, 1988; Kalu et al., 1989). Although

the treated minisetts can be directly planted into the field, it was recommended that they be first pre-

sprouted in a nursery before transplanting. Such pre-sprouting in a medium free of pests and diseases

can improve minisett survival, but it is more labor intensive (Okoli, 1986).

After the rains have become established, sprouted minisetts are transplanted in the field at a typical

depth of 9 cm to 12 cm, with a plant spacing of approximately 25 cm (4 stands per m2 = 40,000

stands/ha if meter ridges are used). Higher plant densities tend to give smaller seed yams (Osiru et al.,

1987). Establishment in the field can take 4 to 8 weeks (Okoli, 1986), depending upon variety and

minisett size, and the vines require staking for best results, although farmers often do not practice this

with seed yam, preferring instead to let the canopy close and shade out weeds. Initial YMT

recommendations focussed on sole cropping of the minisetts rather than intercropping. Seed yams are

ready for harvest after 5 to 10 months. Under good conditions, minisetts planted at a density of 40,000

stands/ha could yield about 13.6 tons/ha of seed yams for every ton of minisett material planted

(Okoli, 1986). However, while total output of seed yam will be an important consideration for the

farmer, the spectrum of seed yam size is also important. Yam tubers after harvesting may be

immediately sold for cash or stored for a period. Seed tubers may be stored for shorter periods than

ware yams, simply because they must be planted early in the following season, while ware yams will

need to be consumed over a period.

While the YMT is a relatively straightforward approach, it does present much uncertainty for the

farmer as cutting tubers makes them vulnerable to insect, nematode and fungal attacks, which reduce

sprouting; and given the high cost of the mother tubers, this could be a significant financial loss to the

farmer (Morse et al., 2009). This places YMT into an unusual category within the spectrum of

agricultural technologies promoted to farmers in the developing world. The YMT is based upon the

need for farmer to do something which they know could result in loss of their planting material, and

much depends upon how carefully the setts have been cut, treated and planted. Nonetheless, YMT

was strongly promoted in Nigeria by the NRCRI, IITA, federal and state agricultural departments,

universities and a multitude of agricultural development projects funded by the World Bank and other

3


international donors. In parallel with these efforts at promoting YMT, there have also been many

studies of its adoption by farmers. The latter have been undertaken by evaluation departments within

projects; additional academic studies have also been undertaken by students and researchers. A

recently published and excellent review by Ilesanmi and Akinmusola (2016) sets out the broad

landscape presented by the academic literature on the factors that limit YMT adoption. Overall, the

authors concluded,

“Despite the high potential of the YMT in increasing the profitability of yam enterprise, its overall

adoption rate is still low.” (page 218)

The authors listed and discussed factors important for YMT adoption, broken down into categories, a

summary of which is presented in Table 1. Within each of these categories, there are variables

reported as important in the literature. It is noteworthy that some of the variables across categories

have either been duplicated (membership of social groups) or similar (e.g., extension contact-

extension service). There are nuances here, of course; as the structure and efficiency of an extension

service (an institutional factor) is different from the degree of contact an individual farmer may have

(an awareness factor). Indeed, many of the variables in Table 1 will be related to each other. For

example, it is easy to imagine that an ability to adopt new information (Farmer perception category)

could be linked to age/education/experience (Socio-economic category), as well as the quantity and

quality of land available (Economic and Agro-ecological categories). Another issue is that while the

categories and variables in Table 1 are varied, a question arises as to which are the more important

ones? It is likely, of course, that the mix of important variables may vary across space and time, but

given the extent of the literature on YMT adoption, it would be useful to determine the relative

importance of the factors/variables provided by Ilesanmi and Akinmusola (2016). Hence the aim of

this paper is to analyze the YMT adoption studies published to date to explore which factors are

particularly important, and how this may help guide future research in YMT adoption.

<Table 1 near here>

Literature search methodology

The results presented in this paper follow a similar approach to that taken by Ilesanmi and

Akinmusola (2016) by focussing on peer-reviewed academic journal papers. There have been many

analyses of YMT adoption undertaken by university students and development projects, to name but

two sources, but for the most part, these are not readily accessible. Hence, as with Ilesanmi and

4


Akinmusola (2016), it was decided to only focus on peer-reviewed studies. The literature was

searched using an academic search engine with a variety of keywords, such as ‘Yam Minisett’,

‘YMT’ and Nigeria. There have been studies of the adoption of YMT in other countries, but Nigeria

was the place where the YMT was developed and promoted since the early 1980s and where most of

the adoption studies have taken place.

Results

Awareness and adoption of YMT

A list of papers that provide figures for YMT awareness and adoption among farmers is provided in

Table 2. Adoption has been reported as highly variable, from as low as 9% (Ofem et al., 2011;

Ayoola, 2012) to 83% (Madukwe, 1995), but averages out from these data at around 34%, with an

awareness rate of around 55%. It is difficult to discern a pattern across geography, especially as most

of the studies were undertaken in the south-east region of Nigeria; sample size and frame. Sample size

varied from 30 to 342, and was often stratified relative to farmers (male and female) and extension

agents. Another issue that emerges from Table 2 revolves around the definition of adoption. As noted

above, YMT is a process that comprises a number of steps and it is highly likely that respondents

would report ‘adoption’ as parts of the YMT package rather than the whole process. There have been

various studies that have specifically sought to determine the adoption of components of the YMT,

either as a percentage of those surveyed or level of adoption using scores. Table 3 contains some of

these YMT component adoption studies based on percentages, whereas Table 4 summarizes some

studies based on adoption scores. These are not easy to digest given that the YMT components

included by the researchers do vary, as indeed do the methods of scoring. One approach is to rank the

factors by importance across the various studies and Tables 5 and 6 provide the average ranks of the

adoption factors based on percentages and scores, respectively. The pattern in ranking is broadly

similar between Tables 5 and 6. Components of the YMT that require expenditure (pesticide, fertilizer

and herbicide) tend to rank low, whereas components that are relatively inexpensive (hand weeding,

staking, cutting tubers into minisetts, curing, intercropping), especially if household labor is used,

tend to rank higher. It is also interesting to note that time of planting, planting depth and spacing tend

to appear towards the bottom half of the tables.

<Tables 2 to 6 near here>

5


Another factor, besides variation in the adoption of YMT components, and one that has arguably

received less attention in the literature than it should have done, is the specification behind the YMT

components. Some of the studies in Table 2 make it clear that YMT involves, for example, component

specifications, such as the use of minisetts of 25g planted at a spacing of 4 setts per square meter

(40,000 setts/ha). Other studies do not specify values of the YMT components directly although they

may reference publications from the 1980s and 1990s that set out the original package of

recommendations. If these are the component specifications being looked for, then farmers using

larger sett sizes or different plant densities may not necessarily be counted as ‘adopters’, even if they

are following the basic approach of using yam minisetts for seed yam production. These dual

complicating factors of YMT component adoption and the specification of the components may well

help explain much of the variation in adoption rate shown in Table 2.

Reasons given by farmers for non-adoption of YMT

When asked, farmers gave various reasons for the non-adoption of YMT and Table 7 summarizes the

results of four studies designed to elicit the reasons from Nigerian farmers for their non-adoption of

YMT. In one of the studies (Okoli and Akoroda, 1995), respondents are in two categories; those who

had never adopted YMT and those who had adopted but no longer practiced the technique. It is

noticeable that issues surround the supply of inputs (fertilizer, pesticide etc.) as well as poor sprouting

of minisetts tend to rank quite high in farmers’ responses. The ranking pattern broadly mirrors that

seen in the adoption of YMT components summarized in Tables 5 and 6.

<Table 7 near here>

Characteristics linked to YMT adoption

Other studies have taken a different approach by assessing the factors involved in influencing YMT

adoption by farmers. These are based on questionnaires, administered to a sample of farmers,

designed to look for association between a measure of YMT adoption and characteristics set out a

priori by the researchers, which may influence adoption. Analysis of the data is typically via a variety

of tools, most notably regression (including probit and logit) but also correlation coefficients and Chi-

square tests for association. Table 8 represents a summary of 22 separate studies that were analyzed

for patterns in the significance of independent variables. The majority (16) employed regression

analysis (including logit and probit), 4 employed correlation and 2 used Chi-square test of association.

Table 8 also contains the sample sizes used in many of the studies, and these varied from as low as 30

6


extension agents in the case of Ironkwe et al. (2008) to 500 farmers used by Waziri et al. (2014). The

independent/explanatory variables tested for in these studies are quite varied, but some do tend to

have been used more than others. The variables typically span factors, such as age, gender of farmers,

their farming experience, exposure to YMT and resources (capital, land, credit, etc.) that respondents

either may already have or perhaps have access to. The cut-off for assuming statistical significance of

the various tests does very, with some employing P<0.05 and others using P<0.1. In some cases, the

authors used a range of models but then opt for the one that had the best adjusted R2 for further

analysis and discussion. It is not desirable here to present the detailed results from all statistical tests

covered in Table 8, but instead a summary of the results has been provided in Table 9 (a and b) (see

the below-given list):

(a) The number of tests that included a particular explanatory variable

(b) The number of times that variable has been reported as being significant at P<0.05

(c) The percentage of tests significant at P<0.05. Note that some variables reported as statistically

significant by the authors, if they employed <0.1, have not been reported as such here.

(d) In the case of regression, the number of significant tests (at P<0.05), where the coefficient

was negative or positive.

<Tables 8 and 9 near here>

Thus, for example, the education level of the farmer was included as an independent variable in 21 of

the 22 studies and proved to be statistically significant (P<0.05) in 8 of them; this equates to 38% of

the tests where the variable was included. Of the 8 significant results, 7 were based on regression

analysis and all 7 coefficients for the variable were positive; hence adoption of YMT increased with

the level of farmer education. Table 9 has been divided into two parts on the basis of the number of

times the variables were included in the analyses. Table 9a contains those variables that appeared in 6

or more tests, whereas Table 9b contains those included in fewer than 6 tests; indeed, many of the

variables in Table 9b were only included in one test across the 22 studies. The use of 6 as a cut-off

point is admittedly arbitrary, but it was assumed that inclusion of the variable in 6 or more tests does

provide a degree of confidence in the outcome. Based upon the results in Table 9, the factors that

most often appear to be especially significant relative to YMT adoption are:

1. Farmer education. Better education tends to result in greater adoption of YMT.

2. Farmer income. Wealthier farmers (higher income) are more likely to adopt YMT.

7


3. Land ownership. Farmers with more land are more likely to adopt YMT. This variable is

probably linked to farmer income.

4. Farmer experience. Farmers with more experience are more likely to adopt YMT.

5. Membership in farmer association/cooperative. Those who are members are more likely to

adopt.

6. Access to credit. Farmers are more likely to adopt YMT if they have access to credit.

7. Extension contact. Having contact with extension workers, or being involved in on-farm

demonstrations and research, results in better likelihood of adopting YMT.

Other variables, such as farmer age, marital status and availability of labor (linked to household size),

have received significant attention in these studies but tend to have a mixed relationship with YMT

adoption. Other factors, such as gender of farmer and land tenure (whether rented or owned), appear

to have a weak relationship with YMT adoption. But all these factors are, to some extent, inter-

related. Farmers with more education and older are likely to have more experience, land and hence

income. They are perhaps also more likely to be a member of a cooperative or society, and it is also

likely that they will have more contact with extension workers and have better access to credit.

Discussion

The importance of farmer education, farmer income, experience, land ownership, membership in

farmer associations and extension contact with regard to the adoption of YMT does have resonance

when mapped onto the YMT process, as shown in Figure 1. The steps in the YMT process are shown

at the left-hand side of Figure 1, whereas in the center there is a matching of the process with points of

key concern from the farmer, as gleaned from Tables 5, 6 and 7. While YMT as a process is relatively

straightforward, there are key decisions that must be taken and getting these wrong could have

significant negative impacts. Two of the concerns (shaded boxes) relate to cost of inputs, which can

be high with the YMT. Even if the farmers use their own ware yam tubers for cutting into setts, these

are still tubers that he/she is unable to consume or sell. Critically, towards the bottom of the central

part of Figure 1, there is much uncertainty that farmers face, and if the process fails then much could

be lost. If setts are not cut correctly, if not planted at the right time, if not treated with pesticide and if

there are problems with rainfall (too much or too little), then part or all of the crop could fail. Given

the financial outlay, let alone the labor and other inputs, the risk associated with YMT are significant

and this helps explain the pattern of results seen in Table 9, adoption of YMT components (Tables 5

and 6) and the reasons given by farmers for non-adoption (Table 7). Farmers most likely to adopt

8


YMT are those able to cover the financial outlay required for YMT (including an access to credit),

who have access to the necessary support (extension services, farmer association etc.) and who may

also presumably be well-placed to absorb any losses. The importance of risk in adoption of new

agricultural technologies by resource-poor farmers has been well-established (Marra et al., 2003). It is

also well-known that wealthier farmers are those who are most likely to quickly adopt agricultural

technologies (so-called ‘early adopters’) and at the same time absorb any risks (Feder, 1980; Feder et

al., 1985; Feder and Umali, 1993).

<Figure 1 near here>

The Yam Minisett Technique is perhaps on a different level, not so much because of the relatively

high cost of the inputs (primarily yam tubers but also pesticide, etc.) but because, by its nature, it does

generate significant uncertainty for the farmer; cutting tubers into setts does expose them to damage,

even if steps are taken to try and reduce any damage. Farmers know that cutting a yam or damaging

the skin does increase the chances of it rotting, and the smaller the pieces, instinctively the greater the

chances of such damage. Indeed, given that YMT would appear to be most suited for farmers who can

bear the cost of the process and are able to accommodate partial/complete crop failure, it is perhaps

not surprising that adoption rates are on the low side. Allied with this is the potential problem with

adoption studies regarding the apparent varied interpretation as to what adoption means; what are the

indicators being looked for to indicate adoption? Is it an all or nothing process, or can adoption be

claimed, even if only partial? For example, what if farmers cut their ‘mother yams’ into setts and

planted them without the use of any pesticide treatment? Also, does YMT adoption equate to

following the ‘traditional’ recommendation (sett size of 25 g; 40,000 plants/ha, etc.), or is there a

degree of tolerance relative to the precise values of some of these recommendations? What if a farmer

uses a sett size different than 25 g and/or plant population of different than 40,000 plants/ha? Farmers

will make decisions to suit their own circumstances and it is not inconceivable that farmers would use

different sett sizes, plant densities etc. to suit their local conditions but then be classed as ‘non-

adopters’ of YMT, at least in some of the studies listed in Table 2. What is needed is a more flexible

framework for assessing YMT adoption that takes into account the decision-making by farmers,

which itself is flexible and could often be very logical given their local conditions and needs. Given

the above, it is perhaps to be expected that adoption rates will vary and are likely to be low; precisely

the pattern seen in Table 2.

On the positive side of the equation, it has been established that YMT, albeit not in the exact form that

was originally recommended and promoted by NRCRI/IITA, can be profitable in Nigeria (Morse and

9


McNamara, 2016). Hence there is a significant financial gain that farmers can accrue, albeit with a

degree of uncertainty. What is perhaps surprising is that assessments of uncertainty from the

perspective of the farmer have so far played little part in YMT adoption studies and this is a gap that

needs to be addressed. One interesting approach (Barham et al., 2014) is to consider uncertainty as

having two components - risk and ambiguity – where these are defined as:

“Risk aversion is the aversion to a set of outcomes with a known probability distribution. Ambiguity

aversion is the additional aversion to being unsure about the probabilities of outcomes.” (Barham et

al., 2014; page number 204).

Thus, with YMT, farmers may show some aversion to ambiguity, as they do not know what the

probabilities of outcomes may be, but given that the tubers are cut into setts they may feel that the

probabilities of success are low even if the potential gains are high. The division of uncertainty into

risk and ambiguity is certainly an area that warrants further research in YMT adoption studies.

Conclusion

The exiting literature on adoption of YMT would point towards a farmers’ perspective of uncertainty

being key. This picture can be pieced together from the studies that have looked at:

(a) YMT adoption; which tends to be variable and generally low.

(b) Adoption of YMT components; adoption of YMT components tends to be greater for

components that have less financial cost.

(c) Farmer reasons for non-adoption; these point towards concerns over small sett size, poor

sprouting and lack of capital.

(d) Characteristics linked to YMT adoption; these suggest better adoption among wealthier

farmers, with better education and experience, good access to credit, good extension support

and membership in farmer associations/cooperatives. Such farmers are better able to carry the

cost of YMT and to cope with any uncertainty.

YMT is different from many other agricultural technologies in that it requires farmers to do

something – cut their tubers into small pieces – which they feel is a risk as it can cause rotting. Sett

treatment is meant to address that, but even so, the farmer does face uncertainty. More research is

10


needed to unpack the two elements of uncertainty – risk aversion and ambiguity aversion – to see

whether these are different from the adoption of other agricultural technologies.

REFERENCES

Achoja, F. O. and Uzokwe, U. N. 2012. “Income Effect and Correlating Factors of Yam Minisett

Technology among Extension Contact Farmers in Delta State, Nigeria.” Experimental Agriculture &

Horticulture: 12-20

Agbaje, G.O. and Oyegbami, A. 2005. “Survey on the adoption of yam minisett technology in South-

Western Nigeria”. Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment 3(2): 134-137.

Agbarevo, M.N. Benjamin 2014. “An evaluation of farmers’ adoption of yam mini-sett technique in

Cross - River State, Nigeria”. European Journal of Research in Social Sciences 2(3): 1-9.

Agumagu A.C. 2003. “Correlation between yam usage level and demographic characteristics of

farmers in Rivers State”. Journal of Advanced Scientific Research 3(1): 70-77

Ajieh P. C. 2012. “Adoption of Yam (Dioscorea spp.) Minisett Technology in Delta State, Nigeria.”

Agricultura Tropica et Subtropica 45(2): 84-88

Ajieh, P.C and Okoro, B.O 2015. “Constraints to the adoption of Yam Minisett Technology in

Anambra State, Nigeria”. International Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development 18(2): 2246-

2251

Akpabio IA, Etim N-A A and Okon S 2012. “Perceptions of Constraints Affecting Adoption of

Women-in-Agriculture Programme Technologies in the Niger Delta, Nigeria”. International Journal

of Agricultural Management & Development 2(3): 215-222

Aniedu O.C. 2016. “Socio-economic factors influencing adoption of improved Yam production

technologies in Abia state, Nigeria”. Advances in Applied Science Research 7(4):66-70

11


Aniedu C., Nwachukwu I., Uwakah C. T and Unamma R. P. A. 2007. “Gender factors influencing

adoption of Yam Minisett Technique by farmers in South Eastern Nigeria: Implications for

sustainable yam production”. Journal of Agriculture and Social Research 7(2): 30-37.

Anozie R. O., Anozie S. N, Usanga U. J. and Okelola O. E. 2014. “The State of Adoption of Yam

Minisett Technique in Imo State, Nigeria”. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics &

Sociology 3(6): 562-568

Anyaegbunam H. N., Eze C. I., Ogbonnaya M. C. and Korieocha D. S. 2009. “Evaluation of factors

driving the adoption of yam minisett technology by farmers in Abia State, Nigeria”. Nigeria

Agricultural Journal 40(1-2): 169-174.

Asumugha, G. N. and Chinaka, C. C. 1992. “Socio-economic and cultural variables influencing

adoption of yam minisett technique in three eastern states of Nigeria”. In M. C. Igbokwe, L. S.

Eluagu, Asumugha G. N. and Mbanason J. A. Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the

Agricultural Society of Nigeria.

Ayoola J B 2012. “Socio-economic Determinants of the Adoption of Yam Minisett Technology in the

Middle Belt Region of Nigeria”. Journal of Agricultural Science 4(6): 215-222.

Barham BL, Chavas J-P, Fitz D, Salas VR and Schechter L 2014. “The roles of risk and ambiguity in

technology adoption”. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 97: 204-218

Bolarinwa K. K. and Oladeji J. O. 2009. “Adoption and Relevance of Yam Minisett Technology

Practices to Farmers Indigenous Practices in Rain Forest and Derived Savannah Zones of Nigeria”.

Journal of Applied Sciences Research 5(12): 2461-2465

Chikwendu, D. O., Chinaka, C. C. and Omotayo, A. M. 1995. “Adoption of minisett technique of seed

yam production by farmers in the Eastern Forest Zone of Nigeria”. Discoveries and Innovations 7 (4):

367-375.

Farauta K, Yaro A and Pev I 2015. “Adoption of Yam Minisett Technique by Small Scale Farmers in

Taraba State, Nigeria”. Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences 7(1): 75-90.

12


Feder G 1980. “Farm Size, Risk Aversion and the Adoption of New Technology under Uncertainty”.

Oxford Economic Papers 32(2): 263-283

Feder G, Just R E, and Zilberman D 1985. “Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing

Countries: A Survey”. Economic Development and Cultural Change 33(2): 255-298.

Feder G and Umali DL 1993. “The adoption of agricultural innovations: A review”. Technological

Forecasting and Social Change 43(3–4): 215-239

Gbegeh B. D. and Akubuilo, C.J.C. 2013. “Socioeconomic determinants of adoption of yam minisett

by farmers in Rivers state, Nigeria”. Wudpecker Journal of Agricultural Research 2(1): 33 – 38

George, J. 1990. “Effect of minisett size and nursery media on the sprouting of yams”. Journal of

Root Crops 16(2): 71-75.

Ibana S., Coyne D., Claudius-Cole A., McNamara, N and Morse S. 2012. “Economic analysis of

commercial seed yam production systems in the sub-humid ecologies of the River Niger”. Journal of

Crop Improvement 26: 22–38

Igwilo N 2007. “Seed yam production in Nigeria using Minisett and Peelsett Technique”. Journal of

Root Crops 33(2): 104-108

Igwilo, N. and Okoli, O. O. 1988. “Evaluation of yam cultivars for seed yam production using the

minisett technique”. Field Crops Research 19: 81-89.

Ikeorgu, J. E. G. and Nwokocha, H. N. 2001. “Recent modifications on the yam minisett technique. II.

Development of the yam minituber technique for seed yam production”. NRCRI Draft paper.

Ilesanmi R.Y. and Akinmusola O. 2016. “Factors limiting the yam minisett technique adoption: A

review”. Agricultural Reviews 37(3): 213-220.

Ironkwe A. G., Asiedu R. and Unamma R. P. A. 2007. “Adoption of Yam MInisett Technique by

women farmers in Abia State, Nigeria”. Journal of Agriculture and Social Research 7(2): 95-105.

13


Ironkwe A. G., Asiedu R. and Chinaka E. C. 2007. “Women farmers' participation in yam minisett

adoption in south-eastern Nigeria”. Global Approaches to Extension Practice 3(2): 62-69.

lronkwe, A.G., Ekwe K. C and Asiedu R. 2008. “Determinants of adoption gaps in yam minisett

technology among women farmers in Abia State, Nigeria”. Nigerian Journal of Rural Sociology 8(1):

33-40.

Ironkwe A. G., Unamma R. P. A., Nwosu A. C. and Elemuche O. 2009. “Factors influencing yam

minisett technology adoption by farmers in Enugu state Nigeria”. Journal of Sustainable

Development 6(2): 16-22.

Ironkwe A. G., Ezebuiro N. C. and Ewuziem J. E. 2016. “Adoption of Root and Tuber Technologies

Disseminated by the National Root Crops Research Institute in Anambra State”. Journal of

Agricultural Extension 20(1): 39-52.

Iwueke, C.C., Mbata , E.N. and Okereke, H.E. 1983. “Rapid Multiplication of seed yam minisett

technique”. Advisory Bulletin, No.9. National Root Crop Research Institute, Umudike, Nigeria.

Kalu, B. A., Norman, J. C., Pal, V. R. and Adedzwa, D. K. 1989. “Seed yam multiplication by the

mini-sett technique in three yam species in a tropical guinea savanna location”. Experimental

Agriculture 25: 181-188.

Lawal, A. F., Liman, A. and Lakpene. T. 2014. “Adoption of yam minisett technology by farmers in

Niger State, southern guinea savannah, Nigeria”. Nigerian Journal of Agriculture, Food and

Environment 10(1): 65-71

Madukwe MC 1995. “Obstacles to the adoption of Yam Minisett technology by small-scale farmers

of South-eastern Nigeria”. Agrosearch 1(1): 1-6.

Madukwe MC 1997. “Categorization of Target Groups as an Agricultural Extension Survival Policy:

A Case Study of the Yam Minisett Technology in South-Eastern Nigeria”. Journal of Agricultural

Extension 1: 1-8.

14


Madukwe MC, Ayichi D and Okoli EC 2000. “Issues in Yam Minisett Technology transfer to farmers

in Southeastern Nigeria”. ATPS Working Paper No. 21, March 2000. African Technology Policy

Studies Network, Nairobi, Kenya.

Marra M, Pannell DJ and Ghadim AA 2003. “The economics of risk, uncertainty and learning in the

adoption of new agricultural technologies: where are we on the learning curve?” Agricultural Systems

75(2–3): 215-234

Matthews-Njoku E. C., Adesope O. M. and Iruba C. 2009. “Acceptability of improved crop

production practices among rural women in Aguata agricultural zone of Anambra State, Nigeria”.

African Journal of Biotechnology 8(3): 405-411.

Morse S and McNamara N. 2017. “Agronomic and economic performance of seed yam production

using minisetts in the middle belt of Nigeria”. Journal of Crop Improvement 32: 90-106. doi.org/10.1080/15427528.2017.1399494

Morse S and McNamara N. 2016. “Fostering entrepreneurship to help provide a sustainable clean

seed yam production system in flood prone areas of Idah, Kogi State, Nigeria”. Agroecology and

Sustainable Food Systems 40(10): 1085–1105

Morse, S., McNamara, N and Acholo, M. 2009. “Potential for clean seed yam minisett production by

resource-poor farmers in the middle-belt of Nigeria”. Journal of Agricultural Science 147(5): 589-

600.

Nlerum, F. E. 2006. “Socio-economic characteristics as correlates of adoption among yam farmers in

rural Ikwerre areas of Rivers State, Nigeria”. Global Approaches to Extension Practice 2(2): 74-80.

Nlerum, F. E. 2009. “Prediction of adoption of yam minisett technology among yam farmers in Rivers

State, Nigeria”. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research 43(4): 294-298

Nwaobiala, C. U. 2017. “Factors Influencing Farmer Output in the International Fund for Agricultural

Development Community-Based Project in Abia and Cross River Sates, Nigeria”. Journal of

Agricultural Extension 21(1):135-148.

15

https://doi.org/10.1080/15427528.2017.1399494


Ofem N. I., Ndifon H. M., Ogbonna K. I., Ntui O. E. 2011. “Extension communication and farmers’

adoption of yam production technologies in south – south Nigeria”. Global Journal of Agricultural

Sciences 10(2): 145-150.

Okoli, O. O. 1986. “Rapid propagation of yam by the minisett technique”. In J. K. Cock (ed.) Global

Workshop on root and Tuber Crops Propagation. Proceedings of Regional Workshop, CIAT, Cali,

Columbia, pages 119-122.

Okoli, O. O. and Akoroda, M. O. 1995. “Providing seed tubers for the production of food yams”.

African Journal of Root and Tuber Crops 1 (1): 1-6.

Okoro, J. K. 2008. “Awareness and Use of the Rapid Seed Yam Multiplication Technology by

Farmers in Nigeria’s Yam Belt”. Production Agriculture and Technology Journal 5(1): 22-29

Okoro, B. O. and Ajieh, P. C. 2014. “Farmers’ Perception and Adoption of Yam Minisett Technology

in Anambra State”. International Journal of Agricultural Science, Research and Technology in

Extension and Education Systems 4(4): 211-214

Oluyomi SM and Fawole OP 2016. “Determinants of YMT utilization by farmers in North-Central

Nigeria”. International Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development 3(10): 237-247

Omotesho, O. A., Falola, A., Muhammad-Lawal, A. and Oyeyemi, A. 2012. “Comparative Analysis

of the Performances of Adopters and Non-Adopters of Yam Minisett Technology in Kwara State,

Nigeria”. International Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development 15(3): 1335-1341

Onemolease E. A. and Adisa T. 2005. “Factors associated with use of yam mini sett technology in

Egbeda Local Government Area of Oyo State, Nigeria”. International Journal of Agriculture and

Rural Development 6(1): 12-18

Onumadu, F. N. and Nwaobiala, C.U. 2012. “Assessment of Youths Participation in Yam Minisett

Technology in Ivo Local Government Area of Ebonyi State, Nigeria”. Journal of Economics and

Sustainable Development 3(3): 45-50.

Onyenweaku, C. E. 1991. “Factors associated with the adoption of the seed yam ‘minisett’ technique

by farmers in Imo State, Nigeria”. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology 1(2): 155-157.

16


Onyenweaku, C. E. and Mbuba, C. 1991. “The adoption of the yam ‘minisett’ technology by farmers

in Anambra State of Nigeria”. Nigerian Journal of Agricultural Extension 6 (1 and 2): 26-33.

Orkwor, G.C. and Asadu, R. 1998. “Yam agronomy”. In. Food Yams: Advances in Research. Eds.

GC Orkwor, R. Asiedu & IJ Ekanayake. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan,

Nigeria, pp 105-141.

Osiru, D. S. O., Hahan, S. K. and Lal, R. 1987. “Effect of mulching material and plant density on the

growth, development and yield of white yam minisetts”. In E. R. Terry, E. V. Doku, O. B. Arene and

N. M. Mahungu (eds.). Root crops and the African food crisis. Proceedings of the third triennial

symposium of the Internatioonal Society for Tropical Root Crops - African Branch, Owerri, Nigeria.

IDRC, Ottawa, Canada, pages 43-47.

Tokula, M.H, Ibeagi, O. O., Chinaka, E. C. and Asumugha, G.N 2008. “Utilization of improved root

and tuber crops production technologies among extension agents (EAs) in Kogi-East senatorial zone

of Nigeria”. Journal of Agriculture and Social Research 8(2): 168-173.

Toluwase, S. O. W; Adejumo J.A and Kolapo, A. 2017. “Determinants of Yam Minisett Technology

Adoption among Rural Farmers in Ekiti State, Nigeria”. Journal of Agricultural Economics,

Extension and Rural Development 5(2): 606-611

Udoh AJ, Idio A, Umoh E and Robson U 2008. “Socioeconomic Factors Influencing Adoption of

Yam Minisett Technology in South eastern Nigeria: A Probit Analysis”. Indian Research Journal of

Extension Education 8(2&3): 1-5

Waziri A., Tsado E.K., Likita .T and Gana, A.S. 2014. “Socio-economic factors influencing adoption

of yam Minisett Technology in Niger State of Nigeria”. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and

Healthcare 4(5): 98-105.

17


Table 1. The framework of Yam Minisett Technique adoption studies presented by Ilesanmi and Akinmusola (2016)

Apparent duplication/similarity of example variables across the 8 categories has been highlighted using bold text and underline.

Category Example variablesAwareness Extension contact, Membership of social groupFarmers’ perception The perceived benefits of adopting YMT Behavioural factors The inherent ability of the farmer to adopt new information

Socio-economic factors Farmers age, Farming experience, Gender, Marital status, Level of education, Family size, Membership of social group(s)

Economic factors Access to credit, Farm size, Costs and benefits, Farm income, Off-farm income, Profitability, Marketing distance, Availability of inputs, Land tenancy and Land size

Agro-ecological factors Soil quality, Rainfall pattern, Land tenure system, Soil type, Population density, Farm specialisation, Irrigation facility

Institutional factors Membership of Social group, Extension serviceTechnological factors Availability, Simplicity/Ease of use, Comparative advantage, Trialability, Visibility,

Affordability

Table 2. Reported Yam Minisett Technique adoption and awareness rates in the literature (Nigeria 1991 to 2017).18


Author(s) States/places within Nigeria Sample size Adoption rate (%) Awareness

rate (%) Minisett size Plants her haOnyenweaku (1991) Imo State 51Onyenweaku and Mbubuh (1991) Anambra State 51

Chikwendu et al. (1995) Eastern Forest Zone

49

Madukwe (1995) Abia, Anambra, Benue, Enugu and Imo States

104 83 (planted some minisett)

100

Madukwe (1997) Abia, Anambra, Cross River, Enugu and Imo States

388 farmers + 191 Extension Agents

26.33 to 33.77 25g 40,000

Madukwe et al. (2000) Ahia, Anambra, Cross River, Enugu and Imo States

191 Extension Agents and 388

farmers

26.33 to 33.77 25g 40,000

Ikeorgu and Nwokocha (2001) < 30Agbaje and Oyegbami (2005) South-West 35Onemolease and Adisa (2005) Oyo State 43.4 100Nlerum (2006) Rivers State 18.6Aniedu et al. (2007) South-East 113 (female) 23.2 (female)

South-East 121 (male) 30 (male)Ironkwe et al. (2007) Abia State 243 women 32.51 (women) 57.61

(women)Ironkwe et al. (2008) Abia State 243 women 32.51 (women) 57.61

(women)25g 40,000

Table 2 (Continued). Reported Yam Minisett Technique adoption and awareness rates in the literature (Nigeria 1991 to 2017).

19



rate (%) Minisett size Plants her haTokula et al. (2008) Kogi State 30 extension agents 40

(of those aware)95 25g 40,000

Okoro (2008) 18 States 22.4(of those aware)

46.6

Matthews-Njoku et al. (2009) Anambra State 100 women 71 (women; fully adopted)

Ironkwe et al. (2009) Enugu State 25 94Bolarinwa and Oladeji (2009) Oyo, Osun and

Kwara States342 69 71 25g 40,000

Ofem et al. (2011) South 8.57Akpabio et al. (2012) Niger Delta 250 14.4 (women) 49.6 (women)Ajieh (2012) Delta State 240 26

(of those aware)46 (43 to 49) 25 to 30g 40,000

Ayoola (2012) Benue and Kogi States

120 9 98

Achoja and Uzokwe (2012) Delta State 81 16 to 47 (depending on

years awareness)

20 to 50g 20,000

Omotesho et al. (2012) Kwara State 64 (32 adopters and 32 non-adopters)

59.4 (amongst non-adopters)

25g

Gbegeh and Akubuilo (2013) Rivers State 90 44.4 50

Table 2 (Continued). Reported Yam Minisett Technique adoption and awareness rates in the literature (Nigeria 1991 to 2017).

20



rate (%) Minisett size Plants her haWaziri et al. (2014) Niger State 250 22.4 41.6 10 to 25gLawal et al. (2014) Niger State 150 15.33 32.67 25g 53,000Agbarevo (2014) Rivers State 180 50.1 25 to 60gAnozie et al. (2014) Imo State 90 36.7 25 to 50g 40,000Ajieh and Okoro (2015) Anambra State 160 32 (high and

medium knowledge)

25 to 30g

Farauta et al. (2015). Taraba State 150 30 37Aniedu (2016) Abia State 60 37.1

(improved yam production

technologies)Ironkwe et al. (2016) Anambra State 171 46.78 40.35Toluwase et al. (2017) Ekiti State 120 34.2 68.3

Table 3. Percentage adoption of yam Minisett Technique components

21


Ajieh (2012)

Bolarinwa and Oladeji (2009)

Achoja and Uzokwe (2012)

Lawal et al. (2014)

Madukwe et al. (2000)

Okoro and Ajieh (2014)

Tokula et al. (2008)

Oluyomi and Fawole (2016)

YMT Component % % % % % % % %Site selectionLand preparationImproved planting material 99Planting material selection 100Select tubers that have broken dormancy 80.5Size of tuber for cutting 25 16.6 29Sterilise Knife before use and intermittently 100Cutting into minisett (recommended sizes) 69 77.1 18.7 28 83.2Air drying 10 11.3 22Application of minisett dust/seed treatment 27 19.8

4865 10.5 28 50 48.2

Curing 34 13.2 22 91.4Pre-Sprouting/use of nursery 29.2 100 63.2Transplant with short vines without open leaves 67.7Direct Field Planting 100Planting on ridges or beds 40Spacing (e.g. 25 cm) 17 100 100 12.9 23 13 68.6

Table 3 (Continued). Percentage adoption of Yam Minisett Technique components

22


Ajieh (2012)

Bolarinwa and Oladeji (2009)

Achoja and Uzokwe (2012)

Lawal et al. (2014)

Madukwe et al. (2000)

Okoro and Ajieh (2014)

Tokula et al. (2008)


YMT Component % % % % % % % %Planting distance/timing 95Planting depth 17 10.8 25 80Time of planting 15 59.8 43 65.9Mulching 100Intercropping/intercropping patterns 20 8.9 38Sole cropping 39.5Chemical weed control 28.6 55 48.6Hand weeding (field/nursery) 100 100 23Fertilizer application 24.5 80 32.5 40 49.1Applying fertilizer 8 weeks after planting 13Stalking using trills or pyramid method 94.1 67.5 20 93.6Equipment/tractor hire 46Harvesting techniques 83.2Storage techniques 72.3

Table 4. Adoption scores for components of Yam Minisett Technique.

23


Ajieh (2012)Okoro and Ajieh (2014) Nwaobiala (2017) Nwaobiala (2017)


YMT componentMean adoption score Adoption score

Adoption Score (Abia)

Adoption Score (Cross River) Adoption Score

Site selection 3.2 3Land preparation 3.1 3.1Improved planting material 3.3 3.3Planting material selection 1.1Select tubers that have broken dormancy 0.8Size of tuber for cutting 2.23 3.62Sterilise Knife before use and intermittently 1.1Cutting into minisett (recommended sizes) 2.79 3.84 3.2 3.2 0.8Air drying 2.09 3.55Application of minisett dust/seed treatment 2.05 3.84 3.4 3.2 0.2Curing 2.29 3.55 0.9Pre-Sprouting/use of nursery 0.4Transplant with short vines without open leaves 0.4Direct Field PlantingPlanting on ridges or bedsSpacing (e.g. 25 cm) 2.15 3.6 3.2 3.2 0.5

Table 4 (Continued). Adoption scores for components of Yam Minisett Technique.

24


Ajieh (2012) Okoro and Ajieh (2014)

Nwaobiala (2017)

Nwaobiala (2017) Oluyomi and Fawole (2016)

YMT component

Mean adoption score

Adoption score

Adoption Score (Abia

State)

Adoption Score (Cross River State)

Adoption Score

Planting depth 2.11 3.7 0.8Time of planting 2.14 4.42 3 3 0.4Mulching 1.1Intercropping/intercropping patterns 2.31 4.24Sole cropping 0.2Chemical weed control 0.2Hand weeding (field/nursery) 3.3 3.1Fertilizer application 3.1 3.1 0.2Stalking using trills or pyramid method 3.2 3.2 0.9Harvesting techniques 3.1 3.2 0.8Storage techniques 3 3.1 0.5

Table 5. Ranks of Yam Minisett Technique components based on percentage adoption.

25


Average Rank Count (Number of studies)Hand weeding (field/nursery) 2.67 3Size of tuber for cutting 3.33 3Cutting into minisett (recommended sizes) 3.80 5Staking using trills or pyramid method 4.25 4Curing 4.88 4Intercropping/intercropping patterns 5.33 3Spacing (e.g. 25 cm) 5.71 7Time of planting 5.75 4Application of minisett dust/seed treatment 6.44 8Fertilizer application 7.10 5Planting depth 7.13 4Pre-Sprouting/use of nursery 7.33 3Air drying 7.83 3Chemical weed control 9.67 3

Table 6. Ranks of Yam Minisett Technique components based on scores.

26


Average Rank Count (Number of studies)Improved planting material 1.75 2Intercropping/intercropping patterns 2.00 2Cutting into minisett (recommended sizes) 4.30 5Staking using trills or pyramid method 4.67 3Size of tuber for cutting 5.00 2Curing 5.33 3Hand weeding (field/nursery) 5.50 2Spacing (e.g. 25 cm) 6.40 5Planting depth 6.50 3Application of minisett dust/seed treatment 6.80 5Harvesting techniques 6.83 3Air drying 8.25 2Site selection 8.50 2Time of planting 8.60 5Land preparation 8.75 2Storage techniques 10.17 3Fertilizer application 11.33 3

Table 7. Reasons given by farmers for non-adoption of Yam Minisett Technique (YMT; percentage of respondents).

27


Reasons for non-adoption

Okoli and Akoroda (1995)

Anozie et al. (2014)

Ironkwe et al. (2007)

Lawal et al. (2014)

Those who have never adopted YMT

YMT adopters who no longer practise

Unsuitable soil type for YMT 2.4 -Unaware/insufficient information 51.8 47.27Method is complicated 15.5 6.4Lack of technical help/extension 12 9.6 14.4Not convinced about the merits of YMT 22.6Suitable local yam varietyNon-availability/scarcity/poor access of inputs 36.6 51.1 55.46Poor availability of staking materialsLack of fertilizer 89High cost of seed yam for plantingHigh cost of labourLabour intensive 64.55Scarcity of minisett dust 84Lack of capital 7.3 23.4 42.2Difficulty in obtaining loans 38.9 59.5Poor minisett sprouting 54.3 81.82Weed problemsTheft problemsSeed yams produced are too small 77.7 72.73Expected results not obtained 36.2Lack of feeder roads/transport 59.5Lack of storage 59.5No seed tuber market 44 19.1 23.3

Table 8. Statistical methods adopted by researchers exploring the characteristics associated with the adoption of Yam Minisett Technique.

28


Study authors (year of publication) Location in Nigeria Type of statistical test Reported R2 Reported sample size

Onyenweaku and Mbuba (1991) Anambra State, Nigeria Regression 24% 191Chikwendu et al., (1995) Eastern Forest Zone of Nigeria Regression 38% 80Agumagu (2003) Rivers State, Nigeria CorrelationNlerum (2006) Rivers State, Nigeria Correlation 252Aniedu et al. (2007) South-East Nigeria (males, linear model) Regression 65% 121Aniedu et al. (2007) South-East Nigeria (females, linear model) Regression 77% 113Ironkwe et al. (2007) Abia State, Nigeria Regression (exponential model) 85% 243 women farmersIronkwe et al. (2008) Abia State, Nigeria Regression (probit) 243 women farmersTokula et al. (2008) Kogi-East, Nigeria Regression 65% 30 extension agentsUdoh et al. (2008) Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria Regression (probit) 35% 110Ironkwe et al. (2009) Enugu State, Nigeria Regression (probit) 96Bolarinwa and Oladeji (2009) Oyo, Osun and Kwara States, Nigeria Chi-square 342Anyaegbunam et al. (2009) Abia State, Nigeria Regression (double log) 120Achoja and Uzokwe (2012) Delta State, Nigeria Correlation 81Ajieh (2012) Delta State, Nigeria Chi-square 240Ayoola (2012) Kogi and Benue States, Nigeria Maximum Likelihood Probit 120Onumadu and Nwaobiala (2012) Ebonyi State, Nigeria Correlation 120 Young farmersGbegeh and Akubuilo (2013) Rivers state, Nigeria Regression (binary logit) 73% 90Lawal et al. (2014) Niger State Regression 150Waziri et al. (2014) Niger State, Nigeria Regression (Semi-logarithmic) 66% 500

Oluyomi and Fawole (2016) Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Benue, Niger, Kwara, Nasarawa, Kogi and Plateau states.

Regression 90% 220

Toluwase et al. (2017) Ekiti State, Nigeria Probit 62% 120

Table 9. Characteristics associated with the adoption of Yam Minisett Technique.

29


(a) Independent variables included in at least 6 tests

Independent variables Number of tests Number significant at P<0.05

Percentage significant

For regression coefficientsNegative coefficient

(P<0.05)Positive coefficient

(P<0.05)Education of farmer 21 8 38 0 7Farm size/land availability/farm holding 18 11 61 2 7Age of farmer 17 9 53 3 4Extension contact/awareness/involvement in research 17 12 71 1 10Farming experience/yam experience 16 6 38 1 4Household size 13 3 23 1 2Membership of co-operative/association 12 8 67 2 6Use of credit/access to credit 9 4 44 0 4Income (HH, farm) 8 3 38 0 3Sex of farmer 7 2 29 1Marital status 6 3 50 1 1Labour availability 6 4 67 2 2

Table 9. Characteristics associated with the adoption of Yam Minisett Technique.

30


(b) Independent variables included in less than 6 tests

Independent variablesNumber of tests

Number significant at P<0.05

Percentage significant

For regression coefficientsNegative coefficient

(P<0.05)Positive coefficient

(P<0.05)Tenure status/ownership/rent 5 2 40 2 0Occupation 3 1 33 0 1Market proximity/availability/distance 3 2 67 0 2Frequency of attendance of farmer meetings 2 0 0Income from seed yam 1 1 100 0 1Level of involvement in farming 1 1 100 1 0Yam area 1 1 100 0 1Leadership position 1 0 0Exposure to mass media 1 0 0YMT as a technology among other farm technologies 1 0 0Perceived risk of adoption 1 1 100 0 1Source of information 1 0 0Contact with other farmers 1 0 0Complexity of technology 1 0 0Farm location 1 1 100 1Pattern of YMT 1 1 100 1Number of YMT cycle 1 0 0Access to production Resources 1 1 100 1

Figure 1. Matching of key steps in the Yam Minisett Technique (YMT) process with concerns raised by farmers and their capabilities.

31


32

epubs.surrey.ac.ukepubs.surrey.ac.uk/846291/1/analysis of yam minisett... · web viewit is...

Documents