Factors influencing the adoption of grasscutter production in the Brong Ahafo region of Ghana
S Y Annor and C Kusi
Department of
Animal
Science Education, University of Education, Winneba, P.O. Box
40,
Mampong-Ashanti, Ghana
sayannor@yahoo.com
Abstract
The
Government of Ghana and NGOs have been promoting grasscutter
production in the Brong Ahafo region of Ghana in the last nine years.
NGOs support farmers with training to acquire knowledge and skills
in grasscutter rearing. Although some farmers are given training,
they do not go into production. This study was aimed at finding out
the factors facilitating or hindering the adoption of grasscutter
farming in the Brong Ahafo region. A total of 50 farmers comprising
two focus groups (adopters and non-adopters) that were trained were
identified and interviewed. Focus group questions were based on
Rogers’ and Pantanali’s models of adoption where characteristics
of farmers, labour, finance and the social system are considered as
essential factors affecting adoption. The data was analyzed by using
SPSS computer programme. Pearson Correlation was used to determine
the relationship between adoption and the variables studied.
Farmers’ decision on the adoption of grasscutter farming was
positively affected by sex, marital status and funding, and
negatively affected by age and education. Occupation had no
influence on adoption. Lack of breeding stock and initial capital
required to purchase breeding stock and cages were found to be
constraints. It was concluded that the characteristics of individual
farmers should be taken into consideration during training needs
assessment, and give each individual the appropriate training. It was
also recommended that NGOs should strengthen grasscutter farmers’
association so that they can provide credit to grasscutter trainees,
especially women and the youth, to purchase start-up breeding stock
and cages.
Keywords: age, educational status, funding, marital status,occupation, sex
Introduction
The
demand for grasscutter meat in Ghana is high with its accompanying
price hikes. Hence, the prospect of grasscutter rearing is very
bright and encouraging either as a full-time or part-time job. The
Department of Game and Wildlife estimated sometime ago that 80% of
the rural population in Ghana depends on game meat for their dietary
protein supply (Asibey 1987). The most commonly consumed species of
game meat by those living in rural areas is the grasscutter (Asibey 1978). Grasscutter meat is also a delicacy in big towns and cities
in Ghana. The popularity and delicacy of the grasscutter meat among
other reasons led to several studies on the animal during the 1970’s
with the primary aim of domesticating the species for large-scale
farming and production of the meat for human consumption (Asibey 1974; 1978).
Pioneering
work on domestication of the grasscutter was undertaken by the Game
and Wildlife, now Wildlife Department in Ghana, in the 1970’s.
Interested farmers were provided with a seed stock of a male and a
female grasscutters (mostly captured from the wild) and a cage (Adu 2002). Trained extension workers monitored the performance of the
animals. The idea was that the research findings could be applied
directly by farmers and that both rural and urban household could
rear grasscutters in their farms either as a backyard activity to
supplement household income and protein supply or as large-scale
commercial activity. Despite being given incentives those days,
farmers failed to adopt the initiative.
The
Government of Ghana through the Ministry of Food and Agriculture
(MOFA) and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) has recently been
promoting grasscutter production in the country (Attah-Agyepong and
Weidinger 2002). The primary goal of these organizations is to
improve the welfare of rural families through enhancing productivity
of small-scale rural farmers and promoting equitable access to
resources. The NGOs support farmers by assisting them with training
and start-up breeding stock at subsidized prices. Despite the low
initial capital outlay of the grasscutter industry and the subsidies
provided by NGOs, some farmers do not adopt or go into production
when introduced to the innovation. According to White (1981), the
main problem of limited adoption of a technology or venture, which
appears sound, when evaluated using the criteria of the agricultural
scientists and development experts, can be thought of as the
‘technology application gap’.
The
objective of the study was to find out the factors facilitating or
hindering the adoption of grasscutter farming in the Brong Ahafo
region of Ghana.
Methodology
Study
area
The
study was carried out between January and June 2004 in the Brong
Ahafo Region of Ghana. Brong Ahafo is the second largest region of
the country with a population of 1,824,822 representing 9.9% of the
nation’s total population. Out of the total population, 1,332,000
(73%) live in the rural areas (MOFA 2001).
The
inhabitants are mostly peasant farmers producing all kinds of
foodstuffs, some of which are plantain, cassava, yam, cocoyam and
vegetables such as tomatoes, pepper, onion and garden eggs. They also
grow cash crops such as cocoa, coffee, and cashew.
Traditionally,
livestock
production in Ghana has been concentrated in the northern sectors
(Upper East, Upper West and Northern Regions) because the savanna
vegetation is suitable for providing feed for the animals. However,
in recent times, the Brong Ahafo region is playing an important role
in livestock production because in certain parts of the region the
vegetation has turned from forest into grassland.
Study
population
The
study covered adopters and non-adopters who were trained in
grasscutter rearing by GTZ with the primary aim of helping them to
become grasscutter farmers. As at the time of doing this study,
there were 252 grasscutter farmers (approximately
50:50 sex ratio) in
the Brong Ahafo region and about 500 farmers had been trained by GTZ
(Alhassan et al 2004). A total of 50 farmers and individuals trained by GTZ
comprising two foci groups were identified and interviewed. Focus
group questions were based on Roger’s and Pantanali’s model of
adoption (Pantanali 1987; Rogers 1995). Participants were selected
from 8 towns and villages in the Brong Ahafo region with the help of
extension agents of MOFA and GTZ by using purposive and random
sampling (Galloway 1997), as explained below. The adopters were
visited at their farm sites to help get accurate information whiles
the non-adopters were reached in their homes.
Data
collection and analysis
Two
sampling techniques, viz., purposive sampling and random sampling
were adopted (Galloway 1997).
Purposive
sampling was used to identify farmers in the
study
area who were trained by GTZ. Random sampling technique was used to
select 50 farmers from the lot for the study. The 50 farmers
comprised 20 adopters and 30 non-adopters.
Information
was gathered through questionnaires, field observations and
interviews. Interviews were conducted on a one-to-one basis with
farmers. The questionnaire was constructed to elicit the following
information from farmers: demographic, training, finance and social
system. The data was analyzed by
using SPSS
computer programme (SPSS 2006). Pearson Correlation was used to
determine the relationship between adoption and the variables studied
(SPSS 2006).
Results
and discussions
Sex
Equal
number of males and females were interviewed (Table 1). The total
number of male farmers who adopted grasscutter rearing was three
times more than the number of female farmers. Female non adopters
were also two times more than males
|
Table 1.
Sex of respondents |
|
Focus Group
|
Male |
% of Total
|
Female |
% of Total
|
|
Adopters |
15
|
75
|
5
|
25
|
|
Non Adopters |
10
|
33
|
20
|
67
|
|
Total |
25
|
50
|
25
|
50
|
The
correlation between sex and adoption was +0.41 (P<0.01). This
indicates that farmers’ decision on adoption of grasscutter
technology was positively influenced by sex of respondent. Recently,
Teklewold et al
(2006) made the same observation in poultry. The result of their
work indicated that male household heads were potential adopters of
exotic poultry breed than female farmers.
These
findings might have stemmed from the fact that males give the nod if
any member of the family wants to go into production of any kind;
because the culture of the people studied mandates the male as the
head of the family and therefore responsible for decisions taken in
the house (Berry 1994). This can affect the main objective of the
grasscutter promotion projects which seek to improve the welfare of
women and the youth (Wontewe 2002). According to Rogers (1995), the
culture within the social system and the individuals who make up the
social system can affect the diffusion of new ideas. Gerland (1991)
also identified people issues which included cultural traditions, as
among the major barriers to diffusion and adoption process.
Age
Age
was classified into youth, adult and the aged (Table 2). Most of the
farmers who adopted grasscutter farming were adults, followed by the
youth and then the aged. For non-adopters, the youth formed the
highest proportion, followed by adults and then the aged. This
probably means that majority of the people who went for the
grasscutter training programmes were within the youth age group. This
is in accordance with the project’s aim of training and
equipping the youth with operational skills that would enable them to
establish their own farms. Although most of the youth were trained
in grasscutter rearing majority of the people who went into actual
production were adults (Table 2). There was a significant negative
correlation (-0.42) between age and adoption (P<0.01).
The
results of this study is at variance with the study of Teklewold et al (2006),
which showed that farmers’ decision on the extent of adoption of
exotic poultry breed was positively influenced by age of household
head. They observed that farmers who were above 39 years were most
likely to have lower adoption rates, because older people fear the
risk of poultry diseases and other unexpected events in exotic breed
of poultry whilst young farmers tend to be more flexible in their
decisions to adopt new ideas and technologies more rapidly.
|
Table 2. Age of respondents
(years)
|
|
Focus Group
|
Youth
(18-45), years
|
% of
Total
|
Adult
(45-60), Years
|
% of
Total
|
Aged
(>60), Years
|
% of
Total
|
| Adopters |
5
|
25
|
12
|
60
|
3
|
15
|
| Non-adopters |
22
|
73
|
6
|
20
|
2
|
7
|
|
Total |
27
|
54
|
18
|
36
|
5
|
10
|
The
scenario of the current study is quite different from that of
Teklewold et al
(2006). In the
former, both old and young farmers were not conversant with
grasscutter rearing whilst in the latter situation a new breed was
being introduced to replace an old one. Moreover, in the current
study, as to why as high as 73% of the non-adopters were youth can be
traced to the fact that the youth (especially the young-youth that is
those between 18 and 30 years) do not usually decide for themselves.
According to Pantanali (1987), male adults are the sole
decision-makers in most farming communities. Family property such as
land and houses are directly controlled by the family heads who are
usually adults. In circumstances like this adoption becomes a problem
despite the fact that younger farmers are usually more innovative
than the older ones.
Marital
status
The
marital status of respondents is shown in Table 3. Many of the
adopters of grasscutter farming were married compared to single
individuals and divorcees. However, unmarried individuals dominated
the non-adopters, and there was no divorcee. The coefficient of
marital status in the adoption of grasscutter rearing was positive
(+0.40) and statistically significant (P<0.01). The results
support the hypothesis that, as a good source of labour for animal
production management, households with more family size are more
likely to be adopters than families with lower family size (Teklewold et al 2006).
This
probably implies that married persons with medium to large families
are more likely to adopt the grasscutter farming in order to ensure
family support as 84% of the total respondents admitted that
grasscutter rearing is labour intensive or labour demanding. For
instance, feeding (cutting of grass), cleaning and handling were
identified as aspects of grasscutter keeping which were labour
intensive. Labour is said to be partly responsible for non-adoption,
probably, due to the financial commitment involved.
|
Table
3. Marital status of
respondents
|
|
Focus
group |
Married
|
%
of Total
|
Single
|
%
of Total
|
Divorced
|
%
of Total
|
|
Adopters
|
17
|
85
|
2
|
10
|
1
|
5
|
|
Non-Adopters
|
11
|
37
|
19
|
63
|
0
|
0
|
|
Total
|
28
|
56
|
21
|
42
|
1
|
2
|
According
to Pantanali (1987), labour intensive technologies are unlikely to be
adopted. In view of this, potential adopters may want to depend on
family labour than to hire, for possible reduction in the cost of
production. Family labour counts a lot in the adoption of
agricultural innovation, because 50% of the adopters had large family
sizes of more than four. Moreover, 80% of the non-adopter couples
had small family sizes, so their inability to adopt can be attributed
to their inability to secure labour resulting from small family
sizes. This re-emphasizes the point made that adopters may want to
depend on their families as a source of labour. Adoption is
significantly influenced by labour so potential adopters with small
families are likely to shy away from adopting innovation.
Occupation
Farmers,
traders and civil servants constituted the occupational status of
respondents (Table 4). Farmers dominated both the adopter and
non-adopter categories with respect to occupation. The correlation
between occupation and adoption (-0.26) was not significant
(P>0.05). This indicates that occupation had no influence on
adoption of
grasscutter farming.
|
Table
4. Occupation of
respondents
|
|
Focus group
|
Farming
|
% of
Total
|
Trading
|
% of
Total
|
Civil
servant
|
% of
Total
|
| Adopters |
15
|
75
|
2
|
10
|
3
|
15
|
| Non-Adopters |
28
|
94
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
3
|
|
Total |
43
|
86
|
3
|
6
|
4
|
8
|
In
the literal sense however, the 86% of farmers recorded shows that the
majority of the people who were trained as potential grasscutter
farmers were farmers in retrospect. This is in line with the NGOs
objective of reducing poverty among rural or urban farmers by
providing them with requisite skills in grasscutter keeping. NGOs
seek also to provide an alternative income generating activity for
the farmers. This is in the right direction because according to
Boama (2002), about 60 – 65% of the inhabitants of Brong Ahafo
region derive their livelihood from agriculture and
agriculture-related activities (MOFA 2001).
Educational status
The
respondents were grouped into four; illiterate, basic school leaver,
secondary and tertiary school leavers (Table 5). Illiterates
included school drop outs below basic school level. Most of the
respondents were basic school leavers, followed by secondary,
tertiary and illiterate in that order. From Table 5, 10% of both
adopters and non-adopters had not been to school, whilst 90% had
either been to basic, secondary or tertiary institution. The
coefficient of educational status in the adoption of grasscutter
rearing was negative (-0.30) and statistically significant
(P<0.05).
|
Table 5. Educational
status of respondents
|
|
Focus group
|
Illiterate
|
% of Total
|
Basic School
|
% of Total
|
Secondary
|
% of Total
|
Tertiary
|
% of Total
|
| Adopters |
2 |
10 |
9 |
45 |
4 |
20 |
5 |
25 |
| Non-adopters |
3 |
10 |
22 |
73 |
4 |
13 |
1 |
3 |
|
Total |
5 |
10 |
31 |
62 |
8 |
16 |
6 |
12 |
The
results show that adoption was negatively influenced by level of
education. The results is difficult to explain, given the fact that
adoption rate of basic school leavers was the highest among the
group, and as high as 73% of the total non-adopters had below
secondary education whilst 10% were illiterates (Table 5).
Traditionally,
research has shown that there is positive correlation between level
of education of farmers and the speed with which they pick an
innovation (Pantanali1987). This means that farmers who are
learned, that is, those who can read, understand and analyze issues
are more capable of adopting a technology and vice versa. However,
this trend is changing because in recent times, illiterates, school
drop outs and basic school leavers learn from educated people in the
society to effect economic change in their lives.
In
an article to investigate the role of schooling at household and
community levels in the adoption and diffusion of agricultural
innovations in rural Ethiopia, Weir and Knight (2004) found out that
those without schooling may eventually copy the educated. They
presented an evidence to suggest that there are two externality
effects: educated farmers are early innovators, providing an example
that may be copied by less educated farmers; and educated farmers are
better able to copy those who adopt innovation first, enhancing
diffusion of the new technology more widely in the community.
Funding
Majority
of the respondents had some sort of problems with finance (Table 6).
Only a few could finance themselves. Funding was positively
correlated to adoption (+0.50) and the effect was significant
(P<0.01).
According
to Pantanali (1987), relative cost (the amount of money needed to go
into production) and external dependence with respect to input
supply, price and market are among the characteristic features of
technology which have influence on adoption.
|
Table
6. Financial problems
|
|
Focus group
|
Poor
financial standing
|
% of
Total
|
Sound
financial standing
|
% of
Total
|
| Adopters |
18
|
90
|
2
|
10
|
| Non-Adopters |
30
|
100
|
0
|
0
|
|
Total |
48
|
96
|
2
|
4
|
Grasscutter
keeping as any other production venture requires some amount of
capital to begin with and get the production on-going. Although the
initial capital outlay is low compared to the traditional livestock
enterprises, a sizeable amount of money is needed for the
construction of cages and purchasing of start-up breeding stock. Even
though, NGOs subsidize for the cost of animals and training in
order to boost adoption, most (92 %) of the respondents suggested
that assistance should fully cover the cost of breeding stock,
training and construction of cages. They also suggested that credit
facilities must be made available to the potential adopters to help
facilitate adoption. This is confirmed by Just and Zilberman (1983)
who introduced a credit constraint to their static model of adoption
under uncertainty. They observed that the availability of credit is
one of the most important determinants of smallholder farmers’
adoption.
Marketing
All
the 50 respondents indicated that there is a secured market for
grasscutter meat. Not only is the demand high, farmers are also
convinced of a secured price for their produce. The market for both
fresh and smoked grasscutter meat is unlimited (Kabir 2005). This
is truly impetus to grasscutter farming because feasibility reports
on grasscutter farming ventures indicated that the long term
profitability is comparable to that of poultry and higher than cattle
ranching (Tutu et al 1996).
The
high sale of the grasscutter meat (Houben 1999) makes its business
not only profitable but also remunerative and very lucrative too
(Falconer 1994), if breeders will only be conscientious. The
prospect of grasscutter rearing is very bright either as a full-time
job or part-time due to its high demand. According to Sunding and
Zilberman (1999) when a new technology has a yield effect, if it is
perceived to have higher rise or hindrances, its good price support
policies and relative profitability leads to its adoption.
Community’s
attitude
All
the 50 adopter and non-adopter respondents acknowledged that their
communities have no negative perception about grasscutter farming.
The respondents even confessed that most of the inhabitants would
have wished to benefit from the grasscutter training program but
financial commitment involved was their main concern. Interestingly,
none of the respondents admitted his/her belief prohibits the rearing
or the eating of the animal. Unlike some bushmeat which may not be
killed or touched because of religious dictates, traditional taboos
or prejudices (Vos 1978), the grasscutter meat transcends religious
prohibitions and even Muslims who do not consume rabbit or guinea pig
are known to consume grasscutter (Adoun 1993). Therefore, it can be
concluded that the inability of some trained farmers to adopt the
grasscutter rearing cannot be attributed to the communities’
attitude towards the rearing of the animal. This means that the
grasscutter industry stands a greater chance of growing vigorously in
the region when other related factors such as finance, resources and
labour are properly addressed.
Conclusions
-
Farmers’
decision on the adoption of grasscutter farming was positively
affected by sex, marital status and funding, and negatively affected
by age and education. Occupation had no influence on adoption. These
observations would suggest the existence of some farmers who would,
in principle, adopt grasscutter farming under a given circumstance.
Given this, it is important for MOFA and NGOs to recognize the
existence of the different group of farmers during training needs
assessment, and give each group the appropriate training.
- Most
of the NGOs target women and the youth as their clients to support in
grasscutter farming. However, this study revealed that adoption rate
of women and the youth was relatively low. It is recommended that
NGOs should educate men to discourage their influence on their wives
in adopting grasscutter farming. NGOs should also empower the
existing grasscutter farmers association by providing credit
facilities for farmer trainees, especially women and the youth, to
acquire breeding stock and cages. Furthermore, the government should
develop a breeding system to produce breeding stock at affordable
prices for farmers.
Acknowledgment
The
authors are grateful
to the German Technical Co-operation (GTZ) in Sunyani for providing
financial support for this study.
References
Adoun
C 1993 Place
de l'aulacode (Thryonomys
swinderianus ) dans
le règne animal
et sa répartition géographique. In Actes, 1ère
conférence internationale sur l'aulacodiculture: Acquis et
perspectives, Cotonou, Benin, pp. 35-40.
Adu
E K 2002
Research on grasscutter production in Ghana. Proceedings
of Workshop on Promoting Grasscutter Production for Poverty Reduction
in Ghana, Editors. K Atta-Agyapong and Rita Weidinger. October 16-18,
2002, Sunyani, Ghana. Qualitype Printing and Graphics, Accra,
Ghana, pp. 27-33
Alhassan
M, Osei-Frimpong G and Weidinger R 2004
Grasscutter promotion in the Brong Ahafo region. Annual report, GTZ,
Sunyani, Ghana.
Asibey
E O
A 1974 Wildlife as a
source of protein in
Africa, South of Sahara. Biological Conservation, 6(1): 32-39.
Asibey
E O A 1978 Wildlife
production as a means of protein supply in West Africa with
particular reference to Ghana. Proceeding of the 8th Forestry
Congress, 3: 869 – 881
Asibey
E O A 1987
A
paper presented at the Ghana livestock show 1987 at Trade Fair Site,
La, Accra, Ghana, 4pp.
Attah-Agyepong
K and Weidinger R 2002 Workshop
Overview. Proceedings
of Workshop on
Promoting Grasscutter Production for Poverty Reduction in Ghana,
Editors. K Atta-Agyapong and Rita Weidinger. October 16-18, 2002,
Sunyani, Ghana. Qualitype Printing and Graphics, Accra,
Ghana,
pp. 1-3
Berry
L V
1994
The position of
women. In: Ghana:
A Country Study. Washington:
GPO for the Library
of Congress, 1994. http://countrystudies.us/ghana/
Boama
J K 2002 Why
grasscutter promotion? Proceedings
of
Workshop on Promoting Grasscutter Production for Poverty Reduction in
Ghana, Editors. K Atta-Agyapong and Rita Weidinger. October 16-18,
2002, Sunyani, Ghana. Qualitype Printing and Graphics, Accra,
Ghana, pp. 51-55.
Falconer
J
1994
Non-timber
forest products in southern
Ghana: main report. Republic of Ghana Forestry Department and
Overseas Development Administration, Natural Resources Institute,
Chatham.
Galloway
A
1997 In: A Workbook
of Sampling. Editor. Kate
Galloway. http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~kate/qmcweb/scont.htm
Gerland
K P 1991
Diffusion and adoption of instructional technology. In:
Instructional Technology: Past, Present and Future.
Editor.
G.J.
Anglin, 2nd
Edition,
Eaglewood, Co: Libraries Unlimited. Pp. 283
Houben
P 1999
Grasscutter breeding in Gabon. Data for Assessment, D.G.E.G; B.P.
9129, Libreville, Gabon: In Canopee (1999), Ecofac/E.E, No 15: 7 –
8.
Just
R E and Zilberman D 1983
Stochastic structure, farm size, and technology adoption in
developing agriculture. Oxford Economic Papers, 35(2):307-328.
Kabir
P 2005
The
market potential for grasscutter production: A case study in the
Sunyani Metropolis of Brong-Ahafo Region. University of Education,
Winneba, Ghana,
Bachelor of Education
Dissertation, 54 pp.
Ministry
of Food and Agriculture (MOFA) 2001
Facts and figures: Management Information systems (MIS) Unit,
Accra. pp 1 – 6.
Pantanali
R 1987
Factors
Affecting Farmers Adoption Rates in a Subsistence Economy,
In: The Design of Agricultural Investment Projects – Lessons from
experience. FAO Technical Paper 6, Rome, 1989, Annex 3, pp 2 - 5
Rogers
E M 1995 Diffusion
of Innovation. 4th
Edition, New York, The Free Press. Pp. 1 – 23
Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 2006
SPSS Graduate Pack 15.0. Journey Education Marketing Inc., U.K.
Sunding
D and Zilberman D 1999
In: The Agricultural Innovation Process: Research and Technology
Adoption in a Changing Agricultural Sector. Pp. 2 – 10
http://www.are.berkeley.edu/~zilber/innovationchptr.pdf
Teklewold
H, Dadi L, Yami A and Dana N 2006
Determinants of adoption of poultry technology: a double-hurdle
approach. Livestock
Research for Rural Development, Volume 18 article # 40,
Retrieved July 21,
2008, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd18/3/tekl18040.htm
Tutu
K
A,
Ntiamoa-Baidu Y and Asuming-Brempong S 1996 The
economics of living with wild life in Ghana. In: The Economics of
Wild Life: case studies from Ghana, Kenya, Namibia and Zimbabwe. Edited
by Bojo J, pp. 11-38
Vos
A De 1978
Game
as Food. A Report on its significance in Africa and Latin America,
Unasylva, pp. 2 – 12
Weir
S and Knight J 2004
Externality effects of education: Dynamics of the adoption and
diffusion of an innovation in rural Ethiopia. Economic Development
and Cultural Change 53:93-113
White
W 1981 Participatory
approaches to agricultural research and development. A state of the
art paper – Rural development committee. Special Series on
Agricultural Research and Extension No 1. Ithaca, New York, Cornell
University. p. 1 - 10
Wontewe
C 2002 Action
Aid Ghana contribution to grasscutter promotion in Ghana.
Proceedings
of Workshop on Promoting Grasscutter Production for Poverty Reduction
in Ghana, Editors. K Atta-Agyapong and Rita Weidinger. October 16-18,
2002, Sunyani, Ghana. Qualitype Printing and Graphics, Accra,
Ghana, pp. 7-9
Received 16 June 2008; Accepted 22 July 2008; Published 4 September 2008
Go to top