Analysis and Comparison of the Agricultural
Development Programme and University
Agricultural Technology Transfer Systems in
Nigeria

M.C. Madukwe
E.C. Okoli
S.O. Eze

ATPS Working Paper Series No. 35

Table of Contents

Chapter One:
Introduction

1

Chapter Two:
Literature review

4

Chapter Three:
Methodology

8

Chapter Four:
Results and discussion

13

Chapter Five:
Conclusion and policy issues

36

References

40

List of Tables and Figures
List of Tables
Table 1 Differences in technology generation practices between the ADP and university
Table 2 Differences in technology transfer practices between the ADP and university
Table 3 Socio-economic indices of agro-technology staff in the ADP and university system
Table 4 Socio-economic indices of farmers under the agro-technology transfer systems of
ADP and university
Table 5 Farmers’ level of use of agricultural technology packages
Table 6 Farmers’ perception of contact methods used by the ADP and university

25
28
31
32
33
34

List of Figures
Figure 1 Conceptual framework for a comparative analysis of ADP and university technology
transfer system
Figure 2 Organogram of Isoya Rural Development Project of Obafemi Awolowo University
Figure 3 Administrative structure of agricultural media resources and extension centre of the
University of Agriculture, Abeokuta
Figure 4 Administrative structure of the cooperative extension center of the University ofAgriculture, Makurdi
Figure 5 Organogram of ADP agro-technology transfer system
Figure 6 A proposed linkage structure for university and ADP in agro-technology transfer in
Nigeria
Figure 7 Proposed merge structure for university and ADP in agro-technology transfer in
Nigeria

9
16
18
20
22
37
39

Abstract
Nigerian agricultural technology transfer policy since political independence emphasized transfer oftechnical information to farmers using various agro-technology transfer systems. Currently, theAgricultural Development Programme (ADP) and University are the prominent government fundedagro-technology transfer systems in Nigeria. This study comparatively analysed technology generation,transfer and utilization sub-systems of the ADP and university in Nigeria. The study covered three outof five agro-ecological zones in Nigeria, namely: Southwest, Central and Northwest. Four states, namely:
Benue, Kaduna, Ogun and Osun, were selected on the basis of geographical spread and the presenceof universities with agro-technology transfer programmes. The staff of the ADPs and universities in theselected states and farmers served by the two agencies, constituted the research population. On thewhole, 524 randomly selected respondents comprising from the ADPs and 160 from the universities
made up the sample size for the study. One structured questionnaire for management staff and anotherfor field extension workers; and an interview schedule for farmers, were utilized for data collection.
Percentages, mean scores and t-test were the statistical tools adopted in analysing the data.
The findings showed that the ADP had larger staff and wider technology transfer coverage, comparedwith the university. The organizational structure of the university had at most two supervisory steps,
compared with the ADP, which had four supervisory steps. The extension staff of the ADP had better
tenets of field agro-technology transfer services compared to the field extension staff of the university
with limited field exposure and orientation. The technology transfer staff of the University had better
conditions of service and were more committed towards the farmers compared with the ADP, which
lacked appropriate staff motivation. ADP had high rate of staff turnover compared with the University,
which currently has high selectivity in staff recruitment. University organized agro-technology generation
through research efforts in their faculties of agriculture compared with ADP which carried out limited
technology generation activities, mostly through on-farm research (OFR) and on-farm adaptive research(OFAR) trials. ADP organized constant and decentralized staff training for field extension workers withpoor training facilities, and provided inadequate training incentives to staff, compared to the universities,
which provided competitive training incentives to extension workers. The ADP provided information on
more agro-technologies and had higher socio-economic impacts on participating farmers, comparedwith the university. The study recommends restructuring of the ADP and university agro-technology
transfer systems, taking into consideration their areas of comparative strengths and weakness. The
location of agro-technology services within the university system is strongly recommended of thegovernment contributing funds at different levels.

Published by the African Technology Policy Studies Network, P.O. Box 10081, 00100 General Post
Office, Nairobi, Kenya© 2002 African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS)

rinted by Newtec Concepts
P.O. Box 00800, Westlands
14180 Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: 4449849, Fax: 4450399
newtec@bidii.com

ISBN: 9966-916-42-3

Abbreviations and Acronyms
ABU
ADP
ADPEC
AMREC
AMRECMAC
APMEU
ARMTI
BESs
BRM
CEC
CRN
EA
FACU
FRI
FVS
HOUs
IAR
IAR&T
IITA
IKS
LCRI
LGC
LRI
MOA
NAERLS
NAPRI
NARSs
NATSP
NCRI
NFDP
NIFOR
NIHORT
NRCRI
NSPRI

Ahmadu Bello University
Agricultural Development Programme
Agricultural Development Project Executive Council
Agricultural Media Resources and Extension Centre
Agricultural Media Resources and Extension Centre Management Committee
Agricultural Project Monitoring and Evaluation Unit
Agricultural and Rural Management Training Institute
Block Extension Supervisors
Block Review Meeting
Cooperative Extension Centre
Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria
Extension AgentFederal Agricultural Coordinating Unit
Forestry Research Institute
Fixed Visit Schedule
Heads of Units
Institute of Agricultural ResearchInstitute of Agricultural Research and Training
International Institute for Tropical Agriculture
Indigenous Knowledge System
Lake Chad Research Institute
Local Government Councils
Leather Research Institute
Ministry of Agriculture
National Agricultural Extension Research Liaison Services
National Animal Production Research InstituteNational Agricultural Research Institutes
National Agricultural Technology Support Project
National Cereals Research InstituteNational Fadama Development Project
National Institute for Oil Palm Research
Nigerian Institute for Horticultural Research
National Root Crops Research Institute
Nigeria Stored Products Research Institute

OAU
OFAR
OFR
PCU
PFT
PMU
REB
RH
RRI
SMS
SPATs
TOT
TRM
T&V
VRI
ZEO
ZM
ZSs

Obafemi Awolowo University
On-Farm Adaptive Research
On-Farm Research
Project Coordinating Unit
Project Facilitating Training
Project Management Unit
Research - Extension Board
Regional Heads
Rubber Research InstituteSubject Matter Specialists
Small Plot Adoption Techniques
Transfer of Technology
Technology Review Meetings
Training and Visits
Veterinary Research InstituteZonal Extension Officer
Zonal Manager
Zonal Supervisors

ATPS Working Paper Series
No.Title Publication

Authors

1

The Effect of Economic Reform on Technological Capability

2

Methodological Issues in Science and Technology Policy Research

4
5
6
8

Rehabiliation in the Manufacturing Sector in Tanzania
Agricultural Policy and Technology in Sierra Leone
Effectiveness of Agricultural Research Extension in Sierra Leone
Generation and Utilization of Industrial Innovation in Nigeria

T. Adeboye
M. S. D. Bafachwa
O. A. Bamiro
T. Adeboye
N. Clark
S. M. Wangwe
C. Squire
A. K. Lakoh
O. Oyeyinka
G. O. A. Laditan
A. O. Esubiyi

9

Irrigation in the Tuli Block, Botswana Water Conservation Techniqes
or Optimal Strategies
Endogenous Technology Capacity and Capability Under Conditionsof Economic Policies of Stabilization and Structural Adjustment
Technology and Female-Owned Business in the Urban Informal
Sector of South-West Nigeria
Technology Innovations Used to Overcome the Problem of Resource
Scarcity in Small Scale Enterprises
Financing of Science and Technology Institutions in Kenya During
Periods of Structural Adjustment
Impact of Economic Liberization on Technologies in Enterprises
Processing Agricultural Produce
Technology and Institutions for Private Small and Medium Firms
Institutiona Reform, Price Deregulation and Technological Change
in Smallholder Agriculture
Adoption of Agricultural Technologies by Rural Women under the
Women-in-Agriculture Program in Nigeria
Electrical Power Utilities and Technological Capacity Building in
Sub-Saharan Africa
Investigation into Factors that Influence the Diffusion and Adoptionof Intentions and Innovations from Research Institutes andUniversities in Kenya
The effects of Economic Reforms on the Quality on the Quality ofTechnological Manpower Development in Nigeria
Issues in Yam Minisett Technology Tranfer to Farmer in Southern
Nigeria

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

20
21

22
23

Technological Respone to Telecommunication Development: A
Study of Firms and Instituions in Nigeria
Gender Differences in Small Scale Rice Farmers’ Access toTechnological Inputs in Enugu State of Nigeria

I. N. Masonde
S. E. Chambua
R. O. Soetan
C. W. Ngahu
M. Mwamadzingo
P. Madaya
B. Oyeyinka
E. C. Eboh
D. S. Ugwu
Brew-Hammond
Bwisa, H. M. andGachuiH. E. Nnebe
Michael C. Madukwe
Damain Ayichi
Ernest C. Okoli
Adeyinka F. Modupe
David Nwoye Ezeh

24
25
26

27

28
29
30

31

32

33

34.

Adoption of Sustainable Palm Oil Mini-Processing Technology in
Nigeria
Domestic Energy Situation in Nigeria: Technological Implications
and Policy Alternatives
Technological Capability in the Nigerian Leather Industry: A
Firm-Level Case Study

Agricultural Research and Delivery in the South-Eastern Highlandsof Ethiopia: A Case Study of the SG-2000 Approach in Hitosa
District
Impact of Computer Technology Adoption on Banking Operations
in Nigeria
Agricultural Technology Adoption on Small-Holder Farmers: Policy
Policy Options for Nigeria
Donor Funding and Sustainability of Rural Water Supply andSanitation Technologies in Swaziland
Promotion of Production and Utilization of Ceramic Roofing
Materials in the Informal Housing Industry in Sierra Leone
Technology Transfer and Acquisition in the Oil Sector and
Government Policy in Nigeria

Acquisition of Technological Capability in Africa: A Case Studyof Indigenous Building Materials Firms in Nigeria

Analysis of Indigenous Knowledge in Swaziland: Implicationsfor Sustainable Agricultural Development

Nkechi Mbanefoh
Olabisi I. Aina
Uka Enenwe,Enwere dike,
Anthony Ihuoma,
Mike Duru.

G. Yiemene
A. I. Odebiyi
J. O. Olusi
Aja Okorie,
M. Mabuza,
U. Aja-Okorie.
Tamba Jamiru

R.I. Chima
E.A. Owioduoki
R.I. Ogoh
Yomi Oruwari
Margaret Jev
Opuene Owei
Musa A. Dube
Patricia J. Musi

Dr. M.C. Madukwe and Dr. E.C. Okoli are both Lecturers at the Department of Agricultural Extension,
University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria. Dr. S.O. Eze is a lecturer with the Ebonyi State Agricultural
Development Programme Abakaliki, Ebonyi State, Nigeria.

For more information on this series and ATPS, contact:
The Executive Director
The African Technology Policy Studies Network
3rd, Floor, The Chancery,
Valley Road
P.O. Box 10081
00100 General Post Office
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: 254-2-2714168/092/498
Fax: 254-2714028
Email: info@atpsnet.org
Website: http://www.atpsnet.org

Chapter One
Introduction
This report examined the concept of agro-technology transfer and presents success indices. Featuresof each of the agro-technology sub-systems (generation, transfer and utilization) are discussed. The
agro-technology generation sub-system, ecological distributions of agro-research institutes anduniversities are presented. The agro-technology transfer sub-system, the historical involvement andorganizational structure of different universities, and the Agricultural Development Programme (ADP)
are examined. Similarly, the characteristics of the agro-technology utilization sub-system are presented.
Two theoretical approaches commonly used in the analysis of agricultural technology transfer systems
were examined and eight basic issues for comparative analysis of agro-technology transfer systems
were identified using the systems approach.
This is followed by the comparison of the agro-technology generation practices of the ADP and university
agro-technology transfer systems based on: the organization of staff, and farmer characteristics; use of
agricultural technology packages; and contact methods.
Recommendations and policy options for restructuring agro-technology transfer practices in Nigeria
are presented.
The problem
Nearly two decades after independence, in 1960, the Nigerian agricultural technology transfer policyemphasized transfer of technical information on specific cash crops using regional Ministries of Agriculture(MOA) in the north, west and east. The period saw the establishment of agro-research institutes, namely:
Institute of Agricultural Research (IAR) in the north; Moore Plantation in the west; and National Root
Crops Research Institute (NRCRI), Umudike in the east, to link research and extension services.
With state creation in 1968, the main focus of agro-technology transfer policy was food production
through the Federal and states’ MOA. It was slow in achieving the desired objectives of agro-technology
transfer, because of the bureaucracy. However, it was the sole agency responsible for agro-technology
transfer until the 1976 local government reform, which gave some specific agricultural technology transfer
functions to Local Government Councils (LGC; Mijindadi, 1983). Some defects of the LGC technology
transfer policy include poor job description of staff, lack of mobility and absence of staff training andcontacts with farmers (Madukwe, 1996). Further reforms of the Nigerian agricultural technology transfer

1

2

ATPS WORKING P APER SERIES NO. 35

policy gave rise, in the seventies, to the involvement of universities and Agricultural Development
Projects (ADPs) to transfer agro-technology to farmers.
Initially, five conventional universities namely: Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria; University of Ibadan,
Ibadan; University of Ilorin, Ilorin; University of Nigeria, Nsukka; and Obafemi Awolowo University, IleIfe, were involved. Later, the university of agriculture policy was initiated in 1988 to amplify the efforts of
conventional universities in agro-technology transfer services to farmers. This led to the establishmentof the University of Agriculture at Abeokuta, Makurdi and Umudike. In addition, the successes of enclave
ADPs at Ayangba, Lafia, Ekiti-Akoko, Gusau, Katsina and Gombe, gave rise to state-wide ADPs in the
1980s. Currently, the ADP and university are the prominent government funded agro-technology transfer
systems in Nigeria. This pluralistic approach to government participation and funding in the transfer,
has the potential for duplication of effort and waste. Beyon (1998) noted that African countries spend
between 10 and 20 times on agro-technology transfer compared to developed countries.
An agricultural technology transfer system has identifiable organizational structure linked to
institutionalized source of new agro-technologies and independent staff with appropriate channel for
disseminating research information to end users (Madukwe, 1995). A viable agricultural technology
system has technology generation, transfer and utilization sub-systems with notable indices of success.
The success indices of a viable transfer system include: constant creation of technical knowledge,
extension staff training and contacts, harmonious existence with other agencies, orienting technologies
towards utilization and provision of information on necessary farm inputs (Mijindadi, 1994;
Swanson,1997). The study considered the university and ADP as agro-technology transfer systems
and comparatively analysed the two systems using a systems approach. The systems approach
recognizes three sub-systems necessary in implementing a viable agricultural technology transfer
system, namely: technology generation, transfer and utilization.
The question that arises is as to what extent ADP and university have developed these indices to justify
their operation. The ADP used the training and visits (T & V) strategy which focuses on improving theknowledge and skills of small holder farmers, using technology testing and transfer techniques onstate-wide coverage. On the part of the university, emphasis has been on generating relevant agricultural
technologies within the faculties of agriculture and using available resources to transfer these technologies
to the farmers at selected farming communities. What comparative advantages exist between theuniversity and ADP in agro-technology transfer practices to the farmers? What were the practices
adopted by the university and ADP in sourcing research information, implementing staff training andcontacts? What social and economic changes among the farmers could be attributable to each of thesesystems and what differences exist between farmers served by the two systems? What methods were
employed by the ADP and university in persuading farmers to use improved technical packages? What
policy lessons could be learned from the approaches of the university and ADP systems to enhance
agricultural technology transfer process in Nigeria?

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT P ROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA

3

Purpose of the study
The overall purpose of this study was to comparatively analyse the agro-technology transfer systemsof the ADP and university in Nigeria. Specifically, the objectives were to:(1)compare the agro-technology generation and transfer practices of university and ADP,
(2)
compare the socio-economic impacts of the agro-technology transfer systems of university
and ADP, and(3)
identify necessary policy issues to ensure the effectiveness of the agro-technology transfer
process in Nigeria.

Chapter Two
Literature Review
Literature is organized under agricultural technology generation, transfer and utilization sub-systems.
Agricultural technology generation sub-system
Agricultural technology has remained a viable tool for improving the productivity of the agricultural
sector in Nigeria. Thus, a major step in the improvement of food production in Nigeria has been theincrease in the number of the national and international agro-research institutes from 3 in 1963 to thecurrent 18. Agro-technology generation in Nigeria is carried out by National Agricultural ResearchInstitutes (NARIs) with mandate in arable crops, forestry and tree crops; livestock; fisheries; extension
and training; and processing and storage.
According to Okon (1998), the aim of agro-technology generation is to address better techniques ofland development, crop and animal management and achieve higher yields. Thus, agricultural technology
generation system is aimed at providing modern technology and facilities to communities (Bolade,
1990; Eziator, 1990 and Njoku, 1991). According to Ayichi (1995), agricultural technology involves theapplication of mechanical, chemical and biological inputs such as tractors, fertilizers, agro- chemicals,
livestock breeds, high yielding crops, storage and processing facilities, to improve food production.
Technology generation is influenced by determination of need,and research and management oftechnology generating institutions (World Bank, 1994). Previous research reports blamed ineffectivenessin technology generation on conventional research activities operated in Nigeria. Which have poorconsideration of farmers’ problems, skill and scale of operation and financial status and orienting ofresearch to journal publication (Zaria et al., 1994). In developing countries such as Nigeria, the acutelack of collaboration between the social and biological scientists on farming system research (FSR),
has limited research efforts in generating relevant technologies (Van den Ban and Hawkins, 1992). The
net effect of FSR adopted as a policy in the activities of the agricultural technology generation subsystem is the evolvement of technologies best suited to existing farming system and accepted by
farmers (Asiabaka, 1998).
According to Blum (1991), most research efforts in technology generation in developing countries arewasted due to their inadequate orientation to farmers’ needs and utilization. Farinde (1996), added thatthe bureaucracy domiciled in the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources, under which research

4

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT P ROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA

5

institutes operate in Nigeria, contributes to the inability of research into meeting technology needs offarmers. In the 1990s, emphasis on agricultural technology generation has shifted from euphoria ofspectacular results to appropriateness of these technologies to the existing farming system. An agricultural
technology is considered appropriate, if it provides a cost-effective level of productivity and has minimal
effects on the environment (McNamara, 1990; Okigbo, 1991). According to Platt (1989), a critical issue
to the appropriateness of technologies is in developing them at local levels using skills and perceptionof the people who live in the rural communities. Presently, technology generation sub-system in Nigeria
experiences poor and uncertain funding, frequent government administrative changes and lack of policy
initiative in research.
According to Vengara and McDicken (1990), technologies which are capable of improving foodproductivity at farm level should evolve from well funded autonomous research sub-system, so as toprovide timely solution to priority problems of farmers. Farmer-driven research effort must be based onpolicy setting, utilization of research personnel, continuous flow of information and evaluation of its
activities (ISNAR, 1984). The technology generation efforts should be oriented towards social desirability,
economic feasibility and existing practices of the farmers as a priority (Monu and Omole, 1983; Farinde,
1996).
Technology generation in Nigeria results from the national agricultural research system, namely; university
faculties of agriculture and veterinary medicine including universities of agriculture, and internationaland national agricultural research institutes, which operate in Nigeria. The objectives of the research
institutes are impressive, but the issues of establishing a workable relationship between institutional
technology design and indigenous knowledge system (IKS), constitutes a critical issue in technology
generation in Nigeria. A workable relationship between institutional technology generation and indigenous
knowledge system is largely desired to enhance orientation of technologies towards utilization andoverall participation of farmers in extension systems (Rajasekaran et al., 1993). This is necessary toachieve compatibility of technologies to farmers’ practices and overall suitability to field needs. Several
studies such as those of Igodan and Adekunle (1993), Rolings and Pretty (1997), and Anyanwu (1997a),
have highlighted the need for indigenous knowledge in generating appropriate technologies and overallsustainability in food production.
Agricultural technology transfer sub-system
There is a problem of choice of the right type of agricultural technologies and methods with which tocommunicate relevant technologies to small scale farmers. To enhance adequate food production in
Nigeria, demands that farmers should be reached with appropriate technologies that are economically
viable and culturally acceptable (Sokoya, 1998). Utilizing appropriate methods in reaching small scale
farmers with relevant agricultural technologies in order to improve their knowledge, skill and overall
attitude towards agricultural productivity, is agricultural technology transfer. According to Farinde (1996),
technology transfer involves complex processes consisting of diverse structures, and relationship ofinter-dependent factors and related variables, aimed at enhancing adoption of innovations.

6

ATPS WORKING P APER SERIES NO. 35

Agricultural technology transfer constitutes a crucial sub-system in implementing any agro-technology
process. Effective technology transfer involves organizing of personnel in a hierarchy, staff training andcontacts, and adopting of appropriate communication process. According to Ogolo et al., (1994), effective
communication is a pre-condition for feedforward and feedback mechanisms, necessary for sustainableagricultural technology transfer. Agricultural technology transfer as a communication technique requires
a two-way directional information movement, which involves six elements, the source, message, channel,
receiver, effects and feedback (Chinaka, 1993). Thus, effectiveness in technology transfer involves
well articulated communication elements in the transfer process (Obinne and Anyanwu, 1991). In otherwords, effective integration of communication elements, enhances sustainability in communication ofideas and consequent transfer of agricultural technology to farmers.
Asiabaka (1998), added that formal arrangement of staff in the transfer of agricultural technology,enhances participatory approach in which farmers’ views are represented and practical orientation inwhich efforts are focussed on immediate problems of farmers. Chuta (1992), blamed inadequateorganization and overall ineffectiveness of Nigerian agro-technology transfer systems on low andunsuitable qualifications of personnel operating in the system. According to Madukwe (1995b), mostadministrative staff in Nigerian agro-technology transfer organizations, have little training in basic issuesof administering agro-technology transfer process.
Organization of activities in any agricultural technology transfer system demands a chain of administrative
commands, which largely depend on legal basis of operation (Adebayo, 1995). A legal base is requiredin order to define a number of programmes, determine qualification of personnel, manner of entry andexit, discipline, training and conditions of service (Madukwe, 1996). Legal basis indicates a policy
document establishing the technology transfer system. Such policy document spells out the structure,budget, level of autonomy and clients.
Effective technology transfer system places emphasis on simplicity in the structure of transfer organizationin terms of the relationship existing among staff of the organization. Basically, we have vertical andhorizontal relationships between staff of a technology transfer organization. Whereas vertical relationshipindicates top down and bottom up relationship among staff of the organization, horizontal relationshipdepicts relationship between staff at the same level in an organization. Effective vertical relationshiprequires well-articulated horizontal staff relationship. Thus, inadequate horizontal relationship of extension
staff would largely limit meaningful vertical structure and overall efficiency in implementing technology
transfer.
Previous studies by Uwakah (1985) and Ijere (1992), have blamed delay in transfer of agricultural
technologies and overall lack of adoption of recommended agro-technologies on inadequate budgetary
allocation and absence of autonomy. Autonomy indicates degree of independence necessary inestablishing efficiency and sustainability in implementing agricultural technology transfer.

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT P ROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA

7

Agricultural technology utilization sub-system
Agro-technology transfer programmes are directed towards farmers with diverse social, educational,
political and economic needs (Obibuaku, 1986). Studies by Titilola (1994) and Igbokwe (1995), identifiedsocio-cultural and economic characteristics of farmers, as factors influencing farmer participation andadoption of agricultural technologies in Nigeria.
Socio-cultural characteristics of farmers include, family size, farm size, social organizations, value
orientation, belief system, prevailing norms, educational background and attitudes of farmers towards
change and material well being (Jibowo, 1992; Sene, 1994). According to Ijere (1992) and Nweze(1995), economic characteristics of farmers include: income status, labour availability, internal resource
mobilization, investment rate, saving potentials and marketing pattern. Husain et al. (1993) blamed
inadequate adoption and ineffectiveness of most agro-technology transfer programmes on lack ofconsideration of the socio-cultural practices and technology incompatibility with the economic status offarmers. Ayichi (1995), added that the impact of any agricultural technology transfer system could bemeasured on the basis of extent of changes in the socio-cultural and economic characteristics of the
farmers.
Impacts are enduring changes in the social and economic conditions of farmers, which have resulted
from project effects (Obiechina and Otti, 1985; Ladele, 1991). Some related studies like those of
Ogunbameru (1986) and Agwunobi (1993), reported that farmer participation in planning and project
implementation, enhanced greater socio-economic impacts. They concluded that training of farmers
facilitated adoption of recommended practices.
The impacts of any extension system relate to improvement in the socio-cultural and economic
characteristics of the farmers, such as increases in farmers’ income and improvement in overall standardof living. Earlier impact studies identified increases in the levels of participation in programme planning,hectare of land cultivated by farmers, positive changes towards agriculture and greater access to social
services, as success indicators (Aihonsu, 1992).

Chapter Three
Methodology
Conceptual framework
Two theoretical approaches commonly employed in the analysis of agricultural technology transfer
systems are: transfer of technology (TOT) and systems approaches. The TOT model posits a linear
relationship between knowledge creation, exchange and user sub-systems. Traditionally, the TOT model
involves a vertical one way directional communication, featuring technology generation, exchange andutilization sub-systems. The model is biased towards knowledge creation rather than knowledge users.
Thus, knowledge creation commonly deals with those problems that are considered relevant toresearchers’ interests, rather than orienting research efforts towards utilization. In other words, newtechnologies are constantly generated by knowledge creation sub-system and given to knowledge
exchange sub-system, for transfer to knowledge user sub-system.
The TOT model puts little emphasis on co-ordination between the technology generation and transfer
sub-system (Asiabaka, 1998). The situation permits only feedback from knowledge user to knowledge
creation sub-systems through knowledge exchange sub-system. This is a major defect of the thismodel. It neglects the role of both general and agricultural education as synergistic factors, enhancing
the potential value of newly acquired agricultural knowledge. The approach also neglects the central
impact, which policy making or the disastrous effects of its lack, has on the agricultural knowledge
system.
The systems approach seems to correct the imbalance inherent in the TOT model. It was introduced forthe analysis of agro-technology transfer system by Nagel (1980). The approach was further amplified
by Swanson and Claar (1983), Lionberger (1986), Rolings (1988a, b) and Blum (1989).
The utilization of the systems approach for the analysis of agricultural technology transfer systems isbased on the assumption that interactions exist between technology generation, transfer and utilization
sub-systems. The situation permits direct linkages and feedback across sub-systems interface. In
other words, there are linkages between technology generation, transfer and utilization sub-systems,
as well as direct linkages and feedback between technology generation and utilization sub-systems.
This is schematically represented in Figure 1.

8

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT P ROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIAINTERACTION BETWEENTECHNOLOGY GENERATION
AND TRANSFER SUB-SYSTEMIN ADP AND UNIVERSITYTECHNOLOGY
GENERATIONSUB-SYSTEM:. Evolution ofnewtechnologies. Involvementof Extension
workers intechnology. Distance totechnology
transfer subsystem.
. Participationand control byuser subsystem

INTERACTION BETWEENTECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND
UTILIZATION SUB-SYSTEMS IN
UNIVERSITY AND ADPTECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER SUBSYSTEM
Types oflinkages in
the ADPS
anduniversities
extension
systems9. Degree of
autonomy. Legal statues. Cost ofeffectiveness Staff
training. Extension
teaching methods. Organizational
structure. Number, type andrank of personnel. Level ofinteraction withother exchange
sub-system.
. Degree of
influence by user
sub-system

Types oflinkagesin theADPS
anduniversities
extension
systemTECHNOLOGYUTILIZATION SUBSYSTEM. Social compatibility andeconomic feasibility oftechnologies. Categorization of user intechnology transfer
practices. Level of participation ofusers in technology
transfer. Degree of farm inputs
availability. Acceptance of newtechnologies. Improved statuses oftechnology users

DIRECT LINKAGES AND FEEDBACK BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY GENERATION ANDUTILIZATION SUB-SYSTEM IN ADP AND UNIVERSITY

Figure 1: Conceptual framework for a comparative analysis of ADP and university technology
transfer system.

10

ATPS WORKING P APER SERIES NO. 35

The schema suggests mutual interactions and linkages between the major sub-systems as a precondition for successful implementation of agricultural technology transfer systems. In other words, theschema posits users’ influence in technology generation and participation in technology transfer practices,
as well as involvement of technology transfer personnel in technology generation. Earlier research
reports indicated that in a successful agricultural technology transfer system, technology users form
part of a research team and participate in technology transfer activities (Ajala and Madukwe, 1992).
The schema posits eight basic issues for consideration in the comparative analysis of agro-technology
transfer systems of the ADP and university in Nigeria, namely:(1)sources of new technologies,(2)
degree of linkages between technology generation, transfer and utilization sub-systems,(3)
extent of users’ influence on technology generation and participation in technology transfer
practices,(4)
level of technology transfer workers’ involvement in technology generation and managementof field trials,(5)
degree of autonomy in the technology generation, transfer and utilization sub-system,(6)
number, type, ranks and distribution of extension personnel,(7)degree of staff training and contacts with clients system, and(8)level of social compatibility and economic feasibility in technology generation and transfer
programmes.
The schema suggests that a successful technology generation involves variables such as field driven
technology evolution, technology transfer workers’ and farmers’ participation in technology generation
and a social distance span between technology transfer sub-systems. In addition, a successful technology
transfer sub-system depends on issues such as legal status, organizational structure, budgets, autonomy
of service and qualifications of staff. Also in significance is the staff training, teaching methods, level ofinteractions with other exchange sub-systems and degree of user influence over transfer activities.
Similarly, a successful technology utilization sub-system involves issues relating to social compatibility
and economic feasibility of technologies, categorization of users in technology transfer, level ofparticipation of users in technology transfer and degree of input availability. Levels of acceptability of
new technologies and socio-economic characteristics among technology users in terms of improved
productivity, income levels, and desired changes in knowledge, skills and attitudes towards extension
programmes are also important. We argue that agro-technology transfer is an interactive process involving
researcher, farmer and other key operators in agricultural development. The acid test of the success ofagro technology transfer systems of the ADP and university is the extent to which their operations
approximate the indices of a successful agricultural technology transfer system.

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT P ROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA

11

Study population
Nigeria is politically administered under a 36 state structures and a federal capital territory, Abuja.
There are 37 ADPs, one in each of the 36 states and the federal capital territory, Abuja. In addition,
there are seven federal universities with agricultural technology transfer programmes. The seven federal
universities include Ahmadu Bellow University, Zaria; University of Agriculture, Abeokuta; University of
Ibadan, Ibadan; University of Ilorin, Ilorin; University of Agriculture Makurdi; Obafemi Awolowo University,
Ile-Ife; and University of Agriculture, Umudike. All the ADPs and universities staff, and farmers in theiroperational areas, constituted the target population.
Sample size
The study selected four states, namely Benue, Kaduna, Ogun and Osun. Their selection was based on
the existence of universities with agro-technology transfer outreach programmes and geographicalspread. Both the universities and ADPs in the selected states were comparatively investigated. Fromeach university, the director of the agro-technology transfer unit and three departmental staff; one fromresearch and two from agro-technology transfer (extension services), were selected. At field level, 12agro-technology transfer workers and 24 farmers from each of the universities, were randomly selected.
Thus, a total of 64 university agro-technology transfer workers and 96 farmers served by the universities,
were randomly selected.
At the headquarters level of each of the state ADP, the directors of three core sub-programmes, extension,technical and rural institution development, and one support sub-programme, administration, wereinvolved. At the zonal level, three zones were selected per state, the Zonal Manager (ZM) and Zonal
Extension Officer (ZEO) of each zone were selected. Three Subject Matter Specialists (SMSs) perzone (Agronomy, Women in Agriculture, and Livestock) were selected.
At the block level, six Block Extension Supervisors (BESs) and six Extension Agents (EAs) (made up of
one EA per block), were selected per zone. At the farmers’ level, 36 farmers per state (made up of 12
farmers per zone, that is, two farmers per selected EA), were randomly selected. Thus, 55 extension
staff and 36 farmers per state ADP were involved in the study. A total of 220 extension workers and 144
farmers served by the ADP were involved in the study.
Thus, a total of 524 respondents made up of 284 extension workers and 240 farmers, constituted thesample size for the study.
Data collection
Data were obtained from both primary and secondary sources. The primary sources include interview
with ADPs and universities staff as well as farmers served by the two agencies. Two sets of questionnaires,one for management staff and the other for field workers, were used to collect data from workers of both

12

ATPS WORKING P APER SERIES NO. 35

agencies. Secondary data were derived from assessment of documented materials on agricultural
technology transfer practices of the agencies.
The management staff questionnaire measured organizational structure of the ADP and university,
specific extension programmes, how programmes were initiated, frequency of implementation, inputoutput relationships, and funding, monitoring and evaluation. Section A of both extension staff
questionnaire and the farmer interview guide, measured issues comparing technology generation in
ADP and university, and involvement of extension workers in technology generation, and the influenceof users in technology generation. Section B measured autonomy, legal status and structure of extension
services, staff training contacts, and qualification, and farmers’ participation in technology transfer
practices of the ADP and university. Section C investigated variables relating to type and number oftechnologies transferred to the farmers, input provision, method of communication adopted in transfer
process and socio-economic characteristics of farmers. Assessment was also made under section C todetermine farmers’ evidence of expansion in farm holdings and use of agro-technology packages.
Data analysis
The information collected was analysed using percentages (based on the proportion of total respondents
indicating an opinion to a question), mean scores,(average of the scores of individual responses toparticular question on a 1-5 continuous scale), standard deviation and group t-test. The biodata of
respondents and overall organizational structure of the ADP and university, were analysed using
percentages. Sections A and B, which compared the means for agro-technology generation and transfers,
respectively, were analysed using group t-test at 5% probability for significance. Finally, section C
which compared the extension systems of the ADP and university on socio-economic indices of theagencies and participating farmers, was analysed using percentages.

Chapter Four
Results and Discussion
The findings are presented as follows:(1)
features of the agro-technology transfer systems,(2)comparison of agricultural technology generation, and sub-systems transfer, and(3)comparison of socio-economic characteristics of ADP and university.
Features of the agro-technology transfer systems
In this section, information is provided on:(1)
ecological distribution of agro-research institute in Nigeria,(2)involvement of university in agro-technology transfer, and(3)features of the ADP agro-technology transfer system.
Ecological distribution of agro-research institute in Nigeria
The Federal Government of Nigeria divides the country into five agro-ecological zones. The agroecological zones of Nigeria are southeast, southwest, central, northwest and northeast.
Southeast zone: The zone consists of nine states, Abia, Akwa Ibom, Anambra, Bayelsa, Cross River,
Ebonyi, Enugu, Imo and Rivers. Two research institutes are located in the southeast zone, National
Root Crops Research Institute (NRCRI), Umudike; and Nigeria Stored Products Research Institute(NSPRI), Port Harcourt. Also, five federal universities with faculties of agriculture are located in thesoutheast zone. These universities which are involved in agro-research activities include: University of
Nigeria, Nsukka, University of Uyo, Uyo; University of Calabar, Calarbar; Federal University of Technology,
Owerri, and Federal University of Agriculture, Umudike.
Southwest zone: The zone consists of eight states, Lagos, Ogun, Osun, Oyo, Ondo, Ekiti, Edo andDelta. The agro-research institutes located in the southwest ecology include: Institute of Agricultural
Research and Training (IAR&T) Ibadan; National Institute for Oil Palm Research (NIFOR), Benin; andCocoa
Research Institute of Nigeria (CRIN), Ibadan. Others include: International Institute for Tropical Agriculture(IITA) Ibadan, Nigerian Institute for Horticultural Research (NIHORT) Ibadan; Forestry Research Institute

13

14

ATPS WORKING P APER SERIES NO. 35

agro research activities in the southwest zone. The universities include University of Ibadan,Ibadan;
Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife; Federal University of Technology, Akure; and University ofAgriculture, Abeokuta.
The central agro-ecology zone: The central agro-ecology zone consists of the Federal Capital Territory,
Abuja; Plateau, Niger, Nassarawa, Kogi, Kwara, Benue and Taraba states. The central zone has research
institutes, National Cereals Research Institute (NCRI), Badeggi; Veterinary Research Institute (VRI),
Vom; and Agricultural and Rural Management Training Institute (ARMTI), Ilorin. Also, federal universities
with faculties of agriculture in the central agro-ecology zone include University of Ilorin; and Universityof Agriculture, Makurdi.
Northwest zone: States within the northwest zone include Sokoto, Kebbi, Zamfara Katsina, Kaduna,and Kano. Research institutes located within the northwest are National Animal Production ResearchInstitute (NAPRI), Shika-Zaria; Leather Research Institute (LRI), Kano; National Agricultural Extension
and Research Liaison Services (NAERLS), Zaria; and IAR, Zaria. The federal universities located within
the ecology, which engage in agricultural research activities are Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria;
and Usman Dan Fodio University, Sokoto.
Northeast zone: This zone consists of Borno, Yobe, Jigawa, Bauchi, Gombe and Adamawa states.
The Lake Chad Research Institute (LCRI), Maiduguri has the responsibility of linking research andextension services in the northeast zone. Three federal universities, University of Maiduguri; Abubarkar
Tafawa Balewa University, Bauchi; University of Technology, Yola, are involved in the agro-research
activities in the northeast zone.
Involvement of university in agricultural technology transfer
The idea of involving universities in agricultural technology transfer services could be traced to theattempt by British universities establishing educational programmes outside the campus to assist farmers
benefit from research efforts of the university (Obibuaku, 1983). However, the practical step to involve
universities in organized agro-technology transfer services was by Cambridge University in 1876 andOxford University in 1878. The approach under British system was to give organized lectures under
universities’ supervision to associations of men and women on the results of universities research
efforts (Ogunfiditimi and Ewuola, 1995). In the United States of America, involvement of universities inagro-technology transfer services commenced with passing of three legislative acts between 1862 1914, to link research, educational institutions and informal educational orientation. The issue of agrotechnology transfer in the American universities system was aimed at incorporating adult education,
agricultural extension, nutrition, home economics and mass communication in the educational
programmes of the universities. To implement this, the cooperative extension services were formed ineach state in association with the Land Grant Colleges, and farmers were granted land by the Nigeria
Federal Government, to operate under the advisory services of the major universities (Obibuaku, 1983).

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT P ROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA

15

In Nigeria, universities’ involvement in agricultural technology transfer came into existence in the earlyseventies. The universities technology transfer system in Nigeria was modelled along the cooperativeextension system of the United States (Ogunfiditimi and Ewuola, 1995). The approach involves thefaculties of agriculture of universities utilizing research reports of their academic departments and their
independent staff, in implementing agro-technology transfer to selected farming communities. In thepast, five conventional universities, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria; University of Ibadan, Ibadan;
University of Nigeria, Nsukka; University of Ilorin,Ilorin; and Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife; wereinvolved.
Currently, the Isoya Rural Development Project of the Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife; Badeku
Rural Change Project of University of Ibadan, Ibadan; and the Agricultural Research and Extension
Complex of the Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, have persisted in agro-technology transfer services tofarmers in Nigeria. In addition to the functional conventional universities, the universities of agriculture
located at Abeokuta, Markurdi, and Umudike assist in agro-technology transfer services to farmers in
Nigeria. The universities’ approaches to agro-technology transfer differed among the universities,
including the universities of agriculture.
In Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), the Isoya Rural Development Project is a unit responsible for
implementing agro-technology transfer services to the farmers. The Isoya Rural Development Projectis in the Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Sociology, but headed by separate staff below
the rank of a Director. The head of the Isoya Rural Development Unit reports directly to the Head,
Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Sociology (Figure 2).

HEAD DEPT. OF
ANIMALPRODUCTION
HEAD DEPT. OF
SOIL SCIENCECONTACT FARMER/GROUPSFIELD AGRIC. EXTENSION ADVISORSHEAD OF UNIT: ISOYA RURAL
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTHEAD DEPT. OF
AGRIC. EXTENSION &RURAL SOCIOLOGYHEAD DEPT. OF
AGRONOMY

Source: Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Sociology, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria.

Figure 2: Organogram of Isoya Rural Development Project of Obafemi Awolowo University.

HEAD DEPT. OF
FOOD SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGY

DEAN, FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE

VICE CHANCELLOR

16
ATPS WORKING P APER SERIES NO. 35

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT P ROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA

17

The programme of the universities of Agriculture is designed to promote a more democratic and liberalised
transfer of agro-technology to farmers. At the University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, the agro-technology
transfer programme is implemented by the Agricultural Media Resources and Extension Centre (AMREC),
while the Cooperative Extension Centre (CEC) implements similar programmes at the University ofAgriculture, Makurdi.
Administratively, AMREC of the University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, consists of a board chaired by theuniversity vice chancellor. Highly placed members of the society outside the university community arealso members. Other members of the board are deans of the academic colleges and the Director. Next
to the board is the AMREC management committee (AMRECMAC). The Director chairs the AMRECMAC
and other members include deans of colleges and the Director of Research and Development Centre of
the University. Below the committee are seven relevant programme areas of agricultural technology,
crops/forestry, livestock/wildlife/fisheries, post-harvest technology, women in development, training/demonstration, and development communication and environmental protection, headed by programmeleaders.
Sectoral heads, further down the administrative hierarchy, are in charge of crops, forestry, livestock,wildlife, fisheries, processing, storage, utilization, cooperative groups, and adult functional/politicaleducation. Also included are groups in extension and farmer training, agricultural shows, education for
coping with changes, health and nutrition education, information publicity, audio-visual aids, radio,
printing, waterology, and toxicology. The agro-technology transfer services of AMREC are implemented
by specialists in crops, forestry, livestock, wildlife and fisheries, and there are also processing, storage,
utilization and support services sectors. The administrative structure of AMREC under University ofAgriculture, Abeokuta is shown in Figure 3.

18

ATPS WORKING P APER SERIES NO. 35

Figure 3: Administrative structure of agricultural media resources and extension centre of the
University of Agriculture, Abeokuta.
Source: University of Agriculture, Abeokuta.

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT P ROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA

19

At the University of Agriculture, Makurdi, the administrative structure of the Cooperative Extension
Centre (CEC) includes the Vice Chancellor, who is the Chairman of the Research-Extension Board(REB). Other members of the REB include the Director CEC and deans of relevant colleges. Thisboard is the policy body that supervises the centres activities. The board coordinates the research andextension activities of the centre.
The approved activities of the CEC are grouped into three major programmes, extension services,
women in development and development communication. A senior extension officer heads eachprogramme. Furthermore, the agro-technology transfer programmes are implemented through thegrassroots and training programmes, which participate in adaptive research and demonstration, extensiondelivery, workshop and technology, review meetings (TRM).
The women in development sub-programme operates the women in agriculture programme, which
implements home economics and workshops programme, and the development communication unit
implements audio-visual and publication programmes. The audio-visual programme operates radio,TV, graphic and photography activities; the publication programme is in charge of editorial and printing
services. The administrative structure of the CEC is shown in Figure 4.

Workshop

Adaptive ResearchandDemonstration

Village
Extension
AdvisorExtension
DeliveryGrassroot
Programme

Contact Farmers/Contact GroupMonthly
Technology
Review Meeting

Training
ProgrammeWorkshop

Extension Service

Radio/TV
Graphics

Photography

Audio-Visual
Programme

Development
Communication

Source: University of Agriculture, Makurdi, Nigeria.

Figure 4: Administrative structure of the cooperative extension centre of the University of Agriculture, Makurdi.

Economics

Women inAgriculture
Programme

Women inDevelopment

Director of Co-operative
Extenstion

Vice-Chancellor

Editorial

Printery

Publicity
Programme

20
ATPS WORKING P APER SERIES NO. 35

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT P ROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA

21

The agro-technology transfer services of the CEC are made available to farmers by officers of thegrassroots extension programme; and the other programmes support activities of the grassroots
programme. However, the focus of the grassroots agro-technology transfer programme of the CEC isto provide prompt solutions to the farmers’ practical problems using research findings of the Universityof Agriculture, Makurdi.
Features of ADP agro-technology transfer system
The ADP is modelled as a reform of the regulatory, highly bureaucratized office, based on MOA agrotechnology transfer system. The operation of ADP is preceded by the enactment of an edict giving it alegal status. An edict is a legal document, which gives formal approval for the establishment andoperation of the ADP, as an agro-technology transfer agency in a state. Under the edict establishingeach ADP, administrative, staffing, funding, supervisory, monitoring, evaluation and co-ordinatingprocedures are spelled out as basis for operation.
The system posits that only integrated agricultural and rural development approaches applied
simultaneously could reduce the problems of low productivity among the farmers. Its primary focus is
the small holder farmer. However, operational technique of the ADP is to raise farmers’ productivity,
increase total farm output, and improve income levels and standard of living of the small scale farmers.
To achieve these primary objectives, the system adopted the features in Figure 5 as follows.

22

ATPS WORKING P APER SERIES NO. 35

ADPEC

DEPUTY
DES.

ZEO

BES.

DIRECTORIIRD

DIRECTORPME

DIRECTORFINANCE

DIRECTORADMINISTRATIONDIRECTOREXTENSIONSERVICES

DIRECTORTECHNICALSERVICE

DIRECTORRID

DIRECTORENGINEERING

PMU

KEYS:
DES: Director Extension Services
ZN: Zonal Manager
ZEO: Zonal Extension Officer
SMS: Subject Matter Specialist
BES: Block Extension Agent
EA: Extension Agent
WG: Women's Group

BEA

EA

CONTACTFARMERSWGS

Figure 5: Organogram of ADP agro-technology transfer system.
Source: Project Coordinating Unit (PCU) Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Abuja, Nigeria.

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT P ROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA

23

Vertical structure: The ADP in each state is organized for ease of operation, into four levels,
headquarters, zone, block and circle supervisory. The headquarters level is responsible for policy
articulation, budgeting, staffing, discipline, administrative control, supervision and coordination ofextension activities. The ADP is organized into two broad sub-programmes, core and support. The core
sub-programmes are extension, technical, engineering services and rural institution development. The
support sub-programmes are finance, human resources development, administration and management,
and planning, monitoring and evaluation. Administratively, the agricultural development project executive
council (ADPEC) oversees activities of the ADP, including workplan, budget approval, senior staff
appointment and discipline. The Programme Manager (PM) serves as an administrative head in the
ADP and in conjunction with other members of the project management unit (PMU) make workplan andbudget proposals, appoint junior staff and promote and discipline the staff. At the headquarters, the PM
is the administrative head. Below the headquarters is the zone, which is in charge of six to eight blocks
and headed by a ZM. Assisting the ZM in the implementations of the programmes are the ZEOs and ateam of SMSs. Next to the zonal level is the block level, which represents an area with similar cropping/farming pattern. Occasionally, a block corresponds to a political area known as local government council.
However, a Block Extension Supervisor (BES) who is in charge of six to eight circles heads the block.
The circle is headed by an extension worker called Extension Agent (EA). The job of extension contact
with farmers is executed at the circle level by the EA.
The programme management unit (PMU): One basic step towards achieving effective administrative
control and technical command in the ADP is the involvement of a virile PMU in implementation ofprogrammes. The PMU is virtually autonomous in decision-making and project implementation and isconstituted by the heads of six to eight sub-programmes and zonal managers, with the programmemanager as chairman.
Instituitionalized on-farm testing and adoptive trials: ADP has as linkage mechanisms, on-farmresearch (OFR); on-farm adaptive research (OFAR) and small plot adoption techniques (SPATs). The
OFR is a researcher managed farm testing technique, aimed at testing the result of his laboratory
research. It is set up to test the viability of the research results under farm situation. On the other hand,
OFAR is a joint management technique between the researcher and farmer. It is implemented to test
the adaptability of OFR results under various farm locations/environments. The OFAR also serves as ameans of developing and validating new agro-technologies before transfer to the farmers. It enhances
farmer participation in technology generation, design and supply services.
Similarly, SPAT is a contact technique. It is a teaching laboratory aimed at enhancing communication
on proven agricultural technologies. The SPATS is a demonstration, which is organized by field extension
workers at farm level in order to enhance increased knowledge and skill acquisition of the relevant
agricultural technologies among the farmers. Necessary farm inputs for implementing SPAT are provided
by the farmers, except in situations where such technologies are entirely new in the farming communities.
Tripartite funding arrangement: Funding arrangement in the ADP system involves the World Bank,and Federal and State Governments. From the inception of the ADP system, the funding ratio has

24

ATPS WORKING P APER SERIES NO. 35

been: World Bank (66%), Federal Government (20%) and State Government (14%). Currently, withthe partial withdrawal of the World Bank sponsorship as a lending agency, the ADP has sought toinvolve local government councils and non-governmental organization (NGOs) in the funding
arrangement.
Regular staff training and contact with farmers on fixed scheduled basis: Training is organized asa matter of policy in the ADP, either as external and sponsored by the ADP or in-house. External
training is organized in form of workshops, conferences and seminars, either within or outside thecountry, mainly for management staff and subject matter specialists to update their knowledge andskills. Similarly, in-house training is organized for headquarters, zonal and block levels staff. Headquarters
training is organized in form of project facilitating training (PFT) for members of the PMU, workshop andspecialized training in selected areas of ADP operations and technology review meetings (TRM).
At zonal level, training is organized for zonal management staff, such as the ZM, ZEO, Zonal Supervisors(ZSs) and a team of SMSs at TRMs, and monthly or fortnightly training for extension workers. At blocklevel, training is organized in form of block review meeting (BRM) for field extension workers, aimed atfine-tuning relevant production recommendations acquired at FNTs and reviewing of field situation
activities.
In addition, the ADP system has scheduled contact with farmers under fixed visit schedule (FVS). The
FVS is adopted to enhance agro-technology transfer process and technical backstopping, necessary inachieving efficiency of feedback mechanism between farmers and extension workers.
Provision/maintenance of rural infrastructure: In the past, ADP was engaged in the provision ofrural feeder roads, boreholes and storage projects, to enhance contacts with farmers. Currently, it has
adopted the National Fadama Development Project (NFDP), National Agricultural Technology Support
Project (NATSP) and maintenance of existing feeder roads. Under these projects, ADP is required toconstruct access and fadama roads, wash bores and tube wells, and organize the farmers into groups
and associations, aimed at enhancing teamwork among the farmers. This assists the farmers inembracing irrigation agriculture and maintaining basic rural infrastructure located in farming communities.
Institutionalised monitoring, supervision, and coordinating activities: The operations of theextension system of ADP is supported by monitoring, supervizing, and coordinating agencies, such as
the agricultural project monitoring and evaluation unit (APMEU), and the federal agricultural coordinating
unit (FACU), recently renamed PCU. The APMEU is organized into headquarters and regional offices
for ease of operations.
The headquarters offices are headed by Heads of Units (HOUs) and regional offices by Regional Heads(RHs). The APMEU collates and analyses quarterly and annual reports on workplan and budgets, crop
yield, and performance evaluation activities on ADP staff. On the part of FACU, emphasis is on monitoring,supervision and coordination of the ADP projects. FACU activities are organized in line with the five

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT P ROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA

25

agro-ecological zones in Nigeria with HOU at the national headquarters level and RH at the regional
offices.
Comparison of agro-technology generation practices of the ADP and university
The results showed a significant difference (t = 2.03;p<0.05) in the levels of autonomy enjoyed by the
ADP and university in generating agricultural technologies. The university (0 = 4.26) had greater freedom
in generating agricultural technologies than the ADP (0 = 3.54).
Table 1: Differences in technology generation practices between the ADP and university
Technology generation
practices

Means indicatinglevel of existence (max.=5)
ADP
University

Autonomy in technology
generation
3.54 (1.47)+
Technology generation
based on field problem
4.05(0.93)
Farmers participate infield research trials
4.00(0.10)
Technology generation
activities keep pace withcurrent field practices
3.76(1.11)
Adaptive research trials arelocated in farmers’ field
3.17(1.11)
Extension agents participate
in field research trials
4.20(1.07)
Adequate research facilities
and incentives to workers
2.84(1.11)
Distance between
technology generation andtechnology transfer
component
2.89(1.26)
Farmers co-financeadaptive research trial
1.82(1.17)*P < 0.05.

t-cal.

4.26 (1.19)+

2.03*

4.43(1.22)

1.80*

3.52(0.96)

1.78*

3.32(1.0)

1.67*

2.84(1.17)

1.18

3.89(1.49)

1.09

3.15(1.17)

1.18

2.21(1.36)

2.17*

1.63(1.14)

0.67+ Data in parenthesis are standard deviations

Autonomy in technology generation had been identified as a major index of success in agriculturaldevelopment (Blum, 1991; Madukwe, 1996). Autonomy in agro-technology generation means
independence, non-interference in problem identification and uninterrupted technology design and supply
services.

26

ATPS WORKING P APER SERIES NO. 35

The ADP and university differed on the extent to which their technology generation activities wereoriented to farmers’ field problems (t = 1.80). Orientation of technology generation towards field problems,means directing research activities towards addressing the immediate and pressing field problems offarmers. Such technology generation effort should be cost-effective with minimum adverse effect on
farmers’ environment (McNamara, 1990). The analysis indicates that ADP’s (0 = 4.05) technology
generation activities had poorer orientation towards the farmers’ field problem, compared to the university(0 = 4.43). One reason for this could be because university research efforts were based or targeted at
special problems of known farmers in a geographical location, while the research results implemented
by ADP were conducted by research institutes. They provide answers to problems affecting farmers indiverse geographical location, thus making such solutions less targeted to the specific needs of farmers.
Orientation of technology generation efforts towards farmers’ fields would ensure that new technologies
evolve from farmers’ field problems. Evolution of technologies from farmers’ field problems had been
identified as an index of a successful agro-technology generation sub-system (Blum, 1991).
Other areas of differences in technology generation between the agro-technology transfer systems of
ADP and university, include levels of farmer participation in field research trials (t = 1.78), and theextent to which the technologies generated kept pace with current field practices (t = 1.67). Farmers’participation in field research trials contributes largely to orienting agro-technologies towards sustaining
farmers’ interests. This practice ensures that technologies evolve from current field practices andproblems. The indication was that farmers participated less in field trials under the university system (0= 3.52), compared with the ADP (0 = 4.0). It was observed that though farmers participate less in termsof frequency of participation in university field research trials, they were more involved, mostly at theearly stages of planning. In the ADP system farmers were called in later in the research process,usually after the technology was developed in the entire process of field testing.
Also, the university differed with the ADP in the physical distance between their agro-technology
generation and transfer sub-systems, (t=2.17). The close physical distance between the technology
generating and transfer sub-systems could explain why in the university system the technology generated
kept pace with field practices. Distance between technology generation and transfer sub-systems had
been identified as a major factor influencing the quality and time of providing technologies to participating
farmers (Blum, 1991; Madukwe, 1996). The ADPs were located farther from their technology generating
research institutes, compared with the universities. It depended on distant research institutes as sourcesof agro-technology, compared with the universities, which basically sourced relevant technologies fromtheir academic departments.
The physical distance between the locations of the agency for technology generation and technology
transfer of any agricultural technology transfer system, could increase the cost and time of providing
technical information to the participating farmers. The analysis showed that university technologies
would be more available to the participating farmers compared to the ADP, which would involve longer
period and higher financial cost sourcing technologies from distant research institutes.

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT P ROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA

27

Data showed that the ADP and university did not differ on practices such as locating research in farmers’
field (t=1.18); and involving field agents in the management of field trials (t=1.09). Other areas of similarity
include: provision of adequate research facilities and incentives (t=1.18); and farmers’ participation in
financing adaptive research (t = 0.67). Locating adaptive research in farmers’ field, demands fieldagents involvement in research management in order to establish the desired targets. In addition,
provision of necessary research facilities and incentives would contribute largely to meaningful
involvement of the field agents and overall participation of farmers in financing adaptive research activities.
Thus, the analysis indicates that the ADP and university in Nigeria had agricultural technology generation
indices identifiable in a successful agricultural technology transfer system. The areas of discrepancies
and similarities are policy issues for consideration in harmonising agro-technology transfer practices of
the ADP and university in Nigeria.
Comparison of agro-technology transfer practices of the ADP and university
Data (Table 2) indicate similarities between university and ADP in the use of farmers’ organizations (t =0.72), existing local communication channels (t = 0.61), in-house staff training (t = 0.70), demonstration
method (t = 1.26), and print and electronic media (t = 1.03) in agro-technology transfer. Involvement offarmers’ organizations could enhance employment of existing communication, while adoption of inhouse staff training would enhance staff learning and contact strategies necessary in achieving effective
agricultural technology transfer to the farmers. Learning by firms and operators of technology transfer
agencies, has been identified as the key to effective transfer and diffusion of innovative capability(Mytelka and Tesfachew, 1999).

28

ATPS WORKING P APER SERIES NO. 35

Table 2: Differences in technology transfer practices between the ADP anduniversity
Technology transfer
issuesMeans indicatinglevel of existence (max.=5)
ADP
University

Disseminating technology
through farmers’organization
4.03(1.33)
Categorizing farmers
according to needs
3.0(1.20)
Orienting extension services
to suit client interests
4.02(1.12)
Disseminating technologies
through farmers’ existing
communication channels 4.16(0.94)
Conducting short in-housestaff training
3.65(1.48)
Provision of training
incentives to staff
3.39(1.37)
Use of demonstration
methods
4.39(1.04)
Use of print andelectronic media
3.06(1.31)
Knowledge of rural
dynamics
4.16(1.17)*P< 0.05.

t-cal.

3.34(1.53)

0.72

3.67(1.3)

2.16*

3.67(1.16)

1.87*

4.05(0.62)

0.61

3.63(1.34)

0.10

3.42(1.35)

3.33*

4.05(1.22)

1.26

2.74(1.10)

1.03

3.37(1.12)

2.71*+ Data in parenthesis are standard deviations

Table 2 shows that ADP and university differed in the practice of categorizing farmers for technology
transfer (t = 2.16), extension orientation towards clients (t = 1.87) and use of external training for staff (t= 3.75). University system (0= 3.67) significantly used farmer categorization strategy in technology
transfer more than the ADP (0 = 3.0). In other words, technology transfer practices of the university
were more oriented towards meeting the specific farming needs of farmers than those of the ADP.
Categorization of farmers into groups for technology transfer is an important survival strategy for agrotechnology transfer agencies. Categorization meansorganizing farmers according to similar farming
patterns and socio-cultural interest for the purpose of transferring agricultural technologies that meettheir specific needs. Other areas where the ADP differed from university include provision of training
incentives (t = 3.33) and field agents’ knowledge of rural dynamics (t = 2.71).

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT P ROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA29

The university system (0 = 3.42) provided higher training incentives to field staff than the ADP (0 = 3.39)
and the ADP staff (4.16) had better knowledge of rural dynamics than the university (x = 3.37). Thus, it
is suggested that the university system takes complete responsibility for extension staff training, while
the ADP utilize their rural orientation and concentrate efforts to contact the farmers. In this regard, theuniversity should strengthen their training arrangement and facilities and the ADP should improve onsponsorship of staff training, and payment of necessary incentives to the field staff.
Comparison of the socio-economic indices of the ADP and university agro- technology transfer
systems
Comparison of the socio-economic impacts of the ADP and university agro-technology transfer systems
on the organizational, staff and farmer characteristic was carried out using socio-economic indices(Tables 3 and 4).
Organizational characteristics: The ADP had a supervisory to field staff ratio of 1: 8, compared to 1:
6 for the university. The university will make more effective supervision of field staff with the smaller
number of field extension staff. The field staff farmer ratio was 1: 200 for the university as against 1:
5000 for the ADP.
Field staff of ADP move through four supervisory levels to get in touch with the head of the programme,
while the university counterpart has a direct link with the head of the programme. The more the supervisorylevels, the longer the chains of communication and the more relevant agro-technology information
could be diluted and distorted between source and end users. Similarly, the university has less outside
interference with the organizational procedure and process than the ADP. The university had a stronger
linkage between the agro-technology generation and transfer sub-systems (0 = 4.60) than the ADP (0=2.56).
This situation from the perception of the operators of the two systems is based on factors such as thephysical distance between the sub-systems, the age (that is the period of existence of the sub-systems),
differences in the qualification of the staff of the sub-systems, and the information technology facilities
available for information exchange between the sub-systems. The greater the physical distance between
the two sub-systems, the less the level of linkage. Again, the more the differences in age and staff
qualifications, the less the differences in information technology between the sub-systems and thelevel of linkage. Linkage between technology generation and transfer sub-systems has been identified
as a necessary ingredient for success in technology transfer.
The agro-technologies transferred and method of transfer used by the university was more compatible
with the cultural practices of the recipient environment than that of the ADP. Understanding the needs
and aspirations of technology recipients is a basic ingredient not only in developing technologies
appropriate to them, but choosing appropriate methods for transferring such technology to them. The
university with better trained and experienced technology transfer staff appears better equipped tohandle the intricate process of identifying the needs and aspirations of farmers. Again majority of ADP

30

ATPS WORKING P APER SERIES NO. 35

farmers (87.6%) reported that the ADP system was directed mostly to adults, and that of the university
included youths in their programmes.
The agro-technologies transferred by the two systems showed a wider distribution involving crops(23.2%), livestock (19.3%), processing (18.7%) agro-forestry (17.5%) and fisheries (21.2%) for ADP,
than the university with a distribution of crops (40.1%), livestock (29.1%) and processing (30.7%). The
ADP transferred crop based technologies in the area of yam/maize/cassava/egusi or telferia alternate
row intercrop, cassava, rice, maize, sweetpotato and cowpea and the university concentrated on cassava,
rice, maize and cowpea. In the livestock area the university concentrated on poultry and cattle and the
ADP worked on poultry, cattle, sheep and goat. Most of the universities did not transfer technologies on
agro-forestry and fisheries.
In terms of intra-organizational relationship among staff, 63.16% of university, compared with 55.94%
of ADP staff, participated in intra-organizational relationship. Intra-organizational relationship patternsof staff are of two forms: vertical which takes place between superior and subordinate and horizontal,
which takes place between staff at the same supervisory level. The university had higher intraorganizational relationship than the ADP. Also 42.30% of ADP and 36.05% of university staff were
mobile, indicating low level of staff mobility in the two systems. Mobility of technology transfer staff
enhances timeliness in implementing agro-technology transfer programmes. The analysis further showsthat 17.83% of the ADP and 25.81% of university top management staff received in-house or external
training, sponsored by their agencies. Under the ADP system, the field agents had regular in-housetraining, mainly the fortnightly training sessions. In contrast, the field extension staff of the university did
not have similar regular staff training on production recommendations. Adequate staff training had
been identified as an enabling factor towards achieving the success of any agricultural technology
transfer system (Swanson, 1997).
In terms of cost of providing staff training, the ADP spent Naira (N)6,270 compared with university,
which spent N4,677 per staff a year. We recommend that the ADP could leave training to the university
due to the comparative advantage of university in the area.
Staff characteristics: Majority of the university (89.5%) and ADP (89.34%) agro-technology transfer
workers were males. This indicates inadequate female agro-technology transfer workers in the twosystems. This may bias agro technology transfer efforts toward male farmers, when 70% of farmers in
Nigeria are females (Anyanwu and Agu, 1996). Inadequate female agro-technology transfer agents
have been identified as a limiting factor in transferring agro-technology to female clientele (Sokoya,
1998).
The majority of university staff (53%) and ADP staff (51%) were between 40 and 48 years old, and thenext major group, 30% for university and 18% for ADP were 49-59 years old. The university had relatively
older staff than the ADP. Similarly, 66% of staff of university had work experience of between 16 and 30
years and 60% of ADP staff had work experience of 6 and 25 years, the latter being a relatively young/recent agency than the university. The few years of work experience in the ADP could also be a result

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT P ROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA

31

of staff turnover caused by poor work condition. The result indicates that agro-technology transfer staff
of ADP and university had at least the West African School Certificate, that is 12 years of basic education.
About 89% of university and 82% of ADP staff had at least a university bachelors degree. The indicationis that staff of the two agro-technology transfer systems possessed relevant educational qualification
for achieving the objectives of agro-technology transfer programmes.
Selected socio-economic characteristics of agro-technology transfer staff of the ADP and university arepresented in Table 3. The Table shows that a higher percentage of staff of the ADP than the university,
owned a personal house, an electricity generating plant and had a better knowledge of rural life.
Ownership of a personal house and generating set, is a reflection of the external funding facility which
ADP had, prior to this study. However, the superior knowledge of rural life better equips ADP staff for
more effective performance as rural agro-technology transfer agents. Again a higher percentage ofuniversity staff more than the ADP were classified as having improved nutritional status, owned radio
and television, were free from superstitious beliefs, and had additional academic qualification, better
promotional prospect and higher technical skills.
Generally, the university system appears to have more positive impact on the socio-economic
characteristics of staff than the ADP. The implication is that the university will retain high quality agrotechnology transfer staff than the ADP, as it offers better conditions of service.
Table 3: Socio-economic indices of agro-technology staff in the ADP and university system
Socio-economic indices

ADP (%)

University (%)

Own personal house
Improved nutritional status
Electricity generating plant
Radio/television
Furnished parlour and bedroom
Positive attitude towards jobs
Freedom from superstition
Improved knowledge of rural life
Additional academic qualification
Promotional prospects
Higher technical skills

34.10*
30.67
1.64
60.33
38.20
42.11
22.95
85.41
18.20
47.54
57.89

49.26
86.84
40.33
46.72
36.84
48.95
41.05
80.11
70.49

* Multiple responses

Farmer characteristics: Majority of the university (84.3%) and ADP (92.17%) farmers were males
indicating bias of the two agro-technology transfer systems against women.
The majority of farmers with the university (86%) and ADP (78%) were in the active age group of 40 to
60 years. Years of contact of farmers with agro-technology transfer agencies ranged from 1 to 15 for32

ATPS WORKING P APER SERIES NO. 35

the bulk of ADP farmers (73.2%) and 6-20 years for the bulk of university farmers (76%). This indicatesthat farmers with the university system had longer period of exposure to technology transfer influencethan farmers with the ADP system. The university system served mostly farmers without any formal
education (64%) more than the ADP (40%), which served mostly literate farmers.
Table 4 shows that a comparatively higher percentage of farmers under the ADP own personal houses(75.76%), used modern agricultural equipment (71.79%), were mobile (69.39%), paid their tax (85.29%)
and possessed positive attitude towards agro-technology transfer (78.26%).
Table 4: Socio-economic indices of farmers under the agro-technology transfer systems of ADP
and university
Socio-economic indices

ADP (%)

University (%)

Furnished personal house(s)Wrist, table or wall clocks
Radio & T.V.
Accessibility to pipe-borne water
Use of modern agricultural equipment
Mobility facilities (cars,
motorcycles or bicycles)
Better nutritional statuses
Membership of farmers organisations
Access to farm inputs
Prompt payment of tax
Accessibility to modern health care
Freedom from superstition
Positive attitude towards
agro-technology transfer services
Cultivated additional 0.2-0.5 ha in thelast five years* Multiple responses .

75.76*
72.45
87.32
45.16
71.79

54.55
42.29
76.67
52.94
53.33

69.39
97.02
77.20
74.60
85.39
54.31
70.49

55.32
93.04
89.17
86.01
79.13
73.04
69.61

78.26

42.16

63.00

100.0

A higher percentage of farmers under the university had access to piped water (52.94%), were membersof farmers’ organizations (89.17%), had access to farm inputs (86.01%), modern health services(73.04%), and in the immediate past five years cultivated additional 0.2 to 0.5ha. of farm land (100%).
Farmers’ use of agricultural technology packages
Mean scores were used to determine the extent farmers employed technical packages given to them intheir farm operations. Data in Table 5 show that ADP farmers (0 = 4.22) compared to the university
farmers (0 = 4.39), generally used crop based technologies, while the university farmers (0 = 3.93)

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT P ROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA

33

compared to the ADP farmer (x = 4.12), used less of livestock technologies. The analysis indicates thatthe bulk of farmers who participated in the activities of the ADP and university, generally used crop andlivestock based technologies in their farm operations.
Table 5: Farmers’ level of use of agricultural technology packages_______________________________________________________________________
Agriculture sub-sector
ADP
University
Mean (max.=5)
Improved crops technologies
4.22
4.39
Improved livestock technologies
4.12
3.93
Fisheries
4.48
1.43
Agro-forestry
3.05
1.02
Use of agro-chemicals
3.46
3.71
Storage, processing and utilization technologies
4.10
4.17
________________________________________________________________________
Furthermore, the ADP farmers almost had monopoly in the area of fisheries (0 = 4.48) and agro-forestry(0 = 3.05) based technologies. Other areas where agro-technology packages were utilized and agrochemicals had means of 3.46 for the ADP and 3.71 for the university farmers and processing andutilization with mean of 4.17 for the university, compared to the mean of 4.10 for the ADP farmers.
Farmers of the university better adopted the use of agro-chemicals, processing and utilization
technologies than farmers of the ADP.
Farmer-contact methods of the ADP and university
Data in Table 6 show the percentage of farmers reporting contact methods adopted by the agro-technology
transfer systems of ADP and university. The analysis indicates that ADP used more of personal contact
method (78.15%) than the university (63.13). The ADP (62.17) and university (64.05) systems, generally
used the demonstration method. Demonstration technique adopted use of trial plots to concretize
development of necessary skills among the farmers. Comparatively, the ADP performed better than theuniversity in the use of personal contact method, agricultural shows and field days, and the university
used demonstration, rural groups and posters as contact method with farmers. The higher the use ofdemonstration and personal contacts by field workers, the greater the achievement of any agrotechnology transfer system in securing increased awareness, interest and participation of farmers inagro-technology transfer practices.

34

ATPS WORKING P APER SERIES NO. 35

Table 6: Farmers’ perception of contact methods used by the ADP and university
Extension contact methods
ADP (%)
University (%)______________________________________________________________________
Personal contacts of extension agents
78.15*
63.13
Demonstration
62.17
64.05
Agricultural shows
44.25
31.37
Field days
52.05
29.32
Involvement of farmer organizations andrural groups
50.17
60.16
Use of posters
28.16
39.05
Use of radio
9.45
10.06
Use of television
7.06
6.15
______________________________________________________________________*Multiple responses

About 10% of university farmers and 9.45% of ADP farmers reported use of radio and 7.06% of ADP
and 6.15% of university farmers indicated use of television as contact methods. The two systems did
not use radio and television as major methods of agro-technology transfer. Radio and television havehigh potential for contacts, because of their suitability to reach a large number of farmers simultaneously
and disseminate urgent farm programmes (Anyanwu, 1997). However, the minimal use of radio andtelevision by the ADP and university conformed with the expectation of Osuji (1983), who noted thatradio and television were the least used extension-farmer contact techniques in Nigeria.
This study comparatively analysed three sub-systems necessary in implementing a viable agricultural
technology transfer system, namely, technology generation, transfer and utilization of the ADP anduniversity in Nigeria. There is a consensus from the study that the agro-technology transfer systems of
ADP and university could be accredited with achievement in terms of set goals and operational targets.
However, these agencies have not been supported by coherent and targeted agro-technology transfer
policies. Harmonization of field technology transfer services based on comparative advantages, isrequired to achieve a functional agro-technology system in Nigeria. The frequency of the agro-technology
transfer activities re-located through earlier organizations to the present ADP, and the number of otherorganizations that have been called in to undertake agro-technology transfer activities as part of theirmandate, has decreased. This is a reflection of the unstable nature of the environment in which agrotechnology transfer activities have operated in Nigeria. These changes usually resulted in the movementof staff from one agency to another and in some cases in loss of status and prospect for careerdevelopment. The university system has had a relatively stable environment with little interference fromoutside. Based on the analysis, one possible policy option to pursue will be to foster a loose linkage
between the two agro-technology transfer systems, such that the university will concentrate on technology
design and supply, and the ADP as the implementing arm in the agro-technology transfer process(Figure 6).

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT P ROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA

35

Another policy option will be to merge the two systems and situate all government agro-technology
transfer efforts in the county within the university system ( Figure 7). To pursue this option, we suggestthat one university in each state of the federation be designated as an agro-technology transfer centre.
With this option, agro-technology transfer staff will become staff of the university responsible for agrotechnology transfer in each state of the federation. This arrangement will allow agro-technology transfer
staff to enjoy the relatively better condition of service existing in the university. This may help to increase
morale, job satisfaction and reduce staff turn-over. With this option, the federal state and local
governments can contribute funds and programmes for transfer activities.
Based on the findings of this study the following policy issues are critical in achieving success, irrespectiveof the options considered. The university should utilize the advantage of better quality research personnel
and facilities, to address appropriate technology generation. The crucial technology generation roles of
the university could be enhanced by utilizing high staff strength of the ADP in identifying field problems.
This could be achieved by constituting the field reports of ADP agro-technology transfer workers into
critical inputs for basic research and improving of extension staff training on adaptive research
management. The ADP had more field staff evenly distributed than the university and we recommendthat ADP takes over responsibility for field agro-technology transfer activities. This will include identificationof farmers’ problem and adaptive research trials in farmers’ field. The university in turn could absorb the
ADP as their implementing arm, while concentrating on technology design and supply services andlinking with other research institutes on behalf of the ADP.
To take over agro-technology transfer at farmers’ level, ADP should identify existing farmers’ field problems
and subsequently implement adaptation trials and pursue enhanced training of field staff. Considering
the comparative advantage of university over the ADP in terms of training facilities, qualities of training
personnel and payment of incentives to staff, an agro-technology transfer policy that will allow theuniversity to take over all staff training functions should be pursued.
The ADP should concentrate on increasing sponsorship of staff for training and improving the paymentof necessary incentives to staff after training. There will be need to strengthen staff training arrangementof the universities to meet staff training needs. Effective extension staff training under the universities,
demands appropriate decentralization and adoption of the zonal and block office arrangement of the
ADPs in providing extension staff training. The situation could imply improved logistic support for staff
training and increased budgetary allocation to extension, in order to enhance payment of training
incentives to trainees.
The gender bias in staffing against women is a serious shortfall of the two systems. This bias against
women is also manifested among farmers. There is need to pursue a policy that will substantially
increase the number and quality of female agro-technology transfer staff in two systems. This will be
one major way of ensuring that the majority of farmers in Nigeria, mainly female, are reached. Similarly,
there is need for a policy that will make it mandatory for agro-technology transfer institutions and systems
to specifically target their programmes on women.

Chapter Five
Conclusion and Policy Issues
The ADP should evolve an arrangement for using multiple farmer contact methods. Use of group approachand employment of existing rural communication patterns are policy options that should be pursued.
This would enhance effective contact and facilitate farmers’ participation in agro-technology transfer
services of the ADP.
Examined as an agro-technology system, we observe that the linkage between technology generationand technology transfer sub-systems was weak in the system and strong in the university system. The
ADP, as an agro-technology transfer system is a relatively younger organization, compared with thecooperating technology generating agencies. Most of the research agencies generating agro-technology
for it were established in the 1960s and the cooperating ADPs were established in the 1980s. Our
observation points to the difference in age of the agencies as an important issue that reduced cooperation
between the sub-systems. The research agencies perceived the ADP as a relatively young and inferior
agency to deal with. Consequently, its capability as an agro-technology transfer system to meet withthe challenges of establishing new inter-organizational relationship with agro-research agencies, wasabsent.
In the university system which showed a stronger link between the technology generation and transfer
sub-systems, this difference in age did not exist.
Another policy issue which this study is highlighting is the academic qualification differential existing
between the two sub-systems under the ADP. Most of the research staff had at least a masters degreeand most of the ADP staff had at most a bachelors degree certificate. Most of the technology-generating
staff in the cooperating research agencies had comparatively higher academic qualification thantechnology transfer staff. Most of the ADP staff were apathetic in dealing with the research staff. The

36

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT P ROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIARESEARCH
INSTITUTES

37

UNIVERSITY
Agro-technology
generation

ADP
Agro-technology
transfer

FARMERS

Figure 6: A proposed linkage structure for university and ADP in agro-technology transfer in
Nigeria.

38

ATPS WORKING P APER SERIES NO. 35

ADP staff complained that the research staff see and treat them as people without knowledge. Thus, indeveloping an agro-technology transfer system the academic qualifications of the staff involved intechnology generating and transfer sub-systems, should be harmonized.
One other policy issue that played a role in weakening the link between the technology generation andtransfer sub-systems of the ADP was the difference or non-synchronization in the period of funding.
The ADP came into existence with liberal external funding from the World Bank at a time when the
structural adjustment programme was adversely affecting the capability of the research institutes togenerate agro- technology. This set off balance its agro-technology system. A holistic approach todeveloping or restructuring an agro-technology system, rather than dealing with each sub-system is an
important policy option. The growing knowledge-intensity of agro-production of rural farm level should
be complemented by agro-technology generating and transfer sub-systems or institutions.

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT P ROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIARESEARCH
INSTITUTE

UNIVERSITY

39

Agro-technology
Generation andTransfer

FARMERS

Figure 7: Proposed merge structure for university and ADP in agro-technology transfer in Nigeria.

References

Adebayo, A. (1995). Principles and Practice of Public Administration in Nigeria; Revised edition; Ibadan:
Spectrum Books Ltd., pp. 18-27.
Agwunobi, C.A. (1993). “Impact of the Shell Petroleum Agricultural Extension Programme on theParticipating Farmers in Imo State”. M.Sc. Project, Department of Agricultural Extension, University of
Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria.
Aihonsu, J.O.I. (1992). “Group Farming Approach to Food Production and Rural Development: theExperience of Opticom Farm Scheme in Ogun State, Nigeria”. In Rural Development in Nigeria:
Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference of the NRSA, S.S. Olomola and A.C. Nwosu eds., pp.106119.
Ajala, A.A. and Madukwe, M.C. (1992). “The Relevance of Plant Protection Research in Nigeria to
Farmers’ Needs”. Bangladesh Journal of Training and Development; Vol.5 No.1.
Ajayi, A.R. (1996). “Evaluation of the Socio-Economic Impact of the Ondo State Ekiti-Akoko Agricultural
Development Project on the Rural Farmers”. Ph.D Thesis, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria.
Anyanwu, A.C. (1997a). “The Role of Extension in Agricultural Credit Administration in Nigeria”, Nigerian
Journal of Co-operatives and Rural Development, pp. 74-79.
Anyanwu, A.C. (1997b). “Appropriate Extension Communication Techniques for Interaction with Rural
Farm Women”. Journal of Agriculture, Technology and Education, pp. 32-34.
Asiabaka, C.C. (1998). “Agricultural Technology Transfer Strategies in Nigeria in the Past Decade”.
Paper Presented at the 13th Annual Zonal REFILS Workshop, Umudike, National Root Crops ResearchInstitute.
Ayichi, D. (1995). “Agricultural Technology Transfer for Sustainable Rural Development”. In Rural
Development in Nigeria: Concepts, Processes and Prospects, E.C. Eboh; C.U. Okoye; and D. Ayichieds., Enugu: Auto-Century Publishing Company, pp. 126-134.

40

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT P ROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA

41

Beyon, J. (1998). “Financing the Future: Options for Agricultural Research Extension in Sub-SaharanAfrica”. Oxford Policy Management, Oxford, pp. 17, UK.
Blum, A. (1989). The Agricultural Knowledge System in Israel. Rehovot, The Hebrew University ofJerusalem, Faculty of Agriculture, Israel.
Blum, A. (1991) “What Can be Learned From a Comparison of Two Agricultural Knowledge System?
The Case of the Netherlands and Israel”. Agricultural Ecosystem and Environment, 33, pp. 325-339.
Bolade, E.O. (1990). “Technological Innovations for Nigeria Fisheries Development: Issues and Analysis”.
The Nigerian Journal of Agricultural Extension; Vol. 5, Nos. 1&2.
Chinaka, C. (1993). “Extension Communication System”. Paper Presented at the Orientation Course
for Extension Agents. Enugu State Agricultural Development Programme, 19-24, April.
Chuta, C.R. (1992). “Comparative Assessment of Training Needs for Agricultural Administrators in Imo
and Borno States of Nigeria”. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria.
Farinde, J.A. (1996). “Effective Agricultural Technology Transfer: Need for a Model Extension Delivery
Body for Sustainable Rural Development in Nigeria”. In Sustainable Development in Rural Nigeria;
Proceedings of the Eight Annual Ago-Iwoye Conference of the Nigerian Rural Sociological Association,
S. Fola Adedoyin and J.O.Y. Achonsu eds., Ogun State University, Nigeria, pp. 119-131.
Hussain, S.S., Byeric, D. and Heisey, P.W. (1994). “Impacts of the Training and Visits Extension System
on Farmers' Knowledge and Adoption of Technologies: Evidence from Pakistan”. Agricultural Economics,
pp. 39-49.
Igodan, C.O. and Adekunle, O. (1993). “Utilization of Indigenous Knowledge in Agricultural Production:
the Role of National Agricultural Research System”. In Perspective on Food Security in Nigeria.
Proceeding of The Nigerian Rural Sociological Association (Olomole, A.S. and Nwosu, A.C. eds.).
Ijere, M.O. (1992). Leading Issues in Rural Development. ACENA Publishers, Enugu, Nigeria.
ISNAR (1984). Considerations for the Development of National Agricultural Research Capacities in
Support of Agricultural Development. The Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 20.
Jibowo, A.A. (1992). Essentials of Rural Sociology; Gbemi Sodipo Press Ltd., Abeokuta, Nigeria.
Ladele, A.A. (1991). “A Socio-Economic Analysis of the Impact of Agricultural Co-operative Organizations
on Rural Development in Nigeria”. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Ibadan, Nigeria.

42

ATPS WORKING P APER SERIES NO. 35

Lionberger, H.F. (1986). “Towards an Idealised Systems Model for Generating and Utilizing Informationin Modernizing Societies”; InKnowledge Generation, Exchange and Utilization, G.M. Beal, W. Disanayak
and S. Konoshim eds., Wesview press, Colorado, pp. 105-134.
Madukwe, M.C. (1995a). “Agricultural Extension Systems and Strategies in Nigeria’s Rural Development”
In Rural Development in Nigeria: Concepts, Processes and Prospects, E.C. Eboh; C.U. Okoye; and D.
Ayichi eds., Auto - Century Publishing Company, Enugu, pp. 314-320.
Madukwe, M.C. (1995b). “Factors Constraining on-the-Job Training and Farm Visits of Extension Agentsin Enugu State”. Journal of Education and Vocational Studies; 1 (61).
Madukwe, M.C. (1996). “Restructuring Fields Agricultural Extension Services in Nigeria: Issues andOptions”. In Sustainable Development in Rural Nigeria: Proceedings of the Eight Annual Conference of
the Nigeria Rural Sociological Association. S.F. Adedoyin and J.O. Aihonsu eds., Ogun State University,
Ago-Iwoye, pp. 314-320.
McNamara, R.S. (1990). “African Development Crisis: Agricultural Stagnation, Population Explosion
and Environmental Degradation”. Address to the African Leadership Forum, Lagos, Nigeria, June 21.
Mijindadi, N.B. (1983). “Who Controls Nigeria’s Extension Services? The Case of Sokoto State”. The
Nigerian Journal of Agricultural Extension; Vol.1, No. 2.
Mijindadi, N.B. (1994). “Sustainability Issues in Agricultural Technology Transfer in Nigeria, Issues andPriorities for Nigerian Agriculture in the Twenty-First Century”. Proceedings of the Inaugural Conferenceof the Agricultural Extension Society of Nigeria, pp. 47-56.
Monu, E.D. and Omole, M.M. (1983). “Adoption of Recommended Farm Practice by Nigeria Cocoa
Farmers”.The Nigerian Journal of Agricultural Extension. 1(2), pp. 43-53.
Mytelka, L.K. and Tesfachew, T. (1999). “The Role of Policy in Promoting Enterprise Learning During
Early Industrialization: Lessons for African Countries”. United Nations Conference on Trade andDevelopment Study No.7.
Nagel, U.J. (1980); “Institutionalization of Knowledge Flow”. Special Issue of the Quarterly Journal ofInternational Agriculture; No.3.
Nweze, N.J. (1995). “The Role of Informal Finance in Rural Areas of Nigeria”. InRural Development in
Nigeria: Concepts, Processes and Prospects, E.C. Eboh; C.U. Okoye and D. Ayichi eds., Auto-century
publishing company, Enugu, Nigeria, pp. 192-199.
Obibuaku, L.O. (1983). Agricultural Extension as a Strategy for Agricultural Transformation, Universityof Nigeria press, Nsukka, Nigeria, pp. 16-22.

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT P ROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA

43

Obibuaku, L.O. (1986). “Agricultural Administration in Africa”. Mimeo, University of Nigeria, Nsukka ,Nigeria.
Obiechina, C.O.B. and Otti, F. (1985). “Socio-Economic Impact of Rice Production Technology on a
Rural Area of Anambra State”. Journal of Rural Development and Co-operative Studies, Vol.1, No.2,
pp.132-146.
Obinne, C.P.O. and Anyanwu, A.C. (1991). “Communication Factors Determining Adoption of Improved
Cassava Technologies in Small Holder Agriculture”. Nigerian Journal of Rural Extension andDevelopment, Vol. 1, No.1, pp. 15-23.
Ogolo, M.B.; Adekunle, O.A. and Akinsorotam, A.O. (1994). “Effective Communication in Sustainable
Agricultural Technology Transfer by the 21st Century in Nigeria: Issues and Priorities for Nigeria
Agricultural Extension in the Twenty-First Century. Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference of theAgricultural Extension Society of Nigeria, pp. 69-75.
Ogunbameru, B.O. (1986). “Application of REAP Model in Evaluating Extension Education Programmes:
Focus on Borno Farm Mechanization Training Programme”. The Nigerian Journal of Agricultural
Extension, Vol.4, No.1, pp.2-9.
Ogunfidititimi, T.O and Ewuola, S.O. (1995). The Synthesis of Comparative Agricultural Extension
Systems. Emuni Press Ltd., Ibadan, Nigeria, pp. 87.
Okigbo, B.N. (1991). “The Challenges of Farming Systems Research in Tropical Africa”. Agricultural
Systems in Africa. Vol I, No 1, pp. 7- 16.
Osuji, L.O. (1983). “Institutional Factors Associated with Adoption of New Farm Technologies Among
Farmers in Eastern Nigeria”. The Nigerian Journal of Agricultural Extension; Vol.1, No.2, pp. 45-53.
Platt, Adam (1989). “Introduction and Verification on Household Technologies”. InIn Praise of Cassava,
U.D. Kaku eds., International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria, pp. 231 .
Rajasekaran, B.; Martin, R.A. and Warren, D.M. (1993). “A Framework for Incorporating Indigenous
Knowledge System into Agricultural Extension”. Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor, Vol.
1(31), pp. 21-23.
Roling, N. (1988a). Extension Sciences: Information Systems in Agricultural Development. Cambidge
University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Roling, N. (1988b). “The Research-Extension Interface: A Knowledge Systems Perspective”. International
Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR), The Hague, The Netherlands.

44

ATPS WORKING P APER SERIES NO. 35

Roling, N. and Pretty, J.N. (1997). “Extensions Role in Sustainable Agricultural Development. InImproving
Agricultural Extension. A Reference Manual. B.E. Swanson, R.P. Bentz and A.J. Sofranko eds., FAO,
Rome, Italy.
Sene, D. (1994).” The Role of Research and Training in Agricultural Extension”. InAgricultural Extension
in Africa: Proceedings of an International Workshop, J.N Wolf ed., Yaounde, Cameroon, pp. 21-28.
Sokoya, O.G. (1998). “Extension in the Service of the Small Scale Farmer in Nigeria: a Participatory
Approach for Sustainable Agricultural Extension”. Paper Presented at the 4th Annual National Conferenceof Agricultural Extension Society of Nigeria (AESON). University of Agriculture, Makurdi, Nigeria.
Swanson, B.E. (1997). “Strengthening Research-Extension-Farmer Linkages”. InImproving Agricultural
Extension: A Reference Manual; B.E. Swanson; R.P. Bentz and A.J. Sofranko eds., Food and Agricultural
Organization of the United Nations, Rome, pp. 171-180.
Swanson, B.E. and Claar, B.J. (1983). Technology Development Transfer and Feedback Systems
Analysis, University of Illinois, Illinois, Interparks.
Titilola, T. (1994). “Knowledge System and Sustainable Agricultural Development in Africa: Essential
Linkages”. Indigenous knowledge and Development Monitor , Vol. 2, No, pp. 18-20.
Uwakah, C.T. (1985). The Agricultural Extension Approach to Rural Development in West Africa. Universityof Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria, No.2, August, pp. 27-36.
Van den Ban, A.W. and Hawkins, H.S. (1992). Agricultural Extension, Second edition. Agricultural
University, The Netherlands, pp.7-41.
Vengara, N.T. and McDicken, K.G. (1990). “Extension and Agro-Forestry Technology Delivery to
Farmers”. In Agro-Forestry Classifications and Managements; K.G. McDicken and N.T. Vengara eds.,
Bangkok, Thailand.
World Bank (1994). Agricultural Extension in Africa: African Technical Development Series, World Bank,
Washington D.C., USA.
Zaria, M.B; Arokoyo, J.O.; Omotayo, A.M. and Akpoko, J.E. (1994). “Extension Issues and Priorities
from a Multi-Sectoral Perspective; Issues and Priorities for Nigeria’s Agricultural Extension in the TwentyFirst Century. Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference of the Agricultural Extension Society of Nigeria,
Nigeria, pp. 89-95.