Journal of Global Resources

Volume 4 (01)January 2018
ISSN: 2395-3160 (Print), 2455-2445 (Online)

Page 32-37

05
AGRICULTURAL MODERNISATION FOR RURAL TRANSFORMATION AND FOOD
SECURITY IN GHANA
1

Divine Odame Appiah, 2Gregory Saah, 3Emmanuella Obeng-Koranteng and
4
Patrick Nyarko
12&3

Department of Geography and Rural Development,
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana
Email: dodameappiah@yahoo.com
4

Afram Plains Development Organization, Donkorkrom, Ghana
Email: nyarko.patrick@ymail.com

Abstract: The dreadful situation of food insecurity has been drastically minimized in mostdeveloped countries by the introduction of agricultural modernisation techniques. The paper
examines the potentials of agricultural modernisation for rural transformation and food security ofsmallholder food crop farmers in the Sekyere Central District of the Ashanti region of Ghana.
Using a triangulated research design, purposive snowballing sampling technique was used inselecting the farmers. A total of 150 partially pre-coded questionnaires were administered tosmallholder food crop farmers from 4 different communities: Beposo, Asuafua, Amoamang and
Ankumadoa. Data were analysed in the cross-tabulation and frequency tools embedded in thestatistical package for social sciences (SPSS), version 17. The study revealed that farmers (41.4
percent) have adopted modernized agricultural technology and has resulted to high availability
and accessibility of food at the modernised agricultural communities than the traditional
agricultural communities. On the other hand, majority (58.6 percent) are still practicing traditional
agriculture due to financial constraints as proved that modern technology requires huge some of
capital and the technical know-how.
Keywords: Agricultural, Modernization, Smallholder, Food security, Sekyere Central, Ghana
Introduction
Agricultural modernisation is a process of change from traditional agriculture practices of using
rudimentary techniques of production to advanced and mechanised techniques of agriculture; andthe strategies to achieve them through increase in modern science and technology (Prajapati etal., 2014). According to this definition, it can be deduced that agricultural modernisationencompasses the use of modern tools, improved seeds, inorganic fertilizer application, irrigation
schemes and plant protection chemicals (herbicides, insecticides and pesticides) and thisphenomenon is to meet current standards (Viegas, 2003). The dreadful situation of foodinsecurity has been drastically minimised in most developed countries by the introduction ofagricultural modernization techniques. Africa is the continent that gets least yield from a hectareof land and Asia getting about three times that of Africa whereas European Union and North
America get an average of 4.5 times more yield. This is because of the primitive techniques ofagriculture in most of the developing countries (Anderson, 2010a). Food security, is operationallydefined by this paper as the processes that ensure that food is available, accessible, affordable
and to an extent, usable.
The sustainable intensification of smallholder farming in Africa, Latin America and Asia isa solemn option for achieving global food security in 2050 and also alleviate persistent poverty(McIntyre et al., 2009; Hounkonnou et al., 2012). However, Sub-Saharan Africa seems far off inrealising this option because technology-driven productivity growth in these areas has mostly
failed (Hounkonnou et al., 2012). In Ghana, little research attention has been given to thepotential of mechanised farming among smallholder food crop farmers in rural Ghana. Several
research works have extensively explored the dynamics between climate change and agriculture(Laube et al., 2012), gender and agriculture (Steel, 1981). A research work by Amanor and Pabi
32

(2007) looked at the impact of agricultural modernisation on the regional economy. The regional
scale looked at the average and this does not give a clear representation of how the livelihoods ofthese farmers have been affected by agricultural modernization at the household scale In the
Sekyere Central District of the Ashanti region of Ghana, even though farmers at Amoamang
Zongo, Ankumadoa, Asuafua and Bepos communities have adopted some form of modern
methods like the use of improved seedlings to attain high yield, they still remain food-insecure
and poor because they lose most of their produce after harvesting due to few storage facilities topreserve their produce. Thus, there is the need to examine the potentials of agriculturalmodernisation on food security and livelihoods of smallholder crop farmers in rural Ghana, using
the Sekyere Central District as a case in the Ashanti Region. The main objective of this paper is
to examine the potentials of agricultural modernisation on food security of smallholder food crop
farmers in the Sekyere Central district of the Ashanti region of Ghana.
Theoretical grounding of the paper
The paper is placed within the theoretical discourse of the relationship between environmental
processes and societal interactions, emphasised by political ecology (Forsyth, 2008). According
to Bubolz and Sontag (1999), political and social ecological ideas are the driving factors of humanand environmental state determination. The relationship between human population growth andsocietal response to the changing environmental resources for development, are some of thereasons why certain decision are taken. The utilisation of the different modes of agricultural
production in the form modern and advanced technologies and traditional, rudimentary methods,
as espoused by the paper, can be articulated within the context of the political economy of thelocal actors at the community scale as well as the national scale policy making andimplementation agents.
Materials and Methods
The study area
The Sekyere Central district is in the northern part of the Ashanti region and shares boundaries
with Mampong Municipal, Atebubu district, Sekyere East, Sekyere South and Ejura Sekyere
Dumase. The district with Nsuta as its capital is geographically located within latitudes 6.55º and7.30º N and longitude 0.05º and 1.30º W. It covers a total land area of about 1,631.1 km2, and has
about 150 settlements with about 70 percent rural population. The population of the Sekyere
Central district is 71,232 representing almost 1.5 percent of the region’s total population. In therural communities, 8 out of 10 households (86.6 percent) are agricultural households while in theperi-urban communities, 68 percent of households are involved in crop farming agriculture.
Research and Sampling Design
Both primary and secondary data were used. The former was collected by administering a total of
150 partially pre-coded questionnaires to the target group consisting of smallholder food crop
farmers from four different communities: Beposo, Asuafua, Amoamang and Ankumadoa.
Secondary data were also obtained from published relevant online peer-reviewed articles andbooks. Purposive snowballing sampling technique was used in selecting the farmers. Therefore,
the proportionate quota of food crop farmers selected from each community included 45 from
Beposo, 35 from Asuafua, 30 from Ankumadoa and 40 from Amoamang Zongo. This sample size
is based on respective community population. Both qualitative and quantitative data were
subjected to re-checks and spot-checks to ensure consistency and quality. The cleaned data wascoded and analysed using cross-tabulations and frequency in tools in the statistical package forservice solution (SPSS) v.17. The generated results from the SPPS was then exported to excel
for editing and it was analysed using descriptive analytic tools such as pie charts and bar graphs
for better visual presentation. Thematic classification and analyses were also employed on thequalitative data from the interviews and focused group discussion to buttress the results from thequantitative analyses.
Results
This section presents the results of the study through a combination of qualitative and quantitativetechniques with the use of tables, charts and graphs in presenting the relationships between thevariables. Among the major sub-themes covered under this section include the forms ofagricultural modernisation undertaken in the communities, the potential of agriculturalmodernization on food security in the communities.
33

Mode of agricultural activities in the communities
The study sought to identify the modes and forms of agricultural activities practiced by thefarmers in the two clusters of communities. The use of modern methods and inputs like tractors,
irrigation facilities, improved seedlings, storage facilities and agrochemicals like fertilizers,
pesticides and weedicides were classified as agricultural modernisation. On the other hand, theinability to adopt these modern methods and implement in farming activities was deemed as
traditional form of agriculture. This was to enable for easy comparison of the results of the study.
The study revealed that, out of the 150 farmers contacted, majority (58.6 percent) practiced
traditional mode of farming. The remaining (41.4 percent) farmers identified with modern mode offarming. It was realized that all respondents 80 (53.3 percent) of the first cluster of communities(Asuafua and Beposo) were into traditional agriculture. However, with the second cluster ofcommunities, the results deferred. Majority of the respondents from Amoamang Zongo 38 (25.3
percent) and Ankumadoa 24 (16 percent), respectively, engaged in modern mode of farming, withthe remaining 2 (1.3 percent) and 6 (4 percent) farmers from Amoamang and Ankumadoa,
respectively, practicing traditional agriculture. From the analysis, even in the communities where
agricultural modernisation has taken root, not all farmers are practicing the new method.
Farmers’ utilization of Farm Machinery
The farmers’ views on the use of farm machinery were sought. The majority 76(61.3 percent) of
the total 124 respondents who indicated they do not use tractors on their farms were from the firstcluster of communities (Beposo and Asuafua). The remaining 48 (38.7 percent) respondents, on
the other hand, were from the second cluster of communities (Amoamang Zongo and
Ankumadoa). As the results indicate, majority of the respondents from both clusters ofcommunities do not engage the services of tractors in their farming activities. However, it could beseen that, except Amoamang Zongo in the second cluster of communities, all the remaining
communities had lower percentages of the farmers engaging in the use of tractor services partly
due to low income levels to rent them. The implication of the results from the study on tractor
usage is that, even in communities which are classified as traditional in its agricultural activities,
there is the gradual adoption of modern methods of farming. Again, not all agriculturalmodernisation farmers are able to afford the use of tractors as demonstrated by only 2 out of 30
respondents from Ankumadoa using tractor services. The little use of tractor service could partly
be attributed to the challenge posed by the dense vegetation of the area. However, this challenge
does not impede the use of machinery on farms by residents of Amoamang Zongo. It was,however, noted from further probing that accessibility was a major factor to them under utilisationof tractors in the farms.
Respondents’ use of Fertilizer
As the analysis reveals, fertilizer application as a farm input was a common phenomenon amongmajority of farmers from Amoamang Zongo (43.20 percent) and Ankumadoa (23 percent) who
practiced agricultural modernisation as compared to Beposo (13.50 percent) and Asuafua (20.30
percent) where traditional farming system dominates. Majority of the respondents (72.4 percent)
who attested were not using fertilisers for their production activities were traditional farmers from
Beposo (46.10 percent) and Asuafua (26.30 percent). According to the study, at Asuafua andBeposo, low income or financial capital is a major hindrance to accessing fertilisers for majority of
the respondents in Asuafua and Beposo. The results also highlight that low yields are obtained in
Beposo and Asuafua communities because of least fertilizer application
Respondents’ use of Pesticides
The findings on the use of pesticides were similar to the use of fertilizer among the two clusters ofcommunities. Majority of the respondents who use pesticides were from the Amoamang Zongo(41.80 percent) and Ankumadoa communities (29.10 percent). In contrast to the results from themodernized agricultural communities, majority of the respondents who were not using pesticides
were from the traditional agricultural communities, i.e. Beposo (52.10 percent) and Asuafua(28.10 percent). The reason- of not using these inputs was no different from those given for thatof fertilizers, which is financial constraint. On the basis of the results, most farmers in Asuafua
and Beposo are likely to lose their crops to pest and disease attacks as some complained was
the reason for their low outputs. This will in turn have a negative implication on food security inthe communities with low modern inputs usage.
34

Respondents’ use of Irrigation
The study found that the main source of water for all respondents in their agricultural activities inthe two clusters of communities was rainfall. This is in agreement with Seidu (2011)’s findings,
which states that the main stay of the local economy of Ghana is mostly rain-fed agriculture with afew people who resort to dams and dug outs for irrigated agriculture, during the dry season. Other
source of water for irrigation available to the farmers in Sekyere Central District was streams;
though according the respondents, they are mostly dried up by the high temperatures during thedry seasons. The high dependency on rain-fed agriculture was a predominant phenomenon
characterizing Beposo and Asuafua communities. This explains the few respondents who usedirrigation equipment in these two communities: Asuafua (3.8 percent) and Beposo (15.4 percent).
Whilst majority of the respondents from Amoamang Zongo (46.2 percent) and Ankumadoa (34.6
percent) used irrigation equipment. The results are a clear indication that in both farming modes,
traditional and modernized agriculture, the use of irrigation equipment is minimal and farmers arelikely to suffer at the hands of the harmattan.
Potential of agricultural modernization on food security
Food availability and accessibility are important in the measure of the level of food security in any
particular locality. As one of the core objectives of the study, the level of food security in the twoclusters of communities was to be identified in connection with the mode of farming practice
adopted.
Implication of Agricultural Modernization on Food Availability
From the analysis it is revealed that there is food availability when it comes to food security intheir communities as indicated by respondents from Ankumadoa (93.3 percent), Amoamang
Zongo (92.5 percent), Beposo (26 percent) and Asuafua (19 percent) communities. However,from the analysis, it is observed that there is high availability of food at the modernized
agricultural communities (Ankumadoa and Amoamang Zongo) than the traditional agriculturalcommunities (Beposo and Asuafua). This is seen from the very few responses regarding foodunavailability at Amoamang Zongo (7.5 percent) and Ankumadoa communities as compared tothe significantly high responses from Asuafua (45.7 percent) and Beposo (42.2 percent)communities. This is illustrated in Table 1.
Table1: Implication of Agricultural Modernization on Food Availability
Communities

BeposoFrequency %26
19

Amoamang
Ankumadoa
Frequency% Frequency %

57.8
42.2

19
16

54.3
45.7

37
3

92.5
7.5

28
2

93.3
6.7

Total 45
100
Source: Field Survey (March, 2016).

35

100

40

100

30

100

Food
availability

YesNo

AsuafuaFrequency%

Implication of Agricultural Modernization on Food Accessibility
Results on food accessibility as a measure of food security was quite similar to that of foodavailability in the communities where modernised agriculture was undertaken with Amoamang
Zongo and Ankumadoa (93.3 percent) and Amoamang Zongo (90 percent) recording higher rates
as compared to Beposo (66.67 percent) and Asuafua (48.7 percent). Also, the traditional
agricultural communities recorded the highest rate of food inaccessibility; Asuafua (51.4 percent)and Beposo (33.3 percent) as compared to the agricultural modernized communities; Amoamang
Zongo (10 percent) and Ankumadoa (6.7 percent). This is outlined in Table 2.
Discussion
The study was conducted to reveal the type of agricultural modernization technology in use as
well as analysed the impact it has had on the food security and livelihoods of farmers at Sekyere
Central District. According to Motes (2010), the necessary increase in food production can beachieved with consistent application of modern technology and without it output declines. The
adoption of these practices is then vital to achieving food security. The study clearly showed that
although some of the farmers have adopted some form of modernized agricultural technology
such as fertilizer, tractors, pesticides, weedicides, irrigation technology, majority of the farmers
35are still practicing traditional agriculture. Only a few of the respondent’s resort to irrigation in thedry season as agriculture in Ghana is mainly rain-fed (Issaka et al., 2016) and the District has
proven to be no exception. The major reason accounting for the lower use of agriculturalmodernization technology was financial constraints as proved that modern technology requires
huge some of capital and the technical know-how (Chief, 2000). In agreement to Ojo et al. (2012)assertion, the element of distance was also at play, as the two closer cluster communities find it
easier to adopt the new technology as compared to the two farther clusters of communities as therate of technology adoption decreases with distance. Rahman (2003) also asserts that education
play a major role in raising awareness about modern agricultural technology. However, thesecontrasts with the study which shows that majority of both traditional and agriculturalmodernisation practitioners have had no formal education. Despite the low level of education
among inhabitants of Amoamang Zongo and Ankumadoa they have been able to adopt modern
agricultural methods.
Table 2: Implication of Agricultural Modernization on Food Accessibility
Communities (Percent)
Total
Food
Accessibility
BeposoAsuafua
Amoamang Zongo Ankumadoa
Yes

66.7

48.6

90.0

93.3

74.0

No

33.3

51.4

10.0

6.7

26.0

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Source: Field Survey (March, 2016).

Conclusion
The paper has argued that modernising the agricultural sector holds greater prospects for large
scale a food production and hence food security in farmers households in Ghana. This approach
therefore holds much potential for the rural livelihood transformation in terms of large scale
agriculture and the associated agro-based industrialisation. These avenues would, certainly, be
one of the various outlets of job creation and rural income improvement, towards the achievementof the sustainable development goals 1 and 2, which aim to end poverty and ensure zero hunger
respectively. The challenges that constrain efforts at meeting the goals have largely been accessto productive resources, as well as the financial clout for farm expansion. In the Sekyere Central
District, like many other districts in the country, smallholder agriculture has characterized most of
the food production ventures. The prospect of modernisation would be stymied if the Ministry ofFood and Agriculture does not make strenuous efforts towards the mechanisation under the
Ghanaian government’s flagship sector policy of planting for and jobs.
References
Amanor, S. Kojo, & Pabi, Opoku. (2007). Space, Time, Rhetoric and Agricultural Change in theTransition Zone of Ghana. Human Ecology. February 2007, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 51–67
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10745-006-9081-6
Anderson, P. (2010). Sustainable Agriculture Modernization. Degree project work, Linnaeus
University, Orongo Village, Western Kenya.
Blaikie P. (2008). Epilogue: Towards a future for political ecology that works. Geoforum 39 (2008)
765–772. http://geog.uoregon.edu/amarcus/geog621/Guest-readings/ Blaikie2008_ Geoforum.
pdf accessed 20 July 2015.
Bubolz, M. M. & Sontag M. S (1993). Human ecology theory. In (Boss P.G., Doherty, W.J.,
LaRossa, R., Shumm W.R. and Steinmetz, S. K eds.) Sourcebook of family theories andmethods:
A
contextual
approach.
New
York,
PlenumPress,
pp419-420.
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-387-85764-0_17#page-2 (accessed 25 July2015). campus shuttle service.GE-International Journal of Engineering Research, 2(5 July),
Chief, L.J.C (2000). Strategies for agricultural mechanization development: the roles of the private
sector and the government. Agricultural Engineering Branch, Agricultural Support Systems
Division FAO, Rome, Italy, pp. 1—15. Retrieved on September, 2017 at
http://www.cigrjournal.org/index.php/Ejounral/article/viewFile/88/82
36

Hounkonnou, Dominique., Kossou, Dansou., Kuyper, W. Thomas., Leeuwis, Cees., Nederlof, E.
Suzanne Röling, Niels., Sakyi-Dawson, Owuraku., Traoré, Mamoudou., & van Huis, Arnold.
(2012). An innovation systems approach to institutional change: Smallholder development inWest Africa. Agricultural Systems. Volume 108, April 2012, Pages 74-83.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2012.01.007
Issaka, Y. B. Seidu, J & Tenkouano, A. (2016) Characterization of rain-fed maize-based
vegetable production systems in Northern Ghana, academic journal, Vol. 11(6), pp. 64-75.
Issaka, Y. Balma., Seidu, Judith., & Tenkouano, Abdou. (2016). Characterization of rain-fed
maize based vegetable production systems in Northern Ghana. Scientific Research andEssays. DOI: 10.5897/SRE2015.6326
Laube, Wolfram., Schraven, Benjamin., & Awo, Martha. (2012). Smallholder adaptation to climatechange: dynamics and limits in Northern Ghana. Climatic Change. April 2012, Volume 111,
Issue 3–4, pp 753–774. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0199-1
McIntyre, B.D., Herren, H.R., Wakhungu, J., Watson, R.T. (Eds.), 2009. Agriculture at a
Crossroads, Global Report. IAASTD. Island Press, Washington (International Assessment ofAgricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development).
Motes, W. (2010). Modern Agriculture and Its Benefits–Trends, Implications and Outlook Global
Harvest Initiative, Washington, D.C.
Ojo, T.K., Amoako-Sakyi, R. & Agyeman, W. (2014). Application of SERVQUAL in
Prajapati, M., Patel, R., Dhandhukia, D. & Solnaki, K. (2014). Impact of Agricultural Modernization
on Sustainable Livelihood among the Tribal and Non-Tribal Farmers. Journal of Agricultural
Extension and Rural Development” vol. 6(4), pp. 138-142.
Rahman, S. (2003). Environmental impacts of modern agricultural technology diffusion in
Bangladesh: an analysis of farmers’ perceptions and their determinants. Journal ofEnvironmental Management 68, 183–191.
Steel, F. William. (1981). Female and Small-Scale Employment under Modernization in Ghana.
Economic Development and Cultural Change. Vol 30, No.1 http://www.journals. uchicago.
edu/doi/abs/10.1086/452544?journalCode=edcc
Viegas, E. (2003). “Agricultural Mechanization: managing technology Change” dsHelderda Costa,
Colin Piggin, Caesar J da Cruz and James J Fox, ACIAR Proceedings No 113, pp. 33-34.

37