Anda di halaman 1dari 59

1

1


ASSESSMENT OF FACTORS INFLUENCING CHEMICAL TREATMENT OF HOM
E SAVED SEED AMONG WHEAT FARMERS IN UASIN GISHU COUNTY OF KEN
YA
BY
BETT WILLIAM
A PROPOSAL SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN
AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
MOI UNIVERSITY





SEPTEMBER, 2013


2


2


3

DECLARATION
Declaration by Candidate
This thesis is my original work and to the best of my knowledge has not been presented for th
e award of a degree in any other University. No part of this thesis may be reproduced without
the prior written permission of the author and / or Egerton University.

Bett William
Signature Date

Declaration by Supervisors
This thesis has been submitted for examination with our approval as University Supervisors.

Department of Agricultural Economics and Resource Management,
School of Business and Economics,
Egerton University.

.
Signature Date


Department of Agricultural Economics and Resource Management,
Egerton University.
.
Signature Date


4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION....................................................................................................................... i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................ ii
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. v
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................... vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................. vii
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER ONE ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background of the Study ............................................................................................. 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................ 5
1.3 Objectives of the study ................................................................................................ 6
1.3.1 Broad Objective........................................................................................................... 6
1.3.2 Specific objective ........................................................................................................ 7
1.4 Research hypothesis .................................................................................................... 7
1.5 Significance of the study ............................................................................................. 7
1.6 Scope and Limitation of the Study .............................................................................. 8
CHAPTER TWO ..................................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Concepts and the Theoretical Framework ................................................................... 9
2.1.1. Seed ............................................................................................................................. 9
2.1.2. Seed System .............................................................................................................. 10
2.1.3. Formal Seed System .................................................................................................. 12
2.1.4. Informal Seed System ............................................................................................... 13
2.2 Home Saved Seeds .................................................................................................... 14
2.3 Treated Home Saved Seeds ....................................................................................... 14
2.4 Adoption of New Technologies ................................................................................ 14
2.5 Nature of Seed Marketing ......................................................................................... 17
2.6 Literature Review ...................................................................................................... 20
2.7 Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................. 22
2.8 Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................. 24
CHAPTER THREE ............................................................................................................... 25
3.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 25
3.1 Study Area ................................................................................................................ 25
3.2 Research Design ........................................................................................................ 27
3.3 Target Population ...................................................................................................... 27
3.4 Sample Frame ............................................................................................................ 28
5

3.5 Sample Size ............................................................................................................... 28
3.6 Sampling Procedures ................................................................................................. 29
3.7 Data Collection Tools................................................................................................ 30
3.7.1 Validity ...................................................................................................................... 31
3.7.2 Reliability. ................................................................................................................. 31
3.8 Primary Data ............................................................................................................. 32
3.8.1 Secondary Data ......................................................................................................... 32
3.8.2 Type of Data Collected ............................................................................................. 32
3.9 Data Collection Procedures ........................................................................................ 32
3.9.1 Type of Data Collected ............................................................................................. 32
3.10 Data Collection Procedures ....................................................................................... 33
3.10.1 Data Analysis Techniques ......................................................................................... 39
3.10.2 Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................................. 40
3.11 Empirical Model ........................................................................................................ 40
3.11.1 Theoretical Model and Empirical Specification........................................................ 40
3.12 Data Sources and Types ............................................................................................ 40
3.13 The Heckman Two-Step Method .............................................................................. 42
3.14 Propensity Score Matching (PSM) ............................................................................ 43
3.15 Estimating the Production Function .......................................................................... 45
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 46
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 52
APPENDIX I : QUESTIONNAIRE ..................................................................................... 52

6

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Table 3.1: Population Distribution in the Uasin Gishu County ............................................ 26
Table 3.2 Divisional Statistics of the Study Area ................................................................. 27
Table 3.3 Sample Size .......................................................................................................... 29

7

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
Figure 2.1: Conceptual Framework ...................................................................................... 24
Figure 3.1 Map of Uasin Gishu ............................................................................................ 26

8

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AAK Agrochemicals Association of Kenya
CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center
FAOSTAT Food and Agricultural Organization Statistical Database
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GOK Government of Kenya
IFDC International Center for Soil Fertility and Agriculture
KARI Kenya Agricultural Research Institute
KNBS Kenya National Bureau of Statistics
NPBRC National Plant Breeding Research Centre
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences
UK United Kingdom
US$ United States Dollars
USA United States of America


9

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
All through this time, my yearning to complete and give educative output was as a result of th
e guiding spirit of my father, George Kibet Chumoh, who though not around, has been my ins
piration throughout my entire life. This work is dedicated to him.


10

ABSTRACT
Seed dressing agrochemicals play a big role in increasing yields from a given unit of farm siz
e. Given that Kenya is a net importer of wheat, dressing of wheat seeds remains one of the av
enues of unblocking potential wheat yields, so as to remedy this situation. This study aims at
determining factors affecting treatment of home saved wheat seeds in Uasin Gishu County. R
espondents will be interviewed in different zones of Uasin Gishu district so as to get pertinent
information on the subject matter. Primary data will therefore be key in understanding factor
s that influence farmers towards adopting seed treatment as a way of boosting productivity of
home saved wheat seeds. Secondary data will al0so be used where relevant, so as to understa
nd past undertakings that explain issues influencing wheat farmers to treat or not to treat their
home saved wheat seeds. Descriptive statistics and maximum likelihood method using the St
atistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) will be used to analyze the data. Findings will e
nable policy makers and all stakeholders involved in wheat production to formulate strategies
which will lead to higher productivity of wheat farms.















11

CHAPTER ONE
1.1 Background of the Study
Farmers need seed because without viable seed the survival of their household is en
dangered. In fact, the ways that farmers obtain seed are as old as agriculture, and m
ost small-scale farmers in developing countries routinely save their seed from one ha
rvest to the next. Nowadays, some 60-70 per cent of seed used by these farmers is s
till saved on farm. Most of the remaining seed is obtained off-farm, from local source
s (Louwaars, 1994; Cromwell, 1996a). In additional, not all farmers can afford to buy
improved seed supplied by the organized seed industry. For many farmers, such see
d is not available, even if they wanted it and could afford it. In actual fact, the majority
of the world's farmers, and crops, are not planted from such seed but from home sa
ved seed which are treated.
The average world grain yield in 1950 was 1.1 tons per hectare. In 2011, it was 3.3 t
ons per hectare, (USDA, 2013). The challenges for all policy makers and researcher
s are to continually improve and maintain this yield per hectare because of the ever i
ncreasing, population. The world population is currently rising rapidly. Virtually the s
ame amount of arable global farmland is expected to support this increasing number
of people. Efforts geared towards increasing yield per unit area will therefore help im
prove and increase food security. In his report to British parliament,()mentioned that t
he world population is predicted to rise from then 6 billion to over 9 billion by 2050, ri
sing at a rate of 6 million a month. Africas population alone, he projected, was to ne
arly double from then 1 billion to 2 billion and said that estimates suggest that to mee
t the most basic of needs for this increased global population, food production will ne
ed to double. The report also found that by 2050 there will be 6 people per cultivable
hectare of land in Uganda and 14 in Ethiopia by this time. This study aims at finding
ways of improving seed dressing of wheat seeds in the area of study and therefore i
mproves yields from wheat farms.
According to IFS, 2007, some of the first recorded seed treatments are the use of sa
p from onion (Allium spp) and extract of cypress in the Egyptian and Roman periods.
Salt water treatments have been used since the mid-1600s and the first copper prod
ucts were introduced in the mid-1700s. Other key milestones were the introduction of
arsenic, used from 1740 until 1808 and the introduction of mercury, used from 1915
until 1982. Until the 1960s seed treatments had been only surface disinfectants and
protectants. The first systemic fungicide product was launched in 1968. This systemi
c fungicide had not only seed surface activity but also moved into the plants protectin
g the young seedlings from airborne pathogens. Since the 1990s the crop protection
and seed industries have developed and adopted new classes of fungicide, insectici
de, and nematicide chemistry, expanding pest control while reducing user and enviro
nmental impact. The seed and seed treatments industries have a long history of part
12

nership and dedication in providing growers with high quality seed. Today the seed
must be as pest- and disease-free as possible and the treatment must provide protec
tion against pests and disease during germination, emergence and growth of the pla
nt.
Seed treatments have been used in cereals for centuries, mainly as a means of contr
olling seed borne diseases that cannot be controlled later in the crops development.
Diseases such as bunt of wheat (Tilletia tritici) and leaf stripe of barley (Pyrenophora
graminea) have been well controlled since the introduction of organomercury in the 1
930s when seed-borne diseases like bunt and leaf stripe were common. Modern see
d treatment technology now offers very safe and environmentally friendly alternatives
to mercury. As a consequence of the availability of safe and cost-effective seed treat
ments, the UK farming industry embraced the technology and seed treatments beca
me almost universally used by UK farmers. Compared with the cost of foliar fungicid
es, fungicidal seed treatments have always been relatively inexpensive. However, wi
th increasingly sophisticated seed treatments available, the cost of seed treatment b
ecame significant and some farmers began to question the need for seed treatment i
n all cases (Clark and Cockerill, 2011)
Various seed dressings, which are permitted in organic farming, have been develope
d. In Germany Tillecur, which is based on mustard flour, is used. This agent is effecti
ve against bunt (Tilletia tritici(Borgen and Kristensen 2001, Spiess 2000). Experimen
ts with acetic acid (vinegar) as a seed treatment have been carried out and shown to
be effective against bunt and leaf stripe (Borgen and Nielsen 2001). Due to the pres
ent interpretation of the EU regulations this agent, along with vinegar, is not permitte
d.
The future for wheat seed production appears to be mixed. Wheat is a high-volume, l
ow-profit seed crop and has been produced primarily by heavily subsidized governm
ent seed programmes. With privatization and liberalization, many of these programm
es are at risk of being closed down. The private sector, however, may not focus on w
heat seed due to its characteristics (self-pollinating, high-volume and low-profit). If pri
vate seed enterprises exist, they consider wheat seed to be of secondary importance
. Furthermore, in most countries there has been no on-going effort to promote the us
e of improved seed by wheat farmers, and no significant breeding developments hav
e recently taken place to increase yield and quality. Since wheat is a self-pollinating
crop and the grain can be used as seed, farmers tend to replant their own seed. It is,
therefore, expected that in the future the large majority of resource-poor, small-scale
farmers in many developing countries will have to rely on seed saved from the previ
ous harvest (Gastel et al., 2001)
In Kenya, there has been low adoption of new technologies due to several constraint
s , key among them being: weak research-extension-farmer linkages, low funding ;an
d inadequate field staffing levels ;and inadequate promotion and marketing of new va
13

rieties and complementary technologies by the private sector,(GOK,2010). The estab
lishment of KSC in Kitale in 1956 was the initial mark of the formal seed system in K
enya. The company was established to produce pasture seed for the immigrant farm
ers (Sikinyi, 2010). Today, the formal system comprises a number of specialized org
anizations in the public and private sector involved directly or indirectly (regulatory ag
ency) in breeding, multiplication, quality control, processing, storage, marketing, and
distribution of seed. The formal seed system supplies strictly regulated certified seed
s of improved varieties and accounts for 20% of the seeds sown in Kenya (Sikinyi, 2
010). The informal seed system is still the major seed source in Kenya. It provides se
eds without quality control and supplies 80% of the seeds for planting purposes in th
e country (Sikinyi, 2010). According to MOA, the informal seed sources include road-
side nurseries, farm-saved seed, farmer-to-farmer exchange, local markets, NGOs a
nd CBOs. Seed provided by relief agencies are sometimes obtained from non-regist
ered seed dealers with unknown quality (Sikinyi, 2010). A number of NGOs are esta
blishing private companies to supply small scale farmers with certified seed.
Gamba et al, 2003 found out in their study that 56% percent of small-scale farmers a
nd corresponding 49% percent of large scale farmers obtained wheat seeds from oth
er farmers. They also found that seeds from various harvest and from Kenya Farmer
s' Association (KFA) were both 9% and the Kenya Seed Company (KSC) and KFA b
oth constituted 5% for large scale farmers. Most small scale farmers, they observed,
(50%) obtained seeds in the same village although about 35% travelled more than 1
0 Km to get the seed. About 59% of large scale farmers travelled more than 10 Km t
o get seed, while 28% obtained seed from the same village.
According to ISF.2007, modern seed treatment products offer control of target pests
and diseases and ensure the establishment of healthy and vigorous plants. Their for
mulation and industrial application also contribute to improvement in growers and w
orkers safety and stewardship of the environment. Todays modern seed treatment p
roducts have to meet not only efficacy standards but also safety and environment sta
ndards. The newest active substances and formulations provide long-lasting, broad s
pectrum, control of pests and diseases (depending on the specific active ingredient).
Modern formulated seed treatment products are precisely blended products consistin
g of several active ingredients, special wetting agents, colorants and sometimes bird
repellents which are rigorously tested for their safety to the seed, the users and the e
nvironment.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
According to Hassan et al, 1993, in their research, all farmers use improved wheat v
arieties. However, farmers sources of wheat seed, seeding rate, and sowing vary gr
eatly. Fifty per cent of the farmers use their own seed, and only 15% of those who bo
ught seed for cash (5% of all farmers) acquired it directly from Kenya Seed Company
. They went further to observe that the rest purchased seed from merchants and oth
14

er farmers. It will be interesting therefore to find behavioural pattern of these farmers
, who acquire their seeds from informal sources and how they improve their seeds wi
th an aim of improving farm productivity. One aspect of this is through chemical seed
treatment of the seeds. Today, the formal system comprises a number of specialize
d organizations in the public and private sector involved directly or indirectly (regulat
ory agency) in breeding, multiplication, quality control, processing, storage, marketin
g, and distribution of seed. The formal seed system supplies strictly regulated certifie
d seeds of improved varieties and accounts for 20% of the seeds sown in Kenya. To
be sure, most farmers still rely primarily on farmer-to-farmer exchanges or saved see
d (Delay 2004). However, surveys such as these are often unable to provide real insi
ghts into the improved seed adoption due to problems in their design. The question t
hat should be asked is what type of variety is a farmer cultivating and when did he or
she purchase the seed. For improved open-pollinated varieties such as wheat and t
eff, farmers do not necessarily need to purchase seed each season as they would hy
brid maize. Rather, they might purchase seed every 4-5 years to replace their stocks
of saved seed with seed that has a higher level of purity, and thus better performanc
e when cultivated (Doss et al. 2003).
The costs of wheat production are also influenced by the quality of seeds available to
farmers. The quality of wheat seeds has raised some concerns among wheat produ
cers. Some certified wheat varieties available are contaminated with other seeds. T
his has led majority of farmers to prefer to use retained or non-certified seeds, and s
elected and treated seeds from neighbours. Most of these seeds may not be treated.
Some farmers are now forced to invest in seed drying and treating plants, thus, dev
eloping the market further for uncertified treated seeds, (Nyoro et al., 2001). Gamba
et al, 2003, captured this phenomenon when they found that of 63% of small scale fa
rmers and 66% of large scale farmers attached importance to cleaning their wheat s
eeds before planting. They also found that only 59% of small scale farmers dressed t
heir seeds, with only 52% of their respective large scale farmers doing so. It would th
erefore be of economic importance to understand dynamics of seed chemical treatm
ent by the farmers so as to ensure increased productivity at farm level.
1.3 Objectives of the study
1.3.1 Broad Objective
The general objective of the study will be to assessment of factors influencing treatm
ent of home saved wheat seeds among farmers in Uasin Gishu County.
1.3.2 Specific objective
1. To investigate the socio factors (education, gender, age, land size,
experience, off-farm income, number of children) that affect treatment of home
saved wheat seeds in Uasin Gishu County
15

2. To assess the role of market institutions, infrastructure and household assets
in determining treatment of home saved wheat seed by farmers.
3. To identify determinants of market participation for home saved wheat seed
4. To assess the effect of treated home saved wheat seeds on integration of
farmers into rural output markets.
1.4 Research hypothesis
1. Socio factors (education, gender, age, land size, experience, off-farm income,
number of children) do not have significant effect on treatment of home saved
wheat seeds in Uasin Gishu County
2. Market institutions, infrastructure and household assets do not have
significant roles in determination of home saved wheat seeds
3. There are no determinants of market participation for home saved wheat
seeds
4. Treatment of home saved wheat seeds does not have effect on integration of
farmers into rural output markets
1.5 Significance of the study
Quality seed is vital to the success of our countrys agricultural development. In th
e existing condition, one of the main sources of this quality seed is farmers treat
ment of home saved seeds. So, this study along with the analysis of the situation
of seed supply has policy implication for the regional policy makers with regard to
creating conducive environment for farmers treatment of home saved seeds and
in general formulating policies and strategies for the development of the seed se
ctor. Besides, it would be a useful reference for researchers and others interested
in the area of study.
1.6 Scope and Limitation of the Study
This study mainly emphasizes on farmers treatment of home saved seeds. Based
on this idea wheat seed will be referenced as used in Uasin Gishu County.





16





CHAPTER TWO
2.1 Concepts and the Theoretical Framework
2.1.1. Seed
The importance of seed as the carrier of most important characteristics for crop prod
uction has been recognized since the early days of agriculture. Starting from 10000 y
ears ago, harvesting seed from preferred, plants has been the basis of crop domesti
cation and consequently of present day agriculture (Louwaars and Gam, 1999).
Seed is the most important agricultural input; it is the basic unit for distributio
n and maintenance of plant population. It carries the genetic potential of the crop pla
nt. It thus dictate the ultimate productivity of other input such as fertilizer, pesticide irr
igation water etc., which build the environments that enable the plant to perform (Mu
gonozza, 2001).
Seed and other planting materials are the farmers' most precious resources, especial
ly for smallholders in Sub-Saharan Africa, where agriculture is characterized by m
uch risk and uncertainty (WBG, 1999). Seed is generally considered to be the most
affordable external input for farmers, and many of its benefits are assumed to be sca
le-neutral. So investments in crop improvement potentially can reach a wide range o
f farmers. While many other areas are also important for agricultural development s
uch as markets, credit supply, support institutions, and policies access to appropriat
e seed is clearly the first step (McGuire, 2005).
The use of good quality seed of adopted and improved varieties is widely recognized
as fundamental to ensure increased crop production and productivity. This is even
more important in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) in the view of increasingly available lan
d, declining soil fertility and ever growing population; those facts increase the importa
nce of promotion and use of good quality seed as a means to intensify food producti
on (FAO, 1999).
The potential benefits from the distribution of good quality seed of improved varieties
are enormous, and the availability of quality seed of wide range of varieties and crop
s to the farmers is the key to achieve food security in SSA. Enhanced productivity, hi
17

gher harvest index, reduced risks from pest and disease pressure, and higher incom
es are some of the direct benefits potentially accrued to the farmers (FAO, 1999).
2.1.2. Seed system
Seed systems are composed of set of dynamic interaction between seed supply and
demand, resulting in farm level utilization of seed and thus plant genetic resource. Th
e seed system is essentially the economic and social mechanism by which farmers
demand for seed and various traits they provide met by various possible sources of s
upply (FAO, 2004).
The term seed system represents the entire complex organization, individual and inst
itution associated with the development, multiplication, processing, storage, distributi
on and marketing of seed in any country. The seed system includes traditional (or inf
ormal) system and the non- traditional (or formal or commercial) systems. Legal instit
utions such as variety release procedures, intellectual property rights, certification pr
ograms, seed standards, contract laws, and law enforcement are also an important c
omponent of the seed system of any country. They help determine the quantity, qu
ality, and cost of seeds passing through the seed system (Maredia, et al., 1999
).
Seed system participants may be relatively few or many, predominantly public or priv
ate depending upon the farmers that the system serves. In local systems of seed exc
hange, farmers often undertake most of the activities that define a seed system. As s
ystems expand to national, regional, and international scales, participants will include
the following: farmers, international agricultural research centers, private and public
domestic seed enterprises, retailers and distributors, multinational seed companies,
private research institutions, farmers associations and cooperatives, banks and credi
t institutions, trade associations, local governing bodies, donor agencies, national ag
encies and ministries, community groups (social, religious, etc.), agricultural universit
ies, national agricultural research institutes and NGOs/PVOs. These participants ma
y assume multiple roles in the process of seed provision, performing one or several a
ctivities (WBG,1999).
Seed systems, formal or informal, fulfill a series of functions that are basic prerequisit
es for expecting the best possible productivity from a crop in a specific situation. Hea
lthy, viable seed of the preferred variety needs to be available at the right time, under
reasonable conditions, so that farmers can use their land and labor resources with t
he best yield expectations. The wrong variety, sown at the wrong time with infected s
eed of poor germination potential, will seriously limit a farmers expectation of produc
tion and productivity. Thus, any seed system has multiple functions to fulfillfor a ra
nge of farmers, farming conditions, and crops in a village, region, or country. A seed
system can be assessed at any time according to how well it fulfills these functions.
Conditions, situations, groups of farmers, or crops can be identified under which the
18

specific system works well (Welfzien et al., 2001).
Activities undertaken to supply seeds to farmers include research and development,
multiplication, processing, distribution, and uptake. Other activities that may occur in
conjunction with these include transport and storage, as well as quality control (such
as seed certification). Seed provision to farmers also includes activities undertaken t
o influence the process, such as: pricing, financial and technical support, provision of
inputs, communication and coordination, as well as market research and promotion.
Finally, policy formulation underpins seed systems, defining the boundaries and opp
ortunities for the conduct of all seed system activities (WBG, 1999)
2.1.3. Formal seed system
According to FAO (1999), formal seed system as a sector comprises all seed progra
m components, namely; plant breeding, seed production, processing, marketing, ext
ension, quality control and certification, that interact among themselves and usually r
egulated by law. The formal seed sector was set up and organized with the principal
goal of diffusing quality seed of improved varieties developed by formal breeding pro
grams. The principal sources of materials for formal breeding programs are the ex sit
u collections of gene banks. Gene banks contain materials that were originally collect
ed from farmers systems, that isin the case of cultivated plantsmaterials that we
re developed and maintained by farmers.
The formal system has been relatively successful for well-endowed, high-potential ar
eas, but much less successful in more variable, marginal areas. This is partly explain
ed by the fact that improved varieties tend to be poorly adapted to farmers preferenc
es and production environments. In general, plant breeders have lacked understandi
ng about what farmers in these areas need, developing only few, genetically uniform
products for on-farm testing. Evaluation and selection of new materials was on-statio
n, where conditions are different from those in the target environment (Almekinders,
2000).
The formal seed system can be characterized by a clear chain of activities. It usually
starts with plant breeding and promotes materials for formal variety release and main
tenance. Regulations exist in this system to maintain variety identity and purity as we
ll as to guarantee physical, physiological and sanitary quality. Seed marketing takes
place through officially recognized seed outlets, and by way of national agricultural re
search systems. In formal seed production, seed multiplication occurs through sever
al generations rather than continually recycling the seed of one generation, to avoid
building up physical or genetic contamination over time in the same lot of seed (Lou
waars et al., 1999)
A major challenge for formal seed supply is to produce sufficient seed of all varieties
needed, and deliver it to farmers in a timely manner. This requires considerable orga
19

nization, time, and space, and incurs risks due to costs and production. To start with,
significant area and effort is involved in seed production, though this varies by crop
according to its multiplication rate (i.e. how much usable seed is produced per seed
sown (McGuire, 2005).The study made by Baniya et al (2003) signify that, the formal
system focuses more on the interests of the seed company, and has more access to
biotechnology and plant breeding techniques, so this seed system generally neglect
s the indigenous knowledge. The market is dominated by a few suppliers with potenti
ally serious implications for technology choice and price fixing.
2.1.4. Informal seed system
Informal or on-farm seed system, vary among country, region and crops. They rely o
n seed- saving practices, that is, keeping parts of the harvest for planting in the next
season. The system usually plants local varieties of seed kept from the previous year
s harvest, obtained from neighbors and/or the local market.This is the predominant s
ystem for food crops in subsistence agriculture. It is estimated that in developing cou
ntries, the informal seed system is responsible for more than 80% of the total area pl
anted with subsistence crops. It is a resilient system, which is very active even witho
ut the support of public or private institutions. On farm seed system are essential for i
mproving food security for developing countries. They will likely continue to be the m
ain source of seed for subsistence crops in the world. This system is not market orie
nted; seeds are usually produced for consumption. Some surplus can be bartered wit
h neighbors or sold to local grain dealers (FAO, 2004).
GTZ ,(2000) , in a study clearly states that (for small-scale farmers in developing cou
ntries) management of seed is of crucial importance and forms an integral part of cro
p production systems. This study further notes that for many centuries, farmers have
developed and maintained their own plant genetic resources, based on local means
of seed production, selection and exchange. Introgressions, mutations and introducti
ons from elsewhere are the common sources of new genetic material in a community
. Newly introduced varieties are subject to farmers experimentation, and when adopt
ed they become part of the local gene pool. In many cases, this integration involves
physical mixing of seeds and spontaneous crossing with other materials. The inform
al seed sector has strong local character, without necessarily being confined to a sm
all geographical area.
20

2.4 Adoption of New Technologies
Adoption was defined as the degree of use of a new technology in long-run equilibriu
m when a farmer has all the information about the new technology and its potential.
Adoption refers to the decision to use a new technology, method, practice, etc. by a f
irm, farmer or consumer. Adoption of the farm level (individual adoption) reflects the f
armers decisions to incorporate a new technology into the production process. On th
e other hand, aggregate adoption is the process of spread or diffusion of a new tech
nology within a region or population. Therefore, a distinction exists between adoption
at the individual farm level and aggregate adoption, within a targeted region or withi
n a given geographical area (Feder et al., 1985 as cited in Dereje, 2005)
Adoption of technological innovations in agriculture has attracted considerable attenti
on among development economists because the majority of the population of less de
veloped countries derives their livelihood from agricultural production and a new tech
nology, which apparently offers opportunities to increase production and productivity
(Feder et al., 1985 as cited in Girmachew,2005).Agriculture progresses technologica
lly as farmers adopt innovations. The extent to which farmers adopt available innovat
ions and the speed by which they do so dete mines the impact of innovations in te
rms of productivity growth (Diederen et al., 2003).
2.3 treated home saved seeds
Weir et al., (2000) emphasized that although farming methods in Ethiopia are still rat
her traditional, farmers in many areas do have the option of using new, higher-yieldin
g crop varieties and some modern inputs, primarily chemical fertilizers. Rates of ado
ption of such innovations vary widely from one part of the country to another, allowin
21

g us to compare sites at different stages in the adoption and diffusion process.
According to Sunding et al.(2000), measures of adoption may indicate both the timin
g and extent of new technology utilization by individuals. Adoption behavior may be d
epicted by more than one variable. It may be depicted by a discrete choice, whether
or not to utilize an innovation, or by a continuous variable that indicates to what exte
nt a divisible innovation is used.
Adoption at the farm level describes the realization of a farmers decision to impleme
nt a new technology. On the other hand, aggregate adoption is the process by which
a new technology spreads or diffuses through a region. Therefore a distinction exists
between adoption at the individual farm level and within a targeted region. If an inno
vation is modified periodically, however, the equilibrium level of adoption will not be a
chieved. This situation requires the use of econometric procedures that can capture
both the rate and the process of adoption (Getahun et al., 2000).
Determinants of technology adoption encompass characteristics of the home saved
seeds encompass technology, features of the farming system, market and policy env
ironment as well as the socioeconomic characteristics of the decision making unit (E
hui et al., 2003). Several parameters have been identified as influencing the adoption
behavior of farmers from qualitative and quantitative models for the exploration of th
e subject. Social scientists investigating farmers adoption behavior have accumulat
ed considerable evidence showing that demographic variables, technology character
istics, information sources, knowledge, awareness, attitude, and group influence affe
ct adoption behavior (Oladele, 2005).
Also according to Alemu et al. (1998), many variables can influence farmers' awaren
22

ess and adoption of new varieties: human capital variables such as literacy; farm siz
e; information sources such as agricultural extension or the research station; and dist
ance from seed sources. Farmers with more land had a higher probability of adopti
on, probably because they are wealthier and have more land to experiment with impr
oved wheat varieties. Extension visits also resulted in a higher probability of adoption
by raising farmers' awareness of new wheat varieties and providing information abo
ut agricultural practices to accompany them. Oxen ownership increased the probabili
ty that farmers would adopt improved wheat varieties. Oxen owners usually participat
e more frequently in a demonstration, which gives them access to information on ne
w technologies.
Distance is a major obstacle for adoption of technologies in developing countries. Th
e impediment posed by distance is likely to decline with the spread of wireless comm
unication technologies. It is a greater challenge to adopt technologies across differe
nt latitudes and varying ecological conditions (Sunding et al., 2000). Farmers with so
me education attainment are also less likely to go without adopting one or more of th
e technology choices: the marginal effect of the education variable is significantly ne
gative for the probability of no adoption. More educated households are commonly w
ell informed and receptive, which translates to a higher likelihood of engaging in new
technologies. This finding is in line with several previous studies which point out inno
vation is positively related to farmers abilities to decipher and analyze information (E
rsado et al., 2003).
The rate of adoption is defined as the percentage of farmers who have adopted
a given technology. The intensity of adoption is defined as the level of adoption of a
given technology. The number of hectares planted with improved seed (also tested a
23

s the percentage of each farm planted to improved seed) or the amount of input appli
ed per hectare will be referred to as the intensity of adoption of the respective techno
logies (Nkonya et al.,1997as cited in Mesfin,2005).
2.5 Nature of seed marketing
Seed marketing is the most important as well as a challenging aspect of seed industr
y because of the nature of the product. Seed being a living organism, means that it's
quality deteriorates faster. Thus, it's shelf life is limited and it must be marketed withi
n one season. Another peculiar feature of seed is that it requires two to three years l
ead time to meet the specific requirements; that is to meet the demand for particular
seed, its production has to be organized at least two years in advance. The changes
in the weather, price of crop, and price of competing crop, may change the prospects
of demand for seed of particular variety at the commencement of sowing season (Si
ngh, 2004).
The nature of seed demanded by farmers differs. Large- and medium-scale farmers
use markets to purchase uniform genetic materials that are highly responsive to che
mical inputs and embody specific characteristics (e.g., color, uniformity of grain size)
rewarded by the market. By contrast, more subsistence-oriented smallholders may
value characteristics such as drought tolerance, early maturity or good storage more
than fertilizer responsiveness. Because of the small size of their land holdings, mixed
cropping practices, and strategy of minimizing production risks by diversifying the va
riety base, smallholders also demand relatively small quantities of seed but for a nu
mber of varieties of the same crop and recycled seed over more seasons than larger
commercial farmers (Maredia et al., 1999).
24

Seed demand from different users can be met by promoting a range of seed organiz
ations with comparative cost advantages in supplying seeds of distinct commodities t
o different groups. For example, multinational seed companies can meet the seed ne
eds of large-scale commercial farmers whose quality requirements and willingness to
pay are higher than smallholder farmers. The seed needs of the latter group can be
met more effectively by small-scale firms or Community-based Seed Multiplication a
nd Distribution Schemes such as farmers seed groups and Cooperatives (Maredia et
al., 1999).
The largest problem faced by seed multiplication program elsewhere in Africa is diffic
ulty of building a sustainable seed market. Small quantities of seed are profitably sol
d within the village community. Sales are strongest for newly introduced varieties. Bu
t most small-scale farmers are unwilling to pay premium price to their neighbors for s
eed they can obtain from their own harvests (Rohrbach et al., 2002).
According to Tsigedingle (2002), from the total seed produced by farmers in 1998/99
in the SNNPR only 10.7% was purchased by as a seed WTC, 6.8% exchanged thro
ugh informal system as seed to neighbors and relatives, 26.6% was used for home c
onsumption and 55.9% sold as grain similarly from 1999/2000 produced wheat seed,
40.6%was purchased by WTC the rest used as own seed and sold as grain to the m
arket.
To increase the sales of seed produced by farmers, promotion activities should be co
nducted to raise awareness of all farmers in villages under smallholder seed producti
on programs (Kibiby et al., 2001). Promotional activities should focus on the advanta
ge of improved seed and the quality of seed produced in their own villages by small
holder seed producers. A primary objective of these promotional activities would be t
25

o increase the willingness of farmers to purchase seed from small producers.
The study made by Abdisa et al. (2001) stressed on that if farmers could not
find sustainable and dependable market for their improved seed produce they would
feel restrained from production activities. This will lead farmers to be suspicious and
reluctant to adopt any technology offered to them. Hence market information; on wh
ere and when to sell is quit essential, if informal seed production is to be sustainable.
One important factor that influence farmers' seed multiplication is the performance of
the existing market channel. The choice of the marketing channel depends on a nu
mber of aspects. These include availability of markets, prices offered in the market, d
istance to the market and the potential of the market to absorb the stock on sale (Mo
ntshwe, 2006).
A commonly used measure of market performance is the marketing margin or price s
pread. A marketing margin is the percentage of the final weighted average selling pri
ce taken by each stage of the marketing chain. A wide margin means usually high pri
ces to consumers and low prices to producers (Getachew, 2002 as cited in Rehima,
2007).


Introduction
Kenyan economy largely depends on the agricultural sectors, which accounts for an
average of 25 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). About 75 percent of Kenyan
s owe their livelihoods to agriculture (EPZA, 2005 as cited by Bett, 2012). This just a
26

cts to illustrate the importance of agricultural sector in Kenyas economy. Wheat as a
crop is the second most important cereal grain in Kenya. The crop is grown largely f
or commercial purposes on large scale farms. Wheat growing areas in Kenya include
scenic Rift Valley regions of Uasin-Gishu, Narok, Marakwet, Elkeiyo, Londiani, Molo,
Nakuru and Timau. These areas have altitude ranging from 1200m and 1500m abov
e sea level, with annual rainfall ranging from between 800mm and 2000mm with up t
o 2500mm in high grounds. The area under wheat production in Kenya increased fro
m 144000ha in 2002 to 150000 ha in 2003 (EPZA, 2005 as cited by Bett 2012).
2.6 Literature Review
This deals with past studies closely related to this study. It will deal with solutions or l
ack of solutions from these studies, mainly aiming at importance of various findings fr
om different studies and variances with this study.
Rahman et al, (2013), in their stuy of adoption of different wheat farming technologie
s in Bangladesh found that 96% of respondents in Thakurgaon and 91% of Dinajpur
wheat farmers did not treat their seeds. They correctly stated that this will have assis
ted in protection from primary diseases and augmentation of wheat productivity. The
scope of their study was however very wide in the sense that many wheat growing te
chnologies like fertilizer application were also considered in their study. It will be very
interesting to understand outcomes from specific studies targeting only wheat seed t
reatment so as to enhance the overall wheat yield, specifically from Kenyan farms.
In 2002, most of the farmers of Participatory Variety Selection (PVS) villages did not
preserve any wheat seeds due to lack of proper knowledge of preservation techniqu
e,(Pandit et al.,2007).They further continued to explain that Bangladesh Agricultural
27

Development Corporation (BADC) was the major source (60%) of their wheat seeds
followed by local market (36%) and relatives (4%). In 2005, seed source was comple
tely changed. Farmers were trained several times about seed production and preser
vation techniques through PVS, and they learned those very efficiently. They also un
derstood the importance of good quality seeds. Therefore, in 2004-05, farmers of the
village used 100% seeds from their own source. In that season, 60% seeds were us
ed from their own preservation, 30% from neighbours and only 10% from their relativ
es. This was a tremendous achievement of PVS activity. Many of these farmers were
also trained many times before starting PVS in traditional ways but that could not bri
ng any impact. Successful storing of seeds also benefited them financially. Many far
mers earned good amount of money by selling seeds. This shows that farmers in Ua
sin Gishu can also be attuned to same technologies. This study aims to understand t
he different parameters influencing farmers decisions in Uasin Gishu County, with a
n aim of improving wheat seeds in all aspects, with a particular emphasis on seed tre
atment.
According to Bishaw 2004, in Syria, chemical seed treatment is applied regularly by t
he formal sector and informal sector (except for barley seed from the informal sector)
. He further says that on the other hand, in Ethiopia large-scale seed treatment is res
tricted to seed production and for certified seed sold to the state farms only whereas
seed for the peasant sector is not treated. Moreover, there is limited information on e
conomic benefits of seed treatment under different crop production and management
practices. He adds that, in light of results from recent studies, it is important to cond
uct systematic seed treatment studies and appraise its current status and provide alt
ernative options to introduce on-farm seed treatment. In both cases designing simple
application techniques and provision of information through an extension programm
28

e is important to emphasize the safety measures associated with chemical seed treat
ment, he emphasises. This study therefore aims to fulfil this advice with concentratio
n on Uasin Gishu wheat farmers, in Kenya.
2.7 Theoretical Framework
Adoption is seen as the first or minimal level of behavioural utilization and innovation.
It is an idea, practice, or object; perceived as new by an individual or other units of a
doption (Rogers 2003 as cited by Bett 2012). According to Feder et al, (1993 as cited
by Bett 2012) an innovation is defined as a technological factor that changes the pr
oduction function regarding which there exists some uncertainty, whether perceived
or objective (or both). The uncertainty diminishes over time through the acquisition o
f experience and information, and the production function itself may change as adopt
ers become more efficient in the application of the technology. They continue to argu
e that technology adoption may also be viewed from two perspectives. At the micro l
evel, each decision unit must choose whether to adopt the innovation and its intensit
y of use if adopted. Many adoption studies, they further noted, therefore, examine th
e factors influencing the firms or households adoption decision and may be viewed f
rom a static or dynamic (if learning and experience are incorporated in the decision
model) perspective. At the macro level, they noted, the adoption pattern of the whole
firm or household population is examined over time to identify the specific trends in t
he diffusion cycle. Diffusion studies do not consider the innovation process, but begi
n at a point in time when the innovation is already in use.
Determinants of adoption are outlined clearly by (Rogers 2003 as cited by Bett, 2012
). He outlined them as being dependent on perceived attributes, of which comparativ
e advantage or the degree to which an innovation is perceived better than the idea it
29

supersedes is first taken into account. Other issues of attributes that he outlined are:
complexity (the degree to which a practice is perceived as relatively difficult to under
stand and to adopt, negatively related to its rate of adoption), trialability (degree to w
hich an innovation may be experimented at a limited basis) and compatibility (degree
to which sustainable practice is perceived as consistent with the existing values, pas
t experience and needs of potential adopters. Rogers further described innovation pr
ocess as a process through which an individual passes from; knowledge to attitude a
nd finally to adopting (indivual or collective, optional or authority). He further pointed
out the importance of communication channels in innovation process defining them a
s interpersonal or mass media, originating from specific or diverse sources. He also
defined Social system as norms, network interconnectedness pointing out that these
socio-cultural practices and norms can inhibit or drive adoption. He stated that efforts
of promotion agent in the past and present are important.The current study drew sim
ilarity with this theory to study factors influencing use of pre-emergence herbicides a
mong wheat farmers in Uasin Gishu County.
Rogers categorizes adopters into: 1) innovators who are educated and venturesome
; 2) early adopters who are popular educated and are normally social leaders; 3) earl
y majority who are deliberate and have many social contacts; 4) late majority who ar
e very skeptical; 5) laggards who are traditional and normally of lower social economi
c class. These may end up not adopting the technology. The distribution of these gro
ups follows the familiar bell-shaped curve, when plotted to indicate their features in t
he relevant population.

30

2.8 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK





















Figure 2.1: Conceptual Framework
Source: Author, 2013









Seed dressing of Home Saved Seeds
Social Factors
Age of Farmers
Literacy Level
Household Size
Friends/Other
Farmers

Economic Factors
Farm Size
Nature of
Landholding
House Hold
Income
Credit
Availability
Availability of
Commercialy
treated Seeds

Promotional factors
Extension
services
Trainings
Wheat market
information


31

CHAPTER THREE
3.0 Introduction
This chapter presents the research methodology to be used to achieve the study obj
ectives. It consists of conceptual framework, sampling procedures, study area, meth
ods of data collection and data analysis.
3.1 Study Area
The study will be conducted in Uasin Gishu County, which is a cosmopolitan area. U
asin Gishu County is one of the 47 counties of Kenya. It measures 3,328 km. It bord
ers Nandi, Kericho, Baringo, Elgeyo Marakwet, Trans Nzoia, and Kakamega countie
s. Eldoret is its capital city as well as its commercial centre. The County has five con
stituencies; Moiben, Kesses, Kapseret, Turbo and Soy. It has three administrative di
stricts Eldoret East, Eldoret West and Eldoret South. According to the 2010 census,
Uasin Gishu has a population of 894,179 with 202,291 households and a population
density of 269 people per square km. The age distribution is 0-14 years 41.5 %, 15-6
4 years 55.7%, and above 65 years 2.9%. A young population signifies a high level o
f dependence, especially to cater for such needs as education and health (Uasin Gic
hu County website). Estimated 90 percent of the entire land area in the county is ara
ble and can be classified as high potential. There are four major soil types in the are
a, all of which are suited for agricultural production. These include red loam, red clay,
brown clay and brown loam. A total of 29,801.92 hectares is gazetted forest. Out of t
his, 13,183.54 hectares (44 percent) is under plantation, while, 16,618.38 hectares (
56 percent) is under indigenous forest cover. Through the rural afforestation program
me, there are woodlots scattered across the constituency. Poverty level in the county
32

stands at 49% (KNBS, 2007). Forty percent (40%) of this is rural based while 54% i
s urban. Food poverty stands at about 41%. The major causes of poverty are unempl
oyment, lack of markets for the farm produce, high cost of inputs and poor food stora
ge facilities. A high rate of population growth has contributed to increasing poverty, si
nce social facilities such as health, education, and transport have been exhaustively
used. According to various statistics unemployment, both formal or informal or self-e
mployment levels is at 30%. Data available in Uasin Gishu District Youth Office indic
ate that the percentage of unemployed youth is at 61%.
Figure 3.1 Map of Uasin Gishu

Table 3.1: Population distribution in the Uasin Gishu County
Population by Administrative dist
ricts
Area (Km
2
) Population Density Location
Eldoret East
Eldoret West
Eldoret South
District Survey Office, a, Population year
33

3.2 Research design
The study will adopt a descriptive and an explanatory research designs since it seek
s to describe and explain the factors that influence treatment of home saved wheat s
eeds ; and further explain how home saved seed impacts on farmers wheat yield, fa
rm income and efficiency in wheat production by treated home saved wheat seed an
d non-treated home saved wheat seed.
3.3 Target Population
The population for the study will be based on the 2006 District agriculture Annual Re
port that showed that 395 farmers practiced wheat farming,.
3.4 Sample Frame
In this study, the household with wheat seed will be the primary unit of analysis. This
is because socio-economists, agronomists and policy makers need to understand th
e basic characteristics of the decision-making unit to better design appropriate resea
rch and policy initiatives using sample statistics. The sample frame will be the set of
wheat farmers in Uasin Gishu County. The sample for key informants shall include th
e following service providers involved in wheat projects: wheat extension workers, tra
iners, and community workers, wheat market players and other informal market play
ers.
3.5 Sample Size
To determine the sample size, the following equation will be used with 5% significanc
e level and 95% confidence interval (Yavuz, 2009).
34


Where,
n : Sample size.
N : Number of wheat farmers in the population.
: Population variance.
d : Type I error (0.05).
z : Table value of Z Standard Normal distribution.
D : d/z value.
However, just in case that some of the questionnaires may not represent the populati
on or may be incomplete, the number of questionnaires will be increased by 5%. Tot
al number of questionnaires 147+ (147*0.05) = 154. Therefore the study sample size
will be 154 wheat farmers. Where, Neyman allocation formula was used to distribute
the sample size among the strata. The purpose of the method was to maximize surv
ey precision, given a fixed sample size. With Neyman allocation, the "best" sample si
ze for stratum h would be:

Where,
n
h
is the sample size for stratum h,
n is total sample size,
N
h
is the population size for stratum h,
N is the total population
Hence,
Table 3.3 Sample size
Population Category Target Population Sample Size

Eldoret East
Eldoret West
Wareng,
Total
Source: Survey Data (2012)
3.6 Sampling Procedures
The central paradox of sampling is that it is impossible to know from examining a sa
35

mple, whether or not it is a good sample in the sense of being free from selection bi
as (E.K.Langat, 2010). A chance selection is an assurance of freedom from selection
bias, and as such is an essential item in the credentials of a sample (Stuart and Or
d, 1994). A sample selected by chance mechanism with calculable chances of select
ion is called a random sample (Ibid). Therefore, to draw a fairly representative sampl
e, a list will be made of all wheat farmers. Stratified random sampling technique will b
e used in the study to categorize farmers into the five zones management systems.
A multistage sampling technique will be used to select sites and draw sample of farm
ers for the study. First three districts will be selected purposively from the region con
sidering their agro-ecology, experience in farmers treatment of home saved seeds
, and the production potential for respective crops in the region demonstrated by the
consideration of the Uasin Gishu as model demonstration area for farmers based s
eed and seedling treatment.
Sampling of households will be carried out considering two sampling frames of farme
rs: adopter of respective seed treatment and non-adopters. A farmer engaged in see
d treatement for two or more years will be considered as adopter. This is because of
the intention not to consider opportunistic farmers that just try for a year and abando
n the next year.
Farmers will be randomly selected from each of the categories. Stratification will prod
uce the precision in the estimates of the characteristics of the whole population. By s
tratifying into sub-groups, the required number of farmers can then be sampled (Dillo
n and Hardaker, 1993


36

3.7 Data Collection Tools
A structured questionnaire will be used to elicit information from respondents identifie
d. This tool is useful as it tends to collect standard responses that can facilitate analy
sis and comparison of parameters. Primary data collection always involves the trade
off between undertaking an intensive study in small geographical areas versus a bro
ader examination of a larger area (Fidzani, 1993). In attempting to balance the requir
ement for capturing important details and unlimited applicability, a questionnaire will
be designed as a tool for data collection. Similarly, key informant interviews will be c
arried out to help verify the respondents responses and to provide a detailed underst
anding of significant issues in home saved wheat seed treatment and its adoption. S
cheduled interviews will be mainly used to elicit information from farmers.
Fifteen enumerators to aid in data collection will be identified from each of the divisio
ns and trained. The training will culminate in the pre-testing of the questionnaire. The
pre-testing will be done in Narok County to ensure that all the enumerators interpret
the questionnaire in the same way.
Observation is also an important method of data collection and so it shall be used in t
he study. This involves observing the natural behaviour of individuals to obtain infor
mation relevant to the goals of the study. Observation method will be used in this stu
dy for behaviour analysis rather than attitude or opinion analysis.
According to Fraenkel and Wallen (2000), the questionnaire is ideal for survey resear
ch because it is typically more economical, efficient and applicable when handling lar
ge samples. The questionnaire will be structured to capture information on factors th
at influence treatment of home saved wheat seed.
37

3.7.1 Validity
Fraenkel and Wallen (2000), define validity as the degree to which results obtained fr
om the analysis of collected data actually represents the phenomena under study. T
o improve on the appropriateness, meaningfulness and usefulness of the findings an
d inferences of the study, the validity of the questionnaire will be assessed by ensuri
ng it captures meaningful information as intended by the researcher. The content, co
nstruction and face validity of the questionnaire will be assessed by experts and peer
s from the department of Agricultural Economics who will validate the questionnaire
developed by the researcher.
3.7.2 Reliability.
Reliability of the questionnaire will be estimated using the Cronbachs reliability coeffi
cient, which is a measure of internal consistency (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2000). A reli
ability coefficient of 0.7 or higher is recommended and will be used as the threshold f
or accepting reliability. In case of a low coefficient being obtained, item-by-item analy
sis will be done in order to improve weak points in the questionnaire. Kerlinger, (197
8), describes reliability as the accuracy or precision of a measuring instrument. The q
uestionnaires will be designed carefully to ensure no ambiguity and that all responde
nts understand and respond to all issues in exactly the same way as expected by the
researcher.
3.8 Primary Data
The study will be based on primary data which will be obtained from the farm survey
using a structured questionnaire.
38

3.8.1 Secondary Data
Secondary data will be sourced from various sources such as journals, conference r
eviews, books, magazines, official government reports such as statistical abstracts, n
ational and district development plans, Ministry of Agriculture, and that of Social Serv
ices annual reports. Desktop literature and the internet will be useful in accessing inf
ormation from available and accessible documents, journals, published and unpublis
hed reports, agricultural journals and books. Any farm records from keen farmers wh
o keep records will also be used.
3.8.2 Type of Data Collected
The data to be collected from the farm survey will consist of the respondents househ
old sizes, land sizes, land tenure system, level of education of household head, occu
pation of household heads, agricultural activities (crop and livestock), output levels, i
ncome levels, source of incomes, savings, credit and government/ non-governmental
support, willingness of farmers to treat home saved wheat seeds, annual consumpti
on estimates and overall contribution to family budgets. Additionally, the following inf
ormation will be sought; farm and farmer characteristics such as age and gender of t
he respondents, years of experience in dairy farming, size of labour used, and exten
sion services provided to wheat farmers.

3.9 Data Collection Procedures
The researcher will obtain an introductory letter from Egerton to facilitate acquisition
of a research permit from the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development . Th
39

e researcher will visit the farmers and administer the questionnaires, conduct the inte
rviews and involve himself in participatory observation.
The identified (15) enumerators having been trained on the administration of the que
stionnaire and observation techniques will do a pilot survey whose results will be che
cked before embarking with the proper survey. A list of the farmers will be prepared
and randomly selected as earlier discussed. Interviews will be scheduled with releva
nt respondents including focused group discussions.
3.10 Variables description
Dependent variables: The logistic model uses dichotomous values as dependent vari
able. Independent variables: It is hypothesized that farmers decisions to adopt or rej
ect new technologies at any time are influenced by the combined effect of a number
of factors. This includes both discreet and continuous variables such as: househ
old characteristics, socio- economic characteristics and institutional characteristics in
which farmers operate.
1. Education level of the respondent, normally the household head (EEDUCATION):
In almost all of studies on agriculture, education has been taken as an important expl
anatory factor that positively affects the decision of households to adopt new agricult
ural technologies (Abay and Assefa, 2002). Farmers with more education should be
aware of more sources of information, and be more efficient in evaluating and interp
reting information about innovations than those with less education. Thus it is hy
pothesized that producers with more education are more likely to be adopters than fa
rmers with less education (Teklewold et al., 2006). It is will be measured as a catego
rical variable in grades or number of years in school.
40

2. Family size (FSIZE): It is a continuous variable which indicate the number of perso
ns living in the house of each respective farmer. It is expected that as the size of the
house hold increase the adoption of new technologies will improve .This indicates
that larger families are more likely to be involved in wheat seed treatment of home
saved seeds because availability of enough manpower.
3. Land size (SLAND): It represents the total owned and cultivated land by househol
d. It is expected to be positively associated with the decision to adopt seed productio
n technologies. This means that farmers who have relatively large farm size will be m
ore initiated to involve in seed production, and the reverse is true for small size farm l
and. It is continuous variable measured in hectares. The positively significant coeffici
ent of farm land size indicates its positive influence on technology adoption. Subsiste
nce oriented small farmers are highly risk averse to apply innovation due to limited h
olding and uncertain outcome of technology (Bahadur, 2004).
4. Off-farm income (OFFINC): Off-farm income represents the amount of income th
e farmers earn in the year out of on-farm activity. It is the amount of income (in Kshs)
generated from activities other than wheat production. The households engaged in
off-farm activities are better endowed with additional income to purchase essential fa
rm inputs, like seed dressing chemicals and even essential machinery for use in see
d treatment
5. Farming experiences (YEXPER): Is measured in the categorized number of years
since a respondent started farming on his own. Experience of the farmers is likely to
have a range of influences on adoption. Experience expected to improve farmers inv
olvement in seed production. A more experienced grower may have a lower level of
uncertainty about the technologys performance (Chilot et al, 1996). Farmers with hig
41

her experience appear to have often full information and better knowledge and are a
ble to evaluate the advantage of technology.
6. Total Maize acreage (TMA): This refers to the total number acreage under maize
per household (TMA). Maize and wheat both compete for resources such as land am
ong farmers. It is therefore expected that increased maize acreage will lead to reduc
ed planting of wheat with subsequent effect on seed dressing of wheat seeds.
7. Access to credit facility (CACCESS): It is a dummy variable, which takes a value o
f 1 if the farm household had access to credit and 0 otherwise. Adoption of new
technology with complementary inputs require considerable amount of capital for pur
chase of inputs (seed, fertilizer).Farmers who have access to formal credit are more
probable to adopt improved technology than those who have no access to formal cre
dit (Yishak, 2005). On the other hand the availability of farm credit especially from
formal sources is vital components of the modernization of agriculture and to incr
ease productivity. Those farmers who have access to agricultural credit are believed
to adopt technology more than those who have no access to credit. This indicates s
mallholder farmers cannot finance these inputs for seed production unless they get a
lternative means.
8. Extension service (ESERVICE): Extension visits will help to reinforce the messag
e and enhance the accuracy of implementation of the technology packages (Oladele,
2005). More frequent extension visits, using different extension teaching methods lik
e attending demonstrations and field day can help the farmers to adopt a new techno
logy. If the farmers get better extension services, they are expected to adopt seed pr
oduction technologies than others. In this study this variable was treated as a dumm
y variable. That is if the farmers gets extension service it is coded as 1 and 0, otherw
42

ise.
9. Availability of training (ATRAIN): Farmers may obtain information from different so
urce and may learn also from extensqion agents through extension programs. Howe
ver unless they can obtain required skill through training they may face difficulty to u
nderstand and apply new technologies. So those farmers who get training on wheat
seed treatment are more willing than those who didnt get training to treat their home
saved seeds. It is dummy variable measured as 1 if farmers got specific training on
seed multiplication and 0 otherwise.
10. Distance from a seed treater (DISTREAT): It is a continuous variable meas
ured in kilometers. The nearer a seed dressing machine is nearer to the farmer, the
higher would be the probability that a farmer will trest his home saved seeds.Their ar
e farms with their own seed treatment machines. Therefore, in this study, it is hypoth
esized that this variable is negatively related to willingness to treat home saved seed
s.
11. Market distance (DISMARKET): As a farm household is nearer to market places,
it is expected to be more likely participate in intensive farming activities that demand
s adoption of new agricultural technologies. Therefore, it is expected that as a given f
arm household gets far away from such areas the likelihood of getting involved in ho
me saved wheat treatment practice decreases. It is continuous variable measured in
km.

12. Access to input supply (INACCESS): Farmers involved in wheat production re
quire various types of farm input. Sunding et al (2000) indicate that the introduction o
43

f new technologies may increase demand for complementary inputs and when the su
pply of these inputs is restricted, adoption will be constrained. This perception of far
mers measured as dummy variable and 1 if he perceive that there is sufficient availa
bility of input important for seed multiplication 0 otherwise
13. Availability of cleaning srvices(SCLEAN): Farmers will readily seed dress their w
heat seeds if cleaning services of the seeds are available. Impurities such as seeds f
rom weeds, dirt and other seed-crops will reduce the productivity of the farms. It will
also imply an increased cost of production further complicated by the resultant ineffic
ient dressing. This will be a dummy variable with a value of 1 if farmers perceive that
a seed cleaner will be available along with seed dressing services and 0 if otherwise.
14. Expected wheat price at end of season (EPRICE): Farmers asses thecprofitabilit
y of each farm enterprise every season. If the expected revenue at the end of wheat
planting season is perceived to be favourable, farmers will choose to grow wheat an
d vice versa for perceived-expected low price. This means that a farmer will be more
inclined to seed dress his home saved wheat seeds, if price expectation will be favo
urable.
3.10.1 Data Analysis Techniques
The collected data will be analyzed using descriptive. Data will also be analyzed stati
stically using parametric procedures. This (parametric) approach uses EXCEL and th
e Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) software to analyze quantitative da
ta. Correlation and regression analyses will also be performed by use of SPSS. The
correlation analysis will be used to establish the degree of relationship between facto
rs of production (X
is
). A regression analysis will be used to estimate the influence of v
44

arious factors ontreatment of home saved wheat seeds. Regression analysis will gen
erate statistical parameters which will then be used to test for statistical significance
using t- test.
3.10.2 Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics will be used to describe the socio-economic characteristics of th
e respondents. Cross tabulation, frequencies, percentages and means will be comp
uted in order to understand the data collected. This will test the hypothesis of the stu
dy which states that socio- cultural factors do not affect adoption of treatment of ho
me saved wheat seeds.
3.11 Empirical Model
3.11.1 Theoretical Model and Empirical Specification
Given that the focus of this study is to identify the determinants of the adoption of im
proved treatment of home saved wheat seeds and how such adoption may affect wh
eat production from farming, the study will state basic relationship of the impact of th
e new innovation adoption on farm income, measured by farmers farm income as a l
inear function of vector of explanatory variables ( X i ) and an adoption dummy varia
ble (Wi ). The linear regression can be specified as
..1
3.12 Data Sources and Types
Where Yi is the mean farmer income from farming wheat,
is a normal random distribution term, and
45

Zi is a dummy variable for use of new technology;
Zi = 1 if the treatment of home saved seed is adopted and
Zi = 0 otherwise. The vector
X i represents household and farm characteristics.
Whether farmers adopt improved varieties or not is dependent on the characteristics
of farmer farm and technology. By deciding to adopt an improved home treatment se
ed variety the farmer has self-selected to participate instead of a random assignment
. Following Becerril and Abdulai (2009), we assume that the farmer is riskneutral. T
he index function used to estimate the adoption of home saved seed can be express
ed as:
Z* = X ' + ...................................................................................................................
2
Where Z * is a latent variable denoting the difference between utility from adopting i
mproved varieties U
iA
and the utility from not adopting the innovation U
iN
. The farm
er will adopt the new innovation if Z * = U
iA
-U
iN
> 0. The term X ' will provides an e
stimate of the difference in utility from adopting the innovation (U
iA
-U
iN
), using the ho
usehold and farm-level characteristics, Xi, as explanatory variables, while i is an err
or term. In estimating equations (1) and (2), it needs to be noted that the relationship
between the new innovation and an outcome such as income could be interdepende
nt. Specifically, the selection bias occurs if unobservable factors influence both error
terms of the income equation () and the innovation choice equation (), thus resultin
g in the correlation of error terms of the outcome and technology choice specification
s. Thus, estimating equation 1 using the ordinary least squares (OLS) will lead to bia
46

sed estimates. To address this problem, a two-step Heckmans procedure will be use
d to analyze factors affecting the probability of adopting home saved seed treament.
The model is appropriate because it addresses simultaneity problems.
3.13 The Heckman Two-Step Method
The Heckman (1976) two stage procedure has been used to address selection bias
when the correlation between the two error terms is greater than zero (Hoffman and
Kassouf, 2005; Adeoti, 2009; Johannes et al., 2010; Siziba et al., 2010). The approa
ch depends on the restrictive assumption of normally distributed errors (Wooldridge,
2002). The procedure involves, first, the estimation of the selection equation using a
probit model (adoption equation 2) and second, the estimation of the income equatio
n 1. The adoption equation (equation 2) is estimated as
Z* = X ' +
Z* is a latent variable representing the propensity of a farmer to adopt home treated
wheat seeds.
is the vector of farmers assets endowment, household characteristics, technology c
haracteristics and location variable that influence adoption decision. The probit mod
el will predicts the probability of adoption and also obtains the inverse Mills ratio (IM
R) as shown below:
.3
Where and are, respectively the standard normal density function and standard
normal distribution functions. i is the calculated IMR term to provide OLS selection c
orrected estimates (Greene, 2003)
47

The choice to adopt or not to adopt a home treated seed will be considered in the firs
t step and if a household has treated home saved wheat , the impact of home treated
wheat seeds on wheat yield, household income and farming efficiency are determin
ed in the second stage.
..4
Where Y
i
= home wheat saved seed (Y=1, if treated; Y = 0, otherwise)
..5
3.14 Propensity score matching (PSM)
PSM estimates the difference in wheat yield per hectare and household welfare of tr
ated home saved seeds and non=treated home saved seed. Household welfare will
be measured using the level of farm income. The effect can be stated as;
Effect ..6
Where y
1i
is

household with treated home saved wheat seeds income and y
0j
is hous
ehold without treated home saved seeds income.
Determining the effect of home saved seeds on farm income and wheat yield of whe
at farmer using PSM is a two stage procedure where in the first stage, the propensity
score will be estimated. This will be done by running a logistic regression where on t
he left side is whether a farmer has treated home saved seeds or not (Dependent va
riable: Y=1, if treated ; Y = 0, otherwise) and the variables that affect probability of ad
opting treated home saved seeds.
Y
i
= f (X
i
) 7a
48

Y
1
= log (P
i
/1-P
i
) =
i
+
i
X
i
+
i

7(b)
Where
P
i
= probability of treating home saved wheat seeds
1- P
i
= probability of not treating home saved wheat seeds
Y
i
= treatment of home saved seeds (Y=1, if treated ; Y = 0, otherwise)
X
i
= factors that influence whether farmers treat home saved wheat seeds
= Error term
The propensity score is the predicted value obtained from the above regression and t
his is predicted probability (p) or log [p/ (1-p)].
In the second stage, each farmer with treated wheat seeds is matched to one or mor
e farmers without home saved seeds on the propensity score and this will be done u
sing nearest neighbor matching, kernel, local linear matching and stratification match
ing. These methods enable a procedure where the best match (non-member) for eac
h member is identified and a weight is allocated,
NN allocate a weight of 1 for the nearest match and zero for all others. Sum of the w
eights equal to one () and 0 1
..8(a)
Thus Effect
...
8(
b)
Average effect of treated home saved seeds (AETHSS)
AETHSS = ....3.7(a
49

)
AETHSS = E[ Y
1t
-Y
0t
/D
i
=1]= E[E{Y
1i
/D
i
=1, p (X
i
)}-E{Y
0i
/D
i
=0, p(Xi)}/Di=1]. 3.7(b
)

Where Y
1i
and Y
0i
are the potential outcomes for the two counterfactual situations of t
reated home saved wheat seeds and non- home saved wheat seeds, p (Xi) is the pr
opensity score, D is the membership variable, where D=1, if member and 0 otherwis
e.
Caliper, local linear matching, stratification and DD matching approaches will be use
d and their results compared. This is because comparing results across different mat
ching methods can show if the estimates of the effect arrived at are robust (Khandke
r, Koolwal and Samad, 2010)
The same data instrument will be used to collect data from farmer with treated wheat
seeds is matched to one or more farmers without home saved seeds and also use o
f a representative sample will be selected by ensuring randomness and sufficient sa
mple to reduce the bias with use of PSM, as suggested by Heckman, Ichimura, and
Todd (1997, 1998).
T-test will be used to determine if there is significant difference between farm income
of farmer with treated wheat seeds is matched to one or more farmers without home
saved seeds.
3.15 Estimating the Production Function
The study uses Cobb- Douglas production function generally given as
50

Y =
0
X
i
i
e

..............3.8(a)
Y
i
=
0
X
1
1
X
2
2
X
3
3
X
4
4
X
5
5
e

..............3
.8(b)
Y
i
= Total output by respondent i
A = Total factor productivity coefficient
X
i
= Factors affecting wheat output

i
= Are the elasticities of independent variables
= The stochastic error term

















51






REFERENCES

Abay Asfaw and Assefa Admassie, (2002).The Role of education on the adoption of
chemical fertilizer under different socioeconomic environments in Ethiopia, Ce
nter for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, Walter Flex Street
3, 53113 Bonn, Germany.
Abdissa Gemeda,Girma Aboma, V.Hugo and M.Wilfred, (2001). Farmers' maize see
d systems in Western Oromia, Ethiopia.
Adeoti, A., 2009. Factors Influencing Irrigation Technology Adoption and its Impact o
n Household Poverty in Ghana." Journal of Agriculture and Development in th
e Tropics and Subtropics 109:51-63.
Alemu Haile, V.Hugo, M.Wilfred and Asmare Yallew, (1998). Farmers' wheat seed so
urce and seed management in the Enebssie area, Ethiopia. 48p.
Almekinders, C.J.M, (2000). Increasing the Resilience of the Farmers' seed system t
hrough linkage with formal sector, technology and Agrarian Development, Wa
geningen University, in Targeted Seed Aid and Seed System Intervention, str
engthen small-Framers seed Systems in East and central Africa, Kampala, Ug
anda, 112p.
Asrat, P., K. Belay, and D. Hamito. 2004. "Determinants of farmers' willingness to pa
y for Soil Conservation Practices in the Southeastern Highlands of Ethiopia." L
and Degradation and Development 15: 423-438.
Bahadur, K.L, 2004. Technology adoption and household food security. Analyzing fa
ctors determining technology adoption and impact of project intervention: A ca
se of smallholder peasants in Nepal,Paper prepared to present in The Deutsc
her Tropentag to be held on 5 - 7 October, 2004, Humboldt-University, Berlin.
Baniya, B.K, D. Singh and B. sthapit, 2003. Factor affecting seed systems, Experien
ce from Nepal, Nepal Agricultural Research Institute, Proceeding of Workshop
, 16-20 September 2003, Pucallpa, Peru.
Bill Clark, Valerie Cockerill, Great Britain. Home-Grown Cereals Authority(2011). Eur
opean Case Study on Seed Treatments and Seed-borne Disease Control Usi
ng Seed Treatments, Issue 75 of Research review.
Bishaw Z., 2004. Wheat and Barley Seed Systems in Ethiopia and Syria. PhD thesis
Wageningen University.
Borgen, A and L. Kristensen 2001: Use of mustard flour and milk powder to control c
52

ommon bunt (Tilletia tritici) in wheat and stem smut (Urocystis occulta) in rye i
n organic agriculture. In: Seed treatment - challenges and opportunities (ed. A
.J.Biddle) p. 141-150.
Borgen, A. and Nielsen B. J. 2001: Effect of seed treatment with acetic acid for contr
ol of seed borne diseases. Proceedings from BCPC Symposium No. 76: "See
d Treatment: Challenges & Opportunities", eds. A. J. Biddle. BCPC, Farnham,
135-140.
Chilot Yirga, B.I.Shampiro, , and Mulat Demeke. 1996. Factors influencing adoption
of new Wheat technologies in Wolmera and Addis Alem Areas of Ethiopia. Eth
iopian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 1:63-83.
Cromwell, E. (1996a) Governments, Farmers and Seeds in a Changing Africa. CABI
/ ODI, London.
David. S, 2003. Farmers seed enterprise: a Sustainable Approach to Seed Delivery.
Diederen, P., M.Hans van, W.Arjan, B.Katarzyna. 2003. Innovation adoption in agric
ulture; Innovators, Early adaptors and laggards, Wageningan University and R
esearch center, the Netherlands, 22p.
Dillon JL, Hardaker JB 1993. Farm Management Research for Small Farmer Develo
pment. Rome: FAO

Doss, C.R., W. Mwangi, H. Verkuijl, and H. De Groote. 2003. Adoption of Mai
ze and Wheat Technologies in Eastern Africa: A Synthesis of the Findings of
22 Case Studies. Economics Working Paper 03-06. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT.
Ehui, S.K, M.M Ahmed, Berhanu Gebremariam, A.Nin Praff,.L.Laper , 2003.Livestoc
k policy analysis, IRLI.
Ersado lire, A.Gregori and A.Jeffrey, 2003. Productivity and land enhancing technol
ogies in Northern Ethiopia ;Health, Public investment and sequential adoption
,Environment and production Technology Division ,International food policy in
stitute, Washington DC 20006 USA 23p.
FAO, 1999. Seed policy and programmers for SSA. Food and Agricultural Organizati
on of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
FAO, 1999a. Sustainable seed system in SSA, Food and Agricultural Organization of
the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
FAO, 2004. Seed Multiplication by resource poor farmers. Food and Agricultural Org
anization of the United Nations, Rome
Feder, G., & Umali, D. L. (1993). The Adoption of Agricultural Innovations: A Review
, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 43, 215-239. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/0040-1625(93)90053-A
Feder, Gershon, Richard Just, and David Zilberman, 1985, "Adoption of Agricultural I
nnovations in Developing Countries: A Survey," Economic Development and
Cultural Change.
Fidzani, N.H. 1993. Understanding Cattle Offtake Rates in Botswana . Ph.D thesis,
Boston University, USA.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2000). How to design and evaluate research in educ
ation. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
53

Getachew Beshargo, 2002. Cattle Marketing in Western Shewa. M.Sc Thesis Presen
ted to the School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University, Ethiopia.
Getahun Degu, M. H.Wilfred, Verkuijl, Abdishekur Wondimu, 2000. An Assessment o
f the adoption of seed and fertilizer packages and the role of credit in smallhol
der Maize Production in Sidama and North Omo Zones, Ethiopia.
Government of Kenya, Economic Survey, Government Printers, Nairobi, 2010
GTZ . 2000. Support For Informal Seed sector in development cooperation a concept
ual issue, Deutsche Geselleschaft fur Technnische Zusammenanarbeit ,Gmb
h in collaboration with the center for Genetic Resource, the Netherlands(CGN)
.21p
Hassan, R.M., W. Mwangi, and D.Karanja.1993.Wheat supply in Kenya: Production I
nefficiency and Potential for Productivity Growth. CIMMYT Economics Workin
g Paper No.93-02.Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/AGPC/do
c/field/Wheat/africa/Kenya/kenyaagec.htm. http://www.worldseed.org/cms/me
dias/file/TradeIssues/SeedTreatment/A_Tool_Sustainable_Agriculture_EN.pdf
Heckman, J., H. Ichimura, J. Smith and P. Todd (1997): RMatching as an Econometr
ic Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Program" wi
th J. Heckman and H. Ichimura, Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 64(4), Octo
ber.
Heckman, J., H. Ichimura, J. Smith and P. Todd (1998): RCharacterizing Selection Bi
as using Experimental Data" Econometrica, Vol. 66, September.
Heckman, J., H. Ichimura, J. Smith and P. Todd (1998): RMatching as an Econometr
ic Evaluation Estimator" with J. Heckman and H. Ichimura, Review of Economi
c Studies, Vol. 65(2), April.
Heckman, James J., "Shadow Prices, Market Wages and Labor Supply," Econonietri
ca, July 1974. "Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error," Unpublished
Manuscript, Rand Corporation, April 1976.
Hoffmann, R., Kassouf, A.L. Deriving conditional and unconditional marginal effects i
n log earnings equations estimated by Heckman's procedure. Applied Econo
mics, Londres, v. 37, n. 11, p. 1303-1311, June 2005.
Johannes, T. A., Vabi, M.B. and Malaa, D.K. 2010. Adoption of Maize and Cassava
Production Technologies in the Forest-Savannah Zone of Cameroon: Implicati
ons for Poverty Reduction. World Applied Sciences Journal 11:196-209.
Johnston, J. and Dinardo, J. 1997. Econometrics Methods. 4th Edition, The McGra
w-Hill. Companies, Inc., New York. 250p.
Kerlinger W F 1978. Foundations and Behavioral Research. New Delhi: Sarjeet Publi
cations.
Khandker, R.K., Koolwal, G.B. and Samad, H.A. (2010). Handbook on impact evalua
tion: quantitative methods and practices. Washington, DC, World Bank
Kibiby,J.M., T.Flavianus, , A.Z,M. Magayane, , 2001. Existing mechanisms for smallh
olders seed production and disseminations in Tanzania: Acase of SUA
B/C CRSP , Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania.
Louwaars N.P,with M.Gam .1999. Seed supply system in developing countries, CT
A, the Netherlands.
54

Louwaars, N. P. (1994) Integrated Seed Supply: a flexible approach. In Hanson, J. (e
d). Seed Production by Smallholder Farmers. Proceedings of the ILCA/ICARD
A Research Planning Workshop, ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 13-15. ILCA/IC
ARDA.
Maredia, M, H.Julie and B Duncan, with N.Anwar, W .Mariah and Kei kajia, 1999. Inc
reasing seed system efficiency in Africa; Concepts, Strategies and Issue. MS
U, international development working paper, Michigan
McGuire, S., 2005. Re thinking seed system analysis and reform for sorghum in ethi
opia, Thesis, Wagenigen University, the Netherlands.293p
Mesfin Astatkie, 2005. Analysis of factors influencing adoption of Triticale (X-Triticos
ecale Witmack) and Impact, the case of Farta Woreda, MSc thesis, Alemaya
University.
Monteshwe, B, D, 2006. Factor affecting participation in mainstream cattle market by
small- scale cattle farmers in Souse Africa, MSc Thesis, Department of Agric
ultural Economics, University of Free State ,Bloemfontein. 118 p
Mugonozza ,S, G.T, 2001. Seed system in Africa, International center for agriculture
research in the dry Areas. ICARDA.
National Seed Policy, Ministry of Agriculture, Kilimo House ,Cathedral Road,June 20
10
Nkonya, E., T. Schroeder and D. Norman, 1997. Factors affecting adoption of improv
ed maize seed and fertilizer in North Tanzania. Indian j. Agri.econ. 48(1):1-12
Nyoro J.K, Wanzala Maria, and Awour Tom. 2001. Increasing Kenya's Agricultural C
ompetitiveness:Farm Level Issues. Tegemeo Working Paper. Nairobi:Egerton
University.
Oladele, O.L, 2005. A Tobit Analysis of propensity to continue adoption of agri
cultural technology among farmers in South Western Nigeria, Journal of centr
al European agriculture volume 6(2005)No 3(249-254)
Pandit, D.B., Baksh, M.E., Sufian, M.A., Harunur- Rashid, M. and Islam, M.M. 2007. I
mpacts of participatory variety selection in wheat on agro-economic changes
of wheat.
Rahman M. S. and Haque Zerina. (2013). Adoption of Selected Wheat Production Te
chnologies in Two Northern Districts of Bangladesh.Intl.J.Agril.Res.Innov.&Te
ch.3 (1):2224-0616
Rehima Mussema, 2007. Analysis of red pepper marketing: the case of Alaba and Si
lti in SNNPRs of Ethiopia, Unpublished MSc thesis, Haramaya University.
Rehima, M., 2007. Analysis of Red Pepper Marketing: The Case of Alaba and Siltie i
n SNNPRS Of Ethiopia. An MSc. Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate
Studies of Haramaya University.153p.
Rogers, E. M. (2003) Diffusion of innovations, fifth edition. Free Press, New York, U.
S.A.
Rohrbach,D.D, Mtenga,K. M.Kiriwaggulu, , S. Mwaisela, 2002. Comparative study of
three community seed supply strategies in Tanzania, International Crops Res
earch Institute for the Semi-arid Tropics, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe.
Sikinyi E., O., (2010) Baseline Study/Survey Report on the Seed Sector in Kenya. Se
55

ed Trade Association of Kenya
Singh,S, 2004.Rural marketing focus on agricultural inputs, Institute of Rural manage
ment,
Siziba, S., Nyikahadzoi, K., Diagne, A., Fatunbi, A.O. and Adekunle, A.A. 2010. Dete
rminants of Cereal Market Participation by Sub-Saharan Africa Smallholder F
armer. Learning Publics Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Studies 2:1
80-193.
Spiess, H. 2000: Recent experimental results for wheat stone fire fighting. Living Erd
e5: 41
Stuart, A. and Ord, J. K. (1994). KendaU's Advanced Theory of Statistics, Edward Ar
nold, New York.
Sunding, D. and Z.David, 2000. Research and technology adoption in a changing ag
ricultural sector, Handbook of Agricultural Economics, University of California
at Berkeley.105p
Teklewold,H.,L.Dadi,A.Yami and N.Dana, 2006. Determinant of adoption of poultry te
chnology: double-hurdle approach, Debre zeit Agricultural Research Center,
Debrezeit, Ethiopia.
Tsgedingil Mengist,2002. Potential and limitation of small holder seed production in
Ethiopia: the case of Soro Destrict. An Msc thesis Presented to Sokoine Unive
rsity of Agriculture, Morogoro. 107p.
Weir, S. and K.John, 2000. Adoption and diffusion of agricultural innovations in Ethi
opia: The Role of Education, WPS2000-5, Center for the Study of African Eco
nomies 21 Winchester Road Oxford OX2 6NA, UK.22p.
Weltzien, E. and K.Vom Brocke, 2001. Seed System and their potential for in
novation Conceptual Framework for Analysis, Hohenheim University, Pre
ceding presented on Workshop Targeted Seed and Seed-System interventio
ns; Strengthening Small-Farmers Seed Systems in East and Central Africa, K
ampala, Uganda.112p.
Wooldridge, J. (2002), Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data, MIT
Press.
Yenealem Kassa, 2006. Gender disparities in adoption of improved maize varieties b
etween Male Haded and Femal Headed Households in Kuni Woreda, Wester
n Harerge Zone, Ethiopia, unpublished MSc thesis, Alemaya University.106p.
Yishak Gecho, 2005. Determinants of adoption of improved maize technology in Da
mot Gale Woreda,Wolaita, Ethiopia. An MSc thesis Presented to the School o
f Graduate studies of Alemaya University.
56














APPENDICES
APPENDIX I : QUESTIONNAIRE
SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE
Important Note: Thank you for accepting to participate in this exercise. All info
rmation will be treated with utmost confidence and will be used solely for this r
esearch. For any enquiries, please call ..+254723103932
57

Kindly fill in the spaces provided or tick where applicable:

District:________________________________. Division: _____________________
________
Location: _______________________________ S/Location: __________________
_________
Name: (Optional)/QNO._________________________. Gender: (M) or (F) AGE___
__ (Yrs)

Part A: Household
1. Marital status: Married Single Divorced Widowed
Separated
2. Number of children (if any) Number still living with you Married/working
3. Number of children attending school
1) Primary school
2) Secondary school
3) College/University
4. Highest level of education attained by the head of the household Spouse
(Enter 0 if none, 1 for primary, 2 for secondary, 3 for college/tertiary, 4 for un
iversity)
5. Experience in dairy farming (years)

Part B: Farm Enterprises
1. Total farm size available to the respondent for;
a) wheat farming (acres)
b) Maize farming (acres)
c) Others (specify) crop on the farm (acres)..
..
..

2. Land ownership
a) Owned (acres) Leased (acres)
1. Seedling Type: home saved treatment purchased already treated seeds
58

2. Acres with treated home seed if any (acreage)
3. seed replacemenet per year (number of times )
4. acres with seeds bought from seed company ..............

5. Expenditure per month on seed treatment :
Average Gross Income from the wheat farming: KShs. _____________________
_____
6. List other enterprises in the farm starting from the most important (according
to the respondent) 1._______________. 2. ______________. 3.
_____________________.

PART C: Marketing and Infrastructure
1. The main wheat market in the last five years: Miller Cereals Board
Other Specify
2. Distance to the market: Offer price Mode of payment
3. Distance to Seed dresser
4. Is availability of seed cleaner likely to induce you to dress :Yes No

5. Source of seed Treatment Chemicals: Govt. seed production company (s)
local dealers of seeds Local Agro-vet stores Others
(specify)______________________.
1. How available to you is agriculture officer service on a scale of 1 to 3
(1 being none, 2 being available, 3 being readily available).
1. Source of information as regards seed treatment and improvement:
Extension officers Agrochemical companies Agricultural shows and ex
hibitions
Fellow farmers/friends Others (specify) __________________________
59

___________.
2. Rate accessibility by road to the main whear market from your farm
throughout the year on a scale of 100%
____________________________.
3. Will favourable wheat price influence your decision to seed dress your wheat?
Yes........ No.......
4. What are the three most limiting constraints to the business in the last ten
years, in order of priority 1).------------------------------------
2). ---------------------------------------
3). ----------------------------------------------------------
9. What are the 3 most compelling reasons for treating seeds in order of priority?
1) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------