J. M. WANYAMA et al.

437

FACTORS INFLUENCING ADOPTION OF PASTURES AND FODDERS AMONG SMALLHOLD FARMERS IN SELECTED SITES OF WEST KENYA
WANYAMA1, J. M., F. N. MUYEKHO1 , A. A O. MASINDE2, D. T. CHERUYOT1, J. ODONGO2, M. OJOWI 2 and R. OKEYO2 1 Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, NARC- Kitale, P. O. Box 450 Kitale 2 Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, RRC- Kisii, P. O. Box 523, Kisii

ABSTRACT
Pasture and fodder are important feeds in livestock production for low resource smallhold farmers in west Kenya. These farmers experience low livestock productivity due to inadequate and low quality pastures and fodders caused by soil degradation. The Soil Management Project developed technologies addressing these problems. An analytical study to identify factors influencing the adoption of the introduced technologies was carried out in May 2000. The descriptive statistics and logit model were used to characterise and identify factors influencing farmers decisions to adopt or reject forage technologies. Some of the factors that significantly affected the adoption of pasture and fodder technologies were years of farming, off-farm income, farmer participating in trial implementation, education, farm size and age of farmer. Key words: Adoption, pasture, fodder, technology

INTRODUCTION
Livestock is not only important at household levels but also at national level. The dairy industry in Kenya has greatly expanded in the last two decades. In 1990 it contributed about 26% of the agricultural Gross National Product and provided 50% of the employment in the agricultural sector (Abate, 1992; Republic of Kenya, 1993). In an effort to meet household food requirements and surplus for sale, land is intensively and continuously cultivated on most smallholder farms of high potential areas of West Kenya (South west Kenya and North Rift). The potential smallholder dairy production in this area is high but is often hampered by lack of quality feed resources, low dry matter intake (Omore et al., 1996; Staal et al., 1995), input and output marketing problems, non-availability of credit facilities, limited extension services and inappropriate forage technologies. Some of the recommended and most demanded fodder grasses by dairy farmers are Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum), Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) and fodder trees both in pure and mixed stands (Muyekho, 1998; Staal, 1995; Kariuki, 1998). Herbaceous fodder legumes such as stylosanthes (Stylosanthes

guyanesis), desmodium (Desmodium unicinatum), siratro (Macropitilium atropurpureum), and lucerne (Medicago sativa) have also been recommended for use by farmers to boost protein portion of their rations. Use of recommended agronomic practices for establishment of the pastures and fodder crops is envisaged to increase livestock productivity. This is likely to have positive impact on the welfare of smallhold farmers in terms of food provision and income generation which have been part of the goals of Kenya since independence (Republic of Kenya, 1988). In 1995, the Soil Management Project (SMP) started to develop technologies through farmer participatory research approach aimed at increasing livestock productivity. In order to achieve this goal, farmers actively participated in all the stages of technology development and transfer. The project targeted the resource poor smallhold farmers who are the majority of the farming population. However, since the inception of the SMP activities, no study has been conducted to assessment diffusion of technologies. A number of factors influence the adoption of agricultural technologies.

438

Factors influencing adoption of pastures and fodders among smallhold farmers

According to Kaliba et al., (1998), the factors can be grouped into three categories; farmer, technological and farm attributes. Adoption studies on livestock indicate that livestock feeding is an important determinant of livestock productivity among other factors (Staal, 1995). Elsewhere, Irungu et al., (1998) has shown that farmer education level, years of experience, farm size, membership in co-operative organization and income are key factors influencing adoption of Napier grass. The objectives of this study therefore were to (a) determine the adoption characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of the forage technologies (b) evaluate farmer perceptions regarding the technologies and assess the factors influencing adoption of the technologies jointly developed with the SMP. Results obtained could assist in fine-tuning the technology and enhance farmer adoption for improved human welfare.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study area. The study was carried out in West Kenya (narrowly defined as south west Kenya and North Rift). According to Jaetzold, and Schmidt, (1982; 1983), south west Kenya (SWK) covers LH1-2 (Lower highlands), LM15, (Lower Midland), UM2-4 (Upper Midlands), UM1 while in the North Rift covers the Tropical Alpine, Upper Highland, Lower Midland and Inner Lowland. Livestock is an important economic activity in these areas. The livestock types kept include; dairy cattle, local cattle, sheep, goats and poultry. The forage types include, natural pasture, improved pastures and farm by-products among other feeds for livestock. Major crops grown include, maize, beans, tea, pyrethrum, coffee, bananas, sorghum, cassava, sugarcane, groundnuts and horticultural crops (Rees et al., 1997). The average farm sizes in south west Kenya vary from 0.8 ha in Kisii to 1.6 ha in Rachuonyo (RRC Kisii, 1995). In the North Rift the acreage varies from about 2 ha in Trans Nzoia to 2.7 ha in West Pokot districts (NARC-Kitale, 1995). Survey. Secondary and primary data were used with the latter forming the core of this

study. Prior to the formal survey, inventory and description of forage technologies developed by SMP was done. Research and Ministry of Agriculture extension staff jointly carried out the survey in April and May 2000. In order to get an understanding of adoption characteristics, both participating and nonparticipating farmers were selected for interview. A multi-stage purposive sampling for selecting participating farmers and simple random sampling technique for selecting nonparticipating farmers were used to select survey units. A minimum of 30 nonparticipating farmers and all participating farmers both active and dormant in each cluster were selected and interviewed. A structured questionnaire, which was also jointly developed by research and extension team, was used to collect primary data. Relevant amendments were made after pretesting the questionnaire in the neighbourhood of survey sites. The questionnaire was designed as follows; section A, was general information, section B contained forage technologies which were grouped into three: (i) introductions of forage types (ii) use of organic and organic fertiliser in the forages and (iii) inter-cropping of different forage types and section C was on research methodology. Research, extension officers and Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) staff involved in the project did enumeration after undergoing training for three days. The data was analysed using descriptive statistics and logit model. An adopter in this study was defined as that farmer who had adopted at least one technological component and was also practising at least 50% of what was recommended for that specific component as perceived by the forage researchers. The experimental or demonstration plots were not considered as an integration or adoption, unless the farmer had extended the acreage on his or her own initiative. Analytical framework of the model. It was hypothesised that both participating and nonparticipating farmers could integrate all or components of the technologies into their farming systems after being exposed to the technology. Thus, participating farmers and

J. M. WANYAMA et al., trial plots acted as source of information which was assumed to diffuse to other farmers in the neighbourhood. Descriptive statistics and regression analysis were used. Conceptually, the following behavioural model was preferred to evaluate factors influencing adoption as shown in equations 1 to 2b (Cramer, 1991; Theil, 1979; Gujarati, 1995; Amemiya, 1994). Yi=f(ti) . (1)

439

this, the logit model was used for the study. The logit model was specified as shown in equation 3. Model specification. Two groups of farmers were identified; (a) farmers participating in the trials and (b) non-participating farmers in various cluster sites. Several factors were assumed to influence farmers decisions about pasture and fodder technology in the various clusters. The model was specified as; Y= ln{P(Xi) / (1-(P (Xi )}

Which means that there is a functional relationship (f) between the survey observation (Yi ) and the stimuli ti Where, t = bo+ bi X (2a)

= i Xi+i

(3)

Y = the natural log of the probability of adopting a forage technology (P), divided by the probability of not adopting it (1-P) i = coefficient of factors influencing adoption of forage technology Xi = factors influencing adoption of forage technology which were hypothesized to positively influence adoption i =error term. The model was specified as shown in equation (4) and the variables described in Table 1. As shown by Kaliba, et al., (1998), it was assumed that the independent variables shown in Table 1 simultaneously influenced the farmers decision to adopt or reject a forage technology, ceteris paribus. Y = f (PATFM, RAGE, EDUC, OFE, HHSIZE, OWNT, ACIF, CRD, NOAN, HHHSEX, ORG, IPAST, NPAST, YFRAM, EXTN). (4) As indicated earlier, studies undertaken by Irungu et al., 1998; Nkonya et al., (1998) and Kaliba et al., (1998) showed that the factors shown in Table 1 influence the probability of adopting components of agricultural technologies. It was therefore, hypothesised that these factors which were grouped into farm and farmer characteristics, and technology specific attributes positively influence the adoption decisions of pastures and fodders at farm level. The collinearity

Y is the response for the ith observation with binary variable 1= adopters and 0=nonadopters. tI is the stimulus index for the ith observation. It is conceptualised that there is a threshold index for each farmer, ti*, such that if ti* > ti the farmer is observed as an adopter and if ti* < ti then, the farmer is a non-adopter. The probability of such a farmer adopting a technology was computed as shown in equation 2b. {Pi=(e ti ) / (1+e ti)} (2b)

The Logit model: In the model, it was assumed that the stimulus index was a random variable, which predicts the probability of adopting forage technological components. The commonly used models in adoption studies are logit, probit and tobit models because they accommodate qualitative (categorical or discrete) responses (Cramer, 1991). The probit and logit models are standard and have similar shapes. However, the latter has the data concentrated in the tails. The logit model was chosen because it gives simpler approximation compared to other probability models that have complex relations and also because it is derivation from individual behaviour models (Theil, 1979, Gujarati, 1995, Amemiya, 1994). Based on

440

Factors influencing adoption of pastures and fodders among smallhold farmers

TABLE 1. Description of variables used in the model forage technology adoption. Variable Dependent variable Y Continuous variables hypothesised to influence adoption RAGE YFARM FMSZ NOAN IPAST NPAST Dummy variables hypothesised to influence adoption 1 EDUC 0 CRD 1 0 HHHSEX ORG OFE EXTN PART ACDEED MORG 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Binary Variable ValueDescription 1 0 Adopted forage component Not adopted Age of respondent in years Years of farming Farm size in acres Number of animals kept by household Acreage under improved pasture Acreage under natural pasture

Access to education Not accessible Access to credit Not accessible Male Female Access to organisation Not accessible Accessible to off farm employment Not accessible Accessible to extension services Not accessible Participating in OFT Not participating in OFT Own title deed Do not own title deed Membership in organisation Not member to any organisation

between the variables was tested and if their correlation was high, r > 70%, one of them was dropped (Gujarati, 1995).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

General socio-economic characteristics of survey respondents. Tables 2 and 3 show the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents as adopters and non-adopters of south west Kenya and North Rift. These characteristics are important in identifying recommendation domains for developed technologies and dissemination.

As shown in Table 2, there were significant differences between adopters and non-adopters in age, years of farming, sex of respondents, head of households, access to organisation and formal education, land title deeds and credit. Farmers in the two regions kept cattle, sheep, and chicken, which is characteristic of small mixed farming systems of Kenya. However, the number of cattle kept was variable. It ranged between 0 and 4 for south west Kenya and between 1 and 6 for North Rift. The acreage under fodder crops between adopters and non-adopters was significantly different at P<0.005. As has been the tradition, adopters were mainly male headed households.

J. M. WANYAMA et al., Informal credit especially from the merry gorounds formed the bulk of the credit received for both farm and non-farm activities. Table 3, shows that about 34% of the farmers interviewed in North Rift and 40% in the south west Kenya had adopted at least one of the components of the forage technology. In addition, 57% of the farmers from south west Kenya, and 51% from north Rift region who adopted the forage technologies were participating farmers. A total of 7.6 and 6.8 ha were under fodders/improved pastures in south west Kenya and North Rift, respectively.

441

Table 4 shows that seed rate/spacing was the most adopted technological component in south west Kenya, while in North Rift region weeding was the more adopted. Forage conservation was the least adopted in both regions. As shown in Table 5, Napier grass was the most adopted forage, ranging from 54% in Nyatieko to 9% in Kamingusa. The least adopted forages were siratro introduced in Kamingusa and lucerne in Weonia and Matunda. The differences in adoption characteristics could be attributed to research approach and farm characteristics. For

TABLE 2. Characteristics of sampled farmers in the North Rift and south west Kenya Characteristic Adopters (N=42) Mean Household characteristic Age of respondent Family size Dependants number Acreage under fodder Cattle Chicken numbers Sheep Farm size Years of farming Sex of respondents No. of Male No. of Female Sex of household head No. of Male No. of Female Education of household No formal education Formal education Off-farm income Yes No Tenure system With title Without title Membership in organisation Yes No Access to credit services Yes No 42 9 3 0.25 6 15 6 3.613 14.571 Sd 11.716 5.176 3.6450 0.04 1.865 4.89 2.9 3.644 9.467 Non-adopters (N=82) Mean 43 8 4 0 4 14 7 2.44 14.222 Sd 12.558 3.57 1.378 0.056 2.05 5.04 2.68 3.644 9.000 Test of mean equality 1.89NS 1.35NS 0.34NS 2.56** 1.99NS 1.11NS 0.23NS 0.13NS 3.13** Chisquare

28 9 35 11 13 34 14 32 31 15 25 21 12 24

2.456 1.99 3.11 2.56 2.66 2.78 1.68 2.05 2.94 1.98 2. 11 1.97 2.91 3.13

50 28 63 20 40 42 25 28 53 28 45 34 21 63

1.69 1.87 1.99 2.04 2.98 3.98 1.25 1.34 1.78 2.96 3.56 2.45 3.67 2.45

* ** ** NS ** NS ** NS ** NS ** * ** NS

442

Factors influencing adoption of pastures and fodders among smallhold farmers

TABLE 3. Percent adoption by farmer type and region, and total pasture area by region Region* No. Of farmers Non-Participating Participating All farmers Total Fodder/pasture acreage SWK (n=46) 14 57 40 17 NR (n=124) 13 51 34 19.03 All the clusters (n =174) 13 60 35

*SWK refers to south west Kenya and NR refers to North Rift. TABLE 4. Percent adoption of forage technological components in south west Kenya and North Rift regions. Technological components Seed-rate/spacing Use of fertilisers (organic or/and inorganic) Time of application of fertiliser Method of fertiliser application Weeding Harvesting Conservation of forages (Hay making from Rhodes grass) SWK ( n=42) 57 48 22 33 56 44 0 NR (n=124) 54 55 57 42 63 25 16

TABLE 5. Percent farmers accessing various technologies by region SWK (n=82) Technology/component Adopted forage crop Napier grass Guatemala Rhodes grass Nandi setaria Desmodium Siratro Lucerne Inter-cropping 1 44.3 44.3 ---8 --2 54 54 ---11 ----1 ---3 10 10 ---4 9 9 ---5 19.5 19.5 ---6 36 32 -5 0 3 --NR (n=124) 7 42 42 -11 0 10 -2 5 8 45 45 9 10 14 10 -4 ---

*SWK (1 = Bogetaorio, 2 = Nyatieko, 3 = Nyamonyo, 4 = Kamingusa), *NR (5=Anin, 6 = Chobosta, 7 = Matunda, 8 = Weonia) means not introduced

J. M. WANYAMA et al., example, Weonia and Nyatieko cluster sites were pilot Farmer Participatory Research (FPR) sites. This approach may have influenced the adoption of forage technologies. Table 6 shows that some of the recommendations for pasture /fodder technological components were modified in both regions. Some of the reasons for the modifications and dis-adoption of forage technologies were: unavailability of inputs (FYM, pasture seed) and inadequate labour (weeding). In both regions, there was little awareness of the forage conservation. Willingness to contribute to research activities. Respondents were asked what proportion of the total resource they were

443

willing to contribute to the implementation and carrying out the on-farm trials/ demonstrations (Table 7). Majority of the farmers willing to contribute less than half of the on-farm trials/demonstration costs, ranged from 78% in Kamingusa to 36% in Chobosta. However, none of the farmers was willing to meet the full cost of trial/demonstration activities. Impact of SMP on forage production technologies. Since 1995 (PRA, 1995), the number of farmers and the acreage under various forage types have increased in both regions. Among the participating farmers, the number increased by 50% in south west Kenya and 60% in North Rift mainly among the participating farmers. However, the sustained use of the technologies remains questionable.

TABLE 6. Reasons for modification and non- adoption of forage technologies, south west Kenya and North Rift Kenya Technology/Technological component Seed rate / Spacing Use of fertilisers Weeding Harvesting Inter-cropping systems Napier-legumes Modification Closer spacing --------Untimely weeding Reason for modification/ non- % of farmers adoption n=190 High labour demand Unavailability of FYM Lack of cash Limited labour demand 40% 54 70

Staggered harvest- Leave fodder for seed 5 ing Not intercrop Unavailability of legume seeds 10

TABLE 7. Willingness to pay for technology development and dissemination among participating farmers Site Nyatieko Bogetaorio Kamingusa Nyamonyo Weonia Matunda Anin Chobosta Rating of acceptability (% farmers) Less than half* 62 57 78 72 60 59 45 36 Half* 24 20 10 15 26 23 18 19

* willingness to pay the cost of technology development and dissemination. NB. no farmer was willing to pay full cost of technology development

444

Factors influencing adoption of pastures and fodders among smallhold farmers

The total acreage planted by sampled farmers was about 7.6 ha for SWK and about 6.4 ha for NRK (Table 8). The average acreage for adopters was about 0.05 ha with a range of 0.04 - 0.1 ha. Forty percent of the adopters in south west Kenya and 10% in North Rift region sold Napier grass. Due to increased availability of Napier grass and other forages, which partly reduced the feed shortage in the dry season, there was a reported increase in milk yield. As shown in Table 9, although there was an increase in labour demand and cash requirements, there was reported increase in overall farm productivity. About 36% of farmers interviewed reported increased livestock productivity mainly milk, while 64% indicated no change at all. This calls for more emphasis for farmers to grow forages and utilise them efficiently. Impact of selected variables on probability of adopting forage technological

components. As shown in Tables 10-12, years of farming, farmer participation in the SMP trials, off-farm employment, age of the household head and access to agricultural information were the major factors that influenced the adoption of various components of forage technologies. Farmers who participated in the development of forage technologies were likely to adopt their components readily because of their access to information through the project. This strong relationship between adoption and participation in the SMP activities reveals that the project was relatively effective in the involvement of farmers in the implementation process of its activities. However, the sustained practice of the forage technological components remains a challenge to technology developers and disseminators after the withdrawal of the project. Off-farm income is a source of cash to finance farm activities. Therefore, the positive relationship between adoption of technological components and access to off-farm income shows that farmers

TABLE 8. Benefits of fodder technologies in south west Kenya and North Rift, Kenya South West Kenya Variable Acreage Harvesting frequency Before <2 ha Variable Now 7.6 ha Increased (50% of respondents) Increased (40% of respondents) Before <0.8 ha Low variable North Rift Province Now 6.2 ha Increased (60% of respondents) Increased (10% of respondents

Income (sale of fodder) Low

Table 9. Changes on input use and demand in south west Kenya and North Rift, Kenya Variable Labour demand Effect Increased Decreased No change Increased Decreased No change Increased Decreased No change Increased Decreased No change % of the farmers 50 22 27 36 0 64 45 9 45 68 0 32

Livestock productivity

Cash requirement

Overall farm productivity

TABLE 10. Logit regression results: effect of selected variables on selected forage technological components in North Rift and south west Kenya Probability of adopting

Independent variable B Exp. B 5.481 1.095 0.096 0.938 0.938 0.938 0.904 1.350 0.987 -6.786 204 17.39 34.53 -0.012 0.001 0.300 0.009 1.350 0.987 -0.101* 3.359 0.904 -0.064 0.191 0.938 -0.064 0.245 0.938 -0.164 0.193 0.004 1.394 0.101 -10.913 204 11.04 32.65 2.646 3.829 0.938 9.624 -2.144** 2.775 0.096 -2.196* 0.091* 4.469 1.095 0.018* 0.122 2.208 0.039 0.901 0.282 0.006 0.186 0.049 0.050 1.701** 1.751 5.481 1.697 1.073 1.751 4.469 2.775 3.829 0.245 0.191 3.359 0.009 0.001 SEDR Wald B Exp. B B TOFAP Wald TOFTD Wald

Exp B 5.455 1.018 0.111 27.307 0.849 0.824 1.004 4.031 1.106

Farmer participation in trial Age of farmer

1.701**

0.091*

Years in school

-2.144**

Off farm employment

2.646

Family size

-0.064

Total farm size

-0.064

Years of farming

-0.101*

J. M. WANYAMA et al.,

Acreage under natural pasture

0.300

Number of animals kept

-0.012

Constant

-7.678

Number of observations

204

Chi-square statistic

17.32

Log Likelihood

31.35

Where SEDR =seed rate, TOFAP = time of fertilizer application, TOFTD = time of fertiliser topdressing

445

446

TABLE 11. Logit regression results: effect of selected variables on selected forage technological components in North Rift and south west Kenya Independent variables MFPL B 1.144 0.035* -2.230 9.740 -0.115 -0.56 -0.057* 0.082 0.155 48.291 204 10.78 27.06 25.28 11.85 204 0.056 -11.378 0.56 0.122 1.168 0.155 0.124 1.085 1.168 0.123 1.085 0.082 0.000 0.945 0.826 0.945 -0.57 0.826 0.304 0.078 0.946 -0.056 0.778 0.946 -0.056 -0.57 0.082 0.155 -11.378 204 10.80 28.32 0.531 0.891 -0.115 0.531 0.891 -0.115 0.041 0.322 9.740 0.041 0.322 9.740 2.253 0.108 -2.230* 2.253 0.108 -2.230* 2.253 0.041 0.531 0.778 0.826 0.000 0.124 0.56 0.459 1.036 0.035 0.460 1.036 0.035 0.460 0.529 3.140 1.445 0.529 3.141 1.445 0.529 Wald Exp B B Wald Exp B B Wald Exp B 3.141 1.036 0.108 0.322 0.891 0.946 0.304 0.945 1.085 1.168 MFTD RFAPL

Independent variable

Farmer participate in trial

Age of farmer

Years in school

Off farm employment

Family size

Total farm size

Years of farming

Acreage under pasture

Number of animals kept

Constant

Number of observations

Chi-square statistic

Log Likelihood

Factors influencing adoption of pastures and fodders among smallhold farmers

Key: ***means significant at 1%; ** significant at 5%; * significant at 10%., MFPL = Method of fertiliser application at planting, MFTD = Method of fertiliser application at topdressing, RFAPL = Rate of fertiliser application

TABLE 12. Logit regression results: effect of selected variables on selected forage technological components in North Rift, Kenya Independent variables Harvesting Wald 0-.182 0.041 1.208 0.037 0.167 0.071 0.511 0.012 0.000 0.546 204 6.98 36.87 -4.441 3.431 0.999 -0.128 0.117 0.879 1.415 0.946 0.106 2.575 0.964 -0.027 0.355 0.973 -0.85 -69.012 -8.605 -19.177 204 7.32 33.13 0.961 .038 0.077 0.963 -0.011 0.955 -0.100 0.670 0.905 -0.336 0.839 1.956* 2.649 7.072 10.255 0.002 0.368 0.002 0.320 0.002 0.004 0.002 0.197 -1.214 1.122 0.297 9.752 0.004 1.0301 0.36 1.037 0.297 -0.036 0.104 1.784 1.323 1.488 3.753 -11.266 0.001 000 0.964 85. 106 39.078 0.715 0.988 0.919 0.000 0.000 Exp. B B Wald Exp B B Wald Exp. B Preservation

Independent variable

Weeding

Farmer participated in trial

0.579

Age of farmer

0.030

Years in school

-1.632

Off farm employment

9.726

Family size

0.046

Total farm size

-0.040

Years of farming

-0.037

Acreage under pasture

0.347

J. M. WANYAMA et al.,

Number of animals kept

-0.000

Constant

-11.801

Number of observations

204

Chi-square statistic

9.59

Log Likelihood

35.51

Key: ***means significant at 1%; ** significant at 5%; * significant at 10%.

447

448

Factors influencing adoption of pastures and fodders among smallhold farmers

with additional income were likely to adopt components of the forage technology. Several factors initially thought to influence the adoption of various technological components of fodder technologies had little influence. They include sex of respondent, access to credit, acreage under pasture and number of animals. However, this does not mean that these factors do not influence probability of adopting a technology. The signs they carry show some associations, which affect potential for adoption although not significantly. Probability of adoption of a forage technological component. Given equations 2a and 2b and the estimates for the coefficients, all the parameters for estimating the stimulus are known. For example, the mean stimulus index of a typical smallholder farmer who participated in on-farm forage trials and was 42 years old, had an average of 10 years of experience, had off-farm employment, average family size of 8 members, average farm size of 1.2 ha, natural pasture acreage of 0.2 ha, and owning 3 heads of cattle was -3.864. The probability of such a farmer adopting the right spacing or seed rate as a technological component in forage production will be computed as (Pi=(et)/(1+et))=((e-3.864)/1+(e3.864 )=0.0209) which is about 2%. Therefore, it is possible to estimate the probability of a farmer with particular characteristics adopting a particular component of the forage technologies.

partial results indicate that as efforts are made to scale up information about these technologies to other farmers through on-farm demonstrations, re-definition of target groups should be considered. Finally, technology dissemination and sustained use, for the few who adopted, still remains a challenge under the current and future social and economic circumstances of farmers in west Kenya.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to thank the Rockefeller Foundation, in particular Dr. John Lynam, Dr. Joseph Mureithi, National Coordinator of SMP/LRNP and KARI for the financial and technical support given to carry out this work. The effort by all the participating officers from NARC-Kitale, RRC-Kisii, Ministry of Agriculture extension personnel in both south west Kenya and North Rift and farmers who participated in this work are gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES
Abate, A. 1992. Analysis of Kenya Dairy Industry in the Last Decade: Constraints and options. A paper presented in Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) workshop on dairy cattle research programme formulation and priority setting, Muguga, 4-9th. May 1992 Amemiya, T. (ed). 1994. Studies in Econometric Theory. The collected essays of Takesh Amemiya, Edward Edger. Volume 41, November 1973 Number 6. Pp.1483-1533. Cramer, J. S., 199. An Introduction for Economists. The Logit model, pp. 1-41. Gujarati, D.N. 1995. Basic Econometrics. 4th. Edition. MacGraw-Hill, inc. New York. Pp100-343. Irungu, P., S. Mbogo, S. Staal, W.Thorpe, and D. Njubi. 1998. Kenya Agricultural Research Institute. Factors influencing adoption of Napier grass in smallholder dairy farming in highlands of Kenya. Agricultural Research and Development for Sustainable Resource Management and Increased Production. Proceedings of the 6th Bi-annual KARI Scientific Conference. Pp 294-301.

CONCLUSION
Perceptible impact of farmer awareness of most of forage technologies was made by the project. Generally, the adoption of forage technologies was relatively low, with Napier grass being the most adopted improved forage. The regression analysis result show that farmer participation in on-farm trials, age and education of a farmer, and farming experience were the main factors influencing adoption of forage technologies introduced by the Soil Management Project. Operational project policies that would result in greater contact of farmers with extension/research and more farmer participation in on-farm trials and demonstrations are likely to increase adoption of forage technological components. The

J. M. WANYAMA et al., Jaetzold, R. and H. Schmidt, 1982, Farm Management Hand Book Volumes I. A Natural Condition and Farm Management Information. Parts 'A'. Western Kenya (Western and Nyanza Provinces). Typodruck printers, Rossdorf. W-German. Jaetzold, R. and H. Schmidt, 1983., Farm Management Hand Book Volumes I. ANatural Condition and Farm Management Information. Parts 'B'. Central and Eastern Kenya. Typo-druck printers, Rossdorf. WGerman. pp 121-172. Kariuki, J. N., 1998., The Potential of improving Napier grass under smallholder dairy farmer conditions in Kenya. PhD. Thesis Animal Nutrition Group. Grafisch service, Van Gills B. V., Wageningen. Kaliba, R.M.A, V. Hugo, W. Mwangi, J.T.A.. Mwilawa, A. Poniah and A. Moshi. 1998. Adoption of Maize Production Technologies in Central Tanzania. Muyekho, F.N., 1998. Effects of Intercropping Legumes with maize grain and forage yields in Upper Midland zone 1 and 4 (UM1 and UM4). Proceedings of the 6th. Biennial KARI Scientific Conference. Agricultural Research and development for sustainable Resource Mangement and increased Production. Pp10-17. Nkonya, E., P. Xavery, H. Akonaay, A. Ponniah, V. Hugo, D. Martella and A. Moshi. 1998. Adoption of maize Production Technologies in Northern Tanzania. NARC-Kitale. 1995. Unpublished soil management PRA reports.

449

RRC Kisii. 1995. Unpublished soil management PRA reports. Republic of Kenya. 1988. Reflection on Livestock Production Strategy under the District focus for Rural Development 1988 and beyond. Ministry of Livestock Development. Republic of Kenya. Ministry of Agriculture, 1993. Livestock Development and Marketing. Kenya Dairy Development Policy. A strategy towards the Development of a Self-Sustaining Dairy Sector. Nairobi. Omore, A., McDermott and Gitau 1996. A Factors influencing production of Smallholder dairy farms in Central Kenya. Workshop Proceedings of 5th. KARI Scientific Conference 14th. -16th. October 1996 held in KARI Headquarters, Kaptagat Road, Loresho, Nairobi, Kenya. Comset Holdings Ltd. Nairobi pp 370 - 379. Rees. D.J, and Nkoge, C. (Ed.). 1997. Review of Agricultural constraints in the North Rift Proceedings of a Workshop Held in Kitale. Staal, W. 1995. Factors affecting adoption of planted forages in Nairobi milk shed, with specific reference to Kiambu district. MALDM/KARI/ILRI, Nairobi. Theil H., 1979, Principles of econometrics. Centre for mathematical studies and economics. The University of Chicago. John Wiley & Sons, New York.