CHAPTER 5 SOCIO-ECONOMIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INNOVATION
5.4 Discussion
Survey results revealed highly significant differences between smallholder dairy innovation platform participants and non-participants based on their experiences in commercial dairying, the agricultural training received, household size, availability and access to labour, the main source of household income, dairy herd sizes, and the number of lactating cows. The rest of the explored socio-economic variables, including gender, age, education, farm size and the distance from the market were statistically insignificant. The results corroborate results from other studies, and yet produced some results that diverged from the findings of mainstream literature.
The results present new insights and a new discourse as discussed below.
Tadesse et al. (2016) identified household size, the number of cross breed and local breed lactating cows, access to credit, and the distance from the market as the significant factors affecting dairy farmers’ participation in milk markets in southwest Ethiopia. In Ethiopia, Kuma et al. (2013, 2014) identified the age of the household head, dairy farming experience, milk yield per day, milking cow ownership, and the size of the landholding as significant factors in determining milk market participation. In Uganda, gender, age, education, distance to the market, ownership of transport, and communication facilities (P < 0.01) had highly positive and significant impact on smallholder dairy farmers’ decisions to participate in milk markets (Balirwa et al., 2016).
Whilst no studies have focused on socio-economic differences between smallholder dairy innovation platform participants and non-participants, a number of studies focused on innovation platforms of other agricultural commodities. In an assessment of the factors determining cocoa farmers’ participation in innovation platform activities in Nigeria, Akinmusola et al. (2016) identified farmer experience and education as key determinants. Based on a survey of smallholder rice farmers in Northern Ghana, the age of the household head, household size, and
Page 121 of 231 household income significantly influenced the willingness to participate in multi-stakeholder innovation platforms (Martey et al., 2014).
Boughton et al. (2007) argue that markets can only stimulate wealth creation amongst those with the capacity to participate given production constraints and the costs of market participation.
Using an asset-based approach to analyse the level of market participation for rural households in Mozambique, the authors established that poorer households have limited capacity to participate effectively and hence need interventions to build up either their private stocks of productive assets, or the public goods that support agricultural production and marketing. Njuki and Sanginga (2013), using insights from Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique, established that women tended to face more challenges when compared to their male counterparts in accessing and benefiting from markets, notably formal markets. Identified challenges included, inter alia, limited mobility; time poverty; lack of access to assets that would facilitate their participation;
and lack of access to market information. These insights support results from this study which show significant association between participation in innovation platforms and asset ownership, entailing that participants in smallholder dairy innovation platforms have more assets in general than non-participants.
Predominant dairy management systems for innovation platform participants entail a higher level of intensification (including the adoption of zero grazing), the use of silage and/or hay as supplementary feeds during the dry season, adoption of pure dairy breed and crosses, as well as greater extension contact. A number of past studies confirm these findings. Dantas et al. (2016) used cluster analysis in identifying four different segments of dairy producers in Brazil, in a context where farmer education and management levels, influenced the rate of technology and innovation adoption. In Algeria, Kaouche-Adjlane et al. (2015) characterised breeding dairy cattle systems into different groups of farms based on their structure and management systems.
In Morocco, feeding strategies and economic efficiency were used to classify dairy cattle farming systems into different farm segments (Srairi and Kiade, 2005). In Kenya, Mburu et al.
(2007), used cluster and discriminant analysis in categorising smallholder dairy farms into different innovation domains based on risk management strategies, level of household resources, technology adoption, dairy intensification, and their access to services and markets.
Page 122 of 231 In Kenyan avocado innovation platforms, Gyau et al. (2016) established that age, education, gender, perceptions on knowledge and improved technology influence farmers’ decision to participate in collective action. In a study in Africa’s Great Lakes Region, Mulema and Mazur (2016) established that active participation in innovation platforms is sustained by the desire to access new knowledge and skills, anticipated economic benefits (markets, income, and credit) and material incentives (agricultural inputs), while participation was restrained by a cocktail of factors that included unfulfilled expectations of tangible immediate benefits, a lack of understanding of the IP concept, lack of resources, and prior commitments. The results from these studies thus, to a large extent, support the paper’s findings that show statistically significant differences in the level of knowledge, attitudes and practices between IP participants and non- participants.
The household food and nutrition security results in this paper are comparable to, but better than, national statistical assessments, with a range of 58 – 76.1% of households at national level being food secure between 2013 – 2016, a proportion of 54 – 68% of households having acceptable diets between 2011 – 2016, and an HDDS score of between 5 – 7 for the last five years (ZimVAC, 2014; 2016). Smallholder farmers' engagement in markets is acknowledged as being important for improved household food security and poverty reduction (FAO, 2017). A socio- economic evaluation of farm households in Cambodia, using the endogenous switching model, also yielded insights that showed that farm households participating in markets enjoyed higher household dietary diversity scores, thus supporting the hypothesis that participation in markets results in positive effects on farm households’ food security (Seng, 2016). A study of smallholder agricultural households in Papua New Guinea also established a highly significant association between the level of food and nutrition security, on one hand, and market participation, on the other (Wickramasinghe et al., 2014).
Insights generated by this study have critical implications for smallholder dairy research and advisory services. These key support services should be designed to provide training, capacity building, technical support services, enhancing commercial dairying experience and growing the dairy herds for smallholder dairy farmers. There is also need for greater targeting of dairy
Page 123 of 231 innovations in pursuance of specific innovation domains that are defined by characteristics beyond the conventional demographic factors, to encompass other non-conventional socio- economic aspects such as asset endowment, dairy management systems, KAP levels, as well as household food and nutrition security.