ADOPTION OF 
IMPROVED COWPEA PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGIES
IN THE
AKATSI DISTRICT OF THE VOLTA REGION, GHANA
BY 
CYNTHIA ANKU-TSEDE
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO 
THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION, UNIVERSITY OF 
GHANA, IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE 
AWARD OF THE MASTERS OF PHILOSOPHY (M.PHIL) DEGREE IN 
AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION
FEBRUARY, 2000
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
■ Q  364620
pS 15
( UjlSU )2_o
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
DECLARATION
I, do hereby declare that with the exception of literature cited, which I have duly acknowledged, 
this thesis is entirely my original work. I further declare that no part of this thesis has been 
presented for a degree anywhere.
......
CYNTHIA ANKU TSEDE 
(STUDENT)
DR  O. SAKYI - DAWSON 
(SUPERVISOR)
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to 
Vincent, my Parents and Siblings, 
Who shared this phase of my life 
With me.
ii
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This thesis would not have been accomplished without certain amount of support and guidance 
from others. It is on this note that I wish to express my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr.
O. Sakyi - Dawson of the Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Ghana, Legon. 
He made constructive criticisms and offered useful suggestions that inspired me to work harder, 
and led to the completion of this work.
Credit is also given to all lecturers of the Department of Agricultural Extension, University of 
Ghana, Legon, for their assistance and useful suggestions. Your contribution to the completion 
of this thesis cannot go unrecognised. Special thanks to the management and staff of Social 
Security Bank (S.S.B.) for their financial assistance. I also wish to thank Vincent, George, my 
siblings, Theodosia and my course mates (especially Abudu - Mumuni Insah) for their diverse 
contributions to the completion of my work. Last but not the least, I give all the glory to God, 
who has been and continues to be my strength, counsel and provider. I however wish to remark 
that any shortcomings of this thesis remain solely my responsibility.
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
ABSTRACT
Enhancing the adoption of Improved Cowpea Preservation Technologies (ICPTs) can contribute 
greatly to food security in low- income countries such as Ghana. However, although such 
improved technologies have been the focus of technology development and extension effort for 
sometime now in Ghana, there is a dearth of studies on the extent of adoption of ICPTs and its 
determinants. Among others, current adoption of technology literature suggests that target or 
potential user’s perceptions of technologies are likely to influence adoption. However, this 
paradigm has not been studied in Ghana for ICPTs. This thesis therefore examined the 
relationship between cowpea farmers’ and traders perceptions and the adoption of ICPTs in the 
Akatsi district of the Volta Region, Ghana. Specifically, it attempts to answer the question - how 
does their perceptions of characteristics of four ICPTs (namely the use Actellic liquid, Actellic 
dust, Phostoxin and edible oil in preserving cowpea), mode and effort of extension delivery, 
determine the pattern of utilization of ICPTs.
Data was collected using questionnaires from sixty cowpea producers, twenty-five cowpea traders 
and fifteen Agricultural extension Agents (AEAs) of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture 
(MoFA). In addition, the Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) methods for focus group discussions, was 
used to collect contextual information. Data analysis included frequency distribution, chi-square 
tests and the Spearman’s rank order correlation co-efficient.
The results show that apart from respondents gender and the quantity of cowpea stored, there was 
statistically no significant difference between the characteristics of cowpea producers and traders. 
Cowpea producers were mainly males and the traders were solely females. Traders also stored 
more cowpea than producers did and they stored if for a longer period of time.
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Extension agents delivery efforts on the selected ICPTs was mainly by a combination of 
interpersonal (individual and group) methods and contact tended to be more frequent (thrice or 
more within a month). However, cowpea traders were contacted less frequently than producers. 
Traders are however more important with regards to preservation of cowpea than producers yet, 
they have little access to ICPT messages. It is therefore suggested that extension agents need to 
direct more cowpea preservation messages to traders.
There was substantial knowledge of cowpea pests and their control in the study area. 
Comparatively, the level of awareness of traditional cowpea preservation technologies was higher 
than that of ICPTs. Level of awareness of ICPTs in descending order is similar - Actellic dust, 
Actellic liquid, Edible oil and Phostoxin (Producers - 52%, 37%, 35%, 21% and Traders - 48%, 
32%, 24%, 16% respectively). The study established that Phostoxin had a higher range of 
positively perceived attributes by producers and traders and edible oil had the least.
Analysis of the relationship between adopter characteristics and perception of attributes revealed 
that with the exception of Actellic liquid, these variables did not make a difference in perception 
of ICPTs. The extension method used did not bring about a difference in perception of overall 
attributes of ICPTs but made a difference in perception of general attributes (Relative Advantage 
and Complexity) of Actellic liquid. With the exception of Actellic liquid, the frequency of contact 
of AEAs with the respondents did not bring about any significant difference in perception of 
ICPTs. An increase in the frequency of contact of AEAs with the respondents resulted in more 
positive perception of attributes of Actellic liquid but not the other ICPTs.
v
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
There was a positive relationship between respondents positive perceptions of selected ICPTs and 
adoption levels. Producers’ perceptions of specific attributes gave the closest prediction of 
adoption levels whereas traders overall perceptions of attributes gave the closest prediction of 
adoption level. It shows that to an extent, perceptions of attributes reflect their adoption levels.
It is suggested that AEAs need to re-examine and refine ICPTs, taking the negative perceptions 
of attributes of ICPTs and their inverse relationship with adoption levels into consideration. In 
order to enhance adoption of ICPTs, AEAs should deliver detailed technical knowledge, 
emphasising positive attributes. This can be done through regular contact (thrice or more within 
a month) and the use of interpersonal channels of extension delivery (use of a combination of the 
group and individual methods of extension delivery) for increased adoption of cowpea 
preservation technologies.
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
TABLE OF CONTENT
DECLARATION................................     i
DEDICATION............................................................................................................................ ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT...........................................................................................................iii
ABSTRACT......................    iv
TABLE OF CONTENT............................................................................................................vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...................................   : ................... xii
LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................................xiii
LIST OF FIGURES ..'...................................................  xvi
LIST OF MAPS......................................................................................................................xvii
LIST OF APPENDICES...................................................................................................... xviii
PART ONE: BACKGROUND  
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.0. Background Information......................................................................................1
1.1. Statement of the Problem ................................................................................... 5
1.2. Research Question............................................................................................... 7
13. Objectives............................................................................................................. 7
1.3.1. Main Objectives.....................................................................................................7
1.3.2. Specific Objectives ...............................................................................................7
1.4. Significance of the Study.................................................................................... 8
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction  .........................................................     10
2.1 Adoption of Innovations.....................................................................................11
2.1.1 How Adoption takes P lace................................................................................12
2.1.2 Benefits of Adoption ........................................................................................ 14
2.2. Perceptions and Adoption................................................................................. 15
2.2.1 Perceptions of Characteristics of Innovations.................. ...............................15
2.2.2. How Perceptions are Established.......................................... .......................22
2.3. Extension Delivery .............................................................................................24
2.3.1. Extension Delivery and Adoption................................................................. 24
2.3.2. Extension Delivery and Perceptions of Innovations .....................................  26
2.4. Personal / Individual Characteristics and Adoption.....................................27
2.4.1. Personal Characteristics and perception of Characteristics of Innovations . 32
2.5. A Conceptual Model of Determinants of Adoption of Innovations........... 32
2.6 Definition of Terms ........................................................................................... 35
2.7. Conclusion.............................................................................................................36
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.0. Introduction .......................................................................................................38
3.1. Research Design.................................................................................................38
3.1.1. Study A re a ...........................................................................................................39
viii
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
3.1.2. Study Population .................................................................................................39
3.1.3. Sample Size & Sampling Technique................................................................. 39
3.2. Data Gathering Technique..............................................................................44
3.2.1. Development of Data Gathering Instruments .................................................. 45
3.3. Pre - Testing...................................................................................................... 49
3.4. Data Gathering..................................................................................................49
3.5. Data Analysis....................................................................................................49
3.6. Problems Encountered During Field Work.................................................. 52
PART TWO: RESULTS & DISCUSSION
CHAPTER FOUR: CHARACTERISTICS OF COWPEA PRODUCERS, COWPEA
TRADERS & AEAs
4.0. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 53
4.1. Personal Characteristics of Cowpea Producers & Cowpea Traders . . .  53
4.2. Enterprise Characteristics of Cowpea Producers & Traders....................60
4.3. Personal & Professional Characteristics of AEAs ...................................... 62
4.4. Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 65
CHAPTER FIVE : EXTENSION DELIVERY EFFORTS:
5.0. Introduction ......................................................................................................67
5.1. Prevention of Pest Infestation in Cowpea.......................................................67
5.2. Cowpea Preservation Technologies Extended by AEAs...............................80
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
5.3. Sources of Cowpea Preservation Messages....................................................82
5.4. Extension Delivery Efforts .............................................................................84
5.5. Constraints to Delivery of Cowpea Preservation Messages....................... 92
5.6. Re - Introduction of Cowpea Preservation Technologies........................... 96
5.7. Conclusion........................................................................................................... 97
CHAPTER SIX: PERCEPTION OF ATTRIBUTES OF SELECTED IMPROVED 
COWPEA PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGIES
6.0 Introduction..................................................................................................... 100
6.1 Level of Awareness of Cowpea Preservation Technologies......................100
6.2. Perceptions of Specific Attributes of Selected Improved Cowpea
Preservation Technologies.............................................................................101
6.3 Perceptions of General Attributes of Selected Improved Cowpea
Preservation Technologies............................................................................ 102
6.4 Perceptions of Overall Attributes of Selected Improved Cowpea
Preservation Technologies.............................................................................104
6.5 Characteristics and Perceptions of Attributes of Selected ICPTs 104
6.5.1 Personal Characteristics of Respondents & Perceptions
of General Attributes of ICPTs ................................................................  106
6.5.2 Enterprise Characteristics of Respondents & Perceptions
of General Attributes of ICPTs ...................................................................... 107
6.6 Extension Delivery and Perceptions of Attributes of Selected
Improved Cowpea Preservation Technologies ......................................... 110
6.6.1 Extension Methods and Perception of Overall Attributes of
Improved Cowpea Preservation Technologies ......................   110
x
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
6.6.2 Extension Method and Perception of General Attributes of Improved
Cowpea Preservation Technologies................................................................ 110
6.6.3 Frequency of Contact & Perception of Overall Attributes of Improved
Cowpea Preservation Technologies................................................................ I l l
6.6.4 Frequency of Contact & Perception of General Attributes of Improved
Cowpea Preservation Technologies................................................................112
6.7 Conclusion.......................................................................................................113
CHAPTER SEVEN: ADOPTION OF IMPROVED COWPEA PRESERVATION 
TECHNOLOGIES
7.0. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 115
7.1. Awareness - Adoption Gap.......................................................................... 115
7.2. Adopter Characteristics and Adoption ........................................................116
7.3. Extension Delivery and Adoption................................................................127
7.3.1. Method of Extension Delivery and Adoption ............................................... 127
7.3.2. Frequency of Contact and Adoption ............................................................... 129
7.4. Perceptions and Adoption L evels ................................................................130
7.5. Summary & Conclusion.................................................................................133
PART THREE: CONCLUSION  
CHAPTER EIGHT: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1. Summary & Conclusion.............................................................................. 135
8.2. Recommendations ........................................................................................ 141
8J. Suggestions for Further R esearch ............................................................ 143
BIBLOGRAPHY................................................................................................................... 145
APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................... 161
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ADB - Agricultural Development Bank
AEAs - Agricultural Extension Agents
FAO - Food & Agricultural Organization
FLS - Frontline Staff
ICPTs - Improved Cowpea Preservation Technologies
ISSER - - Institute for Statistical & Social Science & Economic Research
MoFA - Ministry of Food and Agriculture
NAEP - National Agricultural Extension Project
NAES - National Agricultural Experimental Station
PHDU - Post Harvest Development Unit
T&T - Travel & Transport Allowance
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Table 3.1 Information Collected, Source (s) & Techniques used in Data collection . .  45
Table 4.1 Working Experience of Cowpea Producers & Traders ............................... 57
Table 4.2 Quantity of Cowpea stored by Producers and Traders ................................. 62
Table 4.3 Position & Educational Qualification of AEAs in the Study A re a ...................64
Table 4.4 Language of Communication of A EA s ...............................................................65
Table 5.1 Disadvantage with Use of Group Extension Method by AEA’s
in Dissemination of Cowpea Preservation M essage....................................... 90
Table 5.2 Disadvantage of Use of Individual Extension Method by AEA’s
in Dissemination of Cowpea Preservation M essage....................................... 92
Table 6.1 Level of Awareness of Cowpea Preservation Technologies........................... 100
Table 6.2 Perceptions of Specific Attributes o f Selected Improved
Cowpea Preservation Technologies ...............................................................102
Table 6.3 Perceptions of General Attributes of Selected Improved
Cowpea Preservation Technologies.................................................................103
Table 6.4 Perception of Overall Attributes of Selected
Improved Cowpea Preservation Technologies .............................................. 103
Table 6.5 Characteristics & Overall Perception of Attributes of
Improved Cowpea preservation Technologies................................................ 105
Table 6.6 Personal Characteristics of Respondents and their Perceptions
of General Attributes of ICPTs & of Producers..............................................107
Table 6.7 Enterprise Characteristics & Perceptions of
General Attributes of ICPTs.............................................................................. 109
Table 6.8 Extension Method Used and Perceptions o f Overall
Attributes of Improved Cowpea Preservation Technologies .. 110
LIST OF TABLES
xiii
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Table 6.9 Extension Method Used and Perceptions of General
Attributes of Improved Cowpea Preservation Technologies......................... I l l
Table 6.10 Frequency of Contact and Perceptions of Overall
Attributes o f Improved Cowpea Preservation Technologies......................... 112
Table 6.11 Frequency of Contact and Perceptions of General
Attributes of Improved Cowpea Preservation Technologies......................... 112
Table 7.1 Gender and Adoption Levels...........................................................................117
Table 7.2. Age and Adoption ............................................................................................118
Table 7.3. Education Level and Adoption ........................................................................ 120
Table 7.4. Working Experience and adoption ................................................................121
Table 7.5. Producers Farm Size and Adoption..................................................................122
Table 7.6. Variety of Cowpea Grown or Sold and Adoption...........................................124
Table 7.7. Producers Crop Yield and Adoption................................................................125
Table 7.8 Quantity of Cowpea Stored and Adoption...................................................... 126
Table 7.9 Method of Delivery and Adoption................................................................... 128
Table 7.10 Frequency of Contact and Adoption ............................................................... 129
Table 7.11 Degree o f Relationship Between Producers Overall
Perception of Attributes of Selected Improved Cowpea
Preservation Technologies and Adoption.........................................................130
Table 7.12 Degree of Relationship Between Traders Overall
Perception of Attributes of Selected Improved Cowpea
Preservation Technologies and Adoption.........................................................130
Table 7.13 Summary of Ranking of Key Aspects of
Perceived Attributes and Adoption.................................................................131
Table 7.14 Ratings of Key Aspects Perceived Attributes Using
Spearmans Rank Order Correlation Co - Efficient and Adoption.................132
xiv
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Fig. 2.1 A Conceptual Model of Determinants of Adoption of
Innovations..........................................................................................................33
Fig. 4.1 Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Gender .........................................54
Fig. 4.2 Percentage Distribution of Respondents by A g e ...............................................55
Fig. 4.3 Educational Level of Cowpea Producers & T rad e rs ........................................56
Fig. 4.4 Distribution of Farmers by Farm S iz e ...............................................................58
Fig. 4.5 Distribution of Cowpea Producers by Crop Y ield............................................ 59
Fig. 4.6 Variety of Cowpea Grown & Sold by Respondents ....................................... 61
Fig. 4.7 Distribution of AEAs by G ender........................................................................63
Fig. 4.8 AEAs Working Experience in Current Location............................................... 64
Fig 5. 1 A Local Sieve ( Abgadza ' ) ............................................................................  71
Fig 5.2 A Local Keg ( 'Adjafi' ) .................................................................................... 79
Fig. 5.3 ICPTs Extended by AEAs in the Study A rea..................................................... 81
Fig. 5.4 Traditional Cowpea Preservation Technologies Recommended
by Certain AEAs in the Study A rea .................................................................. 82
Fig. 5.5 AEAs Source of Cowpea Preservation Messages .......................................... 83
Fig. 5.6 Methods of Extension Delivery Used by AEAs &
Frequency of Contact with Clientele................................................................ 84
Fig. 5.7 Method of Extension Delivery Producers
Indicated AEAs Used & their Frequency of Contact....................................... 86
Fig. 5.8 Method of Extension Delivery Traders
Indicated AEAs Used & their Frequency of Contact..................................... 87
Fig. 5.9 AEAs Constraints to Delivery of Cowpea Preservation M essages.................92
LIST OF FIGURES
xv
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Fig. 5.10 Reasons for Re-Introduction of Improved
Cowpea Preservation Technologies..................................................................97
Fig. 7.1 Awareness - Adoption Gap of Producers......................................................... 116
Fig. 7.2 Awareness - Adoption Gap of Traders............................................................. 116
xvi
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Map 1: A Map of Ghana Showing the Study A rea.........................................................40
Map 2: Akatsi District Map Showing Some Villages in the Study A rea ......................41
LIST OF MAPS
xvii
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
. 161
, 167
173
177
179
180
180
181
182
184
186
187
188
189
APPENDICES
Structured Interview Schedule for Cowpea Producers ...........
Structured Interview Schedule for Cowpea Traders . . . . . . . .
Agricultural Extension Agents Questionnaire.........................
Focus Group Discussion ........................................................
Perceptions of Specific Attributes of Selected
Improved Cowpea Preservation Technologies .......................
Perceptions of General Attributes of Selected
Improved Cowpea Preservation Technologies.........................
Overall Perception of Attributes of Selected Improved 
Cowpea Preservation Technologies ........................................
Personal Characteristics & Overall Perception of Attributes 
of Selected Improved Cowpea Preservation Technologies . . .
Personal Characteristics & Perceptions of General Attributes 
of Selected Improved Cowpea Preservation Technologies . .
Enterprise Characteristics & Perceptions of General Attributes 
of Selected Improved Cowpea Preservation Technologies
Extension Method Used & Perceptions of Overall Attributes 
of Selected Improved Cowpea Preservation Technologies
Extension Method Used & Perceptions of General Attributes '  
of Selected Improved Cowpea Preservation Technologies . . . .
Frequency of Contact & Perceptions of Overall Attributes 
of Selected Improved Cowpea Preservation Technologies
Frequency of Contact & Perceptions of General Attributes 
of Selected Improved Cowpea Preservation Technologies
xviii
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
APPENDIX 15A Relationship between Producers Perception of Overall Attributes of
Improved Cowpea Preservation Technologies and Adoption 190
APPENDIX 15B Relationship between Traders Perception of Overall Attributes of
Improved Cowpea preservation Technologies and Adoption 191
xix
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
PART ONE: 
BACKGROUND
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
CHAPTER ONE 
INTRODUCTION
1.0. Background Information
The current food crisis in Sub-Saharan Africa, which is a major cause of concern worldwide, is 
the result of the inability of most countries in the region to produce or purchase and stock enough 
food to satisfy demand owing to rapid population growth, urbanization, and rising incomes among 
some segments of the population (Okigbo, 1986).
The need to increase productivity in sub-Saharan Africa is urgent since basic population growth 
in this region is out-stripping increases in food production (Pickering 1989; Dapaah, 1994). While 
the rate of growth in food production is increasing by 1-2% per annum, the average rate of 
growth of the population is 2.5% per annum (FAO World Report, 1984). In Ghana, growth in 
agricultural productivity is 2.1% per annum while population growth rate is 2.6 - 3.2% per annum 
since 1985 (Korang - Amoako, Donkor, & Amoah, 1994).
The State of the Ghanaian Economy Report for 1996 indicated a prevailing underlying deficiency 
in food production and supply from year to year (ISSER, 1997). This indicates inadequate 
production of food and the need for measures to have adequate food for the population. New 
technologies are increasingly being viewed as the vehicle for increasing agricultural production 
(Sackey, 1975). Food production is therefore expected to increase as a result of the introduction 
and adoption of these new technologies.
1
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Whilst food production is inadequate, food security is worsened by food losses and deterioration 
which occur during storage, utilization and distribution of the albeit inadequate food. Most 
shortfalls in food supply to majority of people in developing countries have been attributed to 
post-harvest losses due to inappropriate drying and storage facilities. Post-harvest food loss in 
developing countries is estimated to be between 10-15% (Muhlbauer,1991). Post harvest losses 
of farm produce are known to be substantial in Ghana. Conservative estimates in Ghana have 
been put between 10-20% (Nicol, Darko, & Ofosu, 1997). This (post harvest loss) is a great 
problem in developing countries in spite of availability of modern technology.
An area of major concern to both farmers and extensionists therefore is the fairly high post harvest 
losses of grain legumes, notably Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata). The situation is even more crucial 
considering the importance particularly of grain legumes. Post harvest loss of cowpea is a 
specially serious loss because cowpea:
i. is important to the livelihood of millions of relatively poor people in less developed 
countries of the tropics. It is a relatively cheap source of protein especially for those who 
cannot afford meat regularly. In fact, it is a key staple food for the poorest sector of many 
developing countries (Rachie & Singh, 1985).
ii. provides variety in the diet of people when eaten in various forms and combinations with 
other foods (especially when used in the fortification of dishes).
iii. increases the nutritional status of the population - an increase in its production will help 
reduce the incidence of protein malnutrition.
iv. processing of cowpea also offers employment opportunities for people.
v. makes a significant contribution to the agricultural economy - that is, it serves as fodder 
for animals, replenishes soil fertility and provides ground cover to prevent soil erosion
( Rachie et. al., 1985; Hossain, 1990; Quinn, 1997).
2
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Cowpea is therefore an important crop for now and for the future thus making studies on it vital. 
Because of the importance of cowpea, making it more available will be beneficial especially to the 
poorest sector of developing countries. Availability of it will also help achieve greater food 
security.
Cowpea constitutes about 2% of the total world output of grain legumes (Kay, 1979). It is also 
one of the major food crops widely cultivated in Ghana (Hossain, 1990). It is grown in all parts 
of the country. Ghana produces over 57,000 tons of cowpea annually, but due to the very high 
level of pest damage and poor storage practices amongst others, only a small fraction of what is 
produced becomes available for human consumption (Rachie et. al., 1985). The financial and 
nutritional losses of cowpea to storage pests in sub - Saharan Africa is not well documented but 
is clearly high (Collinson, 1993; Amegatse, 1995). The nature and extent of this post harvest loss 
problem therefore requires careful examination.
It is necessary not only to arrest the progress of infestation in cowpea immediately after harvest, 
but to provide a means of protecting it up to the point of consumption (Rawnsley, 1969). Post­
harvest loss prevention is however a major but often neglected step towards offering greater 
volume of food on the African continent (Proctor, Goodliffe, & Coursey, 1979). Post-harvest 
loss prevention is advantageous in that it:
i. acts as an incentive to increase crop production.
ii. results in production of better quality food for the family (better nutrition).
iii. leads to less waste and reduction in food losses.
iv. results in more reliable food supply throughout the year.
v. brings about increased income from the sale of increased quantity and better quality
crops.
3
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
vi. is also an important step for developing rural areas.
The need for efficient, effective, safe, and economical methods of reducing post harvest losses 
(especially in Ghana) has therefore become very imperative considering the population growth 
rate of 2.6% per annum (Appiah, 1997). There are several ways of addressing this post harvest 
loss problem. Some measures include, increasing production, processing and preservation of 
food, without changes in primary production levels. The adoption of improved preservation 
technologies will go a long way to address this problem.
Preservation of farm produce can be effected at various levels: household level, farm level, and 
commercial level (including preservation by sellers). What happens at one level, however affects 
all other levels. In a country where a large proportion of the population is rural (that is about 
75% of the population in Ghana), it is essential that prevention of post harvest losses be effected 
at farm level and eventually at the commercial level (Rawnsley, 1969). Improved farm storage 
is important because a large portion of food production is consumed locally in the producing 
communities. It also enhances income of producers through adequate prices and ensures 
household food availability during the lean season. The prevention of waste at this level would 
make more good quality food available for sale than would otherwise be the case.
Many governments of developing countries have identified the food supply of their people as a 
major problem area and consequently are allocating considerable resources to the Agricultural 
sector. The greater part of their resources has been concentrated on increasing agricultural 
production and decreasing food losses to make more food available (Bani, 1991). There is little 
question therefore that changes must be made in production and methods of decreasing food 
losses (including preservation methods) in Ghana to make more food available.
4
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Ghana's Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA) recognized the magnitude of the post harvest 
loss and its adverse effect on the country’s economy as well as on the standard of living of the 
people especially small -scale farmers. Thus the Post-Harvest Development Unit (PHDU) was 
instituted w ith in  the Department of Crop Service of the Ministry of food and Agriculture (MoFA) 
in 1986. Its mandate is to help reduce post-harvest losses through development and dissemination 
of information on improved methods of storage and preservation. This it is hoped, would 
augment the available food supply and enable a more even distribution of food supplies over time, 
space and social groups.
1.1. Statement of the Problem
In Ghana, an important cowpea growing area is the Akatsi District of the Volta Region. 
Anecdotal evidence in the district indicates that cowpea producers have problems with cowpea 
during storage. Most of the cowpea sold in the Akatsi market have bruchid emergence holes. 
In most cases such holes are due to infestation of cowpea by the cowpea beetle, Callosobruchus 
maculatuswalp (known erroneously as the 'cowpea weevil'). These have an effect on food quality 
and nutrient availability in cowpea.
It is also observed that farmers often sell their cowpea at harvest when prices are lowest in the 
year, partly because they anticipate storage losses. This way farmers income from cowpea 
production is reduced. Being aware of the storage problem, it is expected that cowpea producers 
and distributors would be interested in better techniques for preserving their grain after harvest.
MoFA in Ghana has identified and disseminated improved cowpea preservation technologies 
(ICPTs) involving the use of chemicals, to farmers and other households in cowpea producing
5
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
areas such as the Akatsi District, to reduce post harvest losses. They include, the use of Actellic 
dust (1.6% Pirimiphos - methyl; 0.3% Permethrin), Actellic 25EC liquid (25% Pirimorphos - 
methyl), Edible oil and Phostoxin (56% Aluminium phosphide). Numerous traditional 
preservation technologies are also available including the use of neem products, wood ash, 
pepper, quicklime and sea sand.
With the availability of these preservation technologies, it should be expected that post harvest 
loss of cowpea would be brought under control if these technologies are used by cowpea 
producers and traders. Monthly reports of extension agents in the District however indicated that 
there are problems mainly with weevil infestation of stored cowpea in the district. It was also 
indicated in their reports that the chemical control of insect pests is not being widely practiced. 
Cowpea farmers may have recognized the usefulness of these technologies but certain factors may 
account for their non-utilization and this is a matter that needs to be investigated. Currently, there 
is a dearth of studies on the level of adoption of improved cowpea preservation technologies and 
its determinants.
Further, little is known in terms of factors that influence the adoption o f ICPT’s and thus 
incorporation of these cowpea preservation technologies into the farming system in the Akatsi 
District. This suggests a need to determine the exact levels of adoption, and factors responsible 
for adoption and non-adoption of the ICPTs.
An examination of literature on causes of low adoption of innovations suggests that personal 
characteristics of respondents, target clientele's perceptions of such technologies and the extension 
agents effort in dissemination of these technologies, are important factors likely to affect adoption
6
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
of ICPTs (Swanson et. al., 1984; Faye, 1991; Perse & Courtright, 1993; Rogers, 1995; Agarwal 
& Prasad, 1995; Reagan, Pinkleton, Chen, & Aaronson, 1995). This study therefore examined, 
the extent to which these factors are important determinants of adoption patterns of cowpea 
producers and traders in the Akatsi District, Ghana.
1.2. Research Question
The main research question addressed by the study is:
How do cowpea farmers and traders personal characteristics and perceptions of characteristics 
of ICPTs, determine the pattern of utilization of these technologies and to what extent does the 
mode and efforts of extension delivery influence these perceptions?
1.3 Objectives
1.3.1. Main Objective
The main objective is to determine the extent to which the rate of adoption of ICPTs in the Akatsi 
District of the Volta Region is related to cowpea farmers and traders perceptions of the 
characteristics of the technologies and the mode and effort of their dissemination to cowpea 
farmers and traders (by Agricultural Extension Agents).
1.3.2. Specific Objectives
The specific objective of the study are to:
i. identify various cowpea preservation technologies in the study area,
ii describe and analyse the extension delivery efforts in disseminating ICPT messages in the
Akatsi District by the public Agricultural Extension Agents,
iii. describe and analyse some important personal characteristics of cowpea producers and
traders and Agricultural Extension Agents (AEAs).
7
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
iv determine cowpea producers and traders perceptions of characteristics of selected ICPTs.
v. find out the adoption levels of ICPTs in the district.
vii. determine the relationship between perceptions of characteristics of ICPTs, mode and
effort of dissemination of ICPT messages, personal and enterprise characteristics and the 
adoption levels of ICPTs.
1.4. Significance of the Study
The study would provide insights into factors that inhibit the adoption of innovations (including 
ICPTs). This would contribute to increasing knowledge on how to enhance the adoption of 
recommended ICPTs. This would be achieved by incorporating considerations of perceptions in 
the technology development and dissemination stages of development of the cowpea commodity 
sector. Insights into the effect perceptions have on adoption decisions could assist those 
responsible for implementing new information technology.
Examination of extension delivery efforts would also alert extension agents to the possibilities that 
some categories of stakeholders in the cowpea sector may require more intensive extension 
efforts. An understanding of the relative importance of alternate communication channels in 
influencing perceptions would help extension agents make better informed and more effective 
resource allocation decisions with regards to their choice of extension methods.
The rest of the thesis is structured in the following way. A review of literature on adoption of 
innovations as well as its determinants are discussed in Chapter Two. Chapter Three describes 
the methodology of the study. These have been presented as Part One of the thesis. Data
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
analysis, results and discussions are presented in Chapters Four, Five, Six, and Seven respectively. 
These have been presented as Part Two of the thesis. The summary, conclusion and 
recommendations are presented in Chapter Eight and this is Part Three of the thesis.
9
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
CHAPTER TWO 
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0. Introduction:
Several theoretical and empirical approaches to characterize factors influencing adoption exist in 
literature (Feder, Just, & Zilberman, 1985; Feder & Umali, 1993). Most of these studies focus 
on socioeconomic characteristics as key determinants of technology adoption decisions (Voh, 
1982; Lee & Stewart, 1983; Osuntogun, Adeyemo & Anyanwu, 1986; Norris & Batie, 1987; 
Poison & Spencer, 1991; Baidu - Forson, 1999). Other studies indicate the influence of personal 
characteristics and communication on adoption behavior ( Fliegel, 1984; Faye, 1991; Perse & 
Courtright, 1993; Reagan, Pinkleton, Chen, & Aaronson, 1995;). Certain studies also indicate 
the effect of extension delivery on adoption ( Rahm & Huffman, 1984; Swanson el. al., 1984, 
Rogers, 1995; Agarwal & Prasad, 1995)
While such factors are important, the majority of studies ignored subjective assessments of 
characteristics or attributes specific to the technology themselves and their effect on adoption 
behavior (Adesinah & Zinnah, 1993). Adesinah & Zinnah (1993) showed that fanners perceptions 
of characteristics of agricultural technologies strongly influence farmers adoption behavior. This 
“adopter perception” paradigm or model suggest perceived attributes of innovations condition 
adoption behavior (Kivlin & Fliegel, 1966b; Adesinah & Zinnah, 1993 ; Adesinah & Baidu - 
Forson, 1995).
The limited number of empirical studies on the subject (using the ‘adopter - perception paradigm’) 
as it concerns agricultural technology adoption justifies further investigation to assess its general
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
applicability for adoption studies especially in developing countries agricultural settings. Thus 
necessitating a further study into how perceptions influence the adoption of ICPTs in the study 
area. This chapter gives a review of literature on the determinants of adoption of innovative 
technologies. The determinants include: perceptions of characteristics of technologies, extension 
delivery efforts and the personal characteristics of respondents.
2.1. Adoption of Innovations
“Innovation” is a term defined in several ways. It is a new idea, method , practice or technique, 
perceived as new by an individual which provides the means of achieving sustained increases in 
farm productivity and income (Adams, 1982). The idea may not be a new one altogether but if 
it has not been accepted by an individual, to that person, it is an innovation ( Adams, 1982; 
Rogers, 1995; Melkote, 1997). It is therefore the newness of the idea to the individual that 
determines his reaction to it.
Adoption on the other hand is a decision to make full use of an innovation as the best course of 
action available (Lionberger, 1968; Rogers & Burdge, 1972, Rogers, 1995). It is also defined as 
the process through which the individual arrives at a decision to adopt or reject an innovation 
from the time they become aware of it (Melkote, 1997). ■ It is not a simple unit act, but rather a 
complex pattern of mental activities combined with actions taken before an individual fully accepts 
or adopts a new idea (Bohlen, 1966). After an innovation has been introduced, the individual 
does not accept it immediately but needs time to think things over before making a decision . This 
mental process an individual hypothetically passes through from first hearing about an innovation 
to forming an attitude towards the innovation, is referred to as the “adoption process” or the 
“innovative - decision process” (Rogers, 1995). The individual either decides to reject or adopt 
an innovation or confirm his adoption decision.
11
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
2.1.1. How Adoption Takes Place
There are several views about what the process of adoption entails. Now there is a relatively wide 
acceptance of the proposition that people go through a minimum of five stages while adopting 
innovations (Wilkening, 1952; Bohlen, 1966; Maunders, 1972; Van den Ban & Hawkins, 1985; 
Kwon & Zmud, 1987; Rogers, 1995; Melkote, 1997). The stages of the adoption process are;
i. Awareness - This is the stage at which the individual recipient is exposed to the idea but
lacks complete information about it (Melkote, 1997). Awareness of the 
innovation compels potential adopters to seek further information.
ii. Information — This is the stage at which the individual seeks further general information
regarding the innovation, apparently because there is more interest 
*
regarding the innovation (Kwon & Zmud, 1987; Melkote, 1997). 
Information is sought on why and how the innovation works, how much 
it costs, how it compares with other ideas purported to perform the same 
way among others.
iii. Evaluation - The individual mentally weighs the advantages and disadvantages of using
the innovation in his own circumstances or in the light of the existing 
conditions into which the practice would have to fit. He considers his 
resources and management ability and decides whether he has the 
necessary resources to adopt the idea. If he feels it will maximize his goals 
and objectives, he makes the decision to give the idea a try (Wilkening, 
1952; Melkote, 1997).
iv. Trial - At this stage, the innovator tests the innovation on a small scale in his own
situation (Lionberger, 1968; Melkote, 1997).
12
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
v. Adoption - This is the stage at which the individual decides the new idea, product or 
practice is good enough for continued use on a fall scale basis in his 
operation.
It has been observed that though these steps or stages are clearly defined, they are not necessarily 
a rigid pattern or exclusive category with no overlap, but there may be overlaps thus one cannot 
identify the beginning of one stage from the other (Maunders, 1972; Van den Ban & Hawkins, 
1985). In other words, they do not represent discrete or distinctly separate stages in the individual 
adoption process. What the stages do is however a useful way of describing a relatively 
continuous sequence of action, events and influences that intervene between initial knowledge 
about an idea, product, or practice and the actual adoption of it (Lionberger, 1968). The results 
of the adoption process is as follows:
i. Adoption This can be classified into two: full adoption and partial adoptioa
a. Full Adoption This is the full use o f an innovation as the best course of action
available (Rogers, 1995) or 100% utilization of an innovation by 
an individual.
b. Partial Adoption This is the use of certain aspects of an innovation or less than
100% utilization of an innovation by an individual.
ii. Rejection This is a decision not to adopt an innovation (Rogers, 1995). This may
occur at any stage in the adoption process,
a. Discontinuance This is a decision to stop using an innovation after previously 
adopting it. It can occur only after the adoption process is 
completed. It may also occur when an individual becomes 
dissatisfied with an innovation or because the innovation is 
replaced with an improved idea. (For instance replacing traditional 
cowpea preservation technologies with improved cowpea 
preservation technologies).
13
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
b. Continued Adoption This is a decision to adopt an innovation after previous
rejection.
It is noteworthy that rejection or adoption of an idea may be temporary. An innovation could be 
adopted after previous rejection or rejected after previous adoption (Rogers, 1995).
2.1.2. Benefits of Adoption
People adopt innovations for various reasons. These include psychological, sociological, and 
economic reasons. Psychologically, adoption of an innovation results in the individual gaining 
new experience, recognition, better life for their children and greater efficiency. It also enables 
individuals meet emergency needs (Maunders, 1972). Sociologically, adoption results in higher 
social status, greater prestige, sociability and role expectancy. Economically, adoption results in 
higher incomes for farmers, lower real prices of agricultural products for consumers and greater 
economic efficiency (Akinwumi, Adesinah, & Baidu - Forson, 1995). This increase in income 
would enable individuals educate their children, have more consumer goods (that is more comfort 
and prestige). Economically, it results in better homes, higher levels of living, more earning 
power, better occupational efficiency (Maunders, 1972).
Adoption of innovations also results in the satisfaction of learning. A set of skills when learned, 
would help motivate adults to tackle more difficult skills (Maunders, 1972). Adoption of 
innovations is also one of the most important means of accelerating material development in 
economies with large agricultural sectors. This is why the adoption of technological innovations 
in agriculture has attracted considerable attention among development scholars and practitioners. 
The benefits indicated are likely to motivate individuals to adopt innovations including ICPTs.
14
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
2.2. Perceptions and Adoption
Perception as defined by Berelson & Steiner (1964), is what must be added to and subtracted 
from input to produce our picture of an output or the more complex process by which people 
select, organize and interpret sensory stimulation into a meaningful and coherent picture of the 
world.
Crider, Goethals, Kavanaugh & Scott (1989) also defined perceptions as a closely related process 
by which the brain selects, organizes and interprets information about the environment, brought 
by the senses. Perceptions could also be said to be a process of creating meaningful patterns from 
raw sensory information (Morris, 1985). Wortman, Loftus & Marshall (1988), however defined 
perceptions as the process whereby the brain gives order and meaning to the sensation it receives. 
It was simply defined by Yussen & Santrock (1983), as the interpretation of what is sensed 
through taste, touch, sight, hearing, smell and the message it brings. The primary function of 
perceptions is to help individuals make sense of information received. It also allows us impose 
a logic and order on the chaos of the millions of stimuli that bombard our senses (Crider, 1989).
Perceptions influence farmers adoption behavior and need to be taken into account in adoption 
studies (Adesinah & Zinnah, 1993). Since there are varying definitions o f perceptions, for the 
purpose o f this study, the operational definition of perceptions of characteristics of ICPTs is a 
complex process by which individuals or people select, organize and interpret what is sensed in 
the environment into a meaningful and coherent picture about the characteristics of ICPTs.
2.2.1 . Perception of Characteristics of Innovations
Extensive work in innovation - adoption has highlighted the key role of perceptions in adoption 
ofinnovations (Swanson et.al., 1984; Rogers, 1995; Agarwal & Prasad, 1998). Rogers (1995),
15
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
indicated that the characteristics of an innovation, has a great influence on the adoption of 
innovations. He indicated that it is the characteristics of the innovation not as seen by experts but 
as perceived by the potential users, that really matters and these specific characteristics of the 
technology continue to be an important factor affecting adoption behavior. A decision to adopt 
is predicated upon the technical characteristics of the innovation: Relative Advantage, 
Compatibility, Complexity, Trialability, and Observability. These five characteristics are 
somewhat interrelated but are conceptually distinct (Rogers, 1995). The crucial role played by 
such perceived characteristics in driving the adoption decision has been recognized in a variety 
of research (Davis, 1989; Moore&Benbasat, 1991; Saga & Zmud, 1994; Rogers, 1995; Melkote, 
1997; Agarwal & Prasad, 1998) including the study of the adoption of cowpea preservation 
technologies in the Akatsi district.
Relative Advantage
Relative advantage captures the extent to which the potential adopter views the innovation as 
offering an advantage over previous ways of performing the same task (Akinwumi, Adesina & 
Seidi 1995; Agarwal & Prasad, 1998). It is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as 
better than the idea it supersedes (Rogers 1995; Melkote, 1997). The individual critically assess 
the characteristics of the technology against those of existing local technologies and only adopt 
the former if they are judged superior to the latter for some critical attributes. Relative advantage 
is expressed in terms of its cheapness, it being time, labor and money saving or the financial 
advantage of applying an innovation. It should provide income and there should be no marketing 
problems.
Recent empirical studies in the information technology domain support the importance of relative 
advantage in predicting adoption behavior (Davis 1989; Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1989; Moore
16
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
& Benbasat, 1991; Adams, Nelson & Todd, 1992; Keil, Beranek & Konsynski, 1995) It is often 
expressed in terms of its economic profitability. A number of studies have been made to measure 
the importance of profitability of a practice as it affects the rate at which the practice is adopted. 
(Fliegel, Frederick & Kivlin, 1962; Grilliches, 1957, Havens & Rogers, 1961). Those practices 
that are perceived to have a high marginal return, tend to be adopted more rapidly than practices 
which have low marginal returns. It is worth mentioning however that the nature of the 
innovation may determine what specific type of relative advantage (eg. economic, or social) is 
important to adopters (Wilkening & Johnson, 1961). For instance the major advantage of two 
4 - D weed sprays over previous methods of farm weed control was a reduction in unpleasant 
labor requirements rather than a direct financial gain from higher crop yields (Rogers, 1962). 
Sutherland (1959) also showed that a cotton spinning innovation was adopted more quickly by 
English firms because of the labor shortage in World War II. Betrand (1951) found that the crisis 
of unionized farm laborers and war time labor shortages aided the rate of adoption of farm 
mechanization in Louisiana.
It is worth mentioning however that, it matters little if the innovation has a great degree of 
advantage over the idea it is replacing. What matters is whether the individual perceives the 
relative advantage of the innovation at all.
Compatibility
Compatibility was proposed as a characteristic of an innovation and a good predictor of adoption 
Moore & Benbasat, 1991; Rogers, 1995; Melkote, 1997). It is the degree to which an innovation 
is perceived as being consistent with the existing values, needs, and past experiences of potential 
adopters (Rogers, 1995; Melkote, 1997). The taste, texture and color of the final products must
17
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
be in line with existing ones. The innovation should not disrupt prevailing social, cultural and 
religious life but blend with it. The more compatible a practice is with the existing farming 
operations, the more likely it will be to be adopted quickly (Lionberger, 1968), The more change 
required however in the existing operation, the more slowly it will be adopted (Lionberger, 1968).
Several investigations show compatibility affects the rate of adoption. Santopolo (1961) for 
instance reported the difficulty encountered by Kentucky County Agents in convincing farmers 
to switch from tobacco - growing to pickle - raising. Even though the latter crop was more 
profitable, it was not adopted because cucumbers were perceived by’ farmers as a feminine type 
of enterprise. On the other hand, raising tobacco, which was less profitable, was prestigious so 
more people adopted that innovation. Parish (1954) also found that Australian farmers adopted 
mechanical innovations more rapidly than non - mechanical innovations because the former was 
more compatible with their needs. Prundeanu & Zwerman (1958) and Lionberger (1960) found 
that soil conservation practices that were mainly production increasing and required a minimum 
of maintenance (eg. tilling) were adopted more quickly by New York farmers than such 
conservation practices as terracing and contouring. Farmers values tend to be more compatible 
with mechanical innovations and with those that increase production.
Complexity
Complexity, recurs in several studies as a significant determinant of adoption behavior (Davis, 
Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1989). Complexity is similar in definition to Agarwal & Prasads' (1998) 
notion of'ease of use' and encapsulates the degree to which a potential adopter views usage of 
the target technology to be relatively free of effort (Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1989). Simply 
it is defined as the degree to which an innovation is understood and can be used by farmers.
18
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Melkote (1997) defines it as the degree to which an innovation was relatively difficult to 
understand and use. Innovations that are perceived to be easier to use , simpler to understand and 
less complex have a higher likelihood of being accepted and used by potential users than 
innovations that require adopters to develop new skills and understanding (Lionberger, 1968; 
Rogers, 1995; Agarwal & Prasad, 1998).
Studies by Kivlin (1960), suggests that the complexity of farm innovations was highly related (in 
a negative direction) to their rate of adoption than any other characteristics o f an innovation 
except its relative advantage. Graham (1956) sought to determine why Canasta and television 
diffused at different rates in the upper and lower classes. He concluded that one reason was the 
difference in complexity of the two ideas. Canasta had to be learned through detailed personal 
explanation from other card players. Its procedures were complex and difficult to master. 
Television however appeared to be a relatively simple idea that required only the ability to turn 
a knob.
Trialability
Technologies must lend themselves to be tried on a limited basis. Trialabilty is the degree to 
which an innovation could be tried on a limited basis (Rogers, 1995; Melkote, 1997). .This factor 
is apparently most important for the majority of fanners who wish to try practices on a small-scale 
basis in their own situation, before adopting it on a large scale (Bohlen, 1966). I f  farmers try out 
without committing too much money, they may adopt the innovation quickly (Adams, 1982). 
Traits or practices that are readily communicated by conventional methods are more likely to be 
adopted than those that are not (Lionberger, 1968). Costly and complex practices that can be 
taken a little at a time, are also likely to be adopted more quickly than in situations where this is 
not possible.
19
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Ryan & Gross (1943) found that every one of their Iowa farmer respondents adopted hybrid seed 
com by first trying it on a partial basis. If the new seed could not be sampled experimentally, its 
rate of adoption was much slower. Another evidence suggests that the killing effect of a new 
insecticide could be easily understood and convincingly demonstrated (Rogers, 1962) thus 
resulting in its adoption. An example is also an Ohio farmer who tried a new feed on his entire 
dairy herd for one week. He then compared milk production with that of previous weeks and 
after realizing the benefits, adopted the technology (Rogers, 1962). Nevertheless some 
innovations are more difficult than others to divide or try and their trialability is likely to influence 
the adoption of ICPTs.
Observability
This is the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others. The easier it is to 
see the advantages of an innovation, the more likely he is to adopt it (Melkote, 1997). One 
illustration of this generalization is the case of pre - emergent weed killers that are sprayed on a 
field before the weeds emerge from the soil. The rate of adoption of this idea has been slow by 
Midwestern farmers, in spite of its relative advantage because there are no dead weeds the farmer 
can show his neighbor (Rogers, 1962).
Hruschka (1961) rated, farm innovations into four categories of observability in an investigation 
of the role of demonstration farmers in diffusing new ideas in German villages. The ideas which 
were rated as more communicable for instance haymaking techniques, diffused more readily from 
the demonstration farmers to surrounding villagers than less communicable techniques like 
keeping of farm records. Erasmus (1961) also showed the visibility of innovations is particularly 
important in affecting its rate of adoption in less developed preliterate society. In 1951 for
20
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
example the point four program in Bolivia introduced Cuban Yellow Corn in one town and within 
two years the local demand for the seed far exceeded the supply. The farmers were mostly literate 
but were convinced to adopt by spectacular results of the new seed which often tripled com yield. 
The results were so highly visible and widely discussed that more scientific comparison of the new 
idea was not necessary to convince the local villagers to adopt (Rogers, 1962).
The results of the use of a practice (observability) affect its adoption in varying degrees. Those 
people who have a low ability to mentally handle abstract ideas for instance tend to be more 
reluctant to adopt practices that do not produce highly visible outcomes when used whiles those 
with high ability to mentally handle abstract ideas tend to adopt practices once the outcome is 
highly visible (Bohlen 1966).
All five perceptions are relative concepts and not innate attributes of the innovation, and can be 
perceived differently by different individuals. People’s perceptions may affect their adoption far 
more than the technical characteristics of innovations. Innovations that are perceived by 
individuals as having greater relative advantage, compatibility, trialability, observability and less 
complexity will be adopted more rapidly than other innovations (Rogers, 1995). Past research 
indicates these five qualities are the most important characteristics of innovation in explaining the 
rate of adoption (Rogers, 1995). Perceptions are influenced by our personal characteristics, 
extension delivery, values, beliefs, attitudes, and objective assessment of the characteristics of 
innovations (Adams, 1982). They play a different role in adoption for different individuals 
(Agarwal & Prasad, 1998). Although several perceptions have been proposed and to a limited 
extent shown to be predictors of adoption behavior, only three have consistently emerged salient 
(Agarwal & Prasad, 1998). These are the perceptions of the relative advantage, compatibility and 
complexity of the innovations.
21
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
2.2.2. How Perceptions are Established
Numerous factors lead individuals to organize perceptions in an orderly manner. Perceptions are 
established through exposure, experience and learning. The empiricist view holds that the 
perceptual process is largely a matter of learning. Learning is the demonstration of a relatively 
permanent change in behavior that occurs as a result of practice or experience (Gerow, 1995). 
An example of the empiricist view is the claim that babies enter the world with little or no ability 
to perceive things in the environment and gradually, they learn to infer adult like perceptions on 
the basis of the cues the environment provides. Learning is therefore an explanation of the reason 
why people perceive things as they do. Others are of the view that it is partly a result of what we 
are exposed to and our experiences (Wortman et. al., 1988).
Klapper (1960), suggested people exposed themselves to messages selectively. There was a 
tendency for individuals to expose themselves relatively more to those items of communication 
that were consonant with their beliefs, ideas, values among others (Melkote, 1997). The exposure 
in effect helped them in the establishment of their perceptions of things in the environment. The 
early experience of individuals also affects the way one perceives the world (Crider, 1989).
In agricultural extension, learning experiences are made available to clientele by AEAs. They 
expose their clientele to information on innovations through the use of extension teaching 
methods and frequent contact with clientele. These learning experiences and contact help 
influence the way farmers and traders perceive the attributes of innovations they are exposed to.
22
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Perceptions and Adoption
The importance of attribute perceptions has long been of interest to social scientists investigating 
agricultural technology adoption decisions ( Akinwumi et. al., 1995). As indicated earlier, the 
decision to adopt is predicated upon five key perceptions of the characteristics of innovations: 
relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability (Rogers, 1995). 
Indeed various authors have argued using qualitative methods, that fanners' subjective assessment 
of agricultural technologies influence adoption behavior ( Kivlin & Fliegel, 1966; Nowak, 1992)
Economist investigating consumer demand have accumulated considerable evidence showing that 
consumers generally have subjective preferences for characteristics of products and that their 
demand for products is significantly affected by their perceptions of the products’ attributes 
(Jones, 1989; Lin & Milon, 1993). For example, using a double - hurdle model, Lin & Milon 
(1993) found that commodity attributes and consumers’ safety perceptions were significant in 
explaining decisions to consume and the frequency of consumption of shellfish in the USA. 
Similarly, Jones (1989) found using Cragg's double - hurdle framework, that consumers' 
subjective perceptions influenced cigarette smoking decisions. In their recent study, Adesina & 
Zinnah (1993a) found that farmers perceptions of the characteristics o f modem rice varieties 
significantly affected adoption decisions in Sierra - Leone.
Although extensive reviews of adoption studies show a relationship between perceptions and 
adoption, the paucity of empirical studies on this issue as it concerns agricultural technology 
adoption, justifies further investigation especially in developing countries agricultural settings 
(Adesinah & Zinnah, 1993). Thus necessitating a further study on the extent to which the rate 
of adoption of ICPTs is related to the perception of the characteristics of ICPTs in the Akatsi 
District.
23
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
2.3. Extension Delivery
The adoption of an innovation is an activity entailing extensive communication and requires the 
use o f extension channels (Zmud, 1983). These extension methods are required to awaken a 
desire for change and to give the clientele self confidence to embark on what they may see as a 
dangerous or relevant undertaking (Adams, 1982). Individuals are posited to use these channels 
for uncertainty reduction and information gathering, which are critical to facilitating innovation 
- adoption (Rogers, 1983). AEA’s use these channels to create learning experiences through 
which their clientele develop perceptions which ultimately lead to adoption or non - adoption of 
innovations.
2.3.1. Extension Delivery and Adoption
Educational techniques or methods exist from which extension agents choose to set up learning 
conditions so as to influence the target groups to acquire skills and to transfer information. These 
methods are classified into three main categories and these are the individual, group and mass 
methods(Maunders, 1972; Adams 1982; Van den Ban & Hawkins 1985; Kwarteng & Zinnah 
1995; Rogers, 1995 ). Rogers (1995), who explicitly addresses the role of communication 
channels in innovation adoption, distinguishes between two broad channel types. These are the 
mass media channel and the interpersonal channel. These communication channels are responsible 
for dissemination of two kinds of information about an innovation: general knowledge about the 
innovation (mass media channel), as well as specific knowledge that is personalized for individuals 
(interpersonal channel). The mass media channels enable large amounts of information to reach 
a wide audience (for example, the mass extension method). It is also relatively effective in 
creating awareness about the overall worth of the innovation in general and fostering pro - 
innovation attitudes (Rogers, 1995). Awareness does not connote simply acknowledging the
24
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
existence of an innovation but reflects a generally favorable attitude toward the innovation. The 
mass media channel is however too general to provide the specific kinds of reinforcement that an 
individual needs to confirm his or her beliefs about the innovation.
The individual and group methods are examples of interpersonal channels. It involves customized 
communication and is focused on the expected personal outcomes of adopting the innovation. 
Interpersonal channels help provide specific reinforcement that individuals need to confirm their 
belief about an innovation, and consequently, can be more valuable in developing individual 
perceptions about innovations ( Rogers, 1995; Agarwal & Prasad, 1998).
Several studies have shown the significant effect of extension delivery on adoption (Jamison & 
Lau, 1982; Feder & Slade, 1984; Jamison &Moock, 1984; Rahm &Huffinan, 1984). Farmers 
are known to gain from access to improved information provided through extension (Birkhaeuser 
et. al., 1991). Extension delivery makes a substantial contribution to motivating adoption or 
intensity of use of technologies (Akinwumi et. al., 1995). It is visualized as the important link 
through which exogenous ideas enter the local communities (Melkote, 1997). It also 
accomplishes many things including creating a necessary condition for bringing about most desired 
changes in individuals; and providing information, motivating and persuading clientele of the need 
for, and usefulness of a technology (Fliegel 1984; Adhikanya et al. 1987).
Comparative analysis of studies ( Adesina & Zinnah, 1993a; Rogers, 1995) show some important 
patterns in the role of extension and farmer contact variables in influencing farmers adoption 
decisions. It was realized that extension had very little to do with technology diffusion: this 
occurred mainly through farmers self - experimentation, evaluation, exchange and transfer. In the
25
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
case of sorghum in Burkina Faso (Adesina, Baidu - Forson, 1995), extensive on - farm testing of 
varieties in a number of test - villages appears to have affected adoption decisions. Tins suggests 
that extension workers do not influence technology transfer in all cases. Farmers are also 
important as sources of technology information and agents of technology transfer. When farmers 
assess the characteristics of new technologies and find them to match their preferences, they often 
give the technologies to other farmers to test and evaluate thereby setting into motion an 
endogenous process of technology diffusion (Adesina & Baidu - Forson, 1995).
As is evident from substantial quantity of work in this , area, persuading individuals to adopt 
technological innovations is a matter of considerable importance for organizations (Agarwal & 
Prasad, 1998) including MoFA. Individuals are persuaded by AEAs to try out new practices or 
innovations. They create learning experiences using different extension methods or 
communication channels and frequent contact. Extension delivery therefore plays a central role 
in adoption of innovations. Effective extension delivery programs must thus be used to 
disseminate relevant information including information on the use of ICPTs, to the selected target 
audience and to convince them of the benefits of adopting. Initiating the chain of events leading 
to adoption of improved practices is therefore a principal challenge for extension agencies. Thus 
justifying further investigation into its effect on adoption of ICPTs.
2.3.2. Extension Delivery and Perception of Characteristics of Innovations 
Although the role of communication channels in innovation adoption has been recognized by prior 
research (Zmud, 1983; Nilakanta & Scamell, 1990), there is a dearth o f knowledge on the effect 
of communication channels on perceptions (Agarwal & Prasad, 1998). Zmud (1983) examined 
the effects of many different varieties of external information channels in facilitating the adoption 
of modem software practices among systems professionals, however, his study did not look at the
26
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
effects of these channels on the development of perceptions. The study by Nilakanta and Scamell 
(1990) of database development practices was similar in that it did not include a consideration of 
perceptions. Although these two studies did examine the effects of both communication sources 
as well as channels on adoption decisions, the distinction they drew between channels and sources 
was not clear and it did not study the effect of perceptions on adoption behavior (Agarwal & 
Prasad, 1998).
Since perceptions are established through learning (Gerow, 1995), the communication channel 
or method of extension delivery used in exposing individuals to learning experiences determines 
how people perceive the attributes of the innovation and subsequently their adoption of these 
innovations. In addition to this, the frequency of contact with their clientele would also influence 
adoption of innovations. It is reasonable therefore to assume that any messages or information 
transmitted about an innovation would be focused on emphasizing such positive value; and hence, 
depending on the channel, would serve to heighten and sharpen either positive awareness or 
positive perceptions about innovations.
In addition to examining the effect of communication channels on adoption decisions therefore, 
the study hopes to examine the effect of these channels on the perceptions of attributes of ICPTs 
(something extensive studies on communication channels and perceptions has not investigated).
2.4. Personal / Individual Characteristics & Adoption
The major actor in the agricultural production drama is of course, the individual farmer. Male or 
female, young, or old, more or less educated, each farmer is ultimately a unique individual with 
a host of characteristics that may affect how information is received, processed and either used 
or not used in the production process (Fliegel, 1984). Adoption is not necessarily the same across
27
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
all users, but may vary based on the characteristics of the users (Perse & Courtright 1993, 
Reagan, Pinkleton, Chen & Aaronson 1995). In communication adoption studies, it is usual to 
investigate personal characteristics of respondents in order to understand its relative influence on 
adoption behavior (Faye, 1991). This helps explain why some people adopt new ideas and 
practices more quickly than others. The following personal characteristics were examined: Age, 
Educating Sex, Working experience because they would help us to an extent to understand the 
adoption behavior of respondents.
Age:
The age o f farmers has been found to have indeterminate effects in various adoption studies 
(Feder & Slade, 1985). Younger fanners have been reported as having greater likelihood of 
adopting new technologies due to their longer planning horizon ( Bultena & Hoiberg, 1983; Feder 
& Slade, 1985) than older farmers. However, it may also be that with age, farmers accumulate 
more personal capital and, thus show a greater likelihood of investing in innovations. With 
younger farmers on the other hand, they may desire to make changes in farming but are not 
always in a position to do so because of capital restrictions or because final decisions may rest 
with money lenders or with the person who owns the farm (Lionberger 1968).
Older farmers may be elders in the village and may have preferential access to new information 
or technologies through extension services or development projects that work in the villages. 
Onu, (1991), however found out that farm information sources use decrease with increased age 
of farmers. This implies young fanners are more alert to attaining information from sources that 
discuss more ways of improving their vocation than older farmers.
28
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Older fanners may have more skills in assessing innovations ( Akinwumi, Adesina & Seidi 1995) 
but are somehow less inclined to adopt new farm practices than younger ones because they are 
less receptive to change (Copp, Sill, & Brown, 1958; Lionberger, 1968), Although evidence 
indicates older fanners are less receptive to change than younger ones, failure to adopt new 
practices does not necessarily mean that they are not receptive to change but issues like health, 
declining energies and pending retirement may dictate their actions not being in accord with 
maximization of income and profit (Lionberger, 1949).
The foregoing shows evidence of the inconsistent relationship between age and innovativeness. 
Among several studies reviewed: half show no relationship between age and innovativeness; 19% 
support the hypothesis of younger people favoring adoption and 33% support hypothesis of older 
people favoring adoption of innovations (Rogers, 1983). Baidu - Forson's (1999) study for 
instance revealed that age had no significant effect on the adoption of'tassa' and earthen mounds 
shaped in the form of half crescent which have been improved with the concentration of biological 
and chemical inputs. The result was indicated to be contrary to the observed negative influence 
of age on adoption of biological and chemical inputs because of the conservative outlook of older 
farmers (Cotlear, 1986). This contrary observation confirms the inconsistency of evidence about 
the relationship between age and innovativeness thus necessitating further studies into this 
relationship.
Education:
Illiteracy amongst the target group can be a severe setback to the delivery and adoption of 
technologies in developing countries (Merrill - Sands, 1989). Generally people share the basic 
belief that education can cure most ills of society. It has been valued as a means of increasing 
knowledge about new farm technology. The assumption is that schooling facilitates learning,
29
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
which in tum is pressured to instill a favorable mental atmosphere for the acceptance of new 
practices (Lionberger, 1968). Education imparts new knowledge that might otherwise not be 
acquired from social experience. The level of education will therefore enhance his understanding 
and the likelihood of utilization of a technology.
The proper application of information on agricultural technologies such as agro-chemicals, 
inorganic fertilizers as well as new varieties require users to process complex procedural 
information. Prior knowledge enables inferences to be made. Eisemon (1990) reporting on his 
work in Kenya, noted that compression of procedures for applying agro-chemicals, for instance, 
communicated orally or through printed texts, is influenced by schooling. Lack of education 
therefore would be a drawback in the processing and extension of information.
Research suggests that adoption is moderately and/or strongly related to the educational level (Lin 
& Jeffres, 1998). Research work indicates adoption was moderately and/or strongly related to 
the educational level of respondents (Evenson, 1974; Mehra, 1994; Abdelmagid Hassan, 1996 ; 
Lin & Jeflres, 1998) Individuals with some level of education normally accept innovations more 
than the uneducated ones. Education is therefore an important factor that influences the 
acceptance of new ideas by farmers (Onu, 1991). It was suggested that farmers with better 
education are earlier adopters of modem technologies and apply modem inputs more efficiently 
throughout the adoption process than the late adopters who are mostly the older and less educated 
farmers (Abdelmagid & Hassan, 1996). Some indirect inferences to support this assertion can be 
made from studies by Lockheed, Jamison & Lau (1980)  This study found significant relationship 
between education indicators and farm productivity. Thus since adoption of innovations increases 
productivity, the effect of education on adoption can be implied. Education acts as an essential
30
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
triggering input for other activities to occur effectively. The educational level of individuals 
therefore enhances his understanding and acceptance of an innovation. It enables the learner to 
feel competent and confident. These qualities are important for the success of the extension 
program (Blackburn, 1989). This is because measures carried out without the understanding of 
the recipient meet with lack of interest, mistrust or rejection (Albrecht et al., 1989).
Sex
Sex has an influence on the acceptance and utilization of extension messages. In sub-Saharan 
Africa including Ghana, there is a gender division of labor (Mehra, 1994). Certain agricultural 
tasks are allocated to men and women. Men may help initially in serious stage of clearing the bush, 
cutting trees among others but the remaining agricultural work which includes hoeing, weeding, 
tilling soil, harvesting and preservation are womens responsibilities (Benor D. et al., 1985).
Wolfson et al., (1990), reported important gender differences with respects to cowpea storage 
practices. They found women were much more likely to take active measures to preserve their 
cowpeas than men farmers. They also found a strong association between the gender of the person 
storing cowpeas and the method used ( eg. women use proportionally more methods than men 
do). Where the message is not directed to the appropriate sex therefore, it is likely to fail (Mehra 
1994) Sex therefore is likely to influence, the adoption o f  innovations including ICPTs.
Working Experience
A store of knowledge is obtained through experience over the years. As farmers' accumulate 
experience it can be expected that this would positively influence their decision - making skills. 
Any new knowledge that extension agents are willing to impart must fit into the adults experience
31
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
which may result in a conflict emanating from change (Bohlen, 1966). This may contribute to the 
reluctance of older adults to accept and utilize information as it is in the late majority and laggards 
categories of the adoption curve (Bohlen, 1966). Basu (1969) however revealed that there was 
no correlation between professional experience and adoption.
2.4.1. Personal Characteristics and Perception o f Characteristics o f Innovations 
A review of literature suggests that there is a dearth of studies showing the relationship between 
personal characteristics of individuals and the perception of attributes of innovations. This calls 
for further studies in this area. Research in social psychology has shown that personal 
characteristics can moderate the development of behavioral intentions ( Liska, 1984). It is implied 
from this that the relationship between perceptions and the adoption decision for individuals can 
potentially be moderated by personality factors ( Agarwal & Prasad, 1998).
2.5. A Conceptual Model of Determinants of Adoption of Innovations
Numerous authors (Lionberger, 1968; Swanson, Rolings & Jiggins, 1984; Osuntogun, Adeyemo 
& Anyanwu, 1985; Rogers, 1995), have identified factors that influence the adoption behavior of 
farmers. In the study, the following modified model adopted from Osuntogun et. al., (1985), was 
formulated to explain determinants of adoption. Adoption of ICPT’s can be viewed as a variable 
which is a function of:
a = Personal & Enterprise Characteristics of Respondents 
b = Extension Delivery Efforts 
c = Perceptions of Characteristics of ICPTs 
U = Error or disturbance term 
Thus: Y, = f(a, b, c, U )
32
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
It is postulated that the extent to which the use of improved cowpea preservation technologies 
is adopted, can be determined by personal and enterprise characteristics, mode and effort of 
extension delivery (that is the frequency of contact and extension methods used), and potential 
adopters perception of characteristics of improved cowpea preservation technologies. Personal 
characteristics of respondents and extension delivery efforts (that is the frequency of contact and 
extension methods used), determine respondents perceptions of characteristics of ICPTs. The 
research model underlying this study is shown in Figure 2.1.
S O C I O E C O N O M I C  C O N T E X T
Figure 2 .1 . Conceptual Model of Determinants of Adoption of Innovations
33
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Description o f Variables
The dependent variable ( Y ,), the adoption index for each respondent, was ICPTs adopted for 
preservation of cowpea. These include adoption of Actellic liquid, Actellic dust, Phostoxin, and 
Edible oil.
The personal and enterprise characteristics of respondents (a) is indexed by Xj - x8 which is 
Gender (x^ , Age (in years - x2), Educational level (x3), Working Experience (x j, Farm size (X5), 
Crop Yield (x )^ Variety of Cowpea Grown/Sold (x1)> Quantity of Cowpea Stored (xg). a = f( x, - 
x8). It is hypothesized that the effect of personal and enterprise characteristics on adoption, can 
either be positive or negative for a particular respondent.
Extension delivery ( b) is measured in terms of Xj x10, which is the Extension Method Used (x,) 
and the Frequency of Contact of AEAs with Clientele within a Month ( x10). b = f(x, x,0). It is 
postulated that the relationship between extension delivery and adoption of improved cowpea 
preservation technologies, will be positive if respondents are contacted with multiple methods of 
extension delivery and are in very frequent contact with AEAs within a month. This is because 
the more ways people are exposed to extension information, the larger the acceptance of 
recommended practices (Maunders, 1972). With frequent contact also, AEAs are likely to 
enlighten respondents on improved cowpea preservation messages thus they would be more aware 
of the benefits of adopting the technologies.
Potential adopters perception of characteristics of improved cowpea preservation technologies 
(c) is measured in terms of the following variables c = f(xn - x,5) which are, Relative Advantage, 
Compatibility, Complexity, Trialability, and Observability.
34
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
General Attributes
1. Relative Advantage (xn)
2. Compatibility (x12)
3. Complexity (x13)
4. Trialability (x14)
5. Observability (x15)
Specific Attributes
- Income yielding
- Length of storage ( Shelf-life)
- Work-involved in use of the technology 
Time involved in use of technology
- Effectiveness of technology 
Marketing problems
- Similarity to existing practices
- Difference in taste after preserving ( Taste )
- Smell of chemical ( Smell )
- Ease in understanding technology
- Ease of use
- Piloting cost
- Generation of curiosity
Visibility of advantage of using ICPTs
2.6. Definition of Terms:
i. Adoption
This is a decision at an individual cowpea preservation technology users level to make use 
of an ICPT as the best course of action available as indicated by utilization or non - 
utilization of a particular selected ICPT.
ii. Extension Delivery
This is the method used in conscious communication of agricultural information and the 
frequency of contact of extension officers with farmers and traders who use ICPTs.
iii. Perception
This is the selection, organization and interpretation of what is sensed in the environment, 
into a meaningful and coherent picture. This enables the individual to give meaning to 
information received.
35
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
iv. Perception of Characteristics of ICPTs
This is the selection, organization and interpretation of what is sensed about the 
characteristics of ICPTs. The characteristics include: relative advantage, compatibility, 
complexity, trialability, and observability of ICPTs. This enables the individual to give 
meaning to information received about ICPTs.
v. Improved Cowpea Preservation Technologies
These are cowpea preservation technologies, recommended by staff o f the public extension 
agency, to keep seed in a good condition for a long time.
2.7. Conclusion
A review of determinants of adoption behavior revealed that perceptions, extension delivery 
efforts and the personal characteristics of individuals influence the adoption of innovations. The 
role of different types of communication channels in facilitating information - technology 
adoption has also been investigated by others but these studies have typically examined the effects 
of communication channels on adoption decisions without taking perceptions into account. 
Consequently, little literature was obtained on the role of perception in adoption of innovations 
and this highlights the need for further studies.
The review revealed that other variables affect perceptions of attributes of innovations and these 
are likely to influence the adoption of innovations. This includes awareness of innovations, which 
was realized to be a crucial prerequisite to the development of specific positive perceptions which 
in turn lead to innovation adoption. There was however a dearth of knowledge on the effect of 
extension delivery and personal characteristics on the perception of characteristics of innovations. 
If these are ignored in adoption studies, the results of the study may be biased. This explains why
36
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
the study included these factors. This limited number of empirical studies on the subject using this 
adopter - perception model especially as it concerns agricultural technologies (including improved 
cowpea preservation technologies) justifies further investigation to assess the general applicability 
of the framework for adoption studies in the Akatsi District of Ghana.
37
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
CHAPTER THREE 
METHODOLOGY
3.0. Introduction:
This chapter outlines activities undertaken to achieve the objectives of the study. It indicates how 
data was collected, analysed and interpreted to deduce a conclusion. The study sought to identify 
how cowpea farmers and traders perceptions of characteristics of ICPTs determine the pattern 
of utilisation of these technologies and to what extent the mode and efforts of extension delivery 
influence these perceptions.
3.1. Research Design:
A research design is a plan that guides the investigator while collecting, analysing and interpreting 
observations (Yin, 1988). It is the logic that links the empirical data to be collected, and the initial 
question of study to its conclusion (Yin, 1988). The study design is a case study. The case study 
involves an intensive study of one or more cases considered typical or representative in the area 
of investigation of a larger number of cases - in this instance, the case is the adoption of improved 
cowpea preservation technologies in the Akatsi district of Ghana ( Chitamber, 1983).
The primary purpose of a case study is to determine the factors, and relationships among the 
factors that have resulted in the current behaviour pattern of the subject of study (Chitamber, 
1983). Since the objectives of the study were similar to the primary purpose of case studies, this 
design is suitable for carrying out the research. The design was again chosen because the type of 
research question and the focus of the work was on contemporary events in which behaviour 
cannot be manipulated as opposed to historical phenomena (Yin 1981a, 198 lb). In the case study 
design, more than one strategy was used within the study.
38
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
3.1.1. Study Area:
The study was carried out in the Akatsi district of the Volta Region. The district is located in the 
south - eastern part of the Volta Region. It lies between latitude 6°S - 7°N and Longitude 0°W
- 1°E. (Refer to Maps 1 and 2). This district was chosen because it is one of the major cowpea 
growing areas in the Volta Region. The researcher also speaks the same language as the people. 
The only barrierto communication was a difference in dialects.
3.1.2 Study Population
The target population for the study comprised all:
- Cowpea producers living and farming in the southern and middle part of the district. 
Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA) extension agents working with farmers within the 
district.
- Cowpea traders in and outside the district, who sell cowpea at the Akatsi market.
3.1.3. Sample Size & Sampling Technique:
Cost, time, transportation and representativeness were the over riding factors determining the 
sample size in this study. Thus a sample that represented the target population with least cost, 
time and transportation constraints was used.
39
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Map 1: A MAP OF GHANA SHOWING THE STUDY A R E A : AKATSI DISTRICT
40
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
MAP  2 : A K ATS I  D I STR ICT  MAP  SHOWING SOME V I LLAGES
IN THE  STUDY  A R E A
0° 40' 0° 50 1 1° 00’
To Ho
R E P U B L
O F  T O G O
-  6 °  2 0 '
-6° 10*
- 0° 00'
Xevi ©
/
)
P "  J
0- Dzokpo 
/
X
\
Dakpa°^\ \
' X \
7 \
Agbanyokope  A f  ladeny igbac \  T
6° 20’-
)
/
„ Wu t e  
\
\
\
)
A dokpo  V
\ -S^Gavash i kope
*. O
\  Morv i  
V
To
Sogakofe  “  /
Korve  o ^
/
V
)
Laabokofs ^  I
'  ; /  \  
AkatsiY^ /
 ^ * A t i d z i v i e  / 1
To A f l a o
6° 10’-
/  ^  Duepe
/  *. Ali. il£ ili
J I I
10 KM
0°, 4 0 1 0° 5 0'
--------------F i r s t  C l as s  Road
-------------- T h i r d  C l ass  Rood
  — • I n t e r n a t i o n a l  Boundary
—  • • —  D i s t r i c t  B ou n da r y
iU  jU Ma r s h y  A r e a
• Some of  the v i l l ages
s t u d i e d  .
° O t he r  t o w n s / v i  11 a g e s .
i°, 00'
41
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Cowpea Producers:
Sixty (60) cowpea producers were selected from four operational areas for the research. Cowpea 
producers were selected using the Two-stage-random-sampling method which is a combination 
of the cluster random sampling and the individual random sampling method ( Frankel & Wallen 
1993). The district has been divided into fifteen (15) operational areas or clusters (as determined 
by MoFA in the district). Out of the fifteen, four (4) operational areas were randomly selected. 
Each operational area consists of eight sub -operational areas or villages. Three villages in these 
operational areas were again randomly selected. The sub-operational areas chosen include: 
Operational Area 1 - Kpedzramor,, Agorweme, Dagbamate
Operational Area 5 - Logakope, Hlihave, Herlogo Ahiagokope
Operational Area 9 - Bredokope, Atidzivie, Nukpokofe
Operational Area 12 - Sushikope, Adrakpo, Kpoikope
These villages have high levels of cowpea fanning and are aware of the cowpea storage problem. 
The sub-operational areas were also selected to increase the chances of getting many varied 
patterns of adoption. Thus in all, community level respondents were selected from twelve 
villages.
Since no list of cowpea farmers was available, the farmers interviewed were selected using 
convenience sampling. Convenience sampling method was used because it was difficult getting 
fanners to attend meetings so the first five-cowpea farmers, who turned up for the meeting in each 
sub-operational area, were interviewed.
42
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Cowpea Traders:
A total of twenty-five (25) traders were selected from the Akatsi market on a market day (that 
falls every fifth day). The interview was conducted on a market day when a large representation 
o f traders from different parts of the district and beyond were present. The researcher chose the 
Akatsi market because it is the principal market in the district and an easily accessible one. 
Systematic random sampling was used in the selection of the cowpea traders. It involved the 
selection of the first cowpea trader at the cowpea section of the market and subsequently, every 
alternate cowpea trader according to their sitting position in the cowpea section of the market.
Extension Agents:
Out of all MoFA agricultural extension agents (excluding the district director, his deputy and 
extension agents from veterinary services), fifteen (15) extension agents were selected using the 
simple random sampling technique. The underlying principle of the simple random sampling 
technique is that there must be a homogeneous population. Since the population used is all 
extension agents in the Akatsi district, they may be said to have homogeneous characteristics thus 
the simple random sampling method was appropriate in their selection.
The Community:
Information on the community was collected using the Rapid Rural Appraisal (R.R. A.) technique. 
Targets for this information was a group of traders; a group of extension agents; and a group of 
cowpea farmers. They were selected using purposive sampling. This was based on the 
assumption that with good judgement and an appropriate strategy, the researcher can pick 
individuals or units to be included thus develop a sample that is satisfactory in relation to ones
43
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
needs. The sample for the group of farmers consisted of a contact farmer and two non-contact 
farmers. These were selected using purposive sampling. In an attempt to cross check information 
given by the group of farmers, three separate groups of farmers were interviewed from three 
different villages (namely Dagbamate, Hlihave and Atidzivie). These groups were again chosen 
using purposive sampling. The group of cowpea traders also comprised a cowpea wholesaler and 
three cowpea retailers who were selected using purposive sampling. The group of extension 
agents comprised a supervisor and three technical officers (T.Os) who were also selected using 
purposive sampling.
Cowpea Preservation Technologies:
The selection of cowpea preservation technologies was made on the basis that they were those 
recommended to producers and traders by extension staff of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture 
(MoFA), and those technologies that are being used by cowpea fanners and traders in the sampled 
communities. The technologies are Actellic liquid, Actellic dust, Phostoxin and Edible oil.
3.2. Data Gathering Technique:
A data gathering instrument is any device used to measure variables (Yin, 1988). The type of 
instrument used depends on the type of data to be collected. The type and nature of information 
collected for each concept, source of information and data collection technique is contained in 
Table 3.1. These were designed to obtain information that will help achieve the objectives of the 
study. A review and analysis of secondary data and information on the preservation of cowpea 
was also done.
44
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
3.2.1 Development of Data Gathering Instrument:
Relevant data was collected through the use o f the following instruments: a questionnaire; 
personal interview of respondents; focused group discussion (rapid rural appraisal method - 
RRA); literature and documentary reviews.
VARIABLE INFORMATION REQUIRED SOURCE DATA COLLECTION 
TECHNIQUE
Extension Delivery - Extension Methods
- Frequency of Contact
- Cowpea Producers
- Cowpea Traders
- Extension Agents
- Secondary Source
- Questionnaire
- Interview
- Secondary Data
- focused group
discussion (rapid 
rural appraisal 
method - RRA)
Characteristics of 
Respondents
-Age
- Sex
- Working Experience
- Educational Level
- Farm Size
- Crop Yield
- Variety of Cowpea Grown/Sold
- Quantity of Cowpea Stored
- Cowpea Producers
- Cowpea Traders
- Extension Agents
- Questionnaire 
-Interview
Perception of Attributes 
of Selected ICPTs
- Specific Attributes of ICPTs
- General Attributes
- Overall Attributes
- Cowpea Producers
- Cowpea Traders
- Questionnaire
- - Interview
Adoption
- Level of Awareness of ICPTs.
- Adoption /  Non-Adoption of 
ICPTs
- Cowpea Producers
- Cowpea Traders
- Extension Agents
- Questionnaire
- Interview
- focused group
discussion (rapid 
rural appraisal 
method-RRA
45
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Questionnaire:
Questionnaires are used where respondents are sufficiently educated to read and respond 
accurately to the question asked in the questionnaire (Chitamber, 1983). The questionnaire was 
used for collection of data on extension agents in the district, who were literate thus could read 
and answer items in the questionnaire. A questionnaire was used also because it allows the 
collection o f data within a limited time.
The questionnaire developed was broken into three sections that contained questions or 
statements covering the variables measured (Ref. Appendix 3). Section 'A' consisted of both open 
and closed - ended questions to solicit information on extension agents’ personal and professional 
characteristics. Section 'B' on the other hand consisted of statements to solicit information on 
extension delivery. In section 'C', the field staff was asked to indicate problems encountered with 
the delivery of cowpea preservation messages and what they think could be done to improve 
extension delivery.
The questionnaire was hand delivered by the researcher at a monthly training session. The 
completed questionnaires were then collected at the end of the training session for editing and 
analysis. Out of the twenty questionnaires distributed, fifteen (75%) were accepted whiles five 
(25%) were rejected. Due to the unified extension system, extension agents in the district 
comprising three officers from Veterinaiy Services and two from Plant Protection have joined the 
Agricultural Extension Agents (AEAs) of MoFA. These respondents questionnaires were rejected 
since they were not filled properly thus reduce the total sample size of extension agents of twenty 
to fifteen.
46
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Personal Interview o f Respondents:
The interview schedule which is essentially the oral, in-person administration o f a written guide 
to each member of a sample (Gay, 1987), was used in the collection of data on cowpea producers 
and traders. A written guide that indicated questions to be asked and in what order, was used 
when interviewing the respondents. The interview method was most suitable because of the 
educational level of the respondents. It was also used since the researcher could explain and 
clarify items to respondents individually in their, local dialect.
Moser and Kalton (1972) distinguished three broad ideas as necessary conditions for a successful 
interview namely: the accessibility of the required information to the respondents; the cognition 
or understanding by the respondents of what is required of him; the motivation by the respondent 
to answer the questions accurately. These three conditions were considered and used by the 
researcher since it was found that the population sampled could have and give information sought 
for, understand the usefulness in participating in such an interview and to co-operate in giving 
genuine and frank answers to the questions put to them.
The interview schedule of cowpea farmers was broken down into four sections. Section 'A' 
consisted of information on cowpea producers personal and enterprise characteristics. Section 
'B' consisted of questions asked to solicit information on cowpea production and preservation. 
Section 'C' contained open - ended and closed - ended items that helped deduce information on 
farmers' utilization of improved cowpea preservation methods. It was also aimed at getting 
respondents to indicate their source of cowpea preservation technology information. Questions 
in section ‘D’ were designed to derive information on cowpea producers' contact with extension 
activities.
47
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
The interview schedule of the cowpea traders also consisted of four sections. Section 'A' like that 
of the cowpea producers consisted of personal and enterprise characteristics. Section 'B' had 
items that sought to obtain information on the storage and preservation of cowpea. Section 'C' 
included questions to solicit information on traders’ utilization of improved cowpea preservation 
methods. Questions designed in section 'D' were aimed at soliciting information on their contact 
with extension or extension activities.
Rapid Rural Appraisal (R.R.A.) Method:
A Rapid Rural Appraisal (R.R.A.) method, the checklist was also used as an instrument of data 
collection. The checklist was used to collect general information about the community. The 
result o f the checklist was used as a guide in the discussion and investigation of the research 
results.
The checklist consisted of two main sections. Section 'A' aimed at getting information on the 
biophysical and demographic characteristics of the study area. Section 'A' was administered to 
a group of farmers and extension agents. Section 'B' aimed at soliciting information on the 
economic characteristics of the population. This was administered to groups of cowpea 
producers, traders, and extension agents.
Literature & Documentary Review:
Findings from this source helped give an account of circumstances under which technologies 
evolved and were introduced. It also helped in the discussion of the research work. A review was 
done of monthly reports and of the Five (5) Year Development Plan (1996-2000) of the Akatsi 
district. Besides this other sources of literature were used.
48
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
3.3. Pre-Testing:
Pre-testing of the questionnaire, checklist, interview schedule used for the study was done in the 
Suhum -Kroaboa -Coaltar district of the Eastern Region using ten (10) farmers and five (5) 
extension agents as the sample size. They were selected using purposive sampling. The aim of 
pre - testing was to reveal inadequacies if any in the initial design and to help reduce errors and 
biases in the study. It helped refine data collection plans with respect to both the contents of the 
data and the procedure to be followed. The need to inculcate cowpea traders in the target 
population was also realized after pre - testing. The cowpea traders questionnaire was pre-tested 
later at the Makola market on ten (lO) cowpea traders who were also selected using purposive 
sampling.
3.4. Data Gathering:
In view of the time constraint within which the researcher worked, two research assistants were 
trained for data gathering using the interview schedule. The choice of the research assistants was 
based on their ability to speak the local language. This was to help facilitate the interpretation of 
the questions in the questionnaire to the understanding of the respondents. Data gathering was 
done within a month. Within this period, the data gathering instruments indicated were employed 
to obtain as much information as possible.
3.5. Data Analysis:
The researcher did editing of the responses of the interview guide and questionnaire. The 
responses were examined for consistency, accuracy, and appropriateness. Discrepancies were 
clarified to obtain well-filled items. Analysis was done following the nature of items in the
49
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
questionnaire, interview schedule, and checklist. A coding scheme was prepared to direct the 
process of coding. To facilitate easy identification, questionnaires returned by respondents were 
given serial numbers. Tabular methods of presenting data (like the use of frequency and 
percentage distribution tables and graphs) were used to summarize salient features. In order to 
ascertain the influence of variables measured, chi - square tests were applied where appropriate 
to determine the existence or non- existence of significant relationships between variables, and 
differences between categories of respondents. The relationship or differences is considered 
significant if p< .05.
A 1-4 scale for a continuum of positive and negative perceptions of the specific attributes for 
rating each of the selected ICPT compared with traditional cowpea preservation technologies was 
prepared. The scale for the cost attribute for example was 1= High; 2= Moderate; 3= Low; 4= 
Very Low (Ref. Appendix 1 & 2). To arrive at the perception of specific attributes of each of the 
ICPT, (based on the standardized list of components of perceived innovations developed by 
Rogers, 1983), respondents who indicated awareness were asked to compare traditional cowpea 
preservation technologies with the improved ones, using the ranking provided. Each improved 
cowpea preservation technology was ranked separately with no comparison between them. The 
responses were re-grouped so that 1 & 2 = Negative perception; and 3 & 4 = Positive perceptions 
whiles those that were not applicable were represented by an asterix (*). The frequencies are 
found in Appendix (5-14). To arrive at whether a sample has a negative or positive perception 
about a specific attribute, the total frequency distribution for the specific attribute was compared. 
The highest percentage frequency was taken to be the perceived attribute of that sample.
50
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
To determine the perception of the general attributes, the ranking indicated for the specific 
attribute was added up for each of the general attributes to derive a total. This was again grouped 
based on the following critical values (which are the mid-point of the totals of the specific 
attributes in a scale of continuum).
GENERAL ATTRIBUTES SCALE OF CONTINUUM CRITICAL VALUES
Relative Advantage 7 -2 8  17.5
Compatibility 3 -1 2  7.5
Complexity 2 - 8  5.0
Trialability 2 - 8  5.0
Observability 1—4 2.5
Respondents with total scores equal to or higher than these critical value were considered to have 
positive perceptions with regards to the general attribute and vice-versa. Once again frequencies 
of positive and negative perceptions for the general attributes were compared and the one with 
the highest frequency was taken as the perception for the sample (Ref. Appendix 8). Similarly, 
adding up the general attributes to arrive at an overall total for each individual resulted in the 
over-all perception of the attributes of each ICPT. These were classified as positive and negative. 
Respondents with overall total scores equal to or higher than a critical value of 37.5 (which was 
the mid - point of the 15-62  scale of continuum), were considered to have positive perception 
and vice versa. The frequency distribution for positive and negative over-all perceived 
characteristics was used in a similar way to determine the samples’ perceived over-all attribute 
(Ref. Appendix 9).
51
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
To deduce the norm or total perception in each instance, the perceptions for all ICPTs (that is the 
negatives and positives were added up and an average found (Ref. Appendix 5-14). The highest 
total perception was used as the norm for discussing the qualitative differences between 
perceptions. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient was also used to determine the degree 
of relationship between respondents’ perceptions of attributes of ICPTs and adoption.
3.6. Problems Encountered During Field Work:
Several constraints were encountered during the study. Initially the researcher moved from farm 
to farm interviewing cowpea producers. This was time and energy consuming besides increasing 
the cost of research. To reduce the period for data collection and the cost of research therefore, 
taboo days were used for interviewing producers. These were days that producers did not go to 
the farm and could be found at home.
There was a problem with farmers responding to the items in the interview guide. Farmers 
wanted to know the benefits they would derive from the interview (if there were any package to 
be sent later) before answering questions. This may affect the responses given (especially when 
they realized there was no package while they needed financial assistance).
Respondents were also unwilling to provide answers relating to extension agents activities. They 
felt they were in a way reporting or betraying extension agents if they gave responses to these 
items. In such cases, the researcher had to assure the respondents the responses given would not 
affect the extension agent in any way but rather help him improve his work (that is make him 
deliver messages more effectively).
52
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
PART TWO: 
RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
CHAPTER FOUR 
CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS
4.0. Introduction
While people in general are rather similar, they differ in thousands of ways. Their individual 
characteristics, influence their behaviour pattern. In adoption studies, it is usual to investigate the 
personal and enterprise characteristics of respondents in order to understand their influence on 
adoption behaviour ( Onu, 1991). These individual differences help explain why adoption of 
practices is variable within a community (Effionayi, 1975). They may well affect how information 
is received, processed, and either used or not-used in the production process (Fliegel, 1984). 
Investigating personal characteristics of respondents therefore enables one to understand their 
heterogeneity. This chapter gives an overview of personal and enterprise characteristics of 
respondents in the study area. The personal characteristics examined are: gender, age, educational 
level, professional experience, whereas the professional characteristics are: farm size, crop yield, 
variety of cowpea grown or sold and the quantity of cowpea stored.
4.1. Personal Characteristics of Cowpea Producers & Traders
Gender o f Traders & Producers
An analysis of Fig 4.1 shows cowpea production is done mainly by men (65%), while its sale is 
done solely by women (100%). Statistically there is no significant difference between the gender 
of cowpea producers and traders (%2 = 30, df = 1, p< .01 ).
Sexual division of labour in food production is task and crop specific. It is widely recognized that 
women play an important role in post harvest processing, storage, and marketing of agricultural 
products while men perform tasks that are considered tedious like land clearing, cutting trees 
among others ( Date - Bah & Stevens, 1984; Swanson, Roling & Jiggins, 1984; Benor, et. al., 
1985).
53
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Literature reveals the sex of respondents has an influence on the acceptance and utilization of 
extension messages. Where the message is not directed to the appropriate sex, it is likely to fail 
(Swanson, Roling & Jiggins, 1984; Mehra, 1994). This sexual division of labour, calls for the 
appropriate delivery of extension messages to them based on their roles. Cowpea traders as well 
as women farmers, must be targeted by extension agents in the study area for preservation 
messages while more males are targeted for production messages. If this is not done, there is 
likely to be a low adoption of preservation technologies. There is therefore likely to be a 
difference in adoption pattern of producers and traders with regards to this variable.
100% 
80% 
gg 60%
o '  -40% 
20%  
0% T
M ALE  FEM A LE
G E N D E R
Legend
Bfil PRODUCERS 02  TRADERS
Source: The Study (1998)
Fig. 4.1. : Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Gender 
Age Distribution
Most of the respondents were relatively young (66% of producers and 68% of traders were 40 
years or less), with an average age of 30 and 32 years respectively for producers and traders. 
There is no statistically significant difference between cowpea producers and traders with regards 
to their age (%2 = 0.01, df = 2, ,9< p < 1.0 ). Age is therefore not a determinant of whether a 
person is a cowpea producer or trader.
54
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Studies suggest high adoption is at middle age (Wilson, & Gallup, 1955). Since majority of the 
respondents fall within this category (that is between 31 - 40 yrs.), the adoption pattern of cowpea
preservation technologies is likely to be high. If this is not the case, then variables other than age
may be responsible for adoption. It is noteworthy that the effect of age on adoption could be
either positive or negative for a particular farmer or respondent (Jacques, 1991).
>-
O
z
i l l
=>
a
LL.
AGE
31 & Below 31-40 41 & Above
■TRADERS HPRODUCERS
Source: The Study (1998).
Fig. 4.2. : Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Age 
Educational Level
Majority of the respondents are literate (that is 62% of cowpea producers and 64% of cowpea 
traders have some form of formal or non- formal education). There is no statistically significant 
difference between cowpea producers and traders with regards to this variable (%2 = 1, df = 2, 
-5< p< .6 ). The educational level thus does not determine whether one is a cowpea trader or 
producer (Ref. Fig. 4.3).
55
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
The predominantly literate population is desirable since education provides individuals with a 
tool to accept positive changes and serves as a means of facilitating farmers use of written 
information sources and increasing their knowledge about new farm practices (Onu, 1991). The 
basic idea is that higher levels of education are conducive for technological progress ( Mundlak, 
Larson, & Butzer, 1997). Education imparts new knowledge that might otherwise not be 
acquired from social experiences and enhances the understanding and likelihood of utilization 
of technologies ( Lionberger, 1968). Education is likely to influence the adoption pattern of 
respondents in the study area since most of them have some form of education.
Difference in educational level would mean there are different abilities to understand difficult 
concepts and technical language (Maunders, 1972). Extension agents in the district need to use 
different extension techniques to meet each individuals difference in ability of understanding, if 
high adoption levels of cowpea preservation messages are expected.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
FREQUENCY
Legend
□  TRADERS PRODUCERS
Source: The Study (1998).
Fig. 4.3 : Educational Level of Cowpea Producers & Traders
56
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Working Experience'.
Majority of respondents (Producers, 72%; Traders, 84%), had 5 years or more working 
experience. The modal working experience of cowpea producers was 5 years, whiles that of 
cowpea traders was 10 years. There is no statistically significant difference between the 
professional experience of cowpea producers and traders (Table 4.1).
A store of knowledge is acquired through experience over the years. Experience is both a helpful 
resource and a potential hindrance to new learning (Zinnah & Kwarteng, 1995)., More 
experienced people are able to appreciate the benefits of improved technology (including 
preservation technologies) and are likely to adopt new practices. On the other hand, they may be 
conservative thus reluctant to accept and utilize change ( Onu, 1991). Working experience is 
therefore likely to influence the adoption pattern of respondents.
Table 4.1 : Working Experience of Cowpea Producers & Traders
WORKING EXPERIENCE COWPEA PRODUCERS COWPEA TRADERS
FREQ. % FREQ. %
Less than 5 years. 17 28 4 16
5 years. 13 22 4 16
More than 5 years. 30 50 17 68
TOTAL 60 100 25 100
X2 = 2.4 df = 2 .2 < p< .3 (Not Significant)
Source: The Study (1998),
57
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
4.2. Enterprise Characteristics of Cowpea Producers & Traders
Farm Size
Most farmers (59%) have relatively small farm sizes being 2 acres or less, they are less likely to 
adopt new farm practices including preservation technologies recommended by AEAs. 
Preservation technologies ( including traditional preservation technologies) suitable for preserving 
small quantities of cowpea are likely to be preferred.
Contrary to the findings of Bond, 1974; Staudt, 1975; Fortmann, 1981; that large farmers are 
primary beneficiaries of extension efforts whilst small farms receive less attention than their overall 
contribution merits, certain small farmers in the study area indicated they received attention from 
AEAs.
Majority of the farmers in the study area have relatively small farm sizes. Since the greatest 
differences in farm practice adoption levels occur between relatively small farms (Matthews 
Jenkins & Sletto, 1942, Lionberger & Coughenor, 1957; ),the likelihood is that differences in farm 
practice adoption (including adoption of ICPTs) is likely to be high.
Source: The Study (1998).
Fig. 4.4. : Distribution of Farmers by Farm Size
58
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Crop Yield
Figure 4.5 gives the percentage distribution of cowpea producers by their crop yield. Results of 
the study revealed cowpea yields in the study area were generally low (53% had a yield of 4 bags 
and below within a farming season). Relatively small farm sizes in the study area, result in low 
crop yield. The crop yield of farmers detennines whether they would preserve cowpea or sell all 
immediately after harvest. The crop yield affects the fanners income level, which determines his 
purchasing power, which ultimately determines if he can afford purchasing chemical inputs for 
preservation or not. Farmers in the study area indicated that they dispose of their cowpea 
immediately after harvesting so as to avoid incurring the extra cost of preserving. If they would 
preserve at all, they may not utilize preservation technologies suitable for large scale production, 
(like ICPT’s) but prefer those suitable for preserving small quantities of cowpea ( which include 
traditional preservation technologies as is the case in the study area).
c_>
^  30% W
O' 20% w
tan 10%
T
BELOW 4 BGS. 4 BGS. ABOVE 4 BGS. 
CROP YIELD
Legend
H  BELOW 4 BGS. ■  4 BGS.
H a  ABOVE 4 BGS.
Source: The Study (l 998).
Fig. 4.5 : Distribution of Cowpea Producers by their Crop Yield
59
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Variety o f Cowpea Grown /  Sold in the Study Area
An analysis of Fig. 4.6 shows 85% of cowpea producers grow the local variety while 63% grow 
the improved variety. Local varieties of cowpea grown in the area include Local red (Wakli), 
Local white (Tsenabawu, Dabango, Ayiyimosue) while the improved varieties are black-eye beans 
(Agric. White) and Valenga (Agric red). Cowpea producers indicated that although the improved 
variety is higher yielding, spoilage with this variety occurs faster and it gets easily infested. The 
local variety on the other hand, is lower yielding but stores better and is more resistant to pests. 
Despite the fact that the improved varieties are higher yielding, producers prefer growing the local 
variety and the traders prefer selling that too. More of the local variety is produced so as to avoid 
the extra cost incurred in purchasing preservatives for preserving cowpeas. This naturally is likely 
to result in low crop yield and low utilization of preservation technologies. Preservation 
technologies suitable for preserving small quantities of cowpea are likely to be adopted.
It is obvious traders’ source of stock is from the locals or within the district thus resulting in the 
similarity between what is produced and what is sold. Thirty - six percent (36%) of cowpea 
traders buy from local producers, 32% from wholesalers in Akatsi district, 28% grow it 
themselves, while only 24% buy from outside Akatsi district. The local variety happens to be 
more marketable than the improved variety. Consumer preference for the local variety has 
influenced the growth of it in the study area. This accounts for why traders prefer selling more 
of the local variety than the improved one.
60
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
o
S5W
»O'U3
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
100%
LOCAL  ONLY  IM PROVED  ONLY  IM PROV ED  &  LOCAL
VAR IETY
Legend
■  T R A D E R S  0  P R O D U C E R S
Source: The Study (1998).
Figure 4.6. : Variety of Cowpea Grown / Sold by Respondents 
Quantity o f Cowpea Stored
Table 4.2 reveals that 96% of traders store more than 2 mini bags of cowpea while only 40% of 
producers store more than 2 mini bags of cowpea. This shows traders store more cowpea than 
producers. The modal number of bags stored by cowpea producers was two (2) mini bags while 
that of the traders was five (5) mini bags. This is obviously because traders store for commercial 
purposes. There is also a statistically significant difference between the quantity of cowpea stored 
by producers and traders (x2 = 22.6 d f= 2  p< 0.00001).
Since traders store more cowpea than producers, they are likely to perceive the need for 
preservation technologies more than producers. The traders therefore may utilize preservation 
technologies more than the producers. Information on preservation technologies thus needs to
61
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
be extended more to traders than producers. Cowpea producers on the other hand, may not
perceive the need for preservation technologies because of the small quantity of cowpea 
preserved. To encourage producers preserve, there is a need to extend information to help 
increase their production.
Table 4.2. : Quantity of Cowpea Stored by Producers and Traders
QUANTITY OF COWPEA STORED COWPEA
PRODUCERS
COWPEA
TRADERS
FREQ. % FREQ. %
Below 2 mini bags. 18 30 0 0
2 mini bags. 18 30 1 4
Above 2 mini bags. 24 40 24 96
TOTAL 60 100 25 100
X2 = 22.6 df = 2 p< 0.00001 (Significant)
Source: The Study (1998).
4.3. Personal and Professional Characteristics of AEA’s
Gender
Only one AEA (7%) is a female thus indicating that women are negligibly represented within the 
extension service in the Akatsi District (Ref Fig. 4.7). A survey of extension services worldwide 
revealed that in no African country did women represent more than 9% of the staff (Swanson & 
Rassi, 1990). They are mostly given Home Economics assignments, even though their training 
is in general agriculture (Swanson, Roling & Jiggins, 1984).
62
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Source: The Study (1998).
Fig.4.7. : Distribution of AEAs by Gender
Position and Educational Qualification o f Agents in MoFA
Fifty - three (53%) of AEAs interviewed attended agricultural colleges, 34% had diploma's in 
agriculture while 13% had 'O' level qualification (Ref. Table 4.3). This formal education in 
agriculture, is designed purposefully to help AEAs in agricultural extension work in rural 
communities.
The local extension worker is the most important single element in achieving the aims and 
objectives of the extension organization. The qualification and function of personnel in MoFA 
depend to a great extent on the organizational structure of extension in each country. In the 
districts, Frontline Staff(F.L.S.) are in constant contact with their clientele whiles supervisors are 
in contact with people they supervise, giving advise, guidance, and encouragement.
63
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Table 4.3. : Position & Educational Qualification of AEAs in the Study Area.
VARIABLE CATEGORY FREQ. %
POSITION OF 
AGENT IN MoFA
Supervisor 2 20
Frontline Staff (F.L.S.) 13 80
TOTAL 15 100
EDUCATIONAL
LEVEL
Diploma in Agriculture 5 34
Certificate In Agriculture 8 53
Ordinary Level Education 2 13
TOTAL 15 100
Source: The Study (1998).
Working Experience in Current Location
Majority of AEAs (67%) have long working experience of 5 years or more in the current location 
(Ref. Fig 4.8). This long working experience with fanners or clientele for a period of time enables 
AEAs have knowledge about the people and their farming practices, problems encountered by 
them or their needs so they can help them meet their needs. Living in the same area, enables them 
get into contact with farm people and develop proper working conditions so they would be able 
to disseminate information effectively to them to help them meet their needs.
Source: The Study (1998).
Fig. 4.8 : AEAs Working Experience in Current Location
64
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Language o f Communication:
When AEAs were asked to indicate their language of communication with their clientele, the 
following responses were given. All respondents (100%) speak the local language (Ewe) and 
communicated with their clientele in this native language. The possibility therefore that their 
clientele would understand the message is very high (Ref. Table 4.4).
Communication is one of the variables that influence change. Change agents spend considerable 
amount of time giving out and sending information to rural people about new ideas, practice, or 
technology ( Zinnah & Kwarteng, 1995). There is a need for the receiver to make sense out of 
the message. If the same language of communication is used (as is the case in the study area), the 
receiver is likely to make sense out of the message. This similarity in language spoken would 
lead to shared meaning, healthy communication climate, positive relationship and a clear 
information contact ( Zinnah & Kwarteng, 1995). This condition is likely to facilitate a healthy 
climate for effective communication and dissemination of cowpea preservation technologies.
Table 4.4 : Language of Communication of AEAs
LANGUAGE FREQUENCY Percentage (%)
Ewe 11 73
Ewe & English 4 27
TOTAL 15 100
Source: The Study (1998)
4.4. Conclusion
Personal and enterprise characteristics of cowpea producers, traders and AEAs in the Akatsi 
District were examined to ascertain whether these differed and therefore which of these were 
likely to influence their adoption of improved cowpea preservation technologies. Apart from
65
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
gender and the quantity of cowpea stored, there were no significant differences between the 
characteristics of cowpea producers and traders. This implies gender and quantity of cowpea 
stored may be important source of difference in their adoption behaviour (and this would be 
further investigated).
Cowpea farmers were mainly males while cowpea traders were all females. Majority of cowpea 
fanners and traders were between the ages of 31 - 40 years, had some form of formal education 
and they had more than five years working experience. The average farm size of cowpea 
producers was 2 acres, and their average crop yield was 4 bags of cowpea. Cowpea producers 
mainly grew a combination of the local and improved varieties of cowpea whiles cowpea traders 
mainly sold a combination of the local and improved varieties of cowpea. Whereas most cowpea 
producers stored less than 2 mini bags of cowpea (60%), most traders stored more than 2 bags 
(96%).
Majority of AEAs in the study area were males and the language mostly used for communication 
was “Ewe.” Most of them had more than five years working experience in the Akatsi district. The 
educational qualification of majority of AEAs was a Certificate in Agriculture. These 
characteristics of AEAs in the Akatsi District shows that they have the capacity to deliver 
messages on selected ICPTs effectively.
66
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
CHAPTER FIVE 
EXTENSION DELIVERY EFFORTS
5.0. Introduction
One factor in the change agents' success in securing the adoption of innovations by clients is the 
amount of effort spent in communication activities with clients (Maunders, 1972; Rogers, 1995) 
.The indicators used for measuring extension delivery in the study were the types of extension 
methods used in delivery o f cowpea preservation messages and frequency of contact with 
clientele.
5.1 Prevention of Pest Infestation in Cowpea
Throughout histoiy, man has employed a variety of preservative and curative measures against 
food pests, designed either to prevent infestation or to inhibit pests in their development by 
repelling or destroying them. Cowpea producers and traders have developed storage techniques 
that could be studied by extension for further improvement. Extension agents also recommend 
certain cowpea preservation technologies to their clientele in the study area. A brief discussion 
will be made of these precautionary measures.
To ensure that there are quality seeds available for preservation, special methods of cultivation 
are used. These are as follows: crop rotation; choice of harvest time; selection of suitable 
varieties that store well; selection of produce for storage; and maintaining good storage 
conditions.
67
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
1. Special Methods of Cultivation:
a. Crop Rotation:
This is practised to prevent the accumulation of certain diseases and pests in a particular field. 
This system is gradually being replaced by the mixed farming system (mainly because of 
inadequacy of farm land). With this system also, pests (including stored food pests) are less 
numerous than in single - crop farming perhaps because of the better biological balance that mixed 
fanning creates (Zehrer 1980).
b. Choice of harvest time
Crops are infested with pests if they are not harvested at the right time. Harvesting crops at the 
right time is therefore one way of improving its storage prospects. Mature cowpea pods are 
picked by hand on the farms. The harvested pods are then transported to the drying site and 
spread on a clean floor, mat or raised platform for further drying. They are stined periodically 
to help in uniform drying. The pods need to be covered to avoid dew or rain making them moist. 
When fully dried, they are threshed and then dried further (Nicol et al. 1997). After ensuring that 
grains are well dried, (to about 14% moisture level or less), they are winnowed to remove all 
foreign matter (broken pods, stones etc.,) immature and discoloured grains from the threshed 
grains.
c. Selection of suitable varieties that store well
Choosing the right variety of cowpea seed to cultivate is an important factor in the subsequent 
storage life of the produce. Local varieties are well adapted to environmental conditions both in 
the field and in the granary. Farmers use seed that has survived in good condition from the 
previous harvest. There is therefore a constant process of natural selection producing seed
68
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
varieties that are resistant to pests. These seeds tend to have the qualities of good storage life and 
guaranteed yield (Zehrer, 1980). Certain fanners select these varieties and keep it for the next 
fa rm ing  season thus ensuring that pest resistant varieties are produced in the next farming season.
d. Selection of produce for storage
The farmer normally sorts his harvested grain before placing it in storage. Long - term storage 
losses can be drastically reduced by selecting only healthy undamaged seeds for storage. There 
is a higher probability that such seeds will be free from infestation at the time of storage ( Zehrer, 
1980).
The threshed grain which is sorted by certain farmers, is then treated to prevent insect infestation. 
Grains are then put into suitable containers and stored (with periodic inspection). Whereas certain 
cowpea producers sell their cowpea fresh without further drying after harvesting, majority of 
cowpea producers interviewed stored part of their cowpea for sometime before selling it. Some 
also stored it in the pod without adding preservatives whiles others stored it shelled, with or 
without a preservative.
e. Storage conditions
The type of storage condition may determine how long the seed will last or the amount of 
infestation. Seeds must not be stored in hot, moist places but are best stored in cool dry places. 
Under such conditions, they prevent infestation of seeds by insects. Besides the preventive 
measures described, some of which are adopted consciously by the farmers while some are 
practised unconsciously (which are often the result of many generations of experience), a number 
of active pest control measures have evolved. These are designed to destroy or repel the pests,
69
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
or to hinder their propagation. These include the use of: mechanical methods for preservation; 
solar and other thermal disinfestation techniques; admixtures or mineral substances of plant 
origin; and sealed container storage.
2. Mechanical Methods of Pest Control:
a. Picking out pests by hand
Pests can be picked by hand and then destroyed before grain is. sold. These normally occur in 
small rural markets in various parts of Africa (Zehrer, 1980). In countries of West Africa, 
including Ghana, women who sell cereals and legumes in the . market (or their children and 
assistants), sort out the pests by hand to make their wares more presentable to customers. This 
method is also used mainly by cowpea traders in the Akatsi district.
b. Sifting out insect pests
Special sieves for sifting out pests (that is smaller than the stored grains) have been developed 
in different cultures including Ghana. In the study area, it is locally called "Agbadza." Fig 5.1. 
shows a picture of a local sieve (an "Agbadza"). These are used for sifting small quantities of 
grain. Pests removed this way must later be destroyed to prevent re - infestation of stock. There 
is however a need to sift grains at regular weekly intervals. If this is done, pest infestation is 
reduced quite considerably. This is a preservation technique used by majority of cowpea traders 
in the district. Cowpea traders in the district indicated that since farmers have already preserved 
cowpea, they do not need to preserve with any chemical preservative but just sift it. This 
accounts for the reason why it is mostly used in the Akatsi District.
70
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Fig. 5.1. A local Sieve (Agbadza)
c. Winnowing
Depending on their specific weight, this is a common method for cleaning of cereals in developing 
countries (Zehrer, 1980). It is done by using the power of the wind to separate the unwanted lighter 
parts (including damaged grains, insect pests, dust, bits of stalk, etc.) From the heavier 
cereal/legume grains. It could be done with the use of a winnowing machine or shovels which toss 
grain in the air. It could be done manually by pouring the grain out of a container from a height so 
that the wind blows out the lighter parts. This is practised in the study area.
71
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
3. Solar & Other Heat/Thermal Disinfestation Techniques:
Thermal techniques are based on the assumption that stored food pests cannot tolerate high 
temperatures. Insects die when exposed to high temperature because of their limited physiological 
capacity to thermogulate (Murdock & Shade, 1991). If grain is exposed to full heat, (e.g. from 
the sun) its temperature rises to the point that adult insect pests are no longer able to survive. As 
the temperature rises, pests are driven away or killed by the heat. Cowpea bruchid eggs, larvae 
and pupae do not thermogulate and, being immobile, are unable to escape from a hot environment. 
Therefore, high temperatures destroy bruchid living within grain.
a. Use of corrugated galvanised tin or aluminium sheeting:
This is widely available at fairly low cost in many areas in Africa and it is also used to prevent the 
infestation of cowpea by pests. Cowpea is dried on these galvanised sheets and placed in the sun. 
The heat emanating from the sheets helps in the destruction of cowpea pests thus serving as a 
preservation method. Certain farmers and traders use this method for preservation of cowpea in 
the study area.
b. Intermittent drying of cowpea in the sun:
This is a method mostly used by majority of the farmers in the study area for the preservation of 
threshed or unthreshed cowpea. It is used since no extra cost is incurred with the use of this 
method.
72
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
4. Use of Admixtures or Mineral Substances:
a. Use of abiotic materials
i. Wood ash:
The addition of ash to various kinds of cereals and legumes is extremely effective for prolonging 
the storage life of grain crops and legumes (Golob and Webley, 1980: Ofuya, 1986). The method 
consists of sifting wood ash from kitchen fires and mixing it with cowpea grain. The mixture is 
placed in a mud pot granary, jar, jute sacks, or any other vessel, and sometimes pressed down to 
compress it. Its results, varies with variations in the mode o f application, and to the proportion 
of ash to cowpea grain used. The method works extremely well depending on the ash: grain ratio. 
The method recommended is to mix sieved ash from cooking fires with cowpea grain in equal 
volumes, then put this mixture in a closed vessel, press it down firmly, and cover with a 3-cm 
layer of loose ash (Kitch & Ntoukam, 1991a)
Ash storage does not provide complete protection against the building up of cowpea bruchids 
unless the ratio o f ash to grain is three or more parts as to four parts grain. If  immature C. 
Maculatus is already present in grain at the time the grain is mixed with ash, they will complete 
their development within the seed and may even emerge from the seed even if covered with ash 
Consequently, farmers sometimes put infested grain - but apparently undamaged into ash and 
discover when they remove it later that it now has emergence holes, evoking doubts about its 
usefulness. When properly used, ash storage arrests cowpea bruchid population development in 
storage, but it does not kill the generation already within the seeds (Kitch & Ntoukam, 1991a). 
Therefore, it is important to mix the grain well with ash soon after threshing.. This procedure of 
using ash for storage has the advantage of being universally available as the natural by - product 
of cooking (especially if firewood is used). Its use does not involve any risk to health. At the
73
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
same time, it is said to promote further drying of the stored product (Zehrer, 1980). Since it is 
a cheap preservation technique, it is used by cowpea producers in the Akatsi district.
ii. Sand:
Sand, for example sea sand is added to seeds provided the cowpea grains are larger than the 
grains of sand. The use of this method is dependent on the availability of sand close to the place 
of storage and is thus limited to areas where sand occurs naturally, as is the case in the study area 
(Zehrer, 1980). For a given quantity of grain measured by volume, the farmer adds a similar or 
slightly larger volume of sand and mixes them thoroughly.
The addition of sand to beans in the specified quantity, soon results in the destruction of insect 
pests .This may be due to several different reasons including : poor ventilation that makes it 
difficult for insects to breathe; their movement being hampered by the dense compacted mixture 
and the weight of the sand. This effectively prevents them from reproducing thus causing their 
population to die out. The insects also injure themselves when they try to move through the hard 
grains of sand, resulting in loss of body fluid and dehydration. This preservation technology, is 
used just by a few people in the study area.
iii. Use of chemicals:
The use of chemicals to protect cowpea grain in storage seems to be the most readily available 
technology for the suppression of cowpea pests. There are numerous chemicals which are useful 
in grain storage work. These include contact chemicals and fumigants. Contact chemicals are 
chemicals that insects must actually get on their body. Contact chemicals include dust 
formulations like Actellic dust, and emulsion concentrates like Actellic liquid. The second major
74
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
category of insecticides are the fumigants for example Phostoxin. These are gases which enter 
all cracks. They can get between highly packed grains in storage and do not leave marks on 
grains. It is noteworthy however that fumigants are extremely dangerous to man. Protective 
clothing need to be worn when using it (Lindblad & Vita, 1976).
Actellic Dust (1.6% Pirimiphos - methyl; 0.3% Permethrin) :
This is a dust formulation which contains low concentrations of insecticide (1.6% Pirimiphos - 
methyl; 0.3% Permethrin ) mixed with powder. The combination of powder and insecticide 
makes it saferto handle by the user. Dust mixed with grain causes damage to the body surface 
and limb joints of insects. Their effectiveness depends on the size of particles. Dust achieves its 
effect mainly by interfering with the delicate water balance of storage pests ( Zehrer, 1980 ). The 
dust is mixed with the shelled cowpea and stored in bags. Five teaspoons Actellic dust, is 
thoroughly mixed with one bag (100 kg) of shelled cowpea. A bag of Actellic 2% dust currently 
being sold will treat 10 bags of cowpea.
Actellic 25EC Liquid (25% Pirimorphos - methyl):
This contains high amount of insecticide mixed with other ingredients. It is more difficult for 
individuals to use as compared to the use of Actellic dust and they require the use of special 
equipments for its application (Llindblad & Vita, 1976). One bottle of Actellic 25EC or Actellic 
liquid is used for mixing a maxi bag of cowpea. Five millilitres of actellic liquid is equivalent to 
one teaspoonfiil or one half of the metal cap from the actellic can. This Five millitres (ml) of 
Actellic liquid is diluted with 190 ml. of water in a hand pump sprayer (the type used to spray 
mosquitoes). The mixture is sufficient to spray one bag (100kg.) of shelled cowpea grain.
75
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Phostoxin (56% Aluminium phosphide):
This a solid fumigant which can either be found in a tablet, packet or pellet form. The active 
chemical in this fiim ig a n t is Aluminium phosphide. The tablet releases phosphine gas when it gets 
into contact with moisture. Fortunately, the tablet takes about three hours to. release enough 
poison to kill a person It is advisable therefore to use in airtight containers. The fumigation must 
continue for at least 72 hours. The poison kills the insects present in the grain but does not 
protect the grain from further attack (Lindblad & Vita, 1976).
A minimum of 2 tablets of Phostoxin, are, put into a maxi -bag of dried and shelled cowpea. Since 
certain producers and traders in the study area store cowpea in their living rooms (sitting room, 
bedroom, and kitchen), they feel it is not healthy to use this preservation technology, especially 
because it is poisonous. Their storage practice is therefore likely to affect the adoption of this 
technology.
5. Substances of Plant Origin or Botanicals:
The plant kingdom is very large and offers a wealth of resources. The use of plant materials for 
the preservation of cowpea is common on low resource farms in sub-Sahara Africa. This is often 
as whole plants or leaves of various mints, aromatic or pungent plant materials, or oils are mixed 
with the stored cowpea grain. These include many substances that are effective against insects.
a. Use of Edible Oil:
An effective way to protect dry beans such as cowpea from bruchids is to mix the grain 
thoroughly with small amounts of edible oil ( Schoonhoven, 1978; Singh, Luse, Leuchner, & 
Nangju, 1979). A variety of oil seeds can be used, including oil from palm kernel, cottonseed, 
groundnut, neem, soybean, citrus peels, sheabutter ( Pereira, 1983).
76
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Groundnut oil is used to preserve small quantities of cowpea from damage by storage insects. 
Only small amounts of oil that is 5 - 10 millilitres of oil per kilogram of the threshed grain is 
needed to preserve the grain for months (Singh et. al:, 1979 ). Another measure is 1-2 
teaspoonful of oil per full margarine tin of grain). One and one-half beer bottle of cooking oil is 
needed to treat one maxi -bag of cowpea.
Though effective, oil treatment has some negative attributes. Treating much grain ( for instance 
above 10 kgs) thoroughly is tedious. Oil also becomes rancid with time, or have inherently 
negative properties ( neem oil, for example, stains the hands and has an unpleasant 'garlic' odour). 
Oil treatment is often messy and it is easy to pick up dust and debris while applying it. Thus, 
while oil treatment is effective, its degree of acceptance is limited by these negative attributes. 
In the study area, although extension agents recommend the use of groundnut oil, respondents 
who used the method indicated they used more of palm-kemel oil which is locally produced for 
preservation instead of groundnut oil. They also indicated they preferred using the oil (which is 
scarce to come by) for cooking instead of preserving cowpea.
It is noteworthy that the use of Actellic dust, Actellic liquid, Phostoxin, and Edible oil are 
preservation technologies extended by Agricultural extension agents in the district. These 
technologies were introduced in the study area during the cowpea season in August/September, 
1993.
b. Neem tree products
The Neem tree (Azaterachta inclica.) probably found throughout tropical Africa, contains certain 
insecticidal properties. Various substances derived from the neem tree, have traditionally been
77
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
used for the control of pests in storage. Some cowpea producers in the Akatsi district are also 
aware of the use of this technology for preservation of cowpea. The seeds and leaves are dried, 
crushed and either mixed in powder form with the dried cowpea or diluted with water and mixed 
with cowpea before drying.
c. Pepper / Paprika
Ofiiya (1986), noted that onion scales and dried chili pepper fruits confer some degree of 
protection against C. maculatus. Thus they are mixed with cowpea to prevent weevil infestation. 
This practice is not too well known in the study area.
6. Sealed Container Storage:
Experiments suggest that oxygen elimination contribute to the preservation of grains 
( James, 1993 ). A consequence of oxygen removal from a grain store is the suppression of insect 
infestation that could develop in the grain. In modern times, it has been proven that air tight 
storage suppresses insect infestations in stored grain. Sealed containers may include: underground 
silos, metal drums, clay pots, local kegs ('Adjafi'), among others. The procedure involves drying 
the threshed cowpea grain in the sun, then filling the storage containers and sealing them off.
It is vital that the storage containers have no openings such as cracked seams that might admit 
oxygen and that the cap be tightiy sealed. Even a brief opening can admit enough oxygen to allow 
insects to resume activity and further damage grains (Singh et. al., 1987). To ensure that it is air - 
tight, the cap should be greased before tightening. Filled containers should be kept in the shade 
or storehouses so that the cowpea grain does not get too hot due to absorption of solar radiation 
by the drum.
78
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
In the Akatsi District of the Volta Region, the container in which cowpea is preserved after drying 
is a local keg known as “Adjafi” This method is used for small scale preservation of cowpea in the 
district. Figure 5.2 is a picture of a local keg commonly called “Adjafi” which is used as a sealed 
container for preservation of cowpea.
Fig. 5.2. A local Keg (Adjafi)
79
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
b. Bagging:
In the Bean /Cowpea - CRSP cowpea storage project in Cameroon, researchers devised a simple 
and inexpensive bagging technique for long - term storage o f cowpea. The test involved adding 
fiimigants to cowpea stored in plastic bags. These bags were sealed and stored for months. 
Because the bags are transparent it was easy to visually monitor grain storage. A disadvantage 
with this technology however is that the bags are fragile and could burst any time especially with 
rough handling. In the study area instead of the plastic bagging, jute sacks are used for the 
preservation of cowpea.
Generally the findings suggest there is a substantial amount of indigenous knowledge about 
cowpea pests and their control in the study area. Those introduced by extension are cowpea 
preservation technologies that either involve the use of chemicals or substances of vegetable 
origin.
Each technology described above for post harvest storage of cowpea has limitations and merits. 
Cowpea producers and traders with grain to store, have to choose among the methods (Murdock, 
el al., 1997). The range available make it more likely that they will find a technology that meets 
their individual needs. However, the limitations of the purely physical means, and the use of 
botanicals imply that whatever method is used should be accompanied by insecticides to achieve 
good control of the pests (Singh el al., 1997)
5.2. Cowpea Preservation Technologies Extended by AEAs
Figure 5.3 gives the percentage distribution of improved cowpea preservation technologies 
extended by AEAs in the study area. Improved cowpea preservation technologies mainly 
extended by AEAs in ranked order are Actellic, Edible oil, and Phostoxin.
80
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
P E R C E N T A G E  (% )
L e g e n d
E S E D I B L E  O I L  ( E )
i l l P H O S T O X I N  ( P )
H A C T E L L I C  L I Q U I D / D U S T  (A )
Source: The Study (1998).
Fig. 5.3. Improved Cowpea Preservation Technologies Extended by AEAs in the Study Area.
Due to certain reasons, 47% of AEAs extend more information on non - chemical based and 
traditional technologies instead of information on ICPTs. These reasons include, the fear of 
residual effect of chemical preservatives on human health; the need for farmers to have cheaper 
methods of preservation. Other reasons are because AEAs personally do not believe in the use 
of chemical preservatives and also the fact that chemicals pollute the environment.
Figure 5.4 gives an indication of traditional cowpea preservation technologies extended by certain 
AEAs. The traditional cowpea preservation technologies extended in ranked order are: the use 
of naphthalene balls or camphor (53%) for storage of cowpea in a sealed container, the use of 
the local keg - ‘Adjafi ’ (40%), wood ash (32%), neem products (20%) and the use of sea sand 
(6%). Since such AEAs would rather give information on the non - chemical based or traditional
81
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
cowpea preservation technologies instead of information on ICPTs, their clientele would be 
deprived of the opportunity to have knowledge about these ICPTs, for them to decide whether 
they would adopt or not. This situation is likely to affect the level of adoption of ICPTs.
A combination of traditional and improved methods of cowpea preservation appear to have been 
extended by AEAs in the study area. These are to help cowpea producers and traders reduce post 
harvest losses and increase the-shelf - life of their produce.
60% 
HT 50% 
5  40% 
z  30%1I I
O 20% 
m 10%
N P  W A  S S  C  A LK
TRAD I T IO NA L  M E T H O D S
L e g e n d
E N E EM  P R O D U C T S  ( N P )
ULli W O O D  A S H  (WA )
■ S E A  S A N D  ( S S )
a C A M P H O R  (C )
AD JA F I  /  L O CA L  K E G  (ALK)
Source: The Study (1998).
Figure 5.4: Traditional Cowpea Preservation Technologies Recommended by Certain AEAs in 
the Study Area.
5.3. Sources of Cowpea Preservation Messages
Technological information is the main commodity the extension worker has. To determine their 
information source(s), extension agents were asked to indicate those sources through which they 
received cowpea preservation messages. Figure 5.5. shows that the main source of information
82
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
for AEAs was monthly training sessions (100%) followed by Literature (47%), information 
acquired in school (20%), and no information was derived from their supervisors (0%) and 
researchers (0%).
Extension agents expedite the flow of appropriate information from selected sources to selected 
audiences ( Lancaster & Sattar, 1984). Since the volume of technology is increasing at an 
accelerated rate, field extension workers must have a readily available source of technical 
information to keep abreast with the accelerated rate of technology. This would enable them help 
their clientele solve current problems of agricultural production and rural living (Maunders, 1972). 
It follows therefore that the effectiveness of extension services must depend heavily on the quality, 
reliability, and efficiency of information sources they themselves draw upon. If adequate and 
current information on cowpea preservation is made available at these monthly training sessions, 
AEAs would have information to disseminate to their clientele to help solve their problems.
S C H  S U P  L IT  R E S  M T S
S O U R C E  O F  IN FO .
L e g e n d
K2 S C H O O L  ( S C H )
■ S U P E R V I S O R  ( S U P )
LM L IT E R A T U R E  (LIT)
LLU R E S E A R C H E R S ( R E S )
l_l M ON TH LY  T R A IN IN G  S E S S I O N S  (M T S )
Source: The Study (1998),
Fig.5.5.: AEAs Source Of Cowpea Preservation Messages
83
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
5.4. Extension Delivery Efforts
Methods o f Extension Delivery Used By AEAs and the Frequency o f Contact with Clientele. 
An attempt was made in this study to find out the different educational techniques employed by 
AEAs in educating their target group and the frequency of contact with them. The combination 
is showed in Figure 5.6. Combining the method used and the frequency of contact as indicated 
by extension workers gives a picture of extension delivery from the AEAs point of view. It shows 
that not only are combinations of interpersonal channels of extension delivery used (group and 
individual methods) in dissemination of cowpea preservation messages, but in addition, they tend 
to be used more frequently to contact clientele. Majority (87%) of AEAs indicated that they 
contacted their clientele thrice or more within a month especially in the cowpea farming season.
E X T E N S I O N  M E T H O D ( S )  U S E D
L e g e n d
P2 O N C E  (O ) fcz j T W I C E  (T )
□ T H R I C E  O R  M O R E  (TM )
I — Individual Method G = Group Method M = Mass method
Source: The Study (1998)
Fig. 5.6. : Methods of Extension Delivery Used By AEAs and the Frequency of Contact with 
Clientele.
84
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
The use of multiple methods re-enforces each other since the more the number of ways new 
information is presented, the faster the individual learns (Swanson, 1984). The more ways people 
are exposed to extension information, the larger the likelihood of acceptance of recommended 
practices. So when a new practice is exposed in several ways to an individual, the more likely he 
would find his preferred method of learning ( Maunders, 1972) which would aid in the adoption 
of practices. The multiple methods used in extending information thus would enhance the 
awareness and adoption of improved cowpea preservation technologies (Van den Ban & 
Hawkins, 1985). In addition to this, those frequently contacted are likely to have higher adoption 
levels. Basu (1969), in his report on the Western State of Nigeria, found that those who had 
extension contact, more readily adopted new practices. The number of contacts that individuals 
have with new ideas is positively related to early adoption of innovations (Effionayi, 1975). 
Adoption of cowpea preservation technologies in the study area is likely to be related to frequency 
of extension contact.
Methods o f Extension Delivery Producers & Traders Indicated AEAs used and their Frequency 
o f Contact.
Whilst Fig. 5.6. gives the nature and intensity indicated by the AEAs as their contact with their 
clientele, it is important that the assessment of input is based on the clients contacted. The extent 
to which producers and traders have received improved cowpea preservation messages through 
various extension methods and their frequency of contact with AEAs, is shown in Figures 5.7 &
5.8. A comparison of these figures shows the difference in extension methods producers and 
traders were contacted with. Twenty-four percent of traders (24%) indicated they were reached 
with multiple methods (mainly a combination of group and individual methods) than producers 
(16%). Thirty-six percent of producers (36%) indicated they were contacted mainly with the 
group - only method. There is also a difference between the frequency of contact indicated by
85
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
producers and traders and what was indicated by AEAs. Traders are contacted less frequently 
by AEA’s than producers. Severity - two percent (72%) o f traders as compared to 30% of 
producers had no contact at all with AEAs. In fact, most producers (61%) indicated they were 
contacted twice or more within a month whereas majority of traders (72%) had no contact at all. 
It shows that there is vast inequality in access to extension messages on ICPTs between producers 
and traders, in favour of producers.
1  i i i r
I. ONLYG . ONLY*. ONLY I. & G .  G .  & M l. .  G .  & M .N ONE
EXTENSION METHOD(S) USED
L e g e n d
N O  C O N T A C T □ O N C E
■ T W I C E T H R I C E  O R  M O R E
I = Individual Method G = Group Method M = Mass method 
Source: The Study (1998)
Fig. 5.7. : Methods of Extension Delivery Producers Indicated AEAs used and their Frequency 
of Contact.
86
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
0 %  — ^ ------1--------------:---------- 1--------------  '1------------  — f  f------------- ~  T ^ ---------1--------
I. ONLVG. ONL 'M . ONLY I. &  Q. G. & Ml., G. & M .NONE
EXTENSION M ETHOD(S) USED
Legend
LX.1 NO CONTACT 1 1 ONCE
M  TWICE 1-------1 THRICE OR MORE
I = Individual Method G = Group Method M = Mass method 
Source: The Study (1998)
Fig. 5.8. : Methods of Extension Delivery Traders Indicated AEAs used and their Frequency of 
Contact.
Together, the emerging picture is that, although extension workers try to contact their clientele 
at least twice a month, the contact per client is lower since not every member or clientele is 
contacted that frequently. Although fewer traders are contacted (those who are also farmers), the 
nature and intensity, is better and more intensive than that of producers.
The sheer amount of client contact is by no means the sole explanation of a change agents success 
in dissemination of information. On the other hand, extension agents may have presented a false 
report but actually do not use those methods of extension delivery and do not contact them as 
frequently as they indicated. To verify this, the extension methods clientele indicated they were 
contacted with and their frequency of contact was compared with that from AEAs point of view.
87
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
A comparison of the method of extension delivery and frequency of contact from the clienteles 
and AEAs point of view reveals the following disparities (Ref. Fig. 5.6, 5.7, & 5.8). Whereas 
AEAs indicated they did not disseminate information using the individual extension teaching 
method only, 17% of cowpea producers indicated they were contacted with that method only. 
The traders confirmed AEAs report. They were not contacted with the individual method only. 
The producers and traders confirmed that AEAs contacted them with the group only method but 
indicated a difference in frequency of contact. Twenty - five percent (25%) of cowpea producers 
indicated they were contacted twice within a month and 4% of cowpea traders indicated they 
were contacted once. Whereas AEAs report showed no producer nor trader was contacted less 
than thrice or more with this group only method. There is therefore a disparity in their account. 
The producers and traders however confirmed the mass only method was not used by AEAs in 
contacting them.
Producers and traders further confirmed AEAs use of the combination of the individual and group 
only methods but there was a difference in the report of the frequency of contact. Whereas 60% 
of AEAs indicated they used that combination in extending information with thrice or more 
contact, 2% producers indicated they were contacted just once with this combination of extension 
teaching methods.
No trader nor producer indicated they were contacted with a combination of the group and mass 
teaching method nor a combination of the individual, group and mass teaching methods although 
AEAs indicated they used these combinations. The disparity may either be because genuinely 
AEAs made just those contacts clientele indicated they made but gave wrong information to 
create an impression that they were effectively working. If this is the situation, certain constraints
88
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
to extension delivery may help make this situation understandable. These are examined in the 
study.
It was deduced from the study that the most used extension teaching method by AEAs (94%) was 
the group method (Ref, Fig. 5 .6). This confirms findings of Kang & Song (1984), that group 
teaching methods are more frequently used in extension work than the individual teaching method. 
This is not surprising because by utilizing group techniques, an extension worker can reach more 
people than possible by following the individual method alone. It is also an important factor when 
time and staff are limited as is the case in the Akatsi district. It is also an effective method in 
trying to persuade extension clientele to try new ideas or practices ( Swanson, 1984).
Examples of the group teaching methods used in the study area were the traditional demonstration 
- based methods that have been in many ways the comer - stone o f extension work. These are 
the method and result demonstrations. Twenty percent (20%) of AEAs used method 
demonstration only, about 7% used result demonstration only whiles 73% indicated they used 
both result and method demonstration. Ideally, each individual attending the demonstration, 
should have an opportunity to practice the new skill during the session but time and logistics 
however does not permit more than a few to participate in the demonstration in the study area. 
When this results and there is inadequate follow-up by the extension agent, there is likely to be 
the problem of misapplication of preservation technologies and subsequently, if farmers do not 
achieve the result they expect, there is likely to be low adoption of the innovation.
The least used method was the mass media channel. A reason for the low utilization of the mass 
method was because they did not have the facilities for extending information using that method.
89
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Since cowpea preservation information is not just needed to keep up to date on farming issues 
but to help meet the farmers need of reducing post - harvest losses and acquire more income, the 
mass method may not be reliable in dissemination of information, thus resulting in its low 
utilization by extension agents.
The individual method mostly used was home visits of individual farmers or farni families. A 
reason for the moderately high use o f the individual method although it is time consuming, and 
wastes money is that, it is through working individually with clientele that the extension worker 
gets to know what their needs are and how they carry on their work. It is through this method 
that the credibility and integrity of the extension worker can be nurtured ( Kang & Song, 1984) 
so that in future he would be able to convince clientele to adopt innovations.
Disadvantages with Use o f Extension Method by AEA’s in Dissemination o f Cowpea 
Preservation Messages
Perceptions o f disadvantages of the extension teaching methods employed in dissemination of 
cowpea messages were indicated by the AEAs. These they indicated made the methods of 
delivery ineffective for dissemination of cowpea preservation messages (See Table 5.1 . Below). 
Table 5.1 : Disadvantages with Use of Group Extension Method by AEA’s in Dissemination of
Cowpea Preservation Messages
DISADVANTAGE FREQ. (n=14) %
- Negative attitude of farmers to attendance of meetings 7 50
- Not all individuals in the group will understand the tech. 6 43
- If monitoring of the tech is not well done, misapplication of 
technology occurs. 4 29
- Rate o f concentration of group member is low 2 14
- Not Applicable 1 7
90
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
In addition to this, group methods often reach one select part of the target group because only 
those interested in extension or those who are members of farmers groups come to the meetings. 
The implication is that cowpea preservation messages may not get to all end - users of the 
technology but only to those interested in extension activities if the group extension method is 
used in dissemination of information. This confirms findings by Van den Ban & Hawkins (1985) 
that dissemination of information using the group method, often reaches only a selected part of 
the target group who are interested in extension or those who are members of certain 
organisations since they are the ones who come for meetings. Those in the group could however 
help in diffusion of the message.
It is noteworthy that group methods may successfully promote a general awareness of new ideas. 
However, they are woefully inadequate as a source of specific information that meets a particular 
farmers needs ( Whale, 1989). This was however the method mostly used by AEAs in the study 
area. The clientele may agree at a meeting or demonstration that a certain method is good 
because he wishes to conform with other members in the group in the acceptance of a new idea. 
He may be reluctant or embarrassed to admit that he does not understand. For effective delivery, 
there is a need for AEAs to follow up demonstrations with individual visits to discuss new ideas 
in relation to his own farm and the problem he sees in trying to apply this new method ( 
Maunders, 1972). This suggests a need for an overlap in the use of extension methods (as was 
the case in the study area).
Van den Ban & Hawkins ( 1985), indicated that costs in terms of staff time and travel is high with 
the use of the individual method and this also applies in the study area since these were the main 
reasons given by AEAs in the study area as disadvantages of using the individual method in 
dissemination of cowpea preservation messages.
91
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Table 5.2 : Disadvantages of Use of Individual Extension Method by AEA’s in Dissemination of
Cowpea Preservation Messages
DISADVANTAGE FREQUENCY (n=ll) PERCENTAGES)
-It is a waste of money only 1 9
-It is a waste of time only 7 64
-It is a waste of time and money 3 27
-Not applicable 4 36
5.5.- Constraints to the Delivery of Cowpea Preservation Messages 
Reducing post-harvest loss so as to gain more income and make more food available, are priorities 
of farmers. Agricultural extension organizations have the potential to address these priorities of 
farmers. To do so however, some serious problems constraining the extension agents ability to 
facilitate effective dissemination of cowpea preservation messages need to be addressed and if 
possible resolved.
An attempt was made to find out from AEAs, constraints to effective delivery of cowpea 
preservation messages. These have been grouped into categories namely, the social constraint, 
economic constraint and institutional constraints, as summarized in Figure 5.9. below.
Source: The Study (1998).
Fig.5.9. : AEAs Constraints To Delivery Of Cowpea Messages.
92
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Institutional Constraints:
The main constraint to delivery of cowpea messages was the institutional constraint. Institutional 
constraints indicated by AEAs were poor pay and service conditions (100%), mobility problems 
(47%) and inadequate supply of input for demonstration (40%). Extension service is primarily 
about people. Their attitude and behaviour determine the effectiveness of the organisation. It is 
important to have enough personnel to organise and conduct programmes reaching members of 
the rural community. But this is not possible for services in early stages of development or where 
funds are limited (Maunders, 1972) as is the case in the study area. In the study area, technical 
trained personnel are simply insufficient. They therefore have to work with a large number of 
clientele within large operational areas. To compound the problem, extension agents in the district 
indicated they lacked zeal for performing extension work due to lack of adequate incentives. 
They are not remunerated adequately, there is irregularity in fuel supply and payment of travel and 
transport (T& T) allowances and other field allowances.
Since the effectiveness of extension education depends so much on the energy and initiative of the 
staff, high morale is especially important. Underpaid and ill - equipped personnel are unlikely to 
display much enthusiasm in their work ( Maunders, 1972). Reduced salaries, and absence of 
fringe benefits, lower the morale of staff and this results in inefficient extension education 
occurring.
Adequate transportation is the prerequisite for effective extension work and presents special 
problems for extension organisations including Extension Officers in the study area. The field 
level personnel in the study area, lack adequate transportation to reach farmers effectively.
93
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Although majority of the AEAs have motorcycles, a few do not have this. Even those who had 
it complained about mechanical problems due to the age of the motorbikes. As a result of this, 
AEAs found it difficult visiting farmers within their operational areas especially when dispersed 
settlement patterns were prevalent in the study area. To compound this problem, there is only one 
Nissan pick - up that is used by the district director and his deputy for supervisory trips thus 
AEAs without motorbikes do not have access to this. Visiting schedules (individual visits and 
group meetings) consequently were inadequately followed. AEAs rather used the time engaging 
in activities unrelated to their job schedules in a bid to get income to supplement their meagre 
salary.
It does appear that lack of mobility is perceived to be a serious problem not only in Ghana, but 
also worldwide (Sigman & Swanson, 1984) and this affects the efficiency of extension delivery. 
All categories of extension staff, must be able to travel throughout their respective service areas 
if the organisation is to fulfill its mission (Claar & Bentz, 1984). Without transportation, contacts 
may be limited to those who come to see them and a few who live within walking distance 
(Maunders 1972).
Demonstrations and teaching equipments are the tools of the extension agents profession. 
Supplies of input for demonstrations are important, always bearing in mind that equipments used 
in demonstrations should also be available to farmers who are expected to follow recommended 
practices ( Maunders, 1972). This seems so obvious for effective extension delivery but extension 
workers in nearly every country (including those in the Akatsi District) are handicapped by the 
lack of inputs necessary for effective work (Maunders, 1972). Extension agents in the study area
94
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
rely on farmers for the provision of inputs for demonstrations. As indicated by Claar & Bentz 
(1984), extension agents can naturally not be successful in demonstration work without access 
to adequate supplies and equipments.
Economic Constraints:
Economic constraints identified by AEAs include: lack of capital to buy inputs for demonstration 
(47%), high cost of inputs ( 40%) and unavailability of inputs (33%),. Twenty-seven percent 
(27%) also indicated a need to subsidize the cost of chemicals. Adequate funds with which to 
operate an extension service is the most commonly expressed need of extension administrators. 
Extension requires funds for the large number of personnel required, as well as for transport, input 
supplies and equipments (Maunders, 1972).
The recommended cowpea preservation practices, require the use of chemical preservatives, the 
prices of which farmers could hardly afford. The problem was magnified as a result of the 
unavailability of credit facilities for farm operations. A report by National Agricultural Extension 
Project (N.AE.P., 1997) realized the problem with using available storage technologies was the 
cost, of the technology. A constraints to low adoption of agricultural technologies was therefore 
the lack of inputs and astronomical prices of farm inputs (as is the case in the study area). As a 
result of this, there is likely to be a low adoption of recommended preservation practices.
Social Constraints:
Farmers attitude towards extension activities was a constraint to extension delivery. Extension 
agents explained that ever since the withdrawal of subsidy on agricultural inputs, farmers have lost 
interest especially in practices that involved the use of inputs. Since the recommended cowpea
95
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
preservation practices require the use of inputs which most farmers cannot afford, they do not see 
why they should attend meetings that are not beneficial to them. Twenty-seven percent (27%) 
o f the AEAs indicated farmers portrayed a lukewarm attitude to extension activities, 40% 
indicated farmers were unwilling to attend meetings, whiles 13% indicated they were unwilling 
to preserve cowpea altogether. The attitude of farmers dampens AEAs enthusiasm or zeal in 
performing extension activities.
These constraints if not addressed would lead not only to ineffective dissemination of improved 
cowpea preservation messages but to the general dissemination of information in the study area. 
When addressed however, it would help in the reduction of post harvest loss of food and help 
increase food security in the study area and subsequently in Ghana as a whole.
5.6. Re - Introduction of Cowpea Preservation Technologies
It is noteworthy that despite the fact that cowpea preservation technologies have been introduced 
in the study area, 93% of the AEAs interviewed felt there was a need for the re - introduction of 
these preservation technologies. Reasons given for the need for re-introduction are indicated in 
Figure 5.10. The most important reason for the need for re - introduction o f cowpea preservation 
messages was the low level of adoption of the technologies recommended by AEAs.
96
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
60%
C£ 30%
LJJ 20%
10%  
o%
A  B  C  D  E  F
REASONS FOR RE - INTRO OF TECHS.
Legend
Q N O T  F U L L Y  U N D E R S T A N D I N G  T E C H  ( A )
□ R E D U C E  P O S T  H A R V E S T  L O S S  ( B )rrm
I'D  O U P G R A D E  K N O W L E D G E  ( C )
■ A D O P T I O N  L E V E L  L O W  ( D )
DU C R E A T E  M O R E  A W A R E N E S S  ( E )
U N W I L L I N G  T O  U S E  T E C H .  ( F )
Source: The Study (1998).
Fig. 5.10. : Reasons for Re - Introduction of the Technology:
5.7. Summary and Conclusion
This chapter discussed the nature and intensity of extension delivery efforts with regards to 
cowpea preservation technologies. It was realised that messages on traditional as well as improved 
cowpea preservation technologies were disseminated by AEAs in the study area. ICPTs mainly 
extended by AEAs in ranked order are: Actellic, Edible oil, and Phostoxin. In addition, 
information is extended on traditional cowpea preservation technologies. These are in ranked 
order: the use of naphthalene balls or camphor for storage of cowpea in a sealed container, the 
use of the local keg, wood ash, neem products and the use of sea sand.
Extension workers have acquired information on cowpea preservation mainly through monthly
training sessions and to a limited extent, from literature and pre - service training. Methods
indicated to be used by the AEAs in extension delivery are a combination of the individual and
97
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
group methods to contact farmers thrice or more within a month. The general impression is that 
extension delivery efforts have involved contacting cowpea farmers and traders mainly with group 
methods about twice or more within a month.
There was also a vast inequality in access to extension messages on cowpea preservation 
technologies between producers and traders, in favour of producers. The infrequent contact is 
detrimental to achievement of the objectives of reducing post-harvest losses through the use of 
improved cowpea preservation methods since cowpea traders store more cowpea and for longer 
periods of time than the producers. Extension agents need to widen their target net and make 
preservation messages more accessible to cowpea traders.
Constraints to the delivery of cowpea preservation messages, were categorised into three namely: 
institutional, economic and social in descending order. These need to be addressed for effective 
dissemination of information to occur. As a result of the low adoption of cowpea preservation 
technologies, extension agents in the study area felt the need for re - introduction of cowpea 
preservation technologies to their clientele. This further supports the need for this study to 
contribute knowledge to improving adoption of ICPTs.
98
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
CHAPTER SIX 
PERCEPTIONS OF ATTRIBUTES OF ICPTs
6.0. Introduction
The chapter describes the level of awareness of these technologies, before going on to describe 
the perceptions of characteristics that cowpea producers and traders have on the different ICPTs 
that have been introduced by the MoFA, Ghana's extension staff in the Akatsi District of the 
Volta Region. These attributes are grouped into the relative advantage, compatibility, 
complexity, trialability and observability of the technologies. The use of such classification of 
attributes enables different innovations to be studied and compared in general terms.
6.1. Level of Awareness of Cowpea Preservation Technologies
Awareness is a favourable attitude towards adoption of an innovation ( Agarwal & Prasad, 1998). 
Although it is not a direct predictor of adoption behaviour, it compels potential adopters to seek 
further information about the innovation. Awareness is thus a crucial prerequisite to the 
development of specific positive perceptions which in turn lead to innovation adoption (Ajzen 
& Fishbein, 1980; Agarwal & Prasad, 1998).
99
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Table 6.1. Level of Awareness of Cowpea Preservation Technologies
METHOD SPECIFIC TECHNOLOGY LEVELS OF AWARENESS
Producers Traders
Freq.
(n=60)
% Freq.
(n=25)
%
i. Mechanical method - Handpicking 9 15 7 28
- Sifting 60 100 19 76
- Sun diying 60 100 ! 8 32
- Winnowing 50 83 15 60
ii. Use of admixtures/ mineral - Sand 1 2 0 0
substances - Wood ash 17 28 5 20
iii. Use of chemicals - Actellic liquid*** 22 37 8 32
- Actellic dust*** 31 52 12 48
- Phostoxin*** 15 25 4 16
- Naphthalene balls (Camphor) 40 67 12 48
iv. Substances of Plant Origin -Edible oil*** 21 35 6 24
- Neem Products 6 10 0 0
- Pepper 1 2 0 0
v. Sealed Container Storage - Use of Local Keg (Adjafi) 15 25 5 20
*** Preservation Technologies recommended by Agricultural Extension Agents (AEAs)
Table 6.1. shows that both producers and traders are aware of some of the five groups of methods 
of cowpea preservation technologies. The level of awareness of preservation technologies by 
cowpea producers and traders was highest with the use of mechanical methods. Intermittent 
drying of cowpea (100%) and sifting of cowpea ( 100%) were mechanical methods producers 
were mostly aware of. Cowpea traders on the other hand were mostly aware of the use of the 
sifting method (76%). For producers and traders, the highest level of awareness of ICPTs was 
in the use of Acteilic dust (52% and 48% respectively) followed by Actellic liquid (37% and 32% 
respectively), Edible oil (35% and 24% respectively) and Phostoxin (25% and 16% respectively) 
in descending order.
100
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Generally, producers had higher awareness levels of ICPTs than traders. Cowpea traders who 
had knowledge of ICPTs were those who grew cowpea themselves. Comparatively, the level of 
awareness of traditional cowpea preservation technologies (especially the mechanical methods) 
was higher than that of extension recommended cowpea preservation technologies. Improved 
cowpea preservation technologies are used by a minority of respondents who can afford the cost 
o f storage. The use of improved methods of preservation including ICPTs, would however 
augment the available food supply and enable a more even distribution of these supplies over time 
and space. Intensive education on the use of improved cowpea preservation technologies, which 
would help increase awareness and subsequently adoption of cowpea preservation technologies, 
is therefore necessary to foster production increases needed to sustain current population growth.
6.2 Perceptions of Specific Attributes of Selected ICPTs
Perceptions of attributes of technologies can be examined at three levels: specific, general and 
overall levels. The components of the general and specific attributes are shown in Table 6.2 and 
Appendix 5). Perceptions of specific attributes of the ICPTs are such that Phostoxin is perceived 
to have the highest range of positive attributes (13), followed in descending order by Actellic dust 
(10), Actellic liquid (8), and Edible oil (6).
Apart from the quantitative differences, there are qualitative differences. The presence of positive 
perceptions for some and not for others enables us identify seven main attributes on which ICPTs 
are perceived to differ qualitatively. With the exception of Phostoxin, the use of all ICPTs were 
perceived to involve the use of more time and work. The use of Phostoxin was perceived to 
involve less work and time as compared to the use of traditional cowpea preservation 
technologies. With the exception of Phostoxin, as compared to the use of traditional cowpea
101
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
problems if cowpea was preserved using ICPTs. Actellic liquid and Edible oil were considered 
dissimilar to traditional cowpea preservation technologies. With regards to complexity of use of 
ICPTs, Edible oil was perceived as not being easy to use while the others were perceived as being 
easier to use than traditional cowpea preservation technologies. The use of Phostoxin and 
Actellic dust were perceived as not being expensive to try out on a limited basis (piloting cost) 
The advantage of using Edible oil was perceived to be less visible.
Table 6.2.: Perceptions of Specific Attributes of Selected ICPTs
General Attributes Specific Attributes
Actellic Liquid
Selected ICPTs 
Actellic Dust Phostoxin Edible Oils Norm
Relative Advantage Cost -
Income Yielding + + + + +
Shelf - Life + + + + +
Work Involved - - +
Time Involved +
Effectiveness + + + + +
Marketing Problems - + -
Compatibility Similarity - + + +
Taste + + + + +
Smell + + + + +
Complexity Ease o f  use -t- + f +
Ease in understanding + + + + +
Trialabiiity Piloting cost + +
Generation o f  Curiosity - - -
Observability Visibility o f  advantage + + + +
6.3. Perception of General Attributes of Selected ICPTs
An analysis was made of respondents' general perceptions of attributes of ICPTs. The results of 
the analysis are found in Table 6.3. and Appendix 6. Quantitatively, Actellic liquid (AL), Actellic 
dust (AD), and Phostoxin (P) were each perceived to have four (4) positive attributes, whilst 
Edible oil (EO) was perceived to have only one (1) positive attribute.
102
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
A qualitative analysis of Table 6.3. showed that all ICPTs with the exception of Edible oil were 
perceived to offer an advantage over the use of traditional cowpea preservation technologies 
(relative advantage). With the exception of Edible oil, all ICPTs were perceived to be easy to 
understand and use (complexity); and it was easy to see the result of use of these technologies 
observability). However, it was perceived that too much money was committed when trying out 
all ICPTs (trialability).
Table 6.3.: Perception of General Attributes of Selected ICPTs
General Attributes Selected Improved Cowpea Preservation Technologies
AL AD P EO Norm
Relative Advantage. + + + +
Compatibility + + +  + +
Complexity + + + +
Trialability - - - -
Observability + + + +
AL =  Actellic liquid AD =  Actellic dust P =  Phostoxin EO =  Edible oil
6.4. Perceptions of Overall Attributes of Selected ICPTs
Table 6.4. (Ref Appendix 7) shows the overall perceptions of ICPTs. Actellic dust and Phostoxin 
were perceived positively whereas Actellic liquid and Edible oil were perceived negatively.
Improved Cowpea Preservation Technologies Overall Perception of Attributes
Actellic liquid -
Actellic dust +
Phostoxin +
Edible oils
The negative perceptions of attributes are likely to have an effect on the level of adoption of the 
preservation technologies. Extension workers therefore need to increase their extension delivery 
efforts so as to increase the awareness of the use of ICPTs. This awareness would compel 
potential adopters to seek further information about the usefulness of ICPTs. Awareness through 
increased extension delivery would not only help change negative perceptions about ICPTs, but
103
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
The qualitative difference in attributes as perceived by producers and traders may be attributed 
to the difference in adopter characteristics, extension methods used, and frequency of extension 
contact ( Moore & Benbasat, 1991; Rogers, 1995). To understand why respondents may perceive 
the attributes of a technology in a particular way, a relationship between these variables and 
perceptions would be analysed.
6.5. Characteristics and Perceptions of Attributes of ICPTs
Table 6.5 shows the relationship between the characteristics of respondents and their overall 
perceptions of attributes of ICPTs. An analysis of the relationship between personal 
characteristics and overall perception of the attributes of ICPTs, in Table 6.5. (Appendix 8) shows 
that, quantitatively, personal characteristics influenced the perception of attributes of Actellic 
liquid (AL) but not Phostoxin (P), Actellic dust (AD) and Edible oil (EO).
Qualitatively, there was a difference in perception of Actellic liquid and Edible oil. Although 
personal characteristics did not make a difference in the perception of the attributes of Edible oil, 
it differed most from the norm. Personal characteristics however influenced the perception of 
attributes of Actellic liquid. Whilst males had positive perceptions about Actellic liquid, females 
had negative perception about it. The young (40 years or less) perceived the attributes o f Actellic 
liquid positively whiles the old perceived it negatively. The educational level was another 
characteristic that brought about a difference in the perception of attributes of Actellic liquid. 
Those with no form of education had positive perceptions about Actellic liquid, whereas those 
with some form of education (formal or non - formal) had negative perception about Actellic 
liquid.
help in the development of more positive perceptions (Date-Bah and Stevens, 1985; Ajzen &
Fishbein, 1980; Agarwal & Prasad, 1998), which would lead to innovation adoption .
104
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
While those with little working experience had positive perception about Actellic liquid, those 
with more working experience had negative perceptions about it. Those with small farm sizes 
perceived the use of Actellic liquid negatively while those with large farm size perceived it 
positively. Those with small crop yield and those with large crop yield perceived the use of 
Actellic liquid positively.
Respondents who grew or sold the local variety of cowpea perceived the attributes of Actellic 
liquid negatively while those who grew or sold the improved variety only or a combination o f the 
improved and local varieties perceived Actellic liquid positively. Those with small quantities of 
cowpea to store had negative perceptions about Actellic liquid whereas those with large quantities 
of cowpea to store had positive perceptions.
Table 6.5.: Characteristics and Overall Perceptions of Attributes of ICPTs
Characteristics Category Selected Improved Cowpea Preservation Technologies 
AL AD P EO | NORM
Gender Male + + + - +
Female - +- + - +
Age 40 years or less (Young ) + ■f + +
41 years &  above (Old) + + - +
Educational Level None + +- + +
Formal & Non - Formal + + +
Working Experience 5 years or less (Little) + + + +
More than 5 years (More) + + +
Farm Size 2  acres or less (Small) + + +
More than 2  acres (Large) + + + - +
Crop Yield 4 bags or less (Low) + + +
More than 4 bags (High) - + + +
Variety Grown Local only + + +
Improved only + + + +
Local & Improved + + + i +
Quantity Stored 2 bags or less (Small) + + +
More than 2 bags.(Large) + + + 0
AL = Actellic liquid AD = Actellic dust P = Phostoxin EO = Edible oil
105
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
6.5.1. Personal Characteristics o f Respondents & Perceptions o f General Attributes o f ICPTs 
An analysis of the relationship between the personal characteristics o f cowpea producers and their 
general perception of the attributes of ICPTs in Table 6.6. & Appendix 9 shows that with the 
exception of Actellic liquid, personal characteristics did not influence the perception of general 
attributes of ICPTs. Age of respondents and working experience made a difference in the 
perception of attributes of Actellic liquid but not gender and the educational level.
The old (more than 40 years) perceived the use of Actellic liquid as not offering an advantage 
over the use of traditional cowpea preservation technologies (relative advantage) whiles the young 
(40 years or less) perceived it as offering an advantage over the use o f traditional cowpea 
preservation practices. The old also felt it was not easy to understand and use Actellic liquid as 
compared to traditional cowpea preservation technologies (complexity) whiles the young felt it 
was easy to understand and use. Contrary to the perception of respondents with little working 
experience ( 5 years or less), those with more working experience ( more than 5 years) felt the 
use of Actellic liquid did not offer an advantage over the use of traditional cowpea preservation 
technologies.
106
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Table 6.6.: Personal Characteristics of Respondents and their Perceptions of General Attributes
of ICPTs ______________________________________________
ICPTS General Gender Age Educational Level Working. Experience
Attributes M. Fe ! A j
<41 >40 A N. F&NF. A <6 >5 J A
Actellic Relative Adv. +
1+ 1 + 
j
+ - + + + + +
Ii + 
. ........ _| ..
liquid Compatibility +
»+ 1 + + + + + + +
I+  I t- 
\
Complexity +
1+ t + 
1
+ + + + +
i+ l +
j
Trialability -
1
1
1
- -
ii
j ....
Observability +
\
+ 1 + 
|
+ + + + + + +
ii +
j .
Actellic Relative Adv. +
i
+ 1 + 
j
• + + +■ + ■f + +
i+ i +
j
dust Compatibility +
1
• + 1 + 
j
+ + + + +
i
+ i + 
[
Complexity +
1+ \ + 
j
+ * + + + + +
i
+ i + 
|
Trialability
11 - 
j -
i
i
j
Observability +
1+ I + 
j
+ + + + + + +
i
+ i +
j
Phos. Relative Adv. •f
1+ 1 + 
!
+ + +■ + + + +
i
+ i +
j
Compatibility +
1
+ 1 + 
j
+ + + + + + +
i
f  i + 
|
Complexity +
1f  1 + 
j
+ + + + +
i
+  i + 
1
Trialability
1
1
[
i
i
j
Observability +
1+ 1 +
. ? ......
f + + + + + +
i
+ i + 
I
Edible oil Relative Adv.
I
1
|
i
(
j
Compatibility +
1+■ 1 h 
j
+ + + + + + +
i
+ i + 
1
Complexity
(
1
ii
j
Trialability
1
1
| - -
i
i
1
Observability -
1.  1 _ 
____L -
- - -
i
ii
Phos. = Phostoxin M = Male Fe = Female A = Norm
N = No Education F = Formal Education N-F = Non- formal education
6.5.2. : Enterprise Characteristics o f Respondents & Perceptions o f General Attributes o f ICPTs. 
An analysis of Table 6.7 and Appendix 10 shows that the farm size, crop yield, variety of cowpea 
grown or sold and the quantity of cowpea stored made no difference in the perception of the 
general attributes of Actellic dust, Phostoxin, Edible oil but made a difference in the perception
107
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
of the attributes of Actellic liquid. Cowpea producers with small farm size ( 2 acres or less) 
perceived its use as not being better than the use of traditional cowpea preservation technologies 
(relative advantage) whiles those with large farm size ( more than 2 acres) perceived it as being 
better than the use of traditional preservation practices.
Cowpea producers with low crop yield (4  bags or less) perceived the use of Actellic liquid as 
offering an advantage over the use of traditional cowpea preservation technologies (relative 
advantage) whereas those with higher crop yield ( more than 4 bags) perceived it otherwise. 
Whiles respondents who grew or sold improved cowpea varieties only or a combination of 
improved and local only varieties perceived the use of Actellic liquid as offering an advantage over 
the use of traditional methods (relative advantage), those who grew or sold the local variety only 
perceived it as not offering an advantage over the use of traditional preservation technologies. 
Respondents who store small quantities of cowpea ( 2 bags or less) felt it was not easy to 
understand and use Actellic liquid for preserving cowpea (complexity) whiles those who stored 
large quantities of cowpea (more than 2 bags) felt it was easy to understand and use the 
technology in preserving cowpea.
108
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Table 6.7. Enterprise Characteristics & Perceptions of General Attributes of ICPTs
ICPTs G.A Farm Size Crop Yield Variety Grown /  Sold Quantity Stored
<3 >2 A <5 >4 : A L I. L & I A <3 >2 j A
AL RA - + + + - : + - + + + - + j
C. + + + + + : + + + + + + + ; +
Co. + + + + + : + - + + + - + j +
Tria - - - - - j - - - - - j
Ob + + + + + ! + + + + f + i +
AD RA + + + + + j + + + + + + *  : +
C. + + + + + ; + + + + + -t- +  : +
Co + + + + + ; + + + + + + j +
Tria - - - j - - j - - I “
Ob + + + + + j + + + + + : +
P R.A + f + + + j + + + + + + + i +
C + + + + + : + + + + + f + i +
Co. + + + + + i + + + + + + + : +
Tria - - ] - j - - j - ■ : '
Ob. + + + + + i + + + + + + + : +
EO R.A - - - - i - - - j - - j -
C + + + + + : + + + + + + + : +
Co - - - i - - - : "
Tria - - - - j - - - ’  i '  i
____ Obs - - - : ! - - i - - ! - 1 -
AL = Actellic liquid AD = Actellic dust P = Phostoxin EO = Edible oil
GA = General Attributes RA = Relative Advantage C. = Compatibility
Co. = Complexity Tria. = Trialability Obs. = Observability
A. = Norm L. = Local variety I. = Improved variety
Adopter characteristics did not influence the perception of general attributes of Actellic dust, 
Phostoxin and Edible oil but made a difference in perceptions of attributes of Actellic liquid. Age, 
and working experience did influence the perception attributes of Actellic Liquid. All enterprise 
characteristics also influenced the perception of attributes of Actellic liquid. The general 
attributes influenced most by these adopter characteristics were the relative advantage and 
complexity of the technology.
109
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
6.6. Extension Delivery and Perception of Attributes of ICPTs
To further understand why respondents may perceive attributes of a technology in a particular 
way, analysis was made of the relationship between extension delivery and perceptions.
6.6.1. Extension Methods Used & Overall Perceptions ofAttributes o f ICPTs 
An analysis of the relationship between methods of extension delivery used and the overall 
attributes of improved cowpea preservation technologies in Table 6.8. and Appendix 11 the 
extension method used did not influence the perceptions of attributes of ICPTs. Irrespective of 
the extension method used, ICPTs were perceived similarly. The overall perception of the 
attributes of Edible oil however differed from the norm. Edible oil was perceived negatively 
whereas the other ICPTs were perceived positively.
Table 6.8.: Extension Method Used and Perceptions of Overall Attributes of ICPTs:
ICPTs
Individual
METHOD USED 
Group Individual & Group Norm
Actellic Liquid + + + +
Actellic Dust + + + + |
Phostoxin + + + +
Edible Oils - - -
Norm + + +
6.6.2. Extension Method and General Perception o f Attributes o f ICPTs
An analysis of the relationship between the extension method and perceptions of general attributes
may help explain the influence of the method on perceptions. The method used as shown in Table
6.9 and Appendix 12 did not bring about a difference in the perceptions of general attributes of
Actellic dust, Phostoxin and Edible oil but made a difference in perception of the attributes of
Actellic liquid. The use of the individual method only resulted in respondents perceiving the use
110
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
of Actellic liquid as not offering an advantage over the use of traditional cowpea preservation 
technologies (relative advantage). The use of Actellic liquid was also perceived as not being easy 
to understand and use (complexity) when the individual method of extension delivery was used. 
Methods that lead to positive perception of attributes (eg. the group method and a combination 
of the group and individual method ), should be noted and used more often to achieve the 
educational objective of extending information to reduce post - harvest loss.
Table 6.9.: Extension Method Used and Perceptions of General Attributes of ICPTs
General Perceived 
Attributes
Actellic liquid
Improved Cowpea Preservation Technologies 
Actellic dust Phostoxin Edible Oil
I G I&O A I G I&G A I G  I&G A I G  I&G A
Relative Advantage + + + +  +  + + +  +  + + - -
Compatibility +  + + + +  +  + + +  +  + + +  +  + +
Complexity + + + +  +  + + +  +  + + - - -
Trialability - - - - - - - - - -
Observability +  + + + +  +  + + +  +  + + - - -
I = Individual method G = Group method A = Norm
6.6.3. Frequency o f Contact and Perceptions o f Overall A ttributes o f ICPTs 
An analysis of the relationship of the frequency of contact and the perception of overall attributes 
of ICPTs in Table 6.10. and Appendix 13 shows that the frequency of contact did not influence 
the perception of overall attributes of Actellic dust, Phostoxin and Edible oil but made a difference 
in the perceptions of attributes of Actellic liquid. Those with no contact and those with one 
contact within a month had negative perceptions about the use of Actellic liquid while those with 
contact twice or more within a month had positive perceptions. This implies that an increased 
frequency of contact results in more positive perceptions of attributes of Actellic liquid.
I l l
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Table 6.10.: Frequency of Contact and Perceptions of Overall Attributes o f ICPTs
ICPTs Frequency of Contact
No Contact Once Twice Thrice or More i
Actellic Liquid - - + +
Actellic Dust + + + +
Phostoxin + + +
Edible oils - - - -
Norm - -f +
6.6.4. Frequency o f Contact and General Perception ofAttributes o f ICPTs 
An analysis of Table 6.11. and Appendix 14, shows that the frequency o f contact did not make 
any difference in the perceptions of general attributes of Actellic dust, Phostoxin and Edible oil 
but made a difference in the perception of the relative advantage and complexity of Actellic liquid. 
Those with no extension contact or one contact within a month perceived the use of Actellic 
liquid as not offering an advantage over the use of traditional cowpea preservation technologies 
(relative advantage) whiles those with twice or more contact perceived this attribute positively. 
It is suggested therefore that there should be more extension contact with clientele to ensure their 
perceptions be more positive since this would encourage clientele to adopt the technologies.
Table 6.11: Frequency of Contact of AEAs and Perceptions of General Attributes of ICPTs
General Selected Improved Cowpea Preservation Technologies
Attributes Actellic Liquid Actellic Dust Phostoxin Edible Oils
N 0  T M A N 0  T M A N O T M A N O T M A
Rel. Adv. + + + + + + + + + + + + : + -
Co. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + i + + + + + +
Com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + j + -
Tria. - -
Obs. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + \ + -
Rel Adv. = Relative Advantage Co. = Compatibility Com. = Complexity
Tria = Trialability Obs.= Observability N = No contact
O = Once T. = Twice M — More than thrice
A = Norm
112
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
6.7. Conclusion:
The study revealed that both producers and traders were aware of five ranges of methods of 
cowpea preservation technologies and the highest level of awareness was in the use of mechanical 
method. Generally producers had higher knowledge levels of ICPTs than traders. Comparatively, 
the level of awareness of traditional cowpea preservation technologies was higher than awareness 
of ICPTs. The levels of awareness of ICPTs for both producers and traders were highest for 
Actellic dust, Actellic liquid, Edible oil and Phostoxin, in descending order. Intensive education 
which would increase awareness and subsequently, adoption of ICPTs is therefore necessary to 
foster production increases needed to sustain current population growth.
Phostoxin was perceived as having the highest range of positive specific attributes, whilst Edible 
oil had the least. Qualitatively, the seven main attributes on which perception of the attributes of 
improved cowpea preservation technologies differed were perception of work and time involved 
in the use of the technology, extent of marketing problems, extent of similarity of technology to 
traditional practices, ease in use of technology, piloting cost, visibility of advantage of use of 
ICPTs.
With the exception of Edible oil, the perceptions of general attributes of ICPTs revealed that the 
use of ICPTs offered an advantage over the use of traditional cowpea preservation technologies 
(relative advantage), and the results of use of these technologies was visible (observability). All 
ICPTs were also perceived to be easy to understand and use (complexity) whereas their trial on 
a limited basis was perceived to involve too much money (trialability).
The perception of overall attributes of ICPTs revealed that Actellic dust and Phostoxin were 
perceived positively whiles Actellic liquid and Edible oil were perceived negatively. Extension
113
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
workers need to increase extension delivery efforts so as to create more awareness, which would 
not only help change negative perceptions but help in the development of more positive 
perceptions which subsequently would lead to high innovation adoption.
An analysis of the relationship between adopter characteristics, extension delivery method, 
frequency of contact and perceptions of attributes revealed that with the exception of Actellic 
liquid ICPTs were not influenced by these variables. With the exception of the quantity of 
cowpea stored, all adopter characteristics brought about a difference in the perception o f overall 
attributes of Actellic liquid. Adopter characteristics that brought about a difference in the 
perception of general attributes were age, working experience and variety of cowpea grown or 
sold, and quantity of cowpea stored.
It would be advantageous if AEAs took note of extension methods that result in more positive 
perceptions of attributes (the group method only and a combination of the group and individual 
method), and used more of it since this would help more producers and traders have positive 
perceptions of ICPTs which ultimately would help the adoption of ICPTs. An increase in AEAs 
frequency of contact resulted in producers and traders having more positive perceptions of 
Actellic liquid. It is suggested therefore that AEAs should increase extension contact so as to 
ensure their clientele develop more positive perceptions of the attributes of ICPTs.
Although five attributes have been proposed and to a limited extent shown to be predictors of 
adoption behaviour (Rogers, 1995; Agarwal & Prasad, 1998), only two have consistently emerged 
as salient in this study, as being influenced by adopter characteristics, extension delivery methods 
and frequency of contact. They are the relative advantage and complexity. These attributes 
influenced mostly the perception of Actellic liquid but not the other technologies. Technology 
developers need to re - examine this technology and refine items that the target group had 
negative perceptions about so as to make the technology more acceptable.
114
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
CHAPTER SEVEN 
ADOPTION OF IMPROVED COWPEA PRESERVATION 
TECHNOLOGIES 
7.0. Introduction
Adoption level is traditionally indicated by the percentage of target beneficiaries of extension 
activities who are using the innovations disseminated for a given period of time. However, in 
comparing adoption levels of innovations which have been introduced at different times, one more 
relevant measure is the awareness - adoption gap. This chapter considers adoption and how 
these are related to personal characteristics, extension delivery and perceptions of attributes of 
ICPTs.
7.1. Awareness - Adoption Gap:
A better indicator of the extent of adoption of various technologies is the gap between the level of 
awareness and the level of adoption. Figures 7.1 & 7.2 show this gap between awareness and 
adoption for the selected ICPTs. The values for producers and traders awareness-adoption gap is 
least for Phostoxin (2% - 0%), followed by Actellic dust (7% - 12%), Actellic liquid (14% - 16%), 
and Edible oil (23% - 16%) in ascending order for cowpea producers and traders respectively. In 
other words, adoption level is highest for Phostoxin and least for Edible oil. With the exception of 
Phostoxin, producers generally had lower adoption levels of ICPTs than traders (based on the 
awareness - adoption gap ).
115
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Fig. 7.1: Awareness - Adoption Gap of Producers Fig. 7.2: Awareness - Adoption Gap of Traders
7.2. Adopter Characteristics and Adoption of ICPTs
To get an idea of factors influencing adoption of ICPTs, the relationship between respondents 
characteristics and adoption was studied. The characteristics studied were gender, age, educational 
level, working experience, farm size, crop yield, variety of cowpea grown or sold and the quantity 
of cowpea stored. An analysis of adopter characteristics of respondents in Chapter 5 revealed 
cowpea producers and traders only differed significantly with regards to their gender and quantity 
of cowpea stored. These are therefore the only two adopter characteristics that would be dis­
aggregated and studied as two populations (cowpea producers and traders).
Gender & Adoption:
Table 7.1. shows that there is statistically no significant relationship between males and females with 
regards to adoption of Actellic liquid, Phostoxin and Edible oil but statistically the adoption of 
Actellic dust is significantly related to gender (x2 =6.97 d f= 2  <p = 0.03). Contrary to studies 
(Benor et. al., 1985; Wolfson et. al., 1990) that women were likely to take more active measures
116
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
to preserve cowpea than men, significantly higher proportions of men tended to adopt Actellic dust 
and Phostoxin than females. More women tended not to be aware of the use of ICPTs as compared 
to men. This implies cowpea preservation messages are not being directed to the appropriate 
clientele (women), although they tended to preserve more cowpea. To ensure that there is an 
increase in adoption of ICPTs, AEAs need to redirect their extension information especially to 
women since preservation is mainly a woman’s task (Benor et. al., 1985).
Table 7.1. Gender and Adoption Level
ACTELLIC UQUID
PRODUCERS TRADERS
Male Female Total Male Female Total
F % F % F % F % F - % F %
Awareness - Adoption 6 15 7 33 13 22 0 0 4 16 4 16
Awareness- Non-adoption 7 18 3 14 10 16 0 0 5 20 5 20
Non-awareness 26 67 11 53 37 62 0 0 16 64 16 64
TOTAL 39 100 21 100 60 100 0 0 25 100 25 100
X2 =2.59 df = 2 .2 <p<.3 (NS)
ACTELLIC DUST
Awareness - Adoption 22 26 5 24 27 45 0 0 9 36 9 36
Awareness- Non-adoption 3 4 I 5 4 7 0 0 3 12 3 12
Non-awareness 14 16 15 71 29 48 0 0 13 52 13 52
TOTAL 39 100 21 100 60 100 0 0 25 100 25 100
X1 =6.97 d f= 2 <p = 0.03 (S)
PHOSTOXIN
Awareness - Adoption 11 13 3 14 14 23 0 0 4 16 4 16
Awareness- Non-adoption 0 0 1 5 1 2 0 0 2 8 2 8
Non-awareness 28 33 17 81 45 75 0 0 19 76 19 76
TOTAL 39 100 21 100 60 100 0 0 25 100 25 100
X1 =3.63 d f= 2 .1 <p<.2 (NS)
EDIBLE OIL
Awareness - Adoption 3 4 4 19 7 12 0 0 2 8 2 8
Awareness- Non-adoption 10 12 4 19 14 23 0 0 5 20 5 20
Non-awareness 26 30 13 62 39 65 0 0 18 72 18 72
TOTAL 39 100 21 100 60 100 0 0 25 100 25 100
X2 =181 d f= 2 .3 <p<.4 (NS)
Source: The Study (1998)
117
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Table 7.2. Age and Adoption:
Age & Adoption:
ICPTs AGE
Actellic liquid Less-than 31 years 
F %
31
F
-40
%
Above 41 years 
F % F
TOTAL
%
Awareness - Adoption 5 16 9 24 3 10 17 20
Awareness - Non Adoption 3 11 6 16 6 21 15 18
Non-Awareness 11 39 22 60 20 69 53 62
TOTAL 19 100 37 100 29 100 85 100
%2 =0.61 d f= 2  
.6 <p<.7 (NS)
X2 =0.78 d f= 2  
.6 <p<.7 (NS)
X2 =2.59 d f= 2  
! .2 <p<.3 (NS)
Actellic dust
Awareness - Adoption 4 21 19 51 13 45 36 43
Awareness - Non Adoption 5 26 1 3 1 3 , 7 8
Non-Awareness 10 53 17 46 15 52 42 49
TOTAL 19 100 37 100 29 100 85 100
X2 =12.39 d f= 2  . 
p =  0.002 (S)
X2 =3.85 d f -  2 
.1 <p<.2 (NS)
X2=L34  d f= 2  
.4 <p<.5 (NS)
Phostoxin
Awareness - Adoption I 5 8 22 9 31 18 21
Awareness - Non Adoption 0 0 2 5 1 3 3 4
Non-Awareness 18 95 27 73 19 66 64 75
TOTAL 19 100 37 100 29 100 85 100
X2 =5.02 d f  = 2 
.07<p<. 1 (NS)
X2 =1.07 d f = 2 .6 
<p<.7 (NS)
X2 =2.58 d f=  2 
.2 <p<.3 (NS)
Edible Oil
Awareness - Adoption 4 21 3 8 2 7 9 11
Awareness - Non Adoption 1 5 10 27 8 27 19 22
Non-Awareness 14 74 24 65 19 66 57 67
TOTAL 19 100 37 100 29 100 85 100
X2 =5.89 d f=  2 .5 
<p<.6 (NS)
X2 =1.07 d f= 2  
.5 <p<.6 (NS)
X2 =0.46 d f  = 2 
.7 <p<.8 (NS)
Source: The Study (1998)
An analysis of Table 7.2. shows that with the exception of Actellic dust, there was no significant 
relationship between the age of respondents and the adoption of ICPTs ( -31 years and below - 
X2 =12.39 df = 2 p = 0.002). Comparatively, higher proportions of the young tended not to 
be aware of ICPTs than the old. A comparison of this result and previous studies on the effect
118
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
of age on adoption (Feder & Slade, 1985; Rogers, 1983; Adesina & Seidi, 1995; Baidu - Forson, 
1999) shows the inconsistent relationship between age and adoption. Whereas certain studies 
indicate it has an effect on adoption (Rogers, 1983; Feder & Slade, 1985; Akinwumi, Adesina & 
Seidi, 1995), others indicate that it does not have an effect on adoption ( Baidu - Forson, 1999) 
This study is also a case in point. It could be concluded that age does have an indeterminate effect 
on adoption.
Education & Adoption:
Table 7.3. shows that there is no significant relationship between the educational level of 
respondents and adoption of ICPTs. This is contraiy to research findings that suggests adoption 
is moderately and or strongly related to educational levels (Mehra, 1994; Abdelmagid Hassan, 
1996; Lin & Jeffres, 1998). Higher proportions of those with formal education tended not to be 
aware of the use of ICPTs. Since education is an important factor that influences the acceptance 
of ideas (Onu, 1991), AEAs need to intensify their education to this group so as to increase the 
adoption of ICPTs.
119
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Table 7.3. Educational Level & Adoption:
ICPTs EDUCATION AL LEVEL
Actellic liquid None 
F %
Formal 
F %
Non-Formal Edn. 
F %
TOTAL
F %
Awareness - Adoption 10 31 7  14 0 0 17 20
Awareness - Non Adoption 4 13 11 22 0 0 15 18
Non-Awareness 18 56 33 64 2 100 53 62
TOTAL 32 100 51 100 2  100 85 100
X2 =4.32 d f  = 2 
.l<p<.2 (NS))
X1 =3.73 d f  = 2 
. 1 <p<.2 (NS)
y2=1.24 d f= 2  
.4 <p<.5 (NS)
Actellic dust
Awareness - Adoption 12 38 24 47 0 0 36 43
Awareness - Non Adoption 2 6 5 10 0 0 7 8
Non-Awareness 18 56 22 43 2 100 42 49
TOTAL 32 100 51 100 2  100 85 100
X2 =1.02 d f= 2  . 
.5<p<.6 (NS)
y2 =2.06 d f=  2 
.2 <p<.3 (NS)
y2 =2.10 d f= 2  
.3 <p<.4 (NS)
Phostoxin
Awareness - Adoption 3 9 14 27 1 50 18 21
Awareness - Non Adoption 1 3 2 4 0 0 3 4
Non-Awareness 28 88 35 69 I 50 64 75
TOTAL 32 100 51 100 2 100 85 100
X1 =4.41 d f  = 2 
.l<p< .2  (NS)
X2 =3.18 d f = 2 
.1 <p<.2 (NS)
Y2 =1.05 d f=  2 
.4 <p<.5 (NS)
Edible Oil
Awareness - Adoption 4 13 5 10 0 0 9 11
Awareness - Non Adoption 7 22 12 23 0 0 19 22
Non-Awareness 21 65 34 67 2 100 57 67
TOTAL 32 100 57 100 2  100 85 100
X2 =0.20 d f= 2  
.8<p<.9 (NS)
yz =0.16 d f= 2  
.8 <p<.9 (NS)
Y2 =1.01 d f=  2 
.5 <p<.6 (NS)
Source: The Study (1998)
120
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Table 7.4. Working Experience & Adoption:
Working Experience & Adoption:
ICPTs WORKING EXPERIENCE
Aclellic liquid Little (5 years or less) Average(5 years) 
F %
Long (More than 5 years) 
F % F
%
TOTAL
Awareness - Adoption 5 24 3 18 9 19 17 20
Awareness - Non Adoption 4 19 4 23 7 15 15 18
Non-Awareness 12 57 10 59 31 66 53 62
TOTAL 21 100 17 100 47 100 85 100
X2 =0.15 d f= 2  
.8<p<.9 (NS)
X2 =0.81 d f  = 2  
.5 <p<.6 (NS)
X2 =0.15 d f= 2  
.8 <p<.9 (NS)
Actellic dust
Awareness - Adoption 8 38 7 41 21 45 36 43
Awareness - Non Adoption 2 10 1 6 4 8 4 8
Non-Awareness 11 52 9 53 22 47 42 49
TOTAL 21 100 17 100 47 100 85 100
%z =0.23 d f = 2 
.8<p<9 (NS)
X2 =0.20 d f =  2 
.8 <p<.9 (NS)
X2 =0.29 d f=  2 
,8< p<9  (NS)
Phostoxin
Awareness - Adoption 4 19 2 12 12 25 18 21
Awareness - Non Adoption 1 5 1 6 1 2 3 4
Non-Awareness 16 76 14 82 34 72 64 75
TOTAL 21 100 17 100 47 100 85 100
X2 =0.18 d f  = 2 
.8<p<.9 (NS)
X2 =1.36 d f = 2 
.4 <p<.5 (NS)
X2 =1.65 d f  =  2 
.4 <p<.5 (NS)
Edible Oil
Awareness - Adoption 2 9 0 0 7 15 9 11
Awareness - Non Adoption 6 29 2 12 11 23 19 22
Non-Awareness 13 62
0000v» 29 62 1 57 67
TOTAL 21 100 17 100 47 100 85 100
%2 =0.62 df = 2 
,6<p<.7 (NS)
X2 =4.74 d f  =  2 
.09 <p<.l (NS)
X2 =2.34 d f  = 2 
.2 <p<.3 (NS)
An analysis of Table 7.4. shows there was statistically no significant relationship between the 
working experience of respondents and the adoption of ICPTs. This result confirms studies by 
Basu (1969) that there was no correlation between working experience and adoption. A higher 
proportion of respondents with more than 5 years working experience tended not to be aware of 
the use of ICPTs. Since accumulated experience positively influences decision making (Bohlen,
121
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
1966), farmers with more working experience need to be targeted for extension of messages on 
ICPTs
Farm Size & Adoption:
Table 7.5. Producers Farm Size & Adoption:
ICPTs FARM SIZE
Actellic liquid Small (2 acres or less) 
F %
Medium (2 acres)
F %
Large (More than 2 
acres)
F %
TOTAL
F %
Awareness - Adoption 3 19 3 16 7 28 13 22
Awareness - Non Adoption 2 12 4 21 4 16 10 16
Non-Awareness 11 69 12 63 14 56 37 48
TOTAL 16 100 19 100 25 100 60 100
X2 =0.49 d f= 2  
.7<p<.8 (NS)
j x2==0-77 d f= 2
.6 <p<7 (NS)
X2 =1.03 d f  = 2 
.5<p<6  (NS)
Actellic dust
Awareness - Adoption 4 25 9 47 14 56 27 45
Awareness - Non Adoption 3 19 0 0 1 4 4 7
Non-Awareness 9 56 10 53 10 40 29 48
TOTAL 16 100 19 100
100
60 100
X2 =7.0 d f = 2 
p =  0.03 (S)
Xz=1.99 d f= 2  
.3 <p<4  (NS)
X2 =2.23 d f  =  2 
„3< p< 4  (NS)
Phostoxin
Awareness - Adoption 2 13 4 21 8 32 14 23
Awareness - Non Adoption I 6 0 0 0 0 1 2
Non-Awareness 13 81 15 19 17 68 45 75 I
TOTAL 16 100 19 100 25 100 60 100
X2 =3.96 d f= 2  
. 1 <p<.2 (NS)
X2 -0 .58  d f = 2 
.6 <p<7 (NS)
X2 =2.37 d f  = 2 
.3<p<.4 (NS)
Edible Oil
Awareness - Adoption 1 6 4 21 2 8 7 12
Awareness - Non Adoption 4 25 3 16 7 28 14 23
Non-Awareness 11 69 12 63 16 64 39 65
TOTAL 16 100 | 19 100 25 100 60 100
Xz =0.62 d f= 2  
.6<p<.7 (NS)
X2 =2.79 d f = 2 
.2 <p<.3 (NS)
X2 =0.9 d f  = 2 
.6< p< 7  (NS)
Source: The Study (1998)
122
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
In this study (Ref Table 7.5. ), there was no statistically significant relationship between Actellic 
liquid, Phostoxin and Edible o f  but statistically, there was a relationship between farm size and 
the adoption of Actellic dust (Small farm size - x2 =7.0 d f =2  p = 0.03).
Farm size has been one of the controversial factors on which empirical studies have focussed 
(Abdelmagid & Hassan, 1996). Its effect on adoption is unclear ( Adesina & Seidi, 1995). 
Farm size could have different effects on the rate of adoption depending on the technological 
characteristics and the institutional settjng.
Variety Grown /  Sold & Adoption:
An analysis of Table 7.6. shows there was statistically no significant relationship between the 
variety of cowpea grown or sold and the adoption of Actellic dust, Phostoxin and Edible oil but 
the adoption of Actellic liquid is statistically significantly related to the variety of cowpea grown 
or sold. A higher proportion of those who grew or sold only the improved variety of cowpea 
tended to adopt the use of Actellic liquid more than those who sold or grew the local variety only 
and those who sold or grew a combination of the local and improved varieties. Cowpea 
producers indicated that although the improved variety is higher yielding, spoilage occurs faster 
with them than with the local variety. Farmers growing the improved variety therefore need to 
preserve their cowpea to avoid spoilage. This accounts for why those who grew the improved 
variety adopted the use of ICPTs.
123
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Table 7.6. Variety of Cowpea Grown or Sold & Adoption:
ICPTs VARIETY OF COWPEA GROWN/SOLD
Actellic liquid LOCAL 
F %
IMPROVED 
F %
LOCAL &IMPROVED 
F % F
TOTAL
%
Awareness - Adoption 6 7 6 7 5 6 17 20
Awareness -  Non Adoption 5 6 1 1 9 11 15 18
Non-Awareness 20 23 6 7 27 32 53 62
TOTAL 31 36 13 15 ' 41 48 85 100
X2 = 0 .11 d f= 2  
.9 <p<. 10 (NS)
X2 = 6.76 d f = 2 
p<.034 (S)
X2 =  3.4 d f= 2  
.1 <p<.2 (NS)
Actellic dust
Awareness - Adoption* 10 12 6 7 20 - 23 36 42
Awareness - Non Adoption 2 2 1 1 5 6 7 8
Non-Awareness 20 23 6 7 16 19 42 50
TOTAL 31 36 13 15 41 48 85 100
X2“ 4.91 d f= 2
.0 8  <p<.09 (NS)
X2 = 0.09 d f=  2 
.9 <p<.10 (NS)
X2=4.01 d f  = 2  
. 1 <p<.2 (NS)
Phostoxin
Awareness - Adoption 5 6 4 5 9 11 18 21
Awareness - Non Adoption 2 2 1 1 0 0 3 4
Non-Awareness 24 28 8 9 32 37 64 75
TOTAL 31 36 13 15 41 48 85 100
X2 = 1-8 d f= 2  
.4 <p<.5 (NS)
X2=L 81  d f=  2 
• .4 < p<5  (NS) 1
X2 =  2.9 d f= 2  
.2 <p<.3 (NS) j
Edible Oil
Awareness -  Adoption 3 4 2 2 4 5 9 11
Awareness - Non Adoption 7 8 4 5 8 9 19 22
Non-Awareness 21 24 7 8 29 34 57 67
TOTAL 31 36 13 15 41 48 85 100
%2 = 0.04 d f=  2 
.9 <p<.10 (NS)
X2= 1.22 d f = 2 
.5 <p<.6 (NS)
X2= 0.50 d f  = 2 
.7 <p<.8 (NS)
Source: The Study (1998)
Crop Yield:
Table 7.7. shows that there was no statistically significant relationship between Actellic liquid, 
Phostoxin, Edible oil and the adoption of ICPT’s but statistically, there was a significant 
relationship between the crop yield and the adoption of Actellic dust (Above average crop yield - 
X2 =7.27 df = 2 p = 0.03 ). Producers who had high crop yield (more than 4 bags), tended to
124
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
adopt the use of Actellic dust more than those with lower crop yield. Since producers with high 
crop yield need to increase the shelf - life of their harvest so as to prevent post harvest loss, they 
tended to adopt the preservation technologies more than the others.
ADOPTION CROP YIELD
Below Average(> 4 bags) Average (4 bags) Above Average (<4 bgs) Total
Actellic liquid F % F % F % F %
Awareness - Adoption 4 20 1 8 8 29 13 21
Awareness - Non Adoption 1 5 3 25 6 21 10 17
Non-Awareness 15 75 8 67 14 50 37 62
TOTAL 20 100 12 100 28 100 60 100
X1 =3.35 d f= 2  
.09<p<.l (NS)
X2 =1.92 d f= 2  
.3 <p<.4 (NS)
X1 =6-22 d f=  2 
.3<p<.4(NS)
Actellic dust
Awareness - Adoption 5 25 5 42 17 61 27 45
Awareness - Non Adoption 2 10 2 16 0 0 4 7
Non-Awareness 13 65 5 42 11 39 29 48
TOTAL 20 100 12 100 28 100 60 100
X2 =4.89 d f -  2 
.08 <p<.09 (NS)
X2 -  2.42 d f=  2 
.2 <p<.3 (NS)
X2 =7.27 d f= 2  
p =  0.026 (S)
Phostoxin
Awareness - Adoption 3 15 2 42 9 32 14 23
Awareness - Non Adoption 1 5 0 16 0 0 I 17
Non-Awareness 16 80 10 42 19 68 45 75
TOTAL 20 100 12 100 28 100 60 100
X2 =2.99 d f= 2  
.2<p<.3 (NS)
X2 =0.64 d f  = 2 
.7 <p<.8 (NS)
X2 =2.98 d f= 2  
,2<p<.3 (NS)
Edible Oil
Awareness - Adoption 1 5 1 8 5 18 7 12
Awareness - Non Adoption 4 20 4 33 6 21 14 23
Non-Awareness 15 75 7 59 17 61 39 65
TOTAL 20 100 12 100 28 100 60 100
%2=1.75 d f= 2  
,4<p<,5 (NS)
X2 =0.89 d f  = 2 
.6 <p<.7 (NS)
X2 =1.95 d f=  2 
,3<p<.4 (NS)
Source: The Study (1998)
125
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Quantity Stored & Adoption:
Table 7,8. Quantity of Cowpea Stored & Adoption
IC P T s PRODUCERS
TRADERS
Below
Average
Average Above
average
Total Below
Average
Average Above
average
Tola!
F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F %
Actellic Liquid
Awareness - Adoption 1 6 3 17 9 38 13 21 0 0 0 0 4 16 4 16
Awareness - Non Adop. 2 11 3 17 5 21 10 17 0 0 0 0 5 21 5 21
Non-Awareness 15 83 12 66 10 41 37 62 0. 0 1 100 15 63 16 64
TOTAL 18 100 18 100 24 100 60 100 0'7' 0 1 100 24 100 25 100
X1 —5.51 
d f  = 2 
,5<p<.6 
(NS)
v! =0.40 
d f= 2  
.7 <p<.8 
(NS)
X2 =7.64 
d f= 2
p =  0.02
(S)
Xz ==2.99 d f 
=  2 
.2<p<.3 
(NS)
X2 =0.64 d f  
= 2 
.7 <p<.8 
(NS)
Actellic dust
Awareness - Adoption 5 27 10 56 12 50 27 45 0 0 0 0 9 37 9 37
Awareness - Non Adop. 3 17 1 6 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 0 3 13 3 13
Non-Awareness 10 56 7 38 12 50 29 48 0 0 1 100 12 50 13 52
TOTAL 18 100 18 100 24 100 60 100 0 0 1 100 24 100 25 100
X2 =5.83 
d f= 2  
05<p<.06 
(NS)
Xs =1.16 
d f= 2  
.5 <p<.6 
(NS)
X2=2.91 d f 
= 2 
,2<p<.3
(NS)
x2 =0.96 
d f=  2 
.6<p<.7 
(NS)
X2 =0.96 
dr= 2
.6<p<7
(NS)
Phostoxin
Awareness - Adoption 4 22 2 11 8 33 14 23 0 0 0 0 4 17 4 17
Awareness - Non Adop. 0 0 1 6 1 42 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 8 2 8
Non-Awareness 14 78 15 83 & 25 45 75 0 0 1 100 18 75 19 76
TOTAL 18 100 18 100 24 100 60 100 0 0 1 100 24 100 25 100
X2 -1 .71 
df= 2 
.4<p<.5 
(NS)
X2 =3.77 
df=2
.1 <p<.2
(NS)
x2 =8-13 
d f = 2 
.p -  01 (S)
X2 =0.33 
d f= 2  
.7<p<.8 
(NS)
X2 =0.33 
d f=  2 
.7<p<.8 
(NS)
Edible Oil
Awareness - Adoption 0 0 1 6 6 25 7 12 0 0 0 0 2 8 2 8
Awareness - Non Adop. 5 28 4 22 5 21 14 23 0 0 0 0 5 21 5 21
Non-Awareness 13 72 13 72 13 54 39 65 0 0 i ioo ; 17 71 18 72
TOTAL 18 100 18 100 24 100 60 100 0 0 1 100 24 100 25 100
X2 =3.42 
d f=  2
.l<p<.2
(NS)
X2 =0.52 
d f= 2  
.4 <p<.5 
(NS)
%2 =2.98 df 
- 2  
.p « .0 3
(S)
x2 =0.41 
d f  = 2 
,8<p<.9 
(NS)
X2 =0.41 
d f= 2  
.8<p<.9 
(NS)
Source: The Study (1998)
126
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
There was no statistically significant relationship between the quantity of cowpea stored by traders 
and their adoption of ICPTs (Ref. Table 7.8). With producers however, there was a significant 
relationship between the quantity stored and the adoption of Actellic liquid, Phostoxin and Edible 
oil but not Actellic dust.
7.3. Extension Delivery and Adoption
Communication channels are critical to facilitating innovation adoption. The study examined the 
effect qf two variables: method of extension delivery and frequency of contact on adoption 
behaviour of respondents.
7.3.1. Method o f Delivery & Adoption:
Table 7.9. shows that there was statistically no significant relationship between the method of 
extension delivery used and the adoption of Actellic liquid and Edible oil but there was a 
relationship between extension delivery methods and the adoption of Actellic dust and Phostoxin. 
Higher proportion of respondents adopted Actellic dust and Phostoxin when contacted with a 
combination o f the individual and group methods of extension delivery than with the use of the 
other methods.
127
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Table 1.9. Method of Delivery & Adoption:
ICPTs METHOD OF EXTENSION DELIVERY
Actellic liquid Individual.
F %
Group 
F %
Individual &  Group 
F %
No Contact 
F %
TOTAL 
F %
Awareness - Adoption 2 2 7 8 5 6 3 4 17 20
Awareness - Non Adoption 3 4 1 1 3 4 8 9 15 18
Non-Awareness 5 6 14 16 9 11 25 29 53 62
TOTAL 10 12 22 25 17 21 36 42 85 100
X = 1.26 
df = 2 
.5 <p<.6 (NS)
Xz = 5.10 d f= 2  
.07 <p<.08 (NS)
X2= 1.24 d f  =  2 
.5 <p<.6 (NS)
X2 = 5.49 d f = 2 
.6 <p<.7 (NS)
Actellic dust
Awareness - Adoption 7 8 11 13 15 18 3 4 36 42
Awareness - Non Adoption 1 1 2 ■ 2 1 1 3 4 7 8
Non-Awareness 2 2 9 11 1 1 30 35 42 50
TOTAL 10 12 22 25 17 21 36 42 85 100
X2 = 4.43 
d f= 2  
.1 <p<.2(NS)
X2= U 4  d f= 2  
.5 <p<.6 (NS)
X2= 19.97 d f=  2 
p<.00005 (S)
X2 -  29.6 d f= 2  
p<.0000004 (S)
Phostoxin
Awareness - Adoption 4 5 4 5 8 9 2 3 18 21
Awareness - Non Adoption 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 3 4
Non-Awareness 6 7 18 21 7 8 33 38 64 75
TOTAL 10 12 22 25 17 21 36 42 85 100
X = 2.65 
d f= 2  
.2 <p<.3 (NS)
Xz“  116  d f=  2 
.5 <p<.6 (NS)
X2=14.09 d f= 2  
p<.0009 (S)
X2 =  9.52 d f= 2  
p<.009 (S)
Edible Oil
Awareness - Adoption 0 0 2 2 3 4 4 5 9 11
Awareness - Non Adoption 3 4 5 6 4 5 7 8 19 22
Non-Awareness 7 8 15 18 10 12 25 29 57 67
TOTAL 10 12 22 25 17 21 36 42 85 100
X2=1.51 
d f=  2 
.4 <p<.5 (NS)
Xz = 0.06 d f=  2 
.9 <p<.10 (NS)
X2= 1.23 d f  =  2 
.5 <p<.6 (NS)
X2=0.31  d f  = 2 
.8 <p<.9 (NS)
Source: The Study (1998)
128
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
7.3.2. Frequency of Contact & Adoption:
Table 7.10. revealed that there was statistically no significant relationship between frequency of 
contact and adoption of Actellic liquid and Edible oil but there was a relationship between the 
frequency of contact and the adoption of Actellic dust and Phostoxin. Higher proportions of 
respondents tended to adopt Actellic dust and Phostoxin with an increase in the frequency of 
contact. It implies therefore that the number of contact one has with new ideas is positively 
related to adoption of certain innovations (Effionayi, 1975).
Table 7.10. : Frequency of Contact & Adoption:
ICPTs FREQUENCY OF CONTACT
Actellic liquid jNo Gontac^, _ Once F %
_  Twice 
F %
Tprice  o r  M ore^ ? OTALo/o
Awareness - Adoption 4 5 4 5 8 9 1 1 17. 20
Awareness - Non Adoption 7 8 1 12 4 5 3 4 15 18
Non-Awareness 26 30 5 6 14 16 8 9 53 62
TOTAL 37 43 10 12 26 31 12 14 85 100
* != ^ 3 $ S ) 2
Actellic dust
Awareness - Adoption 5 6 10 12 16 19 5 6 36 42
Awareness - Non Adoption 4 5 0 0 1 I 2 2 7 8
Non-Awareness 28 32 0 0 9 11 5 6 42 50
TOTAL 37 43 10 12 26 31 12 14 85 100
nSSo * ’ =5p < M f 2
Phostoxin
Awareness - Adoption 2 2 6 7 5 6 5 6 18 21
Awareness - Non Adoption 1 1 0 0 2  2 0 0 3 4
Non-Awareness 34 40 4 5 19 22 7 8 64 75
TOTAL 37 43 10 12 26 31 12 14 85 100
x 2 = 10
- 2  p< ^M s)2 X‘ =3L<9p3< .4 $ S )2 ^ . T 3<p8< . 2 ^
Edible Oil
Awareness - Adoption 4 5 1 1 4 5 0 0 9 11
Awareness - Non Adoption 8 9 1 1 6 7 4 5 19 22
Non-Awareness 25 29 8 9 16 19 8 9 57 67
TOTAL 37 43 10 12 26 31 12 14 85 100
*’ ” <?lp9< .7 $ S ) 2 *2=3
129
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
7.4. Perceptions and Adoption Levels:
Perceptions can play different roles in adoption for different individuals (Agarwal & Prasad, 
1998). To get an idea of the strength of the relationship between perceptions of the attributes of 
the selected improved cowpea preservation technologies and their adoption, a cross tabulation 
of the overall perception and adoption of the various technologies was done (Ref. Appendix 15 A 
& 15B). The chi - square values were used as basis of ranking (Table 7.11 & 7.12.). The degree 
of relationship reveals there was a highly significant relationship between adoption and perception 
of attributes of Actellic dust, followed by Phostoxin, Actellic liquid, and Edible oil in descending 
order. This confirms evidence from literature that perceptions influence adoption of innovations 
(Lin & Milon, 1993; Adesina & Zinnah, 1993; Agarwal & Prasad, 1998). With traders on the 
other hand, the highest significant relationship between adoption and perception of attributes was 
rather with Phostoxin, followed by Actellic dust, Actellic liquid, and Edible oil in descending 
order.
Table 7.11: Degree of Relationship Between Producers Overall Perception of Attributes of ICPT s 
_________and Adoption.____________ ___________________________________________
Overall Perception of Attributes & Adoption Chi - square Ranking
Actellic liquid X2 = 24.54 d f=  1 p= 0.0000 (S) 3
Actellic dust X1 = 42.09 d f=  1 p= 0.0000 (S) 1
Phostoxin X2 = 34.52 df = 1 p= 0.0000 (S) 2
Edible Oils X2= 0.36 df = 1 p= 0.77 (NS) 4
Table 7.12: Degree of Relationship Between Traders Overall Perception of Attributes of 
_________ ICPTs and Adoption. _____________________________________
Overall Perception of Attributes & Adoption Chi - square Ranking
Actellic liquid X2= 2.93 df = 1 p= 0.056 (NS) 3
Actellic dust X2= 12.15 df = 1 p= 0.0001 (S) 2
Phostoxin X2 = 18.11 df = 1 p= 0.0000 (S) 1
Edible Oils OOII d f = 1 p= 1.0 NS) 4
130
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Considering the specific, general, and overall attributes,(Ref. fable 7.13.) the perception of 
specific attributes gives the closest prediction of adoption levels. Phostoxin was considered the 
most highly positively perceived preservation technology by both producers and traders, followed 
by Actellic dust, Actellic liquid and Edible oil in descending order. This confirms findings that 
perceptions help predict peoples reaction to an innovation that is whether they adopt or not 
(Rogers, 1995; Agarwal & Prasad, 1998). In terms of relationships with adoption levels, this 
trend is consistent with that of the awareness-adoption gap, which is an improved measure of 
adoption levels. Producers and traders considered Phostoxin the most highly perceived 
' technology and Edible oil, the least.
Table 7.13: Summary of Ranking of the Key Aspects of the Perceived Attributes and 
__________Adoption:___________________________________________________
ICPTs Producers Traders
Perceived Attributes Adoption Level Perceived
Attributes
Adoption Level
SA GA 0 PA AG P SA 0 PA AG P
Actellic liquid 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3
Actellic dust 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2
Phostoxin 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1
Edible oil 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
SA = Specific Attributes PA = Percentage Adoption
GA = General Attributes AG = Adoption Gap
0  = Overall Attributes P = Degree of Relationship between perceptions and adoption
1 = Best / Highest 4 = Worst / Lowest
To fully understand the degree of relationship between the variables in Table 7.14., the Spearmans 
rank order correlation co - efficient was used. An analysis of this Table revealed that there was 
a strong positive correlation between specific attributes and percentage adoption of ICPTs ( .8 
> p < .25). There was also a perfect one-to-one positive correlation between the general 
attributes and percentage adoption (,5> p < .25), and general attributes and the adoption gap (,5> 
p < .25). There was a negative correlation between overall perception of attributes and the
131
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
adoption gap, overall perception and the percentage adoption (-.4 >p< .25). This shows that the 
perceptions of specific attributes of ICPTs, gives the closest prediction of adoption levels and the 
overall perceptions gives the least prediction.
With cowpea traders on the other hand, there was a strong positive correlation between specific 
attributes and the percentage adoption (,667> p< .25). There was a perfect correlation between 
specific attributes and adoption gap (1> p< .25). The perception of the overall attributes and 
Percentage adoption, overall attributes and adoption gap, also indicated there was strong positive 
correlation. Unlike cowpea producers, the perceptions of specific and overall attributes of ICPTs 
gave the prediction of adoption levels of cowpea traders.
Table 7.14. Ratings of Key Aspects of Perceived Attributes and Adoption using Spearmans Rank 
Order Correlation Co - efficient
Variables rs Correlation
SA & PA 2 .8 Strongly Positive**
SA&  AG 0 1 Perfect
PRODUCERS SA & P 2 .8 Strongly Positive**
GA & PA 5 .5 Positive
G A & A G 5 .5 Positive
GA& P 5 .5 Positive
O & PA 14 -.4 Negative
O & AG 14 -.4 Negative
O & P 14 -.4 Negative
SA & PA 2 .667 Strongly Positive**
SA&  AG 0 1 Perfect
SA & P 0 1 Perfect
TRADERS
O & PA 2 .667 Strongly Positive**
0 &  AG 2 .667 Strongly Positive**
O & P 2 .667 Strongly Positive**
Critical value = .600 for p< .25 (one - tailed)** Significant
SA = Specific Attribute PA =Percentage Adoption AG = Adoption Gap
GA = general Attributes 0  =Overall Perception
P = Degree of relationship between perceptions and adoption
132
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
7.5. Summary & Conclusion:
An analysis of variables influencing adoption of improved cowpea preservation technologies was 
done and these results were obtained. The highest adoption level of ICPTs was for Actellic dust 
and least for Edible oil. The trend of adoption was similar for both producers and traders. The 
percentage of those aware of selected ICPTs who adopted them was highest for Phostoxin and 
least for Edible oil. Producers also generally had lower adoption levels of ICPTs than traders with 
the exception of Phostoxin. There was comparatively low levels of adoption of all ICPTs.
The study revealed adopter characteristics influenced the adoption of ICPTs. These adopter 
characteristics (Gender, Age, Farm size and Crop yield ) influenced the adoption of Actellic Dust 
but did influenced adoption of not influence the adoption of the other ICPTs. With the exception 
of Actellic dust, the quantity of cowpea stored influenced the adoption of ICPTs. The variety of 
cowpea stored also influenced the adoption of Actellic liquid.
An analysis o f the relationship between the method of extension delivery used and adoption 
revealed there was statistically no significant relationship between the method of extension 
delivery used and the adoption of Actellic liquid and Edible oil but there was a significant 
relationship between the method and adoption of Actellic dust and Phostoxin. The use of a 
combination of the individual and group methods brought about a higher adoption levels of 
Actellic dust and Phostoxin.
There was also no significant relationship between the frequency of contact and the adoption of 
Actellic liquid and Edible oil but was significantly related to adoption of Actellic dust and 
Phostoxin. Higher proportions of respondents tended to adopt Actellic dust and Phostoxin with
133
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
an increase in the frequency of contact. AEAs therefore need to increase their frequency of 
contact with their clientele and use a combination of the individual and group extension teaching 
methods when extending information of ICPTs, if they want to increase adoption of these 
innovations.
The relationship between perception of attributes of ICPTs revealed there was a positive 
relationship between perceptions of attributes and adoption. With producers, the trend especially 
reflected more in the specific perception of attributes of ICPTs than in the general and overall 
perceptions whereas with traders it reflected not only in the perceptions of specific attributes but
also in their overall perceptions of attributes. The degree of relationship of overall perception of
Vattributes and adoption was highest for Phostoxin and least for Edible oil. The trend was 
consistent with the awareness - adoption gap. By implications, therefore, there was an inverse 
relationship between negative perceptions and adoption levels.
134
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
PART THREE: 
CONCLUSION
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
CHAPTER EIGHT 
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1. Summary & Conclusion:
The study on Adoption of Improved Cowpea Preservation Technologies was carried out in the 
Akatsi District of the Volta Region. The research problem was to find out how personal 
characteristics, the perception of characteristics of ICPTs determine the utilization of these 
technologies and to what extent the mode and effort of extension delivery influences these 
perceptions.
The specific objectives set were to:
- identify various cowpea preservation technologies available in the study area.
- describe and analyse the extension delivery efforts in disseminating ICPT messages in 
Akatsi district by the public Agricultural Extension Agents (AEAs).
- describe and analyse some important characteristics of producers, traders, and AEAs in 
the district
- determine cowpea producers and traders perception of characteristics of selected 
cowpea preservation technologies
- find out the pattern of adoption of ICPTs in the district
-determine the relationship between perception of characteristics of ICPT messages, 
mode of effort of dissemination, personal and enterprise characteristics and the adoption 
of selected ICPTs.
The study was a descriptive case study research. The following techniques were used to find 
answers to the research problem: questionnaire, personal interview of cowpea producers and
135
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
traders, Rapid Rural Appraisal method (RRA - Checklist). The questionnaire was administered 
to, sixty (60) cowpea producers who were selected using the two stage random sampling method, 
twenty - five (25) cowpea traders using systematic random sampling, and fifteen (15) AEAs using 
the simple random sampling technique. Respondents for the community survey were selected 
using purposive sampling. An analysis of the interview schedules, questionnaire, and checklist 
resulted in the following findings and conclusions.
Attributes o f Respondents:
Cowpea farmers were mainly males whilecowpea traders were all females. Majority of cowpea 
farmers and traders were between the ages of 31 - 40 years, had some form of formal education 
and they had more than five years working experience: The average farm size of cowpea 
producers was 2 acres, and their average crop yield was 4 bags of cowpea. Cowpea producers 
mainly grew a combination of the local and improved varieties of cowpea whiles cowpea traders 
mainly sold a combination of the local and improved varieties of cowpea. Whereas most cowpea 
producers stored less than 2 mini bags of cowpea (60%), most traders stored more than 2 bags 
(96%).
Apart from gender and the quantity of cowpea stored, there were no significant differences 
between the characteristics of cowpea producers and traders. This implies gender and quantity 
of cowpea stored may be important sources of difference in their adoption behavior.
Majority of AEAs in the study area were males and the language mostly used for communication 
was “Ewe.” Most of them had more than five years working experience in the Akatsi district. The 
educational qualification of majority of AEAs was a Certificate in Agriculture. These
136
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
characteristics of AEAs in the Akatsi District shows that they have the capacity to deliver 
messages on selected ICPTs effectively.
Extension Delivery Effort:
Messages on traditional as well as improved cowpea preservation technologies were disseminated 
by AEAs in the study area. ICPTs mainly extended by AEAs in ranked order are: Actellic, Edible 
oil, and Phostoxin and traditional cowpea preservation technologies extended include the use of 
naphthalene balls or camphor for storage of cowpea in a sealed container, the use of the local keg, 
wood ash, neem products and the use of sea sand.
Extension workers have acquired information on cowpea preservation mainly through monthly 
training sessions and to a limited extent, from literature and pre - service training. Methods 
indicated to be used by the AEAs in extension delivery are a combination of the individual and 
group methods to contact farmers thrice or more within a month.
There was also a vast inequality in access to extension messages on cowpea preservation 
technologies between producers and traders, in favour of producers. The infrequent contact is 
detrimental to the achievement of the objectives of reducing post-harvest losses through the use 
o f improved cowpea preservation methods since cowpea traders store more cowpea and for 
longer periods of time than the producers. Extension agents need to widen their target net and 
make preservation messages more accessible to cowpea traders. Constraints to the delivery of 
cowpea preservation messages, were categorised into three namely: institutional, economic and 
social in descending order. These constraints need to be addressed for effective dissemination of 
information to occur.
137
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Perception o f Attributes o f Improved Cowpea Preservation Technologies (ICPTs)
The study revealed that both producers and traders were aware of five ranges o f methods of 
cowpea preservation technologies and the highest level of awareness was in the use of mechanical 
method. Generally producers had higher knowledge levels of ICPTs than traders. Comparatively, 
the level of awareness of traditional cowpea preservation technologies was higher than awareness 
of ICPTs. The levels of awareness of ICPTs for both producers and traders were highest for 
Actellic dust, Actellic liquid, Edible oil and Phostoxin, in descending order. Intensive education 
which would increase awareness and subsequently, adoption of ICPTs is therefore necessaiy to 
foster production increases needed to sustain current population growth.
Phostoxin was perceived as having the highest range of positive specific attributes, whilst Edible 
oil had the least. Qualitatively, the seven main attributes on which perception of the attributes of 
improved cowpea preservation technologies differed were perception of work and time involved 
in the use of the technology, extent of marketing problems, extent of similarity of technology to 
traditional practices, ease in use of technology, piloting cost, visibility of advantage of use of 
ICPTs.
With the exception of Edible oil, the perceptions of general attributes o f ICPTs revealed that the 
use of ICPTs offered an advantage over the use of traditional cowpea preservation technologies 
(relative advantage), and the results of use of these technologies was visible (observability). All 
ICPTs were also perceived to be easy to understand and use (complexity) whereas their trial on 
a limited basis was perceived to involve too much money (trialability).
138
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
The perception of overall attributes of ICPTs revealed that Actellic dust and Phostoxin were 
perceived positively whiles Actellic liquid and Edible oil were perceived negatively. Extension 
workers need to increase extension delivery efforts so as to create more awareness, which would 
not only help change negative perceptions but help in the development of more positive 
perceptions which subsequently would lead to high innovation adoption.
An analysis of the relationship between adopter characteristics, extension delivery method, 
frequency of contact and perceptions of attributes revealed that with the exception of Actellic 
liquid ICPTs were not influenced by these variables. With the exception of the quantity of 
cowpea stored, all adopter characteristics brought about a difference in the perception of overall 
attributes o f Actellic liquid. Adopter characteristics that brought about a difference in the 
perception of general attributes were age, working experience and variety of cowpea grown or 
sold, and quantity of cowpea stored.
It would be advantageous if AEAs took note of extension methods that result in more positive 
perceptions of attributes (the group method only and a combination of the group and individual 
method), and used more of it since this would help more producers and traders have positive 
perceptions of ICPTs which ultimately would help the adoption of ICPTs. An increase in AEAs 
frequency of contact resulted in producers and traders having more positive perceptions of 
Actellic liquid. It is suggested therefore that AEAs should increase extension contact so as to 
ensure their clientele develop more positive perceptions of the attributes of ICPTs.
Although five attributes have been shown to be predictors of adoption behaviour ( Rogers, 1995; 
Agarwal & Prasad, 1998), only two have consistently emerged as salient in this study, as being
139
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
influenced by adopter characteristics, extension delivery methods and frequency of contact. They 
are the relative advantage and complexity. These attributes influenced mostly the perception of 
Actellic liquid but not the other technologies. Technology developers need to re - examine this 
technology and refine items that the target group had negative perceptions about so as to make 
the technology more acceptable.
Adoption o f  Improved Cowpea Preservation Technologies:
The highest adoption level of ICPTs was for Actellic dust and least for Edible oil. The trend of 
adoption was similar for both producers and traders. The percentage of those aware of selected 
ICPTs who adopted them was highest for Phostoxin and least for Edible oil. With the exception 
of Phostoxin, producers also generally had lower adoption levels of ICPTs than traders. There 
was comparatively low levels of adoption of all ICPTs.
The study revealed adopter characteristics influenced the adoption of ICPTs. These adopter 
characteristics (Gender, Age, Farm size and Crop yield ) influenced the adoption of Actellic Dust 
but not the adoption of the other ICPTs. With the exception of Actellic dust, the quantity of 
cowpea stored influenced the adoption of ICPTs while the variety of cowpea stored also 
influenced the adoption of Actellic liquid.
An analysis of the method of extension delivery, frequency of contact and adoption revealed there 
was statistically no significant relationship between the method of extension delivery used and the 
adoption of Actellic liquid and Edible oil but there was a significant relationship between the 
method and adoption of Actellic dust and Phostoxin. The use of a combination of the individual 
and group methods brought about a higher adoption levels of Actellic dust and Phostoxin.
140
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Higher proportions of respondents tended to adopt Actellic dust and Phostoxin with an increase 
in the frequency of contact. AEAs therefore need to increase their frequency of contact with their 
clientele and use a combination of the individual and group extension teaching methods when 
extending information on ICPTs, if they want to increase adoption of these innovations.
The relationship between perception of attributes of ICPTs revealed there was a positive 
relationship between perceptions of attributes and adoption. With producers, the trend especially 
reflected more in the specific perception of attributes of ICPTs than in the general and overall 
perceptions whereas with traders it reflected not only in the perceptions of specific attributes but 
also in their overall perceptions of attributes. The degree of relationship of overall perception of 
attributes and adoption was highest for Phostoxin and least for Edible oil. The trend was 
consistent with the awareness - adoption gap.
8.2. Recommendations:
In order to influence a higher proportion of cowpea producers and traders to adopt the use of 
improved cowpea preservation technologies, the following recommendations are offered based 
on the findings of the study. Improved cowpea preservation technologies were used by a minority 
of respondents (who can afford the cost of storage). A contributory factor to the less use of 
selected improved cowpea preservation technologies was the cost of the preservatives. If these 
preservatives could be made available at subsidized rates, more respondents could use it thus 
increase the adoption of these technologies.
141
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
More information on traditional preservation methods that are cheap, and effective should be 
made available by subject - matter - specialists at monthly training sessions ( which are AEAs 
main source of extension information) so that AEAs could extend these to help cowpea producers 
and traders reduce post harvest loss of cowpea.
Cowpea producers also use less preservation technologies as compared to traders because they 
have less cowpea to preserve among other reasons. This is because they generally dispose of their 
cowpea immediately after harvest. To encourage producers to use more preservation 
technologies, information needs to be extended to help them increase their crop yield then they 
are likely to adopt cowpea preservation technologies to increase the shelf - life of their produce.
The most appropriate target group for extension messages on cowpea preservation technologies 
by AEAs should be traders (who preserve cowpea in larger quantities and for longer periods of 
time than producers meanwhile they have minimum contact with extension). Extension therefore 
needs to re - direct cowpea preservation technology messages to traders.
Perceptions may be the truth about technologies, so the negative perception of attributes may not 
be appropriate for adoption of technologies but need to change. The negative perceptions and 
their inverse relationship with adoption levels suggest that these need to be addressed by AEAs 
and technology developers. Technology developers need to continuously re - examine and refine 
specific items of improved cowpea preservation technologies that the target group had negative 
perceptions about, and if possible, refine these aspects. The methodology of this study provides 
a possible way in which such social and cognitive variables could be incorporated during the 
technology integration stage of its development.
142
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
It is however possible that the negative perceptions do not reflect real situation about the 
technology thus intensive education on specific attributes that the target group had negative 
perceptions about and on the use of improved cowpea preservation technologies is necessary.
Detailed technical knowledge emphasizing positive attributes should be delivered by AEAs. 
These should be delivered through regular contact (that is thrice or more within a month) and the 
use of interpersonal channels of extension delivery (use of a combination of the group and 
individual methods of extension delivery) for increased adoption of cowpea preservation 
technologies. This would reinforce the acceptance decision of the adopters and counteract 
competing negative influences. Based on the findings of the study, more attention must be given 
to constraints to extension delivery since they limit the extension agents ability to effectively 
disseminate cowpea preservation messages
An analysis of the characteristics of respondents and adoption revealed there was higher adoption 
of ICPTs by males than females although preservation was a female task. AEAs therefore need 
to target females in their extension delivery so as to increase adoption of ICPTs.
8.3. Suggestions for Further Research:
The variables studied are by no means the only ones likely to influence adoption behaviour. Future 
research may be necessary, to find out the influence of variables not studied, which are empirically 
and theoretically known to influence the adoption of innovations, on the adoption of ICPTs.
143
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Due to practical, financial and time constraints, the researchers work was limited to adoption of 
selected improved cowpea preservation technologies extended by AEAs in the study area. Future 
work could study other non -extension recommended cowpea preservation technologies so as to 
find their adoption levels.
Several avenues for future research still remain. In the study, communication channels were 
classified into three main categories prior to examining their effect on adoption. Other researchers 
might wish to investigate the interpersonal and mass communication channels in the development 
of perceptions and adoption of ICPTs. This would provide greater insight into the value of the 
specific channels.
144
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abdelmagid S. A. & Hassan F. K., (1996) Factors affecting adoption of wheat production 
technology in the Sudan. Q u a r te r ly  Journal of International Agriculture. Volume 35  No. 
4 Frankfurt, Main DLG - Verlag.
Adams, M.E. (1982): Agricultural Extension in Developing Countries. Longmann, England.
Adams DA., Nelson R.R., & Todd, P.A., (1992). Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage 
of information technology: a replication. In Agarwal & Prasad (Ed) The Antecedents and 
Consequents of User Perceptions in Information Technology Adoption. Decision Support 
Systems 22 (1998) Elsevier Science B. V ., USA.
Adesina A.A., & Zinnah M.M., (1993) Technology characteristics, farmer perceptions and 
adoption decisions: A Tobit model application in Sierra Leone. In Akinwumi, Adesina & 
Baidu - Forson (Eds) Farmers, Perceptions and Adoption of New Agricultural 
Technology: Evidence From Analysis in Burkina Faso and Guinea, West Africa. Journal 
of International Association of Agricultural Economist. Elsevier Science, B.V., 
Amsterdam
Adesina A.A., & Baidu - Forson, J., (1995) Fanners, Perceptions and Adoption of New 
Agricultural Technology: Evidence From Analysis in Burkina Faso and Guinea, West 
Africa. Journal of International Association of Agricultural Economist Elsevier Science, 
B.V., Amsterdam
Adesina A.A., & Seidi, S., (1995) Farmers, Perceptions and Adoption of New Agricultural 
Technology: Analysis of Modern Mangrove Rice Varieties in Guineau Bissau. Quarterly 
Journal of International Agriculture. Frankfurt Main DLG - Verlag Volume 34 No. 4.
Adhikanya, R., & Heirro, P. (1987). Motivating Farmers for Action: How Strategic Multi - 
Media Campaign Can Help. Druckerei P, Schultz,: Frankfurt.
145
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Agarwal R., & Prasad, J., (1998). The Antecedents and Consequents of User Perceptions in 
Information Technology Adoption. Decision Support Systems 22 (1998) Elsevier Science 
B. V ., USA.
Ajzen I. & Fishbein M., (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. In 
Agarwal & Prasad (Ed) The Antecedents and Consequents of User Perceptions in 
Infonmation Technology Adoption. Decision Support Systems 22 (1998) Elsevier Science
B. V ., USA.
Albrecht H., Bergemann H, Diederich G., Grovere., Hoffman V., Payra & Sulzer R.
(1989). Agricultural Extension. Vol. 1. Concepts and Methods. GTZ Esehbam, Federal 
Repiublic of Germany
Amegatse, W. K. (1995): Assessment of Production, Consumption and Nutritional Evaluation 
of "Cowpea Fortified Fermented Maize". Dissertation. Food Science and Nutrition Dept; 
University of Ghana, Legon.
Appiah, V. (1997). "Preventing Food Losses." - Traditional vrs. Nuclear Technology: Daily 
Graphic: Saturday, Nov. 29th, 1997
Baidu - Forson J., (1999). Factors influencing adoption of land - enhancing technology in the 
Sahel: Lessons from a case study in Niger. Journal of Agricultural Economics Vol 20. 
Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam.
Bani, R.J.,(1997). The Significance of Post Harvest Food Losses in Ghana: The Legon
Agricultural Research & Extension Journal. Volume 3: Faculty of Agriculture, University 
of Ghana, Legon.
Basu, A. C., (1969)The relationship of farmer characteristics to adoption of recommended farm 
practices in four villages in western state Nigeria. Bulletin of Rural Economics and 
Sociology 4(1)
146
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Benor D. & Baxter M., (1984): Training and Visit Extension, The World Bank; Washington
D. C.; U. S. A
Berelson B & Steiner, G. A., (1984): Human Behaviour: An Inventory of Scientific Findings. 
Harcourt Bruce & World Inc., New York; U. S. A
Birkhaeuser D. E. & Feder R.E., (1991): The economic impact of agricultural extension: a 
review. In Baidu - Forson J., (Ed). Factors influencing adoption of land - enhancing 
technology in the Sahel: Lessons from a case' study in Niger. Journal of Agricultural 
Economics Vol 20 Elsevier Science B. V., Amsterdam.
Blackburn D. J., (1984). Foundations and Practices in Extension. University of Guelph, Canada.
Bohlen, J. M., (1966) The Adoption and Diffusion of Ideas in Agriculture. In J.H. Copp (Ed) 
Our Changing Rural Society: Perspectives and Trends. Iowa State University Press, 
Ames, Iowa U.S.A.
Bultena, G.L., &Hoiberg E.O., (1983) Factors affecting farmers' adoption of conservation 
tillage. In Akinwumi A., Adesina A. A., & Seidi S.(Eds ) Farmers Perceptions and 
Adoption ofNew Agricultural Technology : Analysis of Modem Mangrove Rice Varieties 
in Guinea Bissau. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture. Frankfurt Main DLG - 
Verlag Volume 34 No .4
Chitamber J.B., (1983). Introductory Rural Sociology: A Synopsis of Concepts & Principles: 
Wiley Eastern Ltd., New Delhi
Collinson D. K., (1993) Cowpea Marketing in Ghana; Dissertation, Department of Agricultural 
Economics; University of Ghana, Legon.
Copp, J. H., Sill M. L. & Brown E. J., (1958).The Function of Information Sources in the 
Farm Practice Adoption Process. In Lionberger H. F., (Ed) Adoption ofNew Ideas & 
Practices Iowa State University Press Ames, Iowa.
147
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Cotlear D., (1986). Farmer education and farm efficiency in Peru: The role of schooling, 
extension services and migration. In Baidu - Forson J., (Ed). Factors Influencing 
Adoption of Land - Enhancing Technology in the Sahel: Lessons From a Case Study in 
Niger. Journal of Agricultural Economics Vol 20, Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam.
Crider A.B., Goethals, G.R., Kavanaugh R. D., & Scott P. R., (1989) Psychology. Solomon 
Scott, Foresman and Co., Glenview, Illinois
Dapaah, S.K.,(1994). Contribution of Root & Tubers to the Socioeconomic Changes in the 
Developing World: The Case of Africa with Special Emphasis on Ghana. In: Ofori & 
Halm S.K., (Eds) Tropical Root Crops in a Developing Economy. Proceedings of the 9th 
Symposium of the International Society of Tropical Root Crops: Accra October, 20lll-26,h, 
1991.
Date-Bah E. & Stevens Y., (1985). Food Production, Processing and Technological 
Intervention. In Rural Development and Women in Africa. International Labour Office: 
Geneva.
Davis F.D. (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of 
information technology. In Agarwal & Prasad (Ed) The Antecedents and Consequents 
of User Perceptions in Information Technology Adoption. Decision Support Systems 22 
(1998) Elsevier Science B. V ., USA.
Davis F.D., Bagozzi R. P., Warshaw, P.R., (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: 
a comparison of two theoretical models. In Agarwal & Prasad (Ed) The Antecedents 
and Consequents of User Perceptions in Information Technology Adoption. Decision 
Support Systems 22 (1998) Elsevier Science B. V , USA.
Effionayi J. A., (1975), The Use of Mass Media As A Means of Communication bv Extension 
Workers with Farmers of Western State of Nigeria. Development Research Monograph 
(53). Department of Extension and Rural Sociology, University oflle-Ife; Ile-Ife, Nigeria.
148
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Eisemon A. (1990). The Impact of Primary Schooling on Agricultural Thinking and Practices in 
Kenya and Burundi. In Mades G. G. (Ed) Primary School Agriculture in Sub-Saharan 
Africa. Workshop Report and Resource Material Deutsche Gesellschaft Fur Technische 
Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) Germany.
Erasmus,C.J., (1961) Man Takes Control: Cultural Development & American Aid University 
Of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Evenson, R , (1974) Research Extension, and Schooling in Agricultural Development. In Feder 
G., Just R.E., & Zilbermann D. (Eds) Adoption of Agricultural Innovation in Developing 
Countries: A Survey. World Bank Staff Working Papers No. 542. The World Bank; 
Washington D. C., U. S. A.
Faye, J., (1991) Agricultural Systems in Africa Journal of West African Farming Systems 
Research Network.
F.A.O. (1984). World Report: Food and Agricultural Organisation (F.A.O.), Rome
Feder G., Just RE., & Zilbermann D. (1985). Adoption of Agricultural Innovation in
Developing Countries: A Survey. World Bank Staff Working Papers No. 542. The World 
Bank; Washington D. C., U. S. A.
Feder G., & Slade R , (1985) The role of public policy in the diffusion of improved technology. 
In Adesina A. A., & Seidi S.(Eds ) Farmers Perceptions and Adoption of New 
Agricultural Technology: Analysis ofModem Mangrove Rice Varieties in Guinea Bissau. 
Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture. Frankfurt Main DLG - Verlag Volume 34 
No .4
Feder G. & Umali D., (1993) The adoption of agricultural innovations. A review. In Adesina 
& Baidu - Forson (Eds) Farmers, Perceptions and Adoption of New Agricultural 
Technology: Evidence From Analysis in Burkina Faso and Guinea, West Africa. Journal 
of International Association of Agricultural Economist Elsevier Science, B. V., Amsterdam
149
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Fliegel, F. C., (1984) Extension Communication and the Adoption Process. In Swanson, B .
E.,(Ed) Agricultural Extension: A Reference Manual. F. A. O. of the United Nations. 
Rome.
Fliegel, F. C., Frederick, C., & Kivlin, J. E., (1962) ‘Differences among improved farm 
practices as related to rates of adoption.’ In Copp J. H., (Ed) Our Changing Rural Society 
: Perspectives and Trends. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, U. S. A.
Fortmann, L., (1981) Women’s agriculture in a cattle economy. In Swanson, B.E.,(Ed)
Agricultural Extension: A Reference Manual. F. A. O. of the United Nations. Rome.
Frankel J.R., & Wallen N.E., (1993) How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. 
McGraw Hill Inc. U.S.A.
Gay L.R., (1987) Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis & Application Merril 
Publishing Co. Columbus
Gerow J. R,, (1995) Psychology: An Introduction. Harper Collins College Publishers, New 
York.
Golob, P., & Webley D. J., (1980). The Use of Plants and Minerals As Traditional Protectants 
of Stored Products. Tropical Products Institute Publication No. G138, ODA, London.
Griliches, Z., (1957). Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in the Economics of Technological Change. 
In Feder G., Just RE., and Zilbermann D (Eds) Adoption of Agricultural Innovation in 
Developing Countries: A Survey. World Bank Staff Working Papers No. 542
Havens A.E., & Rogers E.M., (1961) Extension contact of Ohio farm housewives. In Rogers 
(Ed). Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press, New. York.
Hossain, M. A., (1990). Cowpea Production Guide. Mnistry of Agriculture (M.O.A.) Extension 
53. Information Support Unit M.O.A.; Accra.
150
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
ISSER (1997): The State of thg G hana ian  Economy in 1996. Institute for Statistical and Social 
Science and Economic Research (ISSER), University of Ghana, Legon.
Jacques, F., (1991) Agricultural systems in Africa. Journal o f the West African Farming Systems 
Research Network
Jamison, D.T., & Lau, L.T., (1982). Farmer Education And Farm Efficiency: World Bank 
Research Publication. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, M.D.
Jamison D., & Moock P.R., (1984) Farmer education and farm efficiency in Nepal: the role of 
schooling extension services and cognitive skills. In Baidu - Forson J., (Ed). Factors 
Influencing Adoption of Land - Enhancing Technology in the Sahel: Lessons From A Case 
Study in Niger. Journal of Agricultural Economics Vol 20. Elsevier Science B. V., 
Amsterdam.
Jones, A. M., (1989) A double - hurdle model of cigarette consumption. In Adesina A.A., & 
Baidu - Forson, J., (Eds) Farmers, Perceptions and Adoption of New Agricultural 
Technology: Evidence From Analysis in Burkina Faso and Guinea, West Africa. Journal 
of International Association of Agricultural Economist Elsevier Science, B.V., 
Amsterdam
Kang, J.T., & Song, H. C.,(1984). Individual and Group Extension Teaching Methods. In 
Swanson B.E., (Ed) Agricultural Extension: A Reference Manual. F.A.O. of the United 
Nations, Rome.
Kay, D.E.,(1979). Food Legumes. Tropical Products Institute: London
Keil M, Beranek, & P. M., Konsynski (1995) Usefulness and ease of use; field study evidence 
regarding task consideration. In Agarwal & Prasad (Ed) The Antecedents and 
Consequents of User Perceptions in Information Technology Adoption. Decision Support 
Systems 22 (1998) Elsevier Science B. V ., USA.
151
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Kitch, L. W., & Ntoukam G. (1991a) Storage of Cowpea in Ash. Technical Bulletin Bean / 
Cowpea CRSP: Easting M. 1, U. S. A..
Kivlin J.E., & Fliegel F. C., (1966) Attributes of innovations as factors in diffusion. In Adesina 
& Baidu - Forson (Eds) Farmers, Perceptions and Adoption of New Agricultural 
Technology: Evidence From Analysis in Burkina Faso and Guinea, West Africa. Journal 
of International Association of Agricultural Economist. Elsevier Science, B.V., 
Amsterdam
Korang-Amoako S., Donkor F., & Amoah K.,(1994). Ghana In: Cassadey, K.A.,Monnet G., 
& Dowswell C.R., (Eds) Strengthening National Agricultural Extension Services in Sub- 
Saharan Africa: Proceedings of A Seminar for Extension Practitioners (PP) SAA/Global 
2000/CASIN Charannes-de-Bogis, Switzerland, May, 15-19
Kwon T.H., & Zmud (1987) Unifying the fragmented models of information systems 
implementation. . In Agarwal R., & Prasad J., (Ed) The Antecedents and Consequents 
of User Perceptions in Information Technology Adoption. Decision Support Systems 22 
(1998) Elsevier Science B. V. , USA.
Lancaster, S.W., & Sattar, A., (1984). Information sources to strengthen Agricultural Extension 
and Training. In Swanson, B E., (Ed) Agricultural Extension: A Reference Manual. F.A.O. 
of the United Nations, Rome.
Lee L.K., & Stewart (1983). Land ownership and the adoption of minimum tillage. In 
Akinwumi A., Adesina A. A., & Seidi S.(Eds) Farmers Perceptions and Adoption of New 
Agricultural Technology: Analysis of Modem Mangrove Rice Varieties in Guinea Bissau. 
Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture. Frankfort Main DLG - Verlag Volume 34 
No .4
Lin C.T.J., & Milon J.W., (1993) Attribute and safety perceptions in a double - hurdle model 
of shellfish consumption. In Akinwumi A., Adesina A. A., & Seidi S.(Eds ) Farmers 
Perceptions and Adoption of New Agricultural Technology: Analysis of Modern 
Mangrove Rice Varieties in Guinea Bissau. Quarterly Journal of International 
Agriculture. Frankfurt Main DLG - Verlag Volume 34 No 4
152
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Lin C. A., & Jeflres L.W., (1998). Factors Influencing the Adoption of Multimedia Cable 
Technology. JMC. Quarterly Vol 75, No. 2.
Lindblad C., & Vita L.D., (1976). Small Farm Grain Storage. United States Peace Corps 
Information Collection and Exchange Manual M0002, Washington D.C., 20526
Lionberger H. F. (1951). Sources and use of farm and home information by low income farmers. 
In Lionberger, H.F., (Ed) Adoption ofNew Ideas and Practices. Iowa State University 
Press, Ames, Iowa.
Lionberger, H. F., (1968). Adoption ofNew Ideas and Pratices. Iowa State University Press, 
Ames, Iowa.
Lionberger, H.F., & Coughenor C.M., (1957). Social structure and diffusion of farm 
information. In Lionberger, H. F., (Ed). Adoption ofNew Ideas and Pratices. Iowa State 
University Press, Ames, Iowa.
Liska A.E., (1984) Acritical examination of the causal structure of the Fishbein / Ajzen attitude 
behaviour model. In Agarwal R., & Prasad J., (Ed) The Antecedents and Consequents 
of User Perceptions in Information Technology Adoption. Decision Support Systems 22 
(1998) Elsevier Science B. V ., USA.
Maunders, A. H., (1972) Agricultural Extension: A Reference Manual. FAO of the United 
Nations, Rome.
Matthews.M.T., Jenkins D.R., & Sletto R.F., (1942) Attitudes of Edgefield County farmers 
towards farm practices and rural programs. In Lionberger (Ed) Adoption ofNew Ideas 
and Practices. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.
153
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Mehra (1994): Raising agricultural productivity: The role of women farmers. In Peters G. H.,& 
Douglas D. H. (Eds) Agriculture, Competitiveness, Market Forces and Policy Chance. 
Proceedings of the 2131 International Conference of Agricultural Economics. University 
of Oxford, Dartmonth.
Melkote S.R., (1997) Communication for Development in the Third World: Theory and Practice. 
Sage Publications. New Delhi/ London.
Merrill-Sands D., (1989) ‘ Linkage mechanisms: an overview.’ In Merrill-Sands D. & 
Kaimonitz D. (Eds) The Technology Triangle Linking Farmer. Technology Transfer 
Agents and Agricultural Researchers. Survey Report of An International Workshop Held 
at ISNAR, The Hague. E. P. Lowe Ltd; The Roman Press; U. K.
Merrill-Sands D. & Kaimonitz D, (1990) The Technology Triangle Linking Farmer.
Technology Transfer Agents and Agricultural Researchers. Survey Report of An 
International Workshop Held at ISNAR, The Hague. E. P. Lowe Ltd; The Roman Press; 
U.K.
Moore G.C.,& Benbasat, L, (1991) Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions 
of adopting an information technology innovation.. In Agarwal R., & Prasad J., (Ed) The 
Antecedents and Consequents of User Perceptions in Information Technology Adoption. 
Decision Support Systems 22 (1998) Elsevier Science B. V ., USA.
Morris C. G., (1985). Psychology: An Introduction. Prentice - Hall Inc., England Cliffs, New 
Jersey.
Moser C.A., & Kalton G., n972).Methods of Collecting the Information I I I : Survey Methods 
in Social Investigation 2nd Edition: Basic Book Inc., New York
Muhlbauer, W., (1991). Improved Post - Harvest Technology: A Contribution to Food Security: 
TROPAG & RURAL 1975 - 12/94 Diskette
154
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Mundlak Y., Larson.D., & Butzer.R, (1997), Determinants of Agricultural Production: a Cross 
County Analysis. Policy Research Working Paper 1827 The World Bank Development 
Research Series.
Murdock L. L., & Shade R  E . , (1991): Eradication of cowpea weevil (Cleoptera Bruchidae) 
In Singh et al., Advances in Cowpea Research.. Colorcraft; Hong Kong.
Murdock L.L., Shade RE., Kitch L.W,. Ntoukam G., Lowenberg De Boer J., Huesing J.E.,
Moar W., Chambliss, O. L., Endondo C., & Wolfson J. L., (1997). Post harvest storage of 
cowpea in Sub-Saharan Africa; In: Singh et al., (Ed) Advances in Cowpea Research.. 
Colorcraft, Hong, Kong.
N.A.E.P. Report, (1997). National Agricultural Extension Project Staff Appraisal Report. 
Western Africa Development. Agricultural Operations Division IV.
Nicol K., Darko J.O., & Ofosu A., (1997). A Manual of Post Harvest Technology of Major 
Crops in Ghana. Ministry of Food and Agriculture: Accra: Ghana
Nilakanta S., & Scamell (1990) The effects of information sources and communication channels 
on the diffusion of innovation on a data base development environment. In 
Agarwal R , & Prasad J., (Ed) The Antecedents and Consequents of User Perceptions in 
Information Technology Adoption. Decision Support Systems 22 (1998) Elsevier 
Science B. V. USA
Norris P.E., & Batie S.S., (1987) Virginia farmers' soil conservation decisions: An application 
of Tobit Analysis. In Akinwumi A., Adesina A. A., & Seidi S.(Eds ) Farmers Perceptions 
and Adoption of New Agricultural Technology: Analysis of Modem Mangrove Rice 
Varieties in Guinea Bissau. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture. Frankfurt Main 
DLG - Verlag Volume 34 No .4
155
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Nowak, P. J., (1992) Why farmers adopt production technology. In Akinwumi A., Adesina 
A. A., & Baidu - Forson (Eds) Farmers, Perceptions and Adoption ofNew Agricultural 
Technology: Evidence From Analysis in Burkina Faso and Guinea, West Africa. Journal 
of International Association of Agricultural Economist Elsevier Science, B. V., Amsterdam
Ofuya T. A., (1986). Use of wood ash, dry chilli, pepper fruits and onion scale leaves for 
reducing Callosobruchiis maculatus (Fabricuis) damage in cowpea seeds during storage. 
In Singh B. B., Mohan Raj, D. R., Dashiell K. E.& Jackai L,E.N. (Eds). Advances in 
Cowpea Research. Tropical Agriculture IITA & Japan International Research Centre for 
Agricultural Science: IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria, Colercraft, Hong Kong.
Okigbo , B.N.(1986). Broadening the Food Base in Africa: The Potential of Traditional Food 
Plants. In F.A.O. Nutrition Manual Vol. 12 No. 1
Onu D. (1991): Communication and Adoption of Improved Soil Conservation Technologies by 
Small Scale Farmers in Imo State of Nigeria. In Faye J. (Ed) Agricultural Systems in 
Africa. Journal of West Africa Farming Systems Research Network.
Osuntogun A, Adeyomo R., & Anyaowu E.(1985). The Adoption of Innovations by Co­
operative Farmers in Nigeria. In: Tropical Agriculture. Trinidad Vol. 63 No. 2.
Pereira, J., (1983)The effectiveness of six vegetable oils as protectants of cowpea and bambara 
groundnuts, against infestation by Callosobruchiis maculatus (E) Coleoptera Bruchidae: 
In Singh et al.,: (Eds) Advances in Cowpea Research. Colocraft; Hong Kong.
Perse E. M., & Courtright J,A., (1993). ‘ Normative images of communication media: mass 
and interpersonal channels in the new media. In Lin C. A., & Jeffres L.W., (Eds). Factors 
Influencing the Adoption of Multimedia Cable Technology. JMC. Quarterly Vol 75. No.
2
156
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Pickering, D., (1989) Agricultural Extension & its Linkages with Agricultural Research: In Nigel 
R., (Ed) Agricultural Extension in Africa: A World Bank Symposium: Washington D.C., 
U.S.A.
Poison R., & Spencer D.S. C., (1991). The technology adoption process in subsistence 
agriculture: the case of cassava in South - western Nigeria. In Adesina A. A., & Seidi, S., 
(Eds) Fanners, Perceptions and Adoption of New Agricultural Technology: Analysis of 
Modem Mangrove Rice Varieties in Guinea Bissau. Quarterly Journal of International 
Agriculture. Frankfurt Main DLG -Verlag volume 34 No. 4.
Proctor F.J., Goodliffe J.P., & Coursey (1979). Post - Harvest Losses of Vegetables & their 
Control in the Tropics. Symposia oflnstitute of Biology: No. 25. Vegetable Productivity.
Prundeau J.,& Zwermann P.J., (1958) An evaluation of some economic factors and fanners 
attitudes that may influence acceptance of soil conservation practices. In Rogers (Ed) 
Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press. New York.
Quin, F. M., (1997): Introduction In: Singh et al. Advances in Cowpea Research. Colorcraft, 
Hong Kong.
Rachie K. O., & Singh S. R,(1985). Cowpea Research. Production and Utilization. Wiley 
Inter Science Publication; John Wiley and Sons; Great Britain.
Rahm M., & Huffman, W., (1984). The adoption or reduced tillage: the role of human capital 
and other variables. In Baidu Forson (Ed) Factors Influencing Adoption of Land 
Enhancing Technology in the Sahel: Lessons From A Case Study in Niger. Agricultural 
Economics 20. Journal of International Association of Agricultural Economists. 
Amsterdam, Elsevier.
Rawnsley, J, (1969). Crop Storage. Technical Report. U.N. Development Program : FAO of 
the United Nations, Rome.
157
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Reagan, J., Pinkleton, B., Chen C.,& Aaronson D.,(1995). How technologies relate to the 
repertoire of information sources. In Lin C. A., & Jeffres L.W., (1998). Factors 
Influencing the Adoption ofMultimedia Cable Technology. JMC. Quarterly Vol 75, No. 
2 .
Rogers, E. M. (1962V Diffusion of Innovations.The Free Press; New York.
Rogers, E. M., (1983). Diffusion of Innovations: The Free Press; New York.
Rogers, E. M., (1995). Diffusion of Innovations: The Free Press; New York.
Rogers, E. M, .& Burdge R  S., (1972). Social Change in Rural Societies. Appleton-Century-' 
Crofts, Educational Division; Meredith Corp.
Ryan B., & Gross N. C., (1943) The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities. In 
Rogers (Ed) Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press. New York.
Sackey F. V., (1975). A Survey of Traditional Methods of Food Storage and Preservation in 
Some Villages and Accra City District of Ghana. Dissertation, Nutrition and Food 
Science Dept, University of Ghana, Legon.
Saga V., & Zmud R. W., (1994) The nature and determinants of IT acceptance, routinization, 
and infusion. In Agarwal & Prasad (Ed) The Antecedents and Consequents of User 
Perceptions in Information Technology Adoption. Decision Support Systems 22 (1998) 
Elsevier Science B. V ., USA.
Schoonhoven, A. V., (1978): Use of vegetable oils to protect stored beans from bruchid attack. 
In:Singh et al (Eds.) Advances in Cowpea Research. Colorcraft Hong Kong.
Singh B. B., Luse, R. A., & Nangju D., (1979), Groundnut oil for control of cowpea weevil 
In Singh B. B., Mohan Raj, D. R., Dashiell K. E.& Jackai L,E.N. (Eds) Advances in 
Cowpea Research. Tropical Agriculture IITA & Japan International Research Centre for 
Agricultural Science: IITA Ibadan, Nigeria, Colercraft, Hong Kong.
158
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Singh B. B., Mohan Raj, D. R , Dashiell K. E.& Jackai L,E.N. (1997). Advances in Cowpea 
Research. Tropical Agriculture IITA & Japan International Research Centre for 
Agricultural Science: IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria, Colercraft, Hong Kong.
Staudt A., (1975) Women farmers and inequalities in agricultural services. In Swanson (Ed) 
Agricultural Extension: A Reference Manual. F.A.O. of the United Nations, Rome.
Swanson B. E., (1984). Agricultural Extension: A Reference Manual. F.A.O. of the United 
Nations, Rome.
Swanson B. E., Rolings N, & Jiggins J. (1984). Extension strategies for technology utilization. 
In: Swanson B.E., (Ed) Agricultural Extension: A Reference Manual. F.A.O. of the 
United Nations, Rome.
Swanson., & Rassi (1990) Innovative Agricultural Extension for Women: Case Study in
Cameroun. In: Swanson B.E., (Ed) Agricultural Extension: A Reference Manual. F.A.O. 
of the United Nations, Rome.
Van den Ban W. W. & Hawkins H. S. (1996) Agricultural Extension. Blackwell Sciences; 
Osney Mead, Oxford.
Voh E., (1982). A study of factors associated with adoption of recommended farm practices in 
Nigerian villages. In Adesina A.A., & Seidi, S., (1995) Farmers, Perceptions and 
Adoption ofNew Agricultural Technology: Analysis of Modem Mangrove Rice Varieties 
in Guineau Bissau. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture. Frankfurt Main DLG - 
Verlag volume 34 No. 4.
Wilkening, E. A., (1952): Acceptance of improved farm practices in three coastal plain countries. 
In: Lionberger, H.F., (Ed) Adoption ofNew Ideas and Practices. Iowa State University 
Press; Ames, Iowa.
Wilson M. C., & Gallup G., (1955): Extension teaching methods and other factors that
influence adoption of agricultural and home economics practices. In Lionberger H.F. (Ed) 
Adopton ofNew Ideas and Practices Iowa State University Press, Ames; Iowa
159
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Wolfson J. L., Murdock L. L., Kitch L. W., Shade R  E., & Ntoukam G. (1990)_Preservation 
o f post harvest cowpeas by subsistence farmers in Cameroun.. In Singh et al., (Eds) 
Cowpea Research. Colorcraft, Hong Kong.
Wortmann C B., Loftus E. F., & Marshall M. E., (1988) Psychology. Visual Education Corp. 
Princeton, New Jersey.
Whale W. B.,(1984) A technology transfer revisited: In Blackbum(Ed) Foundations and 
Changing Practice in Extension. Univ. of Guelph
Yin R.K., (1988). Case Study Research Design & Methods: Applied Social Science Methods 
Series. Sage Publications; Newbury Park, London.
Yin R.K., (1981a). ‘The case study as a serious research strategy, knowledge creation, diffusion 
and utilization.’ In Yin R.K. (Ed). Case Study Research Design & Methods: Applied 
Social Science Methods Series. Sage Publications; Newbury Park, London
Yin R.K., (1981b). ‘The study crisis: some answers.’ In Yin R.K. (Ed). Case Study Research 
Design & Methods: Applied Social Science Methods Series. Sage Publications;
Newbury Park, London
Yussen S. R , & Santrock J. W., (1983). A student guide to accompany child development: An 
Introduction. In Charlesworth (Ed) Understanding Child Development. Delmar 
Publishers Inc. U.S.A.
Zehrer, W., (19801 Traditional Methods of Insect Pest Control in Stored Grain Post Harvest 
Problem Documentation of an 0. A. U./G.T.Z. Seminar, Lome 1989; Printed in Germany.
Zinnah M. M., & Kwarteng J. A., (1994) Communication and Extension Methods: A Course 
Manual. University of Cape Coast, Ghana.
Zmud R  W., (1983). The effectiveness of external information channels in facilitating innovation 
within software development groups. In Agarwal & Prasad (Ed) The Antecedents and 
Consequents of User Perceptions in Information Technology Adoption. Decision Support 
Systems 22 (1998) Elsevier Science B. V ., USA.
160
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
append ix  1
STRUCTURED INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR COWPEA 
PRODUCERS
SECTION A: PERSONAL INFORMATION :
1. Name /No. of Respondents-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Town/Village:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Hometown:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4,Sex: l.M alef ] 2. Female [ ]
5. Age:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Marital status : 1. single [ ] 2. widowed [ ] 2. married [ ] 4. divorced[ ]
7. Size of family --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.Educational level:
1. None [ ]
2. Elementary[ ]
3. Secondary [ ]
4. Tertiary (polytechnic, etc[ ]
5. Others specify— -------- ----------------------------------------------------------
9. What was the size of your cowpea farm in the last major/minor season?-----------------------
10. How did you acquire the land for farming ?
1 .family [ ] 8 .sharecropping [ ]
2 . lease [ ] 16. hiring / renting [ ]
4.outright purchase [ ] 32. Others specify-----------------------------
SECTION B: COWPEA PRODUCTION AND STORAGE/PRESERVATION
11. How long have you been growing cowpeas ? --------------------------------------------------------
12. Which varieties of cowpea do you grow .-------------------------------------------------------------
13. When did you start growing cowpea?-----------------------------------------------------------------
14. Estimate your crop yield ( in bags ) for the last two years-----------------------------------------
161
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
15. How many bags of cowpea do you store/preserve?---------------------------
16. What do you do to your produce immediately after harvesting?
1. Sell it fresh (immediately) without drying [ ]
2. Dry it in the pod and sell [ ]
3. Dry, it in the pod store, and sell later [ ]
4. Dry it, preserve, and store for home consumption [ ]
5. Others specify---------------------------------------------------------------------
17. If  you store it, do you encounter any problems during storage of cowpea?
l.Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]
18. What problems do you encounter when storing/preserving the cowpea?—
SECTION C: UTILIZATION OF IMPROVED COWPEA PRESERVATION 
METHODS
19. Are you aware of any cowpea preservation technologies? 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]
20. If yes, what are these? (list them)
 i-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i i ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii i---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Have you ever heard of any preservation technology recommended by Extension agents 
to solve your cowpea storage problem? l.Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]
22. If yes, list and describe them?
PRESERVATION
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
23.Who did you get the information on the improved cowpea preservation technology from
1 .fellow farmers [ ]
2.input suppliers [ ]
4. Extension agent [ ]
16.Produce buyers [ ]
32.0thers specify--------------------------------------------------------------------
162
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
24 Have you ever used the preservation technology recommended by the Extension agent?
1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]
25 If  yes, which of the recommended preservation technologies do you use?
i -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i i .-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii i-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. Why do you use the improved preservation technologies? (tick the ones applicable )
1 . because it is cheaper to use [ ]
2. it yields higher income than the traditional method [ ]
3. it stores longer when I use this method [ ]
4 it involves less work [ ]
5. it is time saving [ ]
6. it is similar to the existing traditional practice [ ]
7. it is easier to use [ ]
8.1 understand the innovation and can use it easily [ ]
9. others specify--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. If you do not use the improved preservation technology, why don’t you use it? (tick the 
ones applicable )
I . it yields less marginal returns [ ]
2 I fear the effect of the chemicals [ ]
3. because of the high cost of chemicals [ ]
4. it is labour consuming [ ]
5. it is time consuming [ ]
6. it is not similar to the existing traditional cowpea preservation practice [ ]
7. the cowpea tastes different after preserving with chemicals [ ]
8. cowpea preserved with chemicals takes a longer time to cook [ ]
9. it is difficult to get access to the chemicals [ ]
10. it is difficult to understand & use the innovation [ ]
I I . others specify------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28.What problems do you encounter with the use of these recommended preservation 
technologies
163
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
SECTION D: PERCEPTIONS OF CHARACTERISTICS OF PRESERVATION 
TECHNOLOGIES:
29. Rank the characteristics of cowpea preservation technologies you are aware of using the 
rating provided below.
A: RELATIVE ADVANTAGE:
i. The cost of the technology is -------------------------------------------------.
4. very low 3. low 2. moderate 1. high
ii. The technology i s ----------------------------------------- income yielding.
4. high 3. average 2. low 1. very low
iii. The shelf life of cowpea when the technology is used is ----------.
4. long 3. medium 2. short 1. very short
iv. There is --------------------------------------------------------- work involved.
4. very low 3. low 2. average 1. high
v. The time frame for application of the technology is --------------------.
4. very short 3. short 2.medium 1. long
vi. The technology i s ---------------------------------------------------------------- .
4. very effective 3.averagely effective 2. effective 1.not effective
vii. There are---------------------------------------------------- marketing problems.
4. no 3. a few 2. average 1. a lot of
B: COMPATIBILITY:
viii. The technology i s ---------------------------------------to traditional practices.
4. very similar 3. averagely similar 2. similar 1. not similar
ix. The taste is -----------------------------------after preserving with the method.
4. not different 3. slightly different 2. different 1. very different
x. There is -----------------------------------------------------------------of the chemical.
4. no smell /fear of effect 3. slightly strong smell/fear of effect
2. strong smell/fear of effect 1 . very strong smell /fear of effect
C: COMPLEXITY:
xi. The technology i s -------------------------------------------   to use.
4. very easy 3. Easy 2.slightly easy 1. not easy
xii. The technology i s ----------------------------------------------------to understand.
4. very easy 3. Easy 2.slightly easy 1. not easy
164
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
D: TRIALABILITY:
xiii. The use of the technology involves--------------------------------------- money.
4. very little 3. a little 2. much 1. too much
xiv. The technology was used out o f ------------------------------------------ curiosity.
4. high 3. average 2. low l.n o
E: OBSERVABILITY:
xv. It i s ------------------------------------------to see the advantage of the technology.
4. very easy 3. easy 2. slightly easy 1. not easy
FACTOR SUB- FACTOR RECOMMENDED TECHNOLOGIES
Actellic
liquid
Actellic
dust
Phostoxin Edible
oils
RELATIVE
ADVANTAGE
Cost ■
Income yielding
Shelf life
Work involved
Time involved
Effectiveness
Marketing problems
COMPATIBILITY Similarity to traditional practice
Taste after preserving
Smell o f chemical
COMPLEXITY Ease of use
Ease in understanding tech.
TRIALABILITY Use involves------money
Use out of curiosity
OBSERVABILITY Advantage of the innovation
165
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
SECTION E : EXTENSION CONTACT / ACTIVITIES :
30. If you have information on cowpea preservation from the extension agent, in what way did 
the agent pass on the information?
1. lecture [ ]  2. A demonstration [ ]
3. radio discussion 4. Others specify------------------------ ..........
31. How many times have you taken part in extension activities at which cowpea preservation 
technologies have been discussed ?
1 . never have [ ] 2 . once [ ]
3. twice [ ] 4. thrice [ ]
5 more than thxicef ]
32. In what way did you come into contact with the Extension agent before discussing cowpea 
preservation technologies ?
1.individually [ ] 2. in a group [ ] 3. Both [ ]
33. How often was your contact with the extension agent ?
1 .no contact [ J 2. Once a week [ ]
3. Fortnightly [ ] 4. Once a month [ ]
5. others specify------------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. Did you find the way the information was sent to you satisfactory ?
1 .yes [ ] 2. No [ ]
35. If yes to Question 34 , give reasons . -------------------------------------------------------------------
36. If no ,to Question 34 give reasons . —
37. Do you require further training to fully understand the preservation technology being 
recommended by the Extension agent ? 1 .yes [ ] 2. No [ ]
38 If yes to Question 37 , give reasons . -----------------------------------------------------------
39. If no to Question 37 , give reasons -
40. Was the message timely enough for you to put to practice ? l.Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]
41. Briefly indicate any other issues you wish to address with regards to cowpea r>rf**r. .ation 
technologies ?
166
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
APPENDIX  2
STRUCTURED INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR COWPEA TRADERS
SECTION A: PERSONAL INFORMATION :
1. Name /No. of Respondents------------------------------------------------------------  ------------
2. Town/Village:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Hometown:----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------
4. Sex: l.M ale[ ] 2. Female [ ]
5. Age:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Marital status : 1. single [ ] 2. widowed [ ] 2. married [ ] 4. divorced[ ]
7. Size of family------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Educational level:
1. None [ ]
2. Elementary[ ]
3. Secondary [ ]
4. Tertiary (polytechnic, etc[ ]
5. Others specify----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTIONB: COWPEA STORAGE/PRESERVATION
9. Where do you sell your cowpea ? ----------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Which varieties of cowpea do you sell.--------------------------------------------------------------
11. How long have you been selling cowpea ? ----------------------------------------------------------
12. Where do you buy your cowpea?----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.Which of the cowpea varieties stays long before getting infested/spoilt?----------------------
14. How many bags of cowpea do you store/ preserve within a month?----------------------------
15. How do you store/ preserve your cowpea?----------------------------------------------------------
16. If you store it, do you encounter any problems during storage?
l.Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]
167
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
17. What problems do you encounter when storing/preserving the cowpea?-
18. How long do you store it before encountering the problems?------------------------ ------
SECTION C: UTILIZATION OF IMPROVED COWPEA PRESERVATION 
METHODS
19. Are you aware of any cowpea preservation technologies? l . Y e s [ ]  2 . No [ ]
20. If yes, what are these? (list them )
i ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii.------------------------------------------------ 
iii-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Have you ever heard of any preservation technology recommended by Extension agents 
to solve your cowpea storage problem? 1 .Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]
22. If yes, list and describe them?
PRESERVATION
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
23.Who did you get the information on the improved cowpea preservation technology from 
1 .fellow farmers [ ]
2.input suppliers [ ]
4. Extension agent [ ]
16.Produce buyers [ ]
32.0thers specify--------------------------------------------------------------------
24 Have you ever used the preservation technology recommended by the Extension agent?
1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]
25 If yes, which of the recommended preservation technologies do you use?
j ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii . ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii .---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
168
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
26. Why do you use the improved preservation technologies? (tick the ones applicable )
1 . because it is cheaper to use [ ]
2. it yields higher income than the traditional method [ ]
3. it stores longer when I use this method [ ]
4 it involves less work [ J
5. it is time saving [ ]
6. it is similar to the existing traditional practice [ ]
7. it is easier to use [ ]
8.1 understand the innovation and can use it easily [ ]
9. others specify------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. If you do not use the improved preservation technology, why don’t you use it? (tick the 
ones applicable )
I . it yields less marginal returns [ ]
2 I fear the effect of the chemicals [ ]
3. because of the high cost of chemicals [ ]
4. it is labour consuming [ ]
5. it is time consuming [ ]
6. it is not similar to the existing traditional cowpea preservation practice F 1 .
7. the cowpea tastes different after preserving with chemicals [ ]
8. cowpea preserved with chemicals takes a longer time to cook [ ]
9. it is difficult to get access to the chemicals [ ]
10. it is difficult to understand & use the innovation [ ]
I I . others specify----------------------------------------------------------------------------
28.What problems do you encounter with the use of these recommended preservation 
technologies
SECTION D: PERCEPTIONS OF CHARACTERISTICS OF PRESERVATION 
TECHNOLOGIES:
29. Rank the characteristics of cowpea preservation technologies you are aware u the 
rating provided below.
A: RELATIVE ADVANTAGE:
i. The cost of the technology i s ----------------------------------------------.
4. very low 3. low 2. moderate l.high
169
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
ii. The technology i s ----------—■
4. high 3. average
■ income yielding. 
1 . very low2. low
iii. The shelf life of cowpea when the technology is used i s  .
4. long 3. medium 2. short 1 . very short
iv. There i s -------------------------------------------------------- work involved.
4. very low 3. low 2. average l.high
v. The time frame for application of the technology i s ------------------- .
4. very short 3. short 2.medium l.long
vi. The technology i s --------------------------------------------------------------- .
4. very effective 3.averagely effective 2. effective 1 .not effective
vii. There a re --------------------------------------------------- marketing problems.
4. no 3. a few 2. average 1. a lot of
B: COMPATIBILITY:
viii. The technology i s --------------------------------
4. very similar 3. averagely similar 2. similar
ix. The taste i s  -----------------------------after preserving with the method.
4. not different 3. slightly different 2. different 1. very different
to traditional practices. 
1 . not similar
x. There is — ■ of the chemical.
4. no smell /fear of effect
2. strong smell/fear of effect 
C: COMPLEXITY:
xi. The technology i s -----------
4. very easy 3. Easy
xii. The technology i s ----------
4. very easy 3. Easy
D: TRIALABILITY:
3. slightly strong smell/fear of effect 
1 . very strong smell /fear of effect
2.slightly easy
---------------- to use.
1 . not easy 
 to understand.
2.slightly easy 1 . not easy
xiii. The use of the technology involves-----
4. very little 3. a little 2. much
• money.
1 . too much
xiv. The technology was used out o f-------------------------------------------curiosity.
4. high 3. average 2. low l .no
E: OBSERVABILITY:
xv. It i s ---------------------------------------- to see the advantage of the technology
4. very easy 3. easy 2. slightly easy L not easy
170
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
FACTOR SUB- FACTOR RECOMMENDED TECHNOLOGIES
Actellic
liquid
Actellic
dust
Phostoxin Edible
oils
RELATIVE
ADVANTAGE
Cost
Income yielding
Shelf life
Work involved
Time involved
Effectiveness
Marketing problems
COMPATIBILITY Similarity to traditional practice
Taste after preserving
Smell o f chemical
COMPLEXITY Ease of use
Ease in understanding tech.
TRIALABILITY Use involves------money
Use out of curiosity
OBSERVABILITY Advantage o f the innovation
SECTION E : EXTENSION CONTACT / ACTIVITIES :
30. If you have ha information on cowpea preservation from the extension agent, in what way 
did the agent pass on the information?
1. lecture [ ] 2. A demonstration [ ]
3. radio discussion 4. Others specify--------------------------------------------
31. How many times have you taken part in extension activities at which cowpea preservation 
technologies have been discussed ?
1. never have [ ] 2. once [ ]
3. twice [ ] 4. thrice [ ]
5 more than thrice[ ]
171
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
32. In what way did you come into contact with the Extension agent before discussing cowpea 
preservation technologies ?
1.individually [ ] 2. in a group [ ] 3. Both [ ]
33. How often was your contact with the extension agent ?
35. If yes to Question 34 , give reasons .
36. If no ,to Question 34 give reasons .
37. Do you require further training to fully understand the preservation technology uU,g
38 If yes to Question 37 , give reasons .
39. If no to Question 37 , give reasons
40. Was the message timely enough for you to put to practice ? l.Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]
41. Briefly indicate any other issues you wish to address with regards to cowpea preservation 
technologies ?
l.no contact [ ]
3. Fortnightly [ ]
2. Once a week [ ] 
4. Once a month [ ]
5. others specify-----------------------------------------------
34. Did you find the way the information was sent to you satisfactory ?
l.yes[ ] 2. No [ ]
recommended by the Extension agent ? 1 .yes [ ] 2. No [ ]
172
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
APPENDIX 3
AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION AGENTS QUESTIONNAIRE 
SECTION A: PERSONAL INFORMATION
4.Hometown :-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.Educational l e v e l ---------------------------- ---------------- ------------------------------
6.What is your language(s) of communication with the farmers-----------------------
7. What is your position in Extension Organization------------------------------------
8. How long have you been in the Extension service?
1. less than 5 years [ ] 3. more than 5 years [ ]
2. 5 years [ ]
9. Number of years you have worked in current location ?
1 .less than a year [ ] 5.4 years [ ]
2.a year [ ] 6. 5 years [ ]
3. 2 years [ ] 7. more than 5 years [ ]
4.3 years[ ]
SECTION B : EXTENSION DELIVERY :
10.From which source do you get the technical message you give to farmers?
1. Researchers [ ] 4. Monthly training sessions [ ]
2.My supervisor [ ] 5. others specify------------------------------------
3. Literature [ ]
11 .Have you or other Extension workers ever introduced any cowpea preservation 
technology to farmers in your operational area ?
1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]
12. If yes, list any such cowpea preservation technologies introduced in your operational area
1.Name/No of respondent:
2. Sex
3.Marital status
1. Male[ ]
1. Married[ ]
2. Divorcedf ]
2. Female[ 
, 3. Single[ 
-f4.'Widow[
173
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
13a Indicate the year /time the cowpea preservation technologies mentioned in Question 12 
were introduced in the operational area ?
13b. Was there a need for re - introduction of these technologies mentioned in Question 12 
above?
l.Yes [ ]  2. No [ ]
13c If yes to Question 13b, why was this necessary ?
13d Indicate according to effectiveness, three Extension teaching methods you often use 
to extend cowpea preservation messages ?
 i----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i i---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
l i i -
13e. Why did you choose the extension teaching methods mentioned in Question 13d above ? 
j.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i i . -
i i i . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13f How often do you use the Extension teaching methods mentioned in Question 13d within 
a farming season ?
i.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i i . -
iii ■
13g. Briefly indicate any disadvantage(s) if any of using the extension teaching methods 
indicated in 13d.
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
14. Who provided the input for the training?
1 the extension agent [ ] 4. the clientele [ ]
2 .the extension supervisor [ ] 5.the researcher [ [
3.others specify-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15.Was any demonstration done ? 1. Yes [ ] 2 No [ ]
16.1f yes, which Extension method was used ?
1. method [ ] 2. Result [ ] 3. Both [ ]
17. How often was your contact with your clientele within a month?
1 . no contact [ ] 2. once [ ]
3. twice [ ] 4. thrice or more [ ]
18.1ndicate any problems encountered with transfer of technical message on preservation of 
cowpea.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Apart from the cowpea preservation technologies ,you or other Extension workers have
disseminated to your clientele, do you know of any other cowpea preservation 
technologies l .Yes [  ] 2.No [ ]
20. If yes to Question 19 , list these ?-----------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Do you take these other preservation technologies listed in Question 20 into consideration 
when you extend messages on cowpea preservation to farmers in your operational area ?
1. Yes [ ] 2.No [ ]
22. If yes, how and why do you extend information on the preservation methods mentioned 
in Question 20 ?
23. If no to Question 21 , why don’t you extend that information ?
175
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
SECTION C: ADOPTION OF THE TECHNOLOGY
24 Indicate any constraints to the adoption of cowpea preservation technologies ?
25. Have the farmers in your operational area been using the cowpea preservation 
technologies recommended by Extension agents ?
1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]
26. If  no to Question 25 , why do you think they are not using the technologies ( tick the 
ones applicable)
1 . inadequate information about the technology [ ]
2 cost of inputs [ ]
3. availability o f inputs'[ ]
4.cost of labour [ ]
5. others specify-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27.Do your clientele show interest in the cowpea preservation technologies you recommend?
30 Briefly indicate any other issues you wish to address with regards to the technology, its 
introduction, and adoption ?
31. Personally do you believe in the use of chemicals for preserving food ?
l.Yes []  2. No [ ]
32. If no , why don’t you like the use of chemicals for preservation ?
33. Which villages are in your operational area ?
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
APPENDIX 4
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION 
(COWPEA PRODUCERS, TRADERS & EXTENSION AGENTS)
SECTION A : BIO - PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 
A. Climate : ( Seasonal Calendar)
1. Normal distribution of rainfall ( monthly ) 
major/minor season 
dry season
relationship with farming/economic activities 
relationship with growth & storage of cowpea
SECTION B : ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT / CHARACTERISTICS:
A. Crop production
1 Crops grown
2 Output level of crops (especially cowpea)
For each crop especially cowpea indicate :
a. length and possible range of growing season
b. normal variation in growing season ( early/late )
c. normal harvesting season- normal variation in 
harvesting season ( early/late)
d. varieties of cowpea grown
e. time for performing critical operations ( practices 
with respective dates )
f. input/output associated with the practice(
g. given the total agricultural activity within the area 
indicate the relative seasonal demand for most 
critical inputs 
h. seasonal demand for other critical inputs 
( eg Preservatives)
3. Level of Agricultural technology
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
B. Cowpea yield & Returns
Estimate of cowpea yields & returns per year ( reported yield in bags for the last two 
years )
C. Storage facilities
place o f storage/storage area 
availability of storage facilities 
adoption pattern of cowpea storage recommendation 
description of Cowpea preservation practices 
For each practice, indicate:
1. what the practice is called locally
2. specific input(s) associated with the practice & amounts 
applied per bag
3. mode of application
4. time of application
D. Marketing & Price of Cowpea
a. Identify principal/minor local market outlets ( buyers )
b. Estimate the quantity of product marketed ( in bags )
- recent prices ( at time of sale )
c. Seasonality of marketing & prices ( Seasonal Calendar )
Is the crop all sold at harvest, part sold at harvest, part held for higher 
prices etc.
seasonal fluctuations of prices, (average over the last 5yrs if possible)
E. Extension Service
availability of extension service 
professional services ( pest control & storage )
Indicate whether public/private
F. : Communication :
1. Formal / Informal channels of information diffusion within the 
community .
2. Prevailing extension teaching methods
3. Barriers to effective communication between extension workers 
and farmers after they receive extension message
178
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
APPENDIX 5: Perceptions of Specific Attributes of Selected ICPTs.
General
Attributes
Specific Attribute Per. Selected Improved Cowpea Preservation Technologies
Actellic 
liquid (% not 
aware = 
65%)
Actellic 
Dust (%not 
awarl;- 
50%)
Phostoxin 
(% not 
aware = 
75%)
Edible Oils 
(% not aware 
= 69%)
Norm = 
100%
F % F % F % F % F %
Cost (+) 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
Relative
(-) 30 35 42 49 19 22 27 31 118 99
Advantage Income Yielding (+) 28 33 40 47 17 20 21 25 106 89
(-) 2 2 3 >3 2 2 6 6 3 11
Shelf Life (+) 26 30 40 4h 17 20 15 18 98 82
(-) 4 5 3 3 2 2 12 13 21 18
Work Involved (+) A 5 16 19 15 17 2 2 37 31
‘ (-) 26 30 17 31 4 • 5 25 29 82 69
Time Involved (+) 2 2 9 10 16 19 7 8 34 29
(-) 28 33 34 40 3 3 20 23 85 71
Effectiveness (+) 26 30 42 49 19 22 25 29 112 94
(-) 4 5 1 1 0 0 2 2 7 6
Marketing (+) 12 14 14 16 10 12 13 15 49 41
Problems (-) 18 21 29 34 9 10 14 16 70 59
Similarity (+) 0 0 43 50 19 22 1 1 63 53
(-) 30 35 0 0 0 0 26 30 56 47
Compatibility
Taste (+) 27 32 38 45 18 21 25 29 108 91
(-) 3 3 5 5 1 1 2 2 11 9
Smell (+) 22 26 35 41 12 14 23 27 92 77
(-) 8 9 8 9 7 8 4 4 27 23
Ease of Use (+) 21 25 42 49 19 22 3 3 85 71
Complexity (-) 9 10 1 1 0 0 24 28 34 29
Ease in (+) 24 28 41 48 19 22 21 25 105 88
understanding (-) 6 7 2 2 0 0 6 6 14 12
Piloting Cost (+) 8 9 25 29 13~ 15 2 2 48 40
Trialability (-) 22 26 18 21 6 7 25 29 71 60
Generation of (+) 9 10 11 13 1 1 3 3 24 20
curiosity (-) 21 25 32 37 18 21 24 28 95 80
Observability Visibility of (+) 27 32 40 47 19 22 12 14 102 86
advantage (-) 3 ■} 3 3 0 0 15 17 17 14
%
179
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Appendix 6: Perceptions of General Attributes of Selected ICPTs
General
Attributes
Perception
Selected Improved Cowpea Prcsevation Technologies
Actellic Liquid 
(% Not aware 
= 65%)
Actellice dust 
(%Not aware 
= 50%)
Phostoxin (% 
Not aware = 
75%)
Edible oils 
(%Not aware 
= 69%)
Norm = 
100%
F % F % F % F % F %
Relative (+) 16 19 32 38 15 25 4 5 71 / 60
Advantage (-) 14 16 11 13 0 0 23 27 48 40
Compatibility (+) 26 30 43 51 15 25 23 27 111 93
(-) .4 5 0 0 0 0 4 5 8 7
Complexity (+) 18 21 37 44 15 ' 25, 7 8 81 68
(-) 12 14 6 7 0 1 ° / 20 24 38 32
Trialability (+) 7 8 10 12 2 3 4 5 24 20
(-) 23 27 33 39 13 22 23 27 95 80
Observability (+) 22 26 34 40 14 23 8 9 81 68
(-) 8 9 9 11 1 2 19 23 38 32
Appendix 7: Overall Perceptions of Attributes of Selected ICPTs
Improved Cowpea Preservation 
Technologies
Perception Overall Perception of Attributes of ICPTs
FREQ. %
Actellic liquid Positive (+) 13 15
Negative (-) 17 20
Actellic dust Positive (+) 42 49
Negative (-) 1 1
Phostoxin Positive (+) 16 19
Negative (-) 3 4
Edible oil Positive (+) 2 2
Negative (-) 25 29
180
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Appendix 8: Personal Characteristics & Overall Perceptions of Attributes of ICPTs
Characterist Category Per Selected Improved Covvpea Preservation Technologies
AL AD P EO Norm
F % F % F % F % F %
Gender Male (+) 7 8 23 27 9 11 2 2 41 48
(-) 6 7 0 0 3 4 11 13 20 . 24
Female (+) 6 7 19 22 7 8 0 0 32 38
(-) 10 12 1 1 0 0 15 18 26 31
Age 40 years or less (+) 11 13 27 32 9 11 2 2 49 58
(-) 11 13 1 ' 1 0 0 16 19 38 . 45
More than 40 years (+) 2 2 15 18 7 8 0 0 24 28
(-) 5 6 0 0 3 4 9 11 17 20
Educational None (+) 7 8 12 • 14. 4 5 2 2 25 29
Level (-) 6 7 0 0 0 o ■ 9 11 15 1 18
Formal & Non - Formal (+) 6 7 30 35 12 14 0 0 47 55
(-) 10 12 1 1 3 4 17 20 31 36
Professional 5 years or less (+) 8 9 18 21 7 8 2 2 35 41
Experience (-) 6 T 1 1 6 7 8 y 15 18
More than 5 years (+) 6 7 24 28 9 11 0 0 39 46
(-) 9 11 2 2 1 1 17 20 29 34
Farm Size 2 acres or less (+) 4 7 15 25 5 6 2 2 26 31
(Producers) (-) 8 13 1 2 0 0 10 12 19 22
More than 2 acres (+) 7 8 15 25 7 8 0 0 29 34
(-) 3 4 0 0 3 4 9 11 15 18
Crop Yield 4 bags or less (+) 5 8 12 20 5 6 1 1 23 27
(Producers) (-) 4 7 3 5 0 0 8 9 15 18
More than 4 bags (+) 6 10 18 30 7 8 1 1 32 38
(-) 7 12 0 0 3 4 11 18 21 25
Variety Local Only (+) 5 6 10 12 7 8 0 0 22 26
Grown (-) 6 7 1 1 0 0 10 12 17 20
Improved Only (+) 3 4 6 7 4 5 1 1 14 16
(-) 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 5 6 7
Local & Improved (+) 9 11 26 31 5 6 1 1 38 45
(-) 7 8 2 2 3 4 11 18 23 27
Quantity 2 bags or less (+) 4 5 17 20 6 7 2 2 29 34
Stored (-) *«s 6 2 2 0 0 7 8 14 16
More than 2 bags (+) 10 12 25 29 10 12 0 0 35 41
(-) 10 12 1 1 1 1 15 18 30 35
181
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Appendix 9: Personal Characteristics & Perceptions of General Attributes of ICPTs
ICPTs GA Per. Personal Characteristics
Gender Age
Male Female Norm <41 >40 Norm
F % F % F % F % F % V %
AL RA. (+) 7 8 9 11 16 18 13 15 3 4 16 18
(-) 6 7 8 9 14 16 10 12 4 • 5 14 16
C. (+) I I 13 15 • 18 26 31 20 23 5 6 26 31
(:) 2 2 2 2 4 5 3 4 2 2 4 5
Co. (+) 7 8 11 13 18 27 14. 16 3 4 18 27
(-) 6 7 6 7 12 14 -9 11 4 5 12 14
Tria. (+) 4 5 3 4 7 8 4 5 3 4 7 8
(-) 9 11 14 16 23 27 19 22 4 5 23 27
Obs. (+) 10 12 12 12 23 27 16 18 7 8 23 27
(-) 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 8 0 0 7 8
RA. (+) 19 22 13 15 32 38 20 23 ,12 14 32 38
AD (-) 4 5 7 8 11 14 9 11 2 2 11
14
C. (+) 23 27 20 23 43 51 29 34 14 16 43 ■51
(-) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Co. (+) 19 22 18 21 37 44 24 28 13 15 37 aa
(-) 4 5 2 2 6 7 5 6 1 1 6 7
Tria. (+) 9 11 1 1 10 12 7 8 3 4 10 12
(-) 14 16 19 22 33 39 22 26 11 13 33 39
Obs. (+) 18 21 16 19 34 40 20 23 14 ' 16 34 40
(-) 5 6 4 5 9 11 9 IT 0 0 9 11
P. RA. (+> 12 14 7 8 19 22 10 12 9 11 19 22
(-) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C. (+) 11 13 7 8 19 22 10 12 9 11 19 22
(-) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Co. (+) 12 14 7 8 19 22 10 12 9 11 19 22
(-) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Tria. (+) 2 2 1 1 3 4 1 1 2 2 3 d
(-) 10 12 6 7 16 18 9 11 7 8 16 18
Obs. (+) 11 13 6 7 17 20 8 9
1
9 11 17 20 I
(-) 1 1 1 1 2 2 2-' 2 0 0 2 2
EO. RA. (+) 3 5 1 I, 4 5 4 5 0 0 4 5
(-) 10 17 13 15 23 • ' 27 14 16 9 11 23 27
C. (+) 12 20 11 13 23 27 16 18 1 7 , 8 23 27
(-) 1 2 3 4 4 5 2 2 2 2 4 5
Co. (+) 3 5 4 5 7 8 6 7 1 1 7 8
(-) 10 17 10 12 20 24 12 14 8 , 9 20 24
Tria. (+ ) 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 2' 4 5 6 7
(-) 11 18 10 12 21 25 16 18 5 6 21 25 ,
Obs. (+ ) 6 10 1 1 7 2 5 6 2 2 7 2
(-) 7 12 13 15 14 7 13 15 7 • 8 14 7
182
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Appendix 9 Contd: Persona! Characteristics & Perceptions of Genera! Attributes of ICPTs
ICPTs GA Per personal Characteristics
Educational Level Professional Expcricncc
None F&N.F. Norm <6 >5 Norm
F % F % F % F % F % F %
AL RA. (+) 6 7 10 12 16 18 10 12 6 7 16 IS
(-) 6 7 8 9 14 16 5 6 9 11 14 16
C. (+) 11 13 15 18 26 31 14 16 12 14 26 31
(-) 1 1 3 4 4 5 1 1 3 4 d 5
Co. (+) 7 8 11 13 18 27 10 12 8' 9 18 27
(-) 5 6 7 8 12 14 5 6 7 8 12 M
Tria. (+) 4 5 3 4 7 8 4 5 3 4 7 8
(-) 8 9 15 18 23 , 27 11 13 12 14 23 27
Obs. (+) 9 11 14 16 23 27 11 13 12 14 23 27
(-) 3 4 4 5 7 8 4 5 3 4 7 8
RA. (+) 11 13 21 25 32 38 12 14 20 24 32- 38 I
(-) 3 4 8 9 11 14 6 7 5 6 11 14
AD C. (+) 14 16 29 34 43 51 18 21 25 30 43
.
51 :
(-) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ■ 0 0 0
Co. (+) 11 13 26 31 37 44 16 18 21 25 37
(-) 3 4 3 4 6 7 2 2 4 5 6 7
Tria. (+) 3 4 7 8 10 12 6 7 4 5 10 12
(-) 11 13 22 26 33 39 12 14 21 25 33 39
Obs. (+) 9 11 25 29 34 40 12 14 22 26 34 an
(-) 5 6 4 5 9 11 6 7 3 4 9 11
P. RA. (+) 4 5 15 18 19 22 8 9 11 13 19 22
(-) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C. (+) 4 5 15 18 19 22 8 9 11 13 19 22
(-) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0
Co. (+■) 4 5 15 18 19 22 8 9 11 13 19 22 ;
(-) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o !
Tria. (+) 0 0 3 4 3 4 2 ' 2 1 1 3 * !
(-) 4 5 12 14 16 18 6 7 10 12 16 18 ■
Obs. (+) 3 4 14 16 17 20 6 7 11 13 17 20 i
(-) 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 i
EO. RA. (+) 4 5 0 “n 4 5 2 2 2 2 d 5 1
(-) 7 8 16 18 '23 27 8 9- 15 18 23 27 ;
C. (+) 10 12 13 15 23 27 9 11 14 16 23 27
(-) 1 1 3 4 4 5 1 1 3 4 4 5
Co. (+) 2 2 5 6 7 8 3 4 4 5 7 8
(-) 9 11 11 13 20 24 7 8 13 15 20 24
Tria. (+) 2 2 4 5 6 7 1 1 5 6 6 7 S
(-) 9 11 12 14 21 25 9 11 ■ 12 14 21 25
Obs. (+) 4 5 3 4 7 2 2 2 5 6 7 2
im ­ 7 8 13 15 14 7 8 9 12 14 14 , 7'
183
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Appendix 10; Enterprise Characteristics & Perceptions of General Attributes of ICPTs
ICPTs GA Per. Enterprise Characteristics
Form Size (Producers) Crop Yield (Producers)
<3 >2 Norm <5 >4 Norm
F % F % F % F % F % F %
AL RA. (+) 4 7 7 12 11 18 9 15 2 3 11 18
(-) 8 13 3 5 11 18 8 13 ? 5 11 IS
C. (+) 9 15 10 17 19 32 14 23 5 8 19 32
(-) 3 5 0 0 3 5 3 5 0 0 3 5
Co.- (+) 6 10 6 10 12 20 9 15 3 5 12 20 {
(-) 6 10 4 7 10 17 ,8 13 2 3 10 17 i
Tria. (+) 4 7 2 3 6 10 6 10 0 0 6 10
(-) 8 13 8 13 16 27 It 18 5 . 8 16 27 |
Obs. (+) 9 15 7 12 16 27 13 21 3 5 16 27
3 5 3 5 6 10 4 7 2 3 6 10
RA. (+) 9 15 15 25 24 40 21 35 ' 3 .5 24 40 :
AD (-) 7 12 0 0 7 12 3 5 4 7 7 12 .
C. (+) 16 27 15 25 31 52 24 40 1 12 31 52
(-) ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Co. (+) 12 20 13 22 25 42 21 35 4 7 25 42
(-) 4 7 2 3 6 10 3 5 3 5 6 10
Tria. (+) 6 10 . 4 7 10 17 8 13 2 3 10 17
t (-) 10 17 11 18 21 35 16 27 5 8 21 35
Obs. (+) 10 17 15 25 25 42 21 35 4 7 25 42
(-) 6 10 0 0 6 10 3 5 3 5 6 10
P. RA. (+) 7 12 8 13 15 25 11 18
I
4 7 15 25
(-) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C. (+) 7 12 8 13 15 25 11 18' 4 7 15 25
(-) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Co. (+) 7 12 8 13 15 25 11 18 ,4 7 15 25
(-) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 0
Tria (+) 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 3 0 0 2 3
(-) 6 10 7 11 13 22 9 15 4 7 13 22
Obs. (+) 7 12 7 11 14 23 11 18 3 5 14 23
(-) 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 l 2 1 2
EO. RA. (+) 4 7 0 0 4 7 3 5 I, 2 4 1
(-) 8 13 9 15 17 28 13 22 4 7 17 28
C. (+) 11 18 9 15 20 33 15 25 5 8 20 33
(-> 1 2 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 1 2
Co. (+) 3 5 4 7 7 12 6 10 l 2 7 12
(-) 9 15 5 8 14 23 10 17 4 7 14 23
Tria' (+) 1 2 1 2 3 3 5 2 3 l 2 3 ■;
(•) 11 18 7 11 18 30 14 23 4 7 18 30
Obs. (+) 2 3 5 8 7 12 7 12 O' 0 7 12
10 17 7 14 23 9 15 5 8 J4__ __23
184
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
A pp e n d ix  10 Contd: Enterprise Characteristics & Perceptions o f  General Attributes of ICPTs
ICPTs GA Per Enterprise Characteristics
Variety Grown /  Sold Quantity Stored
L 1 L& l Norm <3 >2 Norm
F % F % F % F % F % F % F %
AL RA. (+) 4 5 5 6 7 8 16 18 4 5 12 14 16 18
(-) - 7 8 1 1 6 7 14 16 5 6 9 11 14 16
C. (+) 9 11 6 7 11 13 26 31 7 8 19 22 26 31
(-) 2 2 0 0 2 2 4 5 2 2 2 2 4 5
Co. (+) 5 6 4 5 9 11 18 27 3 4 15 18 IS 27
C-) 6 7 2 2 4 5 12 14. 6 ' 7 • 6 7 12 14
Tria. (+) 2 2 1 1 4 5 7 8 2 2 , 5 6 7 8
(-) 9 11 5 6 9 11 23 27 7 8 16 18 23 27
Obs. (+) 9 11 5 6 • 9 11 23 27 7 8 16 18 23 27
(-) 2 2 1 1 4 5 7 8 2 2 5 6 7 8
RA. (+) 9 11 4 5 19 22 32 38 12 14 20 24 32 38
AD (-) 2 2 2 2 7 8 11 14 6 , 7 5 6 11 14
C. (+) 11 13 6 7 26 3! 43 51 18 21 25 30 43 <1
(-) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Co. (+) 10 12 5 6 22 26 37 44 14 16 23 28 37 44
(-) 1 1 1 I 4 5 6 7 4 5 2 2 6 7
Tria. (+) 0 0 0 0 10 12 10 12 6 7 4 5 10 12
(-) 11 13 6 7 16 18 33 39 12 14 21 25 33 39
Obs. (+) 9 11 5 6 20 23 34 40 13 15 21 25 3't 40
(-) 2 2 1 1 6 7 9 11 5 ■ 6 4 5 9 11
P. RA. (+) 7 8 4 5 8 9 19 22 7 8 12 14 19 22
(-) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C. (+) 7 8 4 5 8 9 19 22 7 8 12 14 19 22
(-) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 0
Co. (+) 7 8 4 5 8 9 19 22 7 8 12 14 19 22
(-) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tria. (+) 1 1 0 0 2 2 3 4 1 1 2 2 3 4
(-) 6 7 4 5 6 7 16 18 6 7 10 12 16 18
Obs. (+) 6 7 A 5 7 8 17 20 6 7 11 13 17 10
(-) 1 1 0 0 I 1 2 2 1 I I 1 2 2
EO. RA. (+) 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 5 3 4 1 1 4 5
(-) 9 11 . 4 5 10 12 23 27 6 7 . 17 20 23 27
C. (+) 9 II 4 5 10 12 23 27 8 ,9 15 18 23 27
(-) 1 1 1 1 a-. 2 4 5 1 1 3 4 4 5
Co. (+) 2 2 2 2 3 4 7 8 2 2 5 6 7 8
(-) 8 9 3 4 9 11 20 24 7. 8 13 15 20 24
Tria. (+) 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 7 1 1 5 6 6 7
(-) 8 9 3 4 10 12 21 25 8 9 13 15 21 25
Obs. (+ )' 2 2 1 1 4 5 7 2 2 2 5 6 7 2
8 9 4 5 8 9 14 7 7 8 13 15
185
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Appendix 11: Extension Method Used & Perceptions of Overall Attributes of ICPTs
ICPTs Perception.
- METHOD USED
Individual. Group Individual & Group
F % F % F %
Acicllic liquid (+) 6 7 12 14 11 13
(-) I 1 1 1 1 1
Actcllic dust (+) 6 7 13 20 16 19
(-) 1 1 1 1 0 0
Phostoxin (+) 4 5 4 i / 5 8 9
. (-) 0 0 1 /  1 0. 0
Edible Oil (+) 1 1 1 1 0 0
(-) 2 2 6 7 6 7
Norm ' (+) 17 • 20 30 ■ 35 34 37
(-) 4 5 9 11 7 ' 8
186
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Appendix 12: Extension Method Used and Perceptions of General Attributes of ICPTs
GA P. Improved Cowpea Preservation Technologies
Actellic liquid Actellic dust
I G I&G Norm I G I&G Norm
F % F % F % • F % '' F % F % F % F %
RA (+) 2 2 6 7 5 6 13 ’ ‘ IS 5 6 10 12 12 14 27'' 32
(■) 3 4 2 2 2 2 7 8 2 2 3 4 3 4 8 9
C. (+) .3 4 8 9 7 8 18 21 7 8 14 16 15 18 36 42
<-)' 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Co. (+) 2 2 6 7 .5 6 13 15 5 7 , 6 ■ 11 13 15 18 31 36
(-) 3 . 4 2 2 2 2 7 8 2 ■ J  2 3 5 0 0 5 6
Tria (+) 1 1 2 2 0 0 3 4 1 1 12 14 2 2 9 11
(-) 4 5 6 7 7 8 17 20 6 7 7 8 13 15 27 32
Ob. (+) 5 6 5 <5 7 8 17 16 6 7 10 12 13 15 29 34
<-)- 0 0 3 4 0 0 3 6 1 1 4 5 2 0 7 8
Appendix 12 Contd: Extension Method Used and Perceptions of General Attributes of ICPTs
GA P. Improved Cowpea Preservation Technologies
Phostoxin Edible Oil
I G I&G Norm I G I&G Norm
F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F %
RA (+) 4 5 5 6 9 11 18 21 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 5
(-) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 5 6 5 6 12 14
C. (+) 5 6 2 2 8 9 15 18 3 4 7 8 5 6 15 18
<-) 0 -  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Co. (+) 4 5 5 6 9 11 18 21 1 1 3 4 1 1 5 6
(-) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 •2 4 5 5 6 11 13
Tria (+) 0 0 2 2 3 4 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
(-) 4 5 3 4 6 7 15 18 2 2 7 8 6 7 15 18
Ob. (+) ' 4 5 5 6 8 9 16 19 0 0 1 1 4 5 5 6
(-) 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 4 6 7 2 2 11 13
187
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Appendix 13: Frequency of Contact and Perceptions of Overall Attributes of ICPTs
ICPTS Perception. FREQUENCY OF CONTACT
No Contact Once Twice Thrice or More
F % F % F % F %
Actcllic liquid (+) 3 4 1 \ 1 7 8 3 4
(-) 6 7. 2 2 5 6 2 2
Actellic dust (+) 9 11 5 6 17 20 11 13
(-) 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 2
Phostoxin (+) 1 1 3 4 7 8 5 6
(-) 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Edible oil (+) 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0
(-) 11 13 1 -1 9 11 4 5
NORM (+) 13 IS 9 11 33 39 19 22
(-) 20 24 3 4 15 18 8 9
188
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Appendix 14: Frequency of Contact & Perceptions of General Attributes of ICPTs.
ICPTS P. Selected ICPTs & Frequency of Contact
Actellic Liquid Actellic Dust
NC O T. TM. Norm NC 0 T. TM. Norm
F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F %
RA, (+) 3 4 1 1 8 9 4 5 16 19 7 8 4 5 14 16 7 8 32 33
(-) 7 8 2 2 4 5 1 1 14 16 2 2 1 1 3 4 5 6 11 13
C. (+) 8 9 3 4 10 12 5 6 26 31 9 11 5 6 17 20 12 14 43 5!
(-) 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Co. (+)' 5 6 2 2 8 9 4 5 19 22 7 ,8 ,5 6 15 18 9 11 36 42
(-) i 6 1 1 4 5 1 1 11 13 '2 ' 2 0 0 2 2 3 4 7 8
Tria. (+) 4 5 0 0 3 4 0 0 7 8 2 2 1 1 5 6 2 2 10 12
(-) 6 7 3 . 4 9 11 5 6 23 27 7 8 4 5 12 14 10 12 33 39
Obs. (+) 7 8 3 4 8 9 4 5 22 26 7 8 5 6 14 16' 8 9 34 40
(-) 3 4 0 0 4 5 1 1 8 10 2 2 0 0 3 4 4 5 9 11
Appendix 14 Contd. : Frequency of Contact Perceptions of General Attributes of ICPTs
ICPTS P.- Selected ICPTs & Frequency of Contact
Phostoxin Edible Oil
NC o T. TM. Norm NC O T. TM. Norm
F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F %
RA. f+) 2 2 3 4 8 9 6 7 19 22 0 0 0 0 4 5 0 0 4 5
(-) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 13 1 1 7 8 4 5 23 27
C. (+) 2 2 3 4 8 9 6 7 19 22 8 9 1 1 10 12 4 5 23 27
(-) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 5
Co. (+) 2 2 3 4 8 9 6 7 19 22 6 7 0 0 5 6 1 1 12 14
(-) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 1 1 6 7 3 4 15 IS
Tria. (+) 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 3- 4 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4
(-) 2 2 3 4 7 8 4 5 16 19 8 9 1 1 11 13 4 5 24 28
Obs. (+) 2 2 3 4 7 8 5 6 17 20 3 4 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 5
(-) 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 -4 2 2 8 9 1 1 10 12 4 4 23 27
189
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Appendix 15 A: Relationship between Producers Overall Perceptions of Attributes of Selected
ICPTs and Adoption.
Actcllic Liquid Overall Perception
Positive Negative & No Knowledge Total
F % F % F %
Adoption 9 15 4 7 13 22
Non Adoption 2 3 45 75 47 78
Total 11 18 49 82 60 100
x2 = 24.54 df = 1 P = 0.0000(s)
Actcllic Dust Overall Perception
Positive Negative & No Knowledge Total
F % F % F % !
Adoption 26 43 1 2 27 45
Non Adoption 4 7 29 48 33 55
Total 30 50 33 55 60 100
xJ = 42.09 d f=  1 P = O.OOOO(s)
Phostoxin Overall Perception
Positive Negative & No Knowledge Total !
F % F % F %
Adoption 11 18 3 5 14 23
Non Adoption 1 2 45 75 46 77
Total 12 20 48 80 60 100
x? = 34.52 d f=  1 P = 0.0000(s)
Edible Oil Overall Perception
Positive Negative & No Knowledge Total
F % F % F %
Adoption 0 0 , 7  12 7 12
Non Adoption 2 3 51 85 53 88
Total 2 3 58 97 60 100
x2 = 0.36 df = 1 P = 0.77 (NS)
190
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Appendix 15B: Relationship between Traders Overall Perception of Attributes of Selected ICPTs 
& Adoption. . _
Actcllic Liquid Overall Perception
Positive Negative & No Knowledge Total
F % F % F %
Adoption 
Non Adoption 
Total
2 8 
1 4 
3 12
2 8 
20 80 
22 88
4 lfi
21 84 
25 100
xJ = 2.93. d f=  1 P = 0,0000(s) -
Actcllic Dust Overall Perception
Positive Negative & No Knowledge Total
F % F % F %
Adoption 
Non Adoption 
Total
9 36 
3 12 
12 48
0 0 
13 52 
13 52
9 36 
16 64 
25 100
x3 = 12.15 df = 1 P = 0.0000(s)
Phostoxin Overall Perception
Positive Negative & No Knowledge Total
F % F % F %
Adoption 
Non Adoption 
Total
4 16 
0 0 
4 16
0 0 
21 84 
21 84
4 16 
46 84 
60 100
x2 = 18..11 d f = l  P = 0.0000(s)
Edible Oil Overall Perception
Positive Negative & No Knowledge Total
F % F % F %
Adoption 
Non Adoption 
Total
0 0 
0 0 
0 0
; 2 8 
23 92 
25 100
2 8 
23 92 
23 100
x2 = 0.0 d f=  1 P = 1.0 (NS) |*
191
University of Ghana                              http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh