Page 1 Do neighbours of agricultural research stations learn anything from them: the case of Rubona station, Rwanda 11/2/2013 2:36:15 AM http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd25/11/muso25196.htm Livestock Research for Rural Development 25 (11) 2013 Guide for preparation of papers LRRD Newsletter Citation of this paper Do neighbours of agricultural research stations learn anything from them: the case of Rubona station, Rwanda A Musoni *, ** , D R Kugonza **, *** and D Gahakwa *** * Faculty of Agriculture and Rural Development, Higher Institute of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry (ISAE), PO Box 210, Musanze, Rwanda ** Department of Agricultural Production, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences (CAES), Makerere University, PO Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda donkugonza@agric.mak.ac.ug *** Rwanda Agriculture Board (RAB), PO Box 5016, Kigale 138, Huye, Rwanda Abstract This study on adoption of cattle husbandry technologies at an African national research station used the Rwanda Agriculture Board’s Rubona station as a case study and was conducted through a survey of 92 randomly-selected cattle keeping households in Rusatira Sector of Huye District where the station is located. Respondents were interviewed using a pre-tested structured questionnaire and data were analysed using standard statistical procedures. The study revealed that all the respondents knew at least one cattle-related service/technology provided by Rubona station. The majority (61.9%) ranked station services as very good, 29.4% as good, while to 8.7%, the services were bad. While only 63% of all households reared crossbred cattle, all respondents credited the station which intensively promotes grade dairy germplasm. Over half of the respondents used bovine artificial insemination (AI) service provided by station staff. Among the users of AI, 54.3% relied on it for genetic improvement, 20.6% targeted disease control, while others claimed uses that are not technically associated with it. A high (P<0.05) proportion of farmers (48%) reported frequent failure of AI as the problem which limits its use. Analysis of forage seed sources showed that Rubona station was the major provider (58.7%). Also, the station was singled out as the main contributor to disease prevention in the study area, through its novel “livestock improvement parks”. Generally, livelihoods were attributed to the station suggesting that many of its technologies are being sufficiently acquired. Correlation analysis showed that education level positively influenced adoption of improved cattle breeds (r=+0.62, P=0.001), AI (r=+0.55, P=0.001), and castration (r=+0.57, P=0.001) while age of household head negatively influenced adoption of exotic breeds (r= –0.56, P=001), AI (r= –0.48, P=0.001), however, gender was not a significant factor. It is concluded that neighbours of research stations do learn a lot from the stations, but the adoption of what they learn depends on a number of factors. This study therefore recommends strengthening of the extension service on cattle management targeting the elders and the non-educated, since these were the least adopters. Key words: adoption, innovations, livestock technologies, research station Introduction Introduction of technological innovations in agriculture has attracted considerable attention among development workers because the majority population of developing countries derives its livelihood from agricultural production (Diederen et al 2003). Indeed, agriculture progresses technologically as farmers adopt innovations (Faith 2007). The extent to which farmers adopt available innovations and the speed by which they do so determines the impact of those innovations in terms of productivity (Karki and Siegfried 2004). New technologies seem to offer an opportunity to increase production and act as levers of substantial income rises. But, the introduction of many new technologies has only met with partial success, as measured by observed rates of adoption (Karki and Siegfried 2004). The conventional wisdom is that constraints to the rapid adoption of innovations involve factors such as the lack of credit, limited access to information, aversion to risk, inadequate farm size, inadequate incentives associated with farm tenure arrangements, insufficient human capital, labour shortages (thus preventing timeliness of operations), chaotic supply of equipment, and inappropriate transportation infrastructure (Richard et al 2000), but these may not be the only underlying causes. It is a common phenomenon that farmers like any other kind of entrepreneurs do not adopt innovations simultaneously as they appear on the market. Diffusion typically takes a number of years, and seldom reaches a level of 100% of the potential adopters’ population (Rogers 1995). Apparently, some farmers choose to be innovators (first users) while others prefer to be early adopters, late adopters, or non-adopters (Diederen et al 2003). Innovators are described as individuals who are venturesome, eager to try new ideas and willing to take risks. Early adopters are described as the local opinion leaders in the system who function as the role models and are quick to see the value of innovations (Richard et al 2000). The early majority is always the largest category of adopters; these people only make a decision after they are convinced of the benefits. The late majority are cautious and skeptical persons who do not adopt until the large