Channels used to deliver agricultural information and knowledge to smallholder farmers

Abstract

This study examined the effectiveness of the channels used to deliver agricultural information and knowledge to smallholder farmers in Tanzania. A descriptive cross-sectional design alongside quantitative and qualitative approaches was employed to collect data from 341 respondents. While the data collected through the questionnaire was analysed by using Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) version 21, the data collected through the interview was analysed by using thematic analysis. The findings suggest that delivery of and access to timely and relevant agricultural information and knowledge, appropriately packaged, is one of the critical problems undermining smallholder farmers’ efforts to increase their production. As a result, most smallholder farmers mainly depend on informal channels. Besides informal channels, farmer groups and demonstration plots are becoming popular channels to deliver and access agricultural information and knowledge. To make a difference in agricultural production, deliberate efforts should be made to enhance the delivery of agricultural information and knowledge.

Keywords

Agricultural knowledge agricultural information delivery mechanism smallholder farmers rural Tanzania

Introduction

Information and knowledge are the driving forces behind diverse sectors of production. For example, agricultural information and knowledge are regarded as crucial resources and key requirements in efforts to transform the agricultural sector (Nicholase-Ere, 2017). It is worth noting that appropriate agricultural knowledge and information are among the important ingredients in agricultural development. In fact, access to and use of agricultural information and knowledge appears to influence change and empower smallholder farmers with the ability to plan and make informed decisions about farming activities (Mkenda et al., 2017; Mtega and Ngoepe, 2017; Mwantimwa, 2020; Silayo, 2016). This also suggests that relevant and timely access to and use of necessary information and knowledge enables smallholder farmers to make the right choices (Das et al., 2012; Sokoya et al., 2014). For example, the ability to make decisions on the types of seeds to plant, how to manage pests and diseases, how much of the produce to sell and where to sell the produce, as well as where to get credit or a loan, depends on the agricultural information and knowledge available (Kalema, 2017; Mittal and Mehar, 2012). On the same note, effective utilisation of agricultural information and knowledge helps smallholder farmers to adopt innovative farming techniques and translate their efforts into sustainable production (Das et al., 2012; Mwantimwa, 2012; Silayo, 2016).

Over the years, governments and organisations worldwide have made deliberate efforts to improve access to and use of agricultural information and knowledge by farmers. For example, the government of Tanzania has made numerous interventions to foster access to agricultural information and knowledge by smallholder farmers so as to improve production. Among these is the formulation of the National ICT (Information and Communications Technology) Policy in 2013 and its amendment in 2016, which aim to transform the agricultural sector from subsistence to a commercialised sector (United Republic of Tanzania, 2016). Additionally, in a bid to ensure that smallholder farmers have access to agricultural information and knowledge, particularly those with minimal access to telecommunication services, the government has introduced community telecentres in various places such as Lugoba, Mpwapwa, Ngara, Dakawa, Kilosa, Mtwara and Kasulu (Mtega, 2008). Moreover, the government has established the Agricultural Trade Information Centre and agricultural research institutes. Furthermore, the government provides training to extension officers and deploys them nationwide to ensure that smallholder farmers receive reliable agricultural information and knowledge for agricultural development (Mubofu and Elia, 2017). To reinforce these initiatives, the government has also been working with the Food and Agriculture Organization to improve the agricultural sector. In particular, the Food and Agriculture Organization supports the planning, monitoring and evaluation of food and nutrition security, and agricultural production. Also, the Food and Agriculture Organization (2017) is helping to improve market access to increase income, as well as strengthening resilience to natural and man-made threats and crises.

Alongside the government efforts, other stakeholders have been making equally important efforts to enhance agricultural information and knowledge delivery to smallholder farmers. For instance, mobile phone companies in Tanzania have established various mobile services through which smallholder farmers can request and receive agricultural information and knowledge. Good examples of these initiatives include Tigo Kilimo from Tigo and Zantel Kilimo (Z-Kilimo) from Zantel (Barakabitze et al., 2015). Tigo Kilimo provides agronomic, market price and weather forecast information for the major crops (for example, maize, rice, Irish potatoes, onions, cassava, bananas, citrus fruit, sweet potatoes, tomatoes and cashews) grown in Tanzania (Global System for Mobile Communications Association, 2015). Similarly, Zantel Kilimo helps smallholder farmers to access current agricultural information and knowledge with the aim of increasing productivity and helping farmers make rational decisions (Barakabitze et al., 2015).

Despite these concerted efforts and initiatives to enhance the delivery of agricultural information and knowledge to smallholder farmers, access to these resources in Tanzania, and the Kyela District in particular, remains largely poor. This suggests that only a small portion of the agricultural information and knowledge produced reaches farmers (Sani et al., 2014). This has also been confirmed in Tanzania’s National Agriculture Policy where it is clearly stated that the collection of information from producers and its dissemination to various actors, including farmers, is insufficient (United Republic of Tanzania, 2013). As a result, smallholder farmers remain unequipped to make good decisions on what to produce, when it produce it and how to do so (Matovelo, 2008). In this regard, Nyamba (2017) asserts that most farmers in Tanzania lack access to accurate and relevant agricultural information and knowledge. This is despite studies (see Mtega, 2017; Mwantimwa, 2019; Siyao, 2012) revealing that the production of agricultural knowledge by different agencies and institutions is good enough to meet current needs. The question is: What and how effective are the channels used to deliver agricultural information and knowledge to smallholder farmers? For this reason, a study to investigate the effectiveness of the channels used to deliver agricultural information and knowledge to smallholder farmers, specifically in the Kyela District, was deemed imperative. The specific objectives were twofold: first, to examine the effectiveness of the channels used to deliver agricultural information and knowledge to smallholder farmers and, second, to assess the timely delivery of agricultural information and knowledge.

Literature review

This section presents literature on the channels used to deliver agricultural information and knowledge to smallholder farmers. The purposes of this literature review are twofold: first, to provide a critical and systematic review of existing theoretical and empirical scholarly work on the channels used to deliver agricultural information and knowledge to smallholder farmers and, second, to contextualise the current study within the broader area of timely delivery of agricultural information and knowledge. The review was restricted to consider only literature on agricultural information and knowledge delivery channels from global, regional and local contexts. The literature was retrieved from different scholarly search engines and databases: ScienceDirect, the N2Africa repository, Google Scholar, the SAGE journals database, the Sokoine University of Agriculture repository, the University of Kwazulu-Natal thesis and dissertation repository, and ResearchGate. The literature review is built on literature about the channels used to deliver agricultural information and knowledge to farmers, the effectiveness of these channels, and the timely delivery of agricultural information and knowledge.

Prior studies reveal that agricultural information and knowledge are vital in empowering smallholder farmers to improve their productivity. A study conducted by Adio et al. (2016) suggests that the main purpose of information is to increase the knowledge of the user, reduce levels of uncertainty and reduce the choices available to the user. However, their study reveals that, for information to be effective, it must be accurate, timely and relevant. This implies that increased agricultural production depends on the effectiveness of the channels used to deliver agricultural information and knowledge. The reviewed prior studies suggest that relevance and the timely delivery of agricultural information and knowledge are important determinants of the effectiveness of the channels used. Some studies (for example, Levi, 2015; Odongo, 2014) propose that effective channels are those that are used to deliver agricultural information and knowledge to smallholder farmers at the right time and in a user-friendly manner. The radio (Myers, 2010), mobile phones, the Internet and television appear to be more effective channels for delivering relevant and timely agricultural information and knowledge to farmers (Aldosari et al., 2017; Chhachhar et al., 2014; Mkenda et al., 2017; Mwantimwa, 2019; Ndimbwa et al., 2019; Otter and Thruvsen, 2014; Raza et al., 2020). Briggeman and Whitacre (2010) report that the Internet was used effectively to deliver weather forecasts and market price information to farmers in the USA in a timely manner. In particular, farmers have realised several potential benefits of the Internet, such as purchasing inputs online which are not available locally, alongside selling their agricultural produce. More importantly, farmers have the ability to access new markets through individual farm websites. This is not the fact for most farmers in developing countries. Mkenda et al. (2017) reveal that the Internet was used ineffectively to deliver agricultural information and knowledge to smallholder farmers in Tanzania. The main explanation is that inadequate equipment and resources contribute to such a trend.

Fellow farmers, friends, neighbours and family members were found to be the most effective channels for most (> 60%) farmers, followed by extension officers, mobile phones and mass media such as television and the radio (Mkenda et al., 2017). These channels are convenient and easily consulted, used regularly and believed to be rich sources of information and knowledge (Due et al., 1997; Mtega and Ngoepe, 2018; Stringfellow et al., 1997). A study by Silayo (2016) observed a different trend in the use of television in the delivery of agricultural information and knowledge to smallholder farmers in rural settings. Silayo notes that television favours urban areas more than rural areas because of uneven signal coverage and affordability. Silayo’s findings further show that radio is an effective channel for both rural and urban areas. More evidence is provided by a number of studies (Adetimehin et al., 2018; Lwoga et al., 2011; Munyua, 2011) that delivering agricultural information to smallholder farmers through media such as radio has been used very successfully in developing countries. This is not what has been observed by Churi et al. (2012), who report that the effectiveness of radio is questionable in terms of relevance and timely delivery. In the same context, other studies (for example, Baloch and Thapa, 2019; Lwoga et al., 2011; Ogboma, 2010) show that print materials, training and seminars, buyers, village executives, and agricultural shows or farmer field days are effective channels in delivering agricultural information and knowledge to smallholder farmers.

Furthermore, the extant studies indicate that delivering relevant and timely agricultural information and knowledge – such as on weather trends, agro-forestry, agricultural incentives, improved seeds and best farming practices – improves agricultural productivity (Bachhav, 2012; Misaki et al., 2016; Mtega, 2008). Some studies (for example, Armstrong and Gandhi, 2012; Mubofu and Elia, 2017; Opara, 2008) have associated the timely delivery of agricultural information and knowledge with delivery phases. According to Mubofu and Elia (2017), when information and knowledge on weather, soil, types of fertilisers and seeds delivered before planting crops considered to be timely. Information and knowledge of issues such as land mechanisation, the application of fertilisers and pesticides, and weeding techniques provided during farming practice, and information and knowledge on storage, marketing, sales, investments and the repayment of loans provided after harvesting is also considered to be timely. From this, it is evident that timely access to information on new farming practices has the potential of speeding up farmers’ adoption of new and improved practices. Similarly, timely agricultural knowledge acquaints farmers with new and better farming methods, improved seeds and modern pest-control measures (Siyao, 2012). This increases smallholder farmers’ awareness of different agricultural developments and challenges, allowing them to take appropriate actions for their livelihood.

Other studies conducted on farmers’ perceptions of the delivery of agricultural information and knowledge present mixed findings. Whereas some suggest that farmers have access to timely agricultural information and knowledge, others indicate that the information and knowledge delivered are not timely. For example, in reviewing initiatives to foster agricultural knowledge management and dissemination using ICT, Kukreja and Chakrabarti (2013) found that the surveyed farmers in India perceived that they encountered problems in accessing timely and relevant agricultural information. This is also supported by Ballantyne (2009), who reports that farmers received untimely information on markets, prices, the weather and technical issues. Moreover, a study conducted by Nyamba and Mlozi (2012) shows that a lack of electricity, a lack of knowledge, poverty, the type of agricultural information to be communicated, the farming system practised, network coverage and respondents’ socio-economic characteristics were factors that affected smallholder farmers when accessing agricultural information and knowledge. Scholars such as Nahdy et al. (2011) offer reasons why a large proportion of smallholder farmers in Africa perceived that they were accessing untimely agricultural information and knowledge. Failure to access timely information and knowledge was attributed to the poor agricultural extension services provided to the farmers (Nahdy et al., 2011). Chandrasekhar et al. (2011) add that the problem of inadequate resources in various government and non-governmental organisations is a challenge that hinders smallholder farmers from accessing agricultural information and knowledge in a timely manner. These findings do not tally with those of Briggeman and Whitacre (2010), who note that farmers in the USA perceived that they had access to timely information such as weather forecasts and market prices. Similarly, Raza et al. (2020) examined the perceived effectiveness of different ICTs as information sources among farmers in the Punjab province of Pakistan. They note that the farmers agreed that they accessed timely information and knowledge through different outlets.

Methodology

Research design and approach

The study deployed a descriptive and cross-sectional research design to investigate the effectiveness of channels for delivering agricultural information and knowledge to smallholder farmers in Kyela District, Tanzania. A descriptive design tends to be quantitative and qualitative in nature (see Sreejesh et al., 2014), and has the ability of obtaining more information on phenomena within a particular research problem by describing the phenomena (Burns and Gove, 2011; Tavakoli, 2012). Alongside this, a cross-sectional (snapshot) survey design was adopted due to the fact that the respondents were chosen to represent a target population and the data was gathered at essentially one point in time (Creswell, 2014; Tavakoli, 2012). Indeed, most research on particular phenomena at a particular time undertaken for academic purposes is necessarily time-constrained (Saunders et al., 2003).

Accordingly, qualitative and quantitative approaches were employed in the data collection and analysis. A qualitative approach was used to explore the smallholder farmers’ opinions, perceptions and views, while a quantitative approach was useful to examine the effectiveness of the channels used to deliver agricultural information and knowledge to the smallholder farmers. In particular, the quantitative data included the socio-demographic characteristics of the farmers and the channels used to deliver agricultural information and knowledge. A combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches helps researchers to generate evidence about the topic under investigation. As a result, there is a growing interest in employing mixed designs and approaches (see Zhang and Watanabe-Galloway, 2014).

Study settings

The study was conducted in seven villages (Kisale, Kingili, Kange, Ushirika, Kisyosyo, Matema and Kasumulu) in the Kyela District of the Mbeya Region of Tanzania from October through December 2019. The choice of these villages was purposively made due to the fact that they comprise smallholder farmers who participate in farming activities with low productivity (Hassan, 2014; Ngailo et al., 2016). Low productivity is associated with limited agricultural information and knowledge among farmers in rural Tanzania (see Siyao, 2012). The question is: How effective are the channels that are used to deliver agricultural information and knowledge to these rural communities? Moreover, the study was conducted in the selected villages in the Kyela District because of time constraints; it was not possible to study the whole community of the Kyela District at the same time. In fact, most of the population of Kyela are smallholder farmers – hence, the use of seven representative villages was convenient for the researchers. More importantly, the choice was based on their geographical locations and the types of crops (for example, rice, cocoa and cashews) grown by the smallholder farmers.

Population, sample size and sampling procedures

With regard to the population, sample size and sampling procedures, the study included smallholder farmers aged over 20. The selection of this age was influenced by the fact that, in the selected villages, people of this age and older have independent families and therefore, in one way or another, engage in agricultural activities. The sample size was 341 respondents. From this sample, 318 smallholder farmers were conveniently chosen, while 23 key informants (i.e. agricultural, extension and executive officers, researchers and village leaders) were purposively chosen. These two non-probability sampling techniques were used due to the fact that it was not possible to include every subject because the population was almost infinite (Etikan et al., 2016). Convenience sampling was used to select smallholder farmers who were available at a given time and willing to participate. Purposive sampling, as a judgement sampling technique, was used to select experienced and knowledgeable stakeholders from the Ministry of Agriculture, Uyole Agricultural Institute, districts, wards and villages.

Data collection methods and instruments

The data collection involved the use of multiple data-gathering techniques to investigate the effectiveness of the channels of delivering agricultural information and knowledge to smallholder farmers so as to improve the validity and reliability of the data (Berg, 2007; Creswell, 2014). Mainly, a cross-sectional survey method (questionnaire and interview), focus group discussions and observations were employed in the present study. The questionnaire had two sections. Section A was on the demographic information of the respondents, while section B covered the four specific objectives of the study: the types of channels used to deliver agricultural information and knowledge, and factors affecting the delivery mechanisms of information and knowledge. The questionnaire comprised both open-ended and closed-ended questions. Nominal and ordinal (Likert) scales were used. It was administered by the researchers face-to-face due to the nature of the population. In fact, the illiteracy rate was one of the obstacles preventing the use of a self-administered method. Choudhury (n.d.) suggests that one of the major limitations of questionnaires is that they can only be applicable to respondents who have a certain level of education. They cannot be used with illiterate or semi-literate persons. Accordingly, semi-structured interview guides were prepared and administered during face-to-face interview session by the researchers with the key informants. The questionnaire administered to the smallholder farmers lasted 30–45 minutes, whereas the interview with the key informants lasted 20–30 minutes. In order to increase the understanding and reliability of the data, the questionnaire and interview guides were translated into Swahili.

A total of three focus group discussions with smallholder farmers and key informants were conducted in the study area and each group had between six and ten participants. This number of participants was found to be appropriate, as recommended by Kumar (2011), who claims that approximately eight to ten people is the optimal number for such discussion groups. Generally, the number of years of experience in food production and the provision of detailed information about the topic in the questionnaire or during the face-to-face interview were the criteria for selecting the focus group discussion participants. For example, one focus group discussion was conducted with the key informants and a few smallholder farmers to determine their perceptions, opinions and experiences with regard to the channels that were effective in delivering information and knowledge to farmers. In this regard, Mtega and Bernard (2013) report that this method is particularly useful for exploring people’s knowledge and experiences, and can be used to examine not only what people think, but also how they think and why they think that way. Another focus group discussion was conducted with the key informants (i.e. experts in the Ministry of Agriculture) to get their perceptions, opinions and experiences with regard to which channels were effective in delivering information and knowledge to farmers. Third focus group discussion was conducted to key informants (i.e. researchers) at the Uyole Agricultural Institute. The main purpose was to understand types of agricultural information and knowledge produced and type of channels used to deliver agricultural information and knowledge. During the discussion, every respondent was given the opportunity to express their thoughts on the channels that were effective in delivering agricultural information and knowledge to smallholder farmers in the study area. After the discussion, a consensus was reached and the most agreed-on opinions were recorded by the researchers.

Finally, the researchers observed various issues related to the channels used to deliver information and knowledge to the smallholder farmers in the study area. In addition, secondary data was collected from different sources, including research reports such as Agricultural production trend in Tanzania (2013–2019), the ICT policy (2016) and Statistics of extension officers (2018).

Data processing and analysis

On completion of the data collection, the qualitative data and the quantitative data were analysed separately. Prior to the analysis, the quantitative data was organised, verified, compiled, coded and analysed by using Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) version 21. Descriptive statistics, such as frequencies and percentages, helped to organise and summarise the data. On the other hand, the qualitative data from the open-ended questions, focus group discussions and interview was analysed by a thematic method. This was done through transcription, classification and the reorganisation of different subthemes, as well as the identification of similar and dissimilar aspects of the study in the interview. Finally, the quantitative and qualitative results were reported concomitantly in such a way that the qualitative results were used to elaborate on and validate the quantitative findings. In short, the qualitative data analysis was integrated into the study to explain the quantitative results.

Limitations of the study

This study was not immune to limitations, such as the low literacy level of some of the respondents. As a result, it was not possible to use a self-administered questionnaire method. In order to overcome this limitation, the questionnaire was administered using a face-to-face method. Aside from this, some of the smallholder farmers were unwilling to be asked questions by the researchers due to a shortage of time and their busy schedule. Despite these challenges, the researchers stayed with the respondents and collected the data at the respondents’ convenience.

Findings and discussion

Demographic characteristics of the respondents

The respondents were asked to indicate their socio-demographic characteristics. Specifically, they were asked to indicate their gender, age, marital status and education level (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of the respondents.

Demographic characteristics (n = 318)	Frequency	%
Gender
Male	228	67.0
Female	113	33.0
Age
< 21	4	1.3
21–30	62	19.5
31–40	89	28.0
41–50	92	28.9
50+	71	22.3
Marital status
Married	271	85.2
Single	14	4.4
Divorced	7	2.2
Widow	18	5.7
Separated	8	2.5
Education level
Never been to school	43	12.6
Primary	235	68.9
Secondary	35	10.2
Certificate	2	0.6
Diploma	13	3.8
Degree	5	1.4
Master’s	8	2.3
PhD	1	0.2

Source: Field data (2019).

The results indicate that a significant percentage (67%) of the smallholder farmers who participated in the present study were male. This implies that the majority of the smallholder farmers in the surveyed wards and villages in Kyela District were male. This trend suggests that a small proportion (33%) of females were participating in farming activities in the surveyed villages. There were few female respondents due to family responsibilities, contrary to the men, who in most cases were flexible and hence available during the field data collection. The findings further show that more than three-quarters (76.4%) of the respondents were aged between 21 and 50, followed by 22.3% aged 50 or over, while only 1.2% were below the age of 21. This implies that a significant proportion of the smallholder farmers were at an active age and engaged in agricultural production. In fact, their mainstay and livelihoods mainly depended on agricultural production. Furthermore, the results indicate that the marital status of the smallholder farmers in the study area varied. Whereas the majority (85.2%) were married, fewer were single, divorced, separated or widowed. This suggests that the smallholder farmers were living with partners.

Accordingly, the results show that a large percentage (68.9%) of the smallholder farmers in the surveyed villages had received primary school education while the least number (< 10%) had completed secondary education or had a diploma or degree. Also, it is worth noting that 12.7% of the participants had never been to school. These results indicate that most of the smallholder farmers in the surveyed villages of Kyela District had a low level of education. Their level of education, such as primary education, prevents them from seeking employment in the formal sector of the economy. As a result, a large proportion of them are engaged in agricultural production.

Channels used to deliver agricultural information and knowledge

The respondents were asked to indicate the main channels used to deliver agricultural information and knowledge in the study area. The results from the focus group discussions and interview session reveal that diverse channels were used to deliver agricultural information and knowledge to the smallholder farmers. For example, one of the key informants commented:

Fellow farmers or the farmer-to-farmer channel of delivering information and knowledge is very common and important in rural areas. For instance, a knowledgeable farmer can deliver information and knowledge to his fellows on the quality of seed to produce, type of fertiliser to apply and pesticide control, and provide market information for such crops. (Female extension officer, aged 57, diploma qualification, Ipinda ward)

In describing the types of channels used to deliver agricultural information and knowledge to the smallholder farmers, one of the responding extension officer added:

Community radio such as Kyela and Chai FM are mostly the channels used to broadcast agricultural information and knowledge related to farming. However, some of the information and knowledge broadcast needs some clarification to be made clear to farmers either through village meetings or demonstration plots. (Male extension officer, aged 35, diploma qualification, Ipinda ward)

Moreover, the results from the interview with the extension officers further revealed that farmer field schools and training of trainers (TOT) were found to be other channels that were useful for delivering agricultural information and knowledge to the smallholder farmers. They were found to provide smallholder farmers with an opportunity to learn by doing. The results also disclose that farmer field schools, farm groups and TOT enabled the smallholder farmers to investigate a wide range of topics, such as the management of soil fertility, testing soil and water resources; the selection of quality seeds; the risks associated with pesticides and their management; and new crops and skills. In support of this, an agricultural field officer from Ngana ward added:

Farmer groups, field days and TOT are also important channels in delivering agricultural information and knowledge to smallholder farmers since it enables easy and immediate sharing of information among farmers. For example, last year (i.e. 2018), one of the input suppliers used farmer groups to test their fertilisers and pesticides in rice farms. This was an important channel to deliver knowledge. This enabled farmers to make decisions on the types of fertilisers and pesticides to apply in their farms. (Male agricultural field officer, aged 34, diploma qualification, Ngana ward)

Generally, the findings suggest that radio, television, training, meetings, extension officers and interpersonal communication (between friends, neighbours or fellow farmers) were the channels used to deliver agricultural information and knowledge, as other studies corroborate (see, for example, Mtega and Ngoepe, 2018; Mwantimwa, 2019). In addition, other channels, such as demonstration plots, farmer field schools, field days, agricultural shows and farm groups, were also used. From this, it is evident that the smallholder farmers relied on both formal and informal channels of information and knowledge delivery. This is due to the fact that, via these channels, smallholder farmers gain basic agricultural skills through observation, experimentation and practical experiences, as well as new knowledge.

Effectiveness of the channels used to deliver agricultural information and knowledge

The question on which channels were effective in delivering agricultural information and knowledge to the smallholder farmers in the study area was found to be important. The smallholder farmers were asked to rate the effectiveness of the channels that were used to deliver information and knowledge in their area using an ordinal scale (1 = Extremely effective, 2 = Very effective, 3 = Moderately effective, 4 = Slightly effective, 5 = Not at all effective). The results are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Effectiveness of the channels used to deliver agricultural information and knowledge.

	Effectiveness of channels	Frequency	%
1	Extremely effective	0	0
2	Very effective	14	4
3	Moderately effective	131	41
4	Slightly effective	123	39
5	Not at all effective	50	16

Source: Field data (2019).

The results presented in Table 2 show that more than two-fifths (41%) of the smallholder farmers reported that the channels used to deliver agricultural information and knowledge in the study area were moderately effective, while close to two-fifths (39%) said that they were slightly effective and few stated that the channels were effective or extremely effective. In order to gain more insight into the effectiveness of the channels, the smallholder farmers were asked to rate the effectiveness of the channels used to deliver agricultural information and knowledge using a five-point Likert scale (1 = Not at all effective, 2 = Slightly effective, 3 = Moderately effective, 4 = Very effective, 5 = Extremely effective). The results are displayed in Table 3.

Table 3.

Effectiveness of the channels used to deliver agricultural information and knowledge.

Channels (n = 318)	Not at all effective		Slightly effective		Moderately effective		Very effective
Channels (n = 318)	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%
Television	235	73.9	46	11.3	25	7.9	12	3.8
Radio	49	15.4	103	32.4	111	34.9	55	17.3
Mobile phones	25	7.9	95	29.2	179	56.3	19	6.0
Brochures	289	90.9	9	2.2	16	5.0	4	1.3
Internet	295	92.8	18	4.7	2	0.6	3	0.9
Social media	284	89.3	27	8.2	5	1.6	2	0.6
Posters	291	91.5	21	6.6	5	1.6	1	0.3
Newspapers	287	90.3	25	7.9	5	1.6	1	0.3
Books	298	93.7	5	1.6	11	3.4	4	1.3
Training/seminars	88	27.7	145	43.4	59	18.6	26	8.2
Meetings	126	39.6	111	34.9	54	16.9	27	8.5
Buyers	184	57.9	90	28.3	24	7.5	20	6.3
Extension officers	38	11.9	154	48.4	104	32.7	22	6.9
Fellow farmers	15	4.7	47	14.8	89	28.0	167	52.5
Teachers	289	90.9	18	5.6	7	2.2	4	1.3
Input suppliers	279	86.8	8	2.5	29	9.1	5	1.6
Leaders	208	65.4	80	6.3	27	8.5	3	0.9
Demonstration plots	8	2.5	45	14.2	170	53.5	95	28.9
Non-governmental organisations	5	1.6	156	49.1	73	23.0	84	26.4
Agricultural shows	194	61.1	23	7.2	29	9.1	72	22.6
Research institutes	282	88.7	24	7.5	10	3.1	2	0.6
Religious institutions	294	92.5	12	3.8	7	2.2	5	1.6
Information centres	285	89.6	27	4.1	1	0.3	5	1.6
Noticeboards	287	90.3	28	8.8	2	0.6	1	0.3

Source: Field data (2019).

The results in Table 3 reveal the slight effectiveness of extension officers in delivering agricultural information and knowledge to farmers, as cited by 48.4% of the smallholder farmers. These results are in line with those found from the interview and focus group discussions, which exposed the diminishing role of extension officers in delivering agricultural information and knowledge to smallholder farmers. Accordingly, the results from the interview sessions suggest that most of the extension officers were not visiting smallholder farmers in rural areas. To support this, one of the smallholder farmers from Matema village commented:

In our village it’s like we don’t have an extension officer, although the village chairperson informed us that there is an extension officer who was assigned to help farmers in our village, but we’ve never seen him visiting farmers. So, where can we get agricultural information and knowledge? (Male smallholder farmer, aged 39, primary-level education, Matema village)

In the same context, another smallholder farmer, while insisting on the importance of extension officers in delivering agricultural information and knowledge to smallholder farmers, remarked:

A shortage of extension officers undermines farmers’ ability to deploy proper methods of farming. The number of farmers is increasing while the number of extension officers is decreasing. In previous years, extension officers were very active and were able to serve farmers’ needs in terms of advice and imparting knowledge on new farming techniques and animal husbandry. (Female smallholder farmer, aged 43, secondary-level education, Ngana ward)

These findings imply that poor extension services are accompanied by a shortage of extension officers, which, in one way or another, affects the delivery of agricultural information and knowledge to smallholder farmers. This is quite different from what was happening in the 1990s when extension officers were playing an active role in the delivery of agricultural information and knowledge to farmers in rural Tanzania, as reported in numerous studies (see, for example, Due et al., 1997; Stringfellow et al., 1997). This shows that the decline of extension services in rural settings may be attributed to the shortage of extension officers and reluctance of some to visit rural farmers (Lwoga et al., 2011).

Similarly, seminars and meetings were also reported as slightly effective channels. This finding does not corroborate the findings of Ogboma (2010), who notes that seminars and meetings are important channels of agricultural information and knowledge. The only shortfall with regard to seminars and meetings as effective channels is the extent to which they are conducted. It should be noted that seminars and meetings were rarely conducted in the surveyed villages (Mwantimwa, 2012, 2020). However, the results from the face-to-face interview and focus group discussions signify that radio, training of trainers, fellow farmers, neighbours and friends were mostly used by the smallholder farmers in sharing agricultural information and knowledge.

In addition, the results show that more than one-third (34.9%) of the smallholder farmers rated radio as a moderately effective channels of communication. According to these farmers, radio was one of the most important information and knowledge outlets in their villages.

It is an undeniable fact that radio has long been an important and effective information and knowledge outlet, as found in prior studies (see, for example, Adetimehin et al., 2018; Munyua, 2011; Myers, 2010). However, the effectiveness of radio in broadcasting agricultural information and knowledge is questionable in terms of relevance, the frequency of agricultural programmes and timely delivery (Churi et al., 2012). In fact, agricultural programmes are rarely broadcast by radio stations. And even when they are broadcast, some of the information and knowledge does not match with farmers’ needs (Mwantimwa, 2012). From the literature, it can be noted that coverage is also an issue that undermines the effectiveness of radio. This implies that not all smallholder farmers in rural settings are covered by radio frequencies (Mkenda et al., 2017; Nyamba, 2017; Nyamba and Mlozi, 2012).

Furthermore, the study results show that more than half (52.5%) of the smallholder farmers cited fellow farmers as a very effective channel for delivering agricultural information and knowledge. Moreover, mobile phones and demonstration plots were moderately effective in delivering agricultural information and knowledge, as cited by 56.3% and 53.5% of the respondents, respectively. The results also suggest that close to half (49.1%) the farmers rated non-governmental organisations as an effective channel. Accordingly, more than two-fifths (43.4%) rated training and seminars as slightly effective. The results further highlight that the majority (> 50%) of the smallholder farmers indicated that channels such as print materials, social media, teachers, research institutes, information centres, noticeboards, religious institutions, village leaders, input suppliers, agricultural shows, buyers, television stations and the Internet were ineffective channels for delivering agricultural information and knowledge. One of key informants director at the Ministry of Agriculture specified that:

The use of demonstration plots and Training of Trainers is very important in sharing agricultural information and knowledge in rural areas. Through demonstration plots owned by a farm group, farmers can get new agricultural information and knowledge on an improved seed. For example, farmers can test a new seed in a demonstration plot and, after testing it, they can decide either to reject or accept it. (Male director at the Ministry of Agriculture, aged 56, Master’s degree)

Another key informant, from Uyole Agricultural Institute, reported:

From my experience, farmer groups are more effective than individuals or meetings because farmers in a group are free to discuss various issues related to their activities, such as the crop calendar and market price, and share farming experiences and find solutions related to farming activities. A number of non-governmental organisations and input suppliers are using farmer groups to convey agricultural information and knowledge. (Female researcher at Uyole Agricultural Institute, aged 57, Master’s degree)

This suggests that channels such as farmer groups, fellow farmers and demonstration plots were found to be effective, and reveals that they are becoming effective information and knowledge delivery channels. For example, demonstration plots offer the opportunity for smallholder farmers to gain practical knowledge by doing, while farmer groups encourage input suppliers, buyers, non-governmental organisations and extension officers to deliver, share and exchange agricultural information and knowledge with smallholder farmers. Cost-effectiveness and time issues explain the preference and effectiveness of adopting demonstration plots and farmer groups as agricultural information and knowledge delivery channels. Moreover, fellow farmers, friends, relatives and neighbours were also found to be effective channels. This tallies with the findings of Mtega and Ngoepe (2018), who note that these channels are convenient and easily consulted, and believed to be rich in information and knowledge. However, it is not supported by other studies – for example, Aldosari et al. (2017), Briggeman and Whitacre (2010), al Musawi (2014) and Raza et al. (2020) suggest that television and the Internet are more effective channels for the dissemination of agricultural information and knowledge. This could be true in developed countries such as the USA (see Briggeman and Whitacre, 2010) and urban areas in developing countries and Tanzania in particular (Mkenda et al., 2017; Silayo, 2016).

Timely delivery of agricultural information and knowledge

In order to understand whether agricultural information and knowledge were delivered in a timely manner, the smallholder farmers in the surveyed villages were requested to indicate the timeliness of the delivery of agricultural information and knowledge using an ordinal scale (Very timely, Timely, Untimely). The results are summarised in Table 4.

Table 4.

Timeliness of delivery of agricultural information and knowledge.

Types of agricultural information and knowledge (n = 318)	Very timelyFrequency (%)	TimelyFrequency (%)	UntimelyFrequency (%)
Information
Marketing	3 (0.9)	55 (17.3)	260 (81.8)
Credit and loan facilities	2 (0.6)	59 (18.6)	257 (80.8)
Climate variation and risks	6 (1.9)	94 (29.6)	218 (68.6)
Weather forecasts	4 (1.3)	120 (37.7)	194 (61.0)
Legal	9 (2.8)	0 (0.0)	309 (97.2)
Incentives	1 (0.3)	5 (1.6)	312 (98.1)
Transport	1 (0.3)	11 (3.5)	306 (96.2)
Knowledge
Improved seeds	8 (2.5)	202 (63.5)	108 (34.0)
Crop production techniques	5 (1.6)	147 (46.2)	166 (52.2)
Pesticides and herbicides	5 (1.3)	108 (34.0)	206 (64.8)
Post-harvest	2 (0.6)	27 (8.5)	289 (90.9)
Animal husbandry	1 (0.3)	30 (9.4)	287 (90.3)
Animal feeds	1 (0.3)	12 (3.8)	305 (95.9)
Animal vaccinations	13 (4.1)	144 (45.3)	161 (50.6)
Improved livestock breeds	1 (0.3)	14 (4.4)	303 (95.3)

Source: Field data (2019).

The results in Table 4 show that the majority (> 50%) of the smallholder farmers in Kyela District reported that agricultural information on marketing, credit and loans, legal matters, incentives, climate variations and weather forecasts was not delivered in a timely manner. A few of the smallholder farmers reported that weather forecast information (37.7%) and information on climate variation (29.6%) were delivered in a timely fashion. Also, the results indicate that the majority (63.5%) of the smallholder farmers agreed that agricultural knowledge on improved seeds was delivered in a timely manner. On the other hand, the results disclose that more than half (> 50%) of the smallholder farmers stated that knowledge about crop production techniques, pesticides and herbicides, post-harvest, animal vaccinations, animal husbandry, animal feeds and improved livestock breeds was not. Similar results were obtained during the interview session, where one of the smallholder farmers commented:

Sometimes, the agricultural information and knowledge delivered to us is not timely. For example, last year (2018) during the village meeting, our extension officer instructed farmers to plant a new, improved rice seed known as Sallo 5 that yields much produce, while we had already planted our own traditional seeds. (Male smallholder farmer, aged 42, primary-level education, Ipinda ward)

Another smallholder farmer remarked:

The other time they told us to grow crops that take a short time to ripen due to weather problems while we had already planted crops that take a long time to grow. So, we harvested nothing in that year. All this was associated with untimely delivery and access to agricultural information and knowledge about the new species of crops which tolerate drought conditions. (Male smallholder farmer, aged 55, primary-level education, Matema ward)

In support of this, a third smallholder farmer had the following to say:

Information is not coming on time. Sometimes, you can request pesticide information on how to cure a certain crop disease, especially on rice and cocoa, but you won’t get it in time. As a result, most of the smallholder farmers opt to use indigenous knowledge to deal with such pesticide problems. In many cases, a low yield is accompanied by a delay in agricultural information and knowledge. (Female smallholder farmer, aged 38, primary-level education, Ngana ward)

These comments disclose that smallholder farmers are aware of the importance of agricultural information and knowledge in their farming activities; however, the untimely delivery of these resources becomes a challenge for most smallholder farmers. Surprisingly, the group of farmers growing cocoa were not in agreement with the farmers growing rice. For them, information on pesticides, vaccinations, fertilisers, markets and improved seeds was delivered on time:

In our group, we are provided with timely agricultural information and knowledge related to cocoa production – information such as improved seeds, when and how to plant, knowledge on pesticides, and how to harvest and process the harvested cocoa to maintain its quality. For example, post-harvest knowledge, particularly on processing, is delivered to us on a timely basis. This information and knowledge is mainly provided by non-governmental organisations, input suppliers and buyers. (Male smallholder farmer, aged 47, primary-level education, Ngana ward)

From the above, private companies and non-governmental organisations play an important role in delivering timely knowledge related to farmers’ produce. In particular, input suppliers and buyers are the prime sources and channels of agricultural information and knowledge. It is worth noting that timely information and knowledge were delivered through farmer groups, as one extension officer testified:

We encourage farmers to be in groups so as to educate them while they are there in the group rather than visiting an individual farmer, due to a shortage of time and poor infrastructure. However, there are some farmers who are reluctant to join farmer groups. (Male extension officer, aged 37, primary-level education, Ipinda ward)

This reveals that smallholder farmers who were members of groups were more likely to be provided with timely agricultural information and knowledge than individual farmers. Also, the results from the focus group discussions disclosed that information and knowledge on vaccinations was delivered on a more timely basis to smallholder farmers than crop-production-related information and knowledge. Explaining the reasons behind this situation, one of the smallholder farmers commented:

Once our livestock are sick and you call an expert for a cure, they come immediately because they know that through that treatment they will get money. But if it is about a crop-related problem, they delay in giving us solutions and advice. (Female smallholder farmer, aged 56, primary-level education, Ipinda ward)

From these findings, it is worth noting that timely agricultural information and knowledge delivery depends on the type of problem at hand. In particular, the findings indicate that information and knowledge on demand, which is associated with service providers’ income generation, is more likely to be provided on a timely basis. In addition to knowledge on improved seeds, crop production techniques, livestock vaccinations and weather conditions, other types of information and knowledge were delivered in an untimely manner. Specifically, the smallholder farmers associated such untimely delivery with a shortage of extension officers to deliver and exchange the information and knowledge, as well as the costs of information and knowledge resources such as televisions and smartphones (Ndimbwa et al., 2019). Comparing individual smallholder farmers and those who are members of groups, the findings indicate that those in groups were likely to receive and access timely agricultural information and knowledge. What are the explanations for this? It is an undeniable fact that input suppliers, buyers, non-governmental organisations and financial institutions prefer dealing with groups so that they can reach a significant number of smallholder farmers, rather than dealing with individuals. From prior studies (for example, Siyao, 2012), timely access to information on new farming practices has the potential of speeding up farmers’ adoption of new and improved practices. Furthermore, it increases smallholder farmers’ awareness of different agricultural developments.

Conclusion and recommendations

Delivering agricultural information and knowledge to smallholder farmers is essential for increasing their levels of production. Based on the documented role played by ICTs in the creation and dissemination of agricultural information and knowledge, it was assumed that information delivery to and access by smallholder farmers was not a problem. However, the findings of the present study show otherwise. On the whole, the findings reveal discrepancies between the types of channels used to deliver agricultural information and knowledge. From the findings, it is evident that most of the channels used to deliver agricultural information and knowledge are either extremely or very ineffective. In other words, the channels used to deliver agricultural information and knowledge are either moderately or slightly effective. Inadequate information and knowledge to foster production is a long-standing problem. As a result, smallholder farmers mainly depend on informal systems of information and knowledge delivery, such as fellow farmers, relatives, friends and neighbours. These interpersonal communication channels are sometimes flawed, untimely, irrelevant and unreliable. Unexpectedly, the roles performed by extension officers were found to be unsatisfactory. Besides informal channels, it is worth noting that farmer groups and demonstration plots are becoming very effective and popular channels for delivering and accessing agricultural information and knowledge in rural settings.

Furthermore, the findings suggest that the smallholder farmers in the surveyed villages received untimely and unreliable agricultural information and knowledge. Poor access to and use of timely and reliable agricultural information and knowledge was associated with poor packaging, inappropriate language, low levels of education, and a lack of information centres and libraries, alongside a shortage of extension officers, low incomes, and inadequate television and radio programmes on agriculture.

To make a difference to agricultural production, deliberate efforts should be made by government, non-governmental organisations and other stakeholders to enhance the delivery, access and use of agricultural information and knowledge. In particular, the present study recommends that the government should strengthen extension services through increasing the number of extension and agricultural officers, training them, and providing them with adequate resources such as motorcycle and incentives. Agricultural extension officers and other stakeholders should use community radio to deliver agricultural information and knowledge to smallholder farmers. In order to enhance access to and use of information and knowledge, agricultural programmes should be broadcast at the right time – for example, from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. would be an appropriate time for most smallholder farmers. In addition, demonstration plots of different crops should be introduced in each village at least to provide farmers with avenues to learn and gain knowledge through practice. This is a participatory approach. Also, smallholder farmers should be encouraged to be members of groups. This is important due to the fact that, currently, a number of agricultural stakeholders (for example, financial institutions, buyers, extension officers, input suppliers, government and non-governmental organisations) prefer farmers to be in groups to provide their services. Apart from this, the current agricultural and information policies should be amended to accommodate the information requirements of smallholder farmers and facilitate the easy delivery of agricultural information and knowledge. The government should work closely with mobile phone service providers such as Tigo, Airtel, Vodacom, Zantel and others to strengthen the delivery of agricultural information and knowledge to smallholder farmers through text messaging. In addition, agricultural information and knowledge producers should use simple and clear language with pictures, while repackaging information and knowledge to increase understanding by smallholder farmers.

There are a number of questions this study leaves unanswered, as well as a number of new questions it raises. Future studies should take the following directions: first, a study is needed to explore the use of social media in exchanging and sharing agricultural information and knowledge, as social media are becoming more popular when it comes to information-sharing; second, an experimental study should be conducted on the deployment of demonstration plots to support access to and use of agricultural information and knowledge; and, third, long-term follow-up research is necessary to assess the tangible impact of information and knowledge on agricultural production.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Kelefa Mwantimwa

References

Adetimehin

Okunlola

Owolabi

(2018) Utilization of agricultural information and knowledge for improved production by rice farmers in Ondo State, Nigeria. Journal of Rural Social Sciences 33(1): 76–100.

Adio

Abu

Yusuf

, et al. (2016) Use of agricultural information sources and services by farmers for improve productivity in Kwara State. Library Philosophy and Practice: Paper 1456. Available at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1456

al Musawi

(2014) Information provision and retrieval in the farming industry in Western Australia. Available at: https://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses/866

Aldosari

Shunaifu

Ullah

, et al. (2017) Farmers’ perceptions regarding the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Northern Pakistan. Journal of Saudi Society of Agricultural Science 18(2): 211–217.

Armstrong

Gandhi

(2012) Use of information and communication technology (ICT) tools by rural famers in Ratnagiri District of Maharashtra, India. Available at: https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ecuworks2012/105/

Bachhav

(2012) Information needs of the rural farmers: A study from Maharashtra, India: A survey. Library Philosophy and Practice: Paper 866. Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/866/

Ballantyne

(2009) Accessing, sharing and communicating agricultural information for development: An emerging trends and issues. Information Development 25(4): 260–271.

Baloch

Thapa

(2019) Review of the agricultural extension modes and services with the focus to Balochistan, Pakistan. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Science 18(2): 188–194.

Barakabitze

Sanga

Kitindi

, et al. (2015) New technologies for disseminating and communicating agriculture knowledge and information: Challenges for agricultural research institutes in Tanzania. Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries 70(2): 1–22.

10.

Berg

(2007) An introduction to content analysis. In: Berg

(ed.) Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 238–267.

11.

Briggeman

Whitacre

(2010) Farming and the Internet: Reasons for non-use. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 39(3): 571–584.

12.

Burns

Grove

(2011) Undertaking Nursing Research: Building an Evidence-based Practice. Amsterdam, Elsevier.

13.

Chandrasekhar

Srinivasan

Das Gupta

(2011) Agricultural services in Andhra Pradesh for inclusive rural growth: Baseline survey findings and policy implications. Submitted to USAID/New Delhi. International Food Policy Research Institute, New Delhi.

14.

Chhachhar

Qureshi

Khushk

, et al. (2014) Impact of information and communication technologies in agriculture development. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research 4(1): 281–288.

15.

Choudhury

(n.d.) Questionnaire method of data collection: Advantages and disadvantages. Available at: https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/social-research/data-collection/questionnaire-method-of-data-collection-advantages-and-disadvantages/64512 (accessed 23 February 2020).

16.

Churi

Mlozi

Tumbo

, et al. (2012) Understanding farmers’ information communication strategies for managing climate risks in rural semi-arid areas, Tanzania. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Research 2(11): 838–845.

17.

Creswell

(2014) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 4th ed. Los Angeles: SAGE.

18.

Das

Basu

Goswami

(2012) Accessing agricultural information through mobile phone: Lessons of IKSL services in West Bengal. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education 12: 102–107.

19.

Due

Magayane

Temu

(1997) Gender again: Views of female agricultural extension officers by smallholder farmers in Tanzania. World Development 25(5): 713–725.

20.

Etikan

Musa

Alkassim

(2016) Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics 5(1): 1–4.

21.

Food and Agriculture Organization (2017) Country programming framework for United Republic of Tanzania: 2017 to 2020. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-bt133e.pdf (accessed 2 May 2020).

22.

Global System for Mobile Communications Association (2015) Tigo Kilimo impact evaluation report. Available at: https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/GSMA_Tigo_Kilimo_IE.pdf

23.

Hassan

(2014) Gender analysis in rice production in Kyela District, Mbeya Region, Tanzania. PhD Thesis, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Tanzania.

24.

Kalema

(2017) Importance of information and communication technology in rice production among small scale farmers in Morogoro Region, Tanzania. Master’s Thesis, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Tanzania.

25.

Kukreja

Chakrabarti

(2013) Agricultural knowledge management and dissemination: Initiatives by information and communication technology. Journal of Global Communication 6(1): 51–58.

26.

Kumar

(2011) Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners. 3rd ed. New Delhi: SAGE.

27.

Levi

(2015) Effectiveness of information communication technologies in dissemination of agricultural information to smallholder farmers in Kilosa District, Tanzania. Master’s Thesis, Makerere University, Uganda. Available at: https://repository.ruforum.org/system/tdf/Levi.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=34308 (accessed 2 February 2018).

28.

Lwoga

Stilwell

Ngulube

(2011) Access and use of agricultural information and knowledge in Tanzania. Library Review 60: 383–395.

29.

Matovelo

(2008) Enhancing farmers’ access to and use of agricultural information for empowerment and improved livelihood: A case of Morogoro Region. PhD Thesis, University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

30.

Misaki

Apiola

Gaiani

(2016) Technology for small scale farmers in Tanzania: A design science research approach. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 74(4): 1–15.

31.

Mittal

Mehar

(2012) How mobile phones contribute to growth of small farmers? Evidence from India. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 51(3): 227–244.

32.

Mkenda

Ndakidemi

Mbega

(2017) Accessibility of agricultural knowledge and information. Journal of Biodiversity Environmental Science 11(5): 216–228.

33.

Mtega

(2008) The use of telecentres in Tanzania: A case study of Kilosa. Master’s Thesis, University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

34.

Mtega

(2017) Strengthening agricultural knowledge systems for improved rural livelihoods in Morogoro region of Tanzania. PhD Thesis, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa.

35.

Mtega

Bernard

(2013) Using information and communication technologies for enhancing the accessibility of agricultural information for improved agricultural production in Tanzania. Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries 56(1): 1–14.

36.

Mtega

Ngoepe

(2017) A framework for strengthening agricultural knowledge systems for improved accessibility of agricultural knowledge in Morogoro Region of Tanzania. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 51(3): 629–642.

37.

Mtega

Ngoepe

. Chapter 11: Strengthening the Flow of Agricultural Knowledge among Agricultural Stakeholders: The Case of Morogoro Region in Tanzania. In: Thomas

, editor. Ontology in Information Science. London, United Kingdom: Intech Open; 2018. p. 255–278. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72731.

38.

Mubofu

Elia

(2017) Disseminating agricultural research information: A case study of farmers in Mlolo, Lupalama and Wenda villages in Iringa District, Tanzania. University of Dar es Salaam Library Journal 12(2): 80–97.

39.

Munyua

(2011) Agricultural knowledge and information systems among small scale farmers in Kirinyaga District, Kenya. PhD Thesis, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

40.

Mwantimwa

(2012) The use of pull information mode to support poverty reduction programmes in rural Tanzania: A case of Monduli and Bagamoyo District. PhD Thesis, University of Antwerp, Belgium.

41.

Mwantimwa

(2019) Use of mobile phones among agro-pastoralist communities in Tanzania. Information Development 35(2): 230–244.

42.

Mwantimwa

(2020) Livelihood information and knowledge needs, access and exchange among rural communities in Bunda District, Tanzania. Rural Society 29(1): 30–43.

43.

Myers

(2010) Why radio matters: Making the case for radio as a medium for development. Available at: https://www.syngentafoundation.org/sites/g/files/zhg576/f/why_radio_matters_mary_myers_drp.pdf

44.

Nahdy

Olupot

Zwane

(2011) The role of extension, the Regional Extension Association, and their strategic partners in feeding the region in the 21st century. A paper presented at the 1st ASARECA (Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa) General Assembly, 14th - 16th December 2011, Entebbe-Uganda.

45.

Ndimbwa

Ndumbaro

Mwantimwa

(2019). Delivery mechanisms of agricultural information and knowledge to smallholder farmers in Tanzania: A meta-analysis study. University of Dar es Salaam Library Journal 14(2): 87–98.

46.

Ngailo

Mwakasendo

Mlowe

(2016) Rice farming in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania: Management practices, socio-economic roles and production constraints. European Journal of Research in Social Sciences 4(4): 29–39.

47.

Nicholase-Ere

(2017) Dissemination of agricultural information to farmers using ICT. International Journal of Computer Applications 179(7): 27–31.

48.

Nyamba

(2017) The use of mobile phones in communicating agricultural information in Tanzania: The roles of different stakeholders. PhD Thesis, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Tanzania.

49.

Nyamba

Mlozi

(2012) Factors influencing the use of mobile phones in communicating agricultural information: A case of Kilolo District, Iringa, Tanzania. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Research 2(7): 558–563.

50.

Odongo

(2014) Agricultural information access among smallholder farmers: Comparative assessment of peri-urban and rural settings in Kenya. Agricultural Information Worldwide 6: 133–137.

51.

Ogboma

(2010) Access to agricultural information by fish farmers in Niger Delta Region of Nigeria. Journal of Library Philosophy and Practice: Paper 424. Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/424/

52.

Opara

(2008) Agricultural information sources used by farmers in Imo State, Nigeria. Information Development 24(4): 289–295.

53.

Otter

Theuvsen

(2014) ICT and farm productivity: Evidence from the Chilean agricultural export sector. Göttingen: University of Göttingen.

54.

Raza

Khan

Shahbaz

, et al. (2020) Effectiveness of information and communication technologies as information source among farmers in Pakistan. Journal of Agricultural Science 57(1): 281–288.

55.

Sani

Boadi

Oladokun

, et al. (2014) The generation and dissemination of agricultural information to farmers in Nigeria: A review. 10SR Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science 7(2): 102–111.

56.

Saunders

MNK

Lewis

Thornhill

(2003) Research Methods for Business Students. 3rd ed. Harlow: Prentice Hall.

57.

Silayo

(2016) Assess to and use of agricultural information in poverty alleviation: A case of agro pastoralists in Kilosa and Monduli Districts, Tanzania. PhD Thesis, University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

58.

Siyao

(2012) Barriers in accessing agricultural information in Tanzania with a gender perspective: The case study of small-scale sugar cane growers in Kilombero District. Electronic Journal of Information Systems 51(6): 1–19.

59.

Sokoya

Adefunke

Fagbola

(2014) Farmers’ information literacy and awareness towards agricultural produce and food security: FADAMA III programs in Osun State, Nigeria. Available at: http://library.ifla.org/1001/1/140-sokoya-en.pdf

60.

Sreejesh

Sanjay

Anusree

(2014) Business Research Methods: An Applied Orientation. New York: Springer.

61.

Stringfellow

Coulter

Lucey

, et al. (1997) Improving the access of smallholders to agricultural services in sub-Saharan Africa: Farmer cooperation and the role of the donor community. Natural Resources Perspectives 20: 1–10.

62.

Tavakoli

(2012) A Dictionary of Research Methodology and Statistics in Applied Linguistics. Tehran: Razi.

63.

United Republic of Tanzania (2013) National Agriculture Policy. Dar es Salaam: Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives. Available at: http://www.tzdpg.or.tz/fileadmin/documents/dpg_internal/dpg_working_groups_clusters/cluster_1/agriculture/2._Ag_policies_and_strategies/National_ag_policies/1._2013_NATIONAL_AGRICULTURAL_POLICY_-_FINALFebruari_2013.pdf

64.

United Republic of Tanzania (2016) National Information and Communications Technology Policy. Dar es Salaam: Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication.

65.

United Republic of Tanzania (2018) Agricultural Production Trend in Tanzania (2013-2019). Dodoma: Ministry of Agriculture.

66.

United Republic of Tanzania (2018) Statistics of Extension Officers. Dar es Salaam: Ministry of Agriculture

67.

Zhang

Watanabe-Galloway

(2014) Using mixed methods effectively in prevention science: Designs, procedures and examples. Preventive Science 15(5): 654–662.