2.3.1 Determinants of Farm Households’ Adoption Decision
Factors that determine farmers’ adoption of improved agricultural technologies decision has been studied widely in the adoption literature. The adoption decision of farm households is influenced by a number of interrelated components within the decision environment in which farmers operate. Different authors in the adoption literature stated that the adoption of innovations is influenced by factors such as characteristics of the farm household (education, age and household size), farm characteristics, technology characteristics, wealth (economic status), contact with extension workers, farmers’ knowledge of the specific technology, price, access to seed and position of farmers in farmers’ organization. Some constraints to the adoption of improved technologies have also been researched into. For instance, lack of credit, limited access to information, aversion to risk, inadequate farm size, insufficient human capital, tenure arrangements, absence of adequate farm equipment, chaotic supply of complementary inputs and inappropriate transportation infrastructure were the key constraints to rapid adoption of innovations in less developed countries (Feder et al., 1985). Nonetheless, in different socio-economic situations not all factors are equally important. Many producer technology adoption studies are related to individual farmer choices as influenced by factors that can be categorized into: farm and farmer’s characteristics; technology characteristics and farming objectives (Adesina and Zinnah, 1993).
The decision of farm households to adopt improved technologies or not can be influenced by factors related to their objectives and constraints. These factors include farmers’ r...
... middle of paper ...
...ly influence farmers’ decision to adopt or not an improved agricultural technology. For instance the study of Asfaw et al. (1994) in Bako area revealed that participation of farmers in extension activities significantly influenced the adoption of maize variety.
Land ownership can also influence the decision of a farmer to adopt an improved technology or otherwise. Some literatures have shown that land ownership and the adoption of improved agricultural technologies are inversely related. This means that farmers who own the land on which they farm are less likely to adopt improved technologies. Awotide et al., (2012b) found that land ownership negatively and significantly determines the decision of farmers to adopt improved agricultural technologies. Arslan et al., (2013) also found that land ownership is negatively related to adoption and intensity of adoption.
I am a recent graduate of Cornerstone University, with a Bachelor degree in Psychology. Although, my experience is in administrative (Medical), my passion is helping children find loving and caring families. Catholic Charities of West Michigan’s reputation for putting children first and my personal experience, having placed an infant for adoption nearly 28 years ago, would be beneficial to your organization. In addition, to my strong work ethic, impeccable attention to detail, and
One can look back in time and see how things have changed. It might have been because of one thing that set a different course, or a series of small things that might have seemed insignificant at the time. The culture of farming has changed drastically over the years due to new founded ideas relating to the food system. In the article, “How Genetically Modified Crops Have Transformed Rural America”, Adam Riesselman explains the effects of GMOs on farm life. In The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan explains how the production of corn has changed farms. Both these pieces of writing express ideas about GMOs, new technology used on the farm, and the diversity of crops on farms.
Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. Adoption recently has caused a hot-spot debate in Australia . Mr Rudd just argued that we should maintain the policy but I don’t agree with him. I am sure many of you are not satisfied with the current situation because we all clear this is not a great one. Adoption is so important because it is a way to change children’s lives. This debate is not about me and Mr Rudd; it’s about you and these children so you should make the best choice. For too long this policy has been disadvantaged to the children who are adopted or going to be adopted and those foster families. It’s the time to change. Relaxing the regulation of adoption within Australia and from overseas will be one of the liberal party’s aiming next term if I get your support. And let me tell you why choosing to relax adoption’s regulation is stepping up in the right direction to change.
Family is not determined by a person's last name or blood relations. The traditional idea of a nuclear family, consisting of a husband and wife raising one or more children together, has evolved in recent years. In this modern society, not only is it common for single parents or unmarried couples to raise a family, but, gays and lesbians are also taking part of this profound trend that is re-defining what a family is as a whole. Imagine if a person's privilege or opportunity of becoming a parent was revoked; how would this impact their life? Even though homosexuals are steadily becoming more accepted and integrated into today's prevalent culture, a disunity is posed when it comes to establishing a family of their own through adoption. Homosexual couples should be granted the same rights to adopt children like heterosexual couples can. The freedom to adopt should be equal in all aspects because there are too many children in the foster care who need a loving home, it is narrow-minded to assume that heterosexuals make better parents than homosexuals, and it is prejudice to deny homosexuals the right to adopt children based on their sexuality.
Their hearts sank as they watched the child they had come to know and love as their own, be taken away by strangers that they had never met until today. As the CPS worker spoke with Mary she explained, “If you had just logged in her injuries acquired during the accident and told us what medicines you had used, this would not have happened.” Mary thought to herself “it was just a scrape… just a tiny little cut…” Many parents all over the world have gone through hardships like this one. If they even got to adopt at all. Many of the rules, regulations and prices agencies have come up with have been causing people all over the world to deter from adopting.
Household, a house with occupants regarded by a unit. But how does one get to a household? The first step is to get a house, almost anyone can get a house with the right resources. From there, you gain people in your life a husband or a wife and children. Children are a wonderful gift from God, but sadly not everyone can conceive a child. As well as that there are people for whatever reason are not able to care for their children so they give them up for adoption. At first glance they seem drastically different from one another. They both require you to go through different methods. It’s easier to purchase a house than to adopt a child. They both can take a while to get, but adoption can take up to years. It may be a terrible house in a terrible
Bio.org claims that farmers enjoy a far greater financial reward when using increasingly “greener” farming practice only made possible thought the use of agricultural biotechnology. Apparently, traditional soybean, soybean and corn require impressive amounts of sprays to control insects and greater tilling to control weeds. Because of those facts, Biotech soybean, Biotech cotton and Biotech corn have been selected in far greater quantities by –supposedly- savvy farmer- with 91 percent, 88 percent and 85 percent adoption rates respectively. Additionally the amount of insectside used worldwide has plummeted by 15 percent. There are more benefits that are not just advantageous to the farmer – there are some that target the consumer. According to the University of Hawaii Department of Tropical Plant and Soil Sciences’ genetic engineering has led to the development of soybeans with higher protein content. In the works is also a form of rice known as” golden rice”, targeted at people in developing countries who traditionally have limited access to Vitamin A, that produces beta
There is no relation between perceived parental acceptance rejection and the disruptive behavior of children.
...made farming more profitable and easier to run as a business. “The tractor was modern compared to the horse. The farmer did not have to pay as many hired men. There was more leisure time. But the tractor changed the social structure of rural life. The key position that farming held in American life vanished” (Carlson).
Sad, droopy, homeless kids go through their whole lives waiting for someone to adopt and love them. “There are millions of infants and young children who are in need of nurturing homes. Many of these children are living in the streets or institutions where they will likely grow up with serious depression or possibly die” (Bartholet 1). A lot of these children could have a safe home to live in if only more people were willing to go through the lengthy and expensive adoption process. If America had a better adoption system, adults would be more willing to adopt these poor kids. Currently, America’s adoption system is extremely corrupt and needs to make some changes as to how the system works, or
For years organic farmers and conventional farmers have feuded over which is superior. Organic farmers argue that their product is more eco-friendly because they do not use the synthetic chemicals and fertilizers conventional farmer’s use. Conventional farmers argue that their product is healthier and yields more. People tend to have stereotypes regarding the two types of farmers. Organic farmers are usually thought of as liberal, hippy, tree-huggers while conventional farmers are usually thought of as right-wing, industrialists. Obviously, some do adhere to this stereotype, but a majority of these farmers are normal, hardworking people. Although these farmers, both believe in their methods, one is no better than the other. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but there is no true superior method of crop farming.
A lot of factors affect changing scenario of crop production, for example, lower agricultural productivity of certain crops, costly and inadequate supply of inputs, reduced crop varieties, low level of production diversification, high level of land fragmentation, reduced indigenous and communal farming practices
It is estimated that 37 farmers leave the land every day to pursuit in different field (Herro 2006). The decline in rural farmers is from the consequences of industrialization of agriculture. Only 1 percent of the UK workforce is now employed on farm, compared to 35 percent in the last century (Herro 2006). Many of these workers are being weaved out by better technologies that can do the same work at a faster and more efficient rate. On the contrary, organic farming relies more on people for knowledge, daily monitoring, and production. A study by the Soil Association shows organic farming can potentially provide 32 percent more jobs per farm than conventional farming in the United Kingdom (Herro 2006). However, critics have argued that human labors will lead to higher food prices, which makes the shift infeasible. But while this may be true in developed country, a full scale shift to organic farming in developing countries, where labors are much cheaper than pesticides, can lead to a much higher profit for the farmers. Organic farming attracts younger employees than any other work industry. Currently, the average age for conventional farmer is 56 (Herro 2006). If a full scale shift to organic farming were to happen, it would draw a more vibrant and enthusiastic workforce who are food conscious than that older generations, setting up a platform
This was an internet-based study does through questionnaire. An internet-based study was viewed to be cost-effective, and more reliable than a mail survey. The questionnaire was developed and discussed with environmental social science researchers, researchers with expertise in agricultural sciences, advisors from SEGES (the Danish Knowledge Center for Agriculture) and four farmers. Socio-economic and farm information was also taken into consideration besides just the
Agriculture is a tough field to enter. Farming is no ordinary profession, nor is it cheap. With farming, comes many risks - some even life threatening. As with any other profession, equipment is needed to perform the job effectively. In this field, the equipment is very costly. The prices of the equipment, chemicals, and seed are increasing whereas the prices of the crop are steady decreasing. How are farmers supposed to make a substantial income when the prices are overwhelming? Can the government not allow a set income for farmers each year, in addition to their profit?