Africa Media Review Vol. 1. No. 2. 1987 
© African Council on Communication Education 
Communication and Adoption of 
Agricultural Innovations: 
Quantifications and Notes Towards 
Abstrcuct 
Resumd 
A Conceptual Model 
by Bernard Nnamdi Emenyeonu* 
This paper reports and discusses the findings of a study conducted 
to investigate the correlation between rural farmers' 
responsiveness to agricultural innovations and the 
communication patterns used to popularize such innovations. The 
results of the survey carried out in this study showed that neither 
education nor the use of mass media has a significant association 
with the adoption of agricultural innovations. Personal 
communication sources were found to be more effective than 
mass communication sources in creating the necessary awareness 
and, hence, influencing the adoption of agricultural innovations. 
Cet article rend compte de et analyse les conclusions d'une e'tude 
sur la correlation entre la redaction des fermiers ruraux aux 
innovations agriculturales et les modeles de communications 
utilises pour populariser ses innovations. Le resultant de l'enquete 
faite dans etude a montre' que ni l'education ni l'utilisation des 
mass-me'dia n'ont une influence significative sur l'adoption des 
innovations agriculturales. L'enquete a montre' que les sources de 
communications personnelles etaient plus efficaces que les 
sources de communication de masse en matiere de sensibilisation 
necessaire, et partant, en matiere d'influence pour l'adoption des 
innovations agriculturales. 
*Mr. Bernard Nnamdi Emenyeonu is a Lecturer of the Department of Mass 
Communication, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria. 
105
Introduction 
For many decades now, hunger, malnutration, starvation, 
famine and squalor, along with an exponential growth in 
population have remained permanent features in the majority of 
developing nations. Owing to the devastating effects of drought, 
desertification and adherence to primitive farming systems, food 
production in these nations has continued to decline. 
In the third world, for example, the gap between domestic 
production of food grains and the demand for them is at the 
moment, estimated to be 77 million tonnes. By Food and 
Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimates too, the food 
requirements of developing nations will further rise by 3.6% before 
the turn of this decade, and that indicates that a minimum of 85 
million tonnes of food will be required to meet food demands.2 
Already, 10% of export revenue in the developing countries is 
spent on food imports, and this figure is expected to rise to 30%, 
with a population growth projected at a 40% increase per annum in 
the 1990S.3 
Apart from the problem of overpopulation, some of the 
developing countries have had their food crisis complicated by 
natural disasters and bad weather. In countries like Ethiopia, 
Chad, Niger, Bourkina Faso etc., millions of lives have been lost to 
drought. In 1984 alone, 2.5 million people in four regions of 
Ethiopia reportedly died of starvation. 
For governments in developing countries, therefore, structuring 
agriculture to feed the people and contribute to economic growth 
has become a challenge. A popular fad in the bid to raise adequate 
food supply in these countries is the intensification of innovative 
agrarian programmes. 
Innovation Campaigns in Nigeria 
In Nigeria, the first of such innovations was the introduction by 
the colonial government, in the 1920s, of large-scale, mixed 
farming which involved the use of ploughs and manure to effect an 
increase in the production of raw materials for British agroindustries.
4 Rudimentary as they were, these innovations resulted 
in remarkable increases in productivity. Cotton yield, for example, 
rose from 3,500 tonnes to 15,000 tonnes per annum within a 
period of seven years.5 By the 1920s too, the British 
administration had established two schools of agriculture: one at 
Moor Plantation, Ibadan, and the other at Samaru, Zaria. With 
more innovations and extension personnel turned out at these 
schools, agriculture was given a tremendous boost throughout the 
colony. 
106
At independence, therefore, Nigeria, endowed with about 228 
million acres of predominantly arable soil,6 inherited an economy 
whose mainstay was agriculture. Apart from feeding the populace, 
there was need to raise enough foreign exchange to sustain the 
emergent nation. Thus, there were plans to consolidate or even 
improve on the solid agrarian foundation laid by the British. 
The initial post-independent steps taken towards improving 
agriculture included the setting up of farm settlements and the 
establishment of special extension services for agricultural foreign 
earners such as cocoa, rubber, cotton and palm produce. Evidence 
abounds to show that these facilities made tremendous impacts on 
the production of food. 
For example, with a production capacity of 150,000 tonnes 
annually, in the 1960s, Nigeria was the world's largest producer 
and exporter of palm oil.7 By 1969 too, Nigeria was rated the world's 
largest exporter of groundnuts. Other cash crops like sorghum, 
guinea-corn, and millet performed equally well during the period 
under review. In fact, within the first decade of independence, 
agriculture and other occupations like livestock rearing, fishery 
and forestry engaged about 30% of the population, provided well 
over 95% of the total food consumed and accounted for about 60% 
of the national income.8 
These impressive trends, however, took a turn with the end of the 
Nigerian civil war. With the discovery of more petroleum and the 
chances offered by the Arab oil boycott of 1973, Nigeria hauled 
tremendously increased earnings from the oil sector. The 
petroleum industry, which had contributed a meagre five per cent 
of the gross domestic product before 1966, had suddenly soared to 
94% of Nigeria's foreign earnings by 1975.9 
Accordingly, the relegated agricultural sector continued to 
decrease in the level of output as the years passed. In 1972, for 
example, Nigeria which, in the 1960s, was the largest exporter of 
palm oil, was not only unable to export but had become a net 
importer of the same commondity.10 Between 1973 and 1974, too, 
the total contribution of agriculture to the national gross domestic 
product declined to 26.8%.ll 
As the food output decreased, population growth rose 
progressively. By 1972, for example, Nigeria's population was 
estimated at 71 million, a growth rate reckoned at three per cent 
per year or an addition of 1.5 million mouths to the population 
annually, based on the 1963 population figures.] 2 
The government's initial response to the problem of food 
shortage was impulsive: mass importation of food. In 1974, the 
food import bill was # 157.9 million, and only a year later, the bill 
amounted to #300 million.13 Within the first six months of 1976, 
107
Nigeria's bill for the importation of several food items was well over 
#249 million.Only #129 million worth of agricultural products, 
mostly cocoa, was exported.14 
But the government soon realised that continued importation 
could not be the panacea for solving a food crisis. In the second half 
of the 1970s, therefore, Nigeria returned to agriculture on a fulltime 
and large-scale basis, marking another phase of attempts at 
adoption of agricultural innovations. 
Several agricultural projects involving structural changes in 
agricultural technology were set up all over the country; farm 
settlements were reactivated and research institutes were 
established. These were then followed by the launching of special 
nation-wide campaigns geared towards revolutionizing 
agriculture. 
The Operation Feed the Nation 
A most remarkable campaign of this sort was the Operation Feed 
the Nation campign (OFN) launched by the Federal Government on 
May 20. 1976. The motive of the OFN was to produce more food, 
specifically by persuading farmers to adopt new technological 
packages such as improved seeds, fertilizers, feeds, pesticides and 
herbicides. 
OFN is regarded as a classic example of a diffusion campaign in 
which the mass media were involved. In the organisational 
structure of the programme, the media were assigned the onerous 
role of disseminating the campaign exhortations to farmers. 
The media diffusion strategies used in the campaign have been 
identified as including news stories, commentaries, editorials, 
features, cartoons and national advertising.15 Others include 
slogans, radio talks, discussion panels and special documentaries. 
In addition to these, publicity vans were used to address villagers, 
posters and handbills were distributed, films on modern 
agriculture practice were shown and plays popularizing OFN were 
performed, all in a bid to demonstrate the benefits of modern 
farming. Extension workers were also drafted to give further 
education and guidance to local farmers on the new farming 
techniques. 
Information about the OFN was so profusely diffused that even 
till this day, OFN remains a household concept in Nigeria. The 
profusion of information about OFN, however, could not induce the 
much-needed agricultural excellence. An indication to this fact was 
that food importation had ironically risen to astronomical heights 
during the campaign period while exportation of cash crops 
decreased. 
108
In 1977, for example,'K780.7 million worth offood was imported. 
A year later, the import bill rose to eNJ. 108.2 million.l6 
The Green Revolution 
With the inauguration of a new civilian regime in 1979, the OFN 
was labelled a dismal failure, discarded and replaced with a 
supposedly more radical agrarian revolution. In 1980, the Green 
Revolution was launched with the usual objective of attaining self 
sufficiency in food production, this time, through increased 
production and processing of good raw materials, livestock, fish 
and cash crops. 
In the manner of its forerunner, the Green Revolution was 
propagated through the mass media but did not enjoy as much 
publicity as the OFN. Part of the problem was that the Green 
Revolution was born in a tense political climate. For the mere sake 
of discrediting the political party controlling the centre, state 
governments controlled by other parties insisted that the media 
under their control never gave space or time to the programme. On 
the other hand, the distribution of inputs followed a spoil system in 
which only party loyalists who turned farmers overnight were 
granted loans, inputs and other related facilities to the detriment of 
genuine full-time agriculturists and peasant farmers. 
So, at the end of it all, the Green Revolution failed to produce 
enough food for the nation. Rather, Nigeria's import bill, as ever 
before, continued to mount. Between April and December 1983, a 
staggering sum of 'NJ5.5 billion was spent on food importation, 
especially rice.17 
Between the demise of the Green Revolution and now, a series of 
innovation campaigns have been quietly launched. The food 
situation, however, does not seem to show any signs of 
improvements. Recent expert projections reveal that Nigeria may 
face starvation by 1990 unless the present output of food is 
doubled. 
Despite the unsatisfactory results of earlier campaigns, the 
government of the day still believes that the surest bet of bailing the 
country out of the threat of starvation must be a continued 
diffusion of innovation agricultural practices. Herein lies the 
deadlock. Given her rich endowments in the form of arable land, 
human and material resources, put to use in the execution of lofty 
innovative programmes, it becomes worrying that Nigeria is 
unable to meet her domestic food demands, let alone raise finances 
for development through agricultural export 
This study seeks to investigate the deadlock by examining the 
communication patterns involved in the diffusion of agricultural 
109
innovations among rural farmers. This perspective was chosen 
because no innovation ever gets accepted without effective 
communication from originators to the target adopters. Rogers 
has observed that "Communication is an important element 
throughout the social change process; all explanations of human 
behaviour directly stem from an examination of how individuals 
acquire and modify ideas through communication with others'MS 
Review of Literature 
Available data show that Nigerian farmers acquire farm 
information from both the mass media and personal sources. In a 
study of the channels of farm information among cocoa farmers, 
for instance, Monu and Omole found that the majority of the 
respondents, 75%, received information concerning agricultural 
innovations from radio, followed by 51 % who got their information 
from extension agents. Television ranked lowest with 0.8% 
dependents.19 
In another study, of the NORCAP agricultural extension project 
in Abakaliki, in Eastern Nigeria, Obibuaku established that radio 
was the most effective medium for creating awareness among 
farmers.20 
Monu also studied the diffusion of innovation model in the 
Funtua Agricultural Development Project in Kaduna State. He 
reported that radio topped the list of sources of farm information 
among his respondants.21 
Another important source of farm information mentioned in 
other studies is the extension agent. Ononamadu showed that 
farmers in the Awka and Nsukka agricultural zones of Anambra 
State, learnt of recommended new inputs from extension agents.22 
In another study of an agricultural formation in Anambra State, 
Uzuegbunam found that 80% of his subjects became aware of the 
National Accelerated Food Production Project (NAFPP) and its 
innovation packages from extension workers.23 
In their own study, Clarke and Akinbode not only found the 
extension agent to be an important source, but also found a 
significant association between farmers' adoption index and their 
frequency of contact with extension staff.24 
Data relating to the impact of the media on adoption reveal a 
weak degree of association between media exposure and adoption. 
For example, Uwakah et al., studied farmers' response to the OFN 
campaign in Imo and Anambra States and found a weak 
correlation between awareness of the OFN Innovations and the 
adoption of the recommended packages.25 
The same trend was reported by Obibuaku and Hursh. They 
110
investigated the adoption rate of five innovation packages which 
some extension staff persuaded farmers in some Eastern Nigeria 
villages to adopt. A majority of the farmers knew about all five 
packages but did not adopt them.26 
In a similar study done in four divisions of the former Western 
Region in Nigeria, Kidd found that recommendations made by the 
ministry of agriculture on the adoption of improved farm inputs 
were all well known to, but were not adopted by farmers.27 
A preponderance of other findings dwell on the relationship 
between variables such as education.social status, age, income, use 
of the media, farm size and adoption. Voh found, for instance, that 
education had a significant association with adoption of 
innovation among some farmers from Northern Nigeria.28 
In another study done in Anambra and Imo States of Nigeria, 
Uwakah and others found a positive correlation between level of 
education and response to innovation campaigns.29 
. In the same Vein, Nweke's survey of farmers' adoption pattern in 
some farm communities in Anambra State established that 
literacy was a very significant determinant of progress in 
agriculture.3Q 
Osuji, in his own study, studied the infrastructural facilities 
affecting the adoption of new farm practices in Imo State of Nigeria. 
He found age, education, income and frequency of contact with 
extension agent to have a positive correlation with adoption.31 
Clarke and Akinbode also established that the use of the mass 
media, size of farm and level of education were all positively 
associated with adoption.32 
Finally, Voh tested the correlation between some selected 
variables and the adoption of recommended farm practices. He 
found that education and socio-economic status, among others, 
were significantly associated with adoption.33 
Based on these patterns of findings, this paper seeks to study the 
dominant paradigm of agricultural communication for adoption of 
innovations among rural farmers by answering the following 
questions: 
1. What is the level of farmers' reliance on the various media or 
dissemination of agricultural innovations? 
2. What is the relative utility and limitations of the media in the 
dissemination of agricultural innovations? 
3. How significant are the roles of the modern media in 
innovation campaigns? 
4. How do variables such as education and socio-econimic 
status associate with adoption? 
5. Would increased awareness guarantee adoption? 
I l l
Method: 
To answer these questions, a sample of 200 rural fanners 
randomly drawn from the Eastern region of Nigeria was studied. 
This sample included full-time and part-time, large-scale and 
small-scale, educated and uneducated farmers. 
A questionnaire was the instrument for data collection. 
Questions sought information about the personal characteristics 
of respondents, their media use patterns and other factors related 
to their reception of agricultural information and adoption of new 
farm practices. Of the 200 questionnaires distributed to the 
respondents, 168 or 84% were duly completed and returned. Data 
contained in these questionnaires were coded and processed with 
a computer. Findings are presented in frequency distribution and 
in tests of signicance. 
Results: 
More than half the sample, 94 farmers or 56%, engaged in fulltime 
farm work while 74 (44%) combined farming with other 
occupations. In response to their highest educational attainment, 
40 respondents (23.8%) indicated they had never attended any 
formal school. Eighteen (10%) had incomplete primary-school 
education while 27 (16.1%) completed primary-school education. 
Seven farmers (4.2%) said they had gone further than primary 
school education but did not complete secondary-school education 
while 24 (14.3%) indicated they completed secondary-school 
education. Diploma holders were 37 (22%) while bachelors' degree 
holders were 10 (5%). Only two farmers (1.2%) possessed masters' 
degrees. (See Table 1) 
Table 1: Respondents' Eklucational Level 
Qualification Number 
4
1
0
8 
2
24
7
7 
3
1
2
7
0
3 
Never attended any school 
Primary-school uncompleted 
Primary school completed 
Secondary school uncompleted 
Secondary school completed 
Diploma 
Bachelor's degree 
Master's degree 
Other qualifications 
168 Total 
112 
Percentage 
23.8 
10.1 
16.1 
4.2 
14.3 
22.0 
5.0 
1.2 
1.8 
100.0
Asked to indicate the media they attended to, a majority of the 
sample, 138 (82.1%), said they owned radio sets, 49 (29.2%) had 
television sets while 99 (58.9%)said they bought and read 
newspapers. (See Table 2a) 
In response to why they did not possess radio sets, 16 farmers 
(9.5%) responded that they could not afford them, six others (3.6%) 
said they did not have the patience to listen to radio programmes, 
and three farmers (1.8%) replied that they "didn't have need for 
them." A "lack of electricity" and "inability to maintain radio" 
attracted two respondents each. (See Table 2a.) 
Table 2a: Respondents' Media Use Pattern 
Medium Yes 
Number Percentage Number Percentage 
Own radio? 
Own television? 
Buy/read newspapers? 
82.1 
29.2 
58.9 
13
49
8 
99
n= 168 
Reasons for non-possession of television and non-consumption 
of newspapers are presented in Tables 2c and 2d respectively. 
Table 2b: Reasons for not Using Radio 
Responses Number 
6 
1
3
6
2
2 
139 
Impatience at listening 
Inability to afford 
Don't need it 
No electricity 
Can't maintain it 
No response 
Total 168 
Table 2c: Reasons For Not Using Television 
Responses Number 
6
3
6
6
0 
5
1
6
0 
No electricity 
Unable to afford 
No Interest 
Don't need It 
No response 
Total 168 
113 
No 
30 
11
69
9 
17.9 
70.8 
41.1 
Percentage 
3.6 
9.5 
1.8 
1.2 
1.2 
82.7 
100.0 
Percentage 
17.9 
39.2 
3.6 
6.0 
33.3 
100.0
Table 2dh Reasons For Not Reading Newspaper 
Responses Number Percentage 
No vendors 
No reading skills 
Cannot buy 
No response 
Total 
There was a high level of awareness of the three firm packages 
used in this study: improved seeds, agro-chemicals and credit 
schemes. 136 (81%) indicated that they were aware of improved 
seeds while 32 (19%) said they were not; 122 respondents (72.6%) 
knew about agro-chemicals while 46 (24.4%) did not. Furthermore, 
113 (67.3%) were aware of credit schemes while 85 (32.7) were not. 
In terms of respondents' primary source of agricultural 
information, extension agents featured predominantly. 103 
respondents (61.3%) chose them as their primary source. Radio 
attracted 25 (14.8%) respondents while only five (3%) chose 
newspapers. Three respondents (1.8%) mentioned magazines, 
eight (4.8%) chose television, three (1.8%) chose films and the 
remaining 10 respondents mentioned fellow farmers. 
(See Table 3a.) 
Table 3a: Source of Farm Information 
Source 
Newspapers 
Magazines 
Radio 
Television 
Film 
Extension Agent 
Fellow Farmers 
Relatives 
Others 
Total 
The formal media of Mass Communication such as radio, 
television and newspaper were not popular as sources of further 
agricultural information among the farmers. Rather, the extension 
agent once attracted a majority of the respondents. While 100 
114 
4
1
8
8 
99
3 
168 
imber 
25
53 
8
3 
103 
10
6 5 
168 
10.7 
28.6 
IB 
58.9 
100.0 
Percentage 
3.0 
1.8 
14.8 
4.8 
1.8 
61.3 
5.9 
3.0 
3.6 
100.0
respondents (59.5%) said they would prefer the extension agent as 
a source of further information on agricultural innovations 47 
(28%) chose radio: television and newspapers attracted five (3.0%) 
respondents each (See Table 3b.) 
Table 3b: Sources of Additional Information 
Percentage Source Number 
47 28.0 
3.0 
3.0 
55
59.5 100
1 0.6 
5.9 10 
Radio 
Television 
Newspaper 
Extension agent 
Film 
No response 
168 Total 100.0 
Two major reasons were given for the overwhelming reliance on the 
extension agent as a favourite source of additional information on 
agricultural innovations. Fifty-six (56%) respondents preferred the 
extension agent because he "could combine information with 
demonstration" while 44 (44%) chose him because "'he was always 
accessible". 
There was a high adoption of improved seeds and agro-chemicals 
but a low adoption rate for credit schemes. One hundred and one 
respondents (60.1%) adopted improved seeds while 67 (39.9%) did 
not; 85 (50.6%) adopted agro-chemicals and 83 (49.4%) did not. 
Only 29 (17.3%) adopted credit schemes while 139 (82.7%) did not. 
Four respondents did not adopt any of the three packages. (See 
Table 4.) 
Table 4: Adoption of Packages 
Packages Non-adopters Adopters 
Number Percentage Number Percentage 
101 
85 
67 
83 
60.1 
50.6 
17.3 139 
39.9 
49.4 
82.7 29
4 -— 2.4 
Improved seeds 
Agro-chemicals 
Credit schemes 
None 
= 168 
115
Discussion 
The formal media of mass communication such as radio, 
television, newspaper and film are generally believed to have an 
insidious influence in the dissemination of new ideas. 
Consequently, they are hastily employed in campaigns such as 
those aimed at diffusing innovations in agricultural practice. 
According to the results of this study, however, farmers had no 
significant reliance on the media. Only 25 (14%) respondents chose 
the radio as their primary source of information. Television and 
newspapers attracted eight (4.8%) and five (3.0%) users respectively 
while the extension agent, a personal source of information, 
attracted 103 (61.3%) respondents. 
Another indication of the low level of reliance on the media is 
deduced from results pertaining to respondents' choice of sources 
of further information on agricultural innovations. Radio was 
chosen by only 47 (28%) farmers while television and newspaper 
were chosen by just five (3%) farmers each. 
From the above data, it is further deduced that of the media 
mentioned in this study, (radio, television, newspaper, film), radio 
was mostly relied on. This could be attributed to its affordability 
and ease of operation. 
On the other hand, the low usage rate recorded for television 
could have been because it was expensive to afford. Additionally, 
the locale of the study, a rural setting without electricity, did not 
favour the use of television. 
About half the sample was deficient in reading skills while the 
majority of the literate respondents could not have access to 
vendors. These two factors may have accounted for the low level of 
reliance on newspapars as media for dissemination of agricultural 
Information. 
In order to determine how significant the media were in effecting 
adoption of innovations, media use. operationalized as use of radio, 
television and newspapers, was cross-tabulated with adoption of 
three innovation packages. The results obtained from a crosstabulation 
of each medium with each package showed that there 
was no significant association between media use and adoption of 
innovations. (See fig. 1.) 
Fig. 1: 
Radio: x 2 = 1.10, df = 1, .05 
Newspaper: x2 = 0.30, df = 1, .05 
Television: x2 = 2.31, d f = l . .05 
116
In terms of the nature of relationship between education and 
social status, and adoption, it was found that education had 
no significant association with adoption. An explanation for the 
non-significant relationship between education and adoption 
could be deduced from the media usage pattern of the respondents. 
Both the educated and uneducated respondents relied heavily 
on a dominant source of information: the extension agent. The 
educated farmers who could have gained more knowledge of 
innovations from newspapers, radio and television were hindered 
by inaccessibility of vendors and lack of electricity. 
Socio-economic status, however, had a significant relationship 
with adoption. Since socio-economic status is often associated 
with education, an explanation for the significant association 
between the two variables could be that high socio-economic 
status, which offers relevant social contact, and creates access to 
reference groups for the acquisition of knowledge of newpractices, 
gave farmers with a high socio-economic status an edge over other 
cadres of farmers in gaining awareness of, and adopting farm 
innovations. 
Finally, the study established a positive correlation between 
awareness and adoption. This means that farmers who knew more 
were likely to adopt more.
CONCLUSION 
Much as the media possess potentials for persuading the> 
audience to accept changes, this study has shown that personal 
sources of communication, as exemplified by extension agents, are 
more effective in creating awareness and influencing adoption of 
innovations among rural farmers than mass media sources. A 
medium like television could captivate audience attention with its 
audio-visual potentials. However, it may not work in a rural setting 
where there is no electricity and the people are not buoyant enough 
to afford a set. Any attempt, therefore, to reach rural farmers with 
innovation campaigns, through television would miss the target. 
The same goes for the other media with their inherent limitations. 
It is therefore recommended that priority should be given to the 
development and use of personal sources of communication for the 
dissemination of farm innovations among rural farmers. 
As a corollary to the above, more extension personnel should be 
trained for the intensification of extension services in rural farm 
communities. With the electrification of these areas, television and 
radio could be used to supplement the efforts of personal sources of 
information. 
The majority of Nigerian farmers are feared to be peasant and 
117
illiterate, and are said to have the propensity to resist innovation 
methods of farming as a result. This study has, however, shown 
that education is not a significant determinant of adoption of 
innovations among rural farmers. The study further showed that 
increased awareness would lead to increased adoption. 
Agricultural innovation agents should therefore intensify efforts to 
create more awareness of new farm packages, and to offer 
incentives such as were suggested by farmers in this study, in 
order to get the farmers to adopt more innovations. 
REFERENCES: 
1. "Billions More to Feed." FAO Report 1976. p. 26 
2. Ibid. 
3. Ibid. 
4. Tiffen, M., "Timing as a factor in the success of Extension Programmes: A 
Nigerian case study." Agricultural Administration, Vol. 10,1982, pp. 125-138. 
5. Ibid. 
6. Nweze. N J., Farmers' Response to the OFN tn Ikwuano Umuahla L.GA. of 
Imo State. Unpublished B.Sc. Thesis, UNN, June, 1979. p. 17. 
7. Dally Times. April, 28, 1981. p. 3. 
8. News Magazine of the Institute for Agricultural Research Ahmadu Bello 
University. Zaria. Vol. 1 No. 1, 1978. 
9. Economic and Statlsttal Review. Federal ministry of Economic 
Development and Reconstruction, Lagos. 1970. 
10. Quarterly Economic Review No. 4, 1978. 
11. Dally Times. April 28. 1981,p. 3. 
12. Oloronte, B.S., "Nigeria's Food Problems in the Seventies". Proceedings of the 
Agricultural Society of Nigeria. 
13. Ibid. 
14. Arua. E.O.. "Achieving Food Sufficiency In Nigeria through the OFN 
Programme." 
15. Adegbola. AA.. Nigeria's Food Bill and Agricultural Research." Ife Journal of 
Agriculture, vol. 1 1979 p. 3. 
16. Agba. P.C.. A Conflguratlonal Analysts of the Diffusion Models and Media 
Strategies Used in the UFN in Nigeria Unpublished Ph.D Thesis. University if 
Indiana. Bloomington. 1980. p. 78. 
118
17. Ibid. 
18. Adamson. M., "Efforts Without Returns." Times InternationaL April 2,1984. 
April 2, 1984. p. 9. 
19. Rogers, E.M., Communication of Innovations. New York, The Free Press. 
1871, pp. 2-5. 
20. Monu, E.D. S» Omole, M.M., "Sources of Farm Information Among Nigerian 
21. Obibuaku, L.O., A Situation Report on the NORCAP Agricultural 
22. Monu, E.D., "The Diffusion of Innovation Model in Action: The Funtua 
Cocoa Farmers." Agricultural Administration, vol. 9. 1982. pp. 81 - 89. 
Development Project atlkwo. Dept of Agric. Econs. «» Extension, UNN. 1976. 
Agricultural Development Project" Agricultural Administration, vol. 13, 
1983. pp. 201-217. 
23. Ononamadu, E.O., The Impact q/World Bank Rice Project on Rice Production 
in Awka and Nsuka Agricultural zones. Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, UNN. 
1984. p. 9. 
24. Uzuegbunam, CO., An Appraisal of the Impact of the NAFPP on Farmers in 
Anambra State. Unpublished M.Sc Thesis UNN. 1981. 
25. Clarke, RC. & Akinbode, AA, "Factors Associated with Adoption of three 
Farm Practices in the Western State of Nigeria" Research Bulletin, vol. 1, 
University of Ife. 1968. p. 2. 
26. Uwakah, C.T. et aL. "Farmers' Response to OFN in Imo and Anambra States." 
Oxford Agrarian Studies, vol. 9, 1980. p. 159. 
27. Obibuaku, L.O. fif Hursh, G.D., "Farm Practice Adoption in the Eastern States 
of Nigeria" Agricultural Administration. voL 1, 1974, p. 117. 
28. Kidd. O., "Factors Affecting Fanners' Response in Western Nigeria" CSNRD 
CSNRD Report, No. 30, p. 5. 
29. Voh, J.P., "A Study of Factors Associated with the adoption of Recommended 
Farm Practices in a Nigerian Village." Agricultural Administration, voL 9, 
1982, p. 5. 
30. Uwakah, C.T. et al.Op cit. pp. 154 - 168. 
31. Nweke, F.I., "Determinants of Agricultural Progressiveness in the Small - 
holder Cropping System of Southern Nigeria" Agricultural Administration. 
vol. 8, 1981, pp. 163 - 176. 
32. Osuji, O.L., "Infrastructural Facilities Affecting the Adoption of New Farm 
Practices Among Farmers in Imo State." Oxford Agrarian Studies, voL 9, 
1980, pp. 169 - 172. 
33. Clarke, RC. «»Akinbode, JAO. Clt p. 2. 
119