Submission Deadline-Today
June 2024 Issue : Publication Fee: 30$ USD Submit Now
Submission Deadline-20th June 2024
Special Issue of Education: Publication Fee: 30$ USD Submit Now

An Assessment on the Information Needs and Seeking Behaviours of Rural Farmers in Jos North Local Government Area of Plateau State, Nigeria

  • Mary Yusuf Jwat
  • Ruth Kutlat Wumbuet
  • 1469-1478
  • Jul 18, 2023
  • Agriculture

An Assessment on the Information Needs and Seeking Behaviours of Rural Farmers in Jos North Local Government Area of Plateau State, Nigeria

Mary Yusuf Jwat & Ruth Kutlat Wumbuet
Plateau State College of Agriculture, Garkawa
Plateau State, Nigeria.

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2023.7724

Received: 08 June 2023; Accepted: 22 June 2023; Published: 18 July 2023

ABSTRACT

This study investigated assessment on the information needs and seeking behaviours of farmers in Jos North Local Government Area of Plateau State. There were four primary goals for the study and four related research topics that helped direct the investigation. Descriptive survey methodology was utilized in this research, with a questionnaire serving as the primary data collector. There were 2,000 farmers in the population, and 190 of them were randomly selected to be in the sample. The information was gathered with the use of a well-structured questionnaire. Farmers in Jos North Local Government Area face challenges like a language barrier, insufficient extension services/workers, and an inaccessible agricultural information infrastructure, among others, according to the study’s findings. Farmers previously relied on word of mouth, cooperative societies, family, and friends for agricultural advice. It was determined that the agricultural information resources available to farmers in the Jos North LGA of Plateau State are uninspiring. There is a lack of language support, extension worker services, financial support, public awareness, and current information that prevents farmers in the Jos North LGA from making informed decisions. Many suggestions were made, including that politicians at all three levels of government keep their word, that rural areas establish adult education programs, that agricultural agents, such as extension workers, be made available in all rural areas, and that the government hire and send extension workers to the countryside to help them produce higher-quality crops.

Key words: Information Seeking Behaviour, Information Needs, Rural Farmers, Agriculture, Jos North

INTRODUCTION

Agriculture is crucial to the economy in many developing countries, and sustainability in the agricultural sector must address poverty reduction, food security, and consistent revenue production for a constantly rising population (Kabir et al., 2014). Farmers must practice prudent pesticide use, integrated pest management, adequate irrigation, and plant and animal health to ensure environmental, economic, and social sustainability (Kabir et al., 2014).

Knowledge-intensive agriculture is growing in emerging countries. Global, regional, local, and national researchers are producing fresh data. Farmers need reliable, timely, and relevant information to compete as agriculture systems become increasingly complex. Farmers need relevant, useful information in a format they prefer.

Farmers must seek information to implement better production technology to increase agricultural production. Farmers can hide their technical, marketing, social, and legal knowledge gaps using agricultural information. It involves passive reception of print and electronic media ads and face-to-face interactions (Yahaya, 2003).

Information is rich. Today’s contests require accurate, usable, and timely information on new goods, processes, patents, standards, and research. Information aids in daily life. Modern life depends on information (Bankapur & Bhavanishankar, 2018). Kumari et al. (2017) say effective living requires information. Information needs can save lives. Information has shaped human society. It changed how people think and act. Bankapur and Bhavanishankar (2018) state that all people use information to make decisions and achieve beneficial outcomes. According to Ranganathan’s law, timely information is crucial. Humans produce and consume information. Telecommunications, television, telemetrics, computers, publishing firms, radio, satellite communication, and others now centre on information. Agriculture, industry, R&D, bureaucracy, journalism, and entertainment professionals seek knowledge. They gather, process, store, distribute, and use data for various purposes. Information is what drives human growth. Information affects everyone in society.

Information is crucial for agricultural production and marketing. Information is the collecting, storage, processing, and transmission of fresh data, photos, facts, messages, thoughts, and comments needed to understand and react appropriately to personal, environmental, national, and international conditions and make suitable decisions. Accuracy, timeliness, and relevance underpin quality information. Timeliness and accuracy are related. People, officials, and professionals need information (Bentley et al., 2007).

Information is expected in most human endeavours and progress. Information needs are identified to enlighten and educate people. Without understanding information-seeking behaviour—how people explain, seek, assess, choose, and use information—this process cannot operate (Idiake-Ochei et al., 2016).

According to Idiake-Ochei et al. (2016), knowing information demands and information-seeking behaviour of diverse professional groups helps plan, implement, and operate information systems and services in work settings. Farmers need knowledge to boost farm operations and increase yields. Information-seeking behaviour includes personal reasons, the type of information sought, and how and where needed information is sought (Pettigrew in Idiake-Ochei et al., 2016).

The “agricultural cycle” or “agricultural value chain” can categorize information needs (de Silva &Ratnadiwakara, 2008; Ali & Kumar, 2011). Both systems help farmers make decisions during the cropping season, including inputs, production planning, cultivation, harvesting, packaging and storing, transportation, and selling. Information on sustainable natural resource management, off-farm income creation, and policy consequences are also needed (Babu et al., 2012; Swanson, 2008). In information needs assessment, a farmer may identify an important information need based on their requirements and interests, but “unfelt” or unrecognized needs will not be addressed (Carter &Batte, 1993).

Understanding information-seeking behaviour of individuals and organizations requires understanding information-seeking barriers. Farmers and house managers need specific cognition and information. In a changing world, farmers must manage and adapt their farms. Fine-tuning or embracing new products, technology, or procedures does this. The farmer must decide which innovation or suite of innovations will help the farm company the most (Kavithaa et al., 2014). This procedure often affects the farmer’s company, according to Kaine (2004). To avoid ‘doing it wrong,’ a farmer will spend time gathering information, weighing options, and choosing the best choice before making a major decision. Complex decision-making involves this (Kavithaa et al., 2014). This study is needed because these farmers meet those needs so well.

Without sufficient communication, especially to farmers, new agricultural sector developments may lead to low production and food insecurity, which could risk the nation’s survival.

Farmers not seeking knowledge may lead to poor production, food instability, and incapacity to feed the population.

Information minimizes uncertainty and broadens problem-solving perspectives, making it essential for sustainable development. People seek aid when they know where to go. Lack of information may prevent them from accessing government programs or international aid. Information diffusion can end poverty and hunger. Farmers in rural areas need to know what their counterparts in advanced countries are doing to enhance their farming methods and mechanisms, which can help boost their crop and production.

In spite of the relevance of information to farmers and the survival of a nation, the researcher’s pre-observation indicates that most of the farmers have no access to the relevant information that will help in their decision making and to accept new innovation in farming. This could be attributed to poor information seeking behaviour of the farmers. It is in view of the above, that the researcher tends to investigate the information needs and seeking behaviour of farmers in Jos North Local Government Area of Plateau State, Nigeria.

The aim of this study is to ascertain the information needs and seeking behaviour of the farmers with the view of improving the access to information that will help to improve crop production. The objectives of the study include;

  1. To discover the information seeking behaviours of farmers in Jos North L.G.A
  2. To find out the information needs of the farmers in Jos North LGA.
  3. To examine the challenges the farmers in Jos North LGA faced in meeting their information need.

METHODOLOGY

Descriptive survey methodology was used for this study. Farmers living in Jos North LGA, Plateau State, make up the study’s population. Two thousand farmers in Jos North Local Government Area were included in the research. The sample population for the study was drawn from the membership roster of the Jos North Local Government Area Branch of the Farmers Association of Nigeria (FAN). For this study, 190 farmers from the Jos North LGA served as the sample population.

Researchers employed a multi-stage sampling method to choose our final pool of 190 respondents. Initially, the Jos North LGA was chosen on purpose due to its central location in the state. Lamingo, Fudawa, Tudun Wada, Furaka, Jos Jarawa, Jenta Apata, Angwan-Rogo, Gangare, Naraguta A, and Naraguta B were all selected in Stage 2 by a purposive method. A total of 190 people were surveyed, with samples of 19 taken from each of the designated wards.

A questionnaire was employed to gather information. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used for the analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data. The results of the analysis were displayed in the form of frequency tables and percentages.

Data Analysis

Information seeking behaviours of farmers in Jos North L.G.A

Table 1: Search for agricultural information

Response Frequency Percentage (%)
Yes 155 83.8
No 30 16.2
Total 185 100

The result from table above shows that 155 (83.8%) of the respondents agreed that they used to search for agricultural information, while 30 (16.2%) disagreed.

Table 2: Types of information needs for farmers

Items Very relevant Relevant Not relevant Not very relevant
Modern farming information technologies 100(54.1%) 45(24.3%) 30(16.2%) 10(5.4%)
Nutritional and reproductive management 140(75.7%) 25(13.5%) 15(8.1%) 5(2.7%)
Milking operations and systems 25(13.5%) 30(16.2%) 80(43.2%) 50(27%)
Animal waste management 160(86.5%) 15(8.1%) 5(2.7%) 5(2.7%)
Diseases and pests’ control 140(75.7%) 38(20.5%) 7 (3.8%) 0 (0%)
Weather conditions 125(67.6%) 40(21.6%) 15(8.1%) 5(2.7%)
Business information 110(59.5%) 40(21.6%) 25(13.5%) 10(5.4%)
Government policies and plans 65(35.1%) 50(27.0%) 55(29.7%) 15(8.1%)
Market trends 90(48.6%) 70(37.8%) 10(5.4%) 15(8.1%)
Credit facilities 138(74.6%) 30(16.2%) 7(3.8%) 10(5.4%)

The analysis in Table 1 inquired about the types of information farmers require. 100 (54.1%) of respondents answered that modern farming information technologies are extremely relevant, 45 (24.3%) indicated that they are relevant, and 30 (16.2%) and 10 (5.4%) indicated that they are not relevant or not very relevant, respectively. On the topic of nutritional and reproductive management, 75.7% of respondents deemed it extremely relevant, 13.5% deemed it relevant, 8.1% deemed it not relevant, and 2.7% deemed it not very relevant. 80 (43.2%) and 50 (27%) of respondents agreed that milking operations and systems are not relevant or not very significant, while 30 (16.2%) and 25 (13.5%) disagreed that milking operations and systems are relevant or extremely relevant. Meanwhile, 160 (86.5 percent) and 15 (8.1 percent) of farmers agreed that knowledge on animal waste management is very relevant and relevant, while 5 (2.7 percent) said that it is not very relevant and not relevant. Regarding the control of diseases and pests, 140 (75.7%), 38 (20.5%), and 7 (3.8%) respondents indicated very relevant, relevant, and not relevant, respectively. Regarding weather conditions, 125 (66.6%) and 40 (21.6%) of respondents indicated extremely relevant and relevant information, respectively, while 15 (8.1%) and 5 (2.7%) indicated not very relevant and irrelevant information, respectively. On the side of business information, the majority of respondents indicated pertinent information. 110 (59.5%) and 40 (21.6%) respondents indicated very relevant and relevant, while 25 (13%) and 10 (5.4%) respondents indicated not very relevant and not relevant, respectively. Regarding government programs and plans, 65 (35,1%), 55 (29,7%), and 50 (27%) of respondents rated them as very relevant, not very relevant, and relevant, respectively, whereas 15 (8,1%) rated them as not very relevant. In the case of market trends, the majority of respondents, 90 (48.6 percent) and 70 (37.8 percent), selected very relevant and relevant, whereas 15 (8.1 percent) and 10 (5.4 percent) selected not very relevant and not relevant to their information needs, respectively. Lastly, 138 (74.6%) and 30 (16.2%) respondents answered that information on credit facilities is extremely relevant and relevant to their information needs, while 10 (5.4%) and 7 (3.8%) respondents indicated that the information is not very relevant or irrelevant.

Table 3: Sources of information on agricultural information

Items Frequency Percentage (%)
Extension officer 10 5.4
Library services 10 5.4
Books 30 16.2
Newspapers/magazines 40 21.6
Radio 175 94.6
Television 150 81.1
Mobile phone calls/SMS 45 24.3
Internet 122 65.9
Cooperative society 178 96.2
Other farmers 185 100
Family members 165 89.2
Village elders 20 10.8
Personal experience 164 88.6
Others 123 66.5

The above table solicited agricultural information sources. The analysis reveals that the majority of farmers obtain agricultural information from other farmers 185 (100%), cooperative societies 178 (96.2%), radio 175 (94.6%), family members 165 (89.2%), personal experience 164 (88.6%), television 150 (81.1%), others 123 (66.5%), and the internet 122 (65.9%) respectively, whereas only a small percentage obtain agricultural information from mobile phone calls/SMS 45 (24.3%) and newspapers/magazines 40 (21.6%).

The information needs of the farmers in Jos North LGA.

Table 4: Preferred source of information

Items MP P LP NP
Personal experience 165(89.2%) 15(8.1%) 5(2.7%) 0(0%)
Neighbours/friends 125(67.6%) 35(18.9%) 20(10.8%) 5(2.7%)
Agriculture extension officers 35(18.9%) 25(13.5%) 105(56.8%) 20(10.8%)
Radio/Television 130(70.3%) 35(18.9%) 20(10.8%) 0 (0%)
Brochures/leaflets 70(37.8%) 30(16.2%) 43(23.2%) 42(22.7%)
Farmer groups/Associations 158(85.4%) 17(9.2%) 10(5.4%) 0(0%)
Books 30(16.2%) 10(5.4%) 40(21.6%) 105(56.8%)
Cell phones 5(2.7%) 10(5.4%) 50(27%) 120(64.9%)
Village leaders 10(5.4%) 5(2.7%) 30(16.2%) 140(75.7%)
Internet 50(27%) 40(21.6%) 60(32.4%) 35(18.9%)
Library and information centre 20(10.8%) 42(22.7%) 34(18.4%) 89(48.1%)
Newspapers and magazines 40(21.6%) 20(10.8%) 45(24.3%) 80(43.2%)

 The analysis in the table above pertains to the most preferred source of information on agriculture; the results indicate that 165 (89.2%) and 15 (8.1%) respondents indicated personal experience as their most preferred and preferred source of information, respectively, while 5 (2.7%) respondents indicated personal experience as their least preferred source. For neighbours/friends, 125 (66.6%) and 35 (18.9%) indicated preferred and most preferred, while 20 (10.8%) and 5 (2.7%) indicated least preferred and not preferred. Among agriculture extension officers, 105 (56.8%) indicated least preferred and 35 (18.9%t) indicated most preferred, while 25 (13.5%) and 20 (10.8%) indicated liked and not preferred, respectively. 130 (70.3%) and 35 (18.9%) indicated radio/television as their most preferred and favourite source of agricultural information, respectively, while 20 (10.8%) answered least preferred. On brochures/leaflets, 70 (37.8%) and 30 (16.2%) of respondents selected most preferred and preferred, whereas 43 (23.2%) and 42 (22.7%) selected least preferred and not preferred.

Regarding farmer groups/associations, 158 (85.4%), 17 (9.2%), and 10 (5.4%) of respondents indicated most favoured, preferred, and least preferred, respectively. For books, 105 (56.8%) and 40 (21.6%) of respondents selected not preferred and least preferred, while 30 (16.2%) and 10 (5.4%) selected preferred and most preferred. Meanwhile, for cell phones, 120 (64.9%) and 50 (27%), respectively, indicated not preferred and least preferred, while 10 (5.4%) and 5 (2.7%) indicated preferred and most preferred. 140 (75.7%) and 30 (16.2%) village elders indicated not preferred and least preferred, respectively, while 10 (5.4%) and 5 (2.7%) indicated preferred and most preferred, respectively. For internet, the majority of respondents, 60 (32.4%) and 50 (27%), selected least preferred and not preferred, whereas 40 (21.6%) and 35 (18.9%) selected preferred and not preferred, respectively. For information from libraries and information centres, 89 (48.1%) and 42 (22.7%) respondents indicated least preferred and preferred, whereas 34 (18.4%) and 20 (10.8%) respondents indicated least preferred and most preferred. The majority of respondents, 80 (43.2%) and 45 (24.3%), ranked newspapers and magazines as least preferred and not preferred, while 40 (21.6%) and 20 (10.8%) ranked them as most desired and preferred, respectively.

Table 5: Frequency of Access to Information through Agricultural Extension Offices.

Response Frequency Percentage (%)
Daily 0 0
Weekly 5 2.7
Monthly 10 5.4
Yearly 20 10.8
Never

Total

150

185

81.1

100

 Table 5 solicited for information on how often farmer’s access information through agricultural extension officers. The analysis shows that 150 (81.1%) of the respondents indicated never, 20 (10.8%) indicated yearly, 10 (5.4%) indicated monthly, while 5 (2.7%) indicated weekly and none indicated daily.

Table 6: Perception of Farmers on Information Searching Practices.

Items SA A D SD
It is important to search for information 120(64.9%) 40(21.6%) 15(8.1%) 10(5.4%)
I need assistance in searching for information 60 (32.4%) 50(27%) 35(18.9%) 40(21.6%)
It takes time to search for information 50(27%) 30(16.2%) 65(35.1%) 40(21.6%)
Much effort is needed to search for information 70(37.8%) 30(16.2%) 55(29.7%) 30(16.2%)
I get confused by the information available 15(8.1%) 10(5.4%) 90(48.6%) 70(37.8%)
I don’t know which information to rely on 20(10.8%) 30(16.2%) 65(35.1%) 70(37.8%)
I use different sources of information for comparison 57(30.8%) 62(33.5%) 40(21.6%) 23(12.4%)
I don’t know information required 5(2.7%) 10(5.4%) 75(40.5%) 95(51.4%)

 The study of the table above reveals that 120 (64.9%) of the respondents indicated strong agreement, 40 (34%) indicated agreement, and 15 (8.1%) and 10 (5.4%) indicated disagreement and strong disagreement to the statement that it is necessary to look for information. 60 (32,4%) and 50 (27%) of respondents highly agreed and agreed, respectively, that they require support to look for agricultural information, whereas 40 (21,6%) and 35 (18.9%) of respondents strongly disagreed and disagreed. For the reason that it takes time to look for agricultural information, 35.1% and 21.6% of respondents disagreed and strongly disagreed, while 27.1% and 16.2% of respondents agreed and strongly agreed, respectively. Similarly, 70 (37.8%) and 30 (16.2%) indicated strong agreement and agreement, whereas 55 (14.8%) and 30 (16.2%) indicated disagreement and strong disagreement, respectively, to the statement. 90 (48.6%) and 70 (37.8%) of respondents opposed and strongly disagreed with the statement that they become confused by the available information, while 15 (8.1%) and 10 (5.4%) agreed and strongly agreed, respectively. 70 (37.8%) and 65 (35.1%) of respondents indicated strong disagreement and disagreement, whereas 30 (16.2%) and 20 (10.8%) indicated agreement and strong agreement, respectively, with the statement. 62 (33.5%) and 57 (30.8%) respondents answered agreement and strong agreement, while 40 (21.6%) and 23 (12.4%) respondents indicated disagreement and strong disagreement with this statement. 95 (51.4%) and 75 (40.5%) of respondents strongly disagreed and disagreed with the assertion that they lack required information, while 10 (5.4 %) and 5 (2.7%) agreed and strongly agreed with the statement, respectively.

Table 7: Frequency of Use of Devices to Access and Use of Agricultural Information.

Device Once yearly Weekly Monthly Never
Radio/Television 10(5.4%)        55 (29.7%) 5 (2.7%) 115(62.2%)
Mobile phones 66(35.7%) 20(10.8%) 10(5.4%) 89(48.1%)
Computer/laptops/tablets/internet 90(48.6%) 30(16.2%) 20(10.8%) 45(24.3%)
CDs/DVDs/Flash disks 2010.8%) 0(%) 0(%) 165(89.2%)

 According to the data presented above, the majority of respondents (115, or 62.2%) never use radio/television to receive agricultural information, whilst 55 (29.7%) do so weekly, 10 (5.4%) do it once, and 5 (5.7%) do so monthly. The majority of respondents, 89 (48.1 percent), never use mobile phones to get agricultural information, while 66 (35.7%) use mobile phones once a year, 20 (10.8%) said weekly, and 10 (5.4%) indicated monthly. Majority of respondents 90 (48.6%) used computers/laptops/tablets/internet once a year to access agricultural information, while 45 (24.2%) never used such devices. Thirty (16.2%) and twenty (10.8%) used the device weekly and monthly to access agricultural information. Lastly, 165 (89.2%) of respondents never use CDs/DVDs/flash disks to access agricultural information, while 20 (10.8%) do so once per year.

The challenges the farmers in Jos north LGA faced in meeting their information need

Table 8: Challenges of Accessing Agricultural Information

Challenges Frequency Percentage (%)
Lack of awareness of the available information sources 180 97.3
Lack of information services 173 93.5
Lack of up-to-date information 164 88.6
Inaccessibility of information 181 97.8
Lack of relevant information materials 185 100
Inadequate extension services 185 100
Inadequate funds 185 100
Language barrier 182 98.4
Poor knowledge-sharing culture 169 91.4
Time 160 86.5

 The analysis on challenges shows that, majority 185 (100%) of the respondents agreed that lack of relevant information materials, inadequate extension services and inadequate funds are challenges faced by farmers, while 182 (98.4%), 181 (97.8%) and 180 (97.3%) indicated language barriers, inaccessibility of information and lack of awareness of the available information sources respectively as the challenges, 173 (93.5%) and 169 (91.4%) indicated lack of information services and poor knowledge-sharing culture, 164 (88.6%) and 160 (86.5%) indicated lack of up-to-date information and time barriers are problems faced by the farmers.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The findings discussion only covered the key research objective and questions that guided the investigation. Majority 85.2 percent needed agricultural information. Thuo (2018) found that all groups need information to make daily decisions. Idiegbeyan-Ose& Theresa (2009) found that information helps farmers decide on production, management, marketing, and crop varieties.

Most farmers disagreed that information services are readily available. Thuo (2018) found that farmers had limited access to agricultural information services. Most respondents disagreed to never receive information from agricultural extension officers. This finding supports Akewetaet al. (2018), who argued that extension officers are unavailable, and Anugwa&Agwu (2018).

Farmer information needs, modern farming technologies, milking operation & systems, animal waste management, diseases and pests’ control, business information, government policies & plans, market trends, and credit facilities have the highest frequency/percentage, with most falling within relevant and very relevant. The information applies to all farmers except one. Soyhu (2016) and Patrick (2016) stated that giving farmers knowledge will boost their productivity and efficiency.

Most sought agriculture knowledge. Thuo (2018) found that this helps farmers find information from relatives and neighbours due to a dearth of agricultural extension personnel. Idiake-Ochei et al. (2016) proposed that farmers seek information on crops, production technology, fertilizers, chemicals, marketing, and enhanced varieties.

Most farmers learned about agriculture from other farmers, cooperative societies, family, and personal experience. Emmanuel (2012), Thuo (2018) mentions other dairy farmers, farmers associations, utilised family members, and cooperative societies.

The majority chose personal experience and farmers groups, followed by family/parents, neighbours/friends, agricultural extension officers, radio, brochures, and television. Leaflets, cell phones, library and information centres, newspapers/magazines, books, village leaders, and internet were least favoured. Farmers prefer radio, friends/family, and TV, according to Akeweta et al. (2018).

Most respondents said agricultural extension officers never met their information needs. According to Thuo (2018), farmers rarely have access to agricultural extension services, making information access difficult. Gakuru et al. (2009) found that while farmers are increasing, agricultural extension workers are declining, highlighting the need to close the gap.

Most farmers said seeking for information is crucial, they need help, it takes a lot of time, and they compare different sources. While they disagreed that searching for information takes time, they are confused by the material accessible and don’t know the needed information. Farming experience, age, and education affect farmers’ information seeking tendencies, according to the research. Soylu (2016) suggests that farmers’ information demands can boost their professional productivity and motivation.

Most farmers never use radio, TV, or cell phones for agricultural information. According to Emmanuel (2012), radios are rarely utilized for agricultural programs and farmers never use computers, laptops, tablets, CDs, DVDs, or flash drives to obtain information. The study contradicts Mburu (2013), who found that 95% of respondents chose radio over other ICT media. Thuo (2018) found that most respondents never utilized computers, laptops, tablets, CDs, DVDs, or flash drives to obtain agricultural information.

Farmers face language barriers, inadequate extension services/workers, inaccessibility of information, inadequate funds, lack of relevant information materials, lack of awareness of available information sources, lack of information services, lack of up-to-date information, poor knowledge sharing culture, and time constraints. This supported Patrick (2016)’s observation that rural libraries lack standards.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

            The study’s findings led the authors to draw the following conclusions about farmers’ access to agricultural information in Jos North LGA of Plateau State: farmers only rely on their own experiences, friends, families, cooperatives, and other means to get information for agricultural production, which has negative effects on farmers’ information seeking behaviour. Farmers in Jos North LGA of Plateau State will continue to struggle with low yields because they do not have access to the proper information because of language hurdles, a lack of services from extension workers, a lack of funding, a lack of awareness, and an absence of current information. The following suggestions are made in light of the results:

  1. To ensure that rural farmers have access to knowledge on agricultural techniques in digital, electronic, and printed formats, the Ministry of Education should arrange for adult classes to be held in rural regions.
  2. The government should hire and send extension agents out into the countryside to educate farmers on the best methods for farming and provide them with resources like loans and non-governmental organization (NGO) aid.
  3. At the very least once a week, the management of television and broadcasting houses should air agricultural programs in local languages. Farmers would benefit greatly from access to up-to-date, high-quality resources in their native languages that detail the best methods in agriculture and; the Ministry of Agriculture should provide farmers with translated versions of agricultural programs in their native tongues.

REFERENCES

  1. Akeweta, J. N., Tata, L. A., & Nandi, J. A. (2018). Information needs of farmers in Song Local Government Area, Adamawa State, Nigeria. Journal of Agriculture, Food Security and Sustainable Environment, 1(1), 3635 – 3547.
  2. Ali, J., & Kumar, S. (2011). Information and communication technologies (ICTs) and farmers’ decision-making across the agricultural supply chain. International Journal of Information Management31(2), 149-159.
  3. Ali-Olubandwa, A., Odero-Wanga, D., Kathuri, N. J., &Shivoga, W. (2010). Adoption of improved maize production practices among small scale farmers in the agricultural reform era: The case of Western province of Kenya. Journal of International Agricultural Education and Extension, 17(1), 21-30.
  4. Anugwa, I. Q., & Agwu, A. E. (2018). Rural Women’s Information Seeking Behaviour on Household Food Security Issues in Bayelsa State, Nigeria. International Journal of Agricultural Extension, 29-42.
  5. Babu, S. C., Glendenning, C. J., Okyere, K. A., & Govindarajan, S. K. (2012).Farmers’ information needs and search behaviours: Case study in Tamil Nadu, India (No. 1007-2016-79468).
  6. Bankapur, V. M., & Bhavanishankar, N. B. (2018). Information needs and seeking behaviour of farmers in Bhutaramanahatti village of Belagavi District in Karamtaka State: A study. Journal of Emerging Technologies & Innovative Research (JETIR), 5(7), 1474-1477.
  7. Bentley, J. W., Barea, O., Priou, S., Equise, H., & Thiele, G. (2007). Comparing farmer field schools, community workshops, and radio: Teaching Bolivian farmers about bacterial wilt of potato.Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education14(3), 45-61.
  8. Brhane, G., Mammo, Y., & Negusse, G. (2017). Sources of information and information seeking behavior of smallholder farmers of Tanqa Abergelle Wereda, central zone of Tigray, Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, 9(4), 47-52. DOI: 10.5897/JAERD2016.0850
  9. Brhane, G., Mammo, Y., & Negusse, G. (2017). Sources of information and information seeking behavior of smallholder farmers of Tanqa Abergelle Wereda, central zone of Tigray, Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development9(4), 47-52.
  10. De Silva, H., & Ratnadiwakara, D. (2008). Using ICT to reduce transaction costs in agriculture through better communication: A case-study from Sri Lanka. LIRNEasia, Colombo, Sri Lanka, Nov.
  11. Emmanuel, H. (2012). Information needs and information seeking behaviour of rural farmers in Okpokwu local government area of Benue state of NIGERIA. (Masters Project) Retrieved from http://www.unn.edu.ng/publications/files/images/HELEN%20EMMANUEL.pdf
  12. Idiake-Ochei, O., Onemolease, E. A., &Erie, G. O. (2016). Information-seeking behaviour of extension personnel in Edo State, Nigeria. Scholars Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences, 3(4), 318-325.
  13. Kabir, K. H., Roy, D., Sarker, A., &Kuri, S. K. (2014). Information seeking behaviour of the farmers to ensure sustainable agriculture. European Academic Research2(3), 3723-3734.
  14. Kavithaa, N. V., Rajkumar, N. V., & Lakshmi, C. S. (2014). Information seeking behaviour of dairy farmers. International Journal of Science, Environment and Technology3(4), 1502-1506.
  15. Kumari, M., Timbadia, C. K., &Baria, N. R. (2017). Information Seeking Behavior about Animal Husbandry Enterprise Holders of Farmer’s Interest Groups.  J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci6(7), 2460-2465.
  16. Kumari, M., Timbadia, C. K., &Baria, N. R. (2017).Information seeking behavior about animal husbandry enterprise holders of farmer’s interest groups. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 6(7): 2460-2465. doi: https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.607.349
  17. Lamptey, R. B., Sambo, I. A., & Hassan, A. A. (2016). Disseminating and promoting agriculture information through library and information services in Ghana. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries5(4), 901-907.
  18. Mbagwu, F. C., Benson, O. V., & Onuoha, C. O. (2017). Challenges of meeting information needs of rural farmers through internet-based services: experiences from developing countries in Africa.
  19. Owolade, E. O., &Kayode, A. (2012). Information-seeking behaviour and utilization among snail farmers in Oyo State, Nigeria: Implications for sustainable animal production. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education19(3), 39-49.
  20. Patrick, I. O., & Ferdinand, O. A. (2016). Rural women and their information seeking behavior. Library Philosophy and Practice, paper, (1396).
  21. Thuo, M. W. (2018).Access and Use of Dairy Agricultural Information by Small-Scale Young Farmers in Murang’a County, Kenya (Doctoral dissertation, Kenyatta University).
  22. M. K. (2003). Determination of agricultural information need and media use of pattern of women farmers in North Central Nigeria. Proceeding of African Crop Science Conference Society, 5 (2), 747-754.

Article Statistics

Track views and downloads to measure the impact and reach of your article.

8

PDF Downloads

[views]

Metrics

PlumX

Altmetrics

Paper Submission Deadline

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Sign up for our newsletter, to get updates regarding the Call for Paper, Papers & Research.

    Subscribe to Our Newsletter

    Sign up for our newsletter, to get updates regarding the Call for Paper, Papers & Research.


    Track Your Paper

    Enter the following details to get the information about your paper