Accessibility of Improved Chicken Farming Business Information to Women Improved Chicken Farmers through Mobile Phones in Misungwi District, Tanzania



Abstract Views
505

Downloads
319

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Feb 14, 2023
Published Mar 16, 2023
10.24018/ejfood.2023.5.2.645

Abstract viewed = 505 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

This study aimed to assess the accessibility of improved chicken farming business information to women through mobile phones in Misungwi District, Tanzania. A cross-sectional research design was adopted. A questionnaire was used to collect quantitative data while Focus Group Discussions and Key Informant Interviews were employed to obtain qualitative data. A total of 120 respondents were involved in the study. Quantitative data were mainly analyzed using a Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) to yield descriptive statistics and cross tabulations while content analysis was used to analyze qualitative data. The study found that all 120 respondents owned a mobile phone and used it to access improved chicken business information, apart from other uses. The accessed improved chicken business information was mainly about: chicks, transportation, feeds, extension services, veterinary services, markets, and financial institutions. However, women improved chicken farmers encountered many challenges related to the mobile phone use including bandwidth costs and poor networks. Thus, the study recommends the Misungwi District authority to collaborate with mobile phone companies to increase the number of networks and advise them to have a stability of bundle prices which are affordable to the farmers.

Keywords: improved chicken farming business mobile phone women

References

  1. Mottet A, Tempio, G. Global poultry production: current state and future outlook and challenges. World's Poultry Science Journal. 2017; 73(2): 245–256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0043933917000071.
     Google Scholar
  2. Isack N. Value chain analysis of the tropically adapted improved chicken in Lindi rural and Masasi Districts, Tanzania. Doctoral Dissertation for Award Degree at Sokoine university of Agriculture, (2019). 92pp.
     Google Scholar
  3. Dessie T. African chicken genetic gains blog, BBC Africa: why breed more productive chickens? 2015. Available from https://cgspace. cgiar.org › handle [accessed on 17/9/2022].
     Google Scholar
  4. Komwihangilo DM. The role of chicken in the Tanzanian economy and opportunities for development: An Overview. First ACGG Tanzania Innovation Platform Meeting Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 13-14 July 2015, 2015. 22pp.
     Google Scholar
  5. Getiso A, Bukele B, Zeleke B, Gabriel D, Tadesse A, Abreham E, Jemal H. Production performance of Sasso (distributed by ethio-chicken private poultry farms) and Bovans brown chicken breed under village production system in three agro-ecologies of southern nations, nationalities, and peoples regional state (SNNPR) Ethiopia. International Journal of Livestock Production. 2017; 8(9): 145–157. DOI: 10.5897/IJLP.
     Google Scholar
  6. Salim HM, Huque KS, Kamaruddin KM, Haque Beg A. Global restriction of using antibiotic growth promoters and alternative strategies in poultry production. Science Progress. 2018; 101(1): 52–75. DOI: 10.3184/003685018X15173975498947.
     Google Scholar
  7. Kiprop EK, Okinda C, Akter A, Geng X. Factors influencing marketing channel choices for improved indigenous chicken farmers: Insight from Baringo, Kenya. British Food Journal. 2020; 2020: 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb010943.
     Google Scholar
  8. Muhairwa AP, Mtambo MM, Christensen JR, Bisgaard M. Investigations on disease status of scavenging poultry in Morogoro, Tanzania and the significance of detailed characterization of pathogens obtained: poultry as a tool. Tune Landboskole, Denmark. (2000). pp. 198–209.
     Google Scholar
  9. Kamau CN, Kabuage LW, Bett EK. Impact of improved indigenous chicken breed on productivity: The case of small holder farmers in Makueni and Kakamega countries, Kenya. Journal Cogent Food and Agriculture. 2018; 4(1): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/233 11932.20.
     Google Scholar
  10. Msoffe G, Chengula A, Kipamuula JM. Poultry farmers information needs and Extension Advice from mobile based extension, advisory and learning (MEALS), 2018.18pp.
     Google Scholar
  11. Asenso-Okyere K, Mekonnen DA. The importance of ICTs in the provision of information for improving agricultural productivity and rural incomes in Africa. African Human Development Report. UNDP Sponsored research Series, 2012. 43pp.
     Google Scholar
  12. Onyeneke CO, Solomon-Uwakwe B, Azubogu N. Using information and communication technology in promoting access to information needs of poultry farmers in nigeria: a case study of Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike, Umuahia, Nigeria, 2016. 8pp.
     Google Scholar
  13. Yaseen M, Xu S, Yu W, Luqman M, Hassan S, Ameen M. Factors inhabiting ICTs usage among farmers: Comparative analysis from Pakistan and China. Open Journal of Social Sciences. 2016; 4(5): 287-294. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecaf.12395.
     Google Scholar
  14. Panda S, Pradhan K, Prasad CV. Perceiving the behavioral change of farmers through modern Information Communication Technology (ICT) tools. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 2018; 18(2): 46–53.
     Google Scholar
  15. Jain L, Kumar H. Mobile networks, and Indian agricultural sector. In: Routing Protocols and Architectural Solutions for Optimal Wireless Networks and Security. (Edited by Singh, D.), IGI Global, Pennsylvania, (2017). pp. 60–79.
     Google Scholar
  16. Sekabira H. Qaim M. Mobile money, agricultural marketing, and off-farm income in Uganda. Journal of International Association of Agricultural Economics. 2017; 48(5): 597–611.
     Google Scholar
  17. Bravo JB, Lutomia AN, Abbott E, Mazur R, Mocumbe S, Pitterndrigh BR. Making agricultural learning accessible: examining gender in the use of animations via mobile phones. In: Empowering Learners with Mobile Open-Access Learning Initiatives. (Edited by Mills, M. and Wake, D.), IGI Global, Pennysylvania, 2017. pp. 47–73.
     Google Scholar
  18. Makau DN, VanLeeuwen JA, Gitau GK, Muraya J, McKenna SL, Walton C, Wichtel JJ. Effectiveness of using cell phone technology as a dairy management training tool for smallholder dairy farms in Kenya. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 2018; 30(11): 195–201. doi: 10.5713/ajas.2012.12378.
     Google Scholar
  19. Nyamba S. The use of mobile phones in communicating agricultural information in Tanzania: The roles of different stakeholders. Dissertation for Award of PhD at Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania. 2017. 198pp.
     Google Scholar
  20. Sanga C. e-Agriculture promising practice: UshauriKilimo web and mobile phones for extension services in Tanzania. (2018). Available from http://www.fao.org/documents///card/es/c/ I9032EN/ [Accessed on 17/9/2022].
     Google Scholar
  21. Mwalukasa N. Mobile phone use in assessing rice information for adaptation to climate change in Kilosa and Kilombero districts, Morogoro, Tanzania. Doctoral Dissertation for Award Degree at Sokoine University of Agriculture, 2020. 232pp.
     Google Scholar
  22. Hundie D, Goshu G, Tamir B, Duguma G. Assessment on rural poultry production and marketing system of Horro chicken ecotypes in Western Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development. 2019; 11(12): 248–259. DOI: 10.5897/JAERD.
     Google Scholar
  23. Maunde RM, Lyimo-Macha JG, Jeckonia JN. The contribution of improved chicken strains in promoting women empowerment in Bariadi and Muheza District. Tanzania Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2021; 20(1): 94–100 https://www.coa.sua.ac.tz/.
     Google Scholar
  24. Misungwi District Council. Misungwi District Council Profile, 2020. 153pp. Available from http://www.misungwidc.go.tz [Accessed on 12/05/2021].
     Google Scholar
  25. United Republic of Tanzania (URT). Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives National Sample Census of Agriculture, Dar es Salaam, 2008. Available from https://www.scirp.org › reference › ReferencesPapers [Accessed on 12/05/2021].
     Google Scholar
  26. Creswell JW. Clark VLP. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Sage publications, 2017. 737pp.
     Google Scholar
  27. Babbie ER. The practice of social research. Cengage learning communication technologies for smart and sustainable agriculture. In: Scientific-Experts Conference of Agriculture and Food Industry. Springer, Cham, 2020. pp. 321–334.
     Google Scholar
  28. Onghena P, Maes B, Heyvaert M. Mixed methods single case research: State of the art and future directions. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2019; 13(4):461-480. DOI: 10.1177/ 1558689818789530.
     Google Scholar
  29. Matata JBW, Anandajayasekarani A, Kiriro TN, Wandera EO, Dixon J. Farming systems approach to technology development and Transfer: FARMESA, Harare, Zimbabwe, 2001. 420pp.
     Google Scholar
  30. Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis. American Psychological Association, 2012. Available from https://psycnet.apa.org › record [Accessed on 12/05/2021].
     Google Scholar
  31. Chande HH. Assessment of farmers use of mibile phones in communicating agricultural information in Magharibi a District, Zanzibar. Doctoral Dissertation for Award Degree at Sokoine University of Agriculture, 2018. 198pp.
     Google Scholar
  32. Kacharo DK. The use of mobile phone in agricultural extension in Southern Ethiopia. Doctoral Dissertation for Award Degree at Sokoine University of Agriculture, 2016.136pp.
     Google Scholar
  33. Mariyono J, Santoso SI, Wakisto J, Utomo AAS. Usage of mobile phones to support management of agribusiness activities in Indonesia. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 2021; 74(1): 110–134. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2012.mono.977.
     Google Scholar
  34. Folitse BY, Sam J., Dzandu LP, Osei SK. Poultry farmers’ information needs and sources in selected rural communities in the greater Accra region, Ghana. International Information and Library Review. 2018; 50(1): 1–12. DOI: 10.1080/ 10572317. 2017.1351020.
     Google Scholar