Management information sources and communication strategies for commercially oriented smallholder beef cattle producers in Limpopo province, South Africa

Abstract

A survey was conducted to identify management information sources and communication channels used by commercially oriented smallholder beef cattle producers ( n = 62) in Limpopo province, South Africa. A total of 62 commercially oriented smallholder farmers under the Limpopo Industrial Development Corporation-Nguni cattle project were interviewed using a structured questionnaire to collect data. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse data on farmers’ demographic and farm characteristics, sources of information and communication channels used. A multinomial logistic regression model was used to evaluate factors that influenced farmers’ choices of information sources and communications channels used. Findings show that government extension (53% of the respondents) and other farmers (30%) were the major sources of management information for the farmers. Based on the logistic regression results, the decision to choose government extension as the main source of information was mainly influenced by respondents’ gender ( p = 0.001) and access to training ( p = 0.023). Communication was mainly through farm-to-farm visits (56%) and the use of mobile phones (30%). Based on the current findings, the infusion of modern information communication technologies such as mobile phone-based innovations with the existing government extension service could further strengthen the capacity of farmers to share information among themselves as well as providing feedback to extension agents. Furthermore, it is essential to take cognizance of farmers’ socio-economic factors when identifying and characterizing their management information sources and communication strategies.

Factor Affecting the Information Sources and Communication Channels toward Pig Farmer’s Perception of African Swine Fever in Tra Vinh Province, Vietnam

“…Besides, information from the government is accurate, precise, and reliable (Kipkurgat, 2015). These results were in line with the study of Kipkurgat (2015), Frossling & Noremark (2016), Mapiye et al (2019), and Sebeho & Stevens (2019). Most of fees from government-extension workers in Vietnam were free, but for other information sources, farmers had to pay for the high cost (private-extension worker) or were not reliable (farmer-to-farmer and other resources).…”

“…In similar to information resource, farming visit was also expected as main communication channels of pig farmers. The hypothesis was supported by Mtega et al, (2016), Mbanda-Obura et al, (2017), Melesse et al (2018), and Mapiye et al, (2019).…”

“…Discussion with farm veterinarians was confirmed by a large number of farmers (79%) and other favored sources of information such as the internet (web pages of animal heath associations), government extension, and academic information were also recorded (Frossling & Noremark, 2016). Information from government extension and the other farmers was relevant and quickly accessed (Kipkurgat, 2015;Frossling & Noremark, 2016;Mapiye et al, 2019). When the animal disease outbreak, messages sent by handphone, radio, e-mail, local information meeting were considered as the effective communication channels by many farmers (Frossling & Noremark, 2016;Aldosari et al, 2019).…”

“…Social-demographic profiles such as gender, age, farming experience, education of household head, farm size, land ownership, and group membership have significantly influenced the access to information sources in agriculture fields (Mbanda-Obura et al, 2017). The choice of government extension as the main source of information was affected by gender and informal education (Mtega et al, 2016;Mbanda-Obura et al, 2017;Mapiye et al, 2019). Guntoro et al (2016) showed that friends or other farmers became an important source of information for farmers.…”

Assisting Knowledge Dissemination of Postpartum Beef Cows Management using Smartphone-Based Technology

“…Aside from the issues concerning the needs of users, lifecycles of the mobile apps, multidisciplinary collaboration of specialists, and design features, there are also problems relating to farmers' personalities, ages, education levels, technology awareness, internet access, etc. [7][8][9]. Mobile phones have reduced communication gaps between farmers, government, traders, and specialists [10,11] by employing technologies that help people communicate, update, and disseminate agricultural information and by offering solutions to address problems [12,13].…”