According to
Damianus et al., (2022), the mean score below 4.20-5.00 was considered as strongly agreed/very high, the mean score from 3.40 up to 4.09 was considered as agreed/high, the mean score from 2.60 up to 3.39 was considered as Neutral/Moderate, the mean score from 1.80 up to 2.59 was considered as disagree/low and the mean score from 1.00 up to 1.79 was considered as strongly disagree/very low as illustrated by Comparison bases of mean of score of five point Likert scale instrument.
Depend on this, the mean score and standard de
viation of farmers perception on the irrigated wheat production was most effective than rainfed was 3.28 and 1.43 respectively in the study area. This finding indicates that, the perception of smallholders in the study area was neutral and they perceived moderately to the statement in the study area. Similarly, the analyses result depicted that, the mean score of farmers perception on the satisfaction on access to extension service given by DA was 2.67. This shows that, the satisfaction of farmers on access to extension service given by DA in the study area was moderate (Table 1).
The result of the study indicated that the mean score of smallholder farmers on access to credit service and access to necessary inputs for irrigation wheat production was 2.3281 and 1.9297 respectively in the area. The result of the study revealed smallholder farmers in the study area was disagreed on access to credit service and access to necessary inputs (for irrigation wheat production) in the area and the perception of farmers was low to the statements (Table 1).
The analyses result revealed that the mean score of smallholder farmers on Positive perception of irrigated wheat production practices and access technical training on irrigated wheat in the study area was 3.32 and 3.19 respectively. Meaning that, the perception of farmers on the positive perception of irrigated wheat production practices and access technical training on irrigated wheat was neutral/moderate in the study area (Table 1).
Concerning the statements made on access to irrigation facilities from government, respondents were disagreed to the statement with mean score and standard deviation 2.31 and 1.32 respectively. Meaning that, the access to irrigation facilities provision from government for irrigated wheat production was low in the study area (Table 1).
The result of the study specified that the mean scores of smallholders on the scarcity of water source for irrigated wheat production, government initiative motivate us on irrigated wheat production this year and the capacity of wheat yields is good than rainfed in the study area was 3.39, 3.45 and 3.19 correspondingly. The result revealed that farmers were agreed to the statements and they were highly perceived on the statements. That means in the study area, there was water scarcity during irrigated wheat production. But, the government initiative motivates farmers to produce irrigated wheat as well as the capacity of wheat yields is good under irrigation than rainfed in the study area (Table 1).
The level adoption of irrigated wheat production practice was measured by computing adoption scores for recommended technologies. Based on the computed adoption scores, the respondents were asked to rate their level of adoption on the given technology practices with four response categories. The values for each response category were 0 to 25 for non-adopters, 0.26 to 0.50 for low adopters, 0.51-0.75 for moderate adopters and 0.76-1 for high adopters of the given major technology packages.
The study shows that, 174(37%) had never-adopt field preparation for irrigated wheat production technology. Also, 123(32%) had rarely adopters, 51(13.3%) had medium adopters and 36(9.4%) had high adopters of field preparation for irrigated wheat production (Fig 2). The mean score of adoption was found 0.29 which implies low adoption of farmers on field preparation for irrigated wheat production in the study area (Table 2).
It was found that majority 168(43.8%) and 167(43.5%) of the respondents were never adopters and rarely adopters of beds and channel preparation and clearing for irrigated wheat production (Fig 3). The mean score of adoption was found only 0.25 which indicates non-adopters of beds and channel preparation and clearing for irrigated wheat production (Table 2). Key informants revealed that farmers in the area didn’t prepare channel timely and properly. This leads to unnecessary waste of irrigation water and used for what is required in the area.
The study result indicated that 187(48.7%) of the respondents were never used high yielding varieties of wheat seed for irrigated wheat production. Also, 101(26.3%) were rarely used high yielding varieties of wheat seed for irrigated wheat production in the study area (Fig 4). The mean score of adoption was found only 0.28 which indicates low level of adoption high yielding varieties of wheat seed for irrigated wheat production in North Shawa Zone (Table 2). This finding is inconsistent with
Salokhe Shubhangi, (2025) that Farmers eagerly anticipate introducing new technologies for farming, extension, processing and marketing agricultural produce.
It is evident from (Fig 5) that most of the farmers were sowing wheat crops during 1
st week of December to the 3
rd week of January. This exposes farmers to crop failure when the spring rains enter early as they do not wait for the sowing season. The data result depicted that 39.6% of the farmers were not sowing irrigated wheat crop during recommended time of sowing. Mean score of adoption was found 0.32 which shows low level of adoption of right time of sowing irrigated wheat in the study area (Table 2).
The result (Fig 6) revealed that, 49% of the respondents were never adopted and used row planting technology for irrigation. Similarly, 34.1% of the respondents were rarely used irrigated technology for irrigated wheat production. The mean score of adoption was 0.24 which indicates non-adopters of row planting technology (Table 2). The results of key informant interview indicate that, currently wheat row planting was practiced manually and the application method is more labor intensive. As a result, at planting time three man-powers was required, which means the first person is making a row, the second putting seed in the row and the third one is applying fertilizers. It was a labor-intensive practice because of this; those households with more active labor force relatively are more adopters of the technology.
It is revealed from (Fig 7), 61.2% of the respondents were never used right time of watering in irrigated wheat production. As a result adoption level of right time of sowing was found to be non-adopter in the study areas with an adoption score of 0.19. It is evident from (Fig 8), 187 (48.7%) and 145(37.8%) of smallholder farmers were never and rarely used organic manure and fertilizer application as recommended rate respectively. This finding indicates that, almost half (48.7%) of irrigated wheat producers were never used the organic manure and fertilizer application for irrigated wheat production as recommended. The mean score of adoption was 0.22 which shows non-adopter adoption of recommended organic manure and fertilizer application for irrigated wheat production in North Shawa Zone (Table 2). The time of wheat planting and the variety selection have important impact on better crop output (
Godara and Kumar, 2022).
Fig 9 reveals that 345 (89.8%) of the respondents had never treated seeds before sowing for irrigated wheat production in the area. This indicates that almost all irrigated wheat producers does not adopted seed treatment practices. The mean adoption score was 0.19, reflecting a lack of adoption.
Abate, (2018) indicates that the wheat initiative successfully made certified seeds and fertilizers accessible to farmers, thereby increasing their uptake.
The result of the study depicted that, 181(47.1%) of the respondents were never used soil treatment during irrigated wheat in the study area (Fig 10). The mean score of adoption was 0.33 which shows low-adopter of soil treatment for irrigated wheat production in the area. It is evident from the below (Fig 11), 210 (54.7%) of irrigated wheat growers were never adopted weed management for yield increment in the study area. This finding indicates that more than half of farmers in the area does not adopted weed management during irrigated wheat production. The mean score of adoption was 0.34 which shows low-adopter level of adoption of weed management for irrigated wheat production in the area (Table 2). Key informants clearly indicated that many herbicide groups were used and this indicates that farmers are applying herbicides that are provided in the market without knowing real source of herbicides. This makes the loss of yield and quality of wheat.
As indicated in the (Fig 12), about 53.1% of the respondents were never used right time of harvesting and storage of wheat in the study area (Fig 12). In the study areas almost more than half of the respondents replied they never used right time of harvesting and storage. This makes high loss of production and productivity due to harvesting and storage related problems in the area. The mean score of adoption was 0.25 which shows non-adopter level of adoption of right time of harvesting and storage for irrigated wheat production in the area (Table 2).
Therefore, the main finding is that the level of adoption of irrigated wheat production technology is low in the study area as the majority is fall in the low actual adoption index category which is 0.26 mean score. This revealed that the extent (level) of irrigated wheat production technology in the study area is low which needs the capacity development of the irrigated wheat growers so as to bring them to high adoption level in irrigated wheat production technology.