Browsing by Author "Carolyne Omulando"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    An assessment of the Training Needs of Smallholder Food Crop Farmers for Sustainable Farming in Teso-South Sub-County, Busia County – Kenya: A Gendered Analysis Approach
    (2024-07-17) Carolyne Omulando; Morris Mwatu; Caren Jerop; Margaret Njeri Ngugi; Hilary Busolo
    This study assessed the training needs of smallholders food crop farmers in Teso-South Sub-County of Busia County, Kenya. A gendered analysis approach was taken and three research questions were adopted, which were; What are the training needs of smallholders food crop farmers? What is the relationship between gender and previous training of smallholders’ food crop farmers? Is there a relationship between gender and training needs of smallholders’ food crop farmers? A survey research design was employed and a structured questionnaire with both closed and open ended question was used to collect data from 124 smallholders’ food crop farmers who were selected proportionately from the wards in Teso South Sub-County. The findings revealed that more male farmers (53.1%) have not received training compared to only 35.0% of female farmers. Most female farmers (65.0%) have received training compared to 46.9% of male farmers. The established farmers training needs included training in; seed selection/ Production, Crop management, Disaster management, Crop Diversification, and Using new methods of farming on the farm. A Chi-square test for independence (with Yates Continuity Correction) indicated no significant association between gender and previous training status of the smallholders farmers, χ2 (1, n = 124) = 3.42, p = .064, phi = – .18. Also, the relationship between gender and farmers total training needs was investigated using Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation (rho)which revealed a weak, negative correlation between the two variables, r = –.12, n = 121, p <.202, with gender association with farmers total training needs being low. The coefficient of determination indicated that gender helps to explains only 1.44% of variance in the training needs. It was concluded that gender should not be used as a basis for determining farmers training needs. The training needs for both gender are relatively the same.