By Oyetoro, JO; Adeyemi, FG (2022).
|
Greener
Journal of Agricultural Sciences ISSN: 2276-7770 Vol. 12(3),
pp. 282-288, 2022 Copyright
©2022, the copyright of this article is retained by the author(s) |
|
Evaluation of Cowpea Innovations Generated
By Academic Institutions in Nigeria: A Case Study of University Of Ilorin,
Nigeria.
Department of Agricultural
Extension and Rural Development,
Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso,
Oyo State, Nigeria.
|
ARTICLE INFO |
ABSTRACT |
|
Article No.: 122122107 Type: Research |
The roles of academic institution in technology generation and
transfer on cowpea have become a salient aspect of technology transfer
process in Nigeria. The study therefore assessed cowpea innovations
generated by academic institutions in the University of Ilorin, Nigeria. The
study randomly selected 112 respondents from academic staff members in
Agricultural Sciences and Engineering Faculties with few students inclusive.
Descriptive statistics include: frequency counts and percentages while the
inferential statistic was Pearson Product Moment Correlation. The mean
annual income of the respondents’ was N2, 578,125. The mean age of
respondents was 47.43years. Specilized bagging and
improved cowpea varieties (optimal plant population) were the most available
cowpea innovations. High cost of innovation was the major constraint
limiting generation of innovation. The result of Pearson Product Moment
Correlation analysis revealed a significant relationship between selected
socio-economic characteristics; age(r= 0.407, p=0.001), years of experience
(r=0.352, p=0.006), income (r= 0.443, p=0.000) and level of generation of
cowpea innovations. Funding of research by university stakeholders was the
greatest challenge militating against technology generation and therefore
recommended that the Government should adequately fund academic institution
in Nigeria for the uninterrupted generation and subsequently transfer of
cowpea technologies to the farmers in order to combat the prevailing treats
of food insecurity. |
|
Accepted: 23/12/2022 Published: 31/12/2022 |
|
|
*Corresponding
Author Oyetoro, John Oyewole E-mail: oyetorojo@ gmail. com |
|
|
Keywords: |
|
|
|
|
INTRODUCTION
Agriculture
involves the use of equipment and instruments to supplement human energy in
operations such as tilling and preparing the land for planting. The tools
(technologies) are required to avoid hand injury and to make the job easier.
Hoes and cutlasses are popular instruments that vary based on the intensity of
the labor and the culture of the area. For example, it is well known that yam
heaps differ from maize heaps and frequently necessitate the employment of
distinct types of hoes; also, hoes used in Yoruba land differ from those used
in Nupeland (Bandara et al,
2007).
Technological innovations have greatly shaped
agriculture throughout time. From the creation of the plow to the global
positioning system (GPS) driven precision farming equipment, humans have
developed new ways to make farming more efficient and grow more food. There is
constantly ongoing works to find new ways to irrigate crops or breed more
disease resistant varieties. These iterations are key
to feeding the ever-expanding global population with the decreasing freshwater
supply (National Geographic Society, 2020).
The methods of
modern agriculture and agricultural operations are changing mainly due to
technological advancements, including sensors, equipment, machines and
information technology. Inorganic fertilizers, pesticides, and different
tractors and machineries are used to enhance agricultural production. According
to Adebayo (2021), sophisticated technologies such as robots, temperature and
humidity sensors, aerial photos and GPS technology were also used. These
advanced equipment, precise farming and robotic
systems enable companies to be more profitable, more efficient, safer and more
environmentally friendly. The availability of these inputs makes it necessary
to use natural resources and processes to improve agricultural production and
reduce costs. Farmers no longer need to apply water, fertilizer and pesticides
evenly across the land. Instead, they can use the least amount and target very
specific areas, or even treat different plants.
Technology generation means creation of
ideas, tools or phenomenon targeted towards solving practical problem. Technology
transfer is a term used to describe a formal transfer of rights to use and
commercialize new discoveries and innovations resulting from scientific
research to another party. University of Louisiana (2020) viewed Academic
technology transfer as the transferring of University derived innovation to the
commercial sector for further development and/or exploitation with the ultimate
goal being societal benefit. Universities and research institutions are fertile
ground for inventions that change the way we live. Association of University
Technology Managers AUTM (2021) stated that universities and research
institutions need help in growing and advancing discoveries to a final product
or service and that is where technology transfer fits in. Technology transfer,
and the professionals who work in the field, change the world one discovery at
a time. They’re responsible for successful innovation management, corporate
engagement, protecting and licensing inventions to companies, new venture
creation and incubation, and economic development. Academic technology transfer
contributes to the spawning of new businesses, creating new industries and
opening new markets (Association of American Universities, 2011).
One common challenge of transfer of
technology in the academia is none or little reproducible of research result. Findings by Quinones et al (2020) show that time constraints, knowledge
being too theoretical, high costs of managing joint research projects, complex
organizational structure, institutional bureaucracy, geographic distance, and
lack of national benchmark are driving challenges that influence other
challenges in impeding university technology transfer. Barrier to
technology transfer as cited by Landmark University (2018) include: Lack of
information; Insufficient human capabilities; Political and economic barriers
such as political instability and lack of capital, High transaction costs, Lack
of full cost pricing, Trade and policy barriers; Lack of understanding of local
needs; Business limitations, such as risk aversion in financial institutions;
and Institutional limitations such as insufficient legal protection, and
inadequate environmental codes and standards.
Nigerians have been conditioned to believe
they cannot invent a technology that will benefit the nation, and have in turn
made Nigerians lose interest in the research outputs from her universities and
research institutes across the nation. Several technological inventions are
lying fallow and uncultivated at universities and research institutions across
the country. This attitude negates the primary aim of establishing these institutions,
which is to aid technology transfer from the laboratory to the industry. Research institutes and universities in
Nigeria would have played a key role in technology transfer if there had been
an effective collaboration between these institutions and the industry.
Financing an invention has been one of the greatest challenges to technology
transfer in Nigeria since every stage of an invention from the product
development to commercialization requires huge financial investment, to this end, many discoveries never saw the light of the day (Ogbaudu, 2016).
To bridge the gap of food insecurity in
Nigeria technologically, leguminous crop like cowpea is has to be developed
because of its importance in Nigeria diet. Cowpea is a significant grain legume in West
Africa, serving as a low-cost source of protein for the underprivileged in both
urban and rural areas. For sub-Saharan Africa to produce crops sustainably,
cowpea must be incorporated into the cropping system. The inclusion of cowpea
in the cropping system, either as the only crop or as intercrop with sorghum
and millet will go a long way to improve the fertility of those degraded soils
(Olufowote and Barnes, 2013).
Several biotic and abiotic factors such as
insect pests, diseases (fungal, viral and bacterial), poor soil fertility,
metal toxicity, and drought contribute to the reduction of cowpea yield
potential in sub-Saharan Africa. Other factors contributing to low yield in
sub-Saharan Africa include lack of improved varieties that can withstand these
stresses and lack of adequate production practices and inputs needed for higher
productivity and profitability (Saka et al 2018). Hence,
this study described the socio-economic characteristics of respondents,
identified cowpea innovations generated, determined extent of generating cowpea
innovations and examined the constraints limiting generation of cowpea
innovations.
METHODOLOGY
This
study was carried out in University of Ilorin, Kwara
State, in the Faculties of Agricultural Sciences and Engineering and Technology.
The University of Ilorin also known as UNILORIN. The
University of Ilorin is located in the ancient city of Ilorin, about 500 kilometres from Abuja, the Federal capital. Ilorin, the
Capital of Kwara State, is strategically located at
the geographical and cultural confluence of the North and South of Nigeria.
University of Ilorin was one of the seven institutions of higher learning
established by a decree of the Federal Military Government in August, 1975. The
Main Campus currently houses the Faculties of Science, Engineering and
Technology, Agriculture, Education, Law, Arts, Business and Social Sciences.
The Mini-Campus presently houses the College of Health Sciences (University of
Ilorin, 2022).
The study purposively selected departments of
Agronomy, Crop protection, Mechanical Engineering, Agricultural Engineering and
students due to the nature of the research work. Simple random selection of 112 respondents were selected for the study. The dependent variable of the study is cowpea innovations
generated by academic institutions in university of Ilorin. It was measured by
listing out the cowpea innovations generated and extent of generation of these
innovations was measured on a rating scale of Very often: 3; Often: 2;
Sometimes: 1; Never: 0. The independent variables are the selected
socio-economic characteristics such age in years, years of experience,
household size and annual income in Naira. Both descriptive and inferential
statistics were used to analyze the data. Descriptive statistics include:
frequency counts and percentages while the inferential statistic was Pearson
Product Moment Correlation.
Socio-economic
characteristics of respondents
The
data in Table 1 shows the distribution of respondents according to their age.
The mean age of respondents was 47.43years.
Also, 55.4% of the respondents were male and 44.6% were female, making
the work force agile. The Table 1 also showed the household size of individual
respondents with 48.3% having less than or equal to 5 persons, 51% of the
respondents had 6-10persons while 0.9% had 11persons and above. The mean annual
income of the respondents’ was N2, 578,125.
Table 1:
Socio-economic characteristics of respondents n=112
|
Socio-economic characteristics |
Frequency |
Percentage |
Mean |
|
|
Age |
||||
|
≤30 |
8 |
7.2 |
47.43 |
|
|
31-40 |
24 |
21.6 |
||
|
41-50 |
39 |
35 |
||
|
51-60 |
23 |
53.1 |
||
|
61-70 |
18 |
16.1 |
||
|
Sex |
||||
|
Male |
62 |
55.4 |
||
|
Female |
50 |
44.6 |
||
|
Marital Status |
||||
|
Single |
11 |
9.8 |
||
|
Separated |
11 |
9.8 |
||
|
Divorced |
7 |
6.3 |
||
|
Widow/widower |
6 |
5.4 |
||
|
Married |
77 |
68.8 |
||
|
Household size (persons) |
||||
|
≤5 |
54 |
48.1 |
||
|
6-10 |
57 |
51 |
||
|
11 and above |
1 |
0.9 |
||
|
Annual income (Naira) |
||||
|
≤2,000000 |
51 |
45.6 |
2,578,125 |
|
|
2,000000 – 4,000,000 |
39 |
34.8 |
||
|
4,000,001 – and above |
22 |
19.6 |
||
|
Secondary occupation |
||||
|
Farming |
27 |
24.1 |
||
|
Farming and trading |
37 |
33 |
||
|
Artisan |
8 |
7.1 |
||
|
Transporting |
10 |
8.9 |
||
|
Trading |
30 |
26.8 |
|
|
Source:
Field survey, 2021.
Cowpea
innovations generated
Table 2 revealed that 93.8%
claimed generation of specialized bagging storage facility, 92% of the
respondents claimed the availability of improved cowpea varieties (optimal
plant population), 87.5% claimed availability of organic pesticide, 84.8%
agreed to availability of synthetic pesticide, 25.9% of the respondents claimed
the availability of pot, 25.9% of the respondents agreed to the availability of
crib (open aerated cage having a stand for storing newly harvested cowpea). The
result means that respondents were greatly involved in boosting food production
in the country through production of cowpea innovations.
Table 2: Distribution of respondents according to available
Cowpea innovations
|
Cowpea
innovations generated* |
Frequency |
Percentage (%) |
|
Improved cowpea varieties
(Optimal Plant population) |
103 |
92.0 |
|
Organic pesticide
(botanicals) |
98 |
87.5 |
|
Synthetic
pesticide(Optimal use) |
95 |
84.8 |
|
Specialized bagging |
105 |
93.8 |
|
Silo (for storing grains) |
52 |
46.4 |
|
Pot (For storing grains) |
29 |
25.9 |
|
Crib (for newly harvested
cowpea) |
29 |
25.9 |
|
Thresher (for threshing) |
78 |
69.9 |
Field
Survey, 2021
*
Multiple responses
Frequency
of transfer of cowpea innovations
Table 3 indicates the
frequency to which the available cowpea technology innovations are being
generated by respondents. The result revealed that specialised bagging was
ranked first with Weighted Mean Score (WMS) of 3.4. Synthetic pesticide was
ranked second with WMS of 2.9, improved cowpea varieties (optimal plant
population) ranked third with WMS of 2.8. The result implies that academic institutions
created several innovations to boost cowpea production in the area.
Table 3: Distribution
of respondents according to frequency of generation of cowpea innovations
|
Cowpea innovations * |
Frequency of
generation Very often Often Sometimes Never |
WMS |
Rank |
|||
|
Improved cowpea varieties
(Optimal Plant population) |
16(14.3) |
60(53.6) |
24(21.4) |
12(10.7) |
2.8 |
3rd |
|
Organic pesticide
(botanicals) |
20(17.9) |
27(24.1) |
50(44.6) |
15(13.4) |
2.5 |
4th |
|
Synthetic pesticide(Optimal
use) |
42(37.5) |
30(26.8) |
21(18.8) |
19(17.0) |
2.9 |
2nd |
|
Specialized bagging |
73(65.2) |
15(13.4) |
10(8.9) |
14(12.5) |
3.4 |
1st |
|
Silo (for storing grains) |
3(2.7) |
4(3.6) |
15(13.4) |
90(80.4) |
1.3 |
11th |
|
Pot (For storing grains) |
- |
4(3.6) |
18(16.1) |
90(80.4) |
1.1 |
6th |
|
Crib (for newly harvested
cowpea) |
- |
2(1.8) |
23(20.5) |
87(77.7) |
1.1 |
6th |
|
Thresher (for threshing) |
7(6.3) |
32(28.6) |
40(35.7) |
33(29.5) |
1.9 |
5th |
Field Survey, 2021.
Constraints
limiting generation of cowpea innovations
Table 4 shows that high
Cost of innovation ranked first with Weighted Mean of Score (WMS) of 2.6,
Inadequate Funding and Lack of sustainability of research result were jointly
ranked second with WMS of 2.5, while Lack of Motivation by the university
agency and Inadequate researchers jointly ranked fourth with WMS of 2.2. The
result implies that several bottlenecks were limiting technology generation of
cowpea innovations.
Table 4: Distribution
of respondents according to constraints limiting generation of
cowpea innovations
|
Constraints* |
Serious |
Mild |
Not a problem |
WMS |
Rank |
|
Inadequate
Funding |
71(63.4) |
35(31.3) |
6(5.4) |
2.5 |
2nd
|
|
Lack
of Motivation by the university agency |
20(17.9) |
84(75.0) |
8(7.1) |
2.2 |
4th
|
|
Inadequate
researchers |
45(40.2) |
39(34.8) |
28(25.0) |
2.2 |
4th
|
|
Lack
of sustainability of research result |
44(39.3) |
50(44.6) |
18(16.1) |
2.5 |
2nd
|
|
Low
level of farmer’s experience |
27(24.1) |
46(41.1) |
39(34.8) |
1.9 |
7th
|
|
High
Cost of innovation |
70(62.5) |
28(25.0) |
14(12.5) |
2.6 |
1st
|
|
Gap
between researchers goal and farmer |
33(29.5) |
60(53.6) |
19(17.0) |
2.1 |
6th
|
Field Survey, 2021
* Multiple response,
( ) represent percentage
Pearson Correlation analysis showing the relationship between selected
socio economic characteristics and level of generation of cowpea innovations.
The result of Pearson
Correlation analysis in Table 5 revealed a significant relationship between
selected socio-economic characteristics; age(r= 0.407, p=0.001), Years of experience (r=0.352, p=0.006), income(r= 0.443,
p=0.000) and level of generation of cowpea innovations. This implies
that the significant variables positively influenced the level of generation of
cowpea innovations to the farmers.
Pearson Correlation analysis showing the relationship between selected
socio economic characteristics and level of generation of cowpea innovations.
|
Variables |
Correlation
coefficient (r) |
P-value |
Remark |
|
Age |
0.407* |
0.001 |
Significant |
|
Years of Experience |
0.352* |
0.006 |
Significant |
|
Income |
0.443* |
0.000 |
Significant |
|
Household size |
0.314 |
0.715 |
Significant |
Source:
field survey, 2020
* correlation is significant at 1%
CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATION
Specialized bagging and improved cowpea varieties (optimal plant population)
were the most available cowpea innovation. The cost of innovation and funding
research for technology generation were the greatest challenge militating
against technology generation in academic institution and therefore recommended
that the Government should adequately fund the institution for the uninterrupted
generation of cowpea innovations in order to combat the prevailing treats of
food insecurity.
Acknowledgement
The valuable information
and cooperation of University of Ilorin staff members during collection of data
were sincerely acknowledged.
Disclosure
Statement
No potential conflict of
interest.
REFERENCES
Adebayo, A. (2021). Importance of Technology to
Agriculture. https://farmsquare.ng/importance-of-technology-to-agriculture/
Accessed on 27 January, 2021.
Association of University Technology Managers AUTM
(2021).
It's About Transforming Ideas
into Opportunities. https://autm.net/about-tech-transfer/what-is-tech-transfer
Accessed on 20 January, 2022.
Association of American Universities, (2011). Understanding
University Technology Transfer. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED517264.pdf Accessed on 20 January, 2022.
Bandara, N.J.G.J., Hettiaratchi,
J.P.A., Wirasinghe, S.C. and Pilapiiya,
S. (2007). Relation of Waste Generation and Composition to Socio-Economic
Factors: A Case Study. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment,135, 31-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-007-9705-3 Accessed on 2 March, 2021.
Landmark University (2018). Issues
in Technology Transfer. https://prog.lmu.edu.ng/colleges_CMS/document/books/Issues%20in%20Technology%2 0Transfer.pdf. Accessed on 2 March, 2021.
National Geographic Society (2020). Impact of Technology
On Agriculture. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/impact-technology-agriculture.
Accessed on 27 January, 2021.
Ogbaudu, D. (2016). Technology transfer: The
change we need in the technology sector. https://www.thecable.ng/technology-transfer-change-need-technology-sector
Accessed on 14 February, 2022.
Olufowote O.O and Barnes A. (2013); Identity Constructions and
Inter-Organizational Collaboration: Islamic Faith-Based Organizations and the
Polio Vaccination Stoppage in Northern Nigeria Pages 518-535 https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2015.1129354
Accessed on 14 February, 2022.
Quinones R. S., J. A. A. Caladcad,
H. G. Quiñones, C. J. Castro, S. A. A. Caballes, D. P. M. Abellana, E. M. Y. Jabilles, C. M. Himang and L. A. Ocampo (2020). Priority Challenges of
University Technology Transfer with Interpretative Structural Modeling and MICMAC
Analysis. International
Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 17 (5). https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S0219877020500388 Accessed
on 2 March, 2021.
University of Ilorin, (2022). University
of Ilorin official website. https://www.unilorin.edu.ng/ Accessed on 12 March, 2022.
University
of Louisiana L.
(2020). Academic Technology Transfer. https://vpresearch.louisiana.edu/innovation/academic-technology-transfer.
Accessed on 2 March,
2021.
Saka
J.O, O.A. Agbeleye, O.T. Ayoola,
B.O. Lawal, J.A. Adetumbi,
and Q. O. Oloyede-Kamiyo (2018). “Assessment
of varietal diversity and production systems of cowpea (Vigna
unguiculata (L.) walp.) in southwest
Nigeria,” Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics,
vol. 119, no. 2, pp. 43–52.
|
Cite this Article: Oyetoro, JO; Adeyemi,
FG (2022). Evaluation of Cowpea Innovations Generated By Academic
Institutions in Nigeria: A Case Study of University Of Ilorin, Nigeria. Greener
Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 12(3): 282-288. |