The farmers’ Adoption of Some Agricultural Mechanization Methods at Kafrelsheikh Governorate | ||
| Journal of Sustainable Agricultural Sciences | ||
| Volume 48, Issue 3, September 2022, Pages 379-393 PDF (889.92 K) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/jsas.2022.137016.1349 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Adel Ibrahim Elhamoly* 1; Hamza Hameed2; Mahmoud Naser Radwan3 | ||
| 1Agricultural Economic Dept., Agr. Ext.. Kafrelsheikh Uni. | ||
| 2Agricultural Research Centers | ||
| 3Dept. of Agric Extension, Fac, of Agriculture, Kafrelsheikh Uni. | ||
| Abstract | ||
| This research mainly aims to study the farmers’ adoption of some agricultural mechanization methods at Kafr El-Sheikh Governorate. Two districts were random by basket from among the governorate’s districts, and they were Kafr El-Sheikh and Qalin districts. With the same criterion, one village was selected from each district. The village of Sandala was from Kafr El-Sheikh district, and Al-Manshiya Al-Kubra was from Qalin district. The population research was represented in 1889 holders, (914 and 975 holders) respectively, and a regular random sample of 188 respondents was drawn at a rate of 10% of them with (91 and 97 respondents) respectively. It used of several statistical tools in analyzing the data were: percentage, frequencies, mean, and standard deviation. The most important results of the research focused on: that 36.6%, 59.6%, and 72.9% of the respondents had heard about the methods of agricultural mechanization (agriculture machines, crop-serving machines, and harvesting machines). And that 93.6%, 85.6%, and 55.3% of them, respectively had low and medium knowledge of its advantages. And that 19.7%, 42%, and 61.2% of them, respectively have applied these methods in their farms for more than three years. That 19.1%, 38.8% and 29.3% of them respectively had adopted these methods in their farms. The most important reasons for not adopting these methods were: the lack of availability at the stations in the suitable time (81.8%), the difficulty of using them in small holdings (77.8%) and the high costs of using (74.9%). | ||
| Keywords | ||
| listening; dissemination; recognition; knowledge; application; agricultural machines; agricultural extension | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 138 PDF Download: 165 |
||
