Submitted:
31 October 2023
Posted:
01 November 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Site
2.2. Study Design
2.3. Sampling Procedure and Sample Size Calculation
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Socio Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents
3.2. Dairy Goat Production System
3.2.1. Dairy Goat Farming Practices
3.2.2. Income Generation

3.2.3. Breeds of Goats Kept
3.2.4. Production Systems
3.3. Pigeonpea Farming
3.4. Sweet Potatoes Production
3.4.1. Benefits of the Integrated Crop-Dairy Goat Farming System
3.4.2. Farmers’ Knowledge on Pigeon Pea and Sweet Potatoes
3.4.3. Perception of Farmers in the Adoption of Integrated Climate Smart Crops-Dairy Goat Farming
3.4.4. Attitudes of Farmers in the Adoption of Integrated Climate Smart Crops-Dairy Goat Farming
4. Discussion
4.1. Socio Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents
4.2. Knowledge of Farmers in the Adoption of Integrated Climate Smart Crops-Dairy Goat Farming
4.3. Perception of Farmers in the Adoption of Integrated Climate Smart Crops-Dairy Goat Farming
4.4. Attitudes of Farmers in the Adoption of Integrated Climate Smart Crops-Dairy Goat Farming
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- I. O. Adejumo and O., A. Adebiyi, ‘Agricultural Solid Wastes: Causes, Effects, and Effective Management’, 2021. [CrossRef]
- Central Bank of Kenya, ‘Agriculture Sector Survey’, 2023.
- World Bank, ‘Climate-Smart Agriculture in Kenya’, 2015.
- E. Whitaker, L. Destrijcker, J. C. Dieffenbacher, and H. E. Kurnoth, ‘Climate Security Study: Kenya’, 2023.
- Government of the Republic of Kenya, ‘Vision 2030 Development Strategy for Northern Kenya and other Arid Lands Final’, 2012.
- C. M. Musafiri et al., ‘Smallholders’ adaptation to climate change in Western Kenya: Considering socioeconomic, institutional and biophysical determinants’, Environmental Challenges, vol. 7, Apr. 2022. [CrossRef]
- T. M. V. N. M. M. L. S. Tilly Alcayna, ‘Climate Change Impacts on Health: Kenya Assessment on Health and Livelihoods April 2021’, 2021.
- V. Sejian, J. V. Sejian, J. Gaughan, L. Baumgard, and C. Prasad, Climate change impact on livestock: Adaptation and mitigation, no. June. 2015. [CrossRef]
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), ‘Climate change and food security: risks and responses’, 2015.
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), The state of food and agriculture. Climate change, agriculture and food security. 2016.
- A. ABEL Akingbade et al., ‘Olabode Abiola Monsurat. Seed Yield and Proximate Composition of Pigeon Pea (Cajanus cajan) Seeds from Varying Planting Distances’, 2017. [Online]. Available: http://www.openscienceonline.com/journal/ijaes.
- Tim Motis, ‘Factors to Consider when Selecting a Pigeon Pea Variety’, 2019. [Online]. Available: http://edn.link/2mg7y4.
- L. Iñiguez, ‘Goats in resource-poor systems in the dry environments of West Asia, Central Asia and the Inter-Andean valleys’, in Small Ruminant Research, Elsevier, 2004, pp. 137–144. [CrossRef]
- C. Felix Amuji, ‘The Future of Rain-Fed Horticultural Crops Production in a Changing West African Climate’, Reviews in Agricultural Science, 2021, vol. 9, no. 0, pp. 206–220. [CrossRef]
- C. M. Musafiri et al., ‘Adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices among smallholder farmers in Western Kenya: Do socioeconomic, institutional, and biophysical factors matter?’, Heliyon, vol. 8, no. 1, Jan. 2022.
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, The status of women in agrifood systems. FAO, 2023. [CrossRef]
- L. Badstue, P. L. Badstue, P. Petesch, C. R. Farnworth, L. Roeven, and M. Hailemariam, ‘Women farmers and agricultural innovation: Marital status and normative expectations in rural Ethiopia’, Sustainability (Switzerland), 2020 vol. 12, no. 23, pp. 1–22. [CrossRef]
- U. W. and W. FAO, The status of women in agrifood systems. FAO, 2022. [CrossRef]
- W. M. Adams, E. E. W. M. Adams, E. E. Watson, and S. K. Mutiso, ‘Water, Rules and Gender: Water Rights in an Indigenous Irrigation System, Marakwet, Kenya’, 1997.
- J. Layek et al., ‘An integrated organic farming system: innovations for farm diversification, sustainability, and livelihood improvement of hill farmers’, Front Sustain Food Syst, vol. 7, 2023. [CrossRef]
- Schneider and M., K. Gugerty, ‘Agricultural Productivity and Poverty Reduction: Linkages and Pathways’, 2011.
- J. Dixon, J.-M. J. Dixon, J.-M. Boffa, T. O. Williams, J. De Leeuw, G. Fischer, and H. Van Velthuizen, ‘Farming Systems and Food Security in Africa: Priorities for Science and Policy under Global Change’, 2015.
- B. Agarwal, ‘Can group farms outperform individual family farms? Empirical insights from India’, World Dev, 2018, vol. 108, pp. 57–73. [CrossRef]
- Victor Kiaya, ‘Post-Harvest Losses and Strategies to reduce them’, 2014.
- J. H. Chuang, J. H. J. H. Chuang, J. H. Wang, and Y. C. Liou, ‘Farmers’ knowledge, attitude, and adoption of smart agriculture technology in Taiwan’, Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2020, vol. 17, no. 19, pp. 1–8. [CrossRef]
- L. A. Wily, ‘The community land act in Kenya opportunities and challenges for communities’, Land (Basel), 2018 vol. 7, no. 1, Mar. [CrossRef]
- P. Yokying and I. Lambrecht, ‘Landownership and the gender gap in agriculture: Insights from northern Ghana’, Land use policy, 2020 vol. 99. [CrossRef]
- C. Wambugu, F. C. Wambugu, F. Place, and S. Franzel, ‘Research, development and scaling up the adoption of fodder shrub innovations in East Africa’, Int J Agric Sustain, 2011 vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 100–109. [CrossRef]
- r. v. K. and c. l. l. G. K. b. Saxena, ‘Vegetable pigeonpea – a review’, Journal of Food Legumes 2010.23(2): 91-98.


| Socio demographic and economic characteristics of the respondents | |
|---|---|
| Parameter | Frequency; %(n=201) |
|
Gender Female Male |
167 (83.1%) 34 (16.9%) |
|
Relationship to the Household head Self Wife Family member |
41 (20.4%) 146 (72.6%) 14 (7.0%) |
|
Level of education No formal education Adult education Primary school Secondary school Tertiary |
10 (5.0%) 9 (4.5%) 68 (33.8%) 73 (36.3%) 41 (20.4%) |
|
Marital status Single Married Widowed |
8 (4.0%) 183 (91.0%) 10 (5.0%) |
|
Main occupation Food Crop farming Livestock farming Trader/Service Formal salaried employee |
89 (44.3%) 50 (24.9%) 46 (22.9%) 16 (8.0%) |
|
Type of house Permanent Semi-permanent |
127 (63.2%) 74 (36.8%) |
|
Source of water for farming Piped River Rainfall |
77 (38.3%) 118 (58.7%) 6 (3.0%) |
|
Water accessibility Always Very often Sometimes Rarely |
33 (16.4%) 27 (13.4%) 116 (57.7%) 25 (12.4%) |
| Average family size | 6.39 ± 2.408 |
| Average number of under 5 years old | 0.78 ± 0.850 |
| Average land size of integrated farming (hectares) | 0.72 ±1.402 |
| Income use %(n=201) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Not frequently (%) | Frequently (%) | Very frequently (%) | Total (%) | |
| Purchase food | 41.8 | 25.5 | 32.7 | 100 |
| Purchase of clothes | 98.2 | 0 | 1.8 | 100 |
| Paying fees | 45 | 37.8 | 17.1 | 100 |
| Medical purpose | 66.7 | 19.8 | 13.5 | 100 |
| Early maturing | High yielding | Good taste | Pest and disease tolerance | Cooks very fast | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short duration | 96 | 83 | 22 | 70 | 39 |
| Medium duration | 82.4 | 97.1 | 133 | 67 | 67 |
| Long duration | 10 | 20 | 0 | 100 | 30 |
| Knowledge levels | True(%) | Factor loading 1a | Factor loading 2b |
| Pigeonpea and sweet potatoes are well adapted to harsh climatic conditions and disease infestation | 82.6 | .936 | |
| Pigeonpea and sweet potatoes are easier to grow in comparison to other crops | 80.1 | .902 | |
| Pigeonpea and sweet potatoes are important commodities for household food security | 79.1 | . 697 | |
| Pigeonpea and sweet potatoes are important commodities for feed supplementation in dairy goat farming | 86.1 | .782 | |
| Pigeonpea and sweet potatoes production provide employment opportunities for the HH members | 52.7 | .729 | |
| Pigeonpea and sweet potatoes production generate income for the rural population | 68.7 | .727 | |
| Pigeonpea and sweet potatoes production improve soil fertility | 84.1 | .707 | |
| Pigeonpea and sweet potatoes contain essential vitamins as well as supplementary protein and calories for human healthy | 61.7 | .929 | |
| The high protein and vitamin contents in Pigeonpea and sweet potatoes can eliminate deficiencies among children, pregnant women and the elderly | 54.2 | .889 | |
| Pigeonpea and sweet potatoes contain essential vitamins as well as supplementary protein and calories for animal healthy | 63.7 | .926 | |
| Eigenvalues | 5.49 | 1.720 | |
| Eigenvalues percentage contribution | 54.95 | 17.220 | |
| Cumulative percentage of variance explained | 54.95 | 72.160 | |
| Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy | 0.881 | ||
| Determinant | 0.109 | ||
| Scale of reliability | 0.906 | ||
| Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Chi-Square (degrees of freedom) | 1354.97*** (45) |
|
Perception on integrated crop-dairy goat farming (%) |
To a great extent | Factor loading 1a | Factor loading 2b |
| What extent does the farm size influence the adoption of integrated crop- dairy goat production system | 57.2 | .698 | |
| What extent does the fodder acreage influence the dairy goat production | 58.7 | .816 | |
| What extent does the unavailability of seeds influence integrated crop- dairy goat production system | 52.2 | .637 | |
| What extent does the gender norms in this community influence the implementing integrated crop- dairy goat production system | 29.4 | .609 | |
| What extent does land ownership in this community hinder youth from adopting integrated crop- dairy goat production system | 34.8 | .857 | |
| What extent does drought influence the level of adopting integrated crop- dairy goat production system | 84.6 | .814 | |
| What extent does change in rainfall pattern in the community influence the level of adopting integrated crop- dairy goat production system | 77.6 | 21.4 | .813 |
| What extent does the severity of pest in the community influences the level of adopting integrated crop- dairy goat production system | 68.7 | .815 | |
| What extent does the diseases in the community influence the level of adopting integrated crop- dairy goat production system | 69.7 | .661 |
| Attitudes | Disagree (100%) |
Strongly agree (100%) |
Factor loading 1a |
Factor loading 2b | Factor loading 3c |
| Integrated crop-dairy goat farming is a women’s activities/business | 48.8 | .624 | |||
| Integrated crop-dairy goat is a poor people’s farming activity | 51.2 | .760 | |||
| Integrated crop-dairy goat is a cumbersome activity | 44.3 | -.803 | |||
| Integrated crop-dairy goat is not a profitable farming venture | 45.3 | .824 | |||
| Gatekeepers disapprove your adoption of crop-dairy goat integrated farming system | 53.7 | .749 | |||
| Adoption of integrated crop- dairy goat production system on your farm has/will protect the environment | 79.6 | .716 | |||
| Eigenvalues | 1.43 | 1.198 | 1.012 | ||
| Eigenvalues percentage contribution | 23.75 | 19.970 | 16.87 | ||
| Cumulative percentage of variance explained | 23.85 | 43.820 | 60.69 | ||
| Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy | 0.516 | ||||
| Determinant | 0.817 | ||||
| Scale of reliability | 0.56 | ||||
| Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Chi-Square (degrees of freedom) | 39.818*** (15) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).