1
AGRICULTURE AND LIVESTOCK 
MOTIVATIONS AND BARRIERS STUDY
This study report was made possible by the support of the American people through the United States Agency 
for International Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of CNFA and do not necessarily 
reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.
June 8, 2022
AMALIMA LOKO STUDY REPORT
0
This publication was produced by CNFA under the USAID-funded Amalima Loko activity.
Amalima Loko Agreement No. 72DFFP20CA00008
Period of Study:
December 2021 – March 2022
Prepared by:
CNFA, DUNS Number: 153876610
1828 L Street NW Suite 710
Washington, DC 20036
202-296-3920 (tel.)
www.cnfa.org
Report written by:
Consultant Abisha Damba and the Amalima Loko team
Research Team:
Taswell Chivere, Daniel Nkomboni, Quegas Mutale, Mhlupheki Dube, Tafadzwanashe Nyoni, Lindani 
Maphosa, Charles Moyo, Bhekhimpi Shinda 
i
CONTENTS
Acronyms and Abbreviations......................................................................................................................................... iii
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... iv
Introduction................................................................................................................................................................... iv
Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................. iv
Key Findings.................................................................................................................................................................... v
1. Background and Introduction.....................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Literature Review...................................................................................................................................................2
2. Methodology ..................................................................................................................................................................6
2.1 Study Area................................................................................................................................................................7
2.2 Sampling....................................................................................................................................................................7
2.3 Development of Data Collection Tools...........................................................................................................8
2.4 Data Collection and Analysis...............................................................................................................................9
2.5 Study Limitations....................................................................................................................................................9
3. Findings..........................................................................................................................................................................10
3.1 What are the primary motivations behind crop and livestock production (i.e., food, income, status, 
wealth store, cultural norms, etc.)?........................................................................................................................10
3.2 How do motivations affect production practices and the adoption of recommended improved 
practices?.......................................................................................................................................................................11
3.3 What motivated doers to adopt the introduced improved practices? What steps did they take to 
adopt the new behavior? Who were the key actors involved? .......................................................................12
3.4 Are the motivators and barriers to adoption the same/ similar/ different for the various agriculture 
and livestock management practices?.....................................................................................................................13
3.5 What are the barriers to adoption for non-doers who have been introduced to improved 
management practices? What is the extent of the knowledge of the new practices that non-doers 
have?...............................................................................................................................................................................15
3.6 What might convince non-doers who have not adopted an improved behavior to do so? What are 
their top reasons for trying or not trying the behavior?...................................................................................17
3.6 For all the above questions, how do gender dynamics impact adoption vs. non-adoption? What 
strategies/ messaging are effective for males and females? ...............................................................................18
4. Discussion and Recommendations .........................................................................................................................19
References.........................................................................................................................................................................21
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Theory of Planned Behavior ..........................................................................................................................4
Figure 2: Study Location...................................................................................................................................................7
Figure 3: Level of Education ............................................................................................................................................8
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Key findings by research question ................................................................................................................. v
iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ADRA Adventist Development and Relief Agency
AGRITEX Department of Agricultural, Technical, and Extension Services
BHA Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance
DVS Department of Veterinary Services
FGD Focus Group Discussion
IDI In-Depth Interview
KII Key Informant Interview
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
OPV Open-Pollinated Variety
USAID United States Agency for International Development
VSL Village Savings and Loans
iv
Executive Summary
The Amalima Loko program is a five-year USAID/ Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA)-funded 
Resilience Food Security Activity (RFSA) designed to improve food and nutrition security in Zimbabwe 
through increased food access and sustainable watershed management. The program is implemented in 
Matabeleland North by a consortium led by CNFA and comprised of the Organization of Rural 
Associations for Progress, Dabane Water Workshops, The Manoff Group, International Medical Corps, 
and Mercy Corps.
Introduction
As part of its Refine and Implement Phase, Amalima Loko studied why farmers choose to adopt (or not 
adopt) new agriculture and/or livestock practices and technologies. Understanding the motivations and 
barriers behind farmers’ decisions about new practices will help the program tailor its strategies and 
interventions and, ultimately, increase the uptake of improved practices. 
Research objectives:
• Identify improved agriculture and livestock practices already adopted by farmers, broken down by 
household types/ profiles
o Identify factors that motivated households to adopt
• Identify improved agriculture and livestock practices introduced to farmers but not adopted 
broken down by household types/ profiles
o Identify barriers to adoption for non-adopters
• Understand the motivation for households/ farmers to purchase livestock and what might 
motivate them to see livestock as a productive asset
• Identify those agriculture and livestock management practices which have the highest potential for 
adoption and how farmers can be motivated (what farmers require) to adopt these practices
Methodology
Amalima Loko conducted the study in two project districts in northwestern Zimbabwe, Binga and Lupane. 
The study used purposive sampling because it helped the research team easily identify subjects that fit into 
the study objectives. Specifically, this sampling approach guaranteed that the researcher examined farmers 
that have either adopted or not adopted the promoted practices (“doers” or “non-doers,” respectively).
1
The Amalima Loko research team conducted 72 in-depth interviews (IDIs) at the household level (48 in 
Binga, 24 in Lupane), 24 focus group discussions (FGDs) (16 in Binga, 8 in Lupane), and ten key informant 
interviews (KIIs) (six in Binga, four in Lupane). The research team collected and transcribed data from
January 19 to February 9, 2022. Data coding and analysis began on February 19 and ran through March 1, 
2022. 
1 Doers are farmers who practice in full or in part any one of the recommended crop or livestock practices. Non-doers are 
those who do not practice any of the recommended practices after exposure to them.
v
Key Findings
Table 1 outlines the study’s key findings by research question. 
Table 1: Key findings by research question
Research question Key findings
1. What are the primary 
motivations behind crop 
and livestock production 
(i.e., food, income, 
status, wealth store, 
cultural norms, etc.)?
The motivations for crop and livestock production are similar in the 
two districts. The motivations can be categorized as (1) economic 
and (2) social. 
Consumption and income are the main motivations for crop and 
livestock production, including the decision to grow cash crops.
Access to milk, meat, and eggs is a motivation for keeping livestock. 
Social factors, including enhanced social status from livestock 
ownership and having the ability to provide food for one’s family,
motivate farmers to grow crops and keep livestock. Farmers in both 
Binga and Lupane cited that livestock is used as part of social and 
cultural formalities such as paying bride prices (with cattle and goats) 
and for ritual slaughter. 
2. How do motivations 
affect production 
practices and the 
adoption of 
recommended 
improved practices?
While the study established why farmers produce crops and 
livestock, the effect of these motivations on the adoption of 
recommended practices remains unclear. While farmers are aware 
of the benefits of raising cattle, goats, and chickens (including for crop 
production), this awareness has not translated into the widespread 
adoption of practices—such as vaccination and improved livestock 
housing—that could improve livestock well-being. 
The study did find instances of congruence between a farmer’s 
motivation and production practices. For example, farmers, 
motivated by the need to improve yields for enhanced food security 
and possible sales, regularly use manure to improve soil fertility. 
More than 90 percent of the surveyed farmers who own cattle and 
goats acknowledged that they dig up manure and use it in their fields 
to improve soils. 
3. What motivated doers 
to adopt the introduced 
improved practices?
What steps did they 
take to adopt the new 
behavior? Who were the 
key actors involved?
When deciding whether to adopt improved practices, farmers have 
both (1) endogenous incentives and (2) exogenous incentives. 
Identified endogenous/intrinsic factors include perceived ease of use
and the attitude of farmers toward a practice.
Exogenous/extrinsic factors mainly have to do with cost. Farmers are 
more likely to adopt low-cost (or free) practices. For example, 14
percent of crop farmers interviewed (IDIs) reported that free inputs 
(improved seed, synthetic fertilizer) available through the Presidential 
Input Scheme motivated them to plant improved hybrid seed 
varieties/open-pollinated varieties (OPV). This contrasts with 72
percent of farmers who cited the “high costs” of seed as a deterrent. 
These views were corroborated by findings from FGDs and KIIs. 
vi
Research question Key findings
Awareness (or lack thereof) of improved practices influences 
adoption as well. Farmers who adopted improved seed said their 
decision was informed, in part, by information provided by Agritex
officers. Similarly, farmers who vaccinate their livestock against 
common diseases cite extension officers from the Department of 
Veterinary Services (DVS) as an influence. The farmers suggested that 
consulting and working closely with extension officers was a key step 
in adopting an improved practice.
4. Are the motivators and 
barriers to adoption the 
same/similar/different 
for the various 
agriculture and livestock 
management practices?
The study revealed a mixed bag of motivators and barriers for the 
various agriculture and livestock practices. In some instances, the 
motivators and barriers to adoption are similar across practices; in 
other instances, both the barriers and motivators are different. 
The following factors matter for all practices: (1) perceived benefits, 
(2) perceived high costs, (3) socio-cultural factors, and (4) negative 
farmer perceptions. Perceived benefits, unsurprisingly, greatly affect 
whether farmers (of crops and livestock) adopt improved practices
for both crop and livestock production. On the other hand, 
regardless of the benefits associated with improved practices, if the 
cost of implementing a practice is perceived to be high, farmers are 
less likely to adopt the practice. For example, non-adopters in both 
Binga and Lupane reported that they have not adopted improved 
hybrid and OPV seed varieties because they are “expensive” when 
compared to retained seed. High costs also discouraged some 
farmers from using artificial fertilizers to improve their soils. On 
livestock behaviors, less than five percent of surveyed farmers (IDIs) 
supplement their livestock with commercial feed, citing the high cost 
of feed as a deterrent.
5. What are the barriers to 
adoption for non-doers 
who have been 
introduced to improved 
management practices? 
What is the extent of 
the knowledge of the 
new practices that non￾doers have?
While the barriers to the adoption of improved behaviors are 
diverse, they can be categorized broadly as (1) endogenous and (2) 
exogenous. 
Lack of individual drive is an endogenous barrier that affects an 
individual’s willingness to adopt a practice. Individual preferences can 
be a barrier to adopting improved behaviors. For example, 83
percent of the surveyed farmers (IDIs) acknowledged that although 
they are well-versed with soil and moisture conservation techniques,
the desire to avoid drudgery was a major reason for not adopting 
these labor-intensive practices.
The perceived cost of an improved practice is the main exogenous 
barrier to adoption. The cost of many agricultural practices—seed, 
fertilizer, vaccines, commercial feed—comes upfront (i.e., before a 
farmer sees the value). For instance, 16 of the 36 livestock IDI 
respondents said the expense prevented them from providing 
supplementary feeding, vaccinating their livestock, and building 
improved livestock handling and housing facilities. Crop producers 
had similar comments about hybrid seed. The farmers who cited 
vii
Research question Key findings
these barriers acknowledged that they are fully aware of the benefits 
of adopting these improved practices.
The decision to adopt promoted practices may also be informed by 
negative experiences. The experiences might have happened to the 
farmer or to someone the farmer knows. Farmers in Binga and 
Lupane (IDIs, FGDs) cited instances where some hybrid seed 
distributed under the Presidential Input Scheme did not germinate. 
This experience discouraged them and other farmers from planting 
hybrid seed varieties. Some farmers, meanwhile, believe that vaccines 
“kill” livestock. Some farmers think the Newcastle disease vaccine 
kills chickens when, in fact, chickens could have died as a result of 
poor vaccine administration by community volunteers or the 
vaccination of sick birds. 
Institutional factors also prevent farmers from taking up promoted 
practices. One such barrier cited by farmers and corroborated by 
extension agents is the lack of improved seed varieties on the market 
in Binga. An agro-dealer said they had stopped selling improved 
seed—maize, in particular—because of a lack of demand (even at 
competitive prices i.e., equivalent to those of Bulawayo-based 
outlets). 
6. What might convince 
non-doers who have not 
adopted an improved 
behavior to do so? What 
are their top reasons for 
trying or not trying the 
behavior?
The study proposes several ways to motivate non-doers to adopt 
improved behaviors. The suggested incentives include capacity 
building (e.g., look-and-learn visits, demonstrations, training) and 
participation in village savings and loans (VSL) and livestock groups. 
Key informants stressed that training should emphasize “practical 
activities” such as look-and-learn visits and demonstrations for all 
promoted behaviors.
As noted above, cost is a major determinant of whether a farmer 
adopts an improved practice. Farmers appear willing to try out the 
less costly practices but will avoid high-cost practices—even when 
they have perceived benefits.
To address the barrier of costs, development partners should 
encourage farmers to form and join savings clubs and groups. These 
groups can strengthen the financial management capacity of farmers 
while also helping inculcate banking behavior into the rural 
community more generally. When fully embraced, savings groups and 
clubs may help expose communal farmers to formal financial 
institutions such as microfinance institutions and banks. 
Livestock groups should be established to improve livestock 
management by educating farmers on improved practices such as 
vaccination and the benefits of improved livestock handling and 
housing. Livestock groups can work hand in hand with VSLs with the 
latter being a vehicle to raise funds to improve livestock management.
viii
Research question Key findings
7. For all the above 
questions, how do 
gender dynamics impact 
adoption vs. non￾adoption? What 
strategies/ messaging 
are more or less 
effective for males and 
females?
Gender dynamics influence the adoption or non-adoption of new 
behaviors depending on whether households are female or male￾headed. The study suggested that men tend to have the final say when 
deciding whether to adopt promoted practices. The study also 
established that there is gendered division of labor with men taking 
the more strenuous roles, such a tree stumping and construction of 
cattle kraals. This might lead to constrained adoption of laborious 
practices amongst female headed households. 
A notable finding from KIIs is that more women participate in training 
than men. As such, women are more likely to be exposed to learning 
by doing, which can drive the adoption of improved practices. Also,
the greater participation of women in training helps incubate the
social learning that can lead to the adoption of improved practices.
Given that less men participate in community meetings, other 
platforms need to be used to increase men’s participation.
1
1. Background and Introduction
Amalima Loko is a five-year USAID/ Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA)-funded Resilience Food 
Security Activity (RFSA) designed to improve food and nutrition security in Zimbabwe through increased 
food access and sustainable watershed management. The program is implemented in Matabeleland North 
by a consortium led by CNFA and comprised of the Organization of Rural Associations for Progress, 
Dabane Water Workshops, The Manoff Group, International Medical Corps, and Mercy Corps. 
As part of its Refine and Implement Phase, Amalima Loko studied why farmers choose to adopt or not 
adopt new agriculture and/or livestock practices and technologies. Understanding the motivations and 
barriers behind farmers’ decisions will help the program tailor its strategies and interventions and, 
ultimately, better promote the adoption of improved practices.
Research objectives:
• Identify improved agriculture and livestock practices already adopted by farmers, broken down by 
household types/ profiles
o Identify factors that motivated households to adopt
• Identify improved agriculture and livestock practices introduced to farmers but not adopted 
broken down by household types/ profiles
o Identify barriers to adoption for non-adopters
• Understand the motivation for households/ farmers to purchase livestock and what might 
motivate them to see livestock as a productive asset
• Identify those agriculture and livestock management practices which have the highest potential for 
adoption and how farmers can be motivated (what farmers require) to adopt these practices
First, Amalima Loko defined a set of recommended agricultural and livestock practices (behaviors) to 
analyze. These practices included: 
1. Planting improved regionally appropriate hybrid/OPV seed varieties 
Farmers plant improved hybrid/OPV small grain (pearl millet, sorghum) varieties that are early 
maturing and drought-tolerant. 
2. Using soil and moisture conservation techniques such as conservation agriculture 
Farmers dig basins/open furrows and apply mulch (animal manure, compost, leaf material)/fertilizer 
(inorganic) at planting.
3. Vaccinating cattle, goats, and chickens against common diseases
Farmers vaccinate cattle (against quarter evil, anthrax, lumpy skin disease), goats (against pulpy 
kidney disease), and chickens (against Newcastle disease). 
4. Providing supplementary feeding to livestock during the dry season 
Farmers provide supplementary feeding to cattle, goats, and chickens during the dry season (June￾December) with crop stovers, grass, homemade feed mixes, and/or commercial feed.
5. Using improved livestock handling facilities
Farmers use a race with/without a crush to handle livestock during vaccination, treatment, or 
inspection. 
2
6. Using improved livestock housing facilities 
Farmers use roofed housing with adequate ventilation to house calves, goats, and chickens
Section 1.1 explores these practices in more depth, drawing on the program’s literature review, which 
examined factors influencing the adoption of promoted practices. Section 2 describes the study’s 
methodology, which used qualitative methods in recognition of the importance of drawing out participant 
experiences, attitudes, and perceptions and how they affect farmers' behavior. Section 3 presents key 
findings, while Section 4 offers recommendations. 
1.1 Literature Review
This section provides an overview of the literature on the adoption of technology by smallholder farmers. 
It explores the factors influencing the adoption of promoted practices. The literature review also cites an 
applicable theoretical framework that describes and explains the factors influencing farmer behavior. 
Technology Adoption in Agriculture: A Global Overview 
Improved practices contribute to increased productivity and overall agricultural development. Despite
these benefits, improved practices have not been consistently adopted by smallholder farmers. The 
process farmers in developing countries use to decide whether to adopt innovation is quite complex and, 
as such, requires intense interrogation.
2 This view is shared by Masere and Worth, who acknowledge that 
numerous factors affect the adoption of technology by small-scale farmers.
3 These factors include 
technology attributes (such as potential productivity gains after adoption, simplicity of use, cost); farmer 
circumstances (such as demographics, the scale of operation/land size, perception about the technology, 
affordability, access to credit facilities, availability and accessibility of knowledge and information support 
about the technology); and their operating environment (e.g., climatic factors, soil factors, slope, location 
in relation to road networks).
4 Saengavut and Jirasatthumb go further, categorizing this multiplicity of 
factors as intrinsic and extrinsic, as detailed below.
5
Intrinsic Variables
Attitude toward technology adoption intention
The attitude of the farmer plays a crucial role in the decision-making process.
6 Masere and Worth
conclude it is the most crucial factor to consider is how the farmer perceives a technology.
7 For example, 
when farmers receive information about a new agricultural opportunity, this information forms the basis 
of the perceptions and attitudes developed toward the technology early in the decision-making process.
8
It is these evaluated perceptions that influence farmer behaviors.
9
Perceived ease of use
2 Voravee Saengavut and Norachit Jirasatthumb, “Smallholder decision-making process in technology adoption intention: 
implications for Dipterocarpus alatus in Northeastern Thailand,” Elsevier 2021: 2,3
2 T.P Masere and S. Worth, “Influence of public agricultural extension on technology adoption by small-scale farmers in 
Zimbabwe,” South African Journal of Agricultural Extension, Volume 49, No 2, 2021
4 Ibid.
5 Voravee Saengavut and Norachit Jirasatthumb, “Smallholder decision-making process in technology adoption intention,” 2021
6 Ibid.
7 T.P Masere and S. Worth, “Influence of public agricultural extension on technology adoption by small-scale farmers in 
Zimbabwe,” South African Journal of Agricultural Extension, Volume 49, No 2, 2021
8 Voravee Saengavut and Norachit Jirasatthumb, “Smallholder decision-making process in technology adoption intention,” 2021
9 Ibid. 
3
Perceived ease of use also influences farmers’ decision-making. Perceived ease of use is the belief that a 
product or service will be free of physical, technical, intellectual, and other complications. Drawing on the 
research of others, Saengavut and Jirasatthumb report that perceptions around the ease with which 
technology can be used is a critical determinant in adoption.
10
Extrinsic Variables
Age
Age plays a role in encouraging and or impeding behavior change in people. For example, a study on 
agroforestry technologies in cocoa production indicated that younger farmers may be more willing than 
older ones to adopt new technologies, and take risks more generally.
11 However, more research is needed 
to study the effect of age on behavior change; quantitative research, in particular, could be useful in 
correlating age to other variables that explain behavior. 
Cost of implementation
Numerous studies have suggested that the cost of implementing a technology influences whether a farmer 
adopts a new practice.
12 Farmers weigh adoption benefits versus costs. Saengavut and Jirasatthumb, for 
example, argue that a net gain from using the new technology is a critical factor in the adoption process, 
especially for farmers in developing economies.
13 Although there are several facets to implementation 
costs, capital spending (on the innovation itself) is usually the decisive factor. This finding is evident in real￾life cases. For instance, a study found that a drop in subsidies for seed and fertilizers in Malawi prevented
some farmers from taking up conservation agriculture.
14 Beyond capital costs, intellectual costs play a role. 
By intellectual cost we mean whether the adoption of a new behavior requires new knowledge (e.g., about 
contemporary production methods). 
Experience and farmer characteristics
A farmer’s experiences influence whether they will adopt promoted practices. Saengavut and Jirasatthumb, 
for example, argue that experience is based on an individual’s social background and value-forming 
attitudes, and this forms the assessment processes which influence decision-making.
15 The farmer’s 
experience is a lens through which he compares current and new practices and, thus, is a factor influencing
adoption or non-adoption.
16
Environmental views around sustainable agriculture
Another exogenous factor influencing the uptake of new behaviors is the farmer’s perspective on the 
environment. The “environment perspective” consists of the farmer’s views on the quality of the 
environment, his or her conservation attitudes and beliefs, and their ecological worldviews.
17 According 
to Thompson et al., a farmer's willingness to commit to either a different or a conventional agriculture 
system is related to their environmental worldview.
18
10 Ibid. 
11 Ibid. 
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid. 
14 W. Muzari, W. Gatsi, S. Muvhunzi, “The impacts of technology adoption on smallholder agricultural productivity in sub–
Saharan Africa: a review,” J. Sustain. Dev 5, 2012
15 Ibid. 
16 Ibid. 
17 S.A. Henning, Y. Zhong, and H. Cardona, “Ecological attitudes of farmers and adoption of best management practices,” 
Southwestern Econom. Proceed. 31 (2), 57–70, 2012
18 A.W. Thompson, A. Reimer, and L.S. Prokopy, “Farmers’ views of the environment: the influence of competing attitude 
frames on landscape conservation efforts, Agric. Hum. Val. 32 (3), 385–399, 2015
4
Theoretical Framework
The literature cited above is consistent with the “Theory of Planned Behavior/Theory of Reasoned 
Action,” which offers a model for farmer decision-making (see Figure 1). The model suggests that the 
likelihood of a person adopting a certain behavior depends on (1) attitudes – an individual’s beliefs, 
worldviews, and opinions of a particular behavior, (2) subjective norms – these determine whether a 
particular behavior is considered normal as compared to what peers are doing, and (3) perceived 
behavioral control – which relates to either how easy it is for an individual to implement a particular 
behavior and/or the extent to which they feels in control of the decision-making process.
19
The Theory of Planned Behavior is helpful to this study in two ways. First, the theory offers a model for 
understanding how resource-poor smallholder farmers decide whether to take up promoted technologies. 
Second, the model suggests that one’s attitude and perceptions inform his or her behavior. Understanding 
attitudes and behavior will help Amalima Loko better target its interventions.
Figure 1: Theory of Planned Behavior
Adapted from Ajzen, 199120
Agriculture Technology Adoption in Zimbabwe
In Zimbabwe, government extension workers are the leading promoters of improved agricultural practices
and technologies, through non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the private sector also play a role. 
However, small-scale farmers have not adopted most of the methods recommended by the Department 
of Agricultural, Technical, and Extension Services (Agritex). Some research attributes this to farmers’ 
dependence on “indigenous knowledge” (i.e., what has worked for them in the past).
21 Extension agents 
perceive this knowledge as an impediment to technology adoption.
22 More generally, research in 
Zimbabwe shows that farmers are resistant to change and slow to accept outside help, including new and 
19 Voravee Saengavut and Norachit Jirasatthumb, “Smallholder decision-making process in technology adoption intention,” 2021
20 Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 (2): 179-211
21 T.P Masere and S. Worth, “Influence of public agricultural extension on technology adoption by small-scale farmers in 
Zimbabwe,” South African Journal of Agricultural Extension, Volume 49, No 2, 2021
22 Ibid.
5
modern technology.
23 This finding points to a need to invest in participatory approaches, including farmer￾driven technology development and menus of alternatives, to ensure farmers can decide what they may 
need.
24
Perhaps conforming to the tenets of the Theory of Planned Behavior, Masere and Worth submit that the 
most crucial factor determining technology adoption among smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe is how the 
farmer perceives a technology.
25 Afterward, the farmer may look at their circumstances to see if they 
permit adoption. 
Conservation Agriculture (CA)
CA has been widely promoted in Zimbabwe to preserve soil health and mitigate the impacts of climate 
change considerations. Mugandani, for example, points out that CA has been promoted in Zimbabwe to 
combat the decline in soil fertility, restore degraded land, and stabilize yields in smallholder farming 
systems.
26 The adoption of CA practices in Zimbabwe, however, has been limited, with only an estimated 
8.3 percent of total arable land being managed using the principles of conservation agriculture (as of 
2014).
27
Among the reasons for the limited adoption of CA is its labor intensity. For example, minimizing soil 
disturbance increases the need for manual weeding.
28 This view is supported by a farmer in Tsholotsho,
who remarked that:
“Conservation farming (Gatshompo) is unsuitable for the elderly farmers. Digging holes 
and removing weeds at least three times is not what they are used to. Although in my 
opinion, the yields are higher than on conventionally tilled land the intense labor involved 
is simply a deterrent. They cannot cope especially in the face of a scorching sun.29” 
Knowledge is another factor influencing the adoption of conservation agriculture approaches. When 
farmers move from conventional systems to conservation agriculture, they must learn new agronomic and 
land management techniques.30 As such, lack of knowledge has been cited as one of the significant
challenges to the early adoption of conservation agriculture.31 Lack of equipment is also a considerable
constraint to the adoption of conservation agriculture practices.32
Hybrid and regionally appropriate seed
While some smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe are already growing drought-resistant crops to cope with
climate change, uptake has rather been disappointing. Researchers for the “Impact of adoption of drought￾tolerant maize varieties on total maize production in southeastern Zimbabwe” study, for example, asked 
households that did not grow drought-tolerant maize varieties the reasons behind their decisions. In 
Chiredzi, households that did not grow drought-tolerant maize varieties cited three main reasons: (1)
“lack of finance” to purchase maize seeds on the market, (2) “poorly labelled drought-tolerant maize 
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid.
26 Raymond Mugandani, “Conceptualising conservation agriculture adoption in Zimbabwe,” UKZ, 2020
27 M. Richards, et al., Conservation Agriculture: Implementation guidance for policymakers and investors, Rome, 2014
28 Leonard Rusinamhodzi, “Tinkering on the periphery: labour burden not crop productivity increased under no-till planting 
basins on smallholder farms in Murehwa district, Zimbabwe,” Field Crops Research, 170, 66–75, 2015
29 Rodney Witman Lunduka, Kumbirai Ivyne Mateva, Cosmos Magorokosho, and Pepukai Manjeru, “Impact of adoption of 
drought-tolerant maize varieties on total maize production in south Eastern Zimbabwe,” Climate and Development., 11:1, 35-
46, 2019
30 Raymond Mugandani, “Conceptualising conservation agriculture adoption in Zimbabwe”
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid. 
6
packages,”’ and (3) “unavailability of drought-tolerant maize at [the] local market.”33 These findings were 
mirrored in Chipinge.
34 (Similar sentiments were also revealed in this study.) Other studies report similar 
findings and delve into the obstacles farmers face in adopting drought-tolerant maize in Southern Africa,
including the inaccessibility of improved seed, insufficient information and resources, high seed prices, and 
the farmers’ negative perceptions of the seed variety.
35
The “Small grains ‘resistance’? Making sense of Zimbabwean smallholder farmers’ cropping choices and 
patterns within a climate change context” study found that despite efforts to promote small grains in 
Zimbabwe, production has been on the decline.36 Among the reasons offered are labor-related challenges
among smallholder farmers in sorghum and millet processing. In response, farmers turn to maize
production, which is less burdensome than the cultivation of sorghum and millet. Another preference for 
maize is for its crop residue to be used as stover and organic matter for increasing soil fertility.37
Small grains production is also unappealing to smallholder farmers for other reasons. One reason is that 
the crops are attractive to red-billed quelea birds, which, in particular, have been an ongoing challenge on 
small grain crops in Zimbabwe. In addition, the uptake of small grains is also hampered by the cost of small 
grains seed. Farmers also prefer maize because of the taste and the higher yield potential in a year where 
rainfall is average. In Tsholotsho, studies revealed that most seed retailers stock more maize seed varieties 
than sorghum or pearl millet.
38 This could be because stocking decisions are largely driven by turnover 
rates (i.e., seed may sell faster than small grain seed). The limited availability of seed is an issue not only in
Tsholotsho but also in the rest of Zimbabwe. 
Livestock supplementary feeding
Livestock—cattle, goats, sheep, pigs, chickens, and other farm animals—is a lifeline for many of the world’s 
poorest people. Livestock production is growing more difficult, however. Persistent drought in many 
areas, for example, requires communal farmers to provide supplementary feeding over a longer period, 
increasing production costs. It is in this context that most communal cattle farmers in Zimbabwe have 
embraced preserving and using crop residues as a short-term dry season feed measure. This preference 
also stems from a lack of funds to buy stock feed.
39
2. Methodology
This study sought to identify the motivations and barriers behind farmers’ decisions to adopt or not adopt 
six promoted cropping and livestock practices in Binga and Lupane districts in Matabeleland North 
Province in Zimbabwe. A qualitative methodology was appropriate in this case because the study sought 
to understand farmers’ perspectives, knowledge, experiences, attitudes, and needs. More details on the 
methodology can be found below.
33 Rodney Witman Lunduka, Kumbirai Ivyne Mateva, Cosmos Magorokosho, and Pepukai Manjeru, “Impact of adoption of 
drought-tolerant maize varieties on total maize production in south eastern Zimbabwe”
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid. 
36 Keith Phiri, Thulani Dube, Philani Moyo, Cornelias Ncube & Sibonokuhle Ndlovu | (2019) Small grains “resistance”? Making 
sense of Zimbabwean smallholder farmers’ cropping choices and patterns within a climate change context, Cogent Social 
Sciences, 5:1, 1622485, DOI: 10.1080/23311886.2019.1622485
37 Ibid. 
38 Ibid. 
39 Thabo Ndlovu, “Coping with drought: Reflection of communal cattle farmers in Umzingwane district in Zimbabwe,” Jàmbá: 
Journal of Disaster Risk Studies 11(1), a813, 2019
7
2.1 Study Area
The research team conducted this study in Binga and Lupane districts, two areas where Amalima Loko 
operates (see figure 2).
Figure 2: Study Location
2.2 Sampling
The study used two-staged purposive sampling because it helped the research team easily identify subjects 
that fit into the study objectives. Specifically, this sampling approach guaranteed that the researcher 
examined farmers that have either adopted or not adopted the promoted practices (“doers” or “non￾doers”).40 Program staff conducted 72 in-depth interviews at the household level (48 in Binga, 24 in 
Lupane), 24 focus group discussions (16 in Binga, 8 in Lupane), and ten key informant interviews (six in 
Binga, four in Lupane). 
Participants in the IDIs and FGDs were divided into two main categories: “doers” and “non-doers.” The 
study identified doers and non-doers through a two-stage process. First, Amalima Loko staff engaged 
community-based Agritex and DVS agents to help develop lists of “good” and “not so good” farmers 
divided by crop and livestock producers. “Good” represented the doers while “not so good” represented 
40 Doers are defined as those farmers who practice in full or in part any one of the recommended crop or livestock practices. 
Non-doers are defined as those who do not practice any of the recommended practices after exposure to them.
Binga district is in north-western Zimbabwe. 
Typically a low-lying area, Binga falls mostly under 
agro-ecological zone five (though a small part of 
Binga, Lusulu, is classified as agro-ecological zone 
three). The soil in the district is sandy with low 
inherent fertility. The district receives low, 
erratic rainfall (350 – 500mm per annum), which 
limits crop production; it also experiences high 
temperatures. The district is well known for its 
substantial wildlife population, which sometimes 
affects crop and livestock production through 
human-wildlife conflicts. Due to the proximity to 
the Zambezi River and Kariba Dam, fishing is a 
key livelihood. 
Lupane is also located in north-western 
Zimbabwe. Most of the district falls under agro￾ecological region four. Rainfall is rather low, 
averaging 500 – 600mm per annum. Summers are 
hot, and winters are dry and cool. This climate 
predisposes farmers to a mixed farming system 
although the conditions are favorable for 
livestock production. Lupane has significant 
resources including limestone, methane gas, and 
timber.
8
the non-doers. The team arrived at this nomenclature after the field-testing study tools in Tsholotsho, 
where they found this is how Agritex and DVS agents differentiated doers from non-doers. The second 
stage used interview screening questions to help the enumerators confirm the participants’ classification 
as a doer or non-doer. Key informants were purposively selected from both districts.
Study Demographics 
Gender. Women accounted for 63 percent of the study respondents; men made up the remaining 37
percent (more women than men participated in both the FGDs and IDIs).
Age. The study divided the respondents into two age groups: (1) youth (18-35 years) and (2) those over 
the age of 36. Youth made up 28 percent of study participants; the remaining 72 percent of the IDI and 
FGD respondents were over the age of 36. The comparatively limited number of youth participants could 
be the result of high migration rates among youth, who move to other (mostly urban) areas in search of 
employment.
Education. Most study participants had primary school education, though more than 25 percent had 
secondary education (see Figure 3). 
Figure 3: Level of Education
2.3 Development of Data Collection Tools
The Lead Investigator led the development of the study tools. The draft tools were then discussed and 
improved in a two-day meeting with selected subject experts at Amalima Loko. The study tools included
(I) in-depth interview tools for household interviews (tailored to crops and livestock), (2) focus group 
discussion tools for livestock and crop production behaviors targeted at female and male farmers, and (3) 
key informant interview tools targeted at Agritex staff (district and ward), DVS staff (district and ward), 
community leaders (headman, chiefs, village heads, councilors), and agro-dealers.
The IDI tools were designed to explore the factors promoting or impeding the adoption of recommended 
practices at an individual level while FGDs enabled the study to understand better the factors promoting 
or discouraging adoption. Dividing the FGDs into men’s and women’s groups helped isolate any gendered 
differences (albeit in a rather subliminal manner) in factors that affect technology. The KIIs were designed 
to elicit more informed input into the inquiry. As such, “difficult” questions on socio-cultural determinants 
of technology adoption were included in the KIIs. The enumerators received three days of training, which 
focused on the study objectives, study tools, and research protocols. 
9
Research Questions
1. What are the primary motivations behind crop and livestock production (i.e., food, income, 
status, wealth store, cultural norms, etc.)?
2. How do motivations affect production practices and the adoption of recommended improved 
practices?
3. What motivated doers to adopt the introduced improved practices? What steps did they take 
to adopt the new behavior? Who were the key actors involved? 
• What challenges did adopters face and how did they overcome them?
• What are the key elements that enable these farmers to practice the new behaviors?
• What messages would they give to convince fellow farmers to adopt the new behavior?
4. Are the motivators and barriers to adoption the same/similar/different for the various 
agriculture and livestock management practices?
5. What are the barriers to adoption for non-doers who have been introduced to improved 
management practices? What is the extent of the knowledge of the new practices that non￾doers have? 
• Have the non-doers tried to adopt new practices? What are their reasons for sticking 
with these practices?
• What factors motivate non-doers to continue using other practices despite having been 
introduced to new ones? What are the attitudes and impressions of non-doers on new 
practices? What practices are they using instead of the recommended ones?
6. What might convince non-doers who have not adopted an improved behavior to do so? What 
are their top reasons for trying or not trying the behavior?
7. For all the above questions, how do gender dynamics impact adoption vs. non-adoption? What 
strategies/messaging are effective for males and females?
Testing and finalizing the tools
The team tested the tools in Tsholotsho. This testing phase entailed conducting six IDIs (split equally 
between livestock and crop production behaviors), three KIIs (covering ward-based extension officers, a 
councilor, and an agro-dealer), and four FGDs. The team revised the study tools based on feedback (in 
discussion with the Amalima Loko team) before deploying them for data collection.
2.4 Data Collection and Analysis
Data collection commenced in Lupane on January 18, 2022, and in Binga on January 19, and continued 
through January 27. Between January 31 and February 9, 2022, the team transcribed data and sent the 
transcripts to the Lead Researcher. After collating the transcripts, the Lead Researcher led the team in 
developing a codebook that would inform the coding in Dedoose (February 15-18, 2022). Coding began 
on February 19 and continued through March 1, 2022. Coding ensured that responses gathered in the 
study were categorized into the various thematic areas as ordered in the codebook. 
2.5 Study Limitations
The study faced several limitations. While qualitative methods are effective for studying subtle nuances in 
attitudes and behaviors, they do not produce statistical descriptions. As such, the study findings focus on 
describing farmer attitudes and behaviors as well as the factors underpinning such attitudes. In addition, 
10
in the absence of such statistical data, the study deliberately avoided using variables such as age, gender,
and level of education to explain the motivation of farmers to adopt or not adopt recommended practices. 
Accordingly, the statistics presented in this report are merely descriptive, describing single variables. 
3. Findings
This section is organized around the research questions. 
3.1 What are the primary motivations behind crop and livestock 
production (i.e., food, income, status, wealth store, cultural norms, etc.)?
The study established that motivations for producing crops and livestock were similar in both districts.
Also common were the types of crops and livestock being produced. For example, cattle, goats, and 
indigenous chickens were the most common livestock kept by farmers in both Binga and Lupane. Other 
poultry species such as guinea fowl, turkeys, and pigeons were also popular with farmers in both districts. 
Some farmers in Binga also kept pigs. While the motivations for keeping livestock vary by species, they fall 
into two broad categories (1) economic motivation and (2) social motivations. Within the two major 
classifications, are also sub-classifications such as farmer attitudes to promoted practices, farmer 
experience (either personal or observed) with the different practices, and perceptions of ease of use.
These motivations apply to crops as well, as described below.
Economic Motivations
Livestock Production
One of the main reasons farmers keep livestock is the benefits afforded to crop production, the main 
livelihood of many smallholder farmers. For example, cattle are a source of draught power for tillage and 
transport; farmers also use cattle to transport inputs and farm produce. Even farmers who rely on donkeys 
for draught power and transportation indicated a preference for cattle. Manure was also a reason to keep 
cattle and goats. Unable to afford synthetic fertilizer, most farmers rely on manure. 
In addition, household consumption was a key motivator. Cattle and, in some instances, goats provide 
milk (for domestic consumption and in some cases local sales), meat, and other valuable by-products such 
as hides. The consumption incentive is also evident in small livestock production, primarily chickens. 
Chickens provide meat and eggs for home consumption and can also be sold to generate income.
Farmers in Binga and Lupane (FGDs) also report using livestock as stores of value. Livestock (mainly 
chickens and goats) can be sold to pay for school fees, medical costs, and other household expenses. 
Chickens, in particular, are used in barter trade, which is a vital part of “cashless” rural communities. 
Chickens are also used as a form of payment for services rendered (e.g., farm labor, the construction of 
livestock housing). In addition, 44 percent of respondents viewed livestock (cattle) as a store of value that 
can be liquidated at appropriate times. This according to the farmers is one of the major incentives for 
cattle ownership.
Crop Production
Maize, sorghum, and pearl millet were the three major crops produced by farmers in Binga and Lupane. 
Most respondents said their motivations were subsistence (household consumption and income). A farmer 
from Lubu in Binga was direct, saying “we get our food through farming.” This partly explains the popularity 
11
of cereal crops among farmers. Farmers stressed that they grow certain crops to generate income, which 
explains reports of growing cash crops. Of the three main crops mentioned, red sorghum was the primary
“cash” crop. KIIs and FGDs in both Binga and Lupane revealed that some farmers have contracts for red 
sorghum with two off-takers (Delta and Ingwebu). Of the surveyed farmers, 19 percent (IDIs) said they 
are motivated to grow crops since they can use crop residue to feed their livestock. Farmers also use 
crops as a medium of payment and for barter trade. 
Social Motivations
Livestock Production
Farmers also keep livestock, cattle, and goats for social reasons. Raising cattle can enhance a farmer’s 
social status, for example. Cattle and goats are also used for social and cultural practices (e.g., the payment 
of bride prices, ritual slaughter). 
3.2 How do motivations affect production practices and the adoption of 
recommended improved practices?
The study did not find a strong relationship between existing production practices and farmers' motivation 
to adopt recommended practices. For example, while there is a clear relationship between livestock and
crop production, the effect of these motivations on the adoption of recommended livestock practices is 
ambiguous. Despite being aware of livestock’s contribution to crop productivity, the adoption of practices 
to improve the health, safety, and wellbeing of livestock is limited. Outside of free government-initiated
vaccination campaigns (covering anthrax, foot and mouth disease, and Newcastle disease), less than five 
percent of the surveyed farmers have vaccinated livestock against common killer diseases such as lumpy 
skin disease, blackleg, and heartwater. 
Some instances of congruence between a farmer’s motivation and production practices, however, are 
evident. For instance, the farmers said the manure production is a major motivator for keeping cattle and 
goats (more than 80 percent of the surveyed farmers who own cattle and goats said they dig up manure 
and use it in their fields to improve soils). However, it is unclear if the use of manure for soil improvement 
is a result of intrinsic motivation or a necessity (more than 90 percent of the surveyed farmers faced
financial constraints that make it difficult to buy fertilizer). 
While the economic benefits of livestock (cattle, goats, and chickens) and crops (maize, sorghum, and 
pearl millet) among the surveyed farmers cannot be overstated, the effect of these economic motivations 
on production practices is mixed. This finding suggests that negative characteristics can outweigh positive 
benefits. For example, while features such as high yield potential make an improved seed attractive, the 
crop is perceived to be susceptible to pests and diseases, unpalatable, and has a poor shelf life.
Similarly, the study did not find a strong relationship between social motivations and the adoption of 
recommended practices. Given the significance of cattle, goats, and chickens in cultural practices, for 
example, one would expect corresponding investment in the well-being of livestock (i.e., in vaccination, 
improved housing and handling). Still, the adoption of the recommended practices remains low. 
12
3.3 What motivated doers to adopt the introduced improved practices? 
What steps did they take to adopt the new behavior? Who were the key 
actors involved?
Doers adopted improved behaviors for a range of different reasons. These motivations can be divided 
into two main categories, which apply to both livestock and crop production: (1) endogenous incentives
and (2) exogenous incentives. Each category is discussed in more detail below. 
Endogenous Incentives
Perceived Ease of Use
Perceived ease of use influences a farmer’s decision to adopt a new practice. Ease of use is nurtured by 
simple and clear product labeling. Some farmers who have begun planting improved seeds say clear labeling
makes it easy to grow improved varieties. A farmer in Lupane pointed out that the labels on hybrid seed 
packs are easy to understand and “… answer all her questions.” 
Farmers’ Attitude toward a Practice
Unsurprisingly, a farmer with a positive attitude toward a promoted behavior is more likely to adopt it. A 
positive attitude can be cultivated by providing farmers opportunities to “see” or “hear” about the benefits 
of a practice. Extension agents and social networks (relatives, friends, and neighbors) play important roles
in shaping farmers’ attitudes toward agricultural practices. A female farmer in Lupane (IDI, ward 18), for 
example, said she took up supplementary feeding after observing its benefits on a neighbor’s homestead. 
In three years of providing supplementary feeding to his cattle, the neighbor had not lost a single animal 
to drought. Seeing the benefits in person motivated the farmer to adopt supplementary feeding despite 
the high cost of commercial feed. Other farmers concurred and added that it helped to see cattle in good 
condition and health. Observed protection from predation and resistance to notifiable disease similarly 
cultivated positive attitudes toward practices such as “use of improved livestock housing” and “vaccination 
of cattle, goats, and chickens against common diseases.” 
Exogenous Incentives
Availability
Fourteen percent of farmers (IDIs) reported that they planted improved hybrid/OPV pearl millet and
sorghum varieties (early maturing, drought-tolerant) because the seed is easily accessible through the 
Presidential Input Scheme. Some farmers pointed out that these free inputs enabled them to evaluate the 
efficacy of hybrid seed varieties for themselves. Adoption was also facilitated by the awareness-raising 
efforts of extension service providers. 
Perceived Cost of Practice
The cost of a practice influences whether a farmer will adopt it. Farmers are more likely to adopt those 
low-cost or even free practices. As noted above, 14 percent of crop farmers said the availability of free 
inputs (hybrid seed, synthetic fertilizer) through the Presidential Input scheme motivated them to plan 
13
improved/OPV seed varieties.41 By contrast, 72 percent of the farmers said “high costs” deterred them
from adopting improved seed (these views were corroborated by findings from FGDs and KIIs).
Cost plays a similar role in the adoption of recommended livestock practices. For instance, some farmers 
in Binga (FGD) reported having built improved housing facilities for cattle and goats thanks to the almost 
“zero” cost of building materials such as logs and stones. Similarly, almost all the interviewed farmers in 
Binga and Lupane said they vaccinate their livestock against notifiable diseases such as anthrax (cattle) and 
Newcastle disease (chickens) because the government provides the vaccines for free. Another example: 
More than 90 percent of surveyed farmers use crop residues to supplement feed their cattle because the 
crop residue from their fields is “free.” 
Steps toward Adoption
Awareness of recommended practices also drives adoption. Farmers using improved seed said information 
and outreach by AGRITEX influenced their decisions. Livestock producers also said DVS extension officers 
informed them about the importance of vaccinating livestock against common notifiable diseases. Six
farmers who purchase vaccines through a group said they consult DVS for advice before vaccinating their 
livestock. “We work in groups, and we meet occasionally to discuss ways of raising money to buy vaccines.
We also meet with the Veterinary Officer who will assist us in buying the vaccines,” said one farmer from 
Lupane. 
According to the farmers using improved practices, non-adopting farmers should be taught about 
recommended practices. Farmers said that extension agents and lead farmers should gather farmers, offer 
training, and convey key messages. They argue that non-adopters will learn more through observation. 
3.4 Are the motivators and barriers to adoption the same/ similar/ 
different for the various agriculture and livestock management 
practices?
Motivators and barriers to the adoption of recommended practices vary widely. Common motivations 
across all the practices include perceived benefits and low cost of implementation. Access to free inputs, 
materials, and implements, for example, unsurprisingly encourages the adoption of improved seed, artificial 
fertilizer, vaccines, and, to an extent, supplementary feed (in cases where donations are made by NGOs). 
Positive farmer perceptions also motivated farmers to adopt recommended practices such as 
supplementary feeding of cattle. 
Most farmers cited high costs as the main barrier to adopting recommended practices. Farmers tend to 
shun technologies with high implementation costs. This finding holds across all six recommended cropping 
and livestock practices. Unavailability of inputs and material (e.g., seed, vaccine), unsurprisingly, also 
prevents the adoption of recommended practices. 
Below we explore the motivations and barriers to the adoption of the six practices examined in this study. 
1. Planting of improved regionally appropriate hybrid/OPV seed varieties (Farmers plant 
improved hybrid/OPV small grain (pearl millet, sorghum) varieties that are early maturing and drought 
tolerant.) 
41 Although the Presidential Input Scheme has been instrumental in getting farmers to plant improved hybrid and OPV seed 
varieties, the scheme has faced challenges. Farmers in the two districts reported receiving inputs rather late, for example. 
Farmers also complained that the 5kg seed packs are inadequate to meet their needs. This is one of the reasons causing the 
farmers to use retained seed. 
14
Farmers who plant regionally appropriate improved hybrid and/or OPV seed varieties said they do so 
because of the perceived benefits (i.e., high yields, drought tolerance). These benefits, however, do not 
outweigh the high costs. Non-adopters say they do not use improved hybrid and OPV seed varieties 
because they are “expensive.” This finding explains why 70 percent of adopters report using free seed 
distributed under the Presidential Inputs Scheme. Farmers also report looking at the overall cost of 
planting improved seed. For example, farmers believe improved seed are susceptible to pests and disease, 
which would not only cut yields but also increase costs by necessitating the use of chemical treatments 
and pesticides. 
Some farmers simply lack access to improved seed. Adopting farmers in both Lupane and Binga said that 
improved seed is not readily available in their localities. 
Socio-cultural factors also influence whether a farmer decides to plant improved seed varieties. Farmers 
in Lupane and Binga say they prefer retained seed varieties because the resulting grains taste better than 
those grown from hybrid and OPV seed. 
Farmer perceptions—a product of their experiences and observations—are also a barrier to the adoption 
of planting of improved seed varieties. For example, some farmers chose not to plant improved seed after 
noticing the poor germination of the seed distributed under the Presidential Input Scheme. The negative 
perception reinforced the farmers’ belief in retained seed. 
2. Use of soil and moisture conservation techniques such as conservation agriculture
(Farmers dig basins/open furrows and apply mulch [animal manure, compost, leaf material]/fertilizer [in￾organic] at planting.)
Cost is a significant factor when deciding whether to apply improved soil and moisture conservation 
practices. High costs discouraged some farmers from using artificial fertilizers, for example, which explains 
the reliance on animal manure. 
Over 85 percent (IDIs) report that they have not fully adopted conservation agriculture techniques 
because they are labor-intensive. The need to stump, pothole, apply manure, and weed makes the practices
unattractive, especially among elderly farmers and those living with disabilities (although study respondents 
said drudgery is a concern for all farmers). 
Lack of material—mulch in the case of conservation agriculture—was also cited as a barrier. 
3. Vaccination of cattle, goats, and chickens against common diseases (Farmers vaccinate 
cattle [quarter evil, anthrax, lumpy skin disease], goats [pulpy kidney disease], and chickens [Newcastle 
disease].)
Cost is a factor in vaccination as well. As is the case with the uptake of improved seed varieties, most
farmers who vaccinate their livestock (90 percent) do so using free vaccines provided by the DVS (i.e., for 
anthrax, foot-and-mouth disease, and Newcastle disease). The same farmers often do not vaccinate against 
other similarly harmful diseases (e.g., lumpy skin disease and blackleg), citing high costs as the reason. 
Often, vaccines are simply unavailable. Some farmers complained that vaccines are not readily available at 
their local agro-dealers, forcing them to travel to Bulawayo (or send someone on their behalf). This added 
step increases the cost of the vaccines. As a result, farmers resort to ethnoveterinary practices when their 
animals fall sick. 
In addition, some farmers have a negative perception of vaccinations. For example, some farmers believe 
the Newcastle vaccine kills chickens, when, in fact, the deaths of vaccinated chickens are likely a result of 
poorly administered vaccines (by community volunteers) or the vaccination of sick birds. 
15
4. Supplementary feeding of cattle during the dry season (Farmers provide supplementary 
feeding to cattle, goats, and chickens during the dry season [June-December] with crop stovers, grass, 
homemade feed mixes, and/or commercial feeds.)
High costs can prevent farmers from providing supplementary feed to cattle and chickens. As a result of 
these costs, farmers adopt the practice only in part (i.e., using crop residue rather than commercial feed). 
Less than five percent of surveyed farmers supplement their cattle with commercial feed, for example. 
Contrast this percentage with the 95 percent of surveyed farmers (IDIs) who say they use stover, which 
can be treated by adding molasses to improve palatability) from crop residues and sorghum and pearl 
millet grain to supplement feed cattle and chickens, respectively. All the farmers agreed that they use 
stover because it is “affordable,” even though it is often inadequate.
Availability is also a factor. Farmers who lack adequate stover for their cattle and the funds for commercial 
feed often practice relief grazing (i.e., migrating animals to areas with enough grazing) (FGDs, KIIs).
Positive perceptions motivate the adoption of supplementary feeding. As noted above, one farmer in 
Lupane began supplementary feeding after observing that her neighbor had not lost a single animal in three 
years of supplementary feeding. 
5. Use of improved livestock handling facilities (Farmers use a race with/without a crush to handle 
livestock during vaccination, treatment, or inspection.) 
While farmers acknowledged the benefits of having their own cattle handling crushes, less than five 
percent of the surveyed farmers said they had constructed the facilities, citing a lack of resources.
Farmers went on to say they have always used affordable methods, such as handling animals with ropes, 
which has contributed to indifference towards the practice. Also, the farmers said they are also able to 
use “free” handling facilities at the dip tank. However, observations reveal that the distance to these dip 
tanks can be considerable, which might inhibit farmers form using the handling facilities when the need 
arises.
6. Use of improved livestock housing facilities (Farmers use roofed housing with adequate 
ventilation for the housing of calves, goats, and chickens.)
Over 40 percent of farmers said they lacked the resources to improve livestock housing. When asked 
why he had not built an improved kraal for his goats, one farmer in Binga explained, “there are no big 
trees around. The trees are found far away. We buy the logs.” Improving livestock housing is also labor￾intensive, requiring farmers not only to build the facilities but also to cut and transport logs. Additionally, 
one of the barriers to improved housing for poultry was the infestation of diseases if chickens are housed.
The motivations for improving livestock housing include safety (of calves, from predation), increased milk 
(when calves are housed separately from their mothers), and the ease of collecting manure.
3.5 What are the barriers to adoption for non-doers who have been 
introduced to improved management practices? What is the extent of 
the knowledge of the new practices that non-doers have?
Just like the motivations, the barriers to the adoption of improved practices are diverse. They can be
divided into two main categories: (1) endogenous barriers and (2) exogenous barriers. 
16
Endogenous Barriers
Individual preference
Individual preference and circumstances can reduce a farmer’s willingness (and ability) to adopt improved 
practices, especially labor-intensive practices associated with soil and moisture conservation. Farmers in 
Binga and Lupane (KIIs, FGDs) said that some farmers simply prefer the relative ease of conventional 
farming, despite being aware of the benefits of adopting recommended practices. Although not 
widespread, indifferent attitudes toward new technologies were also highlighted as a barrier to the 
adoption of promoted practices. 
Exogenous Barriers
Perceived Cost of Practice
Many agricultural practices—the use of improved seed and synthetic fertilizer—require up-front costs. 
These costs were among the most commonly cited barriers to using improved practices. Hybrid seed, for 
example, are quite expensive. One farmer even said that often she must sell a goat to buy just one pack 
of hybrid seed. To minimize these costs, farmers keep planting retained seed. 
Another impediment to adoption—which also has cost implications—is the perceived susceptibility of
hybrid/OPV maize varieties to pests such as Fall Army Worm in the field and weevils in storage. This
perceived susceptibility “necessitates” the purchase of pesticides, which many farmers cannot afford. 
Costs also prevent farmers from providing supplementary feed to livestock. Although farmers in Binga 
and Lupane understand the nutritional benefits of commercial feed, the cost of the feed ($18 for 50kg in 
Bulawayo for cattle feed, $33 for chickens) is prohibitive. They instead rely on stover from crop residue 
or relief grazing, both of which are perceived as less costly.
While vaccination of cattle and chickens against anthrax and Newcastle disease, respectively, is almost 
universal thanks to a free government program, few farmers can afford to vaccinate their livestock against 
other diseases such as quarter evil (around $8), lumpy skin disease ($40), and pulpy kidney disease ($5).
This forces farmers to be reactive, acting only when livestock get sick (e.g., using ethnoveterinary remedies 
to treat sick animals).
Negative Socio-Cultural Perceptions 
Socio-cultural perceptions greatly influence behavior. Some farmers in Lupane, for example, resisted 
planting improved seeds out of fear that high yields would make them vulnerable to witchcraft attacks 
from “jealous” enemies. Some 80 percent of farmers in Binga prefer “housing” their indigenous chickens 
in trees, despite understanding the benefits of improved housing. Cited reasons included (i) it is “their way 
of doing things,” (ii) it makes it very hard for thieves to steal the chickens as compared to when the 
chickens are in a coop, and (iii) caged birds are more prone to diseases and spread of the same compared 
to when they are housed in trees 
Negative Farmer Experience and Perceptions
The study revealed that some farmers resist improved practices because of negative experiences. Farmers 
in Binga and Lupane (IDIs, FGDs) cited cases of hybrid seeds distributed under the Presidential Input 
Scheme not germinating. This failure discouraged them and other farmers from adopting hybrid seed 
varieties. In other cases, yields were low, reducing trust in improved seeds. Thus, farmers prefer to plant 
“trusted” retained seed just as their forefathers have done before them. One female farmer from Lupane 
emphatically conveyed: “I have already selected my (retained) seed and (it) has better germination than 
the hybrids/OPV.” Some farmers who grow sorghum in Lupane noted that pests such as birds are a major 
challenge, and farmers who have experienced heavy losses have opted not to grow sorghum next season. 
17
KIIs in Binga revealed that some farmers had developed negative perceptions towards vaccination mainly 
due to a lack of understanding how vaccines are used. Some farmers in Binga administered the Newcastle
vaccine to infected chickens. The chickens died, and the farmers attributed the deaths to the vaccine.
High labor requirements also deter farmers from adopting recommended practices. For example, the 
sheer drudgery associated with conservation agriculture (potholing, applying manure and mulch, weeding) 
makes the approach unappealing to some farmers. The effect is more pronounced among elderly farmers 
and farmers living with a disability. The farmers indicated that due to the high labor demand they have not
moved from conventional farming. Findings from IDIs revealed that some farmers who had taken up 
conservation agriculture under the Intwasa/Pfumvudza program had stopped. Beyond the plots needing 
“too much work,” farmers reported a lack of manure and mulch. 
Institutional Barriers
Farmers also face institutional barriers to adopting promoted practices. For example, improved varieties 
of maize and other crop seed are often unavailable on the market in Binga. All the farmers in Binga said 
that outside the Presidential Input Scheme and contract farming off-takers (for improved sorghum seed), 
improved seed varieties are not normally sold in Binga and farmers usually by form Hwange or Bulawayo.
This situation has led some farmers to discontinue the use of improved seed. Livestock vaccines for 
diseases such as quarter evil must also be sourced from Bulawayo. This limited availability may stem, in 
part, from the lack of refrigeration capacity at local DVS offices (as one key informant noted, if DVS lacks 
refrigeration capacity, it is futile to expect resource-poor farmers to use vaccines “on their own”). 
Another hindrance reported by the farmers is related to the “lack” of adequate training on promoted 
practices. According to a farmer in Lupane, in the last couple of years, training by Agritex has concentrated 
on the Pfumvudza/Intwasa program, leaving a gap in understanding of other practices. 
3.6 What might convince non-doers who have not adopted an improved 
behavior to do so? What are their top reasons for trying or not trying 
the behavior?
The study established several ways to motivate non-doers to adopt improved behaviors. Study participants 
in both Binga and Lupane identified training as a priority. According to some KIIs, training programs should 
engage local (traditional) leaders, as their participation will increase confidence in the training and 
“encourage attendance.” The study participants also stressed that training should emphasize “practical
activities” such as look-and-learn visits and demonstrations for all promoted behaviors. “If the farmers get 
demonstrations of the kind of kraals expected of them, they can then copy and construct their own, if 
local resources are all that is needed to construct the kraals,” said a farmer in Lupane. 
Farmers also said working in groups could motivate non-adopters to take up improved behaviors. IDIs in 
both districts point out that some farmers who have taken up the labor-intensive conservation agriculture 
practices have organized labor using a practice known as ilima.
42 Besides being sources of labor, groups 
(such as VSLs) can also help farmers mobilize funds to buy improved seed, fertilizer, and supplementary 
feed for livestock, among inputs. Encouraging farmers to form and or join “specialized” groups such as 
livestock production groups was also recommended. One key informant in Lupane said, “Farmers who 
are not vaccinating their livestock can be encouraged to take up vaccination for all animals by encouraging 
them to join groups or clubs that help them to learn from other farmers [and] share resources and skills.” 
42 “Ilima” is a labor mobilization practice for tasks of a size or urgency that cannot be handled by one person or family unit.
18
Cost appears to be the main barrier to trying new practices. More than 95 percent of surveyed farmers 
said they cannot afford to buy vaccines for their livestock and depend on government and NGOs for 
“free” vaccines. Similarly, high costs prevent the use of commercial feed in supplementary feeding, reducing 
its benefit. Chicken feed, for example, is usually supplemented with grain (e.g., pearl millet, sorghum). 
Although this saves chickens from starvation, it does little to improve their overall health. And despite the 
promise of high yields and drought tolerance, improved seed are sold at prices beyond the reach of many 
farmers. According to a farmer from Lupane, a 25kg pack of maize seed costs approximately $90, which 
is more than most farmers can afford. As a result, farmers have few options beyond retained seed. 
Perceptions and preferences also matter. Some farmers report using retained seed because they produce 
grains that are more palatable than hybrid and improved OPV varieties. For others, the use of retained 
seed emanates from their love for traditional varieties. “Yes, we retain seed, it is for all crops. We have 
learned this from practices passed down from our elders. We retain for seed security so that we can 
share with neighbors,” said a farmer from Binga. 
In other cases, cost and perceptions combine to form a barrier to adopting improved practices. For 
example, although farmers appreciate the usefulness of a crush, less than 10 percent of the surveyed 
farmers confirmed having the facility at their kraals, in part due to lack of resources. They also saw “no 
need to invest in the facility since crushes are available at the local dip-tanks.” In addition, farmers said 
that they have always used ropes to handle cattle and goats for inspection, vaccination, and treatment and 
the practice has always worked for them. 
3.6 For all the above questions, how do gender dynamics impact 
adoption vs. non-adoption? What strategies/ messaging are effective for 
males and females?
The study established that gender dynamics play a role in influencing the adoption (or non-adoption) of 
new behaviors depending on whether households are headed by women or men. In male-headed 
households, men decide which crops and seed to plant. In Binga, this domination does not extend to the 
actual work in the fields, with women doing most of the farming work. When using conservation 
agriculture, women dig basins while men stump and clear the land (one key informant in Binga reported 
that “men tend to avoid the digging of basins”). This separation of labor limits the uptake of new 
behavior—especially labor-intensive practices such as conservation agriculture—because women’s 
household obligations limit how much time they can spend on agricultural production. 
The picture in Lupane was mixed, with respondents suggesting the sharing of duties between men and 
women was more “equal.” According to a key informant in Lupane, “women dig basins whilst men clear 
brush because they have more power than women.” The key informant further pointed out that all other 
tasks are done by both husband and wife, with this cooperation resulting in increased uptake of promoted 
practices.
Another notable finding is that more women than men participate in training. This means that women are 
more likely to be exposed to learning by doing, which can drive the adoption of recommended practices. 
As such, training is a great way to reach female farmers. High rates of participation in training also help 
incubate social learning—another driver of adoption—among women. 
The study also established that male farmers are more interested in large livestock (cattle) and, therefore,
are more likely to adopt behaviors that help safeguard cattle.
19
4. Discussion and Recommendations
The study established shared motivations (economic and social) for both crop and livestock production 
in the two districts. It found only a weak connection between the benefits of a recommended practice 
and its adoption (the hypothesis being that farmers would naturally adopt practices that increase 
productivity). While the perceived benefits of a practice matter, they do not outweigh the drawback of 
high costs. For instance, despite offering high yields and drought resistance, hybrid and OPV seed varieties 
are not yet widely used due to their high cost. High costs similarly dissuade farmers from vaccinating their
livestock against common diseases. As such, any effort to promote the uptake of recommended practices 
must be accompanied by efforts to address the high cost of implementation. 
The study also revealed that farmers’ attitude toward a practice greatly influences whether they will adopt 
said practice. These attitudes are shaped by experience (both the farmer’s own and that of others). Both 
doers and non-doers say what they “saw” and “heard” about a practice influenced their attitude. For 
instance, reports that hybrid seed were “not germinating” dissuaded some farmers from planting regionally 
appropriate improved hybrid and OPV seed varieties and reinforced their belief that retained seed are 
more reliable than improved varieties.43 This finding highlights the importance of building a good reputation 
for each recommended practice. 
Institutional support is also important. Changing attitudes will have little impact if inputs are unavailable in 
local markets. In the absence of improved inputs, farmers will fall back on “old behaviors.” 
Considering these findings, the research team offers the following recommendations: 
• More funding and engagement with breeders is needed to research and develop better-tasting 
small grains and higher yielding varieties that are more acceptable to the market. A starting point 
would be sharing this study’s findings on preferred traits for high-yielding seeds with breeders. 
• Development stakeholders should engage local agro-dealers and other private sector players to 
craft mutually beneficial seed distribution strategies. To ensure quick turnover of the seed, 
development partners can help farmers organize into groups that raise funds for the prepayment 
of seeds. These measures will help input suppliers avoid costly, unprofitable procurement trips, 
increase local availability, and, in the process, help cut costs for those farmers accessing the seed 
from Bulawayo. The development would also reduce the dependency on free inputs distributions.
• Farmers would benefit from guidance on developing local feed formulas in which nutritious shrubs, 
leaves, and twigs are ground together with stover to improve its nutritional composition. Training 
sessions and demonstrations on purchasing and adding nutritional supplements such as molasses 
to stover would also be beneficial. Also given that the farmers indicated that the stover is 
inadequate, farmers should be trained on targeted resilience-building supplementary feeding. This 
can be achieved by assisting farmers to prioritize supplements for breeding stock while, at the 
same time, encouraging farmers to dispose of non-productive animals. In addition, there is a need 
to produce more fodder crops as it is generally cheaper to produce compared to buying 
commercial feed. Demonstration plots can promote the uptake of fodder crops as a viable 
supplementary feed for livestock. Generally it is cheaper to produce feed compared to buying 
commercial feed.
• To address the barrier of costs, development partners should encourage farmers to form and join 
savings clubs and groups. These groups can strengthen the financial management capacity of 
43 This finding highlights the need to avail improved quality of retained seed through community-based seed multiplication 
models.
20
farmers while also helping inculcate banking behavior into the rural community more generally.
When fully embraced, savings groups and clubs may help expose participants to formal financial 
institutions such as microfinance institutions and banks.
The following recommendations can help promote individual behavior change:
• Carefully target messages and media to individuals. Targeting requires a nuanced understanding of 
farmers and the environments in which they work. For instance, messages targeting farmers in 
Binga will differ from those targeting Lupane farmers, even when addressing the same practice or 
behavior. This tailoring is necessary because of differences in economic and socio-cultural 
dynamics such as level of education, age, and gender. Targeted messaging elicits better responses 
than blanket messages.
• Fund and promote ongoing knowledge and information exchange activities, such as face-to-face 
training and demonstrations. For training to be effective in changing behaviors, organizing training 
in accordance with the production calendar (KII in Binga). Connect training programs to local 
extension services as this approach will encourage farmers’ participation and increase training 
effectiveness. 
• Use demonstrations to build positive attitudes toward a recommended practice, demonstrate 
value, and ease of adoption. Unless farmers see the value in adopting a new behavior, they are 
unlikely to change their ways.
• Make a deliberate effort to incentivize behavior change, which research shows can result in 
positive change.
44 Ensure that rewards can be sustained and underpin financial rewards with other 
interventions. For example, consider engaging market players such as seed houses to host shows 
and field events where outstanding doers are recognized. 
44 Henning, S.A., Zhong, Y., Cardona, H.,” Ecological attitudes of farmers and adoption of best management practices,” 
Southwestern Economy. Proceed. 31 (2), 57–70, 2012
21
References
Henning, S.A., Zhong, Y., and Cardona, H., “Ecological attitudes of farmers and adoption of best 
management practices.” Southwestern Economy Proceed, 31 (2), 57–70, 2012.
Lunduka, R.W., Mateva, K.I., Magorokosho, C., and Manjeru, P., “Impact of adoption of drought-tolerant 
maize varieties on total maize production in South Eastern Zimbabwe.” Climate and Development., 11:1, 
35-46, 2019.
Masere, T. P. and Worth, S., “Influence of public agricultural extension on technology adoption by small￾scale farmers in Zimbabwe.” South African Journal of Agricultural Extension, Volume 49, No 2, 2021.
Mugandani, R., “Conceptualising conservation agriculture adoption in Zimbabwe.” UK, 2020
Muzari, W., Gatsi, S., and Muvhunzi, “The impacts of technology adoption on smallholder agricultural 
productivity in sub-Saharan Africa: a review.” J. Sustain. Dev 5, 2012.
Ndlovu, T., “Coping with drought: Reflection of communal cattle farmers in Umzingwane district in 
Zimbabwe.” Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 11(1), a813, 2019.
Richards, M., et al., “Conservation Agriculture: Implementation guidance for policymakers and investors.”
Rome, 2014.
Rusinamhodzi, R., “Tinkering on the periphery: labour burden not crop productivity increased under no￾till planting basins on smallholder farms in Murehwa district, Zimbabwe.” Field Crops Research, 170, 66–
75, 2015.
Saengavut, V. and Jirasatthumb, N., “Smallholder decision-making process in technology adoption 
intention: implications for Dipterocarpus alatus in Northeastern Thailand.” Elsevier, 2021.
Thompson, A.W., Reimer, A., and Prokopy, L.S., “Farmers’ views of the environment: the influence of 
competing attitude frames on landscape conservation efforts.” Agric. Hum. Val. 32 (3), 385–399, 2015.