PEARL MILLET SOCIOECONOMIC AND PRODUCTION CHARACTERISTICS IN UGANDA 

Lubadde, G., P. Tongoona, J. Derera, and J. Sibiya 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                          

http://knowledge.cta.int/var/knowledge/storage/images/media/images/acci-logo/321593-1-eng-GB/ACCI-logo.gif


i 

 

  

PEARL MILLET SOCIOECONOMIC AND PRODUCTION 
CHARACTERISTICS IN UGANDA 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Geofrey Lubadde 

Pangirai Tongoona  

John Derera 

Julia Sibiya 

 

 

About the authors 

Dr. Lubadde is a plant breeder based at the National Semi Arid Resources Research Institute of the 

National Agricultural Research Organisation-Uganda (glubadde@gmail.com) 

Professor Tongoona is a plant breeder and lecturer at the University of KwaZulu Natal-South Africa 

Professor Derera is a plant breeder and lecturer at the University of KwaZulu Natal-South Africa 

Dr. Sibiya is a plant breeder and lecturer at the University of KwaZulu Natal-South Africa 

 

Copyright 2015 National Semi Arid Resources Research Institute of the National Agricultural Research 
Organisation (NaSARRI-NARO), Uganda. All rights reserved. Sections of this material may be 
reproduced for personal, academic and not-for-profit use without prior permission but with 
acknowledgment to NaSARRI-NARO. To reproduce the material contained herein for profit or commercial 
use requires written permission from the Director of Research NaSARRI at director@nasarri.go.ug. 

 
Referencing: Lubadde, G., P. Tongoona, J. Derera and J. Sibiya. 2015. Pearl millet Socioeconomic and 
Production Characteristics in Uganda. pp 91. National Semi Arid Resources Research Institute of the 
National Agricultural Research Organisation, Uganda. 



ii 

 

Table of Contents 

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. v 

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... vii 

Acronyms ................................................................................................................................... ix 

Acknowledgment......................................................................................................................... x 

Foreward ................................................................................................................................... xi 

Summary .................................................................................................................................. xii 

Section 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 1 

1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 

1.2 Research statement .............................................................................................................. 2 

1.3 Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 2 

1.4 Research methodology ......................................................................................................... 3 

1.4.1 Study area.................................................................................................................. 3 

1.4.2 Selection of farmers and enumerators ........................................................................ 4 

1.4.3 Data collection ........................................................................................................... 5 

1.4.4 Data analysis and quality control ................................................................................ 5 

Section 2 Demography ............................................................................................................... 7 

2.1 Age of heads of household members ............................................................................... 7 

2.2 Gender of household members ........................................................................................ 9 

2.3 Marital status and relation to heads of households ..........................................................10 

2.4 Education level of the household members .....................................................................11 

2.5 Human population in households .....................................................................................13 

2.6 Housing conditions and sanitation ...................................................................................13 

2.7 Economic activities of the household members ...............................................................16 

2.8 Household food security situation ....................................................................................18 

2.8.1 Food availability in households ..................................................................................18 

2.8.2 Causes of food shortage and coping strategies .........................................................20 

Section 3 Socioeconomic capital and technology adoption ....................................................... 22 

3.1.1 Access to credit ............................................................................................................22 

3.1.2 Sources of financial credit .............................................................................................23 

3.1.3 Reasons for accessing financial credit and related transactions ...................................24 

3.2 Access to agricultural training ..........................................................................................25 

3.2.1 Participation in selected agricultural training ..............................................................25 

3.2.2 Types of trainings received and training organisations ..............................................26 



iii 

 

3.2.3 Technology adoption for selected enterprises ...........................................................27 

3.2.4 Access to extension services for selected agricultural activities ................................30 

3.2.5 Sources of information for selected agricultural activities ..........................................34 

3.3 Group dynamics ..............................................................................................................35 

3.3.1 Membership in organisations or social groups and their main activities .....................35 

Section 4 Importance and utilisation of pearl millet .................................................................... 37 

4.1 Importance of pearl millet in terms of cultivation frequency and being food security crop .37 

4.2 Importance of pearl millet relative to other crops ..............................................................38 

4.3 Changes in crop value and reasons for the changes .......................................................40 

4.4 Uses and utilization of pearl millet....................................................................................41 

4.5 Unacceptable taste characteristics of pearl millet and coping strategies ..........................43 

Section 5 Agronomic characteristics ......................................................................................... 44 

5.1 Types of pearl millet varieties planted by farmers in Uganda ...........................................44 

5.2 Season or time of planting pearl millet .............................................................................45 

5.3 Pearl millet crop production systems ...............................................................................47 

5.4 Pearl millet planting methods ...........................................................................................48 

5.5 Productivity and seed rates..............................................................................................49 

Section 6 Desirable and undesirable pearl millet traits .............................................................. 50 

6.1 Traits of pearl millet genotypes grown by farmers ............................................................50 

6.2 Undesirable traits of the cultivated pearl millet .................................................................51 

6.3 Attributes to be introduced or improved and related information for pearl millet 

improvement..........................................................................................................................53 

Section 7 Factors of production in the pearl millet cropping system .......................................... 55 

7.1 Crop production inputs .....................................................................................................55 

7.1.1.1 Land access, ownership and perception about soil fertility .....................................55 

7.1.1.2 Size of land (acres) parcels owned or operated and distance to the land parcels ...56 

7.1.2 Area planted, cost of seed and sources of seed ...........................................................58 

7.1.2.1 Area planted and cost of seed ................................................................................58 

7.1.2.2 Pearl millet sources of seed ...................................................................................59 

7.1.2.3 Pearl millet units of measurement for seed grain and produce grain ......................60 

7.1.3.1 Labour hours, sources and total cost for labour ......................................................61 

7.1.3.2 Sources of labour for pearl millet activities .............................................................62 

7.1.4 Access to agricultural equipment ..................................................................................64 

7.1.5 Expenses on selected inputs ........................................................................................66 



iv 

 

7.2 Livestock production and sales ........................................................................................66 

Section 8 Post harvest handling of pearl millet and fate of grain ............................................... 69 

8.1 Harvesting, drying and threshing .....................................................................................69 

8.2 Storage of pearl millet ......................................................................................................71 

Section 9 Pearl millet production constraints and coping strategies .......................................... 73 

9.1 Field constraints and control strategies ............................................................................73 

9.2 Marketing constraints, control strategies and access to markets .....................................77 

9.3 Storage constraints and control strategies .......................................................................78 

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 79 

References ............................................................................................................................... 80 

Appendix: Common sources of information for selected agricultural activities ........................... 90 

 

  



v 

 

List of Tables 

Table 1.1: Grain quality components of pearl millet and common cereals (100g-1 of grain) ........... 1 

Table 1.2: Location characteristics of the study districts ................................................................ 3 

Table 2.1: Age groups of household members and dependency ratios ......................................... 9 

Table 2.2: Broad age grouping of household members ................................................................. 9  

Table 2.3: Gender of household members .................................................................................... 10 

Table 2.4: Marital status of heads of households .......................................................................... 11  

Table 2.5: Marital status of household members ........................................................................... 11 

Table 2.6: Relation of household members to heads households ................................................. 11  

Table 2.7: Education level of heads of households ....................................................................... 12 

Table 2.8: Education level of spouses ........................................................................................... 12 

Table 2.9: Highest education level attained by household members ............................................. 13  

Table 2.10: Response about number of household members ....................................................... 13 

Table 2.11: Housing conditions for pearl millet farmers ................................................................. 15 

Table 2.12: Economic activities for heads of households .............................................................. 17 

Table 2.13: Economic activities of household members ................................................................ 17  

Table 2.14: Household responses about changes in food availability and quantity ........................ 19 

Table 2.15: Causes of food shortage in households ...................................................................... 21 

Table 2.16: Coping strategies during food shortage ...................................................................... 21 

Table 3.1: Reasons for not accessing financial credit .................................................................... 23 

Table 3.2: Sources of credit .......................................................................................................... 24  

Table 3.3: Reasons for accessing credit........................................................................................ 24 

Table 3.4: Percentage response and range of amount of money borrowed by region ................... 24 

Table 3.5: Interest rate per month and payback period ................................................................. 24 

Table 3.6: Types of training received by household members ....................................................... 27 

Table 3.7: Duration of trainings ..................................................................................................... 27 

Table 3.8: Major organisations that trained pearl millet farmers .................................................... 27 

Table 3.9: Enterprises affected by training .................................................................................... 29 

Table 3.10: Technologies adopted and response about success .................................................. 29 

Table 3.11: Factors considered for technology adoption ............................................................... 30 

Table 3.12: Visits by extension agents for selected pre-harvest activities ...................................... 32 

Table 3.13: Visits by extension agents for selected post-harvest activities .................................... 33 

Table 3.14: Group membership by categories of household members .......................................... 36 

Table 3.15: Role of household members in groups ....................................................................... 36 



vi 

 

Table 3.16: Group main activities .................................................................................................. 36 

Table 3.17: Registration and annual fee paid for membership in groups ....................................... 36 

Table 4.1: Frequency of planting pearl millet ................................................................................. 37 

Table 4.2: Reasons for pearl millet being a food security crop ...................................................... 38 

Table 4.3 Crops commonly grown and reasons why they were grown .......................................... 39 

Table 4.4: Ranking of most important crops .................................................................................. 39 

Table 4.5: Uses of pearl millet in Uganda ...................................................................................... 42  

Table 4.6: Percent household response about utilisation of pearl millet as food in Uganda ........... 43  

Table 5.1: Percentage household response about pearl millet planting season and type of 

varieties planted ............................................................................................................................ 46 

Table 6.1: Traits of pearl millet genotypes grown by farmers ......................................................... 52 

Table 6.2: Desirable pearl millet traits ........................................................................................... 52 

Table 6.3: Undesirable pearl millet characteristics ........................................................................ 52 

Table 6.4: Supplementary information important for pearl millet improvement............................... 54 

Table 7.1: Ease to hire land for agricultural production .................................................................. 55  

Table 7.2: Forms of land ownership and soil fertility perception .................................................... 56  

Table 7.3: Land availability and distance from home to the land ................................................... 58  

Table 7.4: Sources of pearl millet seed ......................................................................................... 60 

Table 7.5: Units of measurement for seed grain ............................................................................ 61  

Table 7.6: Units of measurement of harvested and sold pearl millet grain ..................................... 61 

Table 7.7: Gender contribution of labour hours and total labour cost for selected field activities ... 64 

Table 7.8: Percentage of households owning farm equipment and forms of access ...................... 65 

Table 7.9: Types of livestock owned, percentage owning, number owned by majority and value 

of livestock and products ............................................................................................................... 67  

Table 8.1: Storage facilities for various forms of pearl millet .......................................................... 71 

Table 9.1: Percentage response of households about pearl millet field production constraints ...... 73 

Table 9.2: Common pearl millet marketing constraints .................................................................. 77  

Table 9.3: Possible solutions to common pearl millet marketing constraints .................................. 77 

Table 9.4: Storage constraints ...................................................................................................... 78 

 



vii 

 

List of Figures 

Fig 1.1: Map of Uganda showing location of the study areas......................................................... 4 

Fig 1.2: Using charts to identify constraints with a group of key informants ................................... 6 

Fig 1.3: Interviewing a household head ......................................................................................... 6  

Fig 2.1: Age groups of heads of households and their spouses .................................................... 8  

Fig 2.2: Typical homestead of pearl millet farmers ........................................................................ 16 

Fig 2.3: Household response about experiencing food shortage ................................................... 19  

Fig 2.4: Household response about number of meals eaten per day ............................................. 20 

Fig 3.1: Household response about access to financial credit ....................................................... 23  

Fig 3.2: Response about access to agricultural training ................................................................ 25 

Fig 3.3: Response about heads of households and spouses who accessed agricultural training .. 26  

Fig 3.4:  Household response about technology adoption ............................................................. 28 

Fig 3.5: Comparison of frequency of extension visits by Government and NGO agencies for 

selected activities .......................................................................................................................... 31 

Fig 3.6: Common sources of agricultural information .................................................................... 34 

Fig 3.7: Household involvement in social organisations or groups................................................. 35 

Fig 4.1: Pearl millet as a food security crop ................................................................................... 38 

Fig 4.2: Perceived change in crop value........................................................................................ 40 

Fig 4.3: Causes of change in crop rank ......................................................................................... 41 

Fig 4.4: Response of households about taste constraints ............................................................. 43  

Fig 5.1: Response of households about types of pearl millet varieties grown ................................ 44 

Fig 5.2: Reasons for planting unimproved local varieties ............................................................... 45 

Fig 5.3: Reasons for planting in second season ............................................................................ 46 

Fig 5.4: Household response about cropping systems .................................................................. 47 

Fig 5.5: Mixed cropping system of pearl millet, sorghum and finger millet ..................................... 48 

Fig 5.6: Pearl millet planting methods ........................................................................................... 49 

Fig 6.1: Pearl millet attributes to be introduced or improved .......................................................... 53 

Fig 7.1:  Response about area planted with pearl millet ................................................................ 59  

Fig 7.2: Storage of pearl millet grain for seed ................................................................................ 60 

Fig 7.3: Farming activity by gender ............................................................................................... 62 

Fig 7.4: Farming activities done by women ................................................................................... 62 

Fig 7.5: Farming activities by source of labour .............................................................................. 63 

Fig 7.6: Forms of access to ox-plough .......................................................................................... 65 

Fig 7.7: Types of livestock owned and products ............................................................................ 67 



viii 

 

Fig 7.8: Livestock types and products sold .................................................................................... 68 

Fig 7.9: Percentage of poultry sub units ........................................................................................ 68 

Fig 8.1: Drying of pearl millet on the mat ....................................................................................... 69 

Fig 8.2: Drying of pearl millet on bare ground ................................................................................ 70 

Fig 8.3: Woman winnowing pearl millet after threshing .................................................................. 70 

Fig 8.4: Forms of pearl millet storage ............................................................................................ 71 

Fig 8.5: Fate of harvested pearl millet grain .................................................................................. 72 

Fig 9.1: Farmers’ pearl millet infected by ergot .............................................................................. 74 

Fig 9.2: Farmers’ pearl millet infected by rust ................................................................................ 74 

Fig 9.3: Farmers’ pearl millet infected by smut .............................................................................. 75 

Fig 9.4: Farmers’ pearl millet infected by both ergot and smut ...................................................... 75 

Fig 9.5: Knowledge about pearl millet rust symptoms .................................................................... 76 

Fig 9.6: Sterile panicles affected by drought due to late planting ................................................... 77 

 



ix 

 

Acronyms  

ACCI: African Centre for Crop Improvement 

A2N: Africa 2000 Network  

DANIDA: Danish International Development Agency 

ECA: Economic Commission for Africa 

FAO: Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations 

Gov’t: Government 

IRC: International Rescue Committee 

LWF: Lutheran World Federation 

NAADS: National Agricultural Advisory Services  

NARO: National Agricultural Research Organisation 

NaSARRI: National Semi Arid Resources Research Institute  

NGOs: Non-Governmental Organisations 

UNAFFE: Uganda National Farmers’ Federation  

UBOS: Uganda Bureau of Statistics  

URCS: Uganda Red Cross Society 

UNBS: Uganda National Bureau of Standards 

TEDO: Teso Diocese Development Organization 



x 

 

Acknowledgment 

Thanks go to the pearl millet farmers who willingly sacrificed their productive time to provide the 

information; without which writing this report would not be possible. Credit also goes to the 

supporting institutes most especially ACCI and NaSARRI for providing both material and 

financial support. Appreciation also goes to the entire team that collected the data and to        

Dr. Martin Orawu for providing the research team with a vehicle and Mr. Opio the driver for the 

job well done. Finally the reviewers of this publication, Dr Beatrice Akello and Ms Olgah V. 

Kudda, are highly thanked for the technical support provided. 



xi 

 

Foreword 

The National Semi Arid Resources Research Institute (NaSARRI) of the National Agricultural 

Research Organisation (NARO) in Uganda is mandated to undertake strategic research on 

pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum). The crop is multipurpose serving as food, source of income 

and animal feed for people living in extreme drought-prone environments in Uganda where 

conditions do not favour reliable production of other cereals such as maize or sorghum. In 

developing countries in Africa and Asia pearl millet still survives in arid conditions. This calls for 

a concerted effort from research institutions and other stakeholders to develop and promote 

technologies adapted to such conditions.  

 

Key stakeholders need to know the socioeconomic and production environment of pearl millet in 

Uganda in order to make informed decisions on how to direct resources aimed at increasing 

production and productivity. Through participatory rural appraisal techniques, the authors of this 

report therefore contribute to the growing literature and knowledge about pearl millet in Uganda 

by assessing the socioeconomic and production characteristics of the cropping system for the 

period 2010 - 2012. Important indicators included; 1) demographic characteristics, 2) 

socioeconomic capital and technology adoption, 3) importance and utilisation, 4) agronomic 

features, 5) desirable and undesirable traits, 6) factors of production, 7) post-harvest handling, 

and 8) production constraints and coping strategies. The information will be of importance to 

researchers, scholars, policy makers, agri-business community, extension agents, farmers and 

all those who wish to enhance their knowledge about the crop. It is hoped that information in this 

report will enhance production and marketing of pearl millet and thus contribute to improved 

livelihood of resource poor farmers in the drought-prone regions. 

 

I thank all the development partners for supporting the work that resulted in this publication. The 

management of NARO and NaSARRI greatly commends the team that wrote this document. We 

hope that more of such useful documents will be availed to our stakeholders in the near future.  

 

Have a good reading 

 

 

Dr. Beatrice Akello Omonuk 

Director of Research, 

NaSARRI-Serere, Uganda 



xii 

 

Summary 

Pearl millet is an important cereal grown by farmers in environmentally marginalised areas. In 

Uganda it is mainly grown in northern (Acholi), northeastern (Karamoja) and eastern (Teso) 

regions. The regions are characterised by semi-arid conditions with high temperatures, low 

mean annual rainfall and widespread chronic food insecurity. Technologies that increase pearl 

millet productivity under such conditions have been developed in international research 

institutes to highlight the importance of pearl millet as a resilient crop suitable for drought 

conditions. However, not much is known about the importance of the crop in Uganda. A 

baseline survey was thus conducted to document pearl millet farmers’ socioeconomic and 

production characteristics in the country. Information was collected about demography and food 

security situation, livelihood, social capital and trainings, importance and utilisation of pearl 

millet, agronomic characteristics, desirable and undesirable traits, factors of crop and animal 

production, post-harvest handling, production and marketing constraints and coping strategies.  

 

Results indicated that the average age of heads of households (mainly males) was 45.78 years 

while that of their spouses was 37.22 years; with a pearl millet growing experience of over six 

years. In addition, majority of the households had 6-10 members many of whom were below 15 

years. The heads of households were married with education experience of more than five 

years while their spouses were generally illiterate. The household heads and their spouses 

farmed the land as their main economic activity. Furthermore, majority of the households lived 

under poor conditions where the main house had a single room built of mud and wattle with 

grass as the main roofing material and earth floor. The poor living standards were worsened by 

majority of the households facing perpetual food insecurity mainly due to drought, insect pests, 

plant diseases and lack of improved planting materials.  

 

Social capital, access to trainings and group dynamics of the farmers were also assessed. 

Majority (over 83%) of the households interviewed did not access credit for agricultural activities 

due to a dearth of credit source in the village. Lack of collateral and high interest rates were 

among the other important reasons for not accessing credit. However, the few (about 16%) 

households that accessed credit did that majorly to pay for labour for farming activities. Other 

reasons for accessing credit included; paying school fees, financing retail businesses and 

purchasing livestock. The main sources of credit were the village banks or cash boxes where 

the majority accessed small loans of up to 200,000/= (less than USD 100) for three months with 

interest rate of 10%. In addition to few households having access to credit, less than 50% of the 



xiii 

 

households had at least a member receiving agricultural training. More households in the 

northern region received agricultural training than the eastern region and generally more heads 

of households attended the trainings than the spouses. Most households received training in 

modern agriculture while a few households in the north had members attending training in 

agricultural marketing. A few households in the eastern region had members trained in insect 

pest and disease control. Most training schedules lasted for about two days where the NAADS 

and NGOs were the main trainers. After receiving the trainings majority of the participants 

reported that they applied the skills received. The farmers were trained mainly in the modern 

techniques for the production of the most important crops especially ground nuts, cassava and 

vegetables.  Unfortunately, after receiving the agricultural trainings there was no technical 

backstopping in form of extension to ensure farmers implemented the skills appropriately. This 

was reflected by the majority of the households receiving no extension visits and a few being 

visited only once in two years to be advised in proper planting and crop spacing.  

 

Group dynamics was another form of social capital considered. It was observed that majority 

(over 58%) of the households had at least an individual being a member of a community group. 

The heads of households and to a lesser extent the spouses were involved in group activities. 

However, the majority were ordinary members with no leadership role while few were 

chairpersons and general secretaries. The farmers got involved mainly in mutual support groups 

commonly known as ‘merry go round’ in addition to a few being involved in group farming while 

others provided labour for agricultural activities. Most groups were also characterised by no 

membership or annual fee being charged for one to join a group.  

 

Pearl millet uses were documented after establishing the farmers’ attachment to the crop. The 

farmers actually valued the crop since majority had grown the cereal 3-4 times in the last five 

years. It was grown as a food security crop in addition to being used as food and source of 

income while a few used it as yeast for brewing. As food, pearl millet was eaten as soft or hard 

porridge while some ate it in gain form after boiling. Relative to other crops pearl millet ranked 

the fourth after cassava, sesame and ground nuts respectively. It was more important than 

sorghum, maize, finger millet, green gram and sweet potatoes. The ranking was an average of 

the importance of the crop as food and source of income. However, the crop ranking was 

dynamic in the last five years and the dynamism was expected in the next five years as long as 

variation existed mainly in palatability, being source of income, marketability and change in 

household population.   



xiv 

 

 

After establishing that pearl millet was important, agronomic characteristics were then noted. It 

was observed that majority of the farmers planted local unimproved land races of pearl millet 

once a year in the second rains (September-January) to avoid birds and control ergot disease. 

The unimproved varieties were grown mainly because farmers did not have alternative planting 

materials. The sole cropping system was adopted where farmers practiced broadcasting as the 

planting method. Broadcasting led to use of high seed rate of about 20Kgha-1 instead of the 

recommended 2-5Kgha-1. The agronomic practices and the production constraints resulted in 

average low productivity of 658Kgha-1. In addition, the local materials also had desirable and 

undesirable traits. Some of the desirable traits reported were; being tall, high tillering, stay green 

and white/grey grain colour while the undesirable traits included being susceptible to ergot and 

rust diseases, low yielding, low tillering ability, late maturity and susceptibility to drought which 

resulted in sterile panicles.  It was observed that genotypes from northern Uganda were 

generally late maturing (taking 4-5 months) while those from eastern, especially Kumi district 

matured within three months.  Farmers highlighted introduction of ergot resistant varieties and 

training in modern agricultural practices as the most important aspects needed to increase 

productivity. 

 

Factors of production considered were land, seed and labour. Majority of the farmers owned the 

land they cultivated while some rented and a few borrowed. The farmers reported that the soil 

fertility was good much as the productivity was low. Most farmers planted pearl millet on up to 

one acre of land which was mainly their home stead parcel and the seed was either bought or 

own-saved from the previous season’s harvest. The bought seed was not certified or authentic 

but grain. The labour used in pearl millet production was mainly family labour where men, 

women and children were all involved; but women provided more labour hours than men or 

children. The women were mainly associated with harvesting, threshing and weeding and to 

some extent planting while men were involved in land preparation and planting. Hired labour 

was also used to some extent mainly to harvest and land preparation. The common equipment 

used on the farms were the hand hoes, pangas, ox-ploughs, bicycles and axes which were 

mainly purchased or hired. However, none of the households used inputs like fertiliser, manure, 

herbicides or pesticides to enhance productivity. 

 

Results also show that more than 87% of the households interviewed reared at least one type of 

livestock with poultry and small ruminants being the common animals kept. Chicken ranked 



xv 

 

highest among the poultry reared while goats formed the majority of the small ruminants. 

However, pigs were the most sold animals followed by poultry especially the turkeys and 

chicken. Much as more than 87% of the households reared some livestock, none of them used 

the technology of manure to improve soil fertility but cow dung was used in making house floors. 

Simple materials were used in post-harvest handling where the pearl millet was harvested using 

hands and knives. The harvested panicles were transported to the drying ground by carrying 

them on the heads. The drying was either done on bare ground or on mats and tarpaulin. 

Threshing was done by women where the millet was beaten and winnowing done to remove 

chuff before storage. However, from planting to storage pearl millet production faced numerous 

constraints. Production constraints included ergot, birds, weeds, rust and drought while low 

prices (33.95%) followed by high market taxes, lack of transport to markets, lack of markets and 

unscrupulous middlemen were some of the marketing constraints. In most cases farmers had 

no effective suggested solutions to the constraints. 

 



1 

 

Section 1 

1.1 Introduction 

Pearl millet is a primary food grain crop for millions of people in the tropical and sub-tropical 

areas of Africa (Ndjeunga and Nelson, 2005) and India (Roden et al., 2007). In most African 

countries where the cereal is grown and production is documented, pearl millet ranks high in 

terms of importance. For example, in Niger it ranks first in terms of total cereal cultivation and 

production (Ndjeunga and Nelson, 2005) and the most important staple cereal in Namibia 

(Ipinge, 1998). In Eritrea it is the second most important staple cereal after sorghum (Roden et 

al., 2007). Nutritionally, it contains high levels of quality protein (Roden et al., 2007) in addition 

to having good levels of micro-nutrients relative to common cereals like sorghum, rice, maize 

and wheat (Table 1.1) (Khairwal, 1999). 

 
Table 1.1: Grain quality components of pearl millet and common cereals (100g-1 of grain) 

Nutrients Pearl Millet Sorghum Maize Rice Wheat 

Protein 11.60 10.40 11.10 6.90 11.80 

Fat (%) 5.00 1.90 3.60 0.40 0.90 

Iron (mg) 8.80 6.20 2.20 2.80 1.00 

Fibre (%) 1.20 1.60 2.70 0.20 0.30 

Energy (Kcal) 360.00 349.00 342.00 348.0 349.00 

Carotene (mg) 132.00 47.00 90.00 9.00 29.00 

  Source: Singh et al. (1987)  
 
Pearl millet is consumed as thick or thin porridge, cakes, or steamed granulated products in 

addition to the grain being used as source of yeast in the brewing industry (Murty and Kumar, 

1995). All these forms of pearl millet utilisation meet particular standards set by the users who 

may be producers, processors or direct consumers. This leads to variety preference which 

forms a basis for pearl millet breeders to develop varieties that have the desired qualities 

needed by the end-users. However, until recently plant breeders had not involved pearl millet 

end-users in developing varieties with users’ desirable characteristics. The result is many 

varieties not being adopted by the intended beneficiaries. For example, in Niger more than 

seventeen pearl millet varieties have been developed by ICRISAT-West Africa but few have 

been adopted by the beneficiaries (Ndjeunga et al., 2000). Ndjeunga et al. (2000) noted that the 

low adoption rate may partially be explained by the poor seed supply system and demand 

factors. The low supply of seed, poor estimation of seed demanded, poor seed distribution and 

low seed quality are among the seed-related constraints leading to low adoption rate of 



2 

 

improved pearl millet varieties in West Africa (Ndjeunga, 1997). In addition, the cooking traits in 

pearl millet are not well researched and documented as is the case for competing cereals; also 

contributing to the low adoption rate of improved varieties of pearl millet (Ndjeunga and Nelson, 

2005). This implies that knowledge of traits preferred by the pearl millet users is important to 

design an effective breeding strategy and improve adoption rate (Ndjeunga et al., 2000).    

 

However, much as pearl millet is an important food grain with research relatively advanced 

elsewhere, in Uganda research is just being revived. Therefore most of the comparison is based 

on work done elsewhere; calling for a need to initiate studies to provide information about the 

importance of the crop in Uganda. A participatory rural appraisal study was then conducted to 

establish pearl millet production characteristics like demography, productivity, uses/importance, 

important factors of production, constraints (production, storage, taste and market), desirable 

traits, establishing the socioeconomic features and showing relevance of pearl millet as a food 

security crop in Uganda. Thus, a baseline survey was done to document the socioeconomic and 

production characteristics of the pearl millet cropping system in Uganda. The information will be 

used to develop an effective participatory plant breeding programme which takes into account 

pearl millet users’ views.  

 

1.2 Research statement 

Pearl millet is grown by farmers in semi-arid areas in Uganda but no documentation about its 

importance and production characteristics is available. In addition, farmers have preferred traits 

in their diversified locally adapted materials which partly determines the rate of adoption of 

modern technologies.   

 

1.3 Objectives  

To establish the socioeconomic and production characteristics of pearl millet in Uganda, a 

participatory rural appraisal was conducted to;  

- Establish demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of pearl millet farmers 

- Identify social capital and technology adoption characteristics 

- Establish the importance and utilisation of pearl millet  

- Assess the agronomic features of the pearl millet cropping system 

- Establish pearl millet productivity and factors of production and their common units 

- Identify farmers’ preferred traits, production and marketing constraints 



3 

 

1.4 Research methodology 

1.4.1 Study area 

A baseline survey was conducted in January 2012 in two farming systems, the Teso and 

Northern systems (Ronner and Giller, 2013), where pearl millet is predominantly grown. The two 

systems do not differ much in terms of socioeconomic characteristics and agricultural livelihood. 

Both systems are characterised by rearing of cattle and production of annual crops such as 

cotton, sorghum, millets, cassava, sweet potatoes, ground nuts, sun flower and sesame 

(Ronner and Giller, 2013).  Due to the production of annual crops and cattle rearing as 

economic activities, the systems are also called the ‘annual cropping and cattle teso system’ 

and the ‘annual cropping and cattle northern system’ respectively (Mwebaza, 2006). However, 

the Teso system has a bimodal rainfall pattern with shorter dry seasons and low fertility sandy-

loam soils (Mwebaze, 2006). On the contrary, the Northern system has a less pronounced 

bimodal rainfall pattern which reduces to a unimodal pattern with longer dry intervals in the far 

north and northeastern Uganda. The locations of the study districts are as indicated in Table 1.2 

and Fig 1.1. In the Teso system, the study was conducted in Kumi and Katakwi districts. In Kumi 

district forty households were covered in the three villages of Olupe, Asinge and Okouba while 

in Katakwi still forty households were covered in Olera and Usuku villages. In Kitgum district the 

study was conducted in Kitgum town council, Mucwini and Kitgum Matidi villages covering thirty-

eight households while in Lamwo data were collected from Rudi and Pobar villages covering 

twenty-two households.  

 

Table 1.2: Location characteristics of the study districts 

Regions  District Latitude Longitude 
Altitude 
(m.a.s.l) 

Average 
rainfall (mm) 

Soil types 

Eastern  
Kumi 01° 30′N 033° 57′E 1138 

1270 
Sandy loam 

Katakwi 01°54′N 034°00′E 1107 Sandy loam 

Northern 
Kitgum 03°13′N 032°47′E 969 

1130 
Sandy loam 

Lamwo 03°32′N 032°48′E 1100 Sandy loam 

      Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Districts of Uganda, accessed on 19/03/2011. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Districts%20of%20Uganda


4 

 

 
Fig 1.1: Map of Uganda showing location of the study areas 
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Districts of Uganda, accessed on 19/03/2011 

1.4.2 Selection of farmers and enumerators 

Pearl millet production is localised in a few places in northern, eastern and northeastern 

Uganda. Therefore, purposive selection of the study area was done basing on how widely the 

crop was grown in the districts. In eastern Uganda the farmers were selected basing on the fact 

that they had grown pearl millet in the last two years. In northern Uganda some respondents 

who had grown the crop in the last one year were considered for the interview because most 

farmers were still settling for normal farming after over twenty years of being in the war zone. In 

all the study districts a five-stage stratified selection criteria was adopted in order to identify 

respondents. The strata were 1) the farming systems, 2) the districts, 3) the sub-counties, 4) the 

villages and 5) the respondents. Two categories of respondents were considered; the first being 

that of the household respondents upon whom a household questionnaire was administered to 

gather information about pearl millet at household level. The households were randomly 

Kenya  

Tanzania Study districts 

South Sudan 

DR Congo 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Districts%20of%20Uganda


5 

 

selected with the help of local council leaders. After selecting about one hundred households 

that grew pearl millet, random selection of those to participate in the study was done to come up 

with the number of households needed for the study. This number varied per village depending 

on the willingness of households to participate in the study. The second category of 

respondents was a group of about 10-15 key informants who constituted a community focus 

group discussion. This group comprised of ardent pearl millet growers who provided information 

about the village socioeconomic characteristics in relation to pearl millet production. Selection of 

the enumerators was based mainly on the ability to speak the local language in addition to 

having at least a degree in sociology, agricultural extension or agriculture. In Teso region 

(eastern) those selected to conduct the interviews knew Ateso (the local language) while in the 

north Luo (Acholi or Langi) speakers were selected for data collection.  

 

1.4.3 Data collection 

Data were collected using various participatory rural appraisal techniques (PRA). The PRA 

techniques used included; transect walks, problem listing and analysis, and problem ranking 

(Lelo et al., 1995) with key informants (Fig 1.2) which were corroborated by household formal 

interviews using a semi-structured questionnaire (Fig 1.3). The key informants were interviewed 

about the pearl millet production aspects like constraints, preferred traits, economic activities in 

the village and uses/importance. In addition, informal data collection techniques like 

observations were adopted in order to better understand the pearl millet cropping system at the 

farm level. The informal PRA techniques were used because they help to elucidate the relevant 

local knowledge (Mergeai et al., 2001) which in turn helps to achieve high precision with the 

formal techniques (Chambers, 1992). Data were collected by two teams each of three members 

and a supervisor with the help of the village local council leaders and the extension workers at 

the sub county level. One team worked in the eastern region covering eighty households while 

the other worked in northern Uganda covering sixty households. The household crop and 

animal productivity was estimated using the ‘farmer recall’ (Fermont et al., 2009; Smale et al., 

2010) and ‘prediction’ methods (Singh, 2003).  

 

1.4.4 Data analysis and quality control 

Data collected from the focus groups discussion and household interviews were entered and 

analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Scientists version 20 (IBM SPSS Inc., 2011). 

Average scores and ranks were calculated from the quantitative and qualitative data. 



6 

 

Descriptive statistics were used for analysis to identify general patterns (Pender et al., 2002) 

and tests, analyses of variance and mean comparison were computed and conclusions drawn 

basing on the findings. 

 

    
Fig 1.2: Using charts to identify constraints with a group of key informants 

 

 
Fig 1.3: Interviewing a household head 



7 

 

Section 2 Demography  

Demographic factors are important in determining rate of technology adoption. Anogie et al. 

(2009) reported gender (marginalisation of women), marital status, education and cultural belief 

as being the major constraints to adoption of new pearl millet varieties. In addition age of 

farmers, household size, formal education level and farm size are also important in adoption of 

new crop varieties (Macaver, 2002; Ogungbile et al., 2002).  

 

2.1 Age of household members 

Age of the heads of households is important in agricultural technology adoption (El-Osta and 

Morehart, 1999). It may positively (McNamara et al., 1991) or negatively (Baidu-Forson, 1999) 

influence agricultural technology adoption. Younger farmers are dynamic and more likely to 

adopt new agricultural technologies faster than relatively old farmers (Bisande et al., 1998; 

Mugisha et al., 2012; Namara et al., 2005; Neil and Lee, 2001). The average age of heads of 

households growing pearl millet in Uganda was 45.78 years while that of their spouses was 

37.22 years. This compares with the 46.50 years of those involved in pearl millet marketing in 

Africa (Baba and Maina, 2013). On the contrary the pearl millet farmers in Uganda were 

relatively younger than those elsewhere in Africa who were about 50 years (Ndjeunga et al., 

2011). The results show that the average age of farmers in Uganda was that of still able-bodied 

persons expected to adopt new agricultural technologies faster than those in many African 

countries growing pearl millet. Basing on the age group interval of 10 years, the results in Fig 

2.1 further indicate that majority (25.90%) of the heads of households were between 31-40 

years while majority of their spouses were up to 30 years. The results also show that most of 

the household heads (63.31%) were between 21-50 years old; an indication that most 

households selected for the interview were still in the working age group with a wide experience 

in pearl millet cultivation of 6.93 years and could thus provide reliable information. Contrary, 

majority of the spouses (mostly female) were in 21-30 years age group; implying that most of 

the spouses were relatively younger and thus able to adopt new technologies much faster than 

the heads of households. The age group 41-50 years shows more spouses because most men 

in that group had more than one spouse.  

 



8 

 

 
Fig 2.1: Age groups of heads of households and their spouses  
 
 

Results in Table 2.1 show that majority of the household members were below 15 years 

followed by the actively working group (15-64 years) and a few being more than 65 years. This 

is close to the national figures where majority of Uganda’s population is below 15 years old 

followed by the working group and lastly the elderly (UBOS, 2010). However, the dependence 

ratio of 1.11 is higher than the national ratio of 1.04 (World Bank, 2012). Further, the 

dependency ratio in both regions was still higher than at national level; implying that the 

economically productive age group supports a relatively larger non-economically productive 

group. Kumi district had the highest dependency ratio followed by Lamwo and Katakwi districts, 

respectively. Table 2.2 results show that majority (48.01%) of household members were 

children followed by the youths; implying they can easily adopt new technologies. The results 

slightly vary from the national figures where the youth form the majority of the Ugandan 

population (UBOS, 2010). This implies that more children were involved in providing farm labour 

for agricultural production than the youth and elderly combined. However, the availability of the 

youth population to provide labour for agricultural activities is not assured as trends show a 

continuous exodus of rural population to urban areas in the last twelve consecutive years 

(AGRA, 2013). This implies that less labour-intensive technologies are more likely to be adopted 

than those that need a lot of manual labour.      

  

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 60+

%
to

ta
l 
g
e
n
d
e
r 

o
f 

h
e
a
d
s
 o

f 
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
ld

s
 

a
n
d
 t

h
e
ir
 s

p
o
u
s
e
s
 

 household heads

spouses



9 

 

Table 2.1: Age groups of household members and dependency ratios 

Districts 

Age (years) range Dependency  

Ratio 

Dependency 

ratio by region 0-14 15-64 65+ 

Katakwi 122 161 9 0.81 

1.86 Kumi 145 149 11 1.05 

Kitgum 104 171 8 0.65 

1.53 Lamwo 58 70 3 0.87 

Total 429 413 31 1.11   

 
 
Table 2.2: Broad age grouping of household members 

Districts 

Age groups  

Children (0-

17years) 

Youth (18-30 

years) 

Working group(31-60 

years) 

Old age 

(≤61+years) 

Katakwi 13.69 6.29 5.92 1.11 

Kumi 15.08 6.66 5.27 1.20 

Kitgum 12.95 7.22 5.09 0.93 

Lamwo 6.29 3.61 1.94 0.28 

Total percent 48.01 25.44 23.03 3.52 

 
 
2.2 Gender of household members  

Gender affects crop productivity and rate of technology adoption. Doss and Morris (2001) 

reported that gender positively impacted on the adoption of new maize technologies in Ghana. 

However, studies conducted in Nigeria showed a negative effect of gender on adoption of new 

pearl millet varieties while studies on coffee production in Papua indicated that gender had no 

significant effect on technology adoption (Overfield and Fleming, 2001). In India female labour 

per unit area is generally more expensive than male labour (Ramasamy et al., 2000). In Uganda 

female headed households have been associated with low crop productivity and less likely to 

adopt new technologies relative to male-headed households (Peterman et al., 2010). This 

implies that the role of gender in agriculture should not be under estimated when developing 

new pearl millet technologies for farmers.  

 

Results from this study show that households had more females than males which is the same 

as national ratio of 49% male and 51% female (Table 2.3) (UBOS, 2010). However, more male-

headed households (84.89%) were involved in the study than female-headed households 

(15.11%). This implies that pearl millet farmers in Uganda were more likely to adopt new 



10 

 

technologies. In terms of gender of respondents, still the majority were male (62.59%) while the 

female accounted for 37.41% (Table 2.3). It was easier to get more male respondents than 

female because the study was conducted at harvest time when women spend more time in the 

field than men. This can be confirmed in the labour section where women dominated the 

harvesting and threshing activities (Fig 8.4 and Fig 8.5). The same reason may explain why 

fewer female respondents were interviewed in Lamwo district. This shows that proper timing for 

dissemination of new agricultural technologies is important, especially where women are 

involved.   

 
Table 2.3: Gender of household members 

Districts 

Gender  of heads 

of households  
Gender of respondents 

Gender of household  

members 

Male Female Male Female Male Female 

Katakwi 22.3 5.76 16.55 11.51 13.77 14.75 

Kumi 27.34 1.44 20.86 7.91 15.54 15.14 

Kitgum 19.42 7.91 10.07 17.27 13.37 14.26 

Lamwo 15.83 0.00 15.11 0.72 6.59 6.59 

Total percent 84.89 15.11 62.59 37.41 49.26 50.74 

 

2.3 Marital status and relation to heads households  

Marital status is one of the demographic features determining technology adoption among pearl 

millet farmers (Ndjeunga et al., 2011). Most of the heads of the households that participated in 

the study were married (82.73%) followed by the widow/widowers, divorced/separated and a 

few singles (Table 2.4). The pattern was the same across all the districts except for Lamwo 

where all the heads of households were married. Farmer communities having mostly married 

heads of households have been reported in many studies conducted in Uganda (Mpiira et al., 

2013). However, at household level (Table 2.5) most household members (40.15%) were below 

marriage age and they were mainly children of the heads of households (Table 2.6). Results in 

Table 2.6 further show that households in eastern region had more children, spouses and 

servants related to heads of households than those in the north.  

 
  



11 

 

Table 2.4: Marital status of heads of households  

Districts Married 
Widow/ 

Widowed 

Divorced/ 

Separated 
Single 

Katakwi 21.58 3.60 1.44 1.44 

Kumi 26.62 2.16 0.00 0.00 

Kitgum 18.71 7.19 1.44 0.00 

Lamwo 15.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Total percent 82.73 12.95 2.88 1.44 

 
 
Table 2.5: Marital status of household members 

Districts 
Below Marriage 

Age 
Married Single Widow Divorced 

Katakwi 14.15 7.74 5.93 0.67 0.67 

Kumi 16.63 9.27 3.15 1.24 0.29 

Kitgum 5.83 5.64 12.91 1.53 1.43 

Lamwo 3.54 4.68 4.49 0.1 0.10 

Total percent  40.15 27.34 26.48 3.54 2.49 

 
 
Table 2.6: Relation of household members to heads of households 
Districts Child Spouse Grandchild Servants Others Parent In-Laws 

Katakwi 21.48 3.99 0.89 1.77 0.33 0.55 0.00 

Kumi 21.26 5.54 1.22 1.33 0.78 0.89 0.33 

Kitgum 16.72 2.99 4.32 0.66 1.11 0.22 1.22 

Lamwo 8.31 2.66 0.55 0.00 0.78 0.11 0.00 

Total Percent 67.77 15.17 6.98 3.77 2.99 1.77 1.55 

 

 
2.4 Education level of the household members  

Education level is key in adoption of improved technologies related to agriculture (El-Osta and 

Morehart, 1999; Caswell, et al., 2001; Siddiqui and Mirani, 2012) and important in increasing 

household farm income in Uganda (Nkonya et al., 2002). Lack of education has been 

associated with negative impact on technology adoption (Harper et al., 1990) while more years of 

education positively influenced adoption of information (Namara et al., 2005) and agricultural 

technologies that required intensive management skills (Caswell et al., 2001). For example in 

Nigeria where 73% of pearl millet farmers are illiterate, a low adoption rate of new pearl millet 

varieties has been reported (Ndjeunga et al., 2011).  It is thus perceived that the higher the 

education level the lower the complexity involved in understanding the technology packages 

(Bonabana-Wabbi, 2002).  

 



12 

 

Generally majority (42.45%) of the heads of households had attained some primary level 

education (Table 2.7) with mean of 5.7 years of education experience while 46.36% (Table 2.8) 

of their spouses had attained some primary education with an average of 3.9 years of 

education. The pattern of education experience is consistent with national level where male 

adults have a higher education experience than the female (UBOS, 2010). However, basing on 

the indicators of the multi-dimensional poverty index (MPI) developed by The Economist (2010) 

the education experience of the heads of households met the minimum of five years where one 

is considered to be literate while their spouses failed; implying that generally the heads of 

households were literate (could read and write) while their spouses were illiterate. Thus new 

technology packages developed should be simple or visuals should be used especially for the 

female as they form majority of the spouses.    

 
Table 2.7: Education level of heads of households 

Districts 

Never 

attended 

school 

Some 

primary 

Completed 

primary 

Some ‘O’ 
level 

Completed ‘O’ 
level 

Completed ‘A’ 
level 

Katakwi 3.60 12.23 4.32 2.88 3.60 1.44 

Kumi 2.16 14.39 7.91 2.16 1.44 0.72 

Kitgum 3.60 7.91 3.60 5.04 3.60 3.60 

Lamwo 0.00 7.91 2.88 2.88 0.72 1.44 

Total 

percent 9.35 42.45 18.71 12.95 9.35 7.19 

 
 
Table 2.8: Education level of spouses 

Districts Never attended 

formal education 

Some 

primary 

Completed 

primary 

Some 'O' 

level 

Completed 

'O' level 

Completed 

'A' level 

Katakwi 7.97 13.77 2.17 2.90 0.00 0.72 

Kumi 3.62 18.84 3.62 2.17 0.72 0.00 

Kitgum 5.07 10.14 4.35 4.35 2.17 0.72 

Lamwo 6.52 3.62 5.07 0.72 0.00 0.00 

Total 

percentage 23.19 46.38 15.22 10.14 2.90 1.45 

 
 
 
 
  



13 

 

Table 2.9: Highest education level attained by household members 

Districts 

Never 

attended 

school 

Not yet 

school 

age 

Some 

primary 

Completed 

primary 

Some 'O' 

level 

Completed 

'O' level 

Complete

d 'A' level 

Tertiary 

institution 

katakwi 4.63 2.32 14.38 2.32 3.28 0.97 1.06 0.10 

Kumi 4.15 3.38 15.44 2.41 3.76 0.97 0.39 0.10 

Kitgum 4.25 1.45 10.71 2.70 2.61 2.32 3.19 0.19 

Lamwo 2.70 1.45 5.60 1.83 0.97 0.10 0.29 0.00 

Total 

percent 15.73 8.59 46.14 9.27 10.62 4.34 4.92 0.39 

 

 
2.5 Human population in households  

The average number of persons per household was 7.54 with a minimum of one member and a 

maximum of fifteen persons per household. Most households had 6-10 persons (64.75%). This 

is higher than the national level of 5 persons per household (UBOS, 2010). Over 23.02% 

households had 1-5 persons while 12.23% had between 11-15 persons (Table 2.10). The large 

number of household members is a good source of on-farm labour. However, in this case it may 

not be an incentive because majority of the household members were young up to 17 years.  

 

Table 2.10: Response about number of household members 

Districts 

Range of household members 

1-5 persons 6-10 persons 11-15persons 

Katakwi 6.47 16.55 5.04 

Kumi 6.47 17.99 4.32 

Kitgum 4.32 20.14 2.88 

Lamwo 5.76 10.07 0.00 

Total percent 23.02 64.75 12.23 

 
 
2.6 Housing conditions and sanitation 

Majority of the households had low standards of living as shown by there being no household 

with electricity and staying in temporary (83.45%) houses (Table 2.11). Majority of the pearl 

millet farmers stayed in single room houses built with mud and wattle or iron sheets/tins and 

roofed mainly with grass or papyrus reeds (Fig 2.2). Most houses had their floor made of mud or 

cow dung smear. The single room houses seem to be over crowded as most households had 

more than six members; which is higher than the two persons per room recommended by Macro 

International Inc. (2007).  The living conditions are lower than the national level reported by 

UBOS (2010). 



14 

 

Presence of pit latrine was a good sanitation indicator where 79.14% of the households had 

access to pit latrines. This was slightly above the national level of 68.00% reported by the 

Ministry of Health (as quoted in the New Vision, 02.12.13 page 49). Both regions had high 

percentage of households with pit latrines (75.95% and 83.33% in eastern and northern region 

respectively). However, the 20.86% of households without pit latrines is much higher than the 

10% reported by UBOS (2010) for the rural areas. Sensitisation should be done to inform 

people about the health dangers of not having a pit latrine and the advantage of having one.  



15 

 

Table 2.11: Housing conditions for pearl millet farmers 

Districts 

Type of house Type of wall 
Type of roofing 

materials 

Type of floor 

materials 
Number of rooms Presence of pit latrine 

Temporary Permanent 
Semi-

permanent 

Mud and 

wattle 
Bricks Grass 

Iron 

sheets 

Mud/cow 

dung 
Cement 1 2 3 4+ yes no 

Katakwi 27.34 0.72 0.00 20.86 7.19 27.34 0.72 27.34 0.72 27 1 0 1 17.99 10.07 

Kumi 20.14 5.76 2.88 14.39 14.39 20.86 7.91 21.58 7.19 19 2 4 3 25.18 3.6 

Kitgum 20.14 2.88 4.32 12.95 14.39 19.42 7.91 21.58 5.76 8 8 6 6 22.3 5.04 

Lamwo 15.83 0.00 0.00 11.51 4.32 15.83 0.00 15.83 0.00 3 7 4 1 13.67 2.16 

%total  83.45 9.35 7.19 59.71 40.29 83.45 16.55 86.33 13.67 57 18 14 11 79.14 20.86 

  



16 

 

 
Fig 2.2: Typical homestead of pearl millet farmers 
 

2.7 Economic activities of the household members 

Economic activities are important in determining technology adoption. For example off-farm and 

non-farm income provides additional cash for purchasing new technology requirements 

(Namara et al., 2005). Namara et al. (2005) still reported that the other income sources may 

also negatively affect adoption of agricultural technologies because agriculture then ceases to 

be a major source of income. Considering the main economic activity as being one that takes 

most of the farmers’ time of the day, it was observed that farming (51.50%) was the lead 

economic activity for heads of households in the surveyed districts (Table 2.12). The farming 

activities included crop production and livestock rearing. This is lower than the national figure of 

70% of rural people being employed in agriculture (UBOS, 2010). However, at household level 

the household chores ranked first among the economic activities followed by farming and 

studying respectively (Table 2.13). Results in Table 2.13 further show that 11.01% of the 

household members did not participate in any economic activity due to old age, being too young 

or because of sickness. It is still observed that 64.45% of the household members did not 

contribute directly to household income but depended on the 35.55% who had a direct income. 

The dependants include those studying, those involved in household chores and those who 

could not contribute to household income.  



17 

 

Table 2.12: Economic activities for heads of households 

Districts 

%household response about economic activities for head of households 

Farming (crop + 

livestock) 

Household 

chores 

Retail 

business Brewing Teacher 

Brick 

making 

Carpentry/metal 

fabrication 

Building/co

nstruction 

Casual 

labour on-

farm Driver 

Katakwi 14.66 8.65 2.26 1.50 1.13 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Kumi 15.04 11.28 3.01 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 

Kitgum 13.53 5.26 1.50 1.13 1.13 0.38 1.13 0.75 0.38 0.75 

Lamwo 8.27 4.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.75 0.75 0.38 0.00 

Total percent 51.50 29.70 6.77 2.63 2.26 1.88 1.88 1.50 1.13 0.75 

 
 

Table 2.13: Economic activities of household members  

Districts 

Percentage household response about economic activities Dependence 

House

hold 

chores 

Farmi

ng  

Study

ing  

Cann

ot 

work 

Retail 

busin

ess 

Form

al 

work  

Brick 

makin

g 

Brewi

ng Crafting 

On-Farm 

casual 

labour  

Building/

construc

tion Driver 

Direct 

income 

source Dependent 

Katakwi 8.45 9.43 5.56 3.16 0.87 0.49 0.33 0.27 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 11.50 17.18 

Kumi 10.91 8.67 6.43 3.60 0.93 0.22 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 10.14 20.94 

Kitgum 8.34 6.92 7.42 2.62 0.93 0.49 0.22 0.33 0.49 0.16 0.22 0.11 9.87 18.38 

Lamwo 3.98 3.82 2.34 1.64 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.11 0.00 4.03 7.96 

Total 

percent 31.68 28.84 21.76 11.01 2.73 1.20 0.71 0.60 0.60 0.44 0.33 0.11 35.55 64.45 

 



18 

 

2.8 Household food security situation 

A household is food secure when it has access to adequate food needed for a healthy life for all 

its members (adequate in terms of quality, quantity, safety and cultural acceptability); and when 

it is not at risk of losing such access. However, in this study emphasis was put on the aspect of 

food quantity and availability. This is based on Bahiigwa’s (1999) findings that households in 

Uganda were considered to be food secure if they had enough to eat at all times in terms of 

availability and quantity. Bahiigwa (1999) further reported that to the farmers in the rural 

households food quality was a secondary aspect of food security. Thus questions were asked 

about food availability, quantity, meals eaten daily, shortage and causes, coping strategies and 

whether pearl millet was an important food security crop. 

 

2.8.1 Food availability in households  

Respondents were asked whether their households faced fluctuations of food availability and if 

they suffered from food shortage. It was observed that majority (60%) of the respondents had 

an improvement in food availability while 23.57% of the households indicated reduced food 

availability and 16.43% noticed no change (Table 2.14). Results in Table 2.14 further show 

majority indicating an increase in food quantity in their households. However, a large 

percentage (43.21%) of farmers talked of a reduction in food quantity in their households. This 

implies that much as food availability increased, the quantity may have actually reduced; 

predisposing households to the ‘quantity’ type of food insecurity. Results in Fig 2.3 confirm this, 

as majority (74.29%) of the households responded having faced food shortage in their 

households.  The pattern was the same across all districts except Lamwo. Fig 2.3 results may 

also imply that respondents exaggerated having an improvement in food situation. This is 

further confirmed by results in Fig 2.4 which shows that majority (48.09%) of the households 

could afford only one meal in a day and only 18.03% had three meals in a day. Results further 

show that having only one meal daily was more pronounced in the eastern region especially 

Katakwi district while in the northern region Kitgum district had more households having only 

one meal daily. Generally results point to households both in the eastern and northern region 

being food insecure in term of availability and quantity. Due to the proof of food shortage 

indicated in Fig 2.3, respondents identified possible causes of food shortage (Table 2.15) and 

coping strategies during food scarcity (Table 2.16).   

 

 



19 

 

Table 2.14: Household responses about changes in food availability and quantity 

Districts 

Changes in household food 

availability 

 

Changes in household food quantity 

Improved Declined No change   

Quantity of food 

 increased 

Quantity of 

food reduced 

Katakwi 15.71 5.00 7.14 

 

13.21 14.64 

Kumi 23.57 2.14 3.57 

 

17.50 11.79 

Kitgum 11.43 12.14 3.57 

 

14.64 12.50 

Lamwo 9.29 4.29 2.14 

 

11.43 4.29 

Total percent 60.00 23.57 16.43   56.79 43.21 

 
 
 

 
Fig 2.3: Household response about experiencing food shortage  

 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

24.29 
22.14 20.71 

7.14 

74.29 

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

katakwi kumi kitgum lamwo total percent

%
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
ld

s
 r

e
s
p
o
n
s
e
 a

b
o
u
t 

h
a
v
in

g
 f

o
o
d
 

s
h
o
rt

a
g
e
  

Districts 

yes

no



20 

 

 
Fig 2.4: Household response about number of meals eaten per day 

 

2.8.2 Causes of food shortage and coping strategies 

As indicated in Table 2.15, the causes of food shortage in households identified by farmers 

were; drought, crop insect pests and diseases, lack of improved planting materials, low soil 

fertility, lack of off-farm income, floods and lack of enough land. Drought, insect pests and 

diseases and lack of improved planting materials were respectively ranked as the first, second 

and third cause of food insecurity. Still observed from Table 2.15 poor soil fertility, lack of off-

farm income, floods and lack of enough land were also significant contributors to food shortage 

in households of pearl millet growers. Sickness of household members and labour shortage to a 

lesser extent were reported as being other causes of food shortage. In addition, possible coping 

strategies adopted during food shortage were; buying food as the most important followed by 

working for food and visiting food-secure relatives. Borrowing food, reducing number of meals 

and planting early to avoid drought were also identified by farmers as being important coping 

strategies to avoid food scarcity (Table 2.16).   

 
 
 

14.21 
11.48 

14.21 

8.20 

48.09 

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

katakwi kumi kitgum lamwo total percent

%
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
ld

 r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
 a

b
o
u
t 

n
u
m

b
e
r 

o
f 

m
e
a
ls

 
e
a
te

n
 i
n
 a

 d
a
y 

Districts 

one meal daily

two meals daily

three meals daily



21 

 

Table 2.15: Causes of food shortage in households 

Districts 

Drought 

Plant 

pests and 

diseases 

Lack of 

planting 

materials 

Poor 

soils 

Lack of off-

farm income 

Land 

shortage Floods Weeds 

Sickness of 

household 

members 

Labour 

shortage for 

cultivation 

Katakwi 22.76 3.25 1.63 1.63 0.00 0.00 4.07 0.00 0.00 0.81 

Kumi 15.45 0.81 4.07 0.81 0.81 2.44 0.00 0.00 1.63 0.00 

Kitgum 7.32 4.88 4.07 7.32 3.25 1.63 0.00 4.07 0.81 0.81 

Lamwo 4.07 2.44 0.00 0.00 1.63 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.00 

Total percent 49.59 11.38 9.76 9.76 5.69 4.88 4.07 4.07 3.25 1.63 

 
 
Table 2.16: Coping strategies during food shortage 

Districts 
Buy food 

Work 
for that 

food 

Visiting food 
secure 

relatives  
Borrowing 

food 

Reduce daily 
number of 

meals 

Early planting 
to avoid 
drought 

Rent land 
for food 

production 
Provide off-
farm labour 

Katakwi 8.88 5.33 5.33 3.55 2.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 
Kumi 9.47 2.37 5.92 2.37 2.96 0.59 0.59 0.00 
Kitgum 12.43 6.51 4.14 2.37 2.96 1.78 0.59 0.00 
Lamwo 8.88 4.14 2.37 1.78 0.00 0.59 0.00 1.18 
Total percent 39.64 18.34 17.75 10.06 8.88 2.96 1.18 1.18 

 



22 

 

Section 3 Socioeconomic capital and technology adoption  

In this section socioeconomic empowerment was assessed where pearl millet farmers were 

asked about access to credit, agricultural trainings received, extension visits, sources of 

information and membership in groups or organisations.  

 

3.1.1 Access to credit 

Credit is one of the sources of capital that can be used for investment in agriculture. Kapwong et 

al. (2012) identified access to microcredit to invest in agriculture and agribusiness as the most 

important factor needed to improve livelihood conditions in rural areas. Borrowed money may be 

used to carry out time-bound agricultural activities such as planting, weeding and harvesting 

and thus ease with which it can be received being critically important. Under access to credit 

farmers were asked whether they accessed credit or not, purpose for which credit was sought 

and reasons why they could not access credit. Information was sought about credit sources, 

range of amount normally borrowed, interest rate and payback period.  

 

Generally majority (83.57%) of the households interviewed did not access credit in the last two 

years compared with only 16.43% that received credit (Fig 3.1). The households that did not 

access credit identified absence of credit source in their villages (39.69%) as the main cause 

followed by lack of collateral, high interest rates and there being no need to borrow money 

(Table 3.1). Stringent terms and conditions, not being certain of harvest to pay back, fear to lose 

assets due to failure to pay back and lack of information about credit were among the other 

reasons for not accessing credit (Table 3.1). Mpiira et al. (2013) also reported lack of 

information, high interest rates, and fears as some of the reasons for not accessing credit in 

Uganda.  

 

However, the trend varied slightly at regional level where in the northern region lack of collateral 

to offer as security and there being no need to borrow were the most important reasons for not 

accessing credit but in the east absence of credit source in the village and high interest rates 

were the most important reasons for not accessing credit to fund agricultural activities. While 

lack of collateral was the most important reason for not accessing credit in Kitgum district, 

farmers in Lamwo district expressed there being no need to access credit as the most important 

reason for not accessing credit.  



23 

 

 
Fig 3.1: Household response about access to financial credit  
 

 

Table 3.1: Reasons for not accessing financial credit 

Districts 

Absence of 

credit 

source in 

village 

Lack of 

collateral 

High 

interest 

rates 

No 

need 

Stringent 

terms and 

conditions 

Not 

uncertain 

of 

harvest 

Fears 

losing 

assets 

Lack of 

information 

where to 

get credit 

Katakwi 18.32 0.76 6.11 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.00 

Kumi 16.79 0.76 6.11 0.76 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.76 

Kitgum 0.00 9.92 0.76 4.58 5.60 5.34 2.29 0.00 

Lamwo 4.58 3.05 0.00 6.11 2.40 1.53 0.76 0.00 

Total 

percent 
39.69 14.50 12.98 12.21 8.00 7.63 4.58 0.76 

 

 
3.1.2 Sources of financial credit 

The most important sources of credit for financing agricultural activities were generally informal 

low-capital organisations or groups operating as village banks (Table 3.2). These were followed 

by the relatively well organised non-governmental organisations and large banks like Centenary 

Bank. However, the banks in Kumi and Kitgum districts are near urban areas. This may imply 

that the formal credit sources operate within or near town areas; further confirming there being 

no credit facilities in rural areas as a major reason for not accessing financial credit.    

  

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

katakwi kumi kitgum lamwo total percent

%
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
ld

 r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
 a

b
o
u
t 

a
c
c
e
s
s
 t
o
 c

re
d
it
 

Districts 

yes

no



24 

 

Table 3.2: Sources of credit 

Districts Village banks BRAC SACCO Centenary Bank 

Katakwi 19.05 0.00 0.00 4.76 

Kumi 19.05 4.76 9.52 0.00 

Kitgum 9.52 14.29 4.76 9.52 

Lamwo 4.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Total percent 52.38 19.05 14.29 14.29 

 

 
3.1.3 Reasons for accessing financial credit and related transactions 

Reasons for accessing credit included paying for labour for on-farm activities, paying school 

fees, financing businesses and purchase of livestock as the most important although paying for 

medical bills and construction were also mentioned (Table 3.3). Most of the activities for which 

credit was sought were short term, which were mainly season based. This may justify why the 

majority of the pearl millet farmers borrowed small amounts of money in the range Ugx 20000-

200000 (<USD 100) (Table 3.4) and paid back within three months at mainly 10% interest rate 

(Table 3.5).  

 
Table 3.3: Reasons for accessing credit 

Regions 

Labour for 

farming 

activities 

Pay 

school 

fees 

Finance 

business 

activities 

Purchase 

livestock 

Medical 

bills 

payment Construction 

Eastern 27.00 5.25 3.33 0.00 4.00 0.00 

Northern 18.00 2.00 2.00 5.00 0.00 2.00 

Total percent 45.45 7.02 5.26 5.26 3.51 2.00 

 
 
Table 3.4: Percentage response and range of amount of money borrowed by region 

Regions 
amount of money borrowed (‘000’) 

20-100 100-200 250-300 400+ 

 Eastern 16.00 21.00 9.00 14.00 
Northern 16.00 21.00 5.00 0.00 
Total percentage 32.00 41.00 14.00 14.00 

 
 
Table 3.5: Interest rate per month and payback period  
Percentage by 
regions 

Interest rate per month Payback period (months) 

1-10 10-20 20-30 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 

Eastern 40.76 4.31 9.09 40.91 0.00 0.00 13.64 
Northern 36.51 9.33 0.00 31.82 9.09 4.55 0.00 
Grand percentage 77.27 13.64 9.09 72.73 9.09 4.55 13.64 



25 

 

3.2 Access to agricultural training  

3.2.1 Participation in selected agricultural training 

Agricultural training is one of the processes of empowering rural farmers to operate profitably. 

Almost half (49%) of the households had received some training (Fig 3.2). However, more 

farmers in the northern region were trained than those in the eastern region.  In addition results 

in Fig 3.3 show that those trained were either heads of households or spouses. The results also 

show that more heads of households were trained than the spouses. Since majority (Table 2.3) 

of the heads of households was that of men, it implies that most participants in the agricultural 

trainings were men and very few women. This is expected especially when trainings are held at 

time when women are involved in on-farm activities like weeding, harvesting or threshing. 

 

 
Fig 3.2: Response about access to agricultural training 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

eastern northern total

%
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
ld

s
 t

ra
in

e
d
 a

n
d
 n

o
t 

tr
a
in

e
d

 

Regions 

%trained

% not trained



26 

 

 
Fig 3.3: Response about heads of households and spouses who accessed to agricultural 

training 

 

3.2.2 Types of trainings received and training organisations   

Trainings related to modern agriculture were the most common that the pearl millet farmers 

received followed by marketing, vegetable production, pest and disease control and livestock 

rearing (Table 3.6). Trainings related to modern agriculture included row planting and proper 

spacing, agronomy of new varieties, vegetable production, proper harvesting and post-harvest 

technologies. Other trainings not indicated in Table 3.6 were record keeping, savings and credit, 

enterprise selection and agro-forestry. These were short term trainings taking up to only two 

days (Table 3.7); with NAADS and NGOs being the lead trainers (Table 3.8). Among the NGOs, 

LWF was the most frequent trainer while others included IRC, TEDO, BRAC, URCS, A2N, 

World Vision Uganda and UNAFFE. NAADS was the most prominent government-aided 

organisation that frequently offered agricultural trainings and to a lesser extent NARO.   

 

  

12.43 

23.86 

36.29 

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

eastern northern total percent

%
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
ld

 h
e
a
d
s
 a

n
d
 s

p
o
u
s
e
s
 w

h
o
 

re
c
e
iv

e
d
 a

g
ri
c
u
lt
u
ra

l 
tr

a
in

in
g

 

Regions 

household heads

spouses



27 

 

Table 3.6: Types of training received by household members 

Districts 
Modern  

agriculture 
Marketing 

Pests 

control 

Training of 

trainers (TOT) 

Livestock 

rearing 

Katakwi 16.67 0.00 3.70 1.85 0.00 

Kumi 18.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Kitgum 25.93 1.85 0.00 1.85 1.85 

Lamwo 22.22 3.70 0.00 0.00 1.85 

Total percent 83.33 5.56 3.70 3.70 3.70 

 

Table 3.7: Duration of trainings 

Districts 
Duration of trainings in days 

1 2 3 4 5 6-10 12-21 

Katakwi 5 3 0 0 1 2 1 
Kumi 5 7 0 0 0 1 0 

Kitgum 3 8 4 2 0 1 2 

Lamwo 6 7 4 1 2 0 0 
Total frequency 19 25 8 3 3 4 3 

 

Table 3.8: Major organisations that trained the pearl millet farmers 

Districts 
Frequency of occurrence of organisations that trained respondents 

NAADS NGOs NARO 

Katakwi 2 19 0 
Kumi 8 2 2 
Kitgum 12 6 0 
Lamwo 12 7 0 
Total frequency 34 34 2 

 

 

3.2.3 Technology adoption for selected enterprises  

Respondents were asked if they applied the knowledge acquired from the training sessions they 

attended and majority (82.61%) showed a positive response to applying the skills learnt while a 

few (17.39%) did not apply the skills learnt (Fig 3.4). Reasons advanced for failing to use the 

skills included; being trained off-season, lack of materials needed to apply the skills, strict terms 

and having no time to apply the knowledge acquired. 

 

The high level of adoption reported by the trained pearl millet farmers may be due to the type of 

enterprises targeted by the trainers. Farmers received training in modern technologies for 

production of ground nuts, vegetables, cassava, beans, maize and to a lesser extent pearl millet 

(Table 3.9). Ground nuts and cassava were ranked first and third respectively in terms of 

importance. Unfortunately farmers were not trained in modern sesame technologies yet the crop 

ranked second in terms of importance. The crops in which trainings were received were ranked 

as high priority by the farmers in the eastern and northern regions for food and income 

generation. Farmers were also trained in production of common beans in the north but not in the 



28 

 

east still because beans are an important food crop mainly in the north. However some farmers 

received pearl millet trainings in the eastern region mainly because it is an important cash crop 

in that region. 

 

 
Fig 3.4:  Household response about technology adoption  
 
 
Technologies adopted (Table 3.10) were related to the enterprises affected by the training and 

the crops commonly grown in the pearl millet cropping system. The technologies adopted were 

related to agronomy of the most important crops and testing of new varieties of the favourite 

crops. This shows that the adoption rate was also based on the crop importance as long as the 

factors in Table 3.11 are fulfilled. Reasons for success were; using the technology as 

recommended (91.30%) and planting at the right time (9.70%) while reasons for failure of 

technology success were drought (37.50%), being labour intensive (37.50%) and farmers being 

used to old technology (laggards) (25.00%). 

 
 

14.56 
17.47 

24.75 25.82 

82.6 

4.35 2.9 
5.8 4.35 

17.4 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

katakwi kumi kitgum lamwo total percent

%
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
ld

 r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
 a

b
o
u
t 

te
c
h
n
o
lo

g
y 

a
d
o
p
ti
o
n

 

Districts 

adopted

not adopted



29 

 

Table 3.9: Enterprises affected by training 

Districts 

Frequencies of enterprises for which technology was adopted after training 

Ground 

nuts 
Cassava Vegetables Beans Maize 

Pearl 

millet 
Livestock Sorghum 

Other oil 

crops 
Trees Rice 

Finger 

millet 
Oranges 

Katakwi 7 3 6 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 

Kumi 9 4 5 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 

Kitgum 6 8 0 2 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 2 

Lamwo 10 3 2 4 1 0 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 

Total 

frequency 
32 18 13 6 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 

 
 
Table 3.10: Technologies adopted and response about success 

Technologies adopted  Percentage 
Percentage response for success or not 

Yes No 

Agronomy of important crops  67.65 45.45 21.21 

Testing of new varieties 11.77 12.12 0.00 

Tree plating 5.88 3.03 3.03 

Spraying against pests 5.88 6.06 0.00 

Animal traction 2.94 3.03 0.00 

Vegetable production 2.94 3.03 0.00 

Piggery management 2.94 3.03 0.00 

Total percent 100 75.76 24.24 

 
 

 
 

 



30 

 

Table 3.11: Factors considered for technology adoption  

Factors 
Percentage 

response 

Availability of necessary inputs 36.43 

Market demand/should be marketable 15.71 

Affordability 12.86 

Adaptability 7.86 

Yielding ability and maturity period 6.42 

Resistance to diseases 5.00 

Duration of learning technology 4.29 

Ease to implement 2.86 

Sustainability 2.86 

Cultural  acceptance  2.86 

Demonstration 1.43 

Availability of trainers 0.71 

Being used as food 0.71 

 

3.2.4 Access to extension services for selected agricultural activities 

Access to extension services is one way of ensuring that the farmers appropriately implement 

the skills acquired from the agricultural trainings. Activities where extension services were 

received included proper planting, thinning/proper crop spacing, harvesting, crop and animal 

pest and disease control, new crop varieties, soil and water conservation, food storage, 

marketing and processing, market prices for produce and inputs, and climatic/weather 

conditions. The access to extension services was measured in terms of frequency of visits of by 

both the NGOs and government extension agents. The frequency was coded as 1) regular visits 

for up to 4 visits and more (4+), 2) irregular visits from 1 to 3 visits and 3) no visit where the 

farmers did not receive any extension visit in the last two years.   

 

Results show that generally majority of the farmers (more than 70%) did not receive any 

extension advise in 2010 and 2011 for the selected agricultural activities while a few received 

irregular visits from both the NGOs and the government agencies (Table 3.12 and Table 3.13). 

This implies that normally after training the farmers there is no follow up to ensure that farmers 

correctly implement the skills acquired. Surprising, the percentage for ‘no visit’ (Fig. 3.5) was 

higher for the NGOs than that of the government agencies for all the selected activities yet the 

NGOs provided more trainings than the government aided institutions. This may imply that the 

NGOs, after spending a lot of resources in training, do not provide any support in form of 

extension advice. It further shows that government supported agencies provided more 

extension advise to the pearl millet farmers than the private NGOs; which is further corroborated 



31 

 

by government agencies performing better than the NGOs in both the irregular and regular 

categories of extension visits. However, this differs from Bashasha et al. (2011) findings that 

NGOs improved extension service delivery in the respective areas where they operated.  

 

 
Fig 3.5: Comparison of frequency of extension visits by Government and NGO agencies for 
selected activities

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

%
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
ld

 r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

 

Selected activities where extension services were offered 

Gov't regular
visits (4+ times)
in last 2 yrs

Gov't irregular
visits (1-3
times) last 2 yrs

NGOs regular
visits (4+ times)
in last 2 yrs

NGOs irregular
visit (1-3 times)
last 2 yrs



32 

 

Table 3.12: Visits by extension agents for selected pre-harvest activities 

Selected pre-harvest agronomic activities 

Districts 

Extension visits by Gov't  
 

 Extension visits by NGOs  

Regular 
visits (4+ 
times) in 
2010 and 

2011 

Irregular 
(1-3 

times) in 
2010 and 

2011 

No visit in 
2010 and 

2011 

  

Regular 
visits (4+ 
times) in 

2010 
and 

2011 

Irregular 
(1-3 times) 

in 2010 
and 2011 

No visit in 
2010 and 

2011 

Planting 

Katakwi 1.46 4.38 21.9  0 3.68 24.26 

Kumi 2.92 7.3 18.25  0 0 28.68 

Kitgum 2.19 2.19 23.36  1.47 5.15 20.59 

Lamwo 0 5.11 10.95  1.47 2.94 11.76 

Total percent 6.57 18.98 74.45 

 

2.94 11.76 85.29 

Thinning/proper plant spacing 

Katakwi 0 5.04 23.02  2.16 2.88 23.02 

Kumi 2.88 4.32 21.58  0 0 28.78 

Kitgum 0 2.16 25.18  0.72 1.44 25.18 

Lamwo 0 5.04 10.79  0 2.88 12.95 

Total percent 2.88 16.55 80.58 

 

2.88 7.19 89.93 

Harvesting 

Katakwi 2.17 4.35 21.74  0.72 3.6 23.74 

Kumi 3.62 4.35 20.29  0 0 28.78 

Kitgum 1.45 1.45 24.64  2.88 2.88 21.58 

Lamwo 0 4.35 11.59  0.72 2.88 12.23 

Total percent 7.25 14.49 78.26 

 

4.32 9.35 86.33 

Proper food storage 

 Katakwi 0.72 5.04 22.3  2.88 23.74 23.02 

Kumi 2.88 5.04 20.86  0 28.78 28.78 

Kitgum 0 2.16 25.18  1.44 25.18 25.9 

Lamwo 0 2.88 12.95  2.16 13.67 13.67 

Total percent 3.6 15.11 81.29 

 

6.47 91.37 91.37 

Soil and water conservation 

Katakwi 0.72 4.32 23.02  2.16 2.88 23.02 

Kumi 2.88 5.76 20.14  0 0 28.78 

Kitgum 0 1.44 25.9  0 1.44 25.9 

Lamwo 0 2.88 12.95  0 2.16 13.67 

Total percent  3.6 14.39 82.01   2.16 6.47 91.37 



33 

 

Table 3.13: Visits by extension agents for selected post-harvest activities 

Selected post-harvest agronomic activities 

Districts 

 Extension visits by Gov't  
 

 Extension visits by NGOs  

Regular 
visits (4+ 
times) in 
2010 and 

2011 

Irregular 
(1-3 

times)in 
2010 and 

2011 

No visit in 
2010 and 

2011 
  

Regular 
visits (4+ 
times) in 
2010 and 

2011 

Irregular (1-3 
times) in 
2010 and 

2011 

No visit 
in 2010 

and 
2011 

Crop pest and disease control 

Katakwi 2.16 4.32 21.58  0.72 2.88 24.46 

Kumi 2.88 5.76 20.14  0.00 0.00 28.78 

Kitgum 0.72 1.44 25.18  0.72 2.16 24.46 

Lamwo 0.00 2.88 12.95  0.00 2.16 13.67 

Total percent  5.76 14.39 79.86 

 

1.44 7.19 91.37 

New crop varieties 

Katakwi 0.00 5.04 23.02  1.44 2.16 24.46 

Kumi 1.44 5.76 21.58  0.00 0.00 28.78 

Kitgum 2.16 1.44 23.74  0.00 1.44 25.9 

Lamwo 0.00 2.16 13.67  0.00 2.16 13.67 

Total percent  3.60 14.39 82.01 

 

1.44 5.76 92.81 

Input prices  

Katakwi 0.72 4.32 23.02  0.72 2.88 24.46 

Kumi 1.44 5.04 22.30  0.00 0.00 28.78 

Kitgum 1.44 1.44 24.46  0.00 0.00 27.34 

Lamwo 0.00 2.16 13.67  0.00 2.16 13.67 

Total percent  3.60 12.95 83.45 

 

0.72 5.04 94.24 

Output /produce prices  

Katakwi 1.45 4.35 21.74  2.17 2.17 23.19 

Kumi 3.62 5.07 20.29  0.00 0.00 28.99 

Kitgum 0.72 1.45 25.36  0.72 0.72 26.09 

Lamwo 0.00 2.17 13.77  0.00 2.17 13.77 

Total percent 5.80 13.04 81.16 

 

2.90 5.07 92.03 

Weather/climatic conditions 

Katakwi 1.45 4.35 21.74  0.72 2.9 23.91 

Kumi 0.00 4.35 21.74  0.00 0.00 28.99 

Kitgum 0.00 1.45 26.09  0.00 0.00 27.54 

Lamwo 0.00 2.17 13.77  0.00 2.17 13.77 

Total percent  4.35 12.32 83.33   0.72 5.07 94.20 

 
 

  



34 

 

3.2.5 Sources of information for selected agricultural activities 

Sources of information were sought for farmer-selected agricultural activities like planting 

(sowing methods, planting depths, when to plant), thinning/proper plant spacing, harvesting 

(when and how), proper food storage, soil and water conservation, weather/climatic forecast, 

input and output/produce prices, processing and marketing, crop pest and disease control and 

new crop varieties. Results (Fig 3.6) indicate that much as there were various sources of 

information, a great number (22.48%) of the pearl millet farmers did not access any agricultural-

related information. However, those who accessed information did that mainly through radio 

(31.41%). This is contrary in other pearl millet growing areas. For example, in India majority of 

the farmers accessed agricultural information from fellow farmers and neighbours (Asare-Marfo 

et al., 2010) but these were secondary in Uganda. Other sources of significant importance were 

friends or neighbours, extension agents, NGOs, training workshops, farmer field schools and 

farmers’ field days. There was no major difference in the sources of information for the selected 

agricultural aspects at district level (Appendix) although upcoming sources of information (not in 

graph) included mobile phones, Local Council officials, newspapers and agro-produce buyers.   

 

 
Fig 3.6: Common sources of agricultural information 

  

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

P
e
rc

e
n
ta

g
e
 h

o
u
s
e
h
o
ld

 r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

 

Sources of information 



35 

 

3.3 Group dynamics 

3.3.1 Membership in organisations or social groups and their main activities 

Studies have shown that collective action has been important in poverty reduction in rural 

communities due to increased access to services (Kapwong et al., 2012). The result is improved 

productive capacity which transforms into human development and poverty reduction (World 

Bank, 2004). More than fifty percent (58.57%) of the households had at least an individual who 

was a member of a local social group when compared with 41.43% households that had no 

member involved in any group or organisation dynamics (Fig 3.7). This shows that many of the 

pearl millet farmers may be aware of the value of being members of groups/organisations as a 

social capital. Results (Table 3.14) show that the heads of households were the most active 

members involved in group activities followed by the spouses and lastly other members. 

However, most of the pearl millet farmers involved in group activities had no leadership roles 

followed by a few being chairpersons and general secretaries (Table 3.15); implying that there is 

need to train farmers about leadership. Results in Table 3.16 show that most farmers were 

involved in mutual support and labour provision groups. In addition, most members did not pay 

any registration or annual fee to join the mutual support groups (Table 3.17); implying that most 

of the farmers are involved in groups where they have no financial obligation for adherence.  

 

 
Fig 3.7: Household involvement in social organisations or groups 
  

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

katakwi kumi kitgum lamwo total percent

%
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
ld

s
 w

it
h
 m

e
m

b
e
rs

 in
 o

r 
n
o
t 

in
v
o
lv

e
d
 i
n
 a

n
y 

g
ro

u
p

 

Districts 

%in groups

%not in groups



36 

 

Table 3.14: Group membership by categories of household members 

Districts 

Household members in groups 

Household 

head 
Spouse Other members 

Katakwi 11 8 1 

Kumi 10 7 4 

Kitgum 16 4 2 

Lamwo 16 2 0 

Total number of group members 53 21 7 

 
 
Table 3.15: Role of household members in groups 

Districts 

Role of household members in groups 

Ordinary 

members Chairpersons 

General 

secretary 

Finance 

secretary 

Information 

secretary 

Vice 

chairperson 

 Katakwi 16 3 0 1 0 1  

Kumi 10 3 4 3 1 0  

Kitgum 7 3 3 1 2 1  

Lamwo 5 6 4 1 1 1  

Total number of 

members  38 15 11 6 4 3 

  
 
Table 3.16: Group main activities 

Districts 

Group main activities  

Merry go 

round/savings 

Group 

farming 

Agric. 

labour 

provision 

Produce 

marketing 

Animal 

husbandry 

Seed 

production 

Stone 

quarrying 

Katakwi 11 5 1 3 0 0 0 

Kumi 11 5 1 3 1 0 0 

Kitgum 3 3 8 1 3 2 1 

Lamwo 1 7 7 1 2 0 0 

Total frequency 26 20 17 8 6 2 1 

 
 
Table 3.17: Registration and annual fee paid for membership  

Districts 

Fee paid for membership in groups 

Registration fee 

 

Annual fee 

0 5000 2000 3000 1000 3500 500 

 

0 1000 2000 3000 500 

Katakwi 6 8 1 2 1 2 0  1 3 1 0 0 

Kumi 3 2 1 0 0 2 0  1 0 2 1 0 

Kitgum 6 3 6 2 1 0 1  12 2 2 2 1 

Lamwo 8 0 2 2 2 0 2  11 1 0 1 1 

Total number of 

members  23 13 10 6 4 4 3 

 

25 6 5 4 2 

 



37 

 

Section 4 Importance and utilisation of pearl millet  

4.1 Importance of pearl millet in terms of cultivation frequency and being food 
security crop 

To establish the importance of pearl millet, farmers were asked how often they planted the crop 

in the last consecutive five years. Results showed that majority (56.02%) of the farmers planted 

pearl millet almost every year. In Table 4.1 it is further observed that farmers in the east had 

grown pearl millet more often than farmers in the north. Reasons advanced for the high 

frequency of pearl millet cultivation included being a food security crop