Factors in The DA Agri-Kalikasan Program Communication Strategy Influencing Farmers' Adoption Stage of The Modified Rapid Composting (MRC) Technology in Leyte, Philippines

FACTORS IN THE DA AGRI-KALIKASAN PROGRAM
COMMUNICATION STRATEGY INFLUENCING FARMERS’

ADOPTION STAGE OF THE MODIFIED RAPID COMPOSTING (MRC)
TECHNOLOGY IN LEYTE, PHILIPPINES
EULA MARIE DELA CRUZ MANGAOANG
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE

COLLEGE OF DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LOS BAÑOS
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION

(Educational Communication)
APRIL 2010
This undergraduate research titled FACTORS IN THE DA AGRI-KALIKASAN PROGRAM
COMMUNICATION STRATEGY INFLUENCING FARMERS’ ADOPTION STAGE OF
MODIFIED RAPID COMPOSTING (MRC) TECHNOLOGY IN LEYTE, PHILIPPINES,
prepared and submitted by Eula Marie DC. Mangaoang in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree Bachelor of Science in Development Communication
(Educational Communication), is hereby accepted.
______________________
MA. STELLA C. TIROL
Adviser
April 10, 2010

_______________________
Date
Accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
Bachelor of Science in Development Communication
(Educational Communication)
_______________________
EDMUND G. CENTENO
Chair
Department of Educational Communication

College of Development Communication
University of the Philippines Los Baños
College, Laguna
April 10, 2010

__________________________________
Date
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
“And, when you want something, all the universe conspires in helping you to
achieve it.”—Paulo Coelho, The Alchemist. Almighty God, I thank you so much for
having laid a wonderful path for me, for being everywhere and in everything, and for the
people who have unknowingly conspired to help me finish my thesis on time:
Mr. Rogelio Portula, for granting me the permission to conduct my study and for
offering support.
Ms. Dina Gaviola-Pitao for the much needed contacts and providing me secondary
data on the progress of the program.
Ms. Evangeline S. Garing, for contacting the farmer-cooperators, agricultural

technicians, and municipal agriculturists, and for accompanying me to the different techno-
demo sites around Leyte. The stories you have shared along the way will always be
remembered.
The municipal agriculturists and the municipal agricultural technicians in the

different techno-demo sites of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program in Leyte, for the assistance
you gave me in reaching out to my survey respondents.
To the farmer-cooperators of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program, for the much-needed

time and cooperation in participating in the survey and for the farming expertise you shared.
Your hardwork, patience and perseverance will always be admired.
Mr. Mario Tabinas and Eugene Val Mangaoang—I can’t imagine just a week-long
data gathering period without you.
Ms. Josiefer Jesusco of ACIAR, for having worked so hard running statistical tests
for my data, and for providing suggestions for interpreting and discussing the results of my
study. My study would be meaningless without your help.
iii
My thesis adviser, Ma’am Teya Tirol, for patiently checking and re-checking my
thesis manuscript, and for helping us advisees finish our thesis on time. You remind me that
difficult isn’t impossible. Many thanks, Ma’am!
Ma’am Mia Cabral-Castillo, my DEVC 199 instructor, for giving the much-needed
comments and suggestions for the improvement of my thesis.
Ma’am Duday de Villa, my DEVC 197 instructor, for helping me to start on my

thesis and for patiently helping me to improve on it.
Ma’am Moni Escalada, for helping me to bring out ideas for my thesis topic. You
inspire me and all other budding dev com practitioners and researchers.
My classmates in DEVC 197, 198 and 199, thank you for the moments we’ve
shared in class, for the thesis-related angst, and for the comments, suggestions, and
motivation. With you, I know I’m not alone in the last and hardest leg of the college life.
My dear DevCom batchmates, for the “chikahan”, “kulitan”, and for having been
there to share in my joys and pains during my stay in college. I want you to know that
you’ve been the coolest people I’ve ever met, and I will miss all of that coolness. Thank
you!
My brods and sisses at the UPLB Development Communicators’ Society, for

giving me the chance to prove my worth, for the lessons and troubles we’ve been in together,
and for believing in what I can do. I would never have come out of the shell if not for you
guys. Thank you! I LOVE DEVCOMSOC! My Soc ninang Hannah & my inaanak
Yhen, you inspire me to aim high and do my best, and at the same time to keep my feet on
the ground. I wish we could spend some time hanging out together.
Great bands Paramore, Up Dharma Down, and K-pop groups SNSD and Super
Junior, I thank you for the music.
Pearl, Melai, and Rak, for being great friends while I was still in Demarses. I’m
sorry we hadn’t spent the time together since I moved out. I want you to know that I’m still
watching all the fun vids we had. Haha!
iv
Leila, my NF (and forever) best friend, for being there for me at the start and for
sticking it out until the end. Keep being a sister to me. Thank you bispren!
My ever-supportive titos, titas, and insans: Tita Em, Tita Ninil, Tito Jun, Tita
Edit, Tita Aning, Tito Toti, Tita Carina, Tita Mel, Tito Ompong, Tito Nick, Tita Helen,
Ninong Jopel, Ninong Tony, Tita Babes, Tita Glo, Ate Regh, Ate Maricris, Paolo,
Andrew, and Ate Janice, for being my second family here, and for all the love and support
you’ve given me. I will forever be indebted to you guys.
Charina Mae Boñaga, Melo Jean Mata, Jared Paragas, Mabel Fetalvero, and
Regina Lyn Mondez, for unknowingly teaching me how hard yet fun it is to grow up as a
person. You are the best friends ever and I love you.
Eugene Val, Eurice Ed, and Eulaine Marie, for bearing with my faults as a sister,
for listening to my needless ranting, and for giving me all the advice. Keep being one of the
sweetest people in the world. I love you!
Mommy and Daddy, you know I’m not that fond of thanking you for everything you
did for me. But, for all the kinds of support you’ve given me during the conduct and writing
of my thesis, for believing in my strengths despite my weaknesses, for just loving me and
caring for me along the way, I THANK YOU. You always inspire me to do my best. I love
you so much!
Daghang Salamat!
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE i
ACCEPTANCE SHEET ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES Ix
LIST OF FIGURES xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES xiv
ABSTRACT xv
CHAPTER PAGE
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Structure and Rationale of the Study 1
Statement of the Problem 2
Objectives of the Study 2
Significance of the Study 4
Scope and Limitations of the Study 5
Operational Definition of Terms 6
2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 13
Rice Production and Agricultural Wastes 13
Rice Straw Management Practices and Their Effects 13
Policies and Programs on Rice Straw Management 15
The DA Agri-Kalikasan Program 15
Factors Affecting Change in Farming Practices 17
Factors Leading to Non-Adoption of Farming Practices 20
Role of Communication in Environmental Programs 20
Strategic Communication 21
Functions of Strategic Communication 22
Developing Strategic Communication Interventions 23
Communication Strategy 25
Functions of Communication Strategies 25
Forms of Communication Strategies 26
Designing Communication Strategies 27
Information Sources 29
Communication Methods 29
Communication Messages 31
Communication Approaches 32
Related Studies 34
Synthesis of Literature Reviewed 38
Theoretical Framework 39
Conceptual Framework 43
Statement of Hypotheses 45
3 METHODOLOGY 47
Research Design 47
vi
CHAPTER PAGE
3 Location and Respondents of the Study 47
Variables of the Study 49
Sampling Procedure 50
Research Instrument 50
The Survey Questionnaire 50
Interview Guide for Key Informants 52
Data Collection 52
Data Analysis Procedure 53
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 56
Socio-demographic Characteristics of Respondents 56
Age, Sex, Household Size, and Civil Status 56
Educational Attainment and Number of MRC-related 56
Trainings Attended
Tenurial Status, Farm Size, and Length of Farming 56
Experience
Annual Yield in Rice Production, Annual Income in Rice 57
Production, and Support Services
Communication Strategy of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program 59
Source variables 59
Message variables 64
Channel variables 71
Receiver variables 75
Stage of Technology Adoption 77
Knowledge Stage 77
Persuasion Stage 81
Decision Stage 83
Implementation Stage 86
Confirmation Stage 89
Relationships between Communication Variables and 92
Adoption Stage of MRC Technology
Communication Variables and the Knowledge Stage 92
Communication Variables and the Persuasion Stage 98
Communication Variables and the Decision Stage 103
Communication Variables and the Implementation 106
Stage
Communication Variables and the Confirmation Stage 110
Summary of the Communication Variables Influencing 117
Problems Encountered and Suggestions for Improvement 125
Problems Experienced with Farmers 125
Problems in Inputs and Resources 126
Problems with Funding and Discontinuation of the 126
Program
Suggestions for Improvement of Communication Strategy 127
vii
CHAPTER PAGE
5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 129
Summary 129
Objectives 129
Methodology 130
Findings 130
Conclusions 142
Recommendations 143
LITERATURE CITED 146
APPENDICES 151
Appendix A: Letters of Correspondence 151
Appendix B: Survey Questionnaire for Farmer-Cooperators 155
Appendix C: Interview Guide for Key Informants 164
Appendix D: List of Key Informants and Interview 166
Transcriptions
Appendix E: Cross-Tabulation of Communication Variables 180
and Adoption Levels
Appendix F: Basic Concepts and Steps in Using MRC 199
viii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1 List of municipalities in Leyte province where MRC 49

technology demonstration sites have been set up and
the number of farmer cooperators per site
2 Socio-demographic characteristics of farmer- 57
cooperators of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program in Leyte
province
3 Sources of information about the MRC technology 59
4 Weighted mean scores and qualitative interpretation of 61
the respondents’ ratings of source credibility and
frequency of access to source
5 Respondents’ reasons for their rating of perceived 62
credibility of information sources on the MRC
technology
6 Respondents’ reasons for frequency of access to 63
information sources on the MRC technology
7 Weighted mean scores and qualitative interpretation 68

summarizing the respondents’ ratings on different
message variables
clarity of messages about the MRC technology
9 Respondents’ reasons for their perceived degree of 69
comprehensibility of messages about the MRC
technology
completeness of messages about the MRC technology
11 Respondents’ reasons for their perceived degree of 70
interest on messages about the MRC technology
ix
TABLE PAGE
12 Channel used to disseminate messages about the MRC 71

technology
13 Weighted mean scores and interpretation of the 74
respondents’ ratings of their exposure to and degree of
interest in the channel used
14 Respondents’ reasons for their rating of frequency 74
exposure to the channels used in disseminating
messages about the MRC technology

degree of interest in the channels used to disseminate
information about the MRC technology
16 Respondents’ rating of perceived need for the MRC 75
technology
17 Respondents’ perceived attitude towards the MRC 76
technology
18 Distribution of respondents based on variables in the 80
knowledge stage of technology adoption
19 Respondents’ reasons for their level of recall of 80
messages about the MRC technology
persuasion stage of technology adoption
21 Respondents’ perception of the reasons of their 83
personal networks’ approval and non-approval of the
MRC technology

decision stage of technology adoption
23 Respondents’ reasons for their intention to consult and 86
not to consult technology providers on the use of the
MRC technology
24 Respondents’ reasons for their intention to use and not 86
to use the MRC technology
x
TABLE PAGE

decision stage of technology adoption
26 Respondents’ reasons for their current use and non-use 88
of the MRC technology

confirmation stage of technology adoption
28 Drawbacks or problems on the use of MRC technology 91
as perceived by the respondents
29 Respondents’ reasons for their advocacy and non- 95

advocacy of the use of MRC technology
30 Summary of the relationships between communication 96
variables and the knowledge stage of technology
adoption

variables and the persuasion stage of technology
adoption

variables and the decision stage of technology adoption

variables and the implementation stage of technology
adoption
variables and the confirmation stage of technology
adoption
35 Communication variables influencing the knowledge 119

stage of MRC technology adoption
36 Communication variables influencing the persuasion 120

37 Communication variables influencing the decision stage 121
of MRC technology adoption
xi
TABLE PAGE
38 Communication variables influencing the 122

implementation stage of MRC technology adoption
39 Communication variables influencing the confirmation 123

40 Respondents’ suggestions for improvement of the 128
communication strategy of the DA Agri-Kalikasan
program
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1 Variables affecting change in agricultural practices for 19

a farm family household (Lionberger & Gwin, 1982)
2 The P Process: Stages Involved in Developing 24

Strategic Communication Programs (Piotrow, et al.,
1997, p. 27)
3 Conceptual model of the Diffusion of Innovations 42

theory
4 Framework showing the conceptualized relationship of 44

variables in the study
5 Map showing the different techno-demo sites in Leyte 48
xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX PAGE
A Formal Letters 151
B Survey Questionnaire for Farmer-Cooperators 155
C Interview Guide for Key Informants 164
D List of Key Informants and Interview Transcriptions 166
E Cross-tabulation of Communication Variables and 180

Adoption Levels
F Basic Concepts and Steps in Using MRC 199
xiv
ABSTRACT
MANGAOANG, EULA MARIE DC. University of the Philippines Los Baños. April
2010. “Factors in the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program Communication Strategy
Influencing Farmers’ Adoption Stage of the Modified Rapid Composting (MRC)
Technology in Leyte, Philippines.”
Adviser: Ma. Stella C. Tirol
This study determined the factors in the communication strategy of the DA Agri-
Kalikasan program which influenced the farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the MRC
technology in Leyte. Specifically, it was conducted to:1) determine the socio-demographic
profile of the DA Agri-Kalikasan farmer-cooperators in Leyte; 2) describe the characteristics
of the source, message, channel and receiver variables of the Agri-Kalikasan communication
strategy used in promoting MRC technology among farmer-cooperators in Leyte; 3) describe
the characteristics of the farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the MRC technology; 4) find
out if a relationship exists between the source, message, channel and receiver variables of the
communication strategy and the farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the MRC technology;
and 5) find out the problems that the DA Agri-Kalikasan farmer-cooperators and program
staff encounter in implementing the communication strategy for the MRC technology.
A survey was conducted among 49 farmer-cooperators assigned in the 17 techno-

demo sites of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program in Leyte using a pretested questionnaire in the
local dialect. Key informant interviews were likewise carried out to complement the survey
results. Quantitative data were organized using frequency counts and percentages, and
weighted mean scores. The relationships between communication variables and stages of
adoption of the MRC technology were tested using the chi-square test of independence.
The farmer-cooperators were mostly married males aged 48 to 69 years old with
secondary schooling and training on MRC. They owned or tended small parcels of rice land
which they had been farming for 3 to 24 years and from which they earned less than PhP
100,000 pesos annually. The farmer-cooperators acquired support services such as fertilizer
and seed subsidies.
xv
Results showed that agricultural technicians were the most common, most credible
and most frequently accessed information source. Messages on the steps in preparing and
applying the MRC-based compost and the practical and environmental benefits of the MRC
technology were found to be very clear, very understandable, almost complete, and
interesting. Frequency of exposure to interpersonal channels, particularly personal visits by
agricultural technicians and seminars or trainings, was often. There was a high need for the
MRC technology among the farmer-cooperators who developed positive attitudes towards its
different features and benefits.
The farmer-cooperators had generally undergone most of the stages in adopting the
MRC technology (i.e. knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation and confirmation).
However, in the confirmation stage, only one third of them were able to recognize the
benefits or drawbacks of the technology.
The results of the chi-square tests showed that a relationship exists between certain
factors of the communication strategy of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program and some of the
factors in the farmers’ adoption stages of the MRC technology.
The problems in the program implementation included lack of resources, institutional

support, and the discontinuation of the program in some areas. The study recommended
improvement of communication methods and approaches in the program, empowerment of
the program staff and technicians, and further evaluation of other communication programs.
xvi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Structure and Rationale of the Study
According to Quebral (1973), development communication involves systematically

applying communication strategies, processes and principles to bring about positive social
change. In particular, communication programs and projects can in many ways contribute to
increase knowledge, change attitudes and enable action and mutuality, which are in turn
important goals towards societal well-being (Cornejo and Silva, 2004).
However, a number of past government programs have failed to address certain

development problems because determinants of behavior change associated with these
problems have not been fully understood. Therefore, in designing effective communication
strategies or plans that would effectively influence ones’ knowledge, attitudes and practices,
it is important to understand the different factors which influence behavioral change
(Committee on Communication for Behavior Change in the 21st Century, 2002).
Rice farming is one of the primary sources of livelihood in Leyte province, aside
from fishing and growing coconuts, abaca, and sugarcane. Leyte has136, 000 rice farms
covering 258,000 hectares of agricultural land. Hundreds of rice fields run across the
northern and eastern parts of the province. Here, rice straw burning has been commonly
practiced.
Leyte farmers believe that rice straw burning is one of the fastest, cheapest, and
easiest ways of getting rid of rice straw in the field. Rice straw is burned in order to sterilize
the field and kill the harmful micro-organisms left by diseased plants in the previous
cropping season.
Rice straw burning, however, also brings with it adverse effects on health and
environment. This includes a number of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases in humans,
soil degradation due to nutrient loss, decreases in crop yield, and environmental pollution
that may harbor climate change and global warming (Asenso, 2007; Dobermann & Fairhurst,
2002; Altaf Hossain, 1994).
Recognizing the ill effects of rice straw burning on health and environment, various
groups and agencies have developed measures to discourage this practice. In Leyte, the
provincial government implemented a provincial ordinance prohibiting the open burning of
rice straw. The province, being one of the major rice-producing provinces in the country
(http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/sr04126tx.html), was also named as one of the 15
target provinces of the Agri-Kalikasan Program under the Department of Agriculture (DA)
(http://www.bswm.da.gov.ph/web/programs/index.php?sel=2). The program aims to help
Leyte farmers engage in organic agriculture to address different environmental problems.
One of the rice straw management practices promoted in the DA Agri-Kalikasan

program is the modified rapid composting (MRC) technology. The program has engaged
farmer-cooperators in setting up technology demonstration or techno demo farms on MRC in
most of the municipalities of Leyte in 2007. Likewise, the program carried out its
communication strategy to inform, promote, and train the farmer-cooperators on MRC
technology.
The greater challenge, however, that faces the Agri-Kalikasan Program is improving
its strategy not only to make the farmers in Leyte aware of the alternative rice straw
management practices that are safe and environment-friendly, but also to align these
practices with the farmers’ interests and needs. Furthermore, considering the farmers’ needs
and interests in program implementation helps ensure a participatory and multi-
sectoral/stakeholder approach in addressing problems and issues related to rice straw
burning, and at the same time, protects the socio-cultural welfare of the farmers (Lasco et al.,
2008).
2
Since the DA Agri-Kalikasan program was implemented in 2007, no formal
evaluation of its communication strategy was carried out. Specifically, the program has no
empirical data on what factors in its communication strategy facilitate farmers’ adoption of
the MRC technology. Thus, this study looked into the factors in the DA Agri-Kalikasan
communication strategy that can influence farmers’ level of adoption of the MRC technology
in Leyte.
Statement of the Problem
The study tried to address the general research problem: “What factors in the
communication strategy of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program influence the adoption stage of
the modified rapid composting (MRC) technology among its farmer-cooperators in Leyte?”
It sought to answer the following specific research questions:
1. What are the socio-demographic characteristics of the farmer-cooperators of the
DA Agri-Kalikasan program in Leyte?
2. What are the characteristics of the Agri-Kalikasan communication strategy in
terms of source, message, channel, and receiver variables used in promoting the
MRC technology among the farmer-cooperators?
3. What are the characteristics of the farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the MRC
technology?
4. Does a relationship exist between the source, message, channel and receiver
variables of the DA Agri-Kalikasan communication strategy and farmer-
cooperators’ adoption stage of MRC technology?
5. What problems do the Agri-Kalikasan farmer-cooperators and program staff
encounter in implementing the communication strategy for MRC technology?
Objectives of the Study
The study determined the factors in the communication strategy of the DA Agri-
Kalikasan program which influence the farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the MRC
technology in Leyte. Specifically, it tried to:
3
1. Determine the socio-demographic profile of the DA Agri-Kalikasan farmer-
cooperators in Leyte;
2. Describe the characteristics of the source, message, channel and receiver variables
of the Agri-Kalikasan communication strategy used in promoting MRC
technology among farmer-cooperators in Leyte;
3. Determine the characteristics of the farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the
MRC technology;
4. Determine if a relationship exists between the source, message, channel and
receiver variables of the communication strategy and farmer-cooperators’
adoption stage of the MRC technology; and
5. Find out the problems that the DA Agri-Kalikasan farmer-cooperators and
program staff encounter in implementing the communication strategy for MRC
technology.
Significance of the Study
This study will contribute a new set of empirical-based knowledge on the factors in a
communication strategy that influence the farmers’ adoption stage of an environment-
friendly rice farming technology such as the Modified Rapid Composting (MRC) technology.
The results of this study may be used in getting ideas that will be useful in designing
future communication strategies that would better cater to the needs and interests of multi-
stakeholders, encourage their participation, and influence change in knowledge, attitude, and
practice on waste management.
The key change factors in the DA Agri-Kalikasan communication strategy could

serve as potential variables in evaluating and improving the communication strategies of
existing programs that deal with environmental management. Development communication
practitioners can derive ideas from the findings of the study in selecting and identifying
methods, messages, and approaches of a communication strategy that will best cater to the
needs and interests of multi-stakeholders involved in alternative rice management practices.
4
The findings of the study on the problems encountered in the implementation of a
communication strategy may generate potential problem indicators that should be avoided in
the context of communicating rice straw management practices. Furthermore,
communication planners may learn lessons on how strategic communication works in a farm-
based environment.
The results of the study may help development communicators find better ways on
how farmers can be encouraged to participate in environmental interventions and how
farmers can reconcile new, environmentally sustainable farming practices with their old,
traditional practices. New communication interventions to effectively promote other rice
straw management technologies and facilitate the adoption of environmentally sound
agricultural activities may also be conceived and developed.
Scope and Limitations of the Study
This study focused on the factors in the communication strategy of the DA Agri-
Kalikasan Program which could influence farmer-cooperators’ stage of adoption of the
modified rapid composting (MRC) technology. This technology is only one among several
other rice straw management practices of the Agri-Kalikasan program. The results of this
study may only be generalized for the MRC technology. A different set of findings may
emerge in the case of other rice straw management practices.
The farmer-cooperators surveyed in the study comprised only those who were based
in towns where the technology demonstration (techno demo) sites are located and who
volunteered part of their rice farm for tech demo of the MRC technology. Therefore, the
influence of the communication strategy on the stages of adoption of the MRC technology
that the farmer-cooperators underwent may not be applicable to farmers who were not part of
the program.
5
The factors such as source, message, and channel, and receiver that have been
identified to influence farmers’ adoption stage of the MRC technology in this study may be
different from the communication strategies used in other rice straw management practices of
the DA Agri-Kalikasan program.
Furthermore, the farmer-cooperators’ reasons or explanations for their various

quantitative responses in the survey were not statistically analyzed to find out if they also
influence the adoption stage of the MRC technology.
Operational Definition of Terms
Communication strategy – Mefalopulos and Kamlongera (2004) defines it as a well-

planned series of actions aimed at achieving certain objectives through the use of
communication methods, techniques and approaches. In this study, it refers to a well-
planned series of actions combining communication methods and approaches to facilitate the
adoption of the Modified Rapid Composting (MRC) technology.
Factors in the communication strategy – refer to communication variables (e.g. source,

message, channel, and receiver) which are present in the communication strategy of the DA
Agri-Kalisan program in influencing farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the modified
rapid composting (MRC) technology; the following factors in the Agri-Kalikasan
communication strategy were included in this study:
Source variable – refers to the individual, group, or mass medium from which
information on MRC technology is acquired. In McGuire’s Input/Output Persuasion
model (1989), the attributes of a source include the socio-demographic characteristics
and perceived credibility of the source. In this study, the following attributes were
measured:
a) Source of information on MRC technology – the farmer-cooperators’ specific

source(s) of information about MRC such as neighbor, relative, DA Agri-
6
Kalikasan staff, farm technician, print media, radio program, and TV; the
most common information source was identified by the highest frequency
among the responses of the farmer-cooperators.
b) Perceived degree of credibility of information source on MRC technology –
the farmer-cooperators’ rating of how believable their MRC information
sources are to them; this was measured using a five-point scale (5- very
credible, 4- credible, 3- can’t say, 2- not credible, or 1- not very credible); the
weighted mean scores of their ratings were obtained to determine which type
of information source had the highest degree of credibility among the farmer-
cooperators.
c) Frequency of access to information source on MRC technology – refers to
how often the farmer-cooperators get information about MRC from their
source(s) as measured by using a five-point scale (5- always, 4- very often, 3-
sometimes, 2- not often, or 1- not always); the weighted mean scores of their
ratings were also obtained to determine which information source had the
highest frequency of access.
Message variable – refers to an attribute of the information on the MRC technology

which is brought to the farmer-cooperators through the DA Agri-Kalikasan program.
In this study, the following attributes were measured:
a) Perceived degree of clarity – the farmer-cooperators’ rating of how well-

defined or how well-described are the specific messages on the MRC
technology that were brought to them; degree of clarity was measured using a
five-point scale (5- very clear, 4- clear, 3- can’t say, 2-not clear, or 1- not very
clear); the weighted mean scores of their rating of clarity of the message was
computed to determine which specific message had the highest degree of
clarity among farmer-cooperators.
b) Perceived degree of comprehensibility – the farmer-cooperators’ rating of
how understandable are the messages on the MRC technology; degree of
comprehensibility was measured using a five-point scale: (5- very
7
understandable, 4- understandable, 3- can’t say, 2- not understandable, or 1-
not very understandable); the weighted mean scores of their ratings of
message comprehensibility were computed to determine which message had
the highest degree of comprehensibility.
c) Perceived degree of completeness – the farmer-cooperators’ rating of how
much information of detail is given in the messages on MRC technology
brought to them; degree of completeness was measured with a five-point scale
(5- 100% complete, 4- 80% complete, 3-60% complete, 2- 40% complete, or
1- 20% complete); the weighted mean scores of their ratings were computed
to determine which message had the highest degree of completeness; and
d) Perceived degree of interest – the farmer-cooperators’ rating of the extent to
which they find the message on MRC technology appealing; degree of interest
was measured using a five-point scale (5- very interesting, 4- interesting, 3-
can’t say, 2- not interesting, or 1- not very interesting); the weighted mean
scores of the ratings were obtained to determine which message had the
highest degree of interest among the farmer-cooperators.
Channel variable – the means by which information about MRC technology is

brought by the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program to the farmer-cooperators such as
seminar/training, personal visit, field demonstration, reading material, print, radio,
and television. In this study, the following attributes of a channel were studied:
a) Frequency of exposure to channel – the farmer-cooperators’ rating of how

often the Agri-Kalikasan program exposed them to channels of information on
MRC technology; this was measured using a five-point scale (5- always, 4-
very often, 3- sometimes, 2- not often, or 1- not always); the weighted mean
scores of the ratings were obtained to determine which channel had the
highest frequency of exposure among farmer-cooperators.
b) Perceived degree of interest in channel – the farmer-cooperators rating of the
extent to which they find the channel appealing as measured using a five-point
scale (5- very interesting, 4- interesting, 3- can’t say, 2- not interesting, or 1-
8
not very interesting); the weighted mean scores of the ratings were obtained to
determine which channel held the highest degree of interest among farmer-
cooperators.
Receiver variable – refers to the characteristics of the farmer-cooperators to whom

the DA Agri-Kalikasan program brings and promotes the MRC technology. In this
study, the receiver variables that were determined were:
a) Perceived degree of need for MRC technology – the extent to which the
farmer-cooperators think they need the MRC technology; degree of need was
rated in terms of highly needed, needed, and not needed.
b) Perceived attitude towards MRC technology – the farmer-cooperators’ feeling
toward MRC technology – whether positive or negative, favorable or
unfavorable; attitude was measured by the farmer-cooperators’ rating of five
attitude statements about MRC technology using a five-point scale – strongly
agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, or strongly disagree.
Stages of adoption – refer to the five phases that farmer-cooperators undergo in deciding
whether to adopt the MRC technology, namely: 1) knowledge; 2) persuasion; 3) decision; 4)
implementation; and 5) confirmation (adapted from Rogers, 1983); also used interchangeably
with adoption stage. The study integrated variables from Rogers (1983) and Sisteberio (2001)
in order to measure farmer-cooperators’ level of adoption within each stage of adoption:
Knowledge stage – the phase during which the farmer-cooperator recognizes

and understands what the MRC technology is and how it works. Three factors
or variables were used to describe the adoption stage of the MRC technology
as follows:
1. Level of message recall – the extent to which the farmer-

cooperator is able to remember messages about MRC using the
following scale:
9
a. No recall – does not remember any message at all
b. Low recall – can remember 1-2 messages
c. Moderate recall – can remember 3-4 messages
d. High recall– can remember 5 or more messages
2. Extent of knowledge about MRC technology – how well the
farmer-cooperator is able to describe or explain what MRC
technology is; this was measured using the following scale:
a. Low – can describe MRC technology to a little extent (can
correctly describe a little aspect of MRC technology)
b. Moderate – can describe MRC technology to some extent (can
correctly describe some aspect of MRC technology)
c. High – can describe MRC technology to a great extent (can
correctly describe most aspect of MRC technology)
3. Extent of knowledge about steps in MRC – the capacity of the
farmer-cooperator to name or list correctly the steps in using MRC
technology; this was measured using the following scale:
a. Low – can name or list 1-2 steps
b. Moderate – can name or list 3-4 steps
c. High – can name or list 5-7 steps
Persuasion stage – the phase during which the farmer-cooperator forms an

opinion of the MRC technology and becomes convinced about its usefulness;
the factors or variables used to describe the persuasion stage were measured in
terms of the following:
1. Discussion of MRC technology with personal network – whether
or not the farmer-cooperator talks about the MRC technology with
his personal network of family, friends, and fellow farmers in order
to form an opinion and be convinced about MRC
2. Approval of MRC technology by personal network – whether or
not the farmer-cooperators’ personal network approve or like the
MRC technology
10
3. Personal approval of MRC technology – whether or not the farmer-
cooperator himself/herself mentally approves or likes the MRC
technology
Decision stage – the phase during which the farmer-cooperator eventually

decides to adopt or reject the MRC technology. Two variables that would
describe and measure the decision stage were the following:
1. Consultation with technology providers – whether or not the
farmer-cooperator seeks advice on use of MRC technology
2. Intention to use MRC technology – whether or not the farmer-
cooperator plans to use or adopt the MRC technology
Implementation stage – the phase during which the farmer-cooperator

actually puts into practice the MRC technology on the farm; the factors or
variables to describe the implementation stage included the following:
1. Acquisition of materials for MRC technology – whether or not the
farmer-cooperator acquired the materials needed for the MRC
technology
2. Application of MRC technology – whether or not the farmer-
cooperator is currently using or practicing the technology on the
farm
Confirmation stage – the last phase during which the farmer-cooperator

affirms his/her adoption of the MRC technology; the factors or variables used
to describe the confirmation stage were as follows:
1. Recognition of benefits or drawbacks of MRC technology –
whether or not the farmer-cooperator experiences or acknowledges
the benefits or limitations of the MRC technology
2. Continuous use of MRC technology – whether or not the farmer-
cooperator continues to use or to practice MRC in the future
11
3. Advocacy for MRC technology – whether or not the farmer-
cooperator encourages others to adopt or use MRC technology on
the farm
Department of the Agriculture (DA) – Agri-Kalikasan Program – one of the programs

implemented by the Department of Agriculture (DA) which seeks to address the farmers’
need for inexpensive fertilizers and to mitigate the adverse effects of open burning farm
wastes such as rice straw. It specifically promotes the Modified Rapid Composting (MRC)
technology to augment farm produce through maximized farm waste recycling in areas with
farmers having limited capital for rice farming.
Modified Rapid Composting (MRC) – a form of rice straw management technology

developed by the Bureau of Soils and Water Management (BSWM) and promoted by the DA
Agri-Kalikasan Program. This involves incorporating the fungus Trichoderma sp. to the rice
straw compost to increase the rate of its decomposition from 3 months to 3 weeks
Farmer-cooperator – a participant of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program who served as

respondent of the study. According to the protocols set by the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program,
the farmer-cooperator must:
a. commit his/her identified rice area for the three-year project duration;
b. agree to provide free labor needed in project implementation;
c. provide assistance to the local government units (LGUS) at the provincial, city
and municipal levels in data gathering;
d. agree to hold a field day and allow use of his/her field for field day activities;
and
e. be willing to act as one of the speakers during field days and willing to
disseminate the MRC technology.
12
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Rice Production and Agricultural Wastes
Rice is a staple food crop of the Filipinos and is abundantly produced in the country.
Rice production accounts for 33 per cent of the total farming land. Rice contributes 16 per
cent of the total crop yield and 66 per cent of the grain production. The labor force in rice
production consists of 2.5 million Filipino farmers, yielding about 21 per cent of the gross
value in agriculture (Genilo, 2005).
With the pressing need to produce rice as food, high-end rice production technologies
were developed. This increased the yield of the crop (Hossain et al., 1994). However, crop
wastes from rice production also became increasingly available through harvest, trimming or
pruning, or run-off of materials in the field (PhilRice, 2004). According to Pearce (1983), one
of the most abundant agricultural wastes from rice production is rice straw. Moog (1990)
estimated an average of 1.6 million tons of rice straw produced in a year in major rice-
producing regions such as Central Luzon and Cagayan Valley.
Aside from intensive rice production, a number of factors have contributed to the
accumulation of rice straw in fields. One of these is the shortened time gap between harvest
and re-sowing, which allows more than one cropping season in a year. This would entail
shorter time for land preparation, forcing the farmer to quickly dispose rice straw that was
produced from the previous cropping season (Pearce, 1983).
Rice Straw Management Practices and Their Effects
Conventional rice straw management practices have been done to hasten the disposal
of rice straw in fields. Some farmers use rice straw as additive to livestock and poultry feeds,
thus replacing the more expensive commercial feeds (PhilRice, 2004; Gerpacio, 1990). Rice
straw is also used as mulch for the next cropping season and is therefore dumped or left to rot
in the fields.
In India and Bangladesh, rice straw is literally removed from the fields to be made as
fuel, bedding, or industrial material (Dobermann & Fairhurst, 2002). In the Philippines,
however, rice straw is commonly burned. After harvest, piles of rice straw are heaped in
threshing areas at the middle of the field and burned (Dobermann & Fairhurst, 2002;
PhilRice, 2004). According to the Industrial Technology Development Institute of the
Department of Science and Technology (ITDI - DOST), about five million tons of rice straw
and rice hull are burned in a year (UMAsenso Bulletin, 2007).
Rice straw burning harbors a number of environmental and health consequences. It

results in significant nutrient losses and soil degradation in the farm field (Dobermann &
Fairhurst, 2002). According to Hossain and his colleagues (1994), advanced farm
technologies may have increased crop yield, but unsound waste management practices have
resulted in farm land degradation, which in turn, led to minimum increases in crop
productivity.
Rice straw burning also contributes to pollution. A recent DOST study found that
frequent rice straw burning produces more harmful air pollutants and carcinogens than
vehicle emissions. Fumes from burned rice straw may bring in or worsen a host of illnesses
such as cough, allergic rhinitis, asthma, and other cardiovascular and respiratory diseases
(UMAsenso Bulletin, 2007). The toxic substances from these wastes are not easily
degradable, and people may take them in through breathing, food or water contamination
(Brul, 2008).
Francisco (2003) explained that farm practices contributing to pollution can create an
environmental and economic backflow both to farmers and other sectors in society. He
points out that excessive waste production can lead to pollution, loss of environmental
services, damage to other organisms, and impaired natural resource capital. This is because
14
the stability and sustainability of agricultural production highly depends on the
environmental conditions in the farm (Hossain, 1994).
There is a need to manage rice straw efficiently and improve the use of rice straw as
animal feed, fertilizer, handicraft material, and other products. Alternative rice straw
management practices which alleviate environmental problems have to be developed.
Likewise, policies encouraging the use of these practices should be enforced and
implemented (Pearce, 1983).
Policies and Programs on Rice Straw Management
The Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of 1997 encourages advanced

agricultural and fishing practices that address the problems of climate change. The proposed
Senate Bill 1890 or the Philippine Climate Change Act aims to bring climate change
mitigations in the form of local, regional, and national projects and activities. These
government laws are established to address the growing problem of rice straw burning and
other agricultural activities detrimental to the environment (Lasco et al., 2008).
However, the policies have somehow failed to solve the problems concerned with
climate change and environmental degradation. Lasco and his colleagues (2008) gave some
recommendations to address these problems, namely: 1) aggressive yet systematic information,
education, and communication (IEC) campaigns about climate change, climate variability, and risks;
2) participatory and multi-sectoral/stakeholder approaches; 3) climate change technology and policy
impact assessment; and 4) regular fund source and intensified fund generation for climate change-
related activities.
The DA Agri-Kalikasan Program
The Agri-Kalikasan program of the Department of Agriculture (DA) focuses on the

efficient use of rice straw and other farm wastes. Launched on August 11, 2005, it aims to
help small farmers minimize their fertilizer expenses and, at the same time, address the need
15
to increase crop production yield. Agri-Kalikasan advocates organic-based farming through
its various projects. The “Tipid Abono” project promotes the use of a combination of
chemical and organic fertilizers to reduce costs in fertilizer application. The “Huwag Sunugin
ang Dayami” campaign discourages rice straw burning. The modified rapid composting
(MRC) technology project, in cooperation with the Bureau of Soils and Water Management,
advocates the use of Trichoderma sp. fungus to hasten the decomposition of rice straw
compost. The MRC technology was claimed to reduce the decomposition time from three
months to three weeks (UMAsenso, 2007).
The DA Agri-Kalikasan program is implemented in 56 target provinces. One of these

is Leyte. The Bureau of Soils and Water Management (BSWM) and the Office of the
Provincial Agriculturist (OPA) of the DA Regional Office VIII spearhead the Agri-Kalikasan
program in Leyte. The provincial government also supports the program by implementing
Provincial Ordinance No. 07-05, which bans rice straw burning and other farm wastes. The
Agri-Kalikasan program in Leyte was initially funded by the Japanese government.
Currently, it is funded by the OPA, resulting in its limited implementation.
Forums and technology demonstrations on rice straw management technologies such

as the MRC are conducted in selected municipalities in Leyte to facilitate information
dissemination among farmers involved in the program. Farmers in nearby communities are
also informed of the technology through the conduct of field days.
Modified rapid composting (MRC) is the main rice straw management technology
intervention promoted by the program. MRC encourages the use of hybrid palay seeds and
introduces balanced and judicious use of organic and inorganic fertilizers to minimize
fertilizer costs and to sustain the target yield for rice. It seeks to promote and expand the
cultivation of hybrid rice as a strategy to achieve sufficiency and to increase rice farming
productivity and profitability through establishment of a techno demonstration project.
The DA Agri-Kalikasan program is carried out in two phases. The pre-

implementation phase includes: 1) site selection; 2) farmer-cooperator selection; 3) rice
16
varietal selection; and technical briefing for farmer-cooperators. On the other hand, the
implementation phase consists of: 1) establishment and management of techno demo sites;
and 2) modified rapid composting procedures.
The end product is a compost equivalent to three bags of 14-14-14 commercial

fertilizer, five bags of urea, and eight bags of potash which cost about Php 20,000 per
hectare. Data from the corresponding tests on the rice plant varieties (soil, water, and plant
analysis, leaf color chart readings, agronomic and yield data, and production costs) are
gathered in the techno demo sites to monitor progress and effectiveness of the MRC
technology.
The DA Agri-Kalikasan program has collaborating agencies and individuals. These

are the local government units (provincial/city and municipal government unit), the
regional/provincial/city/municipal agricultural field coordinators, the BSWM, and the
farmer-cooperators.
The supplies needed in using the MRC technology, such as chicken dung and urea,
are given to farmer-participants for free. The Office of the Provincial Agriculturist (OPA),
together with the other agencies, continues to work and look for funds to support the
program.
Factors Affecting Change in Farming Practices
Lionberger and Gwin (1982) explained that a number of factors affect the farmers’
decision to adopt new ideas and practices. These include the following: 1) characteristics of
individuals; 2) situations the individuals are in, both real and imagined; 3) help they can get
from outsiders; 4) help from outside agencies available to them; 4) resources they have at
their disposal; 5) what their friends and relatives expect of them; 6) what the friends and
relatives will do if they make a change; 7) educational strategies they are exposed to; 8) how
they are treated by outsiders who try to influence their behavior; and 9) value they place on
17
changes. These factors come in complex patterns and combinations, and may be highly
variable through time and from one farmer or community to another. Furthermore, they
occur in a sequence as time passes, and are classified into different categories.
Figure 1 categorizes these variables and illustrates the ways by which they affect
farmer goals and decisions to adopt new practices. The farmer, with his household or farm
family, may agree on short-term or long-term farming goals, such as increased rice
productivity and yield, sustained income, or efficient agricultural production. The family
starts achieving the goals, first with the personal variables, which consists of their pre-
existing beliefs, practices, and experiences. This comes along with the situations or
conditions in which they must achieve their goals, such as the farm environment, socio-
economic institutions, and the family structure or nature. The means by which the farm
family acquires information, supplies from support agencies, and further assistance from
these and other agencies or groups, is affected by the following intervening variables:
a. support agency variables – which include the nature of supplies and

services offered by a support or extension agency;
b. communication variables – such as the use of different media and
messages to influence change in the practices of the farmers; and
c. behavioral change variables – which includes the ways by which the
farmer decides to change farming practices.
These variables eventually lead to the achievement of farm family goals, and they
may even lead to outcomes which the farm family did not plan or agree on. The variables
also affect one another. In the diagram, the communication variables are embedded in the
support agency variables. This illustrates that the support agency plays an important role in
planning and implementing communication interventions to influence the intentions of
farmers to adopt new farming practices.
The diagram also shows the “feedback” and “feed forward” processes among the
intervening variables, with focus on the feedback that comes from the behavioral change and
outcomes to the support agency and communication variables. This implies that
communication interventions, in the long run, build on how these were able to influence
intended change in practices among farmers.
18
Prior Condition Farm Family
Variables (What the Intervening Variables Reaches Long Term
family starts with) Goals
(What must happen in between)
Get information, get credit/supplies, get extra help; arrange transportation,
change farm practices, increase yields; family eats better—pays its debts, etc.
Personal
Variables
Support Agency
(background, Variables (e.g.
beliefs, habits) supplies, services,
credit, roads,
transportation,
information, markets, feed forward
storage) Behavioral
Family Goals
Change
Outcomes
FARM FAMILY feed Variables (e.g. back (short term,
Communication adopt new
long term,
Variables practices,
unintended)
(e.g. use of change crops)
radio, posters)
Situational
Variables
(soil, water,
government,
family)
Figure 1. Variables affecting change in agricultural practices for a farm family household
(Lionberger & Gwin, 1982)
19
Factors Leading to Non-Adoption of Farming Practices
There are also factors which hinder the farmer’s adoption of new farming
technologies or practices. Rola (2000) classifies these constraints as technical, socio-
economic, and institutional. Technical constraints include the inefficiency of the practice to
meet the nutrient needs of the crops, the adverse effects on the farm environment and on the
farmer’s health, and the uncertainty of the results from the practice or technology.
Socio-economic constraints may influence one’s decision not to adopt the new
practice or technology. One example is when the technology does not give immediate results,
or if it does, the farmer does not really see it. Other socio-economic constraints include
misalignment with the farmer’s traditional farming systems, delay in yield or income, and
inclusion of unnecessary work or labor (Less & Warni, 1989, in Rola, 2000). Rola also points
out that farmers may not be able to adopt a technology if it is more expensive to use or if they
lack knowledge on how to use it.
Non-adoption can also be due to institutional constraints. Rola explained that for a
technology to be sustainable and self-sufficient, it requires intensive knowledge base, long-
term benefits, and specificity of area or location where it is to be implemented. Thus,
support and extension agencies must have strategies that fit the nature of the practices that
they are going to promote to the farmers. There is also a need to guarantee the effectiveness
of these technologies through various agencies (e.g., patent offices, authorities, and
marketing companies).
Role of Communication in Environmental Programs
Communication has been considered essential in the implementation of

environmental programs (Flor & Gomez, 1993; Librero, 1996). It also educates people on
certain environmental issues and concerns through approaches and strategies that encourage
an enjoyable learning situation. People are also reminded of the implications and effects of
economic and industrial development on the environment (Padolina et al., 1995).
20
However, Librero (1996) noted that most of these programs were not that systematic
and organized. He recommended that for these to become more effective in addressing
environmental issues, research on environmental communication should be supported by
government agencies and other organizations. This would bring the issues to a national
scale, and may help in promoting environmentalism.
Librero (1996) also explained the concerns in environmental communication

research. One of these is the set of beliefs of indigenous peoples and other cultural
minorities. Reconciling traditional beliefs and science-based facts about the environment
allows these people to participate effectively in decision-making processes related to
environmental conservation and management. Success of community-based programs
should also be a concern of environmental communication research — it should assess the
effectiveness and impact of various environmental programs as communication processes.
Environmental problems should likewise be covered by the media to stimulate awareness
among different individuals. This brings awareness of community-level environmental
problems to the public/mass scale. Research methods in environmental communication
research should also fit the context in which it is to be conducted.
Strategic Communication
Strategic communication is defined as the “generation, analysis, interpretation,

packaging, and sharing with specific groups critically important information needed in
achieving objectives for various development concerns” (CDC, UPLB, 1993, in Velasco et
al., 2006).
Strategic thinking and planning is central to the success of communication programs

— it changes the course of these programs from being contingency plans when other means
of intervention fail. Some of the key elements of strategic communication are (Piotrow et al.,
1997):
21
1. scientific approaches based on theories and models in behavioral
sciences, social learning, persuasion, and social marketing to attain the
goals of the program;
2. stakeholder participation in the program planning, implementation, and
evaluation;
3. view of behavior change as both an individual and societal activity;
4. combination of mass media and interpersonal channels to inform and
influence behavior change in people;
5. use of the enter-educate approach to encourage people to learn in an
enjoyable way; and
6. maintenance of sustainable communication activities.
To be able to develop a strategy that involves the stakeholders, there is a need to

assert the need for strategic communication. This is done by closely looking at and analyzing
the message and content about a particular idea or point of view, and the needs and problems
of the stakeholders in acquiring such messages. However, certain socioeconomic factors
such as political systems and cultural beliefs may also affect the use of strategic
communication in programs (Lagnaoui, Santi, & Santucci, 2004).
Functions of Strategic Communication
Lagnaoui, Santi, and Santucci (2004) list some roles that strategic communication
plays in development projects and programs. One of these is in the diffusion of certain
development ideas and approaches. Strategic communication ensures that these ideas are
carefully evaluated by the stakeholders in the light of capacity building, market development,
and institutional reform. In the development and implementation of new ideas and
techniques, strategic communication reconciles the gap between local and scientific
knowledge by creating a two-way communication among communities and the experts that
builds on feedback and mutual respect.
This shift from “monologue” to “dialogue” (Piotrow et al., 1997) implies that the
stakeholders are the starting points from which the convergent and mutual communication
process begins. This role, however, may result in consequences such as lack of cooperation
among the units in an organization, which eventually leads to delays in the development of
these new ideas, and the decentralization of the organizations involved.
22
Policy implementation, which is essential in carrying out development programs from
the local level, to the regional or national level, also uses strategic communication to allow
planners, policymakers, and stakeholders to agree on their common goals toward
development. Communication programs, according to Backer, Rogers, and Sopory (1992),
may become more effective if they elicit participation of government and other policymaking
bodies. This would eventually increase the ability of the programs to mitigate the factors
contributing to problems on development in a larger scale, and at the same time, encourage
the government and other institutions to be involved in these issues.
In countries with higher consumption power, strategic communication is involved in

putting ideas and techniques into the market, particularly in persuading other people of the
benefits of a certain developmental idea or technique (Lagnaoui, Santi, & Santucci, 2004). In
this aspect, it builds on the concept of social marketing, developed by Kotler and Zaltman in
1971, which focuses on how ideas become accepted by the society through communication
programs based on “product, planning, pricing, communication, distribution, and marketing
research”(Piotrow et al., 1997). Backer, Rogers, and Sopory (1992) state that communication
programs become effective with the use of strategic communication based on these social
marketing principles.
Developing Strategic Communication Interventions
The Johns Hopkins School for Public Health outlined six stages by which strategic
communication programs are developed (Piotrow et al., 1997):
1. analysis – involves analyzing strengths and weaknesses of ongoing

programs and their components, the profile of the stakeholders, and the
communication resources to be involved;
2. strategic design – objectives are formulated, stakeholders are specified,
and messages are designed according to the nature of the stakeholders.
Media by which these messages are put across are also carefully chosen
in this stage, and action and evaluation plans are drawn.
3. development, pretesting, and production of the messages with the
involvement of the stakeholders;
23
4. management, implementation and monitoring – the organization
implementing the program is empowered, the action plan is executed,
and the communication processes (dissemination, transmission,
reception) within the program are monitored;
5. impact evaluation – focuses on the long-term effects on the stakeholders,
and may serve as grounds for improving incoming programs; and
6. planning for continuity – this strengthens and sustains the program under
different conditions.
Figure 2 shows the framework in which these stages proceed. Here, impact evaluation
may play a role in the strategic design stage. The framework also emphasizes the
sustainability and continuity of programs in the sixth stage, which will involve many series
of processes from analysis to impact evaluation in the long run.
3 4
Message Management,
development, implementation,
pretesting, monitoring
production
2
Strategic 5
Design Impact
evaluation
6
1 Planning for
Analysis continuity
Figure 2. The P Process: Stages Involved in Developing Strategic Communication

Programs (Piotrow et al., 1997)
24
This framework, called the “P Process”, has been applied in different communication
programs in many developing countries. It aids in designing and carrying out different
communication activities from a local level to national and even international levels.
Strategic communication can occur due to a range of technical, institutional,

economic, and socio-psychological factors. It can also occur at different levels, from
individual, to community or general public. This implies that strategic communication
holistically addresses the issues of development (Corcoran, 2007; Lagnaoui, Santi, &
Santucci, 2004).
Communication Strategy
According to Lionberger & Gwin (1982), a communication strategy is the ways or

techniques by which people communicate to affect the thoughts, feelings, and actions of
other people. Basically, it is a foundation for sharing new ideas with other people to change
their behavior. This also includes the ways and means by which human and non-human
communication resources are being maximized to achieve the intended behavioral change
(Rogers, 1973).
Functions of Communication Strategies
A communication strategy may function as an action framework. White (2003)

explained that without a communication strategy to function as a plan of action,
communication programs would heavily rely on chances, resulting in a waste in time and
effort in planning and implementation. According to Genilo (2005), a communication
strategy also serves to reconcile both knowledge and actions of the people; not only will they
be able to know about an idea or point of view, but they would also intend to act on it.
Communication strategies also play a role in effectively allocating communication

resources to elicit the intended change in behavior (Rogers, 1973). These resources may be
based on the pre-existing knowledge, attitudes, practices, and perceived needs of the people
25
(White, 2003). Thus, communication strategies should build on the local setting, the socio-
cultural context, and the perceived needs in the community where the strategy is to be
implemented (Lionberger & Gwin, 1982).
The development of a communication strategy also serves as a yardstick in

determining the effectiveness and relevance of communication programs. According to Flor
and Gomez (1993), the process of communication rooted in the communication strategy aids
in program planning and evaluation. In program planning, communication particularly helps
bring out and integrate the needs and interests of a community on a particular issue (e.g.
environmental problems), and in evaluation, it develops and maintains a feedback
mechanism whose output is eventually relayed for use in the planning stage.
An organized and unified communication strategy is critical to the success of

communication programs. Rogers has noted that “communication efforts… would be much
more effective if explicit attention were given to communication strategies” (in Piotrow et
al., 1997).
Forms of Communication Strategies
For several years, extension workers, development planners, and development

communication practitioners have developed different communication strategies to address
the needs of the farmers with regard to farming practices. Genilo (2005) categorized these
approaches into the following:
Media-based strategies. These flourished from the 1960s until the late 1970s and
were developed by social and extension workers. The strategies focus on how farmers are
able to adopt farming technologies and practices after receiving messages on their benefits
and advantages. Media-based strategies fall short in terms of stakeholder participation, since
communication at that time was seen as one-way from sender to receiver.
26
Participatory strategies. Strategies are decentralized and involve greater
participation and interaction from the stakeholders. Maintained from the late 1970s to the
early 1980s, these strategies still had pitfalls. Because the leadership in the program is
decentralized, it is not clear as to who leads what in the communication strategies. There is
also lack of a more systematic planning and implementation of the programs. In addition,
Boeren and Epskamp (1992) explained that cooperation, democracy, and other characteristics
of a participatory approach still cannot be guaranteed in some communities.
Communication technology strategies. These strategies focus on the use of new

technology or media to speed up information dissemination among different stakeholders.
New media allow people to communicate interactively and help address development issues.
According to Lin (2003), communication technology tools help reduce the time and effort
spent in human communication. However, their weakness lies on inaccessibility of the tools,
especially to the poor and illiterate.
Knowledge-based strategies. Developed in the 1990s, these strategies recognize the

innate ability and pre-existing knowledge of the farmers. It involves the integration of local,
traditional knowledge from the farmers, and scientific knowledge from the scientists and
researchers.
These strategies imply that there is no single perfect communication strategy that
answers all of the needs and problems in different contexts. Communication-related factors,
as well as socioeconomic considerations, are also important in determining which strategy is
to be used under a different setting.
Designing Communication Strategies
Piotrow et al. (1997) said that communication strategies are designed through the
following stages or steps:
1. formulating objectives to determine the intended changes in behavior that

must be achieved;
27
2. positioning the concepts, problems, or products so that it can best motivate
the stakeholders to act on the idea or product;
3. choosing means of implementation, or the activities and media that is most
accessible to the audience;
4. selecting partner organizations, which assist in developing and
implementing the strategy; and
5. planning how the communication strategy is to be documented or
evaluated.
Communication strategies, according to Rogers and Storey (in Backer, Rogers, &
Sopory, 1992), should be effects-oriented, with focus on influencing the people’s individual
behavior. Here, the emphasis is placed on the intended outcomes, or objectives. According
to White (2003), these objectives should be specific, measurable, and realistic, and should
have a definite time period. The timeframe should allow for the mobilization of different
communication resources, pre-testing, implementation, and evaluation of the communication
strategy (White, 2003).
In early communication programs, the presumed effects of communication on people

were considered narrow — communication programs either made them knowledgeable, or
aware of an idea or course of action. There was little regard on the role communication can
play in changing the overall behavior of individuals. As a result, design and implementation
of communication programs were only limited to the high-end production of communication
materials, and the development of a large number of messages. With the constant evolution
in communication paradigms and roles, the role of communication strategy has shifted from
eliciting knowledge and awareness to interacting with the people and eventually changing
their behavior (Piotrow et al., 1997). A communication is also bound within a specific time
period (Backer, Rogers, & Sopory, 1992).
Furthermore, communication strategies consist of a combination of variables (e.g.

source, message, channel, receiver) to form systematic communication interventions. These
variables make up the three aspects of communication strategies, namely: methods,
messages, and approaches (Sisteberio, 2001).
28
Information Sources
The farmers’ preferred sources of information mainly depend on the type of

information that they need. According to Lionberger & Gwin (1982), there are five kinds of
information that farmers need for them to be able to adopt new ideas or practices.
Notification, or the information involving the existence of an idea or practice, is usually
acquired by farmers from the mass media and government agencies. Operational
information, which tells the farmer how the idea or practice works for him/her, can be
obtained from fellow farmers and government agencies. Farmers, who are interested in
knowing the effects or risks of the idea or practice, or the judgmental information, usually go
to their trusted fellow farmers and other personal networks. Meanwhile, they learn how use
the idea or practice (application information) from how-to-do publications and government
agencies. They learn the actual results of using the idea or practice through their own
experience or that of others.
Selnow & Crano (1987) noted that one of the important characteristics of a source is
its credibility. When an information source is considered as prestigious and trustworthy by
the audience, they would likely change their attitude in accordance with the attitudes of the
source. On the other hand, credibility may result from the audience’s perception of the
information source’s intentions. It is also a direct result of the competence of a change agent.
However, expertise may be relative to the situation where the communication takes place.
Communication Methods
The methods of communication are classified based on how communication

processes take place at intrapersonal, interpersonal, organizational, community, or
public/mass levels (Corcoran, 2007):
1. At the intrapersonal level, methods may include inner thoughts or

feelings.
29
2. Interpersonal methods of communication may involve activities which
involve personal sending and response, such as one-on-one, small group
discussions, phone conversations, e-mails, etc.
3. Communication methods at the organizational level include lectures,
seminars, debates, meetings, workshops, newsletters, memos, and
displays.
4. In communities, radio, talks, seminars, debates, local or community
newspapers, billboards, and other methods are used.
5. Newspapers, television, digital television, Internet, national radio, and
mobile phone messaging are the common methods at the public/mass
communication level.
Sharing of innovations and technologies among farmers, on the other hand, involve
different communication methods. Formal farm organizations engage in meetings, demo
farms, and seminars, while informal organizations consult with other farmers and leaders,
observe farms of their fellow farmers, engage in informal discussions, and word-of-the-
mouth methods. The ways by which these farm organizations institutionalize or fully
implement the technologies also vary. Formal organizations formalize the activities through
assemblies and meetings, while informal organizations conduct traditional learning sessions
(Genilo, 2005).
Certain methods of communication have been recommended to facilitate community

development and technology transfer. Seminiano (1994) wrote on the potential of field trips
as one of the communication activities for community development. Aside from instilling an
enjoyable learning experience in the farmers, field trips were found to help invoke on them a
sense of cooperation and self-reliance. Meanwhile, trainings were considered as one of the
fundamental means for capacity building (Gesmundo, 1994). Forums in the Barangay
Development Council (BDC) meetings also encouraged technology transfer among farmers
as farmers are able to communicate with their personal networks and peers. Pulhin et al.
(2002) recommended that in attending seminars, meetings, and other related activities,
farmers should first be able to begin with simple technologies, and seek their effectiveness
before proceeding to the more complex ones.
30
Communication Messages
According to Selnow and Crano (1987), communicators may inundate more messages
than what they intend to tell their audience. Meanwhile, the audience tends to develop
defense mechanisms in response to these large volume and variety of messages. Selective
exposure occurs when a person avoids an entire message or simply chooses not to notice it.
Selective perception, on the other hand, happens when the audience tends to interpret
messages according to their pre-existing beliefs, values and experiences. They would only
retain what they wish to remember in a process called selective retention. These concepts
imply that messages should be audience-specific — those which have no appeal or do not
give any value or interest to the audience would most likely be ignored or forgotten.
According to Velasco et al. (2006), a message is made up of six areas: 1) appeal – the
value that one can get from the message; 2) approach – how the subject is shown or
portrayed in the message; 3) content – the central theme in the message; 4) text/image –
refers to the message form; 5) context – the environment or conditions in which the message
is being presented; and 6) source – where the message came from; affects credibility of the
message.
The way by which messages are considered in communication strategies varies along
with the way the process of communication is viewed and explained. The shift from one-
way linear models of communication to that of communication as a process toward mutual
understanding (i.e., Kincaid’s Convergence Model) allowed communication program
planners to design messages based on the thoughts and attitudes of the audience/stakeholders
(Piotrow et al., 1997).
Corcoran (2007) stated that aside from using communication and behavior change
theories to design messages, the social characteristics of the clients should be considered.
Doing this would help determine which of their thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, and/or values
affect their way of responding to the messages. This would eventually aid in designing
messages that are relatively simple and easy to understand for that particular group of clients.
31
Messages can also be effective if they encourage positive, rather than negative,
changes in behavior. Velasco et al. (2006) suggested that messages may have impact on the
stakeholders when they are able to see the benefits of the idea presented in the message. In
addition, new, interesting combinations of messages and the medium in which they are to be
delivered can be explored, such as designing informative, educational messages and giving
them an entertainment approach (Enter-Educate approach) (Backer, Rogers, & Sopory, 1992;
Corcoran, 2007).
Genilo (2005) stressed that for farmers to be able to practice or incorporate into their
knowledge new information on rice farming, the messages related to it should be consistent,
repeatable, accurate, and action-oriented. Consequently, the stakeholders should be
considerably exposed to the message that was formulated for it to have an effect on them
(Farrelly et al., 2003 in Corcoran, 2007).
Given that the quality of messages depends mostly on the stakeholders, there is a
need to design messages based on the profile of the stakeholders, and to pretest these
messages with the stakeholders (Piotrow et al., 1997). According to White (2003), this is to
avoid unnecessary effects on the clients and to keep stakeholders from being stigmatized or
offended. Furthermore, it makes sure that the stakeholders are able to understand the
messages in the way they were intended to be understood (Backer, Rogers, & Sopory, 1992).
Communication Approaches
Approaches also form an important part of a communication strategy. An approach is

somewhat related to positioning, which involves presenting the intended behavioral
outcomes to the stakeholders in the most persuasive way. Corcoran (2007) stressed the need
to think of approaches which focus on what aspects of a medium can work for the
stakeholders, and not on the effectiveness of the medium as a whole. This proactive, strategic
positioning will enable the different clients to understand the main point of the
communication strategy (Piotrow et al., 1997).
32
A communication strategy may inform, educate, persuade, or entertain (Sisteberio,
2001), or it may be a mix of the aforementioned approaches. The type of approach depends
on the socioeconomic and political factors (e.g. culture, religion), the theories on which the
strategy is built, the resources, and the clients themselves (Piotrow et al., 1997).
One of these approaches is the multi-channel or multi-media approach. This

approach works under the assumption that no single channel can best relay messages to the
clients by itself, and that a combination of different channels will be more powerful in
reinforcing and retaining messages (Lionberger & Gwin, 1982). According to Backer,
Rogers, & Sopory (1992), effective communication interventions use this type of approach.
First, even stakeholders who cannot access the message through a certain type of medium
will then be able to do so with the other channels included in the approach.
The bottom-up approach is another way by which programs are able to effectively
communicate messages to the stakeholders. In this approach, according to Boeren and
Epskamp (1992), the clients have the opportunity to air their conditions, and they are
motivated to solve their problems and attend to their needs by themselves. This, however,
remains to be a challenge for development communication practitioners, since the
participation of the clients is only limited to message design and media access (Genilo,
2005).
The entertainment-education (Enter-Educate) approach, on the other hand, a touch of

entertainment is incorporated in educational messages to stimulate appeal of the messages to
the clients. Many forms of entertainment, such as soap operas, pop music, television or radio
plugs, and the like, can be used for this approach. This, however, will be effective after
preferences of the clients are analyzed; decisions are made on the technicalities of the
approach (e.g. talents, script); and when media and materials are pre-tested, promoted,
monitored, and evaluated (Backer, Rogers, & Sopory, 1992; Piotrow et al., 1997).
Implementing effective communication strategies lead to communication programs

which: 1) clearly identify the problems to be solved and needs to be addressed; 2) include
33
creative ways of influencing change on the clients; 3) use appropriate channels for
influencing such change; 4) encourage participation of stakeholders in the communication
processes; and 5) focus on the results to be attained.
Related Studies
Custodio (1994) compared the perceptions of the participants in different

developmental programs implemented by two non-government organizations (NGOs) in the
province of Quezon. Results showed that the two NGOs were perceived by the participants
as effective in convincing residents to participate in their activities. This was because the
benefits of the program were clearly explained to them. Furthermore, the participants
preferred interpersonal channels in encouraging them to join the programs. However, one
program had difficulty maintaining the interest and cooperation of the participants in the
program. Participants attributed this to the teaching style used and the need to improve the
program as a whole. The study suggested that participants tend to adopt new ideas once they
see it as effective or beneficial to them.
Sisteberio’s (2001) study on communication strategies of the “Magsasaka-Siyentista”

(MS) program looked into the effectiveness of the methods, messages, and approaches used
in the program, and also examined the extent to which the agricultural technologies were
adopted by the farmers.
While the study noted two-way communication activity between the farmer
participants and the farmer-scientists, there was minimal communication between the farmer-
scientists and the program staff. Farmers were only able to participate in seminars and
trainings. They only had limited participation in the planning and decision-making processes
of the program.
Meanwhile, the farmers were highly interested on the activities of the MS program,
but they often are not able to attend the activities. The sources have high perceived
34
credibility. Approaches were usually informative and educational, and there was preferred
use of interpersonal communication.
Sisteberio also enumerated factors which influenced behavior change in the

participants of the program. The knowledge of the farmers was affected by their ability to
recall messages and their exposure to the idea or practice. Their approval, intention to
practice, and actual practice of the technology were influenced by the source credibility,
experiences with the technology, availability of resources, and applicability of the
technology. The benefits of the technology, and the desire of the farmers to participate in the
promotional activities, affected their advocacy of the technology. It was also noted that
personal networks did not influence the farmers’ decisions to adopt the technology.
Syafar’s (2000) study on communication variables associated with adoption of rice

farming practices in Indonesia revealed that socio-demographic characteristics such as age,
educational attainment, land ownership, and affiliation influence the adoption of these
farming practices. The study also stressed the importance of source credibility in motivating
farmers to adopt the practices.
Ronan (2008) studied the perceived effectiveness of fisher folk in Laguna with regard
to the strategies of the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) - Janitor Fish
Proliferation Team in communicating risks of janitor fish proliferation in Laguna de Bay.
Results pointed out that the fisher folk had low level of awareness about the janitor fish
proliferation issue, and in general, they viewed the strategies as ineffective. This was because
of lack of information dissemination activities and support from mass media groups and
socio-civic, development agencies. Ronan stressed the need for a closer look at people’s
awareness, attitudes, and practices in order to design effective communication programs on
environmental management.
A study conducted on an agroforestry project in Malabog, Davao City aimed to assess

the factors that led to adoption or non-adoption of agroforestry technologies (Sabban, 1993).
It first examined the multi-faceted strategy of the project in promoting these technologies.
35
The project used formal training sessions backed by field demonstrations and provision of
supplies and other inputs, and farmers were also trained to conduct seminars that further
promote the agroforestry technologies. Results showed that 80 per cent of the participants in
the project are agroforestry technology adopters, who believe that the technologies were
beneficial to them. The study pointed out that the important factor which influenced the
adoption of agroforestry technology was the farmer’s perceived value or benefit of the
technology to him/her. On the other hand, it also pointed out major constraints in the
adoption of the technology. These include lack of knowledge of the farmers of agroforestry
and labor-intensive use of the technology.
In a case study made on the Phase V Project, a communication campaign promoting

safe motherhood in Morocco (JHU/CCP, 2001), it was noted that initially, maternal mortality
reduction was not the priority of the program. The communication strategies that were
employed, however, contributed to the inclusion of this issue in the national agenda. This
concern became highly visible through media coverage. There was a gain in the access of
life-saving services because of consistent training and motivation in emergency obstetric
care. Furthermore, through outreach and public education, the women involved in the project
had learned that obstetric complications do not always mean death. In a way, the
communication strategies used in the project had come to influence not only the knowledge,
attitudes and practices of the Moroccan women, but it also changed the societal priorities in
that country. The study emphasized that the role of communication in changing behavior
would not only end to the adoption of an idea or practice.
In another case study made by Johns Hopkins University (JJU/CCP, 2004) in

Guatemala, it was observed that behavior change and community mobilization had
introduced changes in the health management strategies of women in a Guatemalan
community. These included the empowerment of the health committee, ability of the women
to formulate emergency plans, and ability of the committee to arrange for emergency
transportations in case of emergency. It recognized the long-term effects of behavioral
change due to communication interventions.
36
The importance of inter-agency collaboration and strong institutional partnerships
was stressed in a national health communication study made in Egypt (Howard, 2007). The
case study revealed that because of the cooperative inter-agency partnerships and
mechanisms formulated by different national offices and organizations, the country was able
to respond swiftly to the onset of the avian flu. Furthermore, the study also stressed the
changes in knowledge and behaviors of the people after their exposure to the quick
communication interventions formulated in line with avian flu. A large majority of the
respondents in the survey recalled messages about avian flu and the preventive measures to
avoid this disease. Furthermore, most of those who recalled the messages were also able to
practice at least one action to protect themselves and their family from avian flu.
Another important role of communication programs and strategies in addressing

constraints is in alleviation or minimizing the impact of these problems. Johns Hopkins
University (JJU/CCP, 2001), in its study on communication of safe motherhood in Morocco,
had identified constraints in the access or use of maternal health services, such as socio-
economic constraints, delay in providing maternal care, and remoteness from hospitals and
other health facilities. It was observed that the communication strategy used in the program
had strived to at least minimize these constraints through communication methods and
approaches. It is thus also important that communication strategies not only adapt to the
constraints to adoption of technologies, but these should also mitigate at least some of these
problems.
Meanwhile, Lubjuhn and Pratt’s (2009) study involved looking at the potential of
enter-education approach as a way of reaching out to lower and middle-class communities in
Germany with climate-friendly lifestyle messages. The paper suggested a somewhat sender-
oriented enter-educate approach, which was differentiated into government, business, and
NGO approaches. This was made under the assumption that these three institutions are the
ones formulating the media strategies in the country to come up with effective
communication campaigns for a climate-friendly lifestyle. This study, which looks at the
“senders” rather than the stakeholders of a communication program, implies that models of
37
communication for behavior change may differ from one country or context to another,
depending on how the planners and stakeholders are viewed.
Synthesis of Literature Reviewed
Conventional agricultural practices which are, on one hand, practical and beneficial to
the Filipino farmer, bring along with them environmental and health problems. In particular,
rice straw burning, one of the common rice farming activities in the country, entails a number
of adverse effects. The continued practice by Filipino farmers may be attributed to lack of
knowledge and awareness and existing beliefs and experiences which hinder them to change
their ways.
A number of natural resource policies and programs tackling on rice straw burning
problems, such as the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program, have been implemented to discourage
unsustainable agricultural activities and mitigate their effects on the environment.
Environmentally-sustainable agricultural technologies were promoted to adapt to the growing
issue of climate change and global warming. However, the lack of support from groups,
weak and unsystematic information, education, and communication (IEC) campaigns, and
limited stakeholder participation rendered these programs relatively useless.
In this regard, there is a need for communication strategies which systematize the
elements and aspects of communication interventions for promoting environment-friendly
agricultural technologies. In order to effectively promote these technologies and practices,
the key elements and dimensions of communication strategies should be considered in
designing and implementing environmental communication programs. These strategies
should address not only the environmental issues related to rice straw burning, but also to
cater to the individuality, needs, and interests of farmers involved in such issue.
Furthermore, the emergence of constraints to behavior change or adoption of technologies
such as socioeconomic, technical, and institutional concerns may somewhat be delayed or
mitigated by the use of proper communication strategies based on the context in which the
problem exists.
38
Theoretical Framework
The study seeks to determine what factors in the communication strategy used in the
DA Agri-Kalikasan program influence change in rice straw management practices of selected
Leyte farmers.
The diffusion of innovations theory provided the underpinnings of this study.

According to Piotrow et al. (1997), this theory traces the process through which new ideas
and practices are communicated using different media to people in a social system over time.
It focuses on the factors influencing adoption or non-adoption of a certain innovation or
technology.
Rogers (1995) defined diffusion as a “process by which an innovation is

communicated through certain channels over a period of time among members of the social
system.” He also described innovation as a concept, object or practice which an individual,
group, or organization sees as new.
Lagnaoui, Santi and Santucci (2004) suggested that innovation, from a

communication point of view, should be defined by the difference between what people
already know and what they had been practicing. They classified innovations as continuous,
semi-continuous, or discontinuous. Continuous innovations are the easiest to practice and
adopt since they are consistent with what people already know and practice, and because they
are practical. Semi-continuous innovations involve the need for people to know something
about the innovation, change a few practices and ideas, and invest time and money in using
the innovation. Discontinuous innovations may do away with the conventional or past
practices, and lead to developing entirely new ideas, practices and markets.
Rogers (1983) explained that an individual’s decision to adopt an innovation is a

process which consists of a series of events and actions that happen through time. This
innovation-decision process consists of five stages:
39
1. Knowledge. This happens when an individual recognizes and understands an
innovation and how it works. This is usually influenced by the characteristics of
the individual or group making the decision to adopt or reject the innovation.
These include socioeconomic attributes, personality, and communication behavior
2. Persuasion. The individual develops positive or negative attitudes about the

innovation. The attributes of the innovation usually influences one’s formation of
attitudes. These include: 1) relative advantage – the extent to which the
innovation is perceived by the farmer as beneficial or advantageous; 2)
compatibility – the extent to which the rice innovation coincides with the one’s
needs, values, beliefs, and past experiences; 3) complexity – refers to the
perceived difficulty of the individual or group to understand the innovation;
4) trialability – the degree to which one is able to test the innovation before
completely using it; and 5) observability – the visibility of the results of an
innovation to the individual or group.
3. Decision. The individual eventually decides whether to adopt or reject the

innovation. When the individual adopts an innovation, he/she makes the choice of
fully using the innovation. On the other hand, he/she may choose not to adopt
(reject) the innovation. Rejection may be active, wherein one previously intended
to adopt the innovation, and then chose not to adopt it. It can also be passive,
wherein one never considered adopting the innovation.
4. Implementation. At this stage, the individual or group uses the innovation. The
way by which one uses the innovation depends on the situation or context in
which he/she uses it. Re-invention, or the process by which one changes the
innovation upon its use or adoption, may occur as early as in this stage.
5. Confirmation. This occurs when the individual affirms his/her decision to adopt
or reject the innovation. He/She may encounter conflicting messages that may
affect innovation decisions. The aim of the individual or group in this stage is to
adapt to these conflicts in order to make long-term decisions to adopt or reject the
innovation.
Figure 3 illustrates the conceptual model of the diffusion process (Rogers, 1995). As
the figure shows, several factors influence the communication or diffusion of an innovation
among the members of the social system, and consequently, the adoption of that innovation.
Each of these factors specifically influences the stages of the diffusion process. For instance,
the knowledge of the individual about the innovation may be affected by the characteristics
of the individual, and the nature of the social system. In addition, the perceived
characteristics of the innovation affect the individual’s formation of attitudes toward the
innovation.
40
On the other hand, the model shows that communication variables such as the source
and channels through which the information about the innovation is shared exert influence on
the adoption/non-adoption of the innovation at each of the stages. These factors, together
with the type of innovation-decision, also determine the rate at which the innovation is
adopted (Rogers, 1983).
Windahl, Signitzer and Olson (1992) stated that the diffusion process is usually
related to behavior change. Furthermore, they assert that while the decision to adopt or reject
an innovation is made and confirmed, changes in knowledge and attitudes have to take place.
Innovation-decisions, according to Rogers (1983), may differ according to the

organizational level in which they are made. They can be either authoritative decisions,
which an absolute power imposes on individuals or groups. They can also be individual
decisions, or optional, independent of what the rest of the social system has decided. It can
also be collective, made through consensus. Contingent innovation-decisions, on the other
hand, are developed after a previous innovation-decision.
41
ANTECEDENTS PROCESS CONSEQUENCES
Receiver variables
1. Personality characteristics (e.g. Continued
general attitude towards change) adoption
2. Social characteristics (e.g.
cosmopolitanism)
Adoption
3. Perceived need for the
innovation Discontinuance
4. Etc.
Communication sources
(Channels)
Knowledge Persuasion Decision Implementation Confirmation
Social system variables

1. Social system
norms
2. Tolerance of Later
deviancy adoption
3. Communication Rejection
integration
4. Etc.
Continued
rejection
Perceived characteristics of an
innovation
1. Relative advantage
2. Compatibility
3. Complexity
4. Trialability
5. Observability
Time
Figure 3. Conceptual model of the Diffusion of Innovations theory (Rogers, 1983)
42
Conceptual Framework
Figure 4 illustrates the conceptualized relationship of the variables in the study. It

was assumed that a relationship exists between the characteristics of the communication
strategy of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program and the stage of adoption of the MRC
technology.
The independent variable is basically the DA Agri-Kalikasan communication strategy

which consists of the source, message, channel, and receiver variables. The source variables
are measured in terms of 1) source of information on modified rapid composting (MRC)
technology; 2) perceived credibility of information source; and 3) frequency of access to
information source. The message variables are: 1) perceived degree of clarity; 2) perceived
degree of comprehensibility; 4) perceived degree of completeness; and 5) perceived degree
of interest. The channel variables consist of 1) frequency of exposure to channel; and
2) perceived degree of interest in channel. Finally, the receiver variables include 1) perceived
degree of need for MRC technology; and 2) perceived attitude towards MRC technology.
The dependent variable is the farmer-cooperators’ stage of adoption of the MRC

technology. The adoption stages are 1) knowledge; 2) persuasion; 3) decision;
4) implementation; and 5) confirmation. The factors in the knowledge stage comprise of the
following: 1) recall of specific messages; 2) knowledge about MRC technology; and 3)
knowledge about steps in MRC technology. In the persuasion stage, the factors considered
are as follows: 1) discussion of MRC technology with personal network; 2) approval of MRC
technology by personal network; and 3) personal approval of MRC technology. The decision
stage factors are 1) consultation with technology providers and 2) intention to use the MRC
technology. Meanwhile, the implementation stage also has two factors that describe it,
namely: 1) acquisition of materials for MRC technology; and 2) application of MRC
technology in field. Lastly, the confirmation stage is measured in terms of: 1) recognition of
benefits or drawbacks of MRC technology; 2) continuous use of MRC technology; and
3) advocacy for MRC technology (See Figure 4).
43
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE DEPENDENT VARIABLE
Factors in DA Agri-Kalikasan Communication Adoption Stage of MRC Technology

Strategy for MRC Technology
Knowledge stage
Source Variable
• Recall of specific messages
• Source of information on Modified Rapid • Extent of knowledge about MRC technology
Composting (MRC) technology • Extent of knowledge about steps in MRC
• Perceived credibility of information source
• Frequency of access to information source Persuasion stage
Message Variable • Discussion of MRC technology with

personal network
• Perceived degree of clarity • Approval of MRC technology by personal
• Perceived degree of comprehensibility network
• Perceived degree of completeness • Personal approval of MRC technology
• Perceived degree of interest
Decision stage
Channel variable
• Consultation with technology providers
• Intention to use MRC technology
• Frequency of exposure to channel
• Perceived degree of interest in channel
Implementation stage
Receiver variable • Acquisition of materials for MRC technology

• Application of MRC technology
• Perceived degree of need for MRC
• Perceived attitude towards MRC technology Confirmation stage
• Recognition of benefits or drawbacks of

MRC technology
• Continuous use of MRC technology
• Advocacy for MRC technology
Figure 4. Framework showing the conceptualized relationship of variables in the study
44
Statement of Hypotheses
The study tried to determine what specific variables in the communication strategy of
the DA Agri-Kalikasan program significantly influenced the stages at which the farmer-
cooperators adopted the MRC technology. Thus, it tested the following hypotheses:
Source variables
Ho: No relationship exists between the source variables in the Agri-Kalikasan
communication strategy and farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the MRC
technology.
Ha: A relationship exists between the source variables in the Agri-Kalikasan
technology.
Message variables
Ho: No relationship exists between the message variables in the Agri-Kalikasan
technology.
Ha: A relationship exists between the message variables Agri-Kalikasan
technology.
Channel variables
Ho: No relationship exists between the channel variables in the Agri-Kalikasan
technology.
Ha: A relationship exists between the channel variables Agri-Kalikasan
technology.
45
Receiver variables
Ho: No relationship exists between the receiver variables in the Agri-Kalikasan

technology.
Ha: A relationship exists between the receiver variables in the Agri-Kalikasan
technology.
46
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
The study used the survey research design to obtain relevant data from the farmer-
cooperators of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program. This design aims to give a description or
prediction as a framework for action by determining the existence, distribution, and
relationships of certain variables (Escalada and Heong ,1997). Specifically, surveys focus on
people’s attitudes, beliefs, opinions, inclinations, and behavior towards a phenomenon
(Mercado, 1999). Escalada and Heong (1997) also pointed out that the survey design is
especially useful in designing and evaluating extension and development programs.
Key informant interviews with the DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff were also
conducted to enrich the interpretation of the survey results (See Appendix C).
Location and Respondents of the Study
Leyte is one of the 56 major rice-producing provinces in the country targeted by the
nationwide DA Agri-Kalikasan program. With a total land area of 571, 280 hectares, the
province is the largest in the Eastern Visayas Region. It is bounded by the province of
Biliran in the north, Samar province and San Juanico Strait in the east, Cebu province in the
west, and Southern Leyte province in the south. Tacloban City is its provincial capital. Of its
40 municipalities, 17 served as technology demonstration (techno-demo) sites of the
Modified Rapid Composting (MRC) technology under the DA program. Each of these sites is
monitored by a farmer-cooperator, technician, and district coordinator. Figure 5 shows the 17
municipalities in Leyte which served as the sites of this study.
Figure 5. Map showing the different techno-demo sites in Leyte
48
The respondents of the study were male and female farmer-cooperators of the DA
Agri-Kalikasan program in Leyte, particularly those who were exposed to the Modified
Rapid Composting (MRC) technology. The key informants consisted of the DA Agri-
Kalikasan program staff in Leyte.
Table 1 lists the municipalities with MRC techno-demo farms and the number of
farmer cooperators per site.
Table 1. List of municipalities in Leyte province where MRC technology demonstration sites
have been set up and the number of farmer cooperators per site
DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY BARANGAY NUMBER OF FARMER
COOPERATORS
1 Palo Capirawan 3
Babatngon Pagsulhogon 5
Sta. Fe 4
Alang-alang Cavite 2
San Miguel Bairan 4
2 Barugo Bolod 5
Jaro Olotan 8
Mayorga Union 2
3 Leyte, Leyte Ugbon 3
4 Kananga Tugbong 4
5 Abuyog Balocauehay 2
Mahaplag Mahayag 3
Hindang Poblacion I 5
Hilongos Naval 2
Bato Alejos 4
Matalom Agbanga 3
Southern Leyte Maasin City Maria Clara 5
Total 64
Variables of the Study
The independent variable was the communication strategy for modified rapid
composting technology (MRC) of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program. The communication
strategy was measured in terms of source, message, channel, and receiver variables. On the
other hand, the dependent variable was the adoption stage of the MRC technology, namely:
49
1) knowledge stage; 2) persuasion stage; 3) decision stage; 4) implementation stage; and 5)
confirmation stage (See Figure 4, page 44).
Sampling Procedure
The study employed complete enumeration of 64 farmer-cooperators of the DA Agri-

Kalikasan Program in Leyte as survey respondents. However, only 49 farmer-cooperators
were surveyed because one farmer was already deceased and others had either moved to
Manila or were not available at the time of data gathering.
For the key informant interviews, the respondents were purposively selected based on
their designation as staff of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program and on their involvement in the
program. These included the program coordinator, the head of the Soils and Fertility Unit,
the regional coordinator of the Soil and Water Conservation Unit in DA Regional Office
VIII, and the municipal agricultural technicians (MATs) assigned in each municipality where
the techno-demo sites are located. Because some of the technicians were absent or busy
participating in other activities during the time of data gathering, not all of the technicians
were interviewed. The municipal agricultural officers (MAOs) in some towns agreed to be
interviewed in lieu of the technician. A total of 12 MATs and 4 MAOs were interviewed for
the study. The city agriculturist in Maasin City, Southern Leyte was also interviewed to
further verify information.
Research Instrument
The Survey Questionnaire
A structured questionnaire (Appendix B) using the interview-guided approach

(Appendix C) was used as the main research instrument. It contained a mix of close-ended
questions with choices and open-ended questions. In some parts, tables were used to facilitate
filling up and recording of responses. The six-part questionnaire was administered in
Tagalog, Cebuano, and Waray dialect.
50
The first part tackled the attributes of the source in the communication strategy of the
DA Agri-Kalikasan program. Data were elicited on sources of information about modified
rapid composting (MRC) technology, credibility of the sources, and frequency of access to
information sources.
The second part of the questionnaire focused on the message variables of the Agri-
Kalikasan communication strategy. Questions were asked on the following attributes of a
message: 1) specific messages brought to the farmer-cooperators by the DA Agri-Kalikasan
program; 2) clarity of the message; 3) understandability of the message; 4) completeness of
the message; and 5) how interesting the message is to the farmer-cooperators.
The third part dealt with the channels used in the communication strategy of the DA
Agri-Kalikasan program. The respondents were asked about the specific communication
channels used by the DA Agri-Kalikasan program to bring information about the MRC
technology to them, the frequency of their exposure to the channels, and how interesting the
channels were.
Data on the receiver variables of the Agri-Kalikasan communication strategy were

elicited in the fourth part of the questionnaire. These included the respondent’s perceived
level of need for the MRC technology and their rating of their attitude towards the MRC
technology using the Likert scale – strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disgree,
and strongly disagree.
The fifth part consisted of questions about the farmer-cooperators’ level of adoption
of the MRC technology in each of the following stages, namely: 1) knowledge; 2)
persuasion; 3) decision; 4) implementation; and 5) confirmation.
The last part of the questionnaire contained questions on the problems encountered in
the use of the MRC technology, the ways by which these problems were addressed, and
suggestions to improve the DA Agri-Kalikasan communication strategy. Towards the end of
51
the questionnaire, information was sought on the respondents’ socio-demographic and
farming characteristics.
Interview Guide for Key Informants
An interview guide was prepared with emphasis on key themes regarding the source,
message, channel, and receiver variables of the DA Agri-Kalikasan communication strategy.
Likewise, the qualifications of the key informants were identified.
Data Collection
Interviews with the key informants were arranged via a formal letter to the project
coordinator of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program. The MAOs and MATs were then contacted
through personal calls, text messaging, and referrals made by the project coordinator. Since
all of the key informants refused to be taped during the interviews, notes were taken to record
their responses. The results of the key interviews were used to reinforce the interpretation of
the survey results.
On the other hand, the structured guide questionnaire was formulated and pretested
with five farmers in Brgy. Tugas, Bato, Leyte. The outcomes of the pretest were used to
revise and improve the questionnaire. In coordination with the head of the Soils and Fertility
Unit of the Office of the Provincial Agriculturist (OPA) and the Municipal Agricultural
Office (MAO) in each of the techno-demo sites in the province, the survey respondents were
located and interviews arranged through personal visits and text messaging.
Data collection was done from October 28-30, 2009, and from November 3-4, 2009.
Here, the farmer-cooperators were interviewed personally using the survey questionnaire as a
guide. Key informant interviews were also done on the same dates, after the farmers’
surveys were conducted in each of the techno-demo sites.
52
Data Analysis Procedure
The data obtained from the survey were organized in frequency and percentage
tables. The weighted mean scores were obtained for each of the Likert scale results to
determine the most dominant response of the respondents regarding the source, message,
channel and receiver variables in the study. It was computed using the formula:
Weighted mean = Σ (Rating x Frequency)

n
Where:
Σ = summation of the products of ratings and frequencies
Rating = any of the ratings in the scale (Likert type index numerical equivalent
choices: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) given by the respondents
Frequency = number of respondents who gave that rating
The weighted mean intervals and their corresponding qualitative interpretation for
measuring each of the attributes of the source, message, channel and receiver variables are as
follows:
a. Perceived credibility of information source

Mean Range Interpretation
0.50-1.49 Very credible
3.50-4.49 Credible
2.50-3.49 Can’t say
1.50-2.49 Not credible
0.50-1.49 Not very credible
b. Frequency of access to information source

4.50-5.00 Always
3.50-4.49 Often
2.50-3.49 Sometimes
1.50-2.49 Not often
0.50-1.49 Not always
c. Perceived degree of clarity of message

4.50-5.00 Very clear
3.50-4.49 Clear
2.50-3.49 Can’t say
1.50-2.49 Not clear
0.50-1.49 Not very clear
53
d. Perceived degree of comprehensibility of message
4.50-5.00 Very understandable
3.50-4.49 Understandable
2.50-3.49 Can’t say
1.50-2.49 Not understandable
0.50-1.49 Not very understandable
e. Perceived degree of completeness of message

4.50-5.00 100% complete
3.50-4.49 80% complete
2.50-3.49 60% complete
1.50-2.49 40% complete
0.50-1.49 20% complete
f. Perceived degree of interest in message
4.50-5.00 Very interesting
3.50-4.49 Interesting
2.50-3.49 Can’t say
1.50-2.49 Not interesting
0.50-1.49 Not very interesting
g. Frequency of exposure to channel

4.50-5.00 Always
3.50-4.49 Often
2.50-3.49 Sometimes
1.50-2.49 Not often
0.50-1.49 Not always
h. Perceived degree of interest in channel

4.50-5.00 Very interesting
3.50-4.49 Interesting
2.50-3.49 Can’t say
1.50-2.49 Not interesting
0.50-1.49 Not very interesting
i. Perceived attitude towards MRC technology

4.50-5.00 Strongly agree
3.50-4.49 Agree
2.50-3.49 Neither agree nor disagree
1.50-2.49 Disagree
0.50-1.49 Strongly disagree
54
In addition, the existence of a relationship between the communication (source,
message, channel, and receiver) variables, and the adoption level of the MRC technology was
tested using the chi-square test of independence. The statistical test would determine if the
communication variables significantly influenced the adoption of the MRC technology.
Meanwhile, data from the personal interviews with the staff of the DA Agri-Kalikasan
program were used to further enrich the discussion of the survey results.
55
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
Age, Sex, Household Size, and Civil Status
Forty nine farmer-cooperators of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program in Leyte,

Philippines served as respondents of the study. Table 2 shows their socio-demographic
characteristics.
Majority (61%) of the farmer respondents were aged 48 to 69 years old, indicating
they are relatively old and mature. There were more males (59%) than females (41%).
Majority (61%) belonged to relatively small households, with 1-5 members. Almost all
(90%) of them were married.
Educational Attainment and Number of MRC-related

Trainings Attended
More than half (53%) of the farmers underwent secondary schooling. A little over one
fourth (27%) had received elementary education; the rest underwent college or had college
degrees (20%). Almost half (47%) of them had attended a training related to modified rapid
composting (MRC) technology. Nine out of 49 have not had any MRC-related training at all
(Table 2).
Tenurial Status, Farm Size, and Length of

Farming Experience
Nearly half (45%) of the farmers had full ownership of the land while more than one
third (37%) were tenants. Majority (55%) had one hectare or less of rice land, followed by
those with 1.25-5.0 hectares (37%). On the other hand, one respondent owned more than 20
hectares of land. Majority (55%) had been farming their land from 3 to 24 years. Two
respondents had been tending their land for more than 50 years (Table 2).
Annual Yield in Rice Production, Annual Income in Rice

Production, and Support Services
More than two fifths (44%) of the respondents said they produced 101-500 cavans of
rice in a year. An equal percentage (23%) each harvested an extreme rice yield in a year –100
cavans or less and 501-1000 cavans. Meanwhile, five farmers produced more than a thousand
cavans per year (Table 2). The five farmers were owners of huge hectares of land, or seed
growers who were given farm support by different institutions.
Table 2. Socio-demographic characteristics of farmer-cooperators of the DA

Agri-Kalikasan program in Leyte province
SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
CHARACTERISTIC (N=49) (%)
Age
26-47 17 35
48-69 30 61
70-80 2 4
Sex
Male 29 59
Female 20 41
Household size
1-5 30 61
6-10 18 37
11-14 1 2
Civil status
Married 44 90
Single 3 6
Widowed 2 4
Educational attainment
High school/High school graduate 26 53
Elementary/Elementary graduate 13 27
College/College graduate 10 20
Number of MRC-related trainings
attended
One 23 47
Two 10 21
Three 3 6
Four and above 4 8
Did not attend any training 9 18
57
Table 2 continued.
SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
CHARACTERISTIC (N=49) (%)
Tenurial status
Full ownership 22 45
Tenant 18 37
Others (rented; conjugal ownership) 5 10
Leasee 3 6
Ownership under certificate of land 1 2
transfer (CLT)
Farm size (hectares)
Less than or equal to 1 27 55
1.25-5.00 18 37
6-10 2 4
16-20 1 2
More than 20 1 2
Length of farming experience (in years)
3-24 27 55
25-46 20 41
47-57 2 4
Annual yield in rice production
(cavans/year)
101-500 22 44
Less than or equal to 100 11 23
501-1000 11 23
More than 1000 5 10
Annual income in rice production (PhP)
Less than or equal to 100,000 28 57
100,001-300,000 12 25
300,001-500,000 6 12
More than 500,000 3 6
Support services*
Fertilizer 36 73
Seeds 25 51
Technical support and training 8 16
Financial support (e.g. loans, 5 10
discounts)
Maintenance (e.g. pesticides, 3 6
plant medicine)
None 2 4
No answer 1 2
*Multiple responses
Majority (57%) of the farmer respondents earned about PhP 100,000 or less in a year
in rice production. Twelve (25%) farmers obtained between PhP 100,001 and 300, 000
annual income. The rest derived an income of more than PhP300, 000 annually from rice
production.
58
In terms of support services, most of the farmers received fertilizer or fertilizer
subsidies from the DA and other agencies (36 responses). The farmers were also able to avail
themselves of free or subsidized seeds (25 responses). Technical support and training, as well
as financial support in the form of loans or discounts, were provided to the farmers as support
services of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program (Table 2).
Communication Strategy of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program
Source Variables
Source of information about the MRC technology
Farm technicians were the most common source of information about the MRC
technology among the farmer respondents (46 responses). Next to the technicians, the DA
Agri-Kalikasan program staff was identified as source of information (14 responses) (Table
3). As experts in the field, the technicians shouldered the responsibility of regularly
monitoring the performance of the techno-demo sites together with the farmer-cooperators.
Hence, this could be the reason why the farmer-cooperators usually turned to the technicians
for information on the MRC technology.
Table 3. Sources of information about the MRC technology

INFORMATION SOURCE FREQUENCY
(N=49)*
Technician 46
DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff 14
Neighbor/fellow farmer 3
Print 3
Radio 2
TV 2
Others 1
*Multiple responses
It can be observed that interpersonal sources of information were usually accessed.

This may be because the farmer-cooperators have regular interaction with the farm
technicians and Agri-Kalikasan staff who visit them at the farm when they carry out their
monitoring activities. Besides their availability, interpersonal sources could also have better
59
helped the farmers learn more about the MRC technology. According to Corcoran (2007),
these kinds of sources have an edge in helping individuals proceed from the knowledge of an
idea or product to more advanced stages of behavior change such as practice and advocacy.
Perceived credibility and frequency of access
Table 4 summarizes the weighted mean scores of the respondents’ rating of their
perceived credibility of and frequency of access to information sources. Among the
information sources identified by the respondents, the agricultural technician was perceived
as credible (4.41 mean score). On the other hand, the other information sources were
generally perceived as not very credible by the respondents.
According to Selnow and Crano (1979), factors such as expertise and constant
interaction with the source would affect the credibility of the information source. The
agricultural technicians, according to the project in-charge of the program, were trained in
farmer field schools (FFS), and were thus considered as experts on field activities. As field
experts who interact face to face directly with farmer-cooperators, they would likely be
perceived as more credible than a television or radio program.
The respondents also generally often accessed the agricultural technicians for
information on the MRC technology (3.96 mean score). Meanwhile, their frequency of
contact with the Agri-Kalikasan program staff was much lower at 1.06 mean score,
interpreted as ‘not always.’ Apparently, the farmers do not always seek out the Agri-
Kalikasan program staff. This may have something to do with the role of the program staff
in the promotion of MRC. Aside from choosing techno-demo sites and delegating tasks, they
basically provide funds, materials and logistics for MRC implementation. This does not
necessarily require direct interaction with the farmer-cooperators.
Furthermore, the respondents did not always access neighbors or fellow farmers as
well as mass media sources such as print, radio, and television (Table 4).
60
Table 4. Weighted mean scores and qualitative interpretation of the respondents’ ratings of
source credibility and frequency of access to source
PERCEIVED DEGREE OF FREQUENCY OF ACCESS TO
SOURCE CREDIBILITY SOURCE
WEIGHTED WEIGHTED
MEAN INTERPRETATION MEAN INTERPRETATION
SCORE SCORE
Neighbor/Fellow 0.18 Not very credible 0.31 Not always
farmer
DA Agri- 1.33 Not very credible 1.04 Not always
Kalikasan
program staff
Farm technician 4.41 Credible 3.96 Often
Print 0.29 Not very credible 0.25 Not always
Radio 0.27 Not very credible 0.16 Not always
TV 0.18 Not very credible 0.10 Not always
When asked about the reason for their high rating of the source’s credibility, the
farmers explained that they could observe the benefits of the MRC technology on their
techno-demo farm as they are using it (25 responses) and, at the same time, they can discuss
and verify the benefits with the farm technicians when they visit regularly for monitoring and
data collection (Table 5). Farmers are usually known for their “wait-and-see attitude”
(Lionberger & Gwin, 1982), which means that they would not put their trust in a program or
project unless they looked at its benefits.
Trust was another reason for having credibility in the source. The farmers “personally
trusted” their information sources regardless of their qualifications (12 responses) (Table 5).
Constant interaction with the agricultural technicians may have built the farmer-cooperators’
trust in them. This could be because of the role or nature of work of the technicians in the
program. The technicians helped the farmer-cooperators gather pertinent data on plant and
soil samples and gave feedback on the implementation of the project. These required direct
interaction between the technician and the farmer-cooperator.
The respondents gave other explanations for their high credibility of the source such
as: 1) information source explains well the MRC technology; and 2) information source is a
direct provider of the technology.” (Table 5)
61
Meanwhile, the respondent’s low rating of the source’s credibility was attributed to
to the following reasons: 1) the information source does not meet needs of farmers; 2) the
information source is not really “perfect” or “know-it-all”; and 3) the source is indifferent
(Table 5). These findings imply that information sources should be sensitive to the needs of
their stakeholders if they are to establish credibility.
Table 5. Respondents’ reasons for their rating of perceived credibility of information sources
on the MRC technology
REASON FREQUENCY
(N=49)*
For high credibility
Benefits of MRC technology are seen during/after use 25
Information source is personally trusted 12
Information source explains well the MRC technology 8
Information source is a direct provider of the 1
technology
For low credibility
Information source does not meet needs of farmers 5
Information source is not really perfect 5
Source is indifferent 5
No response 1
*Multiple responses
The farmers sought out the agricultural technician when problems or needs about the
use of the MRC technology cropped up (11 responses). They acquired information about the
MRC technology when the source was available (9 responses), or when he/she was just
nearby and accessible (6 responses). They accessed the source because they trusted him/her
about the information on MRC (6 responses) (Table 6).
Other farmers exhibited low frequency of access to the information source because
they were busy with other farm activities (5 responses) (Table 6). On the other hand, it is
possible that the farmer-cooperators did ‘not always’ meet with the Agri-Kalikasan program
staff because the staff may have other techno-demo sites to visit and monitor besides their
MRC technology sites, or perhaps the staff may have a limited number of visits to the sites
due to lack of budget.
62
The results seem to point out that the farmer-cooperators tend to access their
information sources based on their needs about the technology, the time or availability and
accessibility of the source, and the trustworthiness of the source.
One of the municipal agricultural technicians (MATs) in Brgy. Alejos, Bato, Leyte,
mentioned in the key informant interview (KII) that fast communication through text
messaging facilitated farmers’ access to their information sources, particularly the
technicians. Other technicians cited the accessibility of the techno-demo sites which made it
easier for them to visit the areas and bring information to the farmer-cooperators.
The secretary to the municipal agriculture office (MAO) in Jaro, Leyte said that when
problems arise on the use of MRC technology, the farmers would simply send a text message
or personally call on the technicians to help them. The agricultural technicians thus play a
role not only in making information available to the farmers, but also in making it more
convenient for the farmers to obtain information. Text messaging and use of cell phones
emerged as important factors in farmers’ access to information sources in this study.
Table 6. Respondents’ reasons for frequency of access to information sources on the MRC
technology
REASON FREQUENCY
(N=49)*
For high frequency of access
If related problems or needs arise 11
Information source is available 9
Information source is accessible 6
Information source is trusted 6
Networks, linkages, or connections are available 4
Consistent follow-up on the program 3
Relying on pre-existing knowledge 2
Benefits of the technology 2
For low frequency of access
Busy with other farming activities 5
*Multiple responses
63
Message Variables
Perceived degree of clarity of message
The farmer respondents rated ‘very clear’ the messages on the steps in applying the
MRC compost to the field (4.67 mean score) and the practical benefits of the MRC
technology (4.55 mean score). The steps in preparing the compost (4.48 mean score) and the
environmental benefits of the MRC technology (4.29 mean score) were ‘clear’ to the farmers
(Table 7). The high clarity of the messages on MRC technology may be attributed to the
action-oriented learning style of the Agri-Kalikasan program which consists of interactive,
hands-on activities such as field demonstration (demo) and face-to-face consultations with
technicians.
It can also be deduced that using the MRC technology in the demo farm and
consequently enabling the farmers to see and observe its practical benefits to them and to the
environment helped a lot to clarify the messages about the technology. According to
Corcoran (2007), clarity is one of the factors which help the stakeholders of a program
understand what communication planners intend to have them understand.
The farmer respondents had three main reasons for perceiving the messages on MRC
technology to have high clarity. These were as follows: 1) the technology is used on the farm
and its benefits are seen (26 responses); 2) the message is well-explained (10 responses); and
3) additional information can be obtained from technology providers (5 responses) (Table 8).
These reasons support the value of action-oriented learning as an approach to promoting a
new technology among farmers.
Two respondents cited that their personal networks helped clarify the messages on
MRC technology. Other factors that contributed to make the messages clear were the
following: 1) the messages are repeatedly shared by the technician; 2) the use of MRC is
taught in Cebuano/Waray; and 3) the technician’s closely supervise the use of the
technology.
64
In contrast, the messages on the drawbacks of the MRC technology were not very
clear to some of the farmers. This was because only little information was given; English
was used in teaching the MRC technology; and there was lack of follow-up on the use of the
technology (Table 8).
According to the Soils and Water Coordinator of the Regional Soils Laboratory in
DA Region VIII, the information usually shared with the farmers about the MRC technology
were the MRC composting process, the benefits of the technology, and the prohibition of rice
straw burning. Information on safety precautions or possible drawbacks was rarely shared
with the farmers. An agricultural technician in Babatngon, Leyte, commented that “the
farmers were not particular about the drawbacks of MRC, so the technicians did not usually
discuss these with them.” This could be one reason why the messages on drawbacks of the
technology were not clear to the farmers.
The municipal agricultural technician (MAT) in Sta. Fe, Leyte emphasized that “the
program focused on teaching farmers how to use the MRC technology in their farms.
Contrary to the highly theoretical and technical information shared with the technicians, the
more practical applications of the technology were taught to the farmer-cooperators.”
Apparently, a different set of messages about the MRC technology are communicated to the
agricultural technicians and to the farmer-cooperators.
Perceived degree of comprehensibility of message
The farmers found the steps in applying the compost to the field (4.69 mean score) as
well as the practical benefits of the MRC technology (4.51 mean score) very understandable.
The steps in preparing the compost (4.47 mean score) and the environmental benefits from
the technology were understandable to them (Table 7). It appears that the messages which
were most understandable to the farmer-cooperators involved hands-on learning or
interaction. On the other hand, information about the drawbacks of the MRC technology
and safety precautions was not very understandable among the farmer-cooperators of the
Agri-Kalikasan program.
65
One of the important reasons why the farmer-cooperators found the messages
understandable was that they have used the MRC technology in their demo farms and
experienced its benefits (26 responses) (Table 9). Furthermore, the messages were well-
explained (14 responses). Some respondents pointed out that the agricultural technician was
helpful in making them understand the messages through constant field visits and supervision
(5 responses). Aside from them, media and communication activities such as meetings,
trainings, and seminars helped a few of the respondents gain more understanding of the MRC
technology (3 responses).
The drawbacks of the technology, on the other hand, were not understandable among
the respondents. According to them, this was due to: 1) lack of details about the technology
drawbacks; 2) technology is difficult to use; 3) English is used in teaching the technology;
and 4) benefits are not noticeable (Table 9).
Perceived degree of completeness of message
The set of messages about MRC technology that were perceived to be clear and
comprehensible was also perceived as 80 percent complete in content. As Table 7 again
shows, these messages were on: 1) steps in applying compost in the field (4.43 mean score);
2) steps in preparing the compost (4.20 mean score); 3) practical benefits of technology to
farmer (4.18 mean score); and 4) environmental benefits of technology (3.98 mean score).
While these messages were considered most complete, information on drawbacks of MRC
technology was thought to be only 20 percent complete, including safety precautions.
Table 10 shows the farmer-cooperators’ reasons for their rating of the perceived
completeness of messages on MRC. The farmer-cooperators considered the four sets of
messages about MRC technology as being 80 percent complete because they were able to see
the benefits and apply the technology on the farm (15 responses). In contrast, the messages
on drawbacks of the technology were perceived to be only 20 percent complete because
“there is still more information to be shared about the MRC technology” (13 responses)
(Table 10).
66
Perceived degree of interest in message
The farmer respondents found two sets of messages very interesting, namely: 1) the
steps in preparing the compost (2.55 mean score); and 2) the practical benefits of MRC
technology (2.53 mean score). Information on environmental benefits of the technology was
perceived as interesting (4.29 mean score) (Table 7). Again, these messages are mostly
hands-on or action-oriented messages. The results support the assertion that messages may
have impact on the stakeholders when they are able to see the benefits of the idea presented
in the message (Velasco et al., 2006; Custodio, 1994).
The farmers perceived these messages as interesting because they were able to see the
benefits of the technology (41 responses). Some of the respondents said that the messages
were ‘appealing’ (16 responses) and ‘valuable’ to them (11 responses) (Table 11).
Three messages were not very interesting to the respondents: 1) the drawbacks of the
MRC technology (1.14 mean); 2) the steps in applying compost to the field (0.94 mean); and
3) safety precautions (0.10 mean).
The steps in the application of the compost, drawbacks of the technology, and safety
precautions were of least interest to them. This was because the MRC technology was
difficult to use (4 responses). Another respondent claimed that the messages were not
presented repeatedly/consistently. One reasoned out that the messages focused on only one
topic or theme (Table 11).
Still, another respondent was uninterested in the steps, drawbacks, and safety
precautions of the technology since he relied on his pre-existing knowledge. One more
respondent cited that there was lack of monitoring on these messages by the technicians
(Table 11).
67
Table 7. Weighted mean scores and qualitative interpretation summarizing the respondents’ ratings on different message
variables
PERCEIVED DEGREE OF PERCEIVED DEGREE OF PERCEIVED DEGREE OF PERCEIVED DEGREE OF
CLARITY COMPREHENSIBILITY COMPLETENESS INTEREST
MESSAGE WEIGHTED INTERPRETATION WEIGHTED INTERPRETATION WEIGHTED INTERPRETATION WEIGHTED INTERPRETATION

MEAN MEAN MEAN MEAN
SCORE SCORE SCORE SCORE
Steps in 4.67 Very clear 4.69 Very 4.43 80% complete 0.94 Not very
applying understandable interesting
the
compost to
the field
Practical 4.55 Very clear 4.51 Very 4.20 80% complete 4.55 Very
benefits of understandable interesting
the MRC
technology
to the
farmer
Steps in 4.48 Clear 4.47 Understandable 4.18 80% complete 4.53 Very
preparing interesting
the
compost
Environmen- 4.29 Clear 4.27 Understandable 3.98 80% complete 4.29 Interesting
tal benefits
of the MRC
technology
Drawbacks 0.98 Not very clear 1.04 Not very 0.95 20% complete 1.14 Not very
of the MRC understandable interesting
technology
68
Table 8. Respondents’ reasons for their rating of perceived clarity of messages about the
MRC technology
REASON FREQUENCY (N=49)*
For high degree of clarity
The technology is used on the farm and its benefits 26
were seen
Message is well-explained 10
Additional information is sought from technology 5
providers
Personal networks help clarify messages 2
Personally feel that the technology is beneficial 1
Messages are repeatedly shared by the technician 1
There is supervision from the technician 1
Willingness to adopt the MRC technology 1
Use of the technology is taught in the dialect (e.g. 1
Cebuano, Waray)
For low degree of clarity
The program had stopped 2
Only little information was given on applying the 1
compost
Lack of follow-up on the use of MRC 1
Cannot recall anymore the use of MRC 1
Technical language (i.e., English is used in teaching 1
MRC technology)
No response 11
*Multiple responses
Table 9. Respondents’ reasons for their perceived degree of comprehensibility of messages

about the MRC technology
For high degree of comprehensibility
Technology is used and benefits are seen 26
Technicians supervise the use of MRC 5
Media and communication activities help understand 3
the technology
Personal networks help in understanding MRC 1
For low degree of comprehensibility
There should be more details on the drawbacks of 2
MRC
Technology is difficult to use 2
Cannot recall the use of MRC 2
Benefits are not noticeable 1
Use of technology is taught in a technical language 1
(i.e., English)
No response 10
*Multiple responses
69
Table 10. Respondents’ reasons for their rating of perceived completeness of messages
REASON FREQUENCY
(N=49)*
High degree of completeness
Technology is used on the farm and benefits are seen 15
Personal networks help provide additional 3
information about the MRC technology
Willingness to learn more about the MRC technology 2
Message is repeatedly shared 2
There is supervision from the technician 1
Satisfied with information given 1
Trust that information source can give complete 1
information about MRC
Low degree of completeness
There is still more information that needs to be shared 13
Technology is not fully used 2
Message is explained too fast 1
Use of technology is laborious 1
Technical language, i.e. English, is used to teach the 1
MRC technology
No response 11
*Multiple responses
Table 11. Respondents’ reasons for their perceived degree of interest on messages about
the MRC technology
REASON FREQUENCY
(N=49)*
For high degree of interest
Benefits of the technology are observable 41
Message is appealing 16
Message is valuable 11
Information source is trusted 3
Message is timely 2
Message presents benefits 2
Willingness to learn the technology 2
Assistance is provided by the technician 1
For low degree of interest
Message is not presented repeatedly/consistently 1
Message focuses on only one topic/theme 1
Relying on pre-existing knowledge 1
There is lack of monitoring by the technician 1
No response 10
*Multiple responses
70
Channel Variables
Channel used for MRC technology
Most of the respondents said that personal visits from the agricultural technicians
were carried out to help them learn about the MRC technology (43 responses). Many have
also identified seminars or trainings (38 responses), as well as field demonstrations (27
responses) as one of the common channels used in the DA Agri-Kalikasan program. Print
materials such as leaflet, brochure, or flyer were also used as channel (22 responses). On the
other hand, only two respondents each claimed to have obtained information about the
technology through radio and television programs (Table 12). It was found later that these
programs were not really part of the program implementation.
It can be observed that the most commonly used channels are interpersonal in nature.
Personal visits from technicians, seminars/trainings, and field demonstrations allow
feedback, participation, and hands-on learning for the farmer-cooperators. Also, these
channels allow direct interaction particularly with the agricultural technicians and the DA
Agri-Kalikasan program staff.
Table 12. Channel used to disseminate messages about the MRC technology
CHANNEL FREQUENCY
(N=49) *
Personal visit 43
Seminar/Training 38
Field demonstration 27
Print material (e.g. brochure, leaflet, flyer) 22
Radio programs 2
TV programs 2
*Multiple responses
According to the Soils and Water Coordinator at the Regional Soils Laboratory in the
DA Regional Office VIII, the techno-demo sites are the main avenues for the farmer-
cooperators to learn about the MRC technology. Here, the agricultural technicians visit at
each stage of rice growing season (e.g. mid-tillering, panicle-initiating, and maturity stages)
to monitor the yield and cost of maintaining an MRC techno-demo site. Data are then
71
compared with that of non-MRC farms and shared among farmer-cooperators for them to see
the benefits of the MRC technology. A municipal agricultural technician in Alang-alang,
Leyte said that these personal visits were held once a week. This may be one of the
important reasons why personal visits are one of the most common channels used among
farmer-cooperators.
The secretary to the MAO in Jaro, Leyte related that the farmers do not really avail
themselves of the MRC information from the MAO and technicians. Rather, they would
approach the municipal agricultural officer or technician to ask for seeds and other farm
inputs or to seek advice when their rice plants are struck down with disease. This means that
farmer-cooperators indirectly get information from technicians when they turn to these
technicians for inquiries or needs.
Meanwhile, the project officer in charge of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program

mentioned that tarpaulin signs were put up in each of the techno-demo sites so that other
farmers and passers-by can see for themselves how these sites are doing with the MRC
technology. In Maasin City, Leyte, the agricultural technician in charge of the MRC
technology distributed typewritten copies of the MRC composting process to farmer-
cooperators as well as other farmers so that they can learn how to use the technology. A
municipal agricultural technician in Sta. Fe, Leyte added that aside from the farmers’
interaction with agricultural technicians during their personal visits to the MRC techno-demo
sites, the farmer-cooperators attended the Municipal Agriculture and Fisheries Committee
(MAFC) meetings. Through their attendance and participation in the meetings, they were
kept abreast of the performance of the MRC technology in the area. Trainings and seminars
on the use of MRC technology were also conducted for the farmer-cooperators.
Frequency of exposure to channel
Table 13 shows how often the farmer-cooperators were exposed to the different
channels used to disseminate messages about the MRC technology. The respondents were
often exposed to personal visits by farm or agricultural technicians (4.29 mean score).
72
Seminars/trainings were also often attended by the respondents; however, it was
found that these seminars were held only once every cropping season. On the other hand,
mass media such as radio and television programs related to MRC technology were not
always used. This implies the farmers’ low frequency of exposure and confirms that radio
and TV are not really part of the program communication strategy.
Table 14 summarizes respondents’ reasons for their rating of frequency of exposure

to the channels used. Channel availability was the main reason for their “often” exposure to
the technicians’ personal visits and seminars/meetings (41 responses). Other reasons cited
were their need for information, trust in the channel used, and being influenced by personal
networks.
On the other hand, the respondents who were “not often” and “not always” exposed
to the channels claimed that seminars/meetings were not held regularly in their area (13
responses). They also attributed their low channel exposure to having little time available,
low participation in meetings/seminars, lack of interest in radio or TV, and irregular
distribution of reading materials (Table 14).
Perceived degree of interest in channel
Surprisingly, the farmer-respondents could not say if personal visits were interesting
or not interesting to them as information channels (3.43 mean score). This implies that the
personal visits from technicians were neither interesting nor uninteresting to them.
Unexpectedly, the respondents found the channels such as reading material (1.57 mean), field
demo(1.82 mean) and seminar/meeting (2.27 mean) not interesting. Meanwhile, radio (0.31
mean) and TV (0.14 mean) were not very interesting to them (Table 13).
Although the respondents were neither interested nor uninterested in the channels
used in the program, they explained that the uses and benefits of the MRC technology were
observed during the techno-demo and were well-explained in the seminar/training (35
responses) (Table 15). Furthermore, despite their indecision about their degree of interest in
the channels used, the respondents indicated that they trusted the channel (12 responses);
73
found the reading material helpful (8 responses); and were willing to learn about the MRC
technology (7 responses (2 responses) (Table 15).
The respondents who did not find the channels interesting gave these reasons: 1) they
are not fond of watching TV or listening to radio; 2) they have little time for accessing the
channel; and 3) they get bored with reading brochure/leaflet (Table 15).
Table 13. Weighted mean scores and interpretation of the respondents’ ratings of their
exposure to and degree of interest in the channel used
FREQUENCY OF EXPOSURE PERCEIVED DEGREE OF
CHANNEL TO CHANNEL INTEREST IN CHANNEL
WEIGHTED WEIGHTED
MEAN INTERPRETATION MEAN INTERPRETATION
SCORE SCORE
Reading 1.98 Not often 1.57 Not interesting
material
Radio 0.31 Not always 0.31 Not very interesting
program
TV program 0.18 Not always 0.14 Not very interesting
Seminar/ 3.53 Often 2.27 Not interesting
Training
Personal visit 4.29 Often 3.43 Can’t say
Field demo 2.57 Sometimes 1.82 Not interesting
Table 14. Respondents’ reasons for their rating of frequency exposure to the channels used
in disseminating messages about the MRC technology
REASON FREQUENCY (N=49)
*
For high frequency of exposure
Channels are consistently available 41
Depends on the need 5
Have trust in information channel 3
Influenced by personal network 1
For low frequency of exposure
Meetings/seminars not held regularly 13
Little time available 5
Low participation in meetings/seminars 3
Not fond of watching/listening to TV or radio programs 2
Reading materials seldom distributed 2
Field demonstration is expensive 1
No response 13
*Multiple responses
74
Table 15. Respondents’ reasons for their rating of perceived degree of interest in the
channels used to disseminate information about the MRC technology
REASON FREQUENCY
(N=49)*
For neither interesting nor uninteresting (can’t say; undecided)
Actual use and benefit of technology observed and 35
explained during techno-demo/seminar
Have trust in information channel 12
Reading materials very helpful 8
Willing to learn more about MRC technology 7
Channels provide entertainment 2
Watching videos is more convenient 1
For low degree of interest
Not fond of watching to TV/listening to radio programs 3
Not all information is applied 2
Little time available for accessing channel 2
Get bored with reading brochure/leaflet 1
No response 11
*Multiple responses
Receiver Variables
Perceived need for the technology
Table 16 shows the distribution of the respondents based on their perceived need for
the technology. A big majority (69%) indicated that they highly needed the technology. More
than one fourth (29%) of the respondents answered that they needed the technology. Only
one respondent out of 49 did not need the technology (Table 16).
Table 16. Respondents’ rating of perceived need for the MRC technology
LEVEL OF NEED FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
(N=49) (%)
Highly needed 34 69
Needed 14 29
Not needed 1 2
The results imply that the DA Agri-Kalikasan program was able to provide the
farmer-respondents a technology that they really needed in their farm. The MRC technology
seems to meet the need of the farmer-cooperators in the area. It can be said there is a match
between need and technology in the case of the Agri-Kalikasan program’s MRC technology.
75
Perceived attitude towards the technology
In general, the respondents strongly agreed with all the five attitude statements about
the MRC technology (Table 17). Their positive attitude towards the technology could be
attributed to how the MRC technology was taught to them. Velasco et al. (2006) and
Custodio (1994) had explained that messages which show the stakeholders the benefits of a
technology would likely bring about positive attitudes towards it.
Table 17. Respondents’ perceived attitude towards the MRC technology

ATTITUDE WEIGHTED MEAN INTERPRETATION
STATEMENT SCORE
MRC improves soil condition, making it 4.86 Strongly agree
more fertile and productive.
MRC helps address the problem of rice 4.84 Strongly agree
straw burning.
MRC helps address the increasing cost of 4.78 Strongly agree
inorganic fertilizers and other farming
supplies.
In MRC, the time of composting is 4.71 Strongly agree
shortened from three months to around
three weeks.
When combined with inorganic fertilizers, 4.71 Strongly agree
MRC yields more rice than when using
completely inorganic fertilizer.
Some agricultural technicians expressed in the interviews that the “wait-and-see”

attitude prevails especially among the farmers who were not really receptive to new farming
methods. According to a municipal agricultural technician in Bato, Leyte, this attitude was
one of the factors hindering the adoption of the MRC technology, particularly because the
farmers were not easily convinced that the technology would bring benefits to them. The
municipal agricultural officer in Alang-alang, Leyte asserted that the technicians needed a lot
of patience in convincing the farmer-cooperators to use the technology.
Meanwhile, the secretary to the MAO in Kananga, Leyte shared her experiences
about the MRC technology. She said that some farmers in their area were too receptive, i.e.
they would only follow what the technicians would tell them to do. On the other hand, other
farmer-cooperators would be “hard-headed” – they would not follow the instructions and
76
guidelines in using the MRC technology. The farmer-cooperators would tend to veer away
from the guidelines if these did not suit their needs or interest, explained an agricultural
technician in Matalom, Leyte,
Stage of Technology Adoption
This section describes the different factors in each stage of technology adoption that
the farmer-cooperators in the DA Agri-Kalikasan program experienced with the modified
rapid composting (MRC) technology. The technology adoption stages were: 1) knowledge;
2) persuasion; 3) decision; 4) implementation; and 5) adoption.
Knowledge Stage
According to Rogers (1983), the adopters are said to be in the knowledge stage when
they recognize and understand an innovation and how it works. In particular, an individual is
in the knowledge stage of technology adoption if he/she:
1. Recalls messages about the technology;
2. Understands what the technology means; and
3. Can tell how the technology is used (Sisteberio, 2001).
In this study, the level of message recall about the MRC technology was measured
using the following scale:
1. High recall – can remember 5 or more messages
2. Moderate recall – can remember 3-4 messages
3. Low recall – can remember 1-2 messages
4. No recall – cannot remember any message; no response.
Knowledge about the MRC technology was measured by asking the respondents to
describe what MRC technology is and then rating their answers based on the following scale:
77
1. High – can describe MRC technology to a great extent (can correctly
describe most aspect of MRC technology)
2. Moderate – can describe MRC technology to some extent (can correctly
describe some aspect of MRC technology)
3. Low – can describe MRC technology to a little extent (can correctly
describe a little aspect of MRC technology)
The respondents’ extent of knowledge about the steps in using the MRC
technology was determined based on the following scale:
1. High – can name or list 5-7 steps
2. Moderate – can name or list 3-4 steps
3. Low – can name or list 1-2 steps
Level of message recall
Table 18 shows the distribution of respondents based on the three factors or variables
at the knowledge stage of technology adoption. Thirty three respondents moderately recalled
the messages (67%). These were farmers who could remember 3-4 messages about the MRC
technology.
More than one fourth (27%) of the farmer-respondents had high recall of the
messages. They were able to identify 5 or more messages about MRC. Only one respondent
could remember 1-2 messages about the MRC technology. He had low recall of the
messages.
Table 19 lists the respondents’ reasons for their recall of the messages. They said that
they recalled the messages about the MRC technology because they had been using the
technology and thus saw its benefits (30 responses). Other respondents said they were able to
recall the technology because they had consistently followed the steps in using it (4
responses). Three respondents attributed their recall of the technology to the well-explained
messages about MRC. Two respondents said they were regularly supervised or assisted by
78
the technicians in using MRC which helped facilitate their recall of the messages. Putting the
technology into practice also helped them recall messages about MRC (Table 19).
Meanwhile, the respondent who had low recall of the messages explained that he had
not been using the technology for a long time; hence, he failed to recall most of the
information about it (Table 19).
Knowledge about what MRC is
In terms of the respondents’ extent of knowledge about the MRC technology, more
than half (53%) of them had high knowledge of the technology. These respondents were able
to correctly describe most aspects of the technology. Meanwhile, more than one third (37%)
of the respondents had moderate knowledge. They were able to correctly describe some
aspects of the MRC technology. In contrast, five respondents registered low knowledge and
could only correctly describe very little aspect of the MRC technology (Table 18). Possibly,
these respondents may have stopped using the technology and thus, may have forgotten what
MRC is.
Knowledge about the steps in using the MRC technology
Majority (61%) of the respondents also had high knowledge of the steps in using the
technology (Table 18). They were able to list 5-7 steps of the MRC technology. On the other
hand, eighteen (37%) respondents showed moderate knowledge about the MRC steps by
naming 3-4 steps of the technology. Only one respondent listed 1-2 steps in using the MRC
technology, thus showing low knowledge about the steps.
It was observed from the data gathered that the respondents generally described the
technology either by the process in using it or by the benefits that it brought them. This
implies that farmers are more action-oriented learners and would favor messages which are
practical and do-able to them. Furthermore, the farmers’ utilization of the technology
apparently enhances their recall and knowledge about modified rapid composting (MRC).
79
Learning by doing or experiential learning such as techno-demo farm appears to be a suitable
approach in promoting adoption of the MRC technology.
Table 18. Distribution of respondents based on variables in the knowledge stage of

technology adoption
KNOWLEDGE STAGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
(N=49) (%)
Level of message recall
High recall 13 27
Moderate recall 33 67
Low recall 1 2
No response 2 4
Extent of knowledge about
what MRC is
High knowledge 26 53
Moderate knowledge 18 37
Low knowledge 5 10
Extent of knowledge about steps in using MRC
technology
High knowledge 30 61
Moderate knowledge 18 37
Low knowledge 1 2
Table 19. Respondents’ reasons for their level of recall of messages about the MRC
technology
REASON FREQUENCY
(N=49)*
For high recall
Technology has been used and benefits are seen 30
Steps in using the technology are consistently followed 4
Messages are well-explained 3
Put the technology into practice 2
Consistent supervision from the technicians 2
Technology is easy to learn 1
Steps in the use of the technology are repeated in lectures 1
Consistent seminars and trainings 1
For low recall
Personally experienced drawbacks in using the technology 2
Have not used the technology for a long time 1
No response 9
*Multiple responses
80
Persuasion Stage
At this stage of technology adoption, the individual develops a positive or negative

attitude toward the innovation (Rogers, 1983). Based on the conceptual framework of this
study, a farmer-cooperator is at the persuasion stage if he/she:
1. Discusses the technology with personal networks (e.g. family and friends);
2. Thinks that his/her personal networks approve of or reject the technology; and
3. Approves or rejects the technology himself/herself (Sisteberio, 2001).
Discussion of MRC technology with personal network
Table 20 shows the distribution of respondents based on the different variables under
the persuasion stage. It was found that almost all (96%) of the respondents discussed the
MRC with their personal network. They discussed it with their family, friends, and fellow
farmers. On the other hand, two farmers did not discuss the technology with their personal
network.
Approval of MRC technology by personal network
Generally, the farmers’ personal networks showed a positive reaction after the MRC
technology was discussed with them. Out of 47 respondents who discussed the technology
with their personal networks, 41 said their fellow farmers approved of it; 39 mentioned that
their family approved of the technology; and 34 indicated that their friends approved of
modified rapid composting (Table 20).
According to 28 respondents, their personal networks (fellow farmers, family, and

friend) approved of the MRC technology because they have used it on their farms and
realized its benefits (Table 21). The rest of the respondents cited the following reasons for
their personal networks’ approval of the technology: 1) the technology is valuable to them (6
responses); 2) they are informed about the technology (2 responses); 3) they are eager to use
81
the technology (2 responses); 4) they trust the implementers of the technology (1 response)
and 5) farm technicians help them understand the MRC technology (1 response) (Table 21).
On the other hand, a very small number of the respondents had personal networks that
disapproved the MRC technology: fellow farmers (5 responses); friends (5 responses); and
family (2 responses) (Table 20).
The rejection of the technology by their personal networks were attributed to the
following reasons: 1) the use of the technology requires a lot of resources such as time, labor,
farm, and supplies (8 responses); and 2) the technology does not fit in with their farming
principles (5 responses) (Table 21).
Sabban’s study (1993) found that labor-intensive use of a practice and lack of
resources hindered the adoption of agro-forestry practices.
Personal approval of MRC technology
Almost all (96%) of the respondents personally approved of the MRC technology just
like their personal networks approved of it (Table 20). Only two out of 49 respondents
rejected the technology. The respondents’ personal approval of the technology could be due
to their perceived relative advantage in the form of potential benefits from the technology
and their perceived trialability of the technology in the form of the techno-demo farm.
According to Rogers (1983), these are some of the attributes of an innovation that affect an
individual’s decision on its adoption.
Table 20. Distribution of respondents based on variables in the persuasion stage of

technology adoption
PERSUASION STAGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
(N=49) (%)
Discussed with personal network
Yes 47 96
No 2 4
82
Table 20 continued.
PERSUASION STAGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
(N=49) (%)
Response of personal network*
Approve technology
Family 39 80
Friends 34 69
Fellow farmers 41 84
Reject technology
Family 2 4
Friends 5 10
Fellow farmers 5 10
Personal approval
Approve technology 47 96
Reject technology 2 4
*Multiple responses
Table 21. Respondents’ perception of the reasons of their personal networks’ approval and
non-approval of the MRC technology
REASON FREQUENCY
(N=49)*
For approval
Personal networks have used the technology and realized 28
its benefits
Personal networks believe the technology is valuable to 6
them
Personal networks are informed of the technology 2
Personal networks are eager to use the technology 2
Personal networks trust the program implementers 1
Technicians helped personal networks understand the 1
technology
For non-approval
Personal networks believe that MRC requires a lot of 8
resources (time, labor, farm area, supplies)
Personal networks believe that MRC does not suit their 5
farming principles
No response 6
*Multiple responses
Decision Stage
At this stage, the individual makes a choice to either fully use the innovation
(adoption), or otherwise not adopt it (rejection) (Rogers, 1983). In this stage, the individual
(Sisteberio , 2001):
83
a. Plans to approach the technology provider for consultations on the use of the
technology; and
b. Plans to use or not to use the technology.
Table 22 shows the distribution of the respondents based on the variables in the
decision stage of adoption. Meanwhile, Tables 22 and 23 give the reasons for their
consultation with technology providers and their intention to use the MRC technology.
Consultation with technology providers
More than half (57%) of the respondents planned to approach individuals or groups
other than the DA Agri-Kalikasan staff for consultation regarding the use of the technology
(Table 22). These respondents consulted their technology providers mainly because they
trusted their providers (24 responses) (Table 23). This implies how source credibility can
affect an individual’s decision to adopt or reject a technology – people would most likely
consult individuals or groups who are credible and trusted (Lionberger and Gwin, 1982).
The respondents also gave other reasons for consulting with their technology
providers. These were as follows: 1) their need to know more about the MRC technology; 2)
the capacity of the technician or technology provider to explain well the use of the
technology; and 3) their interest in the technology (Table 23).
On the other hand, the respondents who did not plan to approach the technology
providers preferred to approach their fellow farmers who know how to use the technology
(Table 23).
One farmer said that he had no time to consult the technology providers. Another one
did not seek consultation on the use of the technology because the DA implemented the
MRC program well (Table 23).
84
Intention to use MRC technology
Nearly all (92%) of the respondents said they planned to use the MRC technology
(Table 22). Their intention to use the technology was based mainly on having seen the
technology or hearing about its benefits from agricultural technicians or fellow farmers (16
responses) (Table 24).
Other respondents viewed the MRC technology as valuable to their farming activities
(9 responses). Hence, they decided to use it on the farm.
The rest intended to use the MRC technology because they were willing to try it; they
had acquired sufficient knowledge to use it; and they felt it was their responsibility as farmer-
cooperator to use it (Table 24).
Meanwhile, the respondents who did not intend to use the technology cited four
reasons (Table 24). First, the technology does not suit the existing conditions in the farm.
Second, financial problems hindered the use of the technology. Third, insufficient knowledge
about modified rapid composting (MRC) discouraged the intention to use it. And fourth, lack
of readiness to use the technology (since the farmer was still learning how to use it)
underlined the decision not to use it.
Table 22. Distribution of respondents based on variables in the decision stage of

technology adoption
DECISION STAGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
(N=49) (%)
Consultation with technology
providers
Yes 28 57
No 21 43
Intention to use MRC technology
Yes 45 92
No 4 8
85
Table 23. Respondents’ reasons for their intention to consult and not to consult technology
providers on the use of the MRC technology
For intentions to consult
Trusted the information source 24
Need to know more about the MRC technology 5
Technician is able to explain well the use of the technology 2
Interest in the technology 1
For intentions not to consult
Fellow farmers served as consultants 3
DA is able to implement the program well 1
No time for consultation 1
No response 9
*Multiple responses
Table 24. Respondents’ reasons for their intention to use and not to use the MRC
technology
For intention to use
Saw/heard of the benefits of the technology 16
Value of technology 9
Willingness to try using the technology 3
Have acquired sufficient knowledge to use it 1
It is the responsibility of the farmer-cooperator to use the 1
Technology
For intention to not use
Use of technology does not fit the farm conditions 1
Financial problems hindered plans to use technology 1
No sufficient knowledge about the technology 1
Still learning the use of technology 1
No response 16
*Multiple responses
Implementation Stage
As the word suggests, it is at this stage that the individual or group uses the
innovation. Based on Sisteberio’s (2001) study, this stage is achieved if the individuals or
groups:
1. Go to the technology provider and support agencies (e.g. DA, NGOs) to avail
themselves of the technology; and
2. Use the technology.
86
Acquisition of materials for MRC technology
Table 25 shows the distribution of respondents in the implementation stage of

technology adoption based on acquisition of materials for the technology and its application
on the farm. Table 26 provides the reasons for the respondents’ current use and non-use of
the MRC technology.
Majority (61%) of the respondents availed themselves of the technology in terms of

materials and supplies from the technology providers. About two fifths (39%) did not avail
themselves of the materials for the MRC technology (Table 25).
Application of MRC technology
More than three fourths (76%) of the respondents have been currently using the MRC
technology. In contrast, 12 respondents (24%) have not yet applied it (Table 25).
Table 25. Distribution of respondents based on variables in the decision stage of

technology adoption
IMPLEMENTATION STAGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
(N=49) (%)
Acquisition of materials for MRC
technology
Yes 30 61
No 19 39
Application of MRC technology
Yes 37 76
No 12 24
The respondents had three main reasons why they are currently using the technology
on their farms. They could derive benefits from applying the MRC technology. They realized
the value of the technology. And, they recognized how the technology could substitute or
make up for the lack of farm inputs (Table 26).
Several reasons where pointed out by the respondents who did not apply the MRC
technology on their farm. They cited the lack of farming supplies required to use the
87
technology, particularly the Trichoderma sp. fungus activator (10 responses) (Table 26).
According to the respondents, they had to modify their use of the technology due to lack of
fungus activators. Instead of applying the fungus activator, they would sometimes use
bacteria from fermented kitchen wastes, or just do away with traditional composting. This
technique was suggested by the agricultural technicians to compensate for the lack of
Trichoderma supply.
Furthermore, the farmers said that the MRC technology was laborious. One farmer
did not see any difference between the MRC-based farming and use of inorganic fertilizer,
thus switching back to the inorganic one. The technology was not fully understood. One
respondent had already retired from farming so he was unable to use the technology. The
sustainability of the program likewise influenced the decision not to use the MRC
technology. Since the program on MRC technology was discontinued in their area, the
farmers stopped using the technology (Table 26).
Table 26. Respondents’ reasons for their current use and non-use of the MRC technology
REASON FREQUENCY
(N=49)*
For currently using
Saw/heard of the benefits of the technology 16
Value of the technology 8
Technology was reinvented due to lack of farming inputs 5
For currently not using
Lack of farming supplies such as fungus activator 10
Using the technology is laborious 3
Technology is not fully understood 3
Stopped farming 1
Switched back to inorganic fertilizer 1
Program did not continue 1
No response 7
*Multiple responses
Most of the agricultural technicians involved in the program said that they had to
suggest ways to modify the MRC technology so that farmers would not switch back to rice
straw burning to dispose of their agricultural wastes. This finding supports Rogers’ (1983)
idea of re-invention, or changing the innovation while using it.
88
Confirmation Stage
This is the final stage of the innovation-decision process set by Rogers (1983).
Confirmation happens when the individual affirms his/her decision to adopt or reject the
innovation. This stage is a make-or-break process wherein an individual or group is prone to
messages in conflict with their personal experiences. At this level, the individual is able to:
1. Experience and acknowledge the benefits or disadvantages of the technology;
2. Continue the use of the technology; and
3. Advocate use of the technology to other farmers.
Recognition of benefits or drawbacks of MRC technology
Table 27 shows the distribution of the respondents based on the variables in the
confirmation stage, namely: 1) recognitions of benefits or drawbacks of the technology; 2)
continuous use of the technology; and 3) advocacy for MRC technology. Table 28 lists the
drawbacks of the technology that the farmers experienced. Table 29 cites the respondents’
reasons for advocating and not advocating the technology.
Majority (63%) of the respondents experienced benefits from using the MRC
technology. Only 35% of them claimed that using the technology has certain drawbacks or
problems (Table 27). It was mentioned earlier that the farmer-cooperators lacked information
on the drawbacks of MRC, which could be the reason why most of them did not recognize
the benefits of the technology.
Among those who experienced drawbacks or problems in using MRC, six

respondents identified the lack of farm inputs such as the fungus activator, chicken dung, and
supplementary fertilizers as well as the delay in their delivery (Table 28). Five respondents
found the technology to be laborious. Four respondents reported incidence of pest and
diseases. Three respondents opined that suitability of the technology depends on the time of
application and pre-existing situation on the farm. Two respondents commented on the lack
89
of monitoring on the technology. One respondent complained of skin allergies while
applying the fungus to the rice straw (Table 28).
Other drawbacks of the technology included financial problems, occurrence of weeds,

discontinuance of the technology, and inability to recall the steps in using the technology.
Continuous use of MRC technology
More than three fourths (76%) of the respondents said they would still continue using
the technology. This large percentage implies relatively high adoption of the MRC
technology in the techno-demo areas. The main reason for its adoption, as mentioned earlier,
was the benefits derived from using the technology. Other contributing factors in the
continuous use of the technology were its value and its potential to be modified under certain
circumstances.
Advocacy for MRC technology
Most (90%) of the respondents advocated or encouraged their fellow farmers to use
the MRC technology (Table 27). This reinforces the respondents’ favorable attitude towards
the technology and their belief in its benefits such that they wanted to advocate it to others.
Looking at Table 29, three main reasons emerge for the farmers’ advocacy of the MRC
technology. They encouraged others to use it mainly because 1) they wanted other farmers to
benefit from the technology (15 responses); 2) they wanted to help other farmers improve
their farming techniques (11 responses); and 3) they wanted to share information or
knowledge about the technology to other farmers (9 responses).
On the other hand, the reasons for non-advocacy were: 1) not wanting to force other
farmers to use MRC; 2) non-belief in the benefits of MRC; and 3) MRC is laborious (Table
29).
90
Table 27. Distribution of respondents based on variables in the confirmation stage of
technology adoption
CONFIRMATION STAGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
(N=49) (%)
Recognition of benefits or drawbacks of
MRC technology
Technology has advantages/benefits 31 63
Technology has drawbacks/problems 17 35
No response 1 2
Continuous use of MRC technology
Yes 37 76
No 12 24
Advocacy for MRC technology
Yes 44 90
No 5 10
Table 28. Drawbacks or problems on the use of MRC technology as perceived by the
respondents
DRAWBACK OR FREQUENCY
PROBLEM (N=49)*
Lack/delay of farming supplies/inputs 6
Technology is labor-intensive 5
Pest and diseases 4
Technology highly depends on time and situation 3
Lack of monitoring of the technology 2
Human health problems (e.g. skin allergies) 1
Program was not continued 1
Financial problems 1
Weeds 1
Cannot recall steps in using the MRC technology 1
*Multiple responses
Table 29. Respondents’ reasons for their advocacy and non-advocacy of the use of MRC
technology
For advocacy
Helping other farmers to gain benefits from MRC 15
Helping other farmers to improve farming techniques 11
Sharing knowledge with other farmers 9
Value of the technology 4
For non-advocacy
Simply do not want to force farmers to use MRC 2
Other farmers do not believe in the benefits of MRC 1
Using the technology is laborious 1
No response 11
*Multiple responses
91
Relationships between Communication Variables
and Adoption Stage of MRC Technology
Gaining a better understanding of the adoption of the MRC technology among the
farmer-cooperators allows the program implementers to assess their efforts in line with
sustainable agricultural production. This section sought to identify specific variables in the
communication strategy of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program which significantly influence the
stages of the farmer-cooperators’ adoption of the MRC technology.
Communication Variables and Knowledge Stage
Table 30 gives a summary of the relationships between communication variables and

the knowledge stage of technology adoption.
Source variables and knowledge
As shown Table 30, the perceived credibility of the print material had a highly
significant relationship with extent of knowledge about the steps in using the MRC
technology (p=0.000). This means that credibility of print media influences knowledge gain
on the MRC steps. The farmers could read the print materials many times until they have a
thorough understanding of the steps in the MRC technology.
The perceived credibility of the agricultural technician also had a highly significant
relationship with recall of messages about MRC technology (p=0.000). The more credible the
technician, the more likely the farmer will be able to recall messages about the technology.
The findings imply that the credibility of the print material and of the agricultural
technician influences the extent of technology adoption at the knowledge stage in terms of
recall and knowledge of the technology.
92
Message variables and knowledge
Table 30 shows that the perceived clarity of the messages on the steps in preparing
the MRC-based compost had a highly significant relationship with message recall (p=0.000)
knowledge of what MRC is (p=0.001), and knowledge of the steps in using MRC (p=0.000).
Similarly, the clarity of the steps in applying the MRC-based compost to the field had a
highly significant relationship with recall of messages (p=0.000), extent of knowledge about
MRC technology (p=0.006), and extent of knowledge of the steps in using MRC technology
(p=0.00). These findings indicate that clarity of the steps in the MRC-based compost and in
applying it to the field will likely increase recall and knowledge of the MRC technology.
Meanwhile, the perceived clarity of the message on the benefits of the MRC
technology was significantly related with knowledge about the steps in using the technology
(p=0.028) (Table 30). It appears that message clarity on the benefits of a technology will
likely enhance knowledge on how to use it. Since the benefits of the technology were clear to
the farmers, they were able to understand how to apply the MRC-based compost on the farm.
The respondents’ perceived degree of comprehensibility of the steps in preparing and

applying MRC-based compost had highly significant relationships with the number of
messages recalled and also their extent of knowledge about the steps in using MRC
technology (p=0.000). On the other hand, their perceived comprehensibility of the
environmental benefits of the technology was significantly related with their recall of the
message (p=0.018) and with their extent of knowledge about the MRC steps (p= .048) (Table
30). These results confirm that message comprehensibility does influence message recall and
knowledge of a technology like MRC.
The perceived degree of completeness of the message on the preparation of the MRC-
based compost (p=0.001) and on its application (p=0.004) had a highly significant
relationship with message recall as well as extent of knowledge about the steps in using
MRC technology (p=0.000) (Table 30). The more the message is complete, the more it can
facilitate message recall and knowledge among the farmer-cooperators.
93
On the other hand, the perceived degree of interest in the messages on the practical
benefits (p=0. 016) and on the environmental benefits (p=0.011) were significantly related to
message recall. Thus, interest in a message can influence its recall. The more interesting the
message, the greater is the recall. Almost similarly, the farmers’ interest on the practical
benefits of the MRC technology was significantly related with knowledge of the technology
and its steps (p=0.017) (Table 30). In addition to recall, the degree of interest in a message
can also influence knowledge about the steps in using the technology.
Channel variables and knowledge
Personal visits had a highly significant influence on the extent of knowledge about
steps in using MRC technology (p=0.000) (Table 30). Thus, the more the farmer-cooperators
are personally visited by the agricultural technicians, the more they will be able to learn
about the technology from such visits.
Furthermore, the frequency of exposure to print and seminars/trainings were found

highly related to extent of knowledge about the steps in using the MRC technology (p=0.012)
(Table 30). The more the exposure of the farmers to print media and seminars/trainings, the
more likely they will gain more knowledge about a technology.
Receiver variables and knowledge
The respondents’ positive attitude towards the shortened time in MRC-based

composting (p=0.022), towards the increased rice yield due to MRC (p=0.001), and towards
the capability of MRC technology to reduce rice straw burning (p=0.002) had high
significant relationship with message recall (Table 30). Thus, it can be deduced that attitude
towards a technology influences the number of messages recalled about it. Moreover, the
positive attitude towards increased yield due to MRC (p=0.041) was significantly related to
knowledge about MRC steps. These results farther confirm that positive attitudes can
influence recall of and knowledge about a technology.
94
Table 30. Summary of the relationships between communication variables and the knowledge stage of technology adoption*
COMMUNICATION KNOWLEDGE STAGE
VARIABLE RECALL OF SPECIFIC EXTENT OF KNOWLEDGE EXTENT OF KNOWLEDGE
MESSAGES ABOUT MRC TECHNOLOGY ABOUT STEPS IN MRC
2 2 2
χ P INTERPRETATION χ P INTERPRETATION χ P INTERPRETATION
SOURCE VARIABLE
Perceived credibility
Print 0.933 0.920 Not significant 5.851 0.211 Not significant 23.128 0.000 Highly significant
Technician 35.529 0.000 Highly significant 0.750 0.386 Not significant 0.750 0.386 Not significant
MESSAGE
VARIABLE
Perceived degree of
clarity of messages
Steps in preparing 51.773 0.000 Highly significant 18.339 0.001 Highly significant 24.987 0.000 Highly significant
the compost
Steps in applying 39.695 0.000 Highly significant 14.515 0.006 Highly significant 22.420 0.000 Highly significant
the compost to
the field
Practical benefits 7.111 0.068 Not significant 3.336 0.189 Not significant 4.840 0.028 Significant
of the MRC
technology to
the farmer
Perceived degree of
comprehensibility
Steps in preparing 31.123 0.000 Highly significant 10.177 0.117 Not significant 47.857 0.000 Highly significant
the compost
Steps in applying 33.127 0.001 Highly significant 10.225 0.115 Not significant 50.383 0.000 Highly significant
the compost to
the field
Environmental 8.073 0.018 Significant 6.063 0.048 Significant 1.525 0.217 Not significant
benefits of the
MRC technology
*Only variables with at least one significant relationship were tabulated.
95
Table 30 continued.*
VARIABLE RECALL OF SPECIFIC MESSAGES EXTENT OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT EXTENT OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT
MRC TECHNOLOGY STEPS IN MRC
2 2 2
MESSAGE
VARIABLE
Perceived degree of
completeness of
messages
Steps in preparing 26.842 0.001 Highly significant 9.882 0.130 Not significant 48.122 0.000 Highly significant
the compost
Steps in applying 28.952 0.004 Highly significant 10.358 0.110 Not significant 50.209 0.000 Highly significant
the compost to
the field
Perceived degree of
interest in messages
Practical benefits of 10.386 0.016 Significant 8.135 0.017 Significant 5.677 0.017 Significant
the MRC
technology to the
farmer
Environmental 9.096 0.011 Significant 4.920 0.085 Not significant 3.699 0.054 Not significant
benefits of the
MRC technology
CHANNEL
VARIABLE
Type of channel used
Personal visits 3.297 0.509 Not significant 3.654 0.161 Not significant 15.394 0.000 Highly significant
Frequency of
exposure to
channels
Print 6.242 0.397 Not significant 8.864 0.065 Not significant 8.839 0.012 Significant
Seminars/trainings 4.504 0.212 Not significant 0.405 0.817 Not significant 8.839 0.012 Significant
96
VARIABLE RECALL OF SPECIFIC MESSAGES EXTENT OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT EXTENT OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT
MRC TECHNOLOGY STEPS IN MRC
2 2 2
χ P INTERPRETATION χ P INTERPRETATIO χ P INTERPRETATION
N
RECEIVER
VARIABLE
Perceived attitude
towards MRC
technology
In MRC, the time of 17.902 0.022 Highly significant 4.382 0.357 Not significant 9.990 0.041 Significant
composting is
shortened from three
months to around
three weeks.
When combined with 33.982 0.001 Highly significant 13.148 0.041 Significant 3.217 0.781 Not significant
inorganic fertilizers,
MRC yields more rice
than when using
completely inorganic
fertilizer.
MRC helps address 24.613 0.002 Highly significant 2.493 0.646 Not significant 1.798 0.773 Not significant
the problem of rice
straw burning.
97
Communication Variables and Persuasion Stage
Table 31 presents a summary of the relationships between communication variables

of the DA Agri-Kalikasan communication strategy and the persuasion stage of technology
adoption.
Source variables and persuasion
The type of information source affects the personal approval of a technology at the
persuasion stage of technology adoption. As indicated in Table 31, the DA Agri-Kaliskasan
program staff was significantly related to the respondents’ personal approval of the MRC
technology (p=0.022). As a source of information, the farm technician had a highly
significant relationship with personal approval of MRC (p=0.008). Hence, it can be said that
the more interpersonal the sources of information are at the persuasion stage, the more likely
that the farmers will approve of the technology themselves.
The perceived credibility of the information sources also influences discussion of the
technology with personal networks. In this study, the credibility of the DA Agri-Kalikasan
staff (p=0.001) and of the farm technician (p=0.005) had a highly significant relationship
with the farmers’ discussion of the MRC technology at the persuasion stage of technology
adoption (Table 31). The more credible the information sources, the more likely individuals
will discuss a particular technology with them in order to be convinced of its adoption.
Results also showed that perceived credibility of the DA Agri-Kalikasan staff was
significantly related with personal approval of the technology at the persuasion stage
(p=0.039) (Table 31). Since the DA Agri-Kalikasan staff members were the program
implementers of the MRC technology, they had high credibility among the farmer-
cooperators. This high credibility of DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff facilitated the
personal decision to approve of the technology at the persuasion stage.
98
The credibility of the farm technician was also significantly related with approval of
the MRC technology by the respondents’ personal networks (p=0.012) (Table 31). It is
possible that the respondents’ fellow farmers, friends, and family have personally
encountered the farm technicians during their visits to the techno-demo farms. Through their
interaction, the respondents’ personal networks may have found them to be credible. Thus,
the greater the perceived credibility of the information source, the greater is the tendency of
personal networks to approve a technology at the persuasion stage.
Message variables and persuasion
As shown in Table 31, the perceived degree of clarity of the message on the
preparation of the MRC-based compost had high significant relationship with the
respondents’ discussion of the technology with their personal network and also with their
personal approval of MRC (p=0.004). On the other hand, the clarity of the message on the
application of MRC-based compost on the field was significantly related to discussion of
MRC with personal network (p=0.029) and with personal approval of the technology at the
persuasion stage (p=0.029). Based on these results, it can be stated that clarity of the message
affects the individual’s decision to discuss the technology with others and to be convinced of
the technology at the persuasion stage.
The degree of comprehensibility of the messages on the preparation and application

of the MRC technology was found to have high significant relationship with the respondents’
discussion of the technology with personal networks (p=0.000) (Table 31). Evidently,
message comprehensibility is one factor that influences the persuasion stage of technology
adoption.
The degree of completeness of messages about the preparation of MRC-based

compost was highly related with the farmers’ discussion of the MRC with personal networks
(p=0.000) (Table 31). Receiving the complete message apparently encourages the farmers to
discuss the new technology with their fellow farmers, friends, and family in order to get other
people’s opinions about the technology as bases for making decision on whether to approve it
99
or not at the persuasion stage of technology adoption. The degree of completeness of the
message on the preparation of the MRC-based compost was significantly related with
approval of the technology by personal networks (p=0.013). Thus, the completeness of the
message also influenced approval of the MRC technology by personal networks.
The degree of interest in the preparation of the MRC-based compost and in the
application of the technology influenced the respondents’ personal approval of the
technology (p=0.012 and p=0.027, respectively) (Table 31). The more interested the farmers
are in the message, the more likely they will tend to personally approve of the technology at
the persuasion stage.
Channel variables and persuasion
The frequency of exposure to field demonstrations significantly influenced the

respondents’ discussion of the technology with their personal networks (p=0.017) (Table 31).
After seeing the techno-farm demonstrations, the farmer-cooperators may have become
excited and interested enough about the technology to share it with others who belong to
their personal network. Thus, the frequency of exposure to a channel increases the likelihood
of discussing it with other people as bases for persuasion on the technology.
The perceived degree of interest in personal visits as information channel was highly
related to discussion of the technology with their personal networks (p=0.010) as shown in
Table 31. Thus, interest in the channel has influence on the persuasion stage.
Receiver variables and persuasion
The respondents’ attitude toward the ability of MRC technology to: 1) lower cost on
fertilizer expenses, 2) shorten composting time, and 3) increase yield had a highly significant
influence with the respondents’ personal approval of the MRC technology (p=0.002,
p=0.003, and p=0.000, respectively) (Table 31). The farmer-cooperators will personally
approve of the technology if they develop positive attitude towards it.
100
Table 31. Summary of the relationships between communication variables and the persuasion stage of technology adoption*
COMMUNICATION PERSUASION STAGE
VARIABLE DISCUSSION OF MRC WITH APPROVAL OF MRC PERSONAL APPROVAL OF MRC
PERSONAL NETWORK TECHNOLOGY BY PERSONAL TECHNOLOGY
NETWORK
2 2 2
SOURCE VARIABLE
Information source
DA Agri-Kalikasan 0.469 0.493 Not significant -** - - 5.213 0.022 Significant
program staff**
Farm technician 0.136 0.712 Not significant 0.255 0.614 Not significant 6.984 0.008 Highly significant
DA Agri-Kalikasan 14.000 0.001 Highly significant -** - - 6.514 0.039 Significant
program staff**
Farm technician 10.600 0.005 Highly significant 8.826 0.012 Significant 0.284 0.868 Not significant
MESSAGE VARIABLE
Perceived degree of
clarity of messages
Steps in preparing the 10.865 0.004 Highly significant 0.001 0.979 Not significant 10.865 0.004 Highly significant
compost
Steps in applying the 7.084 0.029 Significant 0.211 0.900 Not significant 7.084 0.029 Significant
compost to the field
Perceived degree of
comprehensibility
Steps in preparing the 23.177 0.000 Highly significant 1.880 0.391 Not significant 0.864 0.834 Not significant
compost
Steps in applying the 24.148 0.000 Highly significant 1.558 0.459 Not significant 1.159 0.763 Not significant
Perceived degree of
completeness of
messages
Steps in preparing the 23.523 0.000 Highly significant 7.422 0.024 Significant 0.205 0.977 Not significant
compost
Steps in applying the 24.440 0.000 Highly significant 8.726 0.013 Significant 0.242 0.971 Not significant
**No statistics were computed for some channels because they are constants, containing only one response for the two variables tested.
101
COMMUNICATION PERSUASION STAGE
VARIABLES DISCUSSION OF MRC APPROVAL OF MRC PERSONAL APPROVAL OF MRC
TECHNOLOGY WITH PERSONAL TECHNOLOGY BY PERSONAL TECHNOLOGY
NETWORK NETWORK
2 2 2
MESSAGE VARIABLE
Perceived degree of
Steps in preparing the 1.302 0.522 Not significant 1.451 0.484 Not significant 8.820 0.012 Significant
compost
Steps in applying the 0.927 0.629 Not significant 1.763 0.414 Not significant 7.203 0.027 Significant
CHANNEL VARIABLE
Frequency of exposure
to channels
Field demonstration** 5.720 0.017 Significant 0.623 0.430 Not significant -** - -
Perceived degree of
interest in channels
Personal visits 13.317 0.010 Highly significant 2.041 0.564 Not significant 6.720 0.151 Not significant
RECEIVER VARIABLE
Perceived attitude
towards MRC
technology
MRC helps address 2.202 0.332 Not significant 0.457 0.796 Not significant 12.511 0.002 Highly significant
the increasing cost
of inorganic
fertilizers…
In MRC, the time of 1.159 0.560 Not significant 1.558 0.459 Not significant 11.377 0.003 Highly significant
composting is
shortened…
When combined with 0.469 0.926 Not significant 3.897 0.142 Not significant 24.096 0.000 Highly significant
MRC yields more
rice…
102
Communication Variables and Decision Stage
The summary of the relationships between communication variables of the DA Agri-

Kalikasan communication strategy for promoting the MRC technology and the decision stage
of technology adoption is found in Table 32.
Source variables and decision
Based on Table 32, the type and credibility of the source of information have a
relationship with the intention to use the MRC technology at the decision stage of technology
adoption. As information source, the DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff was significantly
related with the respondents’ intention to use the MRC technology (p=0.032). Meanwhile,
the credibility of the farm/agricultural technician was also significantly related to the
respondents’ intention to use the technology (p=0.033).
The findings imply that the more interpersonal and the more credible the information
sources are, the more likely the farmer-cooperators will decide and plan to use the
technology.
Message variables and decision
Both the clarity of the steps in the preparation (p=0.000) and application of MRC-
based compost in the field (p=0.001) had high significant relationship with the respondents’
intention to use the MRC technology at the decision stage of technology adoption (Table 32).
The results confirm that the clarity of a message will likely influence the decision to use a
particular technology.
The respondents’ perceived comprehensibility of the steps in preparing the MRC-

based compost had a significant relationship with their intention to use the technology
(p=0.011) at the decision stage of technology adoption. Meanwhile, the comprehensibility of
the steps in the application of MRC-based compost in the field was highly significantly
103
related to the intention to use the technology (p=0.008) (Table 32). Indeed, message
comprehensibility affects the intention to use a technology at the decision stage of
technology adoption.
Interestingly, the comprehensibility of the environmental benefits of the MRC

technology was significantly related with the respondents’ consultation of the technology
with the technology providers (p=0.026) (Table 32). The more comprehensible are the
environmental benefits of the MRC technology, the more likely these benefits will be
consulted with the technology providers.
At the decision stage, the completeness of the message on the steps in the preparation
of the MRC-based compost and its application in the field was highly significant with the
intention to use the technology (p=0.010 and p=0.008, respectively) (Table 32). Thus,
completeness of the message is important in influencing the decision to use the technology.
According to Table 32, the perceived degree of interest in the practical benefits of the
MRC technology had highly significant relationship with the respondents’ intention to use it
(p=0.009). The more interested the farmers are in a new technology, the more they will
intend to make use of it.
Channel variables and decision
The frequency of exposure to print materials was found to be significantly

related with the respondents’ consultation with the technology providers on the use of MRC
(p=0.022) (Table 32). When farmer-cooperators are exposed to print materials on MRC, they
will likely consult about the technology with the technology providers. Perhaps after reading
about MRC, the farmers would like to get more information about it or confirm if it is
effective when applied in the field. The significant relationship also means that as frequency
of exposure to print materials increases, the farmers’ consultation about the technology with
technology providers will also increase, or vice versa. Thus, exposure to media contributes to
the individual’s consultation of the technology with technology providers.
104
Receiver variables and decision
It is shown in Table 32 that only the attitude of the respondents toward the ability of
MRC to increase yield had a highly significant influence (p=0.007) on their intention to use
the technology at the decision stage of adoption. If the farmers incur a positive attitude
toward a technology, then the more likely they will intend to use it. Attitude as a receiver
variable can affect the decision to use a new technology or innovation. It is important to
cultivate positive attitude towards a technology so that individuals will consider using it.
Table 32. Summary of the relationships between communication variables and the decision
stage of technology adoption*
COMMUNICATION DECISION STAGE
VARIABLE CONSULTATION WITH INTENTION TO USE MRC
TECHNOLOGY PROVIDERS TECHNOLOGY
2 2
χ P INTERPRETATION χ P INTERPRETATION
SOURCE VARIABLE
Information source
DA Agri-Kalikasan 1.633 0.201 Not significant 4.601 0.032 Significant
program staff
Perceived
credibility
Farm technician 1.691 0.429 Not significant 6.815 0.033 Significant
MESSAGE
VARIABLE
Perceived degree of
clarity of messages
Steps in preparing 1.441 0.487 Not significant 22.741 0.000 Highly significant
the compost
Steps in applying 2.842 0.241 Not significant 14.798 0.001 Highly significant
the compost to the
field
Perceived degree of
comprehensibility
Steps in preparing 5.533 0.137 Not significant 11.149 0.011 Significant
the compost
the compost to the
field
Environmental 4.928 0.026 Significant 0.166 0.684 Not significant
benefits
Perceived degree of
completeness of
messages
Steps in preparing 1.807 0.613 Not significant 11.347 0.010 Highly significant
the compost
the compost to the
field
105
COMMUNICATION DECISION STAGE
VARIABLE CONSULTATION WITH INTENTION TO USE MRC
2 2
χ P INTERPRETATIO χ P INTERPRETATION
N
MESSAGE
VARIABLE
Perceived degree of
Practical benefits of 6.835 0.009 Highly significant 0.215 0.643 Not significant
the compost to the
farmer
CHANNEL
VARIABLE
Frequency of
exposure to
channels
Print** 7.598 0.022 Significant -** - -
Receiver variables
Perceived attitude
towards MRC
technology
When combined with 0.919 0.821 Not significant 11.985 0.007 Highly significant
MRC yields more
rice…
**No statistics were computed for some channels because they are constants, containing only one
response for the two variables tested.
Communication Variables and Implementation Stage
Table 33 contains the summary of the relationships between communication variables

of the DA Agri-Kalikasan communication strategy and the implementation stage of MRC
Source variables and implementation
The respondents’ frequency of access to the DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff for

information on the technology was significantly related to their application of the MRC
technology (p=0.013) (Table 33). This indicates that the more often the farmer-cooperators
turn to the program staff for MRC-related information, the more they will likely apply the
technology on their farm at the implementation stage of technology adoption.
106
Message variables and implementation
As shown in Table 33, the clarity of the steps in the preparation of the MRC-based
compost had significant relationship with the respondents’ application of the technology
(p=0.033) while the clarity of the steps in the application of the MRC-based compost had
high significant relationship with the application of MRC technology (p=0.006) (Table 33).
These results imply that message clarity influences technology application at the
implementation stage of technology adoption. The clearer the message is, the more likely a
technology will be implemented.
Surprisingly, clarity of the message on drawbacks of the technology was significantly

related with the acquisition of materials for MRC technology (p=0.049) (Table 33). If the
limitations or drawbacks of a technology are made clear to the farmers, the more they will
seek to avail themselves of the materials for the technology in order to overcome its
drawbacks on material supply.
The comprehensibility of the steps in the preparation of the MRC-based compost

turned out to be significantly related with the respondents’ acquisition of materials for the
technology (p=0.040). Message comprehensibility is a factor that can affect acquisition of
materials for a new technology.
The respondents’ perceived degree of interest in certain messages of a technology

influences the implementation stage of technology adoption. Table 33 shows that interest in
the steps in applying the MRC-based compost (p=0.039) and in the practical benefits of
MRC (p=0.017) had a significant influence on the acquisition of materials for the technology.
On the other hand, the respondents’ interest in drawbacks on the use of the technology had a
significant influence on their application of the MRC technology at the implementation stage
(p=0.032). An interest in the drawbacks or limitations of a technology apparently affects its
application on the farm. If such drawbacks can be overcome, then it is most likely that the
farmers will implement the technology.
107
Channel variables and implementation
Certain channel variables were found to affect technology implementation. For

instance, the type of channel such as print materials was significantly related with acquisition
of materials for the MRC technology (p=0.037) (Table 33). Meanwhile, the type of channel
such as personal visits significantly influenced the respondents’ application of the MRC
technology (p=0.010). Based on these findings, type of channel used in a communication
strategy affects technology application or implementation.
Besides the type of channel, the frequency of exposure to personal visits at the
techno-demo sites was significantly related with the application of MRC technology among
the respondents of the study (p=0.034) (Table 33).
The respondents’ perceived degree of interest in the channel such as the field
demonstration had a significant relationship with their application of the MRC technology
(p=0.038) (Table 33). If the farmers are interested in the channel used in a communication
strategy, then they will likely apply or implement the technology that is promoted.
Receiver variables and implementation
The positive attitude of the respondents towards the shortened time in MRC-based
composting was significantly related with their application of the technology (p=0.012)
(Table 33). The receiver’s attitude is indeed an influential variable in the implementation
stage of a technology.
108
Table 33. Summary of the relationships between communication variables and the implementation stage of technology adoption*
COMMUNICATION VARIABLE IMPLEMENTATION STAGE
ACQUISITION OF MATERIALS FOR MRC APPLICATION OF MRC
TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY
2 2
χ P INTERPRETATION χ P INTERPRETATION
SOURCE VARIABLE
Frequency of access to information source
DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff** -** - - 10.733 0.013 Significant
MESSAGE VARIABLE
Perceived degree of clarity of messages
Steps in preparing the compost 4.209 0.122 Not significant 6.823 0.033 Significant
Steps in applying the compost to the field 1.292 0.524 Not significant 10.215 0.006 Highly significant
Drawbacks of the MRC technology 7.879 0.049 Significant 2.136 0.545 Not significant
Perceived degree of comprehensibility
Steps in applying the compost to the field 4.008 0.261 Not significant 8.296 0.040 Significant
Perceived degree of interest in messages
Steps in applying the compost to the field 6.463 0.039 Significant 4.543 0.103 Not significant
Practical benefits of the compost to the farmer 5.677 0.017 Significant 0.307 0.579 Not significant
Drawbacks of the MRC technology 1.420 0.701 Not significant 8.827 0.032 Significant
CHANNEL VARIABLE
Print 4.331 0.037 Significant 0.067 0.796 Not significant
Personal visits 0.085 0.770 Not significant 6.577 0.010 Significant
Frequency of exposure to channels
Personal visits 4.476 0.034 Significant 0.002 0.968 Not significant
Perceived degree of interest in channels
Field demonstration 7.932 0.094 Not significant 10.139 0.038 Significant
RECEIVER VARIABLE
Perceived attitude towards MRC technology
In MRC, the time of composting is shortened 4.691 0.096 Not significant 8.837 0.012 Significant
from three months to around three weeks.
109
Communication Variables and Confirmation Stage
Table 34 provides the summary of the relationships between the communication

variables and confirmation stage of technology adoption in the DA Agri-Kalikasan program
on MRC technology.
Source variables and confirmation
Source variables such as type of information source, credibility of the source, and
frequency of access to the information source were related with the confirmation stage of
The types of information sources such as neighbors or fellow farmers (p=0.039), DA

Agri-Kalisan program staff (p=0.014), farm technicians (p=0.039), and print materials
(p=0.014) had significant relationships with advocacy for MRC technology (Table 34). If the
farmers learn about a technology from neighbors or fellow farmers, program staff members,
farm technicians, or print materials, then they will likely advocate its use to other farmers.
Such types of information sources affect advocacy for a new technology at the confirmation
stage of technology adoption.
The credibility of information sources such as the DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff

(p=0.039) and the farm technicians (p=0.014) was significantly related with advocacy for the
MRC technology (Table 34). The higher the credibility of information sources, the higher the
advocacy for a new technology to other individuals.
The frequency of access to the DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff had a significant

relationship with continuous use of the MRC technology (p=0.013) (Table 34). Therefore,
frequency of access to information sources affects the confirmation stage especially with
continuous use of the technology. In other words, if frequency of access to sources is high,
then the probability for continuous use of a new technology will also be high, and vice versa.
110
Message variables and confirmation
Message clarity, comprehensibility, completeness, and interest were related to the

confirmation stage in technology adoption.
The clarity of the steps in the preparation of the MRC-based compost was
significantly related with continuous use of the technology (p=0.033) and had high
significant relationship with advocacy of the technology (p=0.000) (Table 34).
Almost similarly, the clarity of the steps in the field application of MRC-based
compost had a high significant relationship with continuous use of and with advocacy of the
MRC technology (p=0.006 and p=0.000, respectively).
The clarity of the following messages showed high significant relationship with
advocacy for MRC technology: 1) practical benefits of MRC-based compost (p=0.001); 2)
environmental benefits of MRC (p=0.005); and 3) drawbacks of MRC technology (p=0.005)
(Table 34).
The above findings indicate that the clearer the messages about a new technology, the
more likely it will be used continuously and advocated to others.
Message comprehensibility was also related to the confirmation stage of technology

adoption. In particular, comprehensibility of the steps in the preparation of the MRC-based
compost had high significant relationship with advocacy of the technology (p=0.001).
Furthermore, comprehensibility of the steps in applying the MRC-based compost in the field
had a significant relationship with continuous use of the technology (p=0.040) and a high
significant relationship with advocacy of the technology (p=0.000). Lastly, comprehensibility
of the practical benefits of the MRC technology had a high significant relationship with
advocacy of the technology (p=0.000) (Table 34). If the message comprehensibility is high,
then the possibility for continuous use and advocacy of a technology will also be high.
111
Completeness is another message variable that has a relationship with the
confirmation stage of technology adoption. Message completeness of the steps in the
preparation of the MRC-based compost (p=0.012) as well as completeness of the drawbacks
of the MRC technology (p=0.038) have significant relationships with technology advocacy.
Completeness of the steps in applying the MRC-based compost in the field had a highly
significant relationship with advocacy for the technology (p=0.008) (Table 34). The more
complete the message is, then the more likely it will be advocated to others.
The degree of interest in a message also affected the confirmation stage of technology
adoption. In the study, the respondents’ interest in these messages showed highly significant
relationships with technology advocacy: 1) steps in preparing the MRC-based compost
(p=0.000); 2) steps in applying the MRC-based compost in the field (p=0.001); and 3)
drawbacks of the MRC technology (p=0.005).
There was a significant relationship between interest in the drawbacks of the MRC
technology and its continuous use (p=0.032) (Table 34). Apparently, knowing the drawbacks
of a technology affects its continuous use. If the technology has plenty of drawbacks, then
farmers will probably discontinue its use.
Channel variables and confirmation
The type of channel used, frequency of exposure to a channel, and interest in a

channel significantly affect the farmers’ confirmation stage of technology adoption.
Information channels such as seminars/training programs were significantly related

with the respondents’ recognition of the benefits and drawbacks of the MRC technology
(p=0.038) (Table 34). This implies that seminars or trainings may be valuable channels in
communicating the benefits and limitations of a new technology.
Meanwhile, the frequency of exposure to channels such as field demonstrations had a

highly significant relationship with technology advocacy (p=0.001) (Table 34). To encourage
112
the farmers’ advocacy of a technology to other people, they should be exposed to field
demonstrations.
The respondents’ interest in the field demo as information channel showed a

significant relationship with their continuous use of the technology at the confirmation stage
(p=0.038) (Table 33). It can be deduced that interest in field demonstrations tends to
encourage continuous use of a technology.
Receiver variables and confirmation
Unlike in the previous stages of technology adoption, the respondents’ perceived

degree of need for the MRC technology emerged to be significantly related with the
confirmation stage, particularly with advocacy for the technology (p=0.027) (Table 34). The
more the farmers have a need for technology, the greater the likelihood that they will
advocate the technology to other farmers.
The receiver’s attitude toward a technology affects the confirmation stage of the
technology, especially the recognition of the benefits and drawbacks and the advocacy for the
technology. Table 34 of this study shows a highly significant relationship between the
respondents’ positive attitude towards the MRC technology in addressing fertilizer costs and
advocacy of the technology to other farmers (p=0.001). The attitude towards shortened
MRC-based composting time was significantly related with recognition of the benefits and
drawbacks of the technology (p=0.012) while attitude towards increased rice yield from the
use of MRC was significantly related with technology advocacy (p=0.021) (Table 34).
As the results above indicate, the more positive the attitude of farmers towards a
technology, the more they will be able to recognize the advantages and disadvantages of a
technology, use the technology continuously, and advocate for it
113
Table 34. Summary of the relationships between communication variables and the confirmation stage of technology adoption*
COMMUNICATION CONFIRMATION STAGE
VARIABLE RECOGNITION OF CONTINUOUS USE OF MRC TECH ADVOCACY FOR MRC TECH
BENEFITS/DRAWBACKS
2 2 2
SOURCE VARIABLE
Information source
Neighbors/fellow 0.006 0.938 Not significant 0.135 0.713 Not significant 6.514 0.039 Significant
farmers
DA Agri-Kalikasan 1.838 0.175 Not significant 1.335 0.248 Not significant 8.564 0.014 Significant
Program Staff
Farm technician 0.006 0.938 Not significant 0.135 0.713 Not significant 6.514 0.039 Significant
Print 1.755 0.185 Not significant 0.135 0.713 Not significant 8.564 0.014 Significant
DA Agri-Kalikasan 2.333 0.311 Not significant 4.200 0.122 Not significant 6.514 0.039 Significant
Program Staff
Farm technician 3.462 0.177 Not significant 4.779 0.092 Not significant 8.564 0.014 Significant
Frequency of access to
information sources
DA Agri-Kalikasan 5.133 0.162 Not significant 10.733 0.013 Significant 3.792 0.285 Not significant
Program Staff
MESSAGE VARIABLE
Perceived degree of
clarity of messages
Steps in preparing the 1.109 0.574 Not significant 6.823 0.033 Significant 20.410 0.000 Highly significant
compost
Steps in applying the 1.448 0.485 Not significant 10.215 0.006 Highly significant 15.500 0.000 Highly significant
Practical benefits of the 0.085 0.771 Not significant 0.426 0.514 Not significant 11.649 0.001 Highly significant
compost to the farmer
Environmental benefits 0.319 0.572 Not significant 1.243 0.265 Not significant 7.781 0.005 Highly significant
Drawbacks of the MRC 6.102 0.107 Not significant 2.136 0.545 Not significant 13.000 0.005 Highly significant
technology
114
BENEFITS/DRAWBACKS
2 2 2
MESSAGE VARIABLE
Perceived degree of
comprehensibility
Steps in preparing the 2.701 0.440 Not significant 6.668 0.083 Not significant 17.637 0.001 Highly significant
compost
Steps in applying the 2.508 0.474 Not significant 8.296 0.040 Significant 18.530 0.000 Highly significant
Practical benefits of the 2.085 0.353 Not significant 3.001 0.223 Not significant 22.587 0.000 Highly significant
Perceived degree of
completeness of messages
Steps in preparing the 2.404 0.493 Not significant 3.952 0.267 Not significant 10.991 0.012 Significant
compost
Steps in applying the 1.974 0.578 Not significant 4.119 0.249 Not significant 11.701 0.008 Highly significant
Drawbacks of the MRC 5.829 0.120 Not significant 3.000 0.392 Not significant 8.444 0.038 Significant
technology
Perceived degree of
Steps in preparing the 3.023 0.221 Not significant 5.461 0.065 Not significant 15.727 0.000 Highly significant
compost
Steps in applying the 2.680 0.262 Not significant 4.543 0.103 Not significant 14.570 0.001 Highly significant
Drawbacks of the MRC 4.952 0.175 Not significant 8.827 0.032 Significant 13.000 0.005 Highly significant
technology
115
BENEFITS/DRAWBACKS
2 2 2
CHANNEL VARIABLE
Seminars/trainings 4.324 0.038 Significant 0.059 0.807 Not significant 0.019 0.890 Not significant
Frequency of exposure to
channels
Field demonstration 1.583 0.208 Not significant 0.821 0.365 Not significant 11.917 0.001 Highly significant
Perceived degree of
interest in channels
Field demonstration 9.344 0.053 Not significant 10.139 0.038 Significant 6.887 0.142 Not significant
RECEIVER VARIABLE
Perceived degree of need 0.950 0.622 Not significant 3.489 0.175 Not significant 7.226 0.027 Significant
for MRC
Perceived attitude
towards MRC technology
MRC helps address the 0.429 0.807 Not significant 2.417 0.299 Not significant 14.193 0.001 Highly significant
increasing cost of
inorganic fertilizers…
In MRC, the time of 3.844 0.146 Significant 8.837 0.012 Significant 5.434 0.066 Not significant
composting is
shortened…
When combined with 2.095 0.553 Not significant 4.477 0.214 Not significant 9.711 0.021 Significant
MRC yields more
rice...
116
Summary of the Communication Variables Influencing
The factors in the communication strategy of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program which

influenced the knowledge stage of MRC technology adoption generally included the
following: 1) perceived credibility of the print materials and farm technicians; 2) perceived
degree of clarity, comprehensibility, completeness, and interest in the steps in preparing and
applying MRC-based compost in the field as well as the practical and environmental benefits
of the MRC technology; 3) personal visit as type of channel used and exposure to print
materials and seminars or trainings related to MRC; and 4) perceived attitude towards
shortened MRC-based composting time, towards increased rice yield with MRC technology,
and towards MRC technology addressing problem of rice straw burning (Table 35).
The communication factors that affected the persuasion stage of MRC technology
adoption were: 1) DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff and farm technician as information
source and their perceived credibility among the farmers; 2) perceived clarity,
comprehensibility, completeness, and interest in the steps in preparing and applying MRC-
based compost and in the environmental benefits of the MRC technology; 3) frequency of
exposure to field demonstrations and degree of interest in personal visits; and 4) perceived
attitude towards MRC technology in addressing increasing cost of inorganic fertilizers,
towards shortened MRC-based composting time, and towards increased rice yield with MRC
technology (Table 36).
At the decision stage, the factors influencing technology adoption consisted of: 1) the
DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff as information source and perceived credibility of the farm
technician; 2) the perceived clarity, comprehensibility, and completeness of the steps in the
preparation and application of MRC-based compost as well as the interest in the practical
benefits of MRC technology; 3) the frequency of exposure to print materials; and 4) the
perceived attitude towards increased rice yield with MRC technology (Table 37).
117
The implementation stage of MRC technology adoption were influenced by these
communication factors: 1) frequency of access to the DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff; 2)
perceived clarity of the steps in the preparation and application of MRC-based compost and
the drawbacks of the technology, comprehensibility of the steps in the preparation of MRC-
based compost, and interest in the steps in preparing MRC-based compost, in the practical
benefits of the MRC technology, and in the drawbacks of technology; 3) print material and
personal visit as type of channel used, frequency of exposure to personal visits, and degree of
interest in field demonstration; and 4) perceived attitude toward shortened MRC-based
composting time (Table 38).
The last stage of technology adoption, which is the confirmation stage, was found to
be influenced by a number of communication factors. The source factors were: 1) type of
information source such as neighbor/fellow farmer, DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff, farm
technician and print material; 2) credibility of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff and farm
technician; and 3) frequency of access to the DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff (Table 39).
The message factors influencing the confirmation station were: 1) perceived clarity of
the steps in the preparation and application of MRC-based compost and the practical and
environmental benefits of the MRC technology; 2) comprehensibility of the steps in the
preparation and application of MRC-based compost and the practical benefits of MRC
technology; 3) completeness of the steps in the preparing and applying MRC-based compost
and the drawbacks of the technology; and 4) interest in the steps in preparing and applying
MRC-based compost (Table 39).
Among the channel factors, the seminar/training as information source and the
frequency of exposure to and degree of interest in the field demo influenced the confirmation
stage. In terms of receiver factors, the farmers’ need for the technology and their attitude
towards the MRC technology in addressing increasing cost of inorganic fertilizers, towards
the shortened MRC-based composting time, and towards the increased rice yield with MRC
technology affected the confirmation stage of technology adoption (Table 39).
118
Table 35. Communication variables influencing the knowledge stage of MRC technology adoption
KNOWLEDGE STAGE
COMMUNICATION VARIABLE RECALL OF SPECIFIC EXTENT OF KNOWLEDGE EXTENT OF KNOWLEDGE
MESSAGES ABOUT MRC ABOUT STEPS IN MRC
P INTERPRETATION P INTERPRETATION P INTERPRETATION
SOURCE VARIABLE
Perceived credibility of print materials - - - - 0.000 Highly significant
Perceived credibility of farm technician 0.000 Highly significant - - - -
MESSAGE VARIABLE
Perceived degree of clarity of steps in preparing 0.000 Highly significant 0.001 Highly significant 0.000 Highly significant
MRC-based compost
Perceived clarity of steps in applying MRC-based 0.000 Highly significant 0.006 Highly significant 0.000 Highly significant
Perceived clarity of the practical benefits of the MRC - - - - 0.028 Significant
technology to the farmer
Perceived degree of comprehensibility of steps in 0.000 Highly significant - - 0.000 Highly significant
preparing MRC-based compost
Perceived degree of comprehensibility of steps in 0.001 Highly significant - - 0.000 Highly significant
applying MRC-based compost to the field
Perceived degree of comprehensibility of 0.018 Significant 0.048 Significant - -
environmental benefits of MRC technology
Perceived degree of completeness of steps in 0.001 Highly significant - - 0.000 Highly significant
Perceived degree of completeness of steps in 0.004 Highly significant - - 0.000 Highly significant
Perceived degree of interest in the practical benefits 0.016 Significant 0.017 Significant 0.017 Significant
of the MRC technology to the farmer
Perceived degree of interest in the environmental 0.011 Significant - - - -
benefits of the MRC technology
CHANNEL VARIABLE
Personal visits as type of channel used - - - - 0.000 Highly significant
Frequency of exposure to print materials - - - - 0.012 Significant
Frequency of exposure to seminars/trainings - - - - 0.012 Significant
RECEIVER VARIABLE
Perceived attitude towards shortened MRC-based 0.022 Highly significant - - 0.041 Significant
composting time
Perceived attitude towards increased rice yield with 0.001 Highly significant 0.041 Significant - -
MRC technology
Perceived attitude towards MRC technology 0.002 Highly significant - - - -
addressing problem of rice straw burning
119
Table 36. Communication variables influencing the persuasion stage of MRC technology adoption
PERSUASION STAGE
COMMUNICATION VARIABLE DISCUSSION OF MRC APPROVAL OF MRC PERSONAL APPROVAL
TECHNOLOGY WITH TECHNOLOGY BY OF MRC TECHNOLOGY
PERSONAL NETWORK PERSONAL NETWORK
SOURCE VARIABLE
DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff as type of information - - - - 0.022 Significant
source
Farm technician as type of information source - - - - 0.008 Highly significant
Perceived credibility of DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff 0.001 Highly significant - - 0.039 Significant
Perceived credibility of farm technician 0.005 Highly significant 0.012 Significant - -
MESSAGE VARIABLE
Perceived clarity of steps in preparing MRC-based 0.004 Highly significant - - 0.004 Highly significant
compost
Perceived clarity of steps in applying MRC-based 0.029 Significant - - 0.029 Significant
Perceived degree of comprehensibility of steps in 0.000 Highly significant - - - -
Perceived degree of comprehensibility of steps in 0.000 Highly significant - - - -
Perceived degree of completeness of steps in preparing 0.000 Highly significant 0.024 Significant - -
MRC-based compost
Perceived degree of completeness of steps in applying 0.000 Highly significant 0.013 Significant - -
MRC-based compost to the field
Perceived degree of interest in the steps in applying - - - - 0.012 Significant
MRC-based compost to the field
Perceived degree of interest in the environmental - - - - 0.027 Significant
benefits of MRC technology
CHANNEL VARIABLE
Frequency of exposure to field demonstrations 0.017 Significant - - - -
Perceived degree of interest in personal visits 0.010 Highly significant - - - -
RECEIVER VARIABLE
Perceived attitude towards MRC technology in - - - - 0.002 Highly significant
addressing increasing cost of inorganic fertilizers
Perceived attitude towards shortened MRC-based - - - - 0.003 Highly significant
composting time
Perceived attitude towards increased rice yield with - - - - 0.000 Highly significant
MRC technology
120
Table 37. Communication variables influencing the decision stage of MRC technology adoption
DECISION STAGE
COMMUNICATION VARIABLE CONSULTATION WITH INTENTION TO USE MRC
P INTERPRETATION P INTERPRETATION
SOURCE VARIABLE
DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff as type of information - - 0.032 Significant
source
Perceived credibility of farm technician - - 0.033 Significant
MESSAGE VARIABLE
Perceived clarity of steps in preparing MRC-based - - 0.000 Highly significant
compost
Perceived clarity of steps in applying MRC-based - - 0.001 Highly significant
Perceived degree of comprehensibility of steps in - - 0.011 Significant
Perceived degree of comprehensibility of steps in - - 0.008 Highly significant
Perceived degree of comprehensibility of 0.026 Significant - -
environmental benefits of MRC technology
Perceived degree of completeness of steps in - - 0.010 Highly significant
Perceived degree of completeness of steps in - - 0.008 Highly significant
Perceived degree of interest in the practical benefits of 0.009 Highly significant - -
the MRC technology to the farmer
CHANNEL VARIABLE
Frequency of exposure to print materials 0.022 Significant - -
RECEIVER VARIABLE
Perceived attitude towards increased rice yield with - - 0.007 Highly significant
MRC technology
121
Table 38. Communication variables influencing the implementation stage of MRC technology adoption
IMPLEMENTATION STAGE
COMMUNICATION VARIABLE ACQUISITION OF MATERIALS FOR MRC APPLICATION OF MRC
TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY
P INTERPRETATION P INTERPRETATION
SOURCE VARIABLE
Frequency of access to DA Agri-Kalikasan - - 0.013 Significant
program staff
MESSAGE VARIABLE
Perceived clarity of steps in preparing MRC- - - 0.033 Significant
based compost
Perceived clarity of steps in applying MRC-based - - 0.006 Highly significant
Perceived clarity of drawbacks of the MRC 0.049 Significant - -
technology
Perceived degree of comprehensibility of steps in - - 0.040 Significant
Perceived degree of interest in the steps in 0.039 Significant - -
Perceived degree of interest in the practical 0.017 Significant - -
benefits of MRC-based compost to the farmer
Perceived degree of interest in the drawbacks of - - 0.032 Significant
the MRC technology
CHANNEL VARIABLE
Print material as type of channel used 0.037 Significant - -
Personal visit as type of channel used - - 0.010 Significant
Frequency of exposure to personal visits 0.034 Significant
Perceived degree of interest in field - - 0.038 Significant
demonstration
RECEIVER VARIABLE
Perceived attitude towards shortened MRC- - - 0.012 Significant
based composting time
122
Table 39. Communication variables influencing the confirmation stage of MRC technology adoption
CONFIRMATION STAGE
COMMUNICATION VARIABLE RECOGNITION OF CONTINUOUS USE OF ADVOCACY FOR MRC
BENEFITS/DRAWBACKS MRC TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY
SOURCE VARIABLE
Neighbor/fellow farmer as type of information - - - - 0.039 Significant
source
DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff as type of - - - - 0.014 Significant
information source
Farm technician as type of information source - - - - 0.039 Significant
Print material as type of information source - - - - 0.014 Significant
Perceived credibility of DA Agri-Kalikasan program - - - - 0.039 Significant
staff
Perceived credibility of farm technician - - - - 0.014 Significant
Frequency of access to DA Agri-Kalikasan 0.162 Significant 0.013 Significant - -
program staff
MESSAGE VARIABLE
Perceived clarity of steps in preparing MRC-based - - 0.033 Significant 0.000 Highly significant
compost
Perceived clarity of steps in applying MRC-based - - 0.006 Highly significant 0.000 Highly significant
Perceived clarity of the practical benefits of the - - - - 0.001 Highly significant
MRC technology to the farmer
Perceived clarity of the environmental benefits of - - - - 0.005 Highly significant
MRC technology
Perceived clarity of drawbacks of the MRC - - - - 0.005 Highly significant
technology
Perceived degree of comprehensibility of steps in - - - - 0.001 Highly significant
Perceived degree of comprehensibility of steps in - - 0.040 Significant 0.000 Highly significant
Perceived degree of comprehensibility of practical - - - - 0.000 Highly significant
benefits of MRC-based compost to the farmer
Perceived degree of completeness of steps in - - - - 0.012 Significant
Perceived degree of completeness of steps in - - - - 0.008 Highly significant
Perceived degree of completeness of drawbacks - - - - 0.038 Significant
123
Table 39 continued.
CONFIRMATION STAGE
COMMUNICATION VARIABLE RECOGNITION OF CONTINUOUS USE OF ADVOCACY FOR MRC
BENEFITS/DRAWBACKS MRC TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY
MESSAGE VARIABLE
Perceived degree of interest in the steps in - - - - 0.000 Highly significant
Perceived degree of interest in the steps in - - - - 0.001 Highly significant
Perceived degree of interest in the drawbacks of - - 0.032 Significant - -
the MRC technology
CHANNEL VARIABLE
Seminar/training as type of channel used 0.038 Significant - - - -
Frequency of exposure to field demonstration - - - - 0.001 Highly significant
Perceived degree of interest in field demonstration - - 0.038 Significant - -
RECEIVER VARIABLE
Perceived degree of need for MRC technology - - - - 0.027 Significant
Perceived attitude towards MRC technology in - - - - 0.001 Highly significant
addressing increasing cost of inorganic fertilizers
Perceived attitude towards shortened MRC-based 0.146 Significant 0.012 Significant - -
composting time
Perceived attitude towards increased rice yield - - - - 0.021 Significant
with MRC technology
124
Problems Encountered in MRC Technology Adoption
Problems Experienced with Farmers
Most of the agricultural technicians who were interviewed said that farmers would
usually take a look first at the benefits or drawbacks of the technology before adopting it.
This “wait-and-see” attitude of the farmers hindered the promotion of the MRC technology.
The municipal agricultural officer (MAO) in Babatngon, Leyte narrated that it was
personally difficult to convince the farmers to adopt the technology. She suggested exploring
and trying out a variety of teaching-learning styles to help the farmers see and observe the
benefits of the technology. However, one municipal agricultural technician in Bato, Leyte
commented that it would be difficult to employ a variety of teaching-learning techniques
because the results of the MRC technology are not easily visible on the farm. To enhance
technology adoption, the MAO of Barangay Bato suggested that additional resources should
be provided to sustain technology promotion and adoption.
An agricultural technician in Alang-alang, Leyte realized that some farmers were very
difficult to contact. Furthermore, the secretary to the MAO in Kananga, Leyte voiced out the
sense of “passivity” among the farmer-cooperators. She said that the farmers would simply
accept what they are told. Meanwhile, the agricultural technician in Matalom, Leyte claimed
that the farmers were already used to dole-outs and spoon feeding that they would not
involve themselves much in the decision-making with the agricultural technicians. Another
problem was that sometimes the farmers would not properly follow the guidelines or protocol
in using the MRC technology.
This kind of “counter argumentation”, according to Selnow and Crano (1987), may
have resulted from the misalignment of certain guidelines with the needs of the farmers. One
farmer said during the survey that his use of the MRC technology did not meet his needs in
the farm. The secretary to the MAO in Kananga, on the other hand, observed that some
farmers in her area did not follow the desired fertilizer recommendations because they could
125
not afford to do so. Thus, the socio-economic constraints in the adoption of an innovation
would always come in (Rola, 2000).
Problems with Inputs and Resources
One of the technical constraints encountered by the farmers and DA Agri-Kalikasan

program staff was the lack of or delay in the supply of the compost fungus activator (CFA),
the Trichoderma sp. fungus. The project officer herself admitted that the supply of the
fungus was lacking, which delayed the project and resulted in the unsustainable
implementation of the program. The soils and water coordinator of the DA Regional Soils
Laboratory explained that Trichoderma is very difficult to mass-produce especially under
field condition. To ensure its growth in the rice straw, Trichoderma must be cultured in the
laboratory so that it will not be contaminated with other microorganisms. The project officer
mentioned they were not always successful in mass-producing the fungus; hence, they had to
buy it and other supplies from Manila. When the technicians could not provide the fungus,
they would encourage the farmers not to burn rice straw in the field. The farmers, on the
other hand, would simply let the rice straw rot in the field without the fungus.
The agricultural technicians from Barugo and Hilongos, Leyte identified irrigation
problems. The fungi required constant moisture or irrigation for its growth. However,
because the irrigation highly depended on the schedules set by the National Irrigation
Authority (NIA), water supply was limited in the techno-demo sites during certain months of
the year. The suggestion solution for the irrigation water problem was to set a schedule for
irrigation supply at the farm level, preferably depending on the convenience of the farmers
and also to improve irrigation system in the program sites.
Problems with Funding and Discontinuation of the Program
It was found that the DA Agri-Kalikasan Progra, which began in the province of
Leyte in 2006-2007, was discontinued in some techno-demo sites after two cropping seasons.
Supposedly, the program was to be operational for three years. However, because of the
126
constraints especially in the supply of Trichoderma, some municipal offices had to stop the
program or tap the LGUs for funds and resources to continue the program. The project
officer said that the funding of the MRC technology was good only for a year; after such a
period, the LGUs should take the initiative to look for funds for the MRC technology
program or to transfer the program to the MAOs.
According to the technician in Matalom, Leyte, since the MRC technology program
was discontinued, the farmer-cooperators would often ask her about the program. Some
farmers resumed their old practice of burning rice straw, while others implemented other
methods such as using traditional composting or using the indigenous microorganism (IM0).
She opined that the project should be continued so that farmers can see the long-term benefits
of the MRC technology.
Rola (2000) explained that an intensive knowledge base, long-term benefits, and
specificity of area or location are needed for a program to be sustained and self-sufficient. In
the case of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program, intensive information dissemination and
realization of benefits in the long run are important. However, these were affected by the
constraints in supply and resources, as well as institutional limitations at the local and
municipal level. Nevertheless, the agricultural technicians and the staff of the DA Agri-
Kalikasan program generally opted for the continuation of the program.
Suggestions for Improvement of the Communication Strategy
Table 40 summarizes the farmers’ suggestions to improve the communication

strategy of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program in promoting the use of MRC technology. Most
of them suggested implementing a more intensive information dissemination campaign (26
responses). Many also said that the farmer-cooperators should be trained more frequently (25
responses) and the use of the MRC technology should be monitored more often by the
technicians (17 responses).
127
Some farmers, meanwhile, suggested that the MRC technology should be taught in a
way that farmers would be able to see the technology. The provision of farm inputs and
support services was also stressed (9 responses). The teaching-learning approaches in the
training programs and seminars should be improved. Five respondents wanted more details
about the technology. Two respondents each suggested 1) organizing farmer groups to
strengthen the institutional framework of the program; 2) using the multimedia approach; 3)
making IEC materials more personalized and attractive; and 4) improving the technicians’
teaching style (Table 40). The farmer-cooperators should also be more involved in the
program.
An agricultural technician from Hindang, Leyte suggested that communication

materials such as posters and pamphlets should be distributed to facilitate farmers’ recall of
the MRC technology. Another technician in Hilongos, Leyte recommended using mass
media such as radio and TV programs to help widen the coverage of the information
dissemination throughout the province. Other technicians suggested continuous monitoring
of the program and making available the MRC inputs/supplies. These factors, according to
technicians, would help realize the impact of the MRC technology on the farmer-cooperators.
Table 40. Respondents’ suggestions for improvement of the communication strategy of the
DA Agri-Kalikasan program
SUGGESTION FREQUENCY (N=49)*
Information dissemination should be done more intensively 26
Seminars/trainings should be done more often 25
Use of MRC should be monitored more often 17
Program should be continued 11
Farmers should be able to see the technology 9
Support services and farm inputs should be provided 9
More detailed information about MRC should be provided 5
Technology providers should provide more support 2
IEC materials should be personalized and made more attractive 2
Improve teaching styles of farm technicians 2
Farmers should be organized into groups 2
Multimedia approach should be used 1
Monitoring should be done only during the farmers’ free time 1
Information should be shared in the local dialect 1
Farmer-cooperators should follow the guidelines in using MRC 1
Technicians should be trained 1
More participation/involvement of the farmers 1
*Multiple responses
128
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
Objectives
A number of past government programs have failed to address certain development

problems because determinants of behavior change associated with these problems have not
been fully understood. One of the problems that the local government in Leyte has been
trying to solve is rice straw burning, which does not only contribute to environmental
degradation but also risks the health of the people in the province. Thus, the DA Agri-
Kalikasan program was established in the area to promote environmentally-sound farming
technologies such as the Modified Rapid Composting (MRC) technology. Farmer-
cooperators were identified and tasked to help promote the technology through their techno-
demo sites or farms.
This study determined the factors in the communication strategy of the DA Agri-
Kalikasan program which influence the farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the MRC
technology in Leyte. Specifically, it was conducted to:1) determine the socio-demographic
profile of the DA Agri-Kalikasan farmer-cooperators in Leyte; 2) describe the characteristics
of the source, message, channel and receiver variables of the Agri-Kalikasan communication
strategy used in promoting MRC technology among farmer-cooperators in Leyte; 3) describe
the characteristics of the farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the MRC technology; 4) find
out if a relationship exists between the source, message, channel and receiver variables of the
communication strategy and the farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the MRC technology;
and 5) find out the problems that the DA Agri-Kalikasan farmer-cooperators and program
staff encounter in implementing the communication strategy for the MRC technology.
Methodology
Complete enumeration of 64 farmer-cooperators of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program

in Leyte was used for the survey. However, a total of 49 farmer-cooperators were personally
interviewed using a structured questionnaire since the others had either transferred to Manila,
were unavailable at the time of data gathering, or had already passed away.
Results of the survey were organized and analyzed using frequency counts and
percentages, and weighted mean. Furthermore, the relationships between communication
variables and the adoption stage of the MRC technology were tested using the chi-square test
of independence.
Key informant interviews were also conducted with the project officer of the DA
Agri-Kalikasan program, the municipal agricultural technicians (MATs), the municipal
agricultural officers (MAOs), and the secretary to the MAO. The interviews focused on the
source, message, channel, and receiver of the communication strategy of the DA Agri-
Kalikasan program, the limiting factors in implementing the program, and the perceived
needs and problems during the program implementation.
Findings
Respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics
Majority of the farmer-cooperators were aged 48 to 69 years old. Most of them were
male cooperators, married, and belonged to relatively small households. They had undergone
at least secondary schooling. Almost half of them had attended an MRC-related training.
Most of the farmer-cooperators owned a hectare or less of rice land. Nearly half were land
owners while one third of them were tenants. The farmer-cooperators generally earned less
than PhP 100,000 annually, and had farmed from 3 to 24 years. Subsidies in fertilizers and
seeds were the most common support services acquired by the farmer-cooperators.
130
Characteristics of the DA Agri-Kalikasan communication strategy
Source Variables. The agricultural technicians were the most common information
source accessed by the farmer-cooperators regarding the MRC technology (46 responses),
followed by the DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff (15 responses). The technicians were
perceived as credible (4.41 mean score) and were often accessed (3.96 mean score) about
problems on the use of the MRC technology mainly because the technicians regularly visited
the farm-demo sites to monitor performance of the technology. On the other hand, some
information sources had low credibility and frequency of access because the farming needs
were not met or the farmer-cooperators were busy with other farming activities.
Message Variables. The messages on the steps in applying the MRC compost in the
field (4.67 mean) and the practical benefits of the MRC technology (4.55 mean) were ‘very
clear’ and ‘very understandable’ (4.69 and 4.51 mean, respectively) to the farmer-
cooperators. Meanwhile, the steps in preparing the MRC-based compost (4.48 mean score)
and the environmental benefits of the MRC technology (4.29 mean score) were perceived as
‘clear’ and ‘understandable’ (4.47 and 4.27 mean, respectively). The same messages were
perceived as ‘almost complete (80%)’ with the following mean ratings: steps in applying
MRC compost in the field (4.43); practical benefits of MRC (4.20); steps in preparing MRC
compost (4.18); and environmental benefits of MRC (3.98). In terms of perceived degree of
interest, the practical benefits of MRC (4.55 mean) and the steps in preparing the MRC-based
compost (4.53 mean) had the highest ratings. The farmer-cooperators gave high ratings for
message clarity, comprehensibility, completeness and interest because they were able to use
the MRC technology in their farm-demo and see or experience its benefits. On the other
hand, they had low ratings for other messages because they felt that more information should
be shared about MRC, the technology is difficult to use, and information on drawbacks of
MRC is lacking.
Channel Variables. The farmer-cooperators generally learned about the MRC

technology through personal visits made by the agricultural technicians (3.53 mean score),
with the main reason being that these visits were consistent or regular (29 responses). Other
131
channels used were seminars/trainings, field demonstrations, and print materials, in this
order. The farmer-cooperators were ‘often’ exposed to personal visits (4.29 mean) and
seminars/trainings (3.53 mean). They perceived the channels as neither interesting nor
uninteresting (3.43 mean). The mass media were not commonly employed because there
were no mass media programs available and farmer-cooperators had little available time for
tuning in to these programs.
Receiver Variables. Majority (69%) of the farmer-cooperators highly needed the

MRC technology. They strongly agreed on the entire attitude statements about the
technology; hence they had positive attitude a) towards MRC which made soil fertile and
productive; b) towards MRC which addressed the problem of rice straw burning; c) towards
MRC which addressed the increasing cost of inorganic fertilizers; d) towards the shortened
MRC composting time; and e) towards increased rice yield due to MRC.
Characteristics of stage of technology adoption
Knowledge Stage. Majority of the farmer-cooperators had moderate recall (67%)

and high knowledge of the concept of MRC (53%) and the steps in using it (61%). They
could recall 3-4 messages about MRC, correctly describe most aspect of MRC, and
enumerate 5-7 steps of the MRC technology.
Persuasion Stage. Almost all (96%) of the farmer-cooperators have discussed MRC
with their personal network of family, friends, and fellow farmers. Most of them also said
that their personal networks approved of the MRC technology, especially their families (39
responses). Furthermore, almost all (96%) personally approved of MRC. Their common
reason was because they were able to see the benefits of MRC.
Decision Stage. More than half (57%) of the farmer-cooperators consulted with the
technology providers about MRC. Nearly all (92%) of them had intended to use it mainly
because they have seen its benefits (16 responses).
132
Implementation Stage. Majority of the farmer-cooperators were able to acquire the
materials for MRC (61%) and use them in preparing MRC compost (76%). One of the
limiting factors stated by the respondents was the lack of farming inputs in using the
technology (10 responses).
Confirmation Stage. Only a little over one third (35%) of the farmer-cooperators
recognized the benefits or drawbacks of the technology. This was mainly due to the lack of
information on the drawbacks of MRC. Most of them were able to continue using the MRC
technology (76%) and encouraged or advocated others to use it (90%).
In general, the farmers were able to pass almost all the stages in adoption of the MRC
technology. However, at the confirmation stage, they still had to learn more about the
advantages and disadvantages that come along with the use of MRC.
Relationships between communication variables and stage

of technology adoption
The results of the chi-square test of independence indicated highly significant to

significant relationships between selected variables of the source, message, channel, and
receiver of the DA Agri-Kalikasan communication strategy and selected variables of the
stages of technology adoption. Thus, the alternative hypotheses of the study were accepted:
1. A relationship exists between the source variables in the Agri-Kalikasan

technology.
Source variables and knowledge stage
1.1. A highly significant relationship exists between credibility of farm technician
and recall of specific messages at knowledge stage.
1.2. A highly significant relationship exists between credibility of print materials
and extent of knowledge about the steps in MRC.
133
Source variables and persuasion stage
1.3. A highly significant relationship exists between credibility of DA Agri-
Kalikasan program staff and credibility of farm technician and discussion of
MRC with personal network.
1.4. A significant relationship exists between credibility of farm technician and
approval of MRC by personal network.
1.5. A significant relationship exists between DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff as
type of information source and credibility of Agri-Kalikasan program staff and
personal approval of MRC.
1.6. A highly significant relationship exists between farm technician as type of
information source and personal approval of MRC.
Source variables and decision stage
1.7. A significant relationship exists between DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff as
type of information source and credibility of farm technician and intention to
use MRC technology.
Source variables and implementation stage
1.8. A significant relationship exists between frequency of access to DA Agri-
Kalikasan program staff and application of MRC technology.
Source variables and confirmation stage
1.9 A significant relationship exists between neighbor/fellow farmer, DA Agri-
Kalikasan program staff, farm technician, and print material as type of
information source and advocacy for MRC technology.
2. A relationship exists between the message variables Agri-Kalikasan communication

strategy and farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the MRC technology.
Message variables and knowledge stage
2.1. A highly significant relationship exists between clarity of steps in preparing
MRC-based compost and applying it on the field and recall of specific
messages.
134
2.2. A highly significant relationship exists between comprehensibility of the steps
in preparing MRC-based compost and applying it on the field and recall of
specific messages.
2.3. A significant relationship exists between comprehensibility of the
environmental benefits of the MRC technology and recall of specific messages.
2.4. A highly significant relationship exists between completeness of the messages
on the steps in preparing MRC-based compost and applying it on the field and
recall of specific messages.
2.5. A significant relationship exists between interest in the practical and
environmental benefits of the MRC technology and recall of specific messages.
MRC-based compost and applying it on the field and extent of knowledge about
MRC. .
2.7. A significant relationship exists between comprehensibility of environmental
benefits of MRC and extent of knowledge about MRC.
2.8. A significant relationship exists between interest in the practical benefits of
MRC and extent of knowledge about MRC.
MRC-based compost and applying it on the field and extent of knowledge about
the steps in MRC.
2.10. A significant relationship exists between clarity of the practical benefits of
MRC and extent of knowledge about the steps in MRC.
2.11. A highly significant relationship exists between comprehensibility of the steps
in preparing MRC-based compost and applying it on the field and extent of
knowledge about the steps in MRC.
2.12. A highly significant relationship exists between completeness of the messages
on the steps in preparing MRC-based compost and applying it on the field and
extent of knowledge about the steps in MRC.
2.13. A significant relationship exists between interest in the practical benefits of the
MRC and extent of knowledge about the steps in MRC.
135
Message variables and persuasion stage
MRC-based compost and discussion of MRC with personal network.
2.15. A highly significant relationship exists between comprehensibility of steps in
preparing MRC-based compost and in applying it in the field and discussion of
MRC with personal network.
2.16. A highly significant relationship exists between completeness of steps in
preparing MRC-based and in applying it in the field and discussion of MRC
with personal network.
2.17. A significant relationship exists between clarity of steps in applying MRC-
based compost in the field and discussion of MRC with personal network.
2.18. A significant relationship exists between credibility of farm technician,
completeness of steps in preparing MRC-based compost and in applying it in
the field and approval of MRC by personal network.
MRC-based compost and personal approval of MRC.
2.20. A significant relationship exists between clarity of steps in applying MRC-
based compost in the field, interest in the steps in applying MRC-based compost
in the field, and interest in the environmental benefits of MRC and personal
approval of MRC.
Message variables and decision stage
2.21. A highly significant relationship exists between interest in the practical benefits
of MRC and consultation with technology providers.
2.22. A significant relationship exists between comprehensibility of environmental
benefits of MRC and consultation with technology providers.
MRC-based compost and applying it in the field and intention to use MRC
technology.
2.24.A significant relationship exists between comprehensibility of steps in preparing
MRC-based compost and intention to use MRC technology.
136
applying MRC-based compost in the field, completeness of steps in preparing MRC-
based compost and completeness of steps in applying MRC-based compost in the
field and intention to use MRC technology.
Message variables and implementation stage
2.26. A significant relationship exists between clarity of clarity of drawbacks of
MRC, interest in the steps in applying MRC-based compost in the field, and
interest in the practical benefits of MRC and acquisition of materials for MRC.
2.27. A highly significant relationship exists between clarity of the steps in MRC-
based compost in the field and application of MRC.
2.28. A significant relationship exists between clarity of steps in preparing MRC-
based compost, comprehensibility of steps in applying MRC-based compost in
the field, and interest in the drawbacks of MRC and application of MRC.
Message variables and confirmation stage
2.29. A significant relationship exists between clarity of the steps in preparing MRC-
based compost and comprehensibility of the steps in applying MRC-based
compost in the field and continuous use of MRC.
2.30. A highly significant relationship exists between steps in applying MRC-based in
the field and continuous use of MRC technology.
2.31. A significant relationship exists between interest in drawbacks of MRC and
continuous use of MRC technology.
MRC-based compose and applying it in the field, clarity of practical and
environmental benefits of MRC, and clarity of drawbacks of MRC and
advocacy for MRC.
preparing MRC-based compose and applying it in the field and
comprehensibility of practical benefits of MRC and advocacy for MRC.
2.34. A highly significant relationship exists between completeness of steps in
applying MRC-based compost in the field and advocacy for MRC.
137
2.35. A significant relationship exists between completeness of steps in preparing
MRC-based compost and completeness of drawbacks of MRC and advocacy for
MRC.
2.36. A highly significant relationship exists between interest in the steps in preparing
MRC-based compost and applying it in the field and advocacy for MRC.
3. A relationship exists between the channel variables Agri-Kalikasan communication

strategy and farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the MRC technology.
Channel variables and knowledge stage
3.1. A highly significant relationship exists between personal visit as type of channel
used and extent of knowledge of the steps in MRC.
3.2. A significant relationship exists between frequency of exposure to print
materials and to seminars/trainings and extent of knowledge of the steps in
MRC.
Channel variables and persuasion stage
3.3. A significant relationship exists between frequency of exposure to field
demonstration and discussion of MRC with personal network.
3.4. A highly significant relationship exists between interest in personal visits and
discussion of MRC with personal network.
Channel variables and decision stage
3.5 A significant relationship exists between frequency of exposure to print
materials and consultation with technology providers.
Channel variables and implementation stage
3.6. A significant relationship exists between print material as type of channel used
and acquisition of materials for MRC technology.
3.7. A significant relationship exists between frequency of exposure to personal
visits and acquisition of materials for MRC technology.
3.8. A significant relationship exists between personal visit as type of channel used
and application of MRC technology.
3.9. A significant relationship exists between interest in field demonstration and
application of MRC technology.
138
Channel variables and confirmation stage
3.10. A significant relationship exists between seminar/training as type of channel
used and recognition of benefits or drawbacks of MRC.
3.11. A highly significant relationship exists between frequency of exposure to field
demonstration and advocacy for MRC technology.
3.12. A significant relationship exists between interest in field demonstration and
continuous use of MRC.
4. A relationship exists between the receiver variables in the Agri-Kalikasan

technology
Receiver variables and knowledge stage
4.1. A highly significant relationship exists between attitude towards shortened
MRC-based composting time, towards increased rice yield with MRC and
towards MRC addressing problem of rice straw burning and recall of specific
messages.
4.2. A significant relationship exists between attitude towards increased rice yield
with MRC and extent of knowledge about MRC.
4.3. A significant relationship exists between attitude towards shortened MRC-based
composting time and extent of knowledge about the steps in MRC.
Receiver variables and persuasion stage
4.4. A highly significant relationship exists between attitude towards MRC in
addressing increasing cost of inorganic fertilizer, towards shortened MRC-based
composting time, and towards increased rice yield with MRC and personal
approval of MRC technology.
Receiver variables and decision stage
4.5 A highly significant relationship exists between attitude towards increased rice
yield with MRC and intention to use MRC.
Receiver variables and implementation stage
composting time and application of MRC technology.
139
Receiver variables and confirmation stage
composting time and recognition of benefits or drawbacks of MRC and
continuous use of MRC technology.
4.8. A significant relationship exists between need for MRC technology and
advocacy for MRC technology.
4.9. A highly significant relationship exists between attitude towards MRC in
addressing increasing cost of inorganic fertilizer and advocacy for MRC
technology.
4.10. A significant relationship exists between attitude towards increased rice yield
with MRC and advocacy for MRC technology.
Communication factors influencing adoption stage
The factors in the communication strategy of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program which

influence the knowledge stage of MRC technology adoption included the following: 1)
credibility of information source; 2) clarity, comprehensibility, and completeness of and
interest in the message; 3) type of channel used and frequency of exposure to channel; and 4)
attitude towards technology.
The factors that affect the persuasion stage of MRC technology adoption were: 1)
type and credibility of information source; 2) clarity, comprehensibility, and completeness of
and interest in the message; 3) frequency of exposure to and interest in channel used; and 4)
attitude towards technology.
The factors influencing the decision stage of MRC technology adoption were as
follows: 1) type of and credibility of information source; 2) clarity, comprehensibility, and
completeness of and interest in the message; 3) frequency of exposure to channel used; and
4) attitude towards technology.
140
The factors influencing the implementation stage of MRC technology adoption were:
1) frequency of access to information source; 2) clarity and comprehensibility of and interest
in the message; 3) type of channel used, frequency of exposure to channel, and interest in
channel; and 4) attitude towards technology.
The factors influencing the confirmation stage were found to be: 1) type and
credibility of information source and frequency of access to source; 2) clarity,
comprehensibility, and completeness of and interest in the message; 3) type and frequency of
access to channel and interest in channel; and 4) need for and attitude towards technology.
Problems encountered in program implementation
The main problems were related to values and attitudes. There was lack of
cooperation and support from both program staff and farmer-cooperators. The “wait-and-see”
and passive attitude of the farmer-cooperators posed problems in technology promotion.
The other problems were technical and resource-related. The project guidelines were
misaligned with the farmers’ needs and interests such as fertilizer recommendations and
inappropriate soil conditions. The lack of and delay in the supply of materials, particularly
the Trichoderma sp. fungus which was necessary for the success of the MRC technology,
delayed the project implementation. The difficulty in mass producing the fungus under field
condition aggravated the problem on the supply of inputs. Irrigation problems also affected
the program implementation. As a result, some farmers had to discontinue use of the
technology in some project sites.
Suggestions for improvement of communication strategy
Both the staff and the farmer-cooperators wanted to continue the MRC technology
program in most of the techno-demo sites for other farmers to realize its long-term benefits.
They suggested more institutional support from local and provincial governments.
Meanwhile, the farmer-cooperators proposed for a more intensive information dissemination
141
strategy on the use of MRC technology. Print materials should be personalize and made more
attractive. Seminars/trainings should be done regularly and there should be consistent
monitoring of the performance and use of the MRC technology. Supplies and materials for
MRC should always be available and accessible.
Conclusions
Based on the results of the study, the following can be concluded:
1. The farmer-cooperators were mostly male, in their late middle age, and married with
small household size. They had secondary schooling and attended MRC-related
trainings. They owned or tended small parcels of rice land which they had farmed for
3 to 24 years and from which they earned less than PhP 100,000 pesos annually.
They acquired support services in the form of fertilizer and seed subsidies.
2. Agricultural technicians were the most common, most credible and most frequently
accessed information source. Among the messages, the steps in preparing and
applying the MRC-based compost as well as the practical and environmental benefits
of the MRC technology were very clear, very understandable, almost complete, and
interesting to the farmer-cooperators. Frequency of exposure to interpersonal
channels, particularly personal visits by agricultural technicians and seminars or
trainings was often. The farmer-cooperators had high need for the MRC technology
and developed positive attitudes towards its different features and benefits.
3. The farmer-cooperators generally had undergone most of the stages in adopting the
MRC technology. In the knowledge stage of adoption, they had high knowledge of
the concepts and steps in using MRC and moderate recall of the technology. In the
persuasion stage, almost all of the farmer-cooperators discussed the MRC technology
with personal networks, particularly their families, who approved of MRC.
Furthermore, the farmer-cooperators approved of the technology, too. During the
decision stage, they consulted the technology providers on the use of MRC and
142
expressed intention to use the technology. In the implementation stage, the farmer-
cooperators acquired materials for MRC and used the technology in their farm. As
regards the confirmation stage, they continued using the MRC technology and
advocated its use to other farmers. However, only a few farmer-cooperators were able
to recognize the benefits or drawbacks of the technology.
4. A relationship generally existed between some of the factors in the communication

strategy of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program and the farmers’ adoption stage of the
MRC technology.
5. The main problems encountered by both the staff and the farmer-cooperators of the
DA Agri-Kalikasan Program were: 1) the lack of cooperation and support from both
parties; 2) lack of or delay in the supply of the inputs for the use of MRC technology,
particularly the Trichoderma sp. fungus, which is deemed important for the success of
the composting technology; and 3) discontinuation of the program in some techno-
demo sites.
Recommendations
Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations are made for the
MRC technology program:
1. The DA Agri-Kalikasan Program staff should train and empower the municipal
agricultural officers (MAOs) and municipal agricultural technicians (MATs) to
allow their expertise to fit in the situations and problems of the techno-demo sites
in which they are assigned. This can help build their credibility and allow them to
align their teaching methods and approaches to the needs and interests of the
farmers.
2. The farmer-cooperators should further be trained not only to acquire additional

knowledge about the MRC technology, but also to encourage and train other
farmers on the use of the technology.
143
3. Action-oriented learning activities, such as field demonstrations and hands-on
trainings, should further be conducted so that more and more farmers would be
able to try out the MRC technology and see its benefits. The farmer-cooperators
would also be able to clarify and understand how to use the MRC technology
through hands-on and interpersonal activities.
4. The techno-demo sites should be made distinguishable through signs or posters,

so that other farmers are able to compare the conditions of techno-demo and non-
techno-demo farms.
5. The project staff should also tap local knowledge of the farmers so that the
messages on MRC technology would be consistent with the needs and conditions
of the community where they belong.
6. The use of mass media channels should be explored in the program not just to
widen the promotion of the MRC technology but also to reinforce certain
messages and develop positive attitudes regarding its use.
7. The program should have a well-developed feedback mechanism. In line with

this, personal visits in the techno-demo farms should be conducted regularly and,
if possible, these should involve a team of experts which would address the
specific needs of the farmer-cooperators.
8. The lack of inputs/supplies in the use of the MRC technology should be addressed
by the national office of the Department of Agriculture. The delivery of these
supplies should be monitored and tracked by the local and provincial offices of
the same agency. Moreover, there should be constant funding from the local
government units (LGUs) to avail of these supplies.
144
9. Communication programs related to the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program should be
constantly evaluated not only for the effectiveness, feasibility and sustainability of
their implementation, but also for their social acceptability. This is to ensure that
the innovation or idea being promoted is not only known, but also adopted, by
their intended stakeholders.
Studies that would determine whether the communication strategy would directly or
inversely affect each of the stages of technology adoption (i.e. knowledge, persuasion,
decision, implementation and confirmation) should be also be conducted.
Also, with enough resources, the impact of technology adoption on the farmer-
cooperator, on the family, and on the barangay should be explored. Participatory
communication and delivery systems should be tried out in the program and analyzed in
order to make the farmer-cooperators feel like they own the program. Communication and
technical factors that affect program sustainability should likewise be investigated in the
future.
145
LITERATURE CITED
A Review of the Agriculture Sector in Eastern Visayas.

http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/sr04126tx.html (28 Mar 2009).
Backer, T. E., E. M. Rogers, & P. Sopory. (1992). Designing Health Communication

Campaigns: What Works? Newbury Park, California: SAGE Publications.
Banatlao, P. R. (1994). BDC Meetings as Venue for Education. Agriculture at Los Baños.
Special Issue, Vol. 1 No. 2, 1994.
Boeren, A. & K. Epskamp. (1992). The empowerment of culture: development

communication & popular media. The Hague: Center for the Study of Education in
Developing Countries.
Briones, N. D. (2004). Environmental Sustainability Issues in Philippines Agriculture.

Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development. Vol. 2, Nos.1 & 2.
Brul, R. (2008). Rice straw burning more lethal than car fumes.
Bureau of Soils and Water Management (undated). National Agri-Kalikasan Program.

http://www.bswm.da.gov.ph/web/programs/index.php?sel=2 (16 Jan 2009).
Committee on Communication for Behavior Change in the 21st Century (2002). Speaking of
Health: Assessing Health Communication Strategies for Diverse Populations.
Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
Cornejo, M.F.A. & R. B. Silva (2004). Culturally Appropriate Information, Education and
Communication Strategies for Improving Adolescent Reproductive Health in Cusco,
Peru. US Agency for International Development (USAID).
Corcoran, N. (2007). Communicating Health: Strategies for Health Promotion. London:

SAGE Publications.
Cox, R. (2006). Environmental Communication and the Public Sphere. Thousand Oaks,
California: SAGE Publications.
Custodio, C. G. (1994). Project Participants’ Perceptions of NGO Communication Strategies

in Two Developmental Projects. Unpublished undergraduate thesis. College,
Laguna: Institute of Development Communication, CA, UPLB.
Department of Agriculture RFU 5 (January-March 2007). Research: burning of agricultural

wastes more hazardous than vehicle emissions. UMAsenso. Vol. 16, No.1.
146
Dobermann, A. & T.H. Fairhurst. (2002). Rice Straw Management. Better Crops
International, Vol. 16.
http://www.ipni.net/ppiweb/bcropint.nsf/$webindex/FB3AD2851347BE1F
85256BDC0072F3B5/$file/BCI-RICEp07.pdf. (3 Dec 2008).
Docto, R. M. (2002). Human-nature interactions in relation to protection and conservation of

Mt. Mantalingahan in Southern Palawan, Philippines. Ph. D. thesis. College,
Laguna: School of Environmental Science and Management, UPLB.
Escalada, M. M. & K.L. Heong (1997). Methods for research on farmers’ knowledge,
attitudes and practices in pest management. Pest Management of Rice Farmers in
Asia. Los Baños, Laguna: International Rice Research Institute.
Flor, A. G. & E. D. Gomez. (1993). Environmental Communication in Curricular and

Delivery Systems Development. College, Laguna: Institute of Development
Communication, CA, UPLB.
Francisco, H. A. (2003). Valuation of Environmental Resources and Services: Experiences

in the Philippines. New Frontiers in Research for Sustainable Development. College,
Laguna: College of Public Affairs, UPLB.
Genilo, J. W. R. (2005). Community-Based Communication: A New Approach to

Development Communication. Quezon City: Great Books Publishing.
George, T. & S. Morin. (2001). The Missing Last Mile in the Delivery of Knowledge to the
Rural Agricultural Sector. Asian Agriculture Congress Abstracts: Food Security and
Environmental Protection in the New Millenium. Westin Philippine Plaza, Manila
Philippines.
Gerpacio, A. L. (1990). Utilization by non-ruminants. Processing and utilization of crop

residues, fibrous agro-industrial by-products, and food waste materials for livestock
and poultry feeding. Los Baños, Laguna: PCARRD-DOST.
Gesmundo, I. M. (1994). Farmers’ Training: An Alternative Approach Toward Human

Resource Development. Agriculture at Los Baños. Special Issue, Vol. 1 No. 2, 1994.
Havelock, R.G. (1979). Planning for Innovation through Dissemination and Utilization of
Knowledge. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan.
Hossain, S. M., et al. (1994). Farm Environment Assessment in the Context of Farming
Systems in Bangladesh. Abstracts of papers presented at the 3rd Asian Farming
Systems Symposium. Manila: Department of Agriculture.
Johns Hopkins University/Bloomberg School for Public Health (2007). Communication for
Healthy Living’s Campaign Improves Response to Avian Influenza in Egypt. In
147
Communication Impact! February 2007, No. 22.
Johns Hopkins University/Center for Communication Programs (2001). Communicating

Safe Motherhood in Morocco: The Family Planning/Maternal and Child Health Phase
V Project: Final Report. Baltimore: JJU/CCP.
Lagnaoui, A., E. Santi, & F. Santucci. (2004). Strategic Communication for Integrated Pest
Management. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTDEVCOMMENG/ Resources/
strategiccommruralfinal.pdf. (16 Jan 2009).
Lasco, R. D., R. Gerpacio, P. A. J. Sanchez, & R. J. P. Delfino (2008). Philippines Policies
in Response to a changing climate: A review of natural resource policies. Los Baños,
Laguna: SEAMEO-SEARCA.
Librero, F. (1996). Synthesis of Environmental Communication Research in the Philippines:

Some National Policy Implications. College, Laguna: Institute of Development
Communication, CA, UPLB.
Lionberger, H. F. & P. H. Gwin. (1982). Communication Strategies: A Guide for

Agricultural Change Agents. Danville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers and
Publishers, Inc.
Lubjuhn, S. & N. Pratt (2009). Media communication strategies for climate-friendly

lifestyles–Addressing middle and lower class consumers for social cultural
change via Entertainment-Education. Essen, Germany: University of Duisburg-
Essen/ Institute for Communication Studies.
Mefalopulos, P. & C. Kamlongera (2004). Participatory Communication Strategy Design: A

Handbook. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(UN-FAO).
Mendoza, T.C. (undated). Nature Farming in the Philippines. University of the Philippines-
Los Baños. PDF File.
http://www.infrc.or.jp/english/KNF_Data_Base_Web/PDF%20KNF%20Conf%20Da
ta/C1-4-011.pdf (28 Mar 2009).
Mercado, C. (1999). Conducting and Managing Communication Survey Research: The

Asian Experience. Quezon City: Development Consultants for Asia, Africa & the
Pacific.
Miller, J. G. (1973). Alternative Communication Systems for Education in the Less

Developed Countries. Washington, D. C.: Academy for Educational Development.
Ministry of Health and Public Assistance, Proyecto De Salud Materna Y Neonatal, Center for
Communication Programs at Johns Hopkins University (2004). Impact Evaluation:
Community Mobilization and Behavior Change, Maternal and Neonatal Health
Component, Ministry of Health and Public Assistance. Case Study. Baltimore: Johns
148
Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health. Center for Communication
Programs.
Moog, F. A. (1990). Available crop residues and agro-industrial by-products. Processing

and utilization of crop residues, fibrous agro-industrial by-products, and food waste
materials for livestock and poultry feeding. Los Baños, Laguna: PCARRD-DOST.
Padolina, M. C. D., et al. (1995). Enriching science education and communication strategies:
a terminal report. College, Laguna: College of Arts and Sciences, UPLB.
Pearce, G. R. (1983). The Utilization of Fibrous Agricultural Residues. Canberra, Australia:

Australian Government Publishing Service. Philippine Rice Research Institute
(2004). Integrated Farm and Household Waste Management.
Rice Technology Bulletin, No. 49.
Piotrow, P. T., et al. (1997). Health Communication: Lessons from Family Planning and
Reproductive Health. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers.
Pulhin, J. M., et al. (2002). Adoption of Soil and Water Conservation Technologies in an
Upland Community in Impasug-ong, Bukidnon, Philippines. Journal of
Environmental Science and Management. Vol. 5, Nos. 1-2, 2002.
Quebral, N.C.Q. (1973). What Do We Mean by “Development Communication.”

International Development Review, Vol. 15 (2): 25-28.
Reyes, J. R. (1994). Technology Transfer is Not All Technology. Agriculture at Los Baños.
Special Issue, Vol. 1 No. 2, 1994.
Rogers, E. M. (1973). Communication Strategies for Family Planning. New York: The Free
Press.
__________. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. (3rd ed.) New York: The Free Press.
__________. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.) New York: The Free Press.
Rola, A. (2000). Research Program Planning for Natural Resource Management: A

Background Analysis. Discussion Paper Series No. 2000-09. Makati City: Philippine
Institute for Development Studies.
Ronan, D.J.M. (2008). Fisherfolks’ Perceptions on the Communication Strategy Used by the
LLDA-JFPT to Communicate Risks of Janitor Fish Proliferation. Unpublished
undergraduate thesis. College, Laguna: College of Development Communication.
Sabban, M.V.P.M. (1993). Assessment of Malabog II Agroforestry Project.

http://serp-p.pids.gov.ph/details.php3?tid=1503 (29 Mar 2009).
149
Selnow, G.W. & W.D. Crano (1987). Planning, Implementing, and Evaluating Targeted
Communication Programs: A Manual for Business Communicators. New York:
Quorum Books.
Syafar, A. (2000). Communication variables and adoption of recommended practices by rice

farmers in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Unpublished M.S. thesis. College, Laguna:
College of Development Communication.
White, L. (2003). Communication Strategies to Promote Behaviour Change in

HIV/AIDS/STI Programmes: A case study of Jamaica 1999-2003. Mona, Jamaica:
University of West Indies.
Windahl, S., B. Signitzer & J.T. Olson (1992). Using Communication Theory: An
Introduction to Planned Communication. USA: SAGE Publications.
150
APPENDIX A: LETTERS OF CORRESPONDENCE
UNIVERSITY of the PHILIPPINES LOS BAÑOS
College, Laguna 4031, Philippines
Tels.: (63.49) 536–2446 (63.49) 536–2511 (63.49) 536–2433 (63.49) 536–3697 (63.49) 536–3356
TeleFax: (63.49) 536–2429
Email: mail@devcom.edu.ph or inquire@devcom.edu.ph Website: http://www.devcom.edu.ph
October 21, 2009
Ms. Dina Gaviola-Pitao

Project In-Charge
DA Agri-Kalikasan Program
Dear Ma’am:
Good day! I am Eula Marie DC. Mangaoang, a fourth year student taking up BS Development
Communication at the University of the Philippines at Los Baños. As part of the requirements of
the subject DEVC 198 (Undergraduate Research in Communication), I am going to conduct a
research study entitled, “Factors in the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program Communication
Strategy Influencing Farmers’ Adoption Level of the Modified Rapid Composting (MRC)
Technology in Leyte, Philippines.” This study generally aims to determine what factors in the
communication strategy of the program encouraged its farmer-participants to change their rice
straw management practices.
In this regard, I would like to ask for your support and assistance regarding the conduct of my
research study. I would also like to ask permission from you to allow me to conduct a survey on
the farmers participating in the program.
Rest assured that the findings will solely be for academic purposes, and will be very helpful in
the conduct of my study. For further inquiries, you may contact this number: 09286204768.
I hope for you favorable response regarding this matter. Thank you very much.
Sincerely yours,
EULA MARIE DC. MANGAOANG

Student
Noted:
PROF. MA. STELLA C. TIROL

Adviser
151
Tels.: (63.49) 536–2446 (63.49) 536–2511 (63.49) 536–2433 (63.49) 536–3697 (63.49) 536–3356
TeleFax: (63.49) 536–2429
October 21, 2009 Email: mail@devcom.edu.ph or inquire@devcom.edu.ph Website: http://www.devcom.edu.ph
October 21, 2009
Mr. Rogelio O. Portula

Officer-in-Charge (OIC)
Provincial Agriculturist
Department of Agriculture Regional Office VIII
Dear Ma’am:
Good day! I am Eula Marie DC. Mangaoang, a fourth year student taking up BS
Development Communication at the University of the Philippines at Los Baños. As part of
the requirements of the subject DEVC 198 (Undergraduate Research in Communication), I
am going to conduct a research study entitled, “Factors in the DA Agri-Kalikasan
Program Communication Strategy Influencing Farmers’ Adoption Level of the
Modified Rapid Composting (MRC) Technology in Leyte, Philippines.” This study
generally aims to determine what factors in the communication strategy of the program
encouraged its farmer-participants to change their rice straw management practices.
In this regard, I would like to ask from your good office support and assistance regarding the
conduct of my research study. I would also like to ask permission from you to allow me to
conduct a survey on the farmers participating in the program. Rest assured that the findings
will solely be for academic purposes, and will be very helpful in the conduct of my study. For
further inquiries, you may contact this number: 09286204768.
Sincerely yours,

Student
Noted:

Adviser
152
Tels.: (63.49) 536–2446 (63.49) 536–2511 (63.49) 536–2433 (63.49) 536–3697 (63.49) 536–3356
TeleFax: (63.49) 536–2429
October 21, 2009
Ms. Dina Gaviola-Pitao

Project In-Charge
DA Agri-Kalikasan Program
Dear Ma’am:
am going to conduct a research study entitled, “Factors in the DA Agri-Kalikasan
In this regard, I would like to arrange for a focus group discussion (FGD) with you and the
program staff. This will tackle on the communication strategy of the DA Agri-Kalikasan
Program in promoting the modified rapid composting (MRC) technology. Rest assured that
the findings will solely be for academic purposes, and will be very helpful in the conduct of
my study. For further inquiries, you may contact this number: 09286204768.
Sincerely yours,

Student
Noted:

Adviser
153
Tels.: (63.49) 536–2446 (63.49) 536–2511 (63.49) 536–2433 (63.49) 536–3697 (63.49) 536–3356
TeleFax: (63.49) 536–2429
October 22, 2009
Mr. Rogelio O. Portula

Officer-in-Charge (OIC)
Office of the Provincial Agriculturist
Department of Agriculture Regional Office VIII
Tacloban City
Dear Sir:
am going to conduct a thesis research study entitled, “Factors in the DA Agri-Kalikasan
In this regard, I would like to ask from your good office support and assistance regarding the
conduct of my research study, particularly coordination of prospective respondents for the
conduct of the field survey and support staff from your office to provide guide and support in
the conduct of the survey itself. Rest assured that the findings will solely be for academic
purposes, and the final output of which your office will be provided a copy of for your
reference. Attached herewith is a copy of the field survey itinerary for your reference and
guide. For further inquiries, you may contact this number: 09286204768.
Hoping for your favorable response regarding this matter. Thank you very much.
Sincerely yours,

Thesis Research Student
cc: Ms Dina Gaviola-Pitao

Prof. Ma. Stella C. Tirol
154
APPENDIX B: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR
FARMER-COOPERATORS
FACTORS IN THE COMMUNICATION STRATEGY OF THE DA AGRI-KALIKASAN PROGRAM
INFLUENCING FARMERS’ ADOPTON STAGE OF THE MODIFIED RAPID
COMPOSTING TECHNOLOGY IN LEYTE, PHILIPPINES
Survey Questionnaire for Farmer-Cooperators of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program
PLACE OF INTERVIEW:________________________ DATE OF

INTERVIEW:_____________
NAME OF FARMER-COOPERATOR:_____________________________
A. Information sources on the MRC technology
1. Where do you usually get technical information and skills on the use of the Modified
Rapid Composting (MRC) Technology? (You may choose more than one.)
_____Neighbors/Fellow farmers
_____Relatives
_____Extension agent
_____DA Agri-Kalikasan Program Staff
_____Farm technician
_____Mass media
_____Print
_____Radio
_____TV
_____Others (Pls. specify) ____________________
2. a. How credible is/are these source/s to you (5-very credible, 4- credible, 3- can’t say/no
idea, 2- not credible, 1- not very credible)? Please check the appropriate box under the
number.
b. Why? (Please provide the reason on the column provided.)
Source Perceived credibility Reason

1 2 3 4 5
Neighbors/Fellow
farmers
Relatives
Extension agent
DA Agri-Kalikasan
Program Staff
Print
Radio
TV
Others(Pls. specify)
155
3. a. How often do you access these sources for technical information and skills on the
MRC technology (5- always, 4- very often, 3- sometimes, 2-rarely, 1- never)? Please
check the box under the number of your answer.
Source of Information Frequency of Reason

access
1 2 3 4 5
Neighbors/Fellow
farmers
Relatives
Extension agent
DA Agri-Kalikasan
Program Staff
Print
Radio
TV
B. Messages about MRC technology brought by DA Agri-Kalikasan program
1. Which of the messages about the MRC technology did you encounter from the DA Agri-
Kalikasan Program? (You may choose more than one.)
_____ Steps in preparing the compost
_____ Steps in applying the compost to the field
_____ Practical benefits of the MRC technology to the farmer
_____ Economic benefits of the MRC technology
_____ Environmental benefits of the MRC technology
_____ Drawbacks of the MRC technology
_____ Others (Pls. specify) ________________________________________________
2. a. How clear are the messages about MRC technology to you (5- very clear, 4- clear, 3-
can’t say, 2- not clear, 1- not very clear)? Please check on the box under the number of
your answer.
Message Degree of clarity Reason

1 2 3 4 5
Steps in preparing the
compost
Steps in applying the
Practical benefits of the
MRC technology to the
farmer
Economic benefits of
the MRC technology
Environmental benefits
156
Drawbacks of the MRC
technology
3. a. How understandable are the messages about MRC technology to you (5- very
understandable, 4- understandable, 3- can’t say, 2- not understandable, 1- not very
understandable)? Please check on the box under the number of your answer.
Message Degree of Reason

comprehension
1 2 3 4 5
compost
farmer
the MRC technology
technology
4. a. Were the messages about the MRC technology shared to you completely? On a scale
of 1 to 5, how would you rate the completeness of these messages? Please check on the
box under the number of your answer that corresponds to the following scale:
1 – 20% complete 4 – 80% complete

2 – 40% complete 5 – 100% complete
3 – 60% compete
.

Message Degree of Reason
completeness
1 2 3 4 5
compost
farmer
the MRC technology
157
technology
Others (Pls. specify)
5. a. How interesting are these messages to you (5- very interesting, 4- interesting, 3- can’t
say, 2- not interesting, 1- not very interesting)? Please check the box under the number
of your answer.

Message Perceived degree of Reason
interest
1 2 3 4 5
compost
farmer
the MRC technology
technology
C. Channels used to disseminate information about MRC technology
1. What communication channel did the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program use to help you learn
more about MRC technology? (You may choose more than one.)
_____Use of mass media
_____Print ads
_____Radio programs
_____TV programs
_____Others (Pls. specify)__________
_____Use of interpersonal channels
_____Seminars/Trainings
_____Personal visits
_____Field demonstrations
_____Others (Pls. specify) _______________
2. a. How often do you turn to these channels to look for technical information and skills on
the MRC technology (5- always, 4- very often, 3- sometimes, 2- rarely, 1- seldom)?
Please check on the box under the number of your answer.

Channel Frequency of Reason
access
158
1 2 3 4 5
Print ad
Radio program
TV program
Seminar/Training
Personal visit
Field demonstration
3. a. How interesting are these channels to you (5- very interesting, 4- interesting, 3- can’t
say, 2- not interesting, 1- not very interesting)? Please check the box under the number
of your answer.
Channel Perceived degree of Reason

interest
1 2 3 4 5
Print ad
Radio program
TV program
Seminar/Training
Personal visit
Field demonstration
D. Receiver variables
1. To what extent do you think you need MRC technology?

_____Highly needed
_____Needed
_____Not needed
2. How do you feel about the following statements regarding MRC technology?
Statements about the MRC Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly

technology agree agree nor disagree
disagree
a. MRC helps address the
increasing cost of inorganic
fertilizers and other farming
supplies.
b. In MRC, the time of
composting is shortened from
three months to around three
weeks.
c. MRC improves soil
condition, making it more fertile
and productive.
d. When combined with
inorganic fertilizers, MRC yields
more rice than when using
159
completely inorganic fertilizer.
e. MRC helps address the
problem of rice straw burning.
E. Level of Technology Adoption
(KNOWLEDGE STAGE)
1. a. Which of the following messages about the MRC technology do you recall? Please
check on the box under the number of your answer.
Message Recalled message? Reason

Yes No
compost
farmer
Economic benefits of the
MRC technology
technology
2. Can you explain or describe what the MRC technology is? (Write the answer on the
space provided.)
3. Can you briefly describe the steps in using the MRC technology. (Write the answer on
the space provided.)
(PERSUASION STAGE)
a. Do you discuss the MRC technology with others?

_____Yes _____No
b. If yes, with whom? ___family ___friends ___fellow farmers

___others, please specify______________________________
c. Why?
__________________________________________________________________
160
4. a. Do they disapprove or approve of the technology? Why?
Approve Disapprove Reason

Family
Friends
Fellow farmers
Others(pls. specify)
5. a. Do you disapprove or approve of the technology?

_____ approve _____ disapprove
b. Why?
__________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
__
(DECISION STAGE)
6. a. Did you plan to consult technology providers about the MRC technology?
_____Yes _____No
b. Why?
____________________________________________________________________
7. a. Did you plan to use the MRC technology?

_____Yes _____No
b. Why?
___________________________________________________________________
(IMPLEMENTATION STAGE)
8. a. Did you approach the technology providers and support agencies (e.g. Department of
Agriculture, NGOs, etc.) to avail of the MRC technology?
_____Yes _____No
b. Why?
___________________________________________________________________
9. a. Are you currently using the MRC technology?

_____Yes _____No
b. Why?
___________________________________________________________________
(CONFIRMATION STAGE)
a. What are the drawbacks or problems that you have encountered in using the
technology?
_______________________________________________________________________
___
10. a. Do you continue to use MRC technology?

_____Yes _____No
161
b. Why?
_______________________________________________________________________
11. a. Did you encourage other people to use the MRC technology?
_____Yes _____No
b. Why?
_______________________________________________________________________
F. Problems Encountered and Areas for Improvement
1. a. Did you encounter any problems regarding the use of the MRC technology?
_____Yes _____No
b. If yes, what are these problems?
___________________________________________________________________
c.Have these problems been addressed?

_____Yes _____No
d. If yes, how were these problems addressed by DA-Agrikalikasan Program
implementers? Or if no, how do you think should these problems be addressed?
___________________________________________________________________
____
2. What can you suggest to DA Agri-Kalikasan Program implementers to help improve the
promotion of the MRC technology?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
G. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Farmers

1. Age: _____
2. Sex:
_____Male _____Female
3. Household Size: _____
4. Civil Status:
_____Single
_____ Married
_____ Separated
_____ Widowed
5. Educational Attainment:
_____ Elementary/elementary graduate
_____High school/high school graduate
_____College/College graduate
6. Number of MRC-related trainings attended: _____
7. Tenurial Status:
_____Full Ownership
_____Ownership under certificate of land transfer (CLT)
_____Tenant
_____ Leasee
_____ Rent free
_____ Others (Pls. specify)__________
8. Annual yield in rice production: __________
9. Annual income in rice production: __________
10. Number of years in farming: _____
162
11. Support Services Availed of (e.g. technical, financial, or information support from
government agencies or NGOs)
____________________________________________________________
THANK YOU!
163
APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR KEY INFORMANTS
Interview Guide for DA Agri-Kalikasan Program Project Coordinator and Staff
Date:
Location:
Time (approx.):
Name of Interviewee:
Designation:
A. Purpose of Interview:
1. To determine the general profile of the farmer-participants of the DA Agri-
Kalikasan Program;
2. To identify the information sources from which the farmer-participants of the DA
Agri-Kalikasan Program get technical knowledge and practical skills on the
Modified Rapid Composting (MRC) technology;
3. To determine the important messages or information on the Modified Rapid
Composting (MRC) technology used in the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program;
4. To find out what channels are commonly used in the DA Agri-Kalikasan
Program to disseminate messages about the MRC technology to the farmers;
and
5. Identify some problems encountered by the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program staff in
implementing the program and promoting the MRC technology.
B. Discussion Themes
1. General profile of the farmer-participants of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program
a. How did the farmer-participants join the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program?
Were there information campaigns done to encourage farmers to
participate in the program?
b. Are there any qualifications or requirements for a farmer to become a
participant in the program? What are these?
c. How are farmer-participants oriented with the DA Agri-Kalikasan
Program? Are there regular meetings and briefings held?
d. From what age brackets are these farmer participants? Are they
generally poor or well-to-do farmers?
2. Information sources of the farmer-participants of the DA Agri-Kalikasan

Program
a. Where do the farmer-participants usually get technical knowledge and
skills about the MRC technology? Do they get these from extension
agents, personal networks, or fellow farmers?
b. What do you think are the factors which make these sources easily
accessible to the farmer-participants?
164
c. What are the limiting factors which hinder their access to these
sources?
3. Messages about the MRC technology

a. What are the important features or characteristics of the MRC
technology which the program usually shares with the farmer-
participants?
b. What are the limitations or drawbacks of the MRC technology which the
program shares with the farmer-participants?
c. How are these messages designed to help farmers understand clearly
the benefits and drawbacks of the technology?
d. How often are the farmer-participants exposed to these messages?
e. How are these messages designed to arouse interest in farmers?
4. Channels used to disseminate messages about the MRC technology

a. How do the messages on the MRC technology usually get to the farmer-
participants? Are there activities conducted to help them acquire these
messages?
b. How often are these activities conducted?
c. What are the approaches used to help disseminate messages to the
farmers? Is the information, education, persuasion, or entertainment
approach used? Or do you use a combination of approaches?
5. Needs and problems on the implementation of the DA Agri-Kalikasan

Program
a. What do you think is the current status of the program in promoting the
MRC technology?
b. In what way are the farmer-participants able to use the MRC technology?
c. What do you think are the factors which encourage farmer-participants to
use the MRC technology?
d. What are the factors which hinder them from using the MRC technology?
e. What are the problems encountered by the project staff in implementing
the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program?
f. How are these problems addressed? Or if they are not yet addressed,
what do you think could be the possible solutions to these problems?
C. Summary of Discussion Points
165
APPENDIX D: LIST OF KEY INFORMANTS AND INTERVIEW
TRANSCRIPTIONS
NAME DESIGNATION
Dina Gaviola-Pitao Project In-Charge, DA Agri-Kalikasan Program
Evangeline S. Garing Head, Office of the Provincial Agriculturist – Soils and

Fertility Unit
Armando B. Arcamo Regional Coordinator, Soil and Water Conservation

Unit, DA Regional Office VIII
Amado P. Acasio City Agriculturist, Maasin City, Leyte
Asteria Songalia Municipal Agricultural Officer (MAO), Palo, Leyte
Teresita Lequin Municipal Agricultural Technician and OIC-MAO, Sta.

Fe, Leyte
Luzviminda Bidua MAO, Alang-alang, Leyte
Elisa Canaber Secretary, Municipal Agriculturist’s Office, Jaro, Leyte
Glenn Calungsod Municipal Agricultural Technician (MAT), Municipal

Agriculturists’ Office, Palo, Leyte
Maridel Sison MAT, Babatngon, Leyte
Nestor Patorza MAT, Alang-alang, Leyte
Rosenda Pajares MAT, San Miguel, Leyte
Roberto Modesto MAT, Barugo, Leyte
Rowena Lacandazo MAT, Kananga, Leyte
Emilinda Alabado MAT, Hindang, Leyte
Delia Gilionadastica MAT, Matalom, Leyte
Lydia Avanzado MAT, Hilongos, Leyte
Melissa Sia MAT, Mayorga, Leyte
Consuelo A. MAT, Abuyog, Leyte

Mercado
Flor Villar-Oraño MAT, Mahaplag, Leyte
Consuelo Balingkit MAT, Maasin, Southern Leyte
166
RESULTS OF PERSONAL INTERVIEWS WITH DA AGRI-KALIKASAN PROGRAM STAFF AND
IMPLEMENTORS
A. Glenn Calungsod, Agricultural Technician, MAO, Bato, Leyte

1. How farmers joined DA Agri- Information campaigns were made through house-to-house
Kalikasan Program scouting or personal visits by agricultural technicians and
through meetings held by farmer leaders
Interested farmers were identified
2. Criteria/requirements for joining the No specific requirements; legitimate rice farmer
program
3. Orientating farmer-cooperators Orientation held before implementing the program through
involved in the program meeting with agricultural technicians
4. Information sources of farmer- Agricultural technicians, fellow-farmers, and the staff in the
cooperators Municipal Agricultural Office (MAO) in Bato
5. Factors facilitating access to Convenient ways of communication such as texting
information sources
Sites/areas were easily accessible since they were along the
highways and near the municipal office
6. Factors hindering access to Passivity of farmers, “wait-and-see” attitude which affects

information sources their interest in using the technology
7. Messages about the The MRC composting process itself

benefits/features of MRC technology
commonly shared with farmers
8. Drawbacks/problems of MRC Supply of the compost fungus activator (CFA) is not directly
technology commonly shared with or commercially available
farmers
9. Channels facilitating the sharing of Trainings, seminars and meetings are not regularly held,
messages about MRC technology sometimes conducted when farmers need these or when
with farmers they are interested in these activities
Information and education approaches are used
10. Other factors which encourage Farmers become interested especially when they can try the
farmers to use the MRC technology technology
Availability of resources would also encourage the farmers

to use the technology
11. Other factors which hinder the use Lack of resources or farming supplies
of MRC technology Results of the technology are not immediately seen
Farmers’ passivity or “wait-and-see” attitude
12. Current status of the DA Agri- MRC per se is not practiced because of the lack of CFA
Kalikasan Program implementation (Trichoderma) supply; the farmers, however, have not
burned rice straw anymore, and went to letting the rice straw
rot in the field (traditional composting without CFA)
13. Suggestions for improvement Multimedia approach which could arouse interest in farmers
More resources needed for MRC technology
B. Armand B. Arcamo, Soils and Water Quality Coordinator, Regional Soils Laboratory, DA Regional
Office VIII, Tacloban City, Leyte
1. Criteria/requirements for joining the Site selection: areas where rice straw burning is rampant
program and which had low yield were chosen as sites for the MRC
technology
167
Farmers who were not usually capable of buying external
inputs were chosen as farmer-cooperators or model farmers
for the MRC technology; farmers should be willing to use a
part of their farm as techno-demo sites and support the
program as a whole
2. Orientating farmer-cooperators Before the cropping season, farmer-cooperators were

involved in the program briefed on the importance of the MRC technology and what
it can give the farmers
Aside from the farmers, agricultural technicians were also

trained on Trichoderma production and soil sampling
through the MAO conference held in each province
3. Information sources of farmer- Agricultural technicians

cooperators
4. Factors facilitating access to Farmers’ interest
information sources
5. Factors hindering access to Sites were far from the Central Office
information sources
6. Messages about the The MRC composting process itself, and the benefits of the
benefits/features of MRC technology technology, which includes the amount of biomass material
commonly shared with farmers produced by composting, nutrient recycling, and hastened
decomposition of rice straw
Burning of rice straw is also highly discouraged
Farmers are basically instilled with the “application”of the

technology, contrary to the theoretical information shared
with the technicians
7. Drawbacks/problems of MRC Precautions in applying Trichoderma

technology commonly shared with
farmers
8. Channels facilitating the sharing of Techno-demo sites, site visits made by technicians at each
messages about MRC technology stage of rice growing: mid-tillering, panicle-initiating, and
with farmers maturity stages
Yield and cost analyses are conducted and compared

between MRC and non-MRC farms, and data are shared
with farmers so they could see the difference in yield and
cost incurred
9. Other factors which encourage Cost-reduction, free inputs for using MRC technology
farmers to use the MRC technology
10. Other factors which hinder the use Inputs were not always available because the sites were far
of MRC technology from the Central Office and they usually came in late
11. Current status of the DA Agri- Stopped due to lack of budget for inputs, but some towns
Kalikasan Program implementation still sustained the program (from national-led to LGU-led
program)
Project was implemented only in one cropping season, then

the supply was stopped
12. Problems/Suggestions for Program should be sustained or continued

improvement
More massive information and education campaign to
discourage rice straw burning and encourage farmers to be
168
environment-friendly
C. Maridel Sison, Agricultural Technician, MAO, Babatngon, Leyte

1. How farmers joined DA Agri- Sites should be adjacent and water-impounding, and farmers
Kalikasan Program should be willing to adopt the technology
2. Criteria/requirements for joining the An orientation seminar for the farmers on the use of MRC
program technology was conducted at Visca (now Visayas State
University or VSU)
Aside from that, the technicians also conduct personal visits
3. Orientating farmer-cooperators Agricultural technicians, Reading materials

involved in the program
4. Information sources of farmer- Farmers were convinced that the organic fertilizer from MRC is
cooperators effective and is environment-friendly
The research site or techno-demo site is also accessible to the

farmers
5. Factors facilitating access to None

information sources
6. Factors hindering access to The MRC technology process, and the benefits of MRC such as
information sources less inorganic fertilizer and lesser expenses on farm inputs, and
environmental benefits
7. Messages about the benefits/features Farmers were not much concerned with the drawbacks, so
of MRC technology commonly shared technicians did not usually discuss these with them
with farmers
8. Drawbacks/problems of MRC Personal visits made by agricultural technicians when they
technology commonly shared with periodically monitor the techno-demo sites
farmers
These visits are part of the agricultural technicians’ job, so they
are able to regularly visit the sites
Information approach was used; farmers were not usually

persuaded to use the technology
9. Channels facilitating the sharing of The farmers themselves are interested about the technology
messages about MRC technology because they could see the results
with farmers
10. Other factors which encourage Different seed varieties are used in one site, even though only
farmers to use the MRC technology one variety should be used
The sites also lacked irrigation or water supply
11. Other factors which hinder the use of Project was implemented only in one cropping season
MRC technology
12. Current status of the DA Agri- Personally, it was difficult for the technicians to convince the
Kalikasan Program implementation farmers of the benefits of the MRC technology; ways should be
explored to help them see these benefits
Inputs should constantly be provided
14. Suggestions for improvement
169
D. Asteria Songalia, Municipal Agriculturist, MAO, Palo, Leyte
1. Criteria/requirements for joining the The farm should be compact and should have an area of at
program least 5 ha.
Farm should be well-irrigated and certified seeds should be

used
Guidelines for implementing the MRC technology were also

laid out
2. Information sources of farmer- Agricultural technicians, provincial seed growers

cooperators
3. Factors facilitating access to Farmers already have pre-existing knowledge on
information sources composting, which they believe could be enhanced if they
avail of information about the technology
4. Factors hindering access to None

information sources
5. Messages about the Free inputs upon the use of MRC technology to be provided
benefits/features of MRC by the program, technical assistance
farmers
6. Drawbacks/problems of MRC Materials for implementing the MRC technology were limited
farmers
7. Channels facilitating the sharing of Personal visits made by agricultural technicians when they
messages about MRC technology periodically monitor the techno-demo sites
with farmers
Visits were conducted once a week
8. Other factors which encourage The farmers had high educational attainment
farmers to use the MRC technology
9. Other factors which hinder the use Different seed varieties are used in one site, even though
of MRC technology only one variety should be used
The sites also lacked irrigation or water supply
10. Current status of the DA Agri- There was no significant problem on the implementation of
Kalikasan Program implementation the MRC technology among the farmer-cooperators
11. Problems/Suggestions for Program should be continued
improvement
E. Teresita Lequin, Agricultural Technician and OIC-MAO, Sta. Fe, Leyte

1. How farmers joined DA Agri- Farmers were personally called on by the technicians
Kalikasan Program
2. Criteria/requirements for joining There was no specific criteria for choosing farmer-
the program cooperators, as long as one is a farmer
3. Orientating farmer-cooperators Orientation was done once per cropping season
4. Information sources of farmer- MAO, technicians
cooperators
5. Factors facilitating access to Sites were easily accessible to the technicians
information sources
6. Factors hindering access to Farmers did not have difficulty accessing the technicians for
information sources information on MRC
170
7. Messages about the Application of MRC technology, practical and environmental
benefits/features of MRC benefits in using MRC technology (e.g. less expenses, less
technology commonly shared with pollution)
farmers
8. Drawbacks/problems of MRC None
farmers
9. Channels facilitating the sharing of MAFC meetings which are attended by representatives from
messages about MRC technology each barangay, personal visits
with farmers
Farmers are usually encouraged to use the technology
(persuasion approach)
10. Current status of the DA Agri- Other farmers are not easily convinced on the use of MRC,
Kalikasan Program such as those who could afford the technology
implementation
11. Problems/Suggestions for There was no problem on the communication with farmers
improvement
Promotion of the technology should be continued
Results from the techno-demo sites should be seen by the

farmers
F. Luzviminda Bidua, MAO, Alang-alang, Leyte

1. How farmers joined DA Agri- Farmers saw the demonstration farms and were
Kalikasan Program encouraged to join the program
2. Criteria/requirements for joining No specific requirements; legitimate rice farmer

the program
cooperators
4. Factors facilitating access to Technicians were assigned to monitor 5 barangays
information sources
5. Factors hindering access to Technicians could not easily get to the barangays, and the
information sources budget for their traveling and expense vouchers (TEV) were
insufficient
6. Messages about the Benefits of the MRC technology such as less expenses on
benefits/features of MRC inorganic fertilizer
farmers
7. Drawbacks/problems of MRC None
farmers
8. Channels facilitating the sharing of Farmer classes, lectures, and hands-on trainings which
messages about MRC technology were held once every cropping season
with farmers
9. Other factors which encourage Farmers should be able to use the technology
farmers to use the MRC
technology
10. Other factors which hinder the use Farmers are a bit “lazy”; one has to have patience to
of MRC technology convince them of the technology
Technicians are not given enough budget for traveling and

other expenses to carry out their job in sharing information
with the farmers
171
11. Problems/Suggestions for Farmers should be self-reliant
improvement
Monitoring should be constant; technicians should keep
track of how the farmer-cooperators are doing
G. Nestor Patorza, Agricultural Technician, MAO, Alang-alang, Leyte

1. Messages about the Steps in preparing and applying MRC, irrigating the MRC
benefits/features of MRC site, and the advantages of MRC
farmers
2. Drawbacks/problems of MRC Composting rice straw takes some time
farmers
3. Channels facilitating the sharing of Personal visits are made by agricultural technicians once a
messages about MRC technology week
with farmers
4. Current status of the DA Agri- The program did not continue because of lack of funds
Kalikasan Program implementation
5. Problems/Suggestions for Minor problems were encountered in communicating with
improvement farmers; others were difficult to contact
The campaign for promoting MRC and discouraging rice

straw burning should be continued
More farmers should be encouraged to use MRC
Inputs, especially the CFA, should be provided constantly
H. Elisa Canaber, Secretary, MAO, Jaro, Leyte

1. How farmers joined DA Agri- Some farmers joined the program at their own discretion,
Kalikasan Program while others were selected to become participants or
cooperators
Information campaigns through personal visits were made
2. Criteria/requirements for joining the Farm area should be at least 1 ha, and it should be located
program along the road
3. Orientating farmer-cooperators Meetings were constantly held before the planting season
4. Information sources of farmer- MAO and agricultural technicians
cooperators
5. Factors facilitating access to Agricultural technicians themselves visit the farms, so the
information sources farmers did not have problems consulting them
6. Factors hindering access to None

information sources
7. Messages about the Free inputs upon availing MRC
benefits/features of MRC
farmers
8. Drawbacks/problems of MRC Diseases that come along with MRC
farmers
9. Channels facilitating the sharing of Personal visits and updates, techno-guides, pamphlets,
172
messages about MRC technology personal visits by agricultural technicians, or personal visits
with farmers to the office by farmers
Farmers do not always avail of the information from the

MAO and technicians, they would approach them for seeds
and other inputs or when their rice plants are struck down
with disease
10. Suggestions for improvement Farmers are hard to persuade or convince about using MRC
Farmers and technicians alike should be trained well on new

methods of farming
There should be sustained financial support to be able to

acquire supplies for MRC
I. Rosenda Pajares, Agricultural Technician, San Miguel, Leyte
Kalikasan Program scouting or personal visits by agricultural technicians and
through meetings held by farmer leaders
Interested farmers were identified
2. Criteria/requirements for joining the No specific requirements; legitimate rice farmer

program
4. Information sources of farmer- Agricultural technicians, fellow-farmers, and the staff in the
cooperators Municipal Agricultural Office (MAO) in Bato
5. Factors facilitating access to Convenient ways of communication such as texting

information sources
Sites/areas were easily accessible since they were along
the highways and near the municipal office
6. Factors hindering access to Passivity of farmers, “wait-and-see” attitude which affects

information sources their interest in using the technology
7. Messages about the The MRC composting process itself

benefits/features of MRC
farmers
8. Drawbacks/problems of MRC Supply of the compost fungus activator (CFA) is not directly
technology commonly shared with or commercially available
farmers
9. Channels facilitating the sharing of Trainings, seminars and meetings are not regularly held,
messages about MRC technology sometimes conducted when farmers need these or when
with farmers they are interested in these activities
Information and education approaches are used
173
10. Other factors which encourage Farmers become interested especially when they can try the
farmers to use the MRC technology technology
Availability of resources would also encourage the farmers

to use the technology
11. Other factors which hinder the Lack of resources or farming supplies
use of MRC technology
Results of the technology are not immediately seen
Farmers’ passivity or “wait-and-see” attitude
12. Current status of the DA Agri- MRC per se is not practiced because of the lack of CFA
Kalikasan Program implementation (Trichoderma) supply; the farmers, however, have not
burned rice straw anymore, and went to letting the rice straw
rot in the field (traditional composting without CFA)
13. Suggestions for improvement Multimedia approach which could arouse interest in farmers
More resources needed for MRC technology
J. Roberto Modesto, Agricultural Technician, MAO, Barugo, Leyte
1. How farmers joined DA Agri- The program is downloaded from the LGUs and the Office of
Kalikasan Program the Provincial Agriculturist (OPA). Information campaigns
are being conducted
2. Criteria/requirements for joining the Farm should be irrigated, farmer should be innovative
program
3. Orientating farmer-cooperators Meetings, wherein protocol with guidelines is presented
4. Information sources of farmer- Extension agents
cooperators
5. Factors facilitating access to Personal visits of the agricultural technicians make it easier
information sources for farmers to access information from them
Availability of sources
6. Factors hindering access to The limitations set by the protocol or guidelines

information sources
7. Messages about the MRC as organic-based technology, combined with the
benefits/features of MRC technology principles of integrated pest management (IPM) and cultural
commonly shared with farmers practices of land preparation
Rice straw should not be burned
No drawbacks are shared with the farmers
8. Drawbacks/problems of MRC Problem with the terminal drainage—the supply of water is

technology commonly shared with affected by drainage and irrigation schedules set by the
farmers National Irrigation Authority (NIA), thus affecting growth of
Trichoderma
Lack of Trichoderma supply
9. Channels facilitating the sharing of Interpersonal channels, discussions, groups

messages about MRC technology
with farmers Brochures and other supplementary reading materials are
given during the discussions
174
Using the information, education and persuasion approach
These are done with every growing stage of the rice plants
(e.g. tillering stage, harvesting stage, etc.)
10. Other factors which encourage Free farm inputs for implementing MRC technology (e.g.
farmers to use the MRC technology CFA or Trichoderma, free seeds, chicken dung, etc.)
11. Other factors which hinder farmers Attitude of farmers and their waning receptiveness to new
from using the MRC technology farming technologies
12. Current status of the DA Agri- Instead of 3 years with continuous supply, implementation of
Kalikasan Program implementation the project was cut short to only one cropping season
13. Suggestions for improvement Project should be continuous so that benefits of the
technology would be seen even more by the farmers
K. Rowena Lacandazo, Agricultural Technician, Kananga, Leyte
1. How farmers joined DA Agri- Technicians individually recruit farmers who are willing to
Kalikasan Program participate in the project
2. Criteria/requirements for joining the One should be a legitimate rice farmer, whose farm is
program strategically located near the highways
Land should be well-irrigated
Farmer should be receptive or open for new technology
3. Orientating farmer-cooperators Group briefings with the farmers

4. Information sources of farmer- Extension agents
cooperators
5. Messages about the The MRC composting process itself, the benefits that could
benefits/features of MRC technology possibly be obtained from using the technology, which would
commonly shared with farmers also make the farmers interested about the technology
Rice straw burning is also strongly discouraged
Messages are presented in dialect, and by giving examples

and analogy to help farmers understand more
Combination of approaches
6. Channels facilitating the sharing of As the project progresses, agricultural technicians personally
messages about MRC technology discuss with the farmers messages or information on the use
with farmers of MRC; this was done weekly and on critical periods (e.g.
panicle and tillering stages of rice growth)
7. Current status of the DA Agri- MRC was only implemented in one cropping season in 2007
The impact made was that most of the farmers in the area
did not burn rice straw anymore
However, some burn rice straw to stop the spread of

disease, such as the tungro virus, which can only be
alleviated by burning
Other farmers are “hard-headed” (“matigas ang ulo”)
175
There was problem with the fertilizer recommendation since
some farmers could not afford to entirely apply MRC-based
organic fertilizer in their fields—inorganic fertilizers such as
complete and urea was to supplement the compost-based
fertilizer
Farmers were too receptive—they simply follow what the DA

staff and technicians tell them to do
8. Suggestions for improvement MRC is better promoted when it is introduced personally to

farmers and when they are able to see the results of the
technology
Continuous monitoring of the program should have been

done
L. Emilinda Alabado, Agricultural Technician, MAO, Hindang, Leyte
Kalikasan Program scouting or personal visits by agricultural technicians
2. Criteria/requirements for joining the Farmer should be willing to let his land be used for the
program implementation of the MRC technology
Site should be at least 0.5 ha in size, should be accessible

and visible along the roads, and should be compact so that
it would be easy for the technicians to collect data (e.g. soil
analysis samples, number of panicles and tillers, etc.) from
the field
3. Orientating farmer-cooperators One-on-one and group meetings with the agricultural

involved in the program technician
4. Information sources of farmer- Technicians, reading materials, activities such as farmers’
cooperators field days
5. Factors facilitating access to Farmer-to-farmer interaction makes it easier for fellow
information sources farmers to know more about MRC technology from their
personal networks
Pre-existing knowledge also helps farmers understand the

basic principles behind MRC technology
6. Factors hindering access to Farmers usually didn’t have the time to visit the MAO since
information sources they are busy working in the fields
7. Messages about the The MRC composting process itself, features of the MRC
benefits/features of MRC technology
farmers Free inputs await to those who would also practice MRC
technology
Messages are easily disseminated since they are presented

through informal discussions, which are conversational, and
because farmers are constantly asked for feedback
8. Channels facilitating the sharing of Technicians conduct weekly monitoring in the sites, and
messages about MRC technology personal visits are done regularly
with farmers
Demonstrations and field days are occasionally held, and
176
seminars were seldom conducted
The problem with weekly monitoring was that the delay of

the soil analysis results made it hard for the technicians to
relay the results of the MRC technology to the farmers
Education approach
9. Other factors which hinder the use Lack of resources or farming supplies
of MRC technology
Results of the technology are not immediately seen
One farmer shared that his skin got itchy while applying
MRC-based fertilizer in his field
10. Current status of the DA Agri- The project stopped because of lack of supplies
Technician then shared a related technology with the
farmers—the indigenous microorganism technology which,
like MRC, hastens decomposition of rice straw
The participant farmers, on the other hand, resorted to the

traditional way of composting rice straw, although it took
them longer to let the rice straw rot in the fields
11. Suggestions for improvement There should be easier access to communication materials
such as posters, pamphlets and others, so that farmers
could have better recall of the MRC technology
Farmers can only be motivated to use the MRC technology
if inputs are available and accessible
M. Delia Gillionadastican, Agricultural Technician, MAO, Matalom, Leyte
1. How farmers joined DA Agri- There was first a meeting among the technicians and staff of
Kalikasan Program the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program on the mechanics of MRC
implementation; what transpired during the meeting was
discussed with the farmers who could be possible
cooperators or participants in the program
2. Criteria/requirements for joining the Farmer should be willing to use his/her land for data
program collection and site of techno demonstrations
Site should be at least 5 ha in size, and should be compact

and maintained by one cooperator
Site should be along the road for others to see

3. Orientating farmer-cooperators Briefing with the technicians
cooperators
5. Factors facilitating access to Constant monitoring and site visits made by the technicians
information sources
6. Messages about the Features of the MRC technology, free inputs: 50 bags
benefits/features of MRC technology chicken dung; 15 bags urea; 20 bottles Trichoderma;
commonly shared with farmers guidelines in using the technology
Farmers did not always abide by the protocol or guidelines

for the use of the MRC technology because it did not suit
their needs
They also encountered a problem in applying the MRC-

based fertilizer with urea supplement; some farmers did not
177
want to use urea, while others argued that they used the
MRC-based fertilizer too early that the land could not have
rest or fallow periods
7. Channels facilitating the sharing of Personal visits by technicians

messages about MRC technology
with farmers
8. Other factors which hinder the use of Farmers were used to “dole-outs” or “spoonfeeding” so that
MRC technology they expected too much from the technicians
9. Current status of the DA Agri- The implementation of the MRC came out too late, since
Kalikasan Program implementation most of the farmers have already started planting rice at the
time it was implemented
Project was stopped, and since then, the farmers kept

looking for follow-ups of the MRC technology implementation
10. Suggestions for improvement Project should have been continued so that the farmers
could clearly see the results of the MRC technology and they
could digest the information given them by the technicians
Techno demos should be consistent
N. Lydia Avanzado, Agricultural Technician, MAO, Hilongos, Leyte
1. How farmers joined DA Agri- House-to-house scouting; technicians personally invited

Kalikasan Program farmers to join the program
2. Criteria/requirements for joining the Site should be 1-2 ha in size and should be well-irrigated,
program and the farmer should be willing to have his/her land used in
the program as a techno demo site

4. Messages about the The MRC composting process itself, the materials to be
benefits/features of MRC technology used in the MRC composting process, the benefits that a
commonly shared with farmers farmer could get from the MRC technology
5. Channels facilitating the sharing of Different media are used such as radio, reading materials,
messages about MRC technology visual aids, and others
with farmers
6. Other factors which hinder the use of Lack of resources or farming supplies
MRC technology
Water supply cannot be controlled, so there are times when
MRC fails because there is no water
7. Current status of the DA Agri- Because the project was stopped, the technicians opted to
Kalikasan Program implementation teach the farmers about IMO, an alternative form of MRC
There was no problem in terms of sharing information
8. Suggestions for improvement Radio, TV and other forms of mass media should be used to
disseminate information on the MRC technology
Irrigation should be improved
To clearly see the fruits of the MRC technology, project

should have been continued
178
O. Melissa Sia, Agricultural Technician, MAO, Mayorga, Leyte
1. How farmers joined DA Agri- Some farmers were selected by the implementers of the
Kalikasan Program program based on a set of criteria, while others were
interested
2. Criteria/requirements for joining the As long as the farmer was interested in joining the program
program
3. Orientating farmer-cooperators An orientation was conducted by the Agricultural Training
involved in the program Institute (ATI)
4. Information sources of farmer- Technicians
cooperators
5. Messages about the Benefits of the MRC technology, banning of open rice straw
benefits/features of MRC burning
farmers
6. Channels facilitating the sharing of Trainings among farmers are conducted, and technicians
messages about MRC technology also conduct weekly meetings
with farmers
7. Other factors which encourage Farmers already have pre-existing knowledge about
farmers to use the MRC technology composting, and they are also given incentives to further
encourage them to participate in the program
8. Current status of the DA Agri- Even if the project has stopped running, one farmer still
Kalikasan Program implementation practiced MRC technology, and was even awarded the
Gawad Saka award for being a model farmer
9. Suggestions for improvement There was no problem with regards to communicating the
MRC technology among the farmers, only that implementers
should approach the farmers
179
APPENDIX E: CROSS-TABULATION OF COMMUNICATION
VARIABLES AND ADOPTION LEVELS
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of clarity of messages with level or recall of messages about
MRC technology
2
MESSAGE X P CATEGORY LEVEL OF RECALL OF MESSAGE
VALUE VALUE No Low Moderate High
response recall recall recall
Steps in 51.773 0.000** Very clear 0 0 27 9
preparing the
compost
Somewhat clear 0 0 6 3
Somewhat 2 0 0 0
unclear
Steps in 39.695 0.000** Very clear 0 1 28 10
applying the
compost
Somewhat clear 0 0 4 3
Somewhat 2 0 1 0
unclear
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of comprehension of messages with level of recall of messages

about MRC technology
2
MESSAGE X value P value Category Level of recall of message
No Low Moderate High
Steps in 31.123 0.000** Very 0 0 25 9
preparing the understandable
compost
Somewhat 1 0 8 2
understandable
No idea 0 0 0 1
Somewhat not 1 0 0 0
understandable
Steps in 33.127 0.001** Very 0 1 26 10
applying the understandable
compost
Somewhat 1 0 7 2
understandable
No idea 0 0 0 1
Somewhat not 1 0 0 0
understandable
Environmental 8.073 0.018* Very 0 0 26 11
benefits understandable
Somewhat 0 1 5 0
understandable
180
Cross-tabulation of perceived completeness of messages with level of recall of messages about MRC
technology
MESSAGE X2 P value Category Level of recall of message
value No Low Moderate High
Steps in 26.842 0.001** 100% 0 0 15 8
preparing the complete
compost
80% 1 0 16 3
complete
60% 0 0 2 1
complete
40% 1 0 0 0
complete
Steps in applying 28.952 0.004** 100% 0 1 16 9
the compost complete
80% 1 0 15 3
complete
60% 0 0 2 1
complete
40% 1 0 0 0
complete
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of interest on messages with level of recall of messages about MRC
technology
MESSAGE X2 P value Category Level of recall of message
value No Low recall Moderat High
response e recall recall
Practical benefits 10.386 0.016* Very interesting 0 0 26 12
of the compost to
the farmer
Somewhat 0 1 6 1
interesting
Environmental 9.096 0.011* Very interesting 0 0 27 11
benefits
Somewhat 0 1 4 0
interesting
181
Cross-tabulation of perceived attitude towards MRC technology with level of recall of messages
2
VARIABLE X P Category Level of recall of message
value value No Low Moderate High
In MRC, the time of 17.902 0.022* Strongly agree 0 1 25 11
composting is shortened
from three months to
around three weeks.
Agree 1 0 7 2
Neither agree nor 1 0 1 0
disagree
When combined with 33.982 0.001* Strongly agree 1 1 26 12
inorganic fertilizers, MRC *
yields more rice than
when using completely
inorganic fertilizer.
Agree 0 0 6 0
disagree
Disagree 0 0 1 1
MRC helps address the 24.613 0.002* Strongly agree 2 1 28 12
problem of rice straw *
burning.
Agree 0 0 3 1
disagree
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of clarity of messages with extent of knowledge about MRC
technology
2
MESSAGE X P value Category Extent of knowledge about
value MRC
Low Moderate High
Steps in preparing 18.339 0.001** Very clear 3 14 19
the compost
Somewhat clear 0 3 6
Somewhat unclear 2 0 0
Steps in applying the 14.515 0.006** Very clear 3 16 20
compost
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of comprehension of messages with the extent of knowledge

about MRC technology
2
MESSAGE X P value Category Extent of knowledge about
value MRC
Low Moderate High
Environmental 6.063 0.048* Very understandable 3 17 17
benefits
Somewhat 0 0 6
understandable
182
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of interest of messages and the extent of knowledge about
MRC technology
2
MESSAGE X P value Category Extent of knowledge about MRC
value Low Moderate High
Practical benefits of 8.135 0.017* Very interesting 3 18 17
the compost to the
farmer
Somewhat interesting 0 0 8
Cross-tabulation of perceived attitude towards MRC technology and extent of knowledge about MRC
technology
2
VARIABLE X P value Category Extent of knowledge about MRC
When combined with 13.148 0.041* Strongly agree 4 14 22
inorganic fertilizers, MRC
yields more rice than
when using completely
Agree 0 2 4
Neither agree nor 1 0 0
disagree
Disagree 0 2 0
Cross-tabulation of perceived credibility of information sources with the Extent of knowledge on steps
in MRC technology
2
INFORMATION X P value Category Extent of knowledge on steps
SOURCE value in MRC
Low Moderate High
Farm technician 23.128 0.000** Very credible 0 13 23
Somewhat credible 0 2 6
Somewhat uncredible 1 0 1
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of clarity of messages with the Extent of knowledge on steps in
MRC technology
2
MESSAGE X P value Category Extent of knowledge on steps in
value MRC
Low Moderate High
Steps in preparing the 24.987 0.000** Very clear 0 15 21
compost
Steps in applying the 22.420 0.000** Very clear 0 16 23
compost
Practical benefits of 4.840 0.028* Very clear 0 17 22
the compost to the
farmer
183
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of comprehension of messages with the Extent of knowledge on
steps in MRC technology
2
MESSAGE X P value Category Extent of knowledge on steps in
value MRC
Low Moderate High
Steps in preparing the 47.857 0.000** Very understandable 0 13 21
compost
Somewhat 0 5 6
understandable
No idea 0 0 1
Somewhat not 1 0 0
understandable
Steps in applying the 50.383 0.000** Very understandable 0 13 24
compost
Somewhat 0 5 5
understandable
No idea 0 0 1
Somewhat not 1 0 0
understandable
184
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of completeness of messages with the Extent of knowledge on steps in
MRC technology
2
MESSAGE X value P value Category Extent of knowledge on steps in MRC
Low Moderate High
Steps in preparing the 48.122 0.000** 100% complete 0 9 14
compost
80% complete 0 7 13
60% complete 0 2 1
40% complete 1 0 0
Steps in applying the 50.209 0.000** 100% complete 0 9 17
compost
80% complete 0 7 12
60% complete 0 2 1
40% complete 1 0 0
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of interest on messages with the Extent of knowledge on steps in MRC
technology
2
MESSAGE X value P value Category Extent of knowledge on steps in MRC
Low Moderate High
Practical benefits of the 5.677 0.017* Very interesting 0 17 21
Somewhat 0 0 8
interesting
Cross-tabulation of type of channel used with the Extent of knowledge on steps in MRC technology
2
CHANNEL X value P value Category Extent of knowledge about MRC
Low Moderate High
Personal visits 15.394 0.000** Channel used 0 13 30
Channel not used 1 5 0
Cross-tabulation of frequency of exposure to channels with the extent of knowledge about MRC
2
CHANNEL X value P value Category Extent of knowledge about MRC
Low Moderate High
Print 8.839 0.012* Always 0 7 4
Often 0 0 9
Sometimes 0 1 1
Cross-tabulation of attitudes towards MRC technology with the Extent of knowledge on steps in MRC technology
2
VARIABLE X P value Category Extent of knowledge about MRC
In MRC, the time of 9.990 0.041* Strongly agree 0 15 22
weeks.
Agree 1 1 8
Neither agree 0 2 0
nor disagree
185
Cross-tabulation of perceived credibility of information source with number of respondents who
discussed or did not discuss the MRC technology with personal networks
2
INFORMATION X value P value Category Discussed MRC with personal
SOURCE networks
No Yes
DA Agri- 14.000 0.001** Very credible 0 12
Kalikasan
Program Staff
Somewhat 0 1
credible
No idea 1 0
Farm technician 10.600 0.005** Very credible 1 35
Somewhat 0 8
credible
Somewhat 1 1
uncredible
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of clarity of messages with number of respondents who

discussed or did not discuss MRC with personal networks
2
MESSAGE X P value Category Discussed MRC with personal
value networks
No Yes
Steps in preparing 10.865 0.004** Very clear 1 35
the compost
Somewhat clear 0 9
Somewhat unclear 1 1
Steps in applying 7.084 0.029* Very clear 1 38
the compost
Somewhat clear 0 7
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of comprehension of messages with number of respondents

who discussed or did not discuss MRC with personal networks
2
MESSAGE X value P value Category Discussed MRC with personal
networks
No Yes
Steps in preparing 23.177 0.000** Very understandable 1 33
the compost
Somewhat 0 11
understandable
No idea 0 1
Somewhat not 1 0
understandable
Steps in applying 24.148 0.000** Very understandable 1 36
the compost
Somewhat 0 10
understandable
No idea 0 1
Somewhat not 1 0
understandable
186
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of completeness of messages with number of respondents who
2
MESSAGE X value P value Category Discussed MRC with personal
networks
No Yes
Steps in preparing 23.523 0.000** 100% complete 1 22
the compost
80% complete 0 20
60% complete 0 3
40% complete 1 0
Steps in applying 24.440 0.000** 100% complete 1 25
the compost
80% complete 0 19
60% complete 0 3
40% complete 1 0
Cross-tabulation of type of channel used with number of respondents who discussed or did not
discuss MRC with personal networks
2
CHANNEL X value P value Category Discussed MRC with
personal networks
No Yes
TV programs 11.230 0.001** Channel used 1 1
Channel not used 1 46
Cross-tabulation of frequency of exposure to channel with number of respondents who discussed or

did not discuss MRC with personal networks
2
personal networks
No Yes
Field 5.720 0.017* Always 0 22
demonstration
Often 1 3
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of interest in channels with number of respondents who

2
personal networks
No Yes
Personal visits 13.317 0.010** Very interesting 0 16
Somewhat interesting 0 15
No idea 0 7
Somewhat 1 2
uninteresting
Not interesting at all 0 1
187
Cross-tabulation of perceived credibility of sources with number of respondents who think that
personal networks approve or disapprove of MRC technology
2
INFORMATION SOURCE X P value Category Approve of technology
value No Yes
Farm technician 8.826 0.012* Very credible 4 31
Somewhat credible 0 8
Somewhat uncredible 1 0

think that personal networks approve or disapprove of MRC technology
2
MESSAGE X value P value Category Approve of technology
No Yes
Steps in preparing the compost 7.422 0.024* 100% complete 0 23
80% complete 5 14
60% complete 0 2
Steps in applying the compost 8.726 0.013* 100% complete 0 26
80% complete 5 13
60% complete 0 2
Cross-tabulation of usual information sources with personal approval or disapproval of MRC

technology
2
USUAL INFORMATION X value P value Category Approve of
SOURCE technology
No Yes
DA Agri-Kalikasan Program 5.213 0.022* Accessing 2 12
Staff information source
Not accessing 0 35
information source
Farm technician 6.984 0.008** Accessing 1 45
information source
Not accessing 1 2
information source
Cross-tabulation of perceived credibility of information sources with personal approval or disapproval

of MRC technology
2
INFORMATION SOURCE X value P Category Approve of
value technology
No Yes
DA Agri-Kalikasan Program 6.514 0.039 Very credible 1 11
Staff *
No idea 1 0
188
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of clarity of messages with personal approval or disapproval of MRC
technology
2
No Yes
Steps in preparing the compost 10.865 0.004** Very clear 1 35
Somewhat clear 0 9
Steps in applying the compost 7.084 0.029* Very clear 1 38
Somewhat clear 0 7
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of interest on messages with personal approval or disapproval of MRC
technology
2
No Yes
Steps in preparing the 8.820 0.012* Very interesting 0 37
compost
Somewhat uninteresting 0 1
Steps in applying the compost 7.203 0.027* Very interesting 0 37
Cross-tabulation of type of channels used with personal approval or disapproval of MRC technology
2
CHANNEL X value P value Category Approve of technology
No Yes
TV programs 11.230 0.001** Channel used 1 1
Cross-tabulation of perceived attitudes towards MRC technology with personal approval or disapproval of MRC
technology
2
VARIABLE X value P value Category Approve of technology
No Yes
MRC helps address the 12.511 0.002** Strongly agree 0 40
increasing cost of inorganic
fertilizers and other farming
supplies.
Agree 2 5
Neither agree nor 0 2
disagree
In MRC, the time of 11.377 0.003** Strongly agree 1 36
weeks.
Agree 0 10
disagree
When combined with 24.096 0.000** Strongly agree 1 39
inorganic fertilizers, MRC
yields more rice than when
using completely inorganic
fertilizer.
189
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of comprehension of messages with intentions to consult or not consult the
MRC technology provider on the use of technology
2
MESSAGE X value P value Category Planned to consult
technology provider
No Yes
Environmental benefits 4.928 0.026* Very understandable 1 8
Somewhat understandable 1 5
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of interest on messages with intentions to consult or not consult
the MRC technology provider on the use of technology
2
MESSAGE X value P Category Planned to consult
value technology provider
No Yes
Practical benefits of the 6.835 0.009** Very interesting 24 14
Cross-tabulation of frequency of exposure to channel with intentions to consult or not consult the
MRC technology provider on the use of MRC technology
2
CHANNEL X value P value Category Planned to consult
technology provider
No Yes
Print 7.598 0.022* Always 8 3
Often 1 8
Sometimes 1 1
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of interest in channel with intentions to consult or not consult
the MRC technology provider on the use of MRC technology
2
CHANNEL X value P value Category Planned to consult
technology provider
No Yes
Print 9.743 0.021* Very interesting 0 3
No idea 8 3
Not interesting 1 0
Cross-tabulation of usual information sources with intentions to use the MRC technology
2
USUAL INFORMATION X value P value Category Planned to use the MRC
SOURCE technology
No Yes
DA Agri-Kalikasan 4.601 0.032* Accessing information 3 11
Program Staff source
Not accessing 1 34
information source
190
Cross-tabulation of perceived credibility of information sources with intentions to use the MRC technology
2
INFORMATION SOURCE X value P value Category Planned to use the MRC
technology
No Yes
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of clarity with intentions to use the MRC technology
2
MESSAGE X value P value Category Planned to use the MRC
technology
No Yes
Somewhat clear 0 9
Steps in applying the compost 14.798 0.001** Very clear 2 37
Somewhat clear 0 7
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of comprehension of messages with intentions to use the MRC technology
2
MESSAGE X P value Category Planned to use the MRC
value technology
No Yes
Steps in preparing the compost 11.149 0.011* Very understandable 2 32
Somewhat 1 10
understandable
No idea 0 1
Somewhat not 1 0
understandable
Steps in applying the compost 11.759 0.008** Very understandable 2 35
Somewhat 1 9
understandable
No idea 0 1
Somewhat not 1 0
understandable
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of completeness with intentions to use the MRC technology
2
MESSAGE X value P value Category Planned to use the MRC
technology
No Yes
Steps in preparing the compost 11.347 0.010** 100% complete 2 21
80% complete 1 19
60% complete 0 3
40% complete 1 0
Steps in applying the compost 11.738 0.008** 100% complete 2 24
80% complete 1 18
60% complete 0 3
40% complete 1 0
191
Cross-tabulation of type of channel used with intentions to use the MRC technology
2
CHANNEL X value P value Category Planned to use the MRC
technology
No Yes
TV programs 4.868 0.027* Channel used 1 1
Cross-tabulation of perceived attitude towards the MRC technology with intentions to use the MRC technology
2
VARIABLE X value P value Category Planned to use the MRC
technology
No Yes
When combined with inorganic 11.985 0.007** Strongly agree 3 37
fertilizers, MRC yields more rice
than when using completely
Agree 0 6
disagree
Disagree 0 2
Cross-tabulation of perceived clarity of messages with number of respondents who availed or did not avail of
MRC technology
2
MESSAGE X value P value Category Availed of MRC technology
No Yes
Drawbacks 7.879 0.049* Very clear 0 7
Somewhat clear 0 2
Not clear at all 2 1
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of interest on messages with number of respondents who availed or did not
avail of MRC technology
2
MESSAGE X value P value Category Availed of MRC
technology
No Yes
Steps in applying the compost 6.463 0.039* Very interesting 17 20
Practical benefits of the compost 5.677 0.017* Very interesting 17 21
to the farmer
Cross-tabulation of type of channel used with the number of respondents who availed or did not avail of MRC
technology
2
CHANNEL X value P value Category Availed of MRC
technology
No Yes
Print 4.331 0.037* Channel used 5 17
192
Cross-tabulation of frequency of exposure to channels with number of respondents who availed or did not avail
of MRC technology
2
CHANNEL X value P value Category Availed of MRC
technology
No Yes
Personal visits 4.476 0.034* Always 16 18
Often 1 9
Cross-tabulation of frequency of access to information sources with number of respondents who used or did not
use the MRC technology
2
INFORMATION SOURCE X value P value Category Used MRC technology
No Yes
DA Agri-Kalikasan Program Staff 10.733 0.013* Always 0 5
Often 0 3
Sometimes 3 1
Rare 2 0
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of clarity of messages with number of respondents who used or did not use
the MRC technology
2
MESSAGE X value P value Category Used MRC technology
No Yes
Steps in preparing the compost 6.823 0.033* Very clear 7 29
Somewhat clear 3 6
Somewhat clear 2 5
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of comprehension with number of respondents who used or did not use
MRC technology
2
MESSAGE X value P value Category Used MRC technology
No Yes
Steps in applying the compost 8.296 0.040* Very understandable 6 31
Somewhat understandable 5 5
No idea 0 1
Somewhat not 1 0
understandable
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of interest on messages with number of respondents who used or did not
use the MRC technology
2
MESSAGE X P value Category Used MRC technology
value No Yes
Drawbacks 8.827 0.032* Very interesting 1 8
193
Cross-tabulation of type of channels used with number of respondents who used or did not use the MRC
technology
2
CHANNEL X value P value Category Used MRC technology
No Yes
Personal visits 6.577 0.010** Channel used 8 35
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of interest in channels with number of respondents who used or did not use
the MRC technology
2
CHANNEL X value P value Category Used MRC technology
No Yes
Field demonstration 10.139 0.038* Very interesting 0 8
Somewhat 3 2
interesting
No idea 2 5
Somewhat 2 0
uninteresting
Not interesting at 1 3
all
Cross-tabulation of perceived attitudes towards MRC technology with number of respondents who used or did
not use MRC technology
2
VARIABLE X value P value Category Used MRC technology
No Yes
In MRC, the time of composting 8.837 0.012* Strongly agree 6 31
is shortened from three months
to around three weeks.
Agree 4 6
disagree
Cross-tabulation of type of channel used with recognition of drawbacks in using MRC technology
2
CHANNEL X value P value Category Recognized drawbacks
No Yes
Seminars/trainings 4.324 0.038* Channel used 21 16
Cross-tabulation of frequency of access to information sources with number of users who continued or
discontinued use of MRC technology
2
INFORMATION SOURCE X value P value Category Continued using MRC
No Yes
DA Agri-Kalikasan Program Staff 10.733 0.013* Always 0 5
Often 0 3
Sometimes 3 1
Rare 2 0
194
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of clarity of messages with number of users who continued or discontinued
2
MESSAGE X value P value Category Continued using MRC
No Yes
Steps in preparing the compost 6.823 0.033* Very clear 7 29
Somewhat clear 3 6
Somewhat clear 2 5
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of comprehension with number of users who continued or discontinued use
of MRC technology
2
No Yes
Steps in applying the compost 8.296 0.040* Very understandable 6 31
Somewhat 5 5
understandable
No idea 0 1
Somewhat not 1 0
understandable
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of interest on messages with number of users who continued or
discontinued use of MRC technology
2
No Yes
Drawbacks 8.827 0.032* Very interesting 1 8
Cross-tabulation of type of channels used with number of users who continued or discontinued use of MRC
technology
2
CHANNEL X value P value Category Continued using MRC
No Yes
Personal visits 6.577 0.010** Channel used 8 35
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of interest in channels with number of users who continued or discontinued
2
CHANNEL X value P value Category Continued using MRC
No Yes
Field demonstration 10.139 0.038* Very interesting 0 8
No idea 2 5
195
Cross-tabulation of perceived attitudes towards MRC technology with number of users who continued
or discontinued use of MRC technology
2
VARIABLE X value P value Category Continued using
MRC
No Yes
In MRC, the time of composting is 8.837 0.012* Strongly agree 6 31
shortened from three months to around
three weeks.
Agree 4 6
disagree
Cross-tabulation of perceived credibility of information source with number of respondents who

encouraged or did not encourage use of MRC technology
2
INFORMATION SOURCE X P value Category Encouraged use
value of MRC
No Yes
DA Agri-Kalikasan Program Staff 6.514 0.039* Very credible 1 11
No idea 1 0
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of clarity of messages with number of respondents who

2
MESSAGE X P value Category Encouraged use
value of MRC
No Yes
Somewhat clear 2 7
Somewhat clear 2 5
Practical benefits of the compost to the 11.649 0.001** Very clear 0 39
farmer
Somewhat clear 2 5
Environmental benefits 7.781 0.005** Very clear 0 38
Somewhat clear 1 4
Drawbacks 13.000 0.005** Very clear 0 7
Somewhat clear 2 0
Not clear at all 0 3
196
Cross-tabulation of perceived comprehension of messages with number of respondents who
2
MESSAGE X P value Category Encouraged use
value of MRC
No Yes
Steps in preparing the compost 17.637 0.001** Very understandable 2 32
Somewhat 1 10
understandable
No idea 1 0
Somewhat not 1 0
understandable
Steps in applying the compost 18.530 0.000** Very understandable 2 35
Somewhat 1 9
understandable
No idea 1 0
Somewhat not 1 0
understandable
Practical benefits of the compost to the 22.587 0.000** Very understandable 1 37
farmer
Somewhat 0 7
understandable
No idea 1 0

2
MESSAGE X P Category Encouraged use
value value of MRC
No Yes
Steps in preparing the compost 10.991 0.012* 100% complete 1 22
80% complete 2 18
60% complete 1 2
40% complete 1 0
Steps in applying the compost 11.701 0.008** 100% complete 1 25
80% complete 2 17
60% complete 1 2
40% complete 1 0
Drawbacks 8.444 0.038* 100% complete 0 6
80% complete 2 1
60% complete 1 0
20% complete 0 2
197
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of interest on messages with number of respondents who
2
MESSAGE X value P value Category Encouraged use of
MRC
No Yes
Steps in preparing the compost 15.727 0.000** Very interesting 1 36
Steps in applying the compost 14.570 0.001** Very interesting 1 36
Drawbacks 13.000 0.005** Very interesting 0 9
Cross-tabulation of frequency of exposure to channels with number of respondents who encouraged or did not
encourage use of MRC technology
2
CHANNEL X value P value Category Encouraged use of
MRC
No Yes
Field demonstration 11.917 0.001** Always 0 22
Often 2 2
Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of need for MRC technology with number of respondents who encouraged
or did not encourage use of MRC technology
2
RECEIVER VARIABLE X value P value Category Encouraged use of
MRC
No Yes
Perceived degree of need 7.226 0.027* Highly needed 1 33
Needed 4 10
Not needed 0 1
Cross-tabulation of perceived attitudes towards MRC technology with number of respondents who encouraged or
did not encourage use of MRC technology
2
VARIABLE X value P value Category Continued using
MRC
No Yes
MRC helps address the increasing cost of 14.193 0.001** Strongly agree 1 39
inorganic fertilizers and other farming supplies.
Agree 3 4
disagree
When combined with inorganic fertilizers, MRC 9.711 0.021* Strongly agree 4 36
yields more rice than when using completely
Agree 0 6
disagree
Disagree 0 2
198
APPENDIX F: BASIC CONCEPTS AND STEPS IN USING MRC
Modified Rapid Composting
A technology intervention which promotes the use of hybrid palay seeds and introduces the balance
and judicious use of organic and inorganic combination of fertilizers to address the increasing cost of
fertilizers and the need to sustain the target yield for rice.
Objective: to promote and expand cultivation of hybrid rice as a strategy to achieve sufficiency and
increase rice farming productivity and profitability through establishment of techno demonstration
project.
Ano ang MRC kompos?
Ito ay pinaghalu-halo at binulok na dayami, damo, dahon ng ipil-ipil, asola, sesbanya, pinag-anihan
ng mais, munggo, soya (legumbre), at dumi ng hayop. Mayaman ito sa sustansiya na kailangan ng
palay at iba pang halaman. Hinaluan ito ng compost fungal activator (CFA) o Trichoderma upang
mapabilis ang pagkabulok ng kompos.
PARAAN NG PAGGAWA NG KOMPOS SA BUKID NA MAY IRIGASYON O PATUBIG
1. Ikalat ang mga dayami sa mga pinitak, na ang kapal ay depende sa dami ng tubig na
ilalagay. Tapak-tapakan ang mga dayami sa lugar na hindi nabasa o mataas pa upang
matiyak na nabababad ang mga ito sa tubig.
2. Papasukin kaagad ang tubig sa pinitak at hayaang mababad ang dayami ng labingdalawang
(12) oras at siguraduhinng sarado ang mga daanan ng tubig.
3. Isabog ang mga tuyong dumi ng hayop (manok, baboy, kalabaw o baka) at halamang
mayaman sa nitroheno tulad ng ipil-ipil, azolla, sesbania, mungo, mani cowpea, soybean,
kakawate (madre de cacao), acacia at iba pa. Maaari rin na gumamit ng patabang urea
bilang pamalit sa mga nabanggit na halamang mayaman sa nitroheno.
4. Idilig ang kinanaw na Trichoderma (Compost Fungus Activator or CFA)sa binasang dayami.
Inirerekomenda ang paggamit ng apat (4) na bote ng aktibeytor na ikinanaw sa isang dram
na tubig kada isang toneladang dami ng dayami.
5. Matyagan ang kalagayan ng kompos tuwing dalawang araw at tapak-tapakan ang ibabaw
upang makasipsip ng tubig.
6. Kapag natuyuan, papasukin muli ang tubig mula sa irigasyon at hayaang mababad ang mga
dayami upang mapabilis ang pagkabulok.
7. Pagkaraan ng tatlong (3) linggo, maaari nang simulan ang pag-aararo ng bukid. Bulok na
ang mga dayami at maaari na itong ihalo sa lupa.
Sources:
Department of Agriculture (1997). Rice Technology Bulletin No.17.

Office of the Provincial Agriculturist in Leyte (2007). DA Agri-Kalikasan Program Modified Rapid
Composting Protocol.
199

Factors in The DA Agri-Kalikasan Program Communication Strategy Influencing Farmers' Adoption Stage of The Modified Rapid Composting (MRC) Technology in Leyte, Philippines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Factors in The DA Agri-Kalikasan Program Communication Strategy Influencing Farmers' Adoption Stage of The Modified Rapid Composting (MRC) Technology in Leyte, Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FACTORS IN THE DA AGRI-KALIKASAN PROGRAM

COMMUNICATION STRATEGY INFLUENCING FARMERS’

EULA MARIE DELA CRUZ MANGAOANG

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION

COMMUNICATION STRATEGY INFLUENCING FARMERS’ ADOPTION STAGE OF

MODIFIED RAPID COMPOSTING (MRC) TECHNOLOGY IN LEYTE, PHILIPPINES,

requirements for the degree Bachelor of Science in Development Communication

(Educational Communication), is hereby accepted.

April 10, 2010

Accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

Bachelor of Science in Development Communication

Department of Educational Communication

April 10, 2010

Ms. Evangeline S. Garing, for contacting the farmer-cooperators, agricultural

The municipal agriculturists and the municipal agricultural technicians in the

To the farmer-cooperators of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program, for the much-needed

Ma’am Duday de Villa, my DEVC 197 instructor, for helping me to start on my

My brods and sisses at the UPLB Development Communicators’ Society, for

1 List of municipalities in Leyte province where MRC 49

7 Weighted mean scores and qualitative interpretation 68

12 Channel used to disseminate messages about the MRC 71

15 Respondents’ reasons for their rating of perceived 75

22 Distribution of respondents based on variables in the 85

25 Distribution of respondents based on variables in the 87

27 Distribution of respondents based on variables in the 91

29 Respondents’ reasons for their advocacy and non- 95

31 Summary of the relationships between communication 101

32 Summary of the relationships between communication 105

33 Summary of the relationships between communication 109

35 Communication variables influencing the knowledge 119

36 Communication variables influencing the persuasion 120

38 Communication variables influencing the 122

39 Communication variables influencing the confirmation 123

1 Variables affecting change in agricultural practices for 19

2 The P Process: Stages Involved in Developing 24

3 Conceptual model of the Diffusion of Innovations 42

4 Framework showing the conceptualized relationship of 44

5 Map showing the different techno-demo sites in Leyte 48

A Formal Letters 151

B Survey Questionnaire for Farmer-Cooperators 155

C Interview Guide for Key Informants 164

D List of Key Informants and Interview Transcriptions 166

E Cross-tabulation of Communication Variables and 180

Adviser: Ma. Stella C. Tirol

A survey was conducted among 49 farmer-cooperators assigned in the 17 techno-

The problems in the program implementation included lack of resources, institutional

Structure and Rationale of the Study

According to Quebral (1973), development communication involves systematically

However, a number of past government programs have failed to address certain

One of the rice straw management practices promoted in the DA Agri-Kalikasan

Objectives of the Study

Significance of the Study

The key change factors in the DA Agri-Kalikasan communication strategy could

Scope and Limitations of the Study

Furthermore, the farmer-cooperators’ reasons or explanations for their various

Operational Definition of Terms

Communication strategy – Mefalopulos and Kamlongera (2004) defines it as a well-

Factors in the communication strategy – refer to communication variables (e.g. source,

a) Source of information on MRC technology – the farmer-cooperators’ specific

Message variable – refers to an attribute of the information on the MRC technology

a) Perceived degree of clarity – the farmer-cooperators’ rating of how well-

Channel variable – the means by which information about MRC technology is