Effects of Agricultural Extension Activities Delivered by INGO to

Small Farmers in the Dry Zone of Myanmar

by

Su Lai May
54

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of
Science in Regional and Rural Development Planning

Examination Committee: Dr.Soparth Pongquan (Chairperson)

Prof. Gopal B.Thapa (Member)
Dr. Mokbul M. Ahmad (Member)

Nationality: Myanmar
Previous Degree: Bachelor of Agricultural Science
Yezin Agricultural University
Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar.

Scholorship Donor: Norwegian Scholarship

Asian Institute of Technology

School of Environment, Resources and Development
Thailand
May, 2013.
i
 Acknowledgements

I am extremely grateful to Dr.Soparth Pongquan, my academic and thesis advisor, for her
valuable advice, guidance, comments and suggestions and encouragement complete my
thesis. This research would not have been possible to accomplish without her incredible
support.

I express my heartfelt sincere gratitude on Professor Gopal B. Thapa, and Dr.Mokbul M.

Ahmad, who are my committee members for their valuable comments and suggestions to
improve the quality of my thesis.

My profound gratitude is extended to Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation

(NORAD) who provided me a scholarship and a research grant for my master degree study
at AIT.

I would like to convey my special thanks to Mr.Vitoon Nil-Ubol, SERD Field Laboratory
Supervisor for his guidance and assistance in data processing and quantitative analysis in
this research. I would also like to thank all administrative staffs of RRDP and SERD for
their kind support.

I wish to express my thanks to CESVI’s staffs who worked in Magway sector for their
strong support in my field work. Also, I am very grateful for farmers from Htone Pauk
Taw village, Pa Hto San, Ye Ngan and Ywar Taw for their kind cooperation and assistance
to complete my data collection.

Finally, the accomplishment of my thesis is also due to the contribution of my parents and
my friends who provided me continuous moral support during my study at AIT.

ii
 Abstract

The research assessed the effects of agricultural extension activities delivered by INGO in
the Dry Zone of Myanmar. Main objective of the research was to study the agricultural
extension activities to small farmers in the dry zone in Magway Township provided by
CESVI. The specific objectives of the research were to study types of agricultural
extension activities provided to small farmers and their participation; to assess agricultural
knowledge gained by small farmers from the extension activities and analyze the factors
associated; to assess the utilization of agricultural knowledge of small farmers and analyze
factors associated and to assess changes in agricultural practices and health; and to give
recommendations to strengthen agricultural extension services for small farmers.

The research was conducted with two groups of very small and small farmers based on
their land holding size in the four villages located in the Magway Township of Myanmar
using a survey questionnaire as a prime tool with a total of 64 sampled respondents. Other
data collection methods were field observation, key informants and group discussion. The
research was focused on quantitative analysis with the support of qualitative approach.

Main findings of this research found that the project provided three kinds of extension
activities including classroom type training, field visit and front line demonstration during
its project period. Among these three activities, in classroom type training, both groups of
small farmers participated intensively. However, in field visit and front line demonstration,
small farmers participated more than very small farmers. Though knowledge gained was
found to be by different aspects, low level of knowledge gained was found in similar level
in both groups in the aspects of seed, growing practices, and weeding whilst in
Trichoderma compost, in making diagnosis between the physiological symptoms and
disease symptoms, and in distinguishing the beneficial insects and harmful insects.
Regarding the utilization, in contour farming practices, boron fertilizer application,
distinguishing between beneficial and harmful insects, diagnosis between the physiological
and disease symptoms, very small farmers utilized the agricultural knowledge at a very low
level and in tillage, weeding, and gypsum fertilizer application, they applied in a high level
as the small farmers. More changes in agricultural practices were observed in small
farmers than very small farmers because of their affordability in inputs and resource
contribution.

Various social, economic and institutional factors were found having a relationship with
participation intensity in those three activities, degree of knowledge gained and utilization
between very small and small farmers. After participating in those extension activities,
some farmers from both groups changed their agricultural practices and also had a positive
change in their health conditions.

A set of recommendations were suggested in this research for both groups of farmers to
strengthen their participation in all agricultural extension activities and by each of them, to
increase agricultural knowledge gained and utilization to generate more significant positive
effects to small farmers in future.

iii
 Table of Contents

Chapter Title Page

Title Page i
Acknowledgements ii
Abstract iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
List of Maps vii
Abbreviations viii

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background of the Research 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem 3
1.3 Rationale of the Research 5
1.4 Objective of the Research 6
1.5 Conceptual Framework 7
1.6 Scope and Limitations of the Research 9

2 Literature Review 10
2.1 Concept of Agricultural Extension 10
2.2 Aim of providing Agricultural Extension 10
2.3 Effectiveness of Agricultural Extension 11
2.4 Extension Methods and Approaches 12
2.5 Extension Approaches practiced in the Region 21
2.6 Agricultural Policies and Strategies in Myanmar 22
2.7 Overview of the Organization 23
2.8 Agricultural Extension of the Project 25

3 Research Design 30
3.1 Types of Research and Research Design 30
3.2 Selection Criteria of the Study Area 30
3.3 Target Farmers 32
3.4 Sampling Design, Procedure and Method 32
3.5 Sample size 33
3.6 Data Sources and Data Collection Methods 34
3.7 Data Analysis and Techniques 35

4 Profile of Study Area and Respondents 39

4.1 Profile of Study Area 39
4.2 Profile of Respondents 43

5 Description of CESVI Project 48

5.1 Project Description 48
5.2 Objective of the assistance 49
5.3 Objective of providing the extension 49
activities to the farmers
5.4 Coordination with other organizations 49

iv
 5.5 Coordination mechanism with the project villages 50
5.6 Coverage 52
5.7 Steps to perform Extension Activities 52
5.8 Selection of Extensionists 52
5.9 Selection of Target Beneficiary farmers 52
5.10 Selection of Farmer Field School sites 52
5.11 Activities of Agricultural Extension Activities 53

6 Participation of Small Farmers in Agricultural Extension 59

Activities
6.1 Types of Agricultural Extension Activities 59
6.2 Participation of Small Farmers by Types of Agricultural 60
Extension Activity

7 Assessment on Social Effects of Small Farmers 77

7.1 Type of the information gained 77
7.2 Assessment on the Knowledge Gained 80
7.3 Utilization of Agricultural Knowledge Gained 83
7.4 Changes in Agricultural Practices 87

8 Summary of Findings, Conclusion and 92

Recommendations
8.1 Summary of Findings 92
8.2 Conclusion 95
8.3 Recommendation 96

References 100
Appendices 107

v
 List of Tables
Table no Title Page
2.1 Agricultural Extension Activities Delivered by the Project, 27
Expected Output and Assessment of Effects on Farmers
4.1 Number of Households classified by Occupation 42
4.2 Gender Distribution of the Respondents 43
4.3 Distribution of the Respondents by Marital Status 43
4.4 Distribution of the Respondents by Age 43
4.5 Distribution of the Educational Level of the Respondents 44
4.6 Distribution of the Respondents by Land Ownership 45
4.7 Distribution of the Respondents by Household Size 45
4.8 Annual income Distribution of the Respondents in amount 46
4.9 Annual Income Distribution of the Respondents by source 46
5.1 Input Support in the Project Villages 54
5.2 Farmer Field School Training Activities 57
6.1 Participation of Small Farmers in Agricultural Extension Activities 60
6.2 Intensity of Attendance in Classroom Type Training Activities 61
6.3 Participation in FFS by Type of Training 62
6.4 Reason for not attending Training regularly 63
6.5 Factors Associated with Participation Intensity in Classroom Type 63
Trainings of Small Farmers
6.6 Attendance in Field Visit 65
6.7 Aspects of Assistance from the Extensionists to Small Farmers 67
6.8 Reasons of Absence in Field Visit 67
6.9 Factors Associated with Participation Intensity in Field Visit of 68
Small Farmers
6.10 Description of Activities Farmers participated in Front Line 70
Demonstration
6.11 Participation in Front Line Demonstration 71
6.12 Reason of low participation in front line demonstration 74
6.13 Factors associated with Participation in Front Line Demonstrations 75
7.1 Information Received in Agricultural Extension Activities 77
7.2 Type of Information Received on Agricultural Extension Activities 79
7.3 Degree of Knowledge Gained from Agricultural Extension 82
Activities
7.4 Utilization of Knowledge Gained after Participating in Agricultural 86
Extension activities
7.5 Changes in Agricultural practices after participating in Extension 90
Activities

vi
 List of Figures

Figure Title Page

1.1 Conceptual Framework of the Research 8

2.1 Organizational Structure of Agricultural Extension Services of 24
Magway Township
3.1 Source of data, Procedures and Methods 33
3.2 Research Design 38
4.1 Rainfall and Rainy days in Magway Township 41
4.2 Annual Income Source of the Respondents 47
5.1 Linkage between the Organization and the Project Villages 51

List of Maps

Map Title Page

3.1 Map of Myanmar showing the Study Township in Magway 31

Division, Myanmar
4.1 Map of Magway Township showing the study villages 40

vii
 Abbreviations

AED Agricultural Extension Division

DANCED Danish Cooperation for Environment and Development
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FFS Farmer Field School
FLD Front Line Demonstration
FPE Farmer’s Participatory Extension
FPR Farmer’s Participatory Research
FV Field Visit
GTZ German Agency for Technical Cooperation
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
LEA LAO Extension Approach
MAS Myanmar Agriculture Service
PTD Participatory Technology Development
SADP Sustainable Agricultural Development
TOT Transfer of Technology
T&V Transfer and Visit
TNA Training and Needs
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
VEAs Village Extension Agents
VES Village Extension System
WFP World Food Programme

viii
 Chapter 1

Introduction

This introductory chapter consists of six parts, including the background of the research,
the statement of the problem, the rationale of the research, the research objectives and the
conceptual framework. The scope of the research is the last section in this chapter.

1.1 Background

Agricultural development plays a vital role in accelerating the economic growth of

Myanmar, in which about 75% of the people living on agriculture-related activities (Han,
2010). In a predominantly rural economy of Myanmar, agricultural growth provides the
most opportunities for pro-poor development, as long as the poor are central to the process
(UNDP, 2002). To raise agricultural production in the country, support of extension with
54

better and improved farming practices, research and transfer of technology and adequate
supply of agricultural inputs with reasonable price play a vital role (Hlaing, 2004).

Even though Agriculture development is very important in accelerating the economic

growth of Myanmar, it is observed that poverty and social deprivation are widespread in
rural Myanmar (Thein, 2009) because most of the farmers are small holder farmers and
weak extension support from Myanmar Agricultural Service institution. Millions of
farmers were served by a small number of extension personal (MAS, 2002) and Research
and trials were conducted only under the plant protection division. As a result, Myanmar
farmers were lack of appropriate and proper agronomic practices, basic knowledge on
pests and diseases and control measures resulted in low productivity which leads to low
income (Aung, 2005).

The research carried out in developing countries are too often by passed the most needy
farmers, offering the solutions that are inappropriate to the livelihood of small holder
farmers(Bage, 2006).

Myanmar has also the same experience. The technologies generated are often not adapted
and or not interest to the majority of users and the research programme are irrelevant and
ineffective (UNDP, 2002).

The dry zone, a poverty-stricken area in Myanmar, occupies approximately 13 per cent of
the country’s total land area. About 23 per cent of the total population lives in this region,
and the majority depend on agriculture and allied activities for their livelihoods.
Population in this area is often greatly affected by the environmental vulnerability and
poverty (Thein, 2009).The livelihood of rural poor in the dry zone is insecure because of
unstable income from agriculture and limited opportunities for other employment (JICA,
2007). Therefore, this area has been the focal point of many development studies and
interventions since the early nineties (European commission, 2008). Most of the projects in
the dry zone area are poverty reduction and food security oriented projects especially
aimed for helping the small holder farmers and landless poor to come out of the poverty.
Therefore, the interventions carried out are targeted to improve the livelihood of the rural
people by providing opportunities of accessing off farm employment opportunities and
agriculture intensifications. The aim of development programme, making improvement in

1
Agricultural development, is desirable for Myanmar, an agro–based country of more than
70 % of the people rely on agriculture related activities.

Magway Township located in the dry zone of Myanmar is high poverty stricken area in
Myanmar and the majority of people resides in the rural areas and more than 90 % of the
people dependent on causal labor and agricultural activities. CESVI, Italian INGO,
conducted community based food security project with the main objective of increasing
food production and poverty alleviation for the resource poor small holder farmers and
landless poor in Magway township areas. The project interventions of CSEVI included the
activities to strengthen the capacities of rural households as well as to increase the
agricultural production thereby to empower small holder farmers, landless poor.
To raise the agricultural production, technical inputs and material inputs are important for
the farmers to have.

Since agricultural extension assist the farmers to raise their standard of living through
informal learning, the project conducted agricultural extension activities such as Field
Trails, Farmer Field School (FFS), and Front Line Demonstrations (FLDs) and field visits
approach in the project areas thereby aiming to improve the knowledge of the farmers and
achieve the increased agricultural production and empowerment of the farmers. In AEM
619 (ND),it is mentioned that the use of one or two methods in extension teaching
repeatedly may give the farmers to be uninterested and dull and to make teaching effective,
different approach or varieties of methods are needed to use.

In fact, the FFS approach is very effective tool for technology dissemination and
agricultural development because it is based on learning and testing in the farmers’ fields,
regular meetings throughout crop season, learning among and between the farmers. But
CESVI ’farmer field school approach is different to ideal type of FFS.CESVI intervened
FFS in the form of training because of limited manpower, limited fund and broad project
activities to carry out. This type of training might be only helpful to transfer of information
and skills to the farmers ,however, field trials , FLDs approach conducted by INGO would
attribute to have the confidence of the farmers with the pulling of the participation of the
farmers in those activities to observe the productive potentials of the improved cropping
techniques under real situations and motivating them and getting interest of the farmers to
adopt the improved cropping techniques and thereby supporting the improvement of
agricultural production through the effectiveness of agricultural extension activities of
project.

The FFS approach utilized by most NGOs and INGOs in Myanmar couldn’t be the same as
if the real Farmer Field School approach that the other countries utilized because of various
limitations of project period, project fund, broad project activities and limited manpower.
In accordance with the study on CESVI’s extension activities, it would highlight whether
the extensions activities that are currently conducting by most of INGO and NGO in
Myanmar for the knowledge and skill enhancement of the farmers and agricultural
production will productive or not and the study will therefore be a requisite for improving
the efficiency of the extension services.

2
1.2 Problem Statement

Myanmar is an agro based country, in which more than 70 percent of the people stay in
rural areas and rely on agricultural activities for their livelihood. However, Myanmar
farmers face the problems of lack of appropriate agriculture and proper agronomic
practices, basic knowledge on pests and diseases control measures as well as quality
improved varieties and proper crop management information. Owing to these difficulties,
there is declining productivity which leads to low income (Aung, 2005).

An effective extension approach can help to alleviate rural poverty by bringing farmers out
of low productivity with the introduced agricultural innovations (Aung, 2005). Despite
Myanmar has a large network of research and extension institutions and physical facilities
strategically located in all agro-ecological regions of the country, Myanmar has seen little
or no increase in agricultural productivity for major crops in the last decade. Yields are
consistently lower than those of neighboring countries or the regional average across
almost all crops. Although Agricultural Extension Division (AED), the largest branch of
the Myanmar Agriculture Service (MAS), is responsible for implementation of extension
programmes and extension camps are established in every township, the division
implements its extension activities by launching special programmes in selected areas for
specific crops, especially on rice. Specialized training programmes based on farmers’
needs and constraints, agro-ecological and socio-economic conditions, and realities of
research and extension organizations, are virtually non-existent. Extension staffs those
operating in the field are generally required to perform a number of other activities such as
promotion of area expansion, distribution of inputs, and procurement of production, which
conflict with their responsibility to disseminate improved technologies. In addition, lack of
transport prevents extension workers from visiting production areas for demonstrations and
training (UNDP, 2012).

The limited number of extension staff and experts in particular crops for specific areas and
limited mobility and motivation of research and particularly extension staff as a result of
low salaries and benefits, and competing demands to undertake unrelated tasks leads to
ineffectiveness of technology transfer (Ibid) and Aung, 2005). Training of trainers, training
sessions, demonstration plots, field visits could not be conducted intensively and
frequently. Training sessions and field visits by extension agents become repetitive and
unproductive (Aung, 2005). Moreover, because of the extension agents’ lack of sufficient
knowledge in subject matters relevant to their works and extension technology, and lack of
capabilities to work with rural people, extension agents were performed poorly in
management and delivery of technology. This resulted in irregular and limited field visits.
In addition, the lack of transport made the dissemination of technology ineffective (Aung,
2005).

Most of research programmes are commodity based and production oriented. Research and
extension programmes centrally planned at headquarters and normally do not take into
account farmers’ needs and constraints, and similar activities are repeated year after year
without a clear objective (UNDP, 2012).

In many cases, the top-down and package extension approach, which delivers a fixed
package of the technology, inputs, subsidy and credits, has not been effective in achieving
the objectives and farmers have no opportunity to participate in the decision making
process of innovation.(Aung, 2005). The consequence of this approach is a low adoption

3
rate for technical recommendations, even when they are available and which results in low
yields, insufficient farmers’ income, and limited production of the main commodities
(Ibid.)

There were also problems in the flow of information from researchers to extension agents
and to farmers (Aung, 2005). The extensive use of research, seed and extension farms for
commercial production and the scarcity of farm infrastructure (tractors, storage, irrigation),
limit the land available for research and trials. Individual interactions between field
research and extension staff, which is mostly ad-hoc and not organized; and
implementation of demonstration plots, and training, which is also not systematic nor
organized. There is no mechanism for efficient dissemination and exchange of scientific
information between research, extension, and farmers. The few reports are circulated
mostly among research staff .The exchange of scientific information between research
organizations, and among research, extension and training institutions is very limited.
Projects normally do not take into account farmers’ needs and constraints, production cost,
profitability, marketing, and insertion of the researched technology into the prevailing
cropping system (UNDP, 2012).

Agriculture is the vital cord of Myanmar’s wealth and foreign exchange earnings, future
financial development will also be based upon the developing agriculture. For achieving
agricultural development, research and extension support play a crucial role. However,
extension activities mostly provided by government sector are very weak .The farmers
cannot assess the productive extension activities.

According to the findings from the literature, it was found that several studies have been
done by each extension approaches. In some cases, it was assumed that transferring the
technology in class room type is inefficient whilst some argued that training approach is
efficient in persuading the clientele to try a new idea or practice because of feasibility for
the farmers to learn within the limits of their environment and its coverage to many people
especially in the limitations of time and staff.

During recent decades, there has been emphasis of international INGOs on agricultural
development through extension supports. CESV is one of INGOs that is providing
assistance for the agricultural development. CESVI utilized various kinds of extension
approaches including class room type training and research oriented approaches (front
line demonstration and field trials).Moreover, field visit was also conducted as one of the
extension methods that would build the intimate contact between the extensionist and the
farmers which would lead to getting of more chances for the farmers to solve out of their
problems and discussing agricultural related technical matters. Therefore, this study was
needed to take assessment on the extension services of these INGOs in delivering the
extension services to know that their services were efficient or not.

In connection to the research problems mentioned above, research questions are:

 To what extent do farmers received these services by international non-governmental

organization (INGO) and in what aspects?
 How do agricultural extension services provided by INGO change agricultural
knowledge and practices of farmers?
 How do the changes in agricultural knowledge and practices causing any effect on
input cause reduction, crop production and farm income?

4
  Is there any variation in the changes in the cost of input, crop production and farm
income within participating farmers of the agricultural extension services provided
by INGO and between them and non-participating farmers and why?

1.3 Rationale of the Research

A review of literature mentioned that the main direction of reform in international

agricultural extension and development is towards learning rather than teaching paradigm
and towards the incorporation of new methodology and approaches that increase the real,
interactive participation of the local people in all levels of decision making. In Myanmar,
some international organizations funded a number of projects which applied bottom up
planning and action in providing extension activities. CESVI is one of the INGOs utilizing
different ways of extension approaches so that the beneficiary farmers can be well
benefited through the extension activities for raising the live of the rural people.

In recent decades, FFS became popular as an alternative extension approach of Transfer of

Technology approach (TOT).The FFS is a participatory method of learning, technology
adaption and dissemination(FAO, 2011) based on adult learning principles such as
experiential learning (Davis and Place, 2003).Several studies have been done for the
impact of FFS towards farmers. Some of the findings mentioned that FFS brought the
result of achievement in pesticide use reduction immediately and yield increment as a
substantial benefit (Berg and Jiggins, 2007). In Indonesia case, it was revealed that FFS
performed as an enhanced farmer ‘critical analytical and problem solving skills, abilities
which are relevant for addressing problems (Ibid). Similarly, indicated that the group
learning of FFS could lead to empowerment and well being of farmers (FR11S-HANSEN,
and Duveskog, 2012). In some cases, FFS triggered further development beyond IPM, in
the field of experimentation, collective action, leadership, planning and organization (Berg
and Jiggins, 2007).

In contrast, there were also some arguments about FFS impacts that complex pest
management information does not diffuse readily among the farmers (Ibid ) as well as FFS
approach was not significantly to cover a large number of farmers (Aung, 2005). Likewise,
In Indonesia, the empirical results did not indicate that FFS have induced significant
improvement in yield reduction in pesticide use and secondary diffusion effects on village
farmers are not significant (Feder and Quizon, 2003). Through several studies have been
done for the impact assessment of the FFS. However, there is no comprehensive
assessment for the FFS in the delivery of agricultural extension service which is currently
utilized in most of INGOs and NGOs projects in Myanmar. Therefore, it is necessary to
conduct the evaluation on its effect to farmers to access the contribution of knowledge
improvement and farmers’ follow up on the utilization of what they have learned.

CESVI’s project interventions included not only FFS but also people engagement
activities-training, front line demonstrations, and field trials which can enable the
marginalized farmers to gain access to technical inputs and can build the capabilities of the
farmers towards self reliance and improved livelihoods. Several studies have been done for
the evaluation of the front line demonstration. Some findings of FLD showed that the level
of knowledge and adoption of improved production technology was higher in beneficiary
farmers than non beneficiaries (Sharma et al., 2011). In some cases, it was found that
favorable cost benefit ratio was convinced the farmers for adoption of FLD. The

5
participant farmers achieved improvement in yield and income improvement (Mishra et al.,
2009). In some cases, FLD help to identify the constraints and potentials of some crop in
realizing food security as well as help in improving the economic and social status (Kumar
et al., 2010). According to (Wasnik et al., 2003), FLD helped in rearing the confidence in
the farmers, which lead to increase in knowledge, adoption and change in attitude of
farmers. The evaluation of FLD approach of CESVI will be different from the previous
front line demonstrations in some ways since FLD of CESVI emphasized on getting
motivation and interests of both participant farmers and nonparticipant farmers through the
observations of demonstrations of farmer participating in their field by utilizing improved
seeds, and improved agricultural practices derived from the field trials.

Another extension approach, field trials approach would also provide research oriented
extension to the farmers and the farmers will be motivated and interested through their
participation in these trials and will make them know the results of field trial activities
which are the important way out to building sustainable agricultural production. With the
collaboration of the farmers, the dissemination of the improved technologies would be
feasible amongst the farmers.

One of project extension activities- field visits to the farmers’ fields would help the farmers
in solving their farm related problems through direct contacts between farmers and
extension agents. Although this approach is time consuming, its importance cannot be
stressed enough.

Overall, CESVI’s project applying different approaches of agricultural extension in

enhancing the livelihood of the small farmers in the project area. The findings from this
research will provide the lessons for the extensions agents to provide the extension services
in the more effective way to the farmers because this research will be conducted based on
the farmers’ perception in the social, economical and environmental effects they perceived
from the project. The research study will also highlight the problems, constraints and needs
of the extension approaches for providing better extension services to increase the benefits
to small farmers.

1.4 Objectives of the Research

The main objective is to study the agricultural extension activities to small farmers in the
dry zone in Magway Township provided by CESVI.

The specific objectives are:

 To study types of agricultural extension activities provided by this organization to

small farmers and their participation;
 To assess the agricultural knowledge gained of small farmers from the extension
activities and to analyze the factors associated with agricultural knowledge gained;
 To assess the agricultural knowledge utilization of small farmers and to analyze the
factors associated with agricultural knowledge utilized, changes in agricultural
practices and health conditions of small farmers; and
 To give recommendations to strengthen agricultural extension services and
development strategies to small farmers.

6
1.5 Conceptual Framework

An assessment framework of this research was based on agricultural extension services

delivered by INGO namely CESVI which consists of four main activities of training, field
trial, front line demonstration and field visit (CESVI, 2007).

The training was focused on the aspects of land preparation, growing practices, nutrient
management, pest and disease management, harvest and storage which were conducted in
every two weeks in all targeted FFS villages in cultivation season of groundnut.

CESVI supports farmers from the targeted villages in terms of material inputs (chemical
fertilizers, neem cakes, and neem oil) and technical inputs. The farmers took part in the
field trials with their own labor and contributed some inputs as their own investment on
their farm. Field Trials conducted are nutrient management, improved crop production,
cultivation practices and pest management. Monitoring and evaluation over field trials was
conducted in collaboration between CESVI staffs and participant farmers. Best
management practices could be recommended in these field trials for the farmers.

As for the front line demonstration, participating farmers were provided with certified
seeds, neem oil and fertilizers. Recommended practices from field trial were recommended
fertilizer application, spacing, neem oil are used. Demonstrations are conducted in the
farmers’ fields. This type of demonstration intends to be a sample for the other non-
participating farmers to be involved in growing improved varieties and use the improved
techniques.

For the field visit, CESVI staffs visit to the farmers’ fields to learn the problems of the
farmers and to help them in solving farm related problems. Timing of visit is conditional,
which were conducted whenever there was a FFS training support in the targeted villages.
The effects of the agricultural extension services to small farmers were evaluated in three
dimensions covering social aspects based on small farmer’s perspective. Social effects
included participation of small farmers in those three activities mentioned above in the
context of the extent and intensity of their participation. In addition knowledge
enhancement in connection to agricultural practices provided in the agricultural extension
services by CESVI was investigated. These include land preparation, growing, nutrient
management, pesticide management, harvest and storage.

A conceptual framework for this research is illustrated in Figure 1.1.

7
 CESVI

Agricultural
Extension Services

Training Front Line Field Visit

Demonstration

Effects of Agricultural
Extension Services to
Small Farmers

Participation

Agricultural Knowledge
Gained

Change in
Utilization of Knowledge
Agricultural
Gained
Practices
 Land preparation
 Land
 Growing Practices preparation
 Nutrient Management
 Growing
 Disease Management Practices
 Harvest  Nutrient
 Storage Management
 Disease
Management
 Harvest
 Storage

Figure 1.1: Conceptual Framework of the Research

8
1.6 Scope and Limitations of the Research

Assessment of the effects of agricultural extension activities of three-year (2010–2012 )

food security project delivered by the CESVI-International NGO in Magway Township in
the Dry Zone of Myanmar. The assessment was conducted within the framework of three
years after the agricultural extension components had been implemented in the study area
(CESVI, 2007).

Main target group of this research was focused on primarily farm households from small
farmers of the project who have participated in three kinds of agricultural extension
activities including training, front line demonstration and field visit because in field trial
approach, small farmers did not participate and the assessment was made on the effects
that the small farmers gained from the extension activities.

In this research, groundnut was the major crop to be included in this research because the
majority of the farmers of Magway area grow groundnut as the main crop for major
income source.

The evaluation of the effects of agricultural extension services to be covered in this

research included social effects. These social effects were the extent and intensity of
farmer’s participation in those agricultural extension activities, agricultural knowledge
gained and skill enhancement in agricultural practices including land preparation, growing,
nutrient, pesticide management, harvest, storage and health hazards.

9
 Chapter 2

Literature Review

This chapter includes several major sections related with the research. They are concept
of agricultural extension, aim of providing agricultural extension, the linkage of
agricultural extension and research, effectiveness of agricultural extension, extension
methods and approaches, extension approaches utilized in Myanmar’s neighboring
countries, agricultural policies and strategies in Myanmar, overview of the organization,
and agricultural extension in the project.

2.1 Concept of Agricultural Extension

Garforth and Lawrence (1997) stated that agricultural extension is the conscious provision
of information and communication support to rural users of renewable natural resources. It
involves offering advice, helping farmers to analyze problems and identify opportunities,
sharing information, supporting group formation and facilitating collective action.
Extension is done not only by extension agencies but also by farmers, scientists,
commercial companies and mass media organizations.

Rivera et al (2003) mentioned extension is multidisciplinary. It combines educational

methodologies, communication and group techniques in promoting agricultural and rural
development. It includes technology transfer, facilitation, and advisory services as well as
information services and adult education.

Extension service in agriculture is indispensable and it offers more than just expert
assistance in improvement of production and processing, it also enables flow of
information and transfer of knowledge and scientific findings to practice ( Živković et al.,
2009).`

2.2 Aim of Providing Agricultural Extension

Rivera (1987) stated that the purpose of extension is to disseminate advice to farmers.
Gaps in knowledge contribute to the yield gap in biophysical and economic settings.
Services and purchased inputs such as seeds and synthetic complements are essential
productivity-enhancing tools. However, their effective use requires knowledge, which
advisors need to articulate and communicate to farmers.

According to Düvel (n.d), it is known as Extension is provided with the following

objectives.
 "To extend. This means acquiring agricultural knowledge from the results of
agricultural research and taking it to farmers. This is also called the Transfer of
Technology (TOT).
 "To give advice" or "to advise. This is very similar to TOT.
 "To counsel". In this case extension means working with farmers in smaller groups and
the extensionist is the counselor who "helps" the farmers. Relationships are essentially
based on confidence.

10
 "To take counsel" or "to deliberate. The aim here is to find new solutions to problems.
All those involved in the discussion contribute their knowledge and experience. This
means that the extensionist, farmers and researchers are partners, trying to solve
problems that affect all of them.

Within the agricultural sector, however, agricultural extension may be interpreted narrowly
or broadly, which complicates the debate (Rivera, 1987). In a strict interpretation, the only
purpose of agricultural extension is to disseminate information to raise the production and
profitability of the farmers (agricultural production performance). In a broader
interpretation, the purpose of agricultural extension is to advance not alone production
knowledge but the whole range of agricultural development tasks, such as credit, supplies,
marketing and markets (agricultural process development) (Rivera et al., 2001).

Agricultural extension service has the objective to assist family holdings or farmers in
improvement of the methods and techniques of agricultural production, farm management,
and increase of income and of productivity and production quality, increase of standard of
living and elevating of social and educational standards in villages. Objective is to help the
farm i.e. holding to gain new information and develop new abilities, as well as to apply
directly on the farm the latest scientific knowledge (transfer of technology) ( Živković et
al., 2009).

No matter what the name of the system, approach or programme (e.g., cooperative
extension, advisory services, Special Programme for Food Security, technical assistance or
technology transfer), the function remains that of extension: the transfer and exchange of
practical information. Its purposes may differ, from technology transfer by companies
organized around specific, usually mono cropping farm systems to problem-solving
educational approaches to participatory programmes aimed at alleviating poverty and
advancing community involvement in the process of development (Riversa and Qamar,
2003).

2.3 Effectiveness of Agricultural Extension

Extension education assists farmers in effectively utilizing the resources available to them
in solving their current farm and home problems. By offering farmers educational and
material services, using effective extension methods, the extension service stimulates them
to make such changes in their farm operations as will result in more efficient. Extension is
part of the effort to achieve a balanced social and economic development of rural areas.
The spread of useful and practical information to farmers and their families on subjects
relating to agriculture could be seen as a useful step to farmers’ enlightenment (Emmanuel,
n.d ).

Extension is extremely important in helping to confront problems of availability, access,

and utilization. It helps to enhance the productivity and consecutively the production of
food. It can assist in providing opportunities for income generation. And, it generally
provides improvement of nutritional advice through home economics programmes and
enhances the quality of rural life by way of community development. When systematically
and effectively provided, extension is known to enhance social and economic
development. Technological change, and the knowledge system that underpins it, is a
critical factor in development, according to the World Bank (2003a and 2003c). In spite of
the difficulty of isolating its impact on agricultural productivity and growth from that of
11
these other factors, studies have demonstrated the high economic returns of investments in
agricultural research and dissemination, with returns typically above 40 percent ( Anderson
and Feder, 2003; Birkhaeuser et al., 1988). Investment in agricultural research and
extension is thus a crucial input of agricultural growth.

Düvel (n.d) pointed the following as the effectiveness of extensions:

 It helps farmers to change their behavior on a voluntary basis.

 It creates and shares new knowledge.
 It motivates, enables, and provides insights.
 It helps to form opinions and there is better decision-making.
 It assists with mutual and reciprocal learning.
 It creates and shares new agricultural technologies.
 It brings the world to farmers and farmers to the world.

2.4 Extension Methods and Approaches

2.4.1 Extension Methods

The educational techniques used by the extension system, particularly its field staff
communicating with farmers, are referred to as “extension methods” (Aung , 2005).
Extension work is realized in application of several methods: individual, group and mass
extension methods.

a) Individual methods

Individual methods are used in extension teaching in recognition of the fact that learning
is an individual process and that the personal influence of extension worker is an important
factor in securing peoples` participation in extension activities (Emmanuel, n.d).

This methods represent intensive method of extension work. They are applied in form of
house visits and advisory discussions, talks (visit to the farm, field, etc.),practical
demonstration methods, farmer going to the extension office, etc ( Živković et al., 2009).
This method involves meeting individually with farmer or farm worker at the farm or
home. Practically, this method poses a challenge to extension workers in terms of the
number of individual farmers to be covered. This method has many outweighs:

 It establishes contact with men and women formers and with others within the farm
house hold
 Extensionist can learn the practices and problems that exist on the farm and can
provide information and assistance.

In this method, an extension worker interacts on a one-to-one basis of education. Although

it is time consuming, its importance cannot be stressed enough. It is through working
individually with the clientele that the extension worker learns about the people of the area,
how they think, what their needs are, and how they carry on their work. Equally important
is the opportunity individual contact provides for the local citizen to get to know the
extension workers. The use of this method provides the extension the opportunity to show
his credibility and integrity. These methods are widely used and have been found to be
highly effective when dealing with illiterate farmers in particular. Individual contact

12
methods are considered superior for conviction and action because of the face-to-face
relationship of extension worker (teacher) and farmer (learner) (Emmanuel, n.d ).

b) Group Contact Method

A study by Emmanuel ( n.d) pointed out that some of the methods under group techniques
include the demonstration method, the field trip, result demonstration, informal
discussion, modified conference methods and role playing. Group teaching methods are
more frequently used in extension work then individual teaching techniques. Group contact
methods better used for specific information about practice, which assist individual
through desire to conviction and action.

Group extension methods provide relatively broad spectrum of influences on beneficiaries

of extension services (Živković et al., 2009).

By utilizing group technique, an extension worker can reach more people than is possible.
This method proves important when time and staff are limited. Group methods are
especially effective in persuading extension’s clientele to try a new idea or practice. A
group decision to try a new practice, for example, is likely to carry more weight in an area
than a similar decision made by an individual. The demonstration based methods has been,
in many ways, the corner stones of extension work. The methods fall into a grouping
which could be informally called “seeing is believing”, because they include the physical
demonstration of practices the extension worker wishes to promote, or the exhibition of the
results of good farming practices (Emmanuel, n.d).

 Demonstration method

Demonstration is one of the most powerful extension tools in communication of new ideas,
methods and techniques in agricultural development. It helps to convince the farmers faster
than any other method through the process of observing, hearing, learning by doing and
experiencing things (Pathak , 1999).

Front-Line Demonstration is the new concept of field demonstration evolved by the

Indian Council of Agricultural Research with the inception of the Technology Mission on
Oilseed Crops during mid-eighties. The field demonstrations conducted under the close
supervision of scientists of the National Agriculture Research System are called front-line
demonstrations because the technologies are demonstrated for the first time by the
scientists themselves before being fed into the main extension system of the State
Department of Agriculture. The main objective of Front-Line Demonstrations is to
demonstrate newly released crop production and protection technologies and its
management practices in the farmers’ field under different agro-climatic regions and
farming situations. While demonstrating the technologies in the farmers’ field, the scientist
are required to study the factors contributing higher crop production, field constrains of
production and thereby generate production data and feedback information (Wasnik et al.,
2003).

Frontline demonstrations are effective educational tools in introducing various new

technologies to the farmers and its adoption by building confidence on the basis of results
obtained on their fields (Rajendra, 2012).

13
Some of the findings showed that the demonstrations could convince the farmers of the
respective localities that high crop yield is within their reach by adopting feasible package
of practices. FLDs provide ample opportunity to the participatory farmers for learning by
implementing new ideas, methods and techniques.

The study on the impact of FLD in Barrackpore, India conducted by Central Research
Institute indicated that the increase in fibre yield due to adoption of the improved jute
cultivation practices by the beneficiary (adopted) farmers resulted into dissemination of the
technologies also at nearby villages in addition to the same village. Technology
dissemination flow was found from adopted farmers of the same village to non-adopted
farmers of the same and nearby villages. It was also found that obtaining more fibre yield
was the reason to attract non-adopted farmers of the nearby village which enabled to build
up confidence among the farmers to boost up adoption of the demonstrated technologies
(Ibid.)

 Field trials

Improvement in production technology is necessary for agricultural development.

Agricultural scientists develop new production technologies to help improve farmers’
welfare. After research priorities have been set, researchers embark on technology
development. This could involve the on-station development of new crop varieties, crop
and natural resource management practices, or pest management practices. These
technologies will then undergo on-farm testing with the farmers. Generally, farmers adopt
a new production technology that is economically superior to the existing one(s) and they
are interested in net benefits and in protecting themselves against risk. To make good farm
recommendations, and to evaluate alternative technologies from the farmers’ point of view
are the goals that scientists must keep in mind. On-farm testing is useful for evaluating
technologies in a wider range of conditions than is available on-station. On-farm trials for
technology evaluation are important for obtaining realistic input–output data for cost–
benefit analysis in the process of impact assessment. On-farm testing provides important
diagnostic information about farmers’ problems, and enables researchers to identify the
impediments to larger adoption of the research outputs. Before changing from one
production method to another, farmers consider many factors, such as the agro-ecological
requirements, the availability of additional production resources (farmland, credit, labour,
skill, equipment, etc), and the potential additional income resulting from the change. They
also consider the compatibility of the new technology with socio-cultural circumstances,
goals, and the whole farming system. A budget is a farm management method that is
intended to assist researchers, extension agents, and farmers in the decision-making
process. Budget analysis of organized data information from on–farm trials help to make a
particular management decision. The types of decisions with which agronomists and
farmers will usually be concerned are the choice of fertilizer level, the choice of variety,
and so on, or sometimes the choice among alternative packages of cropping practices
(Badu-Apraku et al., 2012).

On-farm trials have been found to be effective in the evaluation and selection of new
varieties and other technologies (Adjei-Nsiah et al., 2007; Assefa et al., 2005; Kaizzi et al.,
2006).

14
c) Mass contact method

Extension work by way of mass media includes use of television and radio stations, expert
brochures, expert articles in newspapers, leaflets, internet, etc. Each of the new media has
its own specific traits and depending on these traits they can be used for informing and
educating potentially large groups of agricultural producers (Živković et al., 2009 ).

The extension worker could achieve this through the use of Radio, T.V. and print. Radio
and Television can be used to create awareness of the need for change especially short
term specific objectives e.g. (application of herbicides to crops). The demerits of using
mass media include language barrier, the farmer have no forum to give direct feedback and
the audience (farmer) do not have the opportunity to be involved in the teaching process.
Mass media methods mostly attract attention and stimulate the interest and desire of
farmers for further enquiries and information (Emmanuel, n.d ).

2.4. 2 Extension Approaches

In most cases, a single extension system may not be the only option. Rather, there is a need
for flexibility and the adoption of multiple approaches to extension (Oakley, 1997). Some
combinations of these methods have been used by most countries depending on their
relevance, appropriateness to the situation, enhancement of learning, practicality and
functionality, familiarity in the use of the method(s), facilities available, time and nature of
the extension problems or issues. The dominant methodologies/ approaches include a
modified Training and Visit System, consultative and participative approach, integrated
approach, and the bottom-up approach that dovetails higher-level goals (Aung, 2005).

a) Transfer of Technology model (TOT )

Jürgen et al., (1998) described that the 'transfer of technology' (TOT) model has been the
prevalent practice for developing and spreading innovations. It is based on the assumption
that a transfer of technology and knowledge from scientists to farmers will trigger
development. Applied to agriculture, this model assumes that farmers' problems can be
solved by people and institutions that have this 'modern' knowledge. Farmers have often
been considered as the main constraint to development, as ‘mismanages’ of their resources,
rather than the potential initiators of a solution. Through this approach it has been the
researcher's task to identify, analyze, and solve farmers' technical problems. Solutions have
normally been developed at research stations. The results have then been transferred as
messages to farmers via the extension worker, who is the link between researchers and
farmers. His or her role has been to assist farmers in putting the readymade technology into
practice (Aung, 2005).

TOT which was promoted during the 1950s and 1960s decades based on the following
contemporary views about the farmers and extension agencies:

 Farmers are unaware of ‘modern knowledge’, which is essential for production

promotion.
 Farmers are constraint for development.
 Formal research institutions can develop modern technology and provide to farmers
through extension workers

15
  Weaknesses of ToT (Hagmann et al., 1999)

 Poor terms of service of Extension worker

 Poor working conditions for Extension worker
 Extension workers had to cover vast area
 Limited in-service training programs and little or no communication with
researchers
 Difficulty in coordination of activities, as the extension worker was usually the
representative of only one line agency out of the many which potentially serve
agriculture.
 Unnecessary work burden on the extension worker that distracted him/her from
his real duties of communicating with farmers.
 Extension workers were not well aware of field problems due to their ToT mode of
operation.
 No effective linkage between the extension service and agricultural research

 Previous findings on TOT

Access to knowledge is the major factor most commonly cited by farmers as their major
limitations in Cotton farming in India. The results of cotton research do not reach the
farmers in time. Often, it is observed that the extension efforts are handicapped due to
inadequate interaction with the research efforts and non-availability of latest technological
information for ready transfer.

Front Line Demonstrations, Farmers Field Schools Approach are some of the TOT
programs in India which created remarkable impact on cotton production. These
programmes ensured not only the quick dispersal of technologies by linking the Scientists,
extension personnel and the farmers but also helped scientists to get a feedback on the
response of farmers to the latest technologies. Analysis of those approaches revealed that
they have high farmers’ acceptability due to its focus on problem solving and the practical
application of knowledge. They were effective in increasing the yields, sharing the
knowledge. The study of FLDs showed that they were effective in increasing the yields,
sharing the knowledge. In this approach, farmers are not only key agents to access services
provided by professional extension specialists and researchers, but also make many of the
management decisions and do much of the extension works (Usha and Wasnik, 2007).

b) Training and Visit (T&V)

According to Hagmann et al., (1999), it has been known that Training and Visit approach
was introduced by the World Bank in mid 1970s through the ideas of Daniel Benor.
In this approach to extension services, the village extension agents (VEAs) are expected to
focus their entire efforts on providing farmers with timely and relevant technical advice,
and not become involved in the distribution and management of inputs or credits. They
work with contact farmers or farmer groups and follow a regular calendar, alternating visits
every two weeks to contact farmers or groups. The farmers or groups participate in training
sessions held by technical subject matter specialists. The selected contact farmers are
trained extensively on current and most needed farm practices on the condition that they
agree to demonstrate and explain what they have learned to 10 to 15 fellow farmers, as
Roling (1988) called them (Amin and Stewart, n.d ).

16
The purpose of T and V is to build the professional extension service that will be capable
to assist the farmers to raise their production and their incomes and of providing the
appropriate support for the agricultural development and to have competent well
informed village level extension workers who will visit to the farmers frequently and
regularly with relevant technical messages and bring farmer’s problems to the researchers.
A key mean of this end is to create the link between the farmers, extension workers and the
researcher through training and visit system. The t and v system was designed to achieve
the results rapidly and at as little cost as possible. The good advantage is impact can often
be seen in the farmer’s fields after the first implementation .Two or three seasons later,
most of the farmers follow all or most of the economically viable practices on at least part
of their fields. The financial cost of this system to farmers is very small since this system
focus on the improvement of low cost production technologies.

T&V system offers many advantages and if properly adopted can be successfully
implemented under most conditions. T&V system has been widely adopted in about forty
countries in western and eastern Africa, South and Southeast Asia, Middle East, Europe,
Central and South America. One reason of rapid spread of this system is due to its
impressive increase in the production. It has been found that T and V system was
effective in reaching large number of the farmers and it had many elements that can be
adapted to be effective in different range of environment (Benor and Baxter, 1984).
According to Benor and Harrison (1977), the Training and Visit system of agricultural
extension has helped increase agricultural productivity in several areas.

The finding of the study by Amin and Stewart (n.d) revealed the following points on T&V
approach. ( i)It can achieve many positive outcomes when the principles of the approach
are adopted, particularly in informing the contact farmers (CFs) about their role, gaining
their willingness to participate, and conducting regular visits. (ii) Positive attitudes among
the CFs, toward the T&V program will result in increased productivity of crops.( iii)The
T&V program is effective in increasing productivity of crops by both groups of farmers
(contact farmers and fellow farmers) .

In the contrary, it was argued that T&V was a hierarchically organized method of
managing extension that was designed to deliver selected and timely technical messages to
farmers with strict regularity, working through selected "contact farmers” (Aung, 2005).
Also, it was mentioned that although the initial results of T&V extensions in irrigated areas
were quite encouraging, particularly where “green revolution” varieties and accompanying
inputs were available, when T&V was expanded into rain-fed areas where the
technological potential was more limited and farmers risk was higher, it also faltered due
to limited impact or productivity. In addition, T&V was criticized as being rigid, too top
down in orientations, costly to operate because of high recurrent personnel costs, and too
heavily focused on technology transfer at the expense of human resource development
(Hayward, 1989).

 Experiences in T & V System ( Hagmann et al., 1999 )

 The cost of T & V was too high.

 Developing countries did not have required manpower.
 In many instances, the groups on which the systems depended were not comprised
of poor and marginal farmers.
 Many contact farmers did not represent majority of farmers.

17
  The system stressed the single function of promotion of agricultural
improvements, which could not be achieved because of shortage of required inputs
and low market price of farm products.
 T&V assumed a certain homogeneity of technical input; in many cases, it is
impossible to recommend a single package.
 AEW and researchers had inadequate understanding of farming systems and
farmers’ opportunities and constraints.
 This system also followed the ToT approach for providing extension services.

c) Participatory approaches

Traditional educational approaches and methods have proved unsuccessful (Anderson et

al., 2006; Purcell and Anderson, 1997), and efforts to provide farmers with a voice seldom
form an integrated part of agricultural programmes (Duveskog, 2006).In response to this
concern, elements of participation and downward accountability have gradually reformed
advisory services in agriculture and approaches to participatory extension (World Bank,
2008; Leeuwis, 2004). Alternative approaches have emerged that place the emphasis on
farmer groups that provide a ‘voice’ for the poor (Leeuwis, 2004).

Successful experiences with participatory extension services in different developing

countries have taught the following lessons (Hagmann et al., 1999 ) :

 Outsiders are unable to determine the ‘best practices’ for farmers.

 Building of farmers’ management and problem solving capacity requires joint learning
through practical fieldwork.
 The adoption of innovations depends on the interaction between farmers and their
social organizations.
 The role of extension worker needs to be changed from a teacher to a facilitator.
 Research agenda need to be guided by farmers’ needs
 What (Agricultural Extension Worker) AEW should be doing is not the dissemination
of technology, but the wider role of acting as assistant/advisor to the farmers.
 The Extension worker should understand the problems of the farmers and should
analyze options and directions open to them.

 Farmer's Participatory Agricultural Research

Experience has shown that the linear, top-down linkages between research and extension,
as practiced in conventional transfer of technology extension models, often failed because
of inappropriate technology and/or inadequate “packaging” of the extension messages
(Röling, 1988; Hagmann and Chuma, 1998).

Farmer participatory research has received increased attention and recognition since the
“Farmer First” (Chambers et al., 1989) and Participatory Technology Development
(Jiggins and De Zeeuw, 1992) concepts were first introduced in the late 1980s. Acceptance
of the important role that farmers can play, if given a chance, in agricultural research,
development, and extension has grown considerably. More and more mainstream
institutions have realized that new technology alone is not enough to achieve impact in
farmers’ fields, particularly those in resource-poor and risk-prone areas.Actor-oriented,
integrative, and participatory approaches (Cramb, 2000) are increasingly seen as a way to

18
 address the multiple and often conflicting, social, environmental, and economic
sustainability, goals of different interest groups.

In conventional research and transfer of technology systems, research is seen as the

exclusive domain of scientists, extension as the delivery of messages by the staff of a
formal extension service, and implementation as the straightforward adoption of the
recommended technologies by the farmers. In farmer participatory approaches consists of
co creative processes to identify needs and opportunities, generate new information and
innovations, consolidate them with existing farming practice, and then translate them into
learning objectives and activities for enhanced farmer performance. Farmer participatory
research projects aim at achieving tangible impact by encouraging farmer involvement
at all appropriate stages (Fliert and Braun, 2002).

A study by Uphoff et al.(1997) indicated some basic elements of “participatory research”

suggested by Hall are as follows:

 research processes should be of immediate and direct benefit to a community and not
merely serve as the basis for an academic paper or obscure policy analysis;
 research should involve the people in the project area, from the formulation of the
problem, to discussion of solutions, and interpretations of findings;
 research should be part of a community’s total educational experience and serve to
establish needs, increase awareness, and promote commitment;
 research processes should be viewed as a consciousness raising effort involving
dialogue over time, and not present a static picture at one point in time;
 research should aid in the realization of human creative potential and the mobilization
of human resources for the solving of community problems; and
 research should increase community power by giving local people self-knowledge

 Farmer Field School Approach (FFS)

Farmer Field School approach (FFS) is the field school approach pioneered by the Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO) as a way to introduce farmers to discovery based
learning for dealing with pest management issues in particular, and crop management
concerns in general (Rola et al ., 2002).Originating in projects initiated in Asia in the mid-
1980s, FFS has spread to other regions.

In its efforts to promote farmer-led extension FFS is proving to be a viable alternative to

centralized and state-owned extension (Davis et al., 2012). It is a participatory method of
learning, technology adaptation, and dissemination based on adult learning principles such
as experiential learning (Davis and Place, 2003). Because it educates rather than instructs,
the field school is regarded as best suited for introducing knowledge-intensive technologies
- such as integrated pest management (IPM) to farmers who have little, if any, formal
schooling. The ultimate aim of the field school is to improve farmers’ knowledge and
decision-making abilities so they can cope with pest and crop management problems on
their own ( Rola, 2002).In this approach, farmers are facilitated to conduct their own
research, diagnose and test problems, and come up with solutions. FFS training programs
help farmers develop analytical skills, critical thinking, and creativity, and learn to make
better decisions (Kenmore, 1996 cited in Feder, Murgai, and Quizon, 2004a). Such an
approach, in which the trainer is a facilitator rather than an instructor, reflects a paradigm
shift in extension (Ro¨ ling & van de Fliert, 1994 cited in Feder et al., 2004a; Van de Fliert,

19
Pontius, and Ro¨ ling, 1995). “Through group interactions, attendees sharpen their decision
making abilities and their leadership, communication, and management skills” (Van de
Fliert, 1993 cited in Anderson and Feder, 2004: 52). Three major learning tools of FFS
include discovery-based learning exercises, group experiments, and agro ecosystem
analysis (Duveskog, 2006).

As the FFS participants learn in the FFS, they often learn about new methods, breeds, or
inputs, as well as the more complex crop or livestock management that FFS are well
known for (e.g., integrated pest management).Thus there can be a strong element of
adaptive research in many FFSs, and there are often changes in use of technologies, inputs,
varieties, breeds, and management practices as a result of FFSs.

The study on the impact of farmer field schools on agricultural productivity and poverty in
East Africa indicated that that the FFSs were accessible for farmers with limited education,
in spite of the fact that FFSs may be seen to keep out low literacy farmers (Nathaniels,
2005;Tripp et al., 2005).The findings of this study also reveal that the crop productivity
and income of farmers participating in FFSs increased .However, the results are contrary to
Feder et al. (2004a), who found that FFSs did not have a significant impact on crop yield in
Indonesia.

 Farming System Research Approach

Farming systems research is an approach for generating appropriate technologies for

studying existing farming systems and involving the technology users - usually the small
farmers in the planning and evaluation process. The approach is justified on the basis of
three vital considerations. Firstly, the farmer and his family are rational in their decision-
making. Given their available resource base, circumstances, opportunities and knowledge,
they typically manage a combination of crops, animals, and other on-farm and off-farm
activities to satisfy basic physical, financial and social needs. Secondly, the production
systems of small farmers embody an integrated set of husbandry practices that have
developed over centuries so that these systems are stable, complex and very sensitive to the
ecological, biological and socio-economic environment. Thirdly, a farming system belongs
to the goal-setting and purposeful category of systems and its direction is determined by
the farmer and his family. The decision to introduce changes or adopt any innovation
depends entirely on how the household assesses the relative advantages and disadvantages
in terms of its own perceptions and priorities. Because of these considerations, FSR is an
interdisciplinary, integrative, problem-oriented and farmer-centred approach (Avila , n.d).
Enhancing the growth of small farms and achieving a more equitable distribution of
income among farmers are paramount objectives of Farming Systems research. (Lightfoot
and Barker,1988).This approach brings various disciplines to bear on farmers’ problems in
a systematic way by identifying problems and conduction research on the farmers’ fields in
collaboration with the farmers(Shaner,1984).On farm trials play a key role in the
development and validation of agricultural technologies in farming System Research .It is
seen as the means of ensuring the relevance of technologies developed on station to the
priorities and problems of the resource-poor farmers who are usually the potential
adopters(Atta-Krah and Francis, 1987).

The approach has certain distinctive core characters. These are: (Behera and Sharma, 2007)

 It is problem solving.

20
  It is holistic.
 It acknowledges the location specificity of technological solutions.
 It defines specific client groups.
 It is farmer participatory.
 It gives weightage to ITK system.
 It is concerned with ‘Bottom-up’ research strategy.
 It is interdisciplinary.
 It emphasizes extensive on-farm activities
 It is iterative.
 It is dynamic.
 It focuses on actual adoption.
 It focuses on sustainability.
 It complements experiment station research.

2.5. Extension Approaches practiced in the Region

2.5.1 Thailand

Between 2000 and 2002, the Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and
Cooperatives with a financial support from Danish Cooperation for Environment and
Development (DANCED) implemented the Sustainable Agricultural Development Project
(SADP) in the Central Thailand. Verapattananirund et al., (2004) pointed out that the
farmer network named “Panaphol” with total of 4,000 members in 7 provinces with the
learning process through participatory technology development (PTD) for sustainable
agriculture. With a series of active learning for representative of farmer groups, they were
provided lectures about resource person, green study tours and opportunity to exchange
experiences with and learn each other from field trials. Then, farmers could develop and
implement their own research plans, so farmers are inspired to solve problems by
themselves and to recognize the importance of self-reliance. Another project “Improving
the Sustainability of Cassava-based Cropping System” during 1994-2004 was applied
Farmer Participatory Research (FPR) and Farmer Participatory Extension (FPE)
approaches in Nakhon Ratchasima and Sra Kaew provinces. Some of the lessons learn
from the project described that the technologies offered to the farmers must have a direct
positive effect on yield and must be adapted to their circumstances. The role of extension
changed from the recommendation certain practices to encourage members of the
community to participate in analyzing their problems and try out the experiments together
for solution. In addition, the establishing of self-help groups where the members of the
community can be strengthened and empowered to solve their own problems (Vongkasem
et al., 2002).

2.5.2 The Lao Extension Approach (LEA)

The Lao Extension Approach (LEA) has been developed and adopted by the National
Agricultural and Forestry Extension Service (NAFES), particularly the Strategic Vision for
Agriculture(1999) and the National Growth and Poverty Eradication Strategy (2004). The
LEA policy framework with the key principles of the approach that should be:
decentralized, pluralistic, participatory, needs-based, integrated, gender-sensitive, group
based and sustainable. The structure of the LEA has two major parts: the village extension
system (VES) and the government extension service. The VES is managed by the

21
community and involves setting up of common-interest ‘production groups’ and the
appointment of a volunteer ‘village extension worker’ (VEW). The Government Extension
Service has three strata: District, Provincial and National. The process of the LEA starts
with Training Needs Assessment (TNA). This results in the identification of key problems
and the formation of groups. Each group then undertakes a ‘learning project’ in which they
discover how to solve their problems. At the end of the learning project, the members of
the group share what they have learnt with other farmers. The experience to date shows
that the Lao Extension Approach can help farmers make considerable production increases.
During 2002-2004, the approach was tested in 96villages covering different agro-
ecological conditions in the provinces of Champassak (lowland), Salavane (plateau) and
Luang Prabang (upland). More than 1,600 farmers were involved in forming groups on a
range of subjects: rice, pigs, chickens, mushrooms, and fruit trees (Cuc, 2009).

2.5.3 Cambodia

Participatory land use planning (PLUP) has been recognized an important tool for reaching
sustainable resource management by local community .Major contribution shave come
from FAO and GTZ, representing many years of experience in a multitude of projects
carried out all over the world. Land use planning is the systematic assessment of physical,
social and economic factors in such a way as to encourage and assist land users in selecting
options that increase their productivity, are sustainable and meet the needs of society which
is the definition was proposed by these two organizations.

The PLUP approach principle requires a strong bottom-up planning perspective and
focuses on the capacities and needs of the local land users. Christ (1999) also pointed out
this approach put the local users’ interests in the center, the use of simple, low-cost
planning techniques. Moreover, with the support to assist the on-going process of
formulating the regulatory framework regarding land use planning and natural resources
management ensuring the participatory planning approaches can be implemented
successfully (Cuc, 2009).

2.6 Agricultural Policies and Strategies in Myanmar

2.6.1 Agricultural Policies in Myanmar

The Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation has laid down the following policies:
 To allow freedom of choice in agricultural production
 To expand agricultural land and to safeguard the rights of farmers
 To encourage the participation of the private sector in the commercial production of
seasonal and perennial crops and distribution of farm machineries and other inputs
(MOAI, 2004).

2.6.2 Strategies for Agricultural Development in Myanmar

Key strategies for agricultural development are as follow:

 Development of new agricultural land
 Provision of sufficient irrigation water
 Provision and support for agricultural mechanization
 Application of modern agro technologies

22
  Development and utilization of modern varieties
( Ibid.)

2.7 Overview of the organization

CESVI, established in 1985, is a secular, independent association, providing the assistance

to people in need around the world. CESVI is currently represented in 36 countries
globally, either through direct project representative offices of through partnerships and
consortiums .CESVI assistance can be divided into three main categories:

 Immediate help to ensure survival and to overcome emergencies.

 The rehabilitation and reconstruction of systems destroyed by war or natural calamities.
 Cooperation programs and projects for the development of underprivileged social
groups and poor communities (Missione, 2011).

2.7.1 Budget for Magway Food Security Project

The budget that was spent for Magway food security project is Euro 1.689 Million Dollars
for all development activities in which 85 % of total budget was contributed by European
Commission and 15% was by CESVI (Baw, 2010a).

2.7.2 Objective of the organization in providing food security project of Magway

Township

CESVI-an international non-governmental organization implemented the Food Security

Project in Magway Township in the Dry Zone of Myanmar with the budget supporting of
European Commission with the close collaboration of FAO, UNDP/UNOPS, WFP,
Myanmar Agricultural Service (MAS) and Livestock breeding and Veterinary Department
and other agencies involved in food security and natural resource management. Project
activities were intervened to address the basic needs of the community and their demand
especially on livelihood activities.

The overall development objective of the project is to contribute to support the food
security and to alleviate poverty of strongly vulnerable communitiies in the targeted area in
Magway Township by promoting sustainable use of the natural resources.

The specific objective is to empower farmers, landless poor and women heads
ofhouseholds in 10 targeted villages of Magway Township in Magway Division benefit
from a stabilized availability of food (quality and quantity) and from improved livelihoods
(CESVI, 2007 ).

2.7.3 Organizational Structure of Magway Agricultural Extension Services

In countrywide, CESVI employs over one hundred (100) national staff and 10 expatriate
staff (CESVI, n.d). In Magway township project, there were 22 staffs totally.

23
 Project Manager (1)

Township Coordinator (1)

Field Operations Administrations

Agricultural Extensionists  Administrator (1)

(8)  Logistic Assistant (1)
 Secretary (1)

General work

 Office helper (1)

 Store Keeper (1)
 Driver (1)
 Security Guard (4)

Source: CESVI (2010b)

Figure 2.1: Organizational Structure of Agricultural Extension Services of

Magway Township

24
2.8. Agricultural Extension of the Project

2.8.1 Objective of Providing Agricultural Extension Activities

Food security is a year round concern particularly during lean period before harvest when
employment opportunities are limited in Magway township area. The level of knowledge
of majority of farmers on new technologies of the commonly grown crop is low and
therefore, capacity building is necessary .During the consultation with the farmers, they
tend to receive and willing to learn the new advances in farming (Labios, 2010).

The project was designed to contribute to increased food production thereby generating
food availability and food security and poverty alleviation of vulnerable resource poor
farmers. To increase the agricultural productivity, the project intervened the agricultural
extension activities of introduction of improved technological packages through on farm
trials and demonstrations, training approach and field visits. The project extension
activities’ aimed to improve knowledge and skill enhancement ,empowerment of small
farmers through transfer of technology ,and to support capacity building of small farmers
through learning by doing process .Moreover, results of research efforts over the past
decades have not disseminated to farmers or extension personnel in remote areas of
Myanmar, and this project tried to fill up this gap to build up effective extension research-
extension-farmer linkage through front line demonstrations and field trials by
demonstrating the potential and availability of these technologies in the realistic
assessment of the farmers themselves in the local environment (CESVI, 2007).

2.8.2 Target Crop (Groundnut) for the Extension Service Delivery in the Project Area

The oil crop sub-sector is second only in importance to rice in the agricultural economy of
Myanmar. With a total sown area of 7.25million acres (3.0 million ha) oil crops encompass
a range of annual oilseeds and oil palm (a perennial crop). Oilseeds comprise around 16.4
percent of total sown area for agriculture, while total production is around 1.4 million
tonnes. The most important oil crops, based upon a three year average (2000/01–2002/03),
are sesame, groundnut and sunflower (3.4, 1.6 and 1.2 million acres respectively) (UNDP,
2002).

Over 80% of the oil crop production is concentrated in the central dry zone area, which
encompasses the Divisions of Magway, Mandalay, Sagaing and parts of Bago. Sesame and
groundnut are traditional crops within the region and remain dominant. Although oil seeds,
pulses and industrial crops also play an important role in the peoples’ diet and economy of
the country, there are no special extension programmes being implemented for these crops.
The beans/pulses group is among those least influenced by traditional research and
extension programmes (Ibid.)

2.8.3 Operation of Agricultural Extension

The extension activities were run by the community development officers that were
employed in the project. Each community development officer has their respective villages
in which they conducted all of the four kinds of project extension activities .In Field trial
extension activity, the community development officers themselves made data collection,
evaluation.

25
2.8.4 Description of Agricultural Extension Activities of Project

CESVI project conducted four extension activities in 10 targeted villages. The extension
activities of CESVI conducted are (i) Training (ii) Field Trial (iii) Front Line
Demonstration and (iv) Field visit.

The targeted villages of the project are Htonepauktaw, Pahtosann, Shawtaw, Saikya,
Ywartaw, Yengan, Yonekone, Phoepaukkan, Sipinthar, Letpantaw.

Under Farmer Field School, three activities- Class room type training, front line
demonstration and field visit activities were set up. In class room type training, there is no
farmer category limitation. Every farmer who fits with the criteria can attend the training
under FFS approach.

-For field trials, the rich farmers who could affordable to invest the required inputs
participated. CESVI subsidized the seeds, chemical fertilizers and neem oil. Field trials
were conducted in each of the farmers’ farm .A plot of field trial on each farmer farm
include several testing-fertilizer and neem cake using trial, proper plant population trials,
soil conservation led farming trial, pesticide and bio pesticide using trial. The aim of
conducting field trial is to pull the interests of the farmers by giving them the chance to
take part in field trials and let them see the outcomes of field trials and make them decisive
and accept the best management practices in real conditions under their field.

-For front line demonstration, only small holder farmers were aimed. These farmers were
provided with necessary inputs-seeds, fertilizers and neem oils. These farmers took part in
front line demonstration by growing the seeds and using the inputs supported by CESVI
and in this way; these farmers performed as an initiative for other non participant farmers
to become adopted the improved seed and improved technology derived from field trials.
By seeing the productive potential of these front line demonstrations farm, it was aimed
that other farmers will be motivated and adopted.

- Field visit was done for the farmers who took part in front line demonstration. Field Visit
extension was conducted to establish an ultimate contact between the extensionists and
participant farmers so that the extensions are able to know the problems of the farmers and
to provide assistance.

A framework for the implementation of Agricultural Extension Activities and expected

outputs and assessments of effects are presented in Table 2.1.

26
 Table 2.1.Agricultural Extension Activities Delivered by the Project, Expected Output and Assessment of Effects on Farmers
Activity Target Farmers Explanation Expected Output Effects

1. Training Select from interested farmers to
attend Farmer Field School (FFS)
training, capable to read and write,
and participate in the follow-up
activities (front line demonstration
and field trials).The FFS
participating farmers are drawn
from both large and small farmers.
2754
A total of 50 farmers per village - Provide information Social Effects:
are selected by village enhance agricultural skills
development committee (VDC)as to farmers to increase their  Participation
participant farmers for FFS. It was capacity.  Knowledge Gained
conducted in 10 targeted villages -Meet farmer’s needs  Knowledge Utilization
of the project target area which -Accessible to technical in
was conducted in a form of inputs o Land preparation
training. -Increase motivation of o Growing
farmers to improve their o Nutrient
This training was focuses on the livelihood Management

agricultural knowledge sharing o Pesticide

trainings which were conducted in management
every 2 weeks in all targeted o Harvest
villages in cultivation season of o Storage
groundnut. Totally, about 8 times  Change in agricultural
of training had been conducted in practices
each FFS village.  Health hazards

2.Front Line Small holder farmers were chosen
Demonstration by village development committee
(FLD) as participant farmers.
10 farmers/village * 10
villages=100 beneficiaries for
FLD
Farmers were provided with
certified seeds, neem oil and
fertilizers.
- Recommended practices from
field trial are recommended
- Provide knowledge in
using bio-pesticide, bio
fertilizer(neem fertilizer),
chemical fertilizers and
growing with proper
spacing technique
 Activity Target Farmers Explanation
fertilizer application,4*4 spacing
and neem oil.
-Demonstrations were conducted
in the farmers’ fields.
-The demonstration field aims to
serve as a sample for other non-
participating farmers to increase
their interest in growing improved
varieties and using improved
techniques.
-The groundnut seeds collected
28
from FLD were stored in village
seed bank and distributed to the
farmers in the next cultivation
season.
28
Expected Output Effects
- Build self-confidence for
the participating farmers
-Change attitude of the
farmers from traditional to
improved practices
-Change in fertilizer use and
pesticide use
-Change in the growing
practice with recommended
spacing technique
-Adopt improved
management practices and
improved seed varieties
-Adopt improved
technologies and improved
variety
-Disseminate information
and scaling up of the
recommended technologies
 Activity Target Farmers
3.Field Visit Small farmers who participated in
front line demonstrations of
project were targeted farmers to
attend the field visits.
Source: Project Document, CESVI Magway Food Security Project, 2010.
29
Explanation
-CESVI staffs visited the farmers’
fields to learn problems of the
farmers and help them in solving
farm related problems.
-Time of visiting is conditional,
most of the field visits were
conducted whenever there was a
FFS training support in the
targeted villages.
29
Expected Output Effects
-Solve farm related
problems through direct
contact in field visits
between the farmers and
staffs
-Interact between the
extension staffs and the
farmers
 Chapter 3

Research Design

This chapter presents the research design and methodology which is divided into six key
sections. These consist of the type of research and research design, the selection criteria of
the study area, target population, sampling design, data collection sources and methods.
The data analysis and technique are presented at the end of this chapter.

3.1 Type of Research, Research Design and Unit of Analysis

An evaluation research was applied in this research basically to assess social, institutional
economic effects of farmers who participated in agricultural extension activities delivered
by CESVI.

An experimental design based on a survey was applied to compare those mentioned effects
to participating farmers who had been joining the CESVI agricultural extension activities
by comparing “before and after situation”.

3.2. Selection Criteria of the Study Area

Two selection criteria were given to select a study area for this research. These were:
 Area under the operation of various agricultural extension activities under CESVI-
INGO for more than three years at least; and
 Area growing groundnut as it is the major crop grown in the dry zone area.

Since this study made assessment on the benefits of the extension services, the selection of
the study area was in Magway Township of Myanmar where CESVI run its project in the
duration of three year-period.

Magway Township is an underdeveloped area which is situated in Magway Division. It is

far about 531 kilometers from Yangon and 136 kilometers from Mandalay. Day
temperatures can reach up to 44 degrees centigrade and the average rainfall is 23.5 inches.
The township is densely populated and the population who reside in Magway Township is
around 499,000. Most of the people live in rural villages and agriculture is the major
income opportunities source for them. Major crops of Magway township are sesame and
groundnut .Other crops grown are rice, millet, maize, sunflower, beans and pulses,
tobacco, toddy, chili, onions, and potatoes. Growing acres of groundnut is about 45000
acres. Magway Township covers an area of approximately 682 square miles with 214
villages. Soil fertility in Magway area is deteriorated and soil erosion is a visible problem
that was encountering in Magway area since a few decades.

The location of the study area is shown in Map 3.1.

30
 Study
Township

Source: Wikipedia Website, 2012.

Map 3.1: Map of Myanmar Showing the Study Township in Magway Division,
Myanmar

31
3.3 Target Farmers

Small farmers were targeted for this research due to the reason that they were actively
involved in three agricultural extension activities consisting of training, front line
demonstration and field visit delivered by CESVI.

Small farmers in this research covered those farmers who had a farm size ranging from 0.5
acre to 6 acres. The selection criteria for the respondents based on the fact that the
respondents must be participating farmer’s households who took part in extension
activities of CESVI and the farmers who grow the groundnut as main crop.

3.4 Sampling Design, Procedures and Methods

Among ten villages under the implementation of CESVI, firstly, a purposive selection was
based on concentrated four villages that all types of agricultural extension activities
including training, front line demonstration and field visit had been implemented.
Secondly, a stratified sampling was applied to categorize small farmers into participating
households. The participating farmer’s households mean those who had attended in various
agricultural activities including training, front line demonstration and field visit. Thirdly, a
simple random sampling was drawn from those participating farmer’s households. The
sampling design, procedures and methods were shown in Figure 3.1.

32
Steps of Sampling Procedures

1. Purposive Selected concentrated

Sampling Villages with all
Agricultural Extension
Activities implemented

Participating Small Farmers

2. Stratified in three extension activities
Sampling
-FFS

-Front Line Demonstration

-Field Visit

Sample Participating
3. Simple Random
Sampling Small Farmer Households

Figure 3.1: Sampling Design, Procedures and Methods

3.5. Sample Size

The sample size will be determined by using Yamane’s formula (1967).

n = N /(1+Ne2)
n = Sample size
N = Total participant farmers
e = Precision to be applied at 10% (0.10)
However, the actual sample size was determined after the total population of participating
farmer’s households was known from the project records.

33
3.6 Data Sources and Data Collection Methods

Both primary and secondary data sources were used in this research.

3.5.1 Secondary data

The secondary data for the research was the project records and reports of CESVI office,
Myanmar Agricultural Services (MAS), FAO, international journals, books and internet
resources.

3.5.2 Primary data

Primary data collection methods included field observation, questionnaire survey, key
informant interview, focus group discussion. These were explained below.

 Field observation

Field Observation was done to investigate and understand the general situation f the study
areas to gather additional information such as the environmental condition, the socio
economic condition, the characteristics of the soil, and the existing growing practices of
the study area.

 Questionnaire survey

A survey questionnaire was applied to collect the information from primarily participating
farmer’s households of the project extension activities and certain aspects such as
agricultural practices, health conditions. The questionnaire was conducted in the form of
face-to-face interview.

A standardized questionnaire used in this research was divided into four major sections.
The first section covered socio-economic characteristics of the respondents. The second
section examined the participation of small farmers in major agricultural extension
activities including training, front line demonstrations and field visits. In addition,
utilization of what farmers had learnt from those activities was examined including major
changes in agricultural practices of groundnut cultivation after their involvement in those
activities.

The third section intends to get the information on social effects of the participating small
farmers after participating in the extension activities especially in agricultural knowledge
gained and utilization, changes in agricultural practices, health conditions of the
participating farmers after involvement in the agricultural extension activities.

 Key informants interview

Key informants to be included in this research were the project staffs who conducted
extension activities in the project villages, the staffs from Myanmar Agricultural Extension
Service office, and the local communities from each project villages.

The project staffs were interviewed about their responsibilities in contributing the
extension activities to the farmers, the kinds of the services provided to the farmers in

34
terms of technical support and input supply, their perceptions on the participation of the
farmers, and the effectiveness of the extension approaches that they provided and the
challenges, potentials and suggestions for further improvement of extension activities.

The key informants from MAS were interviewed about their collaboration and support
with extension activities. For the key informants from the project villages, they were
interviewed the aspects of their perception on the extension services provided by CESVI.

 Group discussion

Some participating farmers were discussed extensively on major problems and needs
related to the implementation of agricultural extension activities. It was expected that the
group discussion would enable us to understand more about various types of social aspects
caused by the project from the implementation of agricultural extension activities. This
was expected to provide better insight on the assessment of those effects.

3.7 Data Analysis and Technique

The research will apply both qualitative and quantitative analytical methods which are
mentioned below.

3.7.1 Social Scaling

In this research, a five-scale of Likert was constructed to assess participation intensity,

utilization and assessment of effect indices based on perception of participating farmers in
the project. In each type of social scale, weighted average index will be applied as shown
below.

a) Knowledge gained index of agricultural knowledge learned from agricultural

extension activities and assigned values for weighted average index (WAI).

Very Low Low Moderate High Very High

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.00

The utilization index was calculated using the following formula (Wonnacot and
Wonnacott, 1990)

WAI = [fGVH(1) + fGH (0.8)+fGM(0.6)+fGL(0.4)+fGVL(0.2)] / N

Where,
fGVH = frequency of very high knowledge gained
fGH = frequency of high knowledge gained
fGM = frequency of moderate knowledge gained
fGL = frequency of low knowledge gained
fGVL = frequency of very low knowledge gained

b) Utilization index of agricultural knowledge and practices learned from agricultural

extension activities and assigned values for weighted average index (WAI).

35
 Very Low Low Moderate High Very High
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

The utilization index was calculated using the following formula (Wonnacot and
Wonnacott, 1990 ):

WAI = [fUVH(1) + fUH(0.8)+fUM(0.6)+fUL(0.4)+fUVL(0.2)] / N

Where,
fUVH = frequency of very high knowledge utilization
fUH = frequency of high knowledge utilization
fUM = frequency of moderate knowledge utilization
fUL = frequency of low knowledge utilization
fUVL = frequency of very low knowledge utilization

3.7.2 Quantitative Analysis

a) Descriptive statistics

Descriptive statistics was applied in terms of frequency, means and percentage of

responses derived from a questionnaire survey and secondary data. In addition, graphic
presentations were used to illustrated quantitative data for this research.

- Bi-Variate analysis

Pearson’s coefficient correlation were used to find out a relationship between people’s
participation intensity, Agricultural Knowledge Gained, Utilization of Agricultural
Knowledge (dependent variables) and various social, economic and institutional factors
(independent variables) including age, gender, education, household size, number of hired
labors, income earned from groundnut, groundnut cultivated area, distance to market,
ownership of oxen and cows, number of participation aspects in front line demonstration,
number of agricultural information aspects received, reasons of capability in front line
demonstration, benefits gained from field visits.

The analysis of Pearson's correlation coefficient value (r) will be classified from (-1) to
(+1), showing both negative and positive relationship. Based on Cohen (1988) r values can
be categorized based on its value to justify the relation between dependent and independent
variables as follows.

No Value Level of Relationship

1 + 0.70 to +1.00
2 + 0.69 to +0.30
3 + 0.30 to +0.01
4 0.00
5 - 0.01 to - 0.29
6 -0.30 to -0.69
7 -0.70 to -1.00
High positive relationship
Moderate positive relationship
Low positive relationship
No relationship
Low negative relationship
Moderate negative relationship
High negative relationship

36
3.7.3 Qualitative Analysis

The study used qualitative statement to analyze the qualitative data such as the perception
and feedback of the respondents on social and economic effects from the agricultural
extension activities. Also, the qualitative statement on problems and needs related to the
extension activities were analyzed.

In this research, the knowledge of the farmers gained from the extension activities, the
utilization of this knowledge and the skill enhancement of the farmers was analyzed by
qualitative analysis.

The research design is illustrated in Figure 3.2. The research work plan is given in Table
3.1.

37
 Problem Identification

Research Questions

Conceptualization and Literature

Review

Research Design Construction of Coordination Schema

Selection of Study Area Sampling Design and Method

 Magway Township  Purposive Sampling

with many ( four project villages)
Agricultural Extension  Stratified sampling
activities provided by (Participating agricultural
CESVI households)
 Simple Random sampling
( sampled from participant farmers)

Data Source and Collection Methods

Secondary Data
Primary Data
 Official Documents
 Questionnaire  Internet Resources
 Field Observation  Journal Articles
 Group Discussion
 Key Informant Interview

Quantitative Analysis Qualitative Analysis

Data Analysis
 Weighted Average  Qualitative
Index Findings and Statement
 Descriptive Statistics
Conclusions

Figure 3.2: Research Design

38
 Chapter 4

Profile of Study Area and Respondents

This chapter examines the profile of the Study area and profile of the respondents mainly.
In examining the profile area, geographical features, soil condition, climate, administration
and population, social and economic condition, type of the land, cropping pattern,
groundnut sown area and production of the township are observed. In observing the profile
of respondents, gender, marital status, age, education, land size, household size, annual
household income by amount and by source are analyzed.

4.1Profile of Study Area

4.1.1 Township Overview

a) Geographical features

Magway Township is located in Dry Zone and it is the capital of Magway Division. It is
situated at an altitude of 170 feet above sea level and it lies between north latitude 18° 50'
to 22° 47' and east longitude 93° 47' to 95° 55'. The area of township is 682.22 square
miles. Its neighboring townships are Yenanchaung, Natmauk, Taundwingyi, Myothit,
Sinbaungwe and Minbu Township. It is situated approximately 330 miles far from north-
west of Yangon. It takes 12 hours to travel from Yangon by car. Magway is accessible by
all vehicles except in flight throughout the year.

By bus, it takes about seven hours from Yangon to Magway and it costs about 8,000 kyat
(nearly 10 US dollars). By railway, it will take about ten hours and the cost is cheaper
compared to the bus, which costs about 5,000 kyat (about 6 US dollars). Since it was
situated on the river bank of Ayeyarwady River, the transportation by the ship is also
feasible and it takes for few days to reach Magway from Yangon and the travelling cost for
it would be higher than other two mentioned vehicles.

The landscape is characterized by mostly flat and gently sloping low plains. There are no
forests but a large area is covered with small plants and shrubs.

b) Soil condition

There are about 139648 acres of the land that the groundnut crops can be grown in
Magway township area. The PH of the soil in Magway township area falls in the range of
5.5 to 8.5 and therefore, it is suitable for growing the groundnut crop in this area because
the most suitable range of ph level for growing groundnut is between 5 to 6.5.

Despite of possessing suitable level of PH in the township area, the type of the soils that
groundnut grown usually are mostly coarse textured sandy soils that contains very less
humus and plant nutrients ,and only a few areas are loamy soils that contains much humus
and plant nutrients.

39
 Study village

Magway

Study village

Study village

Study village

Source: Myanmar Agriculture Service, Magway Township.

Map 4.1: Map of Magway Township Showing the Study Villages

40
 C) Climate

Magway Township is one of the townships having the highest temperature in Myanmar. The
average temperature is 28° C and the highest temperature is 44° C that usually happens in
March and April. Minimum temperature is 34 °C.

Rainfall pattern is irregular in Magway Township area and the intensity of precipitation is
low compared to other parts of Myanmar. In general, most of the rain in Magway township
concentrates in rainy season that extends from May until October and therefore, the
greatest amount of rainfall precipitation is accounted in this duration, with few and irregular
precipitation in the rest of the year. The average rainfall is 35.42 inches ranging from 43.68
inches (maximum rainfall) and 31.0 inches (minimum rainfall).

Annual Rainfall and Rainy days are illustrated in figure 4.1. During the decade, the intensity
of rainfall precipitation had dramatic changes with irregular pattern with 1000 millimeters in
the former period of the decade then decreased until 2004-2005 period. After that, the
rainfall intensity increased again at 2005-2006 period. The similar trend is found in the
period of 2006-2012.

Likewise to annual rainfall intensity, the frequency of rainy days is uneven during the
decade. In the former periods of the decade, there are more rainy days then decreasing until
2007-2008 and increased again from 2008-2009 to until the end of 2011-2012.

Source: Myanmar Agriculture Service, Magway Township.

Figure 4.1: Rainfall and Rainy days in Magway Township

d) Administration and population

The township of Magway consists of 61 village tracts and 214 villages. The total population
number of 360,797, the majority of which resides in the rural areas. The majority of
population of this Township is Barma ethnic group. Village sizes of the township ranged
from villages (99%) with 50 households to 300 households per village.

41
e) Social and economic conditions

From Table 4.1, the majority of households (49.6%) were engaged in agriculture. One third
of them (37.4 %) worked in casual labor while 10.1 % were in trade and commerce.

Table 4.1: Households Classified by Occupation

Sector No. of Households Percentage

Agriculture 26784 49.6

Livestock 88 0.2

Fishery 474 0.9

Trade/Commerce 5468 10.1

Casual Labor 20253 37.4

Self-employment 984 1.8

Total 54051 100

Source: Field Survey, 2012.

f) Cropping pattern

Generally, Magway Township is located in the Central Myanmar where cropping system is
based on pulses. There are some variations in the cropping system of the township
depending on the three main types of agricultural land usually found in Magway township.

The cropping system practiced on the upland areas is growing the short duration crops
(Sesame and Groundnut) between May and June as rainy season crops. As winter season
short duration crops-Groundnut, Sunflower, Sesame and Green Gram are generally grown
during the period of September to December. Pigeon Pea that is deep rooted and long
duration is normally intercropped since May until December.

In the low land area, the cropping system is normally rice based cropping system in which
rice is grown in two different systems. The first system is growing the rice crop only in two
different seasons as rainy season rice and summer season rice. The second system is
Sesame-Rice-Rice cropping system whereas all of them are grown as short duration crops
for about 3 months.

On Alluvial land, sunflower is found as main crop usually mixed with groundnut and some
kinds of pulses.

4.2 Profile of the Respondents

(a) Gender

From table 4.2, majority of the respondents (67.2%) were males and one-third of them
were females (32.8%).

42
 Table 4.2: Gender distribution of the Respondents

Gender f %
Male 43 67.2
Female 21 32.8
Total 64 100
Source: Field Survey, 2012.

(b) Marital status of the Respondents

It is obviously seen that third -fourth of the respondents are married persons and single is
accounted with 29%. Very few persons are widows representing 3 percent of the total
respondents.
Table 4.3: Distribution of the Respondents by Marital status

Marital status f %
Single 14 21.9
Married 48 75
Widow 2 3.1
Divorced 0 0.0
Separate 0 0.0
Total 64 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2012.

(c) Age

The age of the respondents ranged from 24 to 65 years old, which is grouped into three
categories based on Table 4.6.Based on Table 4.4, less than one-third of the total
respondents are in the age category of 20-35 whilst about one-third of the respondents are in
the group of older than 50 years old. The respondents in the range of age group between the
ages of 36-50 occupy the greatest amount which is almost the half of the total respondents
(48.4 %).
Table 4.4: Distribution of the Respondents by Age

Age f %
20-35 14 21.9
36-50 31 48.4
51-65 19 29.7
Total 64 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2012.

43
(d) Education

In Myanmar, generally, it can be found five different education levels-Monastic, Primary,

Middle, High, Diploma and Graduate levels.

Monastic level–It means that the persons who persuaded their basic level of education in
the Monasteries. Before basic education schools developed by the government were set up
in Myanmar in high quantity, most of the rural people attended Monasteries school. Those
people learnt about the calculation and Myanmar Language in writing, reading and some of
the basic Monasteries Literature in their school days. Normally, it is regarded as the
education level lower than primary level.

From table 4.5, the education level of the respondents is mainly from the primary level
comprising one-third of the total respondents, Monastic and secondary level respondents
were found 26.6 % and 25.0% respectively. The respondents who attended high school
level is found as 7.8 % and graduates and illiterates are significantly found as very few
percentage of total respondents.

Table 4.5: Distribution of the Educational level of the Respondents

Educational Level f %
Illiterate 1 1.6
Baka (Monastic) 17 26.6
Primary 23 35.9
Secondary 16 25.0
High school 5 7.8
Diploma - 0.0
Graduate 2 3.1
Total 64 100

Source: Field Survey, 2012.

(f) Land size

The land size of the participant farmers is found in two categories-the farmers who own the
land size of 3 and less than 3 acres and those who owned more than 3 to 6 acres. Equal
number of the participant farmers (50%) is observed in each land size category. Minimum
land size of the participant farmers is 0.5 acre while maximum land ownership is 6 acres.

44
 Table 4.6: Distribution of the Respondents by Land Ownership

Land (acres) f %
0.5-3.0 32 50
3.1-6.0 32 50
Total 64
Average 32
Min 0.5 acres
Max 6 acres
Source: Field survey, 2012.

(g) Household size

The majority of the respondents fall in the category of four to six family members
accounting 70.3 % of total households. Household size of 6 to 9 family members is rarely
found and it is merely about 5% of total household.

Table 4.7: Distribution of the Respondents by household size

Family member (persons) f %
1-3 16 25.0

4-6 45 70.3

6-9 3 4.7

Total 64 100.0
Average 21
Min 1
Max 8
Source: Field Survey, 2012.

(g) Amount of Annual household income

Annual income of the households is divided into four groups as shown in Table 4.8.
Households of getting the annual income in the range of between1,500,000-3,000,000
occupy the greatest number accounting 42.1% of total respondent households. The highest
income earning group of more than 4500,000 kyat has the least number of the respondent
farmers. Mean of the annual household income is 2033689.5 kyat.

45
 Table 4.8: Annual income Distribution of the Respondents in amount

Annual income (kyat) f %

-<1500,000 26 40.6
-1500,000-3000,000 27 42.1
-3000,0001-4500,000 8 12.6
->4500,000 3 4.7
Total 64 100

Average 2,033,689.5 (kyat)

Min 580,000 (kyat)

Max 5,460,500 (kyat)
Source: Field Survey, 2012.

(h) Source of Annual household income

Source of annual household income of the respondent households are mainly from farm,
wage labor, and livestock in the agricultural sector and in the non-agricultural sector, the
respondent households achieve their income from the sources of trade, pension, remittance,
and others.

It is clearly seen in Table 4.11, there are much more frequency of respondent households
that earn the annual income from the agricultural sector than non-agricultural sector. Since
all of them are farmers and therefore, 100 % of respondent households achieve their
income from the farm source, followed by Livestock representing 39.1% of total
households.

Table 4.9: Annual income Distribution of the Respondents by source

(Multiple Response)
Annual income by source f %
 Agriculture
-Farm income 64 100
-Agricultural wage labor 23 35.9
-Livestock 25 39.1
 Non Agriculture
-Trade 8 12.5
- Pension 1 1.6

-Remittance 6 9.4

-Others 8 12.5

Source: Field Survey, 2012.

46
Source: Field Survey, 2012.
Figure 4.2: Annual Income Sources of the Respondents.

47
 Chapter 5

Institutional Arrangements of CESVI on the Groundnut Production

This chapter examines the information about project description, objective of the
assistance, objective of providing extension activities to the farmers, coordination with
other organizations, coordination mechanism with the project villages, coverage, steps to
performing the extension activities, selection of the extensionists, selection of target
beneficiary farmers in Extension Activities, selection of sites for farmer field school
(FFSs) and activities of the extension activities.

5.1 Project Description

In Myanmar’s agriculture, oil seed crop production is in second position followed after rice
production. Myanmar people consume cooking oil in high quantity and therefore, oil seed
crops play a major role. Despite of increasing production and high consumption, it is till
insufficient for domestic consumption as the demand for edible oil has been increasing
over time due to the increasing population.

Among of oilseed crops, groundnut is one of the most important oilseed crops which has
been grown both in rain fed and irrigation areas. The productivity of groundnut in
Myanmar is still low compared to the world average. Groundnut production in Myanmar is
facing with raising costs of production coupled with declining productivity. The principle
solution to increasing edible oil production lies in raising the productivity of yield gaps
with higher yield potential.

At the current level of production, production cost of groundnut gradually increase due to
the high seed cost. The profitability and quality of groundnut seeds are important
consideration for farmers in growing groundnut. Consequently, production technologies
and operational constraints are important elements to increase productivity of groundnut
which will finally raise the farm income for growers and reduce the edible oil shortage in
the country. Myanmar farmers not only need to be efficient in their production activities,
but also to be responsive to technical efficiency, so that the scarce resources are utilized
efficiently to increase productivity as well as profitability and ensure supply to the edible
oil shortage. Furthermore, efficiency gains will have a positive impact on raising farm
income of scarce largely resource poor farmers.

In Myanmar, the largest oilseed crop production areas are in Mandalay and Magway
Divisions.

This project was conducted in Magway Township for three years with the aim of
increasing the livelihood of the rural people especially for the small farmers and landless in
the project area. Magway Township was selected as project area because this area grows
the groundnut in enormous quantity. People in this area depend mainly on rain fed
agriculture and except agriculture; there are less of other income opportunities in that area.
Sometimes, weather changes affect the farm production badly and also, the small farmers
cannot use the agricultural inputs well compared to the medium and large farmers and
because of practicing inefficient agricultural methods, their farm productivity is less and
livelihood is difficult for them.

48
The project selected ten villages within Magway Township as pilot areas to provide
assistance in two ways-

i) Supporting of the production constraints such as the agricultural inputs and the
technological knowledge related with the groundnut production
ii) Supporting of the livestock, and providing of the vegetable seeds and providing the
short term training on the homestead vegetable growing

Getting the good quality seed to farmers is a basic necessity for the better outcrop. The
project interventions include not only the filling out of the production constraints but also
shaping the long term plans such as developing of seed bank so that the poor availability of
the quality seed can be solved out to some extent and the farmers are to be ascertained to
have the good quality seeds in hand when the growing season comes. During the project
period, the project could perform well another important intention that was to extend the
number of the good quality seeds utilized farmers through the seed bank activity by
contributing the capital deposit to the recent handing farmers and profit to new farmers.

5.2 Objective of the Assistance

The main objective of the project was to provide assistance to the poor people in the
project area to come out of the poverty of the small farmers and landless by contributing
the agricultural knowledge, by supporting the agricultural inputs and by the contribution of
the livestock and by helping to develop homestead vegetable growing.

5.3 Objectives of Providing the Extension Activities to Small Farmers

 To provide the agricultural technologies to the farmers to raise their farm production
 To enable the farmers to analyze their current farming techniques and to compare their
indigenous knowledge and traditional practices with the transferred knowledge and
practices provided via extension activities and to conceive those learned technologies
in accordance with their own perceptions and interest
 To help the farmers to overcome their farm problems
 To share the agricultural knowledge among the farmers and the extensionists in two
way interactions

5.4 Coordination with Other Organizations

Myanmar Agriculture Organization (MAS) cooperated together with CESVI organization

for three years in accordance with the agreement in memorandum MOU and also, being in
the same trend of providing the improved agricultural technologies, the staffs from
Myanmar Agricultural Service cooperated and provided the training on some technical
aspects of increased production throughout the training periods of Farmer Field School
activity.

49
5.5 Coordination Mechanism with the Project Villages

5.5.1 Before the Start of the Activities

Before conducting any project activity, the first and foremost activity was meeting with the
villagers in their respective villages and making the base line surveys to know the socio
economic conditions of the villages and the wealth ranking of the villagers. In making
those base line surveys, the respective villages helped the organization to be smooth in
collecting the data.

Second meeting was that tried to know the real circumstance of crop production and trying
to understand the constraints of the farmers in their farm level. In accordance with the
needy of the farmers and the requirement of domestic oil, the project supported both of the
inputs and technology to the farmers which are essential for increasing the production. To
be effective and efficient selection of target beneficiaries, the farmers with small land
holding sizes could be selected and supported the inputs well based on the base line
survey data which was achieved from the base line survey of the project staffs before
conducting any activities.

5.5.2 During the Implementation of the Activities

In every project villages, there was a village committee that was organized to help the
CESVI organization to be smooth in running each of the project activities. The interaction
mechanism between the CESVI organization and target beneficiaries was via those
respective village committees in the respective villages.

50
 Source: CESVI Activity Myanmar Work Plan, Magway

Figure 5.1: Linkage between the Organization and the Project Villages, (2009-2011)

Village committee was normally comprised with the village heads and the villagers who
are interested in the welfares of their villages and who can do the activities with high
interest and motivation. Under the village committee, there were three sub divided groups-
agricultural group, seed bank group and livestock groups.

In each project village, there were set up one development committee under which
comprising of one agricultural group, seed bank group and one livestock group. Since there
were ten project villages, totally ten development committees, ten agricultural groups, ten
seed bank groups and ten livestock groups were set up in the project villages.

Agricultural group helped to perform the project activities well in the cases starting with
the selection of the farmer field school locations, sharing information between the
organization and the villagers about input delivery and training such as motivating the
farmers to attend the training, and also in the arrangement of the other extension activities.

The seed bank group performed the activities of sharing the seeds to the beneficiary
farmers and collecting when one season stops and delivering again when next season
comes. The similar trend was applied by the livestock group.

Seed bank group and livestock groups were provided training such as management training
before the project activities started.

51
5.6 Coverage

The project covered 10 villages with 1,832 households including total farmers of 1534, in
the aspects of both of disseminating the technologies and delivering the inputs.

5.7 Steps to Perform the Extension Activities

 Meetings with the village heads, villagers and asking their opinion on the crop they
want to be provided the technology transfer and input supply
 Meetings with the village heads and villagers to understand their current practicing
farming practices and input usage and analyzing the weak points for low production
 Drawing up of the extension approaches outline for conducting extension activities and
discussing the knowledge matters among the extensionists
 Selection of the beneficiary farmers to participate in each extension activities
 Delivery of the inputs and conducting each extension activities

5.8 Selection of Extensionists

Eight extensionists for running this project were selected based on the following criteria:

 To be a bachelor degree holder of Agricultural Science or to be a diploma holder of

agriculture
 To have a good communication with the local people
 To have the high motivation and willingness in performing the project activities
 To be able to go anywhere where the project activities to be conducted

5.9 Selection of Target Beneficiary Farmers in Extension Activities

 For the training activities and Field Visit, the target beneficiaries are not only the small
farmers but also the middle farmers and rich farmers who grew the groundnut crop and
who are really interested in attending the agricultural training. There was no limitation
factor such as education and age for the farmers to attend the training, however, the
small farmers who perceived the inputs from the project is the must.

 In the front line demonstration, small farmers who own the land holding size of 6 acres
and less than that were selected as target beneficiary farmers and supported the inputs in
one acre basis to conduct groundnut production in the form of front line demonstration
efficiently and effectively.

5.10 Selection of Sites for the Farmer Field School (FFS)

Farmer Field schools (FFSs) were set up in each of the project villages and there were ten
farmer field schools. The sites selected for FFSs were chosen based on the following
criteria:

 To be easily accessible for the participant farmers so that they can be well organized
 To have a well spacing to hold certain amount of the training attended persons and for
making some demonstrations

52
 To be easily communicable to the farmers’ farms for conducting the field visit activities
also

Normally, the locations designated for the farmer field schools were in the monasteries and
in the homes of the village’s head that was coincided with the above criteria.

5.11 Activities of the Extension Activities

5.11.1 Input Delivery to the Project Beneficiary Farmers

The project supported the following inputs to the small farmers from the project villages
which are:

 groundnut seed
 chemical fertilizer
 gypsum fertilizer
 neem cake
 neem pesticide

The inputs such as chemical fertilizer and gypsum fertilizer were supported with the rate of
1 bag for one small farmer ,while neem pesticide was supported with the rate of 1
bottle(500cc) and neem cake with the rate of 1/4 bag for a small farmer. Seed was
distributed with the rate of 8 baskets with shell to each farmer.

The list of input support in the villages under the project is presented in Table 5.1.

53
 Table 5.1: Input Support in the Project Villages

Inputs delivered

Seeds Compound fertilizer Gypsum fertilizer Neem cake Neem oil

No No of Amount No of Amount of No of Amount of No of Amount No of Amount of

Project Farmers Farmers farmers of farmers
sites of Alani Gypsum Farmers Neem oil
(persons) (persons) compound (persons) fertilizer(bags) Neem (persons)
seeds fertilizer (persons) cake (bottle)
(25kg) (bags)
(50 kg)
54

1 Pahto 35 280 35 35 35 35 35 9 35 35
Sann

2 Ywar 22 176 22 22 22 22 22 5.5 22 22

Taw

3 Htone 46 368 46 46 46 46 46 11.5 46 46

Pauk
Taw

4 Saing 35 280 35 35 35 35 35 9 35 35
Kya
 Inputs delivered

Seeds Compound fertilizer Gypsum fertilizer Neem cake Neem oil

No Project No of Amountof No of Amount of No of Amount of No Amount No of Amount of

sites Farmers Farmers Alani farmers ofFarmers of farmers
seeds compound Gypsum Neem oil
(persons) (persons) fertilizer(50 (persons) fertilizer(bags) (persons) Neem (persons)
kg) (25kg) cake (bottle)
(bags)
5 Phoe 25 200 25 25 25 25 25 6.5 25 25
Pauk
Kan
6 Shaw 46 368 46 46 46 46 46 11.5 46 46
Taw
55

7 Yone 29 232 29 29 29 29 29 7.5 29 29

Kone

8 See Pin 45 360 45 45 45 45 45 11.5 45 45

Thar

9 Lat Pan 50 400 50 50 50 50 50 12.5 50 50

Taw

10 Ye Ngan 54 432 54 54 54 54 54 13.5 54 54

Total 387 3096 387 387 387 387 387 98 387 387

Value in kyat 35,604,000 10,836,000 2,902,500 980,000 387,000

Value in US 41,887 12,748 3,415 1,152 455

dollar

Source: Project Document, CESVI Food Security Project.

55
5.11.2 Classroom Training

Classroom trainings were conducted mainly in three forms.

(a) Transferring the agricultural knowledge from the extensionists to participating farmers
in the classroom
(b) Discussion with the participant farmers
(c) Demonstrations on using some inputs and making compost

a) Transferring the agricultural knowledge from the extensionists to participating

farmers in the classroom

The agricultural technologies were transferred to the farmers in the form of transferring
agricultural knowledge from extensionists to participating farmers in every two weeks
along the growing period of the groundnut. Totally, there was 6 times of training and one
time of training takes about 3 hours.

Generally, in this type, top down teaching method was applied and the agricultural
knowledge was directly transferred to the participant farmers.

The matters in these training includes a wide range of agricultural technologies and
knowledge covering the aspects of land preparation, seed selection and usage ,growing
techniques, pest and disease control, systemic use of chemical pesticides, systematic
harvesting and storage, and mainly the training focuses on the use of the natural pesticides
and natural fertilizers instead of using chemicals.

-Teaching aids

The training manuals and pamphlets of sharing knowledge about compost making,
chemical and neem pesticide usage, spraying techniques, and harmful effects of
unsystematic wearing of protective covers were delivered to every participants of training.
Major pests, diseases and their control measures were demonstrated with posters and
photos. In some cases of pesticide usage and danger of chemical pesticide on human
health, figures were used.

-Materials provided to the participants

The note books and ball point pens were delivered to all of the training participants and
also the files and clips were provided for keeping up the documents delivered in the
training.

b) Discussion

In the meantime of the trainings, the participant farmers were allowed to raise their farm
problems and the extensionists and the other participant farmers helped to solve out those
problems by sharing their knowledge and experiences. These discussions were in the form
of bottom up approach.

56
 Table 5.2: Training Activities of Farmer Field School
Farmer participants Meeting
Duration times
Total
No Project sites (2010Rainy
Male Female season)
1 Pa Htoe San 20 12 32 May - Twice per
August month
2 Ywar Taw 28 13 41 May - Twice per
August month
3 Htone Pauk Taw 30 26 56 May - Twice per
August month
4 Saing Kya 38 24 62 May - Twice per
August month
5 Phoe Pauk Kan 16 14 30 May - Twice per
August month
6 Shaw Taw 12 7 19 May - Twice per
August month
7 Yone Kone 19 7 26 May - Twice per
August month
8 Se Pin Thar 28 22 50 May - Twice per
August month
9 Le Pan Taw 24 14 38 May - Twice per
August month
10 Ye Ngan 23 20 43 May - Twice per
August month
Total 238 159 397

Source: CESVI Magway Food Security Project, 2010.

(c) Demonstration

For using some inputs such as seed treatment powder, natural pesticides, foliar powder
were demonstrated by the extensionists themselves in the training.

For the farmers to enable the spraying of the pesticides in the effective and efficient
manner, demonstrations on sprayings were also conducted.

For the farmers to make compost themselves, three types of compost making were
demonstrated practically with the instructions of the extensionists and collaboration of the
participant farmers to reduce the farmers’ reliance on the chemical fertilizers and improve
their farm production.

57
5.11.3 Implementation of Front Line Demonstration

Front Line Demonstrations were conducted in every project villages by supporting the
inputs for 1 acre to every small farmer. This type of front line demonstration was
conducted with the intention of making awareness to both the participating farmers as well
as non participating farmers on the use of natural pesticides, good quality seeds ,gypsum
fertilizers and good quality chemical fertilizer.

Generally, front line demonstration was conducted with the involvement of the small
farmers who received the input support and who attended the training. Training and Field
Visit went parallel and front line demonstration followed after these two activities. It was
aimed that the participating farmers could utilize the knowledge gained from the training
and field visit.

5.11.4 Implementation of Field Visits

Field visit activities were conducted in every classroom training days. After every one time
training activity, one field visit activity was accomplished with the leadership of the
extensionists followed by the training participant farmers and one time of field visits took
about two hours.

In this aspect, the yield factors such as the plant population and the pods on the plants were
counted and enabled the farmers themselves to estimate the yield that will be achieved on
these yield factors and make understandable the importance of using good quality seed and
proper plant spacing.

Similarly, the differences between the physiological and disease symptoms were explained
in the field visits by the extensionists and in this way, the farmers were let known
practically and lead to the effective use of pesticides.

Likewise, the farmers were explained about the differences of the characteristics between
the beneficial insects and harmful insects and by doing so, the project tried to reduce the
wrong use of pesticides on beneficial insects.

58
 Chapter 6

Participation of Small Farmers in Agricultural Extension Activities

This chapter describes the participation of the small farmers in each extension activities of
the project conducted and analyzes the factors that associated with the participation in each
extension activities. It comprises mainly with type of the agricultural extension activities,
participation of small farmers by type of agricultural extension activity in terms of the
intensity of participation, participation aspects and reasons for the participation.

6.1 Type of Agricultural Extension Activities

Three kinds of extension activities (classroom type training, field visit, front line
demonstration) were conducted under farmer field school for the small farmers in the
project villages during the period of 2010 rainy season simultaneously.

In this research, the participation of participating small farmers was studied as two
categories–very small farmers and small farmers based on their land ownership. According
to the land size, the farmer who owned the land size of 3 and less than 3 were designated as
very small farmers and the other category of farmers who owned the land sizes of above
three acres to six acres was as small farmers.

Table 6.1 below shows the number of the farmers participated in each extension activity.

With regard to the number of the participated farmers, it was obviously seen classroom
training activity and front line demonstration activity (FLD) were the activities that all the
small farmers joined (100%).

In comparing the two farmer categories, very small farmer group had less participated
number of farmers only in field visits with the decrease of about 7 % and the equal number
of farmers participated in other two activities.

59
 Table 6.1: Participation of Small Farmers in Agricultural Extension Activities
(Multiple Responses)

Type of Activity Very Small Farmers Small Farmers

(n=32) (n=32)
f % f %

Classroom Trainings 32 100.0 32 100.0

Field visits (FV) 22 68.8 24 75.0

Front line demonstration(FLD) 32 100.0 32 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012.

6.2 Participation of Small Farmers by Type of Agricultural Extension Activity

6.2.1 Classroom Trainings

Classroom trainings were set up during the project period of 2010 May to 2010 August in
each of ten project villages. Totally, eight trainings that covered on the knowledge of land
preparation, growing, nutrient, pesticide, harvest and storage were delivered from the
extensionists to the participating farmers in the classroom type. Normally, one time of
training took around three hours.

a) Attendance

All very small and small farmers from the project villages joined classroom trainings during
the training period regardless of the differences in their participation intensity.

It was found the greater number of very small farmers participated in less intensity with 28.1
%, the lesser number of small farmers was in that intensity. In contrast to that, the greater
number of the small farmers had in another two categories of 4-6 and 7-8 with 40.6 % and
43.8 % respectively (Table 6.2).

The number from both small and very small farmers was not different in each category of
intensity of attendance. Both types of the farmers joined with high intensity and the least
number of the participated farmers was found only in 1-3 times in both types of farmers.
Therefore, the interest of both of very small farmers and small farmers to participate in
classroom training activity was high because their motivation to learn the agricultural
knowledge was high because of their intention to apply in their farms.

Average number of the participant very small farmers was the same (10.6 times) with that of
the small farmers which was accounted about 33.1 % of the each category of farmers.

60
 Table 6.2: Intensity of Attendance in Classroom Training Activity

Intensity(Time ) Very Small Farmers Small Farmers

f % f %
(n=32) (n=32)
1-3 9 28.1 5 15.6
4-6 10 31.2 13 40.6
7-8 13 40.6 14 43.8
Average 10.6 10.6
Source: Field Survey, 2012.

b) Participation aspects

The project provided eight times of training activities during the rainy season growing
period of the project period (2010 May to 2010 August). In the meanwhile of training, the
knowledge in the subject matters of improving the crop yield covered in the main aspects:

(1) Land preparation

(2)Growing
(3)Nutrient Management
(4)Pesticide Management
(5) Harvest
(6) Storage

In Land preparation training, the knowledge aspects related with contour farming soil
conservation practice, efficient use of farm yard manure, tillage and intercropping were
delivered to the farmers. In Growing training, the knowledge about seed, growing practices
such as plant spacing, plant population, sowing depth and weeding were learnt by the
farmers. In Nutrient Management training and Pesticide Management training, there were
two times of training activities each. In Nutrient Management Trainings, the extensionists
explained about Gypsum fertilizer, Neem fertilizer, Boron fertilizer, Compost and Chemical
fertilizer and Urea in the effectiveness of using these fertilizers and application methods of
using efficiently. In Pesticide management training, the farmers were taught about chemical
pesticide, neem pesticide, protective wearing, spraying techniques, distinguishing between
the beneficial insects and harmful insects, diagnosis.

In harvest training, the aspects on the importance of right time harvesting, the losses that
will be incurred by improper harvesting were explained to the farmers and in Storage
training, the farmers could learn about the measures for having proper storage condition, and
they understand the knowledge about the losses that they will have because of storing their
groundnut in improper storage conditions.

Overall, among all aspects of the training, pesticide management training (I) stood as the
greatest number participated training with the constitution of 75% of very small farmers and

61
87.5% of small farmers (Table 6.3). The least number of the farmers participated in storage
and harvest trainings with the constitution of about 50 % each.

In comparing between two groups of farmers, generally, a slightly greater number of the
small farmers participated than very small farmers in each aspect of the training in spite of
exception in harvest and storage trainings.

Table 6.3: Participation in Classroom Trainings by Type of Training

(Multiple Responses)

Very Small Small Farmers

Type Farmers
f f
% %
(n=32) (n=32)
Land preparation 24 75.0 26 81.2
Growing 25 78.1 26 81.2
Nutrient Management(I) 19 59.4 23 71.9
Nutrient management(II) 20 62.5 28 87.5
Pesticide management(I) 24 75.0 28 87.5
Pesticide management(II) 24 75.0 27 84.4
Harvest 16 50.0 14 43.8
Storage 17 53.1 16 50.0
Source: Field Survey, 2012.

c) Reasons for participation in training

All of the participated farmers in training illustrated that they attended the training with
their own interest. All of them gave the same response that they participated due to their
intention to gain knowledge and to apply them to their farms later.

d) Reasons of Absence of Regular Attendance in Trainings

Among 19 non participated very small farmers, all of them (100%) said that they were
busy with farm work. The reason of having other works to do was given to be the second
reason for missing in the training accounting for 31.6 % (Table 6.4). Likewise, the majority
(94.6 %) of small farmers missed the trainings because of being busy with their farm
works. Nearly one third of the small farmers had other works to do as the second most
reason. It was found that missing in the training due to the sickness is very rare and there
was only 5.3 % in very small farmers group and no one in small farmer group.

62
 Table 6.4: Reasons for not Attending Training Regularly
(Multiple Responses)

Very Small Farmers Small Farmers

Reason (n=19) (n=18)
f % f %
Busy with farm works 19 100.0 16 88.9
Having social work 1 5.3 3 16.7
Feel sick 1 5.3 - -
Other 6 31.6 5 27.8
Source: Field Survey, 2012.

6.2.2 Factors Associated with the Intensity of Participation in Classroom Type

trainings of Small Farmers

Table 6.5: Factors Associated with Participation Intensity in Classroom Type trainings of
Small Farmers

Correlation Coefficient (CC)

Factors Very Small Farmers Small Farmers

Age .187 .004

Male -.402* -.003

Education -.095 -.185

Household size -.116 -.180

Groundnut cultivated area -.028 .574**

Income earned from groundnut .122 .513**

Participation intensity in field .829** .746**

visit

Notes: * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level

Criteria for interpretations: Correlation Coefficient (CC) value is less than 0.30 is a low
level of association, from 0.31 to 0.70 is a moderate level of association, and from 0.71 to
0.99 is a high level of association.

In this section, a dependent variable is participation intensity in Classroom Type trainings

of small farmers. According to Table 1, seven independent factors were considered to have
an association with participation intensity of small farmers in Classroom Type trainings

63
applying a bi-variate analysis of Pearson’s correlation Coefficient. Those factors are age,
male, education, household size, groundnut cultivated area, income from groundnut and
participation intensity in field visit.

For very small farmers, participation intensity in field visit had a high positive relationship
with participation intensity in classroom type trainings (CC= 0.829 at 99% confident
level). It was understood that because of having their keen interest, very small farmer who
attended in higher intensity in field visit joined with higher participation intensity in the
classroom type trainings as well as in the field visit.

Male was found as a moderate negative correlated factor with the participation intensity in
classroom type trainings for very small farmers (CC=-0.402 at 95% confident level).
Females were found to be more participated in the classroom type trainings than males
because males had to work in their farm and therefore, they could not spend their time to
attend the classroom type trainings as compared to females.

In case of small farmers, there was a high positive relationship between the participation
intensity of classroom type trainings and field visit with the CC value 0.746 at 99%
significant level. The small farmers with higher participation intensity in Classroom Type
trainings also participated intensely in field visit. However, the CC value was lower than
those from very small farmers. It showed that owing to larger farm area, the small farmers
could not share their time for participating in field visit activity frequently as those found
from the very small farmers.

A moderate positive relationship between the participation intensity in classroom type

trainings and groundnut cultivated area was found with the CC value of 0.574 at 99%
significant level. The small farmers who owned the larger groundnut growing area
participated in higher intensity in classroom type trainings. It was contrast to very small
farmers in which groundnut cultivated area was not significantly correlated with
participation intensity in classroom type trainings. It could be explained that according to
the findings on the groundnut growing areas, it was seen that very small farmers joined in
the classroom type trainings despite of less groundnut growing area. In general, their total
land holding was small and, their livelihood depends mainly on that small area. Therefore,
even the groundnut growing area was small but it was important for very small farmers.
Therefore, those from very small farmers were interested in attending classroom type
training.

Similarly, in case of small farmers, they accommodated more area for growing groundnut
and their motivation to achieve the agricultural information was high because they made
much investment for large areas and therefore, the profit from the groundnut was important
for the farmers who had large groundnut growing area and so, those farmers’ interest in
attending in classroom type trainings was high.

In terms of income earning from groundnut, it has a moderate positively relationship with
participation intensity in classroom type trainings (CC= 0.513 at 99 % significant level). It
seems that the small farmers who earned higher income from groundnut were involved
more frequent in classroom type trainings. It can be mentioned that since the farmers who
owned the large groundnut growing area were small farmers, and groundnut crop was
much income earning crop, the income earning from that crop was pivotal for small
64
farmers and they were willing to learn agricultural information and they participated in
classroom type trainings.

6.2.3 Field Visit

Field Visit activities were generally conducted after each of the training activities in the
nearest farms to the project villages. In these field visits, the farmers were explained about
the spraying techniques, the plant population and spacing, distinguishing between the
harmful insects and beneficial insects and making the diagnosis between physiological and
plant diseases.

a) Attendance
Field Visit activity was conducted after each of every Classroom Type training activity in
the nearest farms to the project villages and the participant farmers and the extentionists
went together to the farm. Totally, there was 6 times of field visit activities during the
project period.

From table 6.6, it was found that nearly one-third of very small farmers (31.3 %) and one-
fourth of the small farmers (25 %) did not participate in field visits at all. The number of
the attendant farmers was more or less the same in two categories of intensity of
attendances with an inconsiderable differences accounting one-third out of the total.

The average number of the farmers who participated in the field visits was not
considerably different between very small farmers and small farmers representing 34.4 %
and 35.3 % each.
Table 6.6: Attendance in Field Visit

Very Small Farmers Small Farmers

Attendance
(time) f f
(n=32) % (n=32) %

No participation 10 31.3 8 25.0

1-3 10 31.3 11 34.4
4-6 12 37.5 13 40.6
Source: Field Survey, 2012.

b) Assistance received from extensionists

In field visit activity, the participant farmers received the assistance from the extensionist
on the following aspects mentioned below:

(i) Exchange of the information

The information of the importance of plant spacing and plant population in achieving the
good yield was made understandable to the participant farmers by enabling them to count
the plants themselves and to calculate the yield in the sample places of the farm. The
participant farmers explained that they understood the importance of plant spacing, plant
population and the role of good quality seeds to achieve good production through trainings
as well as field visit activity.

65
(ii) Getting technical advice from the extensionist

In field visit, the participant farmers were taught about the right spraying techniques and
the right proportion of chemical pesticides and natural pesticides in the farms by making
practical demonstration. The aim of this assistance in information sharing was to make
awareness to the farmers about the efficient and effective spraying techniques, to make
understandable the correct procedures of mixing up of the pesticides, and to reduce the
harmful effects that would be derived from the incorrect manner of sprayings currently
practicing by the farmers in the farms.

(iii) Consulting on technical problems

In general, the farmers could not differentiate well the characters between the
physiological disorders and disease symptoms before they participated in the extension
activities. They used to do the wrong treatments, and their efforts to solve the problems
were ineffective and the undesirable costs incurred and the production was reduced.

In the field visit activity of the project, the farmers were let known about the differences
between the physiological disorders and the disease symptoms and making awareness to
the farmers in the aspects of choosing the right treatment for the crop.

(iv)Seek technical solutions

Seek technical solutions was provided by the extensionists to the participant farmers by
explaining the disease symptoms in the farms and the control measures related with those
diseases. Most of the farmers were lack of the knowledge in making diagnosis the disease
symptoms correctly and they could not use the effective control measures. The participant
farmers told that after participating in extension activities, they got more knowledge on
right diagnosis on diseases.

Among all kinds of assistances provided from the extensionists to the farmers, seeking
technical solutions from the extensionist constituted 81.8% to the very small farmers and
62.5% to the small farmers. More very small farmers than small farmers got assistance in
this aspect.
In contrast to seek technical solutions aspect, getting technical advice aspect occupied by
the least number of farmers with about 40 % of each category of farmers. There were no
significantly differences between two groups of the very small farmers and small farmers
who gained assistance in this aspect.

66
 Table 6.7: Aspects of Assistance from the Extensionists to Small Farmers
(Multiple Responses)

Assistance from the Smallest Farmers Small Farmers

Extensionist f % f %
(n=22) (n=24)
Exchange of the information
between the extensionists and 17 77.3 15 62.5
the farmers
Getting technical advice from
9 40.9 10 41.7
the extensionists
Consulting on technical
12 54.5 16 66.7
problems
Seek technical solution from
18 81.8 15 62.5
the extensionists
Source: Field Survey 2012
*n=Total number of farmers

c) Reasons of absence in field visits

In giving the reasons for absence in field visit, the majority of farmers gave the reason of
being busy with farm work as the main reason to miss the activity representing 90.6% of
very small farmers and 96.9% of the small farmers. The distribution of the number of very
small farmers in respective reasons was greater than that of small farmers which was in
contrast only in the reason given as having other works to do. Very few percentages of
very small farmers and small farmers (3.1% and 9.4%) missed to participate in field visits
because of sickness.

Table 6.8: Reasons of Absence in Field Visit

(Multiple Responses)
Very Small Farmers Small Farmers
Reasons
f % f %
(n=32) (n=32)
Busy with farm
29 90.6 31 96.9
works
Having social work 2 6.2 4 12.5
Sickness 1 3.1 3 9.4
other 5 15.6 4 12.5
Source: Field Survey, 2012.

Note: Having social work means that farmers could not attend the filed visits because they
have to go somewhere for some activities such as to attend some occasions, for example,
such as wedding, to help their neighbors in their affairs, etc.

67
6.2.4 Factors Associated with Participation in Field Visit of Small Farmers

Table 6.9: Factors Associated with Participation Intensity in Field Visit of Small Farmers

Correlation Coefficient (CC)

Factors
Very Small Farmers Small Farmers
Age .179 -.012
Male -.380* .108
Education -.063 -.140
Household size -.052 -.088
Groundnut area .010 .297
Income earned from groundnut .261 .331
Exchange of information .791** .688**
Get technical advice .701** .550**
Consulting on technical problem .669** .538**
Seek solution from an .628** .592**
extensionist
Participation intensity in .829** .746**
Classroom Trainings

Notes: * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level

Criteria for interpretations: Correlation Coefficient (CC) value is less than 0.30 is a low
level of association, from 0.31 to 0.70 is a moderate level of association, and from 0.71 to
0.99 is a high level of association.

In this analysis, a dependent variable is the participation intensity in the field visit.

Eleven independent variables related to those aspects are explored based on correlation
coefficient values to identify their relationship with the participation intensity in field visit
as shown in Table 6.9.

Out of the eleven independent variables, Table 2 shows that six statistically correlated
independent factors with the participation intensity in the field visit. These factors include
exchange of information, get technical advice, consulting on technical problem, and seek
solution from the extensionist and participation intensity in farmer field school.

Factors having relatively high positive relationship with participation intensity for very
small farmers were participation intensity in classroom type trainings, exchange of the
information and getting technical advice from the extensionists. Among them, participation
intensity in farmer field visit had the highest relationship with the participation intensity in
field visit (CC=.829 at 99% significant level). This implies the fact that the interest of very
small farmers was not only in attending classroom type trainings but also in field visit.
Therefore, the farmers who attended in classroom type trainings were observed as those
who also joined in field visit activity.

The relationship between the participation intensity in field visit and benefits derived from
field visits showed a moderate positive relationship in both groups of very small farmers

68
and small farmers but differed in correlation values. For very small farmers, they got much
assistance in the aspect of exchange of information with the correlation coefficient of 0.791
at 99% significant level. After that, the second relationship with participation intensity was
getting technical advice (CC=.701 at 99 % significant level), following by consulting on
technical problem (CC=.669 at 99% significant level) and seek solution (CC=.628 at 99%
significant level).

In case of small farmers, they got the highest assistance in exchange of information having
the moderate positive relationship value of .688 at 99% significant level. Secondly, in seek
solution aspects (CC=.592 at 99% significant level, thirdly in getting technical advice
(CC=.550 at 99% significant level) and the fourth is consulting on technical problem
(CC=.538 at 99% significant level). The correlation coefficient showed different levels
between the participation intensity in field visits and benefits for very small farmers and
small farmers. This can be interpreted that the participated field visit activity that the
farmers joined frequently was not the same between the two farmer groups, and therefore,
there had higher correlation coefficient in the aspects that they participated frequently.

Male shows a moderate negative level of relationship with the participation intensity in
field visit (CC=-.380 at 99% significant level). This implies that in very small farmer
group, females were more frequently participated than male in field visit activity. It is due
to the reason of having the farm works for male to manage their farm activities and females
were not much responsible for managing the farm work compared to males and the females
thus could join more than males in field visit activity.

In case of small farmers, the factor having a high positive relationship with participation
intensity in the field visit was participation intensity in classroom type trainings showing
the CC value of .746 at 99% significant level. It describes those small farmers who
attended more frequently in the classroom type trainings attended in the field visit as much
as they could. However, compared to very small farmers, the tendency to participate in
both activities by small farmers was less because they had larger farm size and they have to
manage their farm work. That meant that the small farmers could not join in two extension
activities as very small farmers did.

6.2.5 Front Line Demonstration

a) Participation aspects

A front line demonstration in this project was conducted with the scheme of supplying the
inputs firstly and providing the technologies through training and the farmers grow the
groundnut crop by utilizing the technologies and inputs supported. In this way, the project
non participating farmers could observe the technology and input efficiency in improving
their crop yield to reduce the production cost.

Key factors to improve crop yield and reduce the production cost were regarded as the
participated factors of the small and smaller farmers in front line demonstration.

Overall, in all aspects except plant population, there were a slight more number of farmers
who followed the front line demonstration practices in the small farmers than the very
small farmers.

69
Among all activities of front line demonstration, all of the very small farmers and small
farmers followed the practice of keeping the right amount of plant population in their farm
by growing the quality seed delivered by the project seed bank scheme.

Correct spacing and systematic fertilizer applying practices were found as the least
following practices amongst the small and very small farmers practiced (Table 6.9). Only
6.2 % of small farmers practiced the recommended spacing whilst nearly one-fifth of the
small farmers and about 15 % of very small farmers practiced the systematic fertilizer
applying.

6.2.6 Activities Provided in Front Line Demonstration

Table 6.10 below shows activities provided in front line demonstration.

Table 6.10: Descriptions of Activities farmer participated in front line demonstration

Aspect Descriptions of recommended practices

1.Recommended amount
of compound fertilizer
(50kg/acre)
-It is important for the farmers to use the
compound fertilizer in recommended amount to
obtain good production. Using the compound
fertilizer in not enough amounts will affect the
productivity of the groundnut crop.

2.Recommended amount of -Likewise to compound fertilizer, to use the

gypsum in recommended amount is important to
gypsum fertilizer(25kg/acre) have the good quality groundnut seed. The main
good point of using it is it enhances the weight
and size of the groundnut seed.

3.Compost making -Composts improve the production and quality of

the crops by the microbial activity within it
throughout the growing period without releasing
any undesirable effects on the crop and it is
environmentally friendly.

4.Reduced Pesticide usage -Reliance on using chemical pesticide to control

the plant diseases affects the environment in the
long run as well as it affects the health of the
human beings. By reducing the chemical pesticide
usage, the farmers can save money as well as it
can save the environmentally.

5.Application of Boron
-Boron is the foliar fertilizer that can spray on the
leaves of the crop. It mainly attributes to the
quality of the groundnut seed. The cost is very
cheap and really effective compared to other
fertilizers.

70
 Aspect Descriptions of recommended practices
6.Spacing -Farmers need to grow the groundnut crop in
correct spacing. If the crop is grown in too narrow
spacing, the growth of the crop is poor and the
productivity will be affected. Similarly, if the crop
is grown in too wide spacing, the required amount
of the plants for getting good production will not
be achieved.

7.Systematic way of applying -Farmers need to use the pesticides systematically

pesticides in order to avoid the undesirable effects such as
causing health problems by unsystematic spraying
,unsystematic keeping of the pesticide containers .
In this aspect, to use the pesticides in correct
dosage and correct method also include as
important facts so that the farmers get the efficient
and effective disease control.

8.Systematic fertilize applying -Not only to use the fertilizer in recommended

method amount also to use them efficiently is important in
achieving good yield. Normally, split application
methods is recommended for the farmers to have
good yield.

9.Application of enough farmyard
manure
-Farmyard Manure really contributes for the good
yield of the crop. Their effect is long lasting that
different to chemical fertilizer and it is readily
available in the rural area and so cheap compared
to chemical fertilizers. It not only enhances the
crop productivity but also enhances the physical
properties of the soil.

10.Plant population -To have the required amount of plant population

is basic fundamental yield factors. If there is not
enough plant population, the production will not
be good despite of use of much inputs and
practicing other measures.

71
 Table 6.11 below mentions the aspects that small farmers participated in Front Line
Demonstration.

Table 6.11: Participation in Front Line Demonstration

(Multiple Responses)
Aspects Very Small Farmers Small Farmers

f % f %
(n=32) (n=32)
Recommended rate of 16 50.0 19 59.4
fertilizer (50kg/acre)
Recommended rate of
gypsum(25kg/acre) 15 46.9 16 50.0

Compost making 5 15.6 8 25.0

Reduced pesticide
10 31.2 12 37.5
usage

Application of boron 8 25.0 6 18.8

Spacing - - 2 6.2

Systematic way of 6 18.8 9 28.1

applying pesticides
Systematic fertilizer
applying method 5 15.6 7 21.9

Application of much 10 31.2 11 34.4

manure
Plant population 32 100.0 32 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012.

b) Reasons of less participation in front line demonstration

The reasons for low participation in front line demonstration were identified in four
reasons from both of very small farmers and small farmers.

i) Lack of capital

Since all of the participating farmers possess the small land holdings, the majority of the
farmers could not spend cash resource for inputs such as Trichoderma and EM compost
and for hiring the man power to follow the front line demonstration practices well. For
example, spacing aspect is really beneficial but it needs more labor than the traditional
spacing they practiced. These participating farmers could not spend this additional cost to
hire the labor cost for trying on this spacing innovation.

72
ii) Insufficient labor
Insufficiency in labor also was one of the main reasons for less practicing front line
demonstration practices well. Hiring the needed labor enough was a constraint for the
farmers to practice the good farm management practices well that would enable them to
participate in front line demonstration well. For example, in spacing aspect, it is labor
consuming and it takes time than normal traditional way.

The project villages were situated in the dry zone of Myanmar and all of the farmers had
the practice of growing the crops as soon as the onset of the rainy season comes because
there was irregular and less precipitation rainfall pattern in the dry zone areas. Time for
growing is limited and every farmer in the villages grows the crop within the limited time
period of after onset of as soon as rain precipitated. Therefore, the farmers could not
participate in testing on those new innovation practices.

iii)Unavailability of recommended inputs and materials

This is mainly due to the two following reasons.

 Inaccessibility of the inputs

Some of the materials and inputs such as neem fertilizer needed to use were not be
available readily for the farmers to get in hand and the farmers could available those only
when they went to the town. Some of the farmers tried to purchase those; however, there
were the difficulties in purchasing because of limited availability of the inputs in the
market. These neem fertilizer produced from Ministry of Agriculture are really effective
and the price is much cheaper than chemical fertilizers, however, the production of this
product from Ministry of Agriculture was undersupply and sometimes, it takes time to get
these input. To purchase this input in hand, sometimes, farmers needed to go more than
one time and they could not spend the time and their transportation cost to buy this input
again and again. For one time of going to the town costs about 5000 kyat (nearly 7 dollars)
and since they are small farmers, they could not spend that money only for purchasing this
input. The needy to get the input in hand in time played important role for the small
farmers in hesitating to try these inputs.

 Competitiveness of readily available Chemical Pesticides in the market

Another matter of unavailability of the input (for example) neem pesticides was caused of
readily availability of chemical Pesticides in the market. Some of the farmers did not try
at all to access those inputs and materials despite of the fact that they can buy those easily
in the market, despite of cheap price and effectiveness. For example, in Myanmar,
chemical pesticides were produced in different brands and their competition for market is
high. Chemical pesticide distributors advertise their brands in different ways via mass
media. Farmers can get those chemical pesticides in credit and availability is very readily
for the farmers because farmers can get those in their villages. Natural pesticides that
produced from Ministry of Agriculture could not compete with those chemical pesticides
because of the illustrated factors.

73
iv) Reluctant to adopt innovation

This was also important factor for the farmers difficult to follow in front line
demonstration practices. Most of the farmers did not try to change their current practices
such as in fertilizer application methods, spacing, sowing depth etc. Overwhelming
majority (93.8%) of the farmers in very small farmers and 81.3 % for the small farmers
hesitated to test new innovation of farm management practices such as compost making
practices, boron fertilizer application, reduced use of chemical pesticides and mainly use
on natural pesticides and natural fertilizers. Due to insufficient labor also, the farmers
could not try well the new innovations and could not participate in front line demonstration
properly.

Among all of the given reasons, all of the participating farmers gave the reason of
insufficient labor, lack of input and materials as the second reason (90.6 % of very small
farmers and 93.8% of the small farmers respectively).

In comparing between very small farmers and small farmers, it was found that there was
greater number of very small farmers who gave the reasons in all aspects than those from
the small farmers.

According to Table 6.12, it was found that very small farmers were more hesitated with
93.8% than small farmers (81.3%) to try on new innovations. Normally, their capability to
spend money on testing new innovation was weak compared to small farmers since they
had smaller land sizes than small farmers and also, the production was lesser. Therefore,
they were reluctant to adopt innovation.

About 93.8 % of small farmers gave the reason of lack of recommended inputs and
materials as a reason of less participation in front line demonstration whilst lesser number
of very small farmers (90.6%) gave that reason. Availability of the materials and inputs
depend on the cash spending capability of the farmers as well as on the interest and effort
of the farmers themselves.

Table 6.12: Reasons of Low Participation in Front Line Demonstration

(Multiple Responses)
Very Small Farmers Small Farmers
Reasons
f % f %
(n=32) (n=32)
Insufficiency of 25 78.2 23 71.8
cash
Insufficient labor 32 100.0 32 100.0
Reluctant to adopt 30 93.8 26 81.3
innovation
Lack of materials 29 90.6 30 93.8
and inputs
Source: Field Survey, 2012.

74
6.2.6 Factors Associated with Participation in Front Line Demonstration of Small
Farmers

In this section, a dependent variable is the participation in front line demonstrations (FLDs)
of the small farmers.

Table 6.13 below describes the factors associated with participation in Front Line
Demonstration.

Table 6.13 Factors associated with Participation in Front Line Demonstration

Correlation Coefficient (CC)

Factors
Very Small Farmers Small Farmers

Age -.121 -.033

Male .014 .018

Education -.400* -.259

Household size -.289 -.254

Groundnut area .124 .287

Income earned from .397* .313

groundnut
Sufficient cash .536** -.036

Willing to participate .261 .420*

Availability of inputs .133 .160

Participation intensity in -.027 .656**

Classroom Trainings
Participation Intensity in .094 .603**
field visit
Notes: * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level

Criteria for interpretations: Correlation Coefficient (CC) value is less than 0.30 is a low
level of association, from 0.31 to 0.70 is a moderate level of association, and from 0.71 to
0.99 is a high level of association.

Table 6.13 shows that there were twelve independent factors that had statistically
associated with the dependent factor of participation in front line demonstration by using
Pearson Correlation Coefficient. These include age, male, education, household size,
groundnut cultivated area, income earned from groundnut, sufficient in cash, willing to
participate, availability to inputs, participation intensity in farmer field school,
participation in field visit, and participation intensity in field visit.

75
In case of very small farmers, sufficient cash was the factor having a moderate and positive
related with participation in front line demonstration (CC=.536 at 99% significant level). It
indicates that the ability of cash spending was moderately important for very small farmers
to participate in front line demonstration. Being very small farmers, their income was less
and thus, the farmers’ tendency to spend the cash was significantly related with the
tendency to participate in front line demonstration.

Likely, the income earned from groundnut also had a moderate positive relationship with
participation in front line demonstration. It indicates that the farmers who got good income
from groundnut were more participated in front line demonstration than others who did not
get well income. It was due to the nature of giving more attention by the farmers in the
crop that they get high profit and the interest of the farmers in the crop thus played critical
role and as a result, those good income farmers were more participated in front line
demonstration than others.

Education was found of a moderate negative related factor with the participation in front
line demonstration (CC=-.400 at 95% significant level). It means that lower educated
farmers more participated in front line demonstration. Normally, very small farmers were
less educated persons and therefore, the farmers who participated in front line
demonstration had low educational level. In case of small farmers group, participation in
classroom type trainings had a moderate positive relationship with participation in front
line demonstration (CC value of .656 at 99% significant level) meaning that the farmers
who attended classroom type trainings also participated in front line demonstration. It
could be mentioned that field visit activities were normally conducted after each classroom
type training activity and therefore, the farmers who joined in the classroom type trainings
would probably participate in the field visit activity. Therefore, there was an association in
their participation in those two extension activities.

Other factors that had a moderate positive relationship with the participation in front line
demonstration for small farmers were participation intensity in field visit having the CC
values of .603 at 99 % significant level. This means that the farmers who attended in the
field visit in greater intensity had more interested to participate in front line demonstration.

Labor sufficiency was seen as a moderate negative level (CC=-.420 at 95% significant
level) of relationship with small farmers’ participation in front line demonstration. It shows
that small farmers who used less labor likely to participate more in the front line
demonstration. From that, it could be observed that the farmers who had less hired labor
more intensely participate in the front line demonstration.

76
 Chapter 7

Assessment on Agricultural Knowledge Gained, Utilization, and Change in Health

Conditions

This chapter assesses the agricultural knowledge gained and applied by the small farmers,
changes in agricultural practices of them, changes in their health condition and examines
the factors that associated with the agricultural knowledge gained and utilization.

7.1 Type of Agricultural Knowledge Gained

The agricultural knowledge that the farmers participated in the extension activities were
assessed in terms of by both of frequencies of the knowledge gained farmers and the
degree of knowledge achievement in each aspect.

According to Table 7.1, it is found that the number of the small farmers who gained
agricultural knowledge were different in various aspects.

Regarding with very small farmers, knowledge related with growing aspects had the
greatest number of farmers with 78.1 % whilst these farmers got the knowledge in storage
with the least number of farmers (46.9 %). For the small farmers, the greatest frequencies
are found in the agricultural knowledge of nutrient and pesticide management with equal
frequency of the farmers representing 87.5 % each. Knowledge about harvesting had the
smallest amount of the knowledge gained by those small farmers. It is observed in the
study that almost all farmers who participated in the training and field visit received the
agricultural knowledge despite the degree of the knowledge may have certain differences
among them.

Table 7.1: Agricultural Knowledge Gained in Agricultural Extension Activities

(Multiple Responses)

Very Small Farmers Small Farmers

Yes No Total Yes No Total

Aspect
f % f % f % f % f % f %

I.Land
24 75.0 8 25.0 32 100.0 25 78.1 7 21.9 32 100.0
Preparation

II.Growing 25 78.1 7 21.9 32 100.0 25 78.1 7 21.9 32 100.0

III.Nutrient 20 62.5 12 37.5 32 100.0 28 87.5 4 12.5 32 100.0

IV.Pesticide 24 75.0 8 25.0 32 100.0 28 87.5 4 12.5 32 100.0

V.Harvest 16 50.0 16 50.0 32 100.0 14 43.7 18 56.2 32 100.0

VI. Storage 15 46.9 17 53.1 32 100.0 17 53.1 15 46.8 32 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012.

77
Table 7.2 shows the number of very small farmers and small farmers who received the
knowledge in specific aspects of each of six types of knowledge consisting of land
preparation, growing, nutrient, pesticide, harvesting and storage.

For knowledge relating to land preparation, very small farmers gained the least in
intercropping with 68.7 % out of the total while not much difference found in other three
aspects of this aspect (nearly third-fourth of them).

For small farmers, the knowledge gained in various aspects of land preparation was more
or less similar around 75% of the total of them.

On the knowledge in growing, it is not much different between the small and very small
farmers. Around 75 % of both of the small and very small farmers received the knowledge
in each specific aspects of growing knowledge on seed, 78.2 % in each category of farmers
in knowledge related with weeding.

On specific aspects of nutrient knowledge, the knowledge related with Trichoderma

compost had the least frequency in both of the small and very small farmer categories in
which nearly 50% out of total very small farmers and about 35% out of total small farmers
gained knowledge in this aspect. Knowledge related with gypsum and compound fertilizer
possessed the greatest number of the farmers for both categories of farmers though there
was slightly greater number of knowledge gained farmers in small farmer category than
that of very small farmers.

Likewise, with regard to the pesticide knowledge, it was found that more small farmers
gained the knowledge in each specific aspect of it than small farmers. Around 75 % of very
small farmers gained in each specific aspects of pesticide knowledge while there were
more than 80% of the small farmers achieve those each specific knowledge except in
distinguishing and diagnosis aspects. Exceptionally among all of the specific knowledge of
the pesticide management, the farmers were very weak in making diagnosis of
physiological and disease symptoms and distinguishing the beneficial and harmful insects.
Around 50 % of very small farmers answered that they gained the knowledge in
distinguishing and diagnosis aspects, 62.5% of the small farmers replied that they achieved
the knowledge in distinguishing and less than 50 % of the small farmers in diagnosis.

78
 Table 7.2: Type of Information Received on Agricultural Extension Activities

Very Small
Small Farmers
Aspect Farmers
f % f %
I. Land Preparation
 Contour farming soil conservation practice 23 71.9 25 78.1
 Intercropping 22 68.7 25 78.1
 Utilizing Farmyard Manure 23 71.9 27 84.4
 Tillage 24 75.0 26 81.2
II. Growing
 Seed 24 75.0 24 75.0
 Growing practices 25 78.2 24 75.0
 Weeding 25 78.2 25 78.2
III. Nutrient
 Gypsum fertilizer 18 56.3 26 81.2
 Boron fertilizer 20 62.5 21 65.6
 Neem Fertilizer 19 59.4 26 81.2
 Compound Fertilizer 20 62.5 28 87.5
 Trichoderma compost 15 46.9 11 34.4
 EM compost 18 56.3 20 62.5
 Urea 18 56.3 25 78.2
IV. Pesticide
 Neem pesticide 24 75.0 28 87.5
 Chemical pesticide 22 68.7 28 87.5
 Protective wearing 24 75.0 28 87.5
 Spraying techniques 24 75.0 26 81.2
 Distinguishing between beneficial and
18 56.3 20 62.5
harmful insects
 Diagnosis between the physiological
15 46.9 14 43.8
symptom and disease symptoms
V. Harvest 16 50.0 14 43.8
VI. Storage 15 46.9 16 50.0
Source: Field Survey, 2012.

Generally, it was found that the frequency of knowledge gained farmers depend on the
number of the farmers participated in the extension activities meaning that almost all of the
participated farmers gained knowledge in which the training aspects they joined regardless
of the degree of knowledge gained in those aspects. For example, in the former trainings-
land preparation and growing training, both of the small and smallest farmers could join in
high intensity and it was found that the knowledge delivered in those training had more
knowledge gained farmers than the training aspect that the farmers participated less
intensity. In later training - nutrient management training and pesticide training, the
number of the training participated farmers became reduced and likely, the number of
knowledge gained farmers in those aspects also reduced accordingly. In the last trainings-

79
harvest and storage trainings, there was the least number of participated farmers among all
of the trainings and therefore, the knowledge gained farmers in harvesting and storage was
the least among all.

Also, due to the capacity of small farmers to spend their time more in attending training
than very small farmers and there was the greater number of training participated farmers
in the small farmer group than small farmer group, and consequently, there was more small
farmers who gained knowledge than very small farmers.

7.2 Assessment on the Knowledge Gained

In general, the farmers had the higher degree of knowledge gained depending on their
participation and the interest in those aspects and also, the knowledge they already have
basic knowledge.

Overall, in main aspects of land preparation, it includes contour farming soil conservation
practice, intercropping, utilizing farm yard manure and tillage. Amongst these aspects,
both of very small and small farmers gained a moderate level (WAIs = 0.46 in very small
farmers, WAIs=0.55 in small farmers) of knowledge in contour farming soil conservation
technique and intercropping knowledge (WAIs=0.45 in very small farmers, WAIs=0.52 in
small farmers) , and utilizing farm yard manure (WAIs=0.59 in very small farmers and
WAIs=0.51 in small farmers) when they gained knowledge about Tillage at high level
(WAIs=0.65 in very small farmers and WAIs=0.72 in small farmers). The degree of
knowledge gained in tillage aspects in which majority of the farmers from two groups had
well knowledge about it because of being their conventional practices that ever utilized in
their farms before starting the trainings and therefore, the knowledge gained in this aspect
was higher than other aspects in the land preparation.
Regarding with growing related knowledge, it includes three specific aspects such as seed,
growing practices, and weeding. In comparing the degree of knowledge gained between
the two farmer groups, both achieved high degree of knowledge in each specific aspects
whereas weeding related knowledge stood first with very high level of WAI value of 0.74
for very small farmers and 0.72 for small farmers. Likely to tillage aspect from land
preparation, weeding was the practice that all of the farmers were familiar with it because
of being their essential conventional practice. This was the reason that both of very small
farmers and small farmers were more interested in it and gained higher degree in this
aspect than other aspects of growing. In growing practices and seed, the agricultural
information delivered to the small farmers had some variations from conventional ways
though it was interested by both groups to certain extent. Therefore, the knowledge gained
in these two aspects was lower than in weeding aspect.

In observing the degree of knowledge gained on nutrient aspects consisting of gypsum

fertilizer, neem fertilizer, compound fertilizer, Trichoderma compost, EM compost, urea
and boron fertilizer, three kinds of knowledge level including a low, a moderate and high
levels were observed among the respondent farmers. Specifically, in urea, neem fertilizer
and compound fertilizer related knowledge, the degree of the knowledge gained showed
moderate level (WAIs=0.56, WAIs=0.58 in Urea, WAIs=0.53,WAIs=0.48 in neem
fertilizer, WAIs=0.46, WAIs=0.48 in compound fertilizer) for very small farmers and
small farmers respectively while the assessment on Trichoderma compost and EM compost
related knowledge represented low level of knowledge achievement (WAIs=0.23,
WAIs=0.21 in Trichoderma, WAIs=0.32,WAIs=0.49 in EM compost) for very small

80
farmers and small farmers respectively because these were difficult to conceptualize for
the farmers who passed just monastic education and primary education mostly. Among two
groups of farmers, in comparing EM compost making and Trichoderma compost, more
knowledge was attained by the small farmers in EM compost making whilst higher
knowledge degree was observed in very small farmers in knowledge regarded with
Trichoderma. Therefore, it seemed that the knowledge gained was dependent on the
interest of the farmers especially. Based on that, in some cases, the farmers’ interest had
been very critical point in absorbing the knowledge delivered in the extension activities.
Except in Trichoderma and EM compost aspects, in general, in other aspects, small farmers
had more degree of knowledge gained than very small farmers because of the fact that
these small farmers had been familiar with those inputs using as they had more utilization
those inputs than very small farmers before the project started and it was the reason why
small farmers had more emphasis on using of those knowledge and more degree of
knowledge gained in several aspects of nutrient.

Concerned with pesticide knowledge, it consists of the specific aspects of neem pesticide,
chemical pesticide, protective wearing, spraying techniques, distinguishing between
beneficial insects and harmful insects, diagnosis between physiological and disease
symptoms. The level of small farmers in receiving agricultural knowledge in the aspects of
neem pesticide knowledge, chemical pesticide, and protective wearing was higher than
very small farmers. It was happened that these small farmers had been used to utilize these
practices more than very small farmers owing to the affordability of purchasing the inputs
since before the extension activities were conducted. Therefore, their interest in learning
the information related with those practices had more level of knowledge improvement in
small farmers.

Among these three high levels of WAI values pesticide specific aspects, neem pesticide
related knowledge stood first with WAI value of 0.71 for very small farmers and 0.82 for
small farmers. The interest of small farmers in neem pesticide was more than very small
farmers because the price of neem pesticide was much cheaper than chemical pesticides
and therefore, the interest of small farmers who needed to use much amount of pesticides
may be higher than very small farmers and so, their degree of knowledge gained may be
higher than very small farmers. Farmers’ target is to reduce cost and to have good
production, and therefore, for the small farmers who had to use more pesticides because of
larger land holding size, small farmers had more interest in neem pesticide than very small
farmers.

For fertilizer, farmers did not need to spend too much, but, for chemical pesticides, these
are expensive in Myanmar and farmers used to spray 2-3 times and it was costly for the
small farmers and therefore, they had more interest in using neem pesticide than chemical
pesticide. Compared to small farmers, the interest of very small farmers may be less.
Because of the readily availability of chemical pesticides in credit which were distributed
by the chemical pesticide companies in the market and though the prices was much higher
than neem pesticides, very small farmers were not so much interested in that because they
could not purchase the neem pesticides in cash. In case of small farmers, they had less
interest in using chemical pesticides compared to very small farmers because these
chemical pesticides were expensive even though they could get these chemical pesticides
in credit, however, it would be too costly for them because of large farm size. In diagnosis
knowledge, this type was contributed in the field visit activity and therefore, it was
achieved by the farmers who participated in field visit activity. So, the degree of

81
knowledge gained in this aspect was much lower than other aspects and more small
farmers than very small farmers joined in that knowledge sharing field visit activity. All in
all, there was higher degree of knowledge gained in small farmers than very small farmers.

Regarding the knowledge gained on harvest, when very small farmers gained at a high
level, (WAIs=0.66) small farmers was at moderate level (WAIs =0.59). In storage, both of
very small and small farmers stood at the moderate level (WAIs=0.49 for very small
farmers, WAIs=0.55) for small farmers. In these two aspects, the number of the attendant
farmers was more or less the same between the two farmer groups but knowledge gained
of very small farmers in harvest aspect was higher. Based on this finding, it can be
interpreted that the knowledge gained was also dependent on the interest of the farmers.

All in all, the extension activities could deliver much agricultural knowledge to the
participating farmers. Most of the participated farmers explained that they just knew that
chemical pesticides are harmful to their health and it is not good for long term use,
however, they did not know well how chemical pesticides were harmful to the health. They
did not understand how to spray systematically and they did not understand how to wear to
achieve safe and protective wearing. After participating, they were aware of the fact that
chemical pesticides kill both beneficial insects and harmful ones and exposure to high
levels of pesticides can be harmful via extension activities of project. Majority of farmers
did not know that use of neem pesticide was environmentally friendly and they realized
that fact only after participating in the extension activities. Before extension activities, the
farmers did not have the knowledge on some inputs such as neem fertilizer at all, and also,
regarding with gypsum, there was few farmers who used gypsum before. Through the
introduced knowledge by the extension activities, most of the participant farmers realized
that the effectiveness of neem fertilizer, neem pesticides, gypsum fertilizer and understood
well the importance of protective wearing for the human health and systematic spraying
techniques in achieving the effective control of plant disease.

Table 7.3: Degree of Knowledge Gained from Agricultural Extension activities

(Multiple Responses)
Very Small Farmers Small Farmers
Knowledge Gained
WAI OA WAI OA
I. Land Preparation
Contour farming soil conservation 0.46 M 0.55 M
Intercropping 0.45 M 0.52 M
Utilizing Farmyard Manure 0.59 M 0.51 M
Tillage 0.65 H 0.72 H
II. Growing
 Seed 0.63 H 0.68 H
 Growing practices 0.61 H 0.65 H
 Weeding 0.74 H 0.72 H
III. Nutrient
 Gypsum fertilizer 0.67 H 0.78 H
 Neem Fertilizer 0.53 M 0.48 M
 Compound Fertilizer 0.46 M 0.48 M
 Trichoderma compost 0.23 L 0.21 L
 EM compost 0.32 L 0.49 M
 Urea 0.56 M 0.58 M

82
 Very Small Farmers Small Farmers
Knowledge Gained
WAI OA WAI OA
 Boron 0.62 H 0.68 H
IV. Pesticide
 Neem pesticide 0.71 H 0.82 H
 Chemical pesticide 0.47 M 0.51 M
 Protective wearing 0.58 M 0.69 H
 Spraying techniques 0.69 H 0.63 H
 Distinguishing between beneficial and 0.23 L 0.27 L
harmful insects
 Diagnosis between the physiological 0.14 VL 0.18 VL
symptom and disease symptoms
V. Harvest 0.66 H 0.59 M
VI. Storage 0.49 M 0.55 M
Source: Field Survey, 2012.
Note: WAI=Weighted Average Index, OA=Overall Assessment

Criteria for Assessment of WAI

Very High
Low (L) Moderate(M) High (H)
(VH)
Very Low (VL)
0.01-0.2 0.81-1.00
0.21-0.40 0.41-0.60 0.61-0.80

7.3 Utilization of Agricultural Knowledge Gained

According to Table 7.3, among specific aspects comprising in land preparation, farmers’
knowledge utilization in contour farming soil conservation was in very low level. From
this research, it was found that overwhelming majority of the farmers did not use contour
farming soil conservation practices. Normally, contour farming soil conservation practices
were much suitable in the farms with steep slopes and in general, the project targeted
villages were mostly located in the plain area and the respondent farmers explained that
these practices were not needed to practice in their plain farms. Therefore, the application
on that practice was resulted in very low level. The degree of knowledge application on
contour farming soil conservation by very small farmers was very low of WAI of 0.07 and
by the small farmers was at 0.1 because more small farmers utilized this practice because
some of their lands were located on sloping area and compared to small farmers, very
small farmers used it and the degree of knowledge utilization was accordingly different
between two groups.

Contrast to that, in tillage, which is the essential and important agricultural practice for all
of the small farmers, the level of utilization in this aspect was found to be high in both
farmer groups. In intercropping, it was at moderate level of application and there was more
utilization by very small farmers than those of small farmers. Because intercropping is the
mixed cropping system in which diversified crops with different ages are grown together in
the same farm and one of the intentions of practicing intercropping is to compensate the
crop losses of one crop with another crop if the crop losses was happened. Therefore, very

83
small farmers who had smaller land holding size utilized more this practice than small
farmers. In case of small farmers, being of possessing larger farm area, they could not
manage to grow diversified crops in all of their farms and therefore, their degree of
knowledge utilization was less compared to very small farmers in this aspect. However, in
the aspect of utilizing farm yard manure, every farmer from both groups used it in different
amount but some used in unsystematic ways. So, their utilization was at moderate level
(WAI =0.51 for very small farmers, WAIs=0.56 for small farmers). In comparison, small
farmers were in more utilization level because of owing more oxen and cows than very
small farmers and they could utilize more farm yard manure.

In observing the specific aspects of growing, in both of seed and growing practices, very
small farmers as well as small farmers utilized the information in the moderate level since
there were some limitations to utilize the information efficiently such as more labor
requirements and took time than conventional ways. However, in weeding aspect which is
the essential agricultural practice that every farmers need to do; their utilization was high
in both groups. The utilization by each group in each aspect was not much different though
small farmers had more utilization because of their tendency of cash spending.

Regarding with the aspects related with nutrient, it was found that compost related
knowledge application was at very low level in both farmer categories for both of the
Trichoderma and EM compost. To make and use the compost was one of the constraints
for the small farmers. The beneficiary farmers did not try to make and use compost
themselves before since they were not familiar with the knowledge of the compost making
procedures. However, even after participating in extension activities and they were learnt
how to make compost in the FFSs and practically made by themselves as demonstration
samples with the help of extensionists, most of the small and very small farmers did not try
to make compost because of low accessibility to inputs for making compost and a little bit
complex procedure. The farmers in Myanmar were more interested in the inputs that can
be utilized immediately and readily after purchasing and therefore, due to a little bit
complex procedures of making compost, the farmers were less interested in using those
inputs. More small farmers than very small farmers made compost despite of being very
few number, than very small farmers because small farmers were more affordable to
purchase the EM and Trichoderma from the township and to apply it than very small
farmers because the capability of small farmers outweighed the spending on money to go
to the township office and purchase it and apply it.

Based on the above findings, generally, it was observed that the degree of knowledge
utilization of the farmers was higher in the aspects that were easy to follow for them to
practice in their real farm condition and in the aspects that were familiar with them before
participating in the extension activities.
In compound fertilizer, and urea fertilizer, in general, every farmer from both groups used
to apply of those inputs since before the project started and therefore, it stood at a moderate
level also. In these aspects, small farmers were more capable to utilize the agricultural
knowledge because of their resource attribution. However, in Boron application, very small
farmers had more utilization than small farmers because it was very cheap, very useful but
it was a devil of utilizing it which is not easy to utilize immediately after purchasing and it
needs some steps to use it. Therefore, very small farmers who could not afford to spend
much on inputs utilized the boron fertilizer than small farmers and the small farmers who
had larger areas could not utilize it well.

84
Concerned with knowledge application in pesticides, in three practices such as neem
pesticide, chemical pesticide, spraying techniques at which the farmers’ resource
attribution and the affordability to use the labor and to use the spraying equipments
efficiently were critical in utilizing the agricultural information. Very small farmers could
not utilize as much as small farmers did and therefore, in those aspects, the level of
utilization was at lower level than small farmers. Likely, in protective wearing, all of the
farmers were small land holding size owned farmers and they were not capable to wear the
cover materials and clothes properly since they could not spend money to purchase the
protective wearing cover clothes and materials properly. Majority of the respondent
farmers wore partially the cover clothes and materials though they understood the effects
of harmful effects. Very small farmers had less level of knowledge application than small
farmer in this aspect because it was found among the farmers, the emphasis on wearing
protective covers was based on the spending capacity of the farmers to purchase those
clothes and covers and therefore, small farmers could avail than very small farmers.
Among all aspects of knowledge application, it was found significantly that majority of the
farmers could not utilize the knowledge in distinguishing the beneficial and harmful insects
and diagnosis. The degree of knowledge utilization in these two aspects was considerably
low compared to knowledge application in other aspects because there were few farmers
who got in those aspects and only those people diagnose the insects and the symptoms. In
making distinguishing, very small farmers more utilized the knowledge and in diagnosis
the symptoms, more small farmers made diagnosis.
In harvest and storage aspects, the difference between the amount of farm products
produced by very small farmers and small farmers would result in variations in utilizing in
agricultural knowledge. In this regards, small farmers who had larger area could not
practice the agricultural information as much as very small farmers could because of the
difficulty in hiring the labors and the needy of the requirements of standardized measures
to harvest and store much products. In case of very small farmers, it was feasible since
their farm products were easy to handle to make standardized harvesting and storage.
Overall, the utilization of the agricultural knowledge gained was not high in most of
certain aspects. In addition to providing agricultural extension activities to the farmers, the
employed project extensionists were responsible in other development activities. This was
the reason of causing the lack of supervision and all of the participating farmers utilized
the agricultural knowledge by themselves without the monitoring and supervision by the
extensionists.

85
 Table 7.4: Utilization of Knowledge gained after Participating in Agricultural Extension
Activities

Very Small Farmers Small Farmers

Knowledge Gained
WAI OA WAI OA
I. Land Preparation
Contour farming soil conservation 0.07 VL 0.10 VL
Intercropping 0.33 L 0.31 L
Utilizing Farmyard Manure 0.51 M 0.56 M
Tillage 0.63 H 0.65 H
II. Growing
 Seed 0.48 M 0.51 M
 Growing practices 0.54 M 0.52 M
 Weeding 0.61 H 0.64 H
III.Nutrient
 Gypsum fertilizer 0.63 H 0.63 H
 Neem Fertilizer 0.48 M 0.54 M
 Compound Fertilizer 0.56 M 0.67 H
 Trichoderma compost 0.00 VL 0.05 VL
 EM compost 0.02 VL 0.08 VL
 Urea 0.46 M 0.53 M
 Boron 0.11 VL 0.10 VL
IV. Pesticide
 Neem pesticide 0.49 M 0.56 M
 Chemical pesticide 0.49 M 0.53 M
 Protective wearing 0.27 L 0.33 L
 Spraying techniques 0.62 H 0.64 H
 Distinguishing between beneficial and 0.16 VL 0.13 VL
harmful insects
 Diagnosis between the physiological 0.12 VL 0.15 VL
symptom and disease symptoms
V. Harvest 0.58 M 0.45 M
VI. Storage 0.45 M 0.42 M
Source: Field Survey, 2012.
Note: WAI=Weighted Average Index, OA=Overall Assessment

Criteria for Assessment of WAIs

Very Low Low Moderate High Very High

(VL) (L) (M) (H) (VH)
0.01-0.20 0.21-0.40 0.41-0.60 0.61-0.80 0.81-1.00

86
7.4 Changes in Agricultural Practices

As shown in Table7.5, there were some changes in the agricultural practices of the farmers
that they were practicing in their traditional way. The obvious fact found in this study was
the majority of the farmers could not change in their current practicing practices such as
intercropping, farmyard manure applying, and tillage practices because they all were small
farmers and there were many constraints such as cash, labor and availability of the inputs
for them to change the practices immediately.

In the practices of using neem fertilizer, gypsum fertilizer and seed treatment powder,
remarkable changes in the number of the farmers who changed the practices were found.
The biggest change in difference of the changes was regarded in neem fertilizer, farmers
made the most significant changes with 100 %. None of the small and very small farmer
used neem fertilizer before the extension activities were conducted in the project villages.
Only after participating in extension activities, all of the project beneficiary farmers
received neem fertilizer supported from the project and used because they all received the
neem fertilizer supported by the project.

Likewise to neem fertilizer, there was very low frequency of the farmers who used gypsum
before project started. Overwhelming majority of the small and very small farmers started
to use gypsum fertilizer when the project supported and therefore, the number of very
small farmers who could use gypsum with recommended rate increased from 3.1% to
46.9% and those who could use less than recommended rate soared up from 6.3 % to
53.1% while the small framers’ change in gypsum utilizing amount increased dramatically
from 5.6% to 50.0 % each in recommended rate and less than of recommended rate.
Normally, chemical fertilizers and gypsum fertilizers were costly and majority of the small
farmers could not utilize those inputs in recommended rate efficiently. Due to the
supported scheme of the project activities, small farmers were more affordable to purchase
the required amount for additional acres and this fact went well to the good production for
the farmers. In that case, small farmers’ change was significantly higher than very small
farmers. By the subsidized scheme of project, small farmers could utilize the inputs much
more than in their own spending and the changes was significant.

Concerned with seed treatment powder, the changes in the number of the farmers practiced
of less than recommended rate of seed treatment powder was mainly increased from 3.1 %
to 21.8% for very small farmers while there was increase from 6.3 % to 12.5% for the
small farmers. A very significant change was seen with the remarkable decrease in the
number of the farmers who did not use seed treatment powder from 71.9 % to 21.8 % in
very small farmers and from 40.6 % to 20.5 % in small farmers. Very small farmers were
not much familiar with the using of seed treatment powder in the past and therefore, the
changes was considerably high in very small farmers than small farmers.

In contradictory to above findings, there was no change at all in the practices such as
intercropping and Farm Yard manure utilizing practices. In the farmers’ traditional ways,
intercropping had been practicing by some since before they gained the knowledge in this
aspect and after participating in the extension activities, these farmers continued using that
practices and no improvement were found in the number of that practice utilizing farmers
between the two situations of before and after participating in the extension activities.

87
There were no change in the number of the farmers who started practiced intercropping
after participating in the extension activities among very small farmers and small farmers.
Similarly, for the practice of spacing, only 6.3% out of total small farmers changed their
spacing and there was no very small farmer who tested this new innovation of spacing. The
constraint of labor availability in the meanwhile of onset of raining was very critical for the
small farmers in the dry zone area and owing to that constraint; almost all of the small
farmers were not able to change the spacing.

In the practices such as seed rate and fertilizer applying method, only very few changes
were found because of the constraint of the labor availability and cash insufficiency. These
practices were labor consuming than the traditional ways though they have much good
points. Farmers could not overcome these constraints and avoided to test these innovative
practices. Only 3.2% from each category of small farmers changed their normal seed rate
into recommended seed rate (1.5basket/acre) whilst none of the farmers tried to change the
current practicing sowing depth.

Also, to make and use the compost was one of the constraints for the small farmers. The
participating farmers did not try to make and use compost themselves before since they
were weak in knowledge of the compost making procedures. However, even after
participating in extension activities and they were learnt how to make compost in the FFSs
trainings and observed practically in the farms in the demonstration activities of the
extensionists, most of the small and very small farmers did not try to make compost. Based
on this, it was interestingly observed that farmers themselves interest was critically
important for the extensionists in persuading the farmers to try new innovations. Farmers
participated in the extension activities learn that compost making practically and in FFSs;
however, they did not see the effectiveness of using compost in real situations. It is very
important to let the farmers themselves know and accept the new innovations by observing
themselves practically by making demonstrations. In terms of change in using compost, it
accounts 12.5 % in very small farmers and in small farmers; the change was twice (25%).
The number of the farmers who use the compost changed from the situation of zero user to
the situation of started applying was more prominent in small farmers than very small
farmers because the small farmers are more affordable to buy the inputs needed for making
compost.

Regarding with the chemical pesticide usage, practically, chemical pesticides were easy to
use, and can provide prompt action soon after they were applied. Farmers weighed this
advantage. Natural pesticides were relatively cheap, but the procedures to apply those were
a little bit complex and because of taking time to get action in controlling the diseases,
about one-fourth (28.1%) of very small farmers and about one-third (37.5%) of the small
farmers tried to reduce their current used amount of chemical pesticides and relied on neem
pesticides. In comparing the two farmer groups, more small farmers changed from high
dose to low dose of chemical pesticides because along with the larger land holding size and
more frequencies of spraying in their farms, high cost of chemical pesticide incurred for
the small farmers than very small farmers and therefore, more small farmers reduced the
chemical pesticide dose than very small farmers.

After participating in extension activities, there was the decrease in the number of very
small farmers who used chemical pesticides in high dose from 71.9 % to 43.8 % whilst in
the number of small farmers, it changed from 62.5% to 25% regardless of there are some
farmers who still relied on chemical pesticide usage. However, there were many benefits

88
between the two situations of before and after participating in extension activities of the
project. There was no farmer who understood about the effectiveness of natural pesticides
and utilized those before, after participating in FFSs, they realized and some of the farmers
started utilized.

In harvest, around two-third (65.7%) of very small farmers and third-fourth (75%)of small
farmers harvested the crop before reaching the enough maturity stage and after passing
enough maturity stage and only the rest of the farmers could did the proper harvesting. The
improvement of the harvested condition from their traditional way to recommended way
after participation in extension activities was found with about one-third (34.3%) of very
small farmers and one-fourth (25%) of the small farmers. Change was more significant in
very small farmers than small farmers because possessing of more land acres and
availability of labor caused the small farmers to be hesitated in changing the harvesting
conditions from traditional way to recommended way. Farmers had the constraint of labor
availability when the harvesting was made because it is important to reap the crop when
the weather condition is favorable and the harvesting time of majority of the farmers was
nearly the same.

In storage, 28.2% of very small farmers and 24.9% of small farmers changed from their
traditional practices to recommended storage conditions. More very small farmers could
change than small farmers because it was loaded for the small farmers to store in
recommended conditions because they had more production obtained from more land
holding size and it was not easy for them to change immediately to recommended storage
conditions.

89
Table 7.5 shows the changes in agricultural practices after participating in Extension
Activities.

Table 7.5: Changes in Agricultural Practices after Participating in Extension Activities

Very Small Farmers Small Farmers

Agricultural Practices
Before After Change Before After Change
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
I. Land Preparation
 Contour farming soil conservation
Practiced 0 12.5 12.5 0 15.6 15.6

 Intercropping
Practiced 68.7 68.7 0.0 56.2 56.2 0.0
 Amount of Farm Yard Manure
800 kg/acre 31.2 31.2 0.0 43.7 43.7 0.0
400 kg/acre 68.8 68.8 0.0 56.2 56.2 0.0
II. Growing
 Seed Rate
1.5 basket/acre 0.0 3.2 3.2 0.0 3.2 3.2
 Sowing depth
Recommended
sowing depth (3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 6.3
inches)
 Spacing (inches)
Recommended
spacing 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 6.3 6.3
(14*6)
 Seed treatment powder
Not applied 71.9 21.8 50.1 40.6 12.5 28.1
50 gram per acre 3.1 21.8 18.7 6.3 12.5 6.2

100 gram per acre

25.0 56.4 31.4 53.1 75.0 21.9
(recommended rate)
 Frequencies of weeding
3times
(Recommended 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.7 18.7
frequencies )
III. Nutrient
 Chemical fertilizer
50 kg/acre 43.8 50.0 6.2 46.9 59.4 12.5
(recommended rate)
25 kg/acre 56.2 50.0 6.2 53.1 40.6 12.5
 Gypsum
25 kg/acre 3.1 46.9 43.8 5.6 50.0 44.4
12.5 kg/acre 6.3 53.1 46.8 5.6 50.0 44.4
Not use 90.6 0.0 90.6 88.8 0.0 93.8

90
 Very Small Farmers Small Farmers
Agricultural Practices
Before After Change Before After Change
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
 Compost
Applied 0 12.5 12.5 0 25 25
 Fertilizer applying method
split (R ) 0.0 15.6 15.6 0.0 21.9 21.9
 Application of Boron
Applied 0.0 21.9 21.9 0.0 18.8 18.8

 Neem fertilizer
Applied 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 100.0
IV. Pesticide
 Rate of chemical pesticide
750cc per acre 71.9 43.8 28.1 62.5 25.0 37.5
500cc 28.1 71.9 43.8 37.5 75.0 37.5
 Rate of Neem pesticide
750 cc per acre 0.0 28.1 28.1 0.0 37.5 37.5
500 cc 0.0 43.8 43.8 0.0 62.5 62.5
 Spraying technique
Systematic spraying 9.4 18.7 9.3 18.7 28.1 9.4
 Protective wearing
Partially wearing 100.0 87.5 12.5 100.0 81.2 18.8
Complete wearing 0.0 12.5 12.5 0.0 18.8 18.8

V. Harvesting
Recommend situation 0.0 34.3 0.0 25.0
VI. Storage
Recommend situation 46.8 75.0 28.2 56.3 81.2 24.9

91
 Chapter 8

Summary of Findings, Conclusion and Recommendations

The chapter consists of three main sections. First is the summary of findings of the
research in previous chapters. Second is the conclusion of the study and last outlines the
recommendations of the research to improve the agricultural extension activities delivered
by the CESVI.

8.1 Summary of Findings

8.1.1 Type of Agricultural Extension Activities and Participation of Small Farmers

There were three types of agricultural extension activities conducted by CESVI during its
project period comprising of classroom type trainings, field visit and front line
demonstration. These three extension activities went together during the project period.
Small farmers in this research were categorized into two groups of very small farmers and
small farmers.

In classroom type trainings, all of very small farmers and small farmers participated
despite of their differences in participation intensity.

Both small and very small farmers had both a high level of intensity to participate in
classroom type trainings. For the moderate level, the small farmers participated more than
the very small farmers while the very small farmers least participated intensely. Contrast to
those, in low level, very small farmers participated more than small farmers.

In classroom type trainings, small farmers attended significantly in six training programs
provided including land preparation, growing, nutrient managements I and II, pesticide
managements I and II. They participated less in the training sessions on harvest and
storage.

Comparing between the two groups of small farmers in those mentioned training sessions
overall, there were more small farmers (third-fourth) than those from very small farmers
(two-third). In contrast, very small farmers were involved more in the session on harvest
and storage than the small farmers. Main reason given by most of them in both categories
for absence from the training was due to their full engagement in the field.

Factors associated with participation intensity in the classroom type trainings for very
small farmers were gender, participation in field visit, participation intensity in field visit
for very small farmers. Participation intensity in field visit had a high positive relationship
with participation intensity in classroom type trainings. Participation in field visit had a
moderate positive relationship and gender was found as a moderate negative correlated
factor meaning that men participated more than women.

For small farmers, factors associated with participation intensity in classroom type
trainings were size of groundnut cultivated area, income earned from groundnut,
participation in field visit and participation intensity in field visit. The high positive
correlated factors with participation intensity in classroom type trainings were participation

92
intensity in field visit whilst groundnut cultivated area, income earning from groundnut
and participation intensity in field visit had a moderate positive relationship.

In field visit activity, the small farmers attended the activity more than those from very
small farmers and with higher participation intensity. Various kinds of technical
assistances were given to both groups of small farmers including exchange of information;
seek technical solution, technical advice and consulting on technical problems. Both
groups got the services on exchanging information and seeking technical solution but the
very small farmers joined in these two activities more than the small farmers. Similar
number from both groups was found on receiving technical advice from the extensionists
but the small framers more consulted on technical problems than the very small farmers.
Major reason given by both two groups of farmers in absence from participation the field
visit activity was due to their engagement in their farm.
Factors associated with participation intensity in the field visit in both groups are exchange
of information, get technical advice, consulting on technical problems, and seek solutions
from the extensionists and participation intensity in classroom type trainings. For very
small farmers, participation intensity in classroom type trainings, exchange of the
information and getting technical advice from the extensionists had a high and positive
relationship. Whilst participation intensity in field visit showed a moderate positive
relationship and gender has a moderate negative level. For the small farmers, participation
intensity in classroom type trainings has a high positive relationship with participation
intensity in the field visit.

Regarding with front line demonstration, all from very small and small farmers
participated despite the difference in the number of the aspects they have participated.
Among all aspects all of them from both groups participated intensely in trying to get
recommended plant population, having the same proportion in utilizing the nutrient, using
the recommended rate of gypsum fertilizer. Small farmers participated in recommended
rate of applying chemical fertilizer more than very small farmers. Very small numbers of
both groups were involved in spacing, compost making, systematic fertilizer applying
method and systematic way of applying pesticides. Overall, the small farmers joined in
several activities in the front line demonstration than those from very small farmers except
in application of boron. Main reasons particularly from very small farmers unable to
participate in those mentioned activities were insufficient cash, lack of labor, unwillingness
to adopt new innovation and unavailability to the inputs and materials.

Factors associated with participation intensity in front line demonstration were varied:
education, size of groundnut cultivated area, income earned from groundnut, sufficient
cash had a significant relationship with participation intensity of very small farmers.
Sufficient cash, income earned from groundnut were the factors having a moderate and
positive related with participation intensity in front line demonstration. Factors that
moderately and negatively related wit participation in front line demonstration was
education. Willing to participate, participation intensity in classroom type trainings,
participation in field visit and its intensity in field visit were associated with participation
intensity for the small farmers as moderately and positively correlated factors.

8.1.2 Agricultural Knowledge Gained in Agricultural Extension Activities

Agricultural knowledge gained from extension activities of the small farmers in this
research were type of agricultural knowledge received by small farmers comprising of land

93
preparation, growing, nutrient, pesticide, harvesting and storage. Findings showed that
more or less the same number of most of very small and small farmers gained their
knowledge on land preparation, growing. Half of them in both groups received the
knowledge on harvesting and storage. Several aspects of knowledge gained more from
very small farmers than those from small farmers. These are in harvesting, utilizing farm
yard manure and neem fertilizer,

In Harvest related knowledge, few more very small farmers received knowledge than small
farmers that was contrast in storage related knowledge aspects. When studying the type of
agricultural knowledge gained specifically, in the aspects of utilizing farm yard manure
and neem fertilizer, there was the same frequency of small farmers who received those
information, however, the difference was found in very small farmers receiving by nearly
third-fourth in utilizing farm yard manure and by nearly two-third in neem fertilizer, and
Trichoderma compost. Significant variations in the knowledge received between them
were urea fertilizer application and chemical pesticide application which the small farmers
gained more than very small farmers in these aspects.

To assess the degree of knowledge gained, very small farmers as well as small farmers
were rated at a moderate level in the aspects of intercropping and utilizing farmyard
manure. For harvesting, very small farmers gained in a high level while small farmers were
at a moderate level. Both groups had the same degree of knowledge gained in the high
level in the aspects of seed, growing practices, and weeding. Similarly, it was found that
these two groups had the same degree of knowledge gained in the aspects of compound
fertilizer with moderate level, in Trichoderma compost with a low level, and in diagnosis
between the physiological symptom and disease symptom with a very low level.

8.1.3 Utilization of Agricultural Knowledge, Factors Associated and Changes in

Agricultural Practices and Health Conditions of Small Farmers

The utilization of agricultural knowledge between very small farmers and small farmers
was found to be similar. In the aspects of contour farming practice, boron fertilizer
application, distinguishing between beneficial insects and harmful insects, and diagnosis
aspects, very small farmers as well as small farmers were assessed at a very low level of
utilization. On other aspects of tillage, weeding and gypsum fertilizer application, both of
very small farmers and small farmers utilized their agricultural knowledge at a high level.

Regarding the change in agricultural practices, about one-third of very small farmers and
small farmers changed in their agricultural practices of using the inputs from less than
recommended rate to recommended rate especially in seed treatment powder and gypsum.
In the practices of contour farming soil conservation practice, after participating in
extension activities, very few of very small farmers started to utilize it and also, among
small farmers, about the same proportions were found starting utilized. In intercropping
and farm yard manure, there was no change between the two groups of before and after
participating in the agricultural extension activities. None of very small farmers and small
farmers had changed in those practices. Likely, in spacing and sowing depth changing,
there was no change found in very small farmers after participating in agricultural
extension activities and limited changes was envisaged in small farmers. The most
significant change was seen in neem fertilizer application and all of very small farmers and
small farmers started to utilize neem fertilizer though they did not have the experience in
using it before participating in extension activities. In applying chemical pesticide, after

94
participating in agricultural extension activities, about one-fourth of very small farmers
reduced the amount of chemical pesticide and applied neem pesticide in more quantities.
For the small farmers, after participating in extension activities, more than one-third of
them relied on the application of neem pesticides rather than chemical pesticides. In the
practice of making harvest, about one-third of very small farmers changed to
recommended harvesting practice, and rest of very small farmers were still utilizing their
conventional ways. In case of the small farmers, about one-fourth of small farmers
harvested in recommended harvesting way after participating. Similar results were found in
storage in both groups.

8.2 Conclusion

CESVI provided very useful various types of agricultural extension activities consisting of
both theory and practice including FFS, field visit and front line demonstration activities to
small farmers on groundnut cultivation in the dry zone area. Overall, it was effective in
providing agricultural knowledge and utilization of small farmers in the area.

Both very small and small farmers were very interested in those agricultural activities and
they participated in all of those activities significantly. In comparison between two groups
of farmers, very small farmers had their keen interest in activities provided agricultural
knowledge and orientation through FFS and field visit activities while small farmers joined
more than the other group in front line demonstration because they purchased their own
required inputs and materials in the demonstration without support from the project. This
made certain different between these two groups and had an impact on participation
intensity in those agricultural activities. Despite of successful delivery of those agricultural
activities to small farmers, the project had its limitation in field monitoring from its
extensionists due to inadequacy of technical staff.

The success in the implementation of those three mentioned activities of the project
contributed to the higher degree of agricultural knowledge gained of both groups of
farmers particularly in various techniques in land cultivation and growing than other
aspects. The variation in the degree of knowledge gained between them was mainly related
to type and diversified information provided to them, size of their groundnut cultivated
area and their participation intensity both in theory and practice including FFS and field
visit. In specific, information provided on practical learning from front line demonstration
and field visit was found to be more important for the agricultural knowledge gained. That
was the reason why small farmers gained relatively higher degree of knowledge gained
than very small farmers

The degree of utilization from agricultural knowledge gained of both groups was high but
actual utilization in the field was higher found from small farmers than very small farmers
because of input support from the project as well as the affordability to purchase the inputs
by the small farmers themselves. It is envisaged from this research that more knowledge
gained led to greater utilization in agricultural practices in the farm among small farmers.
Despite the input support from the project to very small farmers, they were unable to
utilize their knowledge in their farm fully due to inadequate resources from themselves.

As a consequence, the small farmers have changed their agricultural practices more than
those from very small farmers particularly in applying gypsum fertilizer, compound
fertilizer, compost and boron that they were affordable buy them to buy by themselves, and

95
in the areas of spacing, systematic fertilizer applying because of availability of household
labor. The changes in agricultural practices of both groups of farmers also resulted to
positive health impacts.

To enhance the effective utilization of agricultural knowledge gained from the project,
adequate inputs provided particularly to very small farmers become prominent which
should be in line with agricultural techniques required less intensive labor and adequate
supervision and follow-up from the extensionists.

8.3 Recommendations

In order to improve agricultural extension services of CESVI for small farmers to gain
better knowledge and utilization, the following recommendations are suggested.

8.3.1 Strengthening Participation of Small Farmers in all Agricultural Extension

Activities

From findings both in Chapters 7 and 8 showed that higher degree of agricultural
knowledge gained and greater utilized both of very small and small farmers were due to
their higher participation intensity in more diversified types of agricultural extension
activities including all Classroom Type Training, field visit and front line demonstration
activities. This was the way both groups of small farmers learned from both theory and
practice in groundnut cultivation.

Therefore, both groups of small farmers should be encouraged to be involved in all

activities so that they could learn from different aspects useful for their cultivation. Very
small farmers particular male, low-education farmers and farmers with smaller size of
groundnut cultivated area should be encouraged to be involved more based on the findings
from Chapter 6.

The specific suggestions by type of agricultural extension activity are given below.

a) Classroom Type Trainings

Findings from Section 6.1.1 of Chapter 6 showed small farmers participated in this activity
lower than those from very small farmers due to their engagement in farm activities.
Therefore, Classroom Type training activities should be mobilized them to join which
these can be provided during the off-season period to facilitate full involvement of both
groups. Based on the findings, the interested topics of the small farmers of both groups
should be focused on land preparation, tillage and farm yard manure because they would
enable to make arrangements in advance of growing season to utilize the knowledge well.

b) Field visit (FV)

Findings from Chapter 6 revealed that one-third of very small and small farmers and nearly
one-third of small farmers did not participate in field visit at all because of their
engagement in farm activities. Field visit activities were usually conducted after each FFS
training session and therefore, the small farmers could not join the two activities

96
simultaneously. Therefore, the field visit activities should be scheduled carefully in
consultation with them in advance to be consistent with farm activities of most of them.

c) Front line demonstration (FLD)

From Chapter 6, small farmers participated more in the front line demonstration mainly
due to their affordability to provide needed input in the demonstration activity while very
small farmers could not make it because of their own resource constraint. The project
should provide adequate inputs to very small farmers to increase their participation in this
activity in specific. The findings from Chapter 7 also showed that higher participation
intensity in this activity of small farmers has increased more knowledge gained than very
small farmers. Thus, this activity is very significant to increase the agricultural knowledge.

8.3.2 Increase Agricultural Knowledge Gained

In order to increase agricultural knowledge gained and enhance the utilization from the
knowledge, some improvements on the following aspects are suggested.

a) Information dissemination

Chapter 7 showed that (section 7.2), agricultural knowledge gained was weak for both
groups of small farmers in compost making, distinguishing the beneficial insects and
harmful insects, making diagnosis on the physiological and disease symptoms. The
delivery of information should be improved by simplifying the explanations on those
technical aspects so that the small farmers of both groups could be more understandable as
most of them had low education level.

b) Appropriate technologies

As mentioned in Chapter 7 (section 7.3), the technologies regarding with tillage, weeding,
and gypsum fertilizer application were found to be appropriate for both of very small
farmers and small farmers. Specifically, in very small farmers group, the technologies such
as intercropping, growing practices, and storage were more appropriate for them, however,
for the small farmers, the appropriate technologies include neem fertilizer application,
neem pesticide application, systematic spraying techniques, and compost making. Based
on those findings, very small farmers were more capable to utilize the technologies that
were easy to follow for them to practice and also those that were not more costing than
their conventional ways, and in small farmers, their utilization was more on labor and cash
intensive technologies than very small farmers. Therefore, if the technologies provided
could be less labor intensive and less cost, not only small farmers also very small farmers
would utilize appropriately.

8.3.3 Increase Utilization of Agricultural Knowledge

a) Available of recommended inputs, capital and input support

Input support should not be balanced between the two farmer groups. Normally, very small
farmers had less affordability in resource contribution compared to small farmers and that
was the weak point of them to participate in front line demonstration intensively.

97
Therefore, in the future plan, very small farmers should be subsidized more than small
farmers particularly on raw material of compost, neem pesticides and neem fertilizers and
the equipments for spraying chemical pesticides and neem pesticides.

b) Technologies required less cost and human and animal labor requirement

Certain technologies were not feasible for small farmers from both groups to follow up
comprising spacing aspects which was too costly for them and required more labors to be
hired for small farm household’s size comparing with a conventional spacing technique
they have applied previously.

Also findings of Chapter 7 showed that small farmers who owned oxen and cows utilized
their knowledge more. If the recommended technique is not used relatively greater number
of human and animal labor than previous practices of them, the small farmers may have
utilized more knowledge they have learned. This will enable very small farmers to utilize
their knowledge more effectively in future.

c) Technical supervision, follow-up and monitoring from extension staff

Technical monitoring should be done in improving the agricultural extension services so

that it would be more efficient way to utilize agricultural knowledge gained by the small
farmers that they received from the extension activities.

Due to limited extension staffs in this project (eight persons responsible for many
agricultural components) and all of them had been responsible for other agricultural
activities also implemented in the project (seed bank and livestock supporting activity). As
a consequence, they did not supervise, follow-up and monitor adequately in the small
farmer’s farms if they really utilized their knowledge gained from various agricultural
extension activities provided to them. In future, this all these aspects should be seriously
considered by the project.

d) Conducting a common front line demonstration plot

The study showed that very small farmers were not afford to buy recommended inputs in
their individual plot while small farmers could follow because they have adequate capital
to buy those inputs. Therefore, it is suggested in future that the project should conduct a
front line demonstration in the form of a common plot in which small farmers as well as
very small farmers would enable to participate by applying recommended amount of the
inputs.

The requirement of inputs for the small farmers would also be able to minimize if the
common plot type demonstration would have been conducted by the project instead of
conducting the front line demonstration as found in this research.

8.3.4 Recommendation for Further Research

The future research of this kind should be focused on “Delivery Mechanism of

Agricultural Extension Activities by CESVI”. This study will provide an insight and
analyze institutional arrangement and delivery mechanism of the extension services so that

98
it can be more understandable on its consequence on the effects on small farmers in the dry
zone of Myanmar.

99
 References

Adjei-Nsiah ,S., T.W. Kuyper,C. Leeuwis, M.K. Abekoe and K.E. Giller (2007).
Evaluating sustainable and profitable cropping sequences with cassava and four
legume crops: Effects on soil fertility and maize yields in the forest/savannah
transitional agro-ecological zone of Ghana. Field Crops Research Journal, 103(2),
87-97.

Amin ,A.H. and B.R. Stewart (n.d).Training and Visit Extension Program outcomes in
Ninia Governorate, Egypt. Journal of Agricultural Education,35(3),1-5.

Anderson, J.R. and G. Feder( 2003). Rural Extension Services. The World Bank, Policy
Research Working Paper 2976.Washington, DC.

Anderson, J. R. and G.Feder (2004). Agricultural extension: Good intention and hard
realities. The World Bank Research Observer, 19(1), 41–60.

Assefa ,T., G. Abebe, C. Fininsa, B.Tesso and A.R.M. Al-Tawaha (2005). Participatory
bean breeding with women and small holder farmers in eastern Ethiopia. World
Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 1, 28-35.

Atta-Krah, A.N. and P.A. Francis (1987).“The role of On-Farm Trials in the Evaluation of
Composite Technologies: The Case of Alley Farming in Southern Nigeria”,
Agricultural System, 23,133-135.

Aung, L.L.(2005).Effectiveness of the farmer field school (ffs) approach to integrated

production and pest management (ippm) technologies for the promotion of grain
legume production in Myanmar .Asian Institute of Technology.

Aung, A.(2010).Implementation of field trials [Power point slides].Community Based

Food Security Project, Magway Township, Dry Zone, Myanmar.(Unpublished)

Avila,M (n.d).Strategies for farming System Research. In THEILERIOSIS in Eastern,

Central and Southern Africa, proceedings of a workshop.FAO.

Badu-Apraku, B.,M.A.B. Fakorede, A. Menkir and D.Sanogo (2012).Conduct and

Management of Maize Field Trials. Nigeria, International Institute of Tropical
Agriculture (IITA).

Bage,L.(2006).Seeds of hope. The magazine of the United Nations Environment

Programme. UNEP. special edition.

Baw,A.(2010a). Rural based food security project. Fact Sheet Magway Food Security
Project Myanmar Version. CESVI.(Unpublished).

Baw,A. (2010b).Monthly Report(December ).The situation of the activities being

implemented by CESVI .

100
Behera, U.K.,A.R. Sharma (2007).Modern concepts of Agriculture : Farming Systems.
Indian Agricultural research Institute. New Dehli.

Benor, D .a n d J . Q .H a r ri s o n (1977). Agricultural extension: The training and visit

system.Washington DC. The World Book.

Benor ,D and M. Baxter (1984).Training and Visit Extension. Wishington DC. World
Bank.

Berg,H.V.D. and J.Jiggins (2007). Investing in Farmers-The Impacts of Farmer Field

Schools in Relation to Integrated Pest Management. World Development,35, 663-
686.

Birkhaeuser, D., R.E. Evenson and G. Feder (1988). The Economic Impact of Agricultural
Extension: A Review. The World Bank, and New Haven, CT: Yale University,
Economic Growth Center. Washington, DC.

Chambers, R., A. Pacey and L.A. Thrupp (eds.) (1989).Farmer First: Farmer Innovation
and Agricultural Research. London: IT Publications.

Chapke, R.R . (2012).Impact of Frontline Demonstrations on Jute (Corchorusolitorius) .

J Hum Ecol, 38(1), 37-41.

CESVI (2007).Grant Application Form:2007 Food Security Programme for Burma/

Myanmar. Reference : EuropeAid/126368/l/ACT/MM.(Unpublished)
CESVI (n.d ).” Who is CESVI”.(project document).

CESVI (2007).Grant Application Form:2007 Food Security Programme for

Burma/Myanmar. Reference:EuropeAid/126368/l/ACT/MM.(Unpublished).

Cramb, R. (2000). Processes influencing the successful adoption of new technologies by

smallholders.” In W. W. Stür, P. M. Horne, J. B. Hacker, and P. C. Kerridge (eds.),
Working with Farmers: The Key to Adoption of Forage Technologies.ACIAR
Proceedings 95: 11–22.

Cuc , T.T.B. (2009). Assessment of a participatory technology Development (ptd)

approach for poor farmers in baria-vungtau province, Vietnam.Asian Institute of
Technology.

Davis, K., and N.Place. (2003). Non-governmental organizations as an Important Actor in

Agricultural Extension in Semiarid East Africa. Journal of International
Agricultural and Extension Education, 10(1), 31–36.

Davis,K.,D.A.Mekonnen, E.Neonya, E. Eato, J.Nkuba, M.Odendo and R,Miiro. (2012).

Impact of Farmer Field Schools on Agricultural Productivity and Poverty in East
Africa. World Development , 40(2), 402–413.

Duvel,G.(2011).South African Institute for Agricultural Extension. Department of

Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural development, University of

101
 Pretoria.Availableonline:http://web.up.ac.za/pdfs/4686_Institute% 20for %20
Agricultural%20Extension.pdf [ Downloaded on September 25,2012].

Duveskog, D. (2006). Theoretical perspectives of the learning process in farmer field

schools. Nairobi: FAO Working Paper.

Emmanuel, E.G (n.d).“Extension methods and Communication”. Available on line:http://

www. nou. edu.ng/noun /NOUN_ OCL /pdf/ edited _pdf 3/ AEM 619
%20Extension %20NEW. pdf [Download September 3,2012].

FAO/World Bank (2000). Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems for Rural
Development (AKIS/RD): Strategic Vision and Guiding Principles. Rome.

Feder, G., Murgai,R., and J.B.Quizon,J.B. (2003).Sending farmers back to school: The
impact of farmer field schools in Indonesia. World Bank Policy Research Working
Paper 3022.

Feder, G., R .Murgai and J. B. Quizon (2004a). Sending farmers back to school: The
impact of FFS in Indonesia. Review of Agricultural Economics, 26(1), 45–62.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).(2001).Progress report—

2001. Farmer innovation and new technology options for food production, income
generation and combating desertification (KEN/99/200), Nairobi: FAO.

FR11S-HANSEN, E. and D. Duveskog (2012).The Empowerment Route to Well-being:An

Analysis of Farmer Field Schools in East Africa. World Development,40(2):414-
427.

Garforth, C and A.Lawrence (1997). Supporting Sustainable Agriculture through

Extension in Asia. Natural Resource Perspectives, 21. Overseas Development
Institute (ODI), London.

Hagmann, J. and E. Chuma (1998).Learning Together through Participatory Extension.

Guide to an Approach Developed in Zimbabwe. Harare, Zimbabwe: AGRITEX
/GTZ/ITZ.

Hagmann, J. et al. (1999), Putting Process into Practice: Opertaionalisin Participatory

Extension. Agricultural Research & Extension Network Paper No. 94, London, The
Overseas Development Institute.

Han,M.S.( 2010). Assessment of land productivity and socio-economic aspects of maize-

based cropping systems: a case study of dry and hilly regions in Myanmar. Asian
Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand.

Hayward, J.A. (1989). ‘Agricultural Extension: the World Bank Experience and
approaches’. In Global Consultation on Agricultural Extension. Rome: Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

102
Hlaing,T, T.Maung , M.Mar, P.K. Agrawal (2004) . Agricultural Research, Extension and
Rural Development in Myanmar. Myanmar Academy of Agricultural, Forestery,
Livestock and Fishery Science, Myanmar.

Jacob, Cohen(1988).Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (second

edition), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
JICA.(2007). Interim Report (1). The Development Study on Sustainable Agricultural and
Rural Development for Poverty Reduction in programme in Central Dry Zone, the
Union of Myanmar, prepared for the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation,
Myanmar, Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA).

Jiggins, J. and H. De Zeeuw (1992).“Participatory technology development in practice:

Process and methods.” In C. Reijntjes, B. Haverkort, and A. Waters-Bayer
(eds.),Farming for the Future: An Introduction to Low-externalinput and
Sustainable Agriculture (pp. 1350–162). London: MacMillan.

Jürgen, H., E .Chuma, K. Murwiraand M. Connolly (1998). Learning Together Through

Participatory Extension: A Guide to an Approach Developed in Zimbabwe.
Department of Agricultural, Technical and Extension Services (AGRITEX) in
cooperation with Integrated Rural Development Programme (GTZ/IRDEP) and
Intermediate Technology Development Group, Zimbabwe (ITZ) Harare.

Kaizzi, C.K., H .Ssali and P.L.G .Vlek (2006). Differential use and benefits of velvet
bean (Mucunapruriensvar. utilis) and N fertilizers in maize production in
contrasting agro-ecological zones of E. Uganda. Agricultural System, 88(1), 44-
60.

Kelemework, F. (2005). Impact evaluation of farmer field school: The case of integrated
Potato late Blight management in the central highland of Etiopı´a. University of
Antwerp (Thesis).

Kenmore, P. E. (1996). Integrated pest management in rice. In G. J. Persley (Ed.),

Biotechnology and integrated pest management (pp. 76–97). Wallingford, UK:
CAB International.

Kumar,A., R.Kumar,V.P.S.Yadav, and R.Kumar (2010).Impact Assessment of Frontline

Demonstrations of Bajra in Haryana State. Indian Res.J.Ext.Edu,10(1)

Labios,R.V.(2010).Mission Report:26 July-8 August 2010.Community Based Food

Security Project in Magway Township, Dry Zone, Myanmar (MTF /MYA/ 013
/CSV). (Unpublished)

Leeuwis, C. (2004). Communication for Rural Innovation: Rethinking Agricultural

Extension Oxford: Blackwell Science Inc.

Lightfoot,C. and R. Barker (1988).‘‘On-farm Trials: A survey of Methods”, Agricultural

Adinistration and Extension,30,15-23.

103
Mishra,D.K., D.K.Paliwah, Tailor,R.S and A.K. Deshwal (2009). Impact of Front Line
Demonstration on Yield Enhancement of Potato.Indian Research Journal ,9(3).

Missione, D.B. (2011) .Annual Report. CESVI.

MOAI (2004). Myanmar Agriculture in brief.Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation.

Yangon, Myanmar. March, 2003.

Nathaniels, N.Q.R.(2005).Cowpea, farmer field schools and farmer tofarmer extension: A

Benin case study. Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper 148.
London: Overseas Development Institute.

National Open University of Nigeria.(ND).“Extension Teaching, Learning Process and

Methods”. Available online: http://www.nou.edu.ng/noun/ NOUN_OCL/pdf/
edited_pdf3/ AEM%20302%20COURSE%20Material.pdf.[Download on
September 3,2012]

Oakley, P. (1997). ‘The Monitoring and Evaluation of Non-Material Objectives

ofExtension’. In Investing in Rural Extension: Strategies and Goals.(Gwyn E.
Jones,ed.) (Gwyn E. Jones, ed.)London and New York: Elsevier.

Pathak , S . (1999). Results of National Demonstration Programme: Central Research

Institute for Jute and Allied Fibres (CRIJAF) Bulletin, 37.

Rivera, W.M .(1987). Agricultural Extension Worldwide: socio-political, organizational

and programmatic characteristics; Lifelong Learning Research Conference
Proceedings; College Park, Maryland: University of Maryland, Department of
Agricultural and Extension Education.

Rivera ,W.M. and M.K. Qamar (2003).Agricultural Extension ,Rural Development and
Food Security Challenge. Rome, FAO.

Rola, A. C., S. B.Jamias and J. B.Quizon. (2002). Do FFS graduates retain and share what
they learn? An investigation in Iloilo, Philippines. Journal of Agricultural and
Extension Education, 9(1), 65–75.

Roling, N and van de Fliert. N, E. (1994). Transforming extension for sustainable

agriculture: The case of integrated pest management in rice in Indonesia.
Agriculture and Human Values, 11(2/3), 96–108.

Röling, N. (1988). Extension Science: Information Systems in Agricultural Development.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Shaner,W.W.( 1984).‘‘Stratification : An approach to Cost- Effectiveness for Farming

Systems” .Research and Development, Agricultural System,15,101-123.

Sharma,A.K., V. Kumar, S.K.Jha and R.C.Sachan (2011) . Front Line Demonstrations on

Indian Mustrads: An impact assessment. Indian Research Journal ,11(3).

104
Tripp, R., M. Wijeeratneand V. H. Piyadasa (2005). What should we expect from FFS? A
Sri Lanka case study. World Development, 33(10), 1705–1720.

UNDP ( 2002).“Agricultural Sector Review and Investment Strategy Volume 1”.Available

online:http://www.mm.undp.org/UNDP_Publication_PDF/ASR%20Vol.1%20Sec
tor%20Review.pdf [Download August 15, 2012].

UNDP, “Myanmar Agricultural Sector Review Investment Strategy, volume(2).

”.Available online:http://www .mm.undp.org/UNDP_Publication_PDF/ASR % 20
Vol.2%20 Investment % 20Strategy.pdf.[Download: July 7 , 2012.]

UNDP (2006).Impact of the UNDP Human Development Initiative in Myanmar,1994-

2006.

UPHOFF, N. COHEN, J.M. and GOLDSMITH, A.A (1997).Feasibility and Application of

Rural Development Participation New York: Center for International Studies,
Cornell University.

Usha, R.S and S.M. Wasnik (2007). Transfer of Technology Initiatives for Profitable and
Sustainable Cotton Farming in India—An Empirical Analysis. Central Institute
for Cotton Research, India.

van de Fliert, E. (1993). Integrated pest management: Farmer field schools generate
sustainable practices.A case study in central Java evaluating IPM training.
Published Doctoral Dissertation, Wageningen University, Wageningingen.

van de Fliert, E., J.Pontius and N. Ro¨ ling .(1995). Searching for strategies to replicate a
successful extension approach: Training of IPM trainers in Indonesia. European
Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension,1(4), 41–63.

Vongkasem.(2007). Farmer participatory extension methodologies used in the cassava

project in Thailand, Proceeding Workshop 2002 on Asian Cassava Research,
Bangkok, Thailand.

Wasnik,S.M.,R.K.Deshmukh and M.K.Meshram (2003) eds. Front-Line Demonstration

:An Effective Communication Approach for Dissemination of Sustainable Cotton
Production Technology. In International Conference on Communication for
Development in the information Age: Extending the benefits of technology for
all.07-09 January 2003 .

World Bank.2003a.A Multi-Country Agricultural Productivity Programme(MAPP) for

Africa. (Draft).Washington DC.

World Bank. 2003b. Reaching the Rural Poor. Two vols: (I) Strategy and Business Plan;
(II) Annexes. Agriculture and Rural Development. Washington DC.

World Bank (2008). World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development
.Washington DC.

105
Živković, D., S. Jelić, Z. Rajić(2009). Agricultural extension service in the function of
rural development :Paper prepared for presentation at the 113Th EAAE Seminar
.“The role of knowledge, innovation and human capital in multifunctional
agriculture and territorial rural development”. Belgrade, Republic of Serbia
December 9-11, 2009.

106
 Appendix 1: Research Coordination Schema
Unit of Analysis: Household Level

Objective Parameter Complex variables Simple variable Value

1.Profile of the  Respondent  Demographic data  Age Years

respondents  Educational attainment Illiterate/Primary/Secondary/Higher
Diploma/ Graduate
 Marital status Single/Married/Separate/Widow/
Divorced

 Economic  Household Income Amount in kyat

 Farm Income Amount in Kyat

 Farm characteristics  Type of the crop

107

grown
-crop
-Area Acre
 Type of the land
-Low land
-Upland
-Mixed
 Type of the soil
-Sandy soil
-Clay soil
-Loam soil
-Other
 Growing are
 Rain fed area Acre

107
 Objective Parameter Complex variable Simple variable Value

1.To examine the Participation  Participation by  Training on: Yes/No

participation of the activity -Land preparation Statement
farmers in agricultural (participation and -Growing practices Social scaling on degree of
extension activities intensity) -Nutrient management participation
delivered by CESVI and -Pest and Disease (always, often ,moderate,
their utilization management sometimes, rarely)
-Spraying methods
- Harvesting and
-Storage
 Front line
demonstration
108

-application of fertilizer
-spacing
-using bio pesticide
 Field visit
-Consulting on technical
problems
-Getting advice from the
extensionsits
-Exchange of the
information
between the
extensionists and the
farmers
-Seek solutions from
the extensionists

108
 Objective Parameter Complex variable Simple variable Value

2.To assess the  Social effect  Knowledge gained (a)Land Preparation Yes / No
social effects to  Knowledge Utilization (1)tillage Statement
small farmers -tillage techniques Social scaling on degree
focusing on -tillage time of knowledge gained
agricultural (2)Soil conservation techniques (very high, high,
knowledge and -contour farming technique moderate, low,
practices -contour furrow technique very low)
(b)Growing practices Social scaling on degree
(1)Planting of knowledge utilization
-improved variety (very high, high,
-planting time moderate, low,
-recommended spacing very low)
-planting technique
109

( 2)weed control
(c )Fertilizer application
-Type
-Amount
-Method
(d) Insecticide application
-Amount
-Method
-Frequency
-spraying technique
(e) Harvesting

109
 Objective Parameter Complex variable Simple variable Value

 Information  Type of the information Yes / No

dissemination -Land preparation
-Growing practices
-Nutrient management
-Insecticide Management
-Harvesting
-Storage

 Change in agricultural  Land preparation Yes / No

practices of groundnut -Frequency of tillage
110

before and after -Time of tillage

 Planting
-Planting technique
-Plant spacing
-Planting time
 Fertilizer application
-Type of fertilizer(compound/
biofertilizer/
combined use)
-Rate of fertilizer in each time of
fertilizing
-Method of fertilizing
-frequency

 Insecticide application
-Frequency of insecticide (times)
-Rate of insecticide (litre/acre)

110
 Objective Parameter Complex variable Simple variable Value

-method of spraying
(against the wind/towards the wind )

 Weeding
-Frequency
-Type of weeding(hand
weeding/mechanical)
111

 Harvesting
-Harvesting time

 Storage
-Moisture content of the seed
-Storage condition
 Health hazards
 Change in health condition of the Yes / No
farmers before and after Statement
- headache and dizziness (How? /How Long?)
- coughing
- chest pain
- eye irritation
- skin irritation
- stomach pain
-Other

111
 Objective Parameter Complex variable Simple variable Value

3.To assess the economic  Economic effect  Cost of production  Change in Input cost Amount in Kyat
effects to small farmers before and after
covering cost of inputs,
profitability, crop
production and farm  Crop Production  Change in Yield before Amount in basket
income and after

 Return  Change in return before Amount in Kyat

and after

 Income from groundnut  Change in income before

112

and after from groundnut Amount in Kyat

4.To assess environmental  Environmental aspect  Soil  Change in soil fertility Yes/No
effects to small farmers on before and after Statement
soil  Change in Soil moisture
before and after
 Change in Soil erosion
before and after
 Change in Nutrient
depletion before and
after
 Change in Land
Degradation before and
after

112
 Appendix 2: Questionnaire for a Household Survey

Questionnaire Number:…………..

Effects of Agricultural Extension Services Delivered by International

Non-governmental Organization to small Farmers in the Dry Zone of
Myanmar

A Survey Questionnaire

by

Su Lai May

Information of Respondent:

Name of the Respondent:…………………………………………………………………

Village:………………………… ….. ...Village Tract:…………………………………….

Township: …………………………… State/ Division:…………………………………..

Date of Interview:………………………………………………………………………….

113
A. General information
1. Demographic Data
1.1 Age …………….years
1.2. Education
[ ] Illiterate [ ] Primary[ ]Secondary [ ] High School
[ ] Diploma [ ] Graduate

1.3. Marital status

[ ] Single [ ] Married [ ] Separate [ ] Divorced [ ] Widow

2. Economic Conditions

2.1 What is the amount of your annual income?

Source of the Income from agriculture (Kyat )

income Amount (Kg) Price (Kyat/Kg) Value(Kyat)
1.Crop
a. Groundnut
b.Green gram
c.Pigeon Pea
d. Others
Sub-total
2.Livestock
1.Cattle
b. Piglets
c. Poultry
d. Fishery
e. Manure
f. Others
Sub-total
Source of the Income from non -agriculture (Kyat)
income
3.Non agriculture Income per month (Kyat ) Income per year (Kyat)
1.Trade
b. Pension
c. Salary
d. Service
e. Shop
f. Remittance
g. Others
Sub-total
Total

114
3. Source of Credit for Groundnut Cultivation
3.1. Did CESVI organization provide the loan or credit for growing the groundnut?

[ ] Yes [ ] No

3.2. If yes, how much money did you get and is it enough to meet for all costs of growing
the groundnut?

(i). ………(in Kyats)

(ii) [ ] Enough [ ] Not enough

3.3.If it is not enough, is there any other source of investment money available for
growing the groundnut in last agricultural year 2011? Please explain the sources of money.

Investment source for groundnut

Money lender Other Other source

organizations(INGO/UNDP)

Amount

(in kyats)

3. Farm Characteristics
3.1 Type of the crops grown

No Type of the crop grown Area (acre )

1 Rainy Season Groundnut
2 Winter Season Groundnut
3 Green Gram
4 Pigeon Pea
5 Others
Total

3.2 Land Type

[ ] Lowland [ ] Upland [ ] Mixed

3.3 Soil Type

115
[ ] Sandy soil [ ] Clay soil [ ] Loamy soil [ ] Other (specify)
3.4 Growing area
Areas under rain fed condition……………………… (Acres)

4. Labor utilization
4.1.How was the number of the labors needed to use between the two situations of before
and after the extension activities?
(Note: Labor will be computed on 1 acre basis.).
Rainy Season Groundnut

Before participating After participating

Number of labor utilized

 Household labor ………………….persons ………………persons

 Hired labor
………………….persons ………………persons

Winter Season Groundnut

Before participating After participating

Number of labor utilized

 Household labor ………………….persons ………………persons

 Hired labor
………………….persons ………………persons

5. How did you get the inputs for growing the groundnut after participating in the
extension activities? Please mention that.

116
No Input Unit support by CESVI Self support by the farmers

Amount Price Value Amount Price Value

per (Kyat) per (Kyat)
unit unit
(Kyat) (Kyat)
1 Chemical Kg
Fertilizer

2 Manure Kg
Fertilizer
3 Insecticide gram
/liter
4 Pesticide gram/liter

5 Seed Kg

6 Others

B. Participation in Agricultural Extension Activities

1.1. Have you ever joined in the following extension activities of CESVI?
[ ] Yes [ ] No

1.2 If yes, which activity did you join in? Please specify (Multiple Answers).
[ ] Training [ ] Front Line Demonstration [ ] Field Visit
1.3. If you attend in training, which type of training did you participate? Please specify.

No Type of Training Attendence Reason(s) for

Attendence
Yes No
1 Land preparation
2 Improved seed
3 Growing practices
4 Nutrient management
5 Pest and Disease management
6 Harvesting and Storage

1.4.If you did not join in training, what are the constraints for you so that you could not
have regular attendance in training? Please specify (Multiple Answers).
□busy with my works

117
□having social works
□ feel sick, unhealthy
□others (specify)

1.5. Did you join in front line demonstration?

[ ] Yes [ ] No

1.6. If yes, did you participate in which aspects? (Multiple Answers).

[ ] Application of fertilizer in recommended rate [ ] Spacing [ ] Using bio pesticide
[ ] Other ( specify)………….

1.7. If you join in field visit, did you participate in which aspects? (Multiple Answers).
[ ] Consulting on technical problems [ ] Getting advice from the extensionist
[ ] Exchange of the information [ ] Seek solution from the extensionists
between the extensionist and the farmer
[ ] Others (Please specify).

1.8. Please rate the degree of your participation in front line demonstration and field visits.

No Type of activity Participation Degree of participation

Yes No 1 2 3 4 5
1 Front line demonstration
2 Field visit
(1 =Rarely, 2=Sometimes, 3= Moderate, 4=Often, 5=Always)

1.9.If you could not well participate in front line demonstration ,what are the constraints
for you so that you could not participate well in that? Please specify (Multiple Answers).
□busy with my works
□having social works
□ feel sick, unhealthy
□others (specify)

1.10.If you could not well participate in field visit ,what are the constraints for you so that
you could not participate well in that? Please specify.(Multiple Answers).
□busy with my works
□having social works
□ feel sick, unhealthy
□others (specify)

118
C. Social Effects

1. Knowledge gained

1.1. Did you get knowledge from the extension activities? Please tick off in the table.
(Multiple Choice).
1.2. Please rate the perceived knowledge that you got from the extension activities.
[ 1= Very Low (0%-20%), 2=Low (20%-40%, 3=Moderate (40%-60%) , 4=High(60%-
80%) , 5=Very High (80-100%) ]

Degree of knowledge gained

Knowledge Gained Yes No 1 2 3 4 5

(A) Land preparation

( I)Soil conservation

-contour farming soil conservation

-intercropping with other crops

(II )Tillage

( III)use of farm yard manure and

green manure

(IV )Others (specify)

(B)Growing

(I ) seeds for growing

- characteristics of good quality seeds

-germination test

-use of seed treatment powder

-seed rate

-Others

( II ) Growing techniques

-plant population

-plant spacing

119
Knowledge gained Knowledge gained
Yes No
1 2 3 4 5

-sowing depth

-Other

(III ) Weeding

-frequencies

- time of weeding (age of the crop )

-others (specify )

( C ) Nutrient Management

(I) bio fertilizer (neem cake)

-frequency

-amount

-method of application

-Others(specify)

- frequency

-amount

-method of application

-others

(iii ) EM compost

-EM compost making method

-application of EM compost

-frequencies

-amount

-others (specify )

( iv)Trichoderma compost

-Trichoderma compost making method

120
Knowledge gained Yes No Knowledge gained

1 2 3 4 5

-application of Trichoderma compost

-amount

-frequencies

-others (specify)

(v ) Gypsum fertilizer

-amount

-frequencies

-method of application

-others

(vii ) Boron (specify)

-amount

-frequencies

-method of application

-others

(D)Insecticide application

(I )neem pesticide

-amount

-frequency

-method of application

-others

(iii) chemical pesticide

-amount

-frequency

121
Knowledge gained Yes No Knowledge gained

1 2 3 4 5

-method of application

Others

(iv) spraying techniques

(v ) Wearing protective wears

( vi ) distinguishing the natural

beneficial insects and harmful insects

(vii)selective use of insecticide,

fungicide

(v ii )Others (specify )

(E ) Harvesting (age of the crop)

(i)Harvesting time

(ii)Situation of the plant when

harvested

(iii)others

(F ) Storage

(i)Storage condition for the seed

(ii)The situation of the seed in storing

time

(iii)others

2. Knowledge utilization

2.1. Did you utilize the knowledge gained from the extension activities?
[ ] Yes [ ] No

2.2 If yes, please rate the degree of utilization of the knowledge.

[ 1= Very Low (0%-20%), 2=Low (20%-40%, 3=Moderate (40%-60%) , 4=High(60%-
80%) , 5=Very High (80-100%) ]

122
 Degree of knowledge
applied
Knowledge applied If If
Yes,what? No,why? 1 2 3 4 5

(A)Land preparation

( I)Soil conservation

-contour farming soil conservation

-intercropping with other crops

(II )Tillage

( III)use of farm yard manure and

green manure

(IV )Others (specify)

(B)Growing

(I ) seeds for growing

- characteristics of good quality seed

-use of seed treatment powder

-seed rate

-Others

( II ) Growing techniques

-plant population

-plant spacing

-sowing depth

-Others

(III ) Weeding

-frequencies

- time of weeding (age of the crop )

-others (specify )

123
 Degree of knowledge
If If applied
Knowledge applied
Yes,what? No,why?
1 2 3 4 5

( C ) Nutrient Management

(I) bio fertilizer (neem cake)

-frequency

-amount

-method of application

-Others(specify)

(II ) compound fertilizer

- frequency

-amount

-method of application

-others

(iii ) EM compost

-EM compost making method

-application of EM compost

-frequencies

-amount

-others (specify )

( iv)Trichoderma compost

-Trichoderma compost making method

-application of Trichoderma compost

-amount

-frequencies

124
 Degree of knowledge
If Yes, If
Knowledge applied applied
what? No,Why?
1 2 3 4 5

-others (specify)

v ) Gypsum fertilizer

-amount

-frequencies

-method of application

-others

(vii ) Boron (specify)

-amount

-frequencies

-method of application

-others

(D)Insecticide application

(I )neem pesticide

-amount

-frequency

-method of application

-others

(iii) chemical pesticide

-amount

-frequency

-method of application

Others

(iv) spraying techniques

125
 Degree of knowledge
applied
Knowledge applied If If
Yes,what? No,why? 1 2 3 4 5

(v ) Wearing protective wears

( vi ) distinguishing the natural

beneficial insects and harmful insects

(vii)selective use of insecticide,

fungicide

(v ii )Others (specify )

(E ) Harvesting

(i)Harvesting time(age of the crop)

(ii)Situation of the plant when

harvested

(iii)others

(F ) Storage

(i)Storage condition f or the seed

(ii)The situation of the seed in storing

time

(iii)others

2.3.If you could not utilize the knowledge provided by the extension activities, what are
the constraints for you so that you could not utilize well the knowledge gained? Please
specify.
□ due to inefficiency in cash
□ due to inefficiency in man power
□ due to limited farm equipments
□others (specify)

3. Information Dissemination

3.1. What type of information did you receive from agricultural extension activities
provided by the project? Tick off and give details.

126
No Type of information received Yes No If Yes, what is it?
1 Land preparation
2 Improved seed
3 Growing practices
4 Nutrient Management
5 Pest and Disease Management
6 Harvesting and Storage

4. Changes in agricultural practices before and after

 Is there any change in agricultural practices in groundnut production before and

after participating in extension activities? Please specify.

Agricultural Before After Change

practices the project the project (specify)
How?
(A)Land Tillage condition
preparation
Use of farm yard manure and
green manure
Using of soil conservation
cultivation techniques
-using contour line
-intercropping with other
crops
Others
B ) Growing Characteristics of seed for
growing
i)seed
Seed rate
Using seed treatment powder

Others
ii) planting Plant spacing
techniques
Plant population
Sowing depth
others
Iii) weeding frequencies

Time of weeding (age of

crop)
Others

127
Agricultural Before After Change
practices the project the project (specify)
How?
c) Nutrient Type of the fertilizer
management
I )Fertilizer (compound or urea fertilizer
or neem cake )
amount

frequency

Method of application (single

or split)

Others

Ii )compost Type of the compost

(EM compost of Trichoderma
compost)
amount
frequency
Method of application
Iii ) Gypsum amount

frequency

Method of application

others

iv)boron amount

frequency

Method of application

others

D)Insecticide Type of pesticide

application (insecticide or fungicide

I )chemical frequency
pesticide
Method of application
Natural Type
pesticide (neem oil or neem cake )
Frequency

Method of application

128
Agricultural Before the After the Changes
practices project project (Specify)
How?
Iii )Spraying Wearing protective covers
techniques
Method of spraying (towards
the wind, against the wind)

Others Distinguishing Beneficial

insects and harmful insects
Selective use of insecticide
and fungicide
Harvesting (i)Harvesting time

(ii)Situation of the plant

when harvested
(iii)others
Storage (i)Storage condition f or the
seed
(ii)The situation of the seed
in storing time

(iii)others

5. Health conditions of the farmers before and after participating in extension

activities

 Have you experienced about the following health hazards before and after
participating in the extension activities? Please specify.

Before the Project After the project

Kind of
health Health hazards Health
hazards suffered If yes, If yes, hazards If yes, If yes,
how? how long? suffered how? how
Yes No Yes No Long?
Headache
and Dizziness
Coughing

Chest pain

Eye irritation

Skin irritation
Stomach pain

129
 D. Economic Effects

1. Production Cost of Groundnut

1.1 Input cost

1.1.1. Input cost spent for rainy season groundnut

 How much was input cost spent for growing rainy season groundnut

Before the project During the project After the project

No Input Unit
Amount Price Value Amount Price per Value Amount Price per Value
per unit (Kyat) unit (Kyat) unit (Kyat)
130

(Kyat) (Kyat) (Kyat)

1 Chemical
Fertilizer
-compound Kg
fertilizer
-urea Kg
fertilizer
-gypsum Kg
fertilizer

2 Manure Kg
Fertilizer
3 Neem cake Kg
3 Green
Manure

130
 No Input Unit Before the project During the project After the project

Amount Price Value Amount Price per Value Amount Price per Value
per unit (Kyat) unit (Kyat) unit (Kyat)
(Kyat) (Kyat) (Kyat)
4 Compost
?
-Tricoderma

-EM
131

bokashi
5 Chemical gram
fungicide /liter

6 Chemical gram
Pesticide /liter

7 Boron
8 Neem liter
pesticide
9 Seed Kg

10 Seed gram
treatment
powder
11 Others

131
 1.1.2. Input cost spent for winter season groundnut

 How much was input cost for growing winter season groundnut?

(Note: The input cost will be computed based on one acre size of growing area.)

Before the project During the project After the project

No Input Unit
Amount Price Value Amount Price per Value Amount Price per Value
per unit (Kyat) unit (Kyat) unit (Kyat)
(Kyat) (Kyat) (Kyat)
1 Chemical
Fertilizer
-compound Kg
fertilizer
-urea Kg
fertilizer
132

-gypsum Kg
fertilizer

2 Manure Kg
Fertilizer
3 Neem cake Kg

3 Green
Manure
4 Compost

-Tricoderma

-EM
bokashi

132
 Before the project During the project After the project
No Input Unit
Amount Price Value Amount Price per Value Amount Price per Value
per unit (Kyat) unit (Kyat) unit (Kyat)
(Kyat) (Kyat) (Kyat)
5 Chemical gram
fungicide /liter

6 Chemical gram
Pesticide /liter

7 Hormone
133

liter
8 Boron
9 Neem liter
pesticide
10 Seed Kg

11 Seed gram
treatment
powder
12 Others

133
 2. Change in Crop Production

 Did you have any change in the groundnut production between the two situations of before and after participating in the extension
activities?

Type of Variety grown Sown area Harvested area Yield Production(Kg)

the (Acre) (Acre ) (Kg/Acre)
groundnut Before During After Before During After Before During After Before During After Before During After
1.Rainy
season
134

groundnut
2.Winter
season
groundnut

3. Change in income earning received from groundnut

 Is there any difference in income earning received from groundnut between the two situations of before and after participating
extension activities?

134
 Type of Before the Project During the project After the project
the
groundnut Amount Price Acre Value Amount Price Acre Value Acre Amount Price
grown (Kg/Acre) per Kg (Kyat) (Kg/Acre) per Kg (Kyat) (Kg/Acre) (Kg/Acre) Per Kg
Rainy
season
groundnut
Winter
season
groundnut
Total
135

135
E. Environmental Effects

1. Soil Conservation Practices

1. Did you apply soil conservation practices?

[ ] Yes [ ] No
1.1.If yes, what are these practices?

If No, why?

Soil conservation measures How did you apply these? How long did you apply
applied these?
(a)contour farming growing
practice
(b)contour furrow growing
practice
(c )Other (specify)

2. Soil Fertility Change

2.1 If you use soil conservation measures, did you observe the soil fertility change?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If No, why?
2.2. What kind of changes did you notice regarding with soil fertility changes? How did
the changes in soil fertility occur? Please mention.

Change in Soil Fertility How did the changes happen?

Before After
1. soil color
2.soil texture
3.Other (specify )

3. Soil Moisture Change

3.1. If you use soil conservation measures, did you observe that the change in soil
moisture?

[ ] Yes [ ] No

3.2. If yes, please specify the days of moisture retaining capacity of the soil between the
two situations of before and after utilizing soil conservation measures
If No, why?

136
Moisture retention capacity
Before After
1.Days of moisture …………days ……….days
retaining in the soil after
raining

* The day interval between the day of after raining and the day when the plants start
showing the wilting symptom will be considered as the days of moisture retention capacity
of the soil.

E. Problems and Needs

1. Problems faced in agricultural extension activities
1.1. Did you face the problem whilst you were participating in the each extension activity
-training, front line demonstration and field visit.
[ ] Yes [ ] No

1.2. If yes, what are your problems in participating extension activities? Please specify and
rank these problems in priority from the highest to the lowest.

Type of the extension activities Problems

(a)Training
Land preparation
Improved seed
Growing practices
Nutrient Management
Pest and Disease Management
Harvesting and Storage
(b)Front Line demonstration
-application of fertilizer
-spacing
-using bio pesticide
(c) Field Visit
-consulting on technical problems
-getting advice from the extensionists
-exchange of the information between the extensionists
and the farmers
-seek solutions from the extensionists

2. Needs for further improvement of the extension activities

2.1In your opinion, what were the needs for achieving further development/improvement
of the extension activities?

137
 Type of the extension activities Needs
(a)Training
Land preparation
Improved seed
Growing practices
Nutrient Management
Pest and Disease Management
Harvesting and Storage
(b)Front Line demonstration
-application of fertilizer
-spacing
-using bio pesticide
(c) Field Visit
-consulting on technical problems
-getting advice from the extensionists
-exchange of the information between the extensionists
and the farmers
-seek solutions from the extensionists

3. Do you have any other suggestions to improve agricultural extension activities in

future?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes, what are they?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………….

138
Appendix (3): Checklist for Key Informant Interview with Project Staffs

Name of the interviewee……………………………………………………………...

Responsibility ……………………………………………………………………….
Date of Interview……………………………………………………………………..

1. When did the project start? How long was the duration of the project?
2. What are main objectives of agricultural extension activities?
3. What is an organizational structure?
4. How many agricultural extension activities do you have? How were those activities
delivered?
5. How were those activities identified? On what basis?
6. What are the name of the participating organizations and their contributions and
support?
7. How many villages were included in target areas?
8. How much was the total the project budget allocated?
9. How many staffs do they work on each agricultural extension activities (i.e.,
training, front line demonstration and field visit)?
10. Explain in details about topics of training, how long for each training session and
outcomes of the training?
11. How were the front line demonstration and field visit organized? Explain the
implementation of those two activities and outcomes in details.
12. What are the responsibilities of the extension staff?
13. How did the extension staff deliver the agricultural extension activities?
14. What are the criteria for farmers (and small farmers in specific) to participate in
each kind of activity?
15. How many farmers attended in each type of agricultural extension activity?
16. What are the contributions of the local people in the project?
17. How many farmers got subsidiary input?
18. What are the kinds and amount of the inputs subsidized by CESVI?
19. What kinds of information dissemination were delivered to the farmers through
each of the following extension activity?
a) Training
b) Front line demonstration
c) Field visit
20. Explain the process of agricultural extension activities in details from the first until the
last activity.
21.Explain delivery mechanism of each activity?
-as a team
-teaching and delivery methods
-How?

20. Please explain on the following extension processes you provided to the small
farmers.
20.1 Training and Front Line Demonstration

139
 (a)How long did you provide for each following training to the small farmers?
-Land preparation training
-Growing practices training
-Nutrient Management training
-Pest and Disease Management training
-Harvesting techniques
-Storage of seeds
(b) Is there any relationship between the provided trainings and front line
demonstration? If yes, how is it linked between these two? Please mention.

20.2 Field Visit

How did you conduct field visit to the small farmers’ farms? Please mention it by
the frequencies of each activities.
-Visiting to the farmers’ farms
□ Many times □ Moderate times □Few times

-Problem solving out

□ Many times □ Moderate times □Few times

Advising on technical problems

□ Many times □ Moderate times □Few times

Exchanging the information between the extensionist and the farmers

□ Many times □ Moderate times □Few times

21. What kinds of social, economic and environmental effects you have assessed to
small farmers affected from agricultural extension activities delivered by the
organization?
22. How is the collaboration with other organizations and local community? Identify
specific technical assistance and financial support from those organizations.
23. In your opinion, what are the problems, constraints, potentials in carrying out the
extension activities and how would you like to improve the agricultural extension
activities in future?

140
 Appendix 4 : Checklist for Key Informants from MAS and FAO Supporting
Organizations

Name of the interviewee……………………………………………………………………...

Organization………………………………………………………………………………….
Position……………………………………………………………………………………….
Date of interview……………………………………………………………………………..

1. What kind of technical and financial support extended to extension activities of

CESVI? Explain in specific.
2. Why did your organization support agricultural extension activities of CESVI?
3. How is your perception on agricultural extension activities of CESVI?
4. In your view, overall, how do you assess the strengths and limitations of
agricultural extension activities delivered by CESVI?
5. What is your plan for future support and collaboration on agricultural extension
activities with CESVI?

141
 Appendix 5: Checklists for Focus Group Discussion of Small Farmers

4.1 For Participating Small Farmers

Name of the Village………………………………………………………………………….

Date of the Interview…………………………………………………………………………
Participant of the farmers…………………………………………………………………...

1. Why did you participate in various agricultural extension activities of CEVSI? Give
specific reasons.
2. Which activities among them that you think those are useful and beneficial to you?
Why?
3. What were difficulties you had during your participation in each kind of extension
activity? Please mention specifically to each kind of activity. How did you overcome
those?
4. The reasons of Knowledge Utilization different to other small farmers.
Please explain the factors that could make the level of your knowledge utilization
different to other farmers who also participated in the extension activities.

the farmers are the well knowledge persons

□Yes □No

the farmers are educated

□Yes □ No

the farmers can use the inputs well

□Yes □No

the farmers can use manpower

□Yes □No

the farmers are interested to improved their farm production

□Yes □ No

situation such as climate is favourable to utilize the knowledge provided

□Yes □No

the farmers have the monitor perons who can guide them
□Yes □No

142
 5.What kinds of social, economic and environmental effects were attributed to you
after you have participated in agricultural extension activities?
6. In your view, what kinds of effects did you get more than other farmers? Why?
7. Discuss social, economic and environmental affects you have obtained from your
participation in the agricultural extension activities?
8. What kinds of effect generated not only at household but at community level as
well?
9. Regarding soil conservation measures applied in this area, discuss what are they in
specific and their consequences after applying them at farm and community levels?
10.How is the occurrence of soil erosion in your area? If you observed that, what have
you noticed about soil erosion before and after applying the recommended soil
conservation measures below?
 Formation of sheet, rill and gully; and
 Depletion of top soil.
11.What have you noticed about the land degradation problem regarding with the
following aspects before and after applying the following soil conservation measures?
 Salinization and acidification of the soil
 Sealing and crusting of the soil
 Compacting of the soil.
12.What are the strengths and limitations of the overall program and each extension
activity?
13.Any needs of farmers for additional agricultural extension activities to be delivered
by this organization?
14.What are suggestions in future on those activities?

15. In your opinion, what would be the strength and limitation of the extension activities
provided by CESVI?

-Strength of Training
-Strength of Front Line Demonstration
-Strength of Field Visit

-Limitation of Training
-Limitation of Front Line Demonstration
-Limitation of Field Visit

143
 Appendix 6

Data Preparation for Data Entry on Bi-Variate Analysis

Table 1: Determining the Dependent Variables and Independent Variables for Bi-Variate
Analytical Model of Participation Intensity of Small Farmers

Classroom Training Field Visit Front Line Demonstration

I. Dependent Variable(Y)
-Intensity of attendance in
classroom training
(Table 6.2)
Model I-Very Small
Farmers
Model II- Small Farmers
-Intensity of attendance in -Number of front line
field visit demonstration aspects
(Table 6.5) participated by farmers
Model I-Very Small (Table 6.9)
Farmers Model I-Very Small Farmers
Model II- Small Farmers Model II- Small Farmers

II. Independent Variable (X)

a) Characteristics of farmer
-Male
-Education
-Household size
-Groundnut cultivated area
-Farm income from
groundnut
b)Other Variables
-Number of participation
aspects in classroom
training (Table 6.3)
Model I-Very Small
Farmers
Model II-Small Farmers
a)Characteristics of farmer
-Male
-Education
-Household size
-Groundnut cultivated area
-Farm income from
groundnut
Benefit from Field Visit
(Table 6.6)
-Exchange of information
(Yes/No)
-Get Technical Advice
(Yes/No)
-Consulting on Technical
problems(Yes/No)
-Seek solutions
(Yes/No)
Model I-Very Small
Farmers
Model II-Small Farmers
a)Characteristics of farmer
-Male
-Education
-Household size
-Groundnut cultivated area
-Farm income from
groundnut
Reason of absence in FLD
(Table 6.10)
-Sufficient Cash(Yes/No)
-Sufficient labor(Yes/No)
-Willing to participate
innovation(Yes/No)
-Availability of material and
input (Yes/No)
Model I-Very Small Farmers
Model II-Small Farmers

144
Participation in Other two Extension Activities
i)FLD i) Classroom Training i) Classroom Trainings
-Participation in FLD -Participation Intensity in -Participation Intensity in
Yes/ No FFSs (Table 6.2) Classroom Trainings
Model I-Very Small Model I-Very Small (Table 6.2)
Farmers Farmers Model I-Very Small Farmers
Model II- Small Farmers Model II- Small Farmers Model II- Small Farmers

ii)FV ii) FLD ii)FV

-Participation Intensity in -Participation in FLD -Participation Intensity in
FV Yes/ No FV
(Table 6.5) Model I-Very Small (Table 6.5)
Model I-Very Small Farmers Model I-Very Small Farmers
Farmers Model II- Small Farmers Model II- Small Farmers
Model II- Small Farmers

145
Table 2: Preparation of Data Entry for Bi-variate Analysis on Factors Associated with
Participation Intensity of Small Farmers

Independent Variables Quantified Method Values/ Unit

-Male Dummy Variable Male=1,Female=0
-Age - Years
-Education Dummy Variable Primary
Education=1,Other levels
of Education=0
-Household size - Number of Person
-Groundnut cultivated area - Acre(s)
-Farm income from groundnut - Amount in Kyat
-Participation intensity - Frequencies (times)
-Number of participation aspects - Frequencies (times)
of Classroom type trainings
-Benefits from field visit
Exchange of information Dummy Variable Exchange of
information=1,Others=0
Get technical advice Dummy Variable Get Technical
advice=1,Others=0
Consulting on technical problems Dummy Variable Consulting Technical
Problems=1,Others=0
Seek solutions Dummy Variable Seek solutions=1,Others=0
Reasons for absence in front line
demonstration
Sufficient cash Dummy Variable Sufficient Cash=1,Other
reason=0
Sufficient labor Dummy Variable Sufficient Labor=1,other
reason=0
Willing to participate Dummy Variable Willing to
participate=1,Other
reason=0
Availability of material and input Dummy Variable Availability of material and
Input=1,Other reason=0

146