Approaches of Agricultural

Extension
Prof. Dr. Khalid Mahmood Ch.
Professor,
Course: Ext.718
Institute of Agricultural Extension &Rural Development,
University of Agriculture,
Faisalabad.
1. The general agricultural extension
approach
• Success is measured in terms of the rate of take-up of the recommendations,
and increases in national production.

The basic assumption with this approach is that technology and information are
available which are not being used by farmers

• If knowledge of these could be communicated to farmers, farm practices would be

improved.

• The purpose is to help farmers increase their production.

• Programme planning is controlled by government (top to bottom approach )
The general agricultural extension
approach
• Field personnel tend to be large in number and high in cost, with
density varying from country to country.
• Resources required are also high, with central governments bearing
most costs.
• Implementation is through a large field staff assigned according to
governmental structure throughout the country, managed by the
center.
• Success is measured in terms of rate of adoption of important
recommendations and increases in national production.
2. The commodity specialized approach
• The measure of success is usually the total production of the particular crop.
The assumption here is that:
• The way to increase productivity and production of a particular commodity
• To group all functions relating to it under one administration,
• including extension along with research, input supply, output marketing
• Extension programme planning is controlled by a commodity organization. •
Implementation is through field staff of that organization.
• Resources tend to be provided by the commodity organization
• The measure of Success is usually the total production of the particular
crop
3. The training and visit approach
• Success is measured in terms of production increases of the particular crops
covered by the programme.
The basic assumptions of this approach are that:
• Under Ministry of Agriculture extension services, the extension workers
• Poorly trained
• Lacking supervision and logistic support
• They do not visit and have contact with farmers.
• Further, it is assumed that subject matter specialists are poorly trained
• Not providing a link with research and training functions.
• So the purpose is to induce farmers to increase production of specified crops
The training and visit approach

• Programme planning is centrally controlled, and reflects interaction

between research and extension personnel
• Implementation efficiently is sought through:
• A rigid pattern of visits to farmers
• Training of field staff, along with
• Strict discipline of daily and fortnightly activities
• With funds from international sources
• Success is measured in terms of production increases of the
particular crops covered by the programme.
4. The agricultural extension participatory
approach
• Success is measured by the numbers of farmers actively participating
and benefiting, and the continuity of local extension organizations.
Here the assumption is that farming people have much wisdom
regarding production of food from their land
• But their levels of living could be improved by learning more of what is
known outside.
• It further assumes that effective extension cannot be achieved with out
the active participation of the farmers themselves
• As well as of research and related services
• There is a reinforcing effect in group learning and group action
The agricultural extension participatory approach

• Extension efficiency is gained by focusing on important points based

on expressed needs of a farmers and by reaching more small
farmers through their groups/organizations instead of through
individualized approaches.
• The purpose is to increase production and consumption and enhance
the quality of life of rural people.
• Programme planning is controlled locally, often by such groups as
farmers’ associations.
• Where farmers’ associations do not exist, the extension staffs assist
to form them. Eg. Farmers Research Group
The agricultural extension participatory
approach
• Implementation is through:
• Group meetings
• Demonstrations
• Individual and group travel
• Local sharing of appropriate technologies
• Success is measured through the numbers of farmers actively
participating and benefiting, as well as continuity of local extension
organizations.
5. The project approach

• Short-run change is the measure of success.

This approach assumes that:
• A rapid agricultural and rural development is necessary
• The large government bureaucracy in the regular Ministry of Agriculture
Extension Service is not likely to have a significant impact upon either
agricultural production or rural people within an appropriate time frame
• The better results can be achieved by taking a project approach in a
particular location
• During a specified time period, with large infusions of outside resources.
The project approach
• The purpose is often to demonstrate what can be done in a few years
• Implementation typically includes project allowances for field staff,
better transportation, facilities, equipment, and housing rather
• Short run change is the measure of success. (eg. a forestation
programme)
6. The farming systems development approach

•Success is measured by the extent to which farming people adopt the technologies
developed by the programme and continue using them over time.
The assumption with this approach is that:
• Technology, which fits the needs of farmers, particularly small farmers, is not
available, and needs to be generated locally.
• The purpose is to provide extension personnel (and through them farm people), with
research results tailored to meet the needs and interests of local farming system
conditions.
• Programme plans evolve slowly during the process
• may be different for each agro-climatic farm eco-system type
• since they include a holistic approach to the plants, the animals, and the people in a
particular location.
The farming systems development approach
• Field personnel tend to be highly specialized, relatively expensive,
and from outside the area being served.
• Implementation is through: • a partnership of research and extension
personnel with each other and with local farmers,
• The measure of success is the extent to which farm people adopt the
technologies developed by the programme, and continue to use
them over time.
7. The cost sharing approach

• Success is measured in terms of farm people’s willingness and ability to

share some of the cost, either individually or through their local government
units.
The assumption here is that
• The programme is more likely to fit local situations, and personnel are more
likely to serve local people’s interests
• If part of the cost of agricultural extension is paid locally
• It also assumes that farm people are too poor to pay the whole cost, so
central and regional governments typically provide most of it. • Helping farm
people learn the need to know for self improvement and increased
productivity is the purpose.
The cost sharing approach
• Control of programme planning is shared by the various levels paying
the costs.
• Success is measured by farm people’s willingness and ability to
provide some share of the cost, individually or through their local
government units.
8. The educational institution approach

•The measure of success is the farming people’s attendance at and

participation in the school’s agricultural extension activities.
In this approach, the assumption is that:

• Faculties or colleges of agriculture have technical knowledge which is

relevant and useful to farm people.
• The purpose is to help those people learn about scientific agriculture.

• Programme planning tends to be controlled by those who determine the

curriculum of the education institution.
The educational institution approach

• Implementation is through non-formal instruction in groups, with

individuals, and with other methods and techniques
• Sometimes conducted by a college or university with agricultural
extension personal of another agency as the main audience.

• While considerable resources are required

• Success is measured by attendance and the extent of participation by

farm people in the school’s agricultural extension activities
9 Decentralized extension system
• In Pakistan, decentralized extension system was introduced in 2001 to
replace a so called T&V system. Though the current system of
extension in the Punjab, Pakistan, is a modified version of T&V system
and is claimed to be a refined one, it is still top-down, autocratic, and
has many limitations (Ali et al. 2003).
• Weakness It is argued that public sector agricultural extension is
characterized by poorly motivated staff, a preponderance of non-
extension duties, inadequate operational funds, lack of relevant
technology, top-down planning, centralized management, and a
general absence of accountability (Antholt, 1994).
• Decentralization of extension services may be undertaken with a view to
improving their relevance, responsiveness and cost-effectiveness (Smith,
2001).
• At present, agricultural extension is modeled around a training and visit
system, which relies on contact farmers to diffuse technical information
to surrounding farmers (Davidson et al. 2000). The decentralization has
not yet shown any considerable change in the efficiency of extension
service.
• The extension service still remains inefficient, top-down, autocratic, big
farmer oriented, ignoring the gender equality issue, and ignoring youth as
partners (Farooq and Ishaq, 2005, Khushk and Memon, 2004).
• Similarities: The training sessions arranged by extension workers in
the decentralized system are similar to the ones arranged in the T&V
system.
• Difference: The difference is that in T&V system there were
fortnightly training sessions but under the current approach only two
to three training sessions are arranged in a crop season. Another
difference is that under T&V the FAs were front line extension workers
whereas in the decentralized system AOs are the extension workers.
• Another major difference of both approaches is that under T&V
approach extension was centrally managed by the Director General
Agriculture (Ext & AR) at the provincial headquarters level whereas
presently extension is decentralized and locally managed by DOA at
district level who is answerable to EDOA.
• In previous system, the EFS followed fortnightly schedule to provide
the information to contact farmers (CFs) who were supposed to pass
on the same to non contact farmers (NCFs). Furthermore, decision-
making under T&V system was done at central level.
• Whereas, in present system, the EFS are conducting crop-wise
trainings for the dissemination of agricultural information and
decision-making is done at district level.

• The people responsible at district level for implementing agricultural

activities are not yet fully conversant with the philosophy, rationale
and operational strategies of the decentralized extension system; as a
result, the district instead of being a fully functional focal point for
programe planning has become isolated entity.
• They further argued that Pakistan is faced with the problem of theoretical
models, which do not fit into the local situations with special reference to
farmers’ organizations, extension infrastructure and available human and
financial resources.
• Khushk and Memon (2004) found that 86% of the EFS of Agriculture
Department reported that there was no change in transport facility, while at
some places this has been decreased after devolution. The agriculture and
deputy district officers are not involved in financial transaction and only the
EDO and district officers deal in financial matters. Funds have been reduced
by 25 to 30%. Before devolution quarterly budget were received but now
these are on monthly basis which creates problems in utilizing under different
heads.