Fact sheet Agricultural Extension Methods – A comparison
Over the years, agricultural organizations have developed and trialed several extension approaches for
working with farmers. Below, we summarize 10 of the most common extension approaches.
The Extension approaches considered are:
1. Commodity-based 6. Farming Systems
2. Cost-Sharing 7. Centralized
3. Educational Institution 8. Land Grant (US)
4. Farmer Field Schools 9. Project
5. Farmer Participatory 10. Training and Visit
How do these relate to the “ASK ME” extension
framework? “ASK ME” (Bell et al., 2015) provides a
framework for the different extension methods to be
implemented:
1. Audience - understand and engage the audience,
2. Solutions - find appropriate solutions,
3. Key message – identify the key message
4. Message form and delivery - package and deliver the
needed information in forms appropriate to the audience
and, Agricultural extension aims to
5. Evaluation - improve the overall process. improve farmer access to
helpful information.
The Commodity-Based Approach focuses on a single crop
or on only one aspect of farming. The approach generally addresses everything from
extension and research to input supply, marketing and prices to increase production in the
selected crop.
Possible issues. Planning is often controlled by a commodity organization whose interests
might not match others and the approach typically does not provide support on other
aspects of farming.
The Cost-Sharing Approach assumes that cost-sharing with local people (who do not have the
means to pay the full cost) will more likely result in a program that can 1) better meet local
situations and 2) be more accountable to local interests.
Possible issues: Success is dependent on farmer willingness to pay. Financial
management and other aspects of administration tend to be complex and difficult.
The Educational Institution Approach relies on educational institutions with the technical
knowledge and research ability to meet extension service demands.
Possible issues. The effectiveness of implementation is often dependent on those who
determine overall school curricula and thus determine the extent of the focus on extension.
Funding directions and issues of staff promotion and institutional mandates can often push
people to do work that does not focus on farmers’ needs.
The Farmer Field Schools Approach is a form of participatory research that uses a season-
long group-based learning process. The method initially focused primarily on Integrated Pest
Management (IPM).
Possible issues. High costs and high time requirements can affect sustainability of the
system.
Prepared by Mark Bell, Amada Crump, Elana Peach-Fine and Maria Paz
Santibanez
2015 © UC Davis IPO ip.ucdavis.edu
Fact sheet Agricultural Extension Methods – A comparison
The Farmer Participatory Approach involves active
participation of farmers in planning and execution of the
various research-extension activities. Program planning is
typically controlled and implemented locally by farmers’
associations and community organizations. Implementation
is often decentralized and flexible.
Possible issues: High time, participatory skills and cost
required.
The Farming Systems Development Approach focuses on Each agricultural extension
method has different
bringing appropriate technology to small-scale farmers with
strengths.
farmers engaged in the technology development and
delivery process. A key characteristic of the approach is the farm being viewed as a system
using a holistic approach at the local level. The approach requires close ties between
research, extension and farmers with technology developed locally through an iterative
process.
Possible issues. Expensive and time consuming (given the broad range of issues to
consider).
The Centralized Extension Approach works on the assumption that the technology and
knowledge needed by farmers exist but are simply not being used.
Possible issues. The approach and thus information flow tends to be top-down, fairly
centralized and controlled.
The Land Grant Extension Approach as implemented in the United States involves strong
links between specialists on university campuses with county advisors and farmers. The
system has grown to bring in industry and other community groups. The system is highly
effective.
Possible issues: Requires highly trained personnel (costly) associated with a clear
mandate and strong funding commitment. As university mandates expand, the commitment
to agriculture can decline.
The Project Approach concentrates efforts on a particular location, for a specific time period,
and is usually supported by outside resources. Part of its purpose is to demonstrate
techniques and methods to farmers with the expectation that adoption will continue farmer to
farmer after the project ends.
Possible issues. Project targets can add pressure to make non-relevant changes in the
short term and there can be issues of sustainability once a project withdraws.
The Training and Visit Approach is fairly centralized and involves a series of tightly planned
visits to farmers. The system results in greater farmer contact and entails better trained
extension agents.
Possible issues. The system is quite costly and somewhat inflexible in its timing of
scheduled visits. As a result at times it can be more procedural than message oriented.
References. 1. Axinn, G.H. (2008). Guide on alternative extension approaches. Handbook. FAO; 2. Bell, M et al (2015).ASK ME.
http://www.meas-extension.org/tip-sheets/ask-me Nagel, U.J.. 1998. Alternative approaches to organizing extension. Chapter 2 in
Improving agricultural extension. FAO; 3. Ponniah, et al. (2008). Concepts and practices in agricultural extension in developing
countries: A source book. Ethiopia: ILRI, IPMS Ethiopia.
Prepared by Mark Bell, Amada Crump, Elana Peach-Fine and Maria Paz
Santibanez
2015 © UC Davis IPO ip.ucdavis.edu
