Impacts of improved extension services on awareness, knowledge, adoption rates and perceived benefits of smallholder dairy farmers in Pakistan
H. M. Warriach A B D , P. C. Wynn B , M. Ishaq A , S. Arif A , A. Bhatti A , S. Latif A , A. Kumbher A , Z. Batool A , S. Majeed A , R. D. Bush C , T. N. Pasha A and D. M. McGill BA University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore, 54000, Pakistan.
B EH Graham Centre for Agricultural Innovation, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2650, Australia.
C Sydney School of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Camden, NSW 2570, Australia.
D Corresponding author. Email: hassanwarriach71@yahoo.com
Animal Production Science 59(12) 2175-2183 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN17849
Submitted: 1 December 2017 Accepted: 29 March 2018 Published: 29 June 2018
Abstract
The provision of effective extension services to smallholder farmers across both developing and developed countries remains a challenge worldwide. The objective of the study is to demonstrate the impacts of improved extension services on awareness, knowledge, adoption rates and perceived benefits of smallholder dairy farmers in Pakistan. An extension program was developed and implemented in five districts of Punjab (Okara, Pakpattan, Jhelum, Kasur and Bhakkar) and two districts of Sindh (Thatta and Badin) provinces. The extension program involved the provision of research-based information on a monthly basis to smallholder farming families (FF = 523) over a 4-year period. The extension program was primarily a knowledge transfer-based system, but also relied on farmer engagement and feedback to help drive research and topics for discussion. No financial incentives were provided to the farmers for their participation. A ‘whole-family approach’ was used in the extension program, where comprehensive interdisciplinary training on the whole dairy-farming system was provided to the males, females and children of the farming household. To encourage greater participation and support different learning strategies, several information transfer media were used (including group discussions, one-on-one visits, practical demonstrations, problem-based learning techniques and videos). To assess the impact of this extension program on farms involved, data on farmer awareness, knowledge, adoption and their perceived benefits were collected using a mixed-method approach from three different groups of farmers; registered (IMPreg = 179) farmers directly involved in the extension program, non-registered (IMPnon-reg = 116) farmers indirectly benefiting from the program and traditional (IMPtrad = 104) farmers not associated with any project activities. Overall awareness, knowledge and adoption rates relating to seven different recommendations in the extension program were significantly (P < 0.05) higher in the registered farmers than in the non-registered and traditional farmers. The perceived benefits of the adopted recommendations varied between the different extension messages, but farmers described that they observed increases in milk production, improvements in animal health (body condition and morbidity) and labour efficiency (time savings). These results suggest that adopting improved extension services using a whole-family approach we can significantly achieve higher adoption rates, leading to on-farm benefits to smallholder dairy farmers and their families.
Additional keywords: farm efficiency, impact assessment, livelihood, productivity, profitability, whole family approach of extension.
References
Abbas M, Lodhi TE, Aujla KM, Saadullah S (2009) Agricultural extension programs in Punjab, Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Life and Social Sciences 7, 1–10.Afzal M (2009) Improving veterinary service in Pakistan. Pakistan Veterinary Journal 29, 206–210.
Afzal M Naqvi A 2004
Ahmad S, Burrell D, Rashid R, Sultana S (2008) Impact of PDDC model farm programme on the socio-economic conditions of dairy farmers in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences 45, 372–380.
Black A (2000) Extension theory and practice: a review. Animal Production Science 40, 493–502.
| Extension theory and practice: a review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Economic Survey (2015) ‘Economic survey, finance division economic advisor’s wing Islamabad, Islamabad.’ Available at http://www.finance.gov.pk/survey/chapters_15/02_Agricultre.pdf [Verified 12 May 2016]
FAO (2011) ‘Dairy development in Pakistan.’ (FAO: Rome)
Iqbal M, Ahmad M, Jehangir WA (1999) An assessment of livestock production potential in Pakistan: implications for livestock sector policy. Pakistan Development Review 38, 615–628. [with Comments]
Läpple D, Hennessy T (2015) Assessing the impact of financial incentives in extension programmes: evidence from Ireland. Journal of Agricultural Economics 66, 781–795.
| Assessing the impact of financial incentives in extension programmes: evidence from Ireland.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lukuyu B, Place F, Franzel S, Kiptot E (2012) Disseminating improved practices: are volunteer farmer trainers effective? Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 18, 525–540.
| Disseminating improved practices: are volunteer farmer trainers effective?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
R core Team (2015) ‘R: a language and environment for statistical computing.’ (R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna)
Ricker-Gilbert J, Norton GW, Alwang J, Miah M, Feder G (2008) Cost-effectiveness of alternative integrated pest management extension methods: an example from Bangladesh. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 30, 252–269.
Swanson BE (2008) ‘Global review of good agricultural extension and advisory service practices.’ (Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations: Rome)
Van den Ban AW, Hawkins HS (1999) ‘Agricultural extension.’ (Blackwell Science: Malden, MA)
Warriach HM, McGill DM, Bush RD, Wynn PC (2012) Production and reproduction performance of Nili-Ravi buffaloes under field conditions of Pakistan. The Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences 22, 121–124.
Zwane E (2012) Does extension have a role to play in rural development? South African Journal of Agricultural Extension 40, 16–24.