ARTICLES

 

Market Orientation in Agricultural Extension and Advisory Services Approaches: Experiences from Service Providers and Farmers in Central Malawi

 

 

Chanza C.^I; Mgalamadzi L.M.^II

^ISenior Lecturer: Extension Department, Faculty of Development Studies, Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources, P.O. Box 219, Lilongwe. Tel. +265882677843; E-mail: cchanza@luanar.ac.mw; Orcid 0000-0002-6550-0933
^IILecturer: Extension Department, Faculty of Development Studies, Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources, P.O. Box 219, Lilongwe. Tel.+265996411420; E-mail: lmgalamadzi@luanar.ac.mw; Orcid 0000-0002-4222-1915

 

 

---

ABSTRACT

Market-oriented extension and advisory services enable linkages among actors within agricultural value chains, which is necessary for commercialisation. The study analysed the market orientation of extension approaches employed by various service providers. Qualitative methods were used to collect data from 12 key informants and 84 farmers through 11 focus group discussions. The study targeted extension providers from public and private sectors and non-governmental and farmer-based organisations. We found that extension service providers employ the commodity specialised approach, farmer business school, project approach and smallholder horticultural empowerment and promotion approaches to reach farmers. There are differences in the market-orientation rating of the approaches. Unlike other service providers, public service providers perceived capacity gaps in all areas. The main challenges faced include inadequate funding, high extension worker-to-farmer ratio, poor policy environment and weak legal frameworks, lack of trust and information sharing among actors, poor coordination among extension service providers and actors, and high illiteracy levels among farmers. We conclude that most approaches are not fully market-oriented. Service providers of extension and advisory services should design and implement tailored market-oriented extension and advisory services for farmers commercialising to different levels.

Keywords: Agricultural Extension, Market-Based Extension, Service Providers, Rural Malawi

---

 

 

1. DEFINITION OF PROBLEMS

Agricultural extension and advisory services (AEAS) are "all the different activities that provide the information and the services needed and demanded by farmers and other actors in a rural setting to assist them in developing their own technical, organisational and management skills and practices to improve their livelihoods and well-being" (GFRAS, 2012). AEAS plays the role in provision of information, technologies and innovations to help farmers make informed decisions to improve their productivity, food security, and livelihoods (Baloch & Thapa, 2018; Nordin & Höjgard, 2017; Ragasa & Niu, 2017; Olagunju & Adesiji, 2013; Ali-olubandwa, Kathuri & Wesonga, 2011; Waddington, Snilstveit, White & Anderson, 2010; Birkhaeuser, Evenson & Feder, 1991). There are arguments about AEAS not adequately achieving the roles because of the capacity of service providers, low funding, trying to do too much with little resources, and other policy and structural challenges (Masangano & Mthinda, 2012; Ponniah, Puskur, Workneh, & Hoekstra, 2008; Anderson & Feder, 2003). Others have argued that one of the difficulties in pinpointing the impact of AEAS is that it requires a conducive policy environment and other support services (Anderson & Feder, 2003). For example, AEAS provides farmers with knowledge and skills to produce, but production can only happen if farmers have access to productive resources, including land.

AEAS has struggled to keep up with the farmer's demand for new skills in a rapidly changing environment. With farmers' need to diversify and commercialise, extension workers must have skills in various crops, livestock and livelihood activities to adequately assist farmers (Van den Ban & Samanta, 2006). Additionally, with the growing calls to commercialise agriculture, AEAS are at the centre of driving this commercialisation agenda to provide the necessary capacity for different actors along the value chain (Scott, 1998). Commercialisation is a shift from subsistence farming to commercial farming (Von Braun & Kennedy, 1994), with the assumption that more engagement with both input and output markets is a positive step towards economic growth (Carletto, Corral & Guelfi, 2017), especially for countries whose economy is based on agriculture such as Malawi. Others have argued that AEAS has not adequately adapted to the changing needs of farmers as it has mainly remained production-oriented in messaging, designing, and programming, which limits the benefits farmers can get (Gebremedhin, Hoekstra &Tegegne, 2015; 2006a; 2006b; Gebremedhin, Jamaneh, Hoekstra & Anandajayasekeram, 2012). More recent literature posits that AEAS has struggled to account for socio-political factors in the delivery of extension services (Cook, Satizabal & Curnow, 2021).

AEAS providers implement different extension approaches to achieve their objectives. The extension approach is a course of action that informs, stimulates and guides the structure, leadership, programme, resources and linkages within an extension system (Kaur & Kaur, 2018). Studies have argued that the focus for AEAS should not only be on increasing agricultural production but also on enhancing incomes among rural households, hence the need for AEAS to be market-oriented to respond to the changing demands of farmers (Christoplos, 2010; Kahan, 2014; Musa Gwary, Makinta & Wakawa, 2019; Van den Ban & Samanta, 2006) However, the extent to which these extension approaches are market-oriented needs to be investigated. Gebremedhin et al. (2012) define market-oriented extension and advisory services (MOEAS) as total efforts that extension workers put in advising and supporting farmers to produce profitable market-oriented commodities and adopt appropriate technologies and practices, collecting and communicating market-oriented information, identifying profitable markets and buyers and linking farmers to buyers, building marketing capacity among farmers, and facilitating organisation of farmers to conduct collective marketing of their produce. A market-oriented extension approach enables production and provides market information, including enabling market linkages among different actors within the agricultural value chains and views farming not only as a production unit but as an enterprise (Gebremedhin et al., 2012). The study's main aim was to determine the market orientation of AEAS in Malawi through a critical analysis of the different stakeholders' approaches. Specifically, the study analysed the market orientation of the extension and advisory services, conducted mapping of actors and stakeholders working with targeted extension and advisory service providers, analysed capacity gaps of extension and advisory service providers to deliver market-oriented extension and advisory services (MOEAS); and identified challenges in the implementation of MOEAS. The study contributes to the body of knowledge on extension approaches used in the delivery of extension services and in shaping policy and practice in the design and implementation of extension approaches through an understanding of the impacts, gaps and challenges.

 

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1. Study Site

The study was conducted in Dowa (Lisasadzi Extension Planning Areas (EPA), Lilongwe (Mitundu and Ukwe EPAs), and Mchinji (Chiosya EPA) districts in central Malawi following specific extension service providers employing particular extension approaches targeting different groups of farmers.

2.2. Data Collection Methods

We collected both primary and secondary data. Secondary data involved reviewing the extension approaches in Malawi, including extension policy, the National Agricultural Extension and Advisory Services Strategy (NAEASS), reports from public, private and civil society extension service providers and journal articles. The key output of the desk review was documentation of agricultural extension approaches being implemented in Malawi, their rationale, mandate, underlying assumptions, theoretical underpinnings, policy alignment and implementation strategies. We used these themes to evaluate extension approaches as guided by Swanson, Bentz and Sofranko (1998). Through the desk review, the study selected the extension approaches to establish their market orientation theoretically (based on desk review) and practically (based on interviews). The study was grounded on a constructivist epistemology, which recognises multiple realities based on the perspectives of different social actors. The research used a qualitative case study approach to allow AEAS providers' and farmers' perspectives to emerge, where focus group discussions (FGDs) and key informant interviews (KIIs) were the key research strategies. The researchers had a moderated interaction with AEAS providers and farmers. They collected data on their knowledge, experiences, beliefs, perceptions, and attitudes on the market-orientedness of agricultural extension approaches in Malawi. FGDs enable people to ponder, reflect, listen to the experiences and opinions of others, and interact (Onwuegbuzie, 2009; Krueger & Casey, 2000).

2.3. Sample Size and Sampling Techniques

Multistage purposive and snowballing sampling techniques were used to select the stakeholders to participate in the study. The first stage involved the identification of extension approaches that are used in Malawi. This was done through a literature review and expert consultation. The approaches include the general agriculture extension approach, commodity specialised approach, farmer field school, farmer business school, model village, lead farmer approach, project approach, smallholder horticulture empowerment and promotion (SHEP) approach and household approach. Through consultation with government extension officials on the approaches that are commonly used and have wide coverage, we selected the government extension approach, commodity specialised approach, farmer business approach, and SHEP approach. The second stage involved selecting extension service providers and employing the approaches from different types of extension service providers. The choice of the providers was also informed by the value chains they are promoting. Their importance guided our interest in the value chains regarding food and income provision and diversification, i.e. maize, groundnuts, tobacco and livestock. The following service providers were selected based on how active they are and their coverage: public- the Department of Agricultural Extension Services (DAES), private- Agricultural Research Extension Trust (ARET), NGOs-HEIFER International and farmer-based organisation- National Smallholder Farmers Association of Malawi (NASFAM). The third stage involved selecting study participants using the purposive method to target those with experiences and knowledge crucial to the study. The study collected data from 12 national, district, and field key informants. We also gathered data through 11 FGDs involving 84 participants (See details in Table 1). The limitation of the study is that we did not collect data on the interests and needs of farmers regarding commercialisation so that extension services can be customised towards farmer's needs.

2.4. Data Analysis

This study adopted the constant comparison analysis approach developed by Glaser (1965). The analysis was done using audio-recorded transcripts and later manually transcribed. Transcript-based analysis is one of the most methodical and time-consuming styles of qualitative data analysis (Onwuegbuzie, 2009). The study used five steps to analyse the data. The first step involved meticulously reading and reviewing the transcripts of all FGDs and KIIs conducted in the four organisations (DAES), ARET, NASFAM and HEIFER International, to acquaint researchers with the subject matter. The second step was to categorise themes. The researchers identified four themes: 1) Actors in MOEAS, 2) Capacity of the MOEAS providers, 3) Challenges/barriers in implementing MOEAS, and 4) Market orientation of the approaches. Accordingly, in the third stage, the researchers developed a colour code for content related to the four themes. The fourth step was colour-highlighting and categorising the explanations that reverberated with each theme. The participants' explanations identified for each theme were then listed in an Excel sheet. The researchers then studied all the explanations and additionally classified these explanations into subclasses. For instance, all the explanations supporting theme one were sorted and categorised under that theme (Krueger & Casey, 2000). At this stage, the data was ready for analysis. The results were linked to the research objectives and then mapped and interpreted (Krueger & Casey, 2000).

 

3. FINDINGS

3.1. Characteristics of Study Participants

Eighty-four smallholder farmers participated in the study, comprising 33 (39%) men and 51 (61%) women. These farmers were organised in groups and engaged in different commercial agricultural enterprises supported by different organisations. Out of the 84 farmers, 49 farmers (15 men and 34 women) participated under DAES, 12 farmers (three men and nine women) participated under NASFAM, seven farmers (all men) were involved through ARET, and 16 farmers (eight men and eight women) participated under HEIFER International. The 49 farmers that DAES supported came from two groups-- Tikondane Club (35 members) from Lilongwe West specialising in groundnut production, and Farmer Business School (14) from Lilongwe East producing groundnuts-the sampled households comprised 86% male-headed and 14% female-headed households. Most of the respondents were married (86%). Most respondents were primary school dropouts (67%), followed by secondary school dropouts (20%) while 11% never attended primary school. The mean ages for the participants were as follows: DAES 47 years (25 min- 63 max), ARET 44 years (27 min-75 max), HEIFER International 48 years (30 min-74 max), NASFAM 55 years (37 min- 61 max).

 

Table 2

 

3.2. Market Orientation of Extension and Advisory Service Approaches

Market orientation rating was done using the Likert scale to assess the alignment of the approach to market-oriented extension principles, including resource-based, business principles, commodity development approach, based on value chain framework, and bottom-up and participatory (Gebremedhin et al., 2012). We asked extension staff to determine how well the approach aligns with the extension principles. Farmers were asked how well the approach helped them to take farming as a business. The analysis shows that all service providers are implementing market-oriented extension approaches, but the degree to which these approaches are consistent with market-oriented principles differs. Some are more market-oriented than others. Table 3 summarises the findings on the market orientation of the approaches.

The analysis shows that the SHEP approach implemented by DAES and the commodity-specialised approach implemented by NASFAM have the best market orientation rating because they adhere to principles of market-oriented extension. However, SHEP was considered the best because it applies the bottom-up and participatory principle, unlike the commodity-specialised approach, and because of its impact on farmers. Some of the effects that the SHEP approach has on farmers include improved income through producing more and selling more, group selling; accessing cheap quality seeds through collective buying; increased production through following recommended agronomic practices; improved food security through producing more and having access to income; engagement in off-farm businesses including grocery store; educating children; accumulating assets (e.g. livestock, oxcarts).

"We really make some profits if we have quality products. For example, at one point at Mitundu market, tomatoes were fetching different prices depending on quality. High-quality tomatoes were sold at 3.46 US$ per bucket, while low-quality tomatoes were sold at half that price (1.73 US$) per the same bucket. This is an indication that no matter how much large the yield is, if the product is well taken care of and is of high quality, it will fetch a lot of profits." FGD with women, Kabambe village, Mitundu EPA.

3.3. Actors Working with Service Providers in Implementing MOEAS

The study mapped service providers and actors in the implementation of MOEAS. Figure 1 presents a summary map of the providers and the actors they work with in implementing MOEAS. Findings demonstrate various actors that work with DAES, HEIFER, ARET and NASFAM, falling in the categories including financial institutions, smallholder farmers, produce buyers, seed and input suppliers, supermarkets, capacity building and transportation. Implementing decentralised and pluralistic policies in providing extension and advisory services has led to increased availability of actors providing extension services to farmers in most developing countries, including Malawi. Notably, among the actors, DAES networks more with HEIFER International than NASFAM while having no interactions with ARET. ARET, HEIFER International and NASFAM do not interact as they implement MOEAS. This demonstrates that HEIFER International gets more support from government extension workers in delivering MOEAS than NASFAM and ARET. What is clear about the providers is that they have a shared goal of improving the livelihoods of smallholder farmers by developing their farming business capacity. However, inadequate and weak interactions among them may lead to differences in their knowledge and capacity regarding the skills or knowledge required to promote MOEAS. Lack of shared knowledge and practice among providers may contribute to the delivery of uncoordinated and duplication of efforts, thereby limiting the effectiveness of MOEAS delivery (Lamm, Masambuka-Kanchewa, Lamm, Davis, & Nahdy, 2020). Enhancing coordination and collaboration among the service providers is of utmost importance if their efforts to improve farmers' business capacity are to be fruitful.

3.4. Extension Service Providers' Perceptions of Their Capacities

We asked extension providers to rate their capacity in the identified 14 areas (See Figure 2). The themes were determined based on FAO's guidelines for assessing organisation's capacities (FAO, 2022). We identified common and divergent views from the responses based on content analysis. Figure 2 the perceptions of capacity gaps in each of the organisations engaged. This study has determined that the four organisations perceived capacity gaps in five aspects required for supporting market-oriented extension and advisory services. The gaps identified were related to networking, resource mobilisation, knowledge management and communication, governance, monitoring, evaluation and learning systems.

The analysis is clear that DAES perceived capacity gaps in all the areas, and Heifer perceived the least capacity gaps. This means that the delivery of AEAS is more challenging for DAES than for other providers. The implication is that since DAES has the largest coverage, many farmers receive poor and inadequate AEAS because of its capacity gaps. This could also impact farmers' benefits from extension and their participation in farming and the market. Others have reported capacity challenges in public extension, including Belay & Abebaw (2004) in Ethiopia and Adejo, Okwu & Ibrahim (2012) in Nigeria.

3.5. Challenges in the Implementation of MOEAS

The study analysed the challenges that AEAS providers face in implementing MOEAS. Table 4 presents the challenges that extension service providers mentioned.

Some of the challenges include: lack of availability of policy documents and weak legal frameworks to guide the implementation MOEAS; lack of information sharing among stakeholders which affects feedback to farmers for them to make informed decisions; trustto inputs in rural areas; low production levels among farmers affecting their market participation and bargaining power; poor mobility in terms of transport infrastructure (vehicles) and resources (fuel) among frontline extension workers affecting their work; inadequate funding to implement activities; high illiteracy levels among farmers hindering their understanding and interpretation of extension messages and technologies; some farmers are reluctant to change their mind set towards farming as a business of risk aversion; it is difficult to promote collective marketing among farmers because of lack of trust; it is difficult to control the political influence on marketing of produce, hence the marketing environment is not conducive to benefit farmers. There is a huge extension worker-to-farmer ratio, which affects the effective implementation of activities. Some of these challenges have also been observed by other authors (Lukhalo & Zwane, 2022) in South Africa, who observed that the budgetary allocation and public expenditure to farmer programmes was insufficient. In Pakistan, Yaseen, Shiwei, Wen and Hassan (2015) identified adequate funding, poor transportation and large jurisdiction areas as challenges extension workers faced.

 

4. CONCLUSIONS

This study investigated the extent to which agricultural extension approaches are market-oriented. Other studies have also argued that AEAS has limited contributions towards agricultural productivity and commercialisation. AEAS in Malawi are necessary but not enough to enable enhanced productivity and drive commercialisation among smallholder farmers because of other factors beyond the control of agricultural extension. The extension approaches exhibit different levels of market orientation. Most of them lack complete market orientation, impacting targeted farmers' benefits and impeding providers' efforts to advance the commercialisation agenda. AEAS providers have inadequate and weak networks, which affects knowledge and capacities to support MOEAS and the delivery of coordinated efforts, thereby limiting the effectiveness of MOEAS. Different providers have varying gaps in capacities to promote MOEAS. Of concern is the government (DAES), which has huge capacity gaps and is the leading service provider. The implication is that most smallholder farmers accessing extension services from DAES are less likely to benefit from MOEAS.

 

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

Service providers of AEAS should design and implement tailored MOEAS for farmers who are commercialising at different levels. The government, through DAES, should champion coordination and collaboration of MOEAS providers if their efforts to improve farmers' business capacity are to be fruitful. Further research is needed to gain a deeper understanding of the interests and needs of farmers regarding commercialisation so that extension services can be tailored to farmers' needs.

 

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We acknowledge the financial support from the African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services (AFAAS) grant number AFAAS/IFAD-EU/CSG/2022/004-Amdt 1.

 

REFERENCES

ADEJO, P.E., OKWU, O.J. & IBRAHIM, M.K., 2012. Challenges and prospects of privatization of agricultural extension service delivery in Nigeria. J. Agric. Ext. Rural Dev., 4(3): 63-68.         [ Links ]

ALI-OLUBANDWA, A.M., KATHURI, N.J. & WESONGA, T.E.O., 2011. Effective extension methods for increased food production in Kakamega District. J. Agric. Ext. Rural Dev., 3(5): 95-101.         [ Links ]

ANDERSON, J.R. & FEDER, G., 2003. Rural extension services. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 2976. Washington, DC: World Bank.         [ Links ]

BALOCH, M.A. & THAPA, G.B., 2018. The effect of agricultural extension services: Date farmers' case in Balochistan, Pakistan. J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci., 17(3): 282-289.         [ Links ]

BELAY, K. & ABEBAW, D., 2004. Challenges Facing Agricultural Extension Agents: A Case Study from South-western Ethiopia. Afr. Dev. Rev., 16(1): 139-168.         [ Links ]

BIRKHAEUSER, D., EVENSON, R.E. & FEDER, G., 1991. The economic impact of agricultural extension: A Review. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change., 39(3): 607-650.         [ Links ]

CARLETTO, C., CORRAL, P. & GUELFI, A., 2017. Agricultural commercialization and nutrition revisited: Empirical evidence from three African countries. Food Policy., 67: 106-118.         [ Links ]

CHRISTOPLOS, I., 2010. Mobilizing the potential of rural and agricultural extension. Rome: FAO.         [ Links ]

COOK, B.R., SATIZÁBAL, P. & CURNOW, J., 2021. Humanising agricultural extension: A review. World Dev., 140: 105337.         [ Links ]

FAO., 2022. TAP-AIS Malawi: Validation of capacity needs assessment for agriculture innovation systems organizations. Available from https://www.fao.org/in-action/tropical-agriculture-platform/news/detail/en/c/1506080/        [ Links ]

GEBREMEDHIN, B., HOEKSTRA, D. & TEGEGNE, A., 2006a. Commercialization of Ethiopian agriculture: Extension service from input supplier to knowledge broker and facilitator IPMS (Improving Productivity and Market Success) of Ethiopian farmers project. Available from https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/564/CommerciaIPMSWorkingPaper_1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y        [ Links ]

GEBREMEDHIN, B., HOEKSTRA, D. & TEGEGNE, A., 2006b. Improving Productivity and Market Success of Ethiopian Farmers Commercialization of Ethiopian agriculture: extension service from input supplier to knowledge broker and facilitator Commercialization of Ethiopian agriculture: Extension service from input (Issue 1).         [ Links ]

GEBREMEDHIN, B., HOEKSTRA, D. & TEGEGNE, A., 2015. Market-oriented extension service for agricultural transformation in . https://www.slideshare.net/ILRI/sslives-seminar-gebremedhinmay2015        [ Links ]

GEBREMEDHIN, B., JEMANEH, S., HOEKSTRA, D. & ANANDAJAYASEKERAM, P., 2012. A guide to market-oriented extension services with special reference to Ethiopia. Available from www.cgiar.org.         [ Links ]

GFRAS., 2012. Module 1: Introduction to the New Extensionist.         [ Links ]

GLASER, B.G., 1965. The Constant Comparative Method of Qualitative Analysis. Soc. Probl., 12(4): 436-445.         [ Links ]

KAHAN, D., 2014. Global trends and challenges in extension: A farm management. In 16th Congress, International Farm Management Association, 25-10 July, Cork, Ireland, pp. 15-20.         [ Links ]

KAUR, K. & KAUR, P., 2018. Agricultural extension approaches to enhance the knowledge of farmers. Int. J. CurrMicrobiol. Appl. Sci., 7(2): 2367-2376.         [ Links ]

KRUEGER, R. & CASEY, A., 2000. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Available from https://books.google.com/books/about/Focus_Groups.html?id=ySKeSZeWywMC        [ Links ]

LAMM, K.W., MASAMBUKA-KANCHEWA, F., LAMM, A.J., DAVIS, K. & NAHDY, S., 2020. Strengthening coordination among extension service providers for improved provision of agricultural extension and advisory services: A Case Study from Kenya. J. Int. Agric. Ext. Educ., 27(3): 18-26.         [ Links ]

LUKHALO, T. & ZWANE, E.M., 2022. The influence of budget allocation to implement the policy of extension and advisory services in South Africa. S. Afr. J. Agric. Ext., 50(1): 1-19.         [ Links ]

MASANGANO, C. & MTHINDA, C., 2012. Pluralistic Extension System in Malawi. IFPRI Discussion paper 01171. Available from http://www.ifpri.org/publication/pluralistic-extension-system-malawi.         [ Links ]

MUSA GWARY, M., MAKINTA, A.A. & WAKAWA, R.C., 2019. Review on market reorientation of extension services for value chain development in Borno State, Nigeria. J. Agric. Ext. Rural Dev., 11(10): 162-168.         [ Links ]

NORDIN, M. & HÖJGARD, S., 2017. An evaluation of extension services in Sweden. Agric. Econ., 48(1): 51-60.         [ Links ]

OLAGUNJU, F.I. & ADESIJI, G.B., 2013. Impact of agricultural extension services on Cocoyam Production in Ogun State, Nigeria. J. Agric. Food Inf., 12(3): 294-303.         [ Links ]

ONWUEGBUZIE, A.J., 2009. A Qualitative Framework for Collecting and Analysing Data in Focus Group Research. Int. J. Qual. Methods., 17: 1-3.         [ Links ]

PONNIAH, A., PUSKUR, R., WORKNEH, S. & HOEKSTRA, D., 2008. Concepts and practices in agricultural extension in developing countries: A source book. Washington DC: IFPRI.         [ Links ]

RAGASA, C. & NIU, C., 2017. The state of agricultural extension and advisory services provision in Malawi insights from household and community surveys. Washington, DC: IFPRI.         [ Links ]

SCOTT, J.C., 1998. Seeing Like a State: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. Yale University Press.         [ Links ]

SWANSON, B.E., BENTZ, R.P. & SOFRANKO, A.J., 1998. Improving agricultural extension: A reference manual. Rome: FAO.         [ Links ]

VAN DEN BAN, A.W. & SAMANTA, R. K., 2006. Changing Roles of Agricultural Extension in Asian Nations. Delhi: B.R. Publishing Corporation.         [ Links ]

VON BRAUN, J. & KENNEDY, E., 1994. Agricultural commercialisation, economic development, and nutrition.         [ Links ]

WADDINGTON, H., SNILSTVEIT, B., WHITE, H. & ANDERSON, J.R., 2010. The Impact of Agricultural Extension Services.         [ Links ]

YASEEN, M., SHIWEI, X., WEN, Y. & HASSAN, S., 2015. Policy Challenges to Agricultural Extension System in Pakistan: A Review. Int. J. Agric. Appl. Sci., 7(2).         [ Links ]