There is great untapped potential for farm mechanization to support rural development initiatives in low- and middle-income countries. As technology transfer of large machinery from high-income countries was ineffective during the 1980s and 90s, mechanization options were developed appropriate to resource poor farmers cultivating small and scattered plots. More recently, projects that aim to increase the adoption of farm machinery have tended to target service providers rather than individual farmers.
The privatization of agricultural advisory and extension services in many countries and the associated pluralism of service providers has renewed interest in farmers’ use of fee-for-service advisors. Understanding farmers’ use of advisory services is important, given the role such services are expected to play in helping farmers address critical environmental and sustainability challenges. This paper aims to identify factors associated with farmers’ use of fee-for service advisors and bring fresh conceptualization to this topic.
This paper examines the determinants of participation in an outsourced extension programs and its impact of smallholder farmers' net farm income in Msinga, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. A multi-stage sampling technique was used to obtain cross-sectional farm-level data from a sample of 300 farm households, using a structured questionnaire for the interview. The determinants and impacts of participation were estimated using the propensity score matching (PSM) to account for sample selection bias.
The paper is structured as follows. First, definitions and conceptualisations of trust are considered, before moving on review the literature on trust in rural network models of business support. Next, the empirical study design is described, which consisted of case studies of business advice programmes offered to artisanal food enterprises in Northern Ireland and displaying varying degrees of trust. The results of the empirical study are reported and then discussed, with reflections on how trust evolved in each case, and the ways in which trust was lost
This article therefore analyses whether agricultural advisors representing companies that do not sell pesticides (independent advisors) are more likely to recommend reduced pesticide use than agricultural advisors who represent companies with an economic interest in selling pesticides (supplier-affiliated advisors). However, we would not necessarily expect a crude relationship between economic incentive and higher pesticide recommendations. After all, advisors have to justify their recommendations to their customers, the farmers.
Most of the world's agricultural extension services are funded and delivered by the public sector with the private sector contributing approximately 5%. The low private sector engagement in provision of agricultural extension may be attributed to poor enabling environment, which has deterred rather than encouraged private sector investment. Debates on engaging private sector in agricultural extension argue that private investment in extension is bound to generate agricultural productivity. Consequently, PPPs in agriculture are considered to be drivers for modernization of the sector.
In this paper is presented insights from a co-design process with private farm advisers and ask: What enables farm advisers to engage with digital innovation? And, how can digital innovation be supported and practiced in smart farming contexts? Digital innovation presents challenges for farmers and advisers due to the new relationships, skills, arrangements, techniques and devices required to realise value for farm production and profitability from digital tools and services.
Digitalisation is widely regarded as having the potential to provide productivity and sustainability gains for the agricultural sector. However, there are likely to be broader implications arising from the digitalisation of agricultural innovation systems. Agricultural knowledge and advice networks are important components of agricultural innovation systems that have the potential to be digitally disrupted.
This study refines the participatory management (PM) in agricultural extension education (AEE) by adopting a multidimensional approach. PM is a process where extension agent (EA) tries to provide a good situation for AEE and share significant degree of power with their farmers. The data were obtained from samples of 290 Iranian farmers in Torbat Heydarieh, Iran. Methodology was descriptive and correlation. There was directly and a statically significant relation between all of components of PM regarding in effective AEE. The PM is a panacea for improving the AEE.
The nature of interactions between farmers and advisors is the focus of a growing body of research. While many studies explore the potential role of advisors in facilitating farmers' practice change in practices related to agricultural production such as soil, water, pest and animal health management, studies that specifically investigate how advisors support farmers with financial management (FM) are limited. The contribution this paper makes is to identify who farmers' FM advisors are and to shed light on how farmer-advisor interactions about FM are shaped.