Integrated Soil Water and Nutrient Management and Dry ... - Icrisat

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Responses of farmers and extension officers to alternative extension approaches Joseph Rusike and Richard Foti, Special Project Scientist and Scientific Officer, ICRISAT Introduction The Department of Agricultural Research and Extension (AREX) of Zimbabwe and ICRISAT are testing the efficiency and effectiveness of FFS for presenting to farmers and scaling out knowledge-intensive, intangible, and complex ISWNM technologies. The study is evaluating the performance of FFS relative to the traditional MF extension approach and the PAE approach. During the 2000/01 cropping season, seven FFS were established in Gwanda, Tsholotsho, and Zvishavane. During 2001/02, the schools were expanded from 7 to 40 schools with additional support from Plan International and the FAO-TCP project Integrated Natural Resource Management in the Semi-Arid Regions of Zimbabwe. The expansion was through establishment of new schools in the original three pilot districts (Gwanda, Tsholotsho, Zvishavane) and expansion to two new districts (Chivi and Zimuto). Because of a combination of political disturbances and drought, only 13 of the 40 schools organized at the beginning of the season remained functional throughout the cropping season and produced trial results. Table 7 shows the distribution of existing and new schools established by target district. Surveys of participating and non-participating farmers and extension officers were implemented between August and November 2002 to collect Table 7. Distribution of existing and new Farmer Field Schools by target district, southern Zimbabwe, 2001/2002 cropping season. District Existing FFS New FFS Total FFS Realized FFS (established (established 2001/2002 2001/2002 2000/2001) 2001/2002) Gwanda 2 2 4 2 Tsholotsho 3 24 27 8 Zvishavane 2 2 4 0 Chivi 0 3 3 3 Zimuto 0 2 2 0 Total 7 33 40 13 33
data for the comparative analysis of the impact of FFS, traditional MF, and PAE approaches. This paper reports the results of the survey. The impact of the extension approach is tested by a number of indicators, including changes in farmers’ knowledge and practices, changes in extension knowledge and practices, farmer empowerment and cost-effectiveness. Research approach The farmer sample was drawn from lists of FFS members, Master Farmers, PAE graduates and non-participating control farmers in neighboring villages in four pilot districts: Chivi, Gwanda, Tsholotsho, and Zvishavane. All graduates of the FFS, MF and PAE who could be located were interviewed. For control farmers, households were randomly selected from population lists and interviewed. The final sample included 369 farm households. These consisted of 97 households that had participated in both MF and FFS training programs, 126 households that had participated in FFS only, 15 households that had participated in the PAE approach, and 53 households drawn from control groups receiving normal extension. In addition, focused group discussions were conducted with FFS members. For the extension officers’ survey, 100 questionnaires were distributed to all field extension officers through the District AEOs for completion and return to ICRISAT. The return rate averaged 60%. Results and discussion This section discusses characteristics of survey households and extension services and the impact of alternative extension approaches. The analysis focuses on interaction between household typologies, main sources of farming advice, contact with government extension staff, characteristics of extension services provided by government officers, and observed economic performance. Characteristics of participating and non-participating survey households The survey revealed considerable heterogeneity among sample households in household head characteristics, family size and labor, farming experience, members sending remittances, and farming assets. Household size averages 7, ranging from 1 to 33 members. The age of the household head averages 53 34
Page 2 and 3: Citation: Citation: Rusike J, Heinr
Page 4 and 5: The opinions expressed in this publ
Page 6 and 7: Synthesis Synthesis of Workshop Out
Page 8 and 9: • Increased crop and variety dive
Page 10 and 11: udgets are now activity- and perfor
Page 12 and 13: Appendix Introduction Background an
Page 14 and 15: The farmers decided on the experime
Page 16 and 17: Table 1. Manzimahle Farmer Field Sc
Page 18 and 19: egistered to become members of the
Page 20 and 21: The farmers appreciated the fact th
Page 22 and 23: The groups discussed problems affec
Page 24 and 25: • Fuel shortage • Low mileage r
Page 26 and 27: • Pre-planting tied ridges are no
Page 28 and 29: completed in all FFS. Installation
Page 30 and 31: wider options available and whether
Page 32 and 33: for the whole country. Provincial t
Page 34 and 35: • Participating farmers liked sha
Page 36 and 37: • There is high staff turnover of
Page 40 and 41: years, ranging from 23 to 87. On av
Page 42 and 43: Government extension officers and N
Page 44 and 45: Table 11. Allocation of government
Page 46 and 47: Impact of Master Farmer, Farmer Fie
Page 48 and 49: Compared to the control group, the
Page 50 and 51: Empowerment Farmers were asked whet
Page 52 and 53: farmer-to-farmer visits, a sense of
Page 54 and 55: to the majority of farmers, conduct
Page 56 and 57: This study conducted a comparative
Page 58 and 59: Participants Alibaba, S Provincial
Page 60 and 61: Makumbe, Willie Senior Agricultural
Page 62 and 63: Ndebele, Crispen Crop Research Offi
Page 64 and 65: Tsikisayi, Sylvester Director ZFU P
Page 66: ICRISAT-Patancheru (Headquarters) P

Integrated Soil Water and Nutrient Management and Dry ... - Icrisat

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?