1. New concepts of training in extension work
Lecture 9
New concepts of training in extension work

2. New concepts of training (approaches) in extension work
Strategies of aquaculture extension are as diverse as national political philosophies and goals. The following slides is a discussion of several of the predominant approaches to agriculture extension programmes.

3. The general agricultural extension approach
The general agricultural extension approach. The purpose is to help farmers increase their production. Planning is done on a national basis by the central government "which knows better than farmers". This is a typical case of top-down planning. Field personnel tend to be large in number and high in cost, with the central government bearing most of the cost. The rate of adoption of important recommendations and increases in national production are the measures of success..

4. A survey of agricultural extension programmes indicated that agricultural extension generally was part of the Ministry of Agriculture, with field extension officers at the bottom of the hierarchy and a minister at the top (FAO, 1971). This approach lacks a two-way flow of information. It fails to adjust messages for each different locality. Only farmers who seek advice benefit, and these tend to be large-scale wealthier farmers. This approach does provide farmers with information on a number of production alternatives from one single source

5. The commodity specialized approach
The commodity specialized approach. The key characteristic of this approach groups all the functions for increased production - extension, research, input supply, marketing and prices - under one administration. Extension is fairly centralized and is oriented towards one commodity or crop and the agent has many functions.

6. The agricultural extension participatory approach
The agricultural extension participatory approach. This approach often focuses on the expressed needs of farmers' groups and its goal is increased production and an improved quality of rural life. Implementation is often decentralized and flexible. Success is measured by the numbers of farmers actively participating and the sustainability of local extension organizations.

7. The project approach. This approach concentrates efforts on a particular location, for a specific time period, often with outside resources. Part of its purpose is often to demonstrate techniques and methods that could be extended and sustained after the project period. Change in the short term is often a measure of success.

8. The cost-sharing approach
The cost-sharing approach. This approach assumes that cost-sharing with local people (who do not have the means to pay the full cost) will promote a programme that is more likely to meet local situations and where extension agents are more accountable to local interests. Its purpose is to provide advice and information to facilitate farmers' self-improvement. Success is often measured by the willingness to pay.

9. The educational institution approach
The educational institution approach. This approach uses educational institutions which have technical knowledge and some research ability to provide extension services for rural people. Implementation and planning are often controlled by those who determine school curricula. The emphasis is often on the transfer of technical knowledge.

10. The training and visit approach
The training and visit approach. The purpose of the training and visit approach (often called T & V) is to induce farmers to increase production of specified crops. Planning is controlled centrally and field personnel tend to be numerous and dependent on central resources. There is a rigid pattern of visits to farmers and in-service training of field staff. Success is measured in terms of production increases of the particular crops covered by the programme.

11. The training and visit approach is another top-down approach
The training and visit approach is another top-down approach. The emphasis is on disseminating unsophisticated, low-cost improved practices, and teaching farmers to make best use of available resources. There is pressure on the government to reorganize into a more integrated service, and to send extension officers into the field to meet with farmers. It provides closer technical supervision and logistic support, but at a high cost. Actual two-way communication is lacking and there is little flexibility.

12. The agricultural extension participatory approach
The agricultural extension participatory approach. This approach assumes that farmers are skilled in food production from their land, but their levels of living could be improved by additional knowledge. Active participation by farmers themselves is necessary and produces a reinforcing effect in group learning and group action. Much of the work is through group meetings, demonstrations, individual and group travel, and local sharing of appropriate technologies

13. Success is measured through numbers of farmers actively participating, and the continuity of the programme. There is much to be gained by combining indigenous knowledge with science. Expressed needs of farmers are targeted. The system requires that extension workers, who are also animators and catalysts, stimulate farmers to organize for group efforts. Local people evaluate their own programmes and play a role in establishing research agendas.

14. The farming systems development approach
The farming systems development approach. This approach assumes that technology which fits the needs of farmers, particularly small-scale farmers, is not available and needs to be generated locally. Planning evolves slowly and may be different for each agroclimatic farm ecosystem. This approach is implemented through a partnership of research and extension personnel using a systems approach. Analyses and field trials are carried out on farmers' fields and in homes.

15. The measure of success is the extent to which farm people adopt technologies developed by the programme and continue to use them over time. Control of the programme is shared jointly by local farm families, extension officers, and researchers. Advantages of this system include strong linkages between extension and research personnel, and the commitment of farmers to using technologies they helped to develop. Costs can be high, and results can be slow in coming.