The ‘model farmer’ extension approach revisited: Are expert

farmers effective disseminators and innovators?

Steven Franzel, Charles Wambugu, and Tutui NanokWorld Agroforestry Centre

Background and objectives

• Many extension services select “model” farmers as an extension strategy.

• They choose farmers on the basis of their expertise. • It is assumed they will be good disseminators and

innovators as well. • But are they?• Objectives: – Determine which farmers are expert farmers, good

disseminators and good innovators– Characterize the three types– Assess degree to which expert farmers are also good

disseminators and innovators

Methods

• Sample of 126 adopters was drawn from smallholder adopters of fodder shrubs, such as Calliandra calothyrsus, fast-growing leguminous shrubs for feeding dairy cows.

Defining expert farmers, disseminators and innovators: Criteria

Expert farmer Disseminator Innovator

No. of fodder shrubs

No. of farmers given seeds/seedlings

No. of experiments conducted/new practices

tested

Have nursery No. of farmers given information

No. of years experimenting

No. years practicing

No. and type of dissemination methods

used

Creativity of innovation

Knowledge of fodder shrub

practices

Source of innovation

Defining expert farmers

Table 1: The Farmer expert index Criteria

Weight

Score None Low

1 Medium

2 High

3 No. of shrubs 1.5 _____ <100 100 -500 > 500 Fodder tree nursery

1.5 Didn’t have

_____

_____ Have

No. years planting shrubs

1.5 ______ < 4 yrs

5-6 yrs > 7

Knowledge shrubs

3 Poor Fair Good Very good

Defining disseminators

Criteria Weight Very low 0

Low1

Medium2

High3

No. of farmers given planting materials

3 0 or none 1-4 5-9 10 and more

No. of farmers given information

3 0 or none 1-4 5-9 10 and more

Dissemination methods used:

Public forum announcement

2 No ______ ______ yes

Other proactive methods

2 0 or none 1 2 3 and more

Table 2: Disseminator index

10 farmers disseminated to over 20 farmers each!

Defining innovators

Criteria WeightScore

Low1

Medium2

High3

No. of own experi-ments/ innovations

3 1 2 3 or more

No. years practicing innovations

1 2 yr or less

3-5 yrs 6 yrs and

more

Creativity 1.5 not creative

______ Creative

Source of innovation

1.5 from others

______ own idea

Table 3. The innovator index

Examples of innovations46 farmers tested 30 innovations

• Seed pretreatment• Propagation (direct seeding,

planting wildings)• Spacing, configuration• Pest control• Pruning hedges at different

heights• Feed rations• Composting• Feeding rabbits and

chickens

Table 4. Characterizing expert farmers, innovators, and disseminators

Association between Expert farmer and non-experts

Disseminators and non-disseminators

Innovators and non-innovators

Age NS NS NS

Education NS NS NS

Gender NS NS NS

Wealth Positive** NS NS

Land holding NS NS NS

Off-farm income NS Positive* Positive**

NS: Not significant, *:significant at p<.05 ** significant at p< .10

Fig 1: Overlap between experts, innovators, and disseminators (n=126)

Disseminators (44) Experts (48) Innovators (46)

14

17 5 15

12 6 9

Persons who were not experts, innovators, or dissemin-ators

48

Implications

• Few barriers limiting farmers from becoming disseminators or innovators; women, the poor and different age groups involved.

• An extension program recruiting farmer experts may not be very effective in dissemination; programs better off choosing farmers who are good disseminators

• Those with off farm employment are often effective innovators and disseminators