5 pages, The current research was planned and conducted at Institute of Agricultural Extension, Education
and Rural Development, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan during the year 2019-20
and restricted to district Gujranwala with respect to potato crop. The main objective of this study
was to compare the extension services provided by the public and private sector along with
different teaching methodologies adopted by them. However, 36 respondents from each tehsil
of district Gujranwala were selected through convenient sampling technique. Thereby, getting a
sample size of 144 for the purpose of data collection for which interviews were conducted. Data
were analyzed through SPSS. Results were explained through weighted score and mean values
of all variables. According to results it was found that both sectors were giving useful knowledge
to farmers with different teaching methods. It was also concluded that farmers had desire to take
information from public sector but they have to go to private sector for products. Furthermore, it
was also concluded that performance of public sector was better than private sector.
19 pages, A Small Farm Resource Center (SFRC) is an informal in-situ extension model used for testing promising agricultural and rural livelihoods options on a physical central site, with some measure of extension methodology. There is a need to evaluate SFRCs as research-extension models operating outside of formal government extension and advisory services. Seven SFRCs located in Southeast Asia were studied to classify extension methodologies adopted by those centers, evaluate extension efficacy, and to provide recommendations for amplifying their services. On average in 2013, SFRCs were 21.1 years old, covered 24.2 ha, cost 242,000 USD to establish and had a yearly operating cost of 28,500 USD. The work of the seven SFRCs could be classified into five predominant extension methodologies: on-site and off-site demonstrations, on-site and off-site trainings, and off-site extension outreach. Most of the SFRCs utilized combinations of these and tailored their methods to the particular context. Besides agricultural production, SFRCs also offered socio-cultural and socio-economic assistance, owing to a cycle of extension knowledge refinement. SFRCS were re-engaged in 2021 and all 7 were still operational, and the majority provided the same number or more services (57%) as in 2013, utilized the same amount of space (71%), and were perceived to have the same or more efficacy (71%) even in the face of decreasing or stagnating funding (71%) due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, SFRCs continue to be used successfully throughout Southeast Asia and provide cost-effective and needs-based extension and advisory services to underserved populations outside of formal extension services.
Albrecht, Hartmut (author), Hoffmann, Volker (author), Bergmann, Herbert (author), Diederich, Georg (author), Grober, Eberhard (author), Keller, Peter (author), Payr, Gerhard (author), and Sulzer, Rolf (author)
