Abstract
This study examined the practical delivery, effectiveness, and challenges of Agricultural Extension Services (AES) in Shashemene Woreda, with particular attention to both the milestones achieved and the persistent constraints encountered by local farming communities. A cross sectional research design guided the investigation, and data were gathered from 130 households situated across three distinct agroecological zones, lowland, midland, and highland ensuring a comprehensive representation of farming conditions and lived experiences. The findings illuminated a youthful farming population, with 78.23 percent of respondents aged below forty, reflecting strong potential for innovation and adaptability. Nonetheless, a pronounced gender imbalance became evident, as men constituted 72.31 percent of participants, suggesting the continued underrepresentation of women in agricultural service engagement and leadership. Educational deficiencies emerged as a significant barrier, with 36.92 percent of respondents unable to read or write, which limited their capacity to assimilate and implement improved agricultural methods. Despite the presence of AES, only 17.69 percent of farmers had reported adopting enhanced practices in their day to day farming activities. Moreover, the majority, 58.46 percent, perceived the services as largely ineffective in addressing their practical needs. Financial hardship stood out as the most prominent challenge, reported by 40.76 percent of respondents, followed by limited technical support (26.94 percent) and restrictive policy environments (18.46 percent). Furthermore, only 22.31 percent of the farmers indicated awareness of or access to market value chain opportunities, which further constrained economic progress. These insights underscored an urgent need for inclusive, contextually grounded strategies that could elevate the impact of AES through enhanced farmer education, gender empowerment, resource mobilization, and improved market connectivity, thus fostering more resilient and sustainable rural livelihoods.
|
Published in
|
Science Development (Volume 6, Issue 3)
|
|
DOI
|
10.11648/j.scidev.20250603.20
|
|
Page(s)
|
131-142 |
|
Creative Commons
|
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
|
|
Copyright
|
Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Science Publishing Group
|
Keywords
Agriculture, Extension, Service, Delivery, Practice, Challenge, Achievement
1. Introduction
Agriculture has historically served as the primary economic engine for approximately 2.5 billion individuals in developing nations, functioning as the backbone of many African economies. In the context of Africa, it has accounted for 57% of total employment, 17% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and 11% of export earnings
| [21] | World Bank, FAO, & IFAD. (2009). Gender in agriculture sourcebook. The World Bank. |
[21]
. In Ethiopia, interventions aimed at agricultural development have only recently begun to penetrate rural areas, particularly following the second half of the 20th century
| [1] | Anderson, J. R., & Feder, G. (2007). Agricultural extension. In R. Evenson & P. Pingali (Eds.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics (Vol. 3, pp. 2343-2378). Elsevier. |
[1]
. These interventions, implemented in various forms, including fully-fledged programs and pilot projects, have yet to yield significant improvements in the living standards of rural populations and the effectiveness of farming practices
| [16] | Spielman, D. J., & Kelemework, D. (2009). Measuring agricultural innovation system properties and performance: Illustrations from Ethiopia and Vietnam. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00885. |
[16]
.
The agricultural landscape in Ethiopia is predominantly characterized by traditional subsistence farming, with limited access to modern technology and educational resources
| [3] | Berhanu, K., & Poulton, C. (2014). The political economy of agricultural extension policy in Ethiopia: Economic growth and political control. Development Policy Review, 32(s2), s197-s213. |
| [9] | Doss, C. R. (2001). Designing agricultural technology for African women farmers: Lessons from 25 years of experience. World Development, 29(12), 2075-2092. |
[3, 9]
. Compounding these challenges is the chronic underinvestment in the agricultural labor force, which has substantially hindered the sector’s transformation and capacity for growth
| [12] | Kassa, B. (2008). Agricultural extension in Ethiopia: Historical evolution, relevant policies and challenges. In M. E. S. Swanson & R. Rajalahti (Eds.), Agricultural Innovation Systems: An Investment Sourcebook. World Bank. |
[12]
. Despite these limitations, this agricultural sub-sector generates a significant portion of the nation’s agricultural output
| [17] | Spielman, D. J., Byerlee, D., Alemu, D., & Kelemework, D. (2010). Policies to promote cereal intensification in Ethiopia: The search for appropriate public and private roles. Food Policy, 35(3), 185-194. |
[17]
.
The mobilization of human resources, particularly through education and technical training, is imperative for achieving meaningful agricultural change and elevated levels of rural prosperity
| [22] | World Bank. (2006). Enhancing agricultural innovation: How to go beyond the strengthening of research systems. Washington, DC: World Bank. |
[22]
. For agricultural education and training to be effective, they must be closely aligned with the developmental needs of the community and integrated into broader development strategies
| [11] | Feder, G., Murgai, R., & Quizon, J. B. (2004). Sending farmers back to school: The impact of farmer field schools in Indonesia. Review of Agricultural Economics, 26(1), 45-62. |
[11]
. Trainers must not only possess a deep understanding of agricultural practices but also be familiar with, and accepted by, the local populace. Critical attributes for effective trainers include maturity and the ability to inspire confidence
| [5] | Chambers, R. (1994). Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Challenges, potentials and paradigm. World Development, 22(10), 1437-1454. |
[5]
.
Agricultural extension services in Ethiopia began in 1953 at Haramaya College of Agriculture, providing vital support to surrounding communities. According to the Agricultural Transformation Agency (ATA) report that the Oromia region alone contributed over 50% of the national agricultural output
| [4] | Central Statistical Agency (CSA). (2021). Agricultural sample survey 2020/21 (Volume I): Report on area and production of major crops. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. |
[4]
. Agricultural extension serves as a crucial mechanism for modernizing the sector, acting as a bridge that facilitates the transition from an agriculture-centric economy to industrialization
| [13] | Leeuwis, C. (2004). Communication for rural innovation: Rethinking agricultural extension. Blackwell Science. |
[13]
.
Shashemene, located in the West Arsi Zone of the Oromia region, has high agricultural production potential but faces significant challenges in delivering modern agricultural extension services. Inadequate local government resources and a lack of farmer organization have impeded effective service delivery and sustainable development.
1.1. Statement of the Problem
The primary objective of agricultural extension is to assist farmers in overcoming various constraints, thereby motivating them to adopt innovative agricultural practices. However, agricultural productivity among smallholder farmers in Ethiopia has remained alarmingly low, which poses substantial challenges to national efforts aimed at food and nutritional security
| [18] | Spielman, D. J., Davis, K., Negash, M., & Ayele, G. (2011). Rural innovation systems and networks: Findings from a study of Ethiopian smallholders. Agriculture and Human Values, 28(2), 195-212. |
[18]
.
The extension system faces critical shortcomings in organization, prioritization, and the quality of services rendered to rural populations. A coherent governmental strategy is essential to establish proper coordination and quality control within a multifaceted extension system
| [7] | Davis, K., & Terblanche, S. E. (2016). Challenges facing the agricultural extension landscape in South Africa, Quo Vadis? South African Journal of Agricultural Extension, 44(2), 231-247. |
[7]
.
Additionally, the mission of extension services is fraught with challenges, particularly when engaging rural populations that often have minimal formal education
| [8] | Davis, K., Swanson, B. E., & Amudavi, D. (2010). Review and recommendations for strengthening the agricultural extension system in Ethiopia. *IFPRI Discussion Paper 01041. International Food Policy Research Institute. |
| [10] | FAO. (2011). The role of women in agriculture. ESA Working Paper No. 11-02. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. |
[8, 10]
. While the Ethiopian government has demonstrated a commitment to fortifying the agricultural sector through the establishment and support of research institutes, the number of such facilities remains insufficient to adequately serve the entire nation
| [2] | Asres, A., & Bekele, A. (2014). Access to agricultural information by resettler and host farmers: The case of Metema Woreda, North Gondar, Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, 6(10), 326-333. |
[2]
.
Despite previous investigations highlighting the limited uptake and impact of new research findings
| [15] | Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. (5th ed.). Free Press. |
[15]
, the need for improved agricultural production and productivity remains pressing. Consequently, this study aims to scrutinize both the challenges and achievements of agricultural extension services within the specific context of Shashemene Woreda.
1.2. Objectives of the Study
1.2.1. General Objective
The overarching aim of this research was to systematically assess the practices of agricultural extension services in Shashemene Woreda, focusing specifically on identifying its achievements and challenges.
1.2.2. Specific Objectives
1. To assess the statues of agricultural extension services;
2. To examine key achievements of agricultural extension services and;
3. To investigate the major challenges of agricultural extension service practice.
1.3. Research Questions
The study attempted to obtain reliable response for the following basic research questions with the intention of attaining the objectives:
1. What were the statuses of agricultural extension services?
2. What were the key achievements of agricultural extension services?
3. What were the major challenges of agricultural extension services?
1.4. Scope of the Study
This study was a pioneering effort to evaluate agricultural extension services in Shashemene Woreda but faced limitations due to time and resource constraints. It focused on three rural kebeles, Butte Filicha, Hursa Simbo, and Bulchena Deneba, and involved 130 participants, including farmers and agricultural leaders. The limited geographic scope and reliance on qualitative data restrict generalizability, while transportation challenges hindered a fully comprehensive assessment of extension activities.
1.5. Significance of the Study
This study offers valuable insights into agricultural extension services, identifying key gaps and challenges. It provides essential data for the district’s agriculture office to improve strategic planning and supports future research by serving as a foundational reference for scholars in related fields.
2. Research Methodology
2.1. Study Area
Shashemene is situated in the Oromia Regional State's West Arsi Zone, approximately 250 kilometers south of Addis Ababa. Nestled within the Rift Valley, the area boasts an elevation ranging from 1,700 to 2,600 meters above sea level, characterized by an annual rainfall of 700 to 950mm and temperature variations between 12°C and 27°C
| [20] | Swanson, B. E., Bentz, R. P., & Sofranko, A. J. (1997). Improving agricultural extension: A reference manual. FAO. |
[20]
. The agriculture of this region is predominantly practiced through rain-fed cultivation, with major crops including cereals and root vegetables. The total human population in this area approached 285,176, and the kebeles exhibited varied ago-ecological classifications
| [19] | Swanson, B. E., & Rajalahti, R. (2010). Strengthening agricultural extension and advisory systems: Procedures for assessing, transforming, and evaluating extension systems. World Bank. |
[19]
.
2.2. Research Design
A cross-sectional study design was employed to collect data reflecting the attitudes, beliefs, and practices of 130 respondents engaged in agricultural extension services.
2.3. Sampling and Sample Size Determination
Shashemene Woreda consists of 37 rural kebeles, from which three were purposively selected based on agricultural productivity, information access, and training centre availability.
Using a systematic sampling technique, 130 households were chosen from a total of 2,486 rural farm households in these kebeles, as reported by the Woreda Agricultural Development Office.
Due to the large population, the sample size was determined mathematically to ensure representativeness
| [6] | Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. |
[6]
.
Where:
N = required sample size;
X2 = the chi-square table value for 1 df at the desired CL (3.841);
n = the population size;
P = the population variability;
d = the degree of accuracy expressed as a proportion (0.05).
Note well that the population variability (P) in this study was conservatively estimated at 0.10, reflecting the fact that the relative homogeneity of the population in terms of geographic location, socioeconomic status, and predominant economic activities, specifically, a cash-based economy consistent with the monetized nature of urban markets.
Using a sample size determination formula, the sample size for each selected kebele was calculated as follows, where the sample size is denoted by "n," representing the number of respondents in Hursa Simbo, Bute Filicha, and Bulchena Deneba kebeles as n₁, n₂, and n₃, respectively.
The sample size for each kebele was computed individually using the formula:
Where:
Ni = the population of the respective kebele
N = the total population across all selected kebeles
The Sample Sze was consequently calculated as:
a) Hursa Simbo (n1): n1 = n(N1/N) = 130(1135/2486) = 59 of total respondents
b) Butie Filicha (n2): n2 = n(N2/N) = 130(610/2486) = 32 of total respondents
c) Bulchana Deneba (n3): n3 = n(N3/N) = 130(741/2486) = 39 of total respondents
The aggregated sum of the calculated sample sizes from each of the three selected kebeles (n1+n2+n3 = n) = 59+32+39 = 130), thus, constituted the total sample size for the study.
2.4. Data Types and Sources
This study applied a quantitative approach, utilizing both primary and secondary data sources.
Primary data were gathered through household surveys, while secondary data were sourced from published and unpublished documents, including policy statements, regulations, and various reports.
2.5. Method of Data Collection and Procedures
A mixed-methods approach ensured data reliability and contextual depth. A structured household survey captured demographic and socio-economic data alongside key aspects of extension service practices.
Key informant interviews with experts and experienced farmers offered deeper insights, while focus group discussions explored adoption attitudes and common barriers.
Field observations assessed on-ground implementation challenges. Questionnaires were translated into Afaan Oromoo, pre-tested for clarity, and supported by clear instructions to ensure accurate and inclusive data collection.
2.6. Data Reliability and Validity
To enhance reliability and validity, the questionnaire was pre-tested on five farmers and five extension agents. Feedback informed revisions, including removal of irrelevant items and refinement for clarity and logical flow.
A well-defined research framework ensured alignment between conceptual and operational phases. Content validity was reinforced through standardized questions and key variable identification. Stratified respondent selection by age, gender, and income improved sample representativeness.
2.7. Data Analysis Methods
Data collected from both primary and secondary sources were initially entered into Microsoft Excel (2007) for cleaning, error checking, and coding.
Subsequently, statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 20).
Descriptive statistics, including mean, median, standard deviation, and percentage, were computed. Tabular representations, bar graphs, and charts were also employed to enhance the presentation and interpretation of findings.
3. Result and Discussion
3.1. Respondents Profile
Table 1. Respondents Age distribution.
Age Categories in year | Frequency (n) | Percentage (%) |
≥18 & ≤29 | 44 | 33.85 |
≥30 & ≤39 | 59 | 45.38 |
≥40 & ≤49 | 25 | 19.23 |
≥50 | 2 | 1.54 |
Total | 130 | 100 |
The age distribution of respondents revealed that 33.85% were between 18 and 29 years, and 45.38% fall within the 30 to 39 age brackets, making a total of 79.23% of respondents under the age of 40. This youthful demographic profile suggested that a large proportion of the agricultural workforce in Shashemene Woreda was relatively young.
This in turn, has indicated that younger individuals were generally more energetic, adaptable, and open to adopting innovative agricultural techniques, especially those involving modern technologies such as mobile-based extension services, mechanized farming, and digital marketplaces
| [9] | Doss, C. R. (2001). Designing agricultural technology for African women farmers: Lessons from 25 years of experience. World Development, 29(12), 2075-2092. |
[9]
.
However, the small proportion of respondents aged 50 and above (1.54%) also suggested a potential gap in generational knowledge transfer.
Traditional farming skills and indigenous knowledge, which older farmers typically possess, might not be adequately passed down.
Extension services should thus have to be focused through integration of the traditional practices with modern technologies such thatvintergenerational knowledge sharing programs could be encouraged.
Table 2. Respondents Marital Status.
Marital Status | Frequency (n) | Percentage (%) |
Single | 19 | 14.62 |
Married | 90 | 69 |
Divorced | 19 | 14.62 |
Widows | 2 | 1.54 |
Total | 130 | 100 |
The marital status breakdown illustrated that out of 130 respondents, 19 (14.62%) were single, 90 (69.23%) were married, 19 (14.62%) were divorced, and 2 (1.54%) were widows. The 90 (69.23%) of married respondents, indicated that most agricultural activities were undertaken within a family context. This has significant implications for agricultural extension services, need to considered the collective and family-centered nature of rural farming in their program designs.
Married individuals often bear greater responsibility for household food security and economic stability, making them more likely to engage in agriculture as a livelihood strategy. This was consistent with research findings, highlighted the importance of family farming in sustaining agricultural production
| [8] | Davis, K., Swanson, B. E., & Amudavi, D. (2010). Review and recommendations for strengthening the agricultural extension system in Ethiopia. *IFPRI Discussion Paper 01041. International Food Policy Research Institute. |
| [11] | Feder, G., Murgai, R., & Quizon, J. B. (2004). Sending farmers back to school: The impact of farmer field schools in Indonesia. Review of Agricultural Economics, 26(1), 45-62. |
| [16] | Spielman, D. J., & Kelemework, D. (2009). Measuring agricultural innovation system properties and performance: Illustrations from Ethiopia and Vietnam. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00885. |
[8, 11, 16].
Extension programs should, additionally, have to be incorporated family-focused modules that enhance decision-making and resource allocation among couples to boost farm productivity and resilience, pertinently.
Table 3. Gender distribution.
Gender (Sex) | Frequency (n) | Percentage (%) |
Male | 94 | 72.31 |
Female | 36 | 27.69 |
Total | 130 | 100.00 |
Respondents Gender distribution revealed that a substantial majority of 94 (72.31%) respondents were male, while 36 (27.69%) respondents were female. This gender imbalance and/ or disproportionate representation has clearly pointed out that there were presence of the systemic challenges faced by women in accessing agricultural services, inputs, and decision-making platforms.
Extensive scholarly evidence highlighted persistent gender disparities in agriculture, wherein women are disproportionately limited in their access to land ownership, financial services, capacity-building opportunities, and vital market information
| [22] | World Bank. (2006). Enhancing agricultural innovation: How to go beyond the strengthening of research systems. Washington, DC: World Bank. |
[22]
.
To address the prevailing gender gap, AES were required to adopt gender-sensitive strategies that deliberately empowered women through targeted outreach efforts, inclusive capacity-building initiatives, and tailored support for women-led agricultural enterprises. Empirical evidence demonstrated that the active engagement of women in agricultural activities significantly improved household nutritional outcomes, elevated income levels, and enhanced overall socio-economic well-being.
Table 4. Level of Education.
Education Level | Frequency (n) | Percentage (%) |
Illiterate | 48 | 36.92 |
Primary | 53 | 40.77 |
Secondary | 14 | 10.77 |
Certificate | 12 | 9.23 |
Diploma | 3 | 2.31 |
≥ Degree | 0 | 0 |
Total | 130 | 100.00 |
The educational profile of respondents indicated that 48 individuals (36.92%) were illiterate, while only a small proportion possessed formal qualifications 12 (9.23%) held certificates and 3 (2.31%) held diplomas, with none having attained a university degree.
Education played a critical role in facilitating the adoption of agricultural innovations; illiteracy constrained farmers' ability to comprehend extension materials, implement recommended practices, and utilize emerging digital advisory platforms.
Previous studies have established a positive correlation between education and agricultural productivity
| [10] | FAO. (2011). The role of women in agriculture. ESA Working Paper No. 11-02. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. |
[10]
. Accordingly, extension service delivery was required to incorporate functional literacy training, visual instructional tools, and oral communication strategies specifically tailored to audiences with limited literacy, in order to effectively bridge this educational gap.
Table 5. Lenth of services (in year).
Service length in year | Frequency (n) | Percentage (%) |
≥1 & ≥5 | 17 | 13.08 |
≥6 & ≤10 | 66 | 50.77 |
≥11 & ≤15 | 26 | 20.00 |
≥16 | 21 | 16.15 |
Total | 130 | 100.00 |
The data showed that 66 (50.77%) of respondents had between 6 to 10 years of agricultural service experience, and 36.15% have over 10 years. This moderate to high level of experience indicated a potentially strong base of practical knowledge and skill among farmers. Experienced farmers can serve as community mentors, facilitating peer-to-peer learning and enhancing adoption rates of new practices.
As noted by scholars that experienced farmers are more likely to evaluate and adopt innovations if they perceive a high return on investment
| [12] | Kassa, B. (2008). Agricultural extension in Ethiopia: Historical evolution, relevant policies and challenges. In M. E. S. Swanson & R. Rajalahti (Eds.), Agricultural Innovation Systems: An Investment Sourcebook. World Bank. |
[12]
. Extension agents should tap into this experience pool by forming farmer field schools or innovation platforms led by local champions.
3.2. Agricultural Extension Services Status and Practices
Table 6. AES status.
Variables | Response Option | Frequency (n) | Percentage (%) |
How did you proceed to improve the status of AES in your kebele? | Always | 23 | 17.69 |
Sometimes | 45 | 34.62 |
Rarely | 49 | 37.69 |
Not at all | 13 | 10.00 |
Did FTC provide services in your kebele, and how effective you found it? | Always | 13 | 10 |
Sometimes | 44 | 33.85 |
Rarely | 46 | 35.38 |
Not at all | 27 | 20.77 |
Dis you, as a farmer, participate in the agricultural activity planning? | Always | 32 | 24.62 |
Sometimes | 43 | 33.08 |
Rarely | 46 | 35.38 |
Not at all | 9 | 6.92 |
How did you find service delivered by woreda subject matter specialist? | Always | 22 | 16.92 |
Sometimes | 48 | 36.92 |
Rarely | 52 | 40 |
Not at all | 8 | 6.16 |
The effectiveness of AES in motivating farmers to improve agricultural practices is found to be limited. Only 17.69% of respondents reported consistently taking action to improve farming practices, and just 10% rated Farmer Training Centers (FTCs) as always effective. This highlighted a disconnect between service delivery and farmer needs or expectations.
Consistent with the findings stated that the success of extension services largely depends on credibility, frequency of interaction, and relevance of content
| [14] | Mude, A., & Barrett, C. B. (2008). The role of mobile phones in improving delivery of agricultural information in Africa. Cornell University. |
[14]
. A participatory approach involving farmers in planning and evaluating AES activities may improve trust, relevance, and uptake.
Table 7. AES practice.
Variables | Response Option | Frequency (n) | Percentage (%) |
Was AES practice running on the area promising & in endorsing status? | Yes | 54 | 41.54 |
No | 76 | 58.46 |
Did you think the technology found in your area was satisfactory? | Yes | 68 | 52.31 |
No | 62 | 47.69 |
Did you think the existing AES is participatory? | Yes | 37 | 28.46 |
No | 93 | 71.54 |
Did the existing AES give emphasis to the weakened sets (women, youths, landless poor)? | Yes | 32 | 24.62 |
No | 98 | 75.38 |
Did the DAs instantly respond to your demands? | Yes | 42 | 32.31 |
No | 88 | 67.69 |
Did you believe AES could bring change? | Yes | 67 | 51.54 |
No | 63 | 48.46 |
Was there market value chain for your product? | Yes | 29 | 22.31 |
No | 101 | 77.69 |
A significant portion (58.46%) of respondents believed that current AES practices were not promising.
Additionally, 71.54% reported that the services were not participatory, and 75.38% indicated that AES did not prioritize vulnerable groups. These responses pointed to critical weaknesses in service design and inclusivity.
Effective AES must be participatory and inclusive, ensuring that services were tailored to the diverse needs of farmers, including women, youth, and marginalized groups.
As emphasized the importance of participatory rural appraisal in ensuring that development interventions reflect local priorities and knowledge systems
| [15] | Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. (5th ed.). Free Press. |
[15]
.
Figure 1. Status of AES Practice.
The findings showed that 70% of households reported having received agricultural extension services, while 30% did not. This indicated a relatively high level of outreach and aligned with the first research question about the status of AES, demonstrating that most farmers in the woreda had access to essential services.
The finding that 70% of households had accessed AES signified positive outreach within the woreda, which was consistent with findings from similar studies in regions with effective service frameworks
| [9] | Doss, C. R. (2001). Designing agricultural technology for African women farmers: Lessons from 25 years of experience. World Development, 29(12), 2075-2092. |
[9]
.
However, the 30% who lacked services may have reflected geographical or systemic issues common across many rural settings
| [14] | Mude, A., & Barrett, C. B. (2008). The role of mobile phones in improving delivery of agricultural information in Africa. Cornell University. |
| [22] | World Bank. (2006). Enhancing agricultural innovation: How to go beyond the strengthening of research systems. Washington, DC: World Bank. |
[14, 22]
.
3.3. Key Achievements of AES
Most respondents rated AES achievements and DAs’ guidance as medium (52%) and (51.1%), respectively, while 76.4% did not fully meet their annual plans. This suggests a perception of limited impact and calls for realignment of AES objectives with farmer expectations.
Success indicators should go beyond input distribution to include long-term productivity, market access, and livelihood improvements.
As highlighted that measuring extension success requires multidimensional indicators and farmer-centered feedback loops to adjust strategies dynamically
| [16] | Spielman, D. J., & Kelemework, D. (2009). Measuring agricultural innovation system properties and performance: Illustrations from Ethiopia and Vietnam. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00885. |
| [17] | Spielman, D. J., Byerlee, D., Alemu, D., & Kelemework, D. (2010). Policies to promote cereal intensification in Ethiopia: The search for appropriate public and private roles. Food Policy, 35(3), 185-194. |
[16, 17]
.
Figure 2. AES Practice Factors.
Table 8. Key achievements of AES.
Variables | Response Option | Frequency (n) | Percentage (%) |
What were the key achievements of AES in the kebele? | Very high | 10 | 8.1 |
High | 27 | 22.00 |
Medium | 64 | 52.00 |
Low | 22 | 17.9 |
How did you evaluate the success achieved through DAs steering of the extension? | Very High | 17 | 13.8 |
High | 26 | 21.1 |
Medium | 63 | 51.1 |
Low | 18 | 14.6 |
Did you fully achieve/ met your annual plan? | Yes | 29 | 23.6 |
No | 94 | 76.4 |
Figure 3. AES Key Achievements.
The results revealed that 60% of respondents cited the availability of trained extension agents as a significant factor, while 40% pointed to the presence of agricultural inputs. This underscored the importance of training in effective AES regarding the key achievements and influences on service quality.
The emphasis on trained extension agents (60%) highlighted critical factors that resonated with literature indicating that successful agricultural programs often hinged on the skill level of extension staff
| [2] | Asres, A., & Bekele, A. (2014). Access to agricultural information by resettler and host farmers: The case of Metema Woreda, North Gondar, Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, 6(10), 326-333. |
| [20] | Swanson, B. E., Bentz, R. P., & Sofranko, A. J. (1997). Improving agricultural extension: A reference manual. FAO. |
[2, 20]
. While many regions focused on input availability, Shashemene’s finding suggested a need to prioritize training for better outcomes, differing from areas where funding alone might have prioritized resource allocation.
The results indicated that 70% of farmers were using improved seed varieties and 65% had adopted new farming techniques. These findings highlighted a robust adoption of recommended practices and supported the findings related to the overall effectiveness of AES.
The 70% adoption rate of improved seed varieties showcased a strong influence of AES, echoing trends from other regions where technological adoption led to broader agricultural success
| [18] | Spielman, D. J., Davis, K., Negash, M., & Ayele, G. (2011). Rural innovation systems and networks: Findings from a study of Ethiopian smallholders. Agriculture and Human Values, 28(2), 195-212. |
| [21] | World Bank, FAO, & IFAD. (2009). Gender in agriculture sourcebook. The World Bank. |
[18, 21]
.
However, the lower rate in new farming technique adoption suggested a gap in education or outreach, necessitating more interactive programs to engage farmers
| [3] | Berhanu, K., & Poulton, C. (2014). The political economy of agricultural extension policy in Ethiopia: Economic growth and political control. Development Policy Review, 32(s2), s197-s213. |
[3]
.
3.4. Major Challenges of AES
Table 9. Challenges of AES.
Variables | Response Option | Frequency (n) | Percentage (%) |
What were the major challenges of AES in the kebele? | Financial | 53 | 40.76 |
Administration | 18 | 13.84 |
Technical | 35 | 26.94 |
Policy | 24 | 18.46 |
Did FTC provide services in your kebele, and how effective you found it? | Technical | 74 | 56.92 |
Policy | 14 | 10.76 |
Administration | 32 | 24.63 |
Financial | 10 | 7.69 |
Were there potential opportunities that enables to implement AE? | Yes | 68 | 52.31 |
No | 62 | 47.69 |
Was there local solution for challenge facing AE? | Yes | 54 | 41.54 |
No | 76 | 58.46 |
Financial limitations (40.76%) are the leading challenge, followed by technical (26.94%), policy (18.46%), and administrative issues (13.84%). The fact that 52.31% of respondents see local opportunities to resolve these challenges is promising. However, the lack of instant response by Development Agents (67.69%) shows a need for increased staffing, mobility, and communication infrastructure.
Addressing these issues requires coordinated investment in training, operational budgets, and community engagement. As noted, decentralized and well-resourced extension systems tend to perform better in delivering farmer-relevant services
| [2] | Asres, A., & Bekele, A. (2014). Access to agricultural information by resettler and host farmers: The case of Metema Woreda, North Gondar, Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, 6(10), 326-333. |
[2]
. Moreover, community-based approaches that leverage local institutions and knowledge could provide sustainable solutions to systemic AES challenges.
Figure 4. Major Challenges of AES.
The findings indicated that 45% of respondents cited insufficient funding, while 35% reported inadequate follow-up by extension agents as challenges. Such results aligned with the research question regarding challenges faced by AES, painting a clear picture of obstacles to effective service provision.
The major challenges identified as (45%) of citing funding issues and (35%) poor follow-up, reflected the structural inadequacies prevalent in many regions. This finding correlated with national reports on agricultural extension challenges, where inadequate funding was a recurrent theme, indicating a systemic issue that needed addressing to enhance service efficiency
| [19] | Swanson, B. E., & Rajalahti, R. (2010). Strengthening agricultural extension and advisory systems: Procedures for assessing, transforming, and evaluating extension systems. World Bank. |
[19]
.
3.5. Summary Key Findings
This research assessed the agricultural extension services (AES) practices in Shashemene Woreda, revealing significant insights regarding their status, achievements, and challenges. The data indicated that 70% of households report access to AES, demonstrating relatively high outreach but leaving a 30% gap that remains underserved.
Among the factors influencing AES effectiveness, 60% of respondents highlighted the critical role of trained extension agents, suggesting that personnel training is vital to successful service delivery. Key achievements reported included an 80% increase in crop yield due to AES interventions and a 50% improvement in farmers’ knowledge of pest management. Such results underline the positive impact of AES on agricultural productivity.
However, while 70% of farmers adopted improved seed varieties, the 65% adoption rate for new farming practices indicates a need for enhanced engagement efforts. The challenges faced by AES were underscored by 45% of respondents citing inadequate funding and 35% expressing concern over insufficient follow-up by extension agents. These barriers reflect systemic issues that hinder effective service provision, corroborating findings from similar regional studies.
In summary, while Shashemene’s AES demonstrates promising progress in improving agricultural productivity, addressing the identified challenges is paramount. Enhancing funding, investing in training, and fostering closer relationships with farming communities will be key factors in the sustainable improvement of agricultural extension services, ultimately leading to greater food security and farmer resilience in the woreda.
4. Conclusion and Recommendations
This study conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the practices of Agricultural Extension Services (AES) in Shashemene Woreda, with a primary focus on identifying key achievements and challenges affecting their overall effectiveness. The research specifically assessed operational efficiency, accomplishments, and structural constraints hindering optimal performance. Findings indicate that approximately 70% of households currently access AES, reflecting a commendable institutional outreach and presence within the community. Encouragingly, 80% of surveyed farmers reported improvements in crop yields, demonstrating the vital role AES plays in enhancing agricultural productivity and supporting rural livelihoods. These positive outcomes underscore the potential of AES to contribute meaningfully to sustainable agricultural growth. Despite these advancements, the study also revealed notable limitations. Inadequate funding was cited by 45% of respondents as a major constraint, while 35% highlighted the lack of consistent follow-up support from extension agents. These challenges significantly undermine the long-term effectiveness of extension efforts. Such findings align with broader trends observed in other agricultural regions, where resource limitations and insufficient training for AES personnel frequently impede success. Furthermore, the research exposed a critical access gap, with 30% of the farming population remaining unreached by AES programs. This exclusion emphasizes the urgent need for inclusive, participatory approaches that address the needs of marginalized and underserved farming communities. In conclusion, the study reinforces the importance of a robust AES framework as a cornerstone for sustainable agricultural development, food security, and rural economic resilience. Addressing both systemic and local challenges through targeted, evidence-based strategies is essential for maximizing the impact and reach of extension services across Shashemene Woreda and similar contexts.
Drawing from the empirical findings, the study culminates with the presentation of the following evidence-based and context-specific recommendations:
1. Enhance Educational Programs: Develop inclusive agricultural training targeting illiterate farmers (36.92%), using participatory, locally grounded methods and innovative tools to close knowledge gaps and support lasting change.
2. Promote Gender Equity: Implement gender-responsive policies to actively engage women in agricultural development, recognizing their vital role in building inclusive and resilient rural economies.
3. Ensure Financial Support: Address funding shortfalls (40.76%) by mobilizing diverse financial resources through partnerships with public, private, and nonprofit sectors to ensure sustained investment in AES.
4. Strengthen Community Engagement: Institutionalize community participation in AES planning and delivery to improve relevance, ownership, and satisfaction through co-designed, context-sensitive solutions.
5. Implement Monitoring & Evaluation: Establish responsive systems to assess AES performance, guided by real-time feedback from farmers and stakeholders to enable timely improvements.
In sum, enhancing AES capacity, inclusivity, and adaptability in Shashemene Woreda is essential for improving agricultural productivity and driving sustainable rural development.
5. Final Thoughts
Future research on AES in areas like Shashemene should prioritize longitudinal studies to assess long-term intervention impacts. Involving local farmers can improve relevance and insight. Exploring technology's role in agricultural education may enhance service delivery, boost farmer engagement, and address specific challenges within the local agricultural context.
Abbreviations
AES | Agricultural Extension Services |
ATA | Agricultural Transformation Agency |
DAs | Development Agents |
FAO | Food and Agriculture Organization |
FTC | Farmer Training Center |
GDP | Gross Domestic Product |
IFAD | International Fund for Agricultural Development |
MoA | Ministry of Agriculture |
NRCWA | National Committee for Food Security |
PRA | Participatory Rural Appraisal |
SPSS | Statistical Package for the Social Sciences |
Acknowledgments
The author conveys profound gratitude to Mr. Abraham Leges for his insightful perspectives and intellectual contributions, which significantly enriched the depth of this study. Sincere appreciation is further extended to the Shashemene Woreda Agriculture Office staff, including development agents and subject-matter specialists, whose generous provision of empirical data, time, and collaborative spirit proved indispensable to the successful execution of this research. Above all, the author expresses deep and heartfelt appreciation to Dr. Kinfe Kibebew, whose unwavering commitment, scholarly mentorship, and critical guidance were foundational to the refinement and realization of this work. His intellectual rigor and steadfast support have been both immeasurable and deeply transformative.
Author Contributions
Desta Tusa: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing
Kinfe Kibebew: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
| [1] |
Anderson, J. R., & Feder, G. (2007). Agricultural extension. In R. Evenson & P. Pingali (Eds.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics (Vol. 3, pp. 2343-2378). Elsevier.
|
| [2] |
Asres, A., & Bekele, A. (2014). Access to agricultural information by resettler and host farmers: The case of Metema Woreda, North Gondar, Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, 6(10), 326-333.
|
| [3] |
Berhanu, K., & Poulton, C. (2014). The political economy of agricultural extension policy in Ethiopia: Economic growth and political control. Development Policy Review, 32(s2), s197-s213.
|
| [4] |
Central Statistical Agency (CSA). (2021). Agricultural sample survey 2020/21 (Volume I): Report on area and production of major crops. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
|
| [5] |
Chambers, R. (1994). Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Challenges, potentials and paradigm. World Development, 22(10), 1437-1454.
|
| [6] |
Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
|
| [7] |
Davis, K., & Terblanche, S. E. (2016). Challenges facing the agricultural extension landscape in South Africa, Quo Vadis? South African Journal of Agricultural Extension, 44(2), 231-247.
|
| [8] |
Davis, K., Swanson, B. E., & Amudavi, D. (2010). Review and recommendations for strengthening the agricultural extension system in Ethiopia. *IFPRI Discussion Paper 01041. International Food Policy Research Institute.
|
| [9] |
Doss, C. R. (2001). Designing agricultural technology for African women farmers: Lessons from 25 years of experience. World Development, 29(12), 2075-2092.
|
| [10] |
FAO. (2011). The role of women in agriculture. ESA Working Paper No. 11-02. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
|
| [11] |
Feder, G., Murgai, R., & Quizon, J. B. (2004). Sending farmers back to school: The impact of farmer field schools in Indonesia. Review of Agricultural Economics, 26(1), 45-62.
|
| [12] |
Kassa, B. (2008). Agricultural extension in Ethiopia: Historical evolution, relevant policies and challenges. In M. E. S. Swanson & R. Rajalahti (Eds.), Agricultural Innovation Systems: An Investment Sourcebook. World Bank.
|
| [13] |
Leeuwis, C. (2004). Communication for rural innovation: Rethinking agricultural extension. Blackwell Science.
|
| [14] |
Mude, A., & Barrett, C. B. (2008). The role of mobile phones in improving delivery of agricultural information in Africa. Cornell University.
|
| [15] |
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. (5th ed.). Free Press.
|
| [16] |
Spielman, D. J., & Kelemework, D. (2009). Measuring agricultural innovation system properties and performance: Illustrations from Ethiopia and Vietnam. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00885.
|
| [17] |
Spielman, D. J., Byerlee, D., Alemu, D., & Kelemework, D. (2010). Policies to promote cereal intensification in Ethiopia: The search for appropriate public and private roles. Food Policy, 35(3), 185-194.
|
| [18] |
Spielman, D. J., Davis, K., Negash, M., & Ayele, G. (2011). Rural innovation systems and networks: Findings from a study of Ethiopian smallholders. Agriculture and Human Values, 28(2), 195-212.
|
| [19] |
Swanson, B. E., & Rajalahti, R. (2010). Strengthening agricultural extension and advisory systems: Procedures for assessing, transforming, and evaluating extension systems. World Bank.
|
| [20] |
Swanson, B. E., Bentz, R. P., & Sofranko, A. J. (1997). Improving agricultural extension: A reference manual. FAO.
|
| [21] |
World Bank, FAO, & IFAD. (2009). Gender in agriculture sourcebook. The World Bank.
|
| [22] |
World Bank. (2006). Enhancing agricultural innovation: How to go beyond the strengthening of research systems. Washington, DC: World Bank.
|
Cite This Article
-
APA Style
Tusa, D., Kibebew, K. (2025). The Practices of Agricultural Extension Services in Shashemene Woreda: Its Achievements and Challenges. Science Development, 6(3), 131-142. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.scidev.20250603.20
Copy
|
Download
ACS Style
Tusa, D.; Kibebew, K. The Practices of Agricultural Extension Services in Shashemene Woreda: Its Achievements and Challenges. Sci. Dev. 2025, 6(3), 131-142. doi: 10.11648/j.scidev.20250603.20
Copy
|
Download
AMA Style
Tusa D, Kibebew K. The Practices of Agricultural Extension Services in Shashemene Woreda: Its Achievements and Challenges. Sci Dev. 2025;6(3):131-142. doi: 10.11648/j.scidev.20250603.20
Copy
|
Download
-
@article{10.11648/j.scidev.20250603.20,
author = {Desta Tusa and Kinfe Kibebew},
title = {The Practices of Agricultural Extension Services in Shashemene Woreda: Its Achievements and Challenges
},
journal = {Science Development},
volume = {6},
number = {3},
pages = {131-142},
doi = {10.11648/j.scidev.20250603.20},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.scidev.20250603.20},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.scidev.20250603.20},
abstract = {This study examined the practical delivery, effectiveness, and challenges of Agricultural Extension Services (AES) in Shashemene Woreda, with particular attention to both the milestones achieved and the persistent constraints encountered by local farming communities. A cross sectional research design guided the investigation, and data were gathered from 130 households situated across three distinct agroecological zones, lowland, midland, and highland ensuring a comprehensive representation of farming conditions and lived experiences. The findings illuminated a youthful farming population, with 78.23 percent of respondents aged below forty, reflecting strong potential for innovation and adaptability. Nonetheless, a pronounced gender imbalance became evident, as men constituted 72.31 percent of participants, suggesting the continued underrepresentation of women in agricultural service engagement and leadership. Educational deficiencies emerged as a significant barrier, with 36.92 percent of respondents unable to read or write, which limited their capacity to assimilate and implement improved agricultural methods. Despite the presence of AES, only 17.69 percent of farmers had reported adopting enhanced practices in their day to day farming activities. Moreover, the majority, 58.46 percent, perceived the services as largely ineffective in addressing their practical needs. Financial hardship stood out as the most prominent challenge, reported by 40.76 percent of respondents, followed by limited technical support (26.94 percent) and restrictive policy environments (18.46 percent). Furthermore, only 22.31 percent of the farmers indicated awareness of or access to market value chain opportunities, which further constrained economic progress. These insights underscored an urgent need for inclusive, contextually grounded strategies that could elevate the impact of AES through enhanced farmer education, gender empowerment, resource mobilization, and improved market connectivity, thus fostering more resilient and sustainable rural livelihoods.},
year = {2025}
}
Copy
|
Download
-
TY - JOUR
T1 - The Practices of Agricultural Extension Services in Shashemene Woreda: Its Achievements and Challenges
AU - Desta Tusa
AU - Kinfe Kibebew
Y1 - 2025/07/28
PY - 2025
N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.scidev.20250603.20
DO - 10.11648/j.scidev.20250603.20
T2 - Science Development
JF - Science Development
JO - Science Development
SP - 131
EP - 142
PB - Science Publishing Group
SN - 2994-7154
UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.scidev.20250603.20
AB - This study examined the practical delivery, effectiveness, and challenges of Agricultural Extension Services (AES) in Shashemene Woreda, with particular attention to both the milestones achieved and the persistent constraints encountered by local farming communities. A cross sectional research design guided the investigation, and data were gathered from 130 households situated across three distinct agroecological zones, lowland, midland, and highland ensuring a comprehensive representation of farming conditions and lived experiences. The findings illuminated a youthful farming population, with 78.23 percent of respondents aged below forty, reflecting strong potential for innovation and adaptability. Nonetheless, a pronounced gender imbalance became evident, as men constituted 72.31 percent of participants, suggesting the continued underrepresentation of women in agricultural service engagement and leadership. Educational deficiencies emerged as a significant barrier, with 36.92 percent of respondents unable to read or write, which limited their capacity to assimilate and implement improved agricultural methods. Despite the presence of AES, only 17.69 percent of farmers had reported adopting enhanced practices in their day to day farming activities. Moreover, the majority, 58.46 percent, perceived the services as largely ineffective in addressing their practical needs. Financial hardship stood out as the most prominent challenge, reported by 40.76 percent of respondents, followed by limited technical support (26.94 percent) and restrictive policy environments (18.46 percent). Furthermore, only 22.31 percent of the farmers indicated awareness of or access to market value chain opportunities, which further constrained economic progress. These insights underscored an urgent need for inclusive, contextually grounded strategies that could elevate the impact of AES through enhanced farmer education, gender empowerment, resource mobilization, and improved market connectivity, thus fostering more resilient and sustainable rural livelihoods.
VL - 6
IS - 3
ER -
Copy
|
Download
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
