DIFFUSION PROCESS OF AGRICULTURAL INNOVA TION AND

HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT IN RURAL

農業技術革新の普及過程と農村における人材育成

2012

THE UNITED GRADUATE SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES，

IWATE UNIVERSITY， JAPAN

Doctoral Program (PhD)

THE COURSE OF SCIENCE OF BIOTIC ENVlRONMENT: RURAL

RESOURCEECONOMICS

(OBIHIRO UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND VETERlNARY MEDICINE)

MAHA EL SAYED ABD EL HAFIZ HARHASH

DlFFUSION OF AGRICULTURAL町 NOVATIONIl可EGYPTAND

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

農業技術革新の普及過程と農村における人材育成

BY

MAHA EL SAYED ABD EL HAFIZ HARHASH

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO

THE UNITED GRADUATE SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES，

I羽'ATEUNIVERSITY， JAPAN

In Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

(OBIHIRO UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND VETERINARY MEDICINE)

2012

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost 1 express my gratitude to my god for his help. 1 would like

to acknowledge. Firstly， 1 would like to acknowledge my husband who offered me

the opportunity to be here in Japan and gives me the opportunity to study for a

PhD. 1 sincerely acknowledge the tinancial support provided by the Iwate

Universi句， which enabled me to successfully complete my study. Also 1 greatiy

appreciate the tinancial support by the (GCOE) animal global h巴althprogram of

Obihiro University.

1 would like to express my appreciation for academic supervisor Prof.

Yasushi Sembokuya and Prof. Higuchi Akinori for allowing me the opportunity to

work with them. 1 am greatly appreciating their critical and important comments

during the time we spent discussing many versions of the script. Also for the

positive comments on my writing skills; they kept me going even when the road

was rough， and this has greatiy improv巴dthis manuscript re-evaluate th巴drafts.

1 am especially grate白1to my supervisory committee chair (Prof. Yasushi

Sembokuya)， for his guidance， encouragement， and patience. In addition his

insightful contributions to my professional development through his rich

experience and his kindness support. 1 will always appreciate all of his efforts for

help me in my study. 1 would like to thank Pro王Dr:Tsumita Tsuyoshi professor of

farm management who graciously accepted to join my supervisory team. 1 am

especially grate白1for his intere唱tin the work， critical and valuable comments

which helped me to improve the manuscript.

1 am most grateful To Pro王ToshihisaKanayama， Prof. Kyo Koki and Pro.

Hiroichi Kono from Obihiro University. Also Prof. Zakaria EI-Zarka and Prof.

Mostafa EトSadanifrom the department of Agricultural Economy， Extension and

Rural Development， Faculty of Agriculture， Damanhour University，Egypt. And all

staff in the Department. Further acknowledgements go to members of the students

section in both Iwate and Obihiro University for their invaluable help and all staff

and students of Department of Rural Resource Economics in Obihiro University，

particular1y (Dr. Saito)， and Ms. Satoko Kubota， for their assistance in various

ways. 1 would like to thank all staff in the Memuruo Agriculture Research Center，

especially Dr. Naoaki Fujita and Dr. Hisako Sekine the farm management research

team. 1 greatly appreciate their role both as an academic and social mentor.

1 am most grate白1to Pro王Dr.Mohamed Fathy EトShazliProfessor of

Agriculture Extension， Faculty of Agriculture， Alexandria University. And Prof

Mahmoud Etman they provided great insights into my undergraduate， and master

studies 1 c!eeply appreciate their invaluable and critical comments. 1 am also

thankful to Pro王Prof.Dr. Mohamed Hasan Abd EI-Aal professor of Agriculture

Extension， Faculty of Agriculture， Cairo University 1 greatly appreciate his critical

and important comments during my master study. Dr. Karim Farag Professor of

Fruit Faculty of Agriculture， Damanhour University 1 am especially grateful for

his critical and valuable comments which helped me to achieve my master study.

1 express gratitude to many people who have been of great help me during

the data collection of my study in Japan and in Egypt， these including all the staff

in the JAs office in Shikaoi and Kwanishi， the staff in the agricultural extension

center in Shimizo， and the farmers who were interviewed in Japan. Special thanks

to the r巴searchteam during my fieldwork Dr. Amal Faied， Dr.Khaled El-feel， and

Dr.Gaber Abdlluh. 10白 rmy gratitude to all the interviewers for their diligence in

carrying out the survey. 1 would like to thank the extension officers in the village

of Neklla El-enab， and the staff of the extension office in the City of Itaay El-

Baroud， EI-Beheira Governorate ofEgypt for their support.

1 am grate白1to all my colleagues and friends. Special thanks to my

colleague in Egypt Ahmad Abou Esmail for his diligence in data en仕yand

subsequent cleaning up of the data. 1 extend thanks to the staff in the Shikaoi

agricultural cooperative office. Special thanks to all the key informants， Hanba san，

and others for offering all the valuable information and your time. 1 am indebted to

the people in the study areas in Japan and in Egypt without whose co-operation it

would have been impossible to carrγout the study. 1 greatly appreciat巴 their

willingness and enthusiasm to participate in the research and to volunteer

information. 1 would like to thank all of my colleagues in Obihiro University for

the moral， academic and kindly support which they provided during my study

period. Thank you Seiya Higuchi san， and Watanabe san for the support.

1 cannot thank my friend Nakao Tomako enough for her guidance， timely

help information and仕ansportationto the airport， hospital， train station and all the

useful tips. Thank you， for initiating me into bike riding， which has become one of

the most enjoyable activities that 1 have leamed from my live in Obihiro. And

thanks for the tea parties and the “something nic巴"during time spent with you. 1

will always treasure your企iendship.1 am indebted to all teachers in my kids'

nursery school (Morinoko Hokuen) for their diligence to take care of my kids; this

is a great support during my study. 1 deeply appreciate Onishi san helpful to my

family and took care of my kids when 1 was away. Thank you， Onishi san for

providing company to my family. 1 am indebted to Sakaguchi San and her husband，

for opening their home to me with my kids， their kindness and hospitality. 1 will

always treasure the memories of the all the delicious Japanese meals 1 sampled

from your kitchen.

1 am grateful to Damanhour University， Egypt and Cultural Affairs and

Mission Sector， Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research， Egypt， for

supporting me to obtain the PhD. 1 am grateful to the Egyptian Counselor in Japan，

the Culture Attache， and all the members of the Egyptian Culture Office of the

Embassy of Egypt in Tokyo for their help， support， and continuous

encouragement.

Lastly but not least 1 would like to express my sincere gratitude to my

husband Dr. Mahmoud Abou laila， our children Maram， Mona and Ahmad.

Mahmoud， 1 owe a lot to you， 1 thank you for the sacrifice you made to take care of

our children and home when 1 was away for all those lonely days. Thank you for

assisting me， providing me with computer & intemet facilities， keeping my

computer in good working conditions and all the practical tips that have made this

work successful. Maram， Mona and Ahmad， 1 hop all of you being巴xcellingin

your studies and doing your father and me proud. 1 am indebted to my father has

mercy of Allah. 1 am grateful to my mother， my sisters and brother for their love

and encouragement. 1 am grate白Ito all members of my husband family who

provided material and emotional support to me and my family when 1 was away.

Finally， if it were not for the abundant grace of God this work would never

have been accomplished. 1 now know for sure that，“With my God 1 can run

through a甘oop;and 1 can leap over any wall".

TABLE OF CONTENT

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

1.2. Statement ofthe research problem 3

1.3.0吋ectivesofthe dissertation 5

1.4. Organization ofthe dissertation 6

CHAPTER II ISSUES OF THE EGYPTIAN AGRICULTURAL 8

EXTENSION SYSTEM

2.1 Background 8

2.2 Outline of Egypt agriculture 9

2.3 Issues of agricultural extension system in Egypt 17

2.4 Concluding remarks 24

CHAPTER III OUTLINE OF AGRICUL TURE IN HOKKAIDO AND 27

EDUCATIONAL EXTENSION SYSTEM FOR

FARMERS

3.1 Background 27

3.2 Outline of agriculture in the Hokkaido aria 29

3.4 Educational extension sys旬mfor farmers 33

3.4 Comparison between the recent extension systems 40

provided for farmers in Egypt and their coun旬rpartsin

Japan

3.5. Conclusions 44

CHAPTER IV DIFFUSION OF CORN SILAGE AND ITS 45

PRESCRIBING FACTORS IN EGYPTIAN

AGRICULTURE

4.1 Background 45

4.2 Literature Review 47

4.3 Methods 59

4.4R巴sultsand Discussion 62

4.5 Concluding Remarks 71

CHAPTER V DIFFUSION OF BUNKER SILO IN SHIKAOI TOWN， 73 HOKKAIDO AND ITS COMPARISON WITH THE DIFFUSION OF CORN SILAGE IN EGYPT AGRICULTURE. 5.1. Background 73 5.2. Approach 73 5.3.M巴thods 76 5.4. Results and discussion 78 5.5. Conclusions 85

CHAPTER VI ADOPTION PROCESS AS AN INTRODUCTION TO 89 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT IN RURAL AREAS: A CASE STUDY OF INTRODUCING CORN SILAGE IN EGYPTIAN AGRICULTURE 6.1. Background 87 6.2. Approach 87 6.3. Methods 89 6.4.R巴sultsand discussion 93 6.5. Concluding remarks 99

CHAPTER VII SUMMARY OF THE KEY FINDING AND RESEARCH 101 CONCLUSIONS 7.1. Background 101 7.2. Summary ofthe key finding 102 7.3. General conclusions 107

APPENDIX 1 A QUESTIONNAIRE ABOUT DIFFUSION OF CORN 110 SILAGE IN EGYPT AGRICULTURE

APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE ABOUT DIFFUSION OF 113 BUNKER SILO IN JAPAN AGRICULTURE，

HOKKAIDO REFERENCES 115

SUMMARY

~~1 4llI~回以l 129

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 The crop s甘uctureand some of importance agricultural crops 12

Table 2.2 Developing of production of some main crops 13

Table 3.1 Contributions of Hokkaido to national production 31

Table 3.2 Number of established industrial cooperative in Tokachi from 37

1903-1941

Table 3.3 A verage profit of 117 sample cooperatives 39

Table.3.4 Farmers source oftraining on business management 39

Tabl巴4.1 Definition of socio-economic characteristics of the respondents 62

Table 4. 2 General characteristic of the r巴spondents 63

Table 4.3 Frequency ofadopter's primary information sources ofthe corn 66

silag巴

Table 4.4 Adopter categories and their socio-economic characteristics 67

Table 4.5 Adopter categories and their contact with extension agents 68

Table 4.6 Perceiv巴dattributes of the idea of corn silage 69

Table4.7 Frequency ofthe prob!ems that facing farmers 71

Tab!e 5.1 Demographic and socio-economic characteristics of 79

respondents (N=21)

Tab!e 5.2 Table 5.2. Descriptive statistics of socio-economic 81

characteristics of adopter (n =! 5) and norトadopter(n=6)

Tab!e 5.3 Information source of adopters of the idea of bunker siIo 81

system

Tab!e 5.4 Frequency of attending JAs annua! meeting by adopters and 82

non-adopters

Tab!e 6.1 Classification of farmers and the additiona! survey 91

Table 6.2 Summary ofthe variables us巴din ana!ysis 92

Tab!e 6.3 Distribution of the target groups according to adoption leve! 93

(n=54)

Tab!e 6.4 Correlation ana!ysis among adoption leve!s of corn silage and 94

structura! characteristics

Tab!e 6.5 Correlation ana!ysis among adoption !eve!s of corn si!age and 97

behaviora! variab!es

Tab!e 6.6 Prioritized indicators of adoption of corn si!age use 98

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Map ofEgypt 11

Figur百2.2 The structure of public extension sector at th巴nationallevel 19

Figur官 2.3 The structure of public extension sector at the implementation 20

level

Figure 3.1 Map ofHokkaido and its location企'omjapan 30

Figur官 3.2 The beginning of agricultural extension service 35

Figure 3.3 The recent structure of the agricultural cooperatives in 38

Hokkaido

Figur百4.1 Map ofthe study area 61

Figure 4.2 Distribution ofnew adopters of corn silage， and real diffusion 65

rate， (in sample， 1995-2009)

Figure 4.3 Length of innovation decision period by adopter category 70

Figure 5.1 Location of Shikaoi on Tokachi， Hokkaido 77

Figure5.2 Distribution of new adopters of bunker silo system for making 80

silage， and real diffusion rate (in sample， 2010)

Figure 5.3 The S-Shaped curve of adoption∞mparing with the estimated 83

diffusion rate of bunker silo in shikaoi town， hokkaido Figure5.4 The S-shaped curve and distribution of adopters of corn silage 84

comparing with the estimated diffusion rate

Figure 6.1 Distribution and percentag巴sof new adopters of corn silage 90

Figure 6.2 Class of corn silage adopters based on their farm size and stock 96

slze

CHAPTERI

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

Development of the agricultural sector ranks as one of the most important

goals of governments in many nations of world. Agricultural development

identifies the diverse roles that agriculture plays in the process of national growth

and development (World Development Report， 2008). Human resources are

needed to meet various activities related to agricultural development， which is

critical for attaining a country's goals towards rural development， employment

generation， and a host of relat巴dactivities leading to sustainable groWth and

development (Nanda et al.， year unknown). Success向1agricultural development

is most directiy achieved through investment in human and institutional capacities

that will generate the knowledge， technologies， and leaders to eradicate famine

and food shortages; agricultural growth is巴ssential，especially in the poorer

developing countries (Ph巴rson，2007).

The human resource base for the agriculture sector is weak and there is a

growing gap between sci巴ntificknowledge and practical applications. This

knowledge deficit should be overcome spe巴dilyto enhance the productivity and

profitability of small farms (Salooja， year unknown). Human resource

investments yield important results in the form of increased agricultural

productivity. Human resources constitute the most critical input relying on the use

of science and technology for development.

The development of agricultural human resources needs to be analyzed in

detai! to assess the impact of various contributing factors and policy options.

Technological progress is at the heart of human progress and development， and

agriculture is key to making that development successful. In the agricultural

sector， technology development has b巴en directed towards improving

productivity to ensure the availability of food; technology development and

technology transf1巴rproc巴ssesare considered to be the primary driving forces for

growth and welfare in developing countries (Balakrishnan， 1998).

In developing countries， the m司jorityof the population earns subsistence

income企omfarming. In addition， adoption rates ar・estill low for agricultural

technologies. Therefore， much attention is being paid to the adoption and

diffusion ofnew agricultural technologies. The diffusion oftechnology has been a

powerful source of economic change for generations. During the 1940s and 1950s，

diffusion research emerged in rural sociology departments in the United Stat巴S

(Ru仕an，2003). By the 1960s， these traditions were continued in communications，

geography， marketing， and economics. For a discussion of diffusion research， see

Roger's now classic Diffusion ofInnovations， first published in 1962 and updated

in 1971， 1983， 1995 and 2003 and the important work by Roling (1988 and

2006).

In developing countries， improvement of agricultural production，

profitability， and sustainability depends on the farmers to adopt change and the

innovative us巴oftechnologies， organizational approaches， management systems，

institutions， and available resources. Agricultural extension through advisory

services and programs strengthens the people's capacity to innovate by providing

access to knowledge and information， thus underlining the need for a better

understanding of the adoption process and constraints to guide policymakers in

designing appropriate policies to stimulate adoption.

The development of human resources in villages might play a role in

increasing the adoption of improved technologies in the agricultural sector that is

crucial for accelerating agricultural productivity and hence pove町 alleviationin

the country. Thus， the importance of human resource development is recognized

and extension personnel can plan and implement these programs at alllevels.

2

1.2. Statement of the research problem

Agriculture is a major part of the economy in Egypt; most of the

population earns a subsistence income企omfarming and every aspect of the

economic structure of the country relates to agriculture. Thus， the importance of

the agricultural sector in the Egyptian economy cannot be undermined. In Egypt，

policy reform in the agricultural sector initiated in the mid-1980s removed

stringent government controls on crop and area allotments， prices， input supplies，

and marketing， and moved agriculture toward a企ee舗 marketorientation (Rivera et

al.， 1997). As a result of this reform， well-focused production support services

and technology dissemination by a research-extension system were created

(Scoullar， 1994; World Bank， 1995).

Egypt has further improved its agricultural policy to support key

commodities. However， while the country has made remarkable progress and the

government's efforts to support the country's strategic crops are encouraging， the

agricultural sector and rural areas of Egypt still face many threats and challenges.

The prominent threats include a growing population， water security， Iittle or no

use of modern farming technologies， low farm mechanization， and the division of

land into small farming units (Global Arab Network， 2009)

1n addition， most farmers in rural Egypt have small landholdings and

fragmented land ownership; about 80% of the total landowners own agricultural

lands less than or equal to 5 feddans (Kruseman and Vullings， 2007). According to

Aquastat (2005)， about 50% of all landholdings cover an area less than 0.4 ha (1.0

feddan). Farmers find ineffective support services regarding the availability offarm

resources such as seeds， fertilizers， and credit; they usually have inadequate acc巴ss

to basic farm services such as the extension services and technology transfer，

which results in the use of low-Ievel technology (Shalaby et al.， 2011). High

pressures and strains on the country's巴conomyhave resulted in poor or weak

in仕astructureand have pushed rural people deeper into poverty.

3

In the present situation， most of the people are forced to live in poor living

conditions and are deprived of the basic facilities of life (Mohammed， 2005). Poor

people in rural Egypt include t巴nantand small-scale farmers， landless laborers，

unemployed youth， and women -particularly the women who head about one in

five Egyptian households. According to The FAO STAT (2010)， the number of

Egypt's poor at present is about 10.7 million. Of these， 29% are urban poor and

71 % are rural poor.

In addition， under the existing set of limitations of small land-holdings，

labor-intensive cultivation and farming methods， and traditional irrigation water

application， the current small-scale agriculture s切 msunder stress due to

population growth， land企agmentation，and low quality of li免 inrural

communities (Shalaby etα1.， 2011). On the other hand， it has been pointed out

that the focus of the present approach巴Son information transfer is not e偽 ctivein

improving rural development because of the neglect of human resource

development in which the clients play an active role in local institution building

and community development (Roeling， 1986).

However， people involved in agriculture need improved skills and better

information and ideas to develop agriculture that will meet complex pa仕emsof

demand， reduce poverty， and enhance ecological resourcesσeder et al.， 1999).

Agricuitural extension， which is essentially a message delivery system， has a

major role to play in agricuitural development (Adams， 1988). Extension systems

should be made more accountable to the clients and service delivery should be

driven by demand rather than by supply (FAO/World Bank， 2000). Sustainability

and productivity of the agricultural sector worldwide depends on the quality and

effectiveness of extension services among other factors.

Acceptance of new technologies by farmers is a necessary pre-condition

for agricultural and rural development. As a response to the widening gap

between food supply and food demand and the chronic problem offood ins巴curity

in the country， the success registered by researchers led policymakers， public

4

authorities， and extension leaders to believe that the widespread adoption of green

revolution technologies was the solution for improving small-Iandholders'

productivity and thereby achieve food self-sufficiency at a national level (Lewis，

2008).

Education， including training and extension services， is a fundamental

need for human development in rural areas and also for expansion and

modemization of rural e∞nomi凶 (Gaya，year unknown). Thus， proper planning

and management of human resources within extension organizations are essential.

With the rapid changes in technology， needs of farmers， market situation， and

competitive environment， planning for human resources has become an important，

challenging task for extension services.

The idea of discussing the issue of human resource development in rural

areas using the concepts of diffusion and adoption of new technologies is

completely new. Modeling efforts have been made in the past to explain time lags

in the adoption of technologies and to ide凶 ifydeterminants of technology

adoption， but understanding what influences adoption in rural areas is important

and may identifシanumber of important indicators of the process of human

resource development.

Thus， through this dissertation， we a抗emptedto understand human

behavior and socio-economic factors that determinant the pa抗emof the adoption

ofnew innovations and in particular， the role ofthe information diffusion process

and efforts made by extension agents for diffusing new innovations. The results

of our analysis may indicate key points and facts that would help in drawing

policy implications and play a proactive role in the success白1implementation of

a strategy for the development of human resources in rural Egypt.

1.3. Objectives of the dissertation

The general 0句ectiveof this dissertation is to put in place some key points

that would help in the development of human resources in rural Egypt as a

5

developing country， with the concepts of the adoption and diffusion processes as

a starting point. The specific objectives ofthis dissertation are as follows:

1) Agricultural extension as a source of advice and assistance for farmers.

The first objective focuses on identi命ing the currently available

educational extensiol1 services for farmers in Egypt and J apan with

comparisons between the two countries and discussion of the present and

future planning towards human resource development. This objective will

be discussed in Chapters 2 and 3.

2) The second objective is to investigate the diffusion process of corn silage

and its prescribing factors in Egyptian agriculture through assessment of

what causes diffusion rates to vary and what constrains the adoption of

innovations. This objective will be discussed in Chapter 4.

3) The third objective is to examine the di白 sionprocess of bunker silage in

Shikaoi Town， Hokkaido， and then compare it with the diffusion process

of corn silage in Egyptian agriculture. It will also illustrate an adequate

understanding of the process of technology adoption and its diffusion，

taking into account the importance of the information sourc巴sand efforts

made for diffusing new innovations. This objective will be discuss巴din

Chapter 5.

4) The fourth 0同ectiveis to identifシthebasic approaches and concepts that

might be informative to all those who are seeking methods of human

resource development in rural Egypt. The starting point is to determine

the most important driving factors of adoption that differentiate the

innovators and early adopters of a particular new idea from the laggards.

This objective will be discussed in Chapter 6.

1.4. Organization of the dissertation

This dissertation is made up of seven chapters. The second chapter

provides a brief overview of the agricultural sector in Egyptian economy and the

issues of the agricultural extension system in Egypt and its services currently

6

available for farming families. In the same manner， Chapter 3 highlights the

educational extension system for farmers in J apan， discusses the difference

between the current extension service provided in Egypt and the recently

available extension services for farmers in Japan， and links them with the

conceptual approach ofthis dissertation.

The main contents of this dissertation are presented in th巴 following

chapters， which consider the adoption and diffusion processes of new innovations

as a way for discussing the development of human resources. The focus of this

dissertation begins with Chapter 4， which investigates the diffusion of corn silage

and its prescribing factors in Egyptian agriculture， a new idea among Egyptian

farmers that diffused recently as a new fodder for animals. It also highlights the

factors that influence the farmers' adoption of new ideas

Chapter 5 examines the diffusion of bunker silage in Shikaoi Town，

Hokkaido， Japan， and shows a comparison between the diffusion process of corn

silage among some Egyptian farmers and the diffusion of bunker silage in Shikaoi

Town， Hokkaido， Japan. Chapter 6 analyzes the human resource development of

rural areas， using the adoption process as an introduction point to examine why

the innovators and e唖rlyadopters adopted the new idea faster than others. Chapter

7 presents a summary of the key findings企omthe research and draws some

general conclusions， outlines the implications， and presents some

recommendations that may help the development ofhuman resources.

7

CHAPTERII

ISSUES OF THE EGYPTIAN AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SYSTEM

2.1. Background

The diverse roles that agriculture plays in the process of growth and

development in nations were identified. Agriculture is the backbone of most

economics; in the Egyptian economy， the importance of the agricultural s巴ctor

cannot be undermined. There is a general consensus that extension services，

provided they are well designed and implemented， promote agricultural

productivity， providing farmers with information that helps them to optimize their

use of limited resources (Evenson and Mwabu， 1998; Bindlish and Evenson，

1993).

The concept that extension services are intended to advise farmers was

seriously challenged， suggesting the need to shi食away企omthe advisor approach.

According to Anderson and F eder (2002)， extension services help to reduce the

differential between potential and actual yields in farmers' fields by accelerating

technology transfer and helping farmers become better farm managers. Th巴

extension syst巴m also has an important role to play in helping the research

establishment tailor technology to the agro-ecological and resource circumstances

offarmers.

Worldwide， the public sector plays a dominant role in the provision of

agricultural extension services. The extension system has been， and still is， almost

entirely financed by the public sector in most developing and developed countries.

Extension services are still organized only by the central or local government or

by agricultural colleges， usually in close association with experiment stations， or

by farmers' organizations (agricultural societies， cooperatives， farmers unions， or

chambers of agriculture)， or combinations of th巴separent bodies (J on巴Set al.，

2005)

8

After many recent changes in th巴waythat extension services are delivered，

they now involve different governmental agencies (formerly the main players in

the extension system)， non-governmental organizations， producer organizations

and other farmer organizations， and private sector op巴rators，which include input

suppliers， purchasers of agricultural products， training organizations， and media

groups concerned with assuring the supply and quality of their products

(Neuchatel Group， 1999).

As Egypt and other governments faced severe financial difficulties， funds

were curtailed for providing support services to agriculture， including extension

services (Ameur， 1994). Public sector extension systems faced problems of cost

and lack ofefficiency. Feder et al. (1999) suggested that there are several generic

problems， regardless of the management system or approach to public extension，

two of which are operating resources and fiscal sustainabiIity; however， the main

generic problem for extension services is the inherent difficulty of cost recovery.

To solve the problems of rural development， there is a need to create a

weII organized extension system for efficient and effective extension delivery in

aIIぉpectsof sustainable agricuiture and rural development and thus attain food

security， poverty reduction， rural empowerment， and environment management

This chapter explores the character ofthe Egypt agricultural sector and the role of

the agricultural sector in the economy， identifies the history of the extension

system for farmers in Egypt， and determines the role of agricultural development

in rural Egypt

2.2. OutIine of Egypt agriculture

2.2.1. The charαcter 01 Egypt agriculture

Egypt has a total area of about one miIIion square kilometers and it is

divided topographicaIIy into four regions: the Nile VaIIey and Delta， occupying

3.3% ofthe total area， the Western Desert 67.0%， the Eastern Desert 22.5%， and

the Sinai Peninsula 7.2%. However， agriculture is practiced on an area of about

9

3.5 million ha， including recently reclaimed lands (Abdelhakam， 2005). The

agricultural land represents only 3% of the total land area; 97% of this land lies

within the Nile Valley and Delta region and a third of its newly reclaimed land is

highly productive and ideally suited to intensive agriculture.

Egypt has an arid climate with an annual average rainfall ranging from 60

to 190 mm along the Mediterranean coast， 25 to 60 mm in the Nile delta， and less

than 25 mm in Upper Egypt and adjacent areas; rain falls mainly during a short

period in winter (Lewis， 2008). The climate is generally very uniform with

good sunshine. In addition， the Nile is an exceptional source of water and the soil

near the Nile is generally of excellent quality. Crop production is dependent on

water企omthe River Nile provided by the Aswan Dam， which amounts to 55

billion cubic meters annually. In addition， about 3 million cubic meters of

groundwater are extracted annually from the Nile Valley and Delta， th巴Westem

Desert， and the S inai P巴ninsula，for agriculture and for municipal and industrial

use.

Only 3% of the total land area is arable， of which about one-third is

serviced by main and secondary drains. )--!owever， the area under cultivation has

been more or less constant as agricultural land is lost to urban and industr・ial

expansion at about 30，000 feddans per year (Lewis， 2008). The landholdings are

fragmented; farmers in Egypt have small landholdings and企agmentedland

ownership. Some 80% of the total landowners own agricultural lands less than or

equal to 5 feddans (Kruseman and Vullings， 2007). According to Aquastat (2005)，

about 50% of all landholdings cover an area less than 0.4 ha (1.0 feddan). The

total area planted annually is about 11.5 million feddans， which represents a

planting ratio of about 2: 1. Egypt's total agricultural crop production has

increased by more than 20% in the past decade; the most important crops grown

in Egypt are discussed brief1y below (Lewis， 2008).

10

The cultivation area of agricultural crops has been increasing from 1980 to

2007， as shown in Table 2.1， which also shows the crop structure and the relative

importance of some agricultural crops. Among the strategic agricultural crops，

wheat ranks number 1 for its highest consumption (Global Arab Network， 2009)

in the country and is the third m~or crop in terms of area planted (about 2.9

million feddans). [ts output has increased by 10.1 % to 8.0 million tons in recent

years. Growth in wheat production was the result of an international increase in

crop prices; many farmers chose to plant wheat due to the price hike.

4EL

ny

vd ob

cu

rl o

ny

a

M

吋ムe

v且u

oo

E且

ARA8/lEPU8ιJC OF EOYPT

-=毛F

A

The cultivated area increased by 7.5%， spreading over about 2.7 million

feddans. However， the area planted with wheat shrinks whenever there is a drop

in international wheat prices. The government has consistently intervened to

support the agricultural sector by purchasing part of the harvest at prices much

higher than the international rates. However， farmers consider the procurement

prices not high enough to offset costs. They become discouraged and shi白

cultivation to other more profitable crops， a trend which increases the country's

1 1

dependency on wheat imports that provide for halfthe consumption (Global Arab

Network， 2009).

Rice is the number 2・rankingstaple and is regarded as the most profitable

export crop ofthe summer growing season. The country reported a 2.3% growth

in production to a total of 6.9 million tons in 2008 as a result of a 5.6% expansion

in productive land. The increased rice cultivation that has been the result of an

increased demand in intemational markets has increased pressure on. water

resources b巴causerice cultivation is exceptionally water intensive (Global Arab

Network， 2009). For enhancing the rice farmers' income， Abdelhakam (2005)

suggested that they raise fish in rice fields， a practice that hぉ success釦lly

provided fish harvests in Nasr Lake and other areas ofthe coun句.

Table 2.1. The crop structure and some important agricultural crops

1990 2007

Items Area % Area %

羽市eat 1.95 16.1 2.72 17.7

Maize 1.98 16.2 1.85 12.1

Rice 1.04 8.5 1.67 10.9

Cotton 0.99 8.5 0.58 3.8

Sugar beets 0.03 0.3 0.25 1.6

Total crops 10.09 83.7 12.02 78.3

Total v巴getables 1.11 9.2 2.01 13.1

Total企uits 0.86 7.0 1.31 8.5

Total cultivation area 12.18 15.35

Source: Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation， 2007 Unit: Million Feddan

In 2008， due to the water management policy， limits were imposed on the

area to be brought under rice cultivation， but this policy proved ineffi巴ctive.

Therefore， the govemment placed an export ban in order to lower the domestic

price of rice. The lifting of the ban has allowed exports to increase again and

farmers to benefit合omthe high intemational prices of the commodity. Rice

cultivation also helped farmers to realize higher profits relative to other

traditional summer crops (Global Arab Network， 2009).

12

Maize is one of the most important cereals crop (1.8 miIIion feddans); at

least 50% of its production is used for Iivestock and poultry feed (Lewis， 2008).

Cotton has仕aditionaIIybeen th巴 mostimportant fiber crop in Egypt and th巴

leading agricultural export crop， grown on nearly 0.57 miIIion feddans. Egyptian

co社onenjoys an exceIIent reputation worldwide for its high quaIity; therefore， it

is considered an equaIIy important crop in the country. Although the cotton

industry is weII developed and quite productive， it stiII faces many difficulti巴s.

Table 2.2. Developing the production of some main crops

Production Tons/ feddan

Crops 1980 2007 Wheat 1.5 2.7 Rice 2.5 4.1 Maize 1.8 3.5 Co抗on 1. 1 1.4 Sugar beets 12.3 22.0 Sugar cane 34.0 50.0 Egyptian clov官r 25.0 30.0 Bro唱.dbeans 0.9 1.4 Tomatoes 7.4 16.0 Potatoes 7.3 10.7 Grapes 5.2 9.7 Citrus 5.4 10.1 Bananas 8.9 18.0 Source: Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture and Land RecIamation， 2007 Unit: Tons/ Feddan

Areas planted with co抗onare decreasing and consequentIy， th巴production

has also been decIining. Farmers are increasingly losing interest in cotton

production because of high input costs and because it is sensitive to an

interτlational economic downturn as a result of its forward linkages with the

textiIe industry. To boost and enhance co口oncultivation， the government

announced a farmer-企iendlypoIicy in 2009 to support the textiIe industry and to

buy yarn produced企omEgyptian co抗onat a high price (Global Arab Network，

2009).

13

Sugar cane is the main sugar crop in Upper Egypt. About 90% ofth巴yield

is used for sugar extraction. AIso， sugar beets grow in large areas in the Nile delta

and contribute to the sugar industry in Egypt. Food legumes include a number of

bean crops that are used for human consumption， such as broad b巴ansand

soybe阻止 Importantvegetables are tomatoes and pot証toes，grown in three seasons

-winter， summer， and autumn. Citrus企uits，primarily oranges that represent 85%

。ftotalcitrus production， make up 50% ofthe total企uitproduction.

Other subtropical合uitsare also grown in Egypt， inciuding grapes， stone

fruits， and pom巴合uits.Wheat and berseem (Egyptian clover) are the main winter

crops in Egypt， while in summer， cotton and rice are important cash crops and

maiz巴andsorghum are important subsistence crops. As shown in Table 2.2， it

should be noted as well that the major crops in Egypt exceeded the average yields

worldwide. For two crops， Egyptian yields were the highest in th巴 world.For

several other crops， Egypt ranked second or third in the world in average yield

Levels of production are relatively high compared with countries with similar

agro-ciimatic conditions and yields have increased significantly in recent years

(Lewis， 2008).

An overview of the agricultural sector presented in this section ciearly

indicates that most of the strategic crops are under s廿essand that the farming

sector needs to make certain changes and adjustrnents in its production systems.

The govermnent can certainly assist by formulating and implementing

farmer-friendly policies depending upon the situation. A suitable s仕ategyat the

farm level that places emphasis on popularizing and adopting concepts and

principles of sustainable agricul旬reis needed at this time (MALR， 2008).

2.2.2. Livestock production

Animal production in Egypt represents about 30% of the total agricultural

production. The m吋orityof farms are family farms of less than one hectare， with

mixed livestock and crop production. The average numbers of adult livestock per

farm are 1.02 bu伯 10cows， 0.94 cows， 1.14 sheep， and 1.06 goats. Although

14

Iivestock production is dominated by small farmers who account for about 80%

。foutput， the number of modern dairy and fヒedfarms has increased over the Iast

few years (Lewis， 2008).

There are 4.6 miIIion cattle and 3.9 miIIion buffalo as well as 5.4 miIIion

sheep and 3.9 miIIion goats according to the 2007 statistics; Iarge ruminant

buffaloes and cattle provide 2.8 miIIion tons of miIk annually (Lewis， 2008). In

spite of a 3% annuaI increase in production， this meets only 72% of demand.

Water bu白 Ioesare well adapted to the subtropicaI environment and account for

66% of the totaI nationaI production of miIk組 d45% ofthe meat.

The main winter and spring forage resource is Egyptian clover (berseem);

it is the m勾orwinter forage crop cultivated in the NiIe Valley and Delta. It is the

most widely grown field crop and occupies an area that totaIs 1.2 miIIion feddans

WhiIe wheat s仕aw，rice， and ∞ncen廿atesare used in the summer， the feed gap in

1992 was 3.1 miIIion tons oftotaI digestible nutrients (TDN) and it is expωted to

increase to 4.5 miIIion tons by the year 2000. The main constraints on production

are the shortage of IocaI feed resources， particularIy in summer， Iimit巴dwater and

cultivable Iand， and the poor quality of IocaI breeds of Iivestock. Therefore，

expanding the utiIization of agriculturaI byproducts in animaI feed to reduce feed

cost and environmentaI pollution is the main target of the agricuI旬raIsector in

the白ture.

2.2.3. Agriculture in the economy

In Egypt， agriculture is a m吋orsector of the economy. It is th巴 most

important economic activity， providing income， employment， and foreign

exchange. Agriculture plays an important role in the development ofthe economy

and in the society of Egypt. Agriculture provide哩 Iivelihoodsfor 55% of the

families (IF AD， 2006). Agriculture employs about 31 % of the Iabor force

(Kruseman and VuIIings， 2007) and 14% ofthe Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is

generated by agriculturaI production (Morgan， 2010). Agriculture has aIso been a

m句orearner of foreign exchange through exportation of agriculture products. In

15

addition， industries are linked to agriculture， such as processing， marketing， and

input suppliers.

Agricultural activities are concentrated in the NiIe VaIIey and Delta and

their desert fring岱 ー theold lands (IF AD， 2008). However， the intensive

cultivation system is only applicable to 3% of the land area and the country stiII

has to import 40% of its food requirements. Almost aII farms are smaII， averaging

2 feddans; 95% of them are less than 5 feddans (IFAD， 2006). The livestock

and poultry sector is an important source of cash income to family farms， but of

equal importance is the fact that the sector also benefits crop production by

providing manure and draft power. The household holdings of smaII fowl and

poultry紅 'ethe main regular source of cash， along with daily wage labor during

the non-agricultural seぉon(IFAD， 2006).

The livestock and poultry sector is traditionaIIy highly integrated with the

crop sub-sector. It was estimated that 40% of the total value of farm livestock

production， in the form of animal power and manure， is a direct input to crop

production and that 22% of crop products (mainly winter berseem) are direct

inputs to livestock production. Therefore， the livestock sub-sector should be a

main consideration in crop farming decisions and vice versa. In addition， feed

rations are less than optimal; however， this is probably as much a question of

affordability as it is lack of knowledge.

This situation provides opportunities for significant use of low

technology and low-cost technology transfer; as an example， the Egyptian miIk

producers association reduced their feed costs by 15%， increased the fヒed

conversion rates by 22%， and raised the overaII firm capacity by 50% as a

result of adopting four new practices and three new technologies. By

implementing new silage t巴chnologies，a dairy production cooperative

computerized its record-keeping and total mixed ration practices and increased its

milk production by 30%企om6 to 7.8 tons per day. In the performance of

animal-based agriculture， Egypt has not done as weIl as with crops. For example，

16

Egypt's production ofmilk per cow equals only one-third ofthe world average.

2.3. Issues of the agricuItural extension system in Egypt

Agricultural extension services are the bedrock of agricultural

development; however， the development of the agricultural sector cannot be

achieved without an efficient and effective extension system. Extension services

are part of a pluralistic complex involving multiple systems within the public and

private sectors to provide information and problem-solving assistance to farmers

and their families. In Egypt， as in many countries， the tendency is for the public

sector extension system to serve the vast majority of small farmers， while the

private sector suppliers and consultants work with corporate farms and large

estates. The extension system is moving towards decentralization of programming

decisions and operations. Above all， the extension service of the country is not

only focusing on agricultural performance but is also involved in community

development initiatives (Rivera et al.， 1997).

2.3.1. Public sector extension

Egypt's public agricultural ext巴nsion system formally began as a

government service in 1953; since then， at least nine presidential and ministerial

decrees have reorganiz巴dand restructured the system (Rivera et al.， 1997). The

present structure is essentially the result of decisions made in 1985. This

agricul加ralextension system is a government-operated， ministry-based system，

functioning at two levels: the ministry or national level as shown in Figure 1 and

the implementation level in governorates， districts， and villages as shown in

Figure 2. At the ministry level， the Central Administration for Agricultural

Extension Services (CAAES)， one of the seven sectors of the Ministry of

Agriculture and Land Reclamation (MALR)， is the key national level extension

orga凶zation(Rivera et al.， 1997). It contains fi食巴enfunctioning departments， as

shown in Figure 1， which provide technical supervision to ext叩 sionstaff. At the

implementation level， the extension system is organized with administrative and

technical staff in the governorates， districts， and villages.

17

The country initiated a policy reform in the agricultural sector in the

mid-1980s to remove stringent government controls on crops and area allotment，

prices， input supplies， and marketing， and to move agriculture towards a

free-market orientation. As a result， output markets were liberalized and quota

deliveries for the major food commodities were eliminated. In addition， land

prices were introduced， subsidies on inputs were gradually cut， and crop area

allotments were eliminated for most crops (Rivera et al.， 1997). While these

measures led to an increase in agricultural production， coordination of extension

services among public service providers remained a serious challenge for the

government.

Am吋orfocus of the extension program in Egypt is on decentralizi時，

planning， and implementing extension programs for the rural development of

field crops， livestock， and fisheries， to make these programs more accessible and

meaningful to farmers (Rivera et al.， 1997). Other efforts are being made to bring

res巴archand extension services closer to farmers by establishing the Regional

Research and Extension Councils; this research program and its coordination with

the extension system are a function of the Agricul旬向1Research Council (ARC)，

an autonomous body under the Minister of Agriculture (Rivera et al.， 1997).

The ARC is organized into research and extension sections; a deputy for

research heads the research institutes and regional re喧earchstations， which are

commodity-or problem-oriented. The exception is the Agricultural Extension and

Rural Development Research Institute (AERDRI); a deputy for extension heads

the units on extension and subject matter specializ耳tion.In addition， four regional

research and extension councils have been added since 1994 in an effort to bring

research and extension services closer to farmers and to open up the

decision-making process to local interests (Rivera et al.， 1997).

Th巴secouncils 紅 eintended to: a) discuss agricultural production

constraints and suggest area司 specificsolutions; b) formulate research and

extension programs; c) coordinate and integrate university and research center

18

programs; d) develop mechanisms for supporting research and extension; and e)

monitor and evaluate research and extension activities (Rivera et al.， 1997).

Figure 2.2. The structure ofthe public extension s巴ctorat th巴nationallevel

The Ministry of Agricultu開 andland Reclamation

(Ml¥lR)

1-Bodies sector affairs and the Offi回 oftheMinister

2-Financial sector development and administ悶tivegovernance

3-Agricultu悶 le町tension 1 sector

4・Economicaffairs sector

5-Agricultu問 Iservicessector

6-land reclamation sector

7-The development of livestocksector

TheCent悶IAdmini~市富士ionfor

Agricultural EJdension Services (CAAES)

The key nationall町 elorganization

トExlensionuni白2-Exlension teaching methods 3-Monitoring and advisory 4-Agricullu悶 Icouncils 5-Extension marketing 6-Animal production 7-New communi百es8-Rural development

9-Crop production 10-Ho凶cultureextension 11-Sugar crops 12-Oil crops 13-Fiber crops 14-Exlension cente陪

15-Financial and administration a宵alrs

Source: Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation， 2011

At the implementation level， the extension system is orga凶zedwith

administrative and technical staffs in governorates， districts， and villages as

shown in Figure 2. The overlapping network of public extension systems is

reflected in the large number of extension personnel， estimated at around 25，000

in government services (Rivera et al.， 1997).

At the national level， the public (ministry-based) extension system

employs 7，421 staff members of whom 217 are se凶orstaff members with a

bach巴lor'sdegree or higher， and 3，704 of whom are suq日ectmatter specialists

who provide support to field staff. Field-Ievel extension workers represent about

half (46%) of the agricultural extension staff， with 68% of them holding a

secondary school diploma. There are two other groups of workers: the

Information， Communication， and Technology (ICT) Support S句ffand the

19

Tn-Service Training Staff. The public sector employs eight staff members who

provide in-service training and 38 workers who are involved in TCT support

services (MEAS report， 2011).

Figure 2.3. The structure of public extension sector at the implementation level

Organization of Extension Sector

ーExtenslon sector of MALR (Central Government)

ARC SMSs

Governorate level

SMSs District level

CAAES

Fam】ers

3，717

Notes: CAAES: the Central Administration for Agricultural Extension Services ARC: Agricultural Research Council TTSs: Technology Transfer Specialists SMSs: Subject matter specialists VEWs: Village Extension Workers AII extension personal， 25，000

Source: Rivera et al.， 1997

Agricultural directors in each governorate are responsible of providing

administrative supervision of extension services at the governorate level (Rivera

et al.， 1997). The agricultllral extension service in Egypt transfers agricultllral

information primarily to the public sector， with a small private sector component.

Presently， the pllblic sector extension system is in a transitional phase in Egypt.

ThllS， the Pllblic sector extension in Egypt is a pluralistic complex of extension

services with a large staff organized under different administrative and technical

structllres attempting to inflllence the productivity of agricllltllre in the cOllntry.

The government administration of agricultllre itself employs a total of

abollt one-half million people， nearly 12% of the formal agricultllral labor force，

and 12% of all government employees (Rivera et al.， 1997). The average ratio of

extension personnel to farmers is abollt 1 to 200， which is one of the highest in

20

the world σleischer et al.， 20 11). Agricultural extension is the largest sector in

the MALR. However， not many ofthese workers are highly skilled. Poor pay and

a lack of well-trained staff are significant problems for the administration (Rivera

et al.， 1997).

2.3.2. Private sector extension

Private sector extension is conducted by private companies that provide

information and advisory services to corporate farms and by consultants who sell

their services to large estates and who undertake extension and farm management

activities. In addition， large private producers of high-value crops such as企uits

and vegetables often have their own staff of horticulturists， agronomists， and

engineers (Rivera et al.， 1997).

2.3.3. Non-profit and non-governmentα'Iorganizαtions

Few non-profit and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are

committed to rural development and none of them is involved in supplementing

or complementing the work of the public sector in extension services. This is a

serious gap that needs to be considered by NGOs concerned with agricultural，

rural， and human resource development (Shalaby et al.， 20 11).

2.3.4. The current extension system in Egypt

The agricultural extension service in Egypt transfers agricultural

information primarily to the public sector， with a small private s巴ctorcomponent.

Presently， the public sector extension system is in a transitional phase in Egypt;

the extension system is moving towards decentralization of programming

decisions and operations (Shalaby et al.， 2011). The extension system plays a

very significant role in enhancing agricultural production in Egypt. At present，

the replacement of old practices with the new modern scientific farming

technologies presents the main challenge for the extension service.

The extension service of the coun仕ynot only focuses on agricultural

performance but is also involved in community development initiatives (Rivera et

21

。1.，1997). Currently， agricultural extension activities in Egypt are carried out

through a unidirectional transfer of knowledge in which farmers are considered

recipients rather than participants. The prime issues include problems in

extension service and org佃 izationand di茄cultiesin bringing behavioral change

of the farmers to adopt modem farming technologies capable of enhancing crop

yields. The extension workers lack proper education， technical skiIIs， and

appropriate quaIifications to undertal王eextension activities effectively and

efficiently. Improvement initiatives regarding the extension workers' technical

and communication skiIIs would not only enhance the efficiency of the extension

st五百 butalso would enable them to help farmers leam to apply agricultural

practices (Axinn， 2009).

Agricultural extension in Egypt not only focuses on increasing agricultural

production and transferring modem agricul旬raltechnologies， but also undertakes

many activities leading to rural developm巴nt.Agricultural extension exploits and

explores aII possible opportunities and resources and the potential of natural and

human resources， delivers educational and awareness-raising programs， and

evaluat巴sdevelopment capabiIities to improve skiIIs and ways ofthinking. To this

end， the extension system enables rural people to take fuII advantage of scientific

and technological advances in agriculture. These initiatives result in higher

standards of Iiving and elevate the social and economic status of the communities

According to Shalaby et al. (2010)， agricuIt町alextension has the great

potential for achieving sustainable rural development by: providing the solutions

to practical problems by applying agricul旬ralresearch; creating awareness，

educating farmers to change their old traditional trends with企iendlypersuasion;

developing community resources to reduce agricultural preservation by

preventing destruction and poIIution; and enhancing agricultural productivity

through increased efficiency.

AgricuItural extension and the development of the productive proc巴sson

the basis of scientific and economic Iines aim to increase production whiIe

22

reducing costs， thus improving the income of rural families by introducing crafts

and rural industries that rely on local products. This will provide employment

opportunities for young p巴opleand reduce unemployment and poverty， while

paying special attention to women and rural youth as a component of the

presently available options for rural dwellers (Tonobi， 1998; Shalaby et al.，

2010).

Agricultural extension is expanding from a purely agricultural

performance orientation to rural community development and it appe紅 sto be

moving toward a comprehensive service for farmers， farm families， youth， and

rural communities. The agricultural performance orientation views extension

services basically in terms of improving the production and profitability of

farmers. The tendency among policy makers has been to view extension services

from a narrow but practical perspective as a system for agricultural information

and technology transfer. This performance司 orientedview aimed at greater

production， productivity， and income generation is experiencing a broader

operational interpretation. At the same time， the ministry is considering issues of

private centralization of agricultural extension services.

In addition， in developing countries， there is a gap between agricul伽ral

performance and available research information. This has been attributed to poor

delivery of extension services as well as limited interaction between technology

developers (r巴searchers)and extension 、workers.Earlier studies in Egypt found

that in the Ministry of Agricul旬re，research done by a research institute is not

used by the extension service partly because researchers did not involve the

extension in shaping the research agenda但onadle，1994). Given the fact that

many countries already carry the burden of an expensive， oversized， and often

ineffective agricultural extension service， switching to a new approach is first a

question offinancial and economic viability.

Although there is an ongoing debate about the cost implications of

different agricultural extension methodologies and the implications for financial

23

sustainabiIity (Quizon et al.， 2001; Swiss Centre for Agricultural Extension and

Rural Development， 2000)， little is known about the process of change

management in existing public sector organizations and the costs involved. In

addition， poor communication exists betw巴enparticipants in the delivery of

extension services; in particular， the government， private sector (agribusiness)，

and farmers have been shown to hinder the flow of developed technologies to

farmers.

As仕onglink between extension workers and researchers will improve the

quality of disseminated information， as well as the adoption of new tec胎lologies

by farmers， and will consequently lead to increased agricultural production and

improved livelihoods of the rural poor. In Egypt， extensions and technology

transfer capability are still immature and need improvement. The extension

services in Egypt， as in many other developing countries， are particulariy

constrained by insufficient human and financial resources. Extension

orga凶zationsin Egypt and developing countries face the m句orproblems of

professional incompetence and lack of motivation among their employees

because of low salary and income. Furthermore， many of the agricultural

extension departments of these countries do not have a well-defined system of

human resource management.

2.4. Concluding remarks

The agricultural sector still remains a significant and prime contributor to

the economy and development of Egypt. However， under the existing set of

limitations of small landholdings， labor-intensive cultivation and farming

methods， and traditional irrigation water application， the current small-scale

agriculture seems under s廿essdue to population growth， land企agmentation，and

low quality of lifヒinrural communities. Initiatives are needed to increase

agricultural production while decreasing land企agmentation.

24

According to El-Sayed and Lashine (2007)， Egypt has 10.7 million poor

with 70% of them residing in rural areas. Policies adopted for the development of

agriculture must also focus on poverty reduction in rural areas. Policy leaders

need to address issues to evolve farming practices and technologies that would

increase agricultural production to combat poverty. Currently， agricultural

extension activities are carried out through the unidirectional transfer of

knowledge in which farmers are considered recipients rather than participants.

The prime issues include problems in extension service and organization and

difficulties in bringing behavioral change of the farmers to adopt modem farming

technologies capable of enhancing crop yields.

Extension organizations in Egypt， as in many developing countries， face

the m司jorproblem of professional incompetence. Furthermore， many of the

agricul旬ralextension departments of these countries do not have a well-defined

system of human resource management. Proper planning and management of

human reso町 ceswithin extension organizations is essential to increase the

capabilities， motivation， and overall effectiveness of extension personnel. Human

resource planning forecasts the future personnel ne巴dsof extension organiz耳tions.

With the rapid changes in technology， needs of farmers， market situation， and

competitive environment， planning for human resoぽ ceshas become an import加 t，

challenging task for the extension system.

Fleschier et al. (2002) reported a broadly shared consensus that a set of

well-defined functions of the agricultural extension system has to remain in the

public domain even if liberalized， more market-oriented， and commercialized

rural economies will allow a stronger involvement of the private sector in

information and knowledge systems. These functions are found in at least four

m吋orareas: first， the provision of information on non-market goods such as

public health and cultivation practices for protecting ground water quality and

other environmental resources; second， the disadvantaged s巴ctionsof the rural

economy， suchぉ small-scalefarmers， the rural poor (e.g. landless tenan臼)， and

25

women， may not have sufficient access to information企omprivate sources; third，

information provided by the private s巴ctormay be biased towards promoting

specific technologies that primarily bene五tth巴inputsupply industry， which leads

to inefficient use of farm resources; and fourth， large sections of the rural

population in developing countries have not benefitted企omeducation and are

illiterate， which calls for informal adult education elements in extension services.

Privatization and commercialization of extension services， especially in

Egypt， will spell doom for the agricultural industry. This is because the majority

of farmers have a weak capital base to be able to pay fully for extension services.

Thes巴 ruralfamilies need help with increasing their agricultural output for

maintaining even a subsistence level and ensuring a be抗巴rstandard of living.

However， one wayωbolster agricultural production is human resource

development.

Therefore， public extension systems must become more decentralized，

farmer-led， and market-driv巴n.Th巴 existingpublic extension agencies have to

engage themselves in a process of gradual change that includes improving the

relevance of information delivery and increasing the effectiveness in reaching the

rural people. It is generally accepted that this involves an upgrade of the

professional quality ofthe staffinvolved as well as a change in their behavior and

attitude towards clients.

The extension approach also has to change企oman instructional， top-down

manner to more participatory ways of facilitating communication and the

exchange of knowledge. However， both aspects demand a significant inves加 ent

of the govermnent in upgrading human resources while concentrating on the

above-mentioned public service core functions. This has to take place under fiscal

constraints and high political risks when redundant personnel are to be laid off.

26

CHAPTERIll

OUTLINE OF AGRICULTURE 町 HOKKAIDOAND ITS

EDUCATIONAL EXTENSION SYSTEM FOR FARMERS

3.1. Background

Agriculture is more than merely an instrument for development;

agriculture is as fundamental for the sustenance of an economy as food is for a

human being. People involved in agricul旬reneed improved skills， better

information， and better ideas to develop agriculture that will meet the complex

pa仕ernsof demand， reduce pove此y，and enhance ecological resourcesσeder et

al.， 1999). Researchers stress the importance of rural information and education

in unleashing the potential of rural people and enabling them to change their live喧

and bring about sustainable development (Alfaro， 2004).

Education and training are the two most powerful weapons in the fight

against rural poverty and for rural development; education is a prerequisite to

building a food-secure world， reducing pove均r，and enhancing natural resources

(Gasperini and Maguire， 2001). Education， including training and extension

services， is a fundamental need for human development in rural areas and also for

expansion and modernization of rural economies (Gaaya， year u叫也own).

Therefore， agricultural extension has now become re唱ognizedas an essential

mechanism for delivering information and advice in modern farming (Jones et al.，

2005). Extension is basically an educational function and one of the components

supporting economic and human development (Watts and Swanson， 1984).

Agricultural extension communicates useful information to people， thereby

helping them to build a 民社erlife for themselves， their families， and their

communities (Swanson and Claar， 1984). Agricultural extension or advisory

services play an important role in agricultural development and can contribute to

improving the welfare of farmers and other people living in rural areas

27

(Waddington et al.， 2010). Anderson (2008) defines the terms agricultural

extension and advisory services as“th巴entireset of organizations that support

and facilitate people engaged in agricultural production to solve problems and to

obtain information， skills， and technologies to improve their livelihoods".

Extension services have been， and still are， almost entirely financed by the

public sector in most developing and developed countries. Extension services are

still organized by the cen仕alor local govemment， by agricultural colleges，

usually in close association with experiment stations， by farmers' orga凶zations

(agriculωral societies， cooperatives， farmers unions， or chambers of agricul旬re)，

or by combinations of th巴separent bodies (J ones et al.， 2005).

A食ermany recent changes in the way that extension services are delivered，

they now involve different governmental agencies (formerly the main players in

the extension system)， non-governmental organizations， producer orga凶zations

and other farmer organizations， and private sector operators， which include input

suppliers， purchasers of agricultural products， training organizations， and media

groups， concerned with assuring the supply and quality of their products

(Neuchatel Group， 1999).

As more govemments faced severe丑nancialdifficulties， funds for

providing support services to agricul知町 includingextension services， were

curtailed (Ameur， 1994). Public s巴ctorextension systems faced problems of cost

and lack ofefficiency. Feder et al. (1999) suggested that there are several generic

problems， regardless of the management system or approach to public extension，

two of which are oper剖ingresources and fiscal sustainability; however， the main

generic problem for the extension system is the inherent difficulty of cost

recovery. Much information <lisseminated by public sector extensions systems is

a 'public good' and dissemination costs cannot be easily recovered企om

individuals; thus， these systems depend on direct public funding.

28

FulIy privatized extension is not economicalIy feasible in countries with a

large base of smalI司scale，subsistence farmers (Umali-Deininger， 1996). In both

developing and developed countries， farmers with smalI family farms cannot pay

for extension services and thus need企田 educationalextension services to

provide advanced advice for improving their farm management and their

livelihood. Anderson (2008) suggested that farmers' organizations can play an

important role in helping to devolve extension functions to farmers' associations，

rather than just to local governments.

This chapter focuses on the extension services in J apan， with the specific

aim of investigating the educational extension system for farmers in Japan and

identifies the role of agricultural cooperatives (JAs) in rural development in Japan

through a case study of one of the successful types of cooperatives. AdditionalIy，

the present and future efforts towards human resource development by the

extensions services in Japan that are comparable to those in Egypt are discussed.

A survey was conducted in Japan of Hokkaido Island， mainly in the

Tokachi area. We will first present an outline of agriculture in the Hokkaido area

and then provide the study results that dωcribe the organizations that now

provide educational extension services for farmers in Japan: the agricultural

extension centers， the Agricultural Mutual Relief Association (NOSAI)， and the

JAs. We will then describe the history of each organization and its role in serving

the family farm through educational extension services.

3.2. Outline of agriculture in the Hokkaido area

Hokkaido is located in the northemmost area of Japan， extending from

about 410 to 460 latitude north， surrounded by the Pacific Ocean， Sea of Japan，

and Sea of Okhotsk (Figure 3.1). Agriculture in Hokkaido is said to have been

started by the mainland Japanese in 1583. The main purpose ofthe reclamation of

Hokkaido was to make it the food and natural resource base for the modemiz高tion

29

of Japan. The aim also included preventing the occupation of this island by

Russia. The reclamation proceeded under strong supervision and financial

assistance by the central government.

Hokkaido's climate is dry and moderate in summer， yet very cold and

snowy in winter. Hokkaido is on the border between the temperate zone and the

sub-arctic zone. lt snows from the middle of November to the middle of April

with sub-freezing temperatures. Thus， crops cannot be grown in the field during

winter. However， the moderate temperature in summer is suitable for growing

crops and breeding animals. The climatic conditions differ according to each

region. Great tluctuations in temperature between day and night make the crops

taste sweeter with increased sugar content， making them desirable. Modern

agricultural techniques from the United States and Europe were introduced. They

became the foundation of upland farming and dairy-centered agriculture. Now，

Hokkaido has grown to become a highly productive land and the food-producing

base of Japan.

Figure 3.1. A map ofHokkaido and its location from Japan

Tokachi /

The cultivated land in Hokkaido is about l.2 million hectares. Two四 thirds

of Hokkaido has low productivity. Specifically， 37% is made up of volcanic ash，

21 % is heavy clay， and 8% is peat soil. Volcanic ash covers Iarge areas in eastern

and western Hokkaido. The soil fertility is Iow due to inertia of soiI organisms， as

30

welI as the low amounts of phosphoric acid and caIciurn. Central and northern

Hokkaido consists of heavy clay that is viscous， dense， and difficult to penetrate.

As a result， water remains on the surface. This clay is difficult to cultivate and

plow. Peat soil is found near the lower reaches of main rivers， such as the Ishikari

River in the central region， the Teshio River in the northern region， and the

wetlands in the eastern region. The soil is wet and lacks aeration， both of which

hinder the movement oftractors， ploughs， and other heavy machinery.

Table 3.1. Contributions ofHokkaido to national production

ltems % (1) Agricultural produce Sugar beets 100 Kidney beans 94 Adzuki beans 88 Potatoes 78 明乃leat 61 Onions 54 SweetCorn 42 Soybeans 30 Carrots 29 Radishes (Daikon) 11

Rice 7.5 (2) Livestock produce MiIk 47 Beef 15 Racehorses 96 Source: MAFF， 2006

Hokkaido is the largest agricultural land r巴sourcein Japan. The farmers

operate highly. productive agriculture; farmland per farnl in Hokkaido in 2005

was 19.8 hectares， which is 15.2 times the 1.3 hectares of other prefec旬res

但okkaidoreport， 2007). The farmers in Hokkaido are relatively young compa削

to those in other prefec旬res.AIso， due to the vast agricultural land and fewer

factories， the farmers in Hokkaido have a higher ratio of farm households mainly

engaged in agriculture. Farm households earning more than half of their net

income through farming is 87.7% in Hokkaido， while that of other prefectures is

38.4%伺okkaidoreport， 2007).

31

1t has been more than 140 years since/fulトscaledevelopment started in

Hokkaido in 1869， when the Development Commission was established. The

original foundation consisted of upland and dairy farming. At first， it was

considered impossible to grow rice in Hokkaido due to the cold weather

(Hokkaido report， 2007). A食ermuch trial and error， several cold-resistant

varieties of rice were selected. Now， various agricultural products come企om

Hokkaido (Table 3.1). 1t has became the primary producer ofthe following items:

wheat， soybeans， adzuki (red) beans， kidney beans， potatoes， sugar beets， onions，

ca町'ots，pumpkins， sweet com， Daikon radishes， milk， and beef. Hokkaido is the

prefec加rewith the greatest agricul旬ralproduction in Japan; the total agricultural

output is over 1 trillion yen， about 12.1 % ofthe national output (Hokkaido report，

2007).

The Tokachi area is located in the eastem part ofHokkaido and it is one of

the top agricultural centers of Japan. Despite tough climatic conditions and an

increasing elderly population， Tokachi， for the last few years， has been very

active in engaging the commu凶匂/at all different levels into a new initiative of

regional development (Hokkaido report， 2007). Tokachi has been receiving

r百lativelygreat attention企omthe government and associated organizations in

promoting and enhancing agricultur巴 asthe core sector for the regional

development of the area.

Government support is strong in a number of critical areas such as

technology， finance， human resource development， research and development，

and intervention with market forces (such as pricing policy and supply);

re-education is also emphasized to help with the change in farming family

structure (Hokkaido report， 2007). 1n additioll， contributions of associated

organizations such as academic institutions and non-profit foundations訂 B

reflected in creative agriculture司 relatedinitiatives in new business promotion and

product quality enhancement

32

Over the last 40 years， the number of farming households in Tokachi has

declined significantly. There are many possible explanations for this: 1) the

outflow of young people to urban areas because of their negative perception of

the farming life; 2) the low birth rate among farming households; and 3) male

successorship， which is a common practice in the region (Hokkaido report， 2007).

Self-sufficiency is another critical issue to the local farmers. At the moment，

under government support， there seems to be no problem， but there is an

increasing concem about this issue once the support ceases or is outsourced.

Local farmers are exposed to various training opport凶lities，supported by

either governmental agencies or private organizations. There is a strong link

beれ四enindividual households and academic institutions. Also， the farming

households are very proactive in getting updated knowledge concerning their

farming. In con回 stto the negative perspectives of the farming life (associations

with hard physical labor， unstable income， and less leisure)， local farmers are

very enthusiastic.

The most impressive image企omthe farmers here is their strong

confidence. They have abundant natural resources， long experience， and

technology. They find their farming life very enjoyable. The local farmers

manage their farming timing very wisely by doing educational toぽ'sin other

regions and abroad during the off-season; they combine study with leisure as

restoration企omthe long hard-working months in the field (Hokkaido report，

2007).

3.3. Educational extension system for farmers

In J apan， the main 0伍cialorganizations that now provide educational

extension services for farmers are the agricultural extension centers， th巴

Agriculωral Mutual Relief Association 別OSAI)，and the JAs. We describe

below the history of each organization and its role in serving the family farm

through educational extension services.

33

3.3.1. Agricultural extension centers

The governmental extension service for farmers in Japan began in 1948

σigure 3.2) in accordance with the agricul旬ralimprovement promotion law，

which followed the Smith-Lever Act in th巴 UnitedStates. The agricultural

extension system in Japan， known as a cooperative extension service， was

introduced into Japanese rural society in the early 1950s (Iwamoto， year

unknown). The agricultural extension sys飽m in Japan is called a cooperative

extension service because both the central gove口町lent and prefecture

governments share the budget σukuda， 2005).

The agricultural extension service of J apan has two pu中oses:to improve

agricul旬ralproduction and to improve the standard of living in rura1 areぉ.To

achieve these goals， the prefect町 algovernment provides extension services to

farmers through about 600 extension centers and nearly 10，000 extension advisers

are allocated across Japan. Thus， farmers throughout Japan can access the

extension service (Yamada， 1998). The extension service is intendedωcontribute

to the development of agriculture and farming villages ih Japan.

Recently however， the number of extension personnel has dropped

drastically because of the difficult financial situation of both central and

prefectural governments. Because of白nancialconstraints， the agricultural

extension service can now pr6vide only an intensive 5-ye訂 programof extension

services for selected areas， rather than ongoing programs to all farmers， even

though the demand for the service still remains. The cu訂entagricultural extension

services can not cover all farmers at the same time and the reduction in the

number of extension advisers contributes to the difficulties of direct

communication with all farmers; however， the farmers still need direct extension

servlCes.

34

Figure 3.2. The beginning ofthe agricul旬ralextension service in 1948

-Offlo泡ー臥包ns町1

-Exhibit剛

-Live improvement

阿Inlstryof AFF

Offlceof Agr同l旬開Improvement

Source:~AJFF， 2009

3.3.2. Agricultural Mutual Reli<そfAssociation

-Re担a陀hcenter-FI叩 it-丁目

-Animal -Ploneer

Nature affects agricul加remore than any other indus仕y. In Japan，

agricultural production suffers heavy losses as a result of企equentdamage caused

by typhoons， f1oods，∞01 summers， and other natural disasters但okkaidoreport，

2007). Farmers find it difficultωrecover from such losses without help. The

government of Japan estab!ished the Agricultural ~utual Re!ief Association

(NOSAI) to manage agricultural insurance programs for farmers， which a閃 pa此

of the Agricultural Insurance Sch巴methat provides insurance to help support

farmers whose farms have sustained damage caused by natural disasters， pests，

and diseases， and to contribute to the growth of Japanese agriculture別OSAI

home page). The members ofNOSAI are individual白rmers.

The government subsidizes the benefits required to help farms recover

企omthe losses incurred as a result of natural disasters. The system has been

amended many times to meet the changing agricultural situation and has made

considerable contributions to the development of Japanese agriculture. This

scheme covers almost all of the principal agricul知ralproducts of J apan.

The different types of agricultural insurance programs are:

Rice， wheat， and barley insurance (nationwide program)

Livestock insurance (nationwide programJ

35

Fruit and企uit-treeinsurance (optional program)

Field crop insurance (optional program)

Greenhouse insurance (optional program)

The main role ofthe NOSAI is to collect premiums and pay benefits， but it

also has a secondary role in reducing risk by offering advice on plant protection

methods to prevent pest and disease damage and also by providing veterinary

advice to livestock farmers. In Hokkaido in 2004， the total number of NOSAI

workers was 1，298， including.673 veterinarians. In this way， livestock farmers

can obtain special services企omve加 inarians，such as仕eatmentfor animal

diseases， artificial insemination， and veterinarian consultations， as well as

insurance for production losses.

There were 21 NOSAI chapters in Hokkaido in 2005伺okkaidoreport，

2007). The main goal of this association is to oversee the farmers' insurance

program， collecting insurance premiums that can be paid out when the members

are affected by natural disasters and animal disease， so the educational extension

service that this association provides to the farmers is limited.

3.3.3. Agricultural cooperatives (JAs)

The history of cooperative associations in Japan goes back many years.

They were first in仕uducedby national government officials to farmers whose

businesses were damaged by high taxation (1903-1912). Pre-war cooperatives

were called industrial cooperatives (Klinedinst and Sato， 1994). A total of 81

cooperatives were established in Tokachi from 1903 to 1941 (Table 3.2)， but only

22 survived until 1941.

Most of these eariy cooperatives provided only credit and purchasing

services. At this time， many types of indus仕ycooperatives were developed by

adding new services like marketing and advice. A good example of this is the

Kawanishi cooperative， which in 1921 sta此edto sell produce企'omtheir

warehouse. The Agricultural Cooperative Law was introduced in 1947 to improve

36

agricul旬ralproductivity and enhance the position of farmers economically and

socially， through faci1itating greater activity of agricultural cooperatives， thereby

contributing to the development of the national economy制球agan，2004).

Table 3.2. Number of established industrial cooperatives in Tokachi合'Om

1903-1941

Year Established Survived until1941 Year Established Survived untill941

1903 2 。 1923 2 。1904 。 1924 2 。1905 。 。 1925 2 1906 。 。 1926 I 。1907 。 。 1927 1908 。 。 1928 2 1 1909 6 1929 。 。1910 3 。 1930 l 1911 1931 。 。1912 1 。 1932 I

1913 2 1933 4 4 1914 3 。 1934 3 3 1915 5 1935 1916 8 2 1936 I

1917 7 。 1937 2 I

1918 2 。 1938 。 。1919 8 。 1939 。 。1920 6 。 1940 。 。1921 。 。 1941 1 1922 2 。 Total 81 22

Source: 11AJFF， 2009

The JAs deal with many kinds of projects related to work and life in

genera1. They aim to improve the economic and social status of the farmers by

dealing with all aspects of agricultural production， such as farm management，

product sales， materials purchぉ ing，financing， and mutual relief. As in Figure 3.3

that shows the recent s仕uc旬reof the agricultural cooperatives in the Hokkaido

area， they deliver multi-purpose services and operate as multi-functional

economic institutions. However， their principal roles are providing advice to

improve farm management of the cooperatives' members and providing support

for production (farming supplies) and marketing (gathering farmers' produce at

37

colIection centers and selling to wholesale and retail markets) (Klinedinst and

Sato， 1994). The J As are a good example of an integrated framework for the

service of their farmer memb巴rsand they serve and are controlIed by their

members (Prakash， 2000)

Figure 3.3. The recent structure ofthe agricul旬ralcooperatives in Hokkaido

Agricultural Cooperative Association

明白目idpality)

Agricultuml CooperativeAssociations

。ifainB目，;目四時 (Prefccturc) 別atio081)

Guldancc of Hokkaido Ccntrnl Union of Ccntral Union of Agricultural agric阻1何回1managcmcnt Agricul加mlCoopcr司tive Cooperative

Supply of farming matcrial Hoku問 nFcderntion of Agricultuml National Fcdemtion of Agricultural

Collecting and日lIingp町 duccs Coop惜別ivcAssociation Cooper訓iveAss田 iation

目白血回目但'p目slt， Loan) Hokkaido Crcdit Fcderation of |百巴No巾出ukinBank AgriculturaI CooperativejJ凶sociati。目

Hokkaido Mulual Insurance FederatIon National Mutual Insurance

Mutu昌IJnsum凹 CCscrvlces 。rAgricultuml coopcrativc

Fcdcration of Agricultural Cooperative

Mcdlcal Care Hokkaido Welfare Fedemtion N且tionalWelfarc Fed田宮liooof Agricultural G∞'pemtivc 。fCoopemtivc

Source: MAFF， 2009

The average profit of 117 sample coop巴ratives(Table 3.3) shows clearly

血atthe cost of guidance services is covered by the profit企omother business

activities. Thus， they are able provide guidance on agricultural production

(technologies and farm management) to individual members to help them operate

their farms more efficiently and promote the organization， development， and

improvement of agriculture in the communities. Farm advisers provide advice on

quality improvement and otherぉpectsof production and marketing. Members

jointly use machinery and facilities and purchase production materials; this

coop巴rationboosts the production of regional specialty products 侭linedinstand

Sato， 1994).

38

Table 3.3. Average profit of 117 sample cooperatives (million yen)

Sections Profit

Credit 385

Insurance 404

Purchasing -6

Marketing -19

Guidance -168

Other -462

Total 134

Source: MAFF， 1999

A survey by the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture Fores仕yand Fisheries

小!lAFF)in 2005 showed that farmers considered the JAs to be the most important

source of their training in business management (Table 2.4). The JA advisers

communicate directly with farmers， respond to the needs of the members， and

provide educational activities to all farmer members once a year. The advisers

provide specialized guidance to groups of farm巴rsaccording to the type of

production and also provide individual consultations. As of April 1， 2008， 764

JAs were operating throughout Japan (Agriculture Business Week， 2009). In

ApriI 2005， there were 128 unit cooperatives in Hokkaido; there were also

federations at the prefectural and national levels capitalized by those unit

cooperatives但okkaidoreport， 2007).

Table 3.4. Farmers' source oftraining on business management

Agc(y，閣時 Junior Soh回 lor JAs Ext園田温 L蝿 deror Neighbor- Priva包 。血...

回 n唱e agri cen缶百 agri.edu団組rh四 dsf"祖師 回 np'可

>39 6.0 1.4 26.0 19.6 1.1 8.6 5.8 40.6

40-49 1.8 43.3 2.7 05 3.9 8.9 40.7

50-59 1.1 0.7 32.4 72 4.6 9.4 465

<60 35.1 82 13.4 5.6 435

Source: MAFF， 2005

39

3.4. Comparison between the recent extension systems provided for farmers

in Egypt and their counterparts in Japan

As a response to the widening gap between food supply and food demand

and the chronic problem of food insecurity in the country， the success registered

by researchers led policymakers， public authorities， and extension service

providers to believe that the widespread adoption of green revolution

technologies was the solution to improve smallholders' productivity and吐lereby

achieve food self-sufficiency at a nationallevel.

The adoption of technology by farmers is inevitably a能 ctedby many

factors (Feder et al.， 1986). Adoption can be inf1uenced by educating farmers

about such things as improved varieties， planting tec加 iques，optimal input use，

prices and market conditions， more efficient methods of production management，

storage， and nutrition. To do this， extension agents must be capable of more than

just communicating messages to farmers. They must be able to comprehend an

o食encomplex situation， have the technical ability to spot and possibly diagnose

problems， and possess insightful economic management skills to advise farmers

on the more efficient use of resources.

Effective extension involves adequate and timely access by farmers to

relevant advice. However， while access to appropriate information is necess釘Yto

improve agricultural productivity， it is not sufficient. In general， farmers will

adopt a particular technology if it suits their socioeconomic and agroecological

circumstances. The availability of improved technology， access to contemporary

inputs and resources， and profitability at an acceptable level of risk are among the

critical factors in the adoption process. Furthermore， farmers often get

information from a number of sources. Public extension is one such source， but

notn巴cessarilythe most efficient.

40

Extension can increase the rate at which adoption occurs， but the巴xtent

and form吐mtan extension service takes should be guided by considerations of

cost-effectiveness and the nature of extension products. Thus， while extension，

including that done in the public sector， can play an important role in improving

the productive efficiency of the agricultぽ alsector， the、virtuesand limitations of

the alternative mechanisms need to be considered in assessing the cost

effectiveness of delivering information (Byerlee， 1998; van den Ban， 1999).

In Egypt， extension and technology仕ansfercapability are still immature

and need improvement. The extension services in Egypt， as in many other

d巴velopingcountries， are particularly constrained by insu首icienthuman and

financial resources. Extension organizations in Egypt， as in developing

countries， face the m司orproblems of professional in∞mpetence and lack of

motivation among their employees. Furthermore， many of the agricultural

extension departments of the coun仕ydo not have a well-defined system ofhuman

resource management. Much information disseminated by public sector

extensions systems is a 'public good' and dissemination costs cannot be easily

recovered from individuals; thus， they depend on direct publicおnding.Part of

the problem is one of magni知de-a large extension service with a large staff

serving large numbers of farmers is inherently expensive to operate (Fed巴ret al.，

1999).

Ameur (1994) sees the problemぉ avicious circle of fiscal difficulty，

curtailed services， inefficient operation， poorer results， and reduced staff

motivation， training， and competence. This leads to bureaucratic ine妊iciency，

poor program design， and incomplete links with client farmers. Proper planning

and management of human resourc凶 withinextension orga凶zations紅'eessential

to increase the capabilities， motivation， and overall e民 ctivenessof extension

personne1. Human resource planning forecasts the白turepersonnel needs of

extension organiz耳.tions.With the rapid changes in technology， needs of farmers，

market situation， and competitive environment， planning for human resources has

become an important， challenging task for the extension system.

41

The concept that the extension system is intended to advise farmers was

seriously challenged， suggesting the need to shi食away企omthe adviser approach.

According to Anderson and Feder (2002)， the extension system helps to reduce

the differential between potential and actual yields in farmers'宜eldsby

accelerating technology transfer and helping farmers become better farm

managers. It also has an important role to play in h巴lpingthe research

establishment tailor technology to the agro-ecological and resource circumstances

offarmers.

Extension services have been， and still are， almost entirely financed by the

public sector in most developing and developed countries. Extension services are

still organized only by the central or local govemment， by agricultural colleges，

usually in close association with experiment stations， by farmers' organizations

(agricultural societies， cooperatives， farmers unions， or chambers of agricul加re)，

or by combinations of these parent bodies (Jones et al.， 2005). A食ermany recent

changes in the way that extension services are d巴livered，they now involve

different governmental agencies (formerly the main players in the extension

sys匂m)，non-governmental organizations， producer organizations and other

farmer organizations， and private sector operators， which include input suppliers，

purchasers of agricultural products，国.iningorganizations， and media groups，

concerned with assuring the supply and quality of their products別euchatel

Group， 1999).

As more governments faced severe financial difficulties， funds for

providing support services to agricultur官， including extension servic巴S，were

curtailed (Ameur， 1994). Public sector extension systems faced problems of cost

and lack of efficiency. Feder et al. (1999) suggested that there are several generic

problems， regardless of the management system or approach to public extension，

two ofwhich紅色 operating resources and fiscal sustainability; however， the main

generic problem for extension is the inherent difficulty of cost recovery. In Japan，

government support is s仕ongin a number of critical areas such as technology，

42

finance， human resource development， research and development， and

intervention with market forces (such as pricing poIicy and supply). Re-巴ducation

is also emphasized to help with the change in faロningfamily s仕uc旬re.

Contributions of associated organizations such as academic institutions and

non-profit foundations are reflected in creative agriculture司 relatedinitiatives in

new business promotion and product quality enhancement.

In addition， local farmers are exposed to various training opportunities，

supported by either govermnental agencies or private organizations. Also， there is

a s仕ongIink between individual households and academic institutions; the

farming households are very proactive in ge抗ingupdated knowledge concerning

their farming. In contrast to the negative persp巴ctiveson the farming life

(associations with hard manual labor， unstable income， and less leisure)， local

farmers are very enthusiastic， they have abundant natural resources， long

experience， and technology， and they find their farming life very enjoyable. The

local farmers manage their agricultural timing very wisely. By studying

agriculture in other regions and abroad during the 0年 season，they can combine

study and leisure as restoration for the long hard-working months in the field.

The main official organizations that now provide educational extension

services for farmers in Japan are the agricultural extension centers， the

Agricultural Mutual Relief Association (NOSAI)， and Japan Agricultural

Cooperatives (JAs). Both the private and pubIic sectors in Japan provide farmers

with educational extension services. The pubIic sector agricul旬reextension

centers first provided free advice to aII farmers. Recently， however， this service

has been unable to meet these needs because of financial constraints and a

decreasing number of extension advisers.

The private sector， through吐leNOSAI， provides an insurance program for

farmers. The JAs， a mix ofboth private and pubIic sectors， are th巴mostimportant

source of multipurpose services for farmers. They serve their farmer members by

providing guidance on daiIy living as weII as insurance， credit provision， and

43

other business services. The JAs make a big contribution to the development of

the agricultural industry and the local communities in Japan. In both developing

and developed countries， farmers with small family farms cannot pay for

extension services. Fully privatized extension is not economically fi巴asiblein

countries with a large base of small-scale， subsistence farmers (Umali司Deininger，

1996). Thus， farmers need企巴eeducational extension services to provide

advanced advice for improving their farm management and their livelihood.

Anderson (2008) suggested that farmers' organizations can play an並lportantrole

in helpi昭 todevolve extension functions to farmers' associations， rather thanjust

to local gove町田lents.

3.5. Conc1usions

Our investigation and previous studies demonstrate that both the private

and public sectors in Japan provide farmers with educational extension services.

Public sector agriculture extension centers first provided free advice for all

farmers. Recently， however， this service has be巴iJ.unable to meet these needs

because of financial constraints and a decreasing number of extension advisers.

The private sector， through the NOSAI， provides an insurance program for

farmers. The JAs， a mix of both private and public sectors， are the most important

source of multipurpose s巴rvicesfor farmers. They serve their farmer members by

providing guidance on daily living as well as insurance， credit provision， and

other business services. The JAs make a big contribution to the development of

the agricultural industry and the local communities in Japan.

Much can be leamed from the sucωss of the JAs. Moreover， the

cooperatives have to provide all types of economic and social services to their

members. They must consider and act on their members' views and needs to

continue to provide effective education， training， and extension. Active

communication has to be established and maintained among the management，

leadership， and members. In addition， public extension systems must be∞me

financially sustainable.

44

CHAPTERIV

DIFFUSION OF CORN SILAGE AND ITS PRESCRIBING FACTORS IN

EGYPTIAN AGRICULTURE

4.1 Background

The diftusi'On 'Of inn'Ovati'Ons the'Ories， devel'Oped 'Over a half cen旬ryag'O，

have pr'Ovided a p'Opular企amew'Orkt'O explain h'Ow new ideas and匂chn'Ol'Ogies

are spread and ad'Opted in a c'Ommunity (R'Ogers， 2003). Techn'Ol'Ogy devel'Opment

and techn'Ol'Ogy transfer pr'Ocesses are c'Onsidered t'O be primary driving f'Orces f'Or

gr'Owth and welfare in devel'Oping c'Ountries (Balakrishnan， 1998). Theref'Ore

ec'On'Omists have paid much attenti'On t'O the diftusi'On 'Of new agricul旬ral

techn'Ol'Ogies， especialIy in devel'Oping c'Ountries because the maj'Ori勿'Ofthe

p'Opulati'On eams their subsistence inc'Omes企omfarming.

In Egypt， agriculture is a m吋'Orec'On'Omic issue， relating t'O every asp巴:ct'Of

the ec'On'Omic structure 'Of the c'Ou凶ry，where a m吋'Ority'Ofthe.p'Opulati'On eams a

subsistence inc'Ome企''Omfarming. The m司j'Ority'Of farms are famiIy farms 'Of less

than 'One hectare with mixed livest'Ock and cr'Op pr'Oducti'On. Egypt is currentIy

l'O'Oking f'Or 'Opp'Ortunities t'O expand its animal pr'Oducti'On; t'O d'O s'O; it wiII need t'O

c'Onsider f'Orage res'Ources. The main winter and spring f'Orage is Egyptian cl'Over;

in summer， wheat straw， rice， and c'Oncentrate are used. A sh'Ortage 'Of feed

severely limits livest'Ock pr'Oducti'On. During the peri'Od fr'Om 2006 t'O 2009，

farmers in Egypt suffered a sh'Ortage 'Of c'Oncentrate and straw 'Of ab'Out 9746 and

5258.5 th'Ousand t'Ons， respectively (MAL 2009).

The trend 'Over白epast ten years has been f'Or c'Orn siIage as an en巴rgyand

f'Orage s'Ource t'O represent a higher percentage am'Ong the f'Orage types fed t'O

cattle. This chapter f'Ocuses 'On the diftusi'On pr'Ocess 'Of c'Orn siIage as 'One 'Of the

new ideas as f'Orage res'Ources am'Ong Egyptian farmers. On the 'Other hand Egypt

remains 'One 'Of the w'OrId's largest f'O'Od imp'Orters.. F'O'Od imp'Orts acc'Ounted f'Or

11.6% 'Ofthe t'Otal imp'Orts in fiscal 2004. Egypt is 'One 'Ofthe w'Orld's m司j'Orwh巴at

45

purchasers， buying about 6.5 miIlion tons per year. Corn silage is considered to

be a new idea as a forage resource among Egyptian farmers. Corn silage as an

energy and forage source may reduce the use of concentrates in feeding animals，

and may reduce the cultivated ar，巴aof clover in winter that wiIl increase the area

cultivated with wheat that may contribute to achieving self.引lfficiencyin wheat

production.

Transfer of new technology or new ideas refers to general process of

moving information and skiIls from information or knowledge generators such as

research laboratories and universities to clients such as farmers. And the outcome

of transferring this new technology is the farmers' adoption and bringing this into

practice and further diffusion to other individuals in the community. Rogers'

(2003) defines diffusion as the proc悶 bywhich an innovation (a product，

process， or idea perceived as new) is communicated 伽'Oughcertain channels over

time among the members of a social system. One of goals 0:1' social science is to

provide an empirical basis for understanding human behavior and the

socio-economic factors， which may play a significant role in determining the

pa枕ernof the adoption of the innovation. Study of adoption behavior of the

technology is expected to supply crucial information on the pa仕ernof adoption

and identi今whois by-passed by the innovation.

Understanding who non-adopters or later adopters are and reason for

non-adoption or late adoption can assist in repacking the technology to meet the

need of the producers as well as put in place other key services that would enable

them to adopt or to be earlier adopters. The adoption of new idea and practices is

affected by at least自vefactors: 1) Nature of the client system， 2) Communication

channels used， 3) The extent of change agents' effort， 4) The type of decision

involved in adoption， 5) Perceived attributes ofthe innovation (Rollins， 1993).

Farmers have seen as major constraint in development process， they are

innovator or laggards. Socio-psychological trait of farmers is important.

Therefore in this chapter we use the concept of diffusion in term of understanding

46

which factors influence their adoption behavior of com silage among Egyptian

smallholders based on their characteristics for understand diffusion process of

new idea among farmers Egypt as one of the developing countries， in particular，

to determine the details of Egyptian farmers' characteristics， and discuss what

causes adoption rates to v訂 yand what constrains the adoption of innovations.

4.2 Literature Review

The study of the diffusion of innovation is certainly not new. The

traditional innovation adoptionldiffusion literature examines a wide variety of

innovations in different contexts and provides a rich foundation for studies on

adoption of technologies (Rogers， 1995). An innovation is any idea， practice or

object that is perceived as new by the adopter. The unit of analysis in an adoption

study is an individual decision maker (farmers) or decision-making unit (farm

household). The innovation adoptionldiffusion literature examines the process of

adoption decision making， the characteristics of the adopters， the various factors

that influence the adoption of innovation and the diffusion of innovation in the

population.

Rogers (1995) provided a number of generalizations regarding classical

adoptionldiffusion: There are personal characteristic苫 (e.g.level of education) of

potential adopters that make them more innovative than others. The decision to

adopt and use unfolds in stages: awareness stage of acquiring information about

the innovation， persuasion stage of being persuaded to adopt the innovation，

decision stage of d巴cidingto adopt， implementation stage of implementing the

innovation and using it and finally confirmation s匂geof evaluating the actual

outcomes with expectations. Different factors influence the adopters in the

various stages. The behavior of some individuals (champions or change agents)

can accelerate adoption of the innovation. The diffusion process usually starts out

slowly， but 、takesoft' rapidly a食eran initial period and eventually levels off.

47

Innovations have certain characteristics that adopters perceive as

determining the rate of adoption. Some of the characteristics are relative

advantag巴， compatibiIity， complexity，仕ialabiIityand observabiIity. Diffusion

studies refer to the cumulative adoption path or distribution of adoption

(percentage of farmers， percentage of area) over time or space， with the

community， region， nation or another geographical scale as the unit of analysis.

Since the focus in this chapter is to determine diffusion of com siIage and its

prescribing factors in Egyptian agriculture， the Iiterature review wiII focus first on

Innovation-diffusion model， then on the adoption studies.

4.2.1 Innovation-diffusion model

This model is composed of four basic theoretical approaches each focusing

on a different element of the innovation process. These are combined to create a

meta-theory of diffusion consisting of four components: the innovation decision

process， the perceived attributes of the technology and their rate of adoption and

individual innovativeness (Rogers 1995).

4.2.1. a. Innovation decisionprocess

The innovation decision process is characterized by five stages: knowledge，

persuasion， decision， implementation and confirmation. In the knowledge stage

the individual or household is exposed to the innovation's existence and gains

understanding of how it functions. However， even after knowing about an

innovation individuals may need to be persuaded to use it because they do not

regard it as relevant to their situation. Th巴outcomeof the p巴rsuasionstage is

either adoption or rejection of the innovation. The implementation stage is when

an individual p山 aninnovation into use. The final stage is confirmation during

which the individual seeks reinforcement for the decision made.

48

4.2.1. b. Attributes 01 innovations and their rate 01 adoption

Rogers (1995) identifies five 釧 ributesupon which an innovation is judged.

These are relative advantage， compatibility， complexity， triability and

observability. Relative advantage refers to the degree to which an innovation is

perceiv巴das better than the practice it replaces. Relative advantage is 0食en

expressed in terms of economic， social or other benefits. Compatibility refers to

the degree to which an innovation is perceived by potential adopters to be

consistent with their existing values or practices. Compatibility with what is

already in place makes the new practice seem less uncertain， more familiar and

easier to adopt. Complexity refers to the degree to which an innovation is

considered as difficult to understand and use. If potential adopters perceive an

innovation as complex， its adoption rate is low. Triability refers to the extent to

which an innovation may be subjected to limited experimentation. Finally，

observability refers to the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible

to others.

4.2.1. c. lndividual innovativeness

This theory posits that innovations spread gradually over time and among

people resulting in various adopter categories. The result is an adoption process

that forms a normal S-shaped curve when plotted over time (Rogers， 1995).

Rogers attributes this distribution of adoption to the role of information， which

reduces uncertainザ inthe diffusion process. Based on this argument Rogers has

classified adopters into five categories: innovators，巴紅lyadopters， early m司jority，

late majori句rand laggards.

Innovators are described as individuals who are venturesome， eager to try

new ideas and wil1ing to take risks. Early adopters are described as the local

opinion leaders in th巴systemthat function as the role models and紅 'equick to s切

the value of innovations. The early m吋orityis fornied by the largest category.

These people on1y make a decision after th巴yare convinced of the ben巴fits.The

late majority are cautious and skeptical persons who do not adopt until the large

49

m吋orityhas done so. They are usuaIIy the relatively poor and訂 eaverseωrisk.

The last group of adopters is the laggards. They are suspicious of innovations and

change agents. They are usuaIIy poor and seldom take risks.

The innovation diffusion model has several Iimitations. One of the m吋or

shortcomings of the model is that it generaIIy assumes that the most important

variable is information and吐lewiIIingness of the individual to change. An

individual is characterized according to his behavior without considering factors

that influence his behavior. In reaIity many other factors are known to influence

the adoption of an agricultural innovation. These incIude the farmer's objectives，

the level of the resource endowments of the individuals， access to resources，

availability of support systems and the characteristics of the innovation. For

example， access to resources such as labour and land can Iimit the adoption of an

innovation to a smaIl number of individuals in a society.

4.2.2 The previous siudies

Once a new technique or innovation becomes available， it usuaIly takes

some time before it is五lIIyimplemented. At the farm level， the transition period

may be characterized by a time lag between awareness of the technology and

actual adoption. Referring to technology adoption， studies of adoption and

diffusion behaviors were undertaken. Rogers (I962) conducted studies on the

diffusion of hybrids corn in Iowa and compared diffusion rates of different

counties. The study found that in most regions diffusion was a logistic function of

time and emphasized the importance of distance in adoption and diffusion

behavior.

ActuaIly there is a rich Iiterature on the adoption of technological

innovations in agriculture (Feder， Just， and ZIlberman). EarIy research focused on

the diffusion process: a責era slow start in which only a few farmers adopt the

innovation， adoption expands at an increasing time rate. Later， the rate of

adoption d巳creasesas the number of adopters begins to exceed the number of

50

farmers who have not yet adopted. Finally， adoption asymptotically approaches

its maximum level， until the process ends. This process results in an s-shaped

diffusion cぽ ve，first discussed by rural sociologists and introduced to economics

by Griliches in 1957.

Economists and sociologists also want to understand what causes adoption

rates to differ and what constrains the adoption of innovations， several researchers

have examined the influence offarmers' attributes on the adoption of agricultural

innovations (Rahm and Huffrnan， Caswell and Zilberrnan， 1984). Rural

sociologists re∞gnized eariy that essential differences among farmers can explain

why all farmers do not adopt an innovation at the same time. Rogers (2003) used

a time continuum to classifY adopters into five categories based on their

innovativeness， defined as the degree by which a farmer is relatively earlier in

adopting， compared with other members in the system， because many human

attributes (physical or psychological) are normally distributed.

Rogers (2003) hypoth巴sizedthat the time to learn a given task is also

normally dis仕ibuted.Furthermore， he argued that substituting a social system for

an individual， also leads to the normal distribution， which in the cumulative form

approximates the typical s-shaped diffusion curves. For that reason， Rogers

(2003) used the standard normal distribution to define adopter categories， and

based on he's definition to the adopter categories;

1) The farmers in first category are the“innovators" These individuals are

characterized as venturesome and they are very eager to try new idea.

They have more cosmopolite social relationship. They have ability to

understand and apply complex technical knowledge， and willing to

assume the risk of using the innovation. They experiment and learn to

adapt the innovation to local conditions. They play gate keeping role in

the social system. This category includes the first 2.5 percent of the

adopters in a social system.

51

2) The next 13.5 percent in a social system are the “early adopters"

Farmers in this group play a key role in the diffusion process， because

they are well respected by other farmers and exert a large degree of

“opinion leadership. They are known as respectable. They are localites

and have opi凶onleadership. Members of the social system consider

them as “the individual to ch巴ckwith" before using a new idea. Change

agents consider them ぉ“localmissionary". They hold “central

position" in the communication s廿ucωreof the system and are

respected by peers

3) Next to early adopters， th巴"earlyrr同jority"which include 34 perce凶 of

the adopters in a social system. A farmer in this group deliberate for

some time before adopting， waiting until 閲覧icientexperience has

accumulated. 4) Individuals in the “late majority" group also include 34

percent in a social system， are skeptics who are not convinced until

most of their p巴巴rshave adopted. They adopt an innovation when they

feel that it is safe to adopt.

5) The last group to adopt， the“laggards" which include 16 percent in a

social system， is attached to tradition and suspicious of innovations，

they are the most localites and isolates. They possess almost no opinion

leadership. The point of reference for the laggards is the past. They

interact with people having仕aditionalvalues， and of“change agents."

Laggards adopt only when they are certain that the innovation will not

fail， because they cannot afford failure due to their “precarious

economic condition."

4.2.2.1. The innovation-decision process

Based on Rogers (2003) definition is the process through which an

individual (or other decision making unit) passes from first knowledge of an

innovation， to forming an a抗itudetoward the innovation， to a decision to adopt or

reject， to implementation of the new idea， and to confirmation of this decision，

the innovation-decision process is base on time and these five distinct stages;

52

1) The first stage is knowledge: Potential adopters must first learn about

the innovation. At this stage an individual (or other decision-making

unit) is exposed to the innovations e氾 stenceand gains some

understanding of how it functions.

2) S巴cond，persuasion: They must be p巴rsuadedasωthe merits of the

innovation. At this stage an individual (or other decision-making unit)

forms a favorable or unfavorable attitude towards the innovation.

3) Third， decision: they must decide to adopt the innovation. At this stage

an individual engages himself in activities that lead to a choice to

adopt or reject the innovation.

4) Fourth， implementation: Once they adopt the innovation， they must

implement it. At this stage an individual puts an innovation into use.

5) Fifth， confirmation: they must confirm that their decision to adopt was

the appropriate decision. At this stage an individual seeks

reinforcement for an innovation-decision already made， but he or she

may reverse this decision if exposed to conf1icting messages about the

innovation. Once these stages are achieved， then diffusion results.

Rogers (2003) indicates that there is clear evidence for the ‘knowledge'

and ‘decision' stages， but evidence for the other stages is much less certain.

Perhaps persuasion and implementation can happen at different moments in the

adoption process. Persuasion can occur after the decision to adopt， which

sometimes is taken without careful consideration of the possible consequences.

Implementation， which is a serious consideration of how the farτners will change

their farm management by adopting this innovation， can take place partly before

the dωision is taken. Implementation often implies that the innovation is

modified to suit more closely the need of theぬrmerwho adopts it. People 0食en

gather additional information after they have adopted an innovation to confirm

they have made the right decision.

53

4.2.2.2. Factors that may influence adoption of technologies

An important consideration in adoption studies also is the assessment of

factors influencing farmers' adoption of farm innovations. Research has shown

that economic and household characteristics of farmers affect their response to

innovations (Windapo 2002). This section presents some of the m司jor factors that

may influence adoption of technologies and related previous results. Th巴se

factors are grouped in four sections: farmer characteristics， farm resources，

compatibility with farming system and the political-economic environment.

4.2.2.2.α Characteristi，ω of farmers:“Wealth" Farmers with more

resources (Iand， labour， capital) generally take advantage of a new technology.

Wealthier farmers have better access to extension information and financial

resources (own funds or credit) and can afford to take some risks. Thus， over the

years adoption studies have tended to focus on factors influencing the adoption

decisions offarmers (Atala et al. 1992; Obasi et al. 1994; Obinne 1991; Odiaka et

al. 1997). Voh (1982) also reported that socio-economic status of farmers is

positively and strongly related to adoption. This report implied that the higher the

socio-的 onomicstatus， the higher the tendency to adopt innovation.

“'Age" A farmer's age may influence adoption in one of several ways.

Older farmers may have more experience， resources， or authority that would

allow them more possibilities for trying a new technology. On the other hand， it

may be that younger farmers are more likely to adopt a new technology， because

they have had more schooling than the older generation or perhaps they have

been exposed to new ideas elsewhere. Previous studies by Motamed and Singh

(2003) and Rahman (2007) showed that age of farmers had negative and

significant relationship with adoption level

“'Education" Many adoptions studies show a relationship between

technology adoption and the educational level of the farmer. The more complex

the technology， the more likely it is that education will play a role. The finding by

54

Omobolanle et al. (2010) showed that level of farmers' education did not a能 ct

the sustained use of technology. While the report of researches carried out by

Akinbode (1976); Agbamu (1993); Angba (2000) and Rahman (2007) were

showed that level of education was positively related to adoption.

4.2.2.2. b. Farm reso悶・ces:“'Farmsize" Farm size is a common variable

examined in adoption studies and is 0丘ena good proxy for wealth. It's often

assumed that larger-scale farmers will be more likely to adopt a technology，

especially if the innovation requires an extra cash investment. On the other hand，

certain technologies are more appropriate for the intensive management

characteristics of smaller farms (or at least of farms with a higher ratio of labour

to land). Farm size may also be related to access to credit facilities， which may

facilitate adoption. On the other hand innovation diffusion is due to variation of

the adoption benefits over the potential adopters. The adoption benefits may vary

over adopters because the adopters may di能 ramong each other. Farm size is one

of the first and most widely used factors on which the empirical adoption

literature has focused. Most studies find a positive relationship between farm size

and adoption (see e.g. Akinbode， 1976; Rahman， 2007; Omobolanle et al， 2010

and Diederen et al， 2003).

“'Labour" Technologie哩 havedifferent labour characteristics; some save

labour， while others significantly increase it. In planning adoption studies

researchers need to pay sufficient attention to labour-related issues: changes in

labour requirements， timing of activities and peak periods during the yea巳labour

availability within the household， off farm employment， availability of hired

labour

“Equipment and machinery" If a technology involves equipment or

machinery， the degree of adoption may depend on the farmers who have or are

able to acquire it.

55

4ユ2.2. c. Compatibility with farming system: Technologies must be

compatible with the farming system at large， if they are to find acceptance. Often

a technology as such appears to make sense on its own， but is still吋ωted，not

because of any intrinsic disqualification， but because it cannot be incorporated in

the farming system. Reasons for non-compatibiliザ canbe:“Labour" it is

important to know if th巴 labourdemand of a new technology coincides with a

particular busy time of the year or could take advantage of a period when labour

is available. lt's important to remember血atthe labour profile for a certain

farming system is determined not only by operations on the target crop but also

by demands from various other activities of farmer households.

“Other crops" intercropping and relay cropping are common practices in

many farming systems. New varieties or practices for one crop may thus have to

be compatible with the presence and management of other crops

“'Agriculture and livestock interaction" Crop production can be important

for animal production and vice versa. New crop management techniques may

have an effect on the production of by-products destined for animals. The use of

damaged or spoiled grains or tubers for animal feed may diminish farmers'

interest in certain crop protection technologies.

4.2.2.2. d Political-economic environment:“'Information andかaining"F or

farmers to adopt a technology they must first know about it. The information may

come合ommany sources e.g. the extension services， researchers， other farmers，

policy makers， radio， television， newspapers or magazines， extension bulletins，

field days/tours， farmers exchange visits， agricul知ralshows etc.

“'Di万usion"is the process by which an innovation is communicated

through certain channels overtime among the members of a social system (Rogers，

1995). When new ideas are invented， they are diffused and adopted or rejected.

We use the concept of diffusion in our study in term of understanding how many

farmers know and use of technology. Valera et al. (1987) reported that the

56

community is composed of different groups of people; in general， diffusion of

innovation will take pla閃 onlywithin groups ofpeople who are homogenous in

terms of problems， aspirations and n巴eds.

“Communication" is the critical process of diffusion of technological

innovations. And communication channels are the means by which information

travels合oma source to a receiver. Because the innovation is a new product，

process， or idea， it must be communicated to potential adopters in order for them

to assess its attributes and decide whether to try out and eventually adopt it.

日'Agriculturalextension" which is essentially a message delivery system，

hぉ am司jorrole to play in diffusing innovations. The extension agents are known

to facilitate farmers' adoption of technologies (Z巴geye，1990). Rahman， 2007

and Onemolease and Alakpa， 2009 showed that the con旬ctwith extension agents

increases the odds of being earlier adopter of new ideas， however the

communication behavior of an earlier adopter includes more contact with change

agents than that of later adopter (Rollins， 1993). In contrast， interpersonal

channels that involve face to face m∞ting between two or more individuals

probably play a greater role during the attitude formation stage (Wright and

Bennetts， 2006).

4.2.2.2. e Characteristics olInnovation: In respect ofthe characteristics of

Innovation， among the members of a social system some innovations diffuse合om

first introduction to wide spread use in a few years where as others take more

numb巴rof years. This is due to characteristics of innovation， that a品 ctthe rate at

which they diffuse and are adopted. Silage is the result of the anaerobic

fermentation of plant tissues by bacteria that produces an acidic environment that

“pickles" or preserves the forage. The technique of preservation of green material

by fermentation can provide high feed value and will support high levels of milk

production during the dry season particularly if supplemented with f己edsrich in

protein. Silage making requires high labour and materials to prepare.

57

There are five perceived attributes of innovations in universal terms.

Rogers and Shoemaker (1974) identified important variables that determine the

rate of adoption. One of these variables is the perceived characteristic of the

innovation or technology. To be readiIy accepted or adopted， there are five

perceived attributes of innovations in universal terms.

1) Relative Advantage: It is the degree to which an innovation is perceived

as being be仕erthan the idea it supersedes. So relative advantage is often

an important part of message content about an innovation. It is a ratio of

the exp巴ctedbenefits and the costs of adoption of an innovation. Thus

the relative advantage of an innovation， as perceived by members of a

social system， is positively related to its rate of adoption

2) Compatibili砂:It is the degree to which飢 innovationis perceived as

consistent with the existing values， past experiences， and the need of

potential adopter. An idea that is more compatible is less uncertain to

the potential adopter and 五tsmore cIosely with the individual's situation.

An innovation can be compatible or incompatible with sociocultural

values and beIiefs， previously introduced ideas， and cIient needs for the

innovation. Thus the compatibiIity of an innovation as perceived by

members of a social system is positively related to i包 rateof adoption.

3) Complexity: It is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as

relatively difficult to understand and use. Some innovations are cIear in

their meaning to potential adopters while oth巴rsare not. The complexity

of an innovation as perceived by members of a social system is

negatively related to its rate of adoption.

4) Trialability: It is the degree to which an innovation may be

experimented with on a Iimited basis. New ideas that can be tried on the

instaIIment plan are generaIIy adopted more rapidly than innovations

that are not divisible; a personal trial can dispel uncertainty about a new

id巴a.Thus the trialabiIity of an innovation as perceived by social system

is positively related to its rate of adoption.

58

5) Observabi均:It is the degree to which the results of an innovation are

visible to others. Some ideas紅 eeasily observed and communicated to

other people， whereas other innovations are difficult to observe or to

describe to others. Thus the observability of an innovation as perceived

by members of a social system is positively related to its rate of

adoption.

On the basis of above仕aitsit can be said that technologies which are

relatively more advantageous; compatible with social values， past experiences，

and the need of potential adopter; simple to understand and use; can be

experimented on a small scale; and which results are visible to others are rapidly

adopted by the members of a social system. Technologies which are lacking in

these仕aitstake more time to be adopted by the members of a social system

Finally technologies are adopted more rapidly than others because the

farmers perceived them to have. different characteristics. Farmers' use of

technologies can be influenced by various socio-economic factors. Thus， this

informal survey was conducted in Egypt to understand farmers' adoption

behavior of new idea and factors affecting in apply and adoption of this idea， also

perceived characteristic of the idea of com silage will examined and the problem

faced adopters in applying it.

4.3 Methods

4.3.1 Overview ofsurvey area

The data ofthis study was coll巴ctedin the village ofNikla AトInab，which

is a local village in the vicinity of the city of Itaay EI-Baroud， in the EI-Beheira

Govemorate of Egypt， one of the most important agricultural govemorat巴sin

Egypt， located in the northem part of the country. The village of Nikla AI-Inab

covers an area of 1250 ha and has a total population of 80，000 (MALR， 2009). It

has three cultivation seasons: rainy winter season 合omOctober to February， with

temperatures ranging企oma mean minimum of 160C to a mean maximum of

59

250C; dry summer season企omMarch to June; and NiIi season from July to

September， during which the temperaωres ranges企oma mean minimum of280C

to a mean maximum of 350C. The total cultivated area in the village is 1000.5 ha，

and the main winter crop is potato， cultivated on an area of about 906.3 ha. In the

summer and NiIi， the main crop is com， cultivated on about 806.3 ha (MALR，

2009).

The village of Nikla El-enab is an advanced rural area; land tenure is

individual ownership. Most of the population in this village (97%) depends on

agricultural production， and potato is the main cash crop釘 nongsmallholders.

Other crops grown for both food and cash include wheat， com， rice， and clover

and sorghum as forage crops. Most of the farmers own mixed livestock and crop

production farms， and so corn silage was introduced as a feed for livestock in

place of clover planted in winter. Farmers can lead the land for clover to wheat

production for personal consumption or potato production as a cash crop.

4.3.2. Daωcollection and sampling

The survey conducted during April & May 2010 in collaboration with the

staff of the Department of Agricultural Economy， Extension and Rural

Development， Faculty of Agricul旬re，D抑制10ぽ University.;the survey was

conducted by the researchers themselves and completed during face-to-face

interviews. Questionnaire interviews with farmers were designed specifically for

this study and preceded by preparation and testing of the questionnaire with ten

伽 mers，after which the questionnaire wぉ modifiedbased upon responses and

comments. A total of one hundred and forty-three (143) responses were selected

randomly for interview based on a sampling企ameof farmers that was available

in the village extension office.

The questionnaires focused on the idea of using com silage as a forage

source. All of interviewed farmers adopted the idea of using com silage as a

forage resource The survey questionnaire covers: (の thesocio-economic

characteristics of the farmer (e.g.， age， education level， farm size， number of

60

animals owned by the farmer); (b) the time (e.g.， when the farmer heard about the

corn silage， when he began to make corn silage); (c) primary sources of

information (e.g.， extension agents， animal traders， agriculture school faculty，

neighborsラ friends，relatives); (d) contact with extension agent; and (e) the

number of family labor were identified as the important variables which might

affect the adoption.

Figure 4.1: Map of the Study Aria

za町.，Tunsah

Location of village of Nikla Al・lnabin ltaay Eト8aroudcity& Location of

Damanhur city (the capital city ofEI-8eheira governorate)

4.3.3 Dαtααnα!lysisαnd model spec手cs

Data from questionnaire interviews were recorded and discrete to analyze

the diffusion process of the idea of using corn silage as a forage source. An

adopter is a farmer who uses corn silage as a forage source; the date of adoption

is identified by the farmers as the year they began to make corn silage. And the

real diffusion rate measured by the intensity of adoption where intensity of

adoption is defined as the proportion of cumulative number of adopter to total

number of respondents.

The adopters were categorized following the innovation-diffusion theory.

ln this context， to examine the relationship between the adopter's categories and

their socio-economic characteristics cross tables were used. The definition and

61

measurement of the socio-economic characteristics of adopters as wellぉ sample

characteristics are presented in Table 4.1. Based on the innovation-diffusion

theory the decision period of adaptors is th巴 lengthof time it takes a producer to

adopt the innovation (in this case using corn silage as a forage source); it was

measured as the length of the time企omthe farmer heard about the idea for first

time until the date at which the farmer started to apply it.

Table 4.1 Definition ofsocio-economic characteristics ofthe respondents

Socio-economic

characteristics

1-F armer age

2-Farmer education

level

3-Farm size

4-Stock size

5・Familylabor

6-Contact with

extension

Definition

Age ofthe farmer， measured in year

Education level(score): Uneducated (having no formal

education(I))， low (can read and write(2) or finished

primary<3) or junior high school(4))， medium (finished

normal or agricul旬rehigh school(5) or a 2-ye紅 coll巴ge

program (6))， and high education level (has finished a

bachelor(7) or post graduate(8) program)

Farm size represented by land area， measured in hectare

Stock size， measured by number of owned by the farmer

(cows， buffalos， or both)

Family labor， measured by number of family member

working in the farm

Contact with extension agent， measured by the企'equency

of contact: always， sometimes， rarely， and no contact.

4.4 Results and Discussion:

4.4.1 Farmers socio-economic chαracteristics:

It wぉ foundthat aII of interviewed farmers adopted the idea of making

silage合omcorn， as reported in Table 4.2， ages of the Egyptian farmers when

they interviewed ranged企om24 to 81 years with a mean of almost 54 y巴ars，

62

about (35%) of them non educated， and on average older farmers have a lower

level of education， however about 28% of the respondents were more than 60

ye紅 sold， 55% of them were non educated and 35% of them has low education

level. They farmed farm size ranged企om0.07 to 23.1 hectare with average 1.9

hectare， and they have stock size (cows or buffalos or mix) ranged企om1 to 70

head with average 7 heads.

Table 4.2 General characteristic ofthe respondents.

Farmer characteristics Categories Frequencies % (1) Farmer age (years) 24--39 12 8.4 (Mean: 53.7) 40---55 68 47.6 (Std. Dev.: 9.9) 56-61 38 26.6

~62 25 17.5

Total 143 100 (2) Farmer education level Uneducated 48 33.6 (Mean: 3.4) Low 38 26.6 (Std. Dev: 2.7) Medium 44 30.8

High 13 9.0

Total 143 100

(3) Farm size ( ha) 豆1.0 59 41. 3

(Mean :1.9) ~1.0，く2.0 45 31.5

(Std.Dev: 2.4) ~2.0， <3.0 19 13.3

~3.0 20 14.0

Total 143 100

(4) Stock size (heaの 壬4 69 48.3

(Mean :7.0) 5-9 44 30.8

(Std.Dev: 9.3) 10-14 12 8.4 15-19 2 1.4

~O 16 11.2

Total 143 100

Source: Field survey， 2010

4.4.2 Farmers adoption behavior:

Rogers used a time continuum to classifY adopters into five categories

based on their innovativeness， defined as the degree by which a farmer is

relatively earlier in adopting， compared with other member in the system， because

many human attributes are norτnaIIy distributed， so he used the standard normal

63

distribution to define adopter categories. Following the idea of Rogers as the

result in Fi思lre4.2 the respondents can be cIassified on the basis of the mean and

th巴standarddeviation into five adopters' categories， 2.8% of the farmers were

classi五edas innovators， 12.6% were earIy adopters， about 31% and 32%

respectiv巴lywere earIy majority and late m司jorityadopters， and 21.7% were

laggards.

The theory of individual innovativeness suggωts that in most social

systems there紅白 innovators， earIy adopters， early m吋orityadopters， late m司jority

adopters and "laggards." These five categories are often visually represented as S司

and bell-shaped curves (Rogers， 2003). The S-shaped curve indicates the

cumulative number of adopters企ominnovators to laggards; the bell司 shaped

curve represents the resulting normal distribution. The S-shaped curve illus仕ates

the fact that there are relatively few adopters at first but that， as the technology，

c'Oncept， 'Or practice is picked up by innovators and earIy adopters， their influence

will have an impact 'On the later ad'Opters that make up a m吋'Ority'Of p'Ote凶ial

ad'Opters.

The resultant bell司 shapedcurve graphically represents the different typ巴S

'Of ad'Opters and r'Oughly reflects categories c'Orresponding to standard deviati'Ons.

That is， earIy and late m司j'Orityad'Opters are 0食entime statistically sh'Own t'O be

one standard deviation "above" the mean (average ad'Opter)， and the inn'Ovators，

and early adopters， and laggards are two to three standard deviati'Ons "bel'Ow" the

mean (R'Ogers， 2003). Thus， diffusi'On pr'Ocesses 'Of innovati'Ons are expected t'O

trace a bell-shaped curve 'Or a l'Ogistic c町 vewhen pl'Otted 'Over time on a

企equencybasis acc'Ording t'O Rogers (2003). With this fact in mind， the data of

the diffusi'On process of the idea of c'Orn siIage was plo社edσig町 e4.2); the

Figure shows the distributi'On 'Of new adopters and the real diffusion rate that

indicates the cumulative frequency 'Of ad'Opters企ominn'Ovators to laggards as a

percentage.

64

Different communication channels tend to play different roles at each stage

of the diffusion process (Wright and Bennetts 2006). Data presented in Table 4.3

shows the frequency of primary information sources of adopters with respect to

the idea of corn silage. The information sources available to farmers for utilizing

the idea of using corn silage as a forage source include extension agents， animal

tradersラ agricultureschool faculty， neighbors， friends， and relatives. However， the

results of the questionnaire reveal that extension agents and animal traders were

playing a much greater role in diffusing the idea among adopters than other

information sources. In particular innovators and early adopters were not having

much contact with their neighbors， although innovators and early adopters could

help trigger a critical mass when they adopt an innovation.

Figure 4.2 Distribution of new adopters of corn silage， and real diffusion rate，

(In sample， 1995-2009)

50

45

40

S35

E 30 ro と 250

W 20

室15::l

z 10

5

0

-・圃・Newadopters

ーーーー-Realdiffusion rate

電.. ll") ζ白卜、 co 口) c:コ守- N (")、.. ll") <.0ト、

8 8 8 8 8 8 詩詩員定員詩詩奇

号も100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10 。CCCc、Oココ』 0CCc、コ3 3 a

Years

Wright and Bennetts， 2006) have shown th剖 interpersonalchannels that

involve face-to-face meetings between two or more individuals probably play a

greater role during the attitude formation stage than other channels. Thus， the

results confirmed that the role of innovators and early adopters in diffusing the

idea of corn silage among their neighbors， relatives， and企iends，in particular

during the very first stage of the diffusion process， constrained the diffusion of

the idea during the first half ofthe diffusion process.

65

4.4.3. Factors injluencingfarmer adoption behavior

An important consideration in adoption studies is th巴おsessmentof factors

influencing farmer adoption behavior， that is， essential di能 rencesamong farmers

白atcan explain why all farmers do not adopt an innovation at the same time.

Socio-economic characteristics of farmers has previously been shown to affect

their response to new ideas (Chi and Yamada 2002; Rahman 2007; Rezvanfar et

al. 2009; Ogunsumi et al. 2010; Matata 2010). Therefore， an examination ofthe

adopter categories and the relationship between categories and socio-economic

characteristics was carried outσable 4.4);

Table 4.3 Frequency of adopter's primary information sources ofthe com silage

Sources of the idea of corn siIage Adopter

Animal Extension Agri. Total category trader，百 agents faculty Friends Neighbors Relatives %

Innovators 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 。。 100 Early adopters 33.3 50.0 0.0 5.6 5.6 5.6 100 Early m句ority 48.8 27.9 2.3 0.0 20.9 0.0 100 Latem勾ority 71.7 10.9 。。 4.3 13.0 。。 100 Laggards 50.0 18.8 。。 。。 31.3 0.0 100 Source: Field survey， 2010

Age and adoption: the results indicated that age was not significantly

associated with the extent of adoption by the respondent. This indicates that age

does not distinguish innovators or early adopters from Iater adopters， and no

Slgnl伍canteffect of respondent age on their adoption decision of new practices.

The present finding was in line with the Rogers' (2003) generalization that earlier

adopters are no different企omIater adopters in age.

Education and adoption: According to diffusion of innovations theory， innovators

are better educated than Iater adopters (Rogers 2003). Results ofthe present study

reveal that， although the innovators have low education levels， their education

was su首icientthat they could read and write. In con仕ast，47.8% and 37.5% ofthe

Iate m吋orityand laggards， respectively， were iIIiterate， which might relate to

their abili勿tojudge opportunities to innovate. This contradicts other studies that

66

Table 4.4 Adopter categories and their socio-economic characteristics

Description Adopters categoηr Chi

Sig Variable h E.A. E.M. L.M L square

F副官lerage Mean 52.5 55.3 52.2 53.5 5.1

(ye町s)

Std.Dev 5.8 12.4 9.4 10.7 7.9

24-ー39 0.0 11.0 9.3 8.7 6.3

40-55 75.0 44.4 48.8 50.0 40.6

56-61 25.0 22.2 30.2 19.6 34.4

~62 0.0 22.2 11.6 21.7 18.8

Tota1 100 100 100 100 100 0.92 Ns

Education leve1 Mean 2.8 4.0 3.8 2.9 3.4

Std. Dev. 0.95 2.4 0.4 2.3 2.5

Uneducated 。。 16.7 25.6 47.8 37.5

Low 100 44.4 25.6 17.4 21.9

Medium 。。 22.2 39.5 28.3 31.3

High 。。 16.7 9.3 6.5 9.4

Total 100 100 100 100 100 0.025 * Farm size (ha) Mean 3.9 4.6 2.1 1.5 0.9

Std. Dev. 3.0 6.3 2.6 1.4 0.6

壬1.0 。。 27.8 39.5 30.4 68.8

~1.0，豆2.0 25.0 33.3 23.3 47.8 18.8

亙2.0，く3.0 25.0 5.6 20.9 10.9 9.4

~3.0 50.0 33.3 16.3 10.9 3.1

Total 100 100 100 100 100 0.0001 キキ*

Stock size (head) Mean 19.0 14.8 9.0 5.0 5.0

Std.Dev 10.4 18.9 11.2 4.5 4.1

，;4 00.0 38.9 41.9 58.7 53.1

5-9 25.0 7.8 30.2 32.6 31.3

10--14 。。 5.6 11.6 6.5 9.4

15-19 。。 。。 2.3 0.0 3.1

主20 75.0 27.8 14.0 2.2 3.1

Total 100 100 100 100 100 0.01 ** Fami1y labor Mean 8.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0

Std. Dev. 7.8 2.4 2.0 2.9 1.6

豆2 00.0 55.6 41.9 32.6 59.4

3佃 d4 25.0 11.1 30.2 54.3 21.9

5佃 d6 50.0 11.1 23.3 6.5 15.6

~7 25.0 22.2 4.7 6.5 3.1

Tota1 100 100 100 100 100 0.002 キキ

Source: Field survey， 2010 Note: NS: Non-significant， * Significant at 0.05，料 Signific叩 tat 0.01，キキキ Significant at

0.001; In: Innovators， E.A.: Early Adopters， E.M.: Early M句ority，L.M.: Late M吋ority，L.: Lagg町ds.

67

innovator education level is not related to their sustained use of new technology

(Lucia Omobolanle et al. 2010); however， in general， education level may affect

the propensity to innovate through its effect on attitudes， which may explain the

pr官sentresul ts.

Fαrm size and adoption: Rogers (2003) suggests血atthe farmers having

larger farms tend to be more innovative. In the present s同dy，as revealed by the

data shown in Table 4.4， farm size (i.e.， area) significantly and positively a能 cts

the likelihood of respondents adopting the idea of corn silage. The finding seems

to be logical because of the fact that the farmers having bigger size of farms were

resource釦1and had better resources for the adoption of new practices. The

finding in this aspect was found in conformity with the finding of Agwu (2004);

Rahman (2007) and Bhushan et al. (2010)， who show that farm size is a

significant determinant of technology adoption.

Contact with extension agents and adoption: Extension agents are known

to facilitate farmers' adoption of technologies. Therefore， the respondents were

asked to report their level of contact with extension agents. Table 4.5 highlights

the企equencyof contact with extension agents. As shown， the results reveal that

the企equencyof contact with the extension agen臼 forinnovators and early

adopters has higher than that of the later m司jorityand laggards. This implies that

contact with extension agents increases the probability ofbeing an earlier adopter

of new ideas. This agrees with the findings of Rahman (2007) and Onemolease

and Alakpa (2009)

Table 4.5 Adopter categories and their contact with extension agents

Adopters Level of contact

No Total Chi category Always Sometime Rarely

contact % square Sig Innovators 75.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 100 Early adopters 94.4 5.6 0.0 0.0 100 Early m吋ority 62.8 23.3 7.0 7.0 100 Latem勾ority 34.8 47.8 8.7 8.7 100 Laggards 43.8 40.6 6.3 9.4、 100 0.01 ** Source: Field survey， 2010 Note:料 Significantat 0.01

68

4目4目4Perceivedcharacteristic 0/ the innovation

Other influences may stem企omthe five perceived attributes associated

with the practice or the innovation.. Rogers and Shoemaker (2003) identified

important variables that determine the rate of adoption. One of these variables is

the perceived characteristic of the innovation or technology. To be readily

accepted or adopted， an innovation must possess five important 副 ributes:relative

advantage， compatibili句r，complexity，仕ialability，and observabili勿. In our

investigation we仕iedto examine these five perceived attributes with the idea of

com silage.

The results in Table 4.6 shows that 55% of respondents showed that the

idea of corn silage is reducing cost of animal feeding more than other fodders，

68% of them showed吐latit is clear to observe its practices implemented， 73%

said that it is easy to understanding the practice ofthe idea， 63% of adopters said

that the idea is independent and not r巴司uestspecial condition for applying it， and

81 % of adopters said that it is easily to experiment the idea of com silage on a

smaller scale.

Table 4.6. Perceived attributes ofthe idea of corn silage

Items Levels Frequencies %

l-Relative advantage: speaks to the possibility of More 79 55 Similar 34 24

reduced cost of feeding anima Less 30 21

2-Observability: the degree to which the Less 15 10 adopter has had the opportunity to see the The same 31 22 practice implemented Clear 97 68

3-Complexity: Involves the degree of difficulty Easy 104 73 of understanding the practice Similar 29 20

More 10 7

complex 4-Compatibility: concems with a host offactors Independent 92 63 relating to which the practice is compatible to Dependent 37 26 current objectives More

dependent 14 10

ふTrialability:deals with the po飴ntialto Easy 116 81 experiment with the practice on a smaller Similar 23 16 scale Di妊icult 4 3

Source: Field survey， 2010

69

Although the earIier adopters have a shorter innovation-adoption period

than do Iater adopters according to Rogers (2003)， the results here reveal that the

innovators required longer time to make their adoption decision. This might be

because innovators have less education， on average， than those in the other

categories. This means that they are aware of the new idea but for a long period

are not motivated to try it. The demonstrates the ineffectiveness of extension

worker efforts to diffuse the idea of corn silage at early part of the diffusion

process. This contras岱 withextension agents being considered by innovators as

one of the main information sources for the idea of using corn silage as forage

source， as shown in Table 4.3.

Figure 4.3 Length of innovation decision period by adopter category

Innovators

…州 1;t:r一一2.1

2.5

3.4

3 4 Years

4.4.5 Problems thαtft.αcingαdopters in α'Pplying the ideα01 corn silαge

Respondents were asked to show the problems that facing them in

application of the idea of making corn silage. The results reported in Table 4.7

shows that 55% of respondents have not any problems in application of the idea

of making corn silage， while 30% of them suffered from the high cost of workers.

But 19% of respondents showed that the rot of silage as a result of ventilation is

only the problem faced them and only 3% ofrespondents said that the machine of

cutting corn for making silage is smaII and difficult to use.

70

Table4.7. Frequency ofthe problems that facing farmers

The problems

1-Nothing

2-High cost of workers

3-The rot as a result of ventilation of asp巴唱ts

4-The machin氾 issma!! and difficult to use

Source: Field surv句ら 2010

Note: Multiple answers aIIowed

Frequencies

78

43

27

4

''o-qdnuoy

，‘，

o一一戸、“今3

1

1

そ

-

4.5 Concluding Remarks

On conclusion results of 0ぽ surveyindicated that most白rmersadopted

the idea after sufficient disclosure of practices， although extension agents were

being considered by innovators and early adopters as one of the main information

sources for this idea. Thus， weaknesses in the activities of extension workers

were identified with respect to diffusing the idea of corn silage. Also the results

confirmed weak of the activities by innovators and early adopters in diffusing the

idea of corn silage， and peak of the adoption of farmers occurred at the later part

of diffusion comparing to the normal. lt was aIso revealed that adopter categories

were significantly different according to farm size， amount of family labor， stock

size， contact with extension agents， and education level， whereas farmer age was

not significant.

In view of the above 五ndings仕13tshowed weak of diffusing the idea of

corn silage among farmers at the early stage， results of few early adopter and

early m吋ority.Therefore the study encourages the expansion of extension

services to the farmers in facilitating the adoption of new ideas， also the

importance of demonstration and extension activities at early stage of diffusion

process.

In addition efforts should be made to increase the contact of the farmers

with extension agents' as away to increase their level of adoption. So the

practitioners should design some activities to provide an awareness of the new

innovations and generating interest in or evaluating the new innovation for

71

motive the farmers to町 itand adopt it， they also can arrange with the innovators

who are the first to try the new things， for provide local trials for others to see

after they have awareness. Finally the idea of corn silage is not enough for

understanding the adoption behavior of Egyptian farmer. Therefore more survey

needed in the白turefor more understanding of the diffusion process.

72

CHAPTERV

DIFFUSION OF BUNKER SILOIN AN AREA OF SHlKAOI TOWN，

HOKKAIDO AND ITS COMPARISON WITH THE DIFFUSION OF

CORN SILAGE IN EGYPT AGRICULTURE.

Au n

u

o

r e-

L且c

a

B

咽且圃

3

Technologies play an important role in economic development. Adoption

and diffusion of technology are tow interrelated concepts describing the decision

to use or not use and the spread of a given technology among economic units over

a period of time. Adoption of any innovation is not one step process as it takes

time for adoption top complete. First time adopters may continue or cease to use

the new technology.

The duration of adoption of a technology vary among economic units，

regions and at仕ibutesof the technology itself. Adequate understanding of the

process of technology adoption and its diffusion is necessary for designing

e宜ectiveagricultural research and extension programmes. Therefore， this chapter

focuses on detai1s、thediffusion process of bunker silos among Shikaoi dairy

farmers'， and mainly illustrates the comparison between the results of the

diffusion process of bunker si10s with the result of the diffusion process of com

si1age in Egyptian agriculture. The following sections provide an exposition of

the approaches， methods and models used in the study， results and its discussion

and conc1usions.

5.2 Approach

The importance of farmers' adoption of new agricultural technology has

long been of interest to agricultural extensionists and economists. Diffusion is the

process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over

time among the members of a social system. There are four elements in di伍lsion

process. 1) An innovation 2) Communication Channels 3) Time 4) Social system;

the innovation is an idea， practice or object that is perceived as new by the

73

members ofthe social system under study. The perceived newness ofthe idea for

the individual member ofJhe social system determines his or her reaction to it. If

the idea seem new to the individual， it is an innovation (even if it has been used

by others， in other social systems， for a long period of time).

In the present study， the innovation is the use of bunker silo as a new

method of making com silage among dairy farmers in Shikaoi. However，

Shikaoi's economy is focused on farming and dairy farming. And com silage is

one of the most important forage on modem dairies in J apan但okkaido).If

selected grown， harvested， stored and fed properly， com silage has several

positive features. The two most important features of com silage are high energy

content and consistency /palatability.

But the producer must have in place a complete management program that

focuses on every aspect of com silage production， storage and feeding. These

management factors would include: 1) Proper hybrid selection 2) Superior

planting watering， fertilization， weed and post control practices. 3) Harvesting

silage at the co町ectplant maturity/ moisture content. 4) Correct chopping

processing practices. 5) use of a beneficial， research proven additive or bacterial

inoculants. 6) Superb bunker packing practices. 7) Excellent bunker covering

management. 8) Proper feed out practices.

In most parts of the world， forage conservation is a key element for

productive and efficient ruminant livestock farms. Forage conservation permits a

better supply of quality feed when forage production is low or.dormant. Forage

conservation also provides farmers with a means of preserving forage when

production is faster than can be adequately utilized by grazing animals. This

prevents lush growth 企om becoming too mature. Consequently， forage

conservation provides a more uniform level of high quali守 foragefor ruminant

livestock throughout the year.

74

Forage is preserved as either hay or silage. In hay production， the crop is

dried so that it is essentially biologically inactive both with respect to plant

enzyme activi守 andmicrobial spoilage， storage losses for silage are generally

higher than for hay but are more dependent on theザpeof si10 and si10

management (Muck and Shinners， unknown year). According to Muck and

Shinners (unknown year) farmers have a wide variety of silo types企omwhich to

choose: piles (clamps)， walled horizontal si10s (bunkers， trench)， tower silos

(concrete stave， poured concrete， oxygen任1.ト.帽-li

(large round and square bales; individual v刊s.multiple bale con:figurations).

Whi1e silage can be made success白llyin all， each type has specific

management issues needing investigation. But， regardless of whether you harvest

hay or si1age， producing high quality forage requires sound management practices.

Thus， to obtain the maximum benefit in both feed quality and quantity success

silage packers (farmers) must be aware of correct constructing and managing of a

si1o.

“Tower silos" primarily found in Hokkaido dairy farms， whi1e these silos

are excellent for preserving a crop， they have fallen in usage. First， they are the

most expensive出 faras capital cost so that economically stressed farmers are

less likely to purchase them. However， the cheapest type oftower silo (concrete

stave) is competitive with bunker silos on an annual cost basis that considers all

costs associated with storage. Second， larger farms have found the lower filling

and unloading rates for tower si10s compared to horizontal si10s to be less

attractive for timely harvest as well as feeding of cattle. A recent development to

enhance filling and unloading is the bunker si1o.

“Bunker silo" is the most common si10 around Sikaoi dairy farms企om

year of 1975. Bunker si10s are trenches， usually with concrete walls， that are

filled and packed with tractors and loaders. The filled trench is covered with a

plastic tarp to make it airtight. These si10s are usually un10aded with a tractor and J

loader. Mureithi (2005) explained that there are two types of bunker si1os: a)

75

Trench silo is dug into a slope. The walls slope slightly outwards and the floor

slopes towards the en仕anceto allow rain water， which gets in or silage e旺luentto

drain out. The soil excavated when digging the bunker can be used to raise the

walls higher. b) Raised bunker silo is a wall built using stacks of soil in gunny

bags， concrete or cedar posts. The walls may be vertical and even better sloped

slightly out; the inside is lined with empty nylon bags or polythene sheet nailed to

the walls to make them airtight. The floor should slope sufficiently to allow

drainage of effluent or rainwater. Bunker silo large initial capital investment for

construction but lasts for a long time. They are inexpensive and especially well

suited to very large operations.

We use the concept of diffusion in 0町 studyin term of understanding how

many farmers know and use of bunker silo. This study sought to determine the

details of Shikaoi dairy farmers' characteristics， adoption behavior and which

factors related to their innovativeness. And mainly illustrate comparison between

the results of the diffusion process of bunker silo with the result of the diffusion

process of com silage in Egyptian agriculture which discussed in chapter 4.

5.3 Methods

5.3.1 Overview ofSUj門 eyareα

The data of this study was collected in the area of Shikaoi， which is one

area in the vicinity of Tokachi， in Hokkaido Island， Japan. Shikaoi is one of the

most important areas for dairy farming in Hokkaido， Shikaoi borders on the

Taisetsu and Hidaka mountain ranges， 0抗enrefered to as the roof of Hokkaido.

Shikaoi located in the Northwest region of the Tokachi Plains. The Tokachi

Plains stretch all the way to the Pacific Ocean. Shikaoi covers an area makes up

399.61k square meter and occupies 3.6% ofTokachi total area. It is population on

2009 about 6，205 (Male: 3，134 Female: 3，071) Household/ 2，305. Shikaoi's

economy is focused on farming main1y dairy farming， as of 2008 there are 125

dairy cattle farms in Sikaoi with 18000 heads (MAFF).

76

Figure 5.1: Location ofShikaoi on Tokachi， Hokkaido

5.3.2 Data collection and sampling

The survey conducted during January 2010 in collaboration with the staff

of the Agricultural cooperative in Shikaoi (JAs). The survey was conducted by

the researchers and farmers recorded their responses by themselves. Schedule for

interviews with farmers was designed specifically for this study. A total of

twenty-one (21) respondents were interviewed during the annual meeting

conducted for dairy farmers by the Shikoi JAs in coIlaboration with the

agricultural extension center in Shimizo and the Agricultural Mutual Relief

Association (NOSAI). The survey Schedule covered: (a) the socio-economic

characteristics of the farmer (e.g.， age， education level， farm size， number of

animals owned by the farmer); (b) the time (e.g.， when the farmer began to use

bunker silo system for making corn silage); (c) primary sources of information.

5.3.3 Dαtααnαlysis

Data from interviews were recorded and analyzed the diffusion process of

the idea ofusing bunker silo system for making silage. An adopter was defined as

a farmer who uses bunker silo system for making silage， non adopter is a farmer

who did not use bunker silo system; the date of adoption is identified by the

farmers as the year they began to use bunker silo. And the real diffusion rate

measured by the intensity of adoptionヲ whereintensity of adoption was defined as

the proportion of cumulative number of adopter to total number of adopters only.

77

While the estimated diffusion rate measured by the probability of adopting

new idea (in this case corn silage and bunker silo). The logit model， which is

based on cumulative logistic probability function， has the advantage to predict the

probability adoption of any technology (in this case corn silage and bunker silo)，

the formula for logistic regression was represented as follows:

1 Estimated diffusio抱rate-:;-:-一言-"".'"10"1 + e-o.，x

Where the intercept b reflects aggregate adoption at the start of estimation

period， a is a measure of the rate of acceptance of the new technology at time x.

This formula can be used in predicting changes in the probability of

adopting corn silage as a new idea or bunker silo which can be employed to

estimate the changes in the number offarmer adopting the new technology. Given

a policy maker， comparison of the estimated number of adopters and the real

number of adopters provides a measure of its impact on diffusing new

technology.

5.4 Results and discussion

5.4.1 Farmers socio-economic characteristics:

Ages of the respondents at the time of the interview ranged企om26 to 67 years

old with a mean of approximately 47.7ye訂 s，as reported in Table 5.1. The

dominant age group among the respondents was between 46-55years (42.9). The

farmland owned by the sample of respondents ranged企om10.0 to 185.9 hectare

with average 29.5 hectare， and grぉsland size ranged企om16.0 to 883.0 hectare

with average 77.1 hectare. Own stock size (produced cows) ranged from 41 to

600 head with average 133 heads. Dairy cattle farming are one of the major

farming activities in the Shikaoi， and白.rmersowned a wide range of dairy cattle

farming. Result shows that number of young cattle owned by the sample of

respondents ranged企om20 to 600 head with average 81.4 heads.

78

Table 5.1. Demographic and socio-economic characteristics of respondents

(N=21)

Farmer characteristics

(1) Farm町 age(years)

。1ean:47.7) (Std. Dev.: 9.1)

(2) Farmer education level

(3) Farm size ( ha)

Crop land ha (Mean: 29.5) (Std. Dev.: 39.4)

Grass land ha (Mean: 77.1) (Std. Dev.: 187)

Categories

26ー3536-45 4ι55

~56

Total Junior high school High school normal High school of agriculture. Other high school Agriculture school of successor Ajunior college2 years 2 years course in Obihiro University of agric. and vet. 4 years university Total

10 ~孟 19

~20 ~$;; 39

~40~ く79

~80

Total 16 ~ $;; 35

~36~ 三; 55

~56~ く 70

~76

Total

Qd

一e一

C

一n一

閃一

5952幻一

1

1

7

1

3

2

3

3

幻一口

531nU422幻

自』一

VA-

F一

L89350一883835330一J83809AM550

呪一お位幻

Q

h

m一4

4刀

4

M

n抗

日

目

印

一

幻

お

H

4印

刷

W

Q

h

Qん印

(4) Stock size h

Produced cows h (Mean: 133) (Std. Dev.: 127)

Y oung cattle h (Mean: 81) (S吋.Dev.: 126)

Source: Field survey， 2010

$;;100 101-200 201-299 ~300

Total

$;;100 101-200 ~ 201 Total

日

4

3

1別

問

2

1幻

61.9 19.0 14.3 4.8

100.0 85.7

9.5 4.8

100

5.4.2 Diffusion process of bunker silo system for mαrkingsUαge:

Itw部 foundth瓜 asample of21 farmers consisting of 15 (7i.4%) adopters

and 6 (28.6%) non-adopters as reported in Table 5.2. the data of the diffusion

process ofbunker silo was plotted Figure 5.2; the figure shows the distribution of

79

new adopters and the real diffusion rate that indicates the cumulative frequency of

adopters from the beginning ofthe idea until the time ofthe study as a percentage.

It is evident from the results the convergence of respondent's characteristics. In

the present studyラ outof the 21 farmers who interviewed 71.4% were adopters

while 28.6 were non-adopters.

Figure5.2. Distribution of new adopters of bunker silo system for making

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

o g ggg ggg遺書 ggg護憲雲gg遺書室三

マ ーマー守ー守一守一守ーマーマーマー守ー守- c、lN C可 c、.C可 N

Years

silage， and real diffusion rate (in sample， 2010)

-・・Newadopters

--Diffusion rate 4

qu

内

4

4

E

包也FF』

伺

』

』

O」也

2EコZ

。

5.4.3 F，αctors influencingfiαrmerαdoption behα!vior:

As revealed by the data shown in Table 5.2 the adopter and non-adopter

are nearly similar in terms of age. ln the same manner there is some evidence on

the role of schooling and level of education attained by the household heads in

the adoption that the educated are early adopters (Rogers， 2003). But results

indicated that education does not inf1uence adoptive behavior.

And it is evident from the result the inf1uence of the economic variables in

the adoptive behavior. Results in Table 5.2 shows that average farm size (i.e.ラ

area) (crop land and grass land) were 34.5 and 99.1 ha respectively for adopters，

while were 17.0 and 22.3 ha for non-adopters， implying that adopters tended to

have bigger farm sizes than non-adopters. Also adopters owned higher number of

80

cows and young cattle than non-adopters.

Table 5.2. Descriptive statistics of socio-economic characteristics of adopter (n

= 15) and non-adopter (n=6)

Socio-economic characteristics

1・Farmerage (years)

2-Crop land ha

3-Grass land ha

4-Produced cows h

5・Young cattle h

Source: Field survey， 2010

Mean averages (Std. Dev. :... ...)

Adopter Non-adopter 49.0 44.2

(10.24) (4.31) 34.5 17.0 (45.9) (6.7) 99.1 22.3

(219.4) (6.5) 155 77

(144.2) (33.1) 100 35

(145.9) (13.8)

Communication behavior and access with information sources also may

influence the adoptive behavior. Farmers to adopt a technology they must first

know about it. The information may come from many sources. Result reported in

Table 5.3 shows that the information sources available to farmers for utilizing the

idea of using bunker silo system include e.g guidance staff of JAs， neighborhood

/relative， staff of extension center， friends/acquaintance and feed company.

However， the results in Table 5.3 of the questionnaire revealed that guidance

staffs of JAs then neighborhood /relative were playing a much greater role in

diffusing the idea among adopters than other information sources. This implies

that limited access of most non-adopters to the activities by JAs guidance staff

may contribute to lack oftheir knowledge about the bunker silo system.

Table 5.3. Information source of adopters ofthe idea of bunker silo system

Information sources Frequencies %

1-Guidance staff of JAs 8 42.1

2・Neighborhood/relative 6 31.6

3-Staff of extension center 2 10.5

4-Friends/acquaintance 2 10.5

5・Feedcompany 5.3

Total 19 100

Source: Field survey， 2010

Note: Multiple answers allowed

81

The main target of this chapter is to illustrate comparison between the

diffusion process of new idea among farmers in Egypt as one of the developing

countries， and the diffusion process of new idea among farmers in Japan as one of

the developed countries. And use the result for understanding the different of

human behavior leading to discuss human development and role of agriculture

extenslOn on It.

Table 5.4. Frequency of attending JAs annual meeting by adopters and

non-adopters

Class

Adopters

Non-adopters

Total

Frequency of attending JAs annual meeting (%)

AIways Sometimes Rarely No

42.9 14.3 14.3 0.0

19.0 9.5 0.0 0.0

6l.9 23.8 14.3 0.0

Source: Field survey， 2010

Total

7l.5

28.5

100.0

5.4.4 Compα!rison between the d.むusion01 corn silage in Egyptαrgriculture

αnd d.すusion01 bunker silo in ~αrpan αgricul仰向:

Most innovations have an S-shaped curve (rate of adoption) indicates the

cumulative number of adopters from innovators to laggards， its illustrates the fact

that there are relatively few adopters at first but that as the technology， concept，

or practice is picked up by innovators and eariy adopters， their intluence will

have an impact on the later adoption that make up a majority of potential adopters

(Rogers， 2003).

Diffusion typically takes a number of years， seldom reaches a level of

100% of the potential adopters' population， and mostly follows some sort of

S-shaped curve in time. Apparently， some farmers choose to be innovators (日rst

users) while others prefer to be eariy adopters， late adopters， or non-adopters

(Diederen et at， 2003). According to Cruz (1987)， time is an important factor in

the process of diffusion. The system's social structure can have an important

intluence on the spread of new ideas. It can impede or facilitate the rate of

82

diffusion and adoption of new ideas. The norms， social statuses， hierarchy， and so

on of a social system intluence the behavior of individua1.

among silage of corn diffusion process mention that the Chapter IV

Egyptian farmers has peak of the adoption of farmers at the later part of diffusion

comparing to the normal， and most of the farmers adopted the idea a:fter enough

disclosure of practices. Also the results confirmed weak of the activities by

innovators and early adopters in diffusing the idea of corn silage. This chapter

of process diffusion investIgating through manner same the on focuses

introducing Bunker silo system for making silage in dairy farms in an area of

Shikaoi towen in Hokkaido prefecture， Japan. Figure 5.3 shows real frequency，

diffusion and estimated rate of the diffusion of bunker silo system for making

silage in an area of Shikaoi town， Hokkaido as a normal case of diffusion

equation. And the result of calculated estimated diffusion rate as the following

equatlOn;

Estimated diff田 ionrate = 1 -l + e忌70A~ C' . ;: r'守主E 、‘.，

ノ

唱EE-A

〆

'a、、

Where the coefficient of determination is R2 = 0.5ラ andthe parameter

estimates for the model was evaluated at level of statistical signi日cancep < 0.01.

Figure 5.3. The S-shaped curve of adoption comparing with the estimated

diffusion rate ofbunker silo in Shikaoi town， Hokkaido

?も 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

O

R 12R 但 ~ß~s~~~~~~~g~~~~~mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmoooooo ~~~~~"(，，，，""T"""'II""""T"""T""" NNNNNN

-・・Newadopters一一Diffusionrate 一+ー Estimateddiffusion rate

4

q

J

v

n

4

4

，

的」

ωE5』

O」

BEコZ。

Years

83

And Figure 5.4 provides the S-shaped curve and distribution of adopters of

corn silage in comparison with the estimated diffusion rate. And the result of

calculated estimated diffusion rate as the following equation;

Estimated diffusion r時=ー 1l+ E ・Kも丞 T Cl. ~ Y守::r

(2)

Where the coefficient of determination is R2 = 0.81， and the parameter

estimates for the model was evaluated at level of statistical significance p < 0.01.

This result revealed that the diffusion of bunker silo follows the normal

distribution as Rogers (2003)ラ becausethe diffusion rate and estimated rate

almost same (Figure 5.2). While the idea of corn silage had a low diffusion and

adoption rate for an extended period earIy in the diffusion process， and then the

idea diffused rapidly late in the diffusion process， resuIting in the peak of the

diffusion deviating from the center of the distribution of adopters， that is， to be

shifted into the later stages ofthe diffusion process. Also the results illustrated in

Figure 5.3 retlect the gap between real and estimated diffusion rates.

Figure 5.4. The S-shaped curve and distribution of adopters of corn silage

comparing with the estimated diffusion rate

ωααF

凶

OOF

寸⑦

GF

000F

∞OOF

ド

ααF

的

OON

寸OON

円OON

NOON

FOON

OCCN

% 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10 。8R ドERコ∞ERコ oER コ

Years

50

45

40

~ 35 E 30 国

と250

包20

215 コz 10

5

0

-・・Newadoptersー一一Realdiffusion rate --+ー Estimateddiffusion rate

On the other hand， the part of the diffusion curve from about 10 to 20

percent adoption is considered to be the heart of the diffusion process (Rogers

2003). Compared to the normal distribution， the observed change in the early

84

stage of the diffusion process of com silage is very weak， and the 20 percent

adoption is gained late in the diffusion process， well after the median. This result

indicates a lack of diffusion of the idea of com silage in the ear1y stages of the

diffusion process. This can be considered to be due to a weakness in the influence

of peer networks with respect to the innovation as a result of sluggishness on the

part of innovators and ear1y adopters in spreading the idea of com silage. In

addition， weakness of the extension delivery system in the study area might be

one of the key constraints to the adoption of the idea in the ear1y stage of the

diffusion process.

5.5 Conclusions

From the above findings and in the light of previous results it is imperative

that policymakers pay utmost atlention to the constraints that beset peasant

agriculture.

- The issues that need immediate atlention for increasing farmers' access to

appropriate technologies suitable to their conditions.

- Knowledge about new ideas or technology is essential for adoption. To

increase the level of adoption knowledge about the new ideas or

technology has to be improved by undertaking various extension

approaches.

ー Toincrease the level of adoption of new ideas or technology， farmers are

required to be exposed to as many as cosmopolite sources of information

as possible， to make them aware ofthese technologies.

- Extension worker/veterinarians should form some informal groups or

forum of the farmers and encourage the group members to discuss the farm

problem amongst them also sharing good experiences.

- The practitioners should design some activities to provide an awareness of

the new innovations and generating interest in the new innovation for

motive the farmers to try it and adopt it， they also can aηange with the

85

innovators who are the first to try the new ideas， for provide local trials for

others to see a立erthey have awareness.

- The calculation of adoption rates， wi11 allow extensionists or scientists to

predict the potential success of a technology's introduction， which can be

used for improving their efficiency. Comparing the achieved adoption rate

with the expected one can also be used as a criterion for e妊iciencyof

research and extension in which case flexible recommendations wi11 not

only benefit the farmers， but wi11 also satis命donorsand hence guarantee

funding of research and extension

- Finally more surveys needed in the白同refor more understanding of the

diffusion process.

86

CHAPTER VI

ADOPTION PROCESS AS AN INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN

RESOURCEDEVELOP~置ENTIN RURAL AREAS: A CASE STUDY OF

INTRODUCING CORN SILAGE IN EGYPTIAN AGRICULTURE

6.1. Background

Human resources are needed to meet various activities related to

agricultural development， which is critical to attain a country' s goals for rural

development， especially in the poorer developing countries. Technology

development and technology transfer processes are considered to be primary

driving forces for growth and welfare in developing countries (Balakrishnan，

1998). In these countries， most peop1e eam their subsistence incomes企om

farming; thus， farmers are the key players in the innovation process. This chapter

presents an empirical basis for understanding human behavior that would help in

the development ofhuman resources in rural areas.

6.2. Approach

Agriculture is a major part of the economy in Egypt; the majority of the

population eams a subsistence income企omfarming. Most farms are family farms

of less than 1 hectare with mixed livestock and crop production. Egypt is

currently looking for opportunities to expand its animal production; to do so， it

will need to consider forage resources. The main winter and spring forage is

Egyptian clover; the main summer forage are wheat straw， rice， and protein

concentrate. A shortage of feed severely limits livestock production. During the

2006-2009 period， farmers in Egypt experienced a 9，746-ton shortage of

concentrate and a 5，258-ton shortage of straw (MAL， 2009). The仕endover the

past 10 years has been for com silage to serve as an energy source and forage

source， representing a higher percentage among the forage types fed to cattle.

87

The idea of using com silage as forage is completely new among Egyptian

farmers. Therefore， we focused on the diffusion of com silage as a novel idea

among Egyptian farmers and we used the concept of diffusion to understand

which factors influence the adoption behavior of farmers. These factors may

indicate key points and facts that would help in drawing policy implications and

play a proactive role in the success白1implementation of a strategy for the

development of human resources in rural Egypt.

There are many factors that influence adoption， including 白rm

households' asset bundles and socio-economic characteristics， characteristics of

the technology proposed， perception of need， and the risk-bearing capacity of the

household. The study of the diffusion of innovation is certainly not new;

innovation adoption/diffusion literature (especially Rodger's c1assic Diffusion of

Innovations， first published in 1962 and updated in 1971， 1983， 1995， and 2003)

has examined a wide variety of innovations in difi島rentcontexts and provided a

rich foundation for studies on the adoption oftechnologies.

Whi1e the human resource base for the agricultural sector is weak and there

is a growing gap between scientific knowledge and practical field application， this

knowledge deficit should be overcome speedily to enhance the productivity and

profitabi1ity of small farms (Salooja， year unknown). In addition， one goal of

social science is to provide an empirical basis for understanding human behavior

and socio-economic factors that may play a significant role in determining the

pattem of the adoption of new ideas. In this case， we are interested in providing

an understanding of who are innovators or ear1y adopters and who are later

adopters; the reason for late adoption can assist in repackaging the technology to

meet the need of the producers as well as putting in place other key services that

would help in the development ofhuman resources.

Therefore， the focus was on the development of human reso町 cesin rural

Egypt， but the adoption process and the related approach to innovation were used

as the starting point. The pu叩osewas to profile the innovators and ear1y adopters

88

of a particular new idea in comparison with later adopters (laggards). The

innovators and early adopters are the operators and managers of farms who are

the first to apply new ideas and use new technology to improve their industrial

processes.

In this case， the aim is to determine the most important driving factors of

adoption that helped the innovators and early adopters to be earlier adopters of

the idea than others， taking into account variables that reflect structural farm

characteristics. Analysis of the behavioral variables that may reflect the various

efforts of a farmer to deal with information and whether these behavioral

variables di民 rentiatefarmers who are innovators or early adopters of the idea

企omfarmers who are laggards would enable farmers to become earlier adopters.

6.3. Methods

6.3.1. Overview ofthe su;仰のarea

The data were collected企omNeklla El-enab， a village near the city of

Itaay EトBaroud，in the EI-Beheira Govemorate， one of the most important

agricultural govemorates in Egypt， located in the northem part of the country.

The village of Neklla El-enab covers an area of 1，250 ha and has a total

population of 80，000 (MAL， 2009). The total cultivated area in the village is

1，000 ha. Neklla El-enab is an advanced rural village; land tenure is individual

ownership.

6.3.2. Data collection and sampling

The . main survey was conducted during April and May 2010 by the

researchers themselves and completed during face-to-face interviews. The

schedule for interviews with farmers was designed specifically for this study. A

total of 143 respondents were selected randomly for interviewing based on a

sampling企ameof farmers that was available in the village extension office. The

schedule focused on the idea of using com silage as a forage source. All of the

interviewed farmers adopted the idea of using com silage as a forage resource.

89

On the basis of the survey answers， respondents were classified into five

groups， as indicated in Table 6.1. The adopters were categorized following

Rogers' innovation-diffusion theory (Rogers， 2003) on the basis of the two

characteristics of a normal distribution， the mean and the standard deviationラ to

examine the relationship between the socio-economic characteristics of the

adopters' categories and their adoption level. Figure 6.1 shows the distribution of

the adopters of corn silage and the diffusion process that occurred from 1994 until

the survey time.

For the purpose of this chapter， the comparison groups were innovators

and laggards. However， because of the small number of innovators in the sample，

we merged the innovator and early adopter groups. There were 22 innovators and

early adopters to compare with 32 laggards; thus， we studied a total of 54

respondents. An additional survey was conducted during June 2011 to obtain

more details about the innovators and early adopters.

Figure 6.1. Distribution and percentages of new adopters of corn silage

50 45 40 35

~ 30 号 2516 20 3: 15

圭 105 0

5T-5T-包T-gT-gv-gcvEcv g cvgcv gcvgC1gC1包CVgC1gれ』Years

Source: Field survey， 2010

6.3.3. Research questions and hypotheses

If a farmer investsラ hechooses to innovate (to be the first user of an

innovation among his competitors)， to adopt an innovation that is already used by

others but which is still relatively new， or to adopt a mature technology. A farmer

can also choose not to adopt anything new at all. Rogers (2003) suggested a

90

number of factors that might contribute to the explanation of whether a farmer

prefers to be an innovator， an ear1y adopter， a late adopter， or a non-adopter.

Table 6.1. Classification of farmers and the additional survey

Class Number Share (%) In additional survey

Innovators 4 2.8 4

Ear1y adopters 18 12.6 18

Ear1y majoriザ 43 30.1 。Late majority 46 32.2 。Laggards 32 22.4 32

Total 143 100 54

Source: Field survey， 2010

The array of technologies used in the production process differs企om

sector to sector. In horticulture， innovations are more likely to be superseded by

new innovations before they reach an advanced stage of diffusion than in dairy

farming. On the other hand， the number of technologies used in the production

process in dairy farming is very limited (feeding and milking systems mainly).

New technologies that are relevant for greenhouse horticulture appear much more

企equentlyon the market than new technologies for dairy farming. Hence， more

farmers in horticulture wi11 adopt innovations that are in an ear1y stage of

diffusion than in dairy farming. Therefore， we expect that the farmers who adopt

new ideas of feeding so町 ces in an ear1y stage have spatial behavioral

characteristics that helped them to actively search for and. exploit information

from various sources (Rogers， 2003).

We expect that the farmers who are in charge of accepting new technology

and innovation (in this case， corn si1age as a new forage resource) ear1ier are the

higher quality human resources in vi11ages and leaders of the community.

Therefore， we tested the relationship between the adoption level and some of

these farmers' structural and behavioral characteristics. The adoption level as a

dependent variable is identified by the year that the farmer began to make corn

silage. The first respondents who adopted the idea (in 1995) received the highest

91

Table 6ユSummaryof the variables used in the analysis

Explanatory variables Structural charact怠ristics1. Age of fanner 2. Farm size

3. Stock size

4. Household size

5. Ownership of agricultural machines

Definition

Age ofthe farmer， measured in years. Farm size represented by land area， measured in hectare. Number of fann animals owned by the fanner (cows， buffalos， or both) Measured by number of family members working on the fann. Total of machines owned: 1 if the farmers owned only an irrigation machine， 2 if he also owned a tractor， 3 if he also owned a machine for cutting com， and 4 if he also owned a combine harvester.

唱

d・H

一

hwd一

cn一

eo一3・1-

xj前一

-44

冒EA-

-e一r一

Negative

Positive

Positive

Positive

Positive

Behavioral characteristics 6. Education level

7. Time spent in agricultural work

8. Training received

9. Social participation

10. Sources ofthe idea

11. Contact with extension agent

12. Seeking ofnew ideas

n

o

ゐEιa

c

n

u

m

m

o

puoa

f

-α

凶

w

g釦

-mh

urt

今

3-A

Education level(score): Uneducated (having

no formal education(I))， low (can read and write(2) or fmished primぽ y(3)or junior high school(4))， medium (白1ished normal or agriculture high school(5) or a 2・yearcollege program(6))， and high _education level (has fmished a bachelors(7) or post-graduate(8)

program). Time: 2 if the farmer spent full time in agricultural work; 1 otherwise. Training: 2 if the farmer received any kind of仕ainingcourses related to agriculture; 1 otherwise. Participation: 2 if the fanner has membership in a local cooperative society; 1 otherwise. Source: 5 if the fanner heard about the idea for the first time from an extension agent; 4 if企omfaculty of agriculture; 3 if企omanimal回 ders;2 if from neighbors or relatives; 1 if企omfriends. Contact with extension agent， measured by the frequency of contact: 4 if企equentcontact; 3 sometimes; 2 rarely; 1 never. 百lelevel of a fanner's response to three questions related to his ability to use new ideas or technology: 3 if yes; 2 if perhaps; 1 ifno. 百le企equencyof fanner access to ten types of information channels; a maximum score of 40: levels of access are 4 if always， 3 if sometimes，2 ifrarely， and 1 ifno contact.

Positive

Positive

Positive

Positive

Positive

Positive

Positive

Positive

92

score of 15; the last respondents who adopted the idea (in 2009) received the

lowest score of 1. The study was carried out with thirteen independent variables

(five structural characteristics and eight behavioral characteristics). The definition，

measurement， and expected relationship of the selected independent variables are

explained in Table 6ユDatawere analyzed using descriptive and inferential

statistics such as extent of the mean， standard deviation， and correlation analysis

that was done with the help of Graph Pad Prism 4 so武ware.

6.4. Results and discussion

6.4.1. Adoption level ofthe t，αrrget groups 01 farmers

In general， the results showed that all of the interviewed farmers adopted

the idea of making and using corn si1age as a new forage resource and all of them

wanted cost reduction. Table 6.3 shows the scoring of the adoption levels of the

target groups. The table shows that innovators are at a high level of adoption and

all early adopters are at a fair1y high level， while laggards were low ranking in

terms of corn si1age adoption.

Table 6.3. Distribution ofthe target groups according to adoption level (n = 54)

Dependent variable Group Scale

Adoption level Innovators (High) ::::10， :::;;15

Mean=4.1 Early adopters (Fairly high) ::::6， :::;;8 Standard deviation = 3.1 Laggards(Low) 1 and 2

Source: Field survey， 2010 Note: Maximum adoption level=15， and Minimum=1

6. 4. 2. Correlationαnalysisαmongαdoption levels of corn sUα1ge and

structurα，1 chαrα'cteristics

It was hypothesized that the age of the farmers is likely to have a negative

impact upon the adoption of the idea of using corn silageぉ anew forage source.

However， contrary to our expectation， the analysis showed that the age of the

adopter was not significantly related with the adoption level. Simi1ar1y， the results

in Table 6.4 show a positive~ and significant correlation (P<O.OI) between the

level of adoption and economical variables such as farm size and stock size. A

93

positive and significant correlation (P<0.0001) was also found between the

number of agricultural machines owned by the farmers and the level of adoption.

The positive correlation indicates that the farmers with larger businesses are more

likely to adopt relatively new innovations or ideas.

The same results have been achieved in many adoption and diffusion

studies (Agwu， 2004; Rahman， 2007; Bhushan et al吋 2007;Diederen et al.， 2003;

Onemolease and Alakpa， 2009). Furthermore， larger farms tend to be

characterized by some degree of division oflabor， more professional management，

and a larger capacity to bear risk. This may foster the willingness to invest in new

technologies. In the same manner， there is a positive and significant correlation

(P<0.05) between household size and the level of adoption.

Table 6.4. Correlation analysis among adoption levels of corn silage and

S仕ucturalcharacteristics

Independent characteristics 1. Parm size (ha) 2. Stock size (head) 3. Ownership of agriculture

machines 4. Household size Source: Pield survey， 2011

Correlation coefficients

0.348 0.355

0.501

0.342

PVαlue 0.010 0.008

0.000

0.011

Note: * Significant at 5%， ** Significant at 1 %， *** Significant at 0.1 %

Sig. level

** ** *キ*

*

6.4.3. Class 01 eαrrlierαdopters bαsed onfiα~rm size αrnd stock size

明弓lenan attempt is made to predict human resource development， it is

essential to consider economic factors that are quantitative components of human

resources such as natural resources and capital variables because if people cannot

make full use of land and capital resources due to a lack of knowledge or ability，

then their potential impact would remain unrealized. At the secondary level， the

socio-personal and behavioral variables that affect particular human capabilities

to do productive work are known as qualitative components of human resources.

With regard to the qualitative components of human resources， we

expected that socio-personal and behavioral variables might a的 ctthe decision of

94

farmers to adopt the idea of com silage. Therefore， we attempted to examine

whether economic variables like land and stock sizes are the main variables that

affect farmers' adoption decision or whether there are also socio-personal and

behavioral variables. In this study， the results in Table 6.4 showed the impact of

the economic variables on the adoption decision， primarily that most laggards are

owners of small land parcels and small stock size.

However， for more understanding of innovators and early adopters'

adoption behavior， we classified the innovators and early adopters depending on

their land and stock sizes. An analysis was conducted by frequency distribution

and cross-tabulation; the企equencydistribution resulted in four groups of farmers，

as shown in Figure 6ユTheresults indicated that 33.3% of the innovators and

early adopters owned large land parcels and large stocks， 33.3% of them owned

smallland parcels and large stocks， 11.8% ofthem owned large land parcels and

small stocks， and 9.7% of them owned smallland parcels and small stocks.

The results showed that: (1) many innovators and early adopters are

owners of large stocks; (2) innovators and early adopters depend on stock size

rather than land size; and (3) some of the innovators and early adopters are

owners of smallland parcels and small numbers of animals. These results indicate

that not only are economic characteristics responsible for the adoption of com

silage as a new idea but also that some other behavioral characteristics of the

innovators and early adopters might affect their early adoption decision.

6.4.4. Correlationαnαrlysisαmongαdoption level 01 corn si/，αge and

behαvioral charαcteristics

Assuming that adoption is in:fluenced by various socio-personal and

behavioral characteristics of the farmers， correlation coefficients were computed

to determine the relationships between eight selected variables of farmers who

were innovators， early adopters， and laggards with their adoption levels. The

results are presented in Table 6.5. The results indicated that the variables of social

participation were positively and significantly associated (P<O.OOOl) with the

95

adoption level of the idea of corn silage. This might be because social

participation provides an opportunity for the farmers to widen their scope of

interactions. These interactions might have helped the farmers in understanding

new innovations or ideas and strengthened their already established opinion about

new technology or practices. The findings regarding this aspect were in

agreement with previous findings (Narwal et al.， 1991; Rahman， 2007; Bhushan

et al.， 2010).

Figure 6.2. Class of corn silage adopters based on their farm size and stock size

% ・Innovatorsand early adopters class

35.0

30.0

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

o.。dee

n

J

Z

同

町

剖

ehk

gdk

rs

、lF

』

同

副

計

Small land Large land and large and small stock size stock size

Smallland and small stocksize

On the other hand， social participation is representative of farmers in a

cooperative society， which may increase the frequency of extension contact.

However， an extension agent is known to facilitate farmers' adoption of

technologies， so contact with him might increase the probability of being an

earlier adopter of new ideas. ln the same manner， the results show a positive and

significant correlation (P<0.05) between sources of the idea and contact with the

extension agent with the adoption of the idea of corn silage. These results reflect

that the extension agent is a major source ofthe idea of corn silage for innovators

and early adopters; therefore， proximity to extension agents increases adoption.

Furthermore， the farmers who have frequent contact or access to extension

services or extension agents are more likely to adopt new ideas earlier. This result

suppOlis the findings of Rahman (2007) and Onemolease and Alakpa (2009).

96

Table 6.5. Correlation analysis among adoption levels of com silage and

behavioral characteristics

Independent characteristics

1. Social participation

2. Sources of the idea

Correlation coe旺icients(r)

0.529

0.333

P value

0.000

0.014

Sig.

level

*** *

3. Contact with the extension 0.311 0.022 * Source: Field survey， 2011

Note: NS: Not significant， * Significant at 5%， *** Significant at 0.01 %

Although years of education， time spent in agricultural work， training

received， seeking of new ideas， and use of communication channels remain

among other independent variables， they were not significantly related with the

adoption level of farmers toward the use of com silage. Thus， with regard to the

qualitative components of human resources， the results indicated that oniy three

of the behavioral variables that were expected to a民 ctthe adoption level of

farmers actually showed a significant impact on the adoption level.

6.4.5. Priori勿setting01 indicαtors 01αdoption 01 corn silαge

The structural and behavioral variables that showed a positive and

significant impact on the adoption level of the idea of using com silage are listed

in order of priority on the basis of results in Table 6.6. The variable social

participation is at the top of the list. Contact with an extension agent is the lowest

priority because of its lowest coe伍cientof determination， although other results

suggested血atan extension agent is a major so町民 ofthe idea of using com

silage for innovators and early adopters. The explanation of this result is that

contact with an extension agent reflects the frequency of contact with extension

staff and farmers' efforts to obtain information about new innovations or ideas，

but an extension agent is the primary source ofthe idea for the farmers.

6.4.6. Towαrds humαn resource development

This study basically examined the state of human resource development in

rural areas. However， we started by examining the structural characteristics that

were traditionally used in decision-theoretic models， such as age， farm size， stock

97

size， ownership of agricul加ralmachinery， and household size. Then we used

behavioral characteristics that are generally recognized as important but rarely

tested. We found that innovators and early adopters differ企omlaggards with

regard to structural characteristics such as farm size， stock size， ownership of

agriculture machines， and household size， but not age. Instead， we found that

innovators and early adopters di能 r企omlaggards with regard to behavioral

characteristics such as social participation， source of the idea， and contact with or

access to extension services or extension agents.

This section goes into detail on innovators' and early adopters' personal

development. Generally， most farmers started farming work under their fathers'

supervision and considered their total experience as starting企omthe first day that

they went out with their parent to the farm， then becoming manager of that farm，

and then taking responsibility for making decisions a立ertheir fathers' death. Thus，

some farmers who work full-time at their farm and who have never had another

job 0食enhave a low education level (i.e.， are illiterate or spent few years in

formal education). Conversely， some farmers who have spent most of their time

the farm with family at part-time only work， working non-agricultural m

members， or just managing the farm workers often have a high education level.

Table 6.6. Prioritized indicators of adoption of com silage use

priority

-A

司J

M

今

J

A『

F3ζU

守F

Coe宜icientof

determination (r2)

0.280

0.251

0.126

0.121

0.117

0.111

0.097

Independent variables

1. Social participation

2. Ownership of agriculture machines

3. Stock size (head)

4. Farm size (ha)

5. Household size

6. Sources of the idea

7. Contact with an extension agent

Source: Field survey， 2011

A farmer who spends the most time in agricultural work might have a

greater chance to participate in social activities and to have contact with an

98

extension agent， which also helps to improve the adequacy of the information

obtained about the new ideas， which has an impact on the adoption decision.

Ironically， the farmer who spends the most time in non-agricultural work may

also have企equentcontact with an extension agent for a better understanding of

agricultural aspects.

In general， it seems that farmers who are at the企ontpart of the diffusion

curve have a larger business， greater access to extension services as information

sources， and have some kind of social participation. Thus， the farmers who are in

charge of accepting technology and innovation are higher quality human

resources for the village and leaders of the community. This phenomenon may be

able to help the development of human resources at the village level because the

selection process of persons to be representatives depends on an election. This

indicates that the farmers who become representatives have a good relation with

others at the village level and play a role as leaders ofthe community.

In addition， the countryside consists of a s仕ongpatriarchal clan system

with ancestral ideas， which play a big part in maintaining the stability of the

countryside. In the light ofthis result， farmers who are representatives and leaders

of the community may play an important role in the process of human resource

development because of their good relationship and access with most of the other

farmers.

6.5. Concluding remarks

It can be concluded 企om the findings that contact and open

communication with an extension agent might play a role in the process of human

resource development through improving knowledge， skill， and the adequacy of

the information obtained about the new ideas， factors that have an impact on the

adoption decision. Based on this fact， the following conclusion was drawn: the

Egyptian government should strengthen human resource development in villages

and enhance investment in human resources， through the following.

99

• Extension organizations must contribute more e旺ectively to human

development goals through extension programs that are more educationally

focused， are aimed primarily at human resource development， help farmers

企omorganizations such as commodity groups and cooperatives， and promote

the use of government services and improved technology.

• Leaders of the communiザ shouldset up appropriate human resource

development and management programs and encourage everyone to participate

in them; then the leaders must make the programs e宜ectiveand sustainable.

The community's human resources can subsequently follow the path of

previous reasonable development and construction. In the meantime， leaders

should recognize the diversity of the farmers who make up the human

resources in villages and give di宜erenthelp according to individual conditions.

This way， the human resource development program will be e宜ective.By

building their capabilities and developing their skills， the farmers will gain a

social identi句rand a sense of belonging in the commu凶ty.Consequently， this

becomes the motivating force of active human resource development. When

the mindset and behaviors of farmers are changed， the village human resources

will achieve higher qualiザ.

100

CHAPTERVII

SUMMARY OF THE KEY FIl河DINGSAND RESEARCH

CONCLUSIONS

7.1. Background

Rural development is the management of human development and the

orientation of technological and institutional change in such a manner as to

improve inclusion， longevi勿"knowledge， and living standards in rural areas in the

context of equity and sustainability. The objective of rural development is to

facilitate a sustainable rural economy. There can never be any economic

development without the human resource， which is a major factor ofproduction.

羽司lenan a仕emptis made to predict human resource development， it is

essential to consider economic factors that are quantitative components of human

resources such as natural resources and capital variables b巴causeif people Cam10t

make full use of land and capital resources due to a lack of knowledge or ability，

then their potential impact would remain unrealized. At the secondary level， the

socio-personal and behavioral variables that affect particular human capabilities

to do productive work are knownぉ qualitativecomponents of human resources.

With regard to the qualitative components of human resources， we

expected that socio-personal and behavioral variables might a偽 ctthe decision of

farmers to adopt new innovations. Therefore， we a社emptedto examine whether

economic variables are the main variables that affect farmers' adoption decision

or whether there are other socio-personal and behavioral variables. This study

basically examined the state of human resource development in rural Egypt.

However， we started by examining the diffusion and adoption process， taking into

account the structural characteristics that were traditionally used in

decision-theoretic models. Then we used behavioral characteristics that are

generally recognized as important but rarely tested. This chapter presents a

summary of the key findings and then provides the research conclusions with

101

outlines of the implications for policy. Suggestions for further research are also

presented.

7.2. Summary ofthe key findings

Human resources are needed to meet various activities related to

agricultural development， which is critical to attain a coun仕γsgoals towards

rural development， especially in the poorer developing countries. Technology

development and technology transfer processes訂 econsidered to be primary

driving forces for growth and welfare in developing countries (Balakrishnan，

1998). In these countries， most people eam their subsistence incomes from

farming; thus， farmers are th巴keyplayers in the innovation process.

The diffusion of agricultural innovations is an example of complex

system behavior:企omthe individual decisions and interactions of single farm

households， an aggregate pa仕ernof innovation diffusion emerges， a pa仕ernthat

could not have been predicted by the observation of individual behavior in

isolation. Farmers are seen as partners in research and extension， and the key

players in the innovation process.

In Egypt， more than 55% of the country population lives in rural areas;

their lifestyle is a daily concern. In addition to the low rate of adoption of

modern agricultural inputs， the decreasing size of farms， which resulted in shorter

fallow periods and even continuous planting， contributed to the low productivity

of the agricultural sector. Egypt agriculture is virtually small-scale and

subsistence-oriented， and more than 95% of the country's agricultural output is

generated by subsistence farmers who use traditional tools and farming practices.

The livestock sector also makes a significant contribution to the food supply in

terms of meat and dairy products. The m吋orityof small-landholder farms dep巴nd

on animals for personal consumption and for eaming some subsistence incomes.

A shortage offeed， poor management systems， and inadequate healthcare services

severely limits livestock production (MAL， 2009). Thus， it is nec巴ssaryto

102

empower farmers by providing them with technologies that will foster

self-reliance and development (Moriba， 2002).

As a response to the widening gap between food supply and food demand

and the chronic problem of food insecurity in the countη" the widespread

adoption of green revolution technologies was the solution to improve

small-landholders' productivity釦 dthereby achieve food self三sufficiencyat a

national level. However， Egypt， like more govemments， faced severe financial

difficulties; when funds were curtailed for providing support services to

agriculture， including extension services， public sector extension systems faced

problems of cost and lack of efficiency. Feder et al. (1999) argued that the main

generic problem for public extension is the inherent difficulザ ofcost recovery.

The extension services in Egypt， as in many other developing countries， are

particularly constrained by insufficient human and financial resources， causing a

lack of motivation among their employ巴es.Furthermore， many of the agricultural

extension departments ofthe country do not have a well-defined system ofhuman

resource management

In J apan， even though public-sector representatives attend certain forums

and meetings on cross-country rural advisory services， there are currentiy no

public-sector rural advisory services networks. While there are large differences

within the region， private-sector rural advisory services can be provided by input

suppliers or by produce purchasers. However， J apan has an active national farmer

organization and Japan agricultural cooperatives that play a more important role

in the Japanese agricultural sector. The JAs， a mix of both private and public

sectors， are the most important source of multipurpose services for farmers. They

serve their farmer members by providing guidance on daily living， as well as

insurance， credit provision， and other business services. The JAs make a big

contribution to the development of the agricul旬ralindustry and the local

communities in Japan. Possibly du巴 tothe larger proportion of produce that is

sold outside the immediate production location， farmers increasingly sell their

103

produce (particularly fresh vegetables) to multinational companies or supermarket

chains through contract-farming types of arrangements.

While there are large differences in most developing countries， they do not

have extension policies or strategies and do not have systems in place to monitor

progress and assess the impact of public rural advisory services. In many

countries， reforms are taking place to make extension more client-oriented and to

move away合ompurely technical advice aimed at increasing production towards

also considering economic factors at the farm and market levels as well as

environmental concerns. The extent to which these reforms have resulted in

pluralistic， accountable and demand-driven systems has yet to beぉsessed.In

both developing and developed countries， farmers with small family farrns cannot

pay for extension services. Fully privatized extension is not economically feasible

in countries with a large base of small-scale， subsistence farmers

(Umali-Deininger， 1996). Thus， farmers need企eeeducational extension services

to provide advanced advice for improving their farm management and their

livelihood.

In many countries， the adoption of new agricultural techniques is an

important aspect of the movement towards a more sustainable agriculture. In this

context， an understanding of the adoption behavior and the factors that lead

farmers to adopt such techniques is a key component of policy design. Therefore，

we focused on analyzing the diffusion process of corn silage as one of the new

ideas in forage resources among Egyptian farmers. Results revealed that most

farmers adopted the idea after su妊icIentdisclosure of practices， although

extension agents were considered by innovators and early adopters as one of the

main information sources of the idea. Thus， weaknesses in the activities of

extension workers were identified with respect to diffusing the idea of corn silage.

It was also reveal巴dthat adopter categories were significantly different by farm

size， amount of family labor， stock size， contact with extension agents， and

education level， whereas farmer age was not significant.

104

The duration of adoption of a technology varies among economic units，

regions， and attributes ofthe technology itsel王Therefore，adequate understanding

ofthe process oftechnology adoption and its diffusion is necessary for designing

effective agricultural research and extension programs. Of interest are the details

of Shikaoi dairγfarmers' characteristics， adoption behavior， and factors related to

their innovativeness. Also of interest are the comparisons between the results of

the diffusion process of bunker silage with the results of the diffusion process of

corn silage in Egyptian agriculture. Results indicated the influence of the

economic variables on the adoptive behavior. The guidanee sta俗 ofthe JA，

followed by neighbors and relatives， play a much greater role in diffusing the idea

among adopters than other information sources.

According to Cruz (1987)， time is an important factor in the process of

diffusion. The system's social structure can have an important influence on the

spread of new ideas. It can imp巴deor facilitate the rate of di伍lsionand adoption

of new ideas. The norms， social statuses， and hierarchy of a social system

influence the behavior of individuals. In this regard， r巴sultsrevealed that the

diffusion ofbunker silage follows the normal distribution as Rogers (2003)

The idea of corn silage had low diffusion and adoption rates' for an

extended period early in the diffusion process， resulting in the peak of the

diffusion deviating from the cen匂rof the distribution to be shifted into the later

stages of the di伍lsionproc巴ss.That reflected the presence of a gap between real

and estimated diffusion rates of corn silage due to a weakness in the influence of

peer networks with respect to the innovation as a result of sluggishness on the

part of innovators and early adopters in spreading the idea of corn silage. In

addition， weakness of the extension delivery system in the study area might be

one of the key constraints to the adoption of the idea in the early stage of the

di白 sionprocess.

If a farmer invests， he chooses to innovate (to be the first user of an

innovation among his competitors)， to adopt an innovation that is already used by

105

others but which is still relatively new or to adopt a mature technology. A farmer

can also choose not to adopt anything new at all. The array of technologies used

in the production process di偽 rs企omsector to sector. In horticulture， innovations

are more Iikely to be superseded by new innovations before they reach an

advanced stage of diffusion than in dairy farming. On the other hand， the number

of technologies used in the production process in dairy farming is very Iimited

(feeding and miIking systems mainly).

New technologies that are relevant for greenhouse horticulture appear

much more frequently on the market than new technologies for dairy farming.

Hence， more farmers in horticulture will adopt innovations that are in an early

stage of diffusion than in dairy farming. Therefore， we expect that the farmers

who adopt new ideas of feeding sources in an earIy stage have spatial behavioral

characteristics that helped them to actively search for and exploit information

企'omvarious sources (Rogers， 2003). Thus， the farmers who are in charge of

accepting new innovation earIier are the higher quaIity human resources in

villages and leaders of the cqmmunity.

In this case， the. aim is to determine the most important driving factors of

adoption that helped the innovators and eariy adopters to be earIier adopters of

the idea of corn siIage than laggards， taking into account variables that reflect

structural farm characteristics. Then analysis ofthe behavioral variables that may

reflect the various efforts of a farmer to deal with information， and the

determination of whether these behavioral variables differentiate farmers who are

innovators or early adopters of the idea企omfarmers who are laggards， would

enable farmers to become earlier adopters.

The results revealed that earIier adopters di能 r企omlaggards on the

structural characteristics of farm size， stock size， ownership of agriculture

machinery， and number ofぬmiIymembers as the work force. Some of the earIier

adopters were owners of smaII land and smaII number of animals. Some

behavioral characteristics like social participation， source of the idea， and contact

106

with extension agents were responsible for the adoption of corn silage， and earlier

adopters and laggards were found to differ in their communication strategies.

Finally， as exp巴cted，th巴farmerswho are in charge of accepting new innovation

are the higher quality human resources in villages and leaders ofthe community.

7.3. General conclusions

In conclusion， the agricultural sector remains a significant and prime

contributor to the economy and development of Egypt. However， under the

existing set of limitations of small holdings， labor-intensive cultivation and

farming methods， and traditional irrigation water application， the current

small-scale agriculture seems under s仕'essdue to population growth， land

fragmentation， and low quality of life in rural communities (Shalaby et al.， 2011).

According to El-Sayed and Lashine (2007)， Egypt has 10.7 million poor with

70% of them residing in rural areas

Policies adopted for the development of agriculture must focus on poverty

reduction in rural areas through realizing economic yields. Thus， it is

recommended that these small landholdings must be developed to be able to

adopt new agricultural innovations and practices; there is a need to create

awareness and improving knowledge， skill， and th巴adequacyof the information

obtained about the new innovations or ideas that have an impact on the adoption

decision. Agricultural extension services can play a proactive role in realizing

higher yields and sustainable rural communities through the development of

human resources (user-oriented technology). Thus， the extension workers have to

play new role， not only providing advisory services but also providing policy to

develop liた inthe rural areas via their activity for human resource development.

The development of human resources in rural areas must be an important role of

the extension staff in Egypt in the future. This policy has to be more responsive to

the needs and realities ofthe clients. To implement sustainable rural development，

a workable s甘ategymust have the following steps:

107

• The extension practitioners should design activities for spreading

awareness of new innovations or ideas to maximize their e自己ctivenessin

motivating the farmers to try them and adopt them. They also can arrange

with the innovators who are the first to try the new ideas， to provide local

trials for others to see after they have awareness.

• To increase the level of adoption of new ideas or technology， farmers are

required to be exposed to as many as cosmopolitan sources of information

as possible， to make them aware of these technologies. Thus， extension

workers should form some informal groups or forums of farmers and

encourage the group members to discuss the farm problem amongst

themselves， also sharing good experience唱.

• Extension effectiveness cannot be achieved without the active participation

of the farmers themselves as well as of research and related services， so that

there is a reinforcing e自己ctin group learning and group action， and that

extension efficiency is gained by focusing on important points based on

expressed needs of farmers through their groups or organizations instead of

through individualized approaches.

• Maximum Adoption Rates， as calculated above， allow a scientist or

extensionist to predict the potential success of a technology introduction. It

is a tool that can be used for improving research and extension efficiency. It

can also be used to assess the achieved adoption rate compared to the

predicted one. Because of the inherent linear nature of the calculation， it

should not be used beyond the scope of priority setting and adoption

assessment. If adoption rates are criteria for measuring the efficiency of

research and extension services， then flexible recommendations will not

only benefit the farmers， but will also satis今donorsand hence guarantee

伽 ldingof research and extension.

• The Egyptian government should s廿'engthenhuman resource development

108

in villages and enhance investment in human resources， through extension

programs that are more educationally focused， 紅 巳 aimed primarily at

human resource development， help farmers丘omorganizations such as

commodity groups and cooperatives， and promote the use of govemment

services and improved technology.

• Development of human r巴sourcesin villages can be achieved through

advising farmers on opportunities not only in agricultural production as in

developing countries， but also in facilitating the development of local skills，

the development and transfer of new technologies to farmers， marketing，

conservation， family livelihoods， family education， youth development， and

addressing public interest issu巴s in rural areas such as resource

conservation， health， monitoring of food security， agricultural production，

and food safety.

• Leaders of the community should set up appropriate human resource

development and management programs and encourage everyone to

participate in them; then， the leaders must make the programs e民 ctiveand

sustainable. The communi勿'shuman resources can subsequently follow the

path of previous reasonable development and construction. In the meantime，

leaders should re∞gnize the diversi句rof the farmers who make up the

human resources in villages and give different help according to individual

conditions. In this way， the human resource development program will be

effective. By building their capabilities and developing their skills， the

farmers will gain a social identity and a sense of belonging in the

community. Consequently， this becomes the motivating force of active

human resource development. When the mindset and behaviors of farmers

are changed， the human resources in villages will achieve higher quality.

109

APPENDIXI

A QUESTIONNAIRE ABOUT DlFFUSION OF CORN SILAGE IN EGYPT

AGRICULTURE

1-F armers age ………・・・・・・years

エEducationalbackground of the farmers

ーIlliterate -Can read and write. -Finished Primary school

-Junior high school -High school -Agriculture high school.

-Bachelor or Bachelor's degree 司 postgraduate.

3-Farm size and type ofland ownership

Type of land ownership fedan Qerat Sahm Total ha

Owned

Rent

Shared with others

aa--

V

且一一

ρu

一一

h一一!

O一一

一O

一一!

ra--

一白一一

一U

一一

一B一一

ny--

一

i

J

h一

一

一

o

s

-

-

-

V

A

-

-

一

ρν

一

一

一

n一

一

一

W一

一

一

O

一

一

一

l

J

a一S

一一

m一W

一一

i!

加日↑」

-4・

旬

。T

cd ob

n

M

，‘『一

σ。

・ぽ一一

n

M一一

m

Ill「I

L

O

-

一

一

自

一

一

一

e

ma--

一

也

ぬ一

k一

一

時

竺M一

一

州

mU

「ll

「J

u

l

i

-

-

一O

剖

一

一

一

y

m一

一

一

首

m一

一

一

e

a一

一

一

m

r

I

F

-

-

O-

一

一

心

e一g一一

h

m一旧一一

e

c

:

i

m一副

一

一

泌

h一F一

一

円

戸、dfh

v l

a

t

o

T

-

Items Always Sometimes Rarely No

1-Are you reading the newspaper or

magazines?

2-Do you visit the office of

agriculture extension in the

perfector?

3-Do you visit other cities?

牛 Doyou visit the 0筋肉 of

agriculture extension in your

village?

7-Do you engage in other work with your farm work? ーYes -No

8-Have you been training course in the area of agricultural? -Yes -No

AU

--

If yes ask. Do you remember this training course?

9-Please tell me if you doing the flowing things

Items Yes Sometimes No

1・Doyou like to know the new in the agriculture?

2-Are you like to apply the new in agriculture for

increase your income?

テIfyou asked for doing small enterpris巴sfor

raising your income you will acceptワ

4-If you see your neighborhood doing something

new and good in his farm you can do same?

10-What is the machinery you have?

10.1. Agriculture tractor 10ユIrrigationmachine 10.3. Combine

10.4. Planting machine 10.5. Others .ー…

11-What are your information sources about the new in agriculture?

Sources Always Sometimes Rarely No

1-The agriculture guides

2-Public veterinarians

3-Privet veterinarians

4-Experts farmers.

5・Agriculturalengineering.

ふNewspaperand magazines

7-T.V programs.

8司 Traderof production inputs

9-Neighborhood /relatives.

10-Agrecultural extension

pamphlets

11-Others

-・・・・・・・・・・・........................

12司 Whendid you hear about the idea of corn silage?

13-From whom did you hear about it?

14-When did you start to apply it?

111

15-Why you did not app1y it direct after you hear?

16-Who helped you to apply it first time?

17-In your opinion what is the advantages of the idea of corn siIage in

comparison with the other traditionaI methods?

Advantages Responses

1-Coasts 1.1-Less

1.2-S imiIar

1.3・More2-Emerging and openness: 2.トL巴ss

Is the possibility of watching th巴 2.2-The same degree

idea clearIy to others 2.3-Clearer

3-Relative f1exibiIi勿: 3.1-Easy

Linked to the implementation ofthe 3.2-SimiIar

idea of certain conditions 3.3-Need speciaI

condition

4-The degree of complexity of the 4.トEasy

idea: 4.2司 Similar

Difficult to recaII the 4.3-Di質icultand

recommendations of the idea complex

5-The possibility of testing: 5.1-Easy

The possibiIity of testing the idea of 5.2-SimiIar

an紅rowrange 5.3帽 Di伍cult

Notes

18-What are the problems or obstacIes that facing you when making corn siIage?

-・・・・・・・・・・・・................................................................................

112

APPENDIXII

A QUESTIONNAIRE ABOUT DlFFUSION OF BUNKER SILO IN JAPAN

AGRICULTURE

1-Please fiI1 it out about the present situation of your farm management

1.1. Manager age Aria 1.6. The product cow's head

1.2.Grass1and ha 1.7. Number ofyoung cows head

area

1.3. Crop land ha 1.8. A childbirth interval Day-month

1.4. Grazing ha 1.9. An average product degree

1.5. Mix grass & ha 1.1 O. A milking form Milking parlor ( )

grazmg Apipeline ()

2-Please teach last educational background of the master of management

2.1. A junior high school

2ユHighschool normal department

2.3. High school agriculture department

2.4. 4 years University of agriculture

2.5. A high school (in addition) University of Agriculture

2.6. A junior coI1ege2 years

2.7: 2 years in Obihiro University of agricultural

3-A食era university graduate， did you engage in other work before doing your farm?

3.1. Yes 3ユNo

Ifyes write勿peofwork ...... .

4-Please teach it about a magazine about dairy farming subscribed to

4.1. A dairy man 4.4. Dairy Japan company

(Hokkaido cooperative news

agency)

4.2. Rakuno joumal 4.5. Hoard's Dairyman

σapan田 edomestic animal trade)

4.3. Dairy news 4.6.0thers

(Dairy farming company)

113

5-Please make en仕yof the attendance situation to the next meeting frequency

Ameeting Always Sometimes Rarely

5.1. JA annual meeting

5.2. Youth group study

meeting

6-About introduction of bunker silo

6.1. Did you introduce bunker silo Yes No

6.2. When it "introduced The age time Ayearago

6.3. About the person who referred StaffofJA Member of extension

to it on the occasion of center

introduction， Friendsl Neighborhood Irelative

acquaintance

Magazinel Feed company

newspaper

Others

Thank you for your Cooperation

114

REFERENCES

Abdelhakam， A.M.， (2005). Agricultural extension in Egypt. Chapter 11. In. Proc.

FAO Regional Workshop on Options ofReform for Agricul旬ralExtension in

the Near East. Amman， Jordan 2-4 October， 2004. Food and Agriculture

Organization ofthe United Nations

Adams， M.E.， (1988). Agricultural extension in developing countries. ELBS

edition， Longman Singapore Publishing， Singapore.

Agwu， A.E. (2004). Factors influencing adoption ofimproved cowpea production

technologies in Nigeria， J ournal of International Agricultural and Extension

Education 11(1): 81-88.

Alfaro. E.， (2004). Perceptions of livestock extension education delivery and

globalization effects among dairy farmers in the north coast of honduras，

Master Thesis. P 49， University of Florida，合om:

h抗p://etd.fcla.eduJUF/UFE00075211toro_e.pdf. Date Accessed: 5 March

2009.

Ameur. C. (1994). Agricultural extension: a step beyond the next step， pp 12-17.

World Bank Technical Paper 247， World Bank Documents & Reports.

Anderson， J.R. and G. Feder (2002)， Rural Extension Services， World Bank，

Agriculture and Rural Development Department， Washington DC

Anderson， J.， (2008). Agricul旬raladvisory services， pp 4-6. Background Paper

for the World Development Report. From: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/

INTWDR2008/Reso町 ces/2795087-1191427986785/ Anderson _ Advisory

Services.pdf. Accessed on 5 March 2009

Aquastat. (2005). Water Report .No.29. Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe

Unite Nations (FAO).

Atala， TK.， Arokoyo， T and Amata， PA. (1992). The impact ofthe training and

visit system of extension on adoption of farm innovations and farm output in

Kaduna State， Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Agricultural Extension， 2(1): 59-

70

115

Axinn， G. H. (2009). Guide on altemative extension approaches. manual on

agricultural extension. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations， Rome， Italy. 1988.

Balakrishnan， R. (1998). Widening gaps in technology development and

technology transfer to support rural women， FAO corporate document

repository， Human resources in agricult町aland rural development.

Bhushan， B.， MaIik， 1.S.， Narwal， R.S.， and Sharma， R. (2010).Factors

responsible for the adoption of scientific technological practices (Stps)，

Indian10umal ofAgric. Res.， 44(4): 306-310.

BindIish， V. and Everson， R. (1993). Evaluation ofthe performance ofT&V extension

in Kenya. World Bank Technical Paper 208， A企icaTechnical Department Series，

The World Bank， Washington DC.

Byerlee， D. (1998). Knowledge intensive crop management technologies:

concepts， impacts， and prosp巴ctsin Asian agricultureヘinP. Pingali (ed.)，

Impacts of Rice Research， Thailand Development Research Institute，

Bangkok， and International Rice Research Institute， Los Banos， Philippines，

pp. 113-34.

Chi， T.T.N.， and Yamada， R. (2002). Factors affecting farmers adoption of

technologies in farming system: A case study in Omon district， Can Tho

province， Mekong Delta， Omonrice 10: 94-100， from: h仕p・//cl町i.org/Iib

/omo町 ice/l0-12.pd王Acc巴ssedon 30 May 2011.

Cotlear， Daniel. (1990). The effects of education on farm productivity， in Keith

Griffin and 10hn Knight， eds.， Human Development and the International

Development Strategy for the 1990s (London: MacMillan)

Cruz FA. (1978). Adoption and diffusion of agricultural extensions. In an

introduction to extension deIivery systems by 1B Valera， VA Martinez， and

町 Plopinoeds.) 1987. Island PubIishing House， Manila. P. 97-127.

Diederen， Paul， H. van M吋1and A. Wolters. (2003). Innovationladoption in

agriculture: ilillovators， earIy adopters and laggards， Cahiers d 'Economie et

Sociologie Rurales， vol. 67 (2)， pp. 29-50.

116

EI・Sayed，H.， and Lashine， Z. EI-Sawi. (2007).Agriculture food production and

land use Chapter 6. In Kruseman， G. and W. Vullings (Eds.) Rural

development policy in Egypt towards 2025. Targeted conditional income

support: A Suitable option. alterra-Rapport 1526， pp. 47-57.

Evenson R.E and G. Mwabu (1998). The E偽 ctsof Agricultural Extension on

Farm Yields in Kenya. Discussion paper no. 798， Economic Growth Center.

Yale， University.

FAO/World Bank. (2000). Agricultural knowledge and information systems for

rural development (AKIS/RD): Strategic vision and guiding. principles. Food

and agricultural organization of the United Nations and world bank: Rome

and Washington， DC.

Fed巴r，G.， Just， R.E. and Zilb巴rman，D. (1986). Adoption of agricultural

innovations in developing countries: A Surveyヘeconomicdevelopment and

cultural change 35(1)， 255-98.

Feder G， Wille抗Aand Zijp W. (1999). Agricuitural extension generic challenges

and some ingredients for solutions. P 10， Policy Research Working Pap巴r

world bank.

Fleischer. G， Waibel. H and Echols. GW.ο002). Transforming top-down

agricultural extension to a participatory system: a study of costs and

prospective benefits in Egypt， public administration and development public

admin. Dev. 22， 309-322.

Fukuda. K. (2005). Current situations and future direction of ag出 ul旬ral

extension information network system injapan， seminar on networking ofthe

ATT&T. P 1， 28th Novemberー 1stDecember， 2005， Jakarta & Bogo巳

Indonesia，企om: http://apec.litbang.deptan.go.id/files/ATC0205-08.pd王

Accessed on 4 March 2010.

Gaaya. A， (Year unknown). Extension education in agricultural and rural

development: Role of international organizations ~ The FAO Experience. P

34，企um:h仕:p://ressources.ciheam.org/om/pdf/c02-4/94400042.pd王Accessed

on 8 March 20 I O.

117

Gasperini， L. and Maguire， C. (2001). Targeting the rural poor: the role of

education and training， P4. International Working Group on Education，

Lisbon， PO此ugal，19-21November.

Grilliches， Z. (1957). Hybrid corn: An exploration in the economics of

technologica1 change. Econome仕ics.25(1957):501-22. cha 4

Hokkaido annua1 report. (2007). Agricu1ture in Hokkaido Japan (English Edition).

From: h抗p://www.marugoto.pref.hokkaido.jp/kokusai/engl2007eng/2007eng .

pdf. Accessed on 30 J an 2010

Honad1e BW. (1994). Making social science research applicable: Th巴 caseof

agricultural extension research in Egypt. Public Administration and

Development 14(4): 365-375

IFAD (Intemational Fund for Agricultural Development). (2006). Arab Repu

blic of Egypt. Country strategic oppoはunitiespaper (COSOP)，企om:h社

p://www.ifad.org/gbdocs/eb/81/e/EB-2004-8トR-15.pdf).Rome， Executive

Board -Eighty-Seventh Session， 19-20 April 2010

IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development). (2008). Rural Pov

erty Portal，企om:http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/. Rome. Accessed on

30 Jan 2010.

Iwamoto. 1.( Year unknown). The actual situation and prospect of agricultural

extension & education in Japan， Kagoshima University， JAPAl叫.

Jones， G. E. and Garforth. C. (2005). Improving agricultural extension: A

reference manua1， P 9. In. Swanson. B. E， Bentz. R. P and So企anko.A. J

(Eds)， FAO and Daya Publishing House， Delhi-110035.

Klinedinst. M and Sato .H. (1994). The Japanese cooperative sector， Journal of

Economic Issues， Vol. 28.

Kruseman， G. and W. Vullings (Eds.) (2007). Rural development policy in Egypt

towards 2025.Targeted conditional income support: A Suitable option.

alterra-Rapport 1526. Pp 11・78.

Mata， P.Z.， Ajay， O.C， Oduol， P.A and Agumya， A. (2010). Socio-economic

factors infIuencing adoption of improved fallow practices among smallholder

118

farmers inwestern Tanzania， A企icanJournal of Agricultural Research， 5(8):

818-823， from: http://www.academicjournals.org/AJARlPDF/pd臥 202010/

4%20May/ Matata%20et%20al.pdf. Accessed on 30 May 20日.

MEAS (Modernizing Extension and Advisory Services). (2011). Egypt Report，

from: http://www.meas-extension.org/meas-offers/country _studies/country

-overview/ Egypt. Accessed on 30 May 2012.

Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation.(MALR). (2008). Economic and

social development plan for the year 2008/2009. Report of the Ministry of

Agriculture. Cairo，Arab Republic ofEgypt.

Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation (MALR). (2009). Unpublished

data， Egypt

Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation(MALR). (2011). Agricultural

production in Egypt. Available at http://www.agregypt.gov.egl5-

Morgan， D. (2010). Egypt: growth and oppo巾 nityin agriculture， from: h批判/

www.english.globalarabnetwork.coml20 1 003155185/Economics/growth-and

-opportunity-in-egyptianagriculture. Html

Moriba， S. (2002). Impact， problems， and improvement of appropriate

technologies of the Tikonko agricultural ext巴nsioncentre. (Master's thesis).

Njala University， Bo， Sie汀 aLeone.

Motamed .M. K and Singh.B. (2003). Correlation of adoption of improved

sericulture practices. Indian Journal ofExtension Education (1 and 2)汚1-57.

Muck R.E. and K. J. Shinners. (Year unknown). Conserved forage (silage and

hay): Progress and prioritiesuふ Dairyforage research center U.S.， Wisconsin，

United States of America

Mureithi. J. G.， et al.ο005). Coping with feed shortages during the dry s巴ason，

bulletin supported and funded by the kenya agricultural research institute and

the Rockefeller foundation.

Nanda S. K.， D. Rama Rao， and K Vizayakumar.σ"ear unknown). Human

resource development for agricultural sector in India: a dynamic analysis，

119

Department of Industrial Engineering and Management， Indian Institute of

Technology， KHARAGPUR. India 721302.

Narwal， R.8.， Dixit， V.B.， and Dahiya， 8.8. (1991). Correlates offarmers' a社i旬de

towards bu:ffalo management practices. Indian Joumal of Extension

Education 27: 97-100.

Neuchatel Group. (1999). Common framework on agricultural extension，

ppI2-19. Paris: Bureau des Politiques Agricoles et de la 8ecurite Alim巴ntaire，

企Qm:http://www.neuchatelinitiative.n巴，tlimages/cf_en.pdf. Accessed on 4

January 2010.

N08AI Home Page， The Framework of Japan's agricultural insurance scheme，

htゆ://www.nosai.or.jp/nosai/modules/pico/index.php?content_id=29.

Accessed on 6 Jan 2010.

Obasi MO， Obinne CPO and司embiEP. (1994). Appraisal ofselected factors that

influence the adoption of improved farm practices among soyabeans farmers

in Benue 8tate， Nigeria. Joumal of Rural Development and Administration，

26(3): 78 -91.

Obinn巴. CP. (1991)， Adoption of improved cassava production technologies by

small-scale farmers in Bendel 8tate. J ournal of Agricultural 8cience and

Technologiω，1(1): 12 -15.

Odiaka EC， Obinne CPO， Odiaka NI. (1997). Assessment ofadoption rates in two

rural communities of Benue and Kogi states served by the University

Extension 8ystem. Joumal of Agriculture and Education， 2(1): 23 -26.

Omobolanle， O.L.， Okunlol九 J.Oand Ewuola， 8.0. (2010). Adoption pa口ernof

farmers in 8outhwest， Nigeria: The case of maize and cassava farmers. Agric.

Biol. J. N. Am.， 1(4): 476-481.

Onemolease， E.A.， and Alakpa， 80. (2009). Determinants of adoption decisions

ofrural youths in the Niger Delta Region ofNigeria， J 80c 8ci， 20(1): 61-66.

Quizon J， Feder G， and Murgai R. (2001). Fiscal sustainability of agricultural

extension: the case of the farmer field school approach. Joumal of

International Agricultural and Extension Education 8(1): 13-24.

120

Pherson P. Mc. (2007). Hearing: Food security in A企ica:the Impact of

Agricultural Development， House Committee on Foreign Affairs

Subcommittee on A企ica and Global Health， from:

http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/lI0/mcp071807.htm. Accessed on 6 Jan 2012.

Prakash. D. (2000) Development of agricultural cooperatives -relevance of

Japanese experiences to developing countries， the institute for the

development of agricultural cooperation in Asia [IDACA]. P 3， April 18，

企om:www.uwcc.wisc.edu/info/intl/daman_japan.pdf. Accessed on 4 January

2009.

Rahm， M. R.， and E. Huffinan. (1984). Adoption ofreduced tillage: The role of

human capital and other variables." Am. J. Agr. Econ. 66:405-13. cha4.

Rahman， S. (2007). Adoption of improved technologies by the pig farmers of

Aizawl district of Mizoram， India. Livestock research for rural development.

19(1).

Rezvanfar， A.， Samiee， A and Faham， E. (2009). Analysis of factors a飴 cting

adoption of sustainable soil conservation practices among wheat growers，

World applied scIences journal 6(5):644-651.

Rivera， W. M， E. M. EIshafie， and K H. Aboul-Seoud. (1997). The Public sector

agricultural extension system in Egypt: A pluralistic complex in transition.

commentary. Journal ofInternational Agricultural and Extension Education

Rogers， EM. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd edition). The Free Press. A

Division of Macmillan Publishing Co.， Inc. New York. Collier Macmillan

Publishers， London.

Rogers， E.M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations， 5th edition， New York. The Free

Press， Macmillan P1Jblishing.

Roeling， N. (1986). Extension and the development ofhuman resoぽ'ces:the other

甘aditionin extension education. In Investing in Rural Extension: Strategies

and Goals， Jones GE (edふEIsevier:London and New York.

121

Rollins， T. (1993). Using the innovation adoption diffusion model to target

educational programming， from: htゆ://202.198.141.77/upload/softlOO1/

34-04-46.pd王Accessedon 4 July 2010.

Roling， Niels. (1988). Extension Science. Information systems in agricultural

development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Roling， Niels. (2006). Communication for development in research， Extension

and education， Thematic Paper no 2， Communication Roundtable， 6-9

Septemb巴r，Rome: FAO.

Ruttan， Vernon. (2003). Social science knowledge and economic development:

An Institutional Design Perspective. Ann Arbor. Mi.: University of Michigan

Press.

Sallam S. (1998). Agricultural extension system. Report for the

Egyptian-German Integrated Pest Management Project: Cairo.

Salooja， M.K. (Year u此nown).ODL Interventions for skill development in

agriculture， from: h仕p://wikieducator.org/images/f/t7/M.K. _ Salooj a. pdf.

Accessed on 19 January 2012. School of Agriculture， IGNOU， India.

Scoullar， B.B. (1994). Consultancy reporton agricultural extension training and

leadership development: strengthening the national agriculωral extension

systems， Technical Cooperation Program document， TCP/EGY/2355(T)，

Rome:FAO.

Stroup w.w.， P.E. Hildebrand， and C.A. Francis. (1991). Farmer participation for

more effective research insustainable agriculture. Staff paper series SP91-2，

September 1991. Food and Resource economics department. Institute ofFood

and Agricultural Sciences. University ofFlorida. Gainesville， Florida 32611.

Swanson， B. E. and Claar. J. B. (1984). Agricultural Extension: A reference

manual， Second Edition. Rome: FAO.

Swanson， Burton et al. (2006). Improving agricultural extension: A Reference、

Manual. Rome: FAO.

122

Swiss Centre for Agricultural Extension and Rural Development. (2000). Intemet

debate: financing extension for agriculture and natural resource management.

Posted at htゆ://www.financingextension.com/[Accessed7 September 2001].

Tonobi， M. O. (1998). Agricultural Extension -Arab Renaissance Publishing

House for Printing and Publishing司 Beirut-the first edition -1998

Umali-Deininger. D. (1996). New approaches to an old problem: The public and

private sector in extension. Workshop on alternative mechanisms for

delivering extension， World Bank.

Valera， J.B and R.F， Plopino. (1987). Philosophy and principle of extension. In

An introduction to extension delivery systems by JB Valera， VA Martinez， and

RF Plopino (editors) 1987. Island Publishing House， Manila. P. 51-61.

Van den Ban， A.W. (1999). Agricultural development: Opportunities and threats

for farmers and implications for extension organizations， J ournal of

Agricultural Education and Extension 6(3)， 145・56.

Voh， J.P. (1982). A study offactors associated with the adoption ofrecommended

farm practic巴sin a Nigeria Village， Agricultural Administration 2: 17 -27.

Windapo. O. (2002). Contact farmer's characteristics and their implementation

accuracy of maize and cassava technology in Oyo State， Nigeria. Journal of

Agricultural Extension， 6: 70-78.

Waddington H， Snilstveit B， White H and Anderson J. (2010). The impact of

agricultural ext巴nsionservices， P 1. 3ie Synthetic Reviews -SR009 Protocol.，

合om:http://3 ieimpact.org/adminlpdfs _ synthetic/009%20Protoco 1. pdf，. Date

Accessed on 4 February 2010.

Watts，L. and Swanson， B.， (1984). Agricultural Extension: A refer巴ncemanual，

PP 20-21. Second Edition. Rome， FAO.

World Bank. (1995). Participation Source book. Washington， D.C: World Bank，

Environmentally Sustainable Development.

World Bank. Forthcoming. World Development Report (2008): Agriculture for

Development. Washington， D.C.: World Bank.

123

Wright. V and Bennetts. R. (2006). Di伍JsionofInnovations: A Theoretical

Framework for understanding how Scientific Knowledge and Technology are

Adopted by Managers， from: htゆ://www.greateryellowstonescience.org/files

/pdfIDiff_InnovーOverview.pdf.Acc巴ssedon 10 September 2010.

Yamada. M. (1998). Computer network systems in agricultural extension service

in Japan and its usage in Fukui prefecture， ppI5-16. The Asian Federation for

Information Technology in Agriculture.

124

SUMMARY

In many countries the adoption of new agricul旬raltechniques is an

important aspect of the movement towards more sustainable agriculture. In this

context， an understanding of the adoption behavior and the factors that lead

farmers to adopt such t巴chniquesis a key component of policy design. Also

innovative farmers can play a key role in identi今ingand scaling up process of

innovations. In Egypt agriculture is virtually all small-scale， subsistence-oriented;

the livestock sector makes a significant contribution to the food supply. In

addition， the m句ority of smallholder farms depend 011 animals for

self-consumption and for earning some subsistence income. To improv巴

smallholders' productivity and thereby achieve food self-sufficiency at a national

level it is necessary to empower farmers by providing them with technologies.

Development of villages' human resources might play a positive role in

increasing the adoption of improved technologies in the agricultural sector， and

could be crucial for accelerating agricultural productivity and hence poverty

alleviation. Therefore we focus on analyzing the diffusion process of corn silage

as one of the new ideas for providing a forage resource among Egyptian farmers.

Results have revealed that most farmers adopted the idea after su宜icient

disclosure of practices， although extension age凶swere being considered by

innovators and early adopters as one of the main information sources for this idea.

Thus， weaknesses in the activities of extension workers were identified with

respect to diffusing the idea of corn silage. It was also revealed that adopter

categories were significantly different according to farm size， amount of family

labor， stock size， contact with extension agents， and education level， whereas

farmer age was not significant.

The duration of adoption of a technology varies among economic units，

regions and attributes of the technology itself. Therefore， the next point of interest

concerns details of the diffusion process of bunker silos among Shikaoi dairy

farm巴rダ， and mainly illustrates the ∞mp紅 isonbetween the results of the

125

diffusion process of bunker silos with the result of the diffusion process of corn

silage in Egyptian agriculture. The information sources available to farmers for

utilizing the idea of using bunker silos system include e.g the guidance staffs of

JAs (Japan agricul旬ral cooperatives)， staff of the ext巴nsion center，

企iends/acquaintance，feed company and neighborhood /relative. However， the

results of the questionnaire revealed that the guidance staffs of JAs have been

playing a much gre低errole in diffusing the idea among adopters than other

information so町 ces.It was also indicated the influence of economic variables in

the adoptive behavior.

We used the logit model， which is based on cumulative logistic probability

function， to calculate the estimated diffusion rate of corn silage and bunker silo.

The results revealed that the diffusion of bunker silo follows the normal

distribution as describ巴dby Rogers (2003). While the practice of corn silage had

a low diffusion and adoption rate for an early period in the diffusion process，

resulting in the peak of the diffusion deviating from the center of the distribution

to the later stages of吐lediffusion process. The presence of a gap betw閃 nreal

and estimated diffusion rates of corn silage is due to the weakness in the influence

of peer networks， in turn a result of sluggishness on the pa社 ofinnovators and

early adopters in spreading the idea of corn silage. In addition， weakness in the

extension delivery system like public extension centers in the study訂 eamight be

one of the key constraints to adopting the idea in the eariy stage of the di伍lsion

process.

We expect that farmers who adopt new innovation at an eariy stage have

special behavioral characteristics that help them to actively search for and exploit

information企omvarious sources. Thus， the farmers who are accepting new

innovation earlier represent the higher quali勿 villagehuman resources. In this

case， the aim is to determine the most important driving factors for adoption that

helped the innovators and eariy adopters to be earlier adopters of the idea of corn

silage than the laggards.

126

Based on the results， early adopters differ企omthe laggards on the basis of

structural characteristics Iike farm size， stock size， ownership of agriculture

machinery and number of family members as part of the work force. Some

behavioral characteristics Iike social participation， source of the ide渇 andcontact

with development agents were responsible for the adoption of com siIage， and

early adopters and laggards were found to differ in their communication strategies.

FinaIIy as we exp∞ted， the farmers who are accepting new innovation earlier are

the higher quaIity viIIage human resources and leaders of the community.

1n conclusion， the agricultural sector remains a significant and prime

contributor to the economy of Egypt. PoIicies for the development of agriculture

must focus on poverty reduction in rural areas through reaIizing economic yields.

Thus， the landholdings must be developed to be able to adopt new agricultural

innovations. This can be achieved through creating awareness， improving

knowledge， skiII and the adequacy of information obtained about new innovations

that have an impact on the adoption decision. Contact and open communication

with extension advisors might play a role in this process. The Egyptian

Govemment should strengthen viIIage human resource development and enhance

investment in human resources， through extension programs that are more

educationaIIy focused， are aimed primariIy at human resource development.

1n addition the present study provides a number of insights in to the

diffusion and adoption process which are of value for those who wish to increase

the adoption of new technology in Egypt; 1) Public extension should give higher

priority to process of innovations that wiII enable smaII-farm households to adopt

new innovations that wiII help them to increase their productivity and household

income. 2) The extension practitioners should design activities for spreading

aw紅 enessof new innovations or ideas and expand extension services to farmers

in order to faciIitate the adoption of new innovations and maximize their

effectiveness in faciIitating the adoption process. 3) Extension practitioners

should also訂rangelocal trials with those known to be the first to try new things

127

for other farmers to s巴eafter they have become aware of a new idea. 4) The

calculation of adoption rates， allow extensionists or scientists to predict the

success of a t巴chnology'sintroduction， which can be used for improving their

e妊iciency.

128

EN-

弓41J1F3ヨリイ弓134R「RR20N・

133「1A53ろ主ヨヨ1J守「沢一ghJきべそ「丸守つイι3d「一ヨ主弓Zヨ矛

可司、一「13・「一件「23J313守ミ「守13Z243ztdち門寸

-5J

11平支尽き門司可可432313ヨヲ11司14一次3き313

一司J313:3唱

31-3「き司、1っftAM一司「ヨ14「』叶333

「河一六庁ja--「314r辺司笠「14rも司1J13一有143「一言JoJPF1J3

-13Z1321む弐号「弐「313司.

弐ちJd可古43守宅一司司守司13ω一弐六「「弓も3212六「1Jろ「司心34

J「7弓ヨ司313司「135a六「弓A4守-六「1吋ヨ吋{スメ勺・「川口叫dRq3

3「卦仇河司一久83一3J1J34吋司、1d乃1つ守ヨ司ふ一32吾ヘJ

13144F仏三「0322pad-守132333tスωろ35u一三も

「313認さ苛一つ司J一32寺ヘJ13一 六7ろコヨ一つ勺1Jq「コヨ「苛3mD

-ヨ14弓J3弓4J「4Tち244汽「ZJ3「311323bヨ」3・

743-zdJ一六「-bpFA兵つ332ヨ32ZAd勺qhつAJF一ヨコ司ろ

手一守ろ苛ヘ「「三dqtT43341P62233司4TJAto可一司も

一戸主号一司も一「苛qhつベJす4コ弓403A「??ヨ13ろ司zq乱4リ・「j戸司

ヨ主盟国44JF一13弓{共同之11・ろ一4135守3JJ一可守門44ι宮大JAAYち

33ι=ヨω一六「一も可A「守ヨヨ一六コbS3仇3F1一六「一ω4J一六「一Jマ1「

司「勺弓ヨち一、司31「斗コスdhq1333523jrコ1J・

伺

32《JJlqむ

303「3LS司133一次ろ司7d44守司EJ「13「14JRヨ

一32313「も「在三六「31J1「51J汽奇35司JJffqf司

一4弓j可「一33守1つAb--守司j54812j4ヨ1守一六「志苛

一14「一戸JL一3331汽「庁官庁ろ一ヨヨヨ苛joJJ235一343「疋33

1「一六「33ti--一34一戸司4J3J133一戸司43113n生サ1

1Ja「守A323SJJ331弐J2スJ1

ヨtJ23-弐♂

。円【

-1J1311J「F1323J1d叫J33守司「可一再宣313ι・「ヨベ屯も寸36

17‘ち一ススJE1313ヨヘ♀可4t弓司32F13一乃143-戸「一号守宮町コ

13司「「司JJJ333ヘJJ♀J山「一安-1335コ53433一司事

ろ一prJd守ヨ司、一ヨ「叫JR「切っ一六3弓42-可1d円つ一jきも-31も一乃一六is 「15F1232「-J官司33「「15守AA雪一六「-oJ可d1Z司ヨ『31中

ちR1Z司J.

一戸「ヨコ3313司一司1343一戸「司3Z1勺弐守b[21-3「033

一F14d「jη「1H3リ一〉「『吋叫Jd」Jnヘ一司、も343一〉「3jJ一可一つ14J有斗吋

司、44勾

3き43一司ヘ一司も「1J司3・「rぺ34苛苛11弓ZJ

33電3jZ当Ab一1「 一11Ab1浄有「d?1司had-弐31t六「d「「「斗安1

3「QD叫 「J英司3R11司司受12ヨも河川J113ち一スヨ一戸「乃ヨヘ「14J

f1133ヨコ弓もむ苛1・f叫Jj司羽ヘa24コA-1-も一河「曲弐d

I113っ弓主計M3R35「ち叶J33巧む一司「むヨをD「週六「dミ「λ司4

J43143司可、一ヨ弓「司3司も一コ-弐「む=司313可43

f司JF43「雪J宥丸才イ411弓ごすさ弐弐11443一ヨヘ一司、司J

3「才一六「3-33ち13司「「屯4hadJI--ι弐一つ弓も咽34弓AM-「堂

一明「314「A3吉川d一ス一「d3J「Jヨ苛1I432j一ヨも1J一守「「一戸「13

q「35J「司、ィヨ334ヨ3333もJも司「13a「1つ「-11fも

宅一司判叫33吋ヨヨrd34J413J13司「「司百羽「同Z113JAMき

「河対「13司「fJ笥4「「守44叫す一六三dJR一ろdnaa「司剖JろーもFA「.ヨ同η

23Ab同「一「奄3・

一F142F「ヨ一六「一もよ33苛守43ヨーf-4曽

14岱

11JThd一3当

13コ231t苛23-3b「1ι13守33「1ι-3 「2533mb守弓「

一1オコ一戸間142F43dJ「一戸331243毛J{33「一司J・3t「門司

ヨ弓「つ一ヨも苛」一つヨヨーろ弓「ヨ一A3:333止「門司一JET-コ

一戸「ヨコヨちも司「号一司13-Z「き「1・3E「壬33耳b実J一ス一「d3・

一寸「叶イ一六「一tJq，31弓1大-qヨ司33一〉「一司つ寸邑「叫吋奇凶「悼の「3F刈314J有ゴ

1bF4「司A3ろ司30つ号叶♂jも023司ろヨ叶34弐丸ろ-つ

ft3ろ宥も守法一つfbT号司王一河川惜「司-3311dL-3「一六一「

【門【

「主「531寸心一六号可44d』J

司1J3JT3「同一司判Abヨ斗ヨJ13つよJコ233可司孔斗司ふ

苛433可叫「q一乃主ポ「「「2353M一六「百円一司4コJF3MS3一六「Ef33・

ち33一33吾11Jち手J223η♂

41一宮六「守132可書

一再司」可113「一コ可主コ守も一可一4一司王、均二ヨωI1J333J3434b

「ち10司も-可33A止一司「一Jよ二司「つ弓ヨω弐「33134リ可

「一円1311「叫JJe「414も高qAJtlJQ3・

-Z「0331ラヨス「ふ苛」3司

31J3弓3f号真一定「」「主

主コち一六7一乃13一生「1Mヨ♀きろ唯つ一戸大3・「4J司宅ヨ33ちろ

一寸「叶寸一六「-tJれろ42ヨ3リJ04q叫Jtつ久戸。一主吐「コ一司弓ろ一社?一司uJ寺A，J

ち1つ一F-fQ33司ut35一司ヌ14JId「弓」円JJ「一可一「14一ヨもちろ一3

弓33It--P1331dM界王Jえj沼苛「51q可F1J乃134M吋

「1133J一ヨコ13135d六「守43330J-3Z「ヨ「J一33「1b

之ろ34「弓」「Jっ.

ヨ可一ス一「d3mb-3「守一六「32もマ大Jマペ中551づコス1一六「古河1「

〈VN町一胃23咽

33叶号電3・「守ヘ44J71J「叫吋守Aq卓司喝叫J1つ弓43刈司

ヨ43ヨ10

掴可子リ一ヨも一つ』宍141辺守stJ刈司3AJJ3円3J3tt一可

ヨ4弔意む・「831叫JAt「ろ門司ヨ宍31dZ13J423司&「一事当可

一 「14-ヨも-213J守d司弓J13J11吋円1A11qJZ3(・ ・FN)

乃

ヨベ辺守寸法fJ514内づ433313b32JJF「ヨ一六「一も3

5F231吋133453一34ソ

23JnJF1誠一乃百吐コ司J131ス34

12ィ33f司13司J13一3J41ι一ス「J「1ι弓33守3323

「一「143も「車耳打1ョヨリ1u「3「13-q一号ろJ412羽35

1っきJ刈司333「

431B343む・

314J『卜

JjAd一弐34守41可弓ヌ招き司J1コ-3J「守HhdJ1ヨ司ヨヨき

「ヨ弐3-33弓A35ヨヨ3(も」吋1a21も一司「曲者ベ一「も主ヨヨ3)・

5共「一六司ちろ3一寸「341ft一主ろ-13ちょ可13ヨョー羽13

苛苛44Jヨろミも一コr1133司ふ守「Jも弐7・司川ユ万一司刈ぺ31?

守」「コヨろtJ可「埼ZjJG4咽

D1「J耳t「主主司司「三14Z「弓13一 司uJ守もXつ

N門【

rDJ1下コ凋44一ス一「03「司TJAD「も叫331つ一戸「ヨ11J・

弓4Z「431yろ守ち門川屯司つ一戸「34UJ「「叫心当』一戸叶叫4AZF「34J守呈J2

21qJXAスニ34354ゴ-F「2f可「生リヨヘ司守12つ「一pa六

一41『

23守司む』「「1「え苫リス一「A2・ヨ一コq叫431313-1qも

一六「一も「一3A34J436ち電《ZUZ一 「11dA中

ZTt可も34y-「

E

も一3JJっ一司つ一つ4J子3叶

313ろ1浩一つ304叫つろ一34ソ可一戸「ヨ

-ヨも-3fヨ21宍・

「ミ333一ヨヨ弐き「1353弓13ス一「034J13ろイメつAJZ

E

ヨ屯3313TJU3JTZJ「18弓442づ「一笥六百Z「zt34

「一戸羽六円-河3r14叶「一J3413wdJJAJ13ぺ-F「43・

『-FAJι可i1「「同門「ヨわり1q-司q4リ「一戸司JZF「可矛11f1A3ヨb担可弓442ヨ

34可「ぎ一54吋-33「ろえ勺ぎ一14一ス「dD-

司ぺちろ34;t1333-司勺ZdヨぷYF14ョ21b32

『一守tF3君ヘ3司112ヲ「一言「ろ兵士号ゴ13司会J3

一六「-oJ-3ZZ号n

wg一 コ31144「423L一戸「323dJJ3司331弓司守1司「一戸ヨ「

334J一1守司3E・

3qω一 「3J31S23有弐包Z「

13「

3534313}F212由

3

2コ吐「93吋一戸「ヨ一三もTJ34J1「q33一司「23ヘ333J54討つ

「一司3I4「ろ一え「一言ヨ「勺ヌ142Z「G3・

v，一つ主-3J230J河1J-Z「q号主百一六?ろイ弓司A吋土ペ-F「21一六「-oD

一言M

一六「E・

-FJJ「33-弐q3R1fA34吋司J-1「「つ一万ヘヨコ六743叩

451d守「

FEzI一つ河む勺凶「Jち一汗孔411h「凶「弓J司J一司一「4守「J可一六干J「な「止吋