IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2016) 7-1

Research article
erdAppropriate Extension Approaches in Disseminating Livestock
Production Technology in Cambodia
PUTHEANY UNG*
Centre for Livestock Development Studies, Royal University of Agriculture, Cambodia
Email: vet_theany@yahoo.com

MYRA E. DAVID
College of Public Affairs and Development, University of the Philippines Los Baños, Philippines

ROMMEL C. SULABO
Animal and Dairy Science Cluster, University of the Philippines Los Baños, Philippines

AMADO A. ANGELES
Animal and Dairy Science Cluster, University of the Philippines Los Baños, Philippines
Received 15 December 2015

Accepted 29 April 2016(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract Understanding the current local livestock-disseminating approaches was very crucial
for the study to present an extension work plan by a technical staff with specific discussion on
the framework in identifying the appropriate extension approaches suitable to Cambodia’s local
situation. Primary data were collected using a structured, comparative criteria-guided
questionnaire from 7 interviewees within 4 purposively-selected extension institutions.
Regarding the comparative criteria for applicable and strongly applicable utilization ofextension approaches, livestock technology extension approaches in Cambodia tended to range
from the top-down general agriculture to more bottom-up, participatory approaches based on its
frequency of all its characteristics. The most applicable livestock extension approach wasparticipatory integrated with farming systems development, cost sharing, project, and education
institution because the growth in overseas-donored development aids created a desire for more
decentralized, participatory extension approach. Therefore, the diffusion of livestock
technology from Cambodian local farmers increasing farmer livestock production perhaps
thereby farmer livelihood would be increased using the participatory approach integrated withothers. The planning key points for disseminating livestock technology was also based on thestrongly applicable participatory approach.
Keywords extension approaches, livestock production technology, Cambodia

INTRODUCTION
To increase livestock production, it seems to be extremely important to keep farmers in updated
information regarding various production process and marketing practices. Inadequate access ofdeveloping-country farmers to relevant livestock information/technology has an effect on all livestock
subsectors and different stages of livestock production. The livestock technology dissemination
therefore is very important for improved smallholder farmer livestock production and consequently
increased farmily income (Khan et al., 2014; Sani et al., 2014). In Cambodia, pluralisticallycharacterised agricultural extension (Mak, 2012; MAFF, 2015) is a key mean to increase farmer cropand livestock production thereby generating farmer income (Axinn, 1988; Touch, 2000; Millar, 2009;
Christoplos, 2010; Mak, 2012; Khan et al., 2014; Sani et al., 2014). Many approaches to technology
dissemination have also been developed and used in both public and private extension services, andⒸ ISERD

173

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2016) 7-1

those run by non-governmental organizations in the developing countries (Davis, 2004; Lukuya et al.,2012; Mak, 2012; Khan et al., 2014; MAFF, 2015) such as Cambodia (Mak, 2012; MAFF, 2015). Thiseffort could be contributed by technical personnel becoming the subject matter specialists of their own
generated technologies (Blalock, 1963; Fetsch et al., 2010; Patil and Kokate, 2011; Kahan, 2013).
However, if the new specific generated knowledge could not be diffused to the end consumers
especially, livestock farmers without any appropriate, efficient extension approach and withinsufficient combined efforts from all extension provider institutions despite many approaches used inthose institutions (Axinn, 1988; Davis, 2004; Lukuya et al., 2012; Mak, 2012; Khan et al., 2014), suchthe technology is not practically applied and has no value. Consequently, one or more effective
livestock extension approach (es) is required to deliver new technologies to farmers in Cambodia andthereby the considerable focus of currently local approaches/methods of disseminating the livestock
information to Cambodian farmers is very important to determine if the information of improving
livestock production will be able to be disseminated to the right farmers at the right time.
OBJECTIVE
The study was conducted to present only an extension work plan by the technical staff affiliating to thelivestock production institution with specific discussion on the framework in analysing the suitabilityof an appropriate extension approach in Cambodia's local situation.
METHODOLOGY
Data Collection: Secodary and primary data were collected. The latter was collected at a period ofApril 2015 using a structured questionnaire from 7 key informants each of whom it took around 1 hourfor interviewing, within purposively-sampled 4 extension institutions (Royal University of Agriculture,
Department of Animal Health and Production, Centre for Livestock and Agricultural Development,
and Centre for Study and Development in Agriculture) based on their most potential activities of
livestock extension and availability in Cambodia. The questionnaire was guided by 6 of 7 comparative
criteria introduced by Axinn (1988) in identifying the appropriate extension approach in Cambodia.
The considered criteria with their individual indicators included program (C1), clientele (C2), field
personnel (C3), financial requirements (C4), organizational structure (C5), and leadrship characteristics(C6); and 2 key important options (Applicable or Strongly Applicable) to be selected by theinterviewee (Table 1 and Table 2).
Data Analysis: Using Axinn’s (1988) comparative analysis as framework of the eight extension
approaches (Table 3), analysis of responses indicated which approaches were most likely to fit the conditionof Cambodia. For each comparative indicator (denoting contrasting local conditions), an interviewee
responds by answering either, “Applicable” or “Strongly Applicable” which was counted and calculated aspercentage. The analysis of the gathered information was based on the descriptive criteria given. The
highest percentage for each criterion indicated the most likely appropriate extension approaches that could
be used in disseminating the generated livestock technologies from the research studies.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 1 shows that all pairs of comparative indicators exception with a few pair of the Axinn's
comparative criteria were practiced in Cambodia. Table 2 shows that best fit extension approach (es)based on the analysed indicators of each criterion should be noticeable in the study. At least theapplicable indicator with higher percentage of the study can be considered as one indicator of eachapproach given (Axinn, 1988).
Ⓒ ISERD

174

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2016) 7-1

Table 1 Analysed livestock extension approaches using Axinn's descriptive criteria considered

Leadership(C6)

Organizational
structure (C5)

Financial requirements
criterion (C4)

Field personal(C3)

Clientele(C2)

Program(C1)

Descriptions of Criteria (with comparative sub-components or indicator)
Nationally oriented scope
Provincial oriented scope (including district, commune, or village)
Goal to increase livestock production for export
Goal to increase livestock production for farmer family and national consumptions
Change the extension messages in response to feedback from rural villages
Not Change the extension messages in response to feedback from rural villages
More focused on livestock technology than on lifting social standards of rural life
Prioritize on lifting social standards and livestock technology also
Technical information decided upon by people inside the local rural village
Technical information decided upon by people outside the local rural village
A simple standardized technical message
Wide-ranging extension message to meet local needs and interests
Focused on larger, commercial, single livestock producers
Focused on broader range of people including poor farmers
To likely deal primarily with male farmers
To most likely deal with male, female and youth farmers
Most likely focused on limited ethnic and social groups
Likely focused on different ethnic and social groups
Target clientele at national level
Target clientele in limited areas within Cambodia
Field personnel from outsiders
Field personnel from insiders
Central government pay the salary
Local government pay the salaryHigh level of education of the field personnel
Lower level of education of the field personnel (under Bachelor's Degree)
Likely to include women and men as personnel
Not likely to include women as personnel
Extension personnel likely to transfer frequently from post to post
Extension personnel likely to remain at post for longer periods of time
Personnel with permanent status
Personnel with contractor/temporary status
Provide jobs for urban educated unemployed
Provide jobs for rural trained people
Incur high cost for information support
Incur low cost for information support
Provide farmer family high cost for producing livestock
Provide farmer low cost for producing livestock
Incur high cost for transportation
Incur low cost for transportation
Major support from central government
Support from other sources
Tends to fit centralization of control of organization
Tends to fit decentralization of control of organization
Emphasize the use of Subject Matter Specialists (SMS)
Emphasize less the use of Subject Matter Specialists
Require little participation of rural people to be served
Require high participation of rural people to be served
Use prominently information media support
Not use information media support
Leadership of organization to be part of central government/authority
Leadership of organization to be part of local government/authority
Leadership of organization to originate from professional
Leadership of organization to originate from clientele
To address a few technical fields
To address broader rural development fieldsⒸ ISERD

175

Informants' Responses (%)
Applicable Strongly Applicable
42.9
42.9
14.3
85.7
28.6
28.6
0.0
100.0
28.6
71.4
42.9
0.0
42.9
28.6
42.9
57.1
28.6
71.4
85.7
14.3
71.4
14.3
28.6
71.4
42.9
14.3
14.3
85.7
28.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
28.6
28.6
28.6
71.4
71.4
28.6
14.3
71.4
57.1
28.6
14.3
85.7
57.1
28.6
28.6
71.4
42.9
42.9
28.6
71.4
0.0
100.0
14.3
14.3
28.6
71.4
57.1
28.6
42.9
57.1
57.1
42.9
28.6
71.4
57.1
42.9
42.9
14.3
71.4
28.6
42.9
28.6
57.1
42.9
57.1
28.6
57.1
42.9
85.7
0.0
14.3
85.7
42.9
0.0
14.3
85.7
14.3
85.7
42.9
0.0
14.3
0.0
0.0
100.0
71.4
14.3
42.9
14.3
42.9
42.9
0.0
85.7
0.0
85.7
57.1
14.3
42.9
42.9
28.6
57.1

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2016) 7-1

The higher rate of responses on the strong applicable indicators of the C1 (Tables 1 2) indicatedthat PA would be commonly used for extesnion probably due to the limited funds and different projectsof the institutions, and farmers' insufficient access to export business. It is also caused likely by the
integration of the to-be-disseminated technologies generated by subject matter specialists (SMS) andthe knowledge interest of farmers, and it requires the masses of extension messages (e.g. specificlivestock knowledge with human health and farmer needs) without being so far from the planned goal.
Additionally, analyzing the indicators of the C2 and C3 (Tables 1 and 2), PA, FSD, T&V, PR,
and/or CSH would be utilized within the studied institutions due to the more applicable tendency forthe extension dealing with a multitude of stakeholders at limited areas; local insiders employed as field
personnel; both gender, permanent personel with low qualification; frequently personnel transferring;and the personnel salary from the local government (Table 1). This may be based on the extension
consideration for poor smallholder farmers at specific areas as priority of projects funded by the jointly
national and international supports.
The analyzed indicators of C4, C5 and C6 (Table 1) also refered the PA (as the most common),
GA, T&V, FSD, CSH, CA, EI, and/or CS as the commonly used approaches (Table 2) explained by thestrong applicable tendency for supports of extension finance from other sources (e.g. loans,international funds and projects), provision of more job opportunities for the urban educated students,
decentralization control, SMS emphasis, high rural participation, local authority as leadership,professional organization, and solutions for broader rural development fields (Table 1). This would bealso based on the more sufficient and efficient international funding projects jointly with the national
funds which is not only extension supportive source, and the urban educational institutions with moreavailable facilities produces the more qualified personnel for the extension. Being applicable was more
likely for incurring the low cost for the information support and farmers producing livestock (Table 1).
Regarding the studied criteria, livestock technology extension approaches tended to range fromthe top-down general agriculture to more bottom-up, decentralized, participatory approaches in
Cambodia. However, the latter was more applicably used to disseminate the knowledge to farmers
because the extension supports and personnel payment were mostly from local government with othersources and the growth in development aids from oversea donors created a more desire for such theapproaches (Touch, 2000; Race and Millar, 2008; Mak, 2012). The strongly-applicable livestock
extension approaches also tended to be the agricultural extension participatory and the cost sharing (6criteria), the farming systems development (4 criteria), the education institution (3 criteria); and thegeneral agricultural extension project, the commodity specialized (1 criterion). This indicated that there
were current combination of livestock extension approaches in Cambodia which was similar to theutilization of extension approaches in Ghana (DAES, 2011) and other studies (Quizon et al., 2000;
Touch, 2000; Mak, 2012). Not only an approach can success in the livestock technology dissemination,
but at least 2 various approaches are jointly used; the dissemination is for more than one specificcircumstance; and the advantages of one extension approach in a circumstance could provide
disadvantages in another (Axinn, 1988; Rivera et al., 2001; Rivera and Quamar, 2003).
Understanding the mentioned extension approaches, prior to dissemination of the survey andexperimental-generated livestock technology/knowledge to specific local Cambodian farmers, the key
points to be considered and planned were (Rivera et al., 2001; Millar, 2009; Mak, 2012; MAFF, 2015)
1) conducting pre-study (feasibility study) on a specific areas (national, provincial, district, commune
or village levels) to understand mainly key needs and interests of local farmers; 2) using livestock
technology extension participatory approaches combined with others; 3) specifying livestock
knowledge for the respectively specific livestock farmes/groups (e.g. associations or community-basedorganizations) in the specific areas with sufficient availabilities and resources for livestock production;4) conducting the dissemination with supports from extenal donors or projects especially in a large
scope of the extension; and 5) empolying the qualified local or outside field personnel with
communication skills and close relationship with farmers.

Ⓒ ISERD

176

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2016) 7-1

Table 2 Matrix of Axinn's descriptive criteria for the 8 extension approaches
Criteria for Extension Approaches (with indicators)

Leade
rship
(C6)

Structure(C5)

Financial
Requirement(C4)

Field Personal(C3)

Clientele(C2)

CS

Extension Approaches *
T&V
PA
PR
FSD
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

CSH
EI
Life quality focus
x
Responsive to feedbackx
Flexible messagex
x
Goal to increase farmer family consumption
Production goalsxxx
Outside informationxx
xx
Area or provincial scopexxxx
National scopex
Spread statusxx
xx
Men, women, youthxxxx
Narrow focusxxxx
Area target
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Broad staff basex
Temporaryxxxx
Frequent transfer
x
x
x
x
x
High trainingxxx
Local salaryxx
Outside originxxx
Low information
x
x
x
x
x
Low transport
x
x
x
x
x
Urban sourcexxxx
Low costxxx
Other funds
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Central funds
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
High participationx
x
x
Media prominentxxSpecialists emphasized
x
x
x
x
x
DecentralizedxxxProfessional originxxx
Broad representationxx
x
x
Local originxx* Eight extension approaches identified by Axinn (1988) including General Agriculture (GA), Commodity Specialized(CS), Training & Visit (T&V), Extension Participatory (PA), Project (PR), Farming System Development (FSD), Cost
Sharing (CSH), and Educational Institution (EI). Additionally, "XX" is strongly applicable and "X" is applicable.
Program(C1)

GA

CONCLUSION
Livestock production can increase as farmers adopt and practice the new introduced knowledge. In
livestock extension organizations, at least 2 different extension approaches were used concurrently todisseminate new knowledge and technology generated by researchers to Cambodian farmers while
using the participatory approach would be optimum.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My sincere thankfulness is expressed to IDRC-SEARCA, for the scholarship and supportive funds; myadvisory committees for giving their precious time, encouragement, and all-out support; and the study
institutions for supporting valuable time and information.

Ⓒ ISERD

177

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2016) 7-1

REFERENCES
Axinn, G.H. 1988. Guide on alternative extension approaches. Agricultural Education and Extension Services.
Human Resources Institutions and Agrarian Reform Division. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Blalock, T.C. 1963. Role of the subject-matter specialist. Journal of Extension, 1 (2), 93-100.
Christoplos, I. 2010. Mobilizing the potential of rural and agricultural extension. Office of Knowledge Exchange,
Research and Extension. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and Global
Forum for Rural Advisory Services, Rome, Italy.
Davis, K.E. 2004. Technology dissemination among small-scale farmers in Meru Central district of Kenya:
Impact of group participation. Dissertation in PhD. University of Florida, USA.
DAES. 2011. Agricultural extension approaches being implemented in Ghana. Directorate of Agricultural
Extension Services (DAES). 2011, Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA). http://mofa.gov.gh/site/wpcontent/uploads/2011/03/Extension-approaches-in-Ghan-pdf. Retrieved from www.worldwide-extension.
org/africa/ghana on Jun 23 2015.
Fetsch, R., Holtzer, T., Johnson, J., Kendall, P., Mcdonald, S. and Newman, S.E. 2010. Colorado State University
extension specialist roles and responsibilities. CSUE Specialists Association. SpecRole, Rev. Retrieved
from http://facultycouncil.colostate.edu/faculty-manual-section-e/ on Jun 25 2015.
Kahan, D. 2013. The role of the farm management specialist in extension. Farm management extension guide.
FAO, Rome, Italy.
Khan, G.A., Muhammad, S. and Chaudhary, K.M. 2014. Role of electronic media in disseminating information
for livestock/poultry production. The Journal of Animals and Plant Science, 24 (3), 961-964.
Lukuya, B., Place, F., Franzel, S. and Kiptot, E. 2012. Disseminating improved practices: Are volunteer farmer
trainers effective? The Journal of Agricultural and Extension Education, 18 (5), 525-540.
MAFF, 2015. The policy in agricultural extension in Cambodia (In Khmer). Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry,
and Fisheries (MAFF), Cambodia.
Mak, S. 2012. Overview of agricultural extension system in Cambodia. Réseau Far, Atelier Yaoundé. 20-22 Nov,
2012. Retrieved from http://daecambodia.org/index.php/en/ on Mar 18 2015.
Millar, J. 2009. Adapting extension approaches to cultural environments in Southeast Asia: Experiences from
Laos and Indonesia. Extesnion Farming Systems Journal, 5 (1), 143-148, Industry Forum.
Patil, S.S. and Kokate, K.D. 2011. Training need assessment of subject matter specialists of Krishi Vigyan
Kendras. Indian Res. J. Ext. Edu, 11 (1), 18-22.
Quizon, J., Feder, G. and Murgai, R. 2000. A note on the sustainability of the farmer field school approach toagriculture extension. The World Bank, Development Economics Group. Washington, DC.
Race, D. and Millar, J. 2008. Social and community dimensions to ACIAR projects. ACIAR Training Manual 4.
ACIAR. Cambodia.
Rivera, W.M. and Quamar, M.K. 2003. Agricultural extension, rural development and the food security
challenges. Extension, Education and Communication Services. Research, Extension and Training Division.
Sustainable Development Department. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Rivera, W.M., Quamar, M.K. and Crowder, L.V. 2001. Agriculture and rural extension worldwide: Options for
institutional reform in the developing countries. Extension, Education and Communication Services. FAO,
Rome, Italy.
Sani, L.I., Boadi, B.Y., Oladokun, O. and Kalusopa, T. 2014. The generation and dissemination of agricultural
information to farmers in Nigeria (A review). IOSR Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science. 7 (2),Ver. I, 102-111.
Touch, V. 2000. Agriculture education in Cambodia. Visiting Research Fellow of the International Cooperation
Centre for Agriculture Science (ICCAE), Nagoya University, Japan.

Ⓒ ISERD

178