# Getting Young People to Farm: How Effective Is Thailand's Young Smart Farmer Programme?
## 4 Results
### Inputs, Activities, and Outputs of the Young Smart Farmer Programme
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variable**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Coding/Definition**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Total Sample**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Non-Participants**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Participants**} \\  & & **(\(\mu\) = 176)** & **(\(\mu\) = 115\%)** & **(\(\mu\) = 61\%)** & **(\(\mu\) = 61\%)** & **Difference** \\ \cline{3-8}  & & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** \\ \hline
**Outcome** & & & & & & & & \\ \hline _Net income_ & Net farm income per rai in baht & 31,152 & 111,541 & 27,979 & 73,215 & 37,134 & 161,391 & t = \(-\)0.52 \\ \hline _Imnovtive_ & 1 = adopts innovative farming methods other & & & & & & & \\ _mutual_ & than common machineries and chemicals, & 0 = none & & & & & & \\ \hline
**Demographic and family characteristics** & & & & & & & & \\ \hline _Gender_ & 1 = male, 0 = female & 0.54 & 0.50 & 0.54 & 0.50 & 0.54 & 0.50 & \(\chi^{2}\) = 0.001 \\ \hline _Age_ & Age of the farmer & 40.40 & 5.47 & 41.31 & 4.75 & 38.67 & 6.30 & t = 2.87 *** \\ \hline _Education_ & 1 = completes education above year 9, 0 = none & 0.62 & 0.49 & 0.46 & 0.50 & 0.92 & 0.28 & \(\chi^{2}\) = 35.33 *** \\ \hline _Child_ & 1 = has a dependent child, 0 = none & 0.63 & 0.48 & 0.64 & 0.48 & 0.62 & 0.49 & \(\chi^{2}\) = 0.02 \\ \hline
**Farming characteristics** & & & & & & & & \\ \hline _Size_ & Total area of farming in rai & 30.75 & 40.29 & 30.91 & 33.50 & 30.46 & 51.03 & t = 0.07 \\ \hline _Tenure_ & 1 = owns most of farmland, 0 = none & 0.55 & 0.50 & 0.48 & 0.50 & 0.69 & 0.47 & \(\chi^{2}\) = 7.12 *** \\ \hline _Activity_ & 1 = only produces rice, 0 = none & 0.27 & 0.45 & 0.28 & 0.45 & 0.26 & 0.44 & \(\chi^{2}\) = 0.05 \\ \hline _Experience_ & Number of years of own farming & 11.61 & 8.17 & 13.91 & 8.22 & 7.27 & 6.08 & t = 6.09 *** \\ \hline _Off-farm income_ & 1 = off-farm income, 0 = none & 0.75 & 0.43 & 0.79 & 0.41 & 0.67 & 0.47 & \(\chi^{2}\) = 3.02 * \\ \hline _Other support_ & 1 = receives other farming support from the & 0.93 & 0.26 & 0.93 & 0.26 & 0.92 & 0.28 & \(\chi^{2}\) = 0.09 \\  & government, 0 = none & & & & & & & \\ \hline
**Farming problem characteristics** & & & & & & & & & \\ _Marketing problem_ & 1 = faces falling product prices, rising costs, and & 0.51 & 0.50 & 0.64 & 0.48 & 0.25 & 0.43 & \(\chi^{2}\) = 25.20 *** \\ \hline _Pest problem_ & 1 = faces outbreak or plant diseases, weeds, insect, & & & & & & & \\ and animal pests; 0 = none & & 0.30 & 0.46 & 0.30 & 0.46 & 0.28 & 0.45 & \(\chi^{2}\) = 0.13 \\ \hline _Wather problem_ & 1 = faces irregular weather, 0 = none & 0.39 & 0.49 & 0.43 & 0.50 & 0.33 & 0.47 & \(\chi^{2}\) = 1.61 \\ \hline _Soil problem_ & 1 = faces poor quality soil, 0 = none & 0.06 & 0.24 & 0.05 & 0.22 & 0.08 & 0.28 & \(\chi^{2}\) = 0.60 \\ \hline
**Farm location characteristics** & & & & & & & & \\ \hline _Distance1_ & Distance from the farmer’s farm to district & 14.21 & 8.52 & 13.82 & 8.85 & 14.93 & 7.86 & t = \(-\)0.82 \\  & agricultural extension office in km & & & & & & & \\ \hline _Distance2_ & Distance from the farmer’s farm to provincial & 39.55 & 20.67 & 40.46 & 20.72 & 37.83 & 20.62 & t = 0.80 \\  & agricultural extension office in km & & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} 10.15  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Definition and descriptive statistics of variables. Participants joined the programme because they mainly expected to gain knowledge and information about crop production, livestock, and edible insect culture (\(\sim\)34%); farm product management and marketing (\(\sim\)17%); as well as networking (\(\sim\)30%; Figure 3). In terms of activities and outputs, knowledge and information on post-harvest management; crop, aquaculture, and livestock production; and farming business administration were disseminated during the training, field trips, and meetings.