Evaluating Selected Agricultural Extension Approaches in Rural Sudan

Abstract

Agricultural extension seeks to provide its clientele with satisfactory and continuous extension services. Extension’s success depends on the approach being adopted and operated under the specific conditions of each country. The Sudan has made many efforts to improve the effectiveness of agricultural extension functions. This study evaluates selected agricultural extension approaches operating in Sudan. A field surveys were conducted to collect data from 160 extension officers and 400 farmers. Two different close-ended questionnaires were constructed (Leading questions) and used in data collection, one for extension officers and another for farmers. The collected data was coded, fed to the computer, and statistically analyzed using the Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS), and interpreted by percentage, frequency distributions, and analysis of variance analysis (ANOVA) at a 0.05 significance level or less. According to the results of this study, the Farmer Field Schools approach (FFS) is the most suitable approach for Sudan conditions among the selected approaches (General extension approach, commodity development approach, and project approach). It has been determined by the FFS partners that the main constraint facing the FFS is costs.

1. Introduction

During the 20th almost all agricultural extension approaches were originally organized as ministry of agriculture-based agricultural extension services in most countries [1]. As a result, most extension organizations are government agencies with top-down management structures. The primary national agricultural development goal in most countries following independence was national food security. Therefore, most extension programs focused primarily on technology transfer activities that would improve the production of basic food crops, with far less attention and fewer resources being given to other extension programs and activities, including livestock, horticulture, fisheries, and natural resource management. Over time, national governments and donors became increasingly concerned about the performance of national extension systems, and different models have been tried and tested [2]. In Sudan, agricultural extension services were started in 1959 as ministry-based agricultural extension services (known as the National Agricultural Extension Administration at the federal level) after the Second World War as a part of American technical aid for developing countries. From that time to the present, many development and structural changes were made to this administration. In (2004) its name was changed to the Administration of Extension and Technology Transfer. This administration has a branch in each State Ministry of Agriculture of the country and dominates the majority of organizations that provide agricultural extension services in the country [3].

The use of the term extension approach is very varied, so defining it in advance seems useful. We would like to use the extension approach in a broad sense synonymous with the extension system [4]. The agricultural extensional approach is like a doctrine for the system. It informs, stimulates, and guides aspects of the system, including its structure, leadership, program, resources, and linkages [5]. According to [1], an approach is a style of action that is employed within a system. It’s like the drummer that sets the pace for all system activity [1]. Defined an approach as a way in which different guiding principles are applied in a specific situation to fulfill different purposes. It consists of a series of procedures for planning, organizing, and managing an extension institution. It also consists of procedures for implementing practical extension work by staff with technical and methodological qualifications. It uses the necessary and appropriate means. Various extension approaches were completed successfully by giving satisfactory results in the past to improve the farmers’ knowledge regarding newly developed agricultural technologies. Some of them are continuously running in the present along with newly developed extension approaches and will require some modifications in the future to increase the agricultural potential of the country [6].

In various parts of the world, agricultural extension organizations have addressed problems and issues with different types of agricultural extension approaches. Some of these approaches are more likely to work better than others in any particular situation and time. Some approaches are better suited to certain purposes than others. Some of them are more costly than others. With certain assumptions, some approaches are more effective than others. Many approaches have been tested and adopted by countries in Africa to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of technology dissemination. Two major approaches to agricultural extension have dominated African countries since independence. The quantitative idea of the sixties was that technology would be developed in temperate areas and transferred to Africa through the traditional top-down model. This idea did not yield the required dividend and it paved the way for the Training and Visit (T&V) approach—a highly decentralized, management-oriented approach [1].

Axinn [1] the World Bank introduced the T&V approach to Africa in the 1980s. By the end of the 1980s, T&V was used by at least 30 African countries [1]. Despite funding and promotion by the World Bank, the T&V approach is ineffective, inefficient, and unsustainable. The debate over the merits of one approach over another has become a distraction. However, in most countries, several approaches operate simultaneously, complementing each other and satisfying the varied needs of different types of farming communities. Thus, the question is what approach is most appropriate to a particular situation [1]. The effective extension approach is based on the principles of agricultural extension described by many researchers. There are a variety of methods used by researchers to measure the effectiveness of an extension approach [7]. In terms of outputs, extension approaches can be measured by the ease of technology transfer, adoption of advanced agricultural technologies, and increase in agricultural production and standard of living of rural families.

In Sudan, many efforts have been exerted to improve agricultural extension effectiveness in agriculture and rural development. Some agricultural extension approaches were applied without evaluation studies to select the appropriate ones that suit the country’s conditions. These approaches include the T&V approach and the Farmer Field School approach (FFS) [8]. Others are the general extension approach, commodity development approach, T&V approach, integrated agricultural development approach and, integrated rural development approach [9, 10]. Therefore, there is a need to study those approaches, to know the problems confronting them and see how they can be modified to suit the local conditions. This chapter evaluates and discusses the following approaches that have been tried in some critical agricultural sectors of Sudan: (1) General extension approach (2) Commodity development approach (3) Project approach (4) FFSs approach.

2. Methods and materials

This study was conducted in Gezira state (private farms), the Gezira scheme, and the Kadugli locality (Southern Kordofan state) (Figure 1). The study population was divided into two main categories, 1- extension officers and 2- farmers. A purposive sampling technique was used to select the population sample. The population size of agricultural officers was derived from the three approaches as follows: General extension approach (40), project approach (40), and FFSs approach (20) are small therefore all extension officers of each approach were selected in addition to a sample of 60 extension officers for the commodity development approach out of total population (150 extension officers) (Figure 2). According to the population size of farmers in each agricultural extension approach, a sample size of 100 farmers was determined for each approach. A field surveys were conducted to collect data from 160 extension officers and 400 farmers. Two different close-ended questionnaires were constructed (Leading questions) and used in data collection, one for extension officers and another for farmers. The collected data were coded, fed to the computer, and statistically analyzed using the Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS), and interpreted by percentage, frequency distributions, and analysis of variance analysis (ANOVA) at a 0.05 significance level or less (Table 1).

Figure 1.

Map of Gezira and southern Kordofan states: Source: Google, 2023.

Figure 2.

Map of Gezira scheme: Source: Google, 2023.

Variance Source	Degrees of Freedom (df)	Sum of Squares (SS)	Mean Sum of Squares (MS)	F-Statistics	P-value
Treatment Effect (Between Group)	k-1	$\sum _{i=1}^k{n}_i{\left({\overline{y}}_{i,.}-\overline{y}\right)}^2$	$\mathit{MST}\left(\mathit{\text{Between}}\right)=\frac{\mathit{SST}\left(\mathit{\text{Between}}\right)}{\mathit{df}\left(\mathit{\text{Between}}\right)}$	$F_o=\frac{\mathit{MST}\left(\mathit{\text{Between}}\right)}{\mathit{MSE}\left(\mathit{\text{Within}}\right)}$	P(F(df(Between),df(Within)) > Fo)
Error (Within Group)	n-k	$\sum _{i=1}^k\sum _{j=1}^{n_i}{\left(y_{i,j}-{\overline{y}}_{i,.}\right)}^2$	$\mathit{MST}\left(\mathit{\text{Within}}\right)=\frac{\mathit{SSE}\left(\mathit{\text{Within}}\right)}{\mathit{df}\left(\mathit{\text{Within}}\right)}$		F-Distribution Calculator
Total	n-1	$\sum _{i=1}^k\sum _{j=1}^{n_i}{\left(y_{i,j}-\overline{y}\right)}^2$	as		ANOVA Activity

Table 1.

ANOVA table.

2.1 ANOVA hypotheses

The general form of the ANOVA hypotheses is:

$$\begin{array}{l}{H}_o:{\mu }_1={\mu }_2{\mu }_3=\cdots ={\mu }_k\\ H_a:{\mu }_i\ne {\mu }_j\text{for\hspace{0.17em}some}i\ne j.\end{array}$$E1

Note that H_o is compound hypothesis, when k > 2, so rejecting H_o does not tell us which μ_i’s are different. It only tells us that some two are not equal.

Test Statistics: The test statistic: $F_o=\frac{\mathit{MST}\left(\mathit{\text{BEtween}}\right)}{\mathit{MSE}\left(\mathit{\text{Within}}\right)}$. If F_o is large, then there is a lot of between group variation, relative to the within group variation. Therefore, the discrepancies between the group means are large compared to the variability within the groups (error).

Hence, large values of F_o provide strong evidence against H_o.

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Comparison between the four extension approaches using the descriptive analysis

The comparison between the four extension approaches using the descriptive analysis is presented in Table 2 and Table 3.

Indicators	FFS approach		Project approach		General approach		Commodity development approach
	Score %		Score %		Score %		Score %
1. Clientele coverage	97	4	100	4	94	4	73	93
2. Focus of the approach	99	4	100	4	85	4	85	4
3. Focus of the approach on ethnic and social groups	100	4	100	4	89	4	87	4
4. Types of land ownership	78	4	100	4	89	4	65	3
5. Adjust to change	98	4	98	4	71	3	70	3
6. Farmers Linkages with fellow farmers and friends	100	4	100	4	73	3	63	3
7. Farmers linkages with extension organizations	100	4	100	4	60	3	64	3
8. Farmers linkages with rural organizations	100	4	100	4	51	3	63	3
9. Farmers linkages with inputs supply organization	100	4	100	4	56	3	71	3
10. Farmers linkages with agricultural research and education institutions	100	4	100	4	70	3	72	3
11. Use of communication methods	70	3	37	2	46	2	32	2
12. Nature of extension message	87	4	93	4	52	3	64	3
13. Cost of information support	95	4	51	3	38	2	50	2
14. Source of the message	76	3	93	4	73	3	71	3
15. Kind of available power	100	4	93	4	71	3	85	4
16. Availability of good roads	100	4	100	4	100	4	92	4
17. Availability of airports ad seaports	100	4	100	4	100	4	92	4
18. Kind of machines available	89	4	93	4	54	3	76	4
19. Availability of cash or credits for farm investment	55	3	100	4	100	4	80	4
20. Source of finance for farm investment	91	4	100	4	100	4	83	4
21. Utilization of cash or credit facilities	100	4	100	4	100	4	83	4
22. Reasons for not utilizing cash or credit facilities	100	4	100	4	100	4	00	1
23. Impact of utilization of cash or credit facilities	00	1	00	1	00	1	57	3
24. Types of organizations working in the area	87	4	100	4	100	4	71	3
25. Export and import policies for farm produce and inputs	98	4	100	4	100	4	90	4
26. Incentives given to farmers	69	3	100	4	57	3	50	2
Total	97		98		86		83

Table 2.

Ranking of indicators as perceived by the farmers in the four extension approaches.

Ranking levels:

0—25 = 1.

26—50 = 2.

51—75 = 3.

76—100 = 4.

Indicators	FFS approach		Project approach		General approach		Commodity development approach
1. Scope of the programme	Score %		Score %		Score %		Score %
2. Programme satisfaction	75	3	87.5	4	79.42	4	63.3	3
3. Objectives of the programme	100	4	82.5	4	82.35	4	91.67	4
4. Flexibility of the programme	95	4	85	4	97.06	4	73.33	3
5. Focus of the programme	85	4	100	4	82.36	4	70	3
6. Distribtuion of extensionists according to their communities	85	4	87.5	4	76.47	4	91.67	4
7. Qualifications	100	4	82.5	4	88.24	4	100	4
8. Number of training courses attended	85	4	62.5	3	88.4	4	85	4
9. Movement	90	4	72.5	3	88.24	4	91.67	4
10. Nature of appointment	100	4	50	2	100	4	85	4
11. The payment	75	3	72.5	3	55.88	3	50	2
12. Sex ratio	100	4	95	4	50	2	100	4
13. Frequency of reporting extension activities	80	4	100	4	91.18	4	50	2
14. Frequency of contact with farmers	65	3	95	4	61.77	3	51.67	3
15. Extension services given to farmers	90	4	72.5	3	64.71	3	63.33	3
16. Source of financial support	80	4	87.5	4	82.36	4	65	3
17. Provision of jobs	80	4	65	3	58.83	3	58.34	3
18. Cost of transportation	50	2	60	3	50	2	58.33	4
19. Control of organization	55	3	57.5	3	82.35	4	73.33	3
20. Use of subject matter specialists	70	3	52.5	3	76.47	4	78.33	3
21. Participation of rural people	95	4	60	3	58.82	3	60	3
22. Authority of organization	60	3	42.5	2	94.12	4	81.67	4
23. Representation	90	4	92.5	4	55.88	3	66.67	3
24. Origin of leadership	85	4	90	4	51	3	75	3
25. Skilled farmers	95	4	80	4	91.18	4	86.67	4
26. Time length of the approach	95	4	50	2	91.18	4	66.67	3
27. Type of evaluation followed	95	4	97.5	4	67.65	3	81.67	4
28. Time of implementing evaluation	70	3	95	4	58.82	3	60	3
Total	98		96		98		91
General total	199		194		184		174
General mean	3.69		3.59		3.40		3.25
Rank	1		2		3		4

Table 3.

Ranking of indicators as perceived by the extension officers in the four approaches.

Ranking levels:

0—25 = 1.

26—50 = 2.

51—75 = 3.

76—100 = 4.

3.1.1 Farmers

This part covers farmers’ perceptions about the four approaches regarding clientele, linkages, communication patterns, and infrastructure and social services.

Table 2 and Figure 3 show the following:

1. Based on the indicators used (local coverage), the project approach, FFSs approach, and general approach appear to be the appropriate approaches for Sudan conditions.

2. Based on the indicators used (the focus of the approach should be on a broad range of people including small, self-sufficient mixed crop, and livestock farm families [11]), the project approach, and FFSs approach respectively seem to be the appropriate approaches for Sudan conditions.

3. Based on the indicators used (the approach should include the spread of ethnic and social groups), the project approach, FFSs approach, the general approach, and the commodity development approach respectively seem to be the appropriate approaches for Sudan conditions.

4. Based on the indicator used (the suitable type of land ownership is private ownership), the general approach seems to be the appropriate approach for Sudan conditions.

5. Based on the indicators used (the approach should likely adjust to changes in local availability of agricultural inputs), the FFS approach and the project approach appear to be the appropriate approaches for Sudan conditions. This result agrees with the result cited by [1].

6. Based on the indicator used (the approach should encourage farmer linkages with fellow farmers and friends [12]), FFSs approach seems to be the appropriate approach for Sudan conditions.

7. Based on the indicator used (to encourage farmer linkages with extension organizations working in the area [12]), the FFSs approach appears appropriate for Sudan.

8. Based on the indicator used (the approach should encourage farmers’ linkages with rural organizations working in the area [12]), the FFSs approach seems to be the appropriate approach for Sudan conditions.

9. Based on the indicators used (the approach should encourage farmers’ links with input supply organizations working in the area [12]), FFSs seem like the right method for Sudan.

10. Based on the indicators used (the approach should encourage farmers’ linkages with agricultural research and education institutions [12]), FFSs approach and general approach respectively seem to be the appropriate approaches for Sudan conditions.

11. Based on the indicators used (the approach should facilitate the use of direct contact methods (individual and group contact methods) [1]), FFSs approach and project approach respectively seem to be the appropriate approaches for Sudan conditions. Similarly, [13] found that in the T&V, the use of mass method was very rare in Tanzania.

12. Considering the indicator used (the approach needs to use a wide range of technologies to meet local interests and needs), FFSs seem appropriate for Sudan. [1] Reported that there is a tendency to rely on one simple and standardized technology at a time, but this result contradicts his findings. This result agrees with the result cited by [1] who found that the project approach tends to implement one simple standardized technology at a time. In addition, FFSs approach and commodity development approach tend to use a wide-ranging message to meet local needs and interests.

13. For Sudan conditions, the FFSs approach seems appropriate based on the indicator used (experienced information support costs should be lower).

14. Based on the indicator used (the approach should try to seek appropriate messages (technology) wherever they may be found and thus is more independent of other organizations), the project approach and FFSs approach respectively seem to be the appropriate approaches for Sudan conditions. This result agrees with the result cited by [1] who indicated that the participatory approach and commodity development approach tend to be more independent as they can seek appropriate technology wherever it may be found. This result also opposes the result reported by [1] who mentioned that some approaches tend to be absolutely dependent on agricultural research organizations to give them the message that they take to farmers, these approaches include the general approach and project approach.

15. Based on the indicator used (use of all available energy, particularly petroleum), FFSs and commodity development are two of the most appropriate approaches for Sudan.

16. Based on the indicator used (high-quality roads should be available), no significant difference was observed between the four extension approaches.

17. Based on the indicator used (airports and seaports should be available), no significant difference was observed between the four extension approaches.

18. Based on the indicator used (tractors and equipment should be available), the FFSs approach seems to be the appropriate approach for Sudan conditions.

19. Based on the indicator used (cash or credit for farm investment should be available), the project approach, general approach, and commodity development approach appear to be the appropriate approaches for Sudan conditions.

20. Based on the indicator used (source of finance should be available, especially from the Sudanese Agricultural Bank), the project approach, general approach, and FFSs approach respectively seem to be the appropriate approaches for Sudan conditions.

21. Based on the indicators used (sources of finance should be utilized), the commodity development approach seems to be the appropriate approach for Sudan conditions.

22. Based on the indicator used (mortgage should be below), no significant difference was observed between the four extension approaches.

23. Based on the indicator used (all types of organizations can be found in the area), no significant difference was observed between the four extension approaches.

24. Based on the indicator used (export and import policies for farm produce and inputs should be well identified), no significant differences were observed between the four extension approaches.

25. The project approach appears to be appropriate for Sudan conditions based on the indicator used (availability of all inputs at reasonable prices must be considered).

Figure 3.

Ranking of indicators as perceived by the farmers in the four extension approaches. Source: Field survey.

3.1.2 Extension officers

This part covers the extensionists’ perceptions about the four approaches regarding agricultural extension program, field personnel, financial affairs, organization structure, leadership, management, and monitoring and evaluation.

Table 3 and Figure 4 reveal:

1. Based on the indicator used (scope of agricultural extension program should be area or locally-oriented [11]), the project approach seems to be the appropriate approach for Sudan conditions.

2. Based on the indicators used (the program should satisfy individual, family, and neighborhoods’ needs [11]), the FFSsapproach, commodity development approach, project approach, and general approach respectively seem to be the appropriate approaches for Sudan conditions.

3. Based on the indicators used (the objectives of the program should aim at increasing food production and consumption for family and the country, increasing production of export crops, and improving family living standards), the FFS approach seems to be the appropriate approach for Sudan conditions.

4. Based on the indicator used (the program should be able to change in response to feedback from rural villages [11]), the general approach, FFSs approach, and project approach respectively seem to be the appropriate approaches for Sudan conditions. This result opposes the result reported by [1] who found that some approaches tend to be much less sensitive in their program to indigenous people’s views when it comes to changing the program; these include project approach and general approach. Similarly, this result agrees with the result cited by [1], who mentioned that the programme of the commodity development approach is not responsive to local village feedback, while participatory approaches are.

5. Based on the indicators used (the program should focus on both farming production technology and lifting social and educational standards of rural life), FFSs approach and general approach respectively seem to be the appropriate approaches for Sudan conditions.

6. Based on the indicator used (the extensionists should be from inside the rural community of assignment), the commodity development approach, project approach, and FFSs appear to be the appropriate approaches for Sudan conditions. This result opposes the result cited by [1] who argued that most agricultural extension approaches are likely to be accompanied by field personnel selected from outsiders to the rural community.

7. Based on the indicator used (the extensionists should have at least a bachelor’s degree in agriculture or a related field [14]), FFSs approach, commodity development approach, general approach, and the project approach respectively seem to be the appropriate approaches for Sudan conditions. This result opposes the results reported by [14] who mentioned that a worldwide analysis of agricultural extension status reveals the low level of formal education and training of field extension agents in developing countries.

8. According to the indicator used [14]), the general approach is appropriate for Sudan. This result agrees with the results reported by [14] who mentioned that a worldwide analysis of agricultural extension status reveals the low level of formal education and training of field extension agents in developing countries. Also, this result agrees with the result reported by [15] who found that the deficiencies in knowledge, skills, and ability among extension personnel particularly those from Asia, Africa, and Latin America are remarkable.

9. Based on the indicator used (the extensionists should remain at the post for a longer period of time), the general approach seems to be the appropriate approach for Sudan conditions.

10. Based on the indicator used (period of appointment should be more than 10 years (permanent), the general approach, FFSs approach, and commodity development approach appear to be the appropriate approaches for Sudan conditions.

11. For the indicator used (payment (salary) should be high for all scales), no significant difference was observed between the four extensions. This result agrees with Wiggins’ result (cited in [15]. Wiggins mentioned that extension agents are poorly paid, late, and do not respond to reminders or visits to headquarters.

12. Based on the indicators used (the approach should have gender sensitivity [1]), the FFSs approach, commodity development approach, and the project approach respectively seem to be the appropriate approaches for Sudan conditions. This result agrees with [16] who found that in the overwhelming majority of countries, extension services are staffed predominantly by men. Only countries such as the Philippines have women field staff deployed in sufficient numbers and with sufficient resources to become effective agents of change among women farmers. In some countries, individual contact is replaced by group contact. This is particularly true, but not only, where male change agents may have difficulty having contact with individual women other than their own relatives. In many cultural settings, group extension significantly increases women’s access. This is because the group context calms male extension agents, husbands, and women’s fears about transgressing norms of approved social contact. This may be particularly true in Islamic areas where women are in partial or total seclusion. Furthermore, in Islamic societies, there are probably not enough qualified adult females who can become a change agent at the field level.

13. Based on the indicator used (frequency of extension activities reports (documentation) should be at least once every 30 days (monthly), the project approach, general approach, and FFSs approach respectively seem to be the appropriate approaches for Sudan conditions.

14. Based on the indicator used (frequency of contacts with farmers should be every week), no significant difference was observed between the four extension approaches.

15. Considering the indicator used (farmers should receive problem-solving practices, develop new information, and arrange inputs [11]), FFSs appear to be the appropriate approach for Sudan.

16. Based on the indicator used (financial support of the approach should be from different sources), no significant difference was observed between the four extension approaches. This result opposes the result reported by [1] who mentioned that total financial support is most likely to come from the central government with the general approach, commodity development approach, and the project approach.

17. Based on the indicator used (the approach should offer jobs for both rural and urban people), the FFSs approach seems to be the appropriate approach for Sudan conditions. Furthermore, this result contradicts the result reported by [1] that several approaches tend to provide more jobs for urban educated unemployed individuals, including general approaches and commodity developments. Agricultural extension, on the other hand, tends to provide more jobs for trained rural youth.

18. Based on the indicator used (the approach should have reasonable transportation costs), the project approach seems to be the appropriate approach for Sudan conditions.

19. Based on the indicator used (the approach should be designed to reflect decentralization of organization control), the project approach and FFSs approach respectively seem to be the appropriate approaches for Sudan conditions. This result agrees with [1] who found that the general approach and commodity development approach are more likely to be centrally controlled. The other approaches tend to fit decentralization of control of organization, including the extension of the participatory approach. It also contradicts the results reported by [1], who stated that some approaches such as project management fit a centralized control model.

20. Based on the indicators used (the approach should emphasize the use of subject matter specialists (S.M.S.)), the project approach seems to be the appropriate approach for Sudan conditions. This study agrees with [15] who found that the ratio of subject matter specialists (SMS) to field staff is low in Asia, Africa, the Near East, and Latin American countries.

21. Based on the indicator used (authority of organization can be part of central, local (State) government, and scheme administration authority [1], no significant difference was observed between the four extension approaches.

22. Based on the indicator used (the organization should represent broader rural development fields), the project approach and FFSs approach respectively seem to be the appropriate approaches for Sudan conditions.

23. Based on the indicator used (origin of leadership should be originated among clientele personnel), the project approach and FFSs both appear to be the appropriate approaches for Sudan conditions. This result agrees with the result cited by [1] who cited that with some approaches leadership tends to be within central government and arises through the bureaucracy, such as the general approach. Also, this result opposes the result reported by [1] who found that with some approaches leadership is likely to be within central government and emerge through the bureaucracy, these include the commodity development approach and the project approach. In addition to this, [1] suggested that local leadership emerges through local services through an extension participatory approach.

24. Based on the indicator used (the majority of farmers should be skilled (technical)), no significant difference was observed between the four extension approaches.

25. Based on the indicator used (time length of the approach should be extended more than 10 years), the general approach seems to be the appropriate approach for Sudan conditions.

26. Based on the indicator used (summative evaluation would be appropriate [11]), FFSs and commodity development seem to be suitable for Sudanese conditions.

27. Considering the indicator used (evaluation should be conducted before, during, and after an evaluation program was implemented [11]), the project approach seems appropriate for Sudan.

Figure 4.

Ranking of indicators as perceived by the extension officers in the four approaches. Source: Field survey.

According to the descriptive analysis of this study, the four extension approaches can be ranked as shown in Figures 3 and 4 as follows:

1. FFS approach.

2. Project approach.

3. General approach.

4. Commodity development approach.

3.2 Comparison between the four extension approaches using the test of significance (one way ANOVA test)

3.2.1 Farmers

3.2.1.1 Clientele

The F test for one way ANOVA to test the suitability of four extension approaches for Sudan conditions in clientele is shown in Table 4.

Clientele	Project approach	FFS approach	General approach	Commodity development approach	Significance
1. Clientele coverage	100	97	94	73	.015
2. Focus of the approach	100	99	85	85
3. Focus of the approach on ethnic and social groups	100	100	89	87
4. Types of land ownership	100	78	89	65
Total	400	374	357	310
Mean	100	93.50	89.25	77.50
Rank	1	2	3	4

Table 4.

ANOVA test for the suitability of four extension approaches for Sudan conditions in clientele.

Significance level 0.05 or less.

The results indicate that there was a significant difference between the four extension approaches in the clientele of each approach. Using the descriptive analysis of this study the four extension approaches can be ranked according to their suitability for Sudan conditions as indicated in Table 2.

3.2.1.2 Linkages

The F test for one way ANOVA to test the suitability of four extension approaches for Sudan conditions in linkages is presented in Table 5.

Linkages	FFS approach	Project approach	Commodity development approach	General approach	Significance
1. Adjust to change	98	96	70	71	0.00
2. Farmers linkages with fellow farmers and friends	100	87	63	73
3. Farmers linkages with extension organizations	100	58	64	60
4. Farmers linkages with rural organizations	100	70	63	51
5. Farmers linkages with inputs supply organization	100	59	71	56
6. Farmers linkages with agricultural research and education institutions	100	99	72	70
Total	598	469	403	381
Mean	99.67	78.17	67.17	63.50
Rank	1	2	3	4

Table 5.

ANOVA test for the suitability of four extension approaches for Sudan conditions in linkages.

Significance level 0.05 or less.

The results showed that there was a significant difference between the four extension approaches in the linkages of the approaches. Using the descriptive analysis of this study the four extension approaches can be ranked according to their suitability for Sudan conditions as represented in Table 2.

3.2.1.3 Communication patterns

The F test for one way ANOVA to test the suitability of four extension approaches for Sudan conditions in communication patterns of the approach is shown in Table 6.

Communication patterns	Project approach	General approach	FFS approach	Commodity development approach	Significance
1. Use of communication methods	37	46	70	32	.235
2. Nature of extension message	93	52	87	64
3. Cost of information support	51	38	95	50
4. source of the message	93	73	76	71
Total	274	209	328	217
Mean	68.5	52.25	82	54.25
Rank	2	4	1	3

Table 6.

ANOVA test for the suitability of four extension approaches for Sudan conditions in communication patterns.

Significance level 0.05 or less.

The results revealed that there was no significant difference between the four extension approaches in communication patterns. However, despite this, the FFS approach remains the most appropriate for Sudan conditions.

3.2.1.4 Infrastructure and social services

The F test for one way ANOVA to test the suitability of four extension approaches for Sudan conditions in infrastructure and social services is shown in Table 7.

Infrastructure and social services	Project approach	FFS approach	General approach	Commodity development approach	Significance
1. Kind of available power	93	100	71	85	.034
2. Availability of good roads	100	100	100	92
3. Availability of airports and seaports	100	100	100	92
4. Kind of machines available	93	89	54	76
5. Availability of cash or credits for farm investment	100	55	100	80
6. Source of finance for farm investment	100	91	100	83
7. Utilization of cash or credit facilities	100	100	100	83
8. Reasons for not utilizing cash or credit facilities	100	100	100	00
9. Impact of utilization of cash or credit facilities	00	00	00	57
10. Types of organizations working in the area	100	87	100	71
11. Export and import policies for farm produce and inputs	100	98	100	90
12. Incentives given to farmers	100	69	57	50
Total	1086	989	982	859
Mean	90.50	82.42	81.83	71.58
Rank	1	2	3	4

Table 7.

ANOVA test for the suitability of four extension approaches for Sudan conditions in infrastructure and social services.

Significance level 0.05 or less.

The results showed that there was a significant difference between the four extension approaches in the value addition of products of each approach. Using the descriptive analysis of this study the four extension approaches can be ranked according to their suitability for Sudan conditions as presented in Table 2.

3.2.2 Extensionists

3.2.2.1 Program

The F test for one way ANOVA to test the suitability of four extension approaches for Sudan conditions in the program of the approach is presented in Table 8.

Program	Project approach	General approach	FFS approach	Commodity development approach	Significance
1. Scope of the program	87.5	79.42	75	63.33	.504
2. Programme satisfaction	82.5	82.35	100	91.67
3. Objectives of the program	67.5	67.65	70	41.67
4. Flexibility of the program	85	97.06	95	73.33
5. Focus of the program	100	82.36	85	70
Total	422.5	408.84	425	340
Mean	84.5	81.77	85	68
Rank	2	3	1	4

Table 8.

ANOVA test for the suitability of four extension approaches for Sudan conditions in program.

Significance level 0.05 or less.

The results showed that there was no significant difference between the four extension approaches in the program. However, despite this, the FFS approach remains the most suitable one for Sudan conditions.

3.2.2.2 Field personnel

The F test for one way ANOVA to test the suitability of four extension approaches for Sudan conditions in the field personnel of the approach is shown in Table 9.

Field personnel	FFS approach	Project approach	Commodity development approach	General approach	Significance
1. Distribution of extensionists according to their communities	85	87.5	91.67	76.47	.033
2. Qualifications	100	82.5	100	88.24
3. Number of training courses attended	85	62.5	85	88.4
4. Movement	90	72.5	91.67	88.24
5. Nature of appointment	100	50	85	100
6. The payment	75	72.5	50	55.88
7. Sex ratio	100	95	100	50
8. Frequency of reporting extension activities	80	100	50	91.18
9. Frequency of contact with farmers	65	95	51.67	61.77
10. Extension services given to farmers	90	72.5	63.33	64.71
Total	870	790	768.34	764.89
Mean	87	7.79	76.83	76.49
Rank	1	2	3	4

Table 9.

ANOVA test for the suitability of four extension approaches for Sudan conditions in field personnel.

Significance level 0.05 or less.

The results indicate that there was a significant difference between the four extension approaches in the field personnel of the approach. Using the descriptive analysis of this study the four extension approaches can be ranked according to their suitability for Sudan conditions as presented in Table 3.

3.2.2.3 Financial affairs

The F test for one way ANOVA to test the suitability of four extension approaches for Sudan conditions in financial affairs of the approach is shown in Table 10.

Financial affairs	Project approach	General approach	FFS approach	Commodity development approach	Significance
1. Source of financial support	87.5	82.36	80	65	.525
2. Provision of jobs	65	58.83	80	58.34
3. Cost of transportation	60	50	50	58.34
Total	212.25	191.19	210	181.68
Mean	70.83	63.73	70	60.34
Rank	1	3	2	4

Table 10.

ANOVA test for the suitability of four extension approaches for Sudan conditions in financial affairs.

Significance level 0.05 or less.

The results revealed that there was no significant difference between the four extension approaches in financial aspects. However, despite this, the project approach remains the most appropriate, as shown in Table 3.

3.2.2.4 Organizational structure

The F test for one way ANOVA to test the suitability of four extension approaches for Sudan conditions in the organizational structure of the approach is presented in Table 11.

Organization structure	FFS approach	General approach	Commodity development approach	Project approach	Significance
1. Control of organization	55	82.35	73.33	57.5	.061
2. Use of subject matter specialists	70	76.47	78.33	52.5
3. Participation of rural people	95	58.82	60	60
Total	220	217.64	211.66	170
Mean	73.33	72.53	70.55	56.67
Rank	1	2	3	4

Table 11.

ANOVA test for the suitability of four extension approaches for Sudan conditions in the organizational structure.

Significance level 0.05 or less.

The results indicate that there was a significant difference between the four extension approaches in the organizational structure of the approaches. Using the descriptive analysis of this study the four extension approaches can be ranked according to their suitability for Sudan conditions as shown in Table 3.

3.2.2.5 Leadership

The F test for one way ANOVA to test the suitability of four extension approaches for Sudan conditions in leadership is presented in Table 12.

Leadership	Project approach	General approach	FFS approach	Commodity development approach	Significance
1. Authority of organization	42.5	94.12	60	81.67	.410
2. Representation	92.5	55.88	90	66.67
3. Origin of leadership	90	51	85	75
Total	225	201	235	223.34
Mean	75	67	78.33	74.45
Rank	2	4	1	3

Table 12.

ANOVA test for the suitability of four extension approaches for Sudan conditions in leadership.

Significance level 0.05 or less.

The results revealed that there was no significant difference between the four extension approaches in leadership. However, despite this, the FFS approach remains the most suitable for Sudan conditions.

3.2.2.6 Management

The F test for one way ANOVA to test the suitability of four extension approaches for Sudan conditions in management is presented in Table 13.

Management	FFS approach	General approach	Commodity development approach	Project approach	Significance
1. Skilled farmers	95	91.18	86.67	80	.053
2. Time length of the approach	95	91.18	66.67	50
Total	190	182.36	153.34	130
Mean	95	91.18	76.67	65
Rank	1	2	3	4

Table 13.

ANOVA test for the suitability of four extension approaches for Sudan conditions in management.

Significance level 0.05 or less.

The results revealed that there was a significant difference between the four extension approaches in the management of the approach. Using the descriptive analysis of this study the four extension approaches can be ranked according to their suitability for Sudan conditions as indicated in Table 3.

3.2.2.7 Monitoring and evaluation

The F test for one way ANOVA to test the suitability of four extension approaches for Sudan conditions in monitoring and evaluation of the approach is presented in Table 14.

Monitoring and evaluation	Project approach	General approach	FFS approach	Commodity development approach	Significance
1. Type of evaluation followed	97.5	67.65	95	81.67	.231
2. Time of implementing evaluation	95	58.82	70	60
Total	192.5	126.47	165	141.67
Mean	96.25	63.35	82.5	70.84
Rank	1	4	2	3

Table 14.

ANOVA test for the suitability of four extension approaches for Sudan conditions in monitoring and evaluation.

Significance level 0.05 or less.

The results showed that there was no significant difference between the four extension approaches to monitoring and evaluation. However, despite this, the project approach remains the most suitable for Sudan conditions.

3.3 Ranking of the four extension approaches using the F test

According to the significant differences between the four extension approaches in their suitability to Sudan conditions, these four extension approaches can be ranked as follows:

1. FFS approach.

2. Project approach.

3. General approach.

4. Commodity development approach.

Similarly, [17] found that in the sub-Saharan region, a review of top-down and participatory extension studies shows that participatory extension was considered most beneficial to smallholder farmers. [18] Suggested that FFSs are excellent approach for reaching farmers’ groups. They also strengthen linkages and interaction among farmers, researchers, specialists, managers, and extensionists at various levels. In addition, they help to reduce cost, effort, and time in motivating farmers to improve their lives; they create a healthy environment of democracy and humanity so that they can work together to challenge the main constraints. As a result, farmers become more organized, cooperative, independent, open-minded and communicative in expressing their needs and experiences.

4. Conclusions

According to the findings of the present study, the FFS is the most appropriate extension approach for Sudan conditions among three approaches selected in the country (general extension, commodity development, and project extension). This conclusion is based on 27 indicators out of 52 indicators. [19] Sudan faced some challenges in adopting the FFS approach, most importantly the cost of running them, which negatively affected the number of field training sessions conducted each week. As well as inputs being available to increase farmers’ participation in FFS activities and their adoption of agricultural technologies that they received from the FFS, there were no well-established export and import policies for farm produce, nor were there any loans or credits available to fund farm investments, as well as a lack of good infrastructure, such as good roads, airports, and seaports, and incentives for farmers. [20] Younger farmers in Uganda, Tanzania, and Kenya participated in FFSs more often than older farmers, and participants with primary and secondary education participated in FFSs more frequently than those without.