The
Agricultural Extension System and the “New American Farmer”
The
Opportunities Have Never Been Greater[i]
John Ikerd[ii]
“The Cooperative Extension
System in this country is at a crossroads. This is true of Extension
programming in general, and is particularly true for agriculture-related
programs. The actions (or inactions) of today will determine Extension’s
future, but one thing is certain—the days ahead definitely will not consist of
“business as usual.” The clock is running; there simply is not much time to
decide what changes are needed, and then to implement those changes. If
Extension can change successfully, its future will be extremely bright. The
needs for informal educational programs will be greater in the future than they
have ever been in the past.”
This statement is a direct
quote from, Vision for the Future: A Strategic Plan for Agriculture, the official report of
a national task force assembled by USDA to develop a roadmap for the future of
agricultural extension programs. It was published in October, 1994.[1] I
was a member of that national task force and I believe today as I did then that
Extension was at an important crossroads.
Unfortunately Extension administration decided to continue down the same
road it had been on for a while – pretty much “business as usual.”
Certainly, extension specific
programming strategies and communications technologies have changed
dramatically over the past 14 years. However, the basic extension programming
model “technology transfer” of has remained pretty much the same. When
Extension administrators talk about achieving measurable outcomes, they
are talking about adoption of technology, not about education or empowerment of
people. I want to make it clear that I’m
referring to the Agricultural Extension system, not specific agricultural
agents. Many individual extension agents seized the opportunities of the late
‘90s and today their work is highly respected and valued among their
constituents. However, the Extension organization today is still viewed by many
as being “held hostage” by powerful special-interest groups. An entrenched Extension
bureaucracy has limited the ability of individual extension agents to address
the educational needs of the people who most need their help.
Extension missed the opportunity
for a fundamental change in the mid-‘90s. Fortunately, however, the clock has
not yet run out. Furthermore, both the opportunities for change and the risks
of inaction are even greater today than in 1994. My purpose here is not to
rehash the mistakes of the past but instead to focus on the opportunities for
the future. It’s still true that “the
need for informal educational programs will be greater in the future than they
have ever been in the past.” The opportunities have never been greater – if the
people within the Extension System can find the courage to change themselves
and then to change their organization.
The opportunities for agricultural extension
are epitomized by the emergence of a new kind of American farmer. These new
farmers may be labeled as organic, biodynamic, holistic, alternative,
ecological, practical, innovative, or just family farmers, but they all fit
under the conceptual umbrella of sustainable agriculture. Sustainable
agriculture is not simply a specific set of farming methods, practices, or
enterprises; it is a specific philosophy of farming. The purpose of sustainable
agriculture is permanence – to meet the food and fiber needs of people in the
future, indefinitely. Sustainable farms must sufficient productivity to meet the
needs of the present but must also make sufficient investments in natural and
human resources to ensure that future generations can meet their needs as well.
All agricultural productivity and economic
value comes from either land or people – from nature or society. If the
productivity of nature and society are depleted, there will be no source of
productivity or profitability. Unfortunately, the economy provides strong
incentives for investments that benefit individuals but provides no incentives
for investments that benefit society in general or those of future generations.
All economic value is individualistic; it accrues only to individuals, not
societies. Thus, economic value must at least be expected to accrue during the
lifetime of the individual decision maker. Interest rates are a reflection of
the economic value of time. At an interest rate of seven-percent, for example,
a dollar that we have to wait ten years to get is worth only fifty-cents today.
That’s why corporations operate with five-to-seven year planning horizons.
Anything beyond that has very little economic value.
Questions concerning the sustainability of
agriculture continue to grow because more people are coming to understand that
an agriculture driven solely by the economic bottom line is not sustainable. The
future of humanity depends on farmers being willing and able to balance their
legitimate individual economic needs with their social and ethical
responsibilities for the well-being of others, both of current and future
generations. Such restraint of narrow self-interests isn’t some radical,
new-age way of thinking; it’s as old as the history of human civilization.
People have always understood that we humans are not purely self-seeking
physical beings; we are social and spiritual beings as well. We need the sense of
belonging that comes from caring for others. We need the sense of ethical and
moral rightness that comes from caring for the earth. The ancient philosophers
understood that happiness requires a sense of rightness in our relationships
with each other and with the earth. Sustainable agriculture only requires a
return to our historical sense of human happiness.
The sustainable agriculture movement was still
in its infancy in the mid-1990s. The Sustainable Agriculture Research and
Education (SARE) program had been established in 1988 but Cooperative Extension
did not receive specific SARE funding until the early ‘90s. Extension
administrators were not particularly comfortable with the SARE program because
funds were allocated by regional SARE councils rather than at the discretion of
State Extension Directors. Their reluctance to embrace the “Sustaining Our
Future” strategic plan in 1994 was understandable, but nonetheless,
unfortunate. Many thought sustainable agriculture was a passing fad, but it
wasn’t. It was the beginning of a fundamental transformation in American
agriculture.
Sustainable farmers today are still a
distinct minority in American agriculture – at least in terms of value of
agricultural production. Most sustainable farmers would be classified as small to
mid-sized. Thus, sustainable farms make up a far larger share of farm numbers
than their share of total value of farm production. However, they are growing rapidly
both in numbers and in value of production. The organic food market, for
example, grew at a rate of more than 20-percent per year during the 1990s and well
into the early 2000s. Organic food sales now total almost $20-billion – about
4-percent of the total
Agricultural Extension has a tremendous opportunity to play an important role in the sustainable agriculture movement. However, meeting the information and educational needs of sustainable farmers will require a very different model of extension programming. The traditional technology transfer model, while still relevant, is simply not adequate to meet the needs of the new American farmer. There are no rules of thumb, formulas, or “best management practices” for sustainable farming. Sustainable farms must function in harmony with the specific natural ecosystems and communities in which they are located and thus are inherently site-specific. Sustainable farmers also have unique abilities, aspirations, and social and ethical values and thus are individualistic. Every sustainable farm will be different, but the new sustainable farmers do share some common core values.
First, sustainable farmers value working with nature rather than trying to control or conquer nature. They try to fit their farms and farming methods to their land and climate rather than trying to redirect, restrict, or bend nature to fit the way they might prefer to farm. Their farms tend to be more diversified than are conventional farms, because nature is diverse. Diversity may mean varieties of crop and animal enterprises, crop rotations and cover crops, or managed grazing systems with diverse species of forages or livestock. By managing diversity, sustainable farmers are able to reduce their dependence on synthetic pesticides, commercial fertilizers, and other costly inputs that squeeze farm profits and threaten the environment on many conventional farms. Their farms are more economically viable, as well as more ecologically sound because they function in harmony with nature.
Second, sustainable farmers value relationships. Most either market their products directly to customers at venues such as farmers markets or through cooperative organizations that connect them with their customers. They realize their customers value food products differently because they have different needs and different preferences. They market to people who care where their food comes from and how it is produced – locally grown, organic, natural, humanely raised, hormone and antibiotic free, without genetic engineering – and they receive premium prices by producing foods that are valued by their customers. They are not looking for opportunities to make quick profits; they respect their customers as people and often create long-term relationships. Sustainable farmers challenge the stereotypical image of farmers as being fiercely independent. They form partnerships and cooperatives with other farmers to buy equipment, to process and market their products, to do things together that they can’t do as well alone. They freely share information and refuse to exploit each other for short run gain. They buy locally and market locally in the communities where they live. They help bring people together in positive, productive, personal relationships and they receive economic and social value in return.
Third, sustainable farmers are “quality of life” farmers. To them, the farm is a good place to live – a healthy environment, a good place to raise a family, and a good way to be a part of a caring community. Many sustainable farms create quality of life benefits worth tens of thousands of dollars, in addition to any reported net farm income. Their farming operations reflect the things they like to do, the things they believe in, and the things they have a passion for, as much as the things that yield profits. Sustainable farmers also find a spiritual sense of purpose and meaning through farming; many feel they were meant to be farmers. They respect their neighbors, their customers, the land, and animals not just because it’s profitable, but because it’s the ethical and moral thing to do. However, their products are often better and their costs are less because by following their passion they end up doing what they do best. They earn an acceptable income, but more important, they have a higher quality of life because they are living a life they love.
Finally, sustainable farmers are
thinking farmers. They must understand
nature, in order to work in harmony with nature, and must understand people in
order to build relationships with their customers, neighbors, and other
farmers. Sustainable farming requires an
ability to translate observation into information, information into knowledge,
and knowledge into wisdom. Sustainable
farming is the mind work of the information age, not the hard work of agrarian
era. Certainly, sustainable farming involves some hard work, but its success
depends far more on thinking than on working. Most important, because of their
site-specific, individualistic uniqueness, the new American farmers must think
for themselves. Cooperative Extension workers have the opportunity today to
become a primary source of intellectual empowerment for the new American farmers.
Empowerment is
one of those controversial words that some people embrace and others reject –
like sustainability. Those who embrace it believe it is fundamental and
important while those who reject it see it as confusing or threatening. “Empowerment,”
in today’s world, “refers to increasing the spiritual, political, social or
economic strength of individuals and communities. It often involves the
empowered developing confidence in their own
capacities.”[2] The
1994 strategic plan for extension proposed a “Collaborative Networking Model”
for Extension programming in response to the new information and educational
needs of sustainable agriculture. In essence, it was designed to strengthen the
capacities of individuals and communities to solve their problems and realize
their opportunities by thinking for themselves –the empowerment of people with information
and knowledge.
I believe today as I believed then that Extension must return to its historical, philosophical roots if it is to remain relevant in a future that must focus increasingly on issues of sustainability. While we cannot afford to dwell on our past mistakes, neither can we afford to ignore our past mistakes as we look to the future. The decision “to stay the course” in the mid-‘90s wasn’t the first unfortunate choice Agricultural Extension has made. Organizations must change their programs and procedures to accommodate the ever changing ecological, social, and economic environment. But, an organization that abandons its philosophical roots soon forgets its fundamental purpose for being. Lacking a clear sense of purpose, perpetuation of the organization becomes its highest priority. It becomes captivated by the ever-fickle economic or political winds of change, rationalizing any action that promises survival and growth.
The legitimate public purpose of the
Cooperative Extension Service has not changed. Extension was established by the
Smith-Lever Act of 1914 “to aid in diffusing among the people of the
Extension was established as a
compliment to Land Grant Universities and Agricultural Experiment Stations that
had been established earlier, in the late 1800s. Extension was to “take the
university to the people.” The numbers of extension agents were expanded
significantly during World War I, to enhance the ability of American farmers to
provide food for the Allied forces in
Prior to the 1930s, agricultural extension workers had focused their work on teaching individual farming practices, following the lead of university researchers who focused on specific problems and university teachers who taught specific subjects. The task of tying the various practices together in order to develop coherent farming operations was left largely to the farmer. Many innovative, caring county agents, understood that their work wasn’t simply to diffuse information or technology, but instead to empower farmers to use information and technologies to improve their overall quality of life.
Rural Americans had problems
and the county agents were there, in their communities, to help solve their problems.
Rural Americans also had opportunities and the county agents were there to help
them realize their opportunities. When county agents encouraged farmers to try
hybrid seed corn, farmers responded.[3]
When increased tractor power, commercial fertilizers, and synthetic
pesticides sparked a technological revolution in American agriculture, county
extension agents were on the front lines. But the county agents of ‘30s and
‘40s were far more than information providers or technology promoters.
By the late 1930s, the Missouri Extension Service had developed a program it called “Balanced Farming.” The Balanced Farming program helped farmers balance opportunities for greater farm income with the need to conserve and protect the soil and water, and their personal responsibilities to their families and their communities. It balanced the economic, ecological, and social responsibilities of farming. Similar programs were being carried out by extension agents in other states. By1949, a review of the Extension Service concluded, “The central task of extension is to help rural families help themselves by applying science, whether physical or social, to the daily routines of farming, homemaking, and family and community living,”[4].
In my opinion, the “high-water mark” for
Cooperative Extension was in the 1950s, which coincided with the high-water
mark for rural
Unfortunately,
Cooperative Extension eventually became enamored with the post-WWII mechanical
and chemical technologies. County agents could “work magic” for farmers who were
willing to apply the prescribed quantities of N, P, K, and Ca in the form of
commercial fertilizers. It was no longer
necessary to manage crops and livestock as a single system to sustain the natural productivity of the soil.
Insects and weeds no longer had to be managed through crop selection and
rotations or soil fertility; they could be eradicated with the new pesticides. Animal
husbandry became animal science, as new technologies bought
similar advancements in production of meat, milk, and eggs. The county agent
was on longer the farmer’s “guide on the side” who could help farmers learn how
to live more fulfilling lives. The county agent had become the “sage on the
stage” that could tell farmers how to produce more and make more money.
This new approach to
extension work fit in well with a basic redirection of
New technologies brought Extension to a
crossroads in the early 1960s. Lacking a clear commitment to its fundamental
purpose and core values, it chose the wrong path. It mistook the “means” –
technology transfer -- for the “end” or purpose – education. By the time I
began my extension career in 1970, there were already rumors among researchers
and university administrators that Cooperative Extension was obsolete and
probably wasn’t worth reviving. The agricultural economy boomed during the
1970s, fueled by
Suppliers of farm equipment, fertilizer,
pesticide, and animal feeds were more than willing to provide farmers with the
latest, cutting-edge technological information. In fact, their information was
often more up-to-date and complete than the information available to extension
agents. Some agribusinesses hired their own teams of “field agents” who were
free to sell as well as inform. The Extension worker’s only advantage
soon became that he or she wasn’t selling anything. However, many
Extension specialists felt compelled to develop a specific clientele group in
order to remain competitive with their corporate counterparts. Many field-based
extension agents had been trained as specialists by this time, so their
clientele naturally tended to be owners of large, specialized farming
operators. Conveniently for Extension, these large farm operators tended to
have lot of economic and political influence with the
Specialization left the Cooperative Extension
Service poorly equipped to deal with the farm financial crisis of the 1980s.
During the early ‘80s,
During the 1980s, at least some of us in
Extension decided that the specialized, technology transfer model of extension was
not working. Even more important, the specialized, industrial model of
agriculture was not working either. As agriculture became more specialized, it
became more standardized, routinized, and mechanized.
Specialized technologies reduced production costs and allowed each farmer to
produce more. However, their expansion in production and resulting falling
prices forced other farmers to expand their operations, just to survive. As
farms grew larger, some farmers had to fail so that others could buy their land
and have a chance to survive another round on the technology treadmill. In
addition, when family farms failed, farming communities failed. It takes
people, not just production, to support local businesses, schools, churches,
clinics, and social events that make a viable rural community. An agriculture
increasingly driven by the economic bottom line was destroying family farms and
rural communities.
Eventually, I began to understand negative
ecological consequences of industrial agriculture as well. I already knew farming
“fencerow-to-fencerow” wasn’t sustainable because soil erosion was rapidly
returning to levels of the dust bowl days. I soon discovered that concerns about
the pollution of streams with fertilizers, pesticides, and wastes from
confinement animal feeding operations weren’t just the ranting of a bunch of
“hippies” or “tree-huggers,” as I had been told. These things were threatening the
long run sustainability of agriculture – its ability to meet the food and fiber
needs of people in the present without compromising opportunities of people in
the future. The early advocates of
sustainable agriculture weren’t trying to degrade or demean agriculture; we
were simply trying to help farmers create an economically viable, socially
responsible, ecologically sound, sustainable agriculture.
I decided that I needed to change, regardless
of whether Cooperative Extension was willing to change. I left my position of
Head of Extension Agricultural Economic at the
This was the backdrop for the “Vision for
the Future” Agriculture Extension strategic plan of 1994. In fact, the task force had named the report,
“Sustaining Our Future” – extension administration changed it. This plan was
not developed by a bunch of radical environmentalists or social reformers. The
task force was co-chaired by Bud Webb, a longtime Extension Director from
The stated goal of the report was “To
sustain a globally competitive, environmentally compatible, and socially
acceptable agriculture.” The first sub-goal related to specific outcomes and
strategies for sustainable farms, communities, and society. A second sub-goal related to the
organizational and programming changes needed for Extension to carry out the
plan. The words were different than those that might have been written in the 1930s
or 1940s and new communications technologies had created a host of new
educational possibilities. However, in a very real sense, our vision for the
future would require Extension to return to its philosophical roots and core
values. Extension would have to move beyond the means of technology
transfer and embrace the larger end of education – to the empowerment of
people.
The highest organizational priority
in the plan was the establishment of a “collaborative networking model for
Extension programming.” In the traditional technology transfer model of
programming, information is generated by research and translated into usable
form and disseminated to potential users by extension workers. However, information
flows in both directions, as extension workers identify and communicate the
research needs of constituents back to research scientists.
The report concluded that the traditional
technology transfer model “is relevant, efficient, and appropriate where, (1)
common problems have common solutions for significant segments of Extension’s
constituency, (2) when problems are static or persistent over time, and (3)
when information needed to address problems is not available from other
sources.” However, in many situations (including those related to sustainable
agriculture), problems (1) are site-specific and individualistic, (2) are
dynamic and must be addressed quickly, and (3) can be addressed using
information from sources other than land-grant research. To accommodate such
cases a much more comprehensive and dynamic programming model is needed.
The networking model incorporates the
traditional technology transfer model, to be used when appropriate. However, the
networking model “(1) uses credible information from all available
sources, (2) encourages constituents to
bypass extension workers and go directly to information sources, when
information is available in usable form, (3) encourages constituents to form
networks with other constituents to exchange information and conduct their own
research when appropriate.” In the networking model, information flows in all
directions at all times – there are no information “gatekeepers.” In somewhat more
sophisticated words, “The essence of agricultural extension is to facilitate
interplay and nurture synergies within a total information system involving
agricultural research, agricultural education and a vast complex of information-[providers].”[7]
The most important programming aspect of the
networking model is that it shifts programming emphasis to the constituents –
their problems and opportunities – and away from specific technologies. The
primary role of the extension worker is to facilitate learning rather than transfer
technology. Dissemination of information becomes a means toward the greater end
of education. Constituents are encouraged to solve their own problems, seize
their own opportunities, meet their own needs, and shape their own destinies. The
constituent becomes the centerpiece of the model, reaching out to other
constituents, extension workers, and information providers of all types.
Technological advances since 1994, the Internet in particular, make this type
of information networking far more feasible today than it was at the time of
the report.
The problems and opportunities confronting
the new American farmer today are site-specific, individualistic, and dynamic.
The vast majority of the most credible, relevant, and useful information
related to sustainable agriculture is not being generated by land-grant
universities but by nonprofit organizations and by farmers themselves.
Virtually all of this information is readily accessible to farmers through the
Internet. Farmers may need guidance in finding and interpreting credible
information, but they don’t need an information “gatekeeper.” Extension agents today
have an opportunity to return to the status of the county agent in “Golden
Years” of Cooperative Extension. They can once again “help rural
families help themselves by applying science, whether physical or social, to
the daily routines of farming, homemaking, and family and community living.” Extension
work can return to empowering people to make their own decisions.
Agricultural agents need not sacrifice their
areas of specialization to help farmers acquire the broader knowledge needed to
integrate the ecological, economic, and social aspects of sustainable faming.
Nor do they need to become generalists to help sustainable farmers acquire
useful information from a wide range of specialties or disciplines. They need
only understand enough about the basics principles of sustainability and the
core concepts of other specialties to know what types of information might be
relevant to particular issues and where to find it. I am a better economist
today that I ever was when I focused time and energy on the narrow disciplinary
issues of economics. I suspect other specialists would benefit from broadening
of their intellectual perspectives as well.
Two additional organizational
strategies in the “Sustaining our Future” report were given high priority. Both
are critical to extension work in sustainable agriculture. The first was to
develop a “code of ethics for Cooperative Extension.” The primary purpose of
this proposal was to “eliminate the risk of being ‘held-hostage’ by
special-interest groups.” The role of Extension is “to help agriculture
producers, agribusiness, communities, and society make informed decisions.”
While Extension might be expected to give priority to research-based
information from land-grand universities, it is obligated to make any and all
credible information available to decision makers under this mandate. The code
of ethics would make clear that the primary responsibility of Extension workers
is to enhance the well-being of their constituents – of people in general – not
to perpetuation of the Extension System by catering to the whims of
economically or politically powerful special-interest groups.
Paraphrasing Mark Twain, “Extension
workers should be loyal to the people always, but loyal to the Extension System
when it deserves it.” Agricultural extension workers are going to have to free
themselves from the special-interest groups that are currently holding the
extension organization hostage – specifically corporate agriculture, major
commodity groups, and politically powerful farm organizations – if they are to
realize the tremendous opportunities represented by the new American farmer. An
Extension “code of ethics” should make clear the right and responsibility of
extension workers to put the long run sustainability of agriculture and of
humanity ahead of the demands of any individual or organization.
Finally, “Sustaining our Future” proposed the
development of a “bill of rights” for Extension constituents. The mission of
Extension is “to improve the decision making ability of constituents and help
them become independent learners.” In other words, the intent is not to turn
constituents into “clients,” by creating continuing dependencies. Perhaps most
important, a constituent “bill of rights” should make clear that everyone has
an equal right to the services of Extension. Extension is a public service
organization, not a private business. If one person goes into a private
business with $100 and another goes in with $10, the person with $100 has a
right to buy ten times as much as the other. If the same two people go into a
voting booth, they each get only one vote – no matter how much money they have.
Extension is a function of government, and in a democracy, everyone is entitled
to an equal right to government services and an equal voice in determining what
services shall be provided. If the public decides to quit paying for specific services
through taxes, they need to understand that the services will not be available.
But as long as the services are available, they must be equally available to
all.
Equal opportunity for all is an
absolute essential if Extension is to realize the tremendous opportunities of
sustainable agriculture. The vast majority of total value of agricultural
production is accounted for by a very small percentage of total farming operations
– the large specialized producers of basic agricultural commodities. Increasingly,
these operations are managed solely for the economic bottom line, either under
comprehensive corporate contracts or as family corporate businesses. Virtually
all of the major new technologies being developed in land-grant universities
these days are designed specifically to meet the needs of these corporate “clients.”
The focus of agricultural research today is economic development, not sustainability.
The vast majority of all farmers
operate small to mid-size farms. The prospects for these farmers competing with
the large operations in terms of economic efficiency are virtually nonexistent.
Thus, the best hope for success of the vast majority of Agricultural
Extension’s legitimate constituents is not industrial agriculture but
sustainable agriculture. A number of respected and credible retail food market
studies place the current potential market for organic, natural, local and
other sustainably produced foods at about one-third
of the total food market, and the share is growing rapidly. Current production of
sustainably produced foods is meeting less than one-fifth of the current potential market. All of the small and
mid-sized farms together would not be able supply the market that exists today.
Most important, the small to mid-sized farms have a distinct advantage over the
large commodity producers in meeting the needs of the organic, natural, local,
sustainable food market. It’s far easier for smaller farms to be site-specific,
individualistic, and dynamic. The future opportunities for these farms are
boundless, and these farmers have every right to expect Agriculture Extension
to help them realize those opportunities.
All many of these farmers are lacking today
is the information, knowledge, and self-confidence needed to step off of the
technology treadmill – to make their own decisions, solve their problems,
realize their opportunities, and to take control of their own destinies. As more
new American farmers become empowered, as they become stronger economically,
socially, politically, and spiritually, their knowledge will evolve into
wisdom. And most important, American agriculture will become more sustainable. All
the new American farmer needs from Extension is “a guide on the side” – a county agent. The opportunities for
Agricultural Extension workers have never been greater, if they can find the
courage to seize them, first by changing their own programs and by changing the
Extension organization.
End Notes:
[i] Prepared for presentation
at the 2008 National Association of County Agriculture Agents Conference,
[ii] John Ikerd is Professor Emeritus, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO – USA; Author of, Sustainable Capitalism, http://www.kpbooks.com , A Return to Common Sense, http://www.rtedwards.com/books/171/, Small Farms are Real Farms, Acres USA , http://www.acresusa.com/other/contact.htm,and Crisis and Opportunity: Sustainability in American Agriculture, University of Nebraska Press http://nebraskapress.unl.edu;
Email: JEIkerd@centurytel.net; Website: http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/.
[1] Note: I was unable to find a copy of “Vision for the Future” on the Internet. All quotations were taken from my one remaining personal copy (John Ikerd).
[2] “Empowerment,” The Free Dictionary, http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/empowerment .
[3] USDA, “ARS Time Line,” http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/timeline/corn.htm
[4] Brunner,
E. and Hsin Pao Yang, E.
(1949) Rural
[5] Cornell Cooperative Extension: “A History of Commitment to the People of New York,” http://www.cce.cornell.edu/document/pdf/CCEHistory.pdf
[6] Bradfield, D.J. (1966) Guide
to Extension Training (1st Edition),
[7] Neuchatel Group,(1999) Common Framework on Agricultural Extension; Note:
The Neuchatel Group is an informal co-operation between the statistical
offices of