




































American International Journal of Agricultural Studies  

Vol. 3, No. 1; 2020 

ISSN 2641-4155   E-ISSN 2641-418X 

Published by American Center of Science and Education, USA 

 

 51  

 

The Role of Extension Officers in Delivering Agricultural Services 

to the Small-Scale Farmers, Gezira State, Sudan 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Adam Elradi M. Ali 

Department of Agricultural Extension and Training 

 University of Gezira, Sudan 

 

Mohammed Adam. A. Hamad 

Department of Rural Extension and Training 

 University of Kordofan, Elobeid, Sudan 

E-mail: abugitaf2013@gmail.com 

 

Mohamed Atta Ali Abdallh 

Ministry of Agriculture 

Private Extension, Gezira State, Sudan 

 

Mutasim Ali M. Elagab 

Department of Agricultural Extension and Training 

University of Gezira, Sudan 

 

 

 

 

Abstract 

This research was carried out in Gezira State, Sudan. The objective of this research is to assess the role of extension 

officers in transferring agricultural services and innovations to the farmers. Field survey was used to collect the data 

by using structured questionnaire which designed and pre-tested. Secondary data was collected from books, 

scientific journals and relevant documents. Based on Steven Samson equation the sample size were 36 extension 

officers selected by using quota sample technique. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used for data 

analysis depends on descriptive statistics, correlation, and Regression analysis. The findings indicated that the high 

percentages (47%) of extension officers their experiences between 11 to 15 years and 33% had no training courses. 

81% of the respondents had strong-direct links with the farmers, and their source of information of inputs and 

technical packages was the research centres (75%). The extension officers explained that they had high cost in 

transferring information to the farmers, required information and more interested partners on the feedback was 

research institution (83%). Correlation test shown personal characters, business career had significant correlation 

with the link with the research (.031) the value (R=.359), high significantly correlated between the nature of the 

relationship with farmers and link with research sig (.001) value of correlation (.534). The results of regression test 

indicated that the link with research had impact with significant value (.427beat) sig (.049) other partners had no 

significant. Recommendations: Based on the findings the research recommends: clear direct link for the extension 

officers with all agricultural partners in order to facilitate the delivery of information to the farmers. Private sector 

should involve in designing the extension policy and continuing training sessions have to be held to all extension 

officers. 

 

Keywords: Agricultural Services, Extension Officers, Small Scale Farmers, Sudan.  

 

 

 

http://www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas


www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas          American International Journal of Agricultural Studies            Vol. 3, No. 1; 2020 

 

52 

 

1. Introduction 

Agricultural extension and advisory services are defined as systems that should facilitate the access of farmers, their 

organizations and other market actors to knowledge, information and technologies (Chipeta et al, 2008). Public 

extension systems were established in most developing countries during the twentieth century and organized under 

ministries of agriculture (Ameur, 1994). As a result, the majority of these agencies became top-down, 

multifunctional, resource-constrained systems that lacked adequate operational resources as well as competent 

technical specialists (Khatam et al, 2013). In addition, these public extension systems lack the necessary resources 

(especially training and program funds as well as information and communication technologies, or ICTs) to keep 

their staff up to date and able to actually carry out more innovative extension program activities in the field 

(Swanson & Rajalahti,  2010).To achieve the goal of extension, hold regular information-sharing meetings at the 

district level to discuss production problems, research findings, and recommended practices before and during each 

growing season (Riaz, 2010). In Sudan at national level, the Technology Transfer and Extension Administration are 

responsible for agricultural extension services (el Hadi Omer, 2013). Wad Medani office was the first extension 

office established in Gezira State in 1974. In 1983 the adoption of regional governance reflected in agricultural 

sector by restructuring the agricultural administration which is headed by director general and includes many 

administrations one of them agricultural extension administration in region as the first level at region, and the 

second level is agricultural extension specialist in province level, and the third level is agricultural extension unit in 

Rural Area Council, and the lowest level is extension workers in different sites of Rural Council (Hassan & Khalil, 

2008). Main responsibilities are pursuing the general agricultural extension policy which set by the Technology 

Transfer and Extension Administration (TTEA) (Alla & Yass, 2009). Until 1992, the Government largely controlled 

the marketing of agricultural inputs and outputs. However, as part of the economic reforms in the 1990s, it removed 

most of the controls in favor of private traders. Many obstacles facing public extension systems today are not 

capable to increase farm income and to improve farmer’s technical knowledge; this may be due to their top-down 

organizational structure and their lack of adequate financial resources. Agricultural services centers (ASCs) are well 

financed and they have facilities to contact farmers, but their capability to make extension advice to the farmers is 

low due to their commercial view, lack of technical recommended information and lack of qualified agents than that 

of the extension system. 

 

2. Materials and Methods  

2.1 Area of the Study 
This study is carried out in Gezira State- Wad Medani Greater Locality, lies in the center of the Sudan and 

represents one of the largest states with higher population density, and contributes much to agriculture of Sudan. 

Gezira State is located between latitude 13⁰.32` South 15⁰.30` North, and longitude 32⁰.22` West 34⁰.20` East 

(Annual report, 2016) it is bordered by Khartoum State from the North, Sinnar State from the South, Gadarif State 

from the East and the White Nile State from the western side. The area of Gezira State is estimated by 275,492 

square kilometers, which is equivalent to less than 20% of the total area of the Sudan. The total number of the 

population in the Gezira State is about 4.244.000 (in year 2009). The State comes second to Khartoum State of the 

population number. Wad Medani is the capital of the state, population of Wad Medani is 386.000 (in year 2009). 

Wad Medani Greater Locality is one of the eight Localities constituted Gezira State namely: (Wad Medani 

Greater Locality, South of Gezira Locality, East of Gezira Locality, Um Elgura Locality, Elkamileen Locality, 

Alhasahisa Locality, Almanaqil Locality and Al Qurashi Locality). It is well-populated area suitable for agriculture 

and considered as very important agricultural area in the state and most of the population are working directly or 

indirectly in agricultural sector. In Wad Medani Greater locality there are four extension offices in the sub 

administrative units (Wad Medani East complex, Hantoob complex, Alshabarga complex and Fadasi complex). 

 

2.2 Population and Sampling Procedures   

According to agricultural managements in the Locality in season 2016-2017 the number of the extension officers 

was estimated to be 40 extension officers in the records of the Ministry of Agriculture. 

Population of the Study was the extension officers in Wad Medani Greater Locality; those were 40 

extensionests in season 2015-2016. 

Based on Steven Samson equation a general formula for sample size selection was used as follows: 

 

Source; (Altae, 2012) 

 

 

 
     ppzdN

ppN
n






11

1
22



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas          American International Journal of Agricultural Studies            Vol. 3, No. 1; 2020 

 

53 

 

Where: N = total population   n= sample size    d= proportion of error (.05)   p = proportion of availability of 

particularity and neutralization (.50)  z = degree of normative meeting to level of mark 0.95 (1.96) So according to 

the previous mentioned equation samples size was 36 extension officers selected by quota sample technique. 

 

2.3 Data Collection and Analysis  

Field survey was used to collect the data by using a questionnaire constructed for this purpose through personal 

interview techniques. While secondary data collected from different sources as references, previous studies, reports, 

internet and relevant sources. 

The collected data was fed in to the computer and statistically analyzed by using Statistical Package for 

Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive analysis used such as percentage and frequencies distribution, More over 

Correlation and Regression analysis were used to get out the relationship and the effect between different variables.  

 

3. Results and Discussions  

3.1 Results of Descriptive Analysis  

 

Table 1. Distribution of the respondent's according to social characteristics   

Indicating by SPSS; descriptive statistic, Source; field research 

 

Results in table (1) shows that the majority of the extension officers were females (72%)  while only (28%) 

were males, majority of the extension officers (97%) their age group between 25 to 45, and (69%) of them their 

educational level was bachelors.  From the above results we comment that females were dominant in the agricultural 

work in the extension, the age is high effective factor in work, and most of them considered as in youth age and 

ready for work especially the agricultural work that need more physical effort. 

 

 
 

Social characteristics Frequency  Percentages (%) 

Sex Male  

Female 

10 

28 

28 

72 

Age group 25- 45 years 

46- 65 

35 

1 

97 

3 

Education Diploma 

Bachelor 

Master   

1 

25 

10 

3 

69 

28 

Total   36 100 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas          American International Journal of Agricultural Studies            Vol. 3, No. 1; 2020 

 

54 

 

The above figure (1) shows the academic specialization: 25% of the extension officers their specialization 

was horticulture, 25% their specialization was agricultural economics, 5% of the extension officers had the same 

specialization, 22% of them their specialization was crop production, 17% of the extension officers their 

specialization was extension and only 5% of the extension officers, also only 3% of the extension officers their 

specialization was crop protection and diploma  degree without specialization.  

The result indicated that the extension specialization that the not the extension officers had, most of the 

extension officers diverted their specialization.  In conclusion the majority of extension staff their educational level 

was bachelors and this indicate workers were qualified to do their jobs. 

 

 
 

Figure (2) showed that the high percentages (47%) of extension officers their experiences was between 11 

to 15 years, 42% of the extension officers their experiences years between 5-10 years, only (5%) of the extension 

officers their experiences 5 years and less. and 6% of the extension officers their experiences years 16 years and 

more.  

It revealed that the majority of the extension officers (89%) their experiences between 5 to 15 years, these 

results indicated that the extension officers were more stable in their jobs, and then acquired more experiences in 

their work.   

 

Table 2. Training courses accessed, organizer, and approaches 

 

Training courses Frequency                     Percentages (%) 

number of training courses no training 12 33 

1-2 9 25 

3-4 11 31 

5 and more 4 11 

Organizer  None  12 33 

ministry of agriculture 24 67 

Approaches  of training no training 12 33 

lectures and seminars 18 50 

Demonstration fields /and field 

days  

6 17 

Total 36 100 

Indicating by SPSS; descriptive statistic, Source; field research 

 

Table (2) shows training courses that the respondents had: number of training courses: high percentages 

(33%) of extension officers had not trained, the second percentages 31% for the extension officers had 3-4 training 

courses, 25% of the extension officers and (12%) had only 1-2 training courses, and only (11%) of them had 5 and 

more training courses.  



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas          American International Journal of Agricultural Studies            Vol. 3, No. 1; 2020 

 

55 

 

The result indicated that the high percentage of the respondents had no training courses, the majority of the 

extension officers which had training their training organized by ministry of agriculture, the methods of training as 

mentioned were lectures and seminars. In fact, the results indicated that high percentage of the extension officers out 

of training, but the training is highly important for them and must by organized from the source of the recommended 

information and by the specializing personal and by the appropriate methods.  

 

Table 3. Links between extension officers and farmers and type of inputs distributed  

 

Relationship with farmer Frequency Percentages (%) 

Nature of the link with farmers Direct 29 81 

Indirect 7 19 

Type of the relation with farmers Personal 7 19 

Formal 6 17 

Social 2 6 

Functional 21 58 

Visit as between service delivers and farmers reciprocal visits 20 56 

from components 

to the farmer 

16 44 

From farmer to the 

components 

0 0 

Communication through repeated visits very strong 

(repeated) 

12 33 

strong (spaced) 15 42 

weak (rare) 9 25 

Following up farmers in their work continuing follow 

up 

10 28 

medium follow up 16 44 

weak follow up 8 22 

no following up 2 6 

Receiving opinion of farmers and feedback 

 

continuously 

collected 

19 53 

Total 36 100 

Indicating by SPSS; descriptive statistic, Source; field research 

 

Table (3) showed the links with farmers and nature of the link: the majority of both 81% of the extension 

officers were explained that the nature of the link with farmers was direct link and 19% of the extension officers 

explained the link was indirect. 

Type of the link: the majority of extension officers 58% had functional link with farmers, 19% of the 

extension officers and (20%) sited that they had personal link with the farmers, 17% of the extension officers and 

only (5%) agreed that there had formal link with farmers and 6% of the extension officers their link with farmers 

was social link.  

Visits with farmers: the majority (56%) of the extension officers explained that the visits between them and 

the farmers was reciprocal visits, 44% of the extension officers explained the visits from them to the farmers, and no 

one of the extension officers explained that the visits from the farmers to them.  

Communication through repeated visits: high percentages (42%) of the respondents explained that the 

communication strong, 33% of the extension officers explained that the communication is very strong, 25% of the 

extension officers explained that the communication was weak. 

The following up: the majority (72%) of the extension officers explained that the following up to the 

farmers continuing and medium following, 22% of the extension officers explained that their following up was weak 

and only 6% of the extension officers explained they did not follow up the farmers.  



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas          American International Journal of Agricultural Studies            Vol. 3, No. 1; 2020 

 

56 

 

Receiving the opinion and feedback from the farmers: the majority (53%) of the extension officers 

explained that they continuingly collected the opinion and the feedback of the farmers, 30% of the extension officers 

explained that they poorly collecting the opinion and the feedback from the farmers and only 17% of the extension 

officers explained that they did not collecting the opinion and the feedback of the farmers. 

 

Table 4. Distribution of the respondents by their sources of inputs and innovations:  

 

 Frequency Percentages (%) 

Sources of inputs  no thing 1 3 

research center 16 44 

imported companies 2 6 

center services 17 47 

Sources of inputs information  no thing 2 6 

research center 27 75 

University 3 8 

imported companies 1 3 

center services 3 8 

Sources of innovations information  no thing 5 14 

research center 14 39 

imported companies 14 39 

center services 3 8 

 Total 36 100 

Indicating by SPSS; descriptive statistic, Source; field research 

 

Table (4) shows the source of inputs, information and innovations: source of inputs that provided to the 

farmers: 6% of the extension officers explained that their inputs source was imported companies, 44% of the 

extension officers explained that research centre their source of inputs, 3% of the extension officers explained that 

they had no source of inputs, the majority (75%) of the extension officers explained that research centre was their 

source of inputs information that provided to the farmers also (8%) of the extension officers explained that their 

source of inputs information was university, 6% of the extension officers explained that they had no source of inputs 

information, 3% of extension officers explained that their source of inputs information was imported components.  

Source of innovations and information of the innovations: 39% of the extension officers explained that 

research centre was their source, also 39% of the extension officers explained that the imported components was 

there, 14% of extension officers explained that they had no source of information, 8% of the extension officers 

explained that centres services was their source of innovations and information that provided to the farmers. 

From the above result the high percentages of the extension officers their source of input that provided to 

the farmers was service centres, the majority of extension officers their source of input information was research 

centers, about the source of innovation information the research centre and the imported companies had the same 

percentage as the source of innovation information to the extension. This result indicated there were other partners 

in agricultural works like imported companies and the services centres that aid in delivering information to the 

farmers via extension officers. 

 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas          American International Journal of Agricultural Studies            Vol. 3, No. 1; 2020 

 

57 

 

Figure (3) showed the source of technical package information: the majority (89%) of the extension officers 

explained that they provided application information to the farmers, 11% of the extension officers explained that 

they did not provided any application information to the farmers.  

Source of information about sowing date: the majority of the (89%) of the extension officers explained that 

their source about sowing date was the research. (88%) of the extension officers explained that their source of 

information about preparing land was the research.  (89%) of the extension officers explained that their source of 

information about seed rate was the research institution, 11% of the extension officers explained that they did not 

provided any information about seed rate or information about irrigation: the majority (89%) of the extension 

officers explained that their source of information about irrigation was the research. 75% of the extension officers 

explained that their source of information about fertilization was the research centre.  Also 75% of the extension 

officers explained that their source of information about pesticides used was the research institution.  

Source of information about harvesting practices and time: the majority (81%) of the extension officers 

explained that their source of information about harvest practices and time was research institution  

 

 
 

Figure (4) shows the method of  conducting information to the farmers: the majority (64%) of the extension 

officers explained that their method to present the information to the farmers was demonstration field, 19% of the 

extension officers explained that their method to present the information was personal explanation, 14% of the 

extension officers explained that they used all the available methods (personal explanation, demonstration field, 

media bulletins, lectures and seminars), 3% of the extension officers explained that they used lectures and seminars 

as presenting methods. 

 From these results the majority of the extension officers used demonstration fields as a method of 

presentation of information to the farmers.  

 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas          American International Journal of Agricultural Studies            Vol. 3, No. 1; 2020 

 

58 

 

Figure (5) showed the assessment of the cost of transferring information: The majority (64%) of the 

extension officers explained that the cost was medium, 28% of the extension officers explained that they was no cost 

for transferring information to the farmers, 5% of the extension officers explained that the cost was weak while and 

3% of the extension officers explained that the cost for transferring information to the farmers was. From these 

results the majority of the extension officer explained that there was a medium cost for transferring information to 

the farmers, therefore the costs for transferring information can be reduced by involving other partners in the 

extension work, that will reduce the cost of transferring information. 

 

Table 5. Distribution of the respondents by the types of the links with the agricultural partners: 

  

Type of link with the agricultural partners Frequency Percentages (%) 

Type of the link with research no relationship 1 3 

Direct  27 75 

Indirect 8 22 

Type of the link with university no relationship 1 3 

Direct 3 8 

Indirect 32 89 

Type of the link with imported 

companies 

no relationship 1 3 

Direct 3 8 

Indirect 32 89 

Type of the link with services centers no relationship 1 3 

Indirect 35 97 

 Total 36 100 

Indicating by SPSS; descriptive statistic, Source; field research 

 

Table (5) shows the link with agricultural partners: type of the link with research institution: the majority 

(75%) of extension officers explained that there had direct link with the research institution, 22% of the extension 

officers explained that their link with the research institution was indirect, only 3% of the extension officers 

explained that they had no any relation with the research institution.  

Type of the link with university: the majority (63%) of the respondents consecutive that their link with 

university was indirect, 8% of the extension officers explained that their link with the university was direct and 3% 

of the extension officers explained that they had no link with the university.  

Type of the link with imported companies: the majority (89%) of the extension officers explained that their 

link with the imported companies was indirect, only 8% of the extension officers explained that their link with 

imported companies was direct. 

Type of the link with services centres: the majority (97%) of the extension officers explained that their link 

with services centres was indirect while only 3% of the extension officers explained that they had no link with the 

services centres.  

 

 

 

 

 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas          American International Journal of Agricultural Studies            Vol. 3, No. 1; 2020 

 

59 

 

Table 6. Distribution of the respondents by their communication with agricultural partners:  

 

Degree of Communication  Frequency Percentages 

(%) 

Research institutions  strong (3-5 visits in the season) 22 61 

weak (less than 3 visits in the season) 13 36 

none (no visits) 1 3 

communication with 

university 

very strong (more than 5 visits in the season) 1 3 

strong (3-5 visits in the season) 15 42 

weak (less than 3 visits in the season) 18 49 

none (no visits) 2 6 

communication with imported 

companies 

strong (3-5 visits in the season) 14 39 

weak (less than 3 visits in the season) 21 58 

none (no visits) 1 3 

communication with services 

centres. 

strong (3-5 visits in the season) 14 39 

weak (less than 3 visits in the season) 20 56 

none (no visits) 2 5 

 Total 36 100 

Indicating by SPSS; descriptive statistic, Source; field research 

 

Table (6) showed the communication with the other agricultural partners: communication with research 

institution: the majority (61%) of extension officers explained that the communication with research institution was 

strong, 36% of the extension officers explained that the communication with research institution was weak, only 3% 

of the extension officers explained that they was no communication with research. The high parentage (49%) of the 

extension officers explained that the communication with university was weak, 42% of the extension officers 

explained that the communication with university was strong, 6% of the extension officers explained that they was 

no  communication with university and only 3% of the extension officers explained that the communication with 

university was very strong.  (58%) of the extension officers explained that the communication with imported 

companies was weak, 39% of the extension officers explained that the communication with imported companies was 

strong only 3% of the extension officers explained that there was no communication with the imported companies.  

Communication with the services centres: the majority (56%) of the extension officers explained that they had weak 

communication with the services centres, 39% of the extension officers explained that the communication with 

services centres was strong and only 5% of the extension officers explained that there was no communication with 

the services centres.  

From these results the majority of the extension officers explained that their communication was strong 

with the research and with other partners (university, imported companies and services centres) was weak. That 

indicted the clear relation with clear linked between the entire partners will active the extension process. 

 

Table 7. Distribution of the respondents by their opinion of the effective agricultural partners: 

 

 Frequency Percentages (%) 

Cost-effective partners for access information Researcher 21 58 

University 3 8 

imports companies 5 14 

services centers 7 19 

 Availability of partners in case of emergency  Researcher 22 61 

imports companies 6 17 

services centers 8 22 

The interested partners in the feedback of the 

farmers  

Researches 30 83 

imports companies 5 14 

service centers 1 3 

 Total 36 100 

Indicating by SPSS; descriptive statistic, Source; field research 

 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas          American International Journal of Agricultural Studies            Vol. 3, No. 1; 2020 

 

60 

 

Table (7) showed the effective agricultural partners: the less cost partners: the majority (58%) of the 

extension officers explained that the partners had less cost was the research institution, 19% of the extension officers 

explained that service centres was the less cost partners, 14% of the extension officers explained that imported 

companies was the less cost, and 8% of the extension officers explained that university was the less. 

The more available partners: the majority (61%) of the extension officers explained that the research was 

the more available partners while, 22% of the extension officers explained that services centres was the more 

available partners and 17% of the extension officers explained that the imported companies was the more available. 

The interested partners on the feedback: the majority (83%) of the extension officers explained that the research 

institution was the more interested partners on the feedback, 14% of the extension officers explained that the 

imported companies was the more interested on feedback and 3% of the extension officers explained that the more 

interested on feedback was services centres. 

From these results the opinion of the extension officers explained that the research centres had some of the 

effective partners characters like the less cost and efforts to get information,  the more available partners in case of 

problem, the partners had the required information, the faster response partners and the interested partners in the 

feedback of the farmers, while service centres had some effective partners characters as the opinion of the extension 

officers like the partners had the required information and the more relevant partners.  

 

Table 8. Reasons to include the services centres in the extension activities:  

 

 Frequency Percentages (%) 

Reasons  Facilitate transferring the information to the 

farmers 

6 17 

Integral of the agricultural operation and 

necessity of coordination 

30 83 

 Total 36 100 

Indicating by SPSS; descriptive statistic, Source; field research 

 

Table (8) showed the agree of the responders with the reasons for including services centres in extension 

activities as the following: the majority of the extension officers (83%) and consecutively explained that the 

integration of the agricultural operations and necessity of coordination between the partners of highly important, 

17% of the extension officers explained that cooperation ease the transferring of information to the farmers. 

From theses result services centres had been very effective partners in the extension work, so it should be involved 

in the extension activities.   

 

Table 9. Correlation test to measure the relationship between the extension officers and ASCs links with partners 

and personal characters of extension officers and ASCs: 

 

 Extension officers  

Personal characters of the respondents Link with 

research 

Link with 

university 

Link with 

imported 

companies 

Link with center 

services 

Gender Correlation .111 -.187 . a -.150 

Sig .519 .275 . .381 

N 36 36 36 36 

Age Correlation -.076 .051 . a .041 

Sig.  .661 .768 . .812 

N 36 36 36 36 

Education level Correlation -.171 .115 . a .092 

Sig.  .320 .504 . .592 

N 36 36 36 36 

type of education Correlation . a . a . a . a 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas          American International Journal of Agricultural Studies            Vol. 3, No. 1; 2020 

 

61 

 

Sig.  . . . . 

N 36 36 36 36 

Specialization Correlation .019 -.170 . a .200 

Sig.  .911 .321 . .242 

N 36 36 36 36 

Experience Correlation -.326 .220 . a .177 

Sig.  .052 .198 . .302 

N 36 36 36 36 

Occupation Correlation . a . a . a . a 

Sig.  . . . . 

N 36 36 36 36 

satisfaction of business 

career 

Correlation .359* .170 . a .253 

Sig.  .031 .323 . .136 

N 36 36 36 36 

The constant evaluation Correlation -.022 -.074 . a .083 

Sig.  .899 .669 . .631 

N 36 36 36 36 

the follow up and 

evaluation 

Correlation .090 -.134 . a .010 

Sig.  .600 .435 . .955 

N 36 36 36 36 

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). 

c. Cannot be computed because at least one of the variables is constant. 

 

Table (9) shows that there was some significantly correlated between the links with the others partners and 

the personal character of the Extension officers and the center services workers.  

The extension officers' personal characters, business career had significant correlation with the link with research 

(.031) the value (R=.359) and other personal characters had no significant correlation.  

 

Table 10. Distribution of correlation test to measure the relationship between extension officers and ASCs links with 

the partners and the link with farmers:     

 

The relationship with farmers Extension officers 

Link with 

research 

Link with 

university 

Link with 

imported 

companies 

 Link with 

center 

services 

nature of the 

relationship with 

farmers 

Correlation .534** -.106 . a -.494** 

Sig.  .001 .539 . .002 

N 36 36 36 36 

type of the 

relationship with 

farmers 

Correlation .352* -.237 . a -.191 

Sig.  .035 .164 . .265 

N 36 36 36 36 

vistas between 

extension and 

farmers 

Correlation .200 .217 . a -.337* 

Sig.  .242 .204 . .044 

N 36 36 36 36 

communication 

through repeated 

visits 

Correlation .049 .099 . a -.027 

Sig.  .776 .565 . .878 

N 36 36 36 36 

method of 

presenting 

information to 

farmers 

Correlation -.164 .144 . a .062 

Sig.  .339 .403 . .718 

N 36 36 36 36 

the cost of 

transforming 

information to 

Correlation -.016 .138 . a -.197 

Sig.  .927 .421 . .250 

N 36 36 36 36 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas          American International Journal of Agricultural Studies            Vol. 3, No. 1; 2020 

 

62 

 

farmers 

following up 

farmers in his works 

Correlation .059 -.099 . a .016 

Sig.  .734 .567 . .927 

N 36 36 36 36 

collected opinions 

of farmers and 

feedback 

Correlation -.083 .123 . a -.117 

Sig.  .632 .476 . .498 

N 36 36 36 36 

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). 

c. Cannot be computed because at least one of the variables is constant. 

 

Table (10) shows that the extension officers had high significantly correlated between the nature of the 

relationship with farmers and link with research sig (.001) value of correlation (.534) and the link with center 

services sig (.002) value of correlation (-.494) and was opposed direction. also, there was low significantly 

correlated between the vistas between extension and farmers and the link with center services sig (.044) value of 

correlation (-.337) and was opposed direction. 

While the service centers worker only had low significant correlation between the cost of transforming 

information to farmers and the link with centers service sig (011) value of correlation (.335) 

 

Table 11. Correlation test to measure the relationship between the extension officers and ASCs links with the 

partners and the source of technical packages information:   

   

 Extension officers  

source of agricultural application 

information 

Link with 

research 

 Link with 

university 

Link with imported 

companies 

Link with center 

services 

source of 

information 

about sowing 

dates 

Correlation .158 -.107 . a -.086 

Sig .357 .536 . .619 

N 36 36 36 36 

source of 

information 

about preparing 

land 

Correlation .158 -.107 . a -.086 

Sig.  .357 .536 . .619 

N 36 36 36 36 

source of 

information 

about seeds rate 

Correlation .158 -.107 . a -.086 

Sig.  .357 .536 . .619 

N 36 36 36 36 

source of 

information 

about irrigation 

Correlation .158 -.107 . a -.086 

Sig.  .357 .536 . .619 

N 36 36 36 36 

source of 

information 

about 

fertilization 

Correlation .131 .071 . a .057 

Sig.  .445 .681 . .741 

N 36 36 36 36 

source of 

information 

about pesticides 

used 

Correlation .131 .071 . a .057 

Sig.  .445 .681 . .741 

N 36 36 36 36 

source of 

information 

about grossing 

operation 

Correlation .158 -.107 . a -.086 

Sig.  .357 .536 . .619 

N 36 36 36 36 

source of 

information 

about harvest 

dates 

Correlation -.037 .025 . a .020 

Sig.  .829 .884 . .907 

N 36 36 36 36 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas          American International Journal of Agricultural Studies            Vol. 3, No. 1; 2020 

 

63 

 

source of 

information 

about harvest 

methods 

Correlation -.037 .025 . a .020 

Sig .829 .884 . .907 

N 36 36 36 36 

source of 

information 

about post-

harvest 

Correlation -.037 .025 . a .020 

Sig.  .829 .884 . .907 

N 36 36 36 36 

source of 

information 

about marketing 

Correlation . a . a .a .a 

Sig.  . . . . 

N 36 36 36 36 

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). 

c. Cannot be computed because at least one of the variables is constant. 

 

Table (11) shows that the extension officers had not significantly correlated between the source of technical 

package and other partner’s links 

While the service centers worker had low significant correlation between the link with imported companies 

and some technical package (source of information about sowing dates, source of information about preparing land, 

source of information about irrigation and source of information about clearing operation 

 

Table 12. Correlation test to measure the relationship between extension officers and ASCs links with the partners 

and the opinion of the on the other partners:     

 

the opinion of the extension officers 

and center services workers 

Extension officers  

Link with 

research 

Link with 

university 

 Link with 

imported 

companies 

Link with 

center 

services 

Costs of transferring 

information 

Correlation -.277 .187 .a .150 

Sig. .101 .275 . .381 

N 36 36 36 36 

Components that you 

consider more useful in 

giving information 

Correlation -.040 .299 .a -.284 

Sig. .815 .076 . .093 

N 36 36 36 36 

The available 

components in case of 

problem 

Correlation .085 .228 . a -.367* 

Sig. .624 .181 . .028 

N 36 36 36 36 

The components had 

the required 

information 

Correlation .164 .102 . a -.260 

Sig. .339 .555 . .126 

N 36 36 36 36 

The faster response 

components 

Correlation .260 -.231 . a -.186 

Sig. .125 .176 . .278 

N 36 36 36 36 

The more relevant 

components 

Correlation .171 -.185 . a -.149 

Sig. .317 .280 . .386 

N 36 36 36 36 

The interested 

components in get and 

register the comment 

and feedback 

Correlation .247 -.225 . a -.181 

Sig. .146 .186 . .290 

N 36 36 36 36 

Need to establish Correlation . b .a . a . a 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas          American International Journal of Agricultural Studies            Vol. 3, No. 1; 2020 

 

64 

 

relationship between 

center series and other 

components 

Sig. . . . . 

N 36 36 36 36 

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). 

c. Cannot be computed because at least one of the variables is constant. 

 

Table (12) shows that the extension officers had not significantly correlated between the links with the 

others partners and the opinion on the other partners. 

While the service centers worker had low significant correlation between the link with extension and the 

assets of costs of transferring information sig (.012) value (.331) and high significant correlation also with the link 

with extension and Components that you consider more useful in giving information sig (.000) value (.772) and the 

available components in case of problem sig (.000) value (.774). 

 

Table 13. Regression test to measure the effective of the link between the extension officers and other partners on 

information exchanging:  

 

Model Un standardized Coefficients Standardized 

Coefficients 

t Sig. 

B Std. Error Beta 

 (Constant) -4.667 10.107  -.462 .647 

the link with research 2.167 1.926 .427 1.125 .049 

the link with university 2.667 2.187 .389 1.219 .232 

the link with center services 2.613E-15 2.320 .000 .000 1.000 

a. Dependent Variable: The components had the required information 

b. Predictors: (Constant), the relationship with center services, the relationship with university, the relationship with 

research 

 

Table (13) showed that the regression test measure the effective of the relationship between the partners 

and the extension officers on the information exchanging, the relationship with research had impact with significant 

regression (.049) low value (.427 beta) but was moor effect than the impact of the relationship with university which 

was no significant regression (.232) low value (.389 beta) and the relationship with the service centers had not 

impact with no significant regression (1.00269) and no value the value was (.000 beta). 

 

4. Conclusion and Recommendations  

Extension system has been established to develop and/or adapt technologies that would help agricultural 

development to improve production and bridge the gap of food security. Since 1992 a lot of partners had talked their 

place in the agricultural work like the import’s companies and the services centers with public extension. To give 

effective delivery of information to farmers i.e. (adequate, updated recommended information, in the right time, by 

the best methods, with less cost to increase the best profit of all) the extension officers should be coordinate with 

other partners in delivering of agricultural services to the farmers. The study recommends that clear direct link to all 

agricultural components, Private sector should involve in designing the extension policy and continuing training 

sessions have to be held to all extension officers. Put a clear direct linkage to agricultural partners. Private sector 

should be involving in the designing of the extension policy. Sufficient information should be transferred to 

extension officers. In-service training has to be held for extension officers. A clear linkage with other partners 

especially the (ASCs) has to be established. 

 

References 

Ameur, C. (1994). Agricultural extension in the developming countries’ International Institute For Land 

Reclamation And Improvement Wageningen / The Netherlands / 1968. https://doi.org/10.1596/0-8213-2843-3. 

Altae, I. H. (2012). How to determine the sample size, Faculty of physical Education, Bagdad University, Iraq. 

Alla, E. & Yass, E. K. E. (2009). The Reality of Execution of some Agricultural Extension Policies: Case Study 

Gezira State, Sudan - A thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the degree of 

Master of Science in Agricultural Extension - Faculty of Agricultural Sciences - University of Gezira.  

 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas          American International Journal of Agricultural Studies            Vol. 3, No. 1; 2020 

 

65 

 

Chipeta, S., Christoplos, I., & Katz, E. (2008). Common Framework on Market-Oriented Agricultural Advisory 

Services. Lindau, Switzerland: Neuchâtel Group. (www. neuchatelinitiative.net / English/ documents/ CF 

on Market - Oriented Agricultural Advisory Servicessmall.pdf) 

el Hadi Omer, T. (2013). Knowledge networking among actors of the Rahad Agricultural scheme, Sudan - A Thesis 

submitted for the requirement of doctoral degree in agriculture from Faculty of Agriculture and Nutritional 

Sciences, Home Economics and Environmental Management Justus Liebig University Giessen, Germany. 

Hassan, A., & Khalil, O. (2008). Commitment on Extension Workers’ Performance. Social Research Volume 1/4 ( 

3), 68–87. 

Khatam, A., Muhammad, S., & Ashraf, I. (2013). Role of individual contact methods in dissemination of 

agricultural technologies. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Research, 26(1). 

Riaz, M. (2010). The role of the private sector in agricultural extension in Pakistan. Rural Development News, 

1(2010), 15-22. 

Swanson, B. E., & Rajalahti, R. (2010). Strengthening agricultural extension and advisory systems: Procedures for 

Assessing, Transforming, and Evaluating Extension Systems - Agriculture & Rural Development 

Department World Bank – Washington 

 

 

 

Copyrights  

Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal. This is an 

open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license 

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 


